Wait...I think I may have figured out the answer to my own question. I just realized that Slashdot's logo no longer has the tag line "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters". I'm not sure when that tagline disappeared, but I guess it wasn't for no reason.
How many posts are we going to see about Windows 8 on Slashdot? This is blowing my mind. How is this "news that matters"? Since when do slashdot readers care about "Windoze"? I pointed this out a couple of days ago and I was moderated a "troll". Has the slashdot community changed that much???
This not a troll; it is a comment....or more accurately, a [non-rhetorical] question.
More and more each day, stories are posted on Slashdot about details of Microsoft-related products. Fifteen years ago, such a thing would have been unheard of. My, how things have changed!
What's asinine is that the US still has a AA+ credit rating. WE ARE INSOLVENT! WE'RE THE LARGEST DEBTOR NATION! These credit ratings are a joke, plain and simple.
Yes, the entire damn monetary system with fractional reserve banking is a Ponzi scheme. It cannot and will not last forever. Every fiat currency that has ever existed has eventually collapsed. The dollar is just taking a bit longer to reach this inevitability because of its Reserve Currency status. But that only means that the crash will be exponentially more painful. In short, we're screwed.
What you care about and what you want may be one thing, but the fact remains that this country was _founded_ by a document that declares itself the Supreme Law of the Land. You may wish for lawyers and judges to [re]interpret it, but the lawyers and judges aren't the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. How do we know what the words in the Constitution really mean? We look to those who wrote it. It's quite logical.
This nation was set up, specifically, as a loosely coupled grouping of states and a very limited federal government. If that's not to your liking, that's your perrogative. You have free will, and may choose to find another place to live. The only other choice is to change/amend the Constitution to suit your desires. And the founding fathers were smart enough to build in such a feature. It is not legal or ethical, however, to simply ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. Nor is it wise, as it will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass, as history has proven countless times.
Of couse that's not the purpose or original intent of the commerce clause. It's simply one of the many ways the Constitution has been abused and disregarded. Read the writings of the founding fathers....try the Federalist papers. Try Federalist 56. Here's one possible article about this topic specifically: http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html
The current government and its traitorous Supreme Court judges have simply told you that it gives them the power to regulate interstate commerce because the want to usurp that power.
Did you know that the word "regulate" as used in the Constitution didn't mean what it means today? Back then it meant "to make regular" or "to treat evenly"; i.e. the job of the federal government was simply to make sure all states are treated evenly with regards to interstate commerce. Today, the definition has been warped to mean "to control". Naturally, that's what government is all about: power and control.
But the writings of those who wrote the Constitution make it clear what the original intent was.
Ahh yes, wisdom to live by. The only thing I can think of for so many people being so taken in by socialist ways these days is sheer ignorance of history. It's not like we don't have a recent example of socialism failing (er, Soviet Union).
What part of the Constitution (you know, the one they all swore to uphold, protect, and defend when they took office) allows the federal government to meddle in private industry in this way?
It's a nice idea, but real people overall just don't work that way. Perhaps, perhaps not.
Either way, it's my money (not the government's money) to decide what to do with it. It's hypocritical and unethical for my money to be confiscated and given to other people against my will, period.
You need to look a little closer. The govt we had for 100+ years was closer to a libertarian govt than the one we have now. Then the socialists took over and took everything to hell. And Libertarians don't believe that private corporations are a panacea of efficiency. That's just stupid. ("A true libertarian supports free enterprise, opposes big business" -- Edward Abbey). Of course there's waste an inefficiency in private industry, especially large businesses (we're all human, after all). HOWEVER, govt is far bigger and therefore far more inefficient. (One of the main reasons: there's no competition!)
Can you explain how you feel Badbarik is batty? He seems pretty straightforward libertarian to me. Shrink the govt to the confines of the constitution. Have a national defense, not a national offense. Get the govt off our backs. The standard stuff. What's batty?
I've read all of your posts on this thread and it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Badnarik is constantly harping (rightly so) about how the federal governement is way too big, and how we need to scale it back into within the confines of the constitution. He's a human being who occasionaly makes a joke or a flippant remark about the asinine U.N. and you pull it out of context and try to turn his views into something they're not?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait...I think I may have figured out the answer to my own question.
I just realized that Slashdot's logo no longer has the tag line "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters".
