Random Politics & Religion #00

I'm missing the subtext here. Please clue me in.

EDIT: Paged!

Advocates free speech; blocks user.

I meant public funding to private organizations mostly, we could get into the idea of classified stuff if you want though.


That is exactly what I was just asserting, or was it the part of using your phrase of "pipe dream" against something we both desire?

I blocked you, so I can't see what you wrote!

Economic development subsidies or corporate subsidies includes direct and indirect financial assistance to companies. Google it.

The terms have been around for decades and include low/zero interest loans, grants, tax credits, reimburisment, land grants, etc. These are usually outlined in a binding contract with local/state governments.

I wasn't referring to tax credits.

Employment:
Personal income tax given to companies (full report)
Taxed by the boss (article overview)

Buildings:
Infrastructure and Free/reduced land price

Cato institute report on corporate subsidies on the federal level

No, we really couldn't. I am very much a free speech advocate, but there's zero reason much of what is classified information needs to be transparent to the public. And don't forget the amount of government software used for this like Social Security, taxes, census data, and other stuff that contains absolute tons of private information of private citizens.

Allowing public access to that software's sources would be opening yourself up to a *** of problems on top of the security problems already ocurring in the private and public sectors.

Yes, because that's how you can quote it directly.

Zic, get your thong out of your butt and have a drink.

I can think of several, and several more as to why it being public would increase the security of it.

Thong is all that's holding the buttplug in.

Your sphincter-clenching ability needs work.

And how is classified military information or similar intelligence being made public of benefit to the average citizen or national security?

And why would making software open-source and available to the public make it more secure? It would just give anyone who wants to screw with it a blueprint to do so.

/sigh did you intentionally misunderstand or confuse what I was talking about to somehow infer I was talking about military secrets?

It makes it more secure because then it isn't subject to just coding by the government contractors that wrote it, gives more eyes to scrutinize.

We could argue about this all week honestly, I'll just drop it.

Well that's why I asked you for clarification!

Not really, you just started bitching.

I want free speech...so I can limit your free speech !

I asked for clarification and then you specifically mentioned classified information. -.-;

I gave that clarification, and then you went on a rant about *** knows what. I already stated that I wasn't talking about things that were classified, but we could if you wanted, I never said military.

I'm not twelve years old and what is this ?

Oh nevermind.

All I'm saying is that while I'm an advocate of freedom of information, there is a reason most stuff that is classified is as such. Not everything classified is a government coverup. And even some of the things that may be are still beneficial to us as a country and individual people.

Dat 4MB of RAM doe !

I'm sure we agree on that, there's some things that should be classified.

But my point was more directed at publicly funded research, and the research publication only being available by a subscription, instead of free to the public, like it should be.

Then things like the death of Aaron Swartz wouldn't have happened.

I apologize then.

I knew about the grants/land grants/near-to-zero loans and property tax relief, but for some reason I didn't consider that as governmental help right off the bat.

I wouldn't consider the loans and tax credits/relief to be subsidiaries, because these are post-expense receipts.

Fewer Pain Pill Overdoses In States With Legal Medical Marijuana

And this is EXACTLY why drug companies are fighting against MMJ.

In MMJ states the doctors aren't writing enough prescriptions for these "safe and effective" products.

Ramyrez beat you to it

Well, not the Huffington Post article, thank god....

Thanks King I SO missed that part.

And the HuffPo just quoted the study, no "objective" reporting at all.

So here's something I learned today going to Kangaroo Court (aka Municipal Court).

When the judge and the law says the burden of proof is on the state, the proof doesn't even have to be related to any alleged crime. The only proof presented was an officer's 3 year record on the force and his degree(?) from some police academy.

I'm still a little confused by this, because up until today I had no idea what the actual incident I was being prosecuted for was.

When I got the summons in the mail back in June it just had a code. When I called up it was apparently for littering out of a motor vehicle.

The officer, whom I never met, showed up and testified that I tossed a cigarette butt out the window. When I finally got to hear what this was all about, granted they took it to the full extent of the law in a municipal court, a mock trial at best.

