That would be about as effective as saying cars could only be painted purple my manufacturers. People who don't like purple will just repaint them. In fact lots of people repaint their rifles with camouflage colors, etc. You going to outlaw spray paint?
The Pa constitution doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Quote: - 20. Right of petition.
"The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance."
I don't know how you construe that phrase to mean people have to register with their local authorities so they can be called up to suppress insurrection. In examining the remainder of the state constitution there is no reference to that requirement anywhere. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/W...
Shouldn't you make an attempt to even research it before you post such misleading comments?
You're making some unsubstantiated assertions. Aside from what the CDC claims (at this point in time) no one can say with any certainty that this virus, like any other, could not mutate into something more virulent and acquire properties that enable it to be spread more easily. The higher the infection rate the more likely the odds of mutation. It's not merely the social and environmental factors that come into play. The CDC has yet to explain why this outbreak has been more infectious. They haven't even addressed the very real possibility that this "strain" is itself s mutation in the population. And any virologists will admit that mutations are not discoverable until after the mutation has already occurred. In other words, medicine is always playing catch up. In the meantime, extreme caution is called for under the "precautionary principle".
That's kind of idealistic. Security experts expect infected individuals to legally or illegally cross the boards (from Mexico and Canada) to be used as biological terrorist weapons. If they are willing to strap dynamite to their bodies, why not carry virulent diseases which are harder to detect and can infect people before anyone knows what's going on? We live in very dangerous times.
Typical free market capitalist response. Money means more than protecting against potential global pandemics. Fact is, no one, not even epidemiologists, biological researchers, virologists, etc. know as a matter of fact what the infection process and contagious period begins. It could very well be that such a biologic could mutate in some form that gives it unexpected contagious properties. Those microbes can easily mutate into something even more virulent before anyone realizes it. The wider the spread of the disease, the likely the possibility of mutation because there are more infected "systems". Each person's unique immune response can in and of itself be a catalyst for mutation. It always cracks me up how free market economists tend to look at EVERYTHING as a money issue.
Either you, Heinlein or both are (were) misguided anarchists. Heinlein's quote was merely for the benefit of his fiction readers. I'm confident of that. What's a "mature" society? A "mature" society I would assert is one that has advanced enough in civil discourse and action to recognize the innate worth of every human being and would not be based upon Spencerian social Darwinism. Secondly, the condemnation of "civil servants" as civil masters is nearly devoid of any validity. 90% of civil servants are themselves servants of life long bureaucrats, jurists and politicians. Servants have little say in how their jobs are defined and executed. Their merely taking orders just like every other "laborer" in the private market; everyone has a boss. Now one can argue over the validity of any/all government (civil service) programs, but don't blame the peons because shit rolls downhill. If you want to blame someone, blame Congress, and other state/local elected officials. In fact those very officials are themselves (supposedly) civil servants and have a lit to say about what and how programs operate. Finally, a job is a job. If there is a demand for certain products or services, someone has to perform certain duties. The demand wouldn't be there if your elected officials had not seen fit to authorize them. And usually that stems from them perceiving a need. Just like when a private company perceives a need for a certain product. You obviously have no first hand experience with how government and its services work.
Solution: dont buy a corvette or any other vehicle with such technology. In fact, the most technically advanced vehicles are 1990's and older vehicles because there is no technology in them the government (or anyone else) spying on your activities, remotely disabling your vehicle, tracking or engaging in any other privacy invading activities. The most advanced cars are the one's most difficult for others to control.
They arent friends to the U.S. Their friendship stretches only as far as our protection extends to the Saudi regime. For example their friendship substantially shrank when OPEC formed decades ago. If... they had been friends to America they wouldve treated their people better with all the billions weve given them. They wouldnt have monetarily supported Wahhabism (radical islamic beliefs) over the past seven decades.
