> It continues astonishes me just how many people confuse Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with the war in Iraq.
Please don't conflate Al Qaeda/911 and terrorism. There is more than enough evidence (Iraqi State TV authoritative enough for you) that Iraq was up to it's neck in terrorism. Look hoem many islamic terrorists were openly LIVING in Bagdad. There is even moderate evidence that AQ and Iraq were making eyes at each other but probably hadn't consumated the relationship yet. Remember that Bush declared a Global War on Terror, not just AQ.
> Saddam's government was in no way connected to Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization.
See above. Plus you might want to recall Saddam was paying the families of suicide/homocide bombers. If that doesn't make Saddam a terrorist there really isn't much point continuing this discussion because you ain't fricking rational.
> Bush declared war based on his accusations that Saddam Hussein was trying > to obtain, or already had Weapons of Mass destruction.
I know this piece of fiction has been told and retold in the MSM media so many times it seems like fact, but it isn't. Google can provide you with the actual speech Bush gave. Concern that Saddam would either himself use WMD or supply them to others was ONE of the stated reasons. But not the primary one.
> Obviously, Bush was either misled, or was lying because they have found nothing > to prove his accusations.
Misled? Perhaps. Many (including one of Saddam's generals) believe WMD was shipped to Syria on the eve of war. History will render it's verdict. But lying? Doesn't pass the smell test. Unless you believe Bush & Cheney are so cunning they managed to con Clinton before he even announced his own run for the office in which case you are so whacked you need to go join the black copter chasers. The belief that Saddam still (remember, he USED them in the past so there is zero doubt he once had WMD) possessed some or all of his WMD stockpiles was universal in the Clinton administration, Congress, the US intelligence community, the French, British and German intelligence communities, etc. both before and during Bush's reign.
> Pakistan has significantly more Islamic fundamentalism than Iraq does, it is > also run by a dictator and was infact one of only three countries that recognized > the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Run by a nominally pro american dictator, thus not much risk of being nuked..... for now. Realpolitic isn't pretty and sometimes it can come back to bite ya on the ass. We will see hwo it works out in this case.
> It is also a declared Nuclear power.
This is the key difference. And why your fantasy about war with Pakistan is just that. Once a country gets the Bomb, war against it is pretty much off the table except in the most extreme circumstances. Which is why it is so important we take out Iran's facilities NOW.
As for your utter failure to comprehend the argument I made about the fallacy of whinging about the cost, see another post I made nearby.
> By invading Iraq, we did not save Western civilization, since it was never in jeopardy.
Sigh, I know lefties prefer emotion over reason but try to work a little harder on the reading comprehension.... Reading really is Fundamental, K?
You don't believe we are at war, ok. And if you read what I wrote you will see that I acknowledge that if one doesn't believe we are at war then spending ANY blood or treasure is a bad idea. It isn't a position I agree with, but if one starts from the position that we aren't in fact in a clash of civilizations, that spending anything on a 'false war' is a bad idea is a quite logical conclusion based on it.
However you can assert we aren't at war until the stars go cold but it isn't likely to change my position anymore than I'm likely to change yours.
I suspect that if one were to run the numbers and adjust for inflation and size of the GDP, the Transcontinental Railroad was probably a project on the same scale as a Transcontinental Maglev. The government helped the railroads along with some prize money, loans, right of ways, etc. but it was not a government project to the extent the Interstate Highway system was. So yes it could be done as a mostly private sector project. And if it ever happens it will almost certainly be a private project that gets the deed done.
The problem is fighting the entrenched interests who would use the government to obstruct it. Don't ya think the railroads would like to come roaring back to the forefront of passenger transport instead of the pathetic government boondoggle called Amtrack? Coast to coast in times that compare with air for a fraction of the fuel cost would be mighty darned compelling. And very profitable. But the airlines would obviously HATE the idea just for starters.
And for the poster above who gives the usual slashdot antiwar rant... of what use is a Maglev is some asshat blows it the hell up? Put bluntly, either the GWOT is justified on its own merits or it isn't. Silly comarisons to what else could be done instead with the cash is retarded. If you believe we are in a war for survival against an implacable foe out to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with a Caliphate then price isn't an object, only Victory will suffice; and if you don't believe we are at war then we never should have spent the first dollar.
> The insane part is that you're watching fox "news".
You should try it sometime. It is called diversity of ideas, it's much more important than what passes for diversity amongst the PC leftist crowd, where everyone looks different and practices sex different but they all think in lockstep.
Me I try to consume a well balanced diet of informaton. All of the MSM outlets have serious biases so only by keeping up with all of them, plus supplementing with extensive online sources can one hope to have anything like an informed opinion. Watch CNN and Fox cover the same event, compare and contrast. Then do the same with MSNBC and ABC. Read dkos? Well go read littlegreenfootballs or NRO for some balance.
I really don't see how the argument against Fox holds up. I have watched a fair number of the presidential debates. So far the Fox hosted debates have been dramatically more useful to me, as a Republican primary voter, in deciding on a candidate. And isn't that the point of a debate at this point? Asking general election questions are a waste of limited airtime right now. ABC was also pretty darned good though with the pair they hosted back to back. CNN was pretty pitiful, especially the Youtube one. MSNBC has been so horrible I can't understand why anyone would want to appear there.
I suspect, had the Democrats the courage to appear, a fox hosted debate would have been equally useful to Democratic voters. Don't judge the quality of Fox's journalism by the blowhards they run in primetime. I can't stand Bill either, but I guess neither of should be arguing against the highest rated talking head on the air since it is obvious somebody likes to watch his gimmick.
Seriously, who fscking cares if Apple is doing a normal product refresh? I bet Dell updates the memory/hdd/etc on serveral of it's products every week, don't see that making frontpage news on Slashdot. It even scrolled across foxnews for God's sake, how insane is that? Has everyone drunk that much of Steve's acid spiked Kool-Aid?
This isn't a new product, it is just a ramp in the flash. Something EVERY flash based product does several times per year as prices and capacity get better. It is like announcing water is still wet.
> For example, do you see that happen with Microsoft?
Yes Microsoft is the poster child for malpractice in software but the problem goes far beyond them.
Open Source has almost as bad a record, even if we are a lot more open about it instead of covering up our mistakes. Go look through the bug tracker of any major project and you will see countless instances where critical security bugs get fixed in code that has been shipping for years. Obviously there isn't enough importance on getting code correct vs getting features in.
I have long called for calling a one year stop to adding new code (other than new device drivers in kernels) and devoting that time to clearing some of the backlog in bugfixing, auditing and hardening the existing codebases. So many key components have been at 1.0 for years and years. Odds are any pre 1.0 codebase hasn't matured enough for a major audit so are accidents waiting to happen.
At a minimum companies like RH and Novell that sell open source based products need to make it clear which packages are at what level of confidence. I'd suggest a new rpm package tag and a yum/up2date/etc option to require express permission to install a package below a set threshold of safety.
Safety: Value
Where Value would have these choices:
0-Obviously poor design throughout, unsafe at any connect speed. Or poor update policies. 1-Totally unaudited, use at your own risk. (Most packages) 2-No formal auditing, but generally good security practices and/or prompt fixes. (example: Firefox/Iceweasel) 3-Audited code or exceptional design (example: qmail) 4-Through security audit, full SELinux support. No updates accepted without reaudit. 5-Design and implementation validated top to bottom by real certified engineers, fully warranted against defects for paying customers. No updates accepted without detailed re-validation.
coreutils, glibc and httpd should be striving for level 5 and everything else in a basic server install should be shooting for level 4 within a couple of years. The idea is that it should be possible to run a file/print/web server on 100% audited code with a longer term goal of full warranty against defects on everything above the kernel. Granted you woudn't get crapware like php up to those levels without paying for a fresh rewrite, and the kernel just changes to darned fast to get fully audited, but a fully secured base would be one hell of an advertising win. It would totally turn the argument upside down.
> Tax breaks for the ISPs, particularly the telcos.
Tax breaks for any industry sucks. So I oppose these.
> A hands off business approach, let them do with the money (and the consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers) > whatever they want.
This would be exactly right if not for one glaring problem. The government can't take a hands off approach to government created and controlled monopolies. In the US today, competition is defined as two government chartered monopolies fighting each other through a maze of government regulation. In one corner, weighting in at eight hundred pounds, is the Phone Company! A truly formidable government monopoly almost a hundred years old. And in the other corner, weighing in at six hundred pounds, is the new scrappy government monopoly, the Cable Company!
What needs to happen is a new breakup, but done right. Recognize where the monopoly actually exists and can't really be fixed. The last mile. Break that part of both the phone and cable company off and leave them government chartered monopolies. Utility companies who own and operate the physical plant from the end user, through the government granted right of ways to the central office/plant. But forbidden to offer ANY actual service over it, instead forced to sell access to all at non-discriminatory prices.
As for the thrust of this slashdot post, whinging for a government run Internet.... no fscking way! If you utopians think a government run Internet would be net neutral think again. A network run by the same assholes who gave us the DMCA in the first place is going to let 'yall sit around all day running bittorrent and happily building out ever more fiber for ya to do it on? Riiight.
> Because proposing a law should never be an impeachable offense.
At the risk of skirting Godwins Law, lets carry your reasoning to an extreme and see how it fares.
Be it resolved that all Negros, Jews, Hispanics, Asians and other non Caucasian undesirables be deported from the land and barred from returning.
I really can't find a damn bit of difference between the sort of out of control government that would allow that to be said in polite councils and one that will sit and calmly discuss the merits of banning Geiger counters. Both are discussing such grotesque violations of basic rights that any participation in the conversation beyond firmly denouncing the proposer in such fashion that it leaves no question that not only is the topic NOT fit for polite company and that simply proposing such a thing makes one unfit for public service leaves all participants morally tainted. I'd argue that they are tainted to the point of being unfit for public office.
Think I'm being extreme? Show me where they honoring ANY limit of their power in one case that wouldn't permit the other. In fact the better argumenmt could be made for the hypothetical bigot case I used in that their wicked scheme at least has the dubious merit of not implying the State has any sort of improper authority over the affairs of the Citizens (being in essence a law defining who is a Citizen) not being expelled while the abuse under discussion implies the State wields vast improper powers over EVERY citizen.
