"So the bottom line for Congresswoman Lofgren is that she'd like to take the tax money of these thousands of unemployed Santa Clara residents"
Except, if these people aren't recieving income, they won't be taxed on it.
"not encouraging the unemployed people in her district to go out and get a job-- by extending their dole."
No tech worker who used to recieve >$50,000 (hey, it's Silicon Valley) is going to be "unencouraged" to go out an get a new job due to unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are designed to allow people to maintain a decent standard of living while between jobs. It is _not_ better for the enonomy for these people to have no money at all - then they'd have no ability to make purchases or entrepreneurial attempts.
Remember, Jefferson didn't write the Federalist Papers - they were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. It's still worthy of reading, though, for insight of what the constitution is really about. The best writing by Jefferson is none other than the Declaration of Independance, but also look at the letters between he and John and Abigail Adams. Another great thing to check out is Washington's Farewell Address. And after that, look at Charles Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," for a drastically different interpretation of the motives behind the Consitution.
The absolute best understanding of the Constitution comes from "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison." I think it's pretty self explanatory.
"Conservatism generally believes that the Feds SHOULD leave to the states everything that the states can do (10th amendment)."
That's exactly what I meant when I said that's anti-federalism. Thomas Jefferson and his friends believed that the diffusion of power (that is, giving the power to the many states rather than the single national government) was the best way to protect people's rights.
"One of the main differences is (some) liberals believe the State gives you this right, and conversatives believe it is inhearent to all human beings."
I totally believe that this is untrue. As a liberal, I believe that my rights are _mine_, not just something that the States or the government give to me. I've never talked to anyone who ever even hinted at believing that what we consider natural human rights are in fact not natural, but given to us artificially by th government. That includes conservatives and liberals. That our rights are natural and above the government is, I think, a universal American belief.
"The problem being they select primarily leftist causes to protect."
Because they're liberal! They are leftist! Thats why I said, minus the conservative part. My point is, based on what you've posted, you sound more like a liberal than a conservative ("you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt adversely affect others."). As evidence of this, I point to the ACLU.
"This is political based upon an agenda, rather than a philosophy... This is not part of liberalism, this is just their agenda."
Thier agenda is to protect the civil liberties of Americans. It is based on their philosophy, that people's civil liberties must not be violated, and must be agressively protected. That is part of the liberal philosophy.
Furthermore, at it's core, politics is about philosophy. Politics is a stuggle between competing philosophies.
If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, in the way of State's rights, then you're correct in believing that Republicans have abandoned it. This is shown in the huge amounts of unfunded mandates (primarily education and homeland security) pushed by Bush. If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe people have natural rights that shouldn't be infridged by others, then you're confused, because that is a liberal belief... for instance, abortion rights is based on the belief you should be able to do what you want to your body, homosexual rights to marry and serve in the military, and be exactly like other normal people.
"As a conservative, my concern is the strict interpretation of the constitution."
I do believe that that is Anti-Federalism, not conservativism. If you go all the way back in your American History textbooks, you'll see that "strict" interpretation of the constitution was held by the anti-federalists. Who were, by the way, considered liberal. Why? Because the Constitution was the conservative backlash or response to the original Articles of Confederation, which, since it decenteralized power, was considered liberal. Limiting (opposing, really) a conservative document is liberalism.
But thats irrelevant today, because conservativism and liberalism are today about economic policies and moral issues, not about interpreting the Constitution loosely or strictly.
Also: "REAL conservative believe that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt adversely affect others."
Which is basically the American Civil Liberties Union's mission statement (minus the conservative part). The ALCU is usually considered liberal, although I believe a lot of conservatives have recently signed up, due to the invasive policies of the Justice Department. It sounds as though you are part of the movement;)
On the Contrary, Iraq has "largest and most efficient food-distribution system of its kind in the world... employing a massive network of trucks, computers, warehouses and neighborhood distributors to provide basic sustenance for every Iraqi." This is from the Washington Post.
If Iraq uses a huge, intricate computer system to distribute food, you don't think they'd also use it for military purposes? I think, rather, that a computerized attack would be very effective.
The difference here isn't that Microsoft is buying a game developer... the difference is that Microsoft is buying _Blizzard_. Well, Blizzard and Valve. I don't give a damn about the buying-out of various game developers (such as Rare or Bungie), but Blizzard and Valve stand apart. The games they make are _damn good_, and I, for one, prefer that they be allowed to develop their games free of corporate politics.
Imagine if the headline was "Microsoft buys Id." I bet even you'd be gasping at that.
This isn't really a videogame system: "The game console is an 'ALWAYS ON BROADBAND DEVICE.'"
Their business model is, apparently, to let publishers put their games online for download by "phantom" users. I bet the number 32,000 comes from the total number of games ever released, which could all, in theory, be played on a "windows based" system.
I bet this console is really just a PC with a broadband connection, a nice case, and a wireless controller.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: The House of Representatives choses the President. The Senate chooses the VP. Check the 12th Amendment.
"Behind most 'well meaning' laws designed to protect children, is a facist who simply wants to limit your freedom."
Is the government responsible for protecting children from abusive parents?
If it isn't, who is? Or is the child just shit out of luck for being born?
