It is ignorance. More than that, it's bigotry. . Your language reeks of it. "near-religious relic"? Really?
"I know exactly what the constitution is."
And yet you continually demonstrate the opposite. Hence the claim from me (and others) that you are ignorant on the subject. I would suggest, if you are an intellectually honest person, to take some time and consider this might be true.
"it's irrelevant to the debate of whether alcohol SHOULD be available."
The 'debate' that it should or should not be available is irrelevant so long as it's in the constitution. The 'debate' SHOULD be whether it should be *IN* the constitution or not. Again, the constitution is not a list of suggestions. And attempts to bypass or end-run the constitution do nothing but weaken our republic and put our rights in jeopardy.
"The constitution just being a form of law, but with higher hurdles to change."
This is a gross mischaracterization of the constitution. It's the foundation on which all other laws must sit. You cannot have a law that contradicts the constitution.
I'm against end-runs around the constitution which weaken and divide our republic. I'm against finding "rights" in the constitution that were never there to begin with.
If some new right or regulation is needed or if some old right needs to be removed, there's a process for that. But, until that process unfolds, things should be a particular way "BECAUSE" it's in the constitution.
"Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past."
Hmmm... if only there was a way to changed the Constitution to accommodate those changing times. Some amendment process, perhaps...
Seriously though, the law is the law -- and either it's followed or it's not. You either have order or you undermine the government that was formed under the ideals that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
It's not about reference to the constitution being as if it's from "God", but that to make willi-nilli changes is COUNTER to the stability a "long established Government" requires to avoid the collapses our Framers/Founders studied in the past. Our laws are not easy to change by DESIGN, but they can be changed when a substantial majority of representatives and states agree. There's nearly 30 amendments which show this is not an impossible act, as well.
Again, I may be picking nits, but this isn't accurate. The RAF's goal wasn't the directed killing of factory workers, but their demoralization (forcing them to move/leave the areas of industry).
Bombing a city which in all likelhood had bomb shelters and TIME to get in to them isn't really the same as surprise drone strike. The first's isnt REALLY for the purpose of killing of anyone (but the likelyhood of colateral damage is understood) but the forced displacement of workers. The latter *IS* targeted killing.
"If states can pursue and kill any hacker as they please without due process, then improperly-secured servers should be grounds for aiding the enemy."
That's whacky logic. See below:
"If states can pursue and kill any destroy any incoming attack fleet without due process, then improperly-secured air space should be grounds for aiding the enemy"
OR
If a homeowner can kill any home invader without due process, then improperly securing your doors/windows should be grounds for being declared an accomplice to the crime.
Doesn't quite work, does it? Not without some serious logical gymnastics.
I don't think that's accurate. The FACTORY was targeted, not the factory worker. I may be picking nits (as the worker may or may not have been inside the factory when it was 'hit'), but I think this is a pretty important distinction. Factories are much harder to replace than factory workers.
I think a better example would be trying to target the PhDs working on the Manhattan project (or any other 'brain trust' a given nation might have) -- would would be a valid target.
I've seen my early 90's usenet posts. I more than cringe. I make light of it now because I'm older/wiser and less prone to actually putting my PHONE NUMBER in my sig (ug) among other things.
No... I got the point. Perhaps I failed in communicating mine.
I understand what you are saying. What I'm NOT getting is a cost-benefit break down. My question would be how long would the RAD750 last and how much does each (android or other) cost to get in to orbit. MOST of the cost is getting the bugger in to space. Once there, the LONGER it lasts, the cheaper it is per day/month/whatever cycle you wish to measure.
I've rarely had a cell phone last more than 2 years with modest abuse. With the cost of getting equipment IN to space, the forces exerted getting equipment in space and the combination of hot/cold OF space, is it WORTH the savings if you need to replace the equipment fairly often? Also, what about 'space junk'. Wouldn't a better idea be fewer resilient longer lasting satellites?
That said, I agree, it is kind of cool, but I think that's just my knee-jerk geek reaction without much thought to how PRACTICAL it might be.
If I don't have a "tree" level that's dealing with my problem/issue in 2 or 3 iterations (about 1 or 2 mins in to the call), I say "I'd like to speak to a representative". Some times I need to say it 2 or 3 times, but I end up with a human who resolves my problem fairly quickly.
That said, the number of times I've needed to do that have dramatically decreased. I think their decision trees are getting better.
"The Republican bills were complete pie-in-the-sky conservative fantasy that would NEVER have passed,"
Very likely true. Doesn't justify not stating a position and waiting for a response from the Senate.
"and would have been disastrous if they did."
Assumes facts not in evidence. Back up that statement with facts or it's just gas-bagging.
"The blame is on their shoulders for not putting forward anything that would have had a chance of making it."
