The point (object) is the protest, not the protesting of the point. Snappy one liner, but the idea is that convoluted. Where they are is the point. They are standing in some poor clod's front yard holding signs and yelling at him. Why? Because he is fortunate enough and skillful enough to have a nice job with benefits that he earned with his own hard work and education. Somehow that is "unfair" to the other people who live there because of "gentrification", which basically means his living there has benefited property owners by making their property worth more. Never mind that most of the "protesters" don't even live there. {sarc}Lets make an example of people who work hard and get an education! How dare they reap any benefits from it, and benefit their neighborhoods by not being "neighbor hoods"??!!{end sarc}
Well, "Anonymous Coward", you should follow the money. Who does it hurt, really, for tech companies to bus their own people to work rather than have them drive their cars? Its much better on the environment, less traffic on the freeways, and better for the workers. Its not that they are busing their people to work, is it? Its the fact that they are not using MUNICIPAL i.e. government owned buses that exclusively use unionized workers, specifically SEIU, which has a habit of using this very tactic.
When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed". Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.
1. Elected by who exactly? 2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.
Source is key. In the one scenario I am drawing a line for myself, in the other, the government is drawing an line for me, and not with my consent, sensibilities or moral compass.
Actually we do live in that society right now. I have heard antic-dote after antic-dote about people dying in the streets with a crowd of onlookers afraid to help. I would myself hesitate knowing that if I tried to help, I would be liable for the outcome no matter if what I did helped or not. Tort reform would go a long ways farther in fixing that immoral situation than any number of federal mandates on ME. YOUR logical failings in this area are: 1. Freedom is the ability to CHOOSE a direction independently, without coercion. 2. Totalitarian Government, and Government Malfeasance are the cause of hunger and sickness all over the world.
So, by your logic, if I don't want to pay car insurance, then I should just stop driving...and if I don't want to pay for health insurance, then I should just stop living, right?
__I think it would be my moral duty to NOT have health insurance, since the alternative is philosophically bankrupt
Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest Ponsie scheme scams in American History. Already takes up 40% of the budget, and although we would be massively better without it, we can't get rid of it because so many are dependent on it. What a massively evil twist to what was supposed to be a government run pension, and is anything but.
"Tea-Partiers"...cute, at least you didn't say "tea-baggers". That political consultants thing is pretty much a no starter, not because people would or would not support it, but because there is pretty much no viable alternative to the massive government run bureaucracies that are in place right now. They are a monopoly and in order to pull it down, you would have to dismantle health care in Europe, completely. Even the stupidest person in the world would see that its better to have sucky health care than none. Your friend might agree, however there are better ways to do it, I am sure. He would have likely had to wait for his Government Bureaucrat health care worker to have deemed his situation life threatening enough to warrant immediate emergency response, right about when it burst completely.
You must have missed the Heller decision where the court upheld the right to keep and bare arms as an individual right. Or the repeal of McCain-Fiengold. Pretty conservative opinions for a 'liberal' court to make.
"Common Good" has always been a convenient euphemism for what is good for the group of people that hold power at the time. Paying Taxes is not a good thing when the government receiving the taxes continually wastes it on self interest and continually ignores the will of the people. No one will tell you the Health CARE is not a good thing, and that they don't want it, however insurance does not guarantee you health care, and for the majority of healthy people, it is simply another expense. What if someone said to you "I want the freedom to NOT have health insurance if I don't want or need it. There are other means of gaining health care. I don't have health insurance, and I don't want it. I am part of a health co-op, with our own doctors, and hospital, and we deal with barter and a savings plan for emergencies." ? There are many ways of obtaining such care with and without insurance, but we certainly don't need an massive government intrusion into our lives to get it.
