I agree. This is an inexcusable instance of media bias, a plain example of stripping context out of a story for spin.
Zimmerman is still a murderer, though. You don't get to claim self defense when you started the fight. If you hunt down and kill an unarmed child, you can expect to be tried for murder.
I'm compelled to point out that the idea that he started the fight, correct or not, came from the exact same media sources that just blatantly skewed a story in a rather extreme way for reasons not entirely known. As such, you may wish to consider before you declare someone is a murder based on the information put out by those exact same sources, no?
Anonymous look the imperialist assholes with this totally counterproductive stunt. They need to see how offensive they have been in their misguided "quest." to "free" the Chinese people. I'm so embarrassed this has been done.
Setting aside whether this was a great idea or not... I'm not entirely sure what the hell you're trying to say. Are you saying the Chinese are already free and therefore don't need to be "freed"? While I admittedly didn't bring up the "hacked" pages, what was so offensive about it?
This is the second one of these non-stories posted in as many days. I, like many people, have been reading and posting to Slashdot for years. I'm starting to wonder exactly why I continue to do so....
It is definitely, certainly, and without a doubt 100% the role of government to keep the roads safe. That is not an intrusion into your private life.
Now whether or not these laws actually DO make the roads safer is something else... but get out of here with your ultra-libertarian nonsense.
is the presumption that it is the job of nanny/father government to take care of every little thing in life
It is NOT a presumption to expect the government to protect me from reckless drivers.
From reckless drivers.. from salt in your food.. from this.. from that..
Surely you realize that once you cede a general "keep me safe" power to the government that extends to pretty much everywhere and everything, right?
As to keeping the roads safe, beyond making the roads themselves physical safe to travel there really is little the government can do to make things safe beyond taking people to jail who tend to run over other people.
It's cool though. When you have to blow into the breathalyzer interlock and provide a skin scan to prove you're not drunk/high before you can start your car and you're not allowed to change radio stations (or maybe the radios got banned?) just remember, they're only keeping you safe.:)
Paper maps (and their on screen equivalents) are fine when you're sitting in a hotel or at home deciding where you want to go. They are fine, to a degree, when you're on the road and you have a passenger.
However, they've got nothing on a well designed navigation system when one is actually on the road. Here in the States, and other places similarly designed, you can get around the Interstate system to a large degree without a map or navigation as long as you know exactly where you're going and in which direction that is from you. However, once you get off the Interstate it is really really nice to have the navigation system for the end portion of the trip when you're on little side roads you're unfamiliar with.
On top of all of this, I find it fairly interesting and a bit disturbing that contained within all these proposals, in addition to revenue generation at the local level, is the presumption that it is the job of nanny/father government to take care of every little thing in life. Even several of the comments on here just presume that somehow it is the role of government to prevent these distractions in the first place. I've yet to see a single comment questioning whether that is proper in the first place, just how intrusive it should be and in which direction.
And people wonder why the government is so powerful and intrusive these days?
Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault
No, the last three are Obama's fault. Clinton had plenty of screw-ups too (oh, how I can list them). But I would contend that the "Axis of Evil" speech stands out as a particularly epic diplomatic and strategic fuck-up. It served no positive purpose, and put two countries on the nuclear path who didn't need to be.
I thought the Axis of Evil speech was in 2002, not 1993 when North Korea gave the non-proliferation treaty the finger. Arguably their program started about that time if not before then.
Iran had also been at it for a good long while. Neither of them heard that speech and said "oh damn, the US might kick our ass sometime in the future so we better develop nukes!". Whether the speech was a good idea or not it absolutely didn't put anyone on a path to anywhere.
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".
Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)
Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections? In that case the US looks like the 3rd Reich reborn.
Iranian elections are the same as what is in the US much like a paper airplane is the same as an F-16. Yeah, they can both fly and they kinda sorta look the same.
If your opinion of the US can be reduced to the 3rd Reich, even using election rhetoric as a measure, then I'm not sure what else can be said. I'm not saying all is roses and I'm sure that was a bit of hyperbole, but still. That's a bit much, no?
I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.
Fair enough and I had heard such things before. Also, you're like the 20th person to point that out.:)
Either way, it is still a long long way from a mistranslation to "but they really only want to get along with everyone and have peace on earth!", no?
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist.
Except that there's valid controversy about whether he meant "wipe Israel off the map" or "see the Israeli government disappear."
And even so, rhetoric to appeal to the base isn't necessarily the same as a direct statement of intent. Remember Reagan declaring the Soviet Union illegal and saying bombing would begin (as a sound test) or McCain singing "Bomb, bomb Iran?"
Yeah, I'm aware of the possibility it was mistranslated (intentionally or otherwise). However, that's still a long way from saying that all they want is to get along with everyone else. Also, the Reagan/McCain thing isn't even close to the same type of thing. Reagan was obviously a joke and though I'm not certain of the McCain reference I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say it was much the same.
I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Understand now?
I understood in the first place. However, all the benefits are only present if both parties are using an iOS 5 device. Otherwise, one party is getting relatively expensive text message.
