Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick
Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."
He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
Its entirely possible that whichever candidate will get the nod had his wikipedia fixed up a couple of months ago, to avoid notice of this. The other candidates fixing theirs up might just be window dressing in case there is a problem with the first candidate and they need a replacement.
Mitt Romney 2.0.
You see with the power of science, he'll clone himself and thereby double the power on the ticket!
Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wikipedia locked articles for controversial subjects. And what is more controversial than a politician come election period.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Quick! Someone go make 200 edits to David Duke's Wikipedia entry!
Well... every smartass has to point out there is some bad information in Wikipedia. The GOP should be right at home there.
The Bilderberg conspiracy followers were all predicting that Romney would pick Mitch Daniels as his VP.
Rob is probably one Portman that you don't want to see naked and petrified.
I reckon Wikipedia should start semi-protecting all those pages, so the random staffers can't create new accounts and remove embarrassing contents.
It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Tannenbaum maintains an election model that currently predicts an Obama win (334 to 206 electoral votes) http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Was that a duck?
Tea Party --> Freedom from government and lawyers
SOPA --> More power to government and lawyers
Wikipedia opposes SOPA, tea party supports Wikipedia??
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.
...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
Is it a revealed work or intelligently designed? I think we can rule out being intelligently designed. That leaves us with a revealed work. Also the deletionists have made a nice apocrypha of wiki pages. So. GOP was taken over by religious nuts awhile back and they like a revealed work, surprise surprise.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Ever since they realized they could "Change history" by editing the facts to match Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride.
Since when did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
The GOP is positioning Wikipedia as the propaganda arm of their new AmerCIA domestic intelligence group. I seem to recall them also releasing iPhone and Android Apps.
I'm wondering who Obama's running mate will be.
Dark Reflection
Based not only on the wiki edits, but also Nick Silver's post at the 538 blog this morning (conclusion: Portman helps Romney the most, with the least risk) and the numbers on Intrade which usually turn out to be correct, I'd say with 95% certainty that the pick is Rob Portman, it has already been decided, and we'll be hearing about it in the next few days.
As a proud Tea Party supporter I have to inform you that I am pro gay marriage, sorry to shatter your delusion. Less government means less government across the board, leading to greater freedom for ALL.
As opposed to your little ad hominem?
I am no paid shill, nor does the USA have socialists in power and I went to both public and private schools.
Way to be wrong on pretty much all accounts.
Good for you, now go talk to the ones holding the "Keep government out of medicare" signs about that.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom. Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.
Really competent, intelligent, honest people cannot run for political office. This is especially true of the presidency. For many, many years, the choice has only been who is least destructive. That keeps getting harder as the quality continually drops and the corruption rises. We are manipulated into thinking we have a choice but we don't. Anyone have any suggestions for a decent country to move to?
Whatever sacrificial lamb the GOP picks to 'run with Romney' will never be heard of in presidential politics again, once Millard "Mitt" "He's a mormon (not that that really matters (of course not)) shh!" Romney loses.
It was inevitable that Romney would 'win' the candidacy and it is inevitable that he will lose the race. No one could have beaten Obama outside of Reagan so the GOP took good ol' Mitt out, shined him up, and ran him as their idea of a 'equality' candidate. The GOP stance is that every religion is equal and now they've proven it by running a Mormon in a race where no one could win. Mitt will walk away a little bruised, ghost-write some books, and fade into history and all those Mormons will stay in the GOP camp because the GOP 'had the balls' to run a Mormon candidate.
This is all just a game. You people aren't even players -- you're the pieces.
Don't vote, it just encourages them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Christie&diff=506340909&oldid=506335481
What law prevents gay marriage? Answer: None.
Marriage is a contract that a State chooses to recognize or not recognize. The federal government has NOTHING to do with it. If a state chooses to recognize a contract between two opposite sex, two same sex, or 3 same or mixed sex partners its the sates business, not the federal government.
Your view seems to be that the FEDERAL government should force states to recognize contracts of same sex marriages, but what about mixed partner marriages of all types?
For the record my opinion is that the state has the right under the constitution to decide IF it recognizes contracts and what criteria said contract cannot have. However, I would advocate for NOT recognizing ANY marriages as I don't think it is the business of the federal or state government to define what a cultural 'norm' is or is not.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
My view is based on Full Faith and Credit. You will find that in the Constitution. If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.