When the Italians migrated to north america we got the mafia using machine guns and amputations. When the Russians migrated we got a repeat. Hispanic drug runners like to use beheadings as well. Eastern europeans (old soviet states) brought even more murder and mayhem. After all, america is the land of the free; even free to bring death and destruction. Aside from the fact there are laws against such criminal behavior, laws make little difference if all the various ethnic populations support criminal behavior and the behavior is too widespread to be held in check by law enforcement. The more diverse a culture, the more difficult it becomes for shared values, including the ethnic support for criminal behavior.
For example, with the spread of Islamic extremism, there is little support (or outcry) from the Muslim community in support of secular criminal law as opposed to their religious laws. No matter how barbaric those laws may be. Diversity brings (or encourages) conflicting aspirations, expectations and social/behavioral norms. Unchecked immigration leads to more conflict.
In large part I must concur. After all, it is Europe, Middle Eastern (including Africa) and even Asia that is positioned to be threatened by extremism than the U.S. And here's the thing, IF those other nations are not willing to directly counteract the spread of extremism with military (and other) support, then why should the U.S.? If those other nations don't feel the need to protect themselves, why should the U.S.? The world is becoming too dependent upon the U.S. for everything, even self defense. That is a symptom that the U.S. is overextending itself and the U.S. taxpayers are in large part paying for protection the rest of the world is unwilling to provide themselves. It's economic disaster in the making.
Frankly, historians have documented a number of independent sources as proof of the existence of Buddha and Mohammad. As of today, there are far fewer (as mentioned) historical proofs for the existence of the (christian) Jesus.
Examining evidence is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Here's the evidence: 1. NO person has ever been known to walk on water unaided (after countless experiments). 2. NO person has ever empirically demonstrated healing powers unaided. Even in cases where ill people have experienced apparently miraculous healings, there is NO evidence it was in fact a miracle in the religious sense or that it wasnt the result of spontaneous remission on the part of the cells of the body (biological cause). 3. No one has ever been resurrected from the dead (once that person was in fact deceased for a certain period of time). And (again) for the claimed cases of people coming back after being diagnosed as dead, that does not rule out the medical fact that people can be misdiagnosed. 4. NO ONE has ever demonstrated they could float though the air and rise into the clouds (and disappear) unaided.
Given those everyday facts (and others) all of the so-called miraculous claims in the bible contradict known physical principles. Thus, there is NO reason to accept them as truthful. If... people are WILLING to assess the "facts" there is no good reason to accept most of the claims of the bible or koran, etc. The problem is that too many people wont accept known facts. In other words, science DOES know, far better than unsupported and unrealistic religious claims. Thus, there is no reason to claim religion holds ANY convincing sway and no good reason to accept its claims. Accepting religions claims requires one to abandon all that is known about their real world existence.
I guess then that you are not very well informed about christianity. What "historical fact" can you cite other than the new testament? You can poll any academic (professional) archeologist, anthropologist or un bias biblical scholar and a vast majority of them will confirm that the ONLY historical references to a (christian) jesus (messiah) who at the time he and his supposed followers considered themselves jews) are second-hand references from the bible. Given the fact that the new testament was not even written down until (at least) a whole generation AFTER jesus' supposed crucifixion (approximately 50 years or more later). There are NO first-hand accounts of jesus' actions and words. There is NO dispute about this "fact" among biblical scholars. The ONLY other references to a "jesus" were by Roman historian such as Josephus and perhaps 1 or 2 others. But ALL accounts are at a minimum at least second or third-hand accounts. In other words, hearsay. That's one reason there was such a big deal the discovery of a buried box of bones supposedly with the inscription of "james, brother of jesus" was such a big deal a few years ago. Everyone thought it would be direct evidence of jesus' existence. However, it was determined years later it was not any such thing. So even to this day there is no direct evidence that the biblical jesus actually existed. So, perhaps you could endeavor upon some un bias research concerning the origins of christianity. It is closer to the truth that christianity as an invention of jewish dissidents such as Peter and Paul. Eye witness accounts in the bible have no corroborating historical evidence. A good place to start would be the books "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, and "Christianity, The First Three-Thousand Years" by Dairmaid MacCulloch
Why shouldnt they be turned away? If youre a proponent of letting everyone who wants to escape deplorable conditions in their native country, we may as well not have ANY immigration administration or emigration policies. Your attitude betrays the fact you seem to think anyone who wants to should have the freedom to do so (come to America). That kind of approach is completely unrealistic and perhaps even disastrous. When in fact they should make the personal investment of time, effort, even sacrifice life and limb to "free" their own countries to emulate "free" countries rather than running away. It's become the standard approach in the modern world to run away to other countries rather than fixing what they already have. And if that entails civil war then so be it. After all the U.S. has had its share of internal armed conflicts to get where it is. Why shouldnt other cultures an nations if they want a better life?