They were not only ok with it, "Bankruptcy" is part of the very Constitution you are quoting. You forget that that is a means of legally releasing debt so that people would be able to re-organize themselves without being hounded by creditors. Also the term 'General Welfare' did not in this case mean individual welfare, but the providing of law, and law enforcement to protect people from those who would do them harm. Two things you are missing here: 1. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both The Law of the Land. Both are legal documents, and are binding. 2. The Founding Fathers viewed a strong central government with a great deal of skepticism, and thought of it as the main problem in their dealings with the English Parliament and the King. They did not agree to it lightly, and not without STRINGENT controls, namely the Bill of Rights, with which they specifically enumerated controls on that very Government. Contrary to what certain people would have you think, this Bill of Rights gives you no rights. It simply protects rights that have been already "Endowed by the Creator" as express by the Declaration of Independence. As far as helping people GET healthcare, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else from giving any amount of money, time or energy they want to help people. Charity is and always has been a Good Thing, and something that our founding fathers supported.
'Insurance' was not around much when our country was founded. What our Constitution guarantees is not equality of outcome but "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". There is no 'right' to 'healthcare' and a 'healthy life' is not something you can guarantee anyone. Healthcare is a good, a service, something that is PAID for, not a right granted by the Government to the Governed any more than would granting people the right to a house, or a car. Granting of 'rights' is not something our government is supposed to do anyway: Life: Happens independently of Government and is something they can only take away. Liberty: Is the basic right to live life pretty much unmolested by anyone (including fines for just 'living'). Government can only choose to interfere with liberty, or to not interfere. Pursuit of Happiness: The ability to use your liberty to search for what makes you happy, and a better person. When a Government goes into the business of GRANTING rights to people, it also becomes the Government's business to take away rights. THIS government, is not our sovereign, but our servant. It exists to protect us, the people from others who would interfere with our Liberty. As we threw off the King of England, and its Parliament, whose Government was not (and still is not) a Government of the People, and was in the business of granting and removing 'rights', we should also remove from office any Government that would seek to do the same.
Back in October, one of our servers was compromised using an ssh vulnerability to gain access to the system. What they did was to install Asterisk on our compromised system, and then try to compromise other Asterisk systems on the network. I am not sure as what the actual vulnerability the FBI is talking about, however I do know that they were using asterisk against other PBX systems.
Don't even know if I like their music yet. But despite the fact of being a 47 year old fogey, I went right to their web site and downloaded the album and made a contribution. An excellent spirit and good judgement deserves a reward. Thank you HarvyDanger.
Freedom does NOT come from business. Business comes from freedom. At our countries founding, Big Business as we know it did not exist. The only big businesses there were at that time, were government sponsered oppressive colinization sceams like the East India Company which forced Indian's to do business with the English.
Our country (the USA) was filled with small independant business people who grew their businesses by being able to freely and openly do business with anyone else that was able, without restrictions. You cannot do this without basic freedoms of speech, movement, and control of the government BY the people. NONE of which is availible to the Chinese people at this time. The only thing our businesses will do is help the Chinese government to oppress its own people, and force them to do business only with the companies that support their "evil empire".
Its a sad state of affairs, but our Corporations seem to have reverted back to the old East India Company mode.
Re:Influences, agendas shouldn't matter with facts
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Heated scientific debate between people with opposing pre-conceived ideas and agendas very seldom results in any conclusions that are worth while. Its very clear to anyone who would sit still and think about it, that evolution theory does not rule out God creating the universe, and the idea that God created the universe doesn't rule out evolution theory. Anyone or anything that is capable of creating the whole universe, could certainly set up a process to make or manage living ceatures. Also the fact the such a system exists, doesn't preclude a God having set it up. In the same way, just because the requirements for Earth type life are stringent, doesn't mean that those requirements are not commonly met all across the Universe! For all anyone knows, every star that is similar to our sun could have a rocky planet at 93 million miles, with liquid water on its surface, a molten core, plate tutonics and an overly large moon. There is really no way to draw any concrete conclusions otherwise until you can observe enough planetary systems to find out. The best anyone can do at this time is make a reasonable theory based on what we do know about the universe, and life (ain't much, really!), and project that into what we think the cosmos is like.
Slashdot Mirror
The point (object) is the protest, not the protesting of the point.
