How much of that was just people going to YouTube to see the latest insane rant
No doubt quite a lot, but... remember "Macaca" Allen? His very narrow race was probably decided by a YouTube of his ranting, and McCain's ranting spread on YouTube isn't gonna help him any.
Old-style politicians, like McCain, just haven't yet figured out that there's no such thing as privacy in any crowd big enough to have a cellphone. So they still pop off with stuff that used to be "acceptable" and even expected, because it showed that He Was One Of Them. That's a liability now.
Oops - actually, upon re-reading, I see I mis-understood your point entirely.
I completely agree with mandatory journaling of all government email.... and the default should be "open to public" with protection only rarely... and even then, available when there is suspicion of foul play.
The president is my employee; he's your employee too, if you're a US citizen. The entire Executive branch works for us, not the other way around. Thus we have a very strong interest in keeping track of what they are doing. Safeguards are of course necessary for security matters and so forth, but as a rule, everything my employee does on company time and company equipment should be open to inspection by me, you and all citizens.
Your medical record, OTOH, are something *I* have no right to, because we have NO relationship.
Hmmmm.... yes and no. Usually the President is completely in sync with the larger party... after all, he is their pick.
But if any Pres seeks to take the Party where it doesn't want to go, it won't follow... why should it? "Looking even worse" plays both ways... nothing looks sillier than a President pounding his fist and no-one paying attention.
Anyway, McCain's reputation as a 'Maverick' is not borne out by his voting pattern. 95% with Bush in 2007, 100% this year.
>McCain popping the clutch and shifting the Republican Party in a direction they won't like
What does that even mean?
The Republican Party is not a dictatorship (...fond as it has proven to be of dictatorship...). McCain even as President lacks the legal authority to force the Republican Party to do anything, and his personal force is pretty weak. He's not an inspiring speaker, nor at strategy. So how could he possibly overrule his Republican Party opposition, even assuming he wished to?
Yes, but the "Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act" was not intended to refer to scanned images of a physical signature, but rather more like a personal key that the owner controls by password, physical token, or some such McGuffin.
You could, I suppose, write out your e-signature with a pen and fax it, or scan it and mail it; or you could generate an e-signature from your scanned physical signature (hey why not?) but it wouldn't be what was intended. See:
"Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act"
>Not searching "upon oath or affirmation," not searching upon "probable cause,"
It is most likely that they are searching because you contractually agreed to the search when you bought your ticket.
You don't remember consenting? Of course not - that's what fine print is for, including references to websites and "applicable regulations."
Now, the airlines may have a beef with the feddies for requiring that passengers submit to warrantless searches as a condition of flying. But I don't expect them to fight it since, after all, it is to their advantage to have TSA do the inspections. And you? You can simply not buy the ticket if you don't like the terms and conditions - it's a free market.
OK, so how is [[a referee]] even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.
1. Not everyone participates in every market, e.g. the referee in the stock market should not be allowed to trade in the stock market. Thus it is not that difficult to set up fair referees (although of course market participants may seek to subvert them.)
2. There are some unavoidable markets, e.g. the market for clean air. However, typically referees in clean air market referees at the wholesale level (e.g. factories belching pollutants) but consume retail (one breathe at a time); thus the conflict of interest, while not absent, is minimal.
3. Conflicts of interest can be minimized by the use of objective standards and auditting; a referee is less likely to accept bribes if there is a referee of referees.
4. It is not necessary to actually achieve an ideal, such as "bug-free software" or "free market", for it to be worth striving for.
Do-not-bug-me laws help businesses that respect them to have an advantage over lawbreakers. This is especially important with larger firms, since investors will want to know whether a company has a do-not-break-laws policy.
A do-not-bug-me database does not have to have a lot of personal information in it.
>...limit what the federal government is able to do...
McCain has strongly supported the greatest expansions of federal government power (e.g. warrantless spying, making habeas optional... although to be fair, he agrees with Obama that torture is simply beyond the power of the central government). No Libertarian can support the GOP's most likely nominee.
You may not like Obama for many reasons, but of the top three contenders, he at least would know when he was exceeding his constitutional powers.