The federal government disagrees with your beliefs, otherwise why did it pass DOMA?
They don't.
They believe in Conservapedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Go. Read.
--
BMO
The VP's two jobs don't happen very often but when they occur it's pretty important. I wish there was more of a primary selection process for VP rather than the candidate's behind the scenes political machinations as recommended by their overpaid consultants. If the president is incapacitated then we get the VP, like it or not, who did not have to go through the primary process and be selected by the party members as the president was.
That was exactly what I was going to say... also, I heard that the GOP gets most of its money from an investment into showers specifically designed for birds. Pigeons actually.
Cool; then we can apply it to CCW licenses, too.
Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.
Heh, only if you have a bigger gun..
He should select Ron Paul. It would consolidate the Republican base. On the other hand, if Ron Paul runs as an independent in just a few swing states (e.g., Texas), Ron will give the election to Obama. As VP, Ron could be effectively managed, as Kennedy did with Johnson and Reagan did with Bush. Remember what Mr. Gates used to say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
However, I am talking about Mitt, a man with few political instincts. Therefore, he will pick Portman as an electoral hedge, because Rob is from the critical swing state of Ohio.
I agree 100%.
All states should have to recognize the others CCW permits.
That was the point I was making.
You mean as opposed to your small-minded, hate filled, racist diatribe?
You are starting to annoy me.
Full Faith and Credit didn't even apply to banning interracial marriages according to the supreme court, so precedent would not favor your opinion.
The DOMA was not necessary IMO as a state could simply choose not to recognize ANY marriages as easily as it could choose to define what it would recognize. If state A want's to recognize a contract between a man and lamp post, state B does not have to create law and provide ceremonies for those in state B who might wish to have a contract with a lamp post.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
You are a fucking moron. You have never talked to someone who claims association with the Tea Party, you have never read any documents that accurately portray the Tea Party's positions.
You simply spout the crap you heard from the Dems and others who so viscerally hate the very idea that government should be smaller and more efficient and that individuals are more important than the government. In a word, Socialists.
Open your fucking mind and trying thinking instead of regurgitating.
Idiots like you often confuse "smaller government" with "no government".
Government provides the legal context for property ownership. That's good. Government also interferes with your use of that land. That's bad.
Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.
That is the government that the Tea Party is against.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I should not have called you an idiot. My apologies. in advance.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
>>>...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?
About the same time the DNC became a pro-war party.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Cool; then we can apply it to CCW licenses, too.
You need a license to go counterclockwise?
Where do you live?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Being selected as a VP candidate gives that politician instant name recognition in presidential politics. Sometimes this is enough to make them an early contender for a presidential nomination in the next election (Edmund Muskie, Walter Mondale, Sarah Palin) or gives them a building block for later campaigns (FDR, Bob Dole). This is somewhat of a modern phenomenon. The age and performance of the candidate and the strength of the field are certainly factors.
You mean the tea party is against mineral and water rights?
How are those different than property rights?
Someone else owns that water, he is talking it from its rightful owner.
When what you do on your land impacts the value of my land the government should step in.
Like you and me, Mitt Romney gets chauffeured to the store in a tinted-out black Chevy Suburban, Secret Service agents in tow. Much like the rest of us, he procures his ears of corn and tools with a press gaggle dutifully snapping pictures.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Assuming you are replying to me, you replied to the wrong person. I never post AC.
Get an account and we can converse, until then have a nice day.
Where do you morons get the idea that the Dems are about socialism.
I support socialism more than the Dems do, in some situations anyway. In others I am far to the right of them.
I have spoken to tea party members, or as we called them before the Obama election Republicans.
No. The libs are as usual, correct.
If you do not agree that government should provide you with everything then you obviously want to abolish the government.
There really is no rational middle ground here.
Fucking idiots. They will never understand that government is not your friend. Never.
They can not imagine that real solutions come from the people with the problems.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Go troll elsewhere.
The low karma is an indication to stop doing that.
How about you be quiet until such time as that you can act like an adult.
If a state chooses to recognize a contract between two opposite sex, two same sex, or 3 same or mixed sex partners its the sates business, not the federal government.