An immigration philosophy such as yours also ignores the fact than the immigration policies of 100 years ago are outdated and archaic, in need of rational evaluation in light of certain social, economic and environmental realities. NO country can withstand unlimited growth including growth via immigration. Every single European country has strict immigration policies for the very rational reasons alluded to above. The world (including the U.S.) has changed dramatically in the past 100 years. And those changes demand a re-evaluation of past philosophies and policies. Especially in the U.S. The world NEEDS to know they have to solve their own problems rather than escape to North America.
If... that were actually the case, the future of humankind would be bright. However, altruism is a dying attribute among individuals. Sure there are exceptions such brothers in arms, aid workers, etc. But overall, humans are (or are becoming) more and more self-absorbed. As a result I would suggest the future is bleak.
What IS, does not necessarily mean WHAT SHOULD BE.
With that kind of personal philosophy (accepting things the way they are even if they are violations of personal liberties/legal statutes, etc.) then we'd still have slavery, legalized misogyny and sexual harassment, male only clergy, male only property ownership, christian only politicians, women only teachers, male only physicians, etc. In other words, your willingness to accept certain realities (even when they're wrong) speaks momentously of your apathy and/or laziness to stand and oppose what is evil in the world. I dont know how old you are but I know my generation had the intestinal fortitude to oppose and protest what was perceived as wrong. We could use fewer people like you in the U.S.
It can (in a sense) go bankrupt. The more money they print (volume in circulation) the lower the value of each dollar. A government can (and many governments in the past have) can print so much money that it becomes worthless. When someone has assets that no one wants, they can pay their bills. Thus, bankruptcy.
I can certainly understand that mentality where "freedom" has been re-interpreted to include most anything someone wants to engage in. I'm aware "times change", but I think your viewpoint is sadly perverted. It use to mean that a "man's home is his castle" and included the property it sat on including certain privacy expectations on that property that was no one else's business. Including nude sunbathing, swimming naked in your pool, getting laid in the back yard, scratching your ass and smelling you fingers, picking your nose and wiping boogers on the underside of your lounge chair, etc. etc. etc. "Property privacy" included what went on ANYWHERE on your property. After all, for a vast majority of inhabitants, their apartments, condos, single family homes etc. constitute their little part of "nature", a place where they can engage in idiosyncrasies they wouldn't necessarily engage in in public. If... it's your property one should NOT have to hide behind their window curtains, roofs, etc. in order to freely express themselves.
Just because you may have voyeuristic tendencies does not mean your rights to spy on others on their own property supersede that person's right to privacy. Even IF that means their are nude outside. Your viewpoint is one reason why the right to privacy has become so seriously eroded. No one respects or expects privacy (unless it's yours). And if your voyeurism goes unchecked, no wonder the government feels they can do anything they want.
Not sure about that. A few years back in my area some guy discharged a handgun into the air (city setting) and about five blocks away where it fell was some girl's skull. Penetrating it and causing brain damage.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be about as effective as saying cars could only be painted purple my manufacturers. People who don't like purple will just repaint them. In fact lots of people repaint their rifles with camouflage colors, etc. You going to outlaw spray paint?
