I've just finished reading the Conclusion, it doesn't make bold/outlandish claims AFAICT, just moderate(d) ones. Now to plow through the paper to see when the Conclusions are justified.
Individuals can do anything unless there's a law that specifically forbids something/that thing.
Governments, on the other hand, can do nothing unless there's a law that specifically authorizes a particular action.
The police shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts (especially with NDAs) unless there's a law that specifically allows it. Elected officials should be allowed to revoke signing authority that's been given.
Actually, I came to say: So, when a church doesn't pay taxes, it means everyone else has to pay more taxes, so how about charging taxes back to a church when it says something that offends someone?
Uh, aren't those exceptions called "Amendments"?
That and: for the government, isn't it the case that the government is allowed to do do nothing, unless there's a law specifically authorizing it to do something?
Y'know, the reverse of the case for people.
D'oh... That sentence - Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence- with the type should have read:
Suppose that in the Globe's article, the sentence "In a potentially..." that the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be linked to a search page...
FTA: *[Note: Ruling not provided by the Globe and Mail for whatever reason. -1 to G&M's JOURNALISM skill.]
Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence "In a potentially significant 5-2 ruling" had the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be to a search page for the word "ruling" in all G&M articles (usually from ten years ago to fifteen ago, plus yesterday), not to the actual ruling itself as anyone familiar with the Web would expect.
It's one of the main reasons I don't go to MSM news sites for information. It friggin' drives me bonkers.
Re: Re: It's not even an "update", it's a re-hash, using extreme "statistics".
Rather than arguing with an AC about the study's methods, read it yourself:
http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/working_papers/papers/qed_wp_1354.pdf
I've just finished reading the Conclusion, it doesn't make bold/outlandish claims AFAICT, just moderate(d) ones. Now to plow through the paper to see when the Conclusions are justified.
Maybe the FCC means 'Analysis'
..in the same sense that porn does.
I hope they'll make a hard copy of the roll call.
So the cops can't claim that they didn't know, nobody told them, and anyway, it wasn't them.
Re: Re: I can't quite get my head around how this is legal.
Individuals can do anything unless there's a law that specifically forbids something/that thing.
Governments, on the other hand, can do nothing unless there's a law that specifically authorizes a particular action.
The police shouldn't be allowed to sign contracts (especially with NDAs) unless there's a law that specifically allows it. Elected officials should be allowed to revoke signing authority that's been given.
Re: Re: I can't quite get my head around how this is legal.
Couldn't a case be made that the police officials aren't permitted to sign contracts that locks out elected officials?
Up next...
A law about the pronunciation of "chowdah".
Re: Re: How does this guy get compensated?
"They are probably *ock holders."
There, fixed it for you.
Now that the jury has decided that the cops were incompetent
Can we expect that they'll all get a cut in pay?
Well, given how the NSA mangles language...
It could be a perfectly true statement.
Except for the parts where every word in their statement means something completely different from what the rest of the world thinks it does.
Re:
Actually, I came to say:
So, when a church doesn't pay taxes, it means everyone else has to pay more taxes, so how about charging taxes back to a church when it says something that offends someone?
Re: Re: it gets worse
Uh, aren't those exceptions called "Amendments"? That and: for the government, isn't it the case that the government is allowed to do do nothing, unless there's a law specifically authorizing it to do something? Y'know, the reverse of the case for people.
More Europeans have read/studied Sartre.
You are what you do, not what you say you do.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the start of the November 8th edition of Intercepted, the Podcast, Jeremy Cahill has an editorial comment about 'whataboutism'.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/08/intercepted-podcast-say-hello-to-my-little-hands/
The whole episode is worth listening.
Re: Look Out Below
You forgot tupelo{w} honey.
Re: I remember this story.
Shouldn't the people who failed their duty so as to run the clock out on the statute of limitations be charged with obstruction of justice?
Re:
No, it's not the FCC that lies. It's the FCC's current administration. Important distinction.
Re: Globe & Mail's clickable words policy
D'oh... That sentence - Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence- with the type should have read:
Suppose that in the Globe's article, the sentence "In a potentially..." that the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be linked to a search page...
Too early in the morning, apparently.
Globe & Mail's clickable words policy
FTA: *[Note: Ruling not provided by the Globe and Mail for whatever reason. -1 to G&M's JOURNALISM skill.]
Ff the Globe's article on this story, where the sentence "In a potentially significant 5-2 ruling" had the word "ruling" as a clickable link, it would be to a search page for the word "ruling" in all G&M articles (usually from ten years ago to fifteen ago, plus yesterday), not to the actual ruling itself as anyone familiar with the Web would expect.
It's one of the main reasons I don't go to MSM news sites for information. It friggin' drives me bonkers.
Re:
Why not both?
The son was displaying the indicia of terrorists.
Y'know the one: breathing in and out. So she had to investigate.