Does the Federal government give tax benefits to married people? If so, they need a definition of "married". That definition could be "as legally defined in your state" but I don't know enough about the US Constitution to know if it would be legal to have the Federal government tax people differently based on which state they live in.
Nice strawman.
Nice use of Libs, when you have no idea of the political leaning of the persons you are speaking of. Plus the personal attacks tell us the reason you are so mad is because the world is big and confusing to people with such tiny brains like yourself.
No problem. Now go ahead and explain how you value land rights but not water rights. Do you also not believe in mineral rights?
No. How do you like that?
How about you go wax your weenie?
Libs are easy to spot.
They rail against making government smaller by letting everyone know that with zero government things would be bad.
Really?
There is the strawman. Your strawman. Why do you feel the need to protect a government that has always only grown in power?
Why when people want the government to get out of an area of our lives they have no business in do you feel the need to point out what things would be like with no government?
Liberals need to believe that the answer is a government program. Why this is I do not know.
They should not. It has never really worked for them but they keep hoping.
Conservatives. Real ones. Not most republicans. Should look at their own actions first and what they can do to solve their problems.
Small government is good. Big government and no government is bad.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
There's a difference between collecting water than runs off your house and putting up a 20 foot damn to create a reservoir and stop water flowing into the local river.
What would you do if you were down stream and your river dried up?
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
His blog is also paywalled if you've already read a few New York Times articles linked from Slashdot this month.
You cannot 'own' land now. You lease it from the government. You have to pay 'rent' to the government. The government owns everything. And they can take your land also. We have to face facts. The weak will always be at the mercy of the powerful. The law is irrelevant. Ultimately only a man's conscience can keep him from pulling the trigger. It doesn't matter if he carries a badge or not.
Obamacare AKA Romneycare?
Governor Romney always maintained that Romneycare should be implemented by individual states, not as a federal tax the way Obama and the Democratic Congress did.
barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.
Breaking news: Brock Obama was heard singing the theme song of the TV show based on a popular dogfighting simulator video game.
Based on how I read the Twelfth and Twenty-second Amendments, Bill Clinton is ineligible to become Vice President because he is ineligible to become President on account of having twice been elected to a four-year term as President.
Talk about over simplification.
Please tell me how it is big government intrusion to enforce water rights, when someone diverts a river.
No, in that case the government is interfering with some guy's decision to keep public property (the water, under Oregon law) on his land. And then you made up that nonsense about the EPA to further your argument. Please stop misrepresenting the facts and stop proffering your opinion as fact. It only serves to make you look foolish.
The story isn't as crazy as you make it sound. The pond on his land from rain on his roof was actually three reservoirs that were big enough for recreational docks and boats and required two 10ft dams and a 20ft dam to fill. This isn't rain water, this is messing with the local water systems and ecology and then complaining when the government tells him to stop doing it. He did have a permit but that was rescinded, probably when the government found out what his plans really were.
If anything, this is the government acting to protect the public resources needed for everyone from being abused for the benefit of the few or one person. Which if you look at the original views of the Tea Party is what they wanted government to do in the first place.
source:
http://revmodo.com/2012/07/30/oregon-man-gets-30-days-in-jail-for-rainwater-catchment/
That is not what he was doing.
He was collecting the rain water falling on his property.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What would you do if you were down stream and your river dried up?
That's your problem not mine.
Wait....someone else owns the rainwater this man collected from landing on his own rooftop and other property?
Who, pray tell...owns the rain that hits my house??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What the states and feds should do, is allow for, and enforce across state lines...civil contracts..between two or more of ANY sexual preference, etc. This should be the ONLY legal binding contract there is.
If someone in this relationships also wants the "marriage" moniker on their relationship, let them get a church to do this....but merely having a church blessed marriage, would not hold any legal binding bonds....that is the civil contract part offered by the govt.
Let that civil contract between 2 or more people, take care of all the inheritance, insurance...etc....and that would be the same for any group of people wanting such a legal relationship, and should do away with all this controversy of marriage.
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy. The Govt is there to help enforce contracts...let's put the govt back to work doing what it is supposed to do in this case.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sounds like you are to the "far right" like the Italian Fascists were to the "far right".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Do you also support all states giving "full faith and credit" to my Pennsylvania gun carry permit?