If you think that the largest constitutional problems facing our great nation today is "social programs and gun control", then all I can say is see you in Baghdad!
Seriously, is McCain's support for an unconstitutional war more important than whatever Obama has said about the 2nd Amendment?
Obama and Paul are both serious scholars of our Constitution. Paul was largely self-taught, whereas Obama was actually a professor (adjunct IIRC) teaching Constitutional law.
While on many policy issues they probably come out differently, on basic Constitutional issues they would seem both to look to the Constitution, which would be an improvement over our current situation in which the President is basically Caesar and Congress' job is to fund the President's projects. A return to a Constitutional approach would return policy issues, such as war/peace or capitalism/socialism, to Congress where it belongs.
Some have claimed that at least some robo calls are specifically designed to discourage you from voting, either by annoying you or by giving misleading conversation.
>What about the other 10 political parties in this country?
They have the right to have inspectors too (in my state at least... don't know about the others). I think a couple years ago at the polling place where I was an inspector, we had a Green or maybe it was a Libertarian... I didn't keep track really 'cuz everyone is welcome, so long as they don't touch anything.
I realize it's not quite proper to say "both parties" or "the other party" but that's just a figure of speech; the rules let any party to have watchers....which is as it should be.
Seriously: congrats to our Canadian cousins for facing this issue. Could it be that a parliamentary system makes it easier to address issues other than the two-party whores-race?
White House spokesmodel Dana Perrino noted with regret that the White House had switched to Quest during the period of the missing tapes: "They had like an awesome promotional rate!"
So unfortunately the traffic was not intercepted. What a coincidence!
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt quite a lot, but ... remember "Macaca" Allen? His very narrow race was probably decided by a YouTube of his ranting, and McCain's ranting spread on YouTube isn't gonna help him any.
Old-style politicians, like McCain, just haven't yet figured out that there's no such thing as privacy in any crowd big enough to have a cellphone. So they still pop off with stuff that used to be "acceptable" and even expected, because it showed that He Was One Of Them. That's a liability now.
2. Profit from Breaking Law (...in this case, get government contracts...) 3. Pay Congresscritters to Immunize You From Law 4. ...
5. PROFIT!!!
"Hey, it was only 18 and a half minutes of tape, Judge Sirica"
....the records (if any still exist) will be long gone. HmmmOops - actually, upon re-reading, I see I mis-understood your point entirely. I completely agree with mandatory journaling of all government email.... and the default should be "open to public" with protection only rarely ... and even then, available when there is suspicion of foul play.
More like "Apples, meet Oranges".
The president is my employee; he's your employee too, if you're a US citizen. The entire Executive branch works for us, not the other way around. Thus we have a very strong interest in keeping track of what they are doing. Safeguards are of course necessary for security matters and so forth, but as a rule, everything my employee does on company time and company equipment should be open to inspection by me, you and all citizens.
Your medical record, OTOH, are something *I* have no right to, because we have NO relationship.
Hmmmm.... yes and no. Usually the President is completely in sync with the larger party ... after all, he is their pick.
But if any Pres seeks to take the Party where it doesn't want to go, it won't follow ... why should it? "Looking even worse" plays both ways ... nothing looks sillier than a President pounding his fist and no-one paying attention.
Anyway, McCain's reputation as a 'Maverick' is not borne out by his voting pattern. 95% with Bush in 2007, 100% this year.
>McCain popping the clutch and shifting the Republican Party in a direction they won't like
What does that even mean?
The Republican Party is not a dictatorship (...fond as it has proven to be of dictatorship...). McCain even as President lacks the legal authority to force the Republican Party to do anything, and his personal force is pretty weak. He's not an inspiring speaker, nor at strategy. So how could he possibly overrule his Republican Party opposition, even assuming he wished to?
Yes, but the "Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act" was not intended to refer to scanned images of a physical signature, but rather more like a personal key that the owner controls by password, physical token, or some such McGuffin. You could, I suppose, write out your e-signature with a pen and fax it, or scan it and mail it; or you could generate an e-signature from your scanned physical signature (hey why not?) but it wouldn't be what was intended. See: "Electronic Signatures in Global National Commerce Act"
>Not searching "upon oath or affirmation," not searching upon "probable cause,"
It is most likely that they are searching because you contractually agreed to the search when you bought your ticket.