That the general population and the media aren't screaming for heads on pointy sticks is the worst part, that they are so used to such abuses it isn't even newsworthy anymore.
> Anybody who thinks that they "know" what the second amendment means is deluding themselves.
Ah, but I DO know what it says. I have one mighty advantage over the average government educated socialist; mad english comprehension skills! Even worse I have read some history.
Amendment II
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.
Like the rest of the Constituition, it is written in what was at the time plain English. With one sentence the writers declared both the rational for the Right to Keep and Bear arms and that the Right would be honored. The Right to Bear arms does not depend on the Second Amendment however, it being a fundamental human right shared by every member of H. Sapiens living or dead. The Bill of Rights is NOT a grant of Rights, it is a set of defined LIMITS on the scope of the Federal Government. We would have the right to keep and bear arms in the total absence of the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights and even the Constituition. The poor oppressed masses in China or North Korea have the same basic human rights, they are just unfortunate enough to live in a crappy dictatorship which oppressed them and denies them their rights. This is why if the norks suddenly rose up and slew their oppressors we would be cheering.
A 100% compatible but modernized restatement would be to say that "the authors believe that a because well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State it is especially important to avoid infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I don't know about you but I'm not living in a bad Star Trek episode. I don't need the Holy Priests to read the 'e plub niesta' to me, I can read English on my own, thank you. Shall not be infringed is about as clear as writing can get. And unless you believe that same men wrote "the People" to mean "the People" in other places but meant "the State" in the 2nd Amendment those arguments about it ensuring some sort of state power is deliberate attempts to deceive. Same for McCain/Fiengold vs "Congress shall make no law..."
> > So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc?
> Oh yes right wing troll. Please return us to the good old days when meat wasn't inspected for e-coli.
This tired lie straight from the socialist argument book. I take no firm position here whether meat should or should not be government inspected and whether the best level of government to do this would indeed be be a Federal agency. But that the 9th and 10th Amendments forbid such a role to the Federal Government isn't a point debatable among literate people. If there is truly widespread agreement that we should authorize the Federal Governemnt (instead of the states) to inspect meat, etc. then there should be no problem meeting the threshold to pass an Amendment, thus changing our form of government to permit it such a role.
Not doing it the legal way leads one to suspect that the truth is something entirely different. That like most socialist policy, it is doubtful such approval would have been forthcoming from the states. They would have opted to keep that authority and setup inspection regimes of their own; leaving your ilk to argue that the states would be incompetent/corrupt and leave Citizens at risk while the majestic Federal Government would be immune to these defects. Observing the pattern of such abuses tough one gets an even more disturbing idea; the sneaking suspicion that fear of failing to pass an Amendment isn't even the real reason Congress under the Progressive/Liberal/Socialists ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments to the point they become voided from being ignored. No, the reason they did it is most likely pure contempt for our Constituitional form of Government.
> One question though, if you carry a gun why didn't you use it in Dallas when you were facing that gun barrel?
Well for starters I don't carry. No need where I live, at least no need great enough to justify the bother of jumping through the hoops (and going onto government lists) to get a CCW. And Dallas at the time I lived there was even worse. Wouldn't have mattered though, the holdup happened at a workplace with one of those insane 'possession of a firearm on company property is an instant nonnegotiable termination offense' sort of places. With the current legal atmosphere it makes a perverted sort of sense but if nobody is willing to grow a pair and challenge the madness we get the current situation.
> Granted I am only one participant in this thread, but I think nobody here is supporting > what these NYC politicians want to do.
Guess you missed the very first post to the article? But my objection is more basic. The plain fact is that the New York City Council had a reasoned discussion with the fascist instead of instantly impeaching his ass for being insane enough to even propose such an invasion of basic liberties and moving on to the next agenda item. Even if this particular proposal is defeated the problem remains, that the government of New York City considered the idea. As if it could have done it with a simple majority vote. The problem is that it COULD have done exactly that, both that it claims unto itself such power but that the governed consent to it's government having such power.
Creatures that consent to such deserve all the government they get. And if the damage were limited only to themselves then I suppose they have the right to surrender their liberty.... except that such morally stunted creatures are still permitted to vote in national elections and have their ballots counted among Free Men.
No, realist. The advantages of living in a city are more than outweighed by the risks and expenses, especially in the era of Internet commerce and FedEX delivery. I lived in the Dallas metro area for five years in the early 1990's and got to experience it first hand. Had my car broke into twice (and it was a POS Datsun B210, not exactly an inviting target) and was forced to violate the important safety rule of not looking into the barrel of a loaded firearm once.
Since then I have wisely opted to only occasionally visit metropolitian areas and stick to the areas with at least a semblence of the rule of law. The problem is nationwide, the police increasingly can't enforce order and the population is barred from taking over their own defense. But while it is bad everywhere the problem is most acute in the large cities where Democrats rule with an iron hand.. over the law abiding at least.
The core problem is the notion that only the State has power, wisdom and Rights, that everyone else must cower in fear, their only option to plead for help from the all powerful, all knowing and all caring State. That any attempt to solve one's problems without a government program is not only misguided, it is dangerous and must be legislated against.
Look at the topic for this thread again. In only a couple of generations we have devolved from a proud free people into the sort of pitiful creatures that actually sit down and rationally discuss whether or not the State can regulate the possession of a Geiger counter. And you dare call me a coward? I can't properly respond to that in a civilized manner so....
[mode=flame setting=extra_crispy]
Fuck you. Fuck you and all who think like you. Fuck the pathetic whore that begat you, fuck the government schools that finished the job your congenitally defective parents started of turning what could have been a lovable retard into a pitiful worm fit only to labor under the yoke of the socialists.
[mode=normal]
I'd like to take this opportunity to applogize to everyone else who had to read that. Some insults just have to be answered in the spirit they are offered in. If a mod finds they can't forgive it and gives this post flamebait I'll understand.
> Either grow a spine or just stay inside your house wearing a shawl and quivering everytime you hear something outside.
Or move somewhere where the police still manage to keep order, where I don't have to worry about crime yet I don't live in fear of the Police either. Where I can have a gun, but keep it in the closet because it isn't needed. But I keep it as insurance against darker days and not only is this OK with everyone it isn't even remarkable because most everyone else has one. Being good upstanding citizens though, instead of criminal scum, we don't blow each other into kibbles every Saturday night. So if I hear something go bump some night I'll grab my equalizer and go see what's up.
> So you're saying it makes sense to drive truckloads of guns into the hands of people of the most densely populated cities of America?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most. I live in flyover country. Random violent crime is so rare it makes the front page on the occasion we have one. My weapon stays in a case on a top shelf of a closet on the reasoning that an accidental discharge is the greater risk. I wouldn't live in a place like NYC unless I could keep the damned thing loaded and under my pillow or srapped to my ass when I was walking the crime ridden streets of our major cities... even after the admirable efforts of NYC's former mayor to REDUCE[1] violent crime.
> You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting. The primary purpose was the belief that armed men are Citizens while unarmed ones were only Subjects. That the carrying of arms was itself a virtue, helping to keep a Free People in the right frame of mind to be worthy of receiving the Blessings of Liberty.
But while a gun control debate would be fun, I'm instead going to stay ontopic and use your post to illustrate my original point.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
He mentions "There is no reason people in NYC need guns" and "people of the most densely populated cities" which couldn't make my argument better that there has crept into the thinking, of city dwellers at least, that individual liberty is fundamentally incompatible with cities. Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million over tossing liberty but I refuse to believe it; Free Men can live in Cities, Suburbs, the country or on the Moon. Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
And note that he ins't calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment, just substituting his greater wisdom for that of the Founding Fathers without all that tedious mucking about with having a public debate about repealing the Bill of Rights. This trend is most disturbing because it isn't just limited to gun control. McCain/Feingold shredded the 1st Amendment while those who should have been objecting were cheering. 1, 2, 9 and 10 are pretty much extinct and 5 is threatened and not once have we actually repealed any of them.
Once upon a time the fundies wanted to regulate booze. Realizing the federal government had no such authority, and believing in our Republican Form of Government[2], they did it the right way and pushed through an Amendment though it took them a hell of a lot longer than just getting 50%+1 vote in Congress. So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Remember that you can't just object to ONE of these violations, because if one accepts the logic that allows ANY of these violations to occur the rest logically follow. Choose. Choose wisely.
[1] Reduce from truly insane to levels that make Dodge City at it's worst look like a safe place to raise children.
[2] As distict from the Republican Party... for the benefit of the Government educated.
> Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe.
Oh you fuddyduddy libertarian.;)
Seriously though I think it is a perfectly logical progression. After all we have already been told by every right thinking person[1] that NYC has to operate under different rules, that certain otherwise fundamental liberties must be compromised to make such a metropolis fuction.
Seriously, count em:
1. The second Amendment is pretty much void in New York. The former mayor[2] carefully explained in a recent debate that 'laws that make sense in New York might not make sense in flyover country' so I list this one first to put the accepted precedent that the idea that core Consitituitional liberties vary by population density is now accepted policy. Or I totally missed the nationwide outrush of rage, the riots, etc.
2. The right to property is probably most circumscribed in NYC. See the history of several generations of Rent Control for details.
3. The Right to follow a profession of one's choice is pretty much null and void in NY, between the unions and the almost total control by the city government through licensing and regulation designed not to pretect the public but to control entry into the professions to protect the current workers from competition.
4-999 could be filled in by anyone depressed enough to type that long.
No, if one accepts the base logic that makes that level of State control acceptable, allowing them the monopoly power to control information about the safety (read the actual performance of regulators) makes perfect sense. So all I can say is, suck it up Citizen, turn in your detectors and listen to the Safety and Civil Reassurance Administration when they calmly inform you everything is 'perfectly safe.'
Of course you COULD start demanding the whole fetid mess of dank rotting crap go to Hell. You don't even have to be a Ronulan to say that.
[1] Defined of course by the editorial board of the NYT and usually Socialist house organs such as the Village Voice. Nice to see one of their sacred oxes served up on the grill.
