He won't have to... that's a state secret. And we all know dear leader Obama would never do such things. So no one will go looking for it. And the administration will have an easier time squashing those who do try to bring it to light should it occur.
some of us are classical liberals, constitutionalists, anarchists, and libertarians, thank you very much. And we held the same convictions and were just as vocal when W was trampling all over our rights. so you and the RNC can go find another group to "adopt" into your "big" tent. I'll join when you make Ron Paul the minority whip. Or at least stop funding primary challenges against him. You'd think there might be better uses for that RNC dough than continuing to deny reality.
Do you really think Obama would have made a different choice regarding Afghanistan? Things would be much better if Congress would (wo)man up and take back their power/responsibility to declare our wars.
"But the bottom line is that these people are not turned away because they have a "right" to health care and they are not institutionalized in one form or another because it would be a violation of their "rights"."
no, in the 1960s-70s it was decided that it would be *cheaper* and ancillarily more humane to deinstitutionalize mentally ill people who were not perceived to be at risk of harming themselves or others. http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Deinstitutionalization.html
However, there is an important rights aspect. If I'm in power in government I can use a large mental health apparatus to declare you to be mentally incompetent and in need of custodial care solely because you dissent from my political agenda.
Economic issues have predominated his policy decisions (particularly as a percentage of federal dollars spent/ regulations made/enforced. And Obama's about the same as Bush on this front, if not a bit more fascist. Something embodying "change" for economic policy might look a bit like Ron Paul's or Dennis Kucinich's platforms, which while wildly different from each other were also wildly different from Obama's status Bush on economic policy. So definitely >10% evil.
And on the EPA front I consider any more accretion of power in the hands of the executive a *bad thing*(tm). We already elect kings who call themselves deciders. And that's what Obama's decision regarding state secrets is really about: maintaining the broad swath of power that general acceptance of the modern interpretation of the state secrets privilege provides him.
Damn, the saying used to be, "If you're not a liberal before you're 30 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative after you're 30 you have no brain." You, sir have no heart, and thus give the lie to the old canard.
"blah blah push your predefined agenda blah blah."
You know, not every forum post is astroturfing. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that fewer than half of/. posts are by bots.
Some of us happen to have drawn different conclusions about the world than you have. It's okay. It's still protected speech. So jog on, fascist.
actually a not quite as articulately stated point was that there's another dimension to politics. Both of America's major parties are heading towards fascism, with way too strong and large of a central government. I'd prefer a *mutually skeptical* decentralization so as to remove conflicts of interest and foster justice in an individuals interactions with government. I'd like it if the Federal courts were the largest branch of the central government, resolving disputes between individuals and the states providing services (of whatever stripe: socialist or whatever the state's residents prefer). That way people can have the government they want and still have somewhere to go (federal court) when something's wrong. America's current system has too many instances of federal strong arming at whim. the individual usually loses. See the U.S. domestic spying disputes for examples. The state (federal government) secret privilege as currently interpreted is pure conflict of interest between the federal executive and the federal courts.
i'm sure the crisis had *nothing* to do with easy money policies of the Fed throughout the last decade or two. [/sarcasm]
and rather than dismissing my argument regarding the wrong regulations and an unwilingness to enforce them unexamined, perhaps you might consider that we have and had *insurance regulations* which the SEC did not enforce on the *insurance* being sold between banks. If those regulations had been enforced, we'd not be in this mess as bad.
But more centrally to your claims regarding the political left being correct, I find that unconvincing because communisms devolve into fascist governments much more quickly than representative democracies do. The Russian Oktober Revolution was subverted by fascists even before it was over.
My argument is that *mutually skeptical* decentralization of government is the best path because no one part has conflicts of interest and discommoded parties can go to the courts of the next higher level. In a world closer to ideal the US courts would be the largest branch of the Federal government, resolving disputes between individuals and the state governments. See our current domestic spying issues for an example of why the fox cannot be allowed to guard the hen house. Federal judges (paid by the Federal government) hear cases with only the prosecution at the table and nearly automatically get outrageous powers against anyone they please. Some of these people turn out to have been completely innocent, but somehow it's difficult for them to fly commercially ever again, etc.
