I fail to see how "human rights" can be protected by a "law" - especially a law in this country trying to protect people in other countries. (All rights are "human" and law is what takes away rights.) If the people of China choose to allow a government like the one they have that's fine, If Yahoo wants to work with them that is also fine by me. I know I might get modded down for being heartless here but thats the way it is.
Right now Yahoo and others are free to do business as they see fit.. after we pass this law we will be taking that freedom away from them. Thats what this is about.
The people of this country should be far more concerned about our toltalitarian government and how its abusing the its own peoples rights.
The Coins are OUR property if they are in OUR possession, if not then whoever owns them owns them. Money is whatever people agree money is. If people want ot use bank notes then this is ok, if they want to use walnuts than thats ok too, however there is not regulation on who must create money. (If you believe as I do that the Federal reserve Act is unconstitutional then it is null, and the money is... whatever we think it is worth, thus we owe no such debt to the Federal Reserve.)
Your right we can use "private corporations" money or even money printed by congress.. I envision your employer may give you a choice.. Do you want to be payed in A) Federal congrisionally printed money B) Wal-Mart dollars, C) Chase Bank gold backed dollars.
The people know this. Anti-Government rhetoric is at an all time high.. its everywhere, there is a reason for this. The people clearly are aware now that we do not control this government at all.
They are fractioned off into many different groups with different ideas. Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, (Anarcho-Capitalists etc, and none of its pro USA. This is just people trying to figure out what is better.
I think it has to do with the internet. I think we are finding out more now about the abuses of our government faster. Where as you can control CNN, NBC, NY Times, and FOX, you can't (yet) control Blogger and YouTube.
The Income Tax, the Social Security Tax, and the Medical Tax are not legal because they are a direct tax that is not a apportioned to the population as the constitution clearly states.
The constitution that is our highest law, has certain rules that regard taxes. This is because the founding fathers wanted our government to be limited in its ability to collect taxes. They believed the power was with the people, the states, and lastly the federal government.
The Apportionment Rule. (Article 1, Section 2 and 9) ".. Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States.."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The Uniform Rule. (Article 1, Section 8) "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
So.. its quite clear the framers did not want an Income Tax (including income taxes by other names for "social well fair") or the large government that would result with it. This is important because this type of government does not reflect the type we have very much at all. The idea is radically different and.. honestly.. the Fed needs to go.. its way over due for it.
--
Since the Constitution does not state that we require ID at all. (and in fact seems to support the fact that we do not.) That right is reserved by the people and the states and the 10th Amendment enforces that.
10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The Federal government can not force states to ratify REAL_ID. They also can not force the people to accept it. They do not have this power, they have never had this power. However it wont be the first time that the federal government has forced something upon the people.. case in point.. Who here really thinks the Income Tax is a great idea?
Its not that, "Your rights come from god". They say your creator, that can mean many things is is partly unknown and is "somewhat" true. You and someone else on here said your rights come from what "other people expect" this VERY MUCH wrong. Your rights come from your property Let me explain.
Your rights don't come from government, they exist outside of government control. To understand this you need to understand the nature of a right.
The most basic right you have is the right to life. Your creator gives you life. (We currently do not understand why this is or how it works so we use the term creator as a generic term, not as in a Christian god, its not very important to dwell on this however.) Ahem again.. your creator gives you life and thus you own your life. It is yours. You have a right to life. Your right is intrinsic. It exists always regardless of any other people. No other person owns your life. If you suggest that someone owns your life you are saying that someone else has a higher claim on it than you do. No other person or group of people have a higher claim on your life than you do. If someone were to end your life that would be murder. You also can not give a group of people a right you do not possess yourself. It doesn't matter how many people support it. If a group of people were to end your life that would still be murder. If a government has no law regarding murder, by defacto "allowing" murder by lack of punishment, killing another is *still* wrong. So.. lastly if the government decides to end your life it is still, and always will be, murder.
To sum it up, Regardless of who (or how many) people do it, Murder is a violation to your right to (your property of) life, always, everywhere, no exceptions. Rights are not given to you by other people as people may decide that people with funny noses do not have certain rights they do or they may decide that women can not own a house. That is also wrong, so rights don't come from people either.
The same thing can we applied to other rights we have.