[2] With the partial agreement of all right thinking people[1] except they think he isn't enough of a gun banner.
> talk about naive. Did anybody here not realise that skype calls were going to be intercepted?
That is exactly why all the uproar. Too many stupid people looked at the magic encryption pixie dust eBay was splashing around Skype and thought it was safe. A closed implemntation of crypto by a closed corporation subject to the laws of most countries by virtue of being a multi-national. If the crypto didn't have bugs[1] a court order from any jurisdiction eBay does business in would be all that is needed to open calls to police ears.
If you want security it has to come from public crypto protocols implemented by open software running on open platforms. And even then, after you install openBSD, and carefully encrypt all of the partitions (even swap), you better make damned sure you keep physical control lest somebody install a keylogger and recover the passphrases.. and 'they' almost certainly can even manage it in laptops or handhelds!
[1] A really big IF, requiring a 'willing suspension of disbelief' if ever anything did to buy.
> I think you totally missed the point of his question.
Nah, I got it but decided to have some fun with the moron. If only they would actually keep their word and move to Canada if another Republican wins. If they would promise hard enough to convince me they meant it I'd drive myself into debt donating to the RNC. Alas winning won't be that easy.
> You responded with basically "Well there's still hope we'll beat the socialists > (Liberals) and even if the socialists win the US is still a great place to be."
Why run from what might be? After Hillarycare we will be much poorer though. With some parts of Europe showing some signs of waking up from their long socialist nightmare I guess I'd have to keep an open mind.... but since their birth rate + immigration problem will likely make Europe into Eurabia before they have time to get rid of the socialists there.... it's going to suck to be them in 20 years.
> Seriously, we know there are some pretty smart people in the US. > What we cannot figure out is why they are not leaving.
Several reasons.
1. There is still hope of turning the tide and sweeping the socialists from the field of battle. All we really need is one more Reagan type who understands that when strongly confronted, evil tends to yield.
2. Even with the government about to fall to the socialists, America is still a good place to be.
3. Related to #2, name somewhere better? Lots of socialist pestholes, dictatorships and failed states, but no places with greater individual liberty, rule of law,, respect for property and general opportunity to get ahead.
Seriously, go look at the rankings. Ranked on economic liberty the US is #4. Hong Kong might be #1 but I certainly wouldn't want to make any sort of longterm commitment in a place that is under a deathwatch, just waiting for the Chicoms to complete the takeover. Singapore is #2, but not very big on liberty outside of the economic sphere. Austrailia is a fraction above the US right now but recent events there indicate they are likely to fall faster than the US. And they already have more gun control tnan this NRA member would be able to put up with.
Nope, America is the last best hope for liberty. We make our stand here and either restore the old republic or die trying.
> On the other hand, fewer people get killed and in many cases, the ultimate end result is almost as good as if you stayed in and won.
Name one. Korea was called off in midwar and millions of people groan under the yoke of one of the most repressive regeims on the Earth while the people of South Korea live under the constant threat of attack by a certifiable madman. Vietnamn went into the loss column and millions died throughout the region leading to the US finally taking pity on the poor wretches that managed to escape and taking in the few remaining survivors. But for every one of the lucky boat people who made it to our shores how many died? And the blame goes to gutless worms such as yourself.
> But that's not the damning point at all--if you have to choose to begin a war, the war is automatically wrong and you are the aggressor.
I'm sure you are just a clueless product of governent education so I'll try not to hold it against you. BUt if you would care to look for yourself you will find there was a healthy debate before wars that you probably figure didn't require any. Yup, even WWI and WWII had fairly large contengients of ignorant peace at any cost asshole such as yourself sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress. Some of the arguments for some of the wars actually had rational cases on each side, others less savory such as the not insignificant pro nazi faction in the US who argued we should have entered the war on that side. The difference was that once the debate was finished and the votes counted they understood that the decision was made and that the country would no longer regard continued argument as constructive debate.
> "Legislating from the bench" is a bullshit notion that stems from a complete ignorance of the common law system.
Wrong. There ARE grey areas where judges are faced with conflicting laws, laws that fail to account for a specific situation they are facing, etc. Those corner cases are not what I'm on about though and I suspect you know it. Judges now write new taxes onto the lawbooks. Gay marriage and abortion aren't the most egregious abuses these days, we could survive those. A Judge, properly bound by the laws isn't a very powerful position. This is why the Founders considered the Judicial branch the least powerful. Few would make that claim today. What changed is they decided that instead of simply applying the law as written they would take it unpon themselves to seek 'Cosmic Justice' instead of simply giving claiments the rule of law.
> And aside from all that, you seem to take the solipsistic view that even for a vaguely-written Constitution meant to apply > general principles, its true meaning is very clear and simple to you and that no one, in good faith, could possibly interpret > it differently than you do.
Simple. The Constituition is very specific in granting the government a few limited functions but is mostly concerned with DENYING it authority in broad areas, especially the Bill of Rights. Those are the clearest parts and I'd guess I could spend two full terms just pushing the government OUT of things it clearly should not be involved with. Adn yes the Constituition IS written in very simple language that a teen should have no problems with comprehending, that you find it vague speaks volumes about your government education.
Find me the authority for any of the following:
1. The Dept of Education
2. Dept of Energy
3. Dept of the Interior (National Parks especially)
> And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.
Perhaps you are a defective and really wouldn't be fit to hold the office, but odds are you haev simply bought into some stupid notions and perhaps suffer from really low self confidence. Me, I know I could be an above average POTUS. It's actually fairly easy.
1. Realize the position wasn't intended to be the near God-King we have turned it into over the last century.
2. Articulate a clear set of guiding principles to the Executive Branch, then pick some solid competent people who are willing to actually implement those principles instead of trying to impose their own. This is the important part that trips up most administrations because it is the root cause of all of the internal backbiting and politicing. The unitary executive is the key ingredient in a successful administration. With it you don't have endless leaks, power struggles, etc.
3. Tell the 'smart people' who will insist you slave away for 16-20 hours per day doing meaningless bullshit because every previous POTUS did it to STFU and go play golf.
4. When an executive decision is required, pull in the dozen or so people most qualified to offer an opinion in, hear them all out and then make a decision. Recognize up front that even with the best advice that a fair number will be judged 'wrong' by history but the most important thing in most affairs is making A decision instead of endless dithering. The problem is that on any tough decision that isn't a simple binary choice everyone who you overrule will all agree that you made the wrong choice and hate you. The key is ignoring em.
Notice nothing in that requires a super genius, a super education or anything beyond average ability.
Personally my guiding principles would be:
1. The Constituition is back. In 99% of cases reading it first will tell you where I'll be so you can save the trouble of asking.
1a. Because the Ronulans and most Dims have trouble with this idea, the Constituition does not forbid war. We are currently at war and there is no such thing as 'ending' a War; you win or lose them and losing them has really undesirable consequences. Vigorious debate before the war is both desirable and Patrotic, anklebiting and lending aid to enemies after the choice to begin a War is not.
2. Less government is better government. State government is better than Federal government. See Amendments 9 & 10 when unclear on this point.
3. Laws are either to be repealed or enforced. This includes Immigration. It also includes the War on Some Drugs, although there I would like to be on the record as favoring the repeal part in most cases.
4. Judges rule on the law and Constituition as written, any attempts to legislate from the bench will be seen as an act of usurpation of the Rightful powers reserved to the other two branches and considered as just cause to commence proceedings for removal on those grounds.
5. In spite of my above support for crushing our enemies on the battlefield I don't like our international entanglements. Out of the UN, NATO, etc. and the only bases which we should have are those which directly serve US interests. Some Naval and Air bases are needed to allow us to project power when needed but I really don't see why we are still in Germany or Korea with large numbers of ground forces.
> If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention?
Could it be they prefer race baiting candidates who actually matter? The lack of Jackson and Sharpton tell everything one needs to know about Dr. Paul's chances. Those two are nothing if not masters of knowing how to use/abuse the mass media. Even they realize that attacking Paul is a waste of time because he isn't even accepted by the Republicans well enough to make their usual "see how bigoted all Republicans are?" attack. That Paul is either a bigot or a fool is self evident to anyone reading what went out under his name for decades but he is so irrelevant that even professional race pimps know making an issue of it would only bring name recognition to someone currently even more insignificant than themselves. Their usual game is to attack someone famous/infamous and create a huge media circus that they can then attach themselves leechlike to and suck media attention from it. But the Ronulans would probably suck more attention since they care not for public condemnation, just more opportunities to flog the troofer URLs in front of TV cameras.
> Yes, I can at least agree that Ron Paul is one of the crazies, but I actually agree with him on more points than I can with you.
Actually, my only philosophical difference with Paul is the War. Pre p/11 I'd support Paul, safe in the knowledge that while he couldn't actually win in a Welfare Socialist country running people like him and forcing a debate is the only way we have to educate enough people to eventually start electing some Libertarian Congresscritters. But Ron Paul 08 isn't about smaller government, following the Constituition or any of that, he is running on "End^H^H^HLose the War" almost to the exclusion of everything else.
Without a base of security and the rule of law it isn't possible to have a free society. And don't trot out that tired old line about trading one for the other. Yea there is wisdom in it. But there are anywhere between a few hundred thousand and a few tens of millions of Islamic Fascists who are convinced it is worth their life if they can take a couple of us to hell with them. That is an extenistial threat we either deal with, die from or roll over and surrender to... and as an agnostic I don't even have that option since they would cut my head off.
> As for the terrorists, if it were as simple as blowing them to hell, we'd have done that already. Our military is remarkably good at doing that.
That is one option. The Ann Coulter "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Final Solution. If Bush's "Show them a better way" plan fails, and it was tottering on the brink there for about two years, it might be the only one remaining. No doubt it would 'work' from a raw survival perspective but from a moral standpoint would we survive the guilt trip?
> What they aren't good at is building new governments or acting as the police where there are none. Perhaps we should train them > to do that, but I'd rather we not have to in the first place.
And I'd like a pony. We only get to pick options from the short list of those actually available. But since their plan is to restore the caliphiate and rule the world, our list of responses is:
1. Kill em all. 2. Bush's Spread Democracy 3. Accept them as our rulers. 4. Insert your idea here, and isolationism in a war with ICBMs isn't sane.
