Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?
A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.
Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.
If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!
Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.
Um, yes, I would, in fact, love it if that happened. That is about the best possible outcome I think could happen.
So you think the best possible outcome would be your paying full price for healthcare without any ability to negotiate contracts which include rates, billable codes, etc?
You do at least realize that your insurance company is keeping the hospital from gouging you at every possible turn, yes? They at least do that, and that alone is likely a decent reason to keep them around.
There's not going to be anything that replaces insurance companies when they die. Which is what the hospital associations had in mind when they lobbied so hard to get this bill in place - a world where no one can negotiate with them.
Either you're in perfect health and love no one who might ever get sick or you're pining for some medical Helter Skelter.
The concessions they extract from Comcast in its bid for NBC will help determine whether customers can someday realistically drop their cable subscriptions and go online-only for their TV.
As a matter of fact, I just dropped off my old cable box today. "Internet only," I told them...
Instead, we decided to pass yet another bill that enriches large corporations, rather than a bill that would have actually benefited America. This provision should never have even been discussed because it only makes sense if the interests of private insurance companies are a priority.
You're correct that powerful interests are at play here, and that this option should never have been pursued, but you have the wrong villain. The insurance industry was never allowed to participate in the formation of this bill in any way, shape, or form. The hospitals, on the other hand, were intimately involved, as was big pharma.
I hope you find it equally as funny when those insurance companies fold up. Because they would, in a heart beat. They'll never actually be 'fucked' as you seem to think. They'll see it coming and start passing out the golden parachutes.
Just more contradictions and inconsistencies in Ron Paul and his supporters.
Whatever man. You're reaching. This isn't 'just more' but is the exact same thing, just stated yet another way. Also, he's not exactly a Libertarian with the 'big L'. He ran that way for President once, but he'd be the first to tell you that it was a mistake.
It is all about the value of money and consistent policy.
Would he oppose further such land grabs in the future? Certainly.
(a couple seconds later)
Militaries take territory from one another from time to time. So long as the rule of law is followed, it isn't really that big of a deal.
And I am quixotic?
You're futzing with the order of things to make your point. It's cute, but I hope you don't feel like this would convince anyone of anything around here...
Here's the order, as I understand it:
0) Historical stuff happened, obviously. 1) In 1989 the US invaded Panama under Bush Sr. 2) In 1999 Ron Paul introduced a bill that would make this occupation legal.
Note, here:
Whereas the Panama Canal was built with United States money at a cost of approximately $430 million, and another $450 million is spent annually on maintenance and operations.
You're accusing Paul of invading Panama himself. That's not the case. However, with this invasion in the past and with our government footing the subsequent bill for the operation of Panama to date, there exist two options that I'm confident that he'd support:
A) Get out of Panama. B) Commit fully to Panama.
This is similar to his stances in places like Iraq.
LOL, I can only guess then that you suffer from a dissociative identity disorder and can switch between your Mahatma Gandhi persona and your Napoleon Bonaparte character in mid post.
Je suis the prerogative of the brave, I guess. But this isn't genuinely personal to me. I'm sorry if you're feeling attacked in any way. I'd just like to see you round out your positions with a bit more reality, and am contributing my own views to aid you in this manner. That's all.
The rule of law is often a good choice to resolve indifferences, and so after more than 70 years of contention between Panama and the United States over a treaty that was signed between the United States and a French diplomat, an amenable solution was agreed upon in the 1977 treaty between the United States and an actual Panamanian government.
So there you go, attributing that invasion to Paul. Wasn't him, dude. Look it up.
That was rather my point about Mexico and the Cherokee. Just because the historical decision was unfortunate, it doesn't mean that you cannot look at the situation today and make the best decision possible.
I'm confident you got that message, though, and feel you're just arguing to be arguing.
Rather than accept the amenable treaty Ron Paul would have us jump back to the foreign policy of a century ago. Talk about a dumbfounded foreign policy.
Yeah, uh, no. Again, this point only works if you attribute the invasion to Paul (or you're claiming that he somehow forgot that it happened and is advocating a new invasion in 1999.) That's not the case, and we both know that. So what, then, would the point be? Because from what I know of Paul, he'd really just like to see the cash outflow stop unless Panama really is our land. But if it belongs to someone else, legally, then we need to let them deal with the support costs and security needs.