To control ones life is slavery. To take someones property of any kind is theft.
To kick your argument totally into the dirt I'll give another example.
You live in a house with 2 roommates. This is a tiny "community". You are the only one in this community who owns a car. The majority of the community may "expect" you to drive them to work, or they may expect to borrow your car but since you own it, you get to decide what happens with it. They can not force you to drive them to work, however you may freely choose to do so. You are even free to negotiate terms for doing so.. ie: they give you gas money. You control what happens with that car regardless of what they expect.
Don't feel bad if you dont understand what a right is, most people don't.
I think impeaching Bush is the least of our worries, we need to restore the bill of rights to our people, not impeach Bush as it will only result in a slap on the wrist for him.
With the Democrats now elected there is something of great concern to me. That is they are passing laws on minimum wage and health care NOT on trying to repeal Military Tribunals, or the Patriot Act. There is not talk on how the REAL ID act infringes on OUR rights, just on how it might affect immigration. They are not trying to protect our rights at all. The first 100 hours of congress attempted to ram through as much legislation as they could before the people were able to find out about it.. so with this I think it matters very little who runs for president in '08. We can elect a facisist government, or we can elect a socialist government, and both are attempting to erase the constitution as fast as people to fulfill their agenda.
I think the best thing we can do at the moment is inform people what it means to have a right. People don't seem to understand what they even are anymore. For instance..
You don't need a permit or license to exercise a right. You don't not need to ask for permission to use a right. A right is not "shared" by a community, nor is it "limited" in some cases. It exists, always. Your government does not give you rights. They can only give you permission.. You can not give your government a right you do not possess yourself.
If people don't understand this, any revolution we have either at the ballot box or any other way will fail to provide freedom and liberty as whatever replaces it will be just as authoritarian as the government we have now. The American people really need to re-visit what it means to be a free state.
Again impeach Bush? Whats the point? It wont give our rights back to us. Lets fight for that FIRST and attack the laws he passed.
You can't own even a handgun without the governments permission. Having a gun on you at all is likely to get you arrested. That means its not a right, if its a right you don't need a permit.. as in you don't need to ask anyone for the right to do it, if you have to ask its not a right.
Would you need a permit to use your freedom of speech?
Article One, Section 8. "[The Congress shall have power] To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"
We *can* have a federal army sort of like the National Guard, but it needs to be temporary. The idea was to defend the nation from attack using local and state militia. Its not a bad idea as it would be very hard to attack America and equally difficult for America to attack anyone else.
I don't have any sympathy for him.. yet he is an American citizen. It is his right to know why his government is holding him, to be officially charged with a crime, to be treated decently, and be allowed to present a fair defense for himself. We ALL deserver that no matter what our crime is. If he is guilty then he should receive a fair punishment. (and if thats the chair, then so be it.)
We can not treat our people this way. Even if he was Lex Luther trying to destroy the world, he should get a fair trail.
I shoot from the hip a lot because I'm rather passionate about stuff like this, and I have no problem if others want to label me an idiot. Many have.:)
What can I say, I went to public schools.. you should have seen it before the spell checker.. hehe!:)
I sway back and forth on this one.. sometimes I think you should be able to have an Aircraft Carrier if this is what you want to do. Other times I think maybe a howitzer is a bit much. Firearms of all kinds should be allowed in my mind in however.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is one of the holes I'm talking about as its very clear that the founding fathers believe that an armed populace was required to protect the people FROM the government. We know this due to the other writing of the founding fathers. They actually did write down what they thought, we can go back and look. I believe the legal language of the second amendment is not quite strong enough.
What is a militia?
militia (noun) 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
A militia is very much like the Minute Men, a group that works with law enforcement (ideally). The argument people like to make is that the army is a militia, however the constitution states that, indeed yes, we can have a federal army but it can not be funded for more than 2 years. So the federal government can't have a full time army at all, ever. Yet there can be a state militia. The current state of the U.S. Armed Forces are very much illegal. They need to be temporary like the National Guard. Now one can make the argument that the framers didn't understand the weapons that one might be able to possess in the future (IE: can a person own a home made atom bomb?) but you can't make the argument that guns are just for the army.
