Slashdot Mirror

Any damage need not be limited to eardrums.

One could literally kill with sound if it's loud enough (such as a shock wave from an explosion). In fact, part of the reason thermobaric weapons are so effective is that they convert most of their energy into "sound".

Also, have a look at this picture showing the sound made by a nuclear detonation (visible as a faint halo caused by refraction gradient around the bireball).

Bills Would Reduce Federal Control of Marijuana

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/05/08/bills-would-reduce-federal-control-of-marijuana.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5843:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5842:

Contact everyone you know, this is the chance to get Marijuana DROPPED from being Schedule I

Please mod this up, this is historic!

Bills Would Reduce Federal Control of Marijuana

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/05/08/bills-would-reduce-federal-control-of-marijuana.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5843:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5842:

Contact everyone you know, this is the chance to get Marijuana DROPPED from being Schedule I

Please mod this up, this is historic!

49 D - 49 R - 2 I

Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate.

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

The Chief Judge that presided in the early part of the proceedings resigned in protest against the blatant interference by the Iraqi regime installed by the occupying power. He was replaced by a judge who had no qualms in disregarding all established principles of fair trial and was willing to hand down a judgment inconsistent with the evidence adduced.

Here's The Fine Bill, as can be found if you follow enough links, and here's the entry for it on the THOMAS web site at the Library of Congress. Please read before commenting on the bill. In particular, note that:

• the word "totalitarian" doesn't appear in the bill, just "authoritarian";
• the President of the US determines what countries are "Internet-restricting countries" (fat chance that this would include the US or any of the US's friends);
• the forms of censorship, etc. it affects are providing personally identifiable information to "Internet-restricting countries", filtering search results at the request of "Internet-restricting countries", and "jamming" "United States-supporting content" (government sites and the like) in "Internet-restricting countries";
• the bill doesn't affect whether you can help any country other than an "Internet-restricting country" to censor the Intarweb,

Yep, that's raw text. The LoC is actually doing a lot more scanning of things like old maps, drawings, and photos, and one article I found mentioned that they have about 8 TB of scanned material so far for their American Memory project (see http://memory.loc.gov/ ).

Here's the actual bill. $60 million per year. 15 cosponsors.

This is another piece of Bush Administration "security theater". Write to your representatives in Congress and your Senators to get them to put this money into fighting spam and computer crime.

It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.

You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".

And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.

Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.

You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.

Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.

See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here. Also 'colourable' in this document. 'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also here ('honor') and here ('honour').

'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'. In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.

My apologies for the mis-use of the term 'sir'.

It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.

You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".

And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.

Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.

You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.

Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.

See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here. Also 'colourable' in this document. 'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also here ('honor') and here ('honour').

'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'. In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.

My apologies for the mis-use of the term 'sir'.

"Bolivian Oil Fields". Right.

I suspect they are there to assist with anti-terrorism activities in the the remote tri-border area in southern Brazil.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/TerrOrgCrime_TBA.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_5_84/ai_n7069238

DCMA Section 202, Sub-Section 512, Paragraph (a) provides for common carrier status in all but name.

A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected.

... and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

The DMCA was passed in the House by voice vote, and the Senate by Unanimous Concent.

See the "Major Actions" section of this address
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:@@@L&summ2=m&

So, if your congresscritter was in office in 1998, you really have to assume he/she voted for it. I suppose you could troll the attendence logs for the day in question and see if they were absent, but I don't know how much that washes their hands. And potentialy, House reps may have voice voted against it, but it's unlikley.

So, Pretty much any Senator/Rep who's been in office for more than 10 years is responsible.

an outside panel to investigate its ethics ... I think I like him already
 
What do you know of this bill other than a summary in a newspaper article that you think it's a good idea to vote for it?
 
  Here's the text of the thing.
 
A committee of 6 must investigate "any alleged violation" simply by writing to the other committee members. ?!? Can you say witch hunt for the media: "Representative, do you not deny not ever being in public with your epidermis hanging out?"
 
