>Right. My argument, which I've bolded for this time, is that groups of people can buy ads. If you can't find a group of people who agree with you, maybe your position is unpopular with voters.
actually its not. Your position is that if you can't find someone *with money* that agrees with you, then your views are not worthwhile. Which of course is the entire premise. Or mabey you concept of voting, is that you beleive that votes should count as much as your willing to pay for them?
>It's incredibly hard to understand what you write when you don't consistently capitalize the first words in sentences, spell words wrong, and refuse to use the Slashdot quote function.
I could ask you to confront my message, but that seems to be your weak point.
>My thesis, as I'm arging elsewhere, is that Lessig's effect was small and his candidates were unpopular for FAR more important reasons.
the reason you gave is that citizens united is popular ruling. I provided evidence to the contrary, you provided nothing.
> But regardless, a political mainstream exists. There's billionaires that agree with Lessig. George Soros probably agrees with you. There's billionaires that agree with me. Someone's opinions don't suddenly become invalid because they have a lot of money, do they?
the argument you are making is the reverse, that someone's political arguments only become valid because they have a lot of money. Then you try to pen it in reverse to put my in the defense. Its sly, but utterly disfactual. A Billionare shouldn't have any more voice than anyone else. One man, one vote, one voice. Saying George Soros agrees with me is a strawman, because I never asked for his approval, nor consulted him.
>I have no idea how someone could believe that about the Haymarket Bombing and still believe in government restrictions on speech.
because one has to do with facts, and the other has to do with wild conjecture. If you want to talk about modern restrictions on freedom of speech their are whole tomes of evidence of the FBI suppressing dissent under Hoover, or even what happened to some occupy protestors. But you miss the big shit and focus on the little shit.
>Also, I bet your heroes could spell properly.
at least I can make a cohesive argument that doesn't revolve around conjecture.
>Music sucks, as pirates have caused record labels to collapse
record labels collapsed because they live in a time without a viable business model. Don't blame that on the fucking pirates.
As for only promoting pop bands, its what they've been moving to ever since the 1980s, slowly trying to weasel out real music, while leading vicious crackdowns on subculture.
That has more to do with the aftermath of the columbine shootings than it does piracy, where in the aftermath, arrest, harrassment, assault against, as well as conspiracy against "goths", and by "goths", they meant "everything that wasn't pop music".
thats the system we live in. People go to college to get a job. There is a word for those who go to college to learn, its called "nerd", it has a very negative conotation. It might actually impede you getting hired at some point, getting married, and will certainly make you vulernable to the great non-voluntary system of psychaitric "help", should you get into a dispute with someone who is pretty proud of their stupid. People in general are also going to be far less inclinded to help you, especially with some of those insane little "gotchas" dealing with the system.
Systems don't change because people want to ignore they are broken, or one invidual is going to take a silent stand no one will hear.
You can have all the ethics you want, but its not going to change the broken system. The concept that everyone keeps telling you either you can make a diffrence by changing your personal actions exclusively, or that its the only thing you are allowed to do, obviously are against the change required to make the system work, and are doing nothing more than setting up hoops for you to jump through.
>So its racist to point out what actually happened in the past with regards to slavery?
you have a pretty misguided view of history, and when you do get things right, you generally put the emphasis on the wrong syllabyl.
>politically correct much?
hey, I'm not the one doing revisionist history here?
>Are your history books doubleplusgood and blame every bad thing in history on WASP penis holders?
history books aren't propaganda in my favor, it must be a conspiracy theory! aparantly its beginning to sound like your the one who can't cope with his own history.
Now you start to go off on some really wierd racial tangent, which does not contribute to any of the points at hand
>And News Flash, the slave boats? yeah the crews never even had to step off the boat as BLACK SLAVERS had thousands lined up and ready to go before they even pulled into the harbor...after they were done raping and pillaging of course. There is even evidence that ebonics is based on the pigeon English picked up by black slavers to allow them to trade with the white boats.
newsflash, while touching this is not relivant to the conversation. I understand your motives, soley racial, seem to think slavery was fine, because well, there were natives that participated in it. Lets talk about supply and demand here. Without a chocked up teary demand to clear your anscestors name by pointing the finger elsewhere, understand that the *demand* for slaves driven by slavery in the USA drove the capture of slaves in africa. Skincolor of the slavers is a factoid.