Like guns or not, thats the way it is and its like that for a good reason. What would happen if we had to fight the government today? (some people have had enough and actually ARE fighting the government right now.) It would be a slaughter but we would win.. That is a powerful bargaining tool that can be used for a peaceful solution.. But in 20 years? What if they start deploying those microwave crowd dispersement weapons on people? Or long range electrolaser's or electrified water canons? Its coming.. people are fed the fuck up with this government we have.. and we may yet live to see another revolution.. will we win? If we loose, they will have a "terrorist" witch hunt, and have to make it even "safer" and if they do that.. we will be in a hole we will never come out of without a terrible amount of blood. This is why we need to keep the tools required to achieve a peaceful diplomatic solution should the people find there government wayward.
I also believe you have the right to defend your life by using a weapon. This seems very basic to me, and I if the case ever arose I don't think anyone would question the legality to shoot someone that was actually trying to kill them. They shouldn't be imprisoned for firing back. If you were able to ask the victims... calling 911 is just not a very good solution to something like Columbine. I believe to a slightly lesser degree that you should be able to use a weapon to protect your property as your property is created by the time you spent working for it and is thus part of your life.
> Or a little institution involving African Americans called "slavery" where human beings > were considered property solely due to the color of their skin?
Slavery wasn't started by America, but it took America to end slavery in the world.
I'm over posting but mehh.. got one more point on this.
Despite who controls them.. a hereditary House of lords, Robber barons, Corporations, Unions, Lobbyists, shadowy Banks.. its NOT us. The people should rule, I would think you would support that much at least. Everyone now knows they do not control the government and something really needs to be done about that and soon..
Look around.. who wants this new incoming vison of America? Will we look like V for Vendetta in 40 years?
> The late nineteenth century Senate belonged to the Capitalists. The Silver Senators. The Senators for Sugar, Coal and Wheat, Copper and Steel. > The baronies of the Northern Pacific, the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The constitution is a pretty good document but there are some holes in it. By design Congress is to do very little. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and trade, to coin money, establish a post offices and postal roads, to declare war.. and that pretty much it. The power was with the States and local government.. but.. this has been turned around as the feds use federal money to railroad the states. For instance Montana has had Vegas Style gambling on the books since the early 70's.. the bill was presented, the people supported it, it was passed but never signed into law. There are no casinos in Montana because if they open them the Feds will yank there much needed hiway funds.
What I want? I want an absolute free nation with as little government as humanaly possible. Kinda like the one we had that made this nation the richest on earth in such a short time.. 1789 to 1913.
capitalism and liberty.. ya, cant go wrong with freedom my friend.
1913 was the *start* of us loosing our rights but with the recent stuff (patriot act, land seizures, warrant less wire taping, military tribunals) its all gone now.
I cant think of a single part of the bill of rights that we still have.
Why is speech "limited" at political rallies or universities? Why is hate speech a crime?..because the 1st Amendment is meaningless.
Why are there gun laws restricting firearms?..because the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.
The 3rd.. is possibly impractical.. and also probably meaningless as well.. but if not, the feds will find a way to make it legal.
The government can search practically anything they want now? Laptops, Phone records, E-Mail, you name it, why?..because the 4th Amendment is meaningless.
How can the City of New London takes peoples land and give it to Pfizer?..because the 5th Amendment is meaningless.
Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail?..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.
Why does just about everyone accused of mutable crimes seek a plea bargain for a lesser offence instead of standing up for there rights? Why does the state tack on so many charges with extreme punishment (101 years for spamming)?..because the 7th Amendment is -basically- meaningless.
Why is a man being sentenced to 101 years for spamming? Why is another man sentenced (and denied appeal) to 50 years in prison for selling pot? Why are children being convicted of molesting each other?..because the 8th Amendment is meaningless.
Why does the government have the power to do anything we don't specially say they don't have or can pick apart and widdle down the other rights we have? Why is it the people reserve no rights beyond what's listed in the constitution.. that or what the government allows?..because the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless.
We have a "vestige" of the construction.. we don't actually have enforceable rights in the same sense as they were written. The Ed Brown case is part of this, the court would not allow him to use constructional law in his court. read that again.. you can't use the construction.. the highest law on of land in a U.S. federal court. The judges swear an oath to it but its entirely irreverent anymore.
Uhh.. have "you" "heard" of any harmful medical effects? Why assume they are there?
