The one you live in is good enough to have it applied to you.
For the record, no one has the nomination yet, but yes, he was on the vice presidential nomination in the past. If you recall Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle both had similar positions in the past.
I've never seen one run from the president. Get in their faces maybe.
Ron Paul, I've read his most recent book btw, is a libertarian (the capitalization makes a difference on that word if you'll read up) who ran as a Libertarian before he ran as a Republican. He most certainly is NOT pro pollution and even dedicated a chapter in his latest book to it.
I hear you and I've given quite a bit of thought to those matters. I am seriously considering a wiki-type website dedicated to them, however I have no time or resources to make that happen, I have a lot of ideas for education funding for instance.
I've come up with many methods of taking care of the poor. More than one is very socialistic, but receives my blessing because in the end they are self funding and voluntary. I am not 100% anti-socialist, I am against compulsory national socialism.
For the out of work poor - a work corp. You know how you can pick up labor in front of Home Depot and put them to work on your projects? How about a legitimate version of that, on multiple scales. Five work days, housing is covered for those in the most need (think along the lines of the Japanese capsule hotel and lodging akin to summer camp). The weekends have job training classes and every day of the week an employment agency is working to get you out of the program. The program is run and owned by the people in it. The jobs consist of road work, farm work, construction, any one, private or state can contract this work corp, even office and service jobs. If you have your own place you don't have to live there but you can still participate in the job location service and the skills classes on the weekends, even meals. Unlike an actual government programs those found to be simply taking advantage of the system and not working can be booted. Tribal socialism at its finest.
Many churches have historically cared for the poor as far as meals and sometimes even more go. Quit taxing people with the promise to take care of the poor more people would be apt to do so.
I honestly don't know what to say about emergency indigent care at hospitals other than to say "treat them". I haven't figured that out yet, but it's been on my mind.
There are many problems with large scale welfare. The facts are it's easily abused by the recipients, the current version basically traps the recipients into an all or nothing system, and no common sense can be used in it's distribution. Personally, even though I'm for legalizing drugs for many reasons, I think attaching a birth control shot and a drug test to each welfare check wouldn't be a bad idea. As someone who pays into the system it would be some assurance to me the recipient isn't squandering my money. I have no qualms against helping someone out, but as someone who is divorced from a meth addict and had to boot a roommate that was an addict in the past I understand what enabling is and I consider enabling someone who is doing self harm almost as bad as doing it myself. Now I'm court ordered to enable my ex and my taxes go to enabling others. I would prefer smaller charitable systems that can screen recipients better and maybe even get addicts into rehab instead of just paying for their food and lodging.
I don't think I can properly answer your question without writing an entire book (something I've seriously given thoughts to) but don't mistake me for heartless. I see our current entrapment system as being just as heartless as the system libertarians are accused of wanting.
On another note, even with my limited government views, orphanages and taking care of the very mentally or physically handicapped should fall back to the state when no one else is there to do it. Unless private organizations spring up to fill that role fueled by donations (quite possible actually, with less government interfearence) I don't see any other way around it.
Transparency is the real power to the people. I personally believe that almost everything the federal government is involved in should be 100% transparent. The obvious exceptions of individual health records and ongoing war strategies and investigations. In the cases of warfare and investigations when the war/investigation is over those records should become 100%, no burying the past.
On the war note, we need to make more effort to stay out of wars and probably reduce the number of agencies that can do those types of investigations.
Government has no right to protect you from yourself. It has an obligation to protect you from me
This pretty much sums up my belief in what the government is for. Courts are part of the government, I don't know the history on the plants you reference but shutting down their pollution was a good thing. Not wanting to support an acronym agency to do it doesn't make me pro-pollution, it makes me an idealist.
When I say "all blue laws should be repealed because they are of religious origin" rarely do I have a right winger get on the offensive. Sometimes I do get a statement about protecting the sabbath or something but it's rarely a full blown attack. Right wingers typically just dismiss you as wrong and let you go about your business with your wrong belief "you'll see eventually".
