If you look at the talk pages of virtually any page, youll see that Im not alone by a long shot in being disgusted by the smears on that site. Kindly do not imply that all right-wing / conservatives support conservapedia.
Theres a good quote from CS Lewis "The Screwtape Letters" that always comes to mind in these debates:
Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn't know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.
You can explain it away, and perhaps I would agree with some of the reasons for zoning-- the point still stands, and is worth thinking about any time you feel the urge to give the government more say in your life.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
You can argue that government intrusion is occasionally needed, and I (as well as probably the majority of americans) would agree with you.
But in almost no circumstance does it "increase freedom". Government is about restraining people for various reasons (ostensibly for the public good), and to that end they place limits on people. The problem with your example is that in an anarchist system, you DO have the "freedom" to own land, you simply cant stop me from taking it. Government intrudes there to place limits on what your neighbor can do, by restricting them for the public good.
The danger is when you start thinking that governments GIVE freedom, because they dont. The most they can do is protect them to some degree.
Meanwhile the 1% has 2 or 3 times the national debt [democracynow.org] tucked away in offshore accounts. You want to know where our debt comes from, there's your answer.
Please, flesh this out for me. How, exactly, does someone having money contribute to the national debt?
Here I thought debt was incurred when you spent beyond your means, but now I find out that neighbor Joe earning a bonus increases my debt.
Dont really want to change my workflow unless theres a clear benefit, and cramming Metro into the mix isnt a clear benefit-- so far as I can tell its a hindrance.
While there are times that someone can make it more difficult to avoid rear ending them, in general you should be aware of your surroundings on the road including who is next to you and if they appear to be preparing to change lanes. Short of someone pulling a "Cops" and aiming for your bumper, you should be able to prevent almost any rear-end collision by simply being aware.
I dont know, his idea has some elegance to it. Iran says "screw you guys we're getting a nuke", we respond "oh yea? Well we're getting an IRAN. IN YOUR FACE."
To make statements as bold as his without actually standing behind them damages the credibility of the statement itself, and makes one suspect trolling. When said AC proceeds to Godwin the whole discussion and compare a situation in IT to World War 2, it becomes clear why ACs are generally reviled.
One of the reasons to post AC is that you know your post is so ridiculous and out there that theres a 50/50 chance it will get flagged as the flamebait that it is. GP basically said "if you dont agree with me youre WW2 France, and Microsoft is Hitler". If that doesnt deserve a karma penalty I dont know what does.
You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.
Ive generally stayed out of these arguments, because they seem irrelevant and a waste of time. Certainly pollution is bad, and speeding the adoption of cleaner technology is a very good thing, and certainly I will strive to reduce my footprint. Arguing endlessly over the details just doesnt seem productive.
But if the hope of environmentalists is that the world around-- including the many billions in developing countries-- are going to join us so that we might stand a chance of preventing disaster, then those environmentalists live in a dream world. We have already seen time and time again that regardless of how much "sense" communism makes you simply cannot get people to go along with it, for even a medium-term return. What on EARTH makes anyone think that India and China will give up a booming economy and lifestyle for a return that wont come for centuries?
If there are not additional consequences for breaking the highest law in the land,
I dont believe that passing an unconstitutional law is "illegal", its just "not allowed" and might end up binned. Ditto with executive orders-- its not "illegal" for the president to issue an executive order declaring himself dictator for life; it may well be unconstitutional, and it may well cause impeachment proceedings to determine if he is misusing his power for personal gain, but you cant directly file suit against the president while in office even then.
As others have pointed out, imagine the absurdity Obama would have to deal with if every republican could just sue him directly every time he did something they didnt like (or vice versa when an R is in office); and imagine the absurdity of the courts then asking him to kindly wield his executive power against himself.
As for "openly flaunt", according to slashdot thats EXACTLY what happened to start this case; whether its impeachable is a separate question. But at the end of the day you're gonna have to argue with the lawyers lurking on here about whether several hundred years of legal history regarding sovereign immunity should be thrown out the window. That, however, is a question for the legislative branch, not the judicial-- unless I am mistaken.
I have no use for Exchange, so er, which camp are you in?
Im in the camp where the most a particular brand means to me is the track record it has. I use Exchange and love it, but think ISA server is a piece of garbage-- pfSense is MUCH better. I love catalyst switches, but Im not a huge fan of the general overkill nature of Cisco's SMB routers and think their "business grade" linksys stuff is crap. I like HP laptops, but think their printer / software division needs to be shot. And while I generally loathe the Apple culture and pricepoint, I think they DO have some cool stuff.
