Slashdot Mirror

Politics is so fucking nasty. Stand up for what is right and it's like signing up to be kicked in the crotch daily. People as a society are a whiney, selfish, stupid lot. Individuals can be very smart. Most don't want to work. Don't want to do anything. Not even sure why they're even alive. I know, that's what they've told me.

Getting worse, much worse. Schools teach "tolerance" what they mean is tolerance for the leftist ideas. Not for others like God, being heterosexual, being smart. In fact they detest being smart. That's what common core is all about. Baffle them with bullshit. This "new math" crap.

How to destroy a thriving society. Well it's know, long time - Congressional record: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/commun...

Soon it will be over and we'll be back to slavery. Feudalism.

Um, the "lead poisoining" hypothesis is bunk, FYI.

But the rest of your post I agree with. If there is only one reason to oppose GM crops, it's the terminator crops feature.

Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.

No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1

Some might say, "yes, but this property has no bearing on the 'real' world". But this is a shortsighted argument, and one that any insightful person can see will become increasingly blurry with time.

Could somebody mod me insightful so that I will understand?

/target FiloEleven
/cast Spell of Insight

First of all, check out the Grace Commission report - http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

Income taxes do not fund anything in the budget. It is used to take US$ out of circulation (and thus contain inflation).

Second. No one "owns" corporate stock in the traditional sense of the word unless you have made very special arrangements. Check out DTCC, start here - http://tycoonreport.tycoonresearch.com/articles/498930687/who-really-owns-your-stocks-hint-it-s-not-you
All stock in the US is a Virtual Property unless you have physical stock certificates in hand.

There's more, but that's enough for now. The next place for you to look at is how the "Federal" Reserve (which is privately owned and not Federal) does inter-bank transfers.

The "limits" usually involve impinging on others' rights (e.g. committing libel/slander for debate points is generally considered bad form).

No, your views can be criticized as nonsensical if those people (or private organizations) who hear your points believe them to be nonsensical. This has nothing to do with government edict or policy. Point is, you're still perfectly allowed to speak them w/o governmental interference.

Heh - I'm sorely tempted to mention a correlation between that statement and tinfoil, but... I have merely to use simple logic: If that's true, then how come the application of these dreaded IRS audits aren't consistently applied? After all, if the big evil government is so eager to 'silence' opponents, then we'd have certainly seen more than mere statistical coincidence, no?

Long on sensationalism, short on facts (such as the list of charges, the court papers, the jury verdict --you know a jury is involved, yes?-- things like that). Got anything that actually shows the whole story, and not just cherry-picked bits and pieces? After all, if there are so many systemic examples, surely one of them would be available that would lend better credibility than the ravings of a single individual.

I shall quote from the article you point to: " He had been offered lifelong tenure by the political science department of the Catholic DePaul University in Chicago, but faced with a bitter campaign against him, the university denied him the post."

No governmental mandate there. In fact, it shows that there was lots of free speech in action at that particular university. It is also worthwhile to note that the university is likely privately-funded, so there is a high likelihood that there is zero governmental involvement there.

You're not guaranteed to have a job in academia, you know.

Why?

At risk of invoking Godwin's Law, there was a certain other national eader in history whose big premise and push was to free his people from external control as well (e.g. the then-ongoing punishments of the Versailles Treaty), and was very eager to give goodies to his people (e.g. the Volkswagen... which literally translates to "The Peoples' Vehicle").

Road to Hell { Good Intentions, etc.

/P

At least in North America and the EU, speaking out against political figures and government is not only legal, but gets you cred among ideologically like-minded people.
As long as you stay within the accepted limits of debate. Your views will be criticised as nonsensical and you won't be allowed on mainstream news channels (or if you are, you'll be "fox news"ed) - The 911 truth movement is an example. There's also the "ability" of the government to single you out for tax audits if you're a political opponent. So, it's not exactly a "free" society. You can even get jailed and tortured in this way. Here is an example.

You can still go to work the next day confident that you won't lose your job by government mandate.
Depending on what you say. Although not by "government mandate", there are other forces that can silence/control you in the United States. This is a recent example that's been on the news for a while now. The United States is not really run by the elected government anymore.

I find it hard to believe that Americans oppose Chavez because he's a dictator and because he's supressing freedom in Venezuela. He's not perfect but he's trying to free his country and South America from external control and so, the bottom line is that he's not "standing in line".

