Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

Posted by Unknown on Monday October 15, 2012 @12:18PM from the they-just-never-give-up dept.

rrohbeck writes "From eff.org: 'The shadow of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is back in Europe. It is disguised as CETA, the Canada-European Union and Trade Agreement. A comparison of the leaked draft Canada-EU agreement shows the treaty includes a number of the same controversial provisions, specifically concerning criminal enforcement, private enforcement by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and harsh damages.'"

87 of 136 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You can't win... by rsilvergun · 2012-10-15 12:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that. Basically, if you're rich enough to fight ACTA you're probably rich enough to a) not care and b) benefit.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:You can't win... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-10-15 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf,
  It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote. In this case, that means voting for a politician who is not bought and paid for by the copyright lobbyists, so if you are an American, you can forget about the major parties.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:You can't win... by Mitreya · 2012-10-15 12:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.
  Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
  We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year
  Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.
3. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-15 12:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it. Any politician voting yes on 3 things petod in a year has voting rights removed for the rest of his term (and is expected to stand down to allow a special election elect someone with voting rights to represent his constituents). No reason why we can't elevate the people to the 4th branch. We finally have the tech for instant on-line voting. Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass. Open voting is what the country was founded on. The first signature on the Declaration of Independence wasn't Aye (Anonymous).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:You can't win... by stanlyb · 2012-10-15 13:05 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it is really very simple:
  1.All the politicians are elected based on their programs.
  2.They come to power, and forget all the promises.
  3.SOLUTION: Make them pay for breach of contract. WOW, i am genius.
  3. PROFIT.
5. Re:You can't win... by TrueSatan · 2012-10-15 13:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There are many organisations already working on behalf of ordinary people in cases such as this...the summary already has highlighted one such in the most excellent EFF but there are a number of others who are charitable donation funded and the like so negating your belief that huge wealth is needed to have voices on our side in this, and other, conflicts with the corporations who seek to enrich themselves by removal of our freedoms and liberties. I'll offer a small selection of such organisations below: https://www.eff.org/ http://ffii.org/ http://www.publicknowledge.org/ http://keionline.org/ http://infojustice.org/category/trade-agreements/ http://www.article19.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.edri.org/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ The last link is to Professor Michael Geist a prominent a noteworthy intellectual and activist in the field. All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.
6. Re:You can't win... by erroneus · 2012-10-15 13:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I really like this idea... I suppose that makes me a peto-phyle.
7. Re:You can't win... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 13:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Hello betterunixthanunix. I see you are not familiar with the Canadian electoral system. Our prime minister, with less than 40% of the popular vote, nonetheless rules with absolute power. Voting doesn't have a lot to do with it.
  The problem is to get this out to the people. The media are firmly in the hands of the Content or Copyright Industry. They have no interest in bringing that up. They'll report on the cost of extending pharma patents, but are absolutely numb on copyright militias, and copyright term extensions (for Canadians).
  If tens of thousands would hit the streets in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, etc. something might change. But that won't happen.
8. Re:You can't win... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Open voting is what the country was founded on.
  The flaws in this way of thinking have been pointed out time and time again. Knowing how someone voted just isn't necessary.
9. Re:You can't win... by Seumas · 2012-10-15 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that. We've been working on it for 200+ years. Maybe we'll overcome an uninformed public that tends to vote based on selfish gain or fear, some day. And maybe it'll overcome the issue of any viable candidate only being viable if he has been vetted by the same aristocracy that essentially has to throw the bulk of their support behind the two parties every election, ever (when both of the dogs in the fight belong to you, it's pretty impossible to lose). One of these days. Yep. All we need to do is vote the right guy(s) in this time around and everything will totally change.
  This is the same line of bullshit that gets fed to people with these "vote or die" campaigns. This naive, insincere, undermining, pointless noise of "no matter what, you need to vote -- that's your civic duty -- even if you're stupid, ignorant, selfish and voting based on who smiled more on stage, hold your head up high because you did your good deed for the year by scratching in a check-box!".
  The fact is that those lobbying against freedom, liberty, self-determination, and basic sanity do so with a massive war-chest and a full-time dedicated army of lawyers, politicians, corporations, marketers, journalists, and others behind them. The citizens who are impacted by this are too busy working to pay their bills and pre-occupied with their families, sports teams, television shows, and the general bullshit and obligations of life to even be well-informed, much less active in any way (even voting) and only the smallest fraction -- in comparison to those eroding all of these things against our interests -- are in some way able to dedicate themselves full time against this.
  Ultimately, these obstacles are insurmountable. Even if we are capable of the never-ending vigilance required by citizens and society to protect their rights from being stripped, we never will. And those lapses in-between moments of national-giving-a-fuck-outcry are ideal for these ever-vigilant attackers to gain ground. In the end, they will always win. The only hope against them is to maintain technological superiority and hope that it can somehow always outpace the law, which I also fear may be coming to an end, eventually (as opposed to the current status where many things escape existing laws, because they were devices to focus on things like print or VHS tapes).
10. Re:You can't win... by kimvette · 2012-10-15 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
11. Re:You can't win... by dns_server · 2012-10-15 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Electronic voting usually has one of the following two flaws:
  1. People know how you vote, bad know how you vote and can use this to find where you live and could kill you or cause problems.
  2. No one knows how you vote, this removes traceability and can lie about the results.
  These are not likely to be problems in the USA unless it is something controversial like evolution, gay rights etc. where you will just loose your job.
  But having such a system in place means the rest of the world will copy and implement it badly where they do round people up to remove opposition.
12. Re:You can't win... by TubeSteak · 2012-10-15 14:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.
  For some reason, governments are allergic to consumer advocate groups and sunlight.
  Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.
  I am a stakeholder in my country and I should not be frozen out of the process that creates my laws.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
13. Re:You can't win... by Tokolosh · 2012-10-15 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.
  This is a rights issue and negotiating or concessions are not required. Quite simply - take your CETA and fuck off!
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
14. Re:You can't win... by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence.
  I don't think that's a good idea. Elected representatives shouldn't be yanked on a whim anymore than laws should be passed on them. Governmental action should be deliberate, carefully considered, and with many opportunities for feedback, criticism, and discussion. The opinion of a population changes rapidly, only to return to how it was before a short time later. If a law or action is undertaken on a 'whim', that becomes the prevailing law or process, because of a short emotional peak, not out of a sustained and heartfelt desire for change. It should take sustained pressure to bring about a social or political change, and the process should be deliberate. Once a year is plenty often for the people to assemble and organize for political change... we do not need voting to be a daily affair. Today, prayer in schools is popular. Tomorrow, it's yesterday's news. The day after that, muslims shouldn't be able to build their churches... and a week later, nobody gives a damn anymore. If we give in to these temporary outbursts, our government would be in endless chaos.
  There's a lot to be said for turtling along... even if it does occasionally frustrate the hell out of you.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
15. Re:You can't win... by ldobehardcore · 2012-10-15 15:53 · Score: 2
  