Perhaps the government should regulate this just like the nanobot research.. that they also don't understand but they HAVE read many sci-fi books where nanobots take over the earth so they must protect us from them.
One would think that the scientists themselves developing this stuff wouldn't do it at all if there actually was a risk.. They are trying to wirelessly charge devices, not wirelessly fry office workers.
You hit on a very bad problem that PC's have that the hardware IS usually coming from anywhere and anyone. This causes a huge amount of testing and compatibility problems in Windows.
Also.. users that are "are tricked into going through whatever hoops to install the spyware."... Users need to know not to be tricked? why? You can't by in large "trick" a Mac user to install spyware because the system is better. It is ALSO less frequently attacked, this is a bonus to Mac OS X because -right now- its more secure, not *if* they were more popular they would be the same.
One of the things I think Windows users would be surprised at is how much time them spend working ON Windows and not IN Windows. The OS is very needy and there are quite a large amount of "systems tasks" a user must perform. (Updates, Defrag, Virus/Spy Scan, Updates to non-Microsoft software / hardware etc.) You don't do anywhere near as much of that on a Mac then you do on a PC.. this leaves more time for work/fun and less hassles when you *need* to do something right away.
As far as PC component vendors making hardware better, that might be partly true as Nvidia and ATI's competition make each other better, but Sun and SGI never had problems making good video cards despite them, (or using them.. so the market is still there regardless of independent buyers) also much of the hardware in a PC is made as cheep as humanly possible.. for example combined software based sound/modem "chips" that eat up your CPU cycles.
I also tend to think that programmers who "can't live" without Visual Studio probably don't know how to program very well.. but what to do I know, I'm a network guy and a terrible programmer myself.
Sorry to be so harsh man, but its something to think about. There are other ways out there. A popular choice doesn't mean its the best choice.. Just look at McDonalds.
I migrated off it after they made Windows 98, I took my Netscape and my Debian and moved away. Know what happned? The software only got better and better and I have been a (mostly) happy Unix/Linux user ever since.
I don't think people do want them, You tell people.. "Hea lets spend billions for a voting system that does no better job than the current one and has no paper trail.. but you get to know who wins instantly.. right after the lawsuits are finished that is."
Politicians want to push these over on people and they will, "they will get use to them over time.. muhahaha!"
All we need is to convert counties using wierd systems to a system where we use our number 2 pencils to fill in the dot on a paper ballot. The ballot gets read by a machiene made in the 60's, the votes are tallied and the ballot goes into a locked bin. If the race is contested, we count the paper balots. Its fast, its easy, it just works, and its secure.
Slashdot is pretty Democrat. Myself being a Libertarian I attack both parties but when I attack the democrats I'll often find my posts mod'ed down for trivial reasons. If I attack the Republicans sometimes I get mod'ed up more so than expected.
As a note on this.. people please.. don't pick sides.. vote NO on every law unless it is absolutely necessary, fair, and just to all.
Liberal is just a dressed up word for socialist. On the surface socialism is an attractive idea, as "everyone will have what they need to succeed." I can understand the lure to such a mindset.. however there is a critical flaw.. the trouble with socialism is that it removes all personal property. Some people might initially say.. "Well, why do we need property? Can't we share?" The problem with no property is your rights come from your property, not from government, not (necessarily) from god.
For example, you can walk across your yard, buy you may not walk across your neighbors yard without his "permission" (IE: a permit.) This is only right as it is his land. The state of the government today is not very good because a permit is required for almost anything. As another example your parents own you till you are 18 and the own the home you live in till you move out. Mom and Dad may be great people (or not) You may live is a huge house where mom makes all your food and you have a big screen tv.. but few kids want to continue to live with their parents.. They would rather move into a tiny studio apartment.. why? The reason for this is simple, its Liberty. They want to make their own choices and have their own property. Liberty is a necessity for a happy life.
As long as people continue to want to move away from home the only way socialism will work is through force, it is at that point when the government uses force on its people where oppression begins, force by its nature is evil and that state will become "forced socialism" or in other words communism where the only freedom you have at all is "permitted freedom".. another way to look at it is "rented freedom".