HOW THE CHILD IS LABELED

What is "Attention Deficit Disorder"? Who "diagnoses" it? How is it treated? What are the results of that treatment? Who pays the bill? How is it that a "disease" no one even heard of a few years ago has swept through our children in our schools? Is this a more serious epidemic than AIDS? Is it contagious? Can you catch it from your children? Let's see if we can answer these questions from the writings of the "experts" who invented the "disease." The American Psychiatric Association publishes a text called "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." This has been translated into German and forms the accepted guidelines for what are considered to be "mental illnesses," or as they are more modernly referred to, "mental disorders." The text is now in its third edition which was revised in 1987. It is generally referred to by its abbreviated title for its revised edition as DSM-III-R. This reference text is the "bible"of the psychiatric industry. The "diagnostic numbers" for each specific label are accepted internationally and are used by the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Mental Health. One of those numbers is 314.01 which indicates the "Diagnostic Criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" from the DSM-III-R. Millions of America's children have been labeled with this so-called disorder and put on Ritalin. See how for yourself. The following are the "criteria" for this "disease" taken directly without change from the psychiatric text. A. A disturbance of at least six months during which at least eight of the following are present: (1) [the child] often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat. (in adolescents, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness) (2) [this child] has difficulty remaining seated when required to do so (3) [the child] is easily distracted (4) [the child] has difficulty awaiting turn in games or group situations (5) [the child] often blurts out answers to questions before they have been completed (6) [the child] has difficulty following through on instructions from others, example, fails to finish chores (7) [the child] has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities (8) [the child] often shifts from one uncompleted activity to another (9) [the child] has difficulty playing quietly (10) [the child] often talks excessively (11) [the child] often interrupts or intrudes on others, example, butts into other children's games (12) [the child] often does not seem to listen to what is being said to him or her (13) [the child] often loses things necessary for tasks or activities at school or at home, examples, toys, pencils, books, assignments (14) [the child] often engages in physically dangerous activities without considering the possible consequences, (example, runs into the street without looking). B. Onset before the age of seven. C. Does not meet the criteria for Pervasive Developmental Disorder. These criteria would seem rather funny if they didn't result in these children being turned into drug addic

On top of it, they never mention how US military overseas from Florida specifically (that overwhelmingly vote republican) didn't get their absentee ballots

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=15597
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/News/20001128-1.html
http://www.cwv.org/milvote/milvote.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 1/20/military.ballots/index.html
http://www.uhuh.com/laws/milivote.htm
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A2901_0_2_0_C/
http://www.mcsm.org/vetsvote.html

Business didn't start this nonsence. FDR started it in 1943 with Executive Order 9397.

Funny, though, is that saying repeatedly, "I don't recall", "I don't remember", etc. often works well for US Presidents (like Reagan) testifying in front of Congress, CxOs, etc. in not really being helpful in a legal case. It certainly seems to be how the Libby defense is trying to go: Libby was too preoccupied to recall the details of his various conversations with any clarity for the days in question. If he did let slip VP's name, it was an innocent mistake. Blah blah blah.

Lest we forget, it also worked for the Clintons et al in the Whitewater scandal.

The Republicans are hardly alone here. Politicians of both parties seem to be equally afflicted with Alzheimers' when it comes to potentially-harmful (to themselves) testimony. Some hilights from the last Democratic administrations' troubles here. http://www.uhuh.com/clinton/hrc-hits.htm

Strat

Don't let your tinfoil hats make you conflate the Patriot Act with the rest of the laws on the books. Banks have been collecting SSNs since 1970 on most types of accounts to comply with the "Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions Act of 1970" and various Bank Secrecy acts passed in the mid-80s.

The Patriot Act had virtually no impant on banking laws except to the extent it weakened (or strengthened depending on your perspectives) the procedures for getting info without warrants or court orders, and the number of agencies that can snoop domestic data sources.

More here:

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/31usc1051.htm

Hate to tell you this....
brace yourself...

We are about a year+ past needing something like this ourselves.
Unfortunately, this won't work for us, because NO PLACE would be safe for the central database server.
Our only options are freenet & things of a like nature, which are decentralized.

On the other hand, you've got nothing to hide, aren't a terrorist, so you've nothing to fear, right?

right?

RIGHT, Citizen?

in times like these it's a good thing the founding fathers realized that future governments wouldn't play by the rules.

• Air National Guard anyone? Makes Clinton's military record seem downight patriotic!
  Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
  
  
• Arbusto Energy? The information is out there.
  Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
  
  
• He's a born again Christian. Wasn't there a lot of hubbub over the fact that Jack Kennedy was a Catholic?
  Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
  
  
• Texas Rangers Baseball team. Is there anyone in television or print media who knows the details behind that whole affair? Cheating taxpayers for a new stadium?
  Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
  
  
• Harken Energy. Look them up in the SEC history and see how they went out of business. This was a CRIME.
  Not more than a word about it through the whole election.
  

(See here for a nice summary of what those millions of research and investigation dollars were an attempt to substantiate.)

Please, SOMEBODY, show me the liberal press.
There's a story here they're gonna LOVE!!!!


(For crissakes Time (!!) just named G. W. Bush as Person of the Year!)