The Pa constitution doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Quote: - 20. Right of petition. "The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance." I don't know how you construe that phrase to mean people have to register with their local authorities so they can be called up to suppress insurrection. In examining the remainder of the state constitution there is no reference to that requirement anywhere. http://www.legis.state.pa.us/W... Shouldn't you make an attempt to even research it before you post such misleading comments?
You're making some unsubstantiated assertions. Aside from what the CDC claims (at this point in time) no one can say with any certainty that this virus, like any other, could not mutate into something more virulent and acquire properties that enable it to be spread more easily. The higher the infection rate the more likely the odds of mutation. It's not merely the social and environmental factors that come into play. The CDC has yet to explain why this outbreak has been more infectious. They haven't even addressed the very real possibility that this "strain" is itself s mutation in the population. And any virologists will admit that mutations are not discoverable until after the mutation has already occurred. In other words, medicine is always playing catch up. In the meantime, extreme caution is called for under the "precautionary principle".
That's kind of idealistic. Security experts expect infected individuals to legally or illegally cross the boards (from Mexico and Canada) to be used as biological terrorist weapons. If they are willing to strap dynamite to their bodies, why not carry virulent diseases which are harder to detect and can infect people before anyone knows what's going on? We live in very dangerous times.
Typical free market capitalist response. Money means more than protecting against potential global pandemics. Fact is, no one, not even epidemiologists, biological researchers, virologists, etc. know as a matter of fact what the infection process and contagious period begins. It could very well be that such a biologic could mutate in some form that gives it unexpected contagious properties. Those microbes can easily mutate into something even more virulent before anyone realizes it. The wider the spread of the disease, the likely the possibility of mutation because there are more infected "systems". Each person's unique immune response can in and of itself be a catalyst for mutation. It always cracks me up how free market economists tend to look at EVERYTHING as a money issue.
I'd hate to see what your definition of a "mature" society is.
Either you, Heinlein or both are (were) misguided anarchists. Heinlein's quote was merely for the benefit of his fiction readers. I'm confident of that. What's a "mature" society? A "mature" society I would assert is one that has advanced enough in civil discourse and action to recognize the innate worth of every human being and would not be based upon Spencerian social Darwinism. Secondly, the condemnation of "civil servants" as civil masters is nearly devoid of any validity. 90% of civil servants are themselves servants of life long bureaucrats, jurists and politicians. Servants have little say in how their jobs are defined and executed. Their merely taking orders just like every other "laborer" in the private market; everyone has a boss. Now one can argue over the validity of any/all government (civil service) programs, but don't blame the peons because shit rolls downhill. If you want to blame someone, blame Congress, and other state/local elected officials. In fact those very officials are themselves (supposedly) civil servants and have a lit to say about what and how programs operate. Finally, a job is a job. If there is a demand for certain products or services, someone has to perform certain duties. The demand wouldn't be there if your elected officials had not seen fit to authorize them. And usually that stems from them perceiving a need. Just like when a private company perceives a need for a certain product. You obviously have no first hand experience with how government and its services work.
Solution: dont buy a corvette or any other vehicle with such technology. In fact, the most technically advanced vehicles are 1990's and older vehicles because there is no technology in them the government (or anyone else) spying on your activities, remotely disabling your vehicle, tracking or engaging in any other privacy invading activities. The most advanced cars are the one's most difficult for others to control.
Phillip K Dick short story and the movie Minority Report
They arent friends to the U.S. Their friendship stretches only as far as our protection extends to the Saudi regime. For example their friendship substantially shrank when OPEC formed decades ago. If... they had been friends to America they wouldve treated their people better with all the billions weve given them. They wouldnt have monetarily supported Wahhabism (radical islamic beliefs) over the past seven decades.
