"Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost"
So? It's not like game consoles are alone in this. Try buying a car without air bags or windshield wipers. When society/government decides that a feature is necessary for safety, the cost gets spread around. Lament that if you like, but thats SOP for pretty much any consumer product now.
I beg to differ. That went out the window (if it was ever true) when Bibles and other religious texts were printed in native languages, and when literacy become more widespread, and people could read for themselves. Emotion is certainly part of religion, but not its sole component. To claim so is to ignore thousands of years of work by those that have labored over religious texts.
When I meet a lunar landing skeptic, I tell them about the LLRE laser ranging program. In short, during Apollo, we put a bunch of reflectors on the Moon, and to this day, we shoot lasers at them to gauge the precise distance from the Earth to the Moon. Kind of hard to fake that on a soundstage.
Maybe so, but in the former case, someone starts thinking, and in the latter, they stop.
Wow, project much?
For every Bart Ehrman, there are many more who find their faith strengthened because of deeper study... in effect, because of deeper thinking on the subject.
"For the Romans, Jesus was a John Doe. Just another non-citizen nutter who spoke against the Emperor and was nailed for it. Business as usual."
Have you read the Gospels? Jesus did not speak out against the Roman Empire. He preached keeping your faith to God and worldly affairs separate ("render unto to Caesar"). This is why Pontius Pilate was so perplexed that Jesus had been arrested. He could find no fault with the man, and certainly didn't find that he'd rebelled against Rome in any way. Jesus was arrested because the old Hebrew priesthood considered him a blasphemer and wanted him dead. They just didn't want the blood on their own hands, so they turned him over to the Romans. Recall that Pilate pleaded with the crowd to let Jesus go.
This little meme really annoys me, because it's starting to catch on in some circles. Shane Claiborne writes in his books that Jesus came to topple Rome. He did no such thing, and he made his purposes clear. He was here for the coming kingdom, not this one. The Jews rejected him as a Messiah in part because he wouldn't oppose Rome. They thought the Messiah would be a kind of military commander to free them from the Roman yoke.
CE and BCE are stupid. Not only because they look alike, but because they're new. January is named after the god Janus. All words have historical references. Some we know, others we don't. The point is that we have common and accepted terms that we use. What's the point in making up new ones? We still have to learn the old. This is just creating more work and confusion, especially when the new terms look alike.
Right on. Moving to BCE/CE was just politically correct silliness to me. As the parent poster noted, do you have to believe in Greco-Roman gods to support the naming of our months? BC/AD is easier, and we should have stuck with it. The argument for changing the system was that it would offend non-Christians. Well, too bad. How many other things are we going to change in order to accommodate a politically correct naming convention? Planets? Cities? Landmarks? You don't even have to believe in the divinity of Christ to acknowledge the historical impact the man had, just like I don't have to be a Zeus/Jupiter worshipper to appreciate the names of the planets. We should have left well enough alone.
Recall that once Hitler and Mussolini gained power, they outlawed all opposing parties... and then murdered their opponents.
I don't recall Bush instituting one-party rule. I don't seem to recall Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid being sent to a concentration camp. I also seem to recall a peaceful transfer of power when his competitors won power in the Congress in 2006. No coup's in site.
May I dare suggest that, in addition to some reading of your own, you might need a little perspective.
"Bullcrap. I knew Saddam had no appreciable stock of WMDs before the invasion."
Well, then you were apparently a better judge than most. Submit your resume to CIA, NSA, MI6, and DGSE. Pretty sure they're all looking for a track record of success at this point...
"Because he was complicit in misleading the public into the Iraq war."
Powell was going on what intelligence agencies provided for him. Every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD programs going, including agencies from France and Germany, two nations that were cold to us going into Iraq. So it's kind of silly to fault Powell on that. Part of his job is listening to what intel professionals tell him.
Saddam wanted Iran to seriously think he had WMD's. Ironically, while preventing one aggressor, he got himself an invasion over his bluff.
"Congratulations, you have just outlined very concisely why fascism worked. Because everyone made that calculations for themselves, came up with the answer that compliance is the only rational choice, and complied with a system they knew to be evil."