Snappy one liner, but the idea is that convoluted. Where they are is the point. They are standing in some poor clod's front yard holding signs and yelling at him. Why? Because he is fortunate enough and skillful enough to have a nice job with benefits that he earned with his own hard work and education. Somehow that is "unfair" to the other people who live there because of "gentrification", which basically means his living there has benefited property owners by making their property worth more.
Never mind that most of the "protesters" don't even live there.
{sarc}Lets make an example of people who work hard and get an education! How dare they reap any benefits from it, and benefit their neighborhoods by not being "neighbor hoods"??!!{end sarc}
Ahem..
BART!?
Please, Rush is way too liberal for me, LOL!
Well, "Anonymous Coward", you should follow the money. Who does it hurt, really, for tech companies to bus their own people to work rather than have them drive their cars? Its much better on the environment, less traffic on the freeways, and better for the workers.
Its not that they are busing their people to work, is it?
Its the fact that they are not using MUNICIPAL i.e. government owned buses that exclusively use unionized workers, specifically SEIU, which has a habit of using this very tactic.
Don't love it when Government and Unions get together to do things for the "common good"?
When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.
1. Elected by who exactly?
2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.
Source is key. In the one scenario I am drawing a line for myself, in the other, the government is drawing an line for me, and not with my consent, sensibilities or moral compass.
Actually we do live in that society right now. I have heard antic-dote after antic-dote about people dying in the streets with a crowd of onlookers afraid to help. I would myself hesitate knowing that if I tried to help, I would be liable for the outcome no matter if what I did helped or not. Tort reform would go a long ways farther in fixing that immoral situation than any number of federal mandates on ME.
YOUR logical failings in this area are:
1. Freedom is the ability to CHOOSE a direction independently, without coercion.
2. Totalitarian Government, and Government Malfeasance are the cause of hunger and sickness all over the world.
So, by your logic, if I don't want to pay car insurance, then I should just stop driving...and if I don't want to pay for health insurance, then I should just stop living, right?
__I think it would be my moral duty to NOT have health insurance, since the alternative is philosophically bankrupt
Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest Ponsie scheme scams in American History. Already takes up 40% of the budget, and although we would be massively better without it, we can't get rid of it because so many are dependent on it.
What a massively evil twist to what was supposed to be a government run pension, and is anything but.
"Tea-Partiers"...cute, at least you didn't say "tea-baggers".
That political consultants thing is pretty much a no starter, not because people would or would not support it, but because there is pretty much no viable alternative to the massive government run bureaucracies that are in place right now. They are a monopoly and in order to pull it down, you would have to dismantle health care in Europe, completely. Even the stupidest person in the world would see that its better to have sucky health care than none.
Your friend might agree, however there are better ways to do it, I am sure. He would have likely had to wait for his Government Bureaucrat health care worker to have deemed his situation life threatening enough to warrant immediate emergency response, right about when it burst completely.
You must have missed the Heller decision where the court upheld the right to keep and bare arms as an individual right. Or the repeal of McCain-Fiengold. Pretty conservative opinions for a 'liberal' court to make.
"Common Good" has always been a convenient euphemism for what is good for the group of people that hold power at the time. Paying Taxes is not a good thing when the government receiving the taxes continually wastes it on self interest and continually ignores the will of the people. No one will tell you the Health CARE is not a good thing, and that they don't want it, however insurance does not guarantee you health care, and for the majority of healthy people, it is simply another expense. What if someone said to you "I want the freedom to NOT have health insurance if I don't want or need it. There are other means of gaining health care. I don't have health insurance, and I don't want it. I am part of a health co-op, with our own doctors, and hospital, and we deal with barter and a savings plan for emergencies." ? There are many ways of obtaining such care with and without insurance, but we certainly don't need an massive government intrusion into our lives to get it.
They were not only ok with it, "Bankruptcy" is part of the very Constitution you are quoting. You forget that that is a means of legally releasing debt so that people would be able to re-organize themselves without being hounded by creditors. Also the term 'General Welfare' did not in this case mean individual welfare, but the providing of law, and law enforcement to protect people from those who would do them harm.