No we have not been doing all that well and yes your observation that our military isn't all that good at nation building is valid. So we are either willing to accept some mistakes as they LEARN because we have to do it or just say it isn't worth doing and quit. That means you have to go back to that list above and choose again though since doing nothing is choosing #3. As Rush sez:
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill I will choose a path that's clear I will choose free will."
> As far as that's concerned, we already have lost. But I guess that there are people like you who still haven't figured it out. > I bet I could guess why...
In the imortal words of Blutto, "It isn't over until WE say it's over." We won't lose on the battlefield, we will lose when enough Democrats convince enough average Americans we have no hope, so that they lose the will to continue. The kind of rancid, self hatred that serves as MSM coverage of this war would have cost us WWII long before we turned it around and started winning battles. Remember, the Japanese Navy kicked our asses almost to California before we got the upper hand. Just imagine Maureen Dowd and Krugman paitently (as if to simpletons) explaining why sueing for peace on ANY terms was the only logical choice, that we had lost and any terms would be better than having the Japanese invade California. That they were natural warriors and we weren't, that they had a massive military and we didn't, etc.
Ultimately War is about Will, not weapons systems. Do we have the Will to drag the 7th Century savages who think restoring the Caliphate is a good enough idea that they are willing to suicide for it into the modern era.
> So Obama's church has had ties to Farrakhan in the past.
Sorry, probably should have been more explicit with such a explosive charge. No, there are no signs Obama's church has ties to Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam or Islam (Never confuse Nation of Islam and actual Islam). But the ideas and policy positions of both are almost identical. Most importantly in that both are more focused on policy than theology. Obama's is an 'Africa Centered' religious/political organization that gives lipservice to Jesus while Louie's Nation of Islam is an "African Nationalist" religious/political organization that uses a highly mutated Islam as it's core. But both are preaching the same sort of racist intolerance and thinly veiled fascism that David Duke would heartily endorse... in fact DOES endorse from a different racial point of view.
But what really worries me about Obama is what ISN'T said. We have all known for over a decade where the Cinton's get their money, Communist China. Anytime the money gets tight some shady character from Aisa turns up with sacks of cash that eventually trace back to some General in the Chinese Army. Now Obama is outraising her and to date not one news story digging into where HE gets his 'mother's milk' of politics. We have an unknown IL State Congresscritter vaulted into the Senate and a year later into a viable Presidential candidate and nobody is asking who/what is quietly clearing the road for him.
> > Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.'
> Sure there is. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but they do believe in returning force with force.
> "Never be the one to start a fight. Always be the one to finish it."
Looks like you missed my point. Being for 'ending the war' is like being for Mom or Apple Pie. EVERYONE wants wars to be over. I want us to crush our enemies and bring our troops home in triumph. Democrats want us to just come home with our tail between our legs in a humiliating defeat. And being gutless cowards they won't admit it. I haven't seen any difference between Ron Paul's position on the War and any of the leading Democrats. Once a War is begun the only certainty is that it will end, the choice is HOW it ends.
But in the end I don't give a damn what Libertarians believe. That is my number one problem with em, they don't live in the real world. We don't live in a Libertarian country and even if we did it wouldn't exist in a Libertarian world. Here on Planet Earth we Americans live in a nation state that practices a form of Welfare Socialism and exists in a world filled with nation states that follow a variety of political systems, none of which could be termed Libertarian.
Don't get me wrong, I think Libertarian ideas are the best way forward... More individual liberty, free markets and less government is the right polestar to be following. Much like I'm convinced that there IS a unified field theory, even if we have been chasing it in vain for the better part of a century. However once you assemble a dozen Libertarians thinkers and try to figure out what a society would look like if Libertarian principles were to actually be implemented one quickly realizes we don't have the whole theory worked out yet because the discussion starts looking like a bunch of String Theorists discussing similar yet incompatible details.
> Yeah, we'll probably lose a city or two in the first decade or two after we try non-interventionism.
And I really wonder about the comprehension problem with the notion they HAVE initiated force already. There is a big fucking hole in the middle of New York that was a SMOKING hole for a year. It was only by Bush ramming through a truly massive tax cut that we avoiding a total economic collapse that could very well have ended our civilization right there. Just how many of those kind of hits do you think we can sustain before we either collapse or become a police state? Do we really have to have mushroom clouds sprouting over a few major cities before you idiots will figure out the War has been going on for a while now, only we have been closing our eyes really tight and wishing it would go away?
I don't really expect Democrats to ever wake up because most of their leadership are quietly rooting for the other damned side anyway. But I really expected the idiotarian vs. non-idiotarian split amongst the Libertarians to be more in favor of survival.
For a second there I though you were talking about McCain. Sorry, don't need the sort of 'independence' that causes McCain to wipe his ass on the 1st Amendment. Add in McCain/Kennedy (NCLB) and McCain/Bush (No Mexican Left Behind (in Mexico)) and he is the only sorta Republican (Paul is an idiotarian Libertarian running as an R) I would stay home for on election day.
> You mean like dismantling the fucking government? That dude is INSANE.
Ah, Paul. I actually kinda like most of that part of Ron Paul, too bad he isn't talking much about that, just losing WWIV by tossing in the towel. Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.' The time for that sort of talk was 2003 when Congress was considering declaring War. Once it is ON there is a simple binary choice left, Win or Lose. Have the balls to say "This war isn't worth winning so I propose we just quit and toss this one into the loss column." Hell, it might actually be possible to make that argument as putrid as the political climate has become because of the War.
> And that's before you even get to the facts that he's at best a racist apologist.
We active Repubs have been worrying about how to cleanse shit like Paul (and worse, some of the same sort of neo-nazis from the ranks of the anti-jihad forces on the European front of the GWOT) at sites like LGF for a few months.
The pickings are really crappy this season. Lemme snark the rest of the field.:)
Clinton is a powermad socialist bitch. Nuff said.
Obama is a nice socialist with almost zero experience (One year in the Senate before effectively resigning to campaign full time) and enough small hints to scare the piss out of anyone who has done any digging at all. (Member of a 'church' that is Farrakan''s Nation of Islam with the serial numbers filed off being a good starting place for research.)
Edwards is a low IQ powermad socialist with delusions of being Huey Long reborn. I'm from Louisiana and can say "Senator Edwards, You ain't Huey Long." And has the sort of hair that says Metrosexual. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Rudy I could vote for. Two outta three ain't bad, even if I get an 'slightly unstable' vibe at t imes. But his biggest idea seems to be this notion that he can win the nomination in the Blue states and then expect the Red states to accept that and turn out in the fall. Yea.... Right.
Romney thinks he can triangulate in the Republican Party. Sorry, we are smarter than that. Why don't Mitt and Johnny get together and discuss hair care secrets or something while the adults work. And aren't we just getting through with dealing with the results of a moderately successful MBA running mostly to avenge his Father? Ok, Romney didn't spend the first half of his life as a hell raiser, but then just how many hell raising Mormans have you ever seen? (Just ain't in em.)
Or then there is Huck. God save us from that populist rabble rouser. Ok, he had the balls (but more likely desperation) to hitch his fortune to the Fair Tax. But I won't enumerate his other problems.... just too depressing.
Finally we have the great hope.... Fred! Who is making a final stand in SC and is almost certain to end up like Davy Crockett at the Alamo... with no avenging Army of Texas to settle the score afterwards. Good ideas, solid conservative, steady leader. Crappy candidate.
Biden and Dodd are at least adults but they got eliminated in the very first round. So much for experience counting. (Guess HRC wasn't taking notes.)
Richardson made a lot more sense before he got into the race and decided his core voters would be Dailykos and moveon. But he will also be exiting soon so it doesn't matter.
Tancredo was almost as batshit insane as Ron Paul, just in different ways. Was good to see the end of him.
Sorry if I forgot to snark your favorite fringe candidate, but they sucked too.
But of course! Back when I copied VHS tapes I would ALWAYS make sure to copy the FBI warning. But these days we do have more options. Back then producing usable video was hard and modifying existing video pretty much was out of reach, now it is trivial. So now I think I'd want to copy the anti-piracy commercial and overlay snarky comments over it. But I certainly would not lock out the control keys.... Hell, I have been sore tempted to remaster DVDs in my collection that pull that bullshit. And I can promise Hollywood the next DVD player I buy WILL be hackable and the mod to prevent a DVD from overriding the menu key will go in before I finish connecting it to my system.
But these days I tend to buy when video content is available for purchase. Hell, I love Matt & Trey enough I want them to get some of my money... so they will keep cranking out new South Parks. Even though I already had fairly good downloads of the first six seasons when I got serious about building up the DVD collection.:)
> Not everybody is young and smart and capable of making their way in a chaotic free market.
This being slashdot and seeing the country as a whole is poised to start the process of picking out next president by choosing which socialist candidate's plan to nationalize the medical sector is best.... but I'm shocked anyway. Sorry, but if you actually don't want your freedom why don't you just go somehere already practicing socialism instead of working to hose the last best hope for liberty left on the planet? Canada is really close... and when you get sick you can hop back across the border.... for a little while longer.
Freedom isn't free folks, and one of the prices that can't be avoided is responsibility. If you want to be free you have to accept the consequences of everyone ELSE being free. You can't enslave them to provide for your every whim without THEM enslaving YOU. If you can't provide a good or service (usually labor) to your fellow man equal (equal as defined by the marketplace, which is longterm just a consensus decision) to the goods and services you expect them to provide you in return you only have a couple of choices. Up your game or lower your expectations.
If you want to live a first world lifestyle you had better plan on having first world skills and not expect things to be given to you as your 'birthright' because of the accident of being born in the first world. The only other choice is socialsm, i.e. voting yourself bread and circuses at the expense of the productive for a generation or two until you spread misery equally and become a third world socialist pesthole and drive the productive somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
> It continues astonishes me just how many people confuse Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with the war in Iraq.
