It seems to me the only way for most discussions is simply to have some sort of a online-friendship type thing emerge via message boards or comments. If people don't know each other, they're going to be more likely to be "uncivilized". Slashdot's system works from the large number of users. Most forums can't really do that unless you have losers with no life sitting and moderating forums all the time.
On another note, I wouldn't say Slashdot's moderating system is THAT good (though it is better than competitors!!), I have seen good information or objective criticisms modded down and not very funny stuff modded way up, but it usually works so oh well.
The only ones who didn't agree with the meaning were the batshit loony ones such as Alexander Hamilton.
You should read history before you make such assumptions.
Once again, ignorance is king in the majority of mines. No offense or anything there. Since it seems so hard for most people to figure out exactly what "general welfare" means (which it is pretty clear) we should look at what the original writers thought:
James Madison: With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
---
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.
- James Madison
----
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
That is an excellent thing to read as well.
The "general welfare" phrase is self explanatory. Do not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like and do not like, and make it to mean what you think it should mean. To provide for the general welfare is something that is outlined in the rest of Article 1 section 8. The "provide for the common defense" is outlined there and other areas, as well.
The fact it appears to be a loose term does not mean it is so. Look at the other terms, such as providing for the common defense, and realize they are layed out in the constitution as well.
Amen. There is no constitutional authority. It is not "necessary" or "proper" to carry out any of the foregoing powers mentioned in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Whether or not you think it is moral to fund stem cell research is your business and your state's. If 95% of the California population want to fund stem cell research for embryos, then let California. If 95% of Alabama's population thinks it is wrong and immoral, then they won't have to.
Don't force one group of people to pay for another's unconstitutional programs. It only will lead to more unrest.
is a mechanical engineer who devotes his life to his job. He owns his own business now but he still will put in 18 hour work days (during a job he did for Honda he worked almost 50 hours straight) and the pay isn't worth it a lot of the time.
Americans like the ability to travel. No one should ever, ever supress that or they are a tyrant. If you support restriction of travel, you are a supporter of tyranny and a hater of freedom whether you know it or not.
Europeans don't travel because, gasp, most of them like to live in the cities. I hate living in a city, I live about 30 miles outside of one and I enjoy it thoroughly here.
The complaint is most likely based on the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech or something along those lines. Regardless, other than unjustly through the 14th amendment, the rest of the country does not have the right to tell Louisiana what they can and cannot do.
I disagree strongly with the law but it is not my place as the resident of another state to force Lousiana by federal judges (or any other means) to do what I and the rest of the country may think is right.
It's horrible news. I don't see how the rest of the country through the federal government has the right (other than unjustly through the 14th amendment) to tell Louisiana's people that they can't ban violent video games.
I may disagree with the decision of Louisiana's legislators but it's their state and their business.
I know exactly how it works. The authority of the Federal government to declare state statutes that affect only that state unconstitutional is something I am against. It is nothing more than mere tyranny.
...but a federal judge should have no authority to order something like this no matter how much I agree with the decision he may have made. That's a job for a Louisiana judge, or the Louisiana people, for instance.
The thing is, this is what consumers should demand. This isn't something the governments of states or the Federal government of the United States has ANY business in.
Are they REALLY losing anything when people such as me download a movie or game that I never would have bought in the first place? I would easily not pirate the game and not pay $50 for it, or I could borrow it from a friend, or anything.
I buy stuff worth buying, end of story.
Slashdot Mirror
It's almost as if the person just wants us to dislike the judge because people dislike Rush. Hillary Clinton is just as anti video game.
Yeah, couldn't they have done this a year and a half ago instead of when I don't want to play the game again?
Haven't we already had a topic like this once or twice in the past?
always. If someone ELSE is provoked to violence, it is THAT OTHER PERSON'S fault, not yours.
