They won't defend the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Unless it's the second amendment, or politicians failed to frame their constitutional violations in a way that suggests they did it to keep us all safe from the bogeymen.
you could never get enough people sufficiently motivated or even aware of the third party without significant money and control over the mass media.
If you continue not voting for third parties because of this, then you're the problem. Voting for 'evil' is not the solution to our problems. I'd feel like an absolute imbecile if I voting for either of the two main parties, so I'm not sure how other people can even stand themselves.
Third parties need not win in order to bring about some amount of change, either. If the two main parties see that many people are voting for third parties, they might decide to adopt some of the policies of the third parties in an effort to claim back some votes.
Because the alternative didn't look all that different and so people went with the known evil.
Whenever someone claims to not believe that most people are unintelligent, one should probably inform them of things such as that. People who do this are part of the problem.
Just because YOUR government is corrupt doesn't mean that all governments MUST be corrupt.
Well, unless you think your government is composed entirely of perfect beings (and what constitutes as "perfect" I don't know), there's a very high probability that it is corrupt at some level.
Is it too late for the NSA to spin this as just a huge misunderstanding?
A misunderstanding? No. It was all for your safety, citizen! As we all know, America is the home of the brave, so we have to give away all of our rights in an effort to stop terrorism; that's just what brave people do.
Cyber Squatters are just like Patent Trolls, paying them off only encouraging this bad behavior.
Except that unlike patent trolls, they're not trying to sue anyone into oblivion by using patents. They may take money in exchange for a domain name, but I don't see a problem with that. I do not believe Microsoft or anyone else should be able to 'take' a domain name from someone else simply because they think the current website it points to is worthless.
That wasn't in response to bluefoxlucid's comment, but to someone who suggested that anyone who questions another's supposed genius must just be jealous.
You can have free speech while also having crimes that only can be committed thru the use of speech.
Like insulting the government. You're being arrested for insulting the government, a crime you only committed through the use of speech! But don't worry, you still have free speech.
Since speech rights extend beyond literal vocalization to all forms of communication and money you could take your thinking and claim even more crimes are merely attacks on "free speech."
Anything that's not mere communication through words, data, or actual speech is rather murky, so no.
If somebody kills you using kung fu and claims it was speech because it is an artful dance like expression of their negative emotions (which it would be,) then under your thinking the prosecution of that crime would be an attack on their free speech rights.
Except that that's not speech at all. Threatening someone is speech, however.
Kids really should be taught the importance that reputation plays on their lot in life.
It is not difficult to see that many people seem to be shallow imbeciles. But whether or not your 'mistakes' (and what qualifies as a mistake varies from employer to employer) were posted to Facebook, chances are you've done things that certain employers may find objectionable.
What's so hard about NOT making major mistakes as a kid? I didn't
It's not even about major mistakes. Many employers seem to be nothing more than petty, shallow people, and the definition of a "major mistake" may differ from employer to employer; there is no objective way to say that something is 'bad' that I know of. So, they'll probably have employers who don't hire them based on something that they did that they felt was perfectly normal and acceptable.
Maybe if you make "mistakes" you shouldn't get the job? Maybe?
I doubt you haven't made any mistakes; there's probably just no easy way to find out what "mistakes" you made because you didn't post about them on Facebook. The individuals who appear squeaky clean are most likely putting on a facade.
If there is some sort of "trust" in the military to do whatever you are told no matter the cost, then I think something is horribly wrong.
He's a traitor and a felon.
I'd say people who allow government injustices to go unpunished and/or unnoticed just because they want to follow orders are the real traitors and felons.
At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk.
Because safety is more important than freedom and transparency? I disagree.
He was a soldier.
Which means he's a mindless drone who should do everything he's told? Again, I have to disagree.
If he was not prepared to perform this sworn duty he should not have joined the military.
In my opinion, he has a duty to identify and make known 'injustices' committed by the government, and he does not have a duty to mindlessly follow orders at all costs (regardless of what any laws or other such things claim).
Why are you giving those two the benefit of the doubt? That's not what normally seems to happen. What normally seems to happen is that people overreact to every minuscule threat (even some guy joking about bombs on Twitter) and saying that we must act because it would be terrible if we didn't and we ended up being wrong. But these people aren't normal people, are they? We need to give them the benefit of the doubt, and no one else.
Yes, in that case, it is mere jealousy, and in this case it is not. Right. Anyone who questions anything a 'genius' says or does is just jealous! It's the only explanation!
Slashdot Mirror
It seems there are a lot of things that were originally (or amended to include) aren't reflected in current law.
Because the government just does whatever it wants (as long as the public doesn't get too angry). Nothing new here.
Easy: All patents are low quality.
and people made a rational choice.
It wasn't rational; it was mindless and destructive.
So you are saying that you think Romney would have been greatly superior to Obama?
Yeah, of course. What else could I have been saying?
They won't defend the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Unless it's the second amendment, or politicians failed to frame their constitutional violations in a way that suggests they did it to keep us all safe from the bogeymen.
you could never get enough people sufficiently motivated or even aware of the third party without significant money and control over the mass media.