You don't remember consenting? Of course not - that's what fine print is for, including references to websites and "applicable regulations."
Now, the airlines may have a beef with the feddies for requiring that passengers submit to warrantless searches as a condition of flying. But I don't expect them to fight it since, after all, it is to their advantage to have TSA do the inspections. And you? You can simply not buy the ticket if you don't like the terms and conditions - it's a free market.
OK, so how is [[a referee]] even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.
1. Not everyone participates in every market, e.g. the referee in the stock market should not be allowed to trade in the stock market. Thus it is not that difficult to set up fair referees (although of course market participants may seek to subvert them.)
2. There are some unavoidable markets, e.g. the market for clean air. However, typically referees in clean air market referees at the wholesale level (e.g. factories belching pollutants) but consume retail (one breathe at a time); thus the conflict of interest, while not absent, is minimal.
3. Conflicts of interest can be minimized by the use of objective standards and auditting; a referee is less likely to accept bribes if there is a referee of referees.
4. It is not necessary to actually achieve an ideal, such as "bug-free software" or "free market", for it to be worth striving for.
I thought you were cleverly combining "Crook" "Coot" and "Cock" in a sort of diskeyboardlexia.
No solution is perfect. That's life.
Do-not-bug-me laws help businesses that respect them to have an advantage over lawbreakers. This is especially important with larger firms, since investors will want to know whether a company has a do-not-break-laws policy.
A do-not-bug-me database does not have to have a lot of personal information in it.
Just like we don't have handcuffs anymore ... we have "Freedom Fetters".
>paint it black
Amateur!
Go all the way, and paint it octarine
>...limit what the federal government is able to do...
McCain has strongly supported the greatest expansions of federal government power (e.g. warrantless spying, making habeas optional ... although to be fair, he agrees with Obama that torture is simply beyond the power of the central government). No Libertarian can support the GOP's most likely nominee.
You may not like Obama for many reasons, but of the top three contenders, he at least would know when he was exceeding his constitutional powers.
If you think that the largest constitutional problems facing our great nation today is "social programs and gun control", then all I can say is see you in Baghdad!
Seriously, is McCain's support for an unconstitutional war more important than whatever Obama has said about the 2nd Amendment?
Obama and Paul are both serious scholars of our Constitution. Paul was largely self-taught, whereas Obama was actually a professor (adjunct IIRC) teaching Constitutional law.
While on many policy issues they probably come out differently, on basic Constitutional issues they would seem both to look to the Constitution, which would be an improvement over our current situation in which the President is basically Caesar and Congress' job is to fund the President's projects. A return to a Constitutional approach would return policy issues, such as war/peace or capitalism/socialism, to Congress where it belongs.
Some have claimed that at least some robo calls are specifically designed to discourage you from voting, either by annoying you or by giving misleading conversation.
The issue with government intimidation of voters is not whether they can do so secretly, but whether anyone will punish the wrong doers.
Imagine - purely hypothetically - an Attorney General who construes his job as defending the Administration, rather than as defending out Constitution.
Purely hypothetically, you understand. No rats please!
>What about the other 10 political parties in this country?
They have the right to have inspectors too (in my state at least ... don't know about the others). I think a couple years ago at the polling place where I was an inspector, we had a Green or maybe it was a Libertarian ... I didn't keep track really 'cuz everyone is welcome, so long as they don't touch anything.
I realize it's not quite proper to say "both parties" or "the other party" but that's just a figure of speech; the rules let any party to have watchers....which is as it should be.
Seriously: congrats to our Canadian cousins for facing this issue. Could it be that a parliamentary system makes it easier to address issues other than the two-party whores-race?
White House spokesmodel Dana Perrino noted with regret that the White House had switched to Quest during the period of the missing tapes: "They had like an awesome promotional rate!" So unfortunately the traffic was not intercepted. What a coincidence!
>This administration has proven they are idiots
Respectfully, I disagree.
Do not attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by cupidity.
The Bush Crime Family has made out like bandits. What's stupid about that?