And if the local government was bribed to give exclusive access to the duopoly then I guess you're just gravy with that whole system.
It is precisely this sort of silliness that has allowed the duopolies to operate.
All the cities need to do is provide right of way to ANY ISP. By all means, charge a fee to run cable. Make it the same fee for everyone though and make it proportional to what that ISP is using. If I run a cable down two blocks, I expect to pay fees for two blocks.
If all of this is just too confusing for the stupid incompetent lazy fuck politicians in "name the city" to figure out then outsource administration of it to a neutral third party. Say a company that isn't any of the ISPs but perhaps just manages this sort of thing so the incompetent fucks in city hall don't have to worry about it.
There are a lot of ways to make this work. But one thing that has become extremely clear is that the poles and conduits need to be opened up so that more ISPs can run competing cable.
THAT is how you break the duopoly. Anything short of that is just legislative masturbation.
Then fuck you and you deserve to get shitty internet at an overpriced rate.
Let me further point out that if lots of companies wanted to do that, we'd design the system differently so that it could handle more cable being run through it without disturbing people.
The most sensible solution would be to have a conduit system. You just run the cable through and can access it via manholes. You wouldn't need to dig anything up to change it or add cable. You'd just run the cable into the conduit system through the manholes. The disruption would be minor.
The laws vary from one place to the next because they're done at a local level. Mostly they can be summed up as poll leases or access to communications conduits. Typically any company outside of the duopoly is forbidden to lay cable either on the polls or in the conduits IF they are running last mile cable. If they're not then they tend to be permitted to run the cable. Which is why we have much more competition for backbone cable then we do for last mile cable.
Last I heard, we have over 70 percent unused capacity in the US communication's backbone. That is what happens when you have competition. You get lots of capacity at a much lower price.
As to what republicans want to do, that is just more ad hominem bullshit.
The point is the law... not your irrational hatred of your political rivals.
On topic, what is wrong with a study being reproducible?
As to data not being made available, there were many situations where raw data was denied or was actually said to have been destroyed. So I don't know what you think you're talking about. That is absolutely an issue.
As to the analogy, frankly I don't care what your opinion of any analogy is... because the point is that due process is required.
And that means if the government wants to do something on the basis that "science" says it is a good idea... it is not unreasonable for government to be required to present the study and have it audited. Absent that, you're trying to treat "science" like a blank check. Where you can just do whatever the fuck you want and then whenever you're called on it... you just say "SCIENCE" and if someone asks you to explain what the fuck that means you say "I don't have to!!!" WEEE.
That's fucking retarded. If you use science to justify legal action then your science becomes evidence in a legal court case. And that means it gets audited.
Deal with it.
Either don't use it or use it and expect it to be audited.
As to the justifications being impossible... only impossible if you don't have real science. If your studies are independently reproducible and the data is accessible then your study will comply with the law.
You're only going to have a problem if your study can't be reproduced and if you keep your data secret so it can't be audited. In which case, your justification is bullshit.
None of which matters because the law is only asking for two things:
1. That the study be reproducible.
2. That the data in the study be avalidable for audit.
The reasons the evil nazi goblin republicans are doing this is at best ad hominem.
If you want to talk about this in a RATIONAL way... then explain why insisting that a study you wish to base legislation and policy on be reproducible and that the data be available for audit is a bad thing?
Saying "but evil cannibal republicans want it!" is not a valid reason to oppose something. That's just primitive tribalism.
Someone from outside of your tribe does something so you hate it... great. How far we humans have come.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Answering your question:
""Can laws be other than they are represented to be?"" Your question is itself misleading. Are you saying the stipulations of the law are not accurate?
What I think you meant to ask was "can a law's proposed intentions be different from its actual intentions?"
Yes. However, a law cannot be otherwise than it is. If I make a law that outlaws people from having red hair and my intention is to outlaw a given person that has red hair... while my intention is to outlaw that one person the law itself is actually outlawing everyone with red hair.
The terms of the law are the terms of the law. You say the intentions are otherwise than what the backers say. Fine. But that doesn't change what the law actually is or isn't.
If the terms of the law as written are reasonable then the intentions of the writers no matter how unreasonable are not relevant.
You're trying to logically defend an ad hominem argument. You should know better.
As to process itself being used as a weapon against people... Oh yes. That is of course quite possible. And there are a lot of laws passed specifically on those grounds. Many of the gun control laws recently were written largely with that intent. To make gun ownership so expensive or such a hassle legally that it just became impractical to own one.
So yes. That is an issue. However, I don't see that being required to back up your bullshit if you're going to pass legislation or policy is a significant burden. If you're going to impose federal power on people and say "do this or we'll send men with guns after you"... then yeah... you need to back your bullshit up. Or no. You don't get to do that. If you find due process to be an unreasonable burden then you're in the wrong country. Move to Saudi Arabia or something. They don't spend a lot of time worrying about due process there. Someone powerful says something and before you know it someone's head has been cut off. Very efficient.
As to agenda's you're just asking the first question again. I'll refer you to my response there.
This last question is basically a repeat of the second question. I'll refer you to my response to that.
As to your assessments... we are all entitled to our opinions and the ability to judge each other as we wish. You are free to judge me to be a fish or a flying squirrel or whatever you're about to say. And I likewise have the same freedom.
I'd like it if the whole thing were nothing but unicorns and rainbows. But the secrecy is not a good sign and we need to think to the future... the FCC might do something good with this today... but the government has a tendency to push the bounds of their authority.
They get some power to take the goods away from drug dealers and before you know it they're confiscating the homes of poor people with basically no justification.