If you continue not voting for third parties because of this, then you're the problem. Voting for 'evil' is not the solution to our problems. I'd feel like an absolute imbecile if I voting for either of the two main parties, so I'm not sure how other people can even stand themselves.
Third parties need not win in order to bring about some amount of change, either. If the two main parties see that many people are voting for third parties, they might decide to adopt some of the policies of the third parties in an effort to claim back some votes.
Because the alternative didn't look all that different and so people went with the known evil.
Whenever someone claims to not believe that most people are unintelligent, one should probably inform them of things such as that. People who do this are part of the problem.
Just because YOUR government is corrupt doesn't mean that all governments MUST be corrupt.
Well, unless you think your government is composed entirely of perfect beings (and what constitutes as "perfect" I don't know), there's a very high probability that it is corrupt at some level.
Is it too late for the NSA to spin this as just a huge misunderstanding?
A misunderstanding? No. It was all for your safety, citizen! As we all know, America is the home of the brave, so we have to give away all of our rights in an effort to stop terrorism; that's just what brave people do.
Well when I get to dislike various Muslim nations without being accused of being anti-Islam, then we can have a discussion.
A discussion can be had right now. Both statements are illogical.
And you're not one of those people.
Right. It's other people who will be abused, so who cares! As long as it's not me...
This just screams as something which is going to experience major problems on day 1, and will leave loads of people without a usable system.
If anyone complains about not being able to play the games they bought, that just means they're entitled brats who need to go get a life.
So? That's not a reason to buy the products anyway.
So? He can do whatever he pleases with it as far as I'm concerned. If Microsoft doesn't like it, maybe they should pay up.
Cyber Squatters are just like Patent Trolls, paying them off only encouraging this bad behavior.
Except that unlike patent trolls, they're not trying to sue anyone into oblivion by using patents. They may take money in exchange for a domain name, but I don't see a problem with that. I do not believe Microsoft or anyone else should be able to 'take' a domain name from someone else simply because they think the current website it points to is worthless.
That wasn't in response to bluefoxlucid's comment, but to someone who suggested that anyone who questions another's supposed genius must just be jealous.
You can have free speech while also having crimes that only can be committed thru the use of speech.
Like insulting the government. You're being arrested for insulting the government, a crime you only committed through the use of speech! But don't worry, you still have free speech.
Since speech rights extend beyond literal vocalization to all forms of communication and money you could take your thinking and claim even more crimes are merely attacks on "free speech."
Anything that's not mere communication through words, data, or actual speech is rather murky, so no.
If somebody kills you using kung fu and claims it was speech because it is an artful dance like expression of their negative emotions (which it would be,) then under your thinking the prosecution of that crime would be an attack on their free speech rights.
Except that that's not speech at all. Threatening someone is speech, however.
Kids really should be taught the importance that reputation plays on their lot in life.
It is not difficult to see that many people seem to be shallow imbeciles. But whether or not your 'mistakes' (and what qualifies as a mistake varies from employer to employer) were posted to Facebook, chances are you've done things that certain employers may find objectionable.
What's so hard about NOT making major mistakes as a kid? I didn't
It's not even about major mistakes. Many employers seem to be nothing more than petty, shallow people, and the definition of a "major mistake" may differ from employer to employer; there is no objective way to say that something is 'bad' that I know of. So, they'll probably have employers who don't hire them based on something that they did that they felt was perfectly normal and acceptable.
Maybe if you make "mistakes" you shouldn't get the job? Maybe?
I doubt you haven't made any mistakes; there's probably just no easy way to find out what "mistakes" you made because you didn't post about them on Facebook. The individuals who appear squeaky clean are most likely putting on a facade.
He violated the trust place in him
If there is some sort of "trust" in the military to do whatever you are told no matter the cost, then I think something is horribly wrong.
He's a traitor and a felon.
I'd say people who allow government injustices to go unpunished and/or unnoticed just because they want to follow orders are the real traitors and felons.
At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk.
Because safety is more important than freedom and transparency? I disagree.
He was a soldier.
Which means he's a mindless drone who should do everything he's told? Again, I have to disagree.
If he was not prepared to perform this sworn duty he should not have joined the military.
In my opinion, he has a duty to identify and make known 'injustices' committed by the government, and he does not have a duty to mindlessly follow orders at all costs (regardless of what any laws or other such things claim).
Why are you giving those two the benefit of the doubt? That's not what normally seems to happen. What normally seems to happen is that people overreact to every minuscule threat (even some guy joking about bombs on Twitter) and saying that we must act because it would be terrible if we didn't and we ended up being wrong. But these people aren't normal people, are they? We need to give them the benefit of the doubt, and no one else.
There is a difference between an opinion and a threat.
One of them may get you arrested, and while that's happening, people will go on and on about how great freedom of speech is.
Anyone, you're clearly just jealous of my massive intellect. Why else would you reply in such a way?
Yes, in that case, it is mere jealousy, and in this case it is not. Right. Anyone who questions anything a 'genius' says or does is just jealous! It's the only explanation!
He is not being punished for his speech but for threats which are conveyed by his speech.
Sounds like he's being punished for his speech, then. That was his speech.