Good, now maybe that idiot Jenny McCarthy will shut her mouth about this. There are no telling how many kids have been put at risk because they're listing to celebrities harping their pseudo-science.
Risk? What risk? How could someone who takes a vaccine (and thus becomes protected) be "at risk" from someone who did not?
Are you saying vaccines *DON'T* actually work? Then why would it matter if Jenny McCarthy was wrong?
So the government says their vaccines don't cause Autism and you can't sue the crap out of their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. No? Merck has been trying to make Gardasil mandatory. God know how much they spend on lobbying.
Yeah, I get why the court ruled the way they did. The thing I don't understand here is.. if vaccines actually work.. then why is it that the people who take them get all freaked out when you tell them you don't. If you believe they work and your child got one then you believe your child is safe from one that didn't get one right? Why mandate by law that every child get them?
I don't want to argue if they work or not.. I don't know, I'm not that smart.. all I want to ask is why can't people have a choice in the matter? What's with you anti-freedom Nazi's pushing vaccines on peoples children?
Just get rid of the zoning laws so my work doesn't have to be 30 miles away from my house. Traffic problem solved.
Man I hate City Planners..
"Ohh no no no nooo citizen.. *THAT* does not go *THERE*.:snobbish laugh: You see it is only *I* who have been given the divine authority to plan this city, only *I* that has the wisdom to know where you should build your house! You wouldn't want some rabble present trying to build a..:gasp: pig Farm next to your condo would you. (you interject something about land values and how pig farms would probbly choose cheap land..) YOU DISREGARD citizen such things! For it is *I* your majestic CITY PLANNER who decides these "land values" you speak of!"
Ya know.. When we decide to rid ourselves of 1/3 of our useless population.. these bastards should be first on the ship.
This conversations pretty old and.. I only have a short bit to add a guess and that is.
If it's true that I somehow owe people before me for the "security of" this land, or something like that.. I'm not actually able to repay that debt to them as they are dead and gone. I don't believe collectives exist outside of the individuals that make them up so I couldn't possibly owe a debt to the general abstraction known as "the people". I mean.. if it's a real debt.. how much is it and who exactly would I pay it too?
Sea Steading is a real idea.. http://seasteading.org/ (run by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman) and as early as *last year* Montana threatened to secede.
WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;
WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;
WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;............ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:
1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and......... 4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.
The state of the souths economy would have been just fine if it wasn't for the restrictive tariffs the north imposed (and intended to impose) upon them. Lincoln blamed the recession of 1857 on the south. "Vote yourself a tariff" was actually one of his campaign slogans. If you can fairly export than you can buy whatever you need from others, there is no reason to go to war if you can fairly trade with others, but that kind of trade policy was not advantageous to the northern states. A one size fits all trade policy could not work (thus that in itself is an argument for peacefully dissolving the union.)
But to redirect your question, if a group of paramilitary militia in Texas decide to secede from the nation and declare their land free of US law, would you let them? And if so, under what justification, given they are on US soil and benefiting from US protection? What claim do they hold that trumps the US Governments?
I don't know why it matters if they are "paramilitary militia" or farmers.. but..
Legally, I believe it comes down to the fact of land ownership. In the United States it's impossible to own land in an allodial title because all land in the united states is subject to expropriation by the federal government (by eminent domain under the 5th Amendment.) I believe Texas is one of those states that will allow an allodial title, but I believe the Federal government could trump it. In order to actually own it they would have to sign a treaty with the United States government granting them sovereignty over that land....... however... In the case of the Lakota Indian tribe, they have presented a case that shows the Federal Government has violated the former treaties signed them and that they retain the sovereignty of their land in breach of those treaties. Landholding before the creation of a state or even the united states *are* recognized by law. So I think they have a much more reasonable case than a "paramilitary militia" group. You can look into that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah It's really kind of interesting how they are attempting to go about it, and yes I actually support them in doing it, I'm originally from Montana and I can tell you there are few people there that see anything good at all from the federal government... So far the Federal Government has ignored them, and Lakotah has stated they will not attempt to use force.. so this should be interesting..
