That's half the point. However just "The Big Two keeping the third parties down" isn't the parties only problem. Part of the problem is there just isn't enough support out there for the third parties at the national level, another part of the problem is how we vote. People will often go for "the big two" because they don't want "that other guy" winning more than they want their third party candidate.
Instant run-off voting would fix this.
PS: I'm a registered Democrat, but the Green Party better fits me more often than not.
The restriction wouldn't "you can only have X candidates running in this election" it would be "anyone with enough signatures on the ballot is considered in the election so receives this funding".
This requires fairness in the rules for getting onto the ballot. In the case of Nader I thought there was a legitimate case for many of the signatures being invalid.
After the Nader comment your post becomes a slippery slope into the land of complete impossibility that is only even fathomable.... never. A candidate must be viable to get onto the ballot and "their hands into the cookie jar" that means enough valid signatures.
Valid signatures getting disqualified is a different subject.
How is McCain-Feingold a violation of the 1st Ammendment. I know the knee-jerk "telling people they cannot give as much money as they want to a congress person is a restriction of their free speech!" implying "money to congress person=speech". As I see it from the daily examples of corrupt politicians keeping the best interests of their largest donors in mind, not the best interests of their constituents, I say "money to congress person=violation of the right of the average american citizen to representation".
Allowing ANY direct contributions to a candidate/party allows them to be bought by the highest bidder. The people giving the money will get preferential treatment in congress, and the actual american people will get screwed. No, giving money to candidates is not free speech, it is putting nails in the coffin of the people's right to representation and building the coffin of democracy.
All elections should be funded by "Central pool" - say there are 3 candidates on the ballot in a race for a senate seat - a central pool of money should be setup and the 3 candidates should get even thirds of that money. If you think that election is important you give to the pool - your candidate gets to be heard more, but so do the others - but hey if your candidate is so great his 1/3 of the money should be more valuable to you than the other 2/3s that went elsewhere. Basically a candidate should have to prove themselves on issues: not on who can buy more ad time.
What a 527 can put on the air should be tightened up to so that slander/libel can be pursued against them much more easily as opposed to how it is now where it's harder to pursue libel against someone if you're a politician.
I have no problem with insightful and well thought out attempts to control our own gene pool - what I have a problem with is asshats like this guy tossing around "is it good for our gene pool?" based on absolutely nothing but the need to be an attention whore.
This isn't universally true, but it's far too true.
Government can be efficient if people take them to task for not being, but people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.
In NASA's case it's an oldguard groupthink problem from what i've been told by someone who used to work there.
Where did i say fox news didn't start broadcasting in the 90s? They weren't as blatant about the propaganda back then btw - subtle enough to stay within the law while theyh ad a hostile FCC.
Ha - Faux news bias is a 11 on a scale of 0-10. There is the objective scientific evidence to prove this to court-of-law standards - they should have their broadcast license revoked since this is illegal [but a republican FCC doesn't care]
They are strongly, blatantly and intentionally right wing biased so much that Goebbels would be proud (not a godwin since it is a valid statement). No news station in american has a "left wing" bias - you don't even know what LEFT WING IS! The "most liberal" of all the media NPR is unbiased, the "Communist News Network" as your peers like to call it is slightly right-of-center.
However to you anything left of Mousolini is liberalism.
Because airline terminology "domestic" vs "international" isn't the same as the political definitions. It's "domestic" because they're spying on US citizens.
It's illegal because they're doing so without warrants. [Don't attempt to do the "but they cannot get one if someone they know is a terrrorist in iraq calls someon in the US!" - theyh aev 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant]
I'm not going to respond to all of your nonesense but two fine points:
A) We're not legally at war. No matter what the politicians say no declairation of war was passed in congress. B) "I would cram those words down your throat." ooh ooh big man can threaten violence over the internet
Shut up you freedom-hating bush-ball-sucking coward
Nice mischaracterization - the right to make phone calls without being being wiretapped without a court order is being given up. They are NOT descrimating between calls to known "terrrorists". They are using an every widening net that assumes 100% guilt by interpretation all the way down the association tree.
You are ignorant if you do not already know this, or a fool if you refuse to acknowledge it.
You not only are completely mischaracterizing the situation, but you're also engaging in outright political hackery and mischaracterizing the NYT. Even if they're "just grepping logs" those are logs they have no business having without a warrant.
Be confident all you want - you're wrong. The problem isn't the interception of the phone calls itself - it is the REFUSAL TO GET WARRANTS. (they have 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant). From the time FISA was passed and the FISA court created till bush's term only TWO warrants had ever been denied. Bush started ignoring the law after six of his requests were turned down.
Bush is a flat out criminal
PS: I Will not sacrifice my rights for a false sense of security, being an atheist i'm already persecuted enough - i will not tolerate the treatment i'm already subjected to, i will not tolerate further mistreatment!
Slashdot Mirror
That's half the point. However just "The Big Two keeping the third parties down" isn't the parties only problem. Part of the problem is there just isn't enough support out there for the third parties at the national level, another part of the problem is how we vote. People will often go for "the big two" because they don't want "that other guy" winning more than they want their third party candidate.
Instant run-off voting would fix this.
PS: I'm a registered Democrat, but the Green Party better fits me more often than not.
The restriction wouldn't "you can only have X candidates running in this election" it would be "anyone with enough signatures on the ballot is considered in the election so receives this funding".
This requires fairness in the rules for getting onto the ballot. In the case of Nader I thought there was a legitimate case for many of the signatures being invalid.