Basically, if you delve into fanboi-ism, you end up missing all the cool things that different vendors can do. You might decide to go full-on Google, but you'd end up missing the unique features that Live Mesh had to offer. Part of being a good IT guy is having a wide knowledge of the options out there, and being able to choose the right one based on technical merit and suitability, not your own baseless bias (though I readily admit I AM biased towards OSS).
If it only takes a moments research to show how much of a non-issue this is, explain to me how we can hold the government accountable for its crimes.
By voting them out of office.
Assume you won your hypothetical case sans immunity: Who is going to enforce that ruling under the current system? If you say "the people", I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact we can already do that without the courts.
As a number of lawyers have commented, Sovereign immunity has been around for hundreds of years. That being the case, its a GOOD THING that an appellate court isnt throwing hundreds of years of legal history out the window and legislating from the bench.
I was possibly a bit harsh-- if you are one of the authors working on ReactOS, I have watched it from afar for a long time, and admire the work done-- getting as far as you have is impressive.
The fact that I dont choose to use it wasnt meant to denigrate the work youve done.
Its amazing that you can continue to garner +5 insightfuls with several lawyers in this thread remarking on how clueless you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States Youll note in there that Sovereign Immunity has been around since the founding of our country, and that in the UK it has been a historical reality as well.
But continue to spout off about things you apparently have no understanding of, it seems to be doing wonders for your karma.
Its insightful because slashdot is filled with armchair lawyer reactionaries who take retarded headlines at face value and act suprised when they discover they were misled.
Slashdot headlines have always been about getting the most intense reaction, and the slashdot readerbase seldom fails to perform in that capacity. Even a moments research would have shown how much of a non-issue this was, but that is too much to ask of slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Conservative here.
If you look at the talk pages of virtually any page, youll see that Im not alone by a long shot in being disgusted by the smears on that site. Kindly do not imply that all right-wing / conservatives support conservapedia.
Let's put marriage back in the church where it resides, and out of Govt hands where it causes controversy.
Not a huge fan of the idea, but it makes a good deal more sense than trying to force churches to recognize marriages that go against their beliefs.
If one state recognizes a marriage, all must.
Im not aware of a "reverse supremacy" clause in the constitution, could you kindly point it out to me?
Theres a good quote from CS Lewis "The Screwtape Letters" that always comes to mind in these debates:
Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn't know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.
You can explain it away, and perhaps I would agree with some of the reasons for zoning-- the point still stands, and is worth thinking about any time you feel the urge to give the government more say in your life.
I would like to inform you that sometimes government intrusion is needed for freedom.
You can argue that government intrusion is occasionally needed, and I (as well as probably the majority of americans) would agree with you.
But in almost no circumstance does it "increase freedom". Government is about restraining people for various reasons (ostensibly for the public good), and to that end they place limits on people. The problem with your example is that in an anarchist system, you DO have the "freedom" to own land, you simply cant stop me from taking it. Government intrudes there to place limits on what your neighbor can do, by restricting them for the public good.
The danger is when you start thinking that governments GIVE freedom, because they dont. The most they can do is protect them to some degree.
Meanwhile the 1% has 2 or 3 times the national debt [democracynow.org] tucked away in offshore accounts. You want to know where our debt comes from, there's your answer.
Please, flesh this out for me. How, exactly, does someone having money contribute to the national debt?
Here I thought debt was incurred when you spent beyond your means, but now I find out that neighbor Joe earning a bonus increases my debt.
This.
Dont really want to change my workflow unless theres a clear benefit, and cramming Metro into the mix isnt a clear benefit-- so far as I can tell its a hindrance.
my lane.
Think I found your problem.
While there are times that someone can make it more difficult to avoid rear ending them, in general you should be aware of your surroundings on the road including who is next to you and if they appear to be preparing to change lanes. Short of someone pulling a "Cops" and aiming for your bumper, you should be able to prevent almost any rear-end collision by simply being aware.
Until countries are invaded and millions killed, no, it isnt like the Nazis at all.
I dont know, his idea has some elegance to it. Iran says "screw you guys we're getting a nuke", we respond "oh yea? Well we're getting an IRAN. IN YOUR FACE."
I think it could work.
Not sure if you're aware, but wars are not contests in being selfless and giving towards your opposite. Generally the point is to win.
To make statements as bold as his without actually standing behind them damages the credibility of the statement itself, and makes one suspect trolling. When said AC proceeds to Godwin the whole discussion and compare a situation in IT to World War 2, it becomes clear why ACs are generally reviled.
One of the reasons to post AC is that you know your post is so ridiculous and out there that theres a 50/50 chance it will get flagged as the flamebait that it is. GP basically said "if you dont agree with me youre WW2 France, and Microsoft is Hitler". If that doesnt deserve a karma penalty I dont know what does.