Comparing things like FISA or even Gitmo to Fascism is just silly at best, and stupid at worst. Either the President has gotten Congressional authority for measures, or Federal Court authority. And he's been overruled several times by the courts, and complied every time. That's not Fascism. That's a Democratic Republic at work. A Fascist leader would have shot the Congress and the Judges, not obeyed the court rulings. For God's sake, we just gave Habeus Corpus rights to non-uniformed enemy combatants. And the government is complying. That's not the way it works in Fascism.
You don't like the government's policies? Fine and good. Win an election and change things. But to call our government "Fascist" is just stupid.
"It's not "idiotic" but some of the more rapid free-market types repeat it as though it is a physical law of the universe."
Look, I'll be the first to agree that Economics, like all social sciences, is a "squishy" science... sometimes more art than actual science, because too much of it depends on human behavior, which isn't always rational or even uniform. But there are certain behaviors that are repeatedly observed in economics. So while "laws of economics" aren't in the same statosphere as say, Newton's laws of physics, their general principles are reliable. Taxes go up, and people spend less. Taxes go down, and people spend more.
If you want to argue that it's a morally superior position to insist on more of our incomes going to the government, you can do that. If you want to insist that people having more of the money they make is a bad thing, then you can do that as well. But these people claiming that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate economies are just daft. Everyone knows that it does, at least everyone attuned to reality. JFK campaigned on it ("a rising tide lifts all boats"). These people plugging fingers in their ears going "Does Not! Does Not!" might as well claim the Sun rises in the North.
If people are going to argue about tax cuts, then they should argue on the merits... should government have more of our money and "spend it for us" on public projects? Or are we better off spending more of it ourselves.
"How can we send our sons and daughters off to war while asking for no sacrifices from the civilian population?"
On that I agree with you. As far as personal wants and needs go, to the American public, the terror wars have largely been sacrifice free. No meatless Tuesdays. No rubber rationing. Even for domestic security, it's been a cakewalk. For all the people that bitch about FISA, did you know that in WW II the government censored all mail? Listened in on all phone calls? We truly haven't sacrificed squat. We have liberties undreamed of to the WW II generation.
" Can you imagine FDR responding to Pearl Harbor by asking people to go to the shopping mall and refusing to increase taxes to help pay for the war?"
Well, did encourage spending on some things... he knew we couldn't go completely bone-dry in our wants and needs.
What I wish we would replicate from WW II is War Bonds drives. It would help pay for the war, while encouraging long term investment from the general public, to boot.
"The BSD is the license that allows you to restrict freedom. The GPL doesn't allow that."
Restrict whose freedom? Certainly not the end user. The end user of BSD code can do damn near whatever he wants with it, all with the permission of the originator of the code. That's not freedom?
The GPL is far different, and while I won't deny that much good can come from GPL'd code, to say that the GPL license is freedom while BSD is not is nothing but Orwellian Newspeak; up is down, left is right, war is peace. No one is making you use GPL'd code, but once you choose to do so, there are heavy strings attached, strings that the BSD license does not require of the end user. Do not confuse "Public Good" with "Free"... they're not necessarily the same thing. Comparing the BSD license to legalized slavery is partisan silliness of the worst kind.
I think the differences between the two camps go far deeper than simple semantics. I don't think you can sum up the conflict as a Mars-Venus miscommunication thing. There are some deep philosophical differences between the two camps. GPL guys are more evangelistic than BSD guys. BSD guys are more Laissez-faire about codes than GPL guys.
There's really no direct political comparison, but the closest example to BSD vs. GPL in that context is a Libertarian vs. Social Democrat example. BSD guys know that someone can take the code, not give back anything; the principle of real freedom, as they see it, is more important than whether or not anything is "given back". The public good is an indirect benefit, in their view. GPL guys, however, take somewhat more of a socialist-lite view, with the public good of "giving back" of more importance than total freedom to use the code however the end user sees fit.
Basically, both camps have some very different definitions of what "freedom" is... just like any other kind of politics.
"Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity."
GM killed their electric car because they lost two billion dollars on the project. That's two billion. The EV1 had shit for range, took forever to recharge, and was dangerous to maintain.
From your own source:
Rumor: There were 5,000 people who wanted an EV1, but GM wouldn't let them buy it.
Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?). The film likes to quote a figure of 29 miles as the average American's daily driving needs, but that is a national figure and the EV1 was only sold in California and Arizona, primarily in Los Angeles. Anyone wanna guess what the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is? I'm betting it's higher than that national average....
There was no conspiracy. The EV1 was a lousy, unprofitable product.
Apparently you didn't see the first part of my post. In your opinion you can declare it illegal, but because you're not a Federal judge, that carries nada weight.
I'm not opposed to your argument that it may very well violate the Constitution, but until a Judge actually says this, it's just that; opinion. Judges rule contrary to the wording of the Constitution all the time (one of my problems with them), and if they make it so, it's so. So for it to actually be illegal, someone in legal authority has to rule so. John Doe Slashdot User's opinions don't make it so. And while Slashdot isn't a legitimate source of journalism per se, and thus isn't held to strict journalistic standards, it still annoys me to see people abuse language in ways like "this illegal law". This isn't some shrill Indymedia site, and we should still have some editorial standards here. Until a judge says differently, it's not illegal. Call it controversial, preface the statement with "some say" or "some legal experts claim" that it's illegal... but don't declare it so unilaterally.
"With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying"
You can argue that it's unconstitutional (though only the SCOTUS can really determine that), but illegal? If the Congress passes it, and the President signs it, how can it then by definition be illegal?
"Drive behind a 72 year old for awhile and see if you think you want them at the wheel of the country. "
You're assuming all 72 year olds are like that. I know a 71 year old with a Ferrari, and he certainly drives faster than I do. Wealthy, smart, and quick on the uptake, too. I wouldn't judge someone on just age. I work with a woman that won't drive over 55, no matter the speed limit... if you're behind her in traffic, you're just screwed. And She's just 51.
"I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult. "
People make like that's a bad thing necessarily, but in politics, two is a magic number. It's the minimum number necessary to have a choice while avoiding both totalitarianism and extreme gridlock by many multiples of parties. People in America complain about it sometimes, but they need to look at a place like Italy where literally dozens of parties are all running, and nothing ever gets done because even building coalitions involves a hodgepodge of parties that agree on nothing. You think Republicans and Democrats don't like each other? Try looking at huge multiparty states, and see how their systems work. Someone once called the US Supreme Court "Nine Scorpions in a Bottle". SCOTUS or the US Congress is perfect harmony compared to countries where you have 30 parties in power.
"Because having one congressman out of >600 kick the bucket isn't that big of a deal. Loosing a president is."
It is? I was under the impression that's what the Vice-President was for. He certainly doesn't have much responsibility otherwise than "waiting for the President to die or leave office".
Plus, there's a very clear line of succession. It's not like the country would fall into chaos or be leaderless. It's not like a King dying with no heirs. Briefly traumatic yes, but face it, age is a silly reason to vote against someone in our system. It's one thing for a vigorous 70 year old to run (and McCain is indeed fairly vigorous for that age, as was Reagan). It's not like a 96 year old Strom Thurmond, who needed help just getting around, is running for the office.
"Doctors/Pharmacists should not be forced to treat patients because their own personal beliefs may not coincide with the desired treatment. This is complete bullshit."
For doctors that is, in fact, the law in most places in the US. You cannot force them to perform an abortion.
"Suppose you needed emergency heart surgery, but the only doctor that was able to perform the surgery was Jewish. And you happened to need that emergency surgery on the sabbath. Shit out of luck?"
Well, when a scenario like that happens... a religious doctor refuses treatment and is the only option that day... you come back and let me know. If you find any example of your hypothetical in the real world, you come back and let me know, and I'll reconsider my position. To my knowledge, your scenario... plausible in the strictest terms, but highly unlikely in the real world... has never happened in recent memory.
"Refusing to provide birth control has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the pharmacist's wacky religious beliefs trumping the desires and welfare of the patient."
Most people's ethics are directly tied to their "wacky religious beliefs". Furthermore, in many cases, the law protects that, thankfully. It's not like there aren't lots of other pharmacists to fill that order.
"Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself."