I'm not sure when that tagline disappeared, but I guess it wasn't for no reason.
-Mike
How many posts are we going to see about Windows 8 on Slashdot?
This is blowing my mind.
How is this "news that matters"?
Since when do slashdot readers care about "Windoze"?
I pointed this out a couple of days ago and I was moderated a "troll".
Has the slashdot community changed that much???
This not a troll; it is a comment....or more accurately, a [non-rhetorical] question.
More and more each day, stories are posted on Slashdot about details of Microsoft-related products. Fifteen years ago, such a thing would have been unheard of. My, how things have changed!
What's asinine is that the US still has a AA+ credit rating. WE ARE INSOLVENT! WE'RE THE LARGEST DEBTOR NATION! These credit ratings are a joke, plain and simple.
Spoken like a true statist.
Yes, the entire damn monetary system with fractional reserve banking is a Ponzi scheme. It cannot and will not last forever. Every fiat currency that has ever existed has eventually collapsed. The dollar is just taking a bit longer to reach this inevitability because of its Reserve Currency status. But that only means that the crash will be exponentially more painful. In short, we're screwed.
What you care about and what you want may be one thing, but the fact remains that this country was _founded_ by a document that declares itself the Supreme Law of the Land. You may wish for lawyers and judges to [re]interpret it, but the lawyers and judges aren't the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. How do we know what the words in the Constitution really mean? We look to those who wrote it. It's quite logical.
This nation was set up, specifically, as a loosely coupled grouping of states and a very limited federal government. If that's not to your liking, that's your perrogative. You have free will, and may choose to find another place to live. The only other choice is to change/amend the Constitution to suit your desires. And the founding fathers were smart enough to build in such a feature. It is not legal or ethical, however, to simply ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. Nor is it wise, as it will inevitably come back to bite you in the ass, as history has proven countless times.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2319156&cid=36738028
Of couse that's not the purpose or original intent of the commerce clause. It's simply one of the many ways the Constitution has been abused and disregarded. Read the writings of the founding fathers....try the Federalist papers. Try Federalist 56. Here's one possible article about this topic specifically: http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html
The current government and its traitorous Supreme Court judges have simply told you that it gives them the power to regulate interstate commerce because the want to usurp that power.
Did you know that the word "regulate" as used in the Constitution didn't mean what it means today? Back then it meant "to make regular" or "to treat evenly"; i.e. the job of the federal government was simply to make sure all states are treated evenly with regards to interstate commerce. Today, the definition has been warped to mean "to control". Naturally, that's what government is all about: power and control.
But the writings of those who wrote the Constitution make it clear what the original intent was.
Which of the 18 enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution allows for this sort of protection?
Then you're a firm believer in the idea that two wrongs make a right.
Why not give liberty a chance?
What part of the Constitution (you know, the one they all swore to uphold, protect, and defend when they took office) allows the federal government to meddle in private industry in this way?
Either way, it's my money (not the government's money) to decide what to do with it.
It's hypocritical and unethical for my money to be confiscated and given to other people against my will, period.
Sign a petition and send a letter to your representatives easily using DownsizeDC.org.
You need to look a little closer. The govt we had for 100+ years was closer to a libertarian govt than the one we have now. Then the socialists took over and took everything to hell. And Libertarians don't believe that private corporations are a panacea of efficiency. That's just stupid. ("A true libertarian supports free enterprise, opposes big business" -- Edward Abbey). Of course there's waste an inefficiency in private industry, especially large businesses (we're all human, after all). HOWEVER, govt is far bigger and therefore far more inefficient. (One of the main reasons: there's no competition!)
Can you explain how you feel Badbarik is batty? He seems pretty straightforward libertarian to me. Shrink the govt to the confines of the constitution. Have a national defense, not a national offense. Get the govt off our backs. The standard stuff. What's batty?
Another silly troll. Of course no libertarian would ever vote for a socialist.
I've read all of your posts on this thread and it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Badnarik is constantly harping (rightly so) about how the federal governement is way too big, and how we need to scale it back into within the confines of the constitution. He's a human being who occasionaly makes a joke or a flippant remark about the asinine U.N. and you pull it out of context and try to turn his views into something they're not?
The scary part about this post is that the author actually believes that what he posted is correct. *sigh*