They get the mandate to go after terrorists and a few years later the NSA agents are spying on ex girlfriends using the government terror databases and NSA agents are putting ex wives on no fly lists.
The internet is a big deal. And I just don't want the FCC to ruin it.
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Here someone will say those laws don't exist. Both Google and Centurylink were recently complaining about just such laws. So either they do exist or those companies were lying.
Its a real thing. Possibly the new FCC regulations will settle that issue. Which if that was all they were doing would be fine by me. But I worry about the unintended consequences and the long term power creep. The FCC could be a white knight today... but tomorrow? You don't know.
The whole thing could be a devil's bargain. You get something you want today... and later... your soul is forfeit.
You can't say it isn't going to happen... they're keeping the regs secret. That in and of itself is suspicious.
As to evidence, no one is asking for what you're saying they're asking for.
1. What is being asked for is that a study be reproducible.
2. That the data a study is based on be available for audit.
That's it.
This furthermore has nothing to do with your bizzare belief that the government need not respect the civil rights of people simply because they are involved in a corporation.
A corporation is property. Like your house. I don't get to bulldoze your house because "science"... I have to explain what law I'm doing it under and then I need to justify that. And I don't get to bulldoze your house before you can even defend yourself. You can't just say that no government policy can be subjected to challenge until they've actually done it. Would it be reasonable for me to say you can't complain about me bulldozing your house until AFTER I've done it? So If you know I'm going to do it, if I've got the bulldozer right there, and I'm just waiting for the moment when you're looking paying attention... you apparently have no right complain about what I will absolutely do the instant you turn your back? Get real.
If the government changes policy on something then part of the point of congress is to watch that and try to control that garbage before they do something stupid.
The courts you might well note will generally not respond until after something has already happened. True. But the congress can respond before they actually do it by making that bulldozing of your house something they're just not allowed to do without some proper justification.
And that's all this bill is asking for, sport. Proper justification.
You want to turn this into the same old dried up stupid "but the republicans are evil and CORPORATIONS!" horseshit that has been little more than an admission that you're a tool for a generation. Go for it.
But I'm going to need more to justify this than "But I hate corporations and fuck the constitution". Its just not a very strong position.
As to corporations not being people, neither is your house. So can I burn it to the ground whenever I feel like it? Or do YOU have rights as an owner of that house?
See, the reason corporations are considered "people" is because their owners are the shareholders and the shareholders often don't have direct control over the corporation. So to handle that legal nightmare, the corporations themselves are treated as people under the law. They can't vote and they don't have a driver's license. But they do have property rights and they do have civil rights. They are entitled to due process. You can't just fuck them over without legal justification.
I know that is difficult for idiot fascists to process but yes... the law does apply to you too, shit for brains.
As to rights that people give up when they incorporate... at no point do they give up a right to due process.
List for me the rights under the law that you think people give up when they incorporate. Tell me if Due Process is any of them.
You guys are so fucking dumb you're really incapable of having this discussion. Just shut up and stop posting on anything that has anything to do with civics. You know nothing about the US legal system. Just comical.
*shhh*
I know you were about to say something stupid. Just keep your gaping mouth shut and fuck off. Its for the best.
So you're saying that because the courts are inconvienent you want to act without due process?
No. If you have a problem in the courts, then you deal with it there.
Our system of government does not work... AT FUCKING ALL if the court system completely fails. And you're saying the courts can't do their job here yet you want to retain the ability of the executive to do whatever it wants WITHOUT due process.
No, bitch. That's not how this works. You either follow the fucking law or you have no legal authority. You're just some jackass with a gun.
Here is a core issue that many of you fascist asshats don't seem to grasp. The constitution is what gives the federal government its right to do things in the first place. You undermine that and you undermine the federal government's authority IN GENERAL.
At best, what you'll have after pissing all over every legal and moral tradition of the society will be superior force of arms. You'll have a lot of federal agents with guns and a military perhaps... and good luck keeping the republic together if that is all you've got.
We are a republic. Which from the greek means rule by law... or more literally Public Thing. But what it means is rule by law. That is our society. We are not a true democracy where the majority can do whatever the fuck they want from one moment to the next. We are a society first and foremost governed by LAW.
And if the law means shit to you then fine... You get anarchy. We can just break out the razor blades and start carving each other's eyes out.
Deal?
Work within the system rather then doing your best to subvert it like a pack of fucking ignorant barbarians.
As to whether the EPA and NSA are different things... clearly I didn't because I distinguished them by name.
I previously said prior to that "you think the government can do no wrong"... and then I cited a government agency that everyone agrees did wrong and continues to do wrong.
Your position is that the EPA does no wrong? Obviously I can. Anything can.
Which is why we have due process. If a government agent wants to do something and a citizen protests... they can take that agent to court. Where upon that agent will have to defend their action. They'll have to show evidence etc.
Otherwise the actions of that agent are without due process which is unconstitutional.
As to the strawman you accused me of... Explain again how my statement doesn't conform completely with you position. Your correction appears to be a difference without significance.
You are quite clearly suggesting that the EPA should be able to operate without due process.
As to things being challengeable in court now, are they? Many government agencies have shown reluctance to provide evidence for their actions. And really, you have no business enacting any policy on scientific grounds unless that science has been tested and the entirety of the study is open to public audit. Absent that, I have no regard for it.
And saying this is all about "corporations" etc is complete tribalistic horseshit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Civil rights and civil rights indifferent to whomever they refer to. You're not going to tell me that people you don't like are not entitled to civil right are you?