So Ron Paul is all for Imperialist actions by the United States as long is we go all out to forcibly take what we want from foreign nations.
Does Ron Paul support ceding Texas back to Mexico? No, he clearly does not.
Would he oppose further such land grabs in the future? Certainly.
After all, what are the Panamanians going to do against our military might, we'll just bomb the shit out of them.
Aside from a weird sense of Panamanian bias here, what's your point? Militaries take territory from one another from time to time. So long as the rule of law is followed, it isn't really that big of a deal.
What we're presently doing, however, isn't working. That's the issue at hand.
then again, nah, we would still kick their ass and take their land.
I'm also pretty confident that Ron Paul is against restoring the Cherokee Nations' claims to Florida. You might research this as well...
If that is true then there is no way I could ever vote for this man, that is an insane foreign policy, might makes right. I owe you a debt of gratitude for clarifying this.
Then you'll never be able to vote for ANYONE ever again, because this is a function of what governments DO. You'd be opposed to George Washington himself, for want of taking territory from the English!
You're quixotic, my friend, but I do hope you have a nice day.
However, I think there is a great deal of naivety about his stance on nation building and intervention into foreign nations. Which is why I think it is important to read his congressional record and note his position on Panama.
This isn't actually all that inconsistent from what I know of the man. I'd assume he's advocating a common line he always trends towards: You can't have it both ways.
Either make it US territory, or pull out entirely.
That'd be my guess, having followed him for quite a while now.
Bruce Lee was just a karate guy who acted in movies, neither one is necessary.
If you're filming Enter the Dragon, then he becomes a lot more important to getting that particular work done. Just as you might not give a crap if my toilet is plugged, certain people are more important in some situations than others.
If they can't hire someone to fill in for a week or two, they're not very good businessmen.
Admittedly, but that's not the standard being met. It is entirely possible to be successful and terrible at the same time.
Reclaim all children from single-parent families?
WTF does that have to do with anything at all, let alone the subject at hand?
Being a parent is one of the most important jobs on the planet, and millions do it full time without any backup. (Though, to be completely fair, this could well get you out of jury duty...)
Sometimes people work alone and thrive while doing so.
That shouldn't excuse them from jury duty. You mentioned exceptionally talented people, at the height of his career, Elvis Presley was drafted into the army. Some people practically worship him, but I don't see where society suffered for his service.
It depends on whether or not the court wants that particular juror, I guess. But I do think that jury duty should be conducted in such a way that impacts one's life as little as possible. So long as there are other jurors, I fail to see the issue.
I'd expect a lot of invocations of the Fifth Amendment, though. It's kind of difficult to prove something's based on your life if you won't answer the questions about how it resembles your life.
I'd bet the statute of limitations would apply to almost all of those, though.
Yes, surely we should live in such a way that encourages more plants. The roof-top laws are probably an excellent example of this. Also, imagine some kind of living parking lot surface...
Definite 'yes' goes there. However, there are other parts of the argument that don't stack up as easily today, like 'cut your carbon emissions'. The argument can be made that more carbon is actually helpful, provided we likewise support the plants to consume it.
However, back to my original concept, I suspect that the plants will find another way even without our help.
Jurors reflect the jurisdictions they come from. If you're serving on a suburban jury, that will be very different from something in a very rural county.
Having lived in both types of communities, I'm here to tell you your prejudices are a bit out of date. They have the internet and even color TV out there in the sticks these days.
Now, the CULTURES are indeed different. But the level of education, not so much.
The definition the excused juror printed out underwent no such review, and wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
I'd be all in favor of allowing jurors to do independent research against a specific set of vetted materials. Pass them each a tablet device when they report for duty, and put such in a walled garden containing only those things they want jurors to have access to...
I think a lightbulb just went off:
A) Allow them to IM the judge with questions during the trial so he can insert them while they're relevant rather than waiting until the next day or whatever.
B) Allow them to play solitaire, but only when they're supposed to be idle. Disable the entertainment stuff when they're 'active'.
C) Give them each an email address via 'jurorxyz@governmentbody.gov' and allow them to stay in touch that way during the trial.
D) Give them access to a limited version of the internet with only non-courtroom news. Hand-select things that they can discuss when they're not supposed to be discussing the trial.