When the Italians migrated to north america we got the mafia using machine guns and amputations. When the Russians migrated we got a repeat. Hispanic drug runners like to use beheadings as well. Eastern europeans (old soviet states) brought even more murder and mayhem. After all, america is the land of the free; even free to bring death and destruction. Aside from the fact there are laws against such criminal behavior, laws make little difference if all the various ethnic populations support criminal behavior and the behavior is too widespread to be held in check by law enforcement. The more diverse a culture, the more difficult it becomes for shared values, including the ethnic support for criminal behavior. For example, with the spread of Islamic extremism, there is little support (or outcry) from the Muslim community in support of secular criminal law as opposed to their religious laws. No matter how barbaric those laws may be. Diversity brings (or encourages) conflicting aspirations, expectations and social/behavioral norms. Unchecked immigration leads to more conflict.
In large part I must concur. After all, it is Europe, Middle Eastern (including Africa) and even Asia that is positioned to be threatened by extremism than the U.S. And here's the thing, IF those other nations are not willing to directly counteract the spread of extremism with military (and other) support, then why should the U.S.? If those other nations don't feel the need to protect themselves, why should the U.S.? The world is becoming too dependent upon the U.S. for everything, even self defense. That is a symptom that the U.S. is overextending itself and the U.S. taxpayers are in large part paying for protection the rest of the world is unwilling to provide themselves. It's economic disaster in the making.
Frankly, historians have documented a number of independent sources as proof of the existence of Buddha and Mohammad. As of today, there are far fewer (as mentioned) historical proofs for the existence of the (christian) Jesus.
Examining evidence is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Here's the evidence: 1. NO person has ever been known to walk on water unaided (after countless experiments). 2. NO person has ever empirically demonstrated healing powers unaided. Even in cases where ill people have experienced apparently miraculous healings, there is NO evidence it was in fact a miracle in the religious sense or that it wasnt the result of spontaneous remission on the part of the cells of the body (biological cause). 3. No one has ever been resurrected from the dead (once that person was in fact deceased for a certain period of time). And (again) for the claimed cases of people coming back after being diagnosed as dead, that does not rule out the medical fact that people can be misdiagnosed. 4. NO ONE has ever demonstrated they could float though the air and rise into the clouds (and disappear) unaided. Given those everyday facts (and others) all of the so-called miraculous claims in the bible contradict known physical principles. Thus, there is NO reason to accept them as truthful. If... people are WILLING to assess the "facts" there is no good reason to accept most of the claims of the bible or koran, etc. The problem is that too many people wont accept known facts. In other words, science DOES know, far better than unsupported and unrealistic religious claims. Thus, there is no reason to claim religion holds ANY convincing sway and no good reason to accept its claims. Accepting religions claims requires one to abandon all that is known about their real world existence.
Not any more.
I guess then that you are not very well informed about christianity. What "historical fact" can you cite other than the new testament? You can poll any academic (professional) archeologist, anthropologist or un bias biblical scholar and a vast majority of them will confirm that the ONLY historical references to a (christian) jesus (messiah) who at the time he and his supposed followers considered themselves jews) are second-hand references from the bible. Given the fact that the new testament was not even written down until (at least) a whole generation AFTER jesus' supposed crucifixion (approximately 50 years or more later). There are NO first-hand accounts of jesus' actions and words. There is NO dispute about this "fact" among biblical scholars. The ONLY other references to a "jesus" were by Roman historian such as Josephus and perhaps 1 or 2 others. But ALL accounts are at a minimum at least second or third-hand accounts. In other words, hearsay. That's one reason there was such a big deal the discovery of a buried box of bones supposedly with the inscription of "james, brother of jesus" was such a big deal a few years ago. Everyone thought it would be direct evidence of jesus' existence. However, it was determined years later it was not any such thing. So even to this day there is no direct evidence that the biblical jesus actually existed. So, perhaps you could endeavor upon some un bias research concerning the origins of christianity. It is closer to the truth that christianity as an invention of jewish dissidents such as Peter and Paul. Eye witness accounts in the bible have no corroborating historical evidence. A good place to start would be the books "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, and "Christianity, The First Three-Thousand Years" by Dairmaid MacCulloch