If not, you're probably just another statist. By the way, I support removing just about all governments' ability to control marriage. It's the only way we can get the activist and politicians to shut up without losing more rights.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
No. How do you like that?
I have a friend who told me you have a small penis. I don't know this is true, I'm just sayin.
1. Say, "I know I'll get modded down for this . . ."
2. Write a post with a conservative viewpoint.
Bang! Instant recipe for being modded up on Slashdot.
...i.e. really to the far right?
New Jersey. No left turns allowed.
Um, that's how it already works today. We have religious marriages that are performed by churches, and we have civil marriage contracts that are signed by individuals and hold legal authority. Part of every religious marriage ceremony is the signing of the civil marriage contract which gives the legal benefits in addition to whatever spiritual nature is bestowed by the ceremony. The only new thing you've asked for is the extension of the rights to civil marriage to any group of individuals. In other words, you're completely in agreement with the pro same sex marriage crowd, except that you seem to want to go further into polygamy. The rest of your post is just requesting what already exists.
So then you'd have no problem with me building a giant shade on my property and completely blocking sun from reaching your property? Oh, and leaning it upwind when it rains and gathering all the rain before it reaches your property?
Consider the consequences.
Please note, you are going to get modded down a lot because you feel the need to reply to every single reply to your post with one line non-contributing answers. If you don't agree with someone that replies to you but have nothing additional to contribute... shut the hell up.
Don't forget he had 3 of them on his property.. Stocked with bluegill, a boat dock, etc. and this creek is a tributary of the Rouge River, a designated "Wild and Scenic River".. Not only was he keeping the water, he was blocking fish from going upstream for spawning..
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Again there is a difference between the government providing a legal structure for securing mineral rights for property owners and the government claiming those rights.
Frankly, I find the idea of the government claiming that it owns the water that falls from the sky to be offensive.
To address BenJury, Dave and others, it is irrelevant that his collection system huge, amounting to small lakes. The water apparently came from rain run off. (If he dammed a local creek, that's another thing). I reject categorically the idea that the government owns water that falls from the sky, state law or not. This is the difference between the government providing the mechanisms and abusing the mechanisms.
Besides, It's Oregon for hecks sake. It hardly ever stops raining there,.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How can you claim fascism is leftist? I mean... really. You have a low UID, so how can you not know what the words you are using mean?
Of course they are. Isn't that why they dumped all that tea into boston harbor?
What is the benefit of many smaller pools, as we have now with multiple insurance providers?
Above a certain size, there's enough of a base among which risk is already pooled that any marginal benefit of a larger pool is insubstantial.
What's wrong with having only one large pool, and better still, have it exist as a nonprofit entity?
Different entities can't compete to pool risk more efficiently.
"right" in the US generally refers to Republicans - or conservatives more specifically. Fascists are a form of statism, that is 'big government' taken to an extreme and has nothing to do with conservatism.
Fascists are not the "right" any more than the Nazi's are. This is one reason statist is a more useful general purpose term. One who believes in the power of the state is a statist (and in the end a leftist). One who believes in individual rights and liberties is a conservative and occupies the (western) right.
Yes it's all very confusing to a lot of you, I know.
Wikipedia was typed by a billion blind monkeys, right?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It is a reasonable claim based on recent federal law changes that would undoubtedly place his ponds under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Ummmm. No. Not really.
The problem doesn't lie with who's name is on the document, the problem lies with the document itself and how we, as a modern culture, look at marriage.
The idea behind marriage was originally that women were property and men owned them. The contract was for the ownership of the bride. The bride never owned anything, ever. When the man died/left/got bored the woman was cast free. When the woman died so what? Replace her. If she left, hunt her down and stone her.
Over the centuries this has changed and now we see women as nearly equal to men. The problem is that the marriage contract now reflects a legal partnership contract in that all property is considered to be owned by the partnership. That's why divorce is such a problem. Even worse is that religion has gotten involved and called the damned thing 'sacred', whatever that means, and now they say the invisible guy in the sky will get mad at us if we allow the 'wrong' types to marry.