Or to put it another way, it's awesome for you (because as you said you don't have to do anything special) but could end up sucking hard for your recipient. I say sucking hard as I imagine that, in general, people who are sending messages for free are more likely to use the system more like chat and less like relatively expensive SMS. Speaking for myself, I know that's exactly how I treat google voice messages, even though they are supposed to be more like SMS and less like standard chat.
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
No, you only have to care whether they have an iOS 5 device or not. I suppose if every last one of your friends and family fall into that category then you're right. On the other hand, if they aren't all die hard Apple people and have non-Apple devices your logic and simplicity go right out the window.
Or you use gtalk which is available on all devices.
I'd never seen anything quite so unpleasant from Facebook.
Oh well.
Because constantly shifting privacy settings and suddenly finding out something you thought was "private" (to the degree such things are on a social site) are now shared with the world is totally awesome.
As to What's Hot (I agree they shouldn't have made it blend in with other posts)...
Turn it's slider down to zero. Poof, no more What's Hot.
Seriously? How about basic civics class? What do YOU think authorizes the government to exist?
It depends on the government in question, but the most broad answer would be consent of its citizens, aka "public contract".
dude, go find a high school and sit in on a civics class, seriously.
If they teach that US is "republic not a democracy" in civics classes in US, that's really sad. In civics I did in my school, we actually learned what all those things mean, and we've learned them from examples of many different countries, not just our own; nor did we get stuck on archaic 250-year-old definitions.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic. Period.
I think saying it would be practically indentured service is putting it too mildly. When they speak of how when Apple made a change shortly before product launch and the factory supervisors went around waking up the workers in the on site housing in the middle of the night giving them some tea and sending them to the factory floor to begin retooling in the wee hours of the am, that isn't the sort of treatment an indentured servant is subject to, that is the way you treat slave labor.
Ok you wouldn't give slaves tea first, but other than that there is little difference that I can see.
Not to say that they have the greatest of times over there, I have some measure of direct information this subject, however there is a huge difference between "low pay for long hours" and "slavery". Words mean something. Don't abuse them.
You seem to be applying your Western worldview to a situation in which it doesn't apply.:-)
I plug a cow with a.22 Magnum in the head in a barn.. that's "good" and "acceptable"...
I shoot a deer in the field with whatever kind of gun/bow/whatnot... and simply because I enjoyed the process of stalking and tracking that is "bad" and "evil"?
Pretty much, and here's why:
Yours is another bullshit argument, like, "I hunt to eat". If the part you enjoyed was "stalking and tracking" you could take a camera instead of a gun. Let's not pretend that for hunters, for "sportsmen", that it's anything but the killing that gets their dicks hard.
See, if you were halfway honest, you would have said, "and simply because I enjoyed the process of stalking and tracking and killing that is "bad" and "evil"?"
But you left out "...and killing" because you realize it makes you sound creepy. Because there are lots of ways to "stalk and track" that don't involve something dying for your fun.
For a lot of "sportsmen", the "stalking and tracking" is just a waste of time so they go and jack a deer. Because it's a blood sport. Because it's all about the killing. The killing and the trophies.
Interesting. So if I kill a cow trapped in a barn and say "it's for food" then that's perfectly logical and reasonable. If I shoot X with Y in location Z and say "it's for food" then it's "bad'.
The disconnect here is that you view the situation as pure intent with no consideration to the undeniable fact that the result is exactly the same. Just to be clear here, we're not talking about torturing an animal as compared to quickly killing it for food. We're talking about food being gathered in a way that you see as barbaric and "blood sport".
I might be tempted to agree with you as to it all being about the "killing" if most hunters were just leaving the results of the hunt out in the field after cutting off whatever trophy was desired. There might be some who do that, but given the cost and pain in the ass of hunting I can't say that they are even remotely close to the majority.
You say my argument is bullshit simply because it doesn't agree with your rather limited world view. You claim to be a gun owner and to shoot regularly. That might be possible but you've given reason to doubt it. If you really are, I'm sure you're aware that the same kind of "logic" you're employing here has been leveled at gun owners to argue for gun bans. After all, your handguns are for nothing but murdering innocent people and serve no other purpose at all. Any argument about self-defense is just bullshit, right?
And by way of disclosure, I don't hunt. I've no interest in hunting, though I may someday learn the skill as knowing how to do such things could be handy at times.
I plug a cow with a.22 Magnum in the head in a barn.. that's "good" and "acceptable"...
I shoot a deer in the field with whatever kind of gun/bow/whatnot... and simply because I enjoyed the process of stalking and tracking that is "bad" and "evil"?
End result, dead animal turned to food.
If, for whatever crazy ass reason as I wouldn't want one, I decided to keep and mount the head, does that change one damned thing in the end?
If you fly your property over my property for the purpose of harassment and spying, I'd be surprised if a court really took your claims of vandalism particularly interesting.
If they didn't fly their "drone" over there specifically for that purpose, it wouldn't have gotten shot at, would it?