Does that means civil rights don't apply to you if I don't like you? Corporations are property. And property is owned by people with rights. Just as I can't randomly bull dose your house and when asked why respond "SCIENCE". You can't go after some corporation you don't like without a legal justification for it. The EPA has increasingly broad powers to go after polluters and various hazards to public health. That is fine. However, they can't just do whatever the fuck they want and when asked respond "SCIENCE"... they have to actually present the fucking study and be able to defend the fucking thing. If they can't do that then they're at best acting irresponsibly.
As to expert opinion, I am considering it. I am just not slaved to it. I consider it and everything else and I weight each input as seems reasonable to me.
When you say I have to accept the majority position... which is what you're doing... you are mooing at me.
As to my reasons for deciding one thing or another. It varies form on thing to the next. if you want to talk about a specific thing then we can do that. I'll tell you what my opinion on the matter is, why I hold that opinion, and I'll offer the supporting evidence as best I can.
But if you're attempting brow beat me or shame me or use some sort of peer pressure to submit to your position without that discussion... no. I don't work that way.
As to climate science, you can't strawman me by saying I am in conformity with your opposition anymore than you can shame me into accepting your position.
I am neither a warmist nor a skeptic. The issue is complicated and the first thing you have to admit is that there are political interests on both sides. Al Gore didn't stump for the warmists because he's a deep believer in science. You have a lot of politicians on that side that back it because they see political advantage in it... PERIOD.
And once you've accepted that reality we can dispense with these holier than thou speeches and get to the science.
My position? There's clearly some climate change. However, the models backed by the warmists are not accurately modeling that change. So they're clearly in need of some adjustment.
Does that mean everything is fine? Nope. Means we don't know. And I am fully in favor of exploring the issue and trying to figure out what is going on.
Do not tell me the science is settled because it isn't. Do not tell me the discussion is over because that just means you want to play power politics instead of have a rational discussion on the issue. You're basically saying you think you can get what you want faster by putting on war paint and trying to cut my throat in the dark. And we'll just see about that.
But if you want to have a discussion... I welcome it. Very few warmists actually are able or willing to have such a discussion. All they're typically good for is prancing around presuming their own superiority whilst not backing it up with anything.
And I'm not claiming the skeptics are any better. Many of them are political reactionaries that are just reflexively resisting the political elements in the warmist camp.
But I am neither. I'm am a stable independent rational thinker. I've had my personality analyzed a few times by friends. I have a psychologist and a marketing buddy that did it once just for the fun of it. I am not a common personality type. You do not know me. And in all likelihood you will superimpose a misapprehension on me.
I do not hold my position out of ego or dogma. I don't do this because I think I'm so amazing or because I worship some holy book or code above all else. I do this because this is what I do. It is how my mind works and it is how my personality is structured.
I process information as relationships... linkages... associations. Simply saying something is true because X people said it is so is a weak justification in my system of thought. Its like a one legged table. Wobbly. I must have many linkages to justify a position. And I associate everything literally with everything else. Everything in my mind is a web of association.
I had a very hard time in school until I learned how to teach myself. Because the teachers would just say "hey this is true, memorize it"... and I can't. I'll just forget it almost immediately unless I can tie it to my mental web. So whenever I learn something I muse upon it. I see where it links my web. And no linkage no matter how tangential is irrelevant. Most concepts link at dozens of places and sometimes hundreds.
My way of thinking is not superior or inferior to yours. It is merely the way my mind works. And so, I say again... I neither discount entirely the support of given people
You're assuming the government only does good things. The NSA actions alone render that position laughable.
*laughs in your stupid face*
As to not knowing what fascism is... since you fucked up by the numbers on the first point I really doubt you're going to make any more sense there... But I'll read it anyway for the sake of argument.
So your argument is a strawman where you suggest that expecting basic civil rights and due process means I want a corporate oligarchy to rule with impunity over everyone. Never mind that what I actually asked for was that the government present evidence for why it does things and be open to challenge in court. That is basic due process which is a constitutional right and a basic civil right. Your attempted negation of basic civil rights is evidence of fascism.
It will give people leverage in court to demand basic due process. That's the point. I don't expect the EPA to be reasonable. I expect the law to be tightened up a bit so that anyone that challenges them when they step across the line can slap them around with the legal system.
Which is the only real defense against a corrupt executive... a zealous judiciary.
Actually the burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case that would be the EPA whenever they do something. The burden of proof is on THEM that they're right and within the law.
The accused has the presumption of innocence and is entitled to face their accuser, examine all evidence against them, and fight it in court.
If the EPA is unwilling to present their evidence then if challenged in court they must automatically lose since they are refusing to present the evidence.
Why do so many people not understand basic due process? Do you people get basic civics in high school or what? This is asinine.
Subjecting something to due process implies no right or wrong doing on either party. It rather admits that we do not know and that people have a right to their day in court.
What is more, you are entitled to face your accuser... and that includes examining all evidence brought against you.
If you are unwilling to do this then you have no business using the power of the government to get your will done. If you use the government, then people have a right to due process. And that means insisting that the evidence be made avalidable for audit and that the evidence be subjected to some scrutney.
In court, the accused has the presumption of innocence. The bruden of proof is on the accuser. In this case, that would be the EPA whenever they do something to anyone. They are just like the police officer that writes you a speeding ticket. If you take him to court, you are the accused and the police officer is the accuser. The burden of proof is on him to show that you broke the law.
Now he might just cite his personal testimony which might be enough in and of itself given that it is a relatively small crime and the burden of proof scales with the severity of the crime. But if I show up with pictures of the area and other such things... I might be able to convince the judge that I am right and the officer is wrong.