Please don't conflate Al Qaeda/911 and terrorism. There is more than enough evidence (Iraqi State TV authoritative enough for you) that Iraq was up to it's neck in terrorism. Look hoem many islamic terrorists were openly LIVING in Bagdad. There is even moderate evidence that AQ and Iraq were making eyes at each other but probably hadn't consumated the relationship yet. Remember that Bush declared a Global War on Terror, not just AQ.
> Saddam's government was in no way connected to Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization.
See above. Plus you might want to recall Saddam was paying the families of suicide/homocide bombers. If that doesn't make Saddam a terrorist there really isn't much point continuing this discussion because you ain't fricking rational.
> Bush declared war based on his accusations that Saddam Hussein was trying
> to obtain, or already had Weapons of Mass destruction.
I know this piece of fiction has been told and retold in the MSM media so many times it seems like fact, but it isn't. Google can provide you with the actual speech Bush gave. Concern that Saddam would either himself use WMD or supply them to others was ONE of the stated reasons. But not the primary one.
> Obviously, Bush was either misled, or was lying because they have found nothing
> to prove his accusations.
Misled? Perhaps. Many (including one of Saddam's generals) believe WMD was shipped to Syria on the eve of war. History will render it's verdict. But lying? Doesn't pass the smell test. Unless you believe Bush & Cheney are so cunning they managed to con Clinton before he even announced his own run for the office in which case you are so whacked you need to go join the black copter chasers. The belief that Saddam still (remember, he USED them in the past so there is zero doubt he once had WMD) possessed some or all of his WMD stockpiles was universal in the Clinton administration, Congress, the US intelligence community, the French, British and German intelligence communities, etc. both before and during Bush's reign.
> Pakistan has significantly more Islamic fundamentalism than Iraq does, it is
> also run by a dictator and was infact one of only three countries that recognized
> the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Run by a nominally pro american dictator, thus not much risk of being nuked..... for now. Realpolitic isn't pretty and sometimes it can come back to bite ya on the ass. We will see hwo it works out in this case.
> It is also a declared Nuclear power.
This is the key difference. And why your fantasy about war with Pakistan is just that. Once a country gets the Bomb, war against it is pretty much off the table except in the most extreme circumstances. Which is why it is so important we take out Iran's facilities NOW.
As for your utter failure to comprehend the argument I made about the fallacy of whinging about the cost, see another post I made nearby.
> By invading Iraq, we did not save Western civilization, since it was never in jeopardy.
Sigh, I know lefties prefer emotion over reason but try to work a little harder on the reading comprehension.... Reading really is Fundamental, K?
You don't believe we are at war, ok. And if you read what I wrote you will see that I acknowledge that if one doesn't believe we are at war then spending ANY blood or treasure is a bad idea. It isn't a position I agree with, but if one starts from the position that we aren't in fact in a clash of civilizations, that spending anything on a 'false war' is a bad idea is a quite logical conclusion based on it.
However you can assert we aren't at war until the stars go cold but it isn't likely to change my position anymore than I'm likely to change yours.
> That's what the free market is for.
I suspect that if one were to run the numbers and adjust for inflation and size of the GDP, the Transcontinental Railroad was probably a project on the same scale as a Transcontinental Maglev. The government helped the railroads along with some prize money, loans, right of ways, etc. but it was not a government project to the extent the Interstate Highway system was. So yes it could be done as a mostly private sector project. And if it ever happens it will almost certainly be a private project that gets the deed done.
The problem is fighting the entrenched interests who would use the government to obstruct it. Don't ya think the railroads would like to come roaring back to the forefront of passenger transport instead of the pathetic government boondoggle called Amtrack? Coast to coast in times that compare with air for a fraction of the fuel cost would be mighty darned compelling. And very profitable. But the airlines would obviously HATE the idea just for starters.
And for the poster above who gives the usual slashdot antiwar rant... of what use is a Maglev is some asshat blows it the hell up? Put bluntly, either the GWOT is justified on its own merits or it isn't. Silly comarisons to what else could be done instead with the cash is retarded. If you believe we are in a war for survival against an implacable foe out to destroy Western Civilization and replace it with a Caliphate then price isn't an object, only Victory will suffice; and if you don't believe we are at war then we never should have spent the first dollar.
> The insane part is that you're watching fox "news".
You should try it sometime. It is called diversity of ideas, it's much more important than what passes for diversity amongst the PC leftist crowd, where everyone looks different and practices sex different but they all think in lockstep.
Me I try to consume a well balanced diet of informaton. All of the MSM outlets have serious biases so only by keeping up with all of them, plus supplementing with extensive online sources can one hope to have anything like an informed opinion. Watch CNN and Fox cover the same event, compare and contrast. Then do the same with MSNBC and ABC. Read dkos? Well go read littlegreenfootballs or NRO for some balance.
I really don't see how the argument against Fox holds up. I have watched a fair number of the presidential debates. So far the Fox hosted debates have been dramatically more useful to me, as a Republican primary voter, in deciding on a candidate. And isn't that the point of a debate at this point? Asking general election questions are a waste of limited airtime right now. ABC was also pretty darned good though with the pair they hosted back to back. CNN was pretty pitiful, especially the Youtube one. MSNBC has been so horrible I can't understand why anyone would want to appear there.
I suspect, had the Democrats the courage to appear, a fox hosted debate would have been equally useful to Democratic voters. Don't judge the quality of Fox's journalism by the blowhards they run in primetime. I can't stand Bill either, but I guess neither of should be arguing against the highest rated talking head on the air since it is obvious somebody likes to watch his gimmick.
Seriously, who fscking cares if Apple is doing a normal product refresh? I bet Dell updates the memory/hdd/etc on serveral of it's products every week, don't see that making frontpage news on Slashdot. It even scrolled across foxnews for God's sake, how insane is that? Has everyone drunk that much of Steve's acid spiked Kool-Aid?
This isn't a new product, it is just a ramp in the flash. Something EVERY flash based product does several times per year as prices and capacity get better. It is like announcing water is still wet.
> For example, do you see that happen with Microsoft?
Yes Microsoft is the poster child for malpractice in software but the problem goes far beyond them.
Open Source has almost as bad a record, even if we are a lot more open about it instead of covering up our mistakes. Go look through the bug tracker of any major project and you will see countless instances where critical security bugs get fixed in code that has been shipping for years. Obviously there isn't enough importance on getting code correct vs getting features in.
I have long called for calling a one year stop to adding new code (other than new device drivers in kernels) and devoting that time to clearing some of the backlog in bugfixing, auditing and hardening the existing codebases. So many key components have been at 1.0 for years and years. Odds are any pre 1.0 codebase hasn't matured enough for a major audit so are accidents waiting to happen.
At a minimum companies like RH and Novell that sell open source based products need to make it clear which packages are at what level of confidence. I'd suggest a new rpm package tag and a yum/up2date/etc option to require express permission to install a package below a set threshold of safety.
Safety: Value
Where Value would have these choices:
0-Obviously poor design throughout, unsafe at any connect speed. Or poor update policies.
1-Totally unaudited, use at your own risk. (Most packages)
2-No formal auditing, but generally good security practices and/or prompt fixes. (example: Firefox/Iceweasel)
3-Audited code or exceptional design (example: qmail)
4-Through security audit, full SELinux support. No updates accepted without reaudit.
5-Design and implementation validated top to bottom by real certified engineers, fully warranted against defects for paying customers. No updates accepted without detailed re-validation.
coreutils, glibc and httpd should be striving for level 5 and everything else in a basic server install should be shooting for level 4 within a couple of years. The idea is that it should be possible to run a file/print/web server on 100% audited code with a longer term goal of full warranty against defects on everything above the kernel. Granted you woudn't get crapware like php up to those levels without paying for a fresh rewrite, and the kernel just changes to darned fast to get fully audited, but a fully secured base would be one hell of an advertising win. It would totally turn the argument upside down.
> Tax breaks for the ISPs, particularly the telcos.
Tax breaks for any industry sucks. So I oppose these.
> A hands off business approach, let them do with the money (and the consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers)
> whatever they want.
This would be exactly right if not for one glaring problem. The government can't take a hands off approach to government created and controlled monopolies. In the US today, competition is defined as two government chartered monopolies fighting each other through a maze of government regulation. In one corner, weighting in at eight hundred pounds, is the Phone Company! A truly formidable government monopoly almost a hundred years old. And in the other corner, weighing in at six hundred pounds, is the new scrappy government monopoly, the Cable Company!
What needs to happen is a new breakup, but done right. Recognize where the monopoly actually exists and can't really be fixed. The last mile. Break that part of both the phone and cable company off and leave them government chartered monopolies. Utility companies who own and operate the physical plant from the end user, through the government granted right of ways to the central office/plant. But forbidden to offer ANY actual service over it, instead forced to sell access to all at non-discriminatory prices.
As for the thrust of this slashdot post, whinging for a government run Internet.... no fscking way! If you utopians think a government run Internet would be net neutral think again. A network run by the same assholes who gave us the DMCA in the first place is going to let 'yall sit around all day running bittorrent and happily building out ever more fiber for ya to do it on? Riiight.
> Because proposing a law should never be an impeachable offense.
At the risk of skirting Godwins Law, lets carry your reasoning to an extreme and see how it fares.
Be it resolved that all Negros, Jews, Hispanics, Asians and other non Caucasian undesirables be deported from the land and barred from returning.
I really can't find a damn bit of difference between the sort of out of control government that would allow that to be said in polite councils and one that will sit and calmly discuss the merits of banning Geiger counters. Both are discussing such grotesque violations of basic rights that any participation in the conversation beyond firmly denouncing the proposer in such fashion that it leaves no question that not only is the topic NOT fit for polite company and that simply proposing such a thing makes one unfit for public service leaves all participants morally tainted. I'd argue that they are tainted to the point of being unfit for public office.
Think I'm being extreme? Show me where they honoring ANY limit of their power in one case that wouldn't permit the other. In fact the better argumenmt could be made for the hypothetical bigot case I used in that their wicked scheme at least has the dubious merit of not implying the State has any sort of improper authority over the affairs of the Citizens (being in essence a law defining who is a Citizen) not being expelled while the abuse under discussion implies the State wields vast improper powers over EVERY citizen.