Does Apple compromise on their products? The reason Apple products are so reliable and have such a cult following is simply because they do not compromise. I'm a Linux on Intel/AMD guy myself, but I can see who Apple's product line is built around the concept of thinking something through, implementing the idea and not compromising on it. They make great products in that respect, but to me they embody ideas I don't like, of lock in and lawsuit abuse. Not compromising gives you Apple. Compromising gives you OS/2, which failed arguably because it tried to accommodate Microsoft products to such a degree there was no point in their continued existence. That's an analogy most Slashdotters should get.
I would say Obama care with it's "get insurance or go to jail" approach fits my compromise analogy perfectly.
Why am I ok with Apple and their lock-in? Because I don't have to buy their products, and don't (anymore, there was a trial phase). The problem with the left is things like Obama care where you have to participate and go to jail. Fortunately most things like that from the right, blue laws for instance, are legacy and are slowly going away (except in Utah).
I do listen to people I disagree with. I'm a Libertarian, nearly everyone disagrees with me, if I'm listening I'm listening to someone who doesn't agree with me. One of my favorite examples:
The left is mad because gays can't marry and the right thinks they have the ethical duty to protect the sanctity of marriage.
My libertarian view is simple. Marriage is a religious ceremony, at least in origin, and the government shall make no law in regards to religion. Get the government out of ALL marriage.
I piss off both sides saying that almost without fail. I think the left is barking up the wrong tree trying to legalize gay marriage, they should be getting the government out of marriage all together.
I personally think "left and right" have become very murky in their definitions. When socialism is generally considered left wing but places like Wikipedia have an iron fisted mechanism in place to label all fascist as right wing, even with it's socialist fascism it's become very murky. I personally believe fascism is "wing neutral". WWII Axis powers fascism was left wing in the fact they were attempting to implement socialism and McCarthyism and the Haymarket affair was without a doubt right wing fascism.
Yes I have a very broad statement I stand by. Removing the power from the federal government and restoring it to lower levels of government universally improves the nation, where states and other localities disagree the people will move to the places they find more suitable regionally isolating failed policies instead of making failure of policy a national universal constant.
I have problems with the right as well, the difference between the two is how vocal they are. I find out what happens on Fox news more from left wingers complaining about it than I do from right wingers supporting it. Hint: I really don't watch TV.
I'm with you on that. I actually got a Sunday school class arguing with each other for and against the Big Bang and how the book of Genesis describes it.
Such entertainment of ideas outside the status quo would not be tolerated at a college.
Libertarians are NOT for pollution, they are against acronym agencies. Libertarians wish to handle pollution through the court systems "Your factory is polluting my river and killing my fish, so I am suing you." "Your factory is polluting the air at my home, I and all of my neighbors who also have polluted air are suing you."
You are obviously a left winger as right wingers usually attack libertarians for "promoting" moral causes we simply wish to deregulate and left wingers attack us for being "pro pollution".
As far as taxes, when they must be levied they should be levied equally across the board, or exist as a usage tax to where only those who consume the service pay for it.
In my own head "Not wasting the current structure which works in pursuit of another of questionable effectiveness" works and agrees with your definition. I'm a very conceptual thinker and stuff like that crops up occasionally.
I agree with it being unfair some people pay a higher percentage than others. I'm a fan of a flat rate until we get the government enough under control that an income tax is no longer needed. I admit, that will probably never happen, so flat rate it is!
"Wants our money" and redistribution of wealth is pretty much the same thing. I am not rich. I don't mind helping someone down on their luck, unfortunately I know there are huge numbers of people gaming the system. I'm from rural West Texas, I still live in Texas, I have family in the insurance industry, I know about gaming the system because I grew up in a poverty stricken area. I've personally known many people who have done so and laughed. I want that to stop, and the best way to do it is to take charity out of the governments hands and putting it back in the hands of churches, community programs, and helping a brother out.
The health care thing is very complex, universally throwing money at it doesn't work for the same reason so many other government programs don't work. Once the government is involved competition disappears and the focus becomes keeping a contract, not competing for money by adjusting your quality and quantity to attract customers. Something certainly needs to be done with the health care problem, getting the government out of most of it and having some sort of emergency fund for real emergencies and the ability to toss those without emergencies out of the emergency room seems to be a good start. I personally like the Shriners hospitals and the Ronald McDonald house approach, if we got the government involvement reduced more of those types of things can spring up and thrive.