And that is just due process.
I get my day in court. That is my right. And the EPA isn't above the constitution. If they start setting things by some sort of scientific study... and they do something to me on that basis... then I get to challenge that study. Which means the EPA are going to have to present it in court or drop the charges.
This is a civil rights issue. I have a civil right to due process. End of story.
Did I not cite the oyster issue or are you saying you want something from the AGW studies specifically? Because I don't think I need to do that... all I need to do is show an instance where the government lied about where its science was coming from.
The oyster issue had the Park's Department go completely ape on someone without justification. They fabricated evidence and when called on it they abused their authority to cover it up and threaten people. They basically told him to let them get away with it or they were going to try and throw him in jail.
It took a democrat US senator to back them off. And even still they never admitted anything and no one was fired over it.
if it can happen over some bullshit oyster farm then you can't tell me similar behavior isn't possible when the stakes and interests are greater.
Requiring the government disclose its information before doing something to its own citizens is merely due process. It is a constitutionally protected right. And frankly, if a study can't be reproduced then it isn't science.
You can throw an exception there for super nova or something where you're watching something happen in nature that doesn't happen that often. But if you're talking about something that is ongoing or can be tested RIGHT NOW... then you can reproduce it.
And don't tell me you can't do that with every single fucking study because no one is asking you to do that. Only the ones that you want to use as justification for policy. That is a handful of studies per year at most. You can do lots of things to satisfy the requirement. You can duplicate a study so two studies happen independently that are investigating the same thing. Or you can do one study to see if you have something and then do another to verify it. Not really a big deal.
Then it was doubly inane and hypocritical to say that a study cannot be verified or reproducible.
You either have to admit that it is possible to reproduce these studies or you're going to have to say that they really never done even once.
Its heads I win and tails you lose. Pick one.
*yawn*
Its not hard guys... I'm just exceptionally rational and most people don't think logically apparently. You're all saying stuff that is as obviously wrong as 1+1=3. And yeah... I can shut that shit down without even trying. Make a rational rebuttal and you'll do better.
I suspect I've offended you though... because again... irrational overly emotional monkeys. That last statement was probably enough to make you even madder... which is stupid. Prove me wrong by responding rationally without a lot of emotional fucking baggage. I'm challenging you to be a human being being and not some fucking animal that learned how to talk. Respond with your brain... not your gonads.
Exactly. Stonewall, whitewash, misdirect, destroy evidence, lie, and then accuse anyone of putting up with the shit that long of being insane or obsessed.
So yeah... "what coverups" indeed. What knife in my back you mean.
That's fine... then don't enact legislation on the issue. If you're trying to make something public policy in a democracy then the people have a right to audit the study.
As to neutering the EPA... requring that the EPA be subject to due process is not neutering. That is how the government is supposed to work.
When you get a parking ticket is it neutering the police if you can take the officer to court to challenge the ticket? No it isn't.
This is just due process. It is a normal and very healthy function of our government. You make the EPA immune from due process and it is like giving the officer the ability to issue tickets without giving you any ability to take him to court if he fucks you. Lets say I just ticket you in your drive way or say you drove 1000 miles an hour when you haven't been in the country for a year?
See.... you take the officer to court when that happens. If the EPA can make regulation on the basis of specious studies then people have no defense against it.
The mistake people keep making is that you're assuming the EPA is only doing good things and is never wrong or corrupt. That's not reasonable. The EPA is as likely to fuck up a regulation as any other branch of government.
A democratic US senator stepped in to help them. I point that out because you sound like the sort of person that just looks at the R or the D after a name and then turns their brain off.
That simplistic thinking is not useful. Stop doing that.
So wait, what do you mean a company should have to prove whatever they're doing is okay for the environment?
Explain what that means please? Because it sounds like it would either be impossible or so fucking expensive that the economy would collapse and we'd be eating each other within six months.
As to admitting things... I like democracy, I like due process, I think a good argument has nothing to fear from an audit or examination.
You can't reverse this on me.
The people fighting this sort of thing ultimately are useful idiots for fascism. You want the government to do whatever it wants without anyone being able to defend themselves in court or hold the government to basic due process. You also don't want anything to be subjected to the democratic process. You want everything to happen behind closed doors where "your people" will just do whatever it is they want and most people won't even know it happened.
That's text book tyranny. And the only thing that keeps me from calling you a fascist is that I think you're probably too stupid to realize what is going on here.
Too many people have been deluded into thinking they're rational scientific people when really they're the same closed minded dogmatic tribals they like to sneer at.
Lawyers get a bad rap. The people you should be lining up against the wall are the judges and the legislators.
The lawyer's job is to represent you and they are truer to their purpose than most people that interface with the government.
And really, if you have a problem... don't you want a lawyer? I know I do.
People get mad at the lawyers for using stupid arguments and getting away with it but people forget it is the judges that accept those ploys. If the judge just laughed at the lawyer and said "try harder"... it wouldn't work that way. And then a lot of the dumb laws are passed by the legislature. It isn't the fault of the judge that the law is stupid. All he can do is judge what is and is not legal at the moment.
So... don't hate lawyers. Hate the judges and the politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the local government was bribed to give exclusive access to the duopoly then I guess you're just gravy with that whole system.
It is precisely this sort of silliness that has allowed the duopolies to operate.
All the cities need to do is provide right of way to ANY ISP. By all means, charge a fee to run cable. Make it the same fee for everyone though and make it proportional to what that ISP is using. If I run a cable down two blocks, I expect to pay fees for two blocks.
