1) the "smoking something" comment was directed at the belief that the "lower limit" of Obama's tax increases would stay at $250k. Numbers like that have a tendency to creep in a direction determined by party. I mean, if folks who make over $250k should pay more, why not $225k?, or $200k? Everybody uses a different definition of "middle class", and the definition changes to suit the political goals.
2) Regarding the "Muslim" vs. "not open and friendly" thing, I was simply pointing out that some people of EACH party make their decisions based on irrational criteria, and BOTH parties play that up.
3) My problem with the Obama/Ayers relationship isn't that they had one, but that Obama wasn't straightforward with it. He KNEW it was going to be an issue, but instead of saying "Yes, we did some business together; I detest what he did in the past but today, here and now, I needed to work with him to get results" he came up with "just a guy in the hood." Same with the Rev. Wright association - 20 years in church and he never heard Wright say what he said? If Obama had initially responded with "I don't agree with some of the things he has said from the pulpit, but there is far more to a church than the pastor and that's why I continue going" it would have been a dead issue.He could have simply told the truth up front and been done with it, but it seems that he expected the press and the public to swallow his dismissals and trivializations whole without any questioning. These things don't speak to his associations but to his veracity and character - he can't seem to tell the truth up front even when there's nothing really embarrassing about it.
4) You lightly dismiss 2A concerns - "unnecessarily worrying", etc. You forget (conveniently?) that the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and the "Assault Weapons" Ban were all enacted under Democrat administrations and congresses, and that both Obama's and Biden's past voting and policy records are very anti-gun. As I said in a previous reply, you may not believe that gun issues are important under the grand scheme of things, but don't try to tell me they are irrational.
5) As for your last point, you keep on missing what I'm trying to say - those are stereotypes promulgated by BOTH sides. My last question was rhetorical. What's sad is that you seem to really believe that your classifications cover the whole range of Republicans or conservatives. You criticize for failing "to question whether any of the propaganda is true", but you don't seem to be trying too hard yourself.
You are doing the exact same thing I just criticized - giving Obama the benefit of the doubt despite his PAST record, while focussing totally on Bush's past record (and by proxy, McCain's) and ignoring his current promises.
Be consistent. If "past is prolog", then: 1) McCain will continue a militaristic foreign policy and economic deregulation" 2) Obama will enact far reaching gun control laws.
That's how they voted, those where their stated positions prior to the campaign. Why do you pooh-pooh Obama's past voting and policy record while excoriating McCain for his? You can certainly discount the importance of gun controls to the populace, and you may be right. But don't try to convince those who care about 2A rights that "there is nothing to worry about". I don't want to wait 4 years to find out if I was right.
Oh, and owning a gun IS an "inalienable" right - it's what allows people to exercise "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In many ways it is similar to the "right to privacy", which is not mentioned in the Constitution but must exist for most of the other amendments to make any sense; likewise the "inalienable" rights are silly if you don't have the means to protect yourself from others taking them away.
so, despite a consistent history of positions and votes antithetical to gun rights, now that he has issued a statement that the 2A is an individual right we should believe him? Was he on the road to Damascus lately? Going to change his name to Paul?
Obama's entire campaign is based on McCain voting with Bush for 8 years, and tells us to ignore McCain's protests that he is a reformer. But we shoule believe him when he says he views the Second Amendment as an individual right?
Maybe he was struck blind and saw the light. Or maybe he's a politician saying what he thinks he needs to in order to get elected. Which one is more likely?
"As for the rest, I'm not doing anything to prepare because I do not believe it has much of a chance of happening. To paraphrase, I will occasionally buy a lottery ticket - but I make no plans on how I'll spend my winnings. Too far fetched to make any plans."
10% is hardly "farfetched". But I don't think you actually believe that there is a 1 in 10 chance of total chaos breaking out in 18 days. You either believe you'd be personally safe in a coup, which would be both idiotic and morally cowardly, or you were just throwing out the 10% number as flamebait. Guess I bought it.
Mainly guns. From the link you so kindly provided:
# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
It looks like you only read the first quote, where he appears to support 2nd amendment rights (although he doesn't really answer the questions asked). It's later that the page shows his positions that should scare the crap out of gun owners.
As for the taxes part, the $250k lower limit is what he'll do first. Reasonable, no? But the rest of the plan has some interesting aspects. From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html And if you think that lower limit will remain $45k, you're smoking something.