So legally there is some problems, but morally, I absolutely believe it is right.. Those people did not agree to the Constitution, and governments should be voluntary. I'm sorry if that throws a big kink in the whole works but this is what I believe is right. I don't believe it's right to forcefully control others or force them to adhere to your rules and laws. You can act in defense against an aggressor, but when you encourage force or enforce laws that 19 century philosopher Lysander Spooner would call a vice, or crimes that have no true victim, on unwilling people then YOU become the aggressor. I believe that it's wrong force on other men? Am I in error for that belief?
And the argument is indeed "kill them to prevent them from leaving" For if those "paramilitary militia" people intend to defend themselves and "their" land from the aggression of the state.. they will be killed. Your not allowed to say no to the government. If you do, at first they will threaten you and fine you, if you continue to say no, they will send men with guns to your house and attempt to put you in a cage.. if you fight those men and continue to say no.. they will kill you. Don't pretend that our government is not capable of barbaric acts of violence against people.. because it is.
I find the symbolism of much of Washington.. disturbing. Where as you say it shows the power rests with the people.. why are the people still then bound?
Regardless, that's of a minor issue. More to the topic, why do you believe the civil war was a good idea?
Let's pretend the South had never fired upon Fort Sumter. What then would be justification for open war with the South? (technically and legally the Unions occupation of Fort Sumter was illegal, but we can never mind that.) Why should states and the people in them be forbidden from leaving the union if they so desire?
What if the State of.. ohh I don't know.. Alaska, holds a vote and 90% of the people vote to succeed from the United States. In your opinion, is it a good idea to kill them to prevent them from doing so?
I believe if people can voluntarily form unions, then they can also disband them.. but it would appear it's not a voluntary thing.. at least not according to Lincoln.
He has the burden of proof.. but perhaps the NSA should just open that door up to a few people.. how about let Bruce Schneier in there, I would trust him.
Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.
He was the first Dictator of the United states. A Despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for voicing an opinion against the war.
No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.
Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but no one goes around calling him, "evil".
Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. as a lover of the Constitution and from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.
He was the first Dictator of the United states. A despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for nothing more than voicing an opinion against the war... A war.. where several states simply wanted to leave a so called "voluntary union" they entered into.
No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.
According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, blackog stands at 2,146,455 outstanding requests. By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/14/2009 10:02:00 PM MT
Related: DTV Coupon Waiting List Grows Again The DTV Countdown: Complete Coverage of the DTV Transition
As predicted, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration's (NTIA) waiting list for DTV-to-analog converter box coupons has topped 2 million coupons.
According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, there are 2,146,455 outstanding requests.
NTIA had to put requests on the list after it reached its funding cap, though it can send out more coupons as existing ones expire and money is freed up.
Some 478,000 coupons have come off the waiting list since it was started Jan. 4, but with hundreds of thousands of requests coming in each day, the math doesn't work out for clearing up the backlog.
Congress is now working to free up more funding, with the transition date less than five weeks away, though Congress may change that date in light of the coupon backlog and following a request to do so from President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.
Citizen review boards helps some of this but.. yeah, I totally agree with you.
I don't know how to fix this problem, but its bad and getting worse.. There is a guy out there you might find interesting.. he runs a Youtube channel he calls the Obscured Truth Network. Apparently he has attempted to fight back by bringing police, city officials and judges before a grand jury, not sure what his status is on that.
I don't talk to police.. I try to stay as far away from them as I can and would even hesitate calling them for help because they can make situation worse as evident by that lady that called the police and was taken to jail by them and forcibly strip searched by male officers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF6_Q-6cvw (I hate that news story. A voluntary opportunity *OR ELSE* is not an actual voluntary choice.) They are basically a gang.
I can't believe it would be absolutely *impossible* for them to allow another company to go through the trouble of running their own copper to residents homes. If they did that I'm sure we would see a quick about face in the customer service departments of these companies.