I wish more "Liberal" people (with the root word meaning "to liberate") would understand they are moving in a direction that is opposite to their Liberty ideas as a government can not provide you Liberty.. they can only offer permits.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how "human rights" can be protected by a "law" - especially a law in this country trying to protect people in other countries. (All rights are "human" and law is what takes away rights.) If the people of China choose to allow a government like the one they have that's fine, If Yahoo wants to work with them that is also fine by me. I know I might get modded down for being heartless here but thats the way it is.
Right now Yahoo and others are free to do business as they see fit.. after we pass this law we will be taking that freedom away from them. Thats what this is about.
The people of this country should be far more concerned about our toltalitarian government and how its abusing the its own peoples rights.
Your "A confused Libertarian". :-P
The Coins are OUR property if they are in OUR possession, if not then whoever owns them owns them. Money is whatever people agree money is. If people want ot use bank notes then this is ok, if they want to use walnuts than thats ok too, however there is not regulation on who must create money. (If you believe as I do that the Federal reserve Act is unconstitutional then it is null, and the money is... whatever we think it is worth, thus we owe no such debt to the Federal Reserve.)
Your right we can use "private corporations" money or even money printed by congress.. I envision your employer may give you a choice.. Do you want to be payed in A) Federal congrisionally printed money B) Wal-Mart dollars, C) Chase Bank gold backed dollars.
The people know this. Anti-Government rhetoric is at an all time high.. its everywhere, there is a reason for this. The people clearly are aware now that we do not control this government at all.
They are fractioned off into many different groups with different ideas. Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, (Anarcho-Capitalists etc, and none of its pro USA. This is just people trying to figure out what is better.
I think it has to do with the internet. I think we are finding out more now about the abuses of our government faster. Where as you can control CNN, NBC, NY Times, and FOX, you can't (yet) control Blogger and YouTube.
The Income Tax, the Social Security Tax, and the Medical Tax are not legal because they are a direct tax that is not a apportioned to the population as the constitution clearly states.
.."
The constitution that is our highest law, has certain rules that regard taxes. This is because the founding fathers wanted our government to be limited in its ability to collect taxes. They believed the power was with the people, the states, and lastly the federal government.
The Apportionment Rule. (Article 1, Section 2 and 9)
".. Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
The Uniform Rule. (Article 1, Section 8)
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
So.. its quite clear the framers did not want an Income Tax (including income taxes by other names for "social well fair") or the large government that would result with it. This is important because this type of government does not reflect the type we have very much at all. The idea is radically different and.. honestly.. the Fed needs to go.. its way over due for it.
--
Since the Constitution does not state that we require ID at all. (and in fact seems to support the fact that we do not.) That right is reserved by the people and the states and the 10th Amendment enforces that.
10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The Federal government can not force states to ratify REAL_ID. They also can not force the people to accept it. They do not have this power, they have never had this power. However it wont be the first time that the federal government has forced something upon the people.. case in point.. Who here really thinks the Income Tax is a great idea?
It will be used on protesters in the US, just give it time.. we just gotta "test" it in Iraq first.
Its not that, "Your rights come from god". They say your creator, that can mean many things is is partly unknown and is "somewhat" true. You and someone else on here said your rights come from what "other people expect" this VERY MUCH wrong. Your rights come from your property Let me explain.
Your rights don't come from government, they exist outside of government control. To understand this you need to understand the nature of a right.
The most basic right you have is the right to life. Your creator gives you life. (We currently do not understand why this is or how it works so we use the term creator as a generic term, not as in a Christian god, its not very important to dwell on this however.) Ahem again.. your creator gives you life and thus you own your life. It is yours. You have a right to life. Your right is intrinsic. It exists always regardless of any other people. No other person owns your life. If you suggest that someone owns your life you are saying that someone else has a higher claim on it than you do. No other person or group of people have a higher claim on your life than you do. If someone were to end your life that would be murder. You also can not give a group of people a right you do not possess yourself. It doesn't matter how many people support it. If a group of people were to end your life that would still be murder. If a government has no law regarding murder, by defacto "allowing" murder by lack of punishment, killing another is *still* wrong. So.. lastly if the government decides to end your life it is still, and always will be, murder.
To sum it up, Regardless of who (or how many) people do it, Murder is a violation to your right to (your property of) life, always, everywhere, no exceptions. Rights are not given to you by other people as people may decide that people with funny noses do not have certain rights they do or they may decide that women can not own a house. That is also wrong, so rights don't come from people either.