And the really fun part is that this committee of 6 unelected persons is authorized to spend whatever needs to be spent out of the House budget to properly investigate these allegations that they've notified themselves about.
 
This is going to be another waste of taxpayers' money and a wildly partisan political media tool.

...a baby killing, tax and spend, socialized medicine advocating, way out on the left wing commie liberal democrat

Don't worry, abortion is a nice wedge issue they can use to distract you from discussing the money issues that affect far more people far more profoundly (including distracting away from corporate crime). It's a good thing that the Republicans are so intent on keeping government small. Imagine how much egg they'd have on their face if they were responsible for creating the Department of Homeland Defense with almost $45B/year budget.

But two issues that really affect Americans in their everyday lives are war and health care. And when it comes to health care the Democrats are just as in favor of the corporatized health care delivery system the US has as the Republicans are. The Democrats of today are running as fast as they can from the universal health care Truman proposed 60 years ago, Americans just can't be allowed to have what Ralph Nader calls "a program with quality and cost controls and an emphasis on prevention". HMOs give to candidates in both parties and that's the way those candidates like it despite that a majority of Americans in CBS and CNN polls say they'd prefer universal health care even if it means higher taxes to pay for it (an oddly supportive notion given that the US spends "twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita."). Kucinich/Conyers' health care plan (HR676) hasn't garnered a lot of cosponsors. I guess it will take a few more million Americans doing without health insurance (and thus making health care significantly more costly as well as making chronic care virtually unavailable until disaster strikes) to change that; over 45 million so far and this figure is going up.

When it comes to the continued occupation of Iraq the Democrats won't stop funding it out of a shared desire to "control [...] our major economic competitors in the world -- Europe and northeast Asia (China and Japan).". Sabre-rattling with Iran is also fodder for both major political parties. War crimes a plenty, according to AWARE (an Illinois-based anti-war group). All this for trillions Americans could have spent on domestic issues, chiefly those of the poor.

Really, the Democrats and Republicans aren't very far apart on these two major issues of the day (both money issues).

`(a) PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, AND DISTRIBUTION- No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to-- `(1) the Serial Copy Management System; `(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or `(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

If you go to "Exploring the Early Americas" at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/earlyamericas/ you will see that they are having to develop two versions of each Silverlight-enhanced view to avoid locking out people who are not using Silverlight, which means they're spending MORE money developing their websites, and eventually they're going to decide not to do that.

One hopes they'll decide to quit making the Silverlight version instead of the HTML version, once the $3M run out.

Let's say this was a real gift. M$ comes in and does all the digitizing, pays for the bandwith and staffs the servers at offsite locations for zero charge and they don't demand exclusivity. That's not the real situation at all and this gift will cost us all more than $3 million and it will be exclusive for resource reasons if not M$ licensing. Even then, it's only a gift to the minority of the population that can read Silverlight and it will only be a gift until M$ takes it away. That's hardly a public archive. In reality, works placed in this format will be poorly used by a tiny minority of the population for a very limited time. The money would be better spent preserving works in free formats that everyone can use immediately and forever. Works will rot while M$ sets up this advert for non free content and software. It's not a gift, it's an imposition.

Tell them what you think. Demand better. Point out obviously better alternatives.

Web Site Comments looks like the appropriate place to tell them what you think of non free information and non free formats.

The LOC should not host works that can't be exactly reproduced for non commercial purposes. Rights holders who disagree with that can host content on their own dime and pay for their own advertising. At the very least, the copyright status of works on the LOC site should be unambiguous. Serving them that content with restrictions is a waste of everyone's time and money. Sooner or later, all of the work will have to be redone because non free formats are always flash in the pan. Non free content will violate everyone's rights and pocketbook in the mean time. There's no amount of equipment, software or money that M$ can come up with overcome the cost of giving them control of our national library. Our heritage and freedom is worth more than the $20 billion in cash they have.

Cataloging and Acquisitions I would think...
http://www.loc.gov/aba/contact/

All the way at the bottom.

I'm using this one, someone please post if there's a more appropriate place.