If all of this is just too confusing for the stupid incompetent lazy fuck politicians in "name the city" to figure out then outsource administration of it to a neutral third party. Say a company that isn't any of the ISPs but perhaps just manages this sort of thing so the incompetent fucks in city hall don't have to worry about it.
There are a lot of ways to make this work. But one thing that has become extremely clear is that the poles and conduits need to be opened up so that more ISPs can run competing cable.
THAT is how you break the duopoly. Anything short of that is just legislative masturbation.
Then fuck you and you deserve to get shitty internet at an overpriced rate.
Let me further point out that if lots of companies wanted to do that, we'd design the system differently so that it could handle more cable being run through it without disturbing people.
The most sensible solution would be to have a conduit system. You just run the cable through and can access it via manholes. You wouldn't need to dig anything up to change it or add cable. You'd just run the cable into the conduit system through the manholes. The disruption would be minor.
But seriously... fuck you. :-D
The laws vary from one place to the next because they're done at a local level. Mostly they can be summed up as poll leases or access to communications conduits. Typically any company outside of the duopoly is forbidden to lay cable either on the polls or in the conduits IF they are running last mile cable. If they're not then they tend to be permitted to run the cable. Which is why we have much more competition for backbone cable then we do for last mile cable.
Last I heard, we have over 70 percent unused capacity in the US communication's backbone. That is what happens when you have competition. You get lots of capacity at a much lower price.
As to what republicans want to do, that is just more ad hominem bullshit.
The point is the law... not your irrational hatred of your political rivals.
On topic, what is wrong with a study being reproducible?
As to data not being made available, there were many situations where raw data was denied or was actually said to have been destroyed. So I don't know what you think you're talking about. That is absolutely an issue.
As to the analogy, frankly I don't care what your opinion of any analogy is... because the point is that due process is required.
And that means if the government wants to do something on the basis that "science" says it is a good idea... it is not unreasonable for government to be required to present the study and have it audited. Absent that, you're trying to treat "science" like a blank check. Where you can just do whatever the fuck you want and then whenever you're called on it... you just say "SCIENCE" and if someone asks you to explain what the fuck that means you say "I don't have to!!!" WEEE.
That's fucking retarded. If you use science to justify legal action then your science becomes evidence in a legal court case. And that means it gets audited.
Deal with it.
Either don't use it or use it and expect it to be audited.
As to the justifications being impossible... only impossible if you don't have real science. If your studies are independently reproducible and the data is accessible then your study will comply with the law.
You're only going to have a problem if your study can't be reproduced and if you keep your data secret so it can't be audited. In which case, your justification is bullshit.
None of which matters because the law is only asking for two things:
1. That the study be reproducible.
2. That the data in the study be avalidable for audit.
The reasons the evil nazi goblin republicans are doing this is at best ad hominem.
If you want to talk about this in a RATIONAL way... then explain why insisting that a study you wish to base legislation and policy on be reproducible and that the data be available for audit is a bad thing?
Saying "but evil cannibal republicans want it!" is not a valid reason to oppose something. That's just primitive tribalism.
Someone from outside of your tribe does something so you hate it... great. How far we humans have come.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Answering your question:
""Can laws be other than they are represented to be?""
Your question is itself misleading. Are you saying the stipulations of the law are not accurate?
What I think you meant to ask was "can a law's proposed intentions be different from its actual intentions?"
Yes. However, a law cannot be otherwise than it is. If I make a law that outlaws people from having red hair and my intention is to outlaw a given person that has red hair... while my intention is to outlaw that one person the law itself is actually outlawing everyone with red hair.
The terms of the law are the terms of the law. You say the intentions are otherwise than what the backers say. Fine. But that doesn't change what the law actually is or isn't.
If the terms of the law as written are reasonable then the intentions of the writers no matter how unreasonable are not relevant.
You're trying to logically defend an ad hominem argument. You should know better.
As to process itself being used as a weapon against people... Oh yes. That is of course quite possible. And there are a lot of laws passed specifically on those grounds. Many of the gun control laws recently were written largely with that intent. To make gun ownership so expensive or such a hassle legally that it just became impractical to own one.
So yes. That is an issue. However, I don't see that being required to back up your bullshit if you're going to pass legislation or policy is a significant burden. If you're going to impose federal power on people and say "do this or we'll send men with guns after you"... then yeah... you need to back your bullshit up. Or no. You don't get to do that. If you find due process to be an unreasonable burden then you're in the wrong country. Move to Saudi Arabia or something. They don't spend a lot of time worrying about due process there. Someone powerful says something and before you know it someone's head has been cut off. Very efficient.
As to agenda's you're just asking the first question again. I'll refer you to my response there.
This last question is basically a repeat of the second question. I'll refer you to my response to that.
As to your assessments... we are all entitled to our opinions and the ability to judge each other as we wish. You are free to judge me to be a fish or a flying squirrel or whatever you're about to say. And I likewise have the same freedom.
Judge and prepare to be judged.
There are a lot of issues with it.
I'd like it if the whole thing were nothing but unicorns and rainbows. But the secrecy is not a good sign and we need to think to the future... the FCC might do something good with this today... but the government has a tendency to push the bounds of their authority.
They get some power to take the goods away from drug dealers and before you know it they're confiscating the homes of poor people with basically no justification.
They get the mandate to go after terrorists and a few years later the NSA agents are spying on ex girlfriends using the government terror databases and NSA agents are putting ex wives on no fly lists.
The internet is a big deal. And I just don't want the FCC to ruin it.
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Here someone will say those laws don't exist. Both Google and Centurylink were recently complaining about just such laws. So either they do exist or those companies were lying.