I was allowed to question the officer, and my only question was "What proof do you have?"

"My 3 years on the force and record is all the proof I need" was his response.

I got to make a closing argument which went something along the lines of

"I would like to make 3 points, 1. I was not provided any information of what law I was breaking up until this trial started other than a generic code of littering out of motor vehicle, which I've never done.

2. I was not even aware I was on trial until this proceeding started at which point you had me swear on a bible. Meaning I had no time for any legal representation/consultation other than myself.

3. The state has provided no proof of any law being broken."

Then afterwards the judge ruled in favor of the state, and tried to force me to pay some ridiculous fine of $564. I told the judge that I would like to file an appeal on the grounds that the state provided no evidence and I was denied any legal representation or counsel.

Halfway through filling out the appeal forms, the judge asked if I was willing to to do 4 hours (even though it counts as 6 hours) of community service in lieu of the fine.

At that point I had been at the Municipal building for nearly 5 hours and was getting bored, so I said, exact words "I guess so."

So now on 9/6/2014 they're going to have me do community service for 4 hours, which is not your typical community service, but will just be me doing paperwork for the township.

Not saying I don't toss butts out the window, but the thing that I find odd was I was never pulled over, just issued a summons in the mail. But the kicker was it took place in Dover NJ, which I haven't been to in over 3-4 years. It's not a place I would want to go through. The cop that showed up wasn't even an officer of that town. He was from some other town within the same county. And it was never mentioned exactly where this incident took place only the date of 6/12/2014. He testified it was at dusk and clear weather conditions with perfect visibility.

History of weather in Dover, NJ 6/12/2014 shows it was not the case.
Source

History of weather in Mount Arlington, NJ (where this officer was from to came in to testify) 6/12/2014 shows it was not the case either.
Source

So who knows exactly what the is going on, at first I thought it was their attempt to extort money out of me, but then when I was offered some measly community service instead, I don't even know.

I still might file an appeal though, because this whole thing seems rather fishy. I want a transcript of the trial now, because I pleaded the 5th, as I wanted to hear the evidence presented against me. Now that I got back to look up the weather conditions, I know the cop is lying about visibility and conditions.

Good old NJ.

I'd file the appeal out of principle. I was pulled over several years ago for an expired registration, which I'll admit was my fault. The officer told me to call the police station in a week to verify a court date, which I did. Here's where it gets fishy:

I was informed that the ticket was not on file yet and to call back in another week. I did that too. It went on like this for about six months before I finally said screw it. Two years later I get an arrest warrant in the mail and a $400+ fine taken out of my tax return for failing to appear in court after being summoned.

After investigating this a bit, it turns out that the original ticket was processed a full year-and-a-half after I was pulled over, and the summons was sent to my previous address without ever verifying that I had received it like they're supposed to do here. Luckily for me, however, the judge did drop the huge fine after hearing my case. It just took another two years to get refunded the amount they charged me wrongfully....

Yay law.

That whole situation sounds fishy. But, municipal courts and magistrate courts operate on some pretty dodgy rules in a lot of places. Either you're leaving something out or you should be contacting the ACLU.

A summons is a notice that you are to appear in court so you can't really say you didn't know it was a trial since the purpose of it is to inform you of a trial and allow you time to prepare. Also, the officer's testimony is considered proof. Just make sure you didn't waive an appeal by accepting community service.

I would file an appeal, and possibly take it to a higher court.

However, as long as the police have jurisdiction within that county, or operates within county lines, the city the officer is from, is kind of moot.

A service record is not, and does not count as proof except when one's service record is the target of an investigation, but is admissible as a testament of character when determining the validity of witness testimony. At least, it should. Additionally, 3 years on the force, is almost nothing in comparison to the amount of time one spends as an upstanding citizen. Seems like this cop has been using this excuse quite a bit (personal conjecture)

They railroaded your right to counsel, failed to provide sufficient evidence, and any kind of defense. And the Judge allowed it. Even Reality TV Judges don't allow this kind of *** to stand in their courts.

Definitely file an appeal.