The same thing can we applied to other rights we have.
To control ones life is slavery.
To take someones property of any kind is theft.
To kick your argument totally into the dirt I'll give another example.
You live in a house with 2 roommates. This is a tiny "community". You are the only one in this community who owns a car. The majority of the community may "expect" you to drive them to work, or they may expect to borrow your car but since you own it, you get to decide what happens with it. They can not force you to drive them to work, however you may freely choose to do so. You are even free to negotiate terms for doing so.. ie: they give you gas money. You control what happens with that car regardless of what they expect.
Don't feel bad if you dont understand what a right is, most people don't.
I think impeaching Bush is the least of our worries, we need to restore the bill of rights to our people, not impeach Bush as it will only result in a slap on the wrist for him.
With the Democrats now elected there is something of great concern to me. That is they are passing laws on minimum wage and health care NOT on trying to repeal Military Tribunals, or the Patriot Act. There is not talk on how the REAL ID act infringes on OUR rights, just on how it might affect immigration. They are not trying to protect our rights at all. The first 100 hours of congress attempted to ram through as much legislation as they could before the people were able to find out about it.. so with this I think it matters very little who runs for president in '08. We can elect a facisist government, or we can elect a socialist government, and both are attempting to erase the constitution as fast as people to fulfill their agenda.
I think the best thing we can do at the moment is inform people what it means to have a right. People don't seem to understand what they even are anymore. For instance..
You don't need a permit or license to exercise a right.
You don't not need to ask for permission to use a right.
A right is not "shared" by a community, nor is it "limited" in some cases. It exists, always.
Your government does not give you rights. They can only give you permission..
You can not give your government a right you do not possess yourself.
If people don't understand this, any revolution we have either at the ballot box or any other way will fail to provide freedom and liberty as whatever replaces it will be just as authoritarian as the government we have now. The American people really need to re-visit what it means to be a free state.
Again impeach Bush? Whats the point? It wont give our rights back to us. Lets fight for that FIRST and attack the laws he passed.
You can't own even a handgun without the governments permission. Having a gun on you at all is likely to get you arrested. That means its not a right, if its a right you don't need a permit.. as in you don't need to ask anyone for the right to do it, if you have to ask its not a right.
Would you need a permit to use your freedom of speech?
Thats right, the Army itself is illegal.
Article One, Section 8.
"[The Congress shall have power] To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"
We *can* have a federal army sort of like the National Guard, but it needs to be temporary. The idea was to defend the nation from attack using local and state militia. Its not a bad idea as it would be very hard to attack America and equally difficult for America to attack anyone else.
I don't have any sympathy for him.. yet he is an American citizen. It is his right to know why his government is holding him, to be officially charged with a crime, to be treated decently, and be allowed to present a fair defense for himself. We ALL deserver that no matter what our crime is. If he is guilty then he should receive a fair punishment. (and if thats the chair, then so be it.)
We can not treat our people this way. Even if he was Lex Luther trying to destroy the world, he should get a fair trail.
I shoot from the hip a lot because I'm rather passionate about stuff like this, and I have no problem if others want to label me an idiot. Many have. :)
:)
What can I say, I went to public schools.. you should have seen it before the spell checker.. hehe!
I sway back and forth on this one.. sometimes I think you should be able to have an Aircraft Carrier if this is what you want to do. Other times I think maybe a howitzer is a bit much. Firearms of all kinds should be allowed in my mind in however.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This is one of the holes I'm talking about as its very clear that the founding fathers believe that an armed populace was required to protect the people FROM the government. We know this due to the other writing of the founding fathers. They actually did write down what they thought, we can go back and look. I believe the legal language of the second amendment is not quite strong enough.
What is a militia?
militia (noun)
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
A militia is very much like the Minute Men, a group that works with law enforcement (ideally). The argument people like to make is that the army is a militia, however the constitution states that, indeed yes, we can have a federal army but it can not be funded for more than 2 years. So the federal government can't have a full time army at all, ever. Yet there can be a state militia. The current state of the U.S. Armed Forces are very much illegal. They need to be temporary like the National Guard. Now one can make the argument that the framers didn't understand the weapons that one might be able to possess in the future (IE: can a person own a home made atom bomb?) but you can't make the argument that guns are just for the army.