  Wait... WHAT?!
  Are you saying that
  1.) We'll somehow figure out what corporations and deep pocketed donors are secretly willing to pay politicians in order to BRIBE them.
  2.) Then if we like what the same politicians do, just pay them the same amount?
  3.) Then after they finish their terms in office, move into the revolving door and work in the cushy, high paying jobs they were promised by lobbyists, while still having a strong influence on the government where they built up their contact books?
  This is a terrible idea. What you suggest is not an incentive in any way to do the right thing. The politicians will push through the exact legislation the lobbyists want using earmarks and tacking on other changes to unrelated bills at the last minute. They'll publicly proclaim that they're fighting the good fight. After they're done, they'll just be paid twice as much as what they're currently paid by lobbyists, for doing what's already being done by every Congressperson today.
  What a fantasy.
  Or did you have a different idea and I misunderstood you? If so, please elaborate, as I'm perfectly willing to listen, as long as it makes sense.
  
  --
  Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
16. Re:You can't win... by gmanterry · 2012-10-15 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.
  I mailed in my early ballot today. The problem we voters face is the parties recycling candidates. Here in Arizona almost 100% of the names on the ballot are people who have no clue what a 'real job' is. They run for one office and when term limits make them move on, they run for another. The same jerks recycled year after year. Their names become so common that they are elected to the new office because the populace all recognize their names. We NEED new ideas and honest people to run for office. The idea to throw everyone in office out is impossible. Everyone running for office is a career politician, recycled, bought and paid for crooked party hacks. Voters have zero, ziltch nada choice. It seems every cycle we are offered the choice of either Charles Manson or Jeffery Dalmer.
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
17. Re:You can't win... by citizenr · 2012-10-15 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that
  Iv hear East European henchmen are quite cheap and will "take care" of any problem swiftly.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
18. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-15 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, until there is a ballot box that inclusion results in a win for candidate A and exclusion of that box gives B the win. In the recount, someone notices there are more ballots in that box than eligible voters. Do you include or exclude the box after it is confirmed to have invalid votes in it? If you discard it, you invalidate all the votes from the people that were validly placed, if you include it, then you necessarily include invalid votes, and either way changes the ourcome of the election.
  