Leftists rarely consider the weaknesses in their schemes or the liklihood of things deteriorating in any way from their ideal of the welfare state benevolently taking care of everyone. If you could convince me that such were impossible then I might be more inclined to give credence to leftists claims of correctness. I empathize greatly with the motivations behind most leftist idealists. They tend to be noble, but naive and misguided however in thinking that their ideals are attainable.
Straw men frequently conveniently omit facts that contradict their conclusions. You do this in point 1. Our system has a great deal of regulation. Unfortunately, what we have is a maze of regulations haphazardly constructed and reconstructed over the years. Moreover, some of that body of regulation has (and still does) discourage sustainable economics in our banking industry (CRA + HUD objectives). Clearly CRA isn't the only villain, but it is a regulatory one. Another is the lax enforcement of regulations on favored (politically connected) banks.
If a bunch of/.ers were to go start a bank/whatever we'd get slammed by the costs of that regulation. What is needed is a thorough reconstruction of regulation, but really what is needed is a page limit on the federal code of laws. Just as our putative bank would be forced out of business under the weight of compliance (see barriers to market entry under crony capitalism tactics), so too does the sheer volume of laws present the government with the perfect tool to visit injustice on us at its caprice.
However, I wholly agree with you regarding our expanding defecits and debt, and it sickens me to see Republicans who went gladly along Bush's primrose path decrying Obama's spendthrift ways. They're the same ways, just with slightly different "objectives" (cronies).
However, there is another correct way that is not leftist. As ineffective a speaker as he is, Ron Paul has been consistently correct on economic issues, pointing out the risk (of which we have subsequently realized the downside) of providing systemic federal backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
So why did Obama keep on so many of Bush's economic team? Geithner for example got a promotion from Goldman-Sachs to Bush's TARP administrator to Obama's Treasury Secretary. I'd suggest that there are not quite as many differences between the two parties as many on both sides like to pretend there are. Both are in favor of crony capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism Your (and since you're just repeating the party line here your party's) attempts to place blame on a fantasy deregulation straw man are... unconvincing to those who do more than accept your play on class warfare chords. Both sides are to blame for allowing so many unproductive ventures to survive for so long on the backs of the productive members of society. One of my favorite pieces on the framework for the current crisis (over last 30 years) is this one: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom
But you read conflate militia and military. Militia to the point of the revolution had been conscripts and volunteers who supplied themselves. Thus they had the weapons at home and the government had no idea who or how many were "out there". Use of weapons (or dual use items like pitchforks) for self defense against bandits has been a right commonly held for millenia. Besides, your argument is self defeating. Were it true and reasonable, we would never have rebelled against the British, as our proto-government (revolution leaders) were all considered to be traitors and peasants, not "legitimate" militia/military leaders. So i think you might want to revisit the reasoning that led you to your position.
actually, try most scifi since the advent of the idea of gravity generators. Valve is borrowing from a deep vein in speculative fiction. Problem is that it's less speculative now. try again troll.
Researching "Wholistic" Models in a "Wholistic" Research Environment:: Ongoing theoretical and applied research about Unified Field Theory is conducted within the context of a sustainable research park that reflects the values of this innovative research. Many of our researchers live together, eat together and think together in a collaborative environment which supports the flourishing of great ideas. The Resonance Project Foundation is striving to become a model of a regenerative and self sustaining system at its facility, utilizing permaculture principles, such as grey water recycling, composting toilets, soil and water conservation, alternative fuels, and native and edible landscaping including fruit trees pollinated by hives of onsite bees.
no, direct election of representatives leads to mob rule. Athens proved this. U.S. senators were elected by your state legislatures or appointed by state governors. And the electoral college had a reason to exist apart from acting as a then state of the art communication system with non-repudiation (horse was the fastest mode of travel). This had a calming effect on the directly elected House of Representatives. It's sad that today the House is the calmer, more deliberative body and the Senate is the group hot under the collar to get things passed without debate. You know it's broken when it's working opposite to how it was described by those who made it.