Like guns or not, thats the way it is and its like that for a good reason. What would happen if we had to fight the government today? (some people have had enough and actually ARE fighting the government right now.) It would be a slaughter but we would win.. That is a powerful bargaining tool that can be used for a peaceful solution.. But in 20 years? What if they start deploying those microwave crowd dispersement weapons on people? Or long range electrolaser's or electrified water canons? Its coming.. people are fed the fuck up with this government we have.. and we may yet live to see another revolution.. will we win? If we loose, they will have a "terrorist" witch hunt, and have to make it even "safer" and if they do that.. we will be in a hole we will never come out of without a terrible amount of blood. This is why we need to keep the tools required to achieve a peaceful diplomatic solution should the people find there government wayward.
I also believe you have the right to defend your life by using a weapon. This seems very basic to me, and I if the case ever arose I don't think anyone would question the legality to shoot someone that was actually trying to kill them. They shouldn't be imprisoned for firing back. If you were able to ask the victims... calling 911 is just not a very good solution to something like Columbine.
I believe to a slightly lesser degree that you should be able to use a weapon to protect your property as your property is created by the time you spent working for it and is thus part of your life.
> Or a little institution involving African Americans called "slavery" where human beings
> were considered property solely due to the color of their skin?
Slavery wasn't started by America, but it took America to end slavery in the world.
I'm over posting but mehh.. got one more point on this.
Despite who controls them.. a hereditary House of lords, Robber barons, Corporations, Unions, Lobbyists, shadowy Banks.. its NOT us. The people should rule, I would think you would support that much at least. Everyone now knows they do not control the government and something really needs to be done about that and soon..
Look around.. who wants this new incoming vison of America? Will we look like V for Vendetta in 40 years?
> The late nineteenth century Senate belonged to the Capitalists. The Silver Senators. The Senators for Sugar, Coal and Wheat, Copper and Steel.
> The baronies of the Northern Pacific, the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The constitution is a pretty good document but there are some holes in it. By design Congress is to do very little. Regulate commerce with foreign nations and trade, to coin money, establish a post offices and postal roads, to declare war.. and that pretty much it. The power was with the States and local government.. but.. this has been turned around as the feds use federal money to railroad the states. For instance Montana has had Vegas Style gambling on the books since the early 70's.. the bill was presented, the people supported it, it was passed but never signed into law. There are no casinos in Montana because if they open them the Feds will yank there much needed hiway funds.
What I want? I want an absolute free nation with as little government as humanaly possible. Kinda like the one we had that made this nation the richest on earth in such a short time.. 1789 to 1913.
capitalism and liberty.. ya, cant go wrong with freedom my friend.
Word.
1913 was the *start* of us loosing our rights but with the recent stuff (patriot act, land seizures, warrant less wire taping, military tribunals) its all gone now.
I cant think of a single part of the bill of rights that we still have.
Why is speech "limited" at political rallies or universities? Why is hate speech a crime?
Why are there gun laws restricting firearms?
The 3rd.. is possibly impractical.. and also probably meaningless as well.. but if not, the feds will find a way to make it legal.
The government can search practically anything they want now? Laptops, Phone records, E-Mail, you name it, why?
How can the City of New London takes peoples land and give it to Pfizer?
Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail?
Why does just about everyone accused of mutable crimes seek a plea bargain for a lesser offence instead of standing up for there rights? Why does the state tack on so many charges with extreme punishment (101 years for spamming)?
Why is a man being sentenced to 101 years for spamming? Why is another man sentenced (and denied appeal) to 50 years in prison for selling pot? Why are children being convicted of molesting each other?
Why does the government have the power to do anything we don't specially say they don't have or can pick apart and widdle down the other rights we have? Why is it the people reserve no rights beyond what's listed in the constitution
We have a "vestige" of the construction.. we don't actually have enforceable rights in the same sense as they were written. The Ed Brown case is part of this, the court would not allow him to use constructional law in his court. read that again.. you can't use the construction.. the highest law on of land in a U.S. federal court. The judges swear an oath to it but its entirely irreverent anymore.
Perhaps it could sense a device bluetooth like and only when something needed a charge would it send out the power beam.
