I wasn't there doing public opinion polls so I don't know what's right or wrong. If my facts can be shown to be wrong, I'll concede the point. But, again, that's how I was taught it in American public school.
Agreed. In fact I typically sign almost any petition if I have time to stop and do so, which means I probably disagree with more of them than I agree with. I hardly ever find a question I don't think the voters should consider. (But I can certainly imagine some.)
Actually, what is the other way of doing it, by voice call? Voice calls are fine with me. Some shit is just so obvious it doesn't need to go through procedure.
Are there other ways to pass a bill? I know there are secret ways to block a bill, and I definitely oppose those.
You have to be willing to put your name on the line, literally.
Awesome! I love it when people use "literally" correctly. You nailed it.
The other day I was in the store and got help from an employee who told me where to find an item by extending his finger in the direction I should go. I said "Thanks for pointing me in the right direction... literally."
At work we were going to deploy a new system which processes weather data. Bad weather happened to be coming our way so we delayed deployment. I told my boss "We want to wait until the storm blows over... literally".
Other people mis-using that word robs us of the fun of using it correctly. It's always good for a chuckle, to dweebs like me anyway.
Agreed. I'm a flaming liberal and disagree with almost everything conservatives and libertarians espouse -- and that is why I am rabidly pro-gun. I completely deny and denounce the anti-gun notions pushed by the people who are otherwise in my ideological corner.
My question to my liberal friends is always if I don't have a gun, who is going to shoot the police officer who barges into my home to rape my daughter? They look at me like that's crazy, like that could never happen. I remind them that that has happened in this country in the past, and happens in other countries today, and could easily start happening here in the future (that exact scenario, or other equally frightening scenarios). At the very very end of the day, the ultimate power must reside with the people, period. We can play around the edges, we can keep the nukes in the hands of professionals and whatnot, but fie on you if you try to completely disarm a free people.
You and I are both completely off topic. Let's go share a beer -- I'm buying.
It's not a misinterpretation at all. It's the plain meaning of the text.
There is a reason the founders wrote an amendment process, and there is also a reason the founders wrote federal supremacy into the Constitution. If you don't like federal supremacy, or the 14th amendment, then I guess you'll have to (ahem) amend the Constitution to make it read the way you want it to.
Seriously, that was exactly what I thought. Why are people so quick to take extreme positions? It's a complex issue (sort of complex, anyway), and I share your ambivalence.
In the end, I come down on the side of publicity. Here's why.
Insofar as it is like picketing in public, of course that is a public act.
In terms of it being like voting, that too is a public act, insofar as the fact that you voted is public, although not how you voted. But the difference is that a petition is not like a ballot, because a petition only has one question on it, and there is only one answer. You signed the petition, and the petition only covers one thing, so we all know that you signed your name to the one thing. Ballots always have at least two possible answers -- a one-question ballot can have YES or NO answers; whereas petitions have one question and only one possible answer, YES.
So, I don't think this is a big fricking deal, I could see it either way, but I like the status quo better than the alternative.
In your earlier post, you asked how keeping the names out of the public record stops anyone from verifying the legitimacy of the signature. Obviously, keeping the names out of the public record stops the public (which is "anybody") from verifying the signatures. Then you follow up with what I think is your actual point: that "anybody" doesn't need to verify, but rather only the government. So, people were responding to the first thing you said, which wasn't what you apparently meant.
I can imagine a functioning democracy which keeps petitions sigs private. That might have some problems, or might solve some problems, but I don't think it would undermine democracy itself. But in our democracy, we have those sigs public.
I want what you want -- to end government recognition of marriage. I see that as the only way to solve the current marriage mess. (After we settle the gay thing, you can be sure polygamy will be next.) So we agree on that.
But I wouldn't say that I would refuse to vote for gay marriage. I'd much rather live in a country which recognizes marriage between any two people, than a country which recognizes only opposite-sex couples; even if I prefer no recognition to either of those. What makes you feel differently?
Not trolling, not accusing, I'm just curious how you reach that decision.