After the Nader comment your post becomes a slippery slope into the land of complete impossibility that is only even fathomable.... never. A candidate must be viable to get onto the ballot and "their hands into the cookie jar" that means enough valid signatures.
Valid signatures getting disqualified is a different subject.
And where did i say that this would be allowed? That would be considered campaign fraud. I only vaguely outlined the system.
The candidate has to be "viable" IE get enoguh signatures to get on the ballot to get the a share of the pool
How is McCain-Feingold a violation of the 1st Ammendment. I know the knee-jerk "telling people they cannot give as much money as they want to a congress person is a restriction of their free speech!" implying "money to congress person=speech". As I see it from the daily examples of corrupt politicians keeping the best interests of their largest donors in mind, not the best interests of their constituents, I say "money to congress person=violation of the right of the average american citizen to representation".
Allowing ANY direct contributions to a candidate/party allows them to be bought by the highest bidder. The people giving the money will get preferential treatment in congress, and the actual american people will get screwed. No, giving money to candidates is not free speech, it is putting nails in the coffin of the people's right to representation and building the coffin of democracy.
All elections should be funded by "Central pool" - say there are 3 candidates on the ballot in a race for a senate seat - a central pool of money should be setup and the 3 candidates should get even thirds of that money. If you think that election is important you give to the pool - your candidate gets to be heard more, but so do the others - but hey if your candidate is so great his 1/3 of the money should be more valuable to you than the other 2/3s that went elsewhere. Basically a candidate should have to prove themselves on issues: not on who can buy more ad time.
What a 527 can put on the air should be tightened up to so that slander/libel can be pursued against them much more easily as opposed to how it is now where it's harder to pursue libel against someone if you're a politician.
yeah like women's ovaries /duck
hehe
I have no problem with insightful and well thought out attempts to control our own gene pool - what I have a problem with is asshats like this guy tossing around "is it good for our gene pool?" based on absolutely nothing but the need to be an attention whore.
I knew there was a reason i marked you as friend :D You just described my evolution of programming knowledge :D
They have a pretty thorough analysis that addresses those points.
This isn't universally true, but it's far too true.
Government can be efficient if people take them to task for not being, but people are apathetic about government waste so the government gets away with it.
In NASA's case it's an oldguard groupthink problem from what i've been told by someone who used to work there.
All these "carrier plane" based ideas make me barf, but the "new" launch vehicle nasa is coming out with makes me want to barf even more.
FFS Listen to what Von Braun said dammit
Read: http://www.skyramp.org/
i'm pretty sure GP understood that
Your post seems to imply that you have an issue with abiogenesis and evolution.
Except none of these are contradictory with their content.
one of the two targets of the wiretap is a domestic - making it domestic spying. It really has nothing to do with the mechanics of the phone call
if you define "center" as mousolini perhaps. remove your head from your uninformed posterior
Where did i say fox news didn't start broadcasting in the 90s? They weren't as blatant about the propaganda back then btw - subtle enough to stay within the law while theyh ad a hostile FCC.
Amtech Research stocks soar with a report that they recently received a large "investment" in their business from microsoft.
Ha - Faux news bias is a 11 on a scale of 0-10. There is the objective scientific evidence to prove this to court-of-law standards - they should have their broadcast license revoked since this is illegal [but a republican FCC doesn't care]
They are strongly, blatantly and intentionally right wing biased so much that Goebbels would be proud (not a godwin since it is a valid statement). No news station in american has a "left wing" bias - you don't even know what LEFT WING IS! The "most liberal" of all the media NPR is unbiased, the "Communist News Network" as your peers like to call it is slightly right-of-center.
However to you anything left of Mousolini is liberalism.
Because airline terminology "domestic" vs "international" isn't the same as the political definitions. It's "domestic" because they're spying on US citizens.
It's illegal because they're doing so without warrants. [Don't attempt to do the "but they cannot get one if someone they know is a terrrorist in iraq calls someon in the US!" - theyh aev 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant]
I'm not going to respond to all of your nonesense but two fine points:
A) We're not legally at war. No matter what the politicians say no declairation of war was passed in congress.
B) "I would cram those words down your throat." ooh ooh big man can threaten violence over the internet
Shut up you freedom-hating bush-ball-sucking coward
Nice mischaracterization - the right to make phone calls without being being wiretapped without a court order is being given up. They are NOT descrimating between calls to known "terrrorists". They are using an every widening net that assumes 100% guilt by interpretation all the way down the association tree.
You are ignorant if you do not already know this, or a fool if you refuse to acknowledge it.
You not only are completely mischaracterizing the situation, but you're also engaging in outright political hackery and mischaracterizing the NYT. Even if they're "just grepping logs" those are logs they have no business having without a warrant.
Be confident all you want - you're wrong. The problem isn't the interception of the phone calls itself - it is the REFUSAL TO GET WARRANTS. (they have 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant). From the time FISA was passed and the FISA court created till bush's term only TWO warrants had ever been denied. Bush started ignoring the law after six of his requests were turned down.
Bush is a flat out criminal
PS: I Will not sacrifice my rights for a false sense of security, being an atheist i'm already persecuted enough - i will not tolerate the treatment i'm already subjected to, i will not tolerate further mistreatment!
The EULA for the game FreeSpace 2 explicitly permitted you to make copies and give them to your friends. Nobody noticed for four years.
There are democrats out there that can own them, they're just not on the national radar (just like bill pre-1992)