"I think you're missing the fact that the sequester isn't x% off the total budget. It's x% off of almost every item in the budget. How long is your landlord going to accept 95% of your rent bill? How long are your pets going to eat 95% of their regular diet? How long are you going to spend 95% of the maintanence required for your car?"
Wrong questions to ask. The correct questions to ask are:
Since you spend more than you make:
How long can you pay your rent using your credit cards? How long can you buy pet food before your credit runs out? How long can you maintain your before your credit runs out?
An even BETTER question to ask is:
"Why the hell are you spending so much more than you make????"
This Jan saw the government increase spending over $300 billion dollars alone. Didn't see jobs dramatically increase. Yet, Maxine Waters scare-mongers that we'll lose 170 thousand (she stupidly said MILLION, but give her the benefit of the doubt) by cutting ~$80B.
What I want to know is why we didn't see jobs increase by 600k plus since January?
Hate to say it, but it's the ignorant blaming House Republicans that take the majority of the blame for this one. Some of the ignorant see wearing blinders as a GOOD thing.
You have a warped sense of "war" and "defense". I doubt I could find a dozen people who would even remotely agree with you.
"Our actual defense needs are miniscule.", you say. I argue that your judgement on this is untrustworthy based on the bias that drips from your language, your apparent lack of understanding of what you are really talking about and your absolute certainty of the correctness of your views. Your position and language here and in other threads places you a category I'm quite comfortable dismissing as a loon.
I'll leave you with this tidbit:
I remember reading the journal of one of the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. This member was seated somewhat near Washington. He noted how formal he was throughout the process. Then, when the topic turned to a standing army and one delegate was arguing of a standing army not to exceed 3000 men, he noted that Washington, quite out of character, commented to a delegate sitting next to him who had served in the Continental army with him. Washington said with dry wit: "Perhaps the honorable gentleman from Connecticut should also submit the following for debate: 'Be it resolved that no country shall invade with more than 3000 men'"
"The popular vote winner losing a (stolen) election isn't a problem?"
No. It's not. Unless your goal is full and literal democracy. Then It would be a problem for you.
I no more trust in the average person to be responsible in a democracy than I would trust leaving wallet in the sidewalk and expect it's quick return. People tend not to act beyond their own self interest when given a chance. I'm glad our founders had the foresight to consider how to deal with this while still providing a democratic process to give the will of the people a "voice" without giving them the ability take away the freedoms and liberties of others by popular decree.
No, it's dismissing the constitution outright which IS the point I was making -- and referenced. To suggest that because the constitution was written in the 18th century is a bases to dismiss it is stupid.
And to suggest that the 3rd amendment is not relevant to him or anyone is outrageous and shows you've little understanding of the amendment or it's background. That it hasn't been violated and/or challenged shows how important it still is in the soul of Americans (excluding that prison case back in the 80's that any reasonable person could consider arguable either way). .
"or why the old way was superior beyond a "popular passions" talking point."
And why would any other reason be necessary? And it's interesting to call the words of our founders "talking points". Well, not interesting -- more "telling" on where you are coming from. Call it a "talking point" rather than the history for which it is as a way to minimize it's importance.
Where the fuck do you get off thinking people are "special" and need special representation based on race? The only "race" that needs representation is the human race.
"I think it's possible to accept that 1) there are damned good historical reasons and 2) that those historical reasons no longer apply and the system should change. Your post has brings some interesting historical facts, but history only explain problems; it doesn't justify them."
You forgot 3) and many of those historical reasons still apply.
Faction is pulling our contry apart. This idea of direct democracy and the "will of the people" is counter to what our constitution was designed to protect. It was designed to limit government and protect individual liberties.
Madison in Fed10 said:
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The closer we get to democracy the more liberties we lose. The 17th amendment forced states to have popular elections for senators. Where are we now? We now have two hourses of congress which can fall to popular passions of a given time -- defeating the purpose the design the constitution originally had to prevent such things.
"A person in Wyoming is worth 4 times as much. That's completely unfair."
Only if your goal is a pure democracy. In the US, tt's completely fair and working as designed. And not because of fear of "break up", as you suggest.
See The Constitution and The Federalists Papers (F10 in particular).
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. "
It's to prevent one group of "interests" or "factions" as Madison put it, from squashing the liberties of others.