We need to, once and for all, lay to rest the notion that education prevents tyranny. Hitler didn't rise in a society of illiterate serfs. Germany had an excellent education system. I don't know of anyone that rose in the Nazi party that was uneducated or stupid. On the contrary, they were brilliant people. The Islamic terrorists that bombed London trains were all British born, and well educated in progressive British schools. Those terrorists' parents were all poor, uneducated people that came to the UK for opportunities, and were both pious in their faith and proud to live in a free society. Their much-better educated children chose the tyranny of terrorism.
Poor or uneducated does not equal "susceptible to tyrants". Rich or educated does not equal "virtuous opponent of tyranny".
"unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers"
Looking at both your name and your comments, it's pretty apparent that you not only disbelieve in a god, you despise those that do; "dirt farmers" as the old canard that religious believers are poor and stupid. So let's establish right away that you have your biases too.
"and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception."
That's not "a polution of science". That's a "polution", as you put it, of policy. And you're statement was pretty blatant misrepresentation of the issue. Pharmacists, in this case, that object to dispensing contraception or abortion pills do so not on scientific grounds, but on personal ethical grounds. And they're not refusing to dispense them outright, simply saying that their own personal beliefs don't permit them to issue such pills, and that other pharmacists can do it, and that because of their beliefs, they shouldn't be forced to it if another pharmacist that doesn't object is available. Many Doctors and Nurses also refuse to participate in abortion on ethical grounds as well, as they think it violates the creed of "first do no harm". We wouldn't dare force a doctor to perform an abortion. Pharmacists are simply saying they should have the same ethical rights.
You, however, misrepresent the whole issue because of your own personal loathing of religious faith. You make it sound like they're going "I'm Baptist, and I don't like you atheists so I'm not going to give you any penicillin". That's crap, sir. That doesn't happen. If you wish to provide an example to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it.
"(on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)"
For an atheist, you speak in bombastically religious terms. "America will collapse"? Have you been taking rhetoric lessons from evangelicals? You sound like one, with the prophecies of doom.
America has been a religious country from its very origins, for hundreds of years. Religious influences are pervasive in our culture, law, and government. Always have been, and probably, always will be. We've been here for hundreds of years with religion without "dooming ourselves", thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost"
So? It's not like game consoles are alone in this. Try buying a car without air bags or windshield wipers. When society/government decides that a feature is necessary for safety, the cost gets spread around. Lament that if you like, but thats SOP for pretty much any consumer product now.
I beg to differ. That went out the window (if it was ever true) when Bibles and other religious texts were printed in native languages, and when literacy become more widespread, and people could read for themselves. Emotion is certainly part of religion, but not its sole component. To claim so is to ignore thousands of years of work by those that have labored over religious texts.
When I meet a lunar landing skeptic, I tell them about the LLRE laser ranging program. In short, during Apollo, we put a bunch of reflectors on the Moon, and to this day, we shoot lasers at them to gauge the precise distance from the Earth to the Moon. Kind of hard to fake that on a soundstage.
Maybe so, but in the former case, someone starts thinking, and in the latter, they stop.
Wow, project much?
For every Bart Ehrman, there are many more who find their faith strengthened because of deeper study... in effect, because of deeper thinking on the subject.
"For the Romans, Jesus was a John Doe. Just another non-citizen nutter who spoke against the Emperor and was nailed for it. Business as usual."
Have you read the Gospels? Jesus did not speak out against the Roman Empire. He preached keeping your faith to God and worldly affairs separate ("render unto to Caesar"). This is why Pontius Pilate was so perplexed that Jesus had been arrested. He could find no fault with the man, and certainly didn't find that he'd rebelled against Rome in any way. Jesus was arrested because the old Hebrew priesthood considered him a blasphemer and wanted him dead. They just didn't want the blood on their own hands, so they turned him over to the Romans. Recall that Pilate pleaded with the crowd to let Jesus go.
This little meme really annoys me, because it's starting to catch on in some circles. Shane Claiborne writes in his books that Jesus came to topple Rome. He did no such thing, and he made his purposes clear. He was here for the coming kingdom, not this one. The Jews rejected him as a Messiah in part because he wouldn't oppose Rome. They thought the Messiah would be a kind of military commander to free them from the Roman yoke.
CE and BCE are stupid. Not only because they look alike, but because they're new. January is named after the god Janus. All words have historical references. Some we know, others we don't. The point is that we have common and accepted terms that we use. What's the point in making up new ones? We still have to learn the old. This is just creating more work and confusion, especially when the new terms look alike.
