That if you're out shopping for bomb material there's a possibility, perhaps even a probability, that you're buying from the FBI. That will give all but the more dedicated whackos a moment's pause because they recognize the risk of being caught is too much to ignore.
I can't agree with you that the goal of socialism is to crush personal freedom. In fact, I'd take the direct opposite stance.
Full-on socialist policies (which some refer to as a "nanny state" because the essentials of life are provided by the government) actually free the citizenry from having to worry about the very trials and tribulations that consume the time and energy of a capitalist society: survival.
Much in the same way that slavery 'frees' the slave of the need to worry about making any decisions on their own at all.
And unless you ensure that you dont have like breeds/strains/etc being grown/raised contigiously AT A COUNTY OR STATE LEVEL you cannot assist in that containment. You have to have a calculated and agreed upon mechanism whereby every farmer in very large reqions ensure that they arent raising/growing any breed that their neighbors are so that a spread of disease has no vehicle to pass over large areas.
I farm and raise horses. I do have a little bit of a clue about it. I cant get my neighbors to agree on whose turn it is to level the farm roads, let alone agree on what crops we're each going to raise.
Arguments against monocropping are pointless unless you're dealing with geographic regions. Changing my farm from corn to soybeans doesn't mean jack if the guy next to me is rotating corn and soybeans as well, and the same is true of his neighbors and so on.
Unless you're able to coordinate and schedule the growing/raising at a county or state level you arent going to have impact on mutation or spread of disease. You may actually cause more harm than good by forcing ecosystems in a large area to adapt rapidly, raising the possibility of severe unintended consequences.
For contagions: No. They do not evolve in livestock to directly attack humans any more so than they do from plants. They evolve in their host and can be transmissible, and this is just as true from plants as it is from livestock.
For the non-transmissible diseases/insects : You wont give a shit about the direct danger posed by them if they indirectly cause your starvation.
Had a roommate who spend $300 on a 300mb harddrive so that he could have many games installed at once. We told him he was a moron for wasting all that money because there was no why in hell he'd ever use all that space.
Oh, and as a side note, I don't own a single firearm. I dont even have a bee bee gun. I have a compound hunting bow but that's as close as it gets, and I didnt even buy it. I got it in trade for work I did for someone who couldnt pay me.
But unlike you I understand the constitutional right to own, respect for, and appreciation for well crafted and powerful tools.
Oh Fox lies. I dont deny that. They have a political slant and they certainly arent opposed to pushing it. But outright lies are just as harmful as negligent omissions, and on that front the liberal news holds the undisputed world title.
Exactly like when Fox showed those images of the guy toting the automatic rifle at a Tea Party rally which demonstrated the obviously racist opposition to an African American President... and it turned out that the video was cropped to hide that the guy with the rifle was African American.
Crap. Wait a sec. That was Rachel Maddow on NBC also...
Ok, so I needed to preface my post with "Your definition of activist judges is flawed because..."?
You base your definition of activism on precedence. You suggest that it would be acitivism to defy precedence. My argument simply points out that just because there is a precedent it doesnt mean that it was correct according to law. It's not activism to point out that someone else upheld a clearly unconstitutional law.
Defining activism as overturning precedent is pretty narrow minded regardless. A judge upholding precedent or creating the first precedent on a law can just as easily be activism if that precedent is based on ideology over constitutionality.
There is such a thing as justified judicial activism.
No, there isn't. There's judicial activism (passing judgement based on personal ideology rather than law), and there's just doing the job and being a judge.
If we're at a point where you have to coin a new phrase to descibe a judge doing his job correctly then we're all fucked.
Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
This makes the assumption that a group of justices can never make a mistake or be forced to judge incorrectly because a complaintant poorly articulates his case. It also assumes that new information or circumstances cannot present themselves which alter the perceptions of a law. And it precludes the possibility that manipulative people (whether they be lower judges, politicians, or even law enforcement) could use a law in a way in which it was never intended for illigitimate purposes.
I would argue that a court would be negligent, and quite possibly activist if it were to default to a denial to hear a case simply because someone else already heard it.
A precedent is not an obligation to later judgement. It is a verifiable expample upon which the court can refer in order to assist in making a judgement.
Correct. It's the policy of his administration to produce very little themselves, and instead condemn the GOP for not rubber-stamping the bloated political mishmash of doublespeak produced by the Dems in Congress.
So who gets to decide what should be mocked and what should not? It's ignorant to assume that everyone thinks like you, and that if they dont that they are inherently wrong.
Reread what I wrote. I believe that its entirely appropriate that the defense budget should be a major component of federal spending. That's one of the limited arenas in which the federal government is granted authority to operate as defined by the Constitution, so by design it should be a significant portion of the federal budget. I did not at any point suggest that either the dollar amount currently spent by the DOD, nor the areas in which it is currently spent are necessarilty appropriate.
I didn't say anything about overseas wars.
actual war spending (lets call it what it is) is double the advertized number.