E) MOST IMPORTANTLY - make everything done on these devices a part of the court's record.
Apple, get off your tails and start developing! PM me and I'll let you know where to send the check!
Just so long as you're willing to live in a world where there are no singular exceptional people, I suppose this would be okay. But who was Einstein's backup? Who could have genuinely subbed in for Michael Jordan or Dr J? Who was Bruce Lee's understudy?
And those are just the talented examples. In many cases there are also people flying solo by necessity. Do we deny all entrepreneurs that do not have business partners? Reclaim all children from single-parent families?
Sometimes people work alone and thrive while doing so.
when they run out of titanic? These things did not evolve to just eat the titanic. What is their usual diet other than shipwrecks?
We humans are odd creatures. We assume that once we've taken a thing and crafted it into another shape of thing that it no longer existed in nature. While this is rarely true with completely synthetic things, big metal ships do not fall into this category. Yes, the Titanic was in a shape that was more useful to us, however it was made entirely of material from this planet. And I'd think if the material exists on this planet, a creature that eats same is quite likely to exist as well.
So, to answer the question: They likely eat exposed metal deposits on the ocean floor.
Also we should reflect on the BP situation in the gulf. There was a lot of a naturally occurring substance released into the water there, too. And what happened? A microbe appeared to eat it. It may well have been a better idea to avoid spraying it with chemicals so those microbes would have an easier time eating it.
And yesterday we had a story via NASA on CO2 causing plants to thrive. Again, CO2 is a naturally-occurring substance, so it seems entirely natural to me that something in nature would eat it, too.
I'm not saying that the same is true of every substance, e.g. styrofoam, nuclear waste, etc. But it certainly seems to be true a LOT more often than we humans seem to be able to grasp.
While you're not wrong, per se, you do seem to be a bit behind the times...
DNS is what allows your email client to figure out who the mail exchanger is for a domain. Without it, email wouldn't work.
E-what? That stuff is dieing, or certainly would be in a world where we can't count on DNS anymore...
DNS allows for failover and round-robin load balancing for services.
WTB router, pst.
DNS and the Host header make HTTP virtual hosting possible.
Virtual hosting sucks, existing largely only for hosting providers to tier their offerings. That could stop and only the providers would notice or care.
Dynamic DNS allows one to have a constant, logical name, even if an underlying IP is changing.
THIS is a solid point. Can't argue here...
Anyway, I guess my point is, if DNS works for you and you don't mind the government having total power over your name resolution, great. If it doesn't, or if you can imagine a future where it doesn't, then alternatives are a great idea.
Further, I'm just impressed at how well 4lw actually works!
The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the.com and.net top-level domains, to change the authoritative domain-name servers for the seized domains to servers controlled by DHS.
I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.
At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.
And I'd agree. In the meat-space USA they never actually take away your ability to speak. They can punish you each time you decide to do it, but they can't usually 'de-list' you from the planet unless you've done something really, really bad.
So why is it in cyberspace that they suddenly gain such powers?
See the case Monsanto v. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine. Monsanto sued, forcing Oakhurst dairy to modify their labels...
...in a way which clearly stated they weren't making unfounded claims about the hormone:
Oakhurst retained the right to put its Farmers' Pledge on its milk label but added a disclaimer: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."
Oakhurst never once claimed that the hormone had been proven to hurt anyone, but they saw a market of customers who wanted hormone-free milk, and went for it. Adding the disclaimer to the label indemnifies them from libel while still allowing the consumer to make their informed choice.
So, in that light, what exactly was your point? Because all I see here is a win-win for the consumer...
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't Michael Moore just move to a country more to his liking since he clearly hates the one he is a citizen of? Cuba, perhaps?
A lot of people here like this country just the way it is and don't want anyone, Moore, Obama, or anyone else changing it in to something else.
Leave, Michael! You'd be happier, and we'd be happier.
If you think that allowing a government to flat out lie to us is 'loving your country', then I'd personally rather YOU leave. I don't care for Moore, but I care even less for all the sheep begging to be shorn!
Your distaste for Michael Moore is causing you to lobby against THE TRUTH for crying out loud. And I'm sorry, but that's just morally bankrupt.
So, since he's fat, he's lazy? Piercing insight, that.