Uhh.. have "you" "heard" of any harmful medical effects? Why assume they are there?
Perhaps the government should regulate this just like the nanobot research.. that they also don't understand but they HAVE read many sci-fi books where nanobots take over the earth so they must protect us from them.
One would think that the scientists themselves developing this stuff wouldn't do it at all if there actually was a risk.. They are trying to wirelessly charge devices, not wirelessly fry office workers.
You hit on a very bad problem that PC's have that the hardware IS usually coming from anywhere and anyone. This causes a huge amount of testing and compatibility problems in Windows.
Also.. users that are "are tricked into going through whatever hoops to install the spyware."
One of the things I think Windows users would be surprised at is how much time them spend working ON Windows and not IN Windows. The OS is very needy and there are quite a large amount of "systems tasks" a user must perform. (Updates, Defrag, Virus/Spy Scan, Updates to non-Microsoft software / hardware etc.) You don't do anywhere near as much of that on a Mac then you do on a PC.. this leaves more time for work/fun and less hassles when you *need* to do something right away.
As far as PC component vendors making hardware better, that might be partly true as Nvidia and ATI's competition make each other better, but Sun and SGI never had problems making good video cards despite them, (or using them.. so the market is still there regardless of independent buyers) also much of the hardware in a PC is made as cheep as humanly possible.. for example combined software based sound/modem "chips" that eat up your CPU cycles.
I also tend to think that programmers who "can't live" without Visual Studio probably don't know how to program very well.. but what to do I know, I'm a network guy and a terrible programmer myself.
Sorry to be so harsh man, but its something to think about. There are other ways out there. A popular choice doesn't mean its the best choice.. Just look at McDonalds.
I migrated off it after they made Windows 98, I took my Netscape and my Debian and moved away. Know what happned? The software only got better and better and I have been a (mostly) happy Unix/Linux user ever since.
I don't think people do want them, You tell people.. "Hea lets spend billions for a voting system that does no better job than the current one and has no paper trail.. but you get to know who wins instantly.. right after the lawsuits are finished that is."
Politicians want to push these over on people and they will, "they will get use to them over time.. muhahaha!"
All we need is to convert counties using wierd systems to a system where we use our number 2 pencils to fill in the dot on a paper ballot. The ballot gets read by a machiene made in the 60's, the votes are tallied and the ballot goes into a locked bin. If the race is contested, we count the paper balots. Its fast, its easy, it just works, and its secure.
Slashdot is pretty Democrat. Myself being a Libertarian I attack both parties but when I attack the democrats I'll often find my posts mod'ed down for trivial reasons. If I attack the Republicans sometimes I get mod'ed up more so than expected.
As a note on this.. people please.. don't pick sides.. vote NO on every law unless it is absolutely necessary, fair, and just to all.
Amen, every victory for freedom is one to be cheered!
One new stupid law down, millions more to go.
Liberal is just a dressed up word for socialist. On the surface socialism is an attractive idea, as "everyone will have what they need to succeed." I can understand the lure to such a mindset.. however there is a critical flaw.. the trouble with socialism is that it removes all personal property. Some people might initially say.. "Well, why do we need property? Can't we share?" The problem with no property is your rights come from your property, not from government, not (necessarily) from god.
For example, you can walk across your yard, buy you may not walk across your neighbors yard without his "permission" (IE: a permit.) This is only right as it is his land. The state of the government today is not very good because a permit is required for almost anything. As another example your parents own you till you are 18 and the own the home you live in till you move out. Mom and Dad may be great people (or not) You may live is a huge house where mom makes all your food and you have a big screen tv.. but few kids want to continue to live with their parents.. They would rather move into a tiny studio apartment.. why? The reason for this is simple, its Liberty. They want to make their own choices and have their own property. Liberty is a necessity for a happy life.
As long as people continue to want to move away from home the only way socialism will work is through force, it is at that point when the government uses force on its people where oppression begins, force by its nature is evil and that state will become "forced socialism" or in other words communism where the only freedom you have at all is "permitted freedom"
I wish more "Liberal" people (with the root word meaning "to liberate") would understand they are moving in a direction that is opposite to their Liberty ideas as a government can not provide you Liberty.. they can only offer permits.