No. The implication is that Amazon is taunting Senators because they feel above the law. Nobody is pushing for them to be unable to tweet what they want. The issue is that Amazon is doing so with no fear of repercussions, because they believe themselves so big that they should be immune to them.
No. The implication is that Amazon is taunting Senators because they feel above the law. Nobody is pushing for them to be unable to tweet what they want. The issue is that Amazon is doing so with no fear of repercussions, because they believe themselves so big that they should be immune to them.
Really?
What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed
What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed the public trust in the office they hold. This USA should be a republic. There should be no aristocracy, or ruling class, but people get a little bit of perceived power and we see most of them head towards autocracy and abusive of authority while denying responsibility.
Amazon should fear social repercussions, for which the constitution does not provide protection by design. I don't believe she took Amazon's comments personally, but rather as a reflection of their public power. Your final sentence seems to be her complaint about Amazon, that they are acting more and more autocratically while denying responsibility. With regulatory capture and the ability to provide unlimited campaign finance, one could argue that we now live in a corporate oligarchy.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
"lawmaker claimed that it and other large corporations 'exploit loopholes"
Loopholes that said 'lawmakers' left in the tax legislation either by accident (incompetent) or by design (corrupt).
Just change the laws to close the loopholes but don't ask people to pay more than YOUR laws expect them to.
Re: Really? (Score:0, Troll)
Re: (Score:-1, Troll)
It sounds like the second law she'd pass would be a lese majeste act, providing for punishment for anyone who "heckles" a senator.
So, no. Fuck that bitch.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No. The implication is that Amazon is taunting Senators because they feel above the law. Nobody is pushing for them to be unable to tweet what they want. The issue is that Amazon is doing so with no fear of repercussions, because they believe themselves so big that they should be immune to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The implication is that Amazon is taunting Senators because they feel above the law. Nobody is pushing for them to be unable to tweet what they want. The issue is that Amazon is doing so with no fear of repercussions, because they believe themselves so big that they should be immune to them.
Really? What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed
Re: Really? (Score:2)
What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed the public trust in the office they hold. This USA should be a republic. There should be no aristocracy, or ruling class, but people get a little bit of perceived power and we see most of them head towards autocracy and abusive of authority while denying responsibility.
Amazon should fear social repercussions, for which the constitution does not provide protection by design. I don't believe she took Amazon's comments personally, but rather as a reflection of their public power. Your final sentence seems to be her complaint about Amazon, that they are acting more and more autocratically while denying responsibility. With regulatory capture and the ability to provide unlimited campaign finance, one could argue that we now live in a corporate oligarchy.