Can you? That would be nice, but if that were true wouldn't we have told Florida to vote again in 2000? People proposed a re-vote at the time but I thought the determination was that that wouldn't be the legal thing to do.
Usually they ask you for your name and some other info, like your address. They check that against voter regs, or something of the like. Different localities have different rules, but they definitely check for fake or otherwise ineligible names and remove them.
However, I suppose you could sign a real name if you know the corresponding info. Like, sign your brother's name and put down his address.
The government employs people to check names. I know because my wife did that for a little while. Many people DO sign with fake names (or real but ineligible names), and those names are thrown out. That's why petitioners collect many more names than required, because they know many of them won't be accepted.
The government does this whether or not the names are eventually released.
Fair enough. We interpret the phrase "has the power" differently. To me, that means that the law gives the President the power. To you it means -- uh, what does it mean? That the President could, technically, do anything? And thus has unlimited power? I suppose the President "has the power" to walk into Congress and cap all the Senators in the face by that definition. If the OP meant what you imply, then I concede the point due to misunderstanding (but I doubt that's the case).
The reality of diversity is, while there are some people who might deny employment to various 'protected classes', there are others who would preferentially hire the same. It's just like the stupid smoking bans. The nature of a diverse market naturally creates some businesses that are exclusively non-smoking because some people want that, and conversely creates some businesses that are tolerant to the point of encouraging smoking
I was with you until you made this argument. People keep on and keep on making this argument as if it were true, when plainly it is not.
Before smoking was widely banned in bars, there were polls showing that a majority of people, indeed, wished bars were smoke free -- and yet, over 95% of bars allowed smoking. This is called market failure, and for some crazy reason some market-minded people refuse to recognize it. Now, since we have banned smoking, even more people are glad bars are smoke-free.
In my opinion, it was very good to ban smoking in bars, because the majority of people finally received what the market refused to provide. We should keep the bans in place for another decade or two, and then rescind them. By then, I assume that the market failure will have been corrected, and a minority of bars will re-allow smoking, while most will not. Only then will the market reality function close to market theory.
Banning smoking in bars is a really good example of when legislation can fix failures in the market. Eventually, the cure might be worse than the disease, and at that point we should repeal the laws. Laws covering protected classes are another good example -- I yearn for the day when we can reasonably repeal laws against racial and sexual discrimination, but today ain't that day.
(Note that I want tobacco to remain available to adults within bounds set by society. Some anti-smoking crusaders do NOT want tobacco to be available at all to anyone. Those people are the face of the ban-smoking movement, which I think is too bad. I don't agree with those people.)
Point of fact: the country WAS full of cowards like him in the 18th century. The "founding fathers" were a vanishingly tiny group of people, and all their supporters amounted to a small minority of the population. Almost everyone was happy to just let things be.
So a minor tweak to your point would be that you and I are both glad that there were at least a small number of people willing to stand up for their principles.
Lose, not loose. They are easy to mix up, but also easy to get right.
That is not flamebait. You were modded unfairly.
In my opinion, if you are willing to legally prohibit a person from having the same rights you enjoy, you should also not want to work for that kind of person, or have them patronize your business. Thus, if you sign a petition to prohibit gay marriage, you should be very glad when your gay boss fires you, and your gay customers go to another shop. If you think having to find another job is a hassle, imagine having to get married to a person you can't be attracted to, or not get married at all.
Death threats aren't part of a civil discourse. All thinking people condemn violence and the threat of violence.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a historian, it's just what I was taught. Here's an article I found which points out why I think what I think, and why it might be wrong.
http://hnn.us/articles/5641.html
This wiki article also has some numbers, saying maybe 40% supported the revolution. (What "support" means is not given.)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29
I wasn't there doing public opinion polls so I don't know what's right or wrong. If my facts can be shown to be wrong, I'll concede the point. But, again, that's how I was taught it in American public school.
They could be validated by the same people who validate elections, for instance.
(I don't support doing it that way, but it would certainly work.)