> You can go to the black Muslim slave traders in Africa and buy black slaves by the truckload.
most likely what we'd call today "arab" or "turks". The ottoman empire was at its peak, and a strong unified force in this period. These are the early slavers. The first western christians to adop the slave trade, where the spanish. The amount of crossover from the moores and ottomans into western civilization is high, but thats another story. Then the english did, almost by accident, but we can call it whatever you want, at the time, it wasn't a whole step below indentured servitude
Then we get into the cruel backbreaking journey accross the ocean, which killed as many as %30 of the slaves even before they reached America, and then grueling labor they performed once they got there. Niether turks, no africans, nor anyone else did that.
But thats ancient history. Slavery was banned in europe in the early 1800s, and in the USA in 1865.(last western country to ban slavery.), but most of Africa was colonies under the strict rule of european nations, and former slaves in the USA were second class citizens.
What you see now as the American Black, and africans, is a product of the late 19th and 20th century. The US government accepting the civil rights movements, and the brutal crackdowns the europeans did in attempt to keep their colonies, but failed, setting off a long chain of events leading to civil war, rebels fighting among themselves, and eventually partially europeanized colonies breaking down, often with the aid of the CIA or other intellegence agencies sponsering militias to suppress one thing or another.
And thats where things are today. Slavery in no way shape or form made things better for anyone, except the slave traders and owners. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your "white man's burdern" narrative of events, but its actual history, the kind not made up by some raving lunatic still mad they lost WW2.
no one in the north was going to do that though. The port of New York(city), made most of its money through tarrifs on cotton shipping, and imports to southern states who didn't make machined goods.
you don't understand systematic problems. The institution of slavery was not going to go away, because the entire south based its economy around it. No matter how much you paid for each slave, with no one to pick the cotton, their economy and the prestige of the planter class was done.
If you bought their slaves up, they'd buy more. If you took them by force, but still compesated them, they'd most like still get violent, and you'd have the same result.
The south rebelled because the mere action of lincoln being elected, not because anything he actually did. compensated emancition would have changed absolutely nothing.
>For a few U.S. southern slave owners, the solution was to earn enough off the slaves that they could afford to free them in their wills. Were they wrong?
irrelivant, that is not a solution to the problem at hand.
>Would the slaves have been better off in Africa, dead of one savagery or another?
yes. the african notion of "slavery" was far better than ours, and far less perminant. they were far more likely to die in some savagery related to either Slavery in the US, or the transporation to the US than they were in Africa.
And yes, many if not a good deal of Africa's problems today are related to their longstanding status as colonies, and the mess europeans(and arabs) made.
the problem with that logic is that sometimes the system forces you to do whateverone else does to compete. So if your choice is non-competing, and loosing, in a very tiered system, and being a looser gives you the ability to change nothing, then its not hypocrisy.
For example, a corporation might have to cheat on its taxes to stay competative with other firms who also cheat on their taxes. Its not hypocritical for that firm to call for the taxloophole to be closed, so they are not disadvantaged for doing so, as everyone pays more taxes equally.
Also, problems happen in society, because they are systematic. Its not because a few people do bad things, its because a whole lot of people do bad things, and its part how how the system works. You cannot change this system, or help anyone by either ignoring it, opting out, or doing anything but ending the cause.
you don't know what your getting, often no bug tracker, or companies hostile to the concept of fixing bugs, expensive, often bloated, often limited in features, and unable to make your own in many cases.
There are lots of reasons to get involved in FOSS programs. The notion that an established project is going to pick up shop after you donate is simply ludacris.
Also, if a program is GPL or copyleft, more or less all work put into it, will be done publicly and will be available in some form.
Oh, and what happens if a closed program just goes away, the maintainers split, company goes under? No more bug fixes, doesn't get ported to new platforms.
I just saw your page, not convinced your not a troll.
>1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems.
they were however engineered as general purpose data pipes. General purpose, to use whatever data you really want. I guess because they "never engineered" for voice calls you should let comcast block VoIP so it doesn't conflict with their phone service was well.
What they are obligated to do is make sure that whatever data you send/recieve gets to you unmolested, and intact. That *is* what they are designed to do. What I do with my service is not their business.
5 to 10 years ago, you would have been right. Libertarians *did* support net neutrality, *back then*, and you had at least some faction of conservatives/repubs who supported the internet.