Slashdot Mirror
He won't have to... that's a state secret. And we all know dear leader Obama would never do such things. So no one will go looking for it. And the administration will have an easier time squashing those who do try to bring it to light should it occur.
some of us are classical liberals, constitutionalists, anarchists, and libertarians, thank you very much. And we held the same convictions and were just as vocal when W was trampling all over our rights. so you and the RNC can go find another group to "adopt" into your "big" tent. I'll join when you make Ron Paul the minority whip. Or at least stop funding primary challenges against him. You'd think there might be better uses for that RNC dough than continuing to deny reality.
Do you really think Obama would have made a different choice regarding Afghanistan? Things would be much better if Congress would (wo)man up and take back their power/responsibility to declare our wars.
"But the bottom line is that these people are not turned away because they have a "right" to health care and they are not institutionalized in one form or another because it would be a violation of their "rights"."
no, in the 1960s-70s it was decided that it would be *cheaper* and ancillarily more humane to deinstitutionalize mentally ill people who were not perceived to be at risk of harming themselves or others. http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Deinstitutionalization.html
However, there is an important rights aspect. If I'm in power in government I can use a large mental health apparatus to declare you to be mentally incompetent and in need of custodial care solely because you dissent from my political agenda.
Economic issues have predominated his policy decisions (particularly as a percentage of federal dollars spent/ regulations made/enforced. And Obama's about the same as Bush on this front, if not a bit more fascist. Something embodying "change" for economic policy might look a bit like Ron Paul's or Dennis Kucinich's platforms, which while wildly different from each other were also wildly different from Obama's status Bush on economic policy. So definitely >10% evil.
And on the EPA front I consider any more accretion of power in the hands of the executive a *bad thing*(tm). We already elect kings who call themselves deciders. And that's what Obama's decision regarding state secrets is really about: maintaining the broad swath of power that general acceptance of the modern interpretation of the state secrets privilege provides him.
and perhaps join and participate in computer professionals for social responsibility. http://cpsr.org/
Damn, the saying used to be, "If you're not a liberal before you're 30 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative after you're 30 you have no brain." You, sir have no heart, and thus give the lie to the old canard.
"blah blah push your predefined agenda blah blah."
You know, not every forum post is astroturfing. In fact, I'd hazard to guess that fewer than half of /. posts are by bots.
Some of us happen to have drawn different conclusions about the world than you have. It's okay. It's still protected speech. So jog on, fascist.
and it would be over quicker if the banks and business that deserve to fail were allowed to. Check the depression of 1921.
actually a not quite as articulately stated point was that there's another dimension to politics. Both of America's major parties are heading towards fascism, with way too strong and large of a central government. I'd prefer a *mutually skeptical* decentralization so as to remove conflicts of interest and foster justice in an individuals interactions with government. I'd like it if the Federal courts were the largest branch of the central government, resolving disputes between individuals and the states providing services (of whatever stripe: socialist or whatever the state's residents prefer). That way people can have the government they want and still have somewhere to go (federal court) when something's wrong. America's current system has too many instances of federal strong arming at whim. the individual usually loses. See the U.S. domestic spying disputes for examples. The state (federal government) secret privilege as currently interpreted is pure conflict of interest between the federal executive and the federal courts.
i'm sure the crisis had *nothing* to do with easy money policies of the Fed throughout the last decade or two. [/sarcasm]
and rather than dismissing my argument regarding the wrong regulations and an unwilingness to enforce them unexamined, perhaps you might consider that we have and had *insurance regulations* which the SEC did not enforce on the *insurance* being sold between banks. If those regulations had been enforced, we'd not be in this mess as bad.
But more centrally to your claims regarding the political left being correct, I find that unconvincing because communisms devolve into fascist governments much more quickly than representative democracies do. The Russian Oktober Revolution was subverted by fascists even before it was over.
My argument is that *mutually skeptical* decentralization of government is the best path because no one part has conflicts of interest and discommoded parties can go to the courts of the next higher level. In a world closer to ideal the US courts would be the largest branch of the Federal government, resolving disputes between individuals and the state governments. See our current domestic spying issues for an example of why the fox cannot be allowed to guard the hen house. Federal judges (paid by the Federal government) hear cases with only the prosecution at the table and nearly automatically get outrageous powers against anyone they please. Some of these people turn out to have been completely innocent, but somehow it's difficult for them to fly commercially ever again, etc.
