So what you're saying is that you're upset because sources you believed were credible were actually funded by agencies you dislike? And the problem is theirs rather than yours?
"That said, when it's being exercised in such a non-transparent and intentionally misleading manner, I'd question whether it actually *is* even "free speech" in the first place."
Are you saying that speaking anonymously makes it questionably "free"? Do I understand you correctly, AC?
... and food grown. Nationalize farming too, why not, it belongs to "the people", as opposed to the ones who husband the land, or the ones actually extracting said minerals.
Slashdot Mirror
"Informative" -- what a low bar. It is information to the extent that a picture of a dog turd is a piece of art.
So what you're saying is that you're upset because sources you believed were credible were actually funded by agencies you dislike? And the problem is theirs rather than yours?
"Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true."
In that case, your speech is not "free", since it is false. False speech is legally protected in many many contexts.
"That said, when it's being exercised in such a non-transparent and intentionally misleading manner, I'd question whether it actually *is* even "free speech" in the first place."
Are you saying that speaking anonymously makes it questionably "free"? Do I understand you correctly, AC?
Let them purchase as much free speech as they like.
Randall should draw a comic about obligatory xkcd references.
> FTFY
FTFY
What was widely reported is NYT reporting on others' speculation. Any references to Obama actually admitting it?
"President Obama has claimed Stuxnet as our own."
(when / where ?)
"Until then, it's lies."
Until then, it's predictions of risks."
FTFY.
"everyone knows who was behind it"
That word you keep using "knows", does not mean what you think it does.
... because nothing says wise government like redistribution.
"But it is a depressing argument that because you can't make something perfect you shouldn't try to make it better."
Fair enough. Problem is that "making it better" is not necessarily what any new regulations actually accomplish.
I wish laws came with empirically testable predictions, which if turned out to be false, would automatically cancel the law.
One supposes the deterrent effect is there.
OTOH, there is no way to "prevent gun crime", period, short of the place becoming a police state.
While at it, an adjacent memorial could list those whose lives were saved by armed defenders.
That's an awesome summary of the situation.
Let's not forget that the people who build the roads for the government need clothes .. and food .. and entertainment. Where's my government brothel?
"We're in a recession at the moment"
Actually, we're not. Technically, the US recession ended in 2009, when the GDP started growing again.
"The ultimate idea is to keep employment up - the more people working, the fewer that need welfare support."
Except for those who are working are doing so by virtue of work-for-welfare.
Tax breaks are still of a qualitatively lesser evil - they just allow the earner to keep more of his money.
... and why stop there. You've got a good plan going, just need a good bolshevik revolution to get a country to try it.
... and food grown. Nationalize farming too, why not, it belongs to "the people", as opposed to the ones who husband the land, or the ones actually extracting said minerals.
"In other words a strong government."
So you're a libertarian, who believes government could constraint itself to judicial matters? Welcome, brother.
"Libertarian Paradise of the Congo"
Cute. But give them a good judicial system, and a bunch of time, and they may impress even you.
Are you not aware of what fraction of that consists of canadian / provincial taxes?
" I do believe that ultimately a nations resources belong to [its] people"
Why stop with oil. Your underwear is your nation's resource too - hand it over.