Today, we got ted cruze who just compared net neutrality to Obamacare as uneccary regulation.
prolly not. at the same time, he came out of a midterm election where he was unpopular, and perhaps hurt his parties canidates who overwhelmingly lost, and with the republicans taking both houses is in his "lame duck" phase. Obama has a pretty long history of coming out and saying things he won't really follow through on.
the real question is, why didn't he say something about net neutrality last week, this time. I am sure it couldn't have hurt.
Or why is his pick for head of the FCC, a former(and probably future) lobbyist for the media industry?
Or mabey he's not as bad as Ted Cruze who's come out against Net Neutrality soley on the grounds Obama supports it?
Or mabey he should just put his money where his mouth is and fire Tom Wheeler, and as a token of goodwill replace him with someone from, or aproved by the EFF?
or you could, you know, not be a 15-year-old with an existential social identity crisis at age 35. You could also stop defining yourself around your consumption habbits.
the real problem with hipsters, is beneath the beard, beneath the "ironic" whatever, or whatever knickknacks, and chockskies, are still empty soulless yuppie shitheads.
>That's not how speech works. If you want to speak, you speak. If I want to speak, I speak. If a bunch of people agree with your ideas, you can collect money and run an ad too. If nobody agrees with your position or the ad you want to run, maybe you should rethink your position.
but thats not my argument. My argument is that speech is de-facto limited via money, because TV ads are expensive and cost prohibtive for most inviduals. People with more money to spend on TV ads have a distinct advantage because they have more money to spend, so hence my argument.
>I hope Republicans enact school choice legislation in your area soon so you won't be doomed to a life of people thinking you're dumb because you can't put a sentence together.
zing, but at least I'm not completely politically uneducated.
>If I understand what you mean correctly, you're saying that in the post-Citizens United world, only billionaire Republicans are able to start PACs and run ads. This is incredibly dishonest.Plenty of liberal billionaires are out there supporting liberal candidates and liberal causes
and thats a strawman. I didn't specify liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans. Mabey if we improved public schooling, you'd understand critical thinking some more, to understand what that means.
>The difference between what liberal groups spend and what conservative groups spend is ultimately a rounding error.
and thats somewhat my point, the political narrative is run soley by billionares. its unreasonable for anyone, either liberal or conservative to bring up issues that effect them in real life.
>My thesis is that Lessig's candidates lost in part because the freedom of speech restrictions he wants to enact are unpopular with voters
your thesis doesn't include a multitude of other options, and mine is that the issue had no bearing on the elections whatsoever, and Lessig is simply just green at politics and either hasn't figured out what he is doing, or incapable.
but like the rest of your thinking, its based soley on politically convienct conjecture, and like the rest of my thinking, its based soley on research. But fucking commies and their damn research. In bed with devil-worshiping scientists I tell you. (76 percent of republicans tend to disagree with you as well as 81 percent of dems).
> All I said was that part of the reason for Lessig's failure is that he named it after a Communist holiday.
which again, like most of your other beliefs is based on complete conjecture and wishful thinking.
>anarchists killed a bunch of people at a "peaceful protest."
again more conjecture. There is just as much hard proof that the government threw the bomb than the Anarchists. Why would Anarchists throw a bomb at their own rally, that killed just as many Anarchists as cops?
Of course, the bomb throwers were never caught, and everything beyond that is pure conjecture, pulled from political convience.
What isn't conjecture is the government had precisely zero evidence when they convicted 8 innocent men and sentanced them to die in a a purely political trial, soley because of their work organizing printing Anarchist newspapers.
This is a clear cut case for seperation and balance of power and why its a good thing police are unable to make laws, and should not be left to govern policy.
I think you should have gotten 30 years in jail. you've stated that the system shouldn't have jailed you because you're educated. This is the mentality which has people who are truely "innocent" of anti-personal crimes serving long term sentances for hurting nobody, and most people like you still out on the streets destroying out nation.
you got off easy with 5 years, and honestly, it should have been a lot longer if there was any justice.
richer and well educated people are less likely to get caught, and less likely to get prosecuted, more able to afford better lawyers and get lesser sentances for the same crimes.
They are not less likely to actually comit crimes, just get away with it. What you have is a perception bias. the poor are percieved as more likely to be criminal, so they are investigated more, with less means of resistance, and more likely to get longer sentances. When in jail, they are less likely to have anyone give a fuck about them, or any bit of "justice" on their end.
Hence we have the biggest prison system in the world. They were careful to mostly fill it with people that no one in power would care about.
I don't get the concept that being "educated" i.e. having class should ever exempt you from prison.