I don't care much for Moore, but he's doing the right thing here, so maybe store the venom up for a day when he's not?
unless of course, you are on the receiving end of said embarrassment
So Moore might wind up doing a movie about Assange?
Um, yes, I would, in fact, love it if that happened. That is about the best possible outcome I think could happen.
So you think the best possible outcome would be your paying full price for healthcare without any ability to negotiate contracts which include rates, billable codes, etc?
You do at least realize that your insurance company is keeping the hospital from gouging you at every possible turn, yes? They at least do that, and that alone is likely a decent reason to keep them around.
There's not going to be anything that replaces insurance companies when they die. Which is what the hospital associations had in mind when they lobbied so hard to get this bill in place - a world where no one can negotiate with them.
Either you're in perfect health and love no one who might ever get sick or you're pining for some medical Helter Skelter.
The concessions they extract from Comcast in its bid for NBC will help determine whether customers can someday realistically drop their cable subscriptions and go online-only for their TV.
As a matter of fact, I just dropped off my old cable box today. "Internet only," I told them...
A law requiring insurance is only logical, and fair.
Why?
Why not a law requiring free care instead?
Why is the individual's money and freedom worth less than the hospital's in your view?
Instead, we decided to pass yet another bill that enriches large corporations, rather than a bill that would have actually benefited America. This provision should never have even been discussed because it only makes sense if the interests of private insurance companies are a priority.
You're correct that powerful interests are at play here, and that this option should never have been pursued, but you have the wrong villain. The insurance industry was never allowed to participate in the formation of this bill in any way, shape, or form. The hospitals, on the other hand, were intimately involved, as was big pharma.
I hope you find it equally as funny when those insurance companies fold up. Because they would, in a heart beat. They'll never actually be 'fucked' as you seem to think. They'll see it coming and start passing out the golden parachutes.
Just more contradictions and inconsistencies in Ron Paul and his supporters.
Whatever man. You're reaching. This isn't 'just more' but is the exact same thing, just stated yet another way. Also, he's not exactly a Libertarian with the 'big L'. He ran that way for President once, but he'd be the first to tell you that it was a mistake.
It is all about the value of money and consistent policy.
There's genuinely no 'smoking gun' here.
(a couple seconds later)
And I am quixotic?
You're futzing with the order of things to make your point. It's cute, but I hope you don't feel like this would convince anyone of anything around here...
Here's the order, as I understand it:
0) Historical stuff happened, obviously.
1) In 1989 the US invaded Panama under Bush Sr.
2) In 1999 Ron Paul introduced a bill that would make this occupation legal.
Note, here:
Whereas the Panama Canal was built with United States money at a cost of approximately $430 million, and another $450 million is spent annually on maintenance and operations.
You're accusing Paul of invading Panama himself. That's not the case. However, with this invasion in the past and with our government footing the subsequent bill for the operation of Panama to date, there exist two options that I'm confident that he'd support:
A) Get out of Panama.
B) Commit fully to Panama.
This is similar to his stances in places like Iraq.
LOL, I can only guess then that you suffer from a dissociative identity disorder and can switch between your Mahatma Gandhi persona and your Napoleon Bonaparte character in mid post.
Je suis the prerogative of the brave, I guess. But this isn't genuinely personal to me. I'm sorry if you're feeling attacked in any way. I'd just like to see you round out your positions with a bit more reality, and am contributing my own views to aid you in this manner. That's all.
The rule of law is often a good choice to resolve indifferences, and so after more than 70 years of contention between Panama and the United States over a treaty that was signed between the United States and a French diplomat, an amenable solution was agreed upon in the 1977 treaty between the United States and an actual Panamanian government.
So there you go, attributing that invasion to Paul. Wasn't him, dude. Look it up.
That was rather my point about Mexico and the Cherokee. Just because the historical decision was unfortunate, it doesn't mean that you cannot look at the situation today and make the best decision possible.
I'm confident you got that message, though, and feel you're just arguing to be arguing.
Rather than accept the amenable treaty Ron Paul would have us jump back to the foreign policy of a century ago. Talk about a dumbfounded foreign policy.
Yeah, uh, no. Again, this point only works if you attribute the invasion to Paul (or you're claiming that he somehow forgot that it happened and is advocating a new invasion in 1999.) That's not the case, and we both know that. So what, then, would the point be? Because from what I know of Paul, he'd really just like to see the cash outflow stop unless Panama really is our land. But if it belongs to someone else, legally, then we need to let them deal with the support costs and security needs.