That the general population and the media aren't screaming for heads on pointy sticks is the worst part, that they are so used to such abuses it isn't even newsworthy anymore.
> Anybody who thinks that they "know" what the second amendment means is deluding themselves.
Ah, but I DO know what it says. I have one mighty advantage over the average government educated socialist; mad english comprehension skills! Even worse I have read some history.
Amendment II
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.
Like the rest of the Constituition, it is written in what was at the time plain English. With one sentence the writers declared both the rational for the Right to Keep and Bear arms and that the Right would be honored. The Right to Bear arms does not depend on the Second Amendment however, it being a fundamental human right shared by every member of H. Sapiens living or dead. The Bill of Rights is NOT a grant of Rights, it is a set of defined LIMITS on the scope of the Federal Government. We would have the right to keep and bear arms in the total absence of the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights and even the Constituition. The poor oppressed masses in China or North Korea have the same basic human rights, they are just unfortunate enough to live in a crappy dictatorship which oppressed them and denies them their rights. This is why if the norks suddenly rose up and slew their oppressors we would be cheering.
A 100% compatible but modernized restatement would be to say that "the authors believe that a because well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State it is especially important to avoid infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I don't know about you but I'm not living in a bad Star Trek episode. I don't need the Holy Priests to read the 'e plub niesta' to me, I can read English on my own, thank you. Shall not be infringed is about as clear as writing can get. And unless you believe that same men wrote "the People" to mean "the People" in other places but meant "the State" in the 2nd Amendment those arguments about it ensuring some sort of state power is deliberate attempts to deceive. Same for McCain/Fiengold vs "Congress shall make no law..."
> > So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc?
> Oh yes right wing troll. Please return us to the good old days when meat wasn't inspected for e-coli.
This tired lie straight from the socialist argument book. I take no firm position here whether meat should or should not be government inspected and whether the best level of government to do this would indeed be be a Federal agency. But that the 9th and 10th Amendments forbid such a role to the Federal Government isn't a point debatable among literate people. If there is truly widespread agreement that we should authorize the Federal Governemnt (instead of the states) to inspect meat, etc. then there should be no problem meeting the threshold to pass an Amendment, thus changing our form of government to permit it such a role.
Not doing it the legal way leads one to suspect that the truth is something entirely different. That like most socialist policy, it is doubtful such approval would have been forthcoming from the states. They would have opted to keep that authority and setup inspection regimes of their own; leaving your ilk to argue that the states would be incompetent/corrupt and leave Citizens at risk while the majestic Federal Government would be immune to these defects. Observing the pattern of such abuses tough one gets an even more disturbing idea; the sneaking suspicion that fear of failing to pass an Amendment isn't even the real reason Congress under the Progressive/Liberal/Socialists ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments to the point they become voided from being ignored. No, the reason they did it is most likely pure contempt for our Constituitional form of Government.
> One question though, if you carry a gun why didn't you use it in Dallas when you were facing that gun barrel?
Well for starters I don't carry. No need where I live, at least no need great enough to justify the bother of jumping through the hoops (and going onto government lists) to get a CCW. And Dallas at the time I lived there was even worse. Wouldn't have mattered though, the holdup happened at a workplace with one of those insane 'possession of a firearm on company property is an instant nonnegotiable termination offense' sort of places. With the current legal atmosphere it makes a perverted sort of sense but if nobody is willing to grow a pair and challenge the madness we get the current situation.
> Granted I am only one participant in this thread, but I think nobody here is supporting
> what these NYC politicians want to do.
Guess you missed the very first post to the article? But my objection is more basic. The plain fact is that the New York City Council had a reasoned discussion with the fascist instead of instantly impeaching his ass for being insane enough to even propose such an invasion of basic liberties and moving on to the next agenda item. Even if this particular proposal is defeated the problem remains, that the government of New York City considered the idea. As if it could have done it with a simple majority vote. The problem is that it COULD have done exactly that, both that it claims unto itself such power but that the governed consent to it's government having such power.
Creatures that consent to such deserve all the government they get. And if the damage were limited only to themselves then I suppose they have the right to surrender their liberty.... except that such morally stunted creatures are still permitted to vote in national elections and have their ballots counted among Free Men.
> Wow. You're such a coward.
No, realist. The advantages of living in a city are more than outweighed by the risks and expenses, especially in the era of Internet commerce and FedEX delivery. I lived in the Dallas metro area for five years in the early 1990's and got to experience it first hand. Had my car broke into twice (and it was a POS Datsun B210, not exactly an inviting target) and was forced to violate the important safety rule of not looking into the barrel of a loaded firearm once.
Since then I have wisely opted to only occasionally visit metropolitian areas and stick to the areas with at least a semblence of the rule of law. The problem is nationwide, the police increasingly can't enforce order and the population is barred from taking over their own defense. But while it is bad everywhere the problem is most acute in the large cities where Democrats rule with an iron hand.. over the law abiding at least.
The core problem is the notion that only the State has power, wisdom and Rights, that everyone else must cower in fear, their only option to plead for help from the all powerful, all knowing and all caring State. That any attempt to solve one's problems without a government program is not only misguided, it is dangerous and must be legislated against.
Look at the topic for this thread again. In only a couple of generations we have devolved from a proud free people into the sort of pitiful creatures that actually sit down and rationally discuss whether or not the State can regulate the possession of a Geiger counter. And you dare call me a coward? I can't properly respond to that in a civilized manner so....
[mode=flame setting=extra_crispy]
Fuck you. Fuck you and all who think like you. Fuck the pathetic whore that begat you, fuck the government schools that finished the job your congenitally defective parents started of turning what could have been a lovable retard into a pitiful worm fit only to labor under the yoke of the socialists.
[mode=normal]
I'd like to take this opportunity to applogize to everyone else who had to read that. Some insults just have to be answered in the spirit they are offered in. If a mod finds they can't forgive it and gives this post flamebait I'll understand.
> Either grow a spine or just stay inside your house wearing a shawl and quivering everytime you hear something outside.
Or move somewhere where the police still manage to keep order, where I don't have to worry about crime yet I don't live in fear of the Police either. Where I can have a gun, but keep it in the closet because it isn't needed. But I keep it as insurance against darker days and not only is this OK with everyone it isn't even remarkable because most everyone else has one. Being good upstanding citizens though, instead of criminal scum, we don't blow each other into kibbles every Saturday night. So if I hear something go bump some night I'll grab my equalizer and go see what's up.
> So you're saying it makes sense to drive truckloads of guns into the hands of people of the most densely populated cities of America?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most. I live in flyover country. Random violent crime is so rare it makes the front page on the occasion we have one. My weapon stays in a case on a top shelf of a closet on the reasoning that an accidental discharge is the greater risk. I wouldn't live in a place like NYC unless I could keep the damned thing loaded and under my pillow or srapped to my ass when I was walking the crime ridden streets of our major cities... even after the admirable efforts of NYC's former mayor to REDUCE[1] violent crime.
> You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting. The primary purpose was the belief that armed men are Citizens while unarmed ones were only Subjects. That the carrying of arms was itself a virtue, helping to keep a Free People in the right frame of mind to be worthy of receiving the Blessings of Liberty.
But while a gun control debate would be fun, I'm instead going to stay ontopic and use your post to illustrate my original point.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
He mentions "There is no reason people in NYC need guns" and "people of the most densely populated cities" which couldn't make my argument better that there has crept into the thinking, of city dwellers at least, that individual liberty is fundamentally incompatible with cities. Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million over tossing liberty but I refuse to believe it; Free Men can live in Cities, Suburbs, the country or on the Moon. Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
And note that he ins't calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment, just substituting his greater wisdom for that of the Founding Fathers without all that tedious mucking about with having a public debate about repealing the Bill of Rights. This trend is most disturbing because it isn't just limited to gun control. McCain/Feingold shredded the 1st Amendment while those who should have been objecting were cheering. 1, 2, 9 and 10 are pretty much extinct and 5 is threatened and not once have we actually repealed any of them.
Once upon a time the fundies wanted to regulate booze. Realizing the federal government had no such authority, and believing in our Republican Form of Government[2], they did it the right way and pushed through an Amendment though it took them a hell of a lot longer than just getting 50%+1 vote in Congress. So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Remember that you can't just object to ONE of these violations, because if one accepts the logic that allows ANY of these violations to occur the rest logically follow. Choose. Choose wisely.
[1] Reduce from truly insane to levels that make Dodge City at it's worst look like a safe place to raise children.
[2] As distict from the Republican Party... for the benefit of the Government educated.
> Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe.
;)
Oh you fuddyduddy libertarian.
Seriously though I think it is a perfectly logical progression. After all we have already been told by every right thinking person[1] that NYC has to operate under different rules, that certain otherwise fundamental liberties must be compromised to make such a metropolis fuction.
Seriously, count em:
1. The second Amendment is pretty much void in New York. The former mayor[2] carefully explained in a recent debate that 'laws that make sense in New York might not make sense in flyover country' so I list this one first to put the accepted precedent that the idea that core Consitituitional liberties vary by population density is now accepted policy. Or I totally missed the nationwide outrush of rage, the riots, etc.
2. The right to property is probably most circumscribed in NYC. See the history of several generations of Rent Control for details.
3. The Right to follow a profession of one's choice is pretty much null and void in NY, between the unions and the almost total control by the city government through licensing and regulation designed not to pretect the public but to control entry into the professions to protect the current workers from competition.
4-999 could be filled in by anyone depressed enough to type that long.
No, if one accepts the base logic that makes that level of State control acceptable, allowing them the monopoly power to control information about the safety (read the actual performance of regulators) makes perfect sense. So all I can say is, suck it up Citizen, turn in your detectors and listen to the Safety and Civil Reassurance Administration when they calmly inform you everything is 'perfectly safe.'
Of course you COULD start demanding the whole fetid mess of dank rotting crap go to Hell. You don't even have to be a Ronulan to say that.
[1] Defined of course by the editorial board of the NYT and usually Socialist house organs such as the Village Voice. Nice to see one of their sacred oxes served up on the grill.
[2] With the partial agreement of all right thinking people[1] except they think he isn't enough of a gun banner.