I don't see any flash. http://www.loc.gov/ is perfectly navigable without any proprietary plug ins whatsoever. As I said, I'm not concerned about them including Silverlight. I am concerned about the website being navigable only with Silverlight. Sure you can argue a point I'm not making. But I could also argue that mashed potatoes are far better than macaroni and cheese and as such you are wrong.

Yes they are stupid about it, it IS a lose lose situation, anyone want to email the Library of Congress? Time for some registered voters to get involved instead of arguing on slashdot. http://www.loc.gov/help/contact-general.html That;s the contaxct info, I'm not sure which of those categories it falls under, but someone should write out an email and have a load of people send it in. Congress don't listen to common sense, they DO listen to voters.

are the reason that Nader can sap votes. It's not obvious that all republicans and democrats are "in the pockets of lobbyists". http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00192: and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00230: There are two major bills for lobbying ethics reform passed by Congress and sponsored by McCain and Obama, respectively.

are the reason that Nader can sap votes. It's not obvious that all republicans and democrats are "in the pockets of lobbyists". http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00192: and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00230: There are two major bills for lobbying ethics reform passed by Congress and sponsored by McCain and Obama, respectively.

Personally I believe this law to be unconstitutional. Fortunately, it has expired.

Oh, the IPCC and their assessment reports... I'm sure everyone takes those as the gospel. Those are always popular. Like in 1995 when their analysis estimated that the worth of a human life in developed nations was 15 times greater than human life in the third world. Hey, it only triggered protests and sit ins.... oh, but you'll tell me those were supporters. Part of your imaginary consensus perhaps?

The same IPCC that was served a nice helping of humble pie in front of congress in 1997?

By 1995, in its second full assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of the critics' position: `When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account, most climate models produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity to the greenhouse effect is used. There is growing evidences that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.'

Let me translate this statement. It means either it is not going to warm up as much as we said it would or something is hiding the warming. I predict that every attempt will be made to demonstrate the latter before admitting that the former is true.

It seems their dire predictions in 1990 didn't materialize so the 1995 report had to be revised a bit. Quite a bit. I doubt they could accurately forecast the weather in LA, much less global climate in 10 years time. So when it came time to make policy decisions that affected the real world and not just global warming fairy land... well, congress went in favor of continued economic progress. I could go on with bad news for the IPCC, but I'll just say they burned all their credibility many years ago. Since then, they only make predictions 100 years out. They must have gotten tired of having egg on their face.

The name is sometimes completely contrary to the contents of the bill.
e.g.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Full Text

The captcha word was 'litigate' - hilarious.

Has the bill itself actually passed? I can't find any mention of the bill actually having passed the Senate, only that this amendment (the Dodd-Feingold amendment) was rejected. I'm not that adept at reading THOMAS, so did I miss something?

I was looking through the text of the bill and this was the closest thing I could find for "retroactive immunity"

(4) TRANSITION PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE TARGETING OF UNITED STATES PERSONS OVERSEAS- Any authorization in effect on the date of enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 under section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 to intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, to acquire the contents of a wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by that United States person, shall remain in effect, and shall constitute a sufficient basis for conducting such an acquisition of a United States person located outside the United States, until that authorization expires or 90 days after the date of enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, whichever is earlier.

The way I interpret was there was a way to request information but it might have gone beyond legal bounds in this case. However, this amendment would make it fall under the provisions of this bill and therefore be "OK".
I don't have a full understanding of the bill so don't quote me on this. It does, however, drive me crazy that things like citations don't matter in the news otherwise things like this would be easier to find and verify.

Link to section of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:3:./temp/~c110iwnvn6:e95348:

I know it means nothing, but in the bill as part of the certification process for the enactment of using FISA it states the following:

(ii) the procedures referred to in clause (i) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and do not permit the intentional targeting of any person who is known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;


Full text can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2248:

I checked Thomas, the US Library of Congress's website (and possibly the most badly organized website on the internet), and I couldn't find who voted for it. Anyone have a link?

The THOMAS information system of the Library of Congress has information on all bills heard before the US Senate and House. You can also ask your member of Congress for information on any specific bill that interests you.