Right on. Moving to BCE/CE was just politically correct silliness to me. As the parent poster noted, do you have to believe in Greco-Roman gods to support the naming of our months? BC/AD is easier, and we should have stuck with it. The argument for changing the system was that it would offend non-Christians. Well, too bad. How many other things are we going to change in order to accommodate a politically correct naming convention? Planets? Cities? Landmarks? You don't even have to believe in the divinity of Christ to acknowledge the historical impact the man had, just like I don't have to be a Zeus/Jupiter worshipper to appreciate the names of the planets. We should have left well enough alone.
"Best ones? Hypocrasy."
Christians see a huge difference in innocent life... a baby certainly is innocent... and someone that chose to do great evil.
You find that hypocritical. And yet I find it hypocritical that people would choose to abort a baby, and yet spare a murderer.
I thought Landover baptist was a parody site?
I wouldn't be surprised if a number of people here think it's real. That's what they think a church looks like.
"You desperately need history classes."
I have a degree in it, thanks.
Recall that once Hitler and Mussolini gained power, they outlawed all opposing parties... and then murdered their opponents.
I don't recall Bush instituting one-party rule. I don't seem to recall Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid being sent to a concentration camp. I also seem to recall a peaceful transfer of power when his competitors won power in the Congress in 2006. No coup's in site.
May I dare suggest that, in addition to some reading of your own, you might need a little perspective.
"Bullcrap. I knew Saddam had no appreciable stock of WMDs before the invasion."
Well, then you were apparently a better judge than most. Submit your resume to CIA, NSA, MI6, and DGSE. Pretty sure they're all looking for a track record of success at this point...
"Because he was complicit in misleading the public into the Iraq war."
Powell was going on what intelligence agencies provided for him. Every major intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD programs going, including agencies from France and Germany, two nations that were cold to us going into Iraq. So it's kind of silly to fault Powell on that. Part of his job is listening to what intel professionals tell him.
Saddam wanted Iran to seriously think he had WMD's. Ironically, while preventing one aggressor, he got himself an invasion over his bluff.
"Congratulations, you have just outlined very concisely why fascism worked. Because everyone made that calculations for themselves, came up with the answer that compliance is the only rational choice, and complied with a system they knew to be evil."
Comparing things like FISA or even Gitmo to Fascism is just silly at best, and stupid at worst. Either the President has gotten Congressional authority for measures, or Federal Court authority. And he's been overruled several times by the courts, and complied every time. That's not Fascism. That's a Democratic Republic at work. A Fascist leader would have shot the Congress and the Judges, not obeyed the court rulings. For God's sake, we just gave Habeus Corpus rights to non-uniformed enemy combatants. And the government is complying. That's not the way it works in Fascism.
You don't like the government's policies? Fine and good. Win an election and change things. But to call our government "Fascist" is just stupid.
"It's not "idiotic" but some of the more rapid free-market types repeat it as though it is a physical law of the universe."
Look, I'll be the first to agree that Economics, like all social sciences, is a "squishy" science... sometimes more art than actual science, because too much of it depends on human behavior, which isn't always rational or even uniform. But there are certain behaviors that are repeatedly observed in economics. So while "laws of economics" aren't in the same statosphere as say, Newton's laws of physics, their general principles are reliable. Taxes go up, and people spend less. Taxes go down, and people spend more.
If you want to argue that it's a morally superior position to insist on more of our incomes going to the government, you can do that. If you want to insist that people having more of the money they make is a bad thing, then you can do that as well. But these people claiming that cutting taxes doesn't stimulate economies are just daft. Everyone knows that it does, at least everyone attuned to reality. JFK campaigned on it ("a rising tide lifts all boats"). These people plugging fingers in their ears going "Does Not! Does Not!" might as well claim the Sun rises in the North.
If people are going to argue about tax cuts, then they should argue on the merits... should government have more of our money and "spend it for us" on public projects? Or are we better off spending more of it ourselves.
"How can we send our sons and daughters off to war while asking for no sacrifices from the civilian population?"