Why shouldnt they be turned away? If youre a proponent of letting everyone who wants to escape deplorable conditions in their native country, we may as well not have ANY immigration administration or emigration policies. Your attitude betrays the fact you seem to think anyone who wants to should have the freedom to do so (come to America). That kind of approach is completely unrealistic and perhaps even disastrous. When in fact they should make the personal investment of time, effort, even sacrifice life and limb to "free" their own countries to emulate "free" countries rather than running away. It's become the standard approach in the modern world to run away to other countries rather than fixing what they already have. And if that entails civil war then so be it. After all the U.S. has had its share of internal armed conflicts to get where it is. Why shouldnt other cultures an nations if they want a better life? An immigration philosophy such as yours also ignores the fact than the immigration policies of 100 years ago are outdated and archaic, in need of rational evaluation in light of certain social, economic and environmental realities. NO country can withstand unlimited growth including growth via immigration. Every single European country has strict immigration policies for the very rational reasons alluded to above. The world (including the U.S.) has changed dramatically in the past 100 years. And those changes demand a re-evaluation of past philosophies and policies. Especially in the U.S. The world NEEDS to know they have to solve their own problems rather than escape to North America.
One major political party? That's too limited of scope. You'd be more accurate to include ALL the elite (which is a larger group than merely the 1%).
If... that were actually the case, the future of humankind would be bright. However, altruism is a dying attribute among individuals. Sure there are exceptions such brothers in arms, aid workers, etc. But overall, humans are (or are becoming) more and more self-absorbed. As a result I would suggest the future is bleak.
Are there (simple and inexpensive) wearable devices that can be made or used that would thwart laser devicea? Glasses of a certain color for example?
What IS, does not necessarily mean WHAT SHOULD BE. With that kind of personal philosophy (accepting things the way they are even if they are violations of personal liberties/legal statutes, etc.) then we'd still have slavery, legalized misogyny and sexual harassment, male only clergy, male only property ownership, christian only politicians, women only teachers, male only physicians, etc. In other words, your willingness to accept certain realities (even when they're wrong) speaks momentously of your apathy and/or laziness to stand and oppose what is evil in the world. I dont know how old you are but I know my generation had the intestinal fortitude to oppose and protest what was perceived as wrong. We could use fewer people like you in the U.S.
It can (in a sense) go bankrupt. The more money they print (volume in circulation) the lower the value of each dollar. A government can (and many governments in the past have) can print so much money that it becomes worthless. When someone has assets that no one wants, they can pay their bills. Thus, bankruptcy.
For the Ministry of Truth?
I can certainly understand that mentality where "freedom" has been re-interpreted to include most anything someone wants to engage in. I'm aware "times change", but I think your viewpoint is sadly perverted. It use to mean that a "man's home is his castle" and included the property it sat on including certain privacy expectations on that property that was no one else's business. Including nude sunbathing, swimming naked in your pool, getting laid in the back yard, scratching your ass and smelling you fingers, picking your nose and wiping boogers on the underside of your lounge chair, etc. etc. etc. "Property privacy" included what went on ANYWHERE on your property. After all, for a vast majority of inhabitants, their apartments, condos, single family homes etc. constitute their little part of "nature", a place where they can engage in idiosyncrasies they wouldn't necessarily engage in in public. If... it's your property one should NOT have to hide behind their window curtains, roofs, etc. in order to freely express themselves. Just because you may have voyeuristic tendencies does not mean your rights to spy on others on their own property supersede that person's right to privacy. Even IF that means their are nude outside. Your viewpoint is one reason why the right to privacy has become so seriously eroded. No one respects or expects privacy (unless it's yours). And if your voyeurism goes unchecked, no wonder the government feels they can do anything they want.
Not sure about that. A few years back in my area some guy discharged a handgun into the air (city setting) and about five blocks away where it fell was some girl's skull. Penetrating it and causing brain damage.