No, the blame is on the entire polarized environment in congress that's been festering since "pro-choice" became a litmus test for the supreme court. When one side starts to get THAT ideologically based that they force a CONGRESSIONAL viewpoint on the JUDICIAL branch, we've got a problem. If they are qualified, approve the appointment. That's the way the system SHOULD work. Don't like it? There's a mechanism for that -- amend the constitution. Finding "shortcuts" and subverting separation of powers just yields to what our framers foresaw -- faction tearing us apart.
"Those pieces of legislation were nothing more than symbolic gestures to pander to their base."
I don't disagree they pandered to their base. but I *DO* disagree that they were "nothing more than symbolic gestures" designed to do so. The Senate could have came back and said: "Ok, you say X. We'll give you.5X and we want "Y". That is how our system is DESIGNED to work. That did not happen.
"Raise taxes back to 1990s levels and we would not have any problems with debt."
I'll make you a deal. Lets cut spending down to 1990 levels, too.
If your argument is that PERSON A (Clinton) did good with taxes at a particular rate -- then you must SPEND at that same rate to have the same "good", no? And if PERSON B (Bush) did bad by spending X5 and cutting tax rates, then we should undo that SPENDING and TAX CUTS to undo the bad, no?
"Raising taxes requires a bill and vote. Letting something expire is NOT the same as voting to increase taxes. Just because the result is the same doesn't mean the terminology is."
So if taxes go up because there wasn't a vote to prevent it it's not RAISING taxes? Only if there's a vote to increase taxes is it RAISING taxes?
You know, I can fill my rain barrel from my hose. I can also decide to not PREVENT the rain from filling my barrel. Guess what! The water level will raise nonetheless. And both would be the result of deliberate choice -- to actively fill, or to decline to prevent.
So you can parse words all you want, but the result was that this particular federal tax increased. My taxes went up. And be deliberate action of congress (yes, one can decide NOT to lift a finger), there was a tax hike.
Slashdot Mirror
It is ignorance. More than that, it's bigotry. . Your language reeks of it. "near-religious relic"? Really?
"I know exactly what the constitution is."
And yet you continually demonstrate the opposite. Hence the claim from me (and others) that you are ignorant on the subject. I would suggest, if you are an intellectually honest person, to take some time and consider this might be true.
Pot, meet kettle.
I'm glad I could point out how you misunderstand and misrepresent our constitution.
"it's irrelevant to the debate of whether alcohol SHOULD be available."
The 'debate' that it should or should not be available is irrelevant so long as it's in the constitution. The 'debate' SHOULD be whether it should be *IN* the constitution or not. Again, the constitution is not a list of suggestions. And attempts to bypass or end-run the constitution do nothing but weaken our republic and put our rights in jeopardy.
"The constitution just being a form of law, but with higher hurdles to change."
This is a gross mischaracterization of the constitution. It's the foundation on which all other laws must sit. You cannot have a law that contradicts the constitution.
And you illustrate the point of another poster regarding you talking from ignorance.
Wait... I think we're talking past each other.
I'm against end-runs around the constitution which weaken and divide our republic. I'm against finding "rights" in the constitution that were never there to begin with.
If some new right or regulation is needed or if some old right needs to be removed, there's a process for that. But, until that process unfolds, things should be a particular way "BECAUSE" it's in the constitution.
"As if things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution."
Um... yes... Things should be a particular way BECAUSE it's in the constitution. It's not a list of "suggestions".
"Times change. Smart people adapt, ignorant people cling on to the past."
Hmmm... if only there was a way to changed the Constitution to accommodate those changing times. Some amendment process, perhaps...
Seriously though, the law is the law -- and either it's followed or it's not. You either have order or you undermine the government that was formed under the ideals that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
It's not about reference to the constitution being as if it's from "God", but that to make willi-nilli changes is COUNTER to the stability a "long established Government" requires to avoid the collapses our Framers/Founders studied in the past. Our laws are not easy to change by DESIGN, but they can be changed when a substantial majority of representatives and states agree. There's nearly 30 amendments which show this is not an impossible act, as well.
Again, I may be picking nits, but this isn't accurate. The RAF's goal wasn't the directed killing of factory workers, but their demoralization (forcing them to move/leave the areas of industry).
Bombing a city which in all likelhood had bomb shelters and TIME to get in to them isn't really the same as surprise drone strike. The first's isnt REALLY for the purpose of killing of anyone (but the likelyhood of colateral damage is understood) but the forced displacement of workers. The latter *IS* targeted killing.
"If states can pursue and kill any hacker as they please without due process, then improperly-secured servers should be grounds for aiding the enemy."
That's whacky logic. See below:
"If states can pursue and kill any destroy any incoming attack fleet without due process, then improperly-secured air space should be grounds for aiding the enemy"
OR
If a homeowner can kill any home invader without due process, then improperly securing your doors/windows should be grounds for being declared an accomplice to the crime.
Doesn't quite work, does it? Not without some serious logical gymnastics.
"In war historically they have been."