"So, how is reading the document written 1787 supposed to convince him it's not 18th century thinking?"
Taken in context of the thread, it's not about trying ton convince anyone it's not 18th century thinking -- no more so than many of the other systems in practice around the world. Much more about not understanding WHY the system is the way it is and trying to dismiss it as being "18th century".
Either you are lying or you don't know what you are saying.
Do you live in the slums? Does it take 20-60 mins for the cops to arrive if you call them? Are your streets covered in potholes? Are the local restaurants and food stores infested with rats and roaches? If it really doesn't matter to you, and the economy was so bad there was very little tax base to pay for these things, this would be your life.
Trust me -- your local economy matters VERY MUCH to you.
"It is pretty neat, but it still reflects 18th century thinking"
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the constitution.
We do not have a single election for president. We have 50 SEPARATE elections for president. Each state decides who best represents it's population and all electors (with few exepctions) go to that cadidate and the number of electors is based on population.
We need to remember we do not have a "democracy" by design. It's a consitutional republic based on federalism. And if you want to understand the reasons for that feel free to read the federalist papers (particularly Federalist 10).
"Congresspeople shouldn't represent geographical regions, but specific groups of people, where ever they are"
Um -- they don't represent regions. The do represent "specific groups of people". They are called their "electorate". I'm sorry, but my representative wasn't selected by the San Gabrial mountains, but by the majority of the people in his disctrict. Those very specific groupe of people.
My guess is the jolt stopped his heart -- and that it wasn't a teeny weeny 150w ps. I used to reverse solder caps for fun at the workshop. They create quite the BANG when plugged in. Stunk like bad shrimp, though.
"What happens when that SSD starts failing from the heavy IO load of desktop software? Or one of the fans blows a bearing?"
You realize that you are only renting the device at a cost per month of it's purchase price divided by the number of months you've had it. Which will probably be inversely proportional to it's actual use.
The GOOD new is that if you don't use it, the cost per month will be near zero! CHEAP!
Your "free speech" does not trump my rights. When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to .
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
There are countless valid constitutional arguments (as defined by several supreme court cases) which back up such limitations on rights.
"Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom."
Building codes and crowd limits. It doesn't matter WHY a crowd wants to gather, there are limitations.
"That's just punishing everyone."
Ah... So it's better that I get punished by being exposed to disease or fouled ground water? Lice and rats? Be forced to have my moneies paid to the local government (tax) diverted to repairs, sanitation and crime managament caused by such an outragous exageration of what the constitution meant to be "free speech"? Have my tax paid police force strained by having their resources wasted FURTHER putting me at risk? Fuck you. Get a picket sign and keep business hours on your protest and expect to be arrested if you vandalize local businesses or property.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Oh wait... you did attempt to make that point.
We can limit crowds because of dangers. Firedoors are a prime example.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
These are not UNLIKELY, they happened and they are OBVIOUS. There's a reason why we have laws regarding sanitation and trash.
Less obvious is the COST. Free speech doesn't extend to massive crowds squatting in make-shift camps destroying public property and wasting EVERYONES tax dollars. Even one of the most liberal mayors of one of the most liberal cities agrees:
In a release, the mayor said Occupy LA’s 500-plus tents cost more than $2,700 a day in sanitation, security, and other expenses.
"Look, our lawn is dead, our sprinklers aren't working... our trees are without water," Villaraigosa said.
According to one city official, damage to the lawn and sprinklers could cost the city over $400,000
“We’ve all got to acknowledge that there’s a price to bear,” Villaraigosa said.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think you're missing the fact that the sequester isn't x% off the total budget. It's x% off of almost every item in the budget.
How long is your landlord going to accept 95% of your rent bill?
How long are your pets going to eat 95% of their regular diet?
How long are you going to spend 95% of the maintanence required for your car?"
Wrong questions to ask. The correct questions to ask are:
Since you spend more than you make:
How long can you pay your rent using your credit cards?
How long can you buy pet food before your credit runs out?
How long can you maintain your before your credit runs out?
An even BETTER question to ask is:
"Why the hell are you spending so much more than you make????"
Ah. So my taxes didn't INCREASE, they just didn't DECREASE.
Ok. So, we'll spend Friday talking in double negatives.
I'm not going to not party tonight. It's not that I'm NOT PARTYING, I'm just not SLEEPING.