I say flush the whole thing. If people really want to buy a house 'together' then they can form a legal partnership under a legal name and buy stuff under that partnership. Kids, being humans and all (mostly(eventually)) are a problem but maybe they can be seen as detachable employees with certain benefits. Man-man, woman-woman, man-woman -- who cares. Just sign on the line and the contract is formed. Want out? There's a clause for that.
Don't think this is sentimental enough? Try a divorce and then get back to me, or better yet try being denied benefits because the marriage contract doesn't cover you 'kind' of partnership. Sentimental partnerships are for twelve year olds. Get a lawyer.
I'd say that Bernie Sanders qualifies as a socialist. While he technically is 'in power' as a practical matter you are probably right.
Its a legal state some of whose effects are similar to effects which could be acheived through contract, and some of whose effects cannot be acheived through contract. Calling it a "contract" is misleading, at best.
Actually, as well as the state law consequences of marriage, there are federal law consequences as well. So, the federal government has quite a bit to do with it.
There's truth in what you say, but the GOP already has wiki of their own, with all sorts of misinformation.
Where do you think the water that ends up in creeks comes from?
If you create an artificial lake you don't think that might impact the water others receive?
I find the idea that you think a landowner owns the rain to be offensive, it is a public good and should be cared for by the state. My claim is as valid as yours. Ideological claims for their own stake are equally stupid.
No, there wasn't a creek. Nothing in the article says anything about flowing bodies of water, or creeks.
The miraculous thing about reservoirs like this is that once filled, all water added to the system goes over the edge and back into the ecosystem. There's actually less evaporation in total than if the reservoir weren't built. So all he ever "stole" from the public... was 20 olympic swimming pools of water.
So what if he built artificial reservoirs across gulleys on his land, filled them with 20 olympic swimming pools of water from the city/state/county water system, paid in full, and then let additional rainfall and runoff flow back into the system? Is he still a thieving landowner?
According to the state he would be.
Well, we are talking ideology here are we not?
What is the argument over the size and role of government if not a Ideological argument?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Would it be OK if I dump some smelly (like "methyl mercaptane" smelly) garbage next to your land? After all, breathing is YOUR problem, ain't it?
No. This is just more dumb mental gymnastics. Take it somewhere else.
A practical one perhaps?
The simple fact is someone has to manage these shared resources and so far this is best we have come up with. I would prefer to select the size of government not based on ideology and theory but sound testing. The EPA for instance is something that some are ideologically opposed to, but history has shown we must have or we will have undrinkable water and rivers on fire.
The people who own the water rights in that area.
This is long settled law.
I have been reading books on the Middle Ages and it turns out the marriage was largely civil until 900-1000 when the Church felt it necessary to begin to pull sexual and marriage under the Church authority. The attitude to extramarital sexual activity, homosexuality, and other "heretical unnatural perversions" changed remarkably between 900 and ~1300. Even Wikipedia makes a passing reference to marriage being largely a civil matter. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
"Matrimony, for most of Church history, was a sacrament celebrated (as in the Judaic tradition) without clergy and was done according to local customs."
The language used by the wikipedia author reflects religious views on marriage as a sacrament after this period.
I think it would be best to go back to the customs BEFORE the Church was the Holy Roman Empire.
You mean as opposed to your small-minded, hate filled, racist diatribe?
Do leftists just automatically throw in "racist" all the time now, regardless of the lack of any even tenuous justification for it?
I've been doing my research on issues and candidates for months in order to make the best informed choice possible at the voting boot. And then I discovered that I had bookmarked Uncyclopedia by mistake.
Have gnu, will travel.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
Thanks for reminding us. Also, war is peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength!
Without government intrusion you could not own land, as I could just take it.
That's not intrusion, i.e. " An inappropriate or unwelcome addition, or Illegal entry upon or appropriation of the property of another. Actually, now that I think about it, the only entity I've heard of "taking" someone's land in the US for the past 200 years has been government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Posting anonymously because I already moderated
"full faith and credit" applies to contracts, not statutes.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
An EPA that fines and intimidates land owners based on their own ideology is just as bad as a land owner abusing his land.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That's right. Fascists and Nazis are leftists!
Two plus two equals five!
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
The sky is purple!
Glory hallelujah, and god bless the Republican party! God bless conservatism! Marching towards the truth!
I disagree, we can return inappropriate fines. We cannot reasonably do anything once a landowner has poisoned his and his neighbors land.