Two things you are missing here:
1. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both The Law of the Land. Both are legal documents, and are binding.
2. The Founding Fathers viewed a strong central government with a great deal of skepticism, and thought of it as the main problem in their dealings with the English Parliament and the King. They did not agree to it lightly, and not without STRINGENT controls, namely the Bill of Rights, with which they specifically enumerated controls on that very Government.
Contrary to what certain people would have you think, this Bill of Rights gives you no rights. It simply protects rights that have been already "Endowed by the Creator" as express by the Declaration of Independence.
As far as helping people GET healthcare, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else from giving any amount of money, time or energy they want to help people. Charity is and always has been a Good Thing, and something that our founding fathers supported.
'Insurance' was not around much when our country was founded. What our Constitution guarantees is not equality of outcome but "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". There is no 'right' to 'healthcare' and a 'healthy life' is not something you can guarantee anyone. Healthcare is a good, a service, something that is PAID for, not a right granted by the Government to the Governed any more than would granting people the right to a house, or a car. Granting of 'rights' is not something our government is supposed to do anyway:
Life: Happens independently of Government and is something they can only take away.
Liberty: Is the basic right to live life pretty much unmolested by anyone (including fines for just 'living'). Government can only choose to interfere with liberty, or to not interfere.
Pursuit of Happiness: The ability to use your liberty to search for what makes you happy, and a better person.
When a Government goes into the business of GRANTING rights to people, it also becomes the Government's business to take away rights. THIS government, is not our sovereign, but our servant. It exists to protect us, the people from others who would interfere with our Liberty.
As we threw off the King of England, and its Parliament, whose Government was not (and still is not) a Government of the People, and was in the business of granting and removing 'rights', we should also remove from office any Government that would seek to do the same.
Back in October, one of our servers was compromised using an ssh vulnerability to gain access to the system. What they did was to install Asterisk on our compromised system, and then try to compromise other Asterisk systems on the network. I am not sure as what the actual vulnerability the FBI is talking about, however I do know that they were using asterisk against other PBX systems.
Don't even know if I like their music yet. But despite the fact of being a 47 year old fogey, I went right to their web site and downloaded the album and made a contribution. An excellent spirit and good judgement deserves a reward.
Thank you HarvyDanger.
Freedom does NOT come from business. Business comes from freedom. At our countries founding, Big Business as we know it did not exist. The only big businesses there were at that time, were government sponsered oppressive colinization sceams like the East India Company which forced Indian's to do business with the English. Our country (the USA) was filled with small independant business people who grew their businesses by being able to freely and openly do business with anyone else that was able, without restrictions. You cannot do this without basic freedoms of speech, movement, and control of the government BY the people. NONE of which is availible to the Chinese people at this time. The only thing our businesses will do is help the Chinese government to oppress its own people, and force them to do business only with the companies that support their "evil empire". Its a sad state of affairs, but our Corporations seem to have reverted back to the old East India Company mode.
Heated scientific debate between people with opposing pre-conceived ideas and agendas very seldom results in any conclusions that are worth while.
Its very clear to anyone who would sit still and think about it, that evolution theory does not rule out God creating the universe, and the idea that God created the universe doesn't rule out evolution theory. Anyone or anything that is capable of creating the whole universe, could certainly set up a process to make or manage living ceatures. Also the fact the such a system exists, doesn't preclude a God having set it up.
In the same way, just because the requirements for Earth type life are stringent, doesn't mean that those requirements are not commonly met all across the Universe! For all anyone knows, every star that is similar to our sun could have a rocky planet at 93 million miles, with liquid water on its surface, a molten core, plate tutonics and an overly large moon. There is really no way to draw any concrete conclusions otherwise until you can observe enough planetary systems to find out.
The best anyone can do at this time is make a reasonable theory based on what we do know about the universe, and life (ain't much, really!), and project that into what we think the cosmos is like.