On that I agree with you. As far as personal wants and needs go, to the American public, the terror wars have largely been sacrifice free. No meatless Tuesdays. No rubber rationing. Even for domestic security, it's been a cakewalk. For all the people that bitch about FISA, did you know that in WW II the government censored all mail? Listened in on all phone calls? We truly haven't sacrificed squat. We have liberties undreamed of to the WW II generation.
" Can you imagine FDR responding to Pearl Harbor by asking people to go to the shopping mall and refusing to increase taxes to help pay for the war?"
Well, did encourage spending on some things... he knew we couldn't go completely bone-dry in our wants and needs.
What I wish we would replicate from WW II is War Bonds drives. It would help pay for the war, while encouraging long term investment from the general public, to boot.
"The late, great Steve Kangas takes that myth on with statistics"
The late, great, Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
"The BSD is the license that allows you to restrict freedom. The GPL doesn't allow that."
Restrict whose freedom? Certainly not the end user. The end user of BSD code can do damn near whatever he wants with it, all with the permission of the originator of the code. That's not freedom?
The GPL is far different, and while I won't deny that much good can come from GPL'd code, to say that the GPL license is freedom while BSD is not is nothing but Orwellian Newspeak; up is down, left is right, war is peace. No one is making you use GPL'd code, but once you choose to do so, there are heavy strings attached, strings that the BSD license does not require of the end user. Do not confuse "Public Good" with "Free"... they're not necessarily the same thing. Comparing the BSD license to legalized slavery is partisan silliness of the worst kind.
I think the differences between the two camps go far deeper than simple semantics. I don't think you can sum up the conflict as a Mars-Venus miscommunication thing. There are some deep philosophical differences between the two camps. GPL guys are more evangelistic than BSD guys. BSD guys are more Laissez-faire about codes than GPL guys.
There's really no direct political comparison, but the closest example to BSD vs. GPL in that context is a Libertarian vs. Social Democrat example. BSD guys know that someone can take the code, not give back anything; the principle of real freedom, as they see it, is more important than whether or not anything is "given back". The public good is an indirect benefit, in their view. GPL guys, however, take somewhat more of a socialist-lite view, with the public good of "giving back" of more importance than total freedom to use the code however the end user sees fit.
Basically, both camps have some very different definitions of what "freedom" is... just like any other kind of politics.
"Nobody killed the electric car. They killed their own opportunity."
GM killed their electric car because they lost two billion dollars on the project. That's two billion. The EV1 had shit for range, took forever to recharge, and was dangerous to maintain.
From your own source:
There was no conspiracy. The EV1 was a lousy, unprofitable product.
Apparently you didn't see the first part of my post. In your opinion you can declare it illegal, but because you're not a Federal judge, that carries nada weight.
I'm not opposed to your argument that it may very well violate the Constitution, but until a Judge actually says this, it's just that; opinion. Judges rule contrary to the wording of the Constitution all the time (one of my problems with them), and if they make it so, it's so. So for it to actually be illegal, someone in legal authority has to rule so. John Doe Slashdot User's opinions don't make it so. And while Slashdot isn't a legitimate source of journalism per se, and thus isn't held to strict journalistic standards, it still annoys me to see people abuse language in ways like "this illegal law". This isn't some shrill Indymedia site, and we should still have some editorial standards here. Until a judge says differently, it's not illegal. Call it controversial, preface the statement with "some say" or "some legal experts claim" that it's illegal... but don't declare it so unilaterally.
"With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying"
You can argue that it's unconstitutional (though only the SCOTUS can really determine that), but illegal? If the Congress passes it, and the President signs it, how can it then by definition be illegal?
"Drive behind a 72 year old for awhile and see if you think you want them at the wheel of the country. "
You're assuming all 72 year olds are like that. I know a 71 year old with a Ferrari, and he certainly drives faster than I do. Wealthy, smart, and quick on the uptake, too. I wouldn't judge someone on just age. I work with a woman that won't drive over 55, no matter the speed limit... if you're behind her in traffic, you're just screwed. And She's just 51.
Judge people individually.