That's the dammed problem.. You get DSL or Cable, one choice or the other and either ones service only needs to be as good as the other guys crappy service.. why can't we have 2 choices each? Maybe allow some little local or regional providers in, they wouldn't act this way and they use to exist in the age of DialUp.
That's it. I'm so sick of these companies I'm going to get ClearWire, I don't care if it's slower at least it's independent and not in bed with the Government/RIAA.
Is there a way to force a City to provide more than one telco and cable provider? It's got to be possible, how is this done, or what is the best way to go about changing this?
After the shooting the police on the scene didn't arrest their own.. instead they went around the the crowd and started to collect any cameras. One cop went up to a lady right as the train doors closed and started baning on the window. That was the first video of this on the web.
Yeah, I wonder if this law has anything to do with that..
Well whatever, it appears I'm not going to sway you. I even question if the Federal Government itself has a legitimate role.. I can't think of a reason I need them.
What do you think I think? I think what everyone thinks: I think its awful. But the world is a chess game, you can't share your strategy with your opponents and sometimes you have to sacrifice your pawn to win. Sometimes the sacrifices are high, and the objectives not worth it... and state secrets can be abused to prevent the public from sorting the mess out. And sure putting it all out in the open, so the public can scrutinize it will ensure blowback doesn't happen.
I am not playing a "chess game", and I have no "objectives" to obtain at the expense of my "opponents".
you say it's hopelessly naive to believe we need no secrets? But I say, why do we need to be so aggressive towards the world? China or North Korea is simply not going to invade California like some kind of Mongolian horde and if they ever used "the bomb" they would cease to exist the following day. Does it not seem like madness to continue to go to war for what the politicians call "our interests" in countless nations? (Actually the politicians say they are war's for "freedom" as if you somehow are getting freedom from Iraq or Vietnam.. grr..) There has got to be a better way.. why does our foreign policy have to be anything other than defense?
Why not use the same foreign policy towards the world that Americans would afford to eachother?
* You can do whatever you like on your land. It's yours. * I will not use guns and force to take what you have for myself. * I can peacefully buy it from you (or another neighbor). * If you come on my land I will remove you by force. * If you attack me or my family I will do whatever it takes to stop you. * And nothing more..
Socrates once said something to the effect of "This man thinks he knows all, but in truth he knows nothing. I also know nothing, but I have an advantage over this man.".. I think people of this nation would do well to stop believing we have all the answers, or that we must follow the same path as taken by our forefathers. We need to start asking questions about anything and everything we believe to be true... but we don't because we will realize our actions are in error and we will be ashamed.
lol, Your out of your mind if you think Germany or Japan was capable of a land war in the United States. You also didn't mention blowback.. what do you think about that?
If you think secrecy is a must.. why not advocate total secrecy? What do you think would happen to our government if government officials, politicians, and bureaucrats were able to have absolute secrecy from the people?
Besides your getting hung up here on trying to prove a point over "military" secrets. What I'm saying is if we don't have political, and foreign policy secrets keep from the public, then we won't need military secrets.
"It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for interception of wire communications that one was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication gave prior consent to the interception."
I might add.. perhaps if we had no secrets, we would then see the reasons for America's involvement in both WWI and WWII were corrupt.. What would you think then?
Slashdot Mirror
I see, so what your saying is they don't work.
So in other words they don't work.
Good, now maybe that idiot Jenny McCarthy will shut her mouth about this. There are no telling how many kids have been put at risk because they're listing to celebrities harping their pseudo-science.
Risk? What risk? How could someone who takes a vaccine (and thus becomes protected) be "at risk" from someone who did not?
Are you saying vaccines *DON'T* actually work? Then why would it matter if Jenny McCarthy was wrong?
So the government says their vaccines don't cause Autism and you can't sue the crap out of their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. No? Merck has been trying to make Gardasil mandatory. God know how much they spend on lobbying.
Yeah, I get why the court ruled the way they did. The thing I don't understand here is.. if vaccines actually work.. then why is it that the people who take them get all freaked out when you tell them you don't. If you believe they work and your child got one then you believe your child is safe from one that didn't get one right? Why mandate by law that every child get them?