How is this not saying something about overseas wars? You assume that I support those wars and with that the funding directed to them. You're wrong.
I didn't say anything about internal spying on the citizens.
...that of course means that huge chunks of our military and intelligence apparatus are flatly unconstitutional.
Like the Air Force.
Like the military portion of the Department of Energy.
Like most of the FBI.
Like most of DHS.
Like NORAD.
Like the CIA.
Like the NSA.
Like any of the other 15 out of 17 intelligence agencies [intelligence.gov] that are not attached to the Army or Navy.
You did not specifically call it spying on citizens, no. But you did bluntly suggest that I would support the agencies you list and the methods that they often employ when you said this:
Isn't it amazing how the same conservatives that complain about how Social Security is unconstitutional because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution don't do the same for the equally unconstitutional Air Force or CIA, etc. But no, all that's "entirely appropriate".
The reality is that I dont support many of those agencies, many methods that they employ, nor many of their motivations. I believe much of that to be unconstitutional and the tax revenues used on them to be an unjustified drain on the citizens.
I didn't say anything about a general overreach of government
Again, you did not. You just falsely assigned my support to agencies and methods that I feel are general overreach of federal authority.
I was responding to two points: the Constitutionality of the "defined roles of federal government", and the "appropriateness" of how much we spend on defense, which is double the advertized size. On all accounts, you failed to respond to what was actually written.
On all counts I merely steared the direction of the conversation back on course after you went on a completely fabricated conservative witch hunt based on nothing that was actually stated, and on assumptions you've been fed by a biased activist media.
You make the assumption that our public educators are teaching that the Constitution is a protection for the people rather than an obstacle to progress.
Your argument is also a slippery slope. If you prove that you are not informed enough to understand and accept the consequences of sex (pregnancy), should the State have the right to remove that possibility from you?
Nice write up. Suffice to say you make an awful lot of assumptions about what I do and do not believe is Constitutional. You also seem to assume that I'm supportive of overseas wars, internal spying on the citizens, and a general overreach of government. Likewise you seem to believe that I'm opposed to a welfare program or on assistance to the less priviledged or on retirement programs. On all accounts, you are incorrect.
I will concede that we are specifically talking about income tax, and I should have clarified that. That being said, while many of the people who fall into the 47% of those who pay no [income] taxes at least have personal incomes, many others recieve every dollar from the federal or state governments. If I give you $2 and ask you to give me back $0.06 in [sales] taxes, have you actually learned the impact of taxation on business or on those that are self-sufficient? Do your personal experiences lend themselves to a properly informed vote on entitlements?
Slashdot Mirror
That if you're out shopping for bomb material there's a possibility, perhaps even a probability, that you're buying from the FBI. That will give all but the more dedicated whackos a moment's pause because they recognize the risk of being caught is too much to ignore.
I can't agree with you that the goal of socialism is to crush personal freedom. In fact, I'd take the direct opposite stance.
Full-on socialist policies (which some refer to as a "nanny state" because the essentials of life are provided by the government) actually free the citizenry from having to worry about the very trials and tribulations that consume the time and energy of a capitalist society: survival.
Much in the same way that slavery 'frees' the slave of the need to worry about making any decisions on their own at all.
And unless you ensure that you dont have like breeds/strains/etc being grown/raised contigiously AT A COUNTY OR STATE LEVEL you cannot assist in that containment. You have to have a calculated and agreed upon mechanism whereby every farmer in very large reqions ensure that they arent raising/growing any breed that their neighbors are so that a spread of disease has no vehicle to pass over large areas.
I farm and raise horses. I do have a little bit of a clue about it. I cant get my neighbors to agree on whose turn it is to level the farm roads, let alone agree on what crops we're each going to raise.
No more so than in wildlife. Nature changes. The alternative to that is far less appealing.
I'd say that not be wholly reliant on one thing would increase your overall odds. Wouldnt you?
Arguments against monocropping are pointless unless you're dealing with geographic regions. Changing my farm from corn to soybeans doesn't mean jack if the guy next to me is rotating corn and soybeans as well, and the same is true of his neighbors and so on.
Unless you're able to coordinate and schedule the growing/raising at a county or state level you arent going to have impact on mutation or spread of disease. You may actually cause more harm than good by forcing ecosystems in a large area to adapt rapidly, raising the possibility of severe unintended consequences.
For contagions: No. They do not evolve in livestock to directly attack humans any more so than they do from plants. They evolve in their host and can be transmissible, and this is just as true from plants as it is from livestock.
For the non-transmissible diseases/insects : You wont give a shit about the direct danger posed by them if they indirectly cause your starvation.
WTF does it have to do with global warming?
Luckily there's never any human illness or casualties from contagion on crops, nor strains of fungus, mold, or insects that desimate farmlands...
Had a roommate who spend $300 on a 300mb harddrive so that he could have many games installed at once. We told him he was a moron for wasting all that money because there was no why in hell he'd ever use all that space.