I think the problem is that we shy away from putting "educated" people in prison far too often.
This is why the prison system is, the way it is. We see an entire class of "subhumans", and tend not to think twice when they are incarcerated.
In a real system, prison is for the people who actually did personal crimes. I.E. CEOs might go to jail for fraud. Football players might go to jail for rape.
Poor, uneducated people won't go to jail for smoking marijuanna.
Security through obsecurity is a bad thing. You can't just trust the government to simply act in the public's defense, in the public's best intrest without oversight. It just doesn't work like that.
>Think, people, THINK.
why don't you think about it how its going to work for its logical conclusion, and who you are really protecting. How it works is going to get leaked somehow regardless. If not to large criminal organizations and foreign spies by FBI employees for pay, which is generally how most leaks end up, or disgruntled FBI employees leaking it to something like wiki-leaks, where terrorists can benefit from it anyway, but remaining off the public radar, and not open for debate.
This has serious 4th amendment implications, and since we live in a democracy, its a matter of public policy and open for debate.
The policy is "how is the FBI going to use this", with the slightest bit of secrecy, the potential to spy on, and with that, harrass the general public into political submission becomes a reality. You can dismiss this as a conspiracy, but that is exactly what the 1975 Church Comittee(US Senate) uncovered was going on for the longest time.
Our problem, is that people dismiss evidence against the government as conspiracy theories on face value of being daming of the government, even if there is smoking gun proof.
for those who don't get the sarcasm, northrop grumman is an exclusively redhat shop.
Most stuff made by them involving a computer runs RH. From the Blueforce tracker, to drones, to Fire Control Systems.
Not really a bad choice either. I've never seen linux powered weapon systems fail from software fault. Good choice of distro, RHEL, probably going to get the best support, with longest service life possible, on any operating system, peroid, hands down, no excuses.
Slashdot Mirror
>Right. My argument, which I've bolded for this time, is that groups of people can buy ads. If you can't find a group of people who agree with you, maybe your position is unpopular with voters.
actually its not. Your position is that if you can't find someone *with money* that agrees with you, then your views are not worthwhile. Which of course is the entire premise. Or mabey you concept of voting, is that you beleive that votes should count as much as your willing to pay for them?
>It's incredibly hard to understand what you write when you don't consistently capitalize the first words in sentences, spell words wrong, and refuse to use the Slashdot quote function.
I could ask you to confront my message, but that seems to be your weak point.
>My thesis, as I'm arging elsewhere, is that Lessig's effect was small and his candidates were unpopular for FAR more important reasons.
the reason you gave is that citizens united is popular ruling. I provided evidence to the contrary, you provided nothing.
> But regardless, a political mainstream exists. There's billionaires that agree with Lessig. George Soros probably agrees with you. There's billionaires that agree with me. Someone's opinions don't suddenly become invalid because they have a lot of money, do they?
the argument you are making is the reverse, that someone's political arguments only become valid because they have a lot of money. Then you try to pen it in reverse to put my in the defense. Its sly, but utterly disfactual. A Billionare shouldn't have any more voice than anyone else. One man, one vote, one voice. Saying George Soros agrees with me is a strawman, because I never asked for his approval, nor consulted him.
>I have no idea how someone could believe that about the Haymarket Bombing and still believe in government restrictions on speech.
because one has to do with facts, and the other has to do with wild conjecture. If you want to talk about modern restrictions on freedom of speech their are whole tomes of evidence of the FBI suppressing dissent under Hoover, or even what happened to some occupy protestors. But you miss the big shit and focus on the little shit.
>Also, I bet your heroes could spell properly.
at least I can make a cohesive argument that doesn't revolve around conjecture.
you can't shit a shitter. Typical hipster, simply turn the problem around by simply rephrasing it, with no real substance or meaning.
>Music sucks, as pirates have caused record labels to collapse
record labels collapsed because they live in a time without a viable business model. Don't blame that on the fucking pirates.
As for only promoting pop bands, its what they've been moving to ever since the 1980s, slowly trying to weasel out real music, while leading vicious crackdowns on subculture.
That has more to do with the aftermath of the columbine shootings than it does piracy, where in the aftermath, arrest, harrassment, assault against, as well as conspiracy against "goths", and by "goths", they meant "everything that wasn't pop music".
thats the system we live in. People go to college to get a job. There is a word for those who go to college to learn, its called "nerd", it has a very negative conotation. It might actually impede you getting hired at some point, getting married, and will certainly make you vulernable to the great non-voluntary system of psychaitric "help", should you get into a dispute with someone who is pretty proud of their stupid. People in general are also going to be far less inclinded to help you, especially with some of those insane little "gotchas" dealing with the system.