Leftists rarely consider the weaknesses in their schemes or the liklihood of things deteriorating in any way from their ideal of the welfare state benevolently taking care of everyone. If you could convince me that such were impossible then I might be more inclined to give credence to leftists claims of correctness. I empathize greatly with the motivations behind most leftist idealists. They tend to be noble, but naive and misguided however in thinking that their ideals are attainable.
no, go back and read your history... Hoover did about what Bush did and Paul decried.
Straw men frequently conveniently omit facts that contradict their conclusions. You do this in point 1. Our system has a great deal of regulation. Unfortunately, what we have is a maze of regulations haphazardly constructed and reconstructed over the years. Moreover, some of that body of regulation has (and still does) discourage sustainable economics in our banking industry (CRA + HUD objectives). Clearly CRA isn't the only villain, but it is a regulatory one. Another is the lax enforcement of regulations on favored (politically connected) banks.
If a bunch of /.ers were to go start a bank/whatever we'd get slammed by the costs of that regulation. What is needed is a thorough reconstruction of regulation, but really what is needed is a page limit on the federal code of laws. Just as our putative bank would be forced out of business under the weight of compliance (see barriers to market entry under crony capitalism tactics), so too does the sheer volume of laws present the government with the perfect tool to visit injustice on us at its caprice.
However, I wholly agree with you regarding our expanding defecits and debt, and it sickens me to see Republicans who went gladly along Bush's primrose path decrying Obama's spendthrift ways. They're the same ways, just with slightly different "objectives" (cronies).
However, there is another correct way that is not leftist. As ineffective a speaker as he is, Ron Paul has been consistently correct on economic issues, pointing out the risk (of which we have subsequently realized the downside) of providing systemic federal backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
my bad, but he was a quant for an investment bank. meaning a "scientist" (phd who uses their quantitative analysis skills outside their field).
So why did Obama keep on so many of Bush's economic team? Geithner for example got a promotion from Goldman-Sachs to Bush's TARP administrator to Obama's Treasury Secretary. I'd suggest that there are not quite as many differences between the two parties as many on both sides like to pretend there are. Both are in favor of crony capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism Your (and since you're just repeating the party line here your party's) attempts to place blame on a fantasy deregulation straw man are... unconvincing to those who do more than accept your play on class warfare chords. Both sides are to blame for allowing so many unproductive ventures to survive for so long on the backs of the productive members of society. One of my favorite pieces on the framework for the current crisis (over last 30 years) is this one: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom
the same thing giving trillions of dollars away to big companies does to the average working stiff's savings: make them worthless.
and perhaps the grains of truth will get lost in the haystack of noise to mix as many metaphors as possible.
it's really in response to propublica.
http://propublica.org/
But you read conflate militia and military. Militia to the point of the revolution had been conscripts and volunteers who supplied themselves. Thus they had the weapons at home and the government had no idea who or how many were "out there". Use of weapons (or dual use items like pitchforks) for self defense against bandits has been a right commonly held for millenia. Besides, your argument is self defeating. Were it true and reasonable, we would never have rebelled against the British, as our proto-government (revolution leaders) were all considered to be traitors and peasants, not "legitimate" militia/military leaders. So i think you might want to revisit the reasoning that led you to your position.
actually, try most scifi since the advent of the idea of gravity generators. Valve is borrowing from a deep vein in speculative fiction. Problem is that it's less speculative now. try again troll.
"Radio has no future."
-- Lord Kelvin
true, just 100 years late.
Thanks for the link to the new cult :p
FTFS:
that's why. extrapolate the ability to gather and focus gravity as we do with light. Then point that concentrated gravity somewhere... uggh.
no, direct election of representatives leads to mob rule. Athens proved this. U.S. senators were elected by your state legislatures or appointed by state governors. And the electoral college had a reason to exist apart from acting as a then state of the art communication system with non-repudiation (horse was the fastest mode of travel). This had a calming effect on the directly elected House of Representatives. It's sad that today the House is the calmer, more deliberative body and the Senate is the group hot under the collar to get things passed without debate. You know it's broken when it's working opposite to how it was described by those who made it.
He who would pun would pick a pocket, sir.
whoosh... dry humor flies fast.