Its a real thing. Possibly the new FCC regulations will settle that issue. Which if that was all they were doing would be fine by me. But I worry about the unintended consequences and the long term power creep. The FCC could be a white knight today... but tomorrow? You don't know.
The whole thing could be a devil's bargain. You get something you want today... and later... your soul is forfeit.
You can't say it isn't going to happen... they're keeping the regs secret. That in and of itself is suspicious.
As to evidence, no one is asking for what you're saying they're asking for.
1. What is being asked for is that a study be reproducible.
2. That the data a study is based on be available for audit.
That's it.
This furthermore has nothing to do with your bizzare belief that the government need not respect the civil rights of people simply because they are involved in a corporation.
A corporation is property. Like your house. I don't get to bulldoze your house because "science"... I have to explain what law I'm doing it under and then I need to justify that. And I don't get to bulldoze your house before you can even defend yourself. You can't just say that no government policy can be subjected to challenge until they've actually done it. Would it be reasonable for me to say you can't complain about me bulldozing your house until AFTER I've done it? So If you know I'm going to do it, if I've got the bulldozer right there, and I'm just waiting for the moment when you're looking paying attention... you apparently have no right complain about what I will absolutely do the instant you turn your back? Get real.
If the government changes policy on something then part of the point of congress is to watch that and try to control that garbage before they do something stupid.
The courts you might well note will generally not respond until after something has already happened. True. But the congress can respond before they actually do it by making that bulldozing of your house something they're just not allowed to do without some proper justification.
And that's all this bill is asking for, sport. Proper justification.
You want to turn this into the same old dried up stupid "but the republicans are evil and CORPORATIONS!" horseshit that has been little more than an admission that you're a tool for a generation. Go for it.
But I'm going to need more to justify this than "But I hate corporations and fuck the constitution". Its just not a very strong position.
As to corporations not being people, neither is your house. So can I burn it to the ground whenever I feel like it? Or do YOU have rights as an owner of that house?
See, the reason corporations are considered "people" is because their owners are the shareholders and the shareholders often don't have direct control over the corporation. So to handle that legal nightmare, the corporations themselves are treated as people under the law. They can't vote and they don't have a driver's license. But they do have property rights and they do have civil rights. They are entitled to due process. You can't just fuck them over without legal justification.
I know that is difficult for idiot fascists to process but yes... the law does apply to you too, shit for brains.
As to rights that people give up when they incorporate... at no point do they give up a right to due process.
List for me the rights under the law that you think people give up when they incorporate. Tell me if Due Process is any of them.
You guys are so fucking dumb you're really incapable of having this discussion. Just shut up and stop posting on anything that has anything to do with civics. You know nothing about the US legal system. Just comical.
*shhh*
I know you were about to say something stupid. Just keep your gaping mouth shut and fuck off. Its for the best.
So you're saying that because the courts are inconvienent you want to act without due process?
No. If you have a problem in the courts, then you deal with it there.
Our system of government does not work... AT FUCKING ALL if the court system completely fails. And you're saying the courts can't do their job here yet you want to retain the ability of the executive to do whatever it wants WITHOUT due process.
No, bitch. That's not how this works. You either follow the fucking law or you have no legal authority. You're just some jackass with a gun.
Here is a core issue that many of you fascist asshats don't seem to grasp. The constitution is what gives the federal government its right to do things in the first place. You undermine that and you undermine the federal government's authority IN GENERAL.
At best, what you'll have after pissing all over every legal and moral tradition of the society will be superior force of arms. You'll have a lot of federal agents with guns and a military perhaps... and good luck keeping the republic together if that is all you've got.
We are a republic. Which from the greek means rule by law... or more literally Public Thing. But what it means is rule by law. That is our society. We are not a true democracy where the majority can do whatever the fuck they want from one moment to the next. We are a society first and foremost governed by LAW.
And if the law means shit to you then fine... You get anarchy. We can just break out the razor blades and start carving each other's eyes out.
Deal?
Work within the system rather then doing your best to subvert it like a pack of fucking ignorant barbarians.
As to whether the EPA and NSA are different things... clearly I didn't because I distinguished them by name.
I previously said prior to that "you think the government can do no wrong"... and then I cited a government agency that everyone agrees did wrong and continues to do wrong.
Your position is that the EPA does no wrong? Obviously I can. Anything can.
Which is why we have due process. If a government agent wants to do something and a citizen protests... they can take that agent to court. Where upon that agent will have to defend their action. They'll have to show evidence etc.
Otherwise the actions of that agent are without due process which is unconstitutional.
As to the strawman you accused me of... Explain again how my statement doesn't conform completely with you position. Your correction appears to be a difference without significance.
You are quite clearly suggesting that the EPA should be able to operate without due process.
As to things being challengeable in court now, are they? Many government agencies have shown reluctance to provide evidence for their actions. And really, you have no business enacting any policy on scientific grounds unless that science has been tested and the entirety of the study is open to public audit. Absent that, I have no regard for it.
And saying this is all about "corporations" etc is complete tribalistic horseshit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Civil rights and civil rights indifferent to whomever they refer to. You're not going to tell me that people you don't like are not entitled to civil right are you?
Does that means civil rights don't apply to you if I don't like you? Corporations are property. And property is owned by people with rights. Just as I can't randomly bull dose your house and when asked why respond "SCIENCE". You can't go after some corporation you don't like without a legal justification for it. The EPA has increasingly broad powers to go after polluters and various hazards to public health. That is fine. However, they can't just do whatever the fuck they want and when asked respond "SCIENCE"... they have to actually present the fucking study and be able to defend the fucking thing. If they can't do that then they're at best acting irresponsibly.