Most states have similar systems.

Indeed. See both joint resolutions 23 (Public Law 107-40)[1] and 542 (Public Law 93-148)[2].

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:HJ00542:|TOM:/bss/d093query.html

Indeed. See both joint resolutions 23 (Public Law 107-40)[1] and 542 (Public Law 93-148)[2].

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d093:HJ00542:|TOM:/bss/d093query.html

I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media

And the fact that his economic policies would be a disaster for this country, but who's counting? It has been nice having him the GOP debates, however, since he is the most sane Republican running. It was great seeing him saying WTF to Romney when Mittens said he'd leave the question of launching a nuclear strike without authority from Congress.

And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms can be reinserted.

"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan to the GOP, nothing more. What it really means is that they cut industry regulation and social spending, but baby bring on those pork barrel projects, bring on your social restrictions (abortion, gay marriage), bring on your War on Drugs. Democrats also regulate the things they don't like and spend on things they do, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites about it - and they don't add trillions to the national debt in the process.

Speaking of being two-faced, Paul talks about limited government power, but has no problems being against abortion and defining life as beginning at conception*. He's also introduced legislation to prevent courts from hearing cases on abortion, and most egregiously, first amendment cases. Your state government mandates school prayer? Too damned bad for you.

*The next step is to pretend that defining life as begining at conception is a reasonable arbitrary position. Problem with that is that defining life as beginning at birth is just as valid.

I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media

And the fact that his economic policies would be a disaster for this country, but who's counting? It has been nice having him the GOP debates, however, since he is the most sane Republican running. It was great seeing him saying WTF to Romney when Mittens said he'd leave the question of launching a nuclear strike without authority from Congress.

And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms can be reinserted.

"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan to the GOP, nothing more. What it really means is that they cut industry regulation and social spending, but baby bring on those pork barrel projects, bring on your social restrictions (abortion, gay marriage), bring on your War on Drugs. Democrats also regulate the things they don't like and spend on things they do, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites about it - and they don't add trillions to the national debt in the process.

Speaking of being two-faced, Paul talks about limited government power, but has no problems being against abortion and defining life as beginning at conception*. He's also introduced legislation to prevent courts from hearing cases on abortion, and most egregiously, first amendment cases. Your state government mandates school prayer? Too damned bad for you.

*The next step is to pretend that defining life as begining at conception is a reasonable arbitrary position. Problem with that is that defining life as beginning at birth is just as valid.

I've donated $600, knowing that Ron Paul would not win due to electronic voting and biased media

And the fact that his economic policies would be a disaster for this country, but who's counting? It has been nice having him the GOP debates, however, since he is the most sane Republican running. It was great seeing him saying WTF to Romney when Mittens said he'd leave the question of launching a nuclear strike without authority from Congress.

And perhaps if that happens, some of the "limited government" planks of pre-2000 Republican party platforms can be reinserted.

"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan to the GOP, nothing more. What it really means is that they cut industry regulation and social spending, but baby bring on those pork barrel projects, bring on your social restrictions (abortion, gay marriage), bring on your War on Drugs. Democrats also regulate the things they don't like and spend on things they do, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites about it - and they don't add trillions to the national debt in the process.

Speaking of being two-faced, Paul talks about limited government power, but has no problems being against abortion and defining life as beginning at conception*. He's also introduced legislation to prevent courts from hearing cases on abortion, and most egregiously, first amendment cases. Your state government mandates school prayer? Too damned bad for you.

*The next step is to pretend that defining life as begining at conception is a reasonable arbitrary position. Problem with that is that defining life as beginning at birth is just as valid.

FTB:

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.

(a) In General- Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable--
(1) make publicly available to their students and employees, the policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials required to be disclosed under section 485(a)(1)(P); and
(2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

See how your representative voted.

Even so... IMHO this still opens the door to more Orwellian legislation, and provides further evidence of how industry pwnes our government.