  That problem has never been solved, and with closed ballots can never be solved.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
19. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-15 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  #1 is possible now in most places with absentee balloting. Theoretically, your boss could get 100 absentee voter forms, and fill them out for all the employees, then have everyone sign them in his presence and then he sends them. On vote day, everyone is required to get to work early (before the polls open) and stay late (after the polls close) so that they can't dispute an absentee ballot. Tampering, easy, and available today. There haven't been reports of such problems in the US, so likely, even with completely open systems, there wouldn't be.
  
  But yes, other places take the US system and do it poorly. That's why there are so many UN forces needed for vote validation. The incumbents pre-vote all the ballot boxes. The votes of the day aren't counted, or are counted after 10,000,000 ballots are pre-stuffed in the bottom of every box. That, and voting is a shooting offense if you are in the rebel territories - which was the reason open ballots were abandoned in the US. The southern conservatives were harassing voters. Until the Civil War, open balloting was used, and it was a much better success for the first 100 years than closed balloting was for the past 100 years.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
20. Re:You can't win... by klingers48 · 2012-10-15 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is a nice idea in theory... But never underestimate the audacity of politicians. In the late 1990s Australian prime-minister re-negged on about half his election promises within a few months of taking office and quite glibly coined the phrase "That was a non-core promise."
21. Re:You can't win... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  In the late 1990s Australian prime-minister re-negged on about half his election promises
  I believe that the word you were looking for, sir, was reneged.. I certainly appreciated your effort though :)
22. Re:You can't win... by qbast · 2012-10-15 20:05 · Score: 2
  
  Dear Canadians, could you please burn capitol AGAIN? It looks like US idiots need a little reminder every now and then.
23. Re:You can't win... by aztracker1 · 2012-10-15 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's allowed here in Arizona as well, and rarely used.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
24. Re:You can't win... by Captain+Hook · 2012-10-15 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  Governmental action should be deliberate, carefully considered, and with many opportunities for feedback, criticism, and discussion.
  In theory I agree, but it doesn't look like thats how it works from the outside.
  
  It doesn't feel like our representatives are representing us in pretty much any decision these days and so clearly more control by the population over the representatives is needed beyond getting to vote them out every 4-5 years by which time the policitians have got do nothing jobs lined up with the corporations they helped during office and the new guys you vote in are just a slight different shade of the same color.
  
  --
  These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
25. Re:You can't win... by Skal+Tura · 2012-10-15 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  And either could be worked around.
  Online voting, for utmost security.
  Each voter gets a specialized browser install based on a normal browser with few key differences:
  - Cache is flushed every 60seconds
  - Only 1 SSL key is accepted
  - Only 1 host with which communication is accepted
  - All communication over HTTPS only
  Then the webservice portion, and i'm basing this how things work in Finland. Here you can authenticate with your real life details using your bank account details.
  So you login via your bank, which requires 2-factor authentication (password + rotating PIN).
  Add RSA dongle which is given personally to every single voter (cost 10-20€ per voter)
  So you have many forms of authentication before you are able to login to make absolutely certain you are who you say you are.
  Absentee voting is not allowed. Only the voting right holder is allowed to vote.
  Then just have a normal online poll type of solution, but with extra information, and extra steps to ensure the voter has given some thought to it.
  Allow semi-anonymous commenting by different voters, ie. every voter is given a random "voter id"
  In database the votes are saved by voter id.
  the voter id to real life information data is only viewable for very precisely vetted small group of people, to basicly ensure every one is voting for themselves only, and everything is technically working.
  Every one else will not see the actual identities, unless a voter expressly wants to reveal that (ie.in a comment has revealed his personality). A voter can be given a new pseudo-anonymous voter id at request as well.
  Allow absolutely no one to log in as someone else. Databases are fully transactional only -> no modifying records directly etc. every single action against the database is logged. that way this database can be append only, and a cache database which can be at any time be rebuilt by following the log.
  So this can be in extreme cases still traced to a specific voter, but i don't see why that is needed at all.
  The biggest problem will be the people involved in this system, without making it technically impossible to manipulate the voting data even by administrators it will not be a sound system. Even government itself shouldn't be able to trace pseudo-anonymous voter id to voter at will and especially not in mass.
  