As to expert opinion, I am considering it. I am just not slaved to it. I consider it and everything else and I weight each input as seems reasonable to me.
When you say I have to accept the majority position... which is what you're doing... you are mooing at me.
As to my reasons for deciding one thing or another. It varies form on thing to the next. if you want to talk about a specific thing then we can do that. I'll tell you what my opinion on the matter is, why I hold that opinion, and I'll offer the supporting evidence as best I can.
But if you're attempting brow beat me or shame me or use some sort of peer pressure to submit to your position without that discussion... no. I don't work that way.
As to climate science, you can't strawman me by saying I am in conformity with your opposition anymore than you can shame me into accepting your position.
I am neither a warmist nor a skeptic. The issue is complicated and the first thing you have to admit is that there are political interests on both sides. Al Gore didn't stump for the warmists because he's a deep believer in science. You have a lot of politicians on that side that back it because they see political advantage in it... PERIOD.
And once you've accepted that reality we can dispense with these holier than thou speeches and get to the science.
My position? There's clearly some climate change. However, the models backed by the warmists are not accurately modeling that change. So they're clearly in need of some adjustment.
Does that mean everything is fine? Nope. Means we don't know. And I am fully in favor of exploring the issue and trying to figure out what is going on.
Do not tell me the science is settled because it isn't. Do not tell me the discussion is over because that just means you want to play power politics instead of have a rational discussion on the issue. You're basically saying you think you can get what you want faster by putting on war paint and trying to cut my throat in the dark. And we'll just see about that.
But if you want to have a discussion... I welcome it. Very few warmists actually are able or willing to have such a discussion. All they're typically good for is prancing around presuming their own superiority whilst not backing it up with anything.
And I'm not claiming the skeptics are any better. Many of them are political reactionaries that are just reflexively resisting the political elements in the warmist camp.
But I am neither. I'm am a stable independent rational thinker. I've had my personality analyzed a few times by friends. I have a psychologist and a marketing buddy that did it once just for the fun of it. I am not a common personality type. You do not know me. And in all likelihood you will superimpose a misapprehension on me.
I do not hold my position out of ego or dogma. I don't do this because I think I'm so amazing or because I worship some holy book or code above all else. I do this because this is what I do. It is how my mind works and it is how my personality is structured.
I process information as relationships... linkages... associations. Simply saying something is true because X people said it is so is a weak justification in my system of thought. Its like a one legged table. Wobbly. I must have many linkages to justify a position. And I associate everything literally with everything else. Everything in my mind is a web of association.
I had a very hard time in school until I learned how to teach myself. Because the teachers would just say "hey this is true, memorize it"... and I can't. I'll just forget it almost immediately unless I can tie it to my mental web. So whenever I learn something I muse upon it. I see where it links my web. And no linkage no matter how tangential is irrelevant. Most concepts link at dozens of places and sometimes hundreds.
My way of thinking is not superior or inferior to yours. It is merely the way my mind works. And so, I say again... I neither discount entirely the support of given people
You ask a complicated question and then get offended when I give a complicated answer?
That's just hypocritical and... quite stupid.
Do you have a rational rebuttal or is this really all you're worth?
I do consider expert opinion. I just don't slave my opinion to it.
I am a human being. Not a cow. I think. I reason. I do not simply notice which way the other cattle are going and follow along.
Please... moo at me some more... I'm sure it will be more convincing the next time.
You're assuming the government only does good things. The NSA actions alone render that position laughable.
*laughs in your stupid face*
As to not knowing what fascism is... since you fucked up by the numbers on the first point I really doubt you're going to make any more sense there... But I'll read it anyway for the sake of argument.
So your argument is a strawman where you suggest that expecting basic civil rights and due process means I want a corporate oligarchy to rule with impunity over everyone. Never mind that what I actually asked for was that the government present evidence for why it does things and be open to challenge in court. That is basic due process which is a constitutional right and a basic civil right. Your attempted negation of basic civil rights is evidence of fascism.
You stupid stupid stupid stupid, man.
*shhhh*...
*puts index finger on your quivering lips*
So so stupid.
It will give people leverage in court to demand basic due process. That's the point. I don't expect the EPA to be reasonable. I expect the law to be tightened up a bit so that anyone that challenges them when they step across the line can slap them around with the legal system.
Which is the only real defense against a corrupt executive... a zealous judiciary.
Actually the burden of proof is on the accuser. In this case that would be the EPA whenever they do something. The burden of proof is on THEM that they're right and within the law.
The accused has the presumption of innocence and is entitled to face their accuser, examine all evidence against them, and fight it in court.
If the EPA is unwilling to present their evidence then if challenged in court they must automatically lose since they are refusing to present the evidence.
Why do so many people not understand basic due process? Do you people get basic civics in high school or what? This is asinine.
Subjecting something to due process implies no right or wrong doing on either party. It rather admits that we do not know and that people have a right to their day in court.
What is more, you are entitled to face your accuser... and that includes examining all evidence brought against you.
If you are unwilling to do this then you have no business using the power of the government to get your will done. If you use the government, then people have a right to due process. And that means insisting that the evidence be made avalidable for audit and that the evidence be subjected to some scrutney.
In court, the accused has the presumption of innocence. The bruden of proof is on the accuser. In this case, that would be the EPA whenever they do something to anyone. They are just like the police officer that writes you a speeding ticket. If you take him to court, you are the accused and the police officer is the accuser. The burden of proof is on him to show that you broke the law.