It seems to me the only way for most discussions is simply to have some sort of a online-friendship type thing emerge via message boards or comments. If people don't know each other, they're going to be more likely to be "uncivilized". Slashdot's system works from the large number of users. Most forums can't really do that unless you have losers with no life sitting and moderating forums all the time.
On another note, I wouldn't say Slashdot's moderating system is THAT good (though it is better than competitors!!), I have seen good information or objective criticisms modded down and not very funny stuff modded way up, but it usually works so oh well.
I agree. I ran a 1.4ghz Athlon with 768 DDR and a RAdeon 9500 for 4 years. Just now started to annoy me from being too slow.
AMEN. People who think protectionist tariffs will work have no economy understand.
We should secede and have the best form of government ever: wait, there is no good form of government, oops. LIBERTARIANISM FOR LIFE
Simplest answer.
PETA Anti murdering animals Pro killing babies
I'll server 25% of your market.
The fact that you believe those were monopolies shows you know nothing about economics or history except what your high school class taught you.
The only ones who didn't agree with the meaning were the batshit loony ones such as Alexander Hamilton. You should read history before you make such assumptions.
If it takes the federal government to do it, more than likely it should not be done. Good rule in politics.
Once again, ignorance is king in the majority of mines. No offense or anything there. Since it seems so hard for most people to figure out exactly what "general welfare" means (which it is pretty clear) we should look at what the original writers thought: James Madison: With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. --- If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America. - James Madison ---- http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm That is an excellent thing to read as well. The "general welfare" phrase is self explanatory. Do not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like and do not like, and make it to mean what you think it should mean. To provide for the general welfare is something that is outlined in the rest of Article 1 section 8. The "provide for the common defense" is outlined there and other areas, as well. The fact it appears to be a loose term does not mean it is so. Look at the other terms, such as providing for the common defense, and realize they are layed out in the constitution as well.
Amen. There is no constitutional authority. It is not "necessary" or "proper" to carry out any of the foregoing powers mentioned in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Whether or not you think it is moral to fund stem cell research is your business and your state's. If 95% of the California population want to fund stem cell research for embryos, then let California. If 95% of Alabama's population thinks it is wrong and immoral, then they won't have to.
Don't force one group of people to pay for another's unconstitutional programs. It only will lead to more unrest.
is a mechanical engineer who devotes his life to his job. He owns his own business now but he still will put in 18 hour work days (during a job he did for Honda he worked almost 50 hours straight) and the pay isn't worth it a lot of the time.
Americans like the ability to travel. No one should ever, ever supress that or they are a tyrant. If you support restriction of travel, you are a supporter of tyranny and a hater of freedom whether you know it or not. Europeans don't travel because, gasp, most of them like to live in the cities. I hate living in a city, I live about 30 miles outside of one and I enjoy it thoroughly here.
The complaint is most likely based on the Bill of Rights and freedom of speech or something along those lines. Regardless, other than unjustly through the 14th amendment, the rest of the country does not have the right to tell Louisiana what they can and cannot do. I disagree strongly with the law but it is not my place as the resident of another state to force Lousiana by federal judges (or any other means) to do what I and the rest of the country may think is right.
It's horrible news. I don't see how the rest of the country through the federal government has the right (other than unjustly through the 14th amendment) to tell Louisiana's people that they can't ban violent video games. I may disagree with the decision of Louisiana's legislators but it's their state and their business.
I know exactly how it works. The authority of the Federal government to declare state statutes that affect only that state unconstitutional is something I am against. It is nothing more than mere tyranny.
...but a federal judge should have no authority to order something like this no matter how much I agree with the decision he may have made. That's a job for a Louisiana judge, or the Louisiana people, for instance.
already blocked at my school and has been for a long while.
The thing is, this is what consumers should demand. This isn't something the governments of states or the Federal government of the United States has ANY business in.
Are they REALLY losing anything when people such as me download a movie or game that I never would have bought in the first place? I would easily not pirate the game and not pay $50 for it, or I could borrow it from a friend, or anything. I buy stuff worth buying, end of story.