You just proved someone else's point. Anything that isn't yours is obviously the other, and even more extreme.
Compromise is bad. Compromise is a guarantee an idea gets Nerfed to the point of not working. Universities by and large are VERY left wing and work to indoctrinate the young people who enter them. Perhaps you completely missed the whole Shakita Butler teaching incredibly flawed and biased definitions of racism at the University of Delaware? How about college campuses that suppress students right wing ideas and philosophies but allow left?
Truth is the left builds up a wall of fake attack/defense claims to mask their own attacks. I'm just as against the right trying to legislate their morality and protect their corporate contracts and interest as I am of the left trying to legislate their ideas and protect their corporate contracts and interest. The truth is the left is the attack machine, it's about 70 / 30 with the left attacking 70 and one of the attacks they make is calling a block of their attack as "refusal to reach across the isle" and "refusal to compromise". If a right winger has $100 he earned, the left wants all of it, the right winger says no not giving you $50 is refusal to compromise. I don't see where not giving you $50 is wrong.
Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?
When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.
Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.
You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.
This is the biggest smoke screen liberals are using today.
I'm a libertarian, I look at the left vs. right debate mostly from the outside and I've declared most of it foolish. What I have noticed is a lot of quotes coming from the left that say "even liberals in America are conservatives when compared to the rest of the world" "all right wingers are incredibly right wing so they see only slightly liberal or even neutral institutions as far left." The left is an attack machine against the right and the general goal of the overall left is to "change the center of balance" so that it appears that moderates on their side are neutral so that radicals seem moderate - bringing their fringe closer to center and moving the rights moderates to the radical realm in the general overall perception.
What I see from the right is mostly a dismissal of the left as wrong. When they do go on the attack against the left they usually attack the individual issue, not the person/people in general (the left does not constrain itself so). When the issue a left and right winger disagree on is financial right wingers are usually ok with the left winger otherwise, the left winger usually sees nothing from the right winger as acceptable. When it's a moral cause right wingers tend to be less accepting of the left otherwise.
Us libertarians, when we do agree with either of your issues in principal just wished you would stop legislating them on everyone, especially at the federal level so we don't screw the nation as a whole when you're wrong. Even when you're right we want you to leave it out of the federal level of laws so it's not mismanaged at the top, over taxed for, and imposed on all 50 states plus territories through what should be illegal symbiotic relationships with corporations that have unreasonable relationships with the federal government.
When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
A liberal believes in freedom.
A conservative believes in not wasting.
I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.
The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".
The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".
This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.
Democrats and Republicans are like Firebirds and Camaros. They have the same power train, almost all the parts are interchangeable among the same year model, they do the same exact thing, but they were different badges while doing it and they each have their own dedicated group of supporters that argues why their version is better and the other has flaws.
Meanwhile they're completely ignoring every other manufacturer out and using their arguing not to fight each other, but hoping that argument polarizes others into siding with "one or the other" even though they're actually the same so that the Charger gets excluded all together.
I'm an open source advocate, I love FOSS and utilize the hell out of it.
I believe in and defend reasonable copyright protection. Really, I think life +20 seems to be reasonable, it takes care of the author and the authors kids assuming the author croaks with a pregnant wife. I'm open to a bit longer even though I don't really like it. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act was obscene.
I don't care if people quote me all over the place, the only attribution I want was "I found this quote on Slashdot", or a link to the original, or even just quotation marks, that's good. To embed my words into a web page that makes it look like I personally typed the information into the web page is forgery, and I don't like that. Your stupid ass citations above are well beyond anything I ever wanted or think is reasonable.
You obviously don't care because you're an AC.
I chose pecosdave as my handle in 1996 because I couldn't think of why anyone else would want it, and up until a few years ago I was the ONLY pecosdave on the web. I'm annoyed at that other one or two pussies who aren't even from Pecos who've since adopted it the first one about four or five years ago. Rule of thumb, pecosdave on a tech site is me, pecosdave on a porn, personals, or gambling site is not. I still see it as my signature.