Agreed. In fact I typically sign almost any petition if I have time to stop and do so, which means I probably disagree with more of them than I agree with. I hardly ever find a question I don't think the voters should consider. (But I can certainly imagine some.)
Me too.
Actually, what is the other way of doing it, by voice call? Voice calls are fine with me. Some shit is just so obvious it doesn't need to go through procedure.
Are there other ways to pass a bill? I know there are secret ways to block a bill, and I definitely oppose those.
You have to be willing to put your name on the line, literally.
Awesome! I love it when people use "literally" correctly. You nailed it.
The other day I was in the store and got help from an employee who told me where to find an item by extending his finger in the direction I should go. I said "Thanks for pointing me in the right direction... literally."
At work we were going to deploy a new system which processes weather data. Bad weather happened to be coming our way so we delayed deployment. I told my boss "We want to wait until the storm blows over... literally".
Other people mis-using that word robs us of the fun of using it correctly. It's always good for a chuckle, to dweebs like me anyway.
Agreed. I'm a flaming liberal and disagree with almost everything conservatives and libertarians espouse -- and that is why I am rabidly pro-gun. I completely deny and denounce the anti-gun notions pushed by the people who are otherwise in my ideological corner.
My question to my liberal friends is always if I don't have a gun, who is going to shoot the police officer who barges into my home to rape my daughter? They look at me like that's crazy, like that could never happen. I remind them that that has happened in this country in the past, and happens in other countries today, and could easily start happening here in the future (that exact scenario, or other equally frightening scenarios). At the very very end of the day, the ultimate power must reside with the people, period. We can play around the edges, we can keep the nukes in the hands of professionals and whatnot, but fie on you if you try to completely disarm a free people.
You and I are both completely off topic. Let's go share a beer -- I'm buying.
It's not a misinterpretation at all. It's the plain meaning of the text.
There is a reason the founders wrote an amendment process, and there is also a reason the founders wrote federal supremacy into the Constitution. If you don't like federal supremacy, or the 14th amendment, then I guess you'll have to (ahem) amend the Constitution to make it read the way you want it to.
Seriously, that was exactly what I thought. Why are people so quick to take extreme positions? It's a complex issue (sort of complex, anyway), and I share your ambivalence.
In the end, I come down on the side of publicity. Here's why.
Insofar as it is like picketing in public, of course that is a public act.
In terms of it being like voting, that too is a public act, insofar as the fact that you voted is public, although not how you voted. But the difference is that a petition is not like a ballot, because a petition only has one question on it, and there is only one answer. You signed the petition, and the petition only covers one thing, so we all know that you signed your name to the one thing. Ballots always have at least two possible answers -- a one-question ballot can have YES or NO answers; whereas petitions have one question and only one possible answer, YES.
So, I don't think this is a big fricking deal, I could see it either way, but I like the status quo better than the alternative.
Is it? I thought the whole point of a petition was to get a measure on the ballot.
I don't think it is equivalent at all to shouting from your lawn. Really, it's almost completely different.
But, for other reasons I agree that petitions sigs should be public.
In your earlier post, you asked how keeping the names out of the public record stops anyone from verifying the legitimacy of the signature. Obviously, keeping the names out of the public record stops the public (which is "anybody") from verifying the signatures. Then you follow up with what I think is your actual point: that "anybody" doesn't need to verify, but rather only the government. So, people were responding to the first thing you said, which wasn't what you apparently meant.
I can imagine a functioning democracy which keeps petitions sigs private. That might have some problems, or might solve some problems, but I don't think it would undermine democracy itself. But in our democracy, we have those sigs public.
I want what you want -- to end government recognition of marriage. I see that as the only way to solve the current marriage mess. (After we settle the gay thing, you can be sure polygamy will be next.) So we agree on that.
But I wouldn't say that I would refuse to vote for gay marriage. I'd much rather live in a country which recognizes marriage between any two people, than a country which recognizes only opposite-sex couples; even if I prefer no recognition to either of those. What makes you feel differently?