> talk about naive. Did anybody here not realise that skype calls were going to be intercepted?
That is exactly why all the uproar. Too many stupid people looked at the magic encryption pixie dust eBay was splashing around Skype and thought it was safe. A closed implemntation of crypto by a closed corporation subject to the laws of most countries by virtue of being a multi-national. If the crypto didn't have bugs[1] a court order from any jurisdiction eBay does business in would be all that is needed to open calls to police ears.
If you want security it has to come from public crypto protocols implemented by open software running on open platforms. And even then, after you install openBSD, and carefully encrypt all of the partitions (even swap), you better make damned sure you keep physical control lest somebody install a keylogger and recover the passphrases.. and 'they' almost certainly can even manage it in laptops or handhelds!
[1] A really big IF, requiring a 'willing suspension of disbelief' if ever anything did to buy.
> I think you totally missed the point of his question.
Nah, I got it but decided to have some fun with the moron. If only they would actually keep their word and move to Canada if another Republican wins. If they would promise hard enough to convince me they meant it I'd drive myself into debt donating to the RNC. Alas winning won't be that easy.
> You responded with basically "Well there's still hope we'll beat the socialists
> (Liberals) and even if the socialists win the US is still a great place to be."
Why run from what might be? After Hillarycare we will be much poorer though. With some parts of Europe showing some signs of waking up from their long socialist nightmare I guess I'd have to keep an open mind.... but since their birth rate + immigration problem will likely make Europe into Eurabia before they have time to get rid of the socialists there.... it's going to suck to be them in 20 years.
> Seriously, we know there are some pretty smart people in the US.
> What we cannot figure out is why they are not leaving.
Several reasons.
1. There is still hope of turning the tide and sweeping the socialists from the field of battle. All we really need is one more Reagan type who understands that when strongly confronted, evil tends to yield.
2. Even with the government about to fall to the socialists, America is still a good place to be.
3. Related to #2, name somewhere better? Lots of socialist pestholes, dictatorships and failed states, but no places with greater individual liberty, rule of law,, respect for property and general opportunity to get ahead.
Seriously, go look at the rankings. Ranked on economic liberty the US is #4. Hong Kong might be #1 but I certainly wouldn't want to make any sort of longterm commitment in a place that is under a deathwatch, just waiting for the Chicoms to complete the takeover. Singapore is #2, but not very big on liberty outside of the economic sphere. Austrailia is a fraction above the US right now but recent events there indicate they are likely to fall faster than the US. And they already have more gun control tnan this NRA member would be able to put up with.
Nope, America is the last best hope for liberty. We make our stand here and either restore the old republic or die trying.
> On the other hand, fewer people get killed and in many cases, the ultimate end result is almost as good as if you stayed in and won.
Name one. Korea was called off in midwar and millions of people groan under the yoke of one of the most repressive regeims on the Earth while the people of South Korea live under the constant threat of attack by a certifiable madman. Vietnamn went into the loss column and millions died throughout the region leading to the US finally taking pity on the poor wretches that managed to escape and taking in the few remaining survivors. But for every one of the lucky boat people who made it to our shores how many died? And the blame goes to gutless worms such as yourself.
> But that's not the damning point at all--if you have to choose to begin a war, the war is automatically wrong and you are the aggressor.
I'm sure you are just a clueless product of governent education so I'll try not to hold it against you. BUt if you would care to look for yourself you will find there was a healthy debate before wars that you probably figure didn't require any. Yup, even WWI and WWII had fairly large contengients of ignorant peace at any cost asshole such as yourself sitting in the hallowed halls of Congress. Some of the arguments for some of the wars actually had rational cases on each side, others less savory such as the not insignificant pro nazi faction in the US who argued we should have entered the war on that side. The difference was that once the debate was finished and the votes counted they understood that the decision was made and that the country would no longer regard continued argument as constructive debate.
> "Legislating from the bench" is a bullshit notion that stems from a complete ignorance of the common law system.
Wrong. There ARE grey areas where judges are faced with conflicting laws, laws that fail to account for a specific situation they are facing, etc. Those corner cases are not what I'm on about though and I suspect you know it. Judges now write new taxes onto the lawbooks. Gay marriage and abortion aren't the most egregious abuses these days, we could survive those. A Judge, properly bound by the laws isn't a very powerful position. This is why the Founders considered the Judicial branch the least powerful. Few would make that claim today. What changed is they decided that instead of simply applying the law as written they would take it unpon themselves to seek 'Cosmic Justice' instead of simply giving claiments the rule of law.
> And aside from all that, you seem to take the solipsistic view that even for a vaguely-written Constitution meant to apply
> general principles, its true meaning is very clear and simple to you and that no one, in good faith, could possibly interpret
> it differently than you do.
Simple. The Constituition is very specific in granting the government a few limited functions but is mostly concerned with DENYING it authority in broad areas, especially the Bill of Rights. Those are the clearest parts and I'd guess I could spend two full terms just pushing the government OUT of things it clearly should not be involved with. Adn yes the Constituition IS written in very simple language that a teen should have no problems with comprehending, that you find it vague speaks volumes about your government education.
Find me the authority for any of the following:
1. The Dept of Education
2. Dept of Energy
3. Dept of the Interior (National Parks especially)
4. Food and Drug Administration
5. Department of Health and Human Services
6. Department of Agriculture
> And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.
Perhaps you are a defective and really wouldn't be fit to hold the office, but odds are you haev simply bought into some stupid notions and perhaps suffer from really low self confidence. Me, I know I could be an above average POTUS. It's actually fairly easy.
1. Realize the position wasn't intended to be the near God-King we have turned it into over the last century.
2. Articulate a clear set of guiding principles to the Executive Branch, then pick some solid competent people who are willing to actually implement those principles instead of trying to impose their own. This is the important part that trips up most administrations because it is the root cause of all of the internal backbiting and politicing. The unitary executive is the key ingredient in a successful administration. With it you don't have endless leaks, power struggles, etc.
3. Tell the 'smart people' who will insist you slave away for 16-20 hours per day doing meaningless bullshit because every previous POTUS did it to STFU and go play golf.
4. When an executive decision is required, pull in the dozen or so people most qualified to offer an opinion in, hear them all out and then make a decision. Recognize up front that even with the best advice that a fair number will be judged 'wrong' by history but the most important thing in most affairs is making A decision instead of endless dithering. The problem is that on any tough decision that isn't a simple binary choice everyone who you overrule will all agree that you made the wrong choice and hate you. The key is ignoring em.
Notice nothing in that requires a super genius, a super education or anything beyond average ability.
Personally my guiding principles would be:
1. The Constituition is back. In 99% of cases reading it first will tell you where I'll be so you can save the trouble of asking.
1a. Because the Ronulans and most Dims have trouble with this idea, the Constituition does not forbid war. We are currently at war and there is no such thing as 'ending' a War; you win or lose them and losing them has really undesirable consequences. Vigorious debate before the war is both desirable and Patrotic, anklebiting and lending aid to enemies after the choice to begin a War is not.
2. Less government is better government. State government is better than Federal government. See Amendments 9 & 10 when unclear on this point.
3. Laws are either to be repealed or enforced. This includes Immigration. It also includes the War on Some Drugs, although there I would like to be on the record as favoring the repeal part in most cases.
4. Judges rule on the law and Constituition as written, any attempts to legislate from the bench will be seen as an act of usurpation of the Rightful powers reserved to the other two branches and considered as just cause to commence proceedings for removal on those grounds.
5. In spite of my above support for crushing our enemies on the battlefield I don't like our international entanglements. Out of the UN, NATO, etc. and the only bases which we should have are those which directly serve US interests. Some Naval and Air bases are needed to allow us to project power when needed but I really don't see why we are still in Germany or Korea with large numbers of ground forces.
> If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention?
Could it be they prefer race baiting candidates who actually matter? The lack of Jackson and Sharpton tell everything one needs to know about Dr. Paul's chances. Those two are nothing if not masters of knowing how to use/abuse the mass media. Even they realize that attacking Paul is a waste of time because he isn't even accepted by the Republicans well enough to make their usual "see how bigoted all Republicans are?" attack. That Paul is either a bigot or a fool is self evident to anyone reading what went out under his name for decades but he is so irrelevant that even professional race pimps know making an issue of it would only bring name recognition to someone currently even more insignificant than themselves. Their usual game is to attack someone famous/infamous and create a huge media circus that they can then attach themselves leechlike to and suck media attention from it. But the Ronulans would probably suck more attention since they care not for public condemnation, just more opportunities to flog the troofer URLs in front of TV cameras.
> Yes, I can at least agree that Ron Paul is one of the crazies, but I actually agree with him on more points than I can with you.
Actually, my only philosophical difference with Paul is the War. Pre p/11 I'd support Paul, safe in the knowledge that while he couldn't actually win in a Welfare Socialist country running people like him and forcing a debate is the only way we have to educate enough people to eventually start electing some Libertarian Congresscritters. But Ron Paul 08 isn't about smaller government, following the Constituition or any of that, he is running on "End^H^H^HLose the War" almost to the exclusion of everything else.
Without a base of security and the rule of law it isn't possible to have a free society. And don't trot out that tired old line about trading one for the other. Yea there is wisdom in it. But there are anywhere between a few hundred thousand and a few tens of millions of Islamic Fascists who are convinced it is worth their life if they can take a couple of us to hell with them. That is an extenistial threat we either deal with, die from or roll over and surrender to... and as an agnostic I don't even have that option since they would cut my head off.
> As for the terrorists, if it were as simple as blowing them to hell, we'd have done that already. Our military is remarkably good at doing that.
That is one option. The Ann Coulter "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Final Solution. If Bush's "Show them a better way" plan fails, and it was tottering on the brink there for about two years, it might be the only one remaining. No doubt it would 'work' from a raw survival perspective but from a moral standpoint would we survive the guilt trip?
> What they aren't good at is building new governments or acting as the police where there are none. Perhaps we should train them
> to do that, but I'd rather we not have to in the first place.