I've moved back to consoles. Every since Epic decided to dance around the Linux support thing they sort of messed up my Linux gaming - Unreal was one of the few things I played. There's lots of good games on Linux, they're just not always the ones I want. Good thing I don't have time for games in general any more.
My Linux desktop DOES do everything I need. When I start up an emulator to support a client, that's what my client needs. When I'm not doing remote support contracts (it comes and goes) I never start up my emulator, therefor running emulators is the need of the client. Even then I don't often start the emulator, only when I need a local point of reference or I absolutely have to run the same environment they do for testing.
So, you are pushing for socialistic sharing, like Mussolini, but calling me a fascist because I I don't want a spam bot using my name to promote itself.
I haven't used Windows on my own stuff since early 2000, companies on the other hand tend to keep running it, even in out of date versions. I suppose I was incorrect to call the command prompt a DOS window, but seeing as how typing "ver" got an answers of DOS 7 for a long time.....
Slashdot Mirror
The one you live in is good enough to have it applied to you.
For the record, no one has the nomination yet, but yes, he was on the vice presidential nomination in the past. If you recall Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle both had similar positions in the past.
I've never seen one run from the president. Get in their faces maybe.
Ron Paul, I've read his most recent book btw, is a libertarian (the capitalization makes a difference on that word if you'll read up) who ran as a Libertarian before he ran as a Republican. He most certainly is NOT pro pollution and even dedicated a chapter in his latest book to it.
Nope, you're another spreader of derp.
Where's the like button?
I hear you and I've given quite a bit of thought to those matters. I am seriously considering a wiki-type website dedicated to them, however I have no time or resources to make that happen, I have a lot of ideas for education funding for instance.
I've come up with many methods of taking care of the poor. More than one is very socialistic, but receives my blessing because in the end they are self funding and voluntary. I am not 100% anti-socialist, I am against compulsory national socialism.
For the out of work poor - a work corp. You know how you can pick up labor in front of Home Depot and put them to work on your projects? How about a legitimate version of that, on multiple scales. Five work days, housing is covered for those in the most need (think along the lines of the Japanese capsule hotel and lodging akin to summer camp). The weekends have job training classes and every day of the week an employment agency is working to get you out of the program. The program is run and owned by the people in it. The jobs consist of road work, farm work, construction, any one, private or state can contract this work corp, even office and service jobs. If you have your own place you don't have to live there but you can still participate in the job location service and the skills classes on the weekends, even meals. Unlike an actual government programs those found to be simply taking advantage of the system and not working can be booted. Tribal socialism at its finest.
Many churches have historically cared for the poor as far as meals and sometimes even more go. Quit taxing people with the promise to take care of the poor more people would be apt to do so.
I honestly don't know what to say about emergency indigent care at hospitals other than to say "treat them". I haven't figured that out yet, but it's been on my mind.
There are many problems with large scale welfare. The facts are it's easily abused by the recipients, the current version basically traps the recipients into an all or nothing system, and no common sense can be used in it's distribution. Personally, even though I'm for legalizing drugs for many reasons, I think attaching a birth control shot and a drug test to each welfare check wouldn't be a bad idea. As someone who pays into the system it would be some assurance to me the recipient isn't squandering my money. I have no qualms against helping someone out, but as someone who is divorced from a meth addict and had to boot a roommate that was an addict in the past I understand what enabling is and I consider enabling someone who is doing self harm almost as bad as doing it myself. Now I'm court ordered to enable my ex and my taxes go to enabling others. I would prefer smaller charitable systems that can screen recipients better and maybe even get addicts into rehab instead of just paying for their food and lodging.
I don't think I can properly answer your question without writing an entire book (something I've seriously given thoughts to) but don't mistake me for heartless. I see our current entrapment system as being just as heartless as the system libertarians are accused of wanting.
On another note, even with my limited government views, orphanages and taking care of the very mentally or physically handicapped should fall back to the state when no one else is there to do it. Unless private organizations spring up to fill that role fueled by donations (quite possible actually, with less government interfearence) I don't see any other way around it.
Transparency is the real power to the people. I personally believe that almost everything the federal government is involved in should be 100% transparent. The obvious exceptions of individual health records and ongoing war strategies and investigations. In the cases of warfare and investigations when the war/investigation is over those records should become 100%, no burying the past.