  --
  Pulsed Media Seedboxes
26. Re:You can't win... by shentino · 2012-10-15 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely enough we tried that in the USA and it was nuked by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
27. Re:You can't win... by Dunbal · 2012-10-16 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is called "voting,"
  Someone has bought the whole "democracy" scam hook line and sinker. Yeah, enjoy your illusion of controlling your slavery by putting one "x" on a piece of paper every 4-6 years. Your vote is absolutely irrelevant. Politicans lie to get it, and then do exactly the opposite of what they promised. Only one thing is certain - the governments thirst for power over you, voter, is unlimited. It will continue to take everything from you until it strangles and suffocates you. That's what governments do. But be content with your "vote". Let me know how that works out for you when you are sent to die in a war, when you are starved to death due to new "agricultural reforms", when everything you have is taken from you in the name of "justice", or when you are lined up against the wall and shot in the name of policy.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
28. Re:You can't win... by Dunbal · 2012-10-16 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Voting is a no-response mechanism. It's exactly the same as going to church on Sundays to hear about an invisible sky-wizard. It's meant to make you feel like everything is ok, without actually doing anything at all. Once a politician has your vote do you really think he gives a damn about what you think?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
29. Re:You can't win... by Cigarra · 2012-10-16 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. So it would be like in Switzerland. Seems to work over there.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
30. Re:You can't win... by tbannist · 2012-10-16 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, "non-core promises" should be allowed, but politicians and parties should be expected to layout which promises are "core" promises and which are not ahead of time. A while ago, I saw an interesting suggestion that the law should be modified to allow politicians to make binding promises (not required, allowed). This way they could make election promises that they intend to keep and if they fail to uphold the promise an automatic removal-from-office procedure could begin. The key part is that the promises would be voluntarily made and the restrictions attached would be voluntarily accepted, at the time the promise is made. You might wonder why choose to do so, it's simple, it's the race to the bottom. Any promise that has actual consequences attached for not upholding it is going to get more attention from the media and the public than empty promises with no consequences attached.
  In theory, the binding promises would end up being the only ones that carried any weight with the public.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
31. Re:You can't win... by tbannist · 2012-10-16 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  That problem has never been solved, and with closed ballots can never be solved.
  What if you can track the ballots to the people who issued them (not voted on them)? In Canada, the ballots have serial numbers on them. Two poll workers issue a ballot to a voter, and confirm that a valid serial number is returned after the vote is cast by checking the serial number against the list of currently active ballots. In practice, they have a pad that they tear the ballots off of. The pad has a serial number above and below the tear, and poll workers check that the serial number on returned ballot matches the top number on one of the pads. If it does, the ballot is placed (unread) in the voting box and the stub on the ballot is marked returned.
  As I understand it, at counting time each ballot is once again verified against the the pads which have been signed and notorized by the poll workers and scrutineers. The ballots are counted at the polling place in front of the scrutineers and by the polling staff from a different section. If there are more ballots then there are valid voters, then either the extra ballots should not be traceable back to a valid pad from which the ballot originated, you have a multi-party conspiracy, or several people royally screwed up.
  In short, you need a valid chain of custody on the ballots to ensure that the ballots haven't been tampered with, so you should probably go the extra step to make sure you can identify any trivial attempts to stuff the ballot box. In theory, you could determine how someone voted by memorizing their ballot number, but generally speaking, the scrutineers don't get to look at an individual's serial number while voting and the poll workers who do see it aren't allowed to count the ballots that they issued. It seems to work pretty well, I can't remember ever hearing of a Canadian issue with ballot stuffing.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
32. Re:You can't win... by tbannist · 2012-10-16 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's the two-party system. You need more than recall elections to fix that. Why would any politician fear being recalled if he's going to immediately land in a cushy job?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
33. Re:You can't win... by tlhIngan · 2012-10-16 03:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass.
  Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?
  The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).
  And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.
  Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.
  Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".
34. Re:You can't win... by FreshlyShornBalls · 2012-10-16 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it.
  
  Actually....that's the reason the Federal government's power was [supposed to be] so limited. All the laws and regulations that REALLY affected John Q. Public's day-in-day-out life was supposed to be handled at the state (and even local) level. THAT way, the politician responsible for the act would at least have a chance of having to look Mr. Public in the eye after sticking it to him in the rear.
  Ah....the Constitution....what a great idea.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
35. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad the "wrap themselves in the Constitution" conservatives are really "burn the Constitution" conservatives, or there's be at least one group fighting for it. Instead, both parties want to shred it, and they battle only over which sections to destroy first. I'm an actual conservative, which makes me look like an uber-liberal to the neo-cons while looking like a conservative to the liberals. I've seen all sorts of logics gymnastics every time I note that the neo-cons want to abolish the full-faith and credit clause when it comes to gays. So I know they are no better, but that there is a coincidental allignment of some of their ideals with the Constitution, so they claim the high ground, when they are no better.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
36. Re:You can't win... by FreshlyShornBalls · 2012-10-16 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite sure why this became about bashing one party or another. That's the trouble, really. Forget the parties. They BOTH suck. Hard.
  The Constitution is probably one of the most ingenious guides ever written and both parties use it and abuse it as they see fit. In fact, it's high time the People of New Hampshire, for example, get us started on the right path. From their state constitution:
  
  Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank.
37. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution was a liberal document at the time. But, over time, liberal became the norm. The real problem was that there were a number of things that simply weren't thought of, and when they came up, they were just worked through, rather than formally adjusted. Like the Supreme Court being able to "modify" laws. So many conservatives call for line-item veto, but hate when it's used in practice by the Supremes. Instead, the consistent response would be for the Supreme Court to strike any law, without severability, should any piece of it be found improper. The entire thing is gone until passed again in whole with the offending parts removed. And it would be nice to see anyone who voted "yay" to it and took an oath to the constitution be removed from office. All it takes now is a 2/3 vote by their house and they are gone. So much of the problems of the Constitution could be solved within it without violating it. Formally setting up the Supreme Court's involvement in "interpreting laws" would help, but isn't technically necessary. There is also a large hole around a state leaving the union. The question being whether a state is stronger or weaker than the union itself, which, given the change from a confederacy to a republic, implies it is not. As it would need permission to secede, it would make sense to include such in the Constitution. And if you are doing all that, there may be a benefit in clarifying powers around the interstate commerce clause, and the power to withhold money from states if they do not enact laws the feds want enacted (traffic laws being the most popular for that I see).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
38. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  And what happens if someone steals a pad? Are all the votes associated with that pad discarded, or counted? It would be technically possible to attach a skimmer to the ballot box and match votes to a pad, and then pick a pad to discard that would help a particular candidate. Then stage a fire in the polling place and snach that one and only one pad.
  
  I'm not saying that's easy, or practical. But matching to a person lets you go up to that person and say "your ballot was lost. Please re-vote" Then we can get movies like Swing Vote for real! There have been at least a few vote irregularities in every national vote in the US since open ballots were closed. Maybe we need to pay Canada to oversee our US elections.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
39. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  As an Amendment, technically it doesn't have to, though it's never been done that way.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
40. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying it's hard to do? It seems very easy to do today, even if it would be hard to get away with.
  
  But by all means, continue to focus on non-existent problems with the electoral system while the entire thing is gamed by closed-source software and unaccountable private industry.
  If there was vote tractability, there's nothing the closed source unaccountable private industry could do to mess it up. I think you are so focused on attacking something nobody had defended (or even mentioned before you), you missed that my solution fixes *everything* you complain about, even if it were to introduce new problems.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
41. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-16 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  absentee voting allows voter intimidation and out-right vote buying, and it doesn't happen. Nobody has given a single reason why this non-problem that's easy today would become a problem after.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
42. Re:You can't win... by klingers48 · 2012-10-16 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Just as I appreciate the effort required to make pointless and condescending posts anonymously :-)
43. Re:You can't win... by robsku · 2012-10-16 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Finnish voting system works great as it is, to propose online voting is to introduce problems our way does away with, such as bullying others to vote by your choice.
  Imagine violent chauvinist demanding his wife to vote his way - well, that won't work under current system, no matter what he does he cannot get in the booth nor check the pad before it gets put in ballot box. But at privacy of homes? We know dark things happen there - much darker than this, so don't even begin with online voting ever being "secure".
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Blame Canada! Blame Canada! by amorsen · 2012-10-15 12:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Before somebody thinks of blaming us.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
War on drugs by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 12:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Guys, I'm gonna make it easy for you: You can't possibly follow all the laws. Everyone is a criminal. And it's been that way for a long time now -- they've had a reason to get rid of anyone they want for a long time now. And who's they? Well, them, you know, the guys, the illuminati, the conspiracy, the wizard of oz, whatever. People who are more powerful than you. Accept this.
Following the law is no longer a measure of ethical behavior, and neither is violating it. This is just part of the typical evolution of societies -- Rome had the same problem, right before the Visigoths came marching over the 7th hill. Laws grow increasingly complex, eventually strangling and murdering the very things it was instituted to correct. And then, out of the ashes, comes a new society, that advances to the butter zone, reaches its golden age... and then murders itself.
No matter where you are in the cycle, the answer has always been the same: Do what you feel is right, for you'll be punished for it anyway. The law has never been there to guide the behaviors and actions of a moral and ethical person... it exists solely to educate unethical and immoral people on how to go about their business without getting noticed. That's why ethical people don't say "But it's illegal!" -- they say "That's wrong." The only people who place a high importance on the legality of a thing are the unethical... and if they have a modicum of power and wealth, then they're probably busy passing laws to rob Peter to pay Paul, and trying to convince others that legal = ethical.
Don't buy their story: Do what you feel is right, and fuck the law.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:War on drugs by Yvanhoe · 2012-10-15 13:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Accept this.
  No. Don't. Organize. lobby. If you can't give time, give money to the applicable non-profit : EFF in US, Quadrature du Net in France.
  
  Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
2. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 13:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.
  And we haven't lost it. In fact, democracy is what has accelerated the problem: How many well-meaning lawmakers and citizens have clamored for "tougher laws" after a high-profile incident? Those tougher laws often remove critical elements of criminal law and due process, as well as tougher punishments under the (false) statement that it'll act as a deterrent. In truth, those tougher punishments aren't there as a deterrent, but as retribution. A critical element of our judicial process is satisfying the public's idea that the criminal "got what he deserved", which is in sharp contrast to the idea of rehabilitation or restitution. The democratic process results in a lot of people's emotions being used as the basis for justice -- but there's a fine line between justice and vengance, and when you have a democracy, it tends to fall more on the side of second than the first.
  These problems can be fixed; But it won't be through fighting or dying for our country, nor will it be through blind faith in democracy. To achieve the changes needed, unneeded complexity must be removed. Control must be ceded. Our understanding of the problems need to be improved, and our personal interest and emotions removed. That is a lot harder to do for your country than taking a bullet for it -- it's easy to die. It's harder to change how we live.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:War on drugs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Comment removed.
4. Re:War on drugs by fredprado · 2012-10-15 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.
5. Re:War on drugs by fredprado · 2012-10-15 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.
6. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 14:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.
  It's not an illusion; we really do have democracy. But that doesn't mean we don't also live in a police state. And a lot of it is because we're a democracy, not in spite of it. We threw away trillions of dollars and our civil liberties willingly to combat terrorism -- that was popular opinion after 9/11, and it still holds a slight majority today. Nevermind that we didn't have to do either, that there were more effective and cheaper options available. Democracy doesn't prevent mass-stupidity and hysteria... if anything, it reinforces and amplifies it. The greatest thing about democracy is also the worst thing about it. While we have freedom of speech, we also have anti-gay legislation on the books. We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point; Democracy is just a method of selection. It does not give any promises about the selection itself; We can vote ourselves into an oppressive government just as well as a military dictator can create one.
  Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
7. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 14:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.
  Why the hell do I attract rational and well-reasoned posters like you from time to time, despite my best efforts? I don't want you to see the logic here! I want you to fly into a frothing rage, saying how I'm oppressing some off-beat political view of yours, making giant leaps to conclusions, twisting my words, and typing in all caps with at least three exclamation points in your 15 paragraph masterpiece. Yeesh, this is slashdot... we have standards here.
  I appreciate your support, but if you really want to help me out, go throw out some catch phrase in an argument... like "correlation is not causation", or imply some esoteric logical fallacy like I'm making a "straw man" or an "ad hominim" attack. If you're feeling particularly supportive, I haven't seen anything digging into my gender or sexuality in awhile and I'm really growing concerned about the overall quality of posts from my detractors! :) But above all else, you have to display a vague sense of intellectualism, implying that you're smarter than me, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. That's really what I'm looking for in a detractor.
  Thanks again! Look forward to the hate mail. :D
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
8. Re:War on drugs by fredprado · 2012-10-15 14:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(
  
  Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.
  
  Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.
  
  Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.
  
  Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.
  
  Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.
9. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · 2012-10-15 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(
  
  Aww, don't be sad! I was just being snarky. It was a backhanded compliment.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
10. Re:War on drugs by fredprado · 2012-10-15 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  I will try all caps next time regardless. If I fail in content I can still look forward to achieve it in form! :P
11. Re:War on drugs by shentino · 2012-10-15 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  The law doesn't mean shit anyway.
  They are designed to make everyone guilty, that way the elite get to pick who to prosecute.
  Everyone's a criminal, but only those that piss off the elite get punished.
12. Re:War on drugs by shentino · 2012-10-15 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  This.
  The elite hold all the cards and by holding our careers hostage can pretty much keep us off the negotiating table.
  Who will bother getting involved in government when they're already sweating blood keeping food on the table?
Re:Again Canada??? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 12:54 · Score: 1

Makes me wish that we quebecois hadn't just voted in a government that plans to delay another sucession vote for a decade. I'm even an English speaker from an English neighborhood in Montreal, and I would prefer to be in an independent francophone Quebec than continue as a citizen of Canada as more of these American-style policies are rammed down our throats by Ottowa.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by cas2000 · 2012-10-15 13:01 · Score: 2

It's not the politicians who need murdering, politicians are just the stooges, it's the lobbyists and lawyers, and CEOs of mega-corporations, and shareholders with significant shares of same.
They need to understand that declaring war on the people of the world has direct personal consequences that are not excused just because they're acting as the agent of a monstrous inhuman artificial life-form.
(note for cretins who want to take this as a serious call to action: it is not. It is is a sarcastic reaction against idiotic blaming of 'da ebil gubmint' for evil shit done by *corporations*. governments are not the source of all evil. I'm not saying that some CEOs etc don't deserve a bullet to the head, just that this post is sarcasm, not incitement)
Also won't work by rsilvergun · 2012-10-15 13:03 · Score: 1

because only the major parties have the money to win. You need money for mass media. To get a message out and to hone that message to perfection.

What America really needs is to start moving back to the left. Conservativism has made progress a dirty word. We're panicking about jobs while automation is making the concept obsolete.

But I doubt you'll see that. More likely you'll see a gradual slide into dark ages.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Also won't work by sumdumass · 2012-10-15 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  Progress is a dirty word when it means ever crushing control and power being wielded by the federal government and spending without any control.
  The major parties have the money because they are household names. They became this because they participate in state and local elections and hold seats close to home. If the minor parties did the same, they would or could be in the same position. However, if you think being president is all that matters, you can forget about third parties because they won't be effectual without a congress to support them.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by erroneus · 2012-10-15 13:23 · Score: 1

No one is to blame. Each plays their parts. Each serving their own interests. None of them can do any of it alone.
The story of the DMCA is a perfect example of deep, dark corruption at play though. There is no escaping that it can't happen without corrupt politicians willing to sell out the rights of the people.
While I can't advocate violence as I can't imagine myself participating in such a thing, if I were to pick up a news paper to find some sort of news story where citizens responded to this type of corruption against a politician or a business interest, I would not be... uh... what's the word... disappointed? upset? I don't know what the best words might be, but I can say I would certainly understand the motivation behind it.
So get involved in the primaries and a party. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-10-15 13:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
Why the hell are you waiting for the general election. You should be voting in the primaries, at least. Your rep doesn't vote the way you want? Deny him renomination for his party's slot on the ballot.
If you're really serious, get involved in a party's other activities. Become an officer, a delegate, etc. And be aware that it's a WAR, not a bunch of nice people playing by the rules. You have to hold their feet to the fire at all stages.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. by codegen · 2012-10-15 15:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.
  
  --
  Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
2. Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-10-15 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.
  Yes I did miss it.
  So run yourself. Parliamentary systems have the advantage that you can have real power without selling your soul to your pick of the top two parties. Let your neighbors get to know you and you might find it a lot easier than you think.
  
  --
  Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2012-10-15 13:33 · Score: 1

You can't win...they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing.
Which is why you can't go to sleep after you win the first battle. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Tyrants are the moles in a very high stakes whack-a-mole game.
Thanks, EFF, for keeping track of these bloodsuckers.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The price of freedom... by Dutchmaan · 2012-10-15 13:46 · Score: 2

...is eternal vigilance. Seems to ring pretty true.
If this is ever stopped... by supersloshy · 2012-10-15 13:50 · Score: 1

If this is ever stopped, then the article title for it should be... CETA Sings The Blues
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH!

--
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Re:Again Canada??? by dryeo · 2012-10-15 13:59 · Score: 1

We have a right wing government now and they have a majority

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You can win in Switzerland by MrSteveSD · 2012-10-15 14:10 · Score: 4, Informative

In Switzerland the people can instigate referenda and overturn government decisions. It takes about 100,000 signatures to trigger a referendum on an issue.
1. Re:You can win in Switzerland by GumphMaster · 2012-10-15 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  This sort of arrogance is precisely why the rest-of-the-world hate Cowardia and their foreign policies.
  
  --
  Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
2. Re:You can win in Switzerland by robsku · 2012-10-17 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm assuming that the people were overturning government decision to change away from name Doris Day, or what?
  Amusing as it may have be, this was not same as Switzerland.
  