"I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult. "
People make like that's a bad thing necessarily, but in politics, two is a magic number. It's the minimum number necessary to have a choice while avoiding both totalitarianism and extreme gridlock by many multiples of parties. People in America complain about it sometimes, but they need to look at a place like Italy where literally dozens of parties are all running, and nothing ever gets done because even building coalitions involves a hodgepodge of parties that agree on nothing. You think Republicans and Democrats don't like each other? Try looking at huge multiparty states, and see how their systems work. Someone once called the US Supreme Court "Nine Scorpions in a Bottle". SCOTUS or the US Congress is perfect harmony compared to countries where you have 30 parties in power.
"Because having one congressman out of >600 kick the bucket isn't that big of a deal. Loosing a president is."
It is? I was under the impression that's what the Vice-President was for. He certainly doesn't have much responsibility otherwise than "waiting for the President to die or leave office".
Plus, there's a very clear line of succession. It's not like the country would fall into chaos or be leaderless. It's not like a King dying with no heirs. Briefly traumatic yes, but face it, age is a silly reason to vote against someone in our system. It's one thing for a vigorous 70 year old to run (and McCain is indeed fairly vigorous for that age, as was Reagan). It's not like a 96 year old Strom Thurmond, who needed help just getting around, is running for the office.
"Doctors/Pharmacists should not be forced to treat patients because their own personal beliefs may not coincide with the desired treatment. This is complete bullshit."
For doctors that is, in fact, the law in most places in the US. You cannot force them to perform an abortion.
"Suppose you needed emergency heart surgery, but the only doctor that was able to perform the surgery was Jewish. And you happened to need that emergency surgery on the sabbath. Shit out of luck?"
Well, when a scenario like that happens... a religious doctor refuses treatment and is the only option that day... you come back and let me know. If you find any example of your hypothetical in the real world, you come back and let me know, and I'll reconsider my position. To my knowledge, your scenario... plausible in the strictest terms, but highly unlikely in the real world... has never happened in recent memory.
"Refusing to provide birth control has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the pharmacist's wacky religious beliefs trumping the desires and welfare of the patient."
Most people's ethics are directly tied to their "wacky religious beliefs". Furthermore, in many cases, the law protects that, thankfully. It's not like there aren't lots of other pharmacists to fill that order.
"Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself."
We need to, once and for all, lay to rest the notion that education prevents tyranny. Hitler didn't rise in a society of illiterate serfs. Germany had an excellent education system. I don't know of anyone that rose in the Nazi party that was uneducated or stupid. On the contrary, they were brilliant people. The Islamic terrorists that bombed London trains were all British born, and well educated in progressive British schools. Those terrorists' parents were all poor, uneducated people that came to the UK for opportunities, and were both pious in their faith and proud to live in a free society. Their much-better educated children chose the tyranny of terrorism.
Poor or uneducated does not equal "susceptible to tyrants". Rich or educated does not equal "virtuous opponent of tyranny".
"unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers"
Looking at both your name and your comments, it's pretty apparent that you not only disbelieve in a god, you despise those that do; "dirt farmers" as the old canard that religious believers are poor and stupid. So let's establish right away that you have your biases too.
"and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception."
That's not "a polution of science". That's a "polution", as you put it, of policy. And you're statement was pretty blatant misrepresentation of the issue. Pharmacists, in this case, that object to dispensing contraception or abortion pills do so not on scientific grounds, but on personal ethical grounds. And they're not refusing to dispense them outright, simply saying that their own personal beliefs don't permit them to issue such pills, and that other pharmacists can do it, and that because of their beliefs, they shouldn't be forced to it if another pharmacist that doesn't object is available. Many Doctors and Nurses also refuse to participate in abortion on ethical grounds as well, as they think it violates the creed of "first do no harm". We wouldn't dare force a doctor to perform an abortion. Pharmacists are simply saying they should have the same ethical rights.
You, however, misrepresent the whole issue because of your own personal loathing of religious faith. You make it sound like they're going "I'm Baptist, and I don't like you atheists so I'm not going to give you any penicillin". That's crap, sir. That doesn't happen. If you wish to provide an example to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it.
"(on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)"
For an atheist, you speak in bombastically religious terms. "America will collapse"? Have you been taking rhetoric lessons from evangelicals? You sound like one, with the prophecies of doom.
America has been a religious country from its very origins, for hundreds of years. Religious influences are pervasive in our culture, law, and government. Always have been, and probably, always will be. We've been here for hundreds of years with religion without "dooming ourselves", thanks.