Now he might just cite his personal testimony which might be enough in and of itself given that it is a relatively small crime and the burden of proof scales with the severity of the crime. But if I show up with pictures of the area and other such things... I might be able to convince the judge that I am right and the officer is wrong.
And that is just due process.
I get my day in court. That is my right. And the EPA isn't above the constitution. If they start setting things by some sort of scientific study... and they do something to me on that basis... then I get to challenge that study. Which means the EPA are going to have to present it in court or drop the charges.
This is a civil rights issue. I have a civil right to due process. End of story.
Did I not cite the oyster issue or are you saying you want something from the AGW studies specifically? Because I don't think I need to do that... all I need to do is show an instance where the government lied about where its science was coming from.
The oyster issue had the Park's Department go completely ape on someone without justification. They fabricated evidence and when called on it they abused their authority to cover it up and threaten people. They basically told him to let them get away with it or they were going to try and throw him in jail.
It took a democrat US senator to back them off. And even still they never admitted anything and no one was fired over it.
if it can happen over some bullshit oyster farm then you can't tell me similar behavior isn't possible when the stakes and interests are greater.
Requiring the government disclose its information before doing something to its own citizens is merely due process. It is a constitutionally protected right. And frankly, if a study can't be reproduced then it isn't science.
You can throw an exception there for super nova or something where you're watching something happen in nature that doesn't happen that often. But if you're talking about something that is ongoing or can be tested RIGHT NOW... then you can reproduce it.
And don't tell me you can't do that with every single fucking study because no one is asking you to do that. Only the ones that you want to use as justification for policy. That is a handful of studies per year at most. You can do lots of things to satisfy the requirement. You can duplicate a study so two studies happen independently that are investigating the same thing. Or you can do one study to see if you have something and then do another to verify it. Not really a big deal.
Then it was doubly inane and hypocritical to say that a study cannot be verified or reproducible.
You either have to admit that it is possible to reproduce these studies or you're going to have to say that they really never done even once.
Its heads I win and tails you lose. Pick one.
*yawn*
Its not hard guys... I'm just exceptionally rational and most people don't think logically apparently. You're all saying stuff that is as obviously wrong as 1+1=3. And yeah... I can shut that shit down without even trying. Make a rational rebuttal and you'll do better.
I suspect I've offended you though... because again... irrational overly emotional monkeys. That last statement was probably enough to make you even madder... which is stupid. Prove me wrong by responding rationally without a lot of emotional fucking baggage. I'm challenging you to be a human being being and not some fucking animal that learned how to talk. Respond with your brain... not your gonads.
Exactly. Stonewall, whitewash, misdirect, destroy evidence, lie, and then accuse anyone of putting up with the shit that long of being insane or obsessed.
So yeah... "what coverups" indeed. What knife in my back you mean.
I mean people are sent to jail today... you have manslaughter trials etc... now that will never happen again?
That's fine... then don't enact legislation on the issue. If you're trying to make something public policy in a democracy then the people have a right to audit the study.
As to neutering the EPA... requring that the EPA be subject to due process is not neutering. That is how the government is supposed to work.
When you get a parking ticket is it neutering the police if you can take the officer to court to challenge the ticket? No it isn't.
This is just due process. It is a normal and very healthy function of our government. You make the EPA immune from due process and it is like giving the officer the ability to issue tickets without giving you any ability to take him to court if he fucks you. Lets say I just ticket you in your drive way or say you drove 1000 miles an hour when you haven't been in the country for a year?
See.... you take the officer to court when that happens. If the EPA can make regulation on the basis of specious studies then people have no defense against it.
The mistake people keep making is that you're assuming the EPA is only doing good things and is never wrong or corrupt. That's not reasonable. The EPA is as likely to fuck up a regulation as any other branch of government.
Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
A democratic US senator stepped in to help them. I point that out because you sound like the sort of person that just looks at the R or the D after a name and then turns their brain off.
That simplistic thinking is not useful. Stop doing that.
So wait, what do you mean a company should have to prove whatever they're doing is okay for the environment?
Explain what that means please? Because it sounds like it would either be impossible or so fucking expensive that the economy would collapse and we'd be eating each other within six months.
As to admitting things... I like democracy, I like due process, I think a good argument has nothing to fear from an audit or examination.
You can't reverse this on me.
The people fighting this sort of thing ultimately are useful idiots for fascism. You want the government to do whatever it wants without anyone being able to defend themselves in court or hold the government to basic due process. You also don't want anything to be subjected to the democratic process. You want everything to happen behind closed doors where "your people" will just do whatever it is they want and most people won't even know it happened.
That's text book tyranny. And the only thing that keeps me from calling you a fascist is that I think you're probably too stupid to realize what is going on here.
Too many people have been deluded into thinking they're rational scientific people when really they're the same closed minded dogmatic tribals they like to sneer at.
I don't make my mind up based on what other people are saying.
I am not a herd animal. Fucking cattle can all move as one... I'm a human being. I don't work that way.
Lawyers get a bad rap. The people you should be lining up against the wall are the judges and the legislators.
The lawyer's job is to represent you and they are truer to their purpose than most people that interface with the government.
And really, if you have a problem... don't you want a lawyer? I know I do.
People get mad at the lawyers for using stupid arguments and getting away with it but people forget it is the judges that accept those ploys. If the judge just laughed at the lawyer and said "try harder"... it wouldn't work that way. And then a lot of the dumb laws are passed by the legislature. It isn't the fault of the judge that the law is stupid. All he can do is judge what is and is not legal at the moment.
So... don't hate lawyers. Hate the judges and the politicians.