Oops.
Oh, and as a side note, I don't own a single firearm. I dont even have a bee bee gun. I have a compound hunting bow but that's as close as it gets, and I didnt even buy it. I got it in trade for work I did for someone who couldnt pay me.
But unlike you I understand the constitutional right to own, respect for, and appreciation for well crafted and powerful tools.
And people with an irrantional fear of them should be the last to make decisions about who should have them.
No more so than the people hell bent on making sure he (and I) cant have one.
Oh Fox lies. I dont deny that. They have a political slant and they certainly arent opposed to pushing it. But outright lies are just as harmful as negligent omissions, and on that front the liberal news holds the undisputed world title.
Exactly like when Fox showed those images of the guy toting the automatic rifle at a Tea Party rally which demonstrated the obviously racist opposition to an African American President... and it turned out that the video was cropped to hide that the guy with the rifle was African American.
Crap. Wait a sec. That was Rachel Maddow on NBC also...
Ok, so I needed to preface my post with "Your definition of activist judges is flawed because..."?
You base your definition of activism on precedence. You suggest that it would be acitivism to defy precedence. My argument simply points out that just because there is a precedent it doesnt mean that it was correct according to law. It's not activism to point out that someone else upheld a clearly unconstitutional law.
Defining activism as overturning precedent is pretty narrow minded regardless. A judge upholding precedent or creating the first precedent on a law can just as easily be activism if that precedent is based on ideology over constitutionality.
There is such a thing as justified judicial activism.
No, there isn't. There's judicial activism (passing judgement based on personal ideology rather than law), and there's just doing the job and being a judge.
If we're at a point where you have to coin a new phrase to descibe a judge doing his job correctly then we're all fucked.
Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.
This makes the assumption that a group of justices can never make a mistake or be forced to judge incorrectly because a complaintant poorly articulates his case. It also assumes that new information or circumstances cannot present themselves which alter the perceptions of a law. And it precludes the possibility that manipulative people (whether they be lower judges, politicians, or even law enforcement) could use a law in a way in which it was never intended for illigitimate purposes.
I would argue that a court would be negligent, and quite possibly activist if it were to default to a denial to hear a case simply because someone else already heard it.
A precedent is not an obligation to later judgement. It is a verifiable expample upon which the court can refer in order to assist in making a judgement.
FYI: Obama was not the creator of the bill.
Correct. It's the policy of his administration to produce very little themselves, and instead condemn the GOP for not rubber-stamping the bloated political mishmash of doublespeak produced by the Dems in Congress.
So who gets to decide what should be mocked and what should not? It's ignorant to assume that everyone thinks like you, and that if they dont that they are inherently wrong.
Wait, does that mean I get to mock you?
How is this not saying something about overseas wars? You assume that I support those wars and with that the funding directed to them. You're wrong.
You did not specifically call it spying on citizens, no. But you did bluntly suggest that I would support the agencies you list and the methods that they often employ when you said this:
Isn't it amazing how the same conservatives that complain about how Social Security is unconstitutional because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution don't do the same for the equally unconstitutional Air Force or CIA, etc. But no, all that's "entirely appropriate".
The reality is that I dont support many of those agencies, many methods that they employ, nor many of their motivations. I believe much of that to be unconstitutional and the tax revenues used on them to be an unjustified drain on the citizens.
I didn't say anything about a general overreach of government
Again, you did not. You just falsely assigned my support to agencies and methods that I feel are general overreach of federal authority.
I was responding to two points: the Constitutionality of the "defined roles of federal government", and the "appropriateness" of how much we spend on defense, which is double the advertized size. On all accounts, you failed to respond to what was actually written.
On all counts I merely steared the direction of the conversation back on course after you went on a completely fabricated conservative witch hunt based on nothing that was actually stated, and on assumptions you've been fed by a biased activist media.
Oh I dont know. Dumb luck seems to be all that's on their side.
You make the assumption that our public educators are teaching that the Constitution is a protection for the people rather than an obstacle to progress.
Your argument is also a slippery slope. If you prove that you are not informed enough to understand and accept the consequences of sex (pregnancy), should the State have the right to remove that possibility from you?
Nice write up. Suffice to say you make an awful lot of assumptions about what I do and do not believe is Constitutional. You also seem to assume that I'm supportive of overseas wars, internal spying on the citizens, and a general overreach of government. Likewise you seem to believe that I'm opposed to a welfare program or on assistance to the less priviledged or on retirement programs. On all accounts, you are incorrect.
I will concede that we are specifically talking about income tax, and I should have clarified that. That being said, while many of the people who fall into the 47% of those who pay no [income] taxes at least have personal incomes, many others recieve every dollar from the federal or state governments. If I give you $2 and ask you to give me back $0.06 in [sales] taxes, have you actually learned the impact of taxation on business or on those that are self-sufficient? Do your personal experiences lend themselves to a properly informed vote on entitlements?