Systems don't change because people want to ignore they are broken, or one invidual is going to take a silent stand no one will hear.
You can have all the ethics you want, but its not going to change the broken system. The concept that everyone keeps telling you either you can make a diffrence by changing your personal actions exclusively, or that its the only thing you are allowed to do, obviously are against the change required to make the system work, and are doing nothing more than setting up hoops for you to jump through.
>So its racist to point out what actually happened in the past with regards to slavery?
you have a pretty misguided view of history, and when you do get things right, you generally put the emphasis on the wrong syllabyl.
>politically correct much?
hey, I'm not the one doing revisionist history here?
>Are your history books doubleplusgood and blame every bad thing in history on WASP penis holders?
history books aren't propaganda in my favor, it must be a conspiracy theory! aparantly its beginning to sound like your the one who can't cope with his own history.
Now you start to go off on some really wierd racial tangent, which does not contribute to any of the points at hand
>And News Flash, the slave boats? yeah the crews never even had to step off the boat as BLACK SLAVERS had thousands lined up and ready to go before they even pulled into the harbor...after they were done raping and pillaging of course. There is even evidence that ebonics is based on the pigeon English picked up by black slavers to allow them to trade with the white boats.
newsflash, while touching this is not relivant to the conversation. I understand your motives, soley racial, seem to think slavery was fine, because well, there were natives that participated in it. Lets talk about supply and demand here. Without a chocked up teary demand to clear your anscestors name by pointing the finger elsewhere, understand that the *demand* for slaves driven by slavery in the USA drove the capture of slaves in africa. Skincolor of the slavers is a factoid.
> You can go to the black Muslim slave traders in Africa and buy black slaves by the truckload.
most likely what we'd call today "arab" or "turks". The ottoman empire was at its peak, and a strong unified force in this period. These are the early slavers. The first western christians to adop the slave trade, where the spanish. The amount of crossover from the moores and ottomans into western civilization is high, but thats another story. Then the english did, almost by accident, but we can call it whatever you want, at the time, it wasn't a whole step below indentured servitude
Then we get into the cruel backbreaking journey accross the ocean, which killed as many as %30 of the slaves even before they reached America, and then grueling labor they performed once they got there. Niether turks, no africans, nor anyone else did that.
But thats ancient history. Slavery was banned in europe in the early 1800s, and in the USA in 1865.(last western country to ban slavery.), but most of Africa was colonies under the strict rule of european nations, and former slaves in the USA were second class citizens.
What you see now as the American Black, and africans, is a product of the late 19th and 20th century. The US government accepting the civil rights movements, and the brutal crackdowns the europeans did in attempt to keep their colonies, but failed, setting off a long chain of events leading to civil war, rebels fighting among themselves, and eventually partially europeanized colonies breaking down, often with the aid of the CIA or other intellegence agencies sponsering militias to suppress one thing or another.
And thats where things are today. Slavery in no way shape or form made things better for anyone, except the slave traders and owners. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your "white man's burdern" narrative of events, but its actual history, the kind not made up by some raving lunatic still mad they lost WW2.
no one in the north was going to do that though. The port of New York(city), made most of its money through tarrifs on cotton shipping, and imports to southern states who didn't make machined goods.
you don't understand systematic problems. The institution of slavery was not going to go away, because the entire south based its economy around it. No matter how much you paid for each slave, with no one to pick the cotton, their economy and the prestige of the planter class was done.
If you bought their slaves up, they'd buy more. If you took them by force, but still compesated them, they'd most like still get violent, and you'd have the same result.
The south rebelled because the mere action of lincoln being elected, not because anything he actually did. compensated emancition would have changed absolutely nothing.
>For a few U.S. southern slave owners, the solution was to earn enough off the slaves that they could afford to free them in their wills. Were they wrong?
irrelivant, that is not a solution to the problem at hand.
>Would the slaves have been better off in Africa, dead of one savagery or another?
yes. the african notion of "slavery" was far better than ours, and far less perminant. they were far more likely to die in some savagery related to either Slavery in the US, or the transporation to the US than they were in Africa.