I don't think that's accurate. The FACTORY was targeted, not the factory worker. I may be picking nits (as the worker may or may not have been inside the factory when it was 'hit'), but I think this is a pretty important distinction. Factories are much harder to replace than factory workers.
I think a better example would be trying to target the PhDs working on the Manhattan project (or any other 'brain trust' a given nation might have) -- would would be a valid target.
I've seen my early 90's usenet posts. I more than cringe. I make light of it now because I'm older/wiser and less prone to actually putting my PHONE NUMBER in my sig (ug) among other things.
Agreed. Although, I wish I could "delete" some of my (embarrassing) posts from the early to mid 90's. I was young and I needed the money!
I think "public privacy" is a bad phrase. I think what they MEAN by that is "public anonymity"
How about we call them "Bruce" to avoid confusion?
I say we kick Pluto out of the solar system since it's not a REAL planet. Let it spend the rest of it's life around a fake star!
Effing dwarfs.
"But you're missing the point..."
No... I got the point. Perhaps I failed in communicating mine.
I understand what you are saying. What I'm NOT getting is a cost-benefit break down. My question would be how long would the RAD750 last and how much does each (android or other) cost to get in to orbit. MOST of the cost is getting the bugger in to space. Once there, the LONGER it lasts, the cheaper it is per day/month/whatever cycle you wish to measure.
I've rarely had a cell phone last more than 2 years with modest abuse. With the cost of getting equipment IN to space, the forces exerted getting equipment in space and the combination of hot/cold OF space, is it WORTH the savings if you need to replace the equipment fairly often? Also, what about 'space junk'. Wouldn't a better idea be fewer resilient longer lasting satellites?
That said, I agree, it is kind of cool, but I think that's just my knee-jerk geek reaction without much thought to how PRACTICAL it might be.
False to "the only reason" -- meaning there might be other reasons.
"I doubt it" is to "it's already happened".
Got it. Makes more sense now, but was unclear the way originally posted. Thanks. I agree with your clairfied statement.
"False."
I belive you are correct.
"I doubt it's happened,"
But apparently you dont believe you are correct as you have "doubt". Or you don't understand what "false" means.
And your decedents will be the androgynous Spacers described by Isaac Asimov. Your only friend will be Jemby the robot!
If I don't have a "tree" level that's dealing with my problem/issue in 2 or 3 iterations (about 1 or 2 mins in to the call), I say "I'd like to speak to a representative". Some times I need to say it 2 or 3 times, but I end up with a human who resolves my problem fairly quickly.
That said, the number of times I've needed to do that have dramatically decreased. I think their decision trees are getting better.
"The Republican bills were complete pie-in-the-sky conservative fantasy that would NEVER have passed,"
Very likely true. Doesn't justify not stating a position and waiting for a response from the Senate.
"and would have been disastrous if they did."
Assumes facts not in evidence. Back up that statement with facts or it's just gas-bagging.
"The blame is on their shoulders for not putting forward anything that would have had a chance of making it."
No, the blame is on the entire polarized environment in congress that's been festering since "pro-choice" became a litmus test for the supreme court. When one side starts to get THAT ideologically based that they force a CONGRESSIONAL viewpoint on the JUDICIAL branch, we've got a problem. If they are qualified, approve the appointment. That's the way the system SHOULD work. Don't like it? There's a mechanism for that -- amend the constitution. Finding "shortcuts" and subverting separation of powers just yields to what our framers foresaw -- faction tearing us apart.
"Those pieces of legislation were nothing more than symbolic gestures to pander to their base."
I don't disagree they pandered to their base. but I *DO* disagree that they were "nothing more than symbolic gestures" designed to do so. The Senate could have came back and said: "Ok, you say X. We'll give you .5X and we want "Y". That is how our system is DESIGNED to work. That did not happen.
"Raise taxes back to 1990s levels and we would not have any problems with debt."
I'll make you a deal. Lets cut spending down to 1990 levels, too.
If your argument is that PERSON A (Clinton) did good with taxes at a particular rate -- then you must SPEND at that same rate to have the same "good", no? And if PERSON B (Bush) did bad by spending X5 and cutting tax rates, then we should undo that SPENDING and TAX CUTS to undo the bad, no?
"Raising taxes requires a bill and vote. Letting something expire is NOT the same as voting to increase taxes. Just because the result is the same doesn't mean the terminology is."
So if taxes go up because there wasn't a vote to prevent it it's not RAISING taxes? Only if there's a vote to increase taxes is it RAISING taxes?
You know, I can fill my rain barrel from my hose. I can also decide to not PREVENT the rain from filling my barrel. Guess what! The water level will raise nonetheless. And both would be the result of deliberate choice -- to actively fill, or to decline to prevent.
So you can parse words all you want, but the result was that this particular federal tax increased. My taxes went up. And be deliberate action of congress (yes, one can decide NOT to lift a finger), there was a tax hike.