On the war note, we need to make more effort to stay out of wars and probably reduce the number of agencies that can do those types of investigations.
I do not promote moral cause via legislation.
Government has no right to protect you from yourself. It has an obligation to protect you from me
This pretty much sums up my belief in what the government is for. Courts are part of the government, I don't know the history on the plants you reference but shutting down their pollution was a good thing. Not wanting to support an acronym agency to do it doesn't make me pro-pollution, it makes me an idealist.
You just attacked my statements.
When I say "all blue laws should be repealed because they are of religious origin" rarely do I have a right winger get on the offensive. Sometimes I do get a statement about protecting the sabbath or something but it's rarely a full blown attack. Right wingers typically just dismiss you as wrong and let you go about your business with your wrong belief "you'll see eventually".
Does Apple compromise on their products? The reason Apple products are so reliable and have such a cult following is simply because they do not compromise. I'm a Linux on Intel/AMD guy myself, but I can see who Apple's product line is built around the concept of thinking something through, implementing the idea and not compromising on it. They make great products in that respect, but to me they embody ideas I don't like, of lock in and lawsuit abuse. Not compromising gives you Apple. Compromising gives you OS/2, which failed arguably because it tried to accommodate Microsoft products to such a degree there was no point in their continued existence. That's an analogy most Slashdotters should get.
I would say Obama care with it's "get insurance or go to jail" approach fits my compromise analogy perfectly.
Why am I ok with Apple and their lock-in? Because I don't have to buy their products, and don't (anymore, there was a trial phase). The problem with the left is things like Obama care where you have to participate and go to jail. Fortunately most things like that from the right, blue laws for instance, are legacy and are slowly going away (except in Utah).
I do listen to people I disagree with. I'm a Libertarian, nearly everyone disagrees with me, if I'm listening I'm listening to someone who doesn't agree with me. One of my favorite examples:
The left is mad because gays can't marry and the right thinks they have the ethical duty to protect the sanctity of marriage.
My libertarian view is simple. Marriage is a religious ceremony, at least in origin, and the government shall make no law in regards to religion. Get the government out of ALL marriage.
I piss off both sides saying that almost without fail. I think the left is barking up the wrong tree trying to legalize gay marriage, they should be getting the government out of marriage all together.
I personally think "left and right" have become very murky in their definitions. When socialism is generally considered left wing but places like Wikipedia have an iron fisted mechanism in place to label all fascist as right wing, even with it's socialist fascism it's become very murky. I personally believe fascism is "wing neutral". WWII Axis powers fascism was left wing in the fact they were attempting to implement socialism and McCarthyism and the Haymarket affair was without a doubt right wing fascism.
Yes I have a very broad statement I stand by. Removing the power from the federal government and restoring it to lower levels of government universally improves the nation, where states and other localities disagree the people will move to the places they find more suitable regionally isolating failed policies instead of making failure of policy a national universal constant.
I have problems with the right as well, the difference between the two is how vocal they are. I find out what happens on Fox news more from left wingers complaining about it than I do from right wingers supporting it. Hint: I really don't watch TV.
Political correctness is censorship and oppression masquerading as manners.
I'm with you on that. I actually got a Sunday school class arguing with each other for and against the Big Bang and how the book of Genesis describes it.
Such entertainment of ideas outside the status quo would not be tolerated at a college.
You are promoting a fallacy.
Libertarians are NOT for pollution, they are against acronym agencies. Libertarians wish to handle pollution through the court systems "Your factory is polluting my river and killing my fish, so I am suing you." "Your factory is polluting the air at my home, I and all of my neighbors who also have polluted air are suing you."
You are obviously a left winger as right wingers usually attack libertarians for "promoting" moral causes we simply wish to deregulate and left wingers attack us for being "pro pollution".
As far as taxes, when they must be levied they should be levied equally across the board, or exist as a usage tax to where only those who consume the service pay for it.
In my own head "Not wasting the current structure which works in pursuit of another of questionable effectiveness" works and agrees with your definition. I'm a very conceptual thinker and stuff like that crops up occasionally.
You were first, you reinvented "center".
That shall not be infringed!
All attempts at transplanting bear arms to people have failed leaving both bear and human armless.