And yes, many if not a good deal of Africa's problems today are related to their longstanding status as colonies, and the mess europeans(and arabs) made.
the problem with that logic is that sometimes the system forces you to do whateverone else does to compete. So if your choice is non-competing, and loosing, in a very tiered system, and being a looser gives you the ability to change nothing, then its not hypocrisy.
For example, a corporation might have to cheat on its taxes to stay competative with other firms who also cheat on their taxes. Its not hypocritical for that firm to call for the taxloophole to be closed, so they are not disadvantaged for doing so, as everyone pays more taxes equally.
Also, problems happen in society, because they are systematic. Its not because a few people do bad things, its because a whole lot of people do bad things, and its part how how the system works. You cannot change this system, or help anyone by either ignoring it, opting out, or doing anything but ending the cause.
you don't know what your getting, often no bug tracker, or companies hostile to the concept of fixing bugs, expensive, often bloated, often limited in features, and unable to make your own in many cases.
There are lots of reasons to get involved in FOSS programs. The notion that an established project is going to pick up shop after you donate is simply ludacris.
Also, if a program is GPL or copyleft, more or less all work put into it, will be done publicly and will be available in some form.
Oh, and what happens if a closed program just goes away, the maintainers split, company goes under? No more bug fixes, doesn't get ported to new platforms.
I just saw your page, not convinced your not a troll.
>1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems.
they were however engineered as general purpose data pipes. General purpose, to use whatever data you really want. I guess because they "never engineered" for voice calls you should let comcast block VoIP so it doesn't conflict with their phone service was well.
What they are obligated to do is make sure that whatever data you send/recieve gets to you unmolested, and intact. That *is* what they are designed to do. What I do with my service is not their business.
5 to 10 years ago, you would have been right. Libertarians *did* support net neutrality, *back then*, and you had at least some faction of conservatives/repubs who supported the internet.
Today, we got ted cruze who just compared net neutrality to Obamacare as uneccary regulation.
http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283
no thanks.
prolly not. at the same time, he came out of a midterm election where he was unpopular, and perhaps hurt his parties canidates who overwhelmingly lost, and with the republicans taking both houses is in his "lame duck" phase. Obama has a pretty long history of coming out and saying things he won't really follow through on.
the real question is, why didn't he say something about net neutrality last week, this time. I am sure it couldn't have hurt.
Or why is his pick for head of the FCC, a former(and probably future) lobbyist for the media industry?
Or mabey he's not as bad as Ted Cruze who's come out against Net Neutrality soley on the grounds Obama supports it?
Or mabey he should just put his money where his mouth is and fire Tom Wheeler, and as a token of goodwill replace him with someone from, or aproved by the EFF?
If you've spent too much time being more anticonformity than thou, you've already done it all wrong.
Stop looking at non-conformist types for what they non-conform to, how they do it, but why, and the history of the group, and who they are.
Then you get why various subculture groups are the way they are. Then you get why hipsters simply don't get it, and why no one likes them.
or you could, you know, not be a 15-year-old with an existential social identity crisis at age 35. You could also stop defining yourself around your consumption habbits.
the real problem with hipsters, is beneath the beard, beneath the "ironic" whatever, or whatever knickknacks, and chockskies, are still empty soulless yuppie shitheads.
>That's not how speech works. If you want to speak, you speak. If I want to speak, I speak. If a bunch of people agree with your ideas, you can collect money and run an ad too. If nobody agrees with your position or the ad you want to run, maybe you should rethink your position.
but thats not my argument. My argument is that speech is de-facto limited via money, because TV ads are expensive and cost prohibtive for most inviduals. People with more money to spend on TV ads have a distinct advantage because they have more money to spend, so hence my argument.
>I hope Republicans enact school choice legislation in your area soon so you won't be doomed to a life of people thinking you're dumb because you can't put a sentence together.
zing, but at least I'm not completely politically uneducated.
>If I understand what you mean correctly, you're saying that in the post-Citizens United world, only billionaire Republicans are able to start PACs and run ads. This is incredibly dishonest.Plenty of liberal billionaires are out there supporting liberal candidates and liberal causes
and thats a strawman. I didn't specify liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans. Mabey if we improved public schooling, you'd understand critical thinking some more, to understand what that means.
>The difference between what liberal groups spend and what conservative groups spend is ultimately a rounding error.
and thats somewhat my point, the political narrative is run soley by billionares. its unreasonable for anyone, either liberal or conservative to bring up issues that effect them in real life.