Finally, your bit about Terrorists and Muslims is lame - yes, there are people who believe that and vote that way. There are also people who don't like McCain because, since he can't raise his arms, "doesn't look open and friendly". But it doesinvite the question about the company he keeps, and his forthrightness. Obama initially only admitted a trivial association with Ayers, but apparently there was quite a bit more to it.
You seem to think that all Republicans are either knuckle dragging cretins or amoral titans of industry. Applying the same level of stereotyping to the Democrats leads me to believe that they are all either union thugs, limousine liberals, or mental children who will believe that electricity can be made from fairy dust if we only just believe. Which one are you?
Aside from the fact that I think you've been reading too much Kos, let's assume what you are saying is true, and there is a 10% chance of a coup d'etat? What are you doing to prepare for it? Arming yourself? Making ACTUAL preparations to leave the country? Or is the extent of your patriotism confined to whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed" on the internet?
Hell, I'm a republican and if I thought GWB was planning a coup I'd be preparing right now for the civil war that would inevitably follow. Except I don't know who would be on what side because there's NO WAY the armed forces would follow him.
That being said, I'm pretty sure Obama's going to be elected and take power. That scares the crap out of me to, only I'm doing a little more about it than I bet you are.
"In a revolution is it better to have guns, or to have the knowledge to make guns?
Freedom of speech is everything."
You can't speak if you are dead or imprisoned.
A gun allows a person to maintain his individual and collective life and liberty against those who would try to take them. The knowledge of how to make guns, or encrypt data, or make bombs if irrelevant if those who have that knowledge can be eliminated by force.
There's a reason the audience laughs at the scene in Holy Grail where the guy groveling in the mud is yelling out "Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed!" but gets beaten and ignored anyway. And it's not the funny accents.
Yeah, I'm fucking bullshit about that. Not going to buy another MacBook until they put it back.
I've got a crapload of external drives, many of which are firewire only. Pisses me off that apple drops their own widely used standard on their own equipment.
Assmonkeys.
Fuck Yeah! Like, do you know how many ISA cards I have sitting in a box at home?
"I'm not sure why you think we're immune from this stupidity in Australia, or why Labor would be any better in this regard. Australia's censorship laws are some of the worst in the Western world."
That brings up a related question. As an American (US variety) I *know* where the puritanical streak in my society comes from - it came over with the original Puritans. Doesn't make me happy, and you'd think 400 years later we would have shaken it off, but there it is.
But why Australia? Was there a big Puritan exodus to there as well as the American Colonies? My understanding is that Australia was mainly a penal colony, and criminals, petty or grand, aren't known for having those traits.
Not flamebait, just looking for a brief history/sociology lesson.
"The US Senate is arguably supposed to have some of these characteristics(hence 6 year terms, rather than 2 years, as in the house); but the effect appears to have been limited."
We did it to ourselves with the 17th Amendment. Senators were originally appointed/elected by the individual States, to represent the interests of the state as a whole to the Federal Government. That's why there are 2 senators per state - states are all equal in their dealings with the Feds (or were supposed to be).
"Neither was elected PM, because the PM is appointed by the Queen (and there would be a riot if she didn't appoint the leader of the majority party of the House of Commons)."
Maybe a "riot" is what you need - I know the US needs something different from what we are doing now. I think if the Queen said "Fuck you, I'm not doing it!" there'd be major change in England's political system, simply from all the older MP's dropping dead over her use of such profanity.
"You could take the external configuration of cars in the 1960's, and then those of today, and swap them around but retaining the technology of construction and operation, and if no one knew any different it wouldn't matter."
To wit, the current Beetle, Mini, Mustang, Charger, Challenger, Camaro, HSC, Prowler, etc. All are designed to look like cars from the 60's and early 70's.
"I don't see the difference between refusing to turn over an encryption key and refusing to let the police in your house when they have a valid search warrant."
Thank God you aren't a constitutional lawyer, then.
Search warrants and physical keys are NOT the correct parallels to encryption keys - one involves the retrieval of physical evidence, the other involves the gathering of data, or knowledge. One is search and seizure, the other is self incrimination. It is wrong to COMPEL someone to incriminate themselves - you can trick them, lie to them, but you cannot say "tell us that you are guilty so we can put you in jail or else we will put you in jail anyway".