And I'd like a pony. We only get to pick options from the short list of those actually available. But since their plan is to restore the caliphiate and rule the world, our list of responses is:
1. Kill em all.
2. Bush's Spread Democracy
3. Accept them as our rulers.
4. Insert your idea here, and isolationism in a war with ICBMs isn't sane.
No we have not been doing all that well and yes your observation that our military isn't all that good at nation building is valid. So we are either willing to accept some mistakes as they LEARN because we have to do it or just say it isn't worth doing and quit. That means you have to go back to that list above and choose again though since doing nothing is choosing #3. As Rush sez:
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will."
> As far as that's concerned, we already have lost. But I guess that there are people like you who still haven't figured it out.
> I bet I could guess why...
In the imortal words of Blutto, "It isn't over until WE say it's over." We won't lose on the battlefield, we will lose when enough Democrats convince enough average Americans we have no hope, so that they lose the will to continue. The kind of rancid, self hatred that serves as MSM coverage of this war would have cost us WWII long before we turned it around and started winning battles. Remember, the Japanese Navy kicked our asses almost to California before we got the upper hand. Just imagine Maureen Dowd and Krugman paitently (as if to simpletons) explaining why sueing for peace on ANY terms was the only logical choice, that we had lost and any terms would be better than having the Japanese invade California. That they were natural warriors and we weren't, that they had a massive military and we didn't, etc.
Ultimately War is about Will, not weapons systems. Do we have the Will to drag the 7th Century savages who think restoring the Caliphate is a good enough idea that they are willing to suicide for it into the modern era.
> So Obama's church has had ties to Farrakhan in the past.
Sorry, probably should have been more explicit with such a explosive charge. No, there are no signs Obama's church has ties to Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam or Islam (Never confuse Nation of Islam and actual Islam). But the ideas and policy positions of both are almost identical. Most importantly in that both are more focused on policy than theology. Obama's is an 'Africa Centered' religious/political organization that gives lipservice to Jesus while Louie's Nation of Islam is an "African Nationalist" religious/political organization that uses a highly mutated Islam as it's core. But both are preaching the same sort of racist intolerance and thinly veiled fascism that David Duke would heartily endorse... in fact DOES endorse from a different racial point of view.
But what really worries me about Obama is what ISN'T said. We have all known for over a decade where the Cinton's get their money, Communist China. Anytime the money gets tight some shady character from Aisa turns up with sacks of cash that eventually trace back to some General in the Chinese Army. Now Obama is outraising her and to date not one news story digging into where HE gets his 'mother's milk' of politics. We have an unknown IL State Congresscritter vaulted into the Senate and a year later into a viable Presidential candidate and nobody is asking who/what is quietly clearing the road for him.
> > Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.'
> Sure there is. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but they do believe in returning force with force.
> "Never be the one to start a fight. Always be the one to finish it."
Looks like you missed my point. Being for 'ending the war' is like being for Mom or Apple Pie. EVERYONE wants wars to be over. I want us to crush our enemies and bring our troops home in triumph. Democrats want us to just come home with our tail between our legs in a humiliating defeat. And being gutless cowards they won't admit it. I haven't seen any difference between Ron Paul's position on the War and any of the leading Democrats. Once a War is begun the only certainty is that it will end, the choice is HOW it ends.
But in the end I don't give a damn what Libertarians believe. That is my number one problem with em, they don't live in the real world. We don't live in a Libertarian country and even if we did it wouldn't exist in a Libertarian world. Here on Planet Earth we Americans live in a nation state that practices a form of Welfare Socialism and exists in a world filled with nation states that follow a variety of political systems, none of which could be termed Libertarian.
Don't get me wrong, I think Libertarian ideas are the best way forward... More individual liberty, free markets and less government is the right polestar to be following. Much like I'm convinced that there IS a unified field theory, even if we have been chasing it in vain for the better part of a century. However once you assemble a dozen Libertarians thinkers and try to figure out what a society would look like if Libertarian principles were to actually be implemented one quickly realizes we don't have the whole theory worked out yet because the discussion starts looking like a bunch of String Theorists discussing similar yet incompatible details.
> Yeah, we'll probably lose a city or two in the first decade or two after we try non-interventionism.
And I really wonder about the comprehension problem with the notion they HAVE initiated force already. There is a big fucking hole in the middle of New York that was a SMOKING hole for a year. It was only by Bush ramming through a truly massive tax cut that we avoiding a total economic collapse that could very well have ended our civilization right there. Just how many of those kind of hits do you think we can sustain before we either collapse or become a police state? Do we really have to have mushroom clouds sprouting over a few major cities before you idiots will figure out the War has been going on for a while now, only we have been closing our eyes really tight and wishing it would go away?
I don't really expect Democrats to ever wake up because most of their leadership are quietly rooting for the other damned side anyway. But I really expected the idiotarian vs. non-idiotarian split amongst the Libertarians to be more in favor of survival.
> Some more of "his type of independence"?
:)
For a second there I though you were talking about McCain. Sorry, don't need the sort of 'independence' that causes McCain to wipe his ass on the 1st Amendment. Add in McCain/Kennedy (NCLB) and McCain/Bush (No Mexican Left Behind (in Mexico)) and he is the only sorta Republican (Paul is an idiotarian Libertarian running as an R) I would stay home for on election day.
> You mean like dismantling the fucking government? That dude is INSANE.
Ah, Paul. I actually kinda like most of that part of Ron Paul, too bad he isn't talking much about that, just losing WWIV by tossing in the towel. Sorry for saying something this unpopular but there ain't no such goddamn thing as 'ending the war.' The time for that sort of talk was 2003 when Congress was considering declaring War. Once it is ON there is a simple binary choice left, Win or Lose. Have the balls to say "This war isn't worth winning so I propose we just quit and toss this one into the loss column." Hell, it might actually be possible to make that argument as putrid as the political climate has become because of the War.
> And that's before you even get to the facts that he's at best a racist apologist.
We active Repubs have been worrying about how to cleanse shit like Paul (and worse, some of the same sort of neo-nazis from the ranks of the anti-jihad forces on the European front of the GWOT) at sites like LGF for a few months.
The pickings are really crappy this season. Lemme snark the rest of the field.
Clinton is a powermad socialist bitch. Nuff said.
Obama is a nice socialist with almost zero experience (One year in the Senate before effectively resigning to campaign full time) and enough small hints to scare the piss out of anyone who has done any digging at all. (Member of a 'church' that is Farrakan''s Nation of Islam with the serial numbers filed off being a good starting place for research.)
Edwards is a low IQ powermad socialist with delusions of being Huey Long reborn. I'm from Louisiana and can say "Senator Edwards, You ain't Huey Long." And has the sort of hair that says Metrosexual. (Ok, cheap shot.)
Rudy I could vote for. Two outta three ain't bad, even if I get an 'slightly unstable' vibe at t imes. But his biggest idea seems to be this notion that he can win the nomination in the Blue states and then expect the Red states to accept that and turn out in the fall. Yea.... Right.
Romney thinks he can triangulate in the Republican Party. Sorry, we are smarter than that. Why don't Mitt and Johnny get together and discuss hair care secrets or something while the adults work. And aren't we just getting through with dealing with the results of a moderately successful MBA running mostly to avenge his Father? Ok, Romney didn't spend the first half of his life as a hell raiser, but then just how many hell raising Mormans have you ever seen? (Just ain't in em.)
Or then there is Huck. God save us from that populist rabble rouser. Ok, he had the balls (but more likely desperation) to hitch his fortune to the Fair Tax. But I won't enumerate his other problems.... just too depressing.
Finally we have the great hope.... Fred! Who is making a final stand in SC and is almost certain to end up like Davy Crockett at the Alamo... with no avenging Army of Texas to settle the score afterwards. Good ideas, solid conservative, steady leader. Crappy candidate.
Biden and Dodd are at least adults but they got eliminated in the very first round. So much for experience counting. (Guess HRC wasn't taking notes.)
Richardson made a lot more sense before he got into the race and decided his core voters would be Dailykos and moveon. But he will also be exiting soon so it doesn't matter.
Tancredo was almost as batshit insane as Ron Paul, just in different ways. Was good to see the end of him.
Sorry if I forgot to snark your favorite fringe candidate, but they sucked too.
> I leave it in there.....for the irony.
:)
But of course! Back when I copied VHS tapes I would ALWAYS make sure to copy the FBI warning. But these days we do have more options. Back then producing usable video was hard and modifying existing video pretty much was out of reach, now it is trivial. So now I think I'd want to copy the anti-piracy commercial and overlay snarky comments over it. But I certainly would not lock out the control keys.... Hell, I have been sore tempted to remaster DVDs in my collection that pull that bullshit. And I can promise Hollywood the next DVD player I buy WILL be hackable and the mod to prevent a DVD from overriding the menu key will go in before I finish connecting it to my system.
But these days I tend to buy when video content is available for purchase. Hell, I love Matt & Trey enough I want them to get some of my money... so they will keep cranking out new South Parks. Even though I already had fairly good downloads of the first six seasons when I got serious about building up the DVD collection.
> Not everybody is young and smart and capable of making their way in a chaotic free market.
This being slashdot and seeing the country as a whole is poised to start the process of picking out next president by choosing which socialist candidate's plan to nationalize the medical sector is best.... but I'm shocked anyway. Sorry, but if you actually don't want your freedom why don't you just go somehere already practicing socialism instead of working to hose the last best hope for liberty left on the planet? Canada is really close... and when you get sick you can hop back across the border.... for a little while longer.
Freedom isn't free folks, and one of the prices that can't be avoided is responsibility. If you want to be free you have to accept the consequences of everyone ELSE being free. You can't enslave them to provide for your every whim without THEM enslaving YOU. If you can't provide a good or service (usually labor) to your fellow man equal (equal as defined by the marketplace, which is longterm just a consensus decision) to the goods and services you expect them to provide you in return you only have a couple of choices. Up your game or lower your expectations.
If you want to live a first world lifestyle you had better plan on having first world skills and not expect things to be given to you as your 'birthright' because of the accident of being born in the first world. The only other choice is socialsm, i.e. voting yourself bread and circuses at the expense of the productive for a generation or two until you spread misery equally and become a third world socialist pesthole and drive the productive somewhere else.