This Jan saw the government increase spending over $300 billion dollars alone. Didn't see jobs dramatically increase. Yet, Maxine Waters scare-mongers that we'll lose 170 thousand (she stupidly said MILLION, but give her the benefit of the doubt) by cutting ~$80B.
What I want to know is why we didn't see jobs increase by 600k plus since January?
Hate to say it, but it's the ignorant blaming House Republicans that take the majority of the blame for this one. Some of the ignorant see wearing blinders as a GOOD thing.
You have a warped sense of "war" and "defense". I doubt I could find a dozen people who would even remotely agree with you.
"Our actual defense needs are miniscule.", you say. I argue that your judgement on this is untrustworthy based on the bias that drips from your language, your apparent lack of understanding of what you are really talking about and your absolute certainty of the correctness of your views. Your position and language here and in other threads places you a category I'm quite comfortable dismissing as a loon.
I'll leave you with this tidbit:
I remember reading the journal of one of the members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. This member was seated somewhat near Washington. He noted how formal he was throughout the process. Then, when the topic turned to a standing army and one delegate was arguing of a standing army not to exceed 3000 men, he noted that Washington, quite out of character, commented to a delegate sitting next to him who had served in the Continental army with him. Washington said with dry wit: "Perhaps the honorable gentleman from Connecticut should also submit the following for debate: 'Be it resolved that no country shall invade with more than 3000 men'"
(I'm paraphrasing this as it's from memory)
Your link is 404, but rest assured, I tracked it down.
You didn't really bother READING your link, did you. The "war budget" is well over a trillion a year? Really?
Feh.
"The popular vote winner losing a (stolen) election isn't a problem?"
No. It's not. Unless your goal is full and literal democracy. Then It would be a problem for you.
I no more trust in the average person to be responsible in a democracy than I would trust leaving wallet in the sidewalk and expect it's quick return. People tend not to act beyond their own self interest when given a chance. I'm glad our founders had the foresight to consider how to deal with this while still providing a democratic process to give the will of the people a "voice" without giving them the ability take away the freedoms and liberties of others by popular decree.
No, it's dismissing the constitution outright which IS the point I was making -- and referenced. To suggest that because the constitution was written in the 18th century is a bases to dismiss it is stupid.
And to suggest that the 3rd amendment is not relevant to him or anyone is outrageous and shows you've little understanding of the amendment or it's background. That it hasn't been violated and/or challenged shows how important it still is in the soul of Americans (excluding that prison case back in the 80's that any reasonable person could consider arguable either way). .
"or why the old way was superior beyond a "popular passions" talking point."
And why would any other reason be necessary? And it's interesting to call the words of our founders "talking points". Well, not interesting -- more "telling" on where you are coming from. Call it a "talking point" rather than the history for which it is as a way to minimize it's importance.
I meant for emergency calls. Thought it was obvious -- and aparently it was because you did note they prioritize calls.
Try and get a cop out in some of the areas of detroit in under 30 minutes (including B&E in progress or gunshots fired).
Where the fuck do you get off thinking people are "special" and need special representation based on race? The only "race" that needs representation is the human race.
"I think it's possible to accept that 1) there are damned good historical reasons and 2) that those historical reasons no longer apply and the system should change. Your post has brings some interesting historical facts, but history only explain problems; it doesn't justify them."
You forgot 3) and many of those historical reasons still apply.
Faction is pulling our contry apart. This idea of direct democracy and the "will of the people" is counter to what our constitution was designed to protect. It was designed to limit government and protect individual liberties.
Madison in Fed10 said:
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
The closer we get to democracy the more liberties we lose. The 17th amendment forced states to have popular elections for senators. Where are we now? We now have two hourses of congress which can fall to popular passions of a given time -- defeating the purpose the design the constitution originally had to prevent such things.
"A person in Wyoming is worth 4 times as much. That's completely unfair."
Only if your goal is a pure democracy. In the US, tt's completely fair and working as designed. And not because of fear of "break up", as you suggest.
See The Constitution and The Federalists Papers (F10 in particular).
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. "
It's to prevent one group of "interests" or "factions" as Madison put it, from squashing the liberties of others.
"So, how is reading the document written 1787 supposed to convince him it's not 18th century thinking?"