So Ron Paul is all for Imperialist actions by the United States as long is we go all out to forcibly take what we want from foreign nations.
Does Ron Paul support ceding Texas back to Mexico? No, he clearly does not.
Would he oppose further such land grabs in the future? Certainly.
After all, what are the Panamanians going to do against our military might, we'll just bomb the shit out of them.
Aside from a weird sense of Panamanian bias here, what's your point? Militaries take territory from one another from time to time. So long as the rule of law is followed, it isn't really that big of a deal.
What we're presently doing, however, isn't working. That's the issue at hand.
then again, nah, we would still kick their ass and take their land.
I'm also pretty confident that Ron Paul is against restoring the Cherokee Nations' claims to Florida. You might research this as well...
If that is true then there is no way I could ever vote for this man, that is an insane foreign policy, might makes right. I owe you a debt of gratitude for clarifying this.
Then you'll never be able to vote for ANYONE ever again, because this is a function of what governments DO. You'd be opposed to George Washington himself, for want of taking territory from the English!
You're quixotic, my friend, but I do hope you have a nice day.
However, I think there is a great deal of naivety about his stance on nation building and intervention into foreign nations. Which is why I think it is important to read his congressional record and note his position on Panama.
This isn't actually all that inconsistent from what I know of the man. I'd assume he's advocating a common line he always trends towards: You can't have it both ways.
Either make it US territory, or pull out entirely.
That'd be my guess, having followed him for quite a while now.
Bruce Lee was just a karate guy who acted in movies, neither one is necessary.
If you're filming Enter the Dragon, then he becomes a lot more important to getting that particular work done. Just as you might not give a crap if my toilet is plugged, certain people are more important in some situations than others.
If they can't hire someone to fill in for a week or two, they're not very good businessmen.
Admittedly, but that's not the standard being met. It is entirely possible to be successful and terrible at the same time.
Reclaim all children from single-parent families?
WTF does that have to do with anything at all, let alone the subject at hand?
Being a parent is one of the most important jobs on the planet, and millions do it full time without any backup. (Though, to be completely fair, this could well get you out of jury duty...)
Sometimes people work alone and thrive while doing so.
That shouldn't excuse them from jury duty. You mentioned exceptionally talented people, at the height of his career, Elvis Presley was drafted into the army. Some people practically worship him, but I don't see where society suffered for his service.
It depends on whether or not the court wants that particular juror, I guess. But I do think that jury duty should be conducted in such a way that impacts one's life as little as possible. So long as there are other jurors, I fail to see the issue.
I'd expect a lot of invocations of the Fifth Amendment, though. It's kind of difficult to prove something's based on your life if you won't answer the questions about how it resembles your life.
I'd bet the statute of limitations would apply to almost all of those, though.
Yes, surely we should live in such a way that encourages more plants. The roof-top laws are probably an excellent example of this. Also, imagine some kind of living parking lot surface...
Definite 'yes' goes there. However, there are other parts of the argument that don't stack up as easily today, like 'cut your carbon emissions'. The argument can be made that more carbon is actually helpful, provided we likewise support the plants to consume it.
However, back to my original concept, I suspect that the plants will find another way even without our help.
Jurors reflect the jurisdictions they come from. If you're serving on a suburban jury, that will be very different from something in a very rural county.
Having lived in both types of communities, I'm here to tell you your prejudices are a bit out of date. They have the internet and even color TV out there in the sticks these days.
Now, the CULTURES are indeed different. But the level of education, not so much.
The definition the excused juror printed out underwent no such review, and wasn't going to appear in the trial record. So what would happen if it was wrong?
I'd be all in favor of allowing jurors to do independent research against a specific set of vetted materials. Pass them each a tablet device when they report for duty, and put such in a walled garden containing only those things they want jurors to have access to...
I think a lightbulb just went off:
A) Allow them to IM the judge with questions during the trial so he can insert them while they're relevant rather than waiting until the next day or whatever.
B) Allow them to play solitaire, but only when they're supposed to be idle. Disable the entertainment stuff when they're 'active'.
C) Give them each an email address via 'jurorxyz@governmentbody.gov' and allow them to stay in touch that way during the trial.