The closest analog I can think of is prosecutions of Mafia bosses here where they have hundreds of hours of surveillance, but all of the people on the tapes talk in code or use obscure hand gestures. For instance, in the prosecution of Vincent "The Chin" Gigante, the folks on tape wouldn't even refer to him as "the boss" or anything verbal - they would motion toward their chin. If the prosecution had arrested the participants in those conversations, shown them the videos, and said "Tell us what that hand motion meant, or we'll throw you in jail", they'd be laughed at. But it's essentially the same thing! The people in those conversations had agreed on an encryption scheme (a substitution cipher of a certain hand motion for Vinny The Chin) and kept the key to that cipher in their memory. To be compelled to reveal that key would be a violation of their rights against self incrimination. If the prosecution couldn't get any of the Mafiosi involved to do so, they would need to prove their case another way.
Everyone bitches on/. about the confusion of intellectual property with real property, of data with an object. The same rules need to apply in criminal cases - computer memory is an extension of our personal memories, NOT a great big file cabinet with a combination lock.
"One place I think this could really be useful is an airport...think of all those lights everywhere, scattered about the runways and taxiways."
Yes, think of them...turning on and off randomly (or not randomly) because some jerkwad just HAD to check his webmail and open up a trojan on the controller.
Diehard 2, only from the safety of Mom's basement.
"Put IP addresses in light bulbs and other appliances and you risk a natural disaster creating a large population of pissed off men in the dark unable to "relieve their stress"."
The new Internet censorship rallying cry: "Think of the Sheep!"
Slashdot Mirror
1) the "smoking something" comment was directed at the belief that the "lower limit" of Obama's tax increases would stay at $250k. Numbers like that have a tendency to creep in a direction determined by party. I mean, if folks who make over $250k should pay more, why not $225k?, or $200k? Everybody uses a different definition of "middle class", and the definition changes to suit the political goals.
2) Regarding the "Muslim" vs. "not open and friendly" thing, I was simply pointing out that some people of EACH party make their decisions based on irrational criteria, and BOTH parties play that up.
3) My problem with the Obama/Ayers relationship isn't that they had one, but that Obama wasn't straightforward with it. He KNEW it was going to be an issue, but instead of saying "Yes, we did some business together; I detest what he did in the past but today, here and now, I needed to work with him to get results" he came up with "just a guy in the hood." Same with the Rev. Wright association - 20 years in church and he never heard Wright say what he said? If Obama had initially responded with "I don't agree with some of the things he has said from the pulpit, but there is far more to a church than the pastor and that's why I continue going" it would have been a dead issue.He could have simply told the truth up front and been done with it, but it seems that he expected the press and the public to swallow his dismissals and trivializations whole without any questioning. These things don't speak to his associations but to his veracity and character - he can't seem to tell the truth up front even when there's nothing really embarrassing about it.
4) You lightly dismiss 2A concerns - "unnecessarily worrying", etc. You forget (conveniently?) that the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and the "Assault Weapons" Ban were all enacted under Democrat administrations and congresses, and that both Obama's and Biden's past voting and policy records are very anti-gun. As I said in a previous reply, you may not believe that gun issues are important under the grand scheme of things, but don't try to tell me they are irrational.
5) As for your last point, you keep on missing what I'm trying to say - those are stereotypes promulgated by BOTH sides. My last question was rhetorical. What's sad is that you seem to really believe that your classifications cover the whole range of Republicans or conservatives. You criticize for failing "to question whether any of the propaganda is true", but you don't seem to be trying too hard yourself.
You are doing the exact same thing I just criticized - giving Obama the benefit of the doubt despite his PAST record, while focussing totally on Bush's past record (and by proxy, McCain's) and ignoring his current promises.
Be consistent. If "past is prolog", then:
1) McCain will continue a militaristic foreign policy and economic deregulation"
2) Obama will enact far reaching gun control laws.
That's how they voted, those where their stated positions prior to the campaign. Why do you pooh-pooh Obama's past voting and policy record while excoriating McCain for his? You can certainly discount the importance of gun controls to the populace, and you may be right. But don't try to convince those who care about 2A rights that "there is nothing to worry about". I don't want to wait 4 years to find out if I was right.
Oh, and owning a gun IS an "inalienable" right - it's what allows people to exercise "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". In many ways it is similar to the "right to privacy", which is not mentioned in the Constitution but must exist for most of the other amendments to make any sense; likewise the "inalienable" rights are silly if you don't have the means to protect yourself from others taking them away.
so, despite a consistent history of positions and votes antithetical to gun rights, now that he has issued a statement that the 2A is an individual right we should believe him? Was he on the road to Damascus lately? Going to change his name to Paul?