What you have presented is an assertion, making an assertion does not constitute winning an argument. You need to back up your assertions with logic and facts which you have failed to do.
Fascism concentrates power in the state, as does communism, socialism, and many others. This is all anti individualism, hence the term statism applies.
Now fuck off. You bore me.
Please tell me how it is big government intrusion to enforce water rights, when someone diverts a river.
"Water rights" generally does not extend to all water of any kind regardless of source, unless you live in a country with a totalitarian government (or a state with one, like Colorado). Collecting rain water is not diverting a river, any more than placing fill dirt in a temporary puddle is polluting navigable water. You should make some effort to educate yourself on the topic, before Agenda 21 is fully implemented and the only property right you have left is the right to pay taxes.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What's the difference? If I own a plot on the Moon should I get rights to all the land on Earth that passes above it? If no then why not?
How it's different from mineral/water/air pollution rights?
The Sacketts will not be getting any money back.
Any casual browsing will reveal outrage after outrage from a government that behaves in a manner that reasonable people would condemn...IRS, EPA, etc.all under the cover of "it's the law". That's the problem.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If you own a plot on the moon, the moon dust that falls on it is yours.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And to call it stealing is a real stretch.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Why is it so? And can I then direct the Moon to fall on Earth and claim all the Earth as "falling moondust"?
So, just quit calling it marriage at all from the govt side....and then, problem solved.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ahh...the good old days...before all the modern problems started...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In other words, one size fits all.
Automatic replication.
The removal of competing solutions.
I hope one state sends people to smash you in the face with bricks, and all the other states follow suit.
Go ahead and do it. It will be interesting to see.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.
That phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "less government" is somewhat at odds with useful idiots - the end game scenario of which is bigger government, regardless of its color.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
but history has shown we must have or we will have undrinkable water and rivers on fire.
If history shows that, then history also shows that the EPA caused the BP gulf explosion and all other environmental disasters that have occurred, since its formation.
The simple fact is someone has to manage these shared resources and so far this is best we have come up with.
So we should all just be happy with the status quo and leave the unaccountable agency alone.
... There's actually less evaporation in total than if the reservoir weren't built....
In the world I live in increasing the area of water surfaces increases evaporation since there is a larger surface to lose water from. Water losses from reservoirs is an important problem in areas with scarce water resources: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article46.html .
Creating reservoirs has a very considerable effect on the surrounding environment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_reservoirs . This dude wants to be free from considering the costs he places on others.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
I've never seen a beowulf cluster of Apples.
C|N>K
I'm convinced that's as fake as the flat earth society and r/pyongyang. It's people acting in an elaborate joke. No proof of this of course, but I'm skeptical that so many people who are that dumb could figure out how to turn on a computer.
Great, so now we need extra lawyers for all these things that are currently a fairly well understood and consistent contract between 2 people.
That'll help for sure.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
SOPA -> More power to corporations.
Tea Party -> More power to corporations.
Same-sex pairs are free to live together, and even sign voluntary contracts sharing their property.
But if government institutes same-sex "marriage", then everyone is forced to recognize it. Companies will have to provide benefits, hotels will have to allow them to sleep on the same bed (and smear it with blood and feces), etc.
See http://frexpression.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/a-gay-man-decries-gay-rights/
(Posting as anon to avoid being Kharma-lynched)
Was that in 1812 or 1846? The Democrats were pro-war and have been since before the GOP existed. War of 1812, Mexican War, WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam all started under Democratic administrations. AFAIK the Democratic Party has never been anti-war.
What's a sunshade got to do with rainwater collection? Or do you just enjoy posting strawman arguments?
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Does that mean NASCAR is illegal in New Jersey? :P
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
So what you're saying is that Atheists can't be married? Or Atheists must pretend to believe in God just long enough for a church whose beliefs they don't share to bless their union invoking a God they don't believe exists. Does any church get to declare people "married"? If I started the Church Of Anyone Can Be Married - whose only belief is that we marry any 2 consenting adults - does that count? Or is it only certain churches? If the latter, how do you decide which churches are allowed to marry people and which can't? (And by "churches", I include temples, synagogues, mosques, etc.)
I don't see why two people going to the local courthouse can't call themselves "married." What is it about a church that makes those unions more special than non-religious ones?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They can call themselves what they want...church or not.