I agree with it being unfair some people pay a higher percentage than others. I'm a fan of a flat rate until we get the government enough under control that an income tax is no longer needed. I admit, that will probably never happen, so flat rate it is!
"Wants our money" and redistribution of wealth is pretty much the same thing. I am not rich. I don't mind helping someone down on their luck, unfortunately I know there are huge numbers of people gaming the system. I'm from rural West Texas, I still live in Texas, I have family in the insurance industry, I know about gaming the system because I grew up in a poverty stricken area. I've personally known many people who have done so and laughed. I want that to stop, and the best way to do it is to take charity out of the governments hands and putting it back in the hands of churches, community programs, and helping a brother out.
The health care thing is very complex, universally throwing money at it doesn't work for the same reason so many other government programs don't work. Once the government is involved competition disappears and the focus becomes keeping a contract, not competing for money by adjusting your quality and quantity to attract customers. Something certainly needs to be done with the health care problem, getting the government out of most of it and having some sort of emergency fund for real emergencies and the ability to toss those without emergencies out of the emergency room seems to be a good start. I personally like the Shriners hospitals and the Ronald McDonald house approach, if we got the government involvement reduced more of those types of things can spring up and thrive.
You just proved someone else's point. Anything that isn't yours is obviously the other, and even more extreme.
Compromise is bad. Compromise is a guarantee an idea gets Nerfed to the point of not working. Universities by and large are VERY left wing and work to indoctrinate the young people who enter them. Perhaps you completely missed the whole Shakita Butler teaching incredibly flawed and biased definitions of racism at the University of Delaware? How about college campuses that suppress students right wing ideas and philosophies but allow left?
Truth is the left builds up a wall of fake attack/defense claims to mask their own attacks. I'm just as against the right trying to legislate their morality and protect their corporate contracts and interest as I am of the left trying to legislate their ideas and protect their corporate contracts and interest. The truth is the left is the attack machine, it's about 70 / 30 with the left attacking 70 and one of the attacks they make is calling a block of their attack as "refusal to reach across the isle" and "refusal to compromise". If a right winger has $100 he earned, the left wants all of it, the right winger says no not giving you $50 is refusal to compromise. I don't see where not giving you $50 is wrong.
I disagree with you.
Many among us are not in the least trying to make our founding fathers visions a reality. One of the first lines of attack against their vision is they attempt to re-define dictionary words through intentional misuse so that the words of the fathers become distorted. I see it all the time when people read "protect the general welfare of the states" as an excuse for the individual welfare system and other intrusions into state affairs. The intentional re-interpretation of the word militia to Nerf the right to keep and bare arms (the bare part is so ignored now). The next line of attack is to increase the power of the federal government to work outside of constitutional constraints. At the turn of the 20th century the constitution was sufficiently in-tact that a constitutional amendment has to be passed for prohibition to pass. Not long after no such thing had to be done to outlaw scores of drugs and regulate the ones that weren't outlawed, they did this various US Code circumventions and one president in particular threatening to "court pack" the supreme court to get his way. Would it take an amendment to outlaw anything today? Hardly. The only reason we still have guns is arms are very specifically protected, but they're chewing away at the edges of that. Even with that protected why can't I wear a sword? Is a sword not a protected arm?
When did the 9th and 10th amendments get repealed? I never got that memo.
Wickard v. Filburn was the worst Supreme Court decision ever. It needs to be revisited TODAY even though all those involved are now dead. This decision, though outright wrong enabled the federal government to creep into every facet of our lives in the guise of regulating interstate commerce. Nobody in the federal government wants to do that, and I don't know any way to get the decision overturned or repealed, the repercussions would be massive.
You are correct about us not being of one mind, but there are many of us that not only aren't trying, but actively circumventing the intent.
This is the biggest smoke screen liberals are using today.
I'm a libertarian, I look at the left vs. right debate mostly from the outside and I've declared most of it foolish. What I have noticed is a lot of quotes coming from the left that say "even liberals in America are conservatives when compared to the rest of the world" "all right wingers are incredibly right wing so they see only slightly liberal or even neutral institutions as far left." The left is an attack machine against the right and the general goal of the overall left is to "change the center of balance" so that it appears that moderates on their side are neutral so that radicals seem moderate - bringing their fringe closer to center and moving the rights moderates to the radical realm in the general overall perception.