You will do it because the alternative is a horror you can't ignore nor contribute to. This is what it's like to be a fairly aware individual.
Ive generally stayed out of these arguments, because they seem irrelevant and a waste of time. Certainly pollution is bad, and speeding the adoption of cleaner technology is a very good thing, and certainly I will strive to reduce my footprint. Arguing endlessly over the details just doesnt seem productive.
But if the hope of environmentalists is that the world around-- including the many billions in developing countries-- are going to join us so that we might stand a chance of preventing disaster, then those environmentalists live in a dream world. We have already seen time and time again that regardless of how much "sense" communism makes you simply cannot get people to go along with it, for even a medium-term return. What on EARTH makes anyone think that India and China will give up a booming economy and lifestyle for a return that wont come for centuries?
It ruins expensive stuff; car interiors,
Unless Im mistaken, car windows tend to block UV rays for this very reason. Certainly my transition lenses do not activate at all when in the car.
AnthropGENIC, not anthropomorphic.
Anthropomorphic indicates "having the shape of man".
AnthropoGENIC indicates causation by man.
Just a minor difference.
You know what? Anyone who goes along with this UEFI bullshit is a fucking traitor, a coward,
Says the AC. You have something to say, say it as yourself.
It's like letting the Germans into your country during 1945
Yea, its exactly like that. Any credibility you had just flew out the window.
DoJ.
If there are not additional consequences for breaking the highest law in the land,
I dont believe that passing an unconstitutional law is "illegal", its just "not allowed" and might end up binned. Ditto with executive orders-- its not "illegal" for the president to issue an executive order declaring himself dictator for life; it may well be unconstitutional, and it may well cause impeachment proceedings to determine if he is misusing his power for personal gain, but you cant directly file suit against the president while in office even then.
As others have pointed out, imagine the absurdity Obama would have to deal with if every republican could just sue him directly every time he did something they didnt like (or vice versa when an R is in office); and imagine the absurdity of the courts then asking him to kindly wield his executive power against himself.
As for "openly flaunt", according to slashdot thats EXACTLY what happened to start this case; whether its impeachable is a separate question. But at the end of the day you're gonna have to argue with the lawyers lurking on here about whether several hundred years of legal history regarding sovereign immunity should be thrown out the window. That, however, is a question for the legislative branch, not the judicial-- unless I am mistaken.
I have no use for Exchange, so er, which camp are you in?
Im in the camp where the most a particular brand means to me is the track record it has. I use Exchange and love it, but think ISA server is a piece of garbage-- pfSense is MUCH better. I love catalyst switches, but Im not a huge fan of the general overkill nature of Cisco's SMB routers and think their "business grade" linksys stuff is crap. I like HP laptops, but think their printer / software division needs to be shot. And while I generally loathe the Apple culture and pricepoint, I think they DO have some cool stuff.
Basically, if you delve into fanboi-ism, you end up missing all the cool things that different vendors can do. You might decide to go full-on Google, but you'd end up missing the unique features that Live Mesh had to offer. Part of being a good IT guy is having a wide knowledge of the options out there, and being able to choose the right one based on technical merit and suitability, not your own baseless bias (though I readily admit I AM biased towards OSS).
If it only takes a moments research to show how much of a non-issue this is, explain to me how we can hold the government accountable for its crimes.
By voting them out of office.
Assume you won your hypothetical case sans immunity: Who is going to enforce that ruling under the current system? If you say "the people", I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact we can already do that without the courts.
As a number of lawyers have commented, Sovereign immunity has been around for hundreds of years. That being the case, its a GOOD THING that an appellate court isnt throwing hundreds of years of legal history out the window and legislating from the bench.
I was possibly a bit harsh-- if you are one of the authors working on ReactOS, I have watched it from afar for a long time, and admire the work done-- getting as far as you have is impressive.
The fact that I dont choose to use it wasnt meant to denigrate the work youve done.
Sort of depends if you mean physically or psychologically.
Its amazing that you can continue to garner +5 insightfuls with several lawyers in this thread remarking on how clueless you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States
Youll note in there that Sovereign Immunity has been around since the founding of our country, and that in the UK it has been a historical reality as well.
But continue to spout off about things you apparently have no understanding of, it seems to be doing wonders for your karma.
Its insightful because slashdot is filled with armchair lawyer reactionaries who take retarded headlines at face value and act suprised when they discover they were misled.
Slashdot headlines have always been about getting the most intense reaction, and the slashdot readerbase seldom fails to perform in that capacity. Even a moments research would have shown how much of a non-issue this was, but that is too much to ask of slashdot.