Obama's entire campaign is based on McCain voting with Bush for 8 years, and tells us to ignore McCain's protests that he is a reformer. But we shoule believe him when he says he views the Second Amendment as an individual right?
Maybe he was struck blind and saw the light. Or maybe he's a politician saying what he thinks he needs to in order to get elected. Which one is more likely?
Homonyms FTW!
"Also, buy an AK. Just in case. You can't legally get an automatic, but full auto just wastes ammo anyway."
Go for the SKS - better made, cheaper ($200 for Yugoslavian surplus), and doesn't LOOK like one of those scawy assault rifles.
"As for the rest, I'm not doing anything to prepare because I do not believe it has much of a chance of happening. To paraphrase, I will occasionally buy a lottery ticket - but I make no plans on how I'll spend my winnings. Too far fetched to make any plans."
10% is hardly "farfetched". But I don't think you actually believe that there is a 1 in 10 chance of total chaos breaking out in 18 days. You either believe you'd be personally safe in a coup, which would be both idiotic and morally cowardly, or you were just throwing out the 10% number as flamebait. Guess I bought it.
Mainly guns. From the link you so kindly provided:
It looks like you only read the first quote, where he appears to support 2nd amendment rights (although he doesn't really answer the questions asked). It's later that the page shows his positions that should scare the crap out of gun owners.
As for the taxes part, the $250k lower limit is what he'll do first. Reasonable, no? But the rest of the plan has some interesting aspects. From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html And if you think that lower limit will remain $45k, you're smoking something.
Finally, your bit about Terrorists and Muslims is lame - yes, there are people who believe that and vote that way. There are also people who don't like McCain because, since he can't raise his arms, "doesn't look open and friendly". But it doesinvite the question about the company he keeps, and his forthrightness. Obama initially only admitted a trivial association with Ayers, but apparently there was quite a bit more to it.
You seem to think that all Republicans are either knuckle dragging cretins or amoral titans of industry. Applying the same level of stereotyping to the Democrats leads me to believe that they are all either union thugs, limousine liberals, or mental children who will believe that electricity can be made from fairy dust if we only just believe. Which one are you?
"I'm sure your leftist drivel will dry up as soon as you're in need of rescue."
Only for a very short time. I doubt that he has any friends of real moral substance who would help him if he was in mortal peril.
"(Looks wistfully at a big box full of chunky SCSI-1, co-ax Ethernet and - oh look - LocalTalk cables that I really should throw out)."
There's probably 10# of copper in that box - take it to the recycling center. Or a scrapyard, if they'll pay you for it.
Aside from the fact that I think you've been reading too much Kos, let's assume what you are saying is true, and there is a 10% chance of a coup d'etat? What are you doing to prepare for it? Arming yourself? Making ACTUAL preparations to leave the country? Or is the extent of your patriotism confined to whining "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed" on the internet?
Hell, I'm a republican and if I thought GWB was planning a coup I'd be preparing right now for the civil war that would inevitably follow. Except I don't know who would be on what side because there's NO WAY the armed forces would follow him.
That being said, I'm pretty sure Obama's going to be elected and take power. That scares the crap out of me to, only I'm doing a little more about it than I bet you are.
"The national guard does not fear my shotgun."
Sure about that? If Obama were to order the Army to go in and pacify Central PA, there would at least be desertions and possibly mutiny.
Or as a friend of mine says, when some smartypants pulls out the "what is your shotgun going to do against a tank?" question:
"They have to get out to take a piss sooner or later."
"In a revolution is it better to have guns, or to have the knowledge to make guns?
Freedom of speech is everything."
You can't speak if you are dead or imprisoned.
A gun allows a person to maintain his individual and collective life and liberty against those who would try to take them. The knowledge of how to make guns, or encrypt data, or make bombs if irrelevant if those who have that knowledge can be eliminated by force.
There's a reason the audience laughs at the scene in Holy Grail where the guy groveling in the mud is yelling out "Help! Help! I'm being Oppressed!" but gets beaten and ignored anyway. And it's not the funny accents.
I was more referring to the outraged tone.
"My favorite company dropped a feature I like! OMGWTFBBQ!!!"