I don't want to argue if they work or not.. I don't know, I'm not that smart.. all I want to ask is why can't people have a choice in the matter? What's with you anti-freedom Nazi's pushing vaccines on peoples children?
They pass this I'm moving.
Goodbye police state Washington, goodbye Seattle, it was fun paying your incredibly high sales and gas taxes.
Just get rid of the zoning laws so my work doesn't have to be 30 miles away from my house. Traffic problem solved.
Man I hate City Planners..
"Ohh no no no nooo citizen.. *THAT* does not go *THERE*. :snobbish laugh: You see it is only *I* who have been given the divine authority to plan this city, only *I* that has the wisdom to know where you should build your house! You wouldn't want some rabble present trying to build a.. :gasp: pig Farm next to your condo would you. (you interject something about land values and how pig farms would probbly choose cheap land..) YOU DISREGARD citizen such things! For it is *I* your majestic CITY PLANNER who decides these "land values" you speak of!"
Ya know.. When we decide to rid ourselves of 1/3 of our useless population.. these bastards should be first on the ship.
This conversations pretty old and .. I only have a short bit to add a guess and that is.
If it's true that I somehow owe people before me for the "security of" this land, or something like that.. I'm not actually able to repay that debt to them as they are dead and gone. I don't believe collectives exist outside of the individuals that make them up so I couldn't possibly owe a debt to the general abstraction known as "the people". I mean.. if it's a real debt.. how much is it and who exactly would I pay it too?
Just a small note:
Sea Steading is a real idea.. http://seasteading.org/ (run by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman) and as early as *last year* Montana threatened to secede.
WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;
WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;
WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract; ............
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:
1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and .........
4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.
Holey crap, way to go Montana!
The state of the souths economy would have been just fine if it wasn't for the restrictive tariffs the north imposed (and intended to impose) upon them. Lincoln blamed the recession of 1857 on the south. "Vote yourself a tariff" was actually one of his campaign slogans. If you can fairly export than you can buy whatever you need from others, there is no reason to go to war if you can fairly trade with others, but that kind of trade policy was not advantageous to the northern states. A one size fits all trade policy could not work (thus that in itself is an argument for peacefully dissolving the union.)
But to redirect your question, if a group of paramilitary militia in Texas decide to secede from the nation and declare their land free of US law, would you let them? And if so, under what justification, given they are on US soil and benefiting from US protection? What claim do they hold that trumps the US Governments?
I don't know why it matters if they are "paramilitary militia" or farmers.. but..
Legally, I believe it comes down to the fact of land ownership. In the United States it's impossible to own land in an allodial title because all land in the united states is subject to expropriation by the federal government (by eminent domain under the 5th Amendment.) I believe Texas is one of those states that will allow an allodial title, but I believe the Federal government could trump it. In order to actually own it they would have to sign a treaty with the United States government granting them sovereignty over that land....... however... In the case of the Lakota Indian tribe, they have presented a case that shows the Federal Government has violated the former treaties signed them and that they retain the sovereignty of their land in breach of those treaties. Landholding before the creation of a state or even the united states *are* recognized by law. So I think they have a much more reasonable case than a "paramilitary militia" group. You can look into that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah It's really kind of interesting how they are attempting to go about it, and yes I actually support them in doing it, I'm originally from Montana and I can tell you there are few people there that see anything good at all from the federal government. .. So far the Federal Government has ignored them, and Lakotah has stated they will not attempt to use force.. so this should be interesting..
So legally there is some problems, but morally, I absolutely believe it is right.. Those people did not agree to the Constitution, and governments should be voluntary. I'm sorry if that throws a big kink in the whole works but this is what I believe is right. I don't believe it's right to forcefully control others or force them to adhere to your rules and laws. You can act in defense against an aggressor, but when you encourage force or enforce laws that 19 century philosopher Lysander Spooner would call a vice, or crimes that have no true victim, on unwilling people then YOU become the aggressor. I believe that it's wrong force on other men? Am I in error for that belief?