Not trolling, not accusing, I'm just curious how you reach that decision.
Can you? That would be nice, but if that were true wouldn't we have told Florida to vote again in 2000? People proposed a re-vote at the time but I thought the determination was that that wouldn't be the legal thing to do.
What you said doesn't make sense, because the price of tea in China is actually a function of a butterfly's wings in Angolia.
Oh, wait, that isn't what you said at all?
Good point. Next time I sign a petition I'm going to sign it in GIGANTIC WRITING!
And I'll put my name on that publicly.
Thank you, Mr Flek.
(just chiding, I agree with you 100%)
I agree with everything you said except for including the "bigots live here" signage. To me that sounds quite reasonable.
So true. If your ideals are embarrassing, maybe it's time to rethink your ideals.
In rare circumstances, that might not be true, but it usually is, and in this case it sure is.
Usually they ask you for your name and some other info, like your address. They check that against voter regs, or something of the like. Different localities have different rules, but they definitely check for fake or otherwise ineligible names and remove them.
However, I suppose you could sign a real name if you know the corresponding info. Like, sign your brother's name and put down his address.
The government employs people to check names. I know because my wife did that for a little while. Many people DO sign with fake names (or real but ineligible names), and those names are thrown out. That's why petitioners collect many more names than required, because they know many of them won't be accepted.
The government does this whether or not the names are eventually released.
Fair enough. We interpret the phrase "has the power" differently. To me, that means that the law gives the President the power. To you it means -- uh, what does it mean? That the President could, technically, do anything? And thus has unlimited power? I suppose the President "has the power" to walk into Congress and cap all the Senators in the face by that definition. If the OP meant what you imply, then I concede the point due to misunderstanding (but I doubt that's the case).
The reality of diversity is, while there are some people who might deny employment to various 'protected classes', there are others who would preferentially hire the same. It's just like the stupid smoking bans. The nature of a diverse market naturally creates some businesses that are exclusively non-smoking because some people want that, and conversely creates some businesses that are tolerant to the point of encouraging smoking
I was with you until you made this argument. People keep on and keep on making this argument as if it were true, when plainly it is not.
Before smoking was widely banned in bars, there were polls showing that a majority of people, indeed, wished bars were smoke free -- and yet, over 95% of bars allowed smoking. This is called market failure, and for some crazy reason some market-minded people refuse to recognize it. Now, since we have banned smoking, even more people are glad bars are smoke-free.
In my opinion, it was very good to ban smoking in bars, because the majority of people finally received what the market refused to provide. We should keep the bans in place for another decade or two, and then rescind them. By then, I assume that the market failure will have been corrected, and a minority of bars will re-allow smoking, while most will not. Only then will the market reality function close to market theory.
Banning smoking in bars is a really good example of when legislation can fix failures in the market. Eventually, the cure might be worse than the disease, and at that point we should repeal the laws. Laws covering protected classes are another good example -- I yearn for the day when we can reasonably repeal laws against racial and sexual discrimination, but today ain't that day.
(Note that I want tobacco to remain available to adults within bounds set by society. Some anti-smoking crusaders do NOT want tobacco to be available at all to anyone. Those people are the face of the ban-smoking movement, which I think is too bad. I don't agree with those people.)
Point of fact: the country WAS full of cowards like him in the 18th century. The "founding fathers" were a vanishingly tiny group of people, and all their supporters amounted to a small minority of the population. Almost everyone was happy to just let things be.
So a minor tweak to your point would be that you and I are both glad that there were at least a small number of people willing to stand up for their principles.
Sure. Buy why do we need to wait 120 days for a check/balance to the President's power? I'm just asking for a second opinion from a co-equal branch.
Regarding your username, that album is probably the second best music ever made, after the 9th Symphony. Actually, the 9th Symphony might be #2.
Dr. Seuss went to my college. Or rather, I went to his. So did Mr Rogers and Captain Kangaroo. But the rhyme is a ripoff of a lyric by Lavay Smith.