  --
  In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Re:Again Canada??? by SuperMooCow · 2012-10-15 14:40 · Score: 1

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Tyranny through experts by slashrio · 2012-10-15 14:46 · Score: 1

That's the work-around they've found around democracy (first, and then) freedom, and they are applying it now, going full-throttle.

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
No. Don't accept. Organize by openfrog · 2012-10-15 15:02 · Score: 1

Just got out of mod points, when I needed the most...!
Please mod parent up! Grandparent got modded +5 insightful with a defeatist tirade.
The parent got it right.
is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 15:15 · Score: 1

Anyone? C'mon. Someone's gotta be surprised by this news.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by sjames · 2012-10-15 17:17 · Score: 1

It doesn't have to be violence against the person. Spell out dog raper on their lawn in gasoline and light it. Or build a dog crap bonfire in their driveway. If that doesn't work, pelt them with the dog crap directly. Trash their cars and brick their windows. Make it a living hell to be a corrupt politician/CEO/major investor.
Be creative, mail them a fart in a ziplock bag.
Obvious cheating. by SuricouRaven · 2012-10-15 18:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.
Re:Vote statist citizens! More taxes! More Obama! by Aryden · 2012-10-15 19:11 · Score: 1

CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org.[3] According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."[3] On its first day of operation the website had 61,000 hits.[3] The name "CNSNews.com" was first used on June 15, 2000.[4] As of 2007, CNSNews.com described its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin."[5] "In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues." [5] CNSNews.com's motto is "The Right News. Right now."[6] CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle. Hogenson's leave of absence expired on November 15, 2004 when he returned to CNSNews.com in his original capacity. CNSNews.com has staff in Washington, D.C., London, Jerusalem and the Pacific Rim. Editor-in-chief David Thibault (deceased) became top editor in April 2005 when Hogenson accepted an appointment as a deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Public Affairs. Thibault died on July 20, 2007 as a result of complications with his cancer treatment.[7] Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007. Jeffrey was and remains an editor-at-large for the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events. He wrote editorials for The Washington Times from 1987–1991 and was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign. Under editor David Thibault, CNSNews.com questioned the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to Murtha's criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq. The Washington Post and Nancy Pelosi have commented that this approach is similar to the tactics of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which opposed John Kerry's candidacy in the 2004 election.[8]
Thanks Wikipedia!
Dupe? by xSander · 2012-10-15 20:08 · Score: 1

Isn't this basically a dupe of the story I submitted back in July?
Not that the public shouldn't be reminded again. CETA and other ACTA clones need to die.
Re:Solution already ongoing by xSander · 2012-10-15 20:14 · Score: 1

Yeah, and just last month, Dutch minister Verhagen and Secretary Teeven declared they would reject any ACTA clones. (Dutch).
However, these are politicians promising things, so they should be reminded of their own words.
Voting doesn't work by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-10-15 21:15 · Score: 1

The Dutch voted no to Europe in a referendum, so all the parties ignored it, renamed the treaty and passed it anyway.
The only way to fix the issue is to get rid of the party system and introduce abinding referendum that is then enacted by businessmen who do what they are told and not what they believe.
Because at the core of the fault with the party system is that all politicians believe. Not in a religion but in their ideology and all ideologies are wrong 99% of the time. You can't run a country on the idea of how things should be, you need to run it with how things are. Doesn't matter what you believe in, it is wrong. The free market? Doesn't work without at least some oversight. 5 year plans? Don't work without at least some short term free market system to keep things dynamic.
And you can't change the system because will be to scared of loosing their vote buyer. In the Netherlands the biggest one is the mortage tax deduction. It is a hot potato that could easily turn one of the richest nations on earth into one of the poorest if it collapses but nobody can touch it because any party that dares to even suggest reform will loose the election.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by erroneus · 2012-10-15 22:44 · Score: 1

You haven't learned from history? The rich people hire stupid people to carry guns on their behalf.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by shentino · 2012-10-15 23:54 · Score: 1

The 99 percent protest was shut down by cops using FORCE at the request of the 1 percent.
So the elite are already prepared to use violence to trample our rights, they've proven by the 99 percent protest that they are willing to do so.
Re:CETA is wonderful. by shentino · 2012-10-15 23:55 · Score: 1

I agree for the simple reason that if they're hell bent on passing it come hell or high water we may as well let them have the cake they're taking from us at gunpoint.
Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by sjames · 2012-10-16 04:16 · Score: 1

That's them initiating the violence. Then all bets are off.