D) Give them access to a limited version of the internet with only non-courtroom news. Hand-select things that they can discuss when they're not supposed to be discussing the trial.
E) MOST IMPORTANTLY - make everything done on these devices a part of the court's record.
Apple, get off your tails and start developing! PM me and I'll let you know where to send the check!
"Because he is Italian and they are in the mob and burn things. Haven't you ever watched Goodfellas?"
Just curious, but did she attempt to disarm this argument with:
"Okay, but how do we know it wasn't a rival mobster, instead of this guy?"
...or something similar?
Nobody is indispensable for any job.
Just so long as you're willing to live in a world where there are no singular exceptional people, I suppose this would be okay. But who was Einstein's backup? Who could have genuinely subbed in for Michael Jordan or Dr J? Who was Bruce Lee's understudy?
And those are just the talented examples. In many cases there are also people flying solo by necessity. Do we deny all entrepreneurs that do not have business partners? Reclaim all children from single-parent families?
Sometimes people work alone and thrive while doing so.
Are there any deposits of iron (as opposed to ore) in the ocean (or anywhere else on the planet) which are not of human origin?
Why 'as opposed to' it? We are able to eat food in multiple forms, so why not microbes?
Double true.
when they run out of titanic? These things did not evolve to just eat the titanic. What is their usual diet other than shipwrecks?
We humans are odd creatures. We assume that once we've taken a thing and crafted it into another shape of thing that it no longer existed in nature. While this is rarely true with completely synthetic things, big metal ships do not fall into this category. Yes, the Titanic was in a shape that was more useful to us, however it was made entirely of material from this planet. And I'd think if the material exists on this planet, a creature that eats same is quite likely to exist as well.
So, to answer the question: They likely eat exposed metal deposits on the ocean floor.
Also we should reflect on the BP situation in the gulf. There was a lot of a naturally occurring substance released into the water there, too. And what happened? A microbe appeared to eat it. It may well have been a better idea to avoid spraying it with chemicals so those microbes would have an easier time eating it.
And yesterday we had a story via NASA on CO2 causing plants to thrive. Again, CO2 is a naturally-occurring substance, so it seems entirely natural to me that something in nature would eat it, too.
I'm not saying that the same is true of every substance, e.g. styrofoam, nuclear waste, etc. But it certainly seems to be true a LOT more often than we humans seem to be able to grasp.
While you're not wrong, per se, you do seem to be a bit behind the times...
DNS is what allows your email client to figure out who the mail exchanger is for a domain. Without it, email wouldn't work.
E-what? That stuff is dieing, or certainly would be in a world where we can't count on DNS anymore...
DNS allows for failover and round-robin load balancing for services.
WTB router, pst.
DNS and the Host header make HTTP virtual hosting possible.
Virtual hosting sucks, existing largely only for hosting providers to tier their offerings. That could stop and only the providers would notice or care.
Dynamic DNS allows one to have a constant, logical name, even if an underlying IP is changing.
THIS is a solid point. Can't argue here...
Anyway, I guess my point is, if DNS works for you and you don't mind the government having total power over your name resolution, great. If it doesn't, or if you can imagine a future where it doesn't, then alternatives are a great idea.
Further, I'm just impressed at how well 4lw actually works!
The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the .com and .net top-level domains, to change the authoritative domain-name servers for the seized domains to servers controlled by DHS.
I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.
At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.
And I'd agree. In the meat-space USA they never actually take away your ability to speak. They can punish you each time you decide to do it, but they can't usually 'de-list' you from the planet unless you've done something really, really bad.
So why is it in cyberspace that they suddenly gain such powers?
See the case Monsanto v. Oakhurst Dairy of Maine. Monsanto sued, forcing Oakhurst dairy to modify their labels...
...in a way which clearly stated they weren't making unfounded claims about the hormone:
Oakhurst retained the right to put its Farmers' Pledge on its milk label but added a disclaimer: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."
Oakhurst never once claimed that the hormone had been proven to hurt anyone, but they saw a market of customers who wanted hormone-free milk, and went for it. Adding the disclaimer to the label indemnifies them from libel while still allowing the consumer to make their informed choice.
So, in that light, what exactly was your point? Because all I see here is a win-win for the consumer...