Some people say the the problem is that parents arn't paying attention to what games the kids are playing.
I think the problem is that the parents arn't paying attention to the kids at all.
"So the bottom line for Congresswoman Lofgren is that she'd like to take the tax money of these thousands of unemployed Santa Clara residents"
Except, if these people aren't recieving income, they won't be taxed on it.
"not encouraging the unemployed people in her district to go out and get a job-- by extending their dole."
No tech worker who used to recieve >$50,000 (hey, it's Silicon Valley) is going to be "unencouraged" to go out an get a new job due to unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are designed to allow people to maintain a decent standard of living while between jobs. It is _not_ better for the enonomy for these people to have no money at all - then they'd have no ability to make purchases or entrepreneurial attempts.
Now I agree with you, to an extent.
Remember, Jefferson didn't write the Federalist Papers - they were written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. It's still worthy of reading, though, for insight of what the constitution is really about. The best writing by Jefferson is none other than the Declaration of Independance, but also look at the letters between he and John and Abigail Adams. Another great thing to check out is Washington's Farewell Address. And after that, look at Charles Beard's "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," for a drastically different interpretation of the motives behind the Consitution.
The absolute best understanding of the Constitution comes from "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison." I think it's pretty self explanatory.
"Conservatism generally believes that the Feds SHOULD leave to the states everything that the states can do (10th amendment)."
That's exactly what I meant when I said that's anti-federalism. Thomas Jefferson and his friends believed that the diffusion of power (that is, giving the power to the many states rather than the single national government) was the best way to protect people's rights.
"One of the main differences is (some) liberals believe the State gives you this right, and conversatives believe it is inhearent to all human beings."
I totally believe that this is untrue. As a liberal, I believe that my rights are _mine_, not just something that the States or the government give to me. I've never talked to anyone who ever even hinted at believing that what we consider natural human rights are in fact not natural, but given to us artificially by th government. That includes conservatives and liberals. That our rights are natural and above the government is, I think, a universal American belief.
"The problem being they select primarily leftist causes to protect."
Because they're liberal! They are leftist! Thats why I said, minus the conservative part. My point is, based on what you've posted, you sound more like a liberal than a conservative ("you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt adversely affect others."). As evidence of this, I point to the ACLU.
"This is political based upon an agenda, rather than a philosophy... This is not part of liberalism, this is just their agenda."
Thier agenda is to protect the civil liberties of Americans. It is based on their philosophy, that people's civil liberties must not be violated, and must be agressively protected. That is part of the liberal philosophy.
Furthermore, at it's core, politics is about philosophy. Politics is a stuggle between competing philosophies.
If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, in the way of State's rights, then you're correct in believing that Republicans have abandoned it. This is shown in the huge amounts of unfunded mandates (primarily education and homeland security) pushed by Bush. If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe people have natural rights that shouldn't be infridged by others, then you're confused, because that is a liberal belief... for instance, abortion rights is based on the belief you should be able to do what you want to your body, homosexual rights to marry and serve in the military, and be exactly like other normal people.
"As a conservative, my concern is the strict interpretation of the constitution."
;)
I do believe that that is Anti-Federalism, not conservativism. If you go all the way back in your American History textbooks, you'll see that "strict" interpretation of the constitution was held by the anti-federalists. Who were, by the way, considered liberal. Why? Because the Constitution was the conservative backlash or response to the original Articles of Confederation, which, since it decenteralized power, was considered liberal. Limiting (opposing, really) a conservative document is liberalism.
But thats irrelevant today, because conservativism and liberalism are today about economic policies and moral issues, not about interpreting the Constitution loosely or strictly.
Also:
"REAL conservative believe that you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesnt adversely affect others."
Which is basically the American Civil Liberties Union's mission statement (minus the conservative part). The ALCU is usually considered liberal, although I believe a lot of conservatives have recently signed up, due to the invasive policies of the Justice Department. It sounds as though you are part of the movement
On the Contrary, Iraq has "largest and most efficient food-distribution system of its kind in the world... employing a massive network of trucks, computers, warehouses and neighborhood distributors to provide basic sustenance for every Iraqi." This is from the Washington Post.
If Iraq uses a huge, intricate computer system to distribute food, you don't think they'd also use it for military purposes? I think, rather, that a computerized attack would be very effective.
Especially if they use Windows.
The difference here isn't that Microsoft is buying a game developer... the difference is that Microsoft is buying _Blizzard_. Well, Blizzard and Valve. I don't give a damn about the buying-out of various game developers (such as Rare or Bungie), but Blizzard and Valve stand apart. The games they make are _damn good_, and I, for one, prefer that they be allowed to develop their games free of corporate politics.
Imagine if the headline was "Microsoft buys Id." I bet even you'd be gasping at that.
On their "events" page, they list E3 and the Game Developer's Conference... yet they are not registered for either
This isn't really a videogame system: "The game console is an 'ALWAYS ON BROADBAND DEVICE.'"
Their business model is, apparently, to let publishers put their games online for download by "phantom" users. I bet the number 32,000 comes from the total number of games ever released, which could all, in theory, be played on a "windows based" system.
I bet this console is really just a PC with a broadband connection, a nice case, and a wireless controller.