And the argument is indeed "kill them to prevent them from leaving" For if those "paramilitary militia" people intend to defend themselves and "their" land from the aggression of the state.. they will be killed. Your not allowed to say no to the government. If you do, at first they will threaten you and fine you, if you continue to say no, they will send men with guns to your house and attempt to put you in a cage.. if you fight those men and continue to say no.. they will kill you. Don't pretend that our government is not capable of barbaric acts of violence against people.. because it is.
I find the symbolism of much of Washington.. disturbing. Where as you say it shows the power rests with the people.. why are the people still then bound?
Regardless, that's of a minor issue. More to the topic, why do you believe the civil war was a good idea?
Let's pretend the South had never fired upon Fort Sumter. What then would be justification for open war with the South? (technically and legally the Unions occupation of Fort Sumter was illegal, but we can never mind that.) Why should states and the people in them be forbidden from leaving the union if they so desire?
What if the State of.. ohh I don't know.. Alaska, holds a vote and 90% of the people vote to succeed from the United States. In your opinion, is it a good idea to kill them to prevent them from doing so?
I believe if people can voluntarily form unions, then they can also disband them.. but it would appear it's not a voluntary thing.. at least not according to Lincoln.
He has the burden of proof.. but perhaps the NSA should just open that door up to a few people.. how about let Bruce Schneier in there, I would trust him.
Oops didn't mean to respond to this one too.. ahh well so much for my karma. ;-)
Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.
He was the first Dictator of the United states. A Despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for voicing an opinion against the war.
No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.
Of interest also.. is if you look at this shot of his chair at the Lincoln memorial http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg There are fasces on his chair, you have seen them before but might not know what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces Fasces are where we derive the term "fascist". The individuals are the rods, bound by a cord or "the state", and anyone who is not.. gets the axe.
Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but no one goes around calling him, "evil".
Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. as a lover of the Constitution and from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.
He was the first Dictator of the United states. A despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for nothing more than voicing an opinion against the war... A war.. where several states simply wanted to leave a so called "voluntary union" they entered into.
No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.
Of interest also.. is if you look at this shot of his chair at the Lincoln memorial http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg There are fasces on his chair, you have seen them before but might not know what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces Fasces are where we derive the term "fascist". The individuals are the rods, bound by a cord or "the state", and anyone who is not.. gets the axe.
Rome burns as Government fails to run coupon program! 2 million now on waiting list. Government "experts" seek help from pizza industry.
Ok the pizza bit is fictional.. but they *should*.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/162189-DTV_Coupon_Waiting_List_Tops_2_Million.php
According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, blackog stands at 2,146,455 outstanding requests.
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/14/2009 10:02:00 PM MT
Related:
DTV Coupon Waiting List Grows Again
The DTV Countdown: Complete Coverage of the DTV Transition
As predicted, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration's (NTIA) waiting list for DTV-to-analog converter box coupons has topped 2 million coupons.
According to NTIA figures through Tuesday, Jan. 13, there are 2,146,455 outstanding requests.
NTIA had to put requests on the list after it reached its funding cap, though it can send out more coupons as existing ones expire and money is freed up.
Some 478,000 coupons have come off the waiting list since it was started Jan. 4, but with hundreds of thousands of requests coming in each day, the math doesn't work out for clearing up the backlog.
Congress is now working to free up more funding, with the transition date less than five weeks away, though Congress may change that date in light of the coupon backlog and following a request to do so from President-elect Barack Obama's transition team.
Citizen review boards helps some of this but.. yeah, I totally agree with you.
I don't know how to fix this problem, but its bad and getting worse.. There is a guy out there you might find interesting.. he runs a Youtube channel he calls the Obscured Truth Network. Apparently he has attempted to fight back by bringing police, city officials and judges before a grand jury, not sure what his status is on that.
http://www.youtube.com/user/obscuredtruth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYYytQqkg2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ETi2HZtp0
I don't talk to police.. I try to stay as far away from them as I can and would even hesitate calling them for help because they can make situation worse as evident by that lady that called the police and was taken to jail by them and forcibly strip searched by male officers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PF6_Q-6cvw (I hate that news story. A voluntary opportunity *OR ELSE* is not an actual voluntary choice.) They are basically a gang.