What I see from the right is mostly a dismissal of the left as wrong. When they do go on the attack against the left they usually attack the individual issue, not the person/people in general (the left does not constrain itself so). When the issue a left and right winger disagree on is financial right wingers are usually ok with the left winger otherwise, the left winger usually sees nothing from the right winger as acceptable. When it's a moral cause right wingers tend to be less accepting of the left otherwise.
Us libertarians, when we do agree with either of your issues in principal just wished you would stop legislating them on everyone, especially at the federal level so we don't screw the nation as a whole when you're wrong. Even when you're right we want you to leave it out of the federal level of laws so it's not mismanaged at the top, over taxed for, and imposed on all 50 states plus territories through what should be illegal symbiotic relationships with corporations that have unreasonable relationships with the federal government.
When using proper definitions - not the modern twisted ones, you can be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time.
A liberal believes in freedom.
A conservative believes in not wasting.
I'm both, I believe in freedom and not having my freedom trampled in the name of having my income taken to waste on unnecessary overhead.
The modern definition of liberal is one who wishes to impede financial freedom, discriminates against traditional values, impose socialism, and destroy "conservatives".
The modern definition of conservative is one who wishes to impede personal freedom, discriminate against non-traditional values, impose government supported capitalism and destroy "liberals".
This has nothing to do with the political parties each associates themselves with which is actually just one party disguising itself as two. Until Americans realize this we are on the same path of self-destruction.
Mod this guy up!
Democrats and Republicans are like Firebirds and Camaros. They have the same power train, almost all the parts are interchangeable among the same year model, they do the same exact thing, but they were different badges while doing it and they each have their own dedicated group of supporters that argues why their version is better and the other has flaws.
Meanwhile they're completely ignoring every other manufacturer out and using their arguing not to fight each other, but hoping that argument polarizes others into siding with "one or the other" even though they're actually the same so that the Charger gets excluded all together.
I'm an open source advocate, I love FOSS and utilize the hell out of it.
I believe in and defend reasonable copyright protection. Really, I think life +20 seems to be reasonable, it takes care of the author and the authors kids assuming the author croaks with a pregnant wife. I'm open to a bit longer even though I don't really like it. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act was obscene.
I don't care if people quote me all over the place, the only attribution I want was "I found this quote on Slashdot", or a link to the original, or even just quotation marks, that's good. To embed my words into a web page that makes it look like I personally typed the information into the web page is forgery, and I don't like that. Your stupid ass citations above are well beyond anything I ever wanted or think is reasonable.
You obviously don't care because you're an AC.
I chose pecosdave as my handle in 1996 because I couldn't think of why anyone else would want it, and up until a few years ago I was the ONLY pecosdave on the web. I'm annoyed at that other one or two pussies who aren't even from Pecos who've since adopted it the first one about four or five years ago. Rule of thumb, pecosdave on a tech site is me, pecosdave on a porn, personals, or gambling site is not. I still see it as my signature.
Do you spam for a living with a slight guilt thread running through you you're trying to smack down with over-compensation?
I've moved back to consoles. Every since Epic decided to dance around the Linux support thing they sort of messed up my Linux gaming - Unreal was one of the few things I played. There's lots of good games on Linux, they're just not always the ones I want. Good thing I don't have time for games in general any more.
My Linux desktop DOES do everything I need. When I start up an emulator to support a client, that's what my client needs. When I'm not doing remote support contracts (it comes and goes) I never start up my emulator, therefor running emulators is the need of the client. Even then I don't often start the emulator, only when I need a local point of reference or I absolutely have to run the same environment they do for testing.
So, you are pushing for socialistic sharing, like Mussolini, but calling me a fascist because I I don't want a spam bot using my name to promote itself.
You make less sense than Highlander the Source.
I haven't used Windows on my own stuff since early 2000, companies on the other hand tend to keep running it, even in out of date versions. I suppose I was incorrect to call the command prompt a DOS window, but seeing as how typing "ver" got an answers of DOS 7 for a long time.....