I'm just saying the word 'marriage' should be stricken from anything the govt. supports, instills or enforces legally.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's not fake.
It's run by Andy Schlafly. Phyllis Schlafly's son.
They really believe this stuff. You have run into Poe's Law.
"Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes." --Rational Wiki.
--
BMO
Because they built on a wetland. I fail to see the issue her. Again more people thinking they should be able to do anything and cause any damage they like because they temporarily own a piece of land. Impacting the neighbors or the next buyer is not your right.
In theory, that would work. The problem is, some people like the idea of getting married. They see it as a big deal, a social convention, something to aspire to, the foundation of a family and so on. So understandably, they feel a bit upset when told that, while they can sign a contract (or enter into a civil partnership) they're not allowed to call it marriage because some religion doesn't like the idea of them being together with the person they love.
Also, why not go the other way around; call it marriage from the government point of view, and let religious groups hold whatever ceremonies they like, but not legal marriages (unless they comply with the government requirements)? Why should the religions get priority?
Just Google "Oregon, man jailed for storing rainwater". Yes, Government is telling this guy that rain water that falls from his roof cannot be stored in a pond his land. In fact, they are putting him in jail for doing so. That's the state government. If he was able to do it, you can be sure that the EPA would be there telling him what he could or couldn't do with the pond.
That is the government that the Tea Party is against.
Wow, someone doesn't know the real story: "On Wednesday July 11, 2012, a Jackson County Circuit Court Jury convicted Eagle Point resident Gary A. Harrington on nine counts, each related to the unauthorized use of water. Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned, and those who wish to use it for their own purposes must obtain a water right permit issued by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). State law grants various exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for collecting precipitation water that gathers on an artificial impervious surface, such as a rooftop or parking lot; in rain barrels, for example."
And what he was doing specifically: "Harrington stored and used water illegally by placing dams across channels on his property and preventing the flow of water out of these artificial reservoirs without obtaining a water right permit. The height of each dam varies; two dams stand about ten feet tall and the third stands about 20 feet tall. The total amount of water collected behind these dams totals about 40 acre feet; enough to fill almost 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. These man-made reservoirs feature boat docks, boats, and were stocked by Harrington with trout and Bluegill for recreational fishing." [Source: KVAL News (http://www.kval.com/news/local/Eagle-Point-man-jailed-for-illegal-water-reservoirs-164206356.html)]
If you keep reading the news story, you would notice that this is not the first time Harrington has been busted for stealing water. This is the third time he has filled up his own personal ponds from irrigation channels.
So, now that we know, would someone care to make the counting on Paul Ryan articles because to me, it seems like it started slowly on August 3rd, with a burst of edits from the 8th on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&offset=&limit=500&action=history
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
You can argue that government intrusion is occasionally needed, and I (as well as probably the majority of americans) would agree with you.
But in almost no circumstance does it "increase freedom". Government is about restraining people for various reasons (ostensibly for the public good), and to that end they place limits on people. The problem with your example is that in an anarchist system, you DO have the "freedom" to own land, you simply cant stop me from taking it. Government intrudes there to place limits on what your neighbor can do, by restricting them for the public good.
The danger is when you start thinking that governments GIVE freedom, because they dont. The most they can do is protect them to some degree.
Theres a good quote from CS Lewis "The Screwtape Letters" that always comes to mind in these debates:
Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn't know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.
You can explain it away, and perhaps I would agree with some of the reasons for zoning-- the point still stands, and is worth thinking about any time you feel the urge to give the government more say in your life.
If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.
Im not aware of a "reverse supremacy" clause in the constitution, could you kindly point it out to me?
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy.
Not a huge fan of the idea, but it makes a good deal more sense than trying to force churches to recognize marriages that go against their beliefs.
Conservative here.
If you look at the talk pages of virtually any page, youll see that Im not alone by a long shot in being disgusted by the smears on that site. Kindly do not imply that all right-wing / conservatives support conservapedia.
Not war! Its "Kinetic Military Activity"!
You are not a conservative.
You are a RINO if you have reasonable views. It has been this way for a while. Barry Goldwater would be called a RINO were he alive today.
The reasonable people have been chased out.
--
BMO