I was just going to start the "US just as bad in 3..2..1" countdown, but now I see I don't need to. Thanks, and enjoy the karma.
Fuck Yeah! Like, do you know how many ISA cards I have sitting in a box at home?
"I'm not sure why you think we're immune from this stupidity in Australia, or why Labor would be any better in this regard. Australia's censorship laws are some of the worst in the Western world."
That brings up a related question. As an American (US variety) I *know* where the puritanical streak in my society comes from - it came over with the original Puritans. Doesn't make me happy, and you'd think 400 years later we would have shaken it off, but there it is.
But why Australia? Was there a big Puritan exodus to there as well as the American Colonies? My understanding is that Australia was mainly a penal colony, and criminals, petty or grand, aren't known for having those traits.
Not flamebait, just looking for a brief history/sociology lesson.
Dammit, your right.
That being said, the Buck Rogers TV series had its attractions.
Erin Grey, specifically.
In a skin tight jumpsuit.
In a starfighter.
[leaves for some "private time"]
"The US Senate is arguably supposed to have some of these characteristics(hence 6 year terms, rather than 2 years, as in the house); but the effect appears to have been limited."
We did it to ourselves with the 17th Amendment. Senators were originally appointed/elected by the individual States, to represent the interests of the state as a whole to the Federal Government. That's why there are 2 senators per state - states are all equal in their dealings with the Feds (or were supposed to be).
"Neither was elected PM, because the PM is appointed by the Queen (and there would be a riot if she didn't appoint the leader of the majority party of the House of Commons)."
Maybe a "riot" is what you need - I know the US needs something different from what we are doing now. I think if the Queen said "Fuck you, I'm not doing it!" there'd be major change in England's political system, simply from all the older MP's dropping dead over her use of such profanity.
"You could take the external configuration of cars in the 1960's, and then those of today, and swap them around but retaining the technology of construction and operation, and if no one knew any different it wouldn't matter."
To wit, the current Beetle, Mini, Mustang, Charger, Challenger, Camaro, HSC, Prowler, etc. All are designed to look like cars from the 60's and early 70's.
I hate them all - look forward, not back, people.
"They did that in the 70's."
But the theme song was pretty good - Queen at it's sturm und drang'y-est.
"I don't see the difference between refusing to turn over an encryption key and refusing to let the police in your house when they have a valid search warrant."
Thank God you aren't a constitutional lawyer, then.
Search warrants and physical keys are NOT the correct parallels to encryption keys - one involves the retrieval of physical evidence, the other involves the gathering of data, or knowledge. One is search and seizure, the other is self incrimination. It is wrong to COMPEL someone to incriminate themselves - you can trick them, lie to them, but you cannot say "tell us that you are guilty so we can put you in jail or else we will put you in jail anyway".
The closest analog I can think of is prosecutions of Mafia bosses here where they have hundreds of hours of surveillance, but all of the people on the tapes talk in code or use obscure hand gestures. For instance, in the prosecution of Vincent "The Chin" Gigante, the folks on tape wouldn't even refer to him as "the boss" or anything verbal - they would motion toward their chin. If the prosecution had arrested the participants in those conversations, shown them the videos, and said "Tell us what that hand motion meant, or we'll throw you in jail", they'd be laughed at. But it's essentially the same thing! The people in those conversations had agreed on an encryption scheme (a substitution cipher of a certain hand motion for Vinny The Chin) and kept the key to that cipher in their memory. To be compelled to reveal that key would be a violation of their rights against self incrimination. If the prosecution couldn't get any of the Mafiosi involved to do so, they would need to prove their case another way.
Everyone bitches on /. about the confusion of intellectual property with real property, of data with an object. The same rules need to apply in criminal cases - computer memory is an extension of our personal memories, NOT a great big file cabinet with a combination lock.
"One place I think this could really be useful is an airport...think of all those lights everywhere, scattered about the runways and taxiways."
Yes, think of them...turning on and off randomly (or not randomly) because some jerkwad just HAD to check his webmail and open up a trojan on the controller.
Diehard 2, only from the safety of Mom's basement.
"Put IP addresses in light bulbs and other appliances and you risk a natural disaster creating a large population of pissed off men in the dark unable to "relieve their stress"."
The new Internet censorship rallying cry: "Think of the Sheep!"
"There's dialog in Pron?"
If you count the grunting and moaning - THAT would perk up a Powerpoint presentation.