Yes, you are correct, but lying isn't a crime, lying under oath is. Also, while we certainly know that Bush misled, spun, and cherrypicked the truth, it's not totally clear that he outright intentionally lied, much less lied under oath.
But, Clinton did, and it was perfectly clear.
Look, Bush is a terrible President and a bad human being, but those things aren't crimes, and in a democracy a stupid majority is enabled to elect stupid politicians.
That's a good idea. A simple law is all that's needed, one which specifies that the President shall not lie to the American people. When one does, then we have him for a high crime, and then Congress could decide whether it's worthy of removal from office. I like that idea. Pity we don't already have that law, and didn't ten years ago.
when there is evidence that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. I know we're all pissed off about it, but it's not illegal to play politics. Remember, the American people re-elected him well after we all already knew his way of governing.
Like you, brother, I have hope for legalization. But the numbers don't support us. The essential question is this:
Do you support the full legalization of marijuana for recreational use?
Any other question is a smokescreen, a border case, a slippery slope. Sure, maybe legalize for medical patients. Sure, maybe decriminalize it so it's just a civil fine. But none of those things are legalization.
When the question is posed that way, 80% of people support continued criminalization. Or, that's the number I heard, if it's lower, then that's great.
They are both things that the government will know about if they watch you all the time. Also, your private conversations with your wife, lawyer, doctor, and priest. Also, tons of other shit you might not want to be public. And, after all that, also some things that might be illegal, or marginally legal.
Yes, I'm talking about glass pipes and bongs. It's cute to claim they can be used for legal purposes (anything technically can, if it's a display object), but in fact they are used to do drugs. Nobody smokes tobacco out of crack pipes, even though technically you could. So Clinton took the lenient approach to that interpretation, and Bush took the hard line.
Needles and rolling papers are different, in that they have legitimate uses which actually occur in reality a nontrivial amount of the time -- still a minority, probably, but not infinitesimal, like smoking tobacco in a bong. But diabetics don't buy needles in head shops.
Hey, again, I didn't vote for Bush and don't support his enforcement of the drug laws because I don't support the drug laws. But I do support democracy, and this is a legitimate democratic action.
Great! We're agreed then. Send all information to governmentknowswhatsbestforyou at gmail.com. Seriously, I just registered it, I will really receive your information.
I'm all for privacy, and don't want too much of my rights eroded away, but honestly, I really don't have anything to hide. I think it's the level of monitoring or whatnot that scares people.
Please send me a photograph of your genitals, a list of your fetishes, a complete history of your lifetime drug use, full bank account records, a list of every politician you have ever voted for, all the cache and history files for your web browser, medical and dental records (including any STDs you've ever had), and your social security number. Just like the government, I totally pinky swear not to misuse any of the information.
Me, I have plenty to hide, so I won't be sending you any of the same information back.
You are unfortunately wrong. The 4th amendment is not the basis for the American freedom of privacy, though it should be. First, it only applies to searches, which unfortunately has not been defined as "anything which provides information", but much more narrowly. To me, the basis of the freedom of privacy is the 9th amendment, which to me says that the freedom of privacy is so basic and fundamental that it literally goes without saying, but courts and most legal experts disagree with me (though I think the founding fathers would agree). The fact is that there is no constitutional basis for privacy, and the Supreme Court has had to kind of invent one, reading it into the "penumbras" of other rights. I think they should have just hung it on the 9th amendment, and been done with it forever. Instead, with Roe v Wade, they made that penumbra argument, and it has been waning ever since.
Incorrect. Buying drug paraphenalia was always illegal, but only if you can show that it is really drug paraphelalia, and not something intended for legal purposes. Clinton and the liberals gave a lot of leeway in that gray area, allowing head shops to essentially break the law, selling wares that were unequivocally intended for drug use. Then the American people elected a President who decided to enforce the law, and people like Chong, who were breaking the law all along, were prosecuted.
There are lots of laws like that, which are enforced with varying degrees of tenacity by different administrations.
As a smoker, and a libertarian, I believe drugs (especially weed) should be legal, and paraphenalia (especially bongs) should be sold in every corner store (less of a walk when I need clean screens). But as a small-d democrat, I also understand that my preference is overridden by the huge majority of Americans who want weed and other drugs to remain criminalized. Tommy Chong went to jail because the American people elected (or, depending on how you look at it, "elected") a commander in chief who would enforce the laws that they support and wanted enforced. That sucks for people like Tommy, like me, and maybe like you, but that's the way democracy works.
Go back and read the article. Search for the strings "wealthy parents of high status have more sons" and "poor parents of low status have more daughters", and you'll find them.
Moderators, mod me up, parent is wrong, and I'm informative.
You make a funny joke, but as an Alaskan, I would like to state for the record that the ratio of men to women here is just like it is everywhere else. The rare exception is on work sites for work done by men, but in both the cities and the villages, there is a normal balance of the sexes.