Taken in context of the thread, it's not about trying ton convince anyone it's not 18th century thinking -- no more so than many of the other systems in practice around the world. Much more about not understanding WHY the system is the way it is and trying to dismiss it as being "18th century".
That ain't a good argument.
"But my local economy matters very little me."
Either you are lying or you don't know what you are saying.
Do you live in the slums? Does it take 20-60 mins for the cops to arrive if you call them? Are your streets covered in potholes? Are the local restaurants and food stores infested with rats and roaches? If it really doesn't matter to you, and the economy was so bad there was very little tax base to pay for these things, this would be your life.
Trust me -- your local economy matters VERY MUCH to you.
"It is pretty neat, but it still reflects 18th century thinking"
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the constitution.
We do not have a single election for president. We have 50 SEPARATE elections for president. Each state decides who best represents it's population and all electors (with few exepctions) go to that cadidate and the number of electors is based on population.
We need to remember we do not have a "democracy" by design. It's a consitutional republic based on federalism. And if you want to understand the reasons for that feel free to read the federalist papers (particularly Federalist 10).
"Congresspeople shouldn't represent geographical regions, but specific groups of people, where ever they are"
Um -- they don't represent regions. The do represent "specific groups of people". They are called their "electorate". I'm sorry, but my representative wasn't selected by the San Gabrial mountains, but by the majority of the people in his disctrict. Those very specific groupe of people.
My guess is the jolt stopped his heart -- and that it wasn't a teeny weeny 150w ps. I used to reverse solder caps for fun at the workshop. They create quite the BANG when plugged in. Stunk like bad shrimp, though.
"What happens when that SSD starts failing from the heavy IO load of desktop software? Or one of the fans blows a bearing?"
You realize that you are only renting the device at a cost per month of it's purchase price divided by the number of months you've had it. Which will probably be inversely proportional to it's actual use.
The GOOD new is that if you don't use it, the cost per month will be near zero! CHEAP!
Articles are not used in (current or former) Soviet Russia.
- Jhon, from The Los Angeles, The California, The U.S. (Hey, that one works!)
Oh how I wish the wayback machine could remove all the old geocities data...
"Free speech > safety"
Your "free speech" does not trump my rights. When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to .
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
There are countless valid constitutional arguments (as defined by several supreme court cases) which back up such limitations on rights.
"Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom."
Building codes and crowd limits. It doesn't matter WHY a crowd wants to gather, there are limitations.
"That's just punishing everyone."
Ah... So it's better that I get punished by being exposed to disease or fouled ground water? Lice and rats? Be forced to have my moneies paid to the local government (tax) diverted to repairs, sanitation and crime managament caused by such an outragous exageration of what the constitution meant to be "free speech"? Have my tax paid police force strained by having their resources wasted FURTHER putting me at risk? Fuck you. Get a picket sign and keep business hours on your protest and expect to be arrested if you vandalize local businesses or property.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
"How is that relevant to my comment?"
How is it not?
"I mentioned free speech zones. That's all."
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Oh wait... you did attempt to make that point.
We can limit crowds because of dangers. Firedoors are a prime example.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
"The ones who are scared that unlikely scenarios where people are hurt will arise"
Unlikely? Why do we have firedoor rules in various building codes?
And as far as "free speech zones" and disease/crime:
Link 1
Link 2
These are not UNLIKELY, they happened and they are OBVIOUS. There's a reason why we have laws regarding sanitation and trash.
Less obvious is the COST. Free speech doesn't extend to massive crowds squatting in make-shift camps destroying public property and wasting EVERYONES tax dollars. Even one of the most liberal mayors of one of the most liberal cities agrees:
In a release, the mayor said Occupy LA’s 500-plus tents cost more than $2,700 a day in sanitation, security, and other expenses.
"Look, our lawn is dead, our sprinklers aren't working... our trees are without water," Villaraigosa said.
According to one city official, damage to the lawn and sprinklers could cost the city over $400,000
“We’ve all got to acknowledge that there’s a price to bear,” Villaraigosa said.
Because the the constitutionality of that monster has not yet been challenged. Our system was designed to deal with crap like that.
You might as well say "How can the Alien and Sedition act of 1798 not be considered fascist"?
It was extra-constitutional and and shot down -- as it should have been. That's not fascism. That's a constitutional republic.