I think what the poster mangled saying was that people will elect Clinton because she promises to deliver the things which by her own admission she has not delivered on (she's been working on it for 35 years! Why does she think it is a positive point?) while forgetting that she will also be doing the things that she HAS been working on "for 35 years," i.e. a decrease in civil liberties.

Incidentally, as Senator she has voted for the PATRIOT ACT, the authorization of force against Iraq, and the authorization of force against Iran. She did apparently vote against the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which, given her record to date was actually surprising. Of course, Obama voted against all of these things, except the PATRIOT Act, (he was not a Senator when it was passed). However, both Obama and Clinton voted to renew the PATRIOT Act.

L:How in your judgment,at all,do you believe the word of God limits civil government?...It is not the role of civil government at any level,to house,clothe,feed or educate anybody.What do you think are the limits,if any,by God's word on any level,civil government ?

P:No,I think that would violate the whole principle,of you know, self-reliance,and our whole notion of individualism,which I think is solidly found in the New Testament,and therefore that responsibility, whether it is for ourselves,or for our families,it really falls upon the role of the parent...

L: May I assume you believe scripture is God's word,that it's inerrant and infallible ?

P:That is correct.

L: ...Well I'm also assuming you also believe that disobedience to God's word can bring,or does bring judgment upon nations and people?

P:(Hesitates)That is true,and,uh,sometimes the judgments aren't directly correlated,people have trouble figuring that out,but I think defiance of God's law will eventually bring havoc to a society.

Also featuring a Ron Paul America that doesn't even permit public education, and I'd also expect no public hospitals. Because god says so, or we'll be destroyed.

Why not? Paul also wants the government to stop all marriages, not just between gay people - between any people. Handing the governance of marriage entirely over to the church. I guess sometimes church and state can be separated in Paul Country, as long as the church gets the whole franchise.

Yeah, he's got that separation exactly backwards. Instead of following the Constitution's protection of the people from making a religious argument or action some kind of privileged category immune to American law or regulation, Paul says whatever superstition you imagine puts your actions beyond the reach of law. "We the People Act" he wrote for the House to send into American law:

Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

In Paul Country, when the priest decides, the judge shuts up.

Especially anywhere Paul's power is in effect, but is out of sight of the American media (but sets a working precedent across the entire country), Paul's USA sets religious acts above the law, as in his Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedo

L:How in your judgment,at all,do you believe the word of God limits civil government?...It is not the role of civil government at any level,to house,clothe,feed or educate anybody.What do you think are the limits,if any,by God's word on any level,civil government ?

P:No,I think that would violate the whole principle,of you know, self-reliance,and our whole notion of individualism,which I think is solidly found in the New Testament,and therefore that responsibility, whether it is for ourselves,or for our families,it really falls upon the role of the parent...

L: May I assume you believe scripture is God's word,that it's inerrant and infallible ?

P:That is correct.

L: ...Well I'm also assuming you also believe that disobedience to God's word can bring,or does bring judgment upon nations and people?

P:(Hesitates)That is true,and,uh,sometimes the judgments aren't directly correlated,people have trouble figuring that out,but I think defiance of God's law will eventually bring havoc to a society.

Also featuring a Ron Paul America that doesn't even permit public education, and I'd also expect no public hospitals. Because god says so, or we'll be destroyed.

Why not? Paul also wants the government to stop all marriages, not just between gay people - between any people. Handing the governance of marriage entirely over to the church. I guess sometimes church and state can be separated in Paul Country, as long as the church gets the whole franchise.

Yeah, he's got that separation exactly backwards. Instead of following the Constitution's protection of the people from making a religious argument or action some kind of privileged category immune to American law or regulation, Paul says whatever superstition you imagine puts your actions beyond the reach of law. "We the People Act" he wrote for the House to send into American law:

Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

In Paul Country, when the priest decides, the judge shuts up.

Especially anywhere Paul's power is in effect, but is out of sight of the American media (but sets a working precedent across the entire country), Paul's USA sets religious acts above the law, as in his Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

Amends the Federal judicial code to deny the district courts of the United States, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear or determine any case in which any requirement, prohibition, or other provision relating to religious freedo