Interestingly, the word "bullshit" does not derive from the excrement of a cow. Etymologically, it derives from the word "bull", or some homophone of that, which people uttered to mean what we now mean when we say bullshit. Think, "bullocks" or something. "That's bull!" Then, at a time when people also used the word "shit" to mean a similar thing, people began concatenating the two words, for effect, and it became very popular indeed.
That is true. That is not bullshit -- nor bull, nor shit.
Please explain in which ways Britain isn't a "full democracy"?
I say that only because there are parts of Brit governmental power which doesn't flow from the people. Namely, the royals. We also have unelected parts of our government, but they flow from elected parts, so it's republican government.
And please, don't read into my comments that I by any stretch think America has perfect government. My criticism of Britain is independent of my thoughts about America.
I'm not clear what you mean. Weren't the Dixie Chicks in the USA when they expressed their constitutional right to free speech? Actually I don't even know if that's the case, maybe they were overseas. Are they even Americans or Brits? I'm confusing them with the Spice Girls. Did I miss the part of the story where the Dixie Chicks went to jail for expressing themselves? Can you cite a story where the government arrested or harassed the Dixie Chicks for their political views? If you can't, then your point supports my argument, not yours.
Because what I'm talking about is: 1.) Brits can't own guns; the right to forcibly overthrow your government is Freedom Zero, no other freedom can come before it 2.) Brits can't even carry knives -- is that true? my Brit friends tell me it's true 3.) Brits still tolerate (or even love!) their royal family which, while benign recently, is most certainly an unfree undemocratic relic; and Brits can claim that the royals don't have any power, but if they didn't have any power, they wouldn't be royalty 4.) Is it also true that Brits can be searched for no reason at any time? In America, that freedom is so important we put it right after free speech and free firearms 5.) The second most important thing after firearms is constitutional protection; freedom from the tyranny of the majority is fundamental to successful free democracies (as opposed to unfree semi-democracies, like Britain)
Okay, but to be fair, the US is still somewhat a free country, so having restrictions on freedoms here is cause for outrage. But Britain is not a free country, and never has been, so restrictions on freedom there are less outrageous. Shit, man, Britain isn't even a full democracy, let alone a constitutional democracy, so let them have a revolution and then we'll talk.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. He never sent me his info. He talks a big game, but in fact, he really does want his privacy. Everyone does.
Yes, you are correct, but lying isn't a crime, lying under oath is. Also, while we certainly know that Bush misled, spun, and cherrypicked the truth, it's not totally clear that he outright intentionally lied, much less lied under oath.
But, Clinton did, and it was perfectly clear.
Look, Bush is a terrible President and a bad human being, but those things aren't crimes, and in a democracy a stupid majority is enabled to elect stupid politicians.
That's a good idea. A simple law is all that's needed, one which specifies that the President shall not lie to the American people. When one does, then we have him for a high crime, and then Congress could decide whether it's worthy of removal from office. I like that idea. Pity we don't already have that law, and didn't ten years ago.
Yeah. He's wrong. Perjury is a serious crime, Libby committed it, and he belongs in jail. Bush did the wrong thing.
Clinton wasn't impeached for getting head, he was impeached for committing perjury. It is right to impeach a President for perjury.
when there is evidence that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. I know we're all pissed off about it, but it's not illegal to play politics. Remember, the American people re-elected him well after we all already knew his way of governing.
Like you, brother, I have hope for legalization. But the numbers don't support us. The essential question is this:
Do you support the full legalization of marijuana for recreational use?
Any other question is a smokescreen, a border case, a slippery slope. Sure, maybe legalize for medical patients. Sure, maybe decriminalize it so it's just a civil fine. But none of those things are legalization.
When the question is posed that way, 80% of people support continued criminalization. Or, that's the number I heard, if it's lower, then that's great.
They are both things that the government will know about if they watch you all the time. Also, your private conversations with your wife, lawyer, doctor, and priest. Also, tons of other shit you might not want to be public. And, after all that, also some things that might be illegal, or marginally legal.
Yes, I'm talking about glass pipes and bongs. It's cute to claim they can be used for legal purposes (anything technically can, if it's a display object), but in fact they are used to do drugs. Nobody smokes tobacco out of crack pipes, even though technically you could. So Clinton took the lenient approach to that interpretation, and Bush took the hard line.
Needles and rolling papers are different, in that they have legitimate uses which actually occur in reality a nontrivial amount of the time -- still a minority, probably, but not infinitesimal, like smoking tobacco in a bong. But diabetics don't buy needles in head shops.
Hey, again, I didn't vote for Bush and don't support his enforcement of the drug laws because I don't support the drug laws. But I do support democracy, and this is a legitimate democratic action.
Great! We're agreed then. Send all information to governmentknowswhatsbestforyou at gmail.com. Seriously, I just registered it, I will really receive your information.
I'm all for privacy, and don't want too much of my rights eroded away, but honestly, I really don't have anything to hide. I think it's the level of monitoring or whatnot that scares people.
Please send me a photograph of your genitals, a list of your fetishes, a complete history of your lifetime drug use, full bank account records, a list of every politician you have ever voted for, all the cache and history files for your web browser, medical and dental records (including any STDs you've ever had), and your social security number. Just like the government, I totally pinky swear not to misuse any of the information.
