Slashdot Mirror

Actually, someone should teach you the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm

"The worse prediction are for a sea level rise of an inch or so over a 100 years. "

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

"For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected torise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres. "

And it gets worse for the centuries beyond 2100. 2100-2199 ~+3 meters, and 2200-2299 ~+5 meters..
Needless to say.. but the the The Coast Is Toast: Take the Money and Run ..

PS.. For you mathematically challenged deniers, one(1) meter is 39.37 inches..

Wrong.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm

Talk about a myopic view of what's happened over the last seven years. Given the Real ID Act, all the RICO laws, all the drug enforcement laws, and tack on all the post 9/11 legislation and you have yourself a bona fide police state. I am no longer protected from illegal searches and seizures, I can be stripped of my citizenship and shipped off to remote place with little to no hope of ever getting a lawyer, let alone a trial.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has forgotten what the constitution means and the Executive branch became two branches of government without any referendum to approve this change. The constitution applies to the government, it's irrelavent where I am, where you are, where anybody is, the U.S. government is bound by the constitution.

Of course over the last seven years what remained of the constitution and more specifically the bill of rights is gone. Last I checked the only right that remained was that we were still free from the burden of having to house soldiers. Habeas Corpus has been suspended indefinitely, the rights of the press have been trampled to high hell on numerous occasions. Link one, link two, and link three, are all just a couple of examples of hundreds of instances of censorship. Combined that with National Security letters forcing some U.S. citizens to give up their customers and thus their livelihood without any compensation or recourse.

We have definitely lost significant freedoms, you notice them when you open a bank account, you'll notice them in hospitals and fingerprints are now required all over the place.

You can use all the racial slurs you like, people will hate you but you won't be thrown in jail because of it. It's the fact that the majority don't notice the loss of protections that scares me. The people that can't put all the pieces together because they are either too lazy or too absorbed with their own lives to realize what's going on around them. We are most definitely not safer now than we were and there are strong arguments out there that we are even worse off for a creative criminal. Do you really think a terrorist would target a plane again? They would target something new where we don't have high security because we don't have high security on it. The only thing the security is doing for airlines is bankrupting them because people hate to go to airports. Then of course the airlines try to cut back on costs by reducing services making the flights even more unpleasant and then the government has to bail them out because so much business relies on flight transportation.

An investor for the company I work for actually rented and flew his own plane because U.S. Air was so incompetent they overbooked his flight twice so he couldn't fly down here for a time sensitive meeting. Combine that with my boss wanting to go to the lake for the weekend so he was going to fly there, it was about a 45 minute flight. After three engine failures resulting in delays he hopped in one of his cars and just drove the two hours or less.

In short, the constitution including the Bill of Rights is being used as TP by the administration and congress and no one is willing to do anything about it. I'd like to say election time will correct the misgivings of the past but given that both democrats and republicans share the blame for the erosion of our liberties there is very little hope we will get any of it back anytime soon. Perhaps when the baby boomers are out of office the next generation will have the good sense to improve things. We'll see, awareness of the problems is where it all begins.

I sincerely hope more realize what's going on in the world around them. Religion has been driven out of the federal level, it is resurgent at the local level, that is perfectly legal so as long as I get to vote on it I

Ask and ye shall receive: ;)

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/12/19/greensla de.htm

http://mason.gmu.edu/~nlund/Pubs/WklyStd2dAmd.pdf

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/prim er_on_const.php#c4

Not really. All SCOTUS did was clarify what direct and indirect taxes are. Not to mention your definition is in direct conflict of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution. See Pollock vs Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (157 US 429)(1895); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 US 112)(1916); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (240 US 1)(1916); etc.

This gets really interesting when you realize that if something is unconstitutional it was never a law. If it was ever struck down, the US Gov't would have to pay all of us back all the tax money ever collected. THAT is why there is so much dirty business whenever the tax subject comes up. There is a huge vested interest in not only the gravy train, but also back liabilities.

I don't understand why so many people will defend such an opressive, unaccountable (bordering on terrorist) organization. The rules are so confusing, even H&R block couldnt figure it out properly. If you think a citizen asking legitimate questions stands a chance, drink more Kool-Aid. The question "Show Me The Law" should be an easy one to answer. The truth is they can't because there isn't one. I DARE you to ask and see the response you get.

It follows that society is safer in general when every individual has the potential to be armed. Criminals don't even need to see the gun -- the fact that a victim MAY be armed is enough to make them think twice. "Tougher" laws and penalites for crime won't change a thing, because the law can't possibly address the need for immediate self-defense.

A similar situation has occurred in Washington, D.C. History has proven, time and time again, that gun "control" (restrictions on the individual's right to self-defense) actually increases, not decreases, the overall crime rate. Of course, if you ask me, that is exactly what government wants. (The higher the crime rate, the more "justification" for expanding the powers of government.)

Refer to this article for a good intro to this issue.