Also you might like Checkpoint USA.. A guy named Terry who is also refusing to comply.
https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/
:: sigh ::
"Dammit.. I didn't want to have to start my own ISP.... BUT *THEY* MADE ME DO IT!"
But no really.. what's a person to do?
To what? buy off the politicians? lol
I can't believe it would be absolutely *impossible* for them to allow another company to go through the trouble of running their own copper to residents homes. If they did that I'm sure we would see a quick about face in the customer service departments of these companies.
That's the dammed problem.. You get DSL or Cable, one choice or the other and either ones service only needs to be as good as the other guys crappy service.. why can't we have 2 choices each? Maybe allow some little local or regional providers in, they wouldn't act this way and they use to exist in the age of DialUp.
That's it. I'm so sick of these companies I'm going to get ClearWire, I don't care if it's slower at least it's independent and not in bed with the Government/RIAA.
Is there a way to force a City to provide more than one telco and cable provider? It's got to be possible, how is this done, or what is the best way to go about changing this?
After the shooting the police on the scene didn't arrest their own.. instead they went around the the crowd and started to collect any cameras. One cop went up to a lady right as the train doors closed and started baning on the window. That was the first video of this on the web.
Yeah, I wonder if this law has anything to do with that..
Well whatever, it appears I'm not going to sway you. I even question if the Federal Government itself has a legitimate role.. I can't think of a reason I need them.
What do you think I think? I think what everyone thinks: I think its awful. But the world is a chess game, you can't share your strategy with your opponents and sometimes you have to sacrifice your pawn to win. Sometimes the sacrifices are high, and the objectives not worth it... and state secrets can be abused to prevent the public from sorting the mess out. And sure putting it all out in the open, so the public can scrutinize it will ensure blowback doesn't happen.
I am not playing a "chess game", and I have no "objectives" to obtain at the expense of my "opponents".
you say it's hopelessly naive to believe we need no secrets? But I say, why do we need to be so aggressive towards the world? China or North Korea is simply not going to invade California like some kind of Mongolian horde and if they ever used "the bomb" they would cease to exist the following day. Does it not seem like madness to continue to go to war for what the politicians call "our interests" in countless nations? (Actually the politicians say they are war's for "freedom" as if you somehow are getting freedom from Iraq or Vietnam.. grr..) There has got to be a better way.. why does our foreign policy have to be anything other than defense?
Why not use the same foreign policy towards the world that Americans would afford to eachother?
* You can do whatever you like on your land. It's yours.
* I will not use guns and force to take what you have for myself.
* I can peacefully buy it from you (or another neighbor).
* If you come on my land I will remove you by force.
* If you attack me or my family I will do whatever it takes to stop you.
* And nothing more..
Socrates once said something to the effect of "This man thinks he knows all, but in truth he knows nothing. I also know nothing, but I have an advantage over this man." .. I think people of this nation would do well to stop believing we have all the answers, or that we must follow the same path as taken by our forefathers. We need to start asking questions about anything and everything we believe to be true... but we don't because we will realize our actions are in error and we will be ashamed.
lol, Your out of your mind if you think Germany or Japan was capable of a land war in the United States. You also didn't mention blowback.. what do you think about that?
If you think secrecy is a must.. why not advocate total secrecy? What do you think would happen to our government if government officials, politicians, and bureaucrats were able to have absolute secrecy from the people?
Besides your getting hung up here on trying to prove a point over "military" secrets. What I'm saying is if we don't have political, and foreign policy secrets keep from the public, then we won't need military secrets.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. 16.D2(c)(4)
"It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for interception of wire communications that one was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication gave prior consent to the interception."
Single party consent.
I might add.. perhaps if we had no secrets, we would then see the reasons for America's involvement in both WWI and WWII were corrupt.. What would you think then?