Me, I have plenty to hide, so I won't be sending you any of the same information back.
You are unfortunately wrong. The 4th amendment is not the basis for the American freedom of privacy, though it should be. First, it only applies to searches, which unfortunately has not been defined as "anything which provides information", but much more narrowly. To me, the basis of the freedom of privacy is the 9th amendment, which to me says that the freedom of privacy is so basic and fundamental that it literally goes without saying, but courts and most legal experts disagree with me (though I think the founding fathers would agree). The fact is that there is no constitutional basis for privacy, and the Supreme Court has had to kind of invent one, reading it into the "penumbras" of other rights. I think they should have just hung it on the 9th amendment, and been done with it forever. Instead, with Roe v Wade, they made that penumbra argument, and it has been waning ever since.
Incorrect. Buying drug paraphenalia was always illegal, but only if you can show that it is really drug paraphelalia, and not something intended for legal purposes. Clinton and the liberals gave a lot of leeway in that gray area, allowing head shops to essentially break the law, selling wares that were unequivocally intended for drug use. Then the American people elected a President who decided to enforce the law, and people like Chong, who were breaking the law all along, were prosecuted.
There are lots of laws like that, which are enforced with varying degrees of tenacity by different administrations.
As a smoker, and a libertarian, I believe drugs (especially weed) should be legal, and paraphenalia (especially bongs) should be sold in every corner store (less of a walk when I need clean screens). But as a small-d democrat, I also understand that my preference is overridden by the huge majority of Americans who want weed and other drugs to remain criminalized. Tommy Chong went to jail because the American people elected (or, depending on how you look at it, "elected") a commander in chief who would enforce the laws that they support and wanted enforced. That sucks for people like Tommy, like me, and maybe like you, but that's the way democracy works.
I'm not following your claim. How is that what the FSF is trying to do?
10 ways to tell if your boyfriend thinks you are fat
1. Your boyfriend will think you are fat if you are, you know, fat.
I don't think we need nine more of those.
Go back and read the article. Search for the strings "wealthy parents of high status have more sons" and "poor parents of low status have more daughters", and you'll find them.
Moderators, mod me up, parent is wrong, and I'm informative.
You make a funny joke, but as an Alaskan, I would like to state for the record that the ratio of men to women here is just like it is everywhere else. The rare exception is on work sites for work done by men, but in both the cities and the villages, there is a normal balance of the sexes.
Interestingly, the word "bullshit" does not derive from the excrement of a cow. Etymologically, it derives from the word "bull", or some homophone of that, which people uttered to mean what we now mean when we say bullshit. Think, "bullocks" or something. "That's bull!" Then, at a time when people also used the word "shit" to mean a similar thing, people began concatenating the two words, for effect, and it became very popular indeed.
That is true. That is not bullshit -- nor bull, nor shit.
640K
you mean, 640 *thousand* columns ought to be enough for anybody!
Please explain in which ways Britain isn't a "full democracy"?
I say that only because there are parts of Brit governmental power which doesn't flow from the people. Namely, the royals. We also have unelected parts of our government, but they flow from elected parts, so it's republican government.
And please, don't read into my comments that I by any stretch think America has perfect government. My criticism of Britain is independent of my thoughts about America.
I'm not clear what you mean. Weren't the Dixie Chicks in the USA when they expressed their constitutional right to free speech? Actually I don't even know if that's the case, maybe they were overseas. Are they even Americans or Brits? I'm confusing them with the Spice Girls. Did I miss the part of the story where the Dixie Chicks went to jail for expressing themselves? Can you cite a story where the government arrested or harassed the Dixie Chicks for their political views? If you can't, then your point supports my argument, not yours.
Because what I'm talking about is:
1.) Brits can't own guns; the right to forcibly overthrow your government is Freedom Zero, no other freedom can come before it
2.) Brits can't even carry knives -- is that true? my Brit friends tell me it's true
3.) Brits still tolerate (or even love!) their royal family which, while benign recently, is most certainly an unfree undemocratic relic; and Brits can claim that the royals don't have any power, but if they didn't have any power, they wouldn't be royalty
4.) Is it also true that Brits can be searched for no reason at any time? In America, that freedom is so important we put it right after free speech and free firearms
5.) The second most important thing after firearms is constitutional protection; freedom from the tyranny of the majority is fundamental to successful free democracies (as opposed to unfree semi-democracies, like Britain)
The Bible is already banned in half the world (the Muslim world, and China), so... yeah, you're right.
Okay, but to be fair, the US is still somewhat a free country, so having restrictions on freedoms here is cause for outrage. But Britain is not a free country, and never has been, so restrictions on freedom there are less outrageous. Shit, man, Britain isn't even a full democracy, let alone a constitutional democracy, so let them have a revolution and then we'll talk.
You are absolutely correct. Watch for the rest of those bans in the next decade.
You are kidding, but there are many who would ban cartoon violence. Those people are stupid, wrong, and running the world.