>My thesis is that Lessig's candidates lost in part because the freedom of speech restrictions he wants to enact are unpopular with voters
your thesis doesn't include a multitude of other options, and mine is that the issue had no bearing on the elections whatsoever, and Lessig is simply just green at politics and either hasn't figured out what he is doing, or incapable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html
but like the rest of your thinking, its based soley on politically convienct conjecture, and like the rest of my thinking, its based soley on research. But fucking commies and their damn research. In bed with devil-worshiping scientists I tell you. (76 percent of republicans tend to disagree with you as well as 81 percent of dems).
> All I said was that part of the reason for Lessig's failure is that he named it after a Communist holiday.
which again, like most of your other beliefs is based on complete conjecture and wishful thinking.
>anarchists killed a bunch of people at a "peaceful protest."
again more conjecture. There is just as much hard proof that the government threw the bomb than the Anarchists. Why would Anarchists throw a bomb at their own rally, that killed just as many Anarchists as cops?
Of course, the bomb throwers were never caught, and everything beyond that is pure conjecture, pulled from political convience.
What isn't conjecture is the government had precisely zero evidence when they convicted 8 innocent men and sentanced them to die in a a purely political trial, soley because of their work organizing printing Anarchist newspapers.
This is a clear cut case for seperation and balance of power and why its a good thing police are unable to make laws, and should not be left to govern policy.
sorry, I forgot, you rich white and litterate, my bad.
what about everyone else in fucking prison.
thanks for that bit of christian morality, brought to you by a comedian
I think you should have gotten 30 years in jail. you've stated that the system shouldn't have jailed you because you're educated. This is the mentality which has people who are truely "innocent" of anti-personal crimes serving long term sentances for hurting nobody, and most people like you still out on the streets destroying out nation.
you got off easy with 5 years, and honestly, it should have been a lot longer if there was any justice.
richer and well educated people are less likely to get caught, and less likely to get prosecuted, more able to afford better lawyers and get lesser sentances for the same crimes.
They are not less likely to actually comit crimes, just get away with it. What you have is a perception bias. the poor are percieved as more likely to be criminal, so they are investigated more, with less means of resistance, and more likely to get longer sentances. When in jail, they are less likely to have anyone give a fuck about them, or any bit of "justice" on their end.
Hence we have the biggest prison system in the world. They were careful to mostly fill it with people that no one in power would care about.
boo fucking hoo.
I don't get the concept that being "educated" i.e. having class should ever exempt you from prison.
I think the problem is that we shy away from putting "educated" people in prison far too often.
This is why the prison system is, the way it is. We see an entire class of "subhumans", and tend not to think twice when they are incarcerated.
In a real system, prison is for the people who actually did personal crimes. I.E. CEOs might go to jail for fraud. Football players might go to jail for rape.
Poor, uneducated people won't go to jail for smoking marijuanna.
Security through obsecurity is a bad thing. You can't just trust the government to simply act in the public's defense, in the public's best intrest without oversight. It just doesn't work like that.
>Think, people, THINK.
why don't you think about it how its going to work for its logical conclusion, and who you are really protecting. How it works is going to get leaked somehow regardless. If not to large criminal organizations and foreign spies by FBI employees for pay, which is generally how most leaks end up, or disgruntled FBI employees leaking it to something like wiki-leaks, where terrorists can benefit from it anyway, but remaining off the public radar, and not open for debate.
This has serious 4th amendment implications, and since we live in a democracy, its a matter of public policy and open for debate.
The policy is "how is the FBI going to use this", with the slightest bit of secrecy, the potential to spy on, and with that, harrass the general public into political submission becomes a reality. You can dismiss this as a conspiracy, but that is exactly what the 1975 Church Comittee(US Senate) uncovered was going on for the longest time.
Our problem, is that people dismiss evidence against the government as conspiracy theories on face value of being daming of the government, even if there is smoking gun proof.
for those who don't get the sarcasm, northrop grumman is an exclusively redhat shop.
Most stuff made by them involving a computer runs RH. From the Blueforce tracker, to drones, to Fire Control Systems.
Not really a bad choice either. I've never seen linux powered weapon systems fail from software fault. Good choice of distro, RHEL, probably going to get the best support, with longest service life possible, on any operating system, peroid, hands down, no excuses.
add the democrats into that mix.
Al Gore is a fucking idiot. This is mostly because he is a politician.
Most scientists agree with global warming. These scientists are not politicians, not Al Gore, and not idiots.