However, in this case, let's note that the shooters had already engaged law enforcement, who had said that the observers weren't doing anything illegal.
So, in the analogy where I've got a camera on the beach, you've already called the cops, and they've said, nope, it's legal.
So you are claiming that it sill might be your right to smash my camera on the beach? And that it might not be a criminal act?
The beach is a public place (presuming a public beach) whereas this location was not. This location also clearly had a very thick screen of trees. In short, their spy equipment got smashed up while they were trying to perform an act not too dissimilar to a peeping tom. I'm on the fence about shooting flying rats released from boxes, but they were clearly spying and filming on/over private property for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.
I would have shot their "drone" down without hesitation (providing it could be done safely).
"I believe that Government is should, in fact, act as Mother and Father according to the will of the majority. We should not be allowed to act as we wish, only as we are allowed by Mother and Father. Regardless of whether or not our actions bring harm to others."
You're okay with the government using violence on your part to force people to conform to the way you want things, as long as it doesn't conflict too strongly with what you want and believe. You defend this twisted logic by saying that if a person doesn't like this they should just move.
The difference between you and I is that I believe the only proper role of government is to defend our basic rights. You believe the role of government is to keep us "safe". These are two diametrically opposed ideas. Mine says government should stay out of our business unless someone is harming someone else. Yours says government should give us permission for every little thing and absent that permission we shouldn't be allowed to do as we wish. In mine we are the masters of government, in yours government is our master.
You'd be a tyrant, or support them, if only you had the means.
And people wonder why government gets larger and more intrusive every day......
So, in short, you want the kind gentle arms of Government to wrap around you and keep you safe and secure. You want Government to be Mother and Government to be Father. They know best.
You say you're not okay with "constant eroding of rights", but only after you ask for others in government or the establishment to make your decisions for you and to use force on you or anyone else if dares to disagree.
Based on your statements you appear to feel that you're not enough of an adult to make your own decisions and take responsibility for the outcomes. That's an unfortunate thing, but it is also your problem. What makes it truly despicable and bordering on evil is that you then go on to project those inadequacies on everyone else and demand that Government take their ability to make their own decisions away from them as well.
If you wish to be treated as a child for all your life that's up to you. The rest of us are adults and we can make our own decisions without any bloody help from you and those like you.
By way of disclosure, I don't do "drugs". I don't understand those who do them knowing the consequences thereof. That said, I damned sure wouldn't try and treat them like children and take away their ability to choose for themselves. As long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, it is none of my business what they do.
Then again, I believe that adults should be treated as such. Unfortunately, not everyone does these days.
You don't understand. Meth is a suicidal drug. Like a moth to a flame. The addition to pleasure yourself to death is Insatiable. Legalizing a cheap a pure medical grade of meth would only accelerates the suicidal process. One you cross over, forget trying to come back. Your life is effectively over.
Might as well catch AIDs. That would be far better.
Sounds terrible.. Okay, show me the grant of authority in the Constitution for the War on (some) Drugs and you can get right on that. Oh? There isn't one?
Right, either you're in favor of a Constitutionally responsible government or you're not. You're either truly a conservative in favor of individual rights and small limited government, or you're not.
So which is it? Is government Mother and Father to keep you safe and secure or is it the defender of individual liberty? You can't have it both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. This is an inexcusable instance of media bias, a plain example of stripping context out of a story for spin.
Zimmerman is still a murderer, though. You don't get to claim self defense when you started the fight. If you hunt down and kill an unarmed child, you can expect to be tried for murder.
I'm compelled to point out that the idea that he started the fight, correct or not, came from the exact same media sources that just blatantly skewed a story in a rather extreme way for reasons not entirely known. As such, you may wish to consider before you declare someone is a murder based on the information put out by those exact same sources, no?
Anonymous look the imperialist assholes with this totally counterproductive stunt. They need to see how offensive they have been in their misguided "quest." to "free" the Chinese people. I'm so embarrassed this has been done.
Setting aside whether this was a great idea or not... I'm not entirely sure what the hell you're trying to say. Are you saying the Chinese are already free and therefore don't need to be "freed"? While I admittedly didn't bring up the "hacked" pages, what was so offensive about it?
This is the second one of these non-stories posted in as many days. I, like many people, have been reading and posting to Slashdot for years. I'm starting to wonder exactly why I continue to do so....
It is definitely, certainly, and without a doubt 100% the role of government to keep the roads safe. That is not an intrusion into your private life.
Now whether or not these laws actually DO make the roads safer is something else... but get out of here with your ultra-libertarian nonsense.
is the presumption that it is the job of nanny/father government to take care of every little thing in life
It is NOT a presumption to expect the government to protect me from reckless drivers.
From reckless drivers.. from salt in your food.. from this.. from that..
Surely you realize that once you cede a general "keep me safe" power to the government that extends to pretty much everywhere and everything, right?
As to keeping the roads safe, beyond making the roads themselves physical safe to travel there really is little the government can do to make things safe beyond taking people to jail who tend to run over other people.
It's cool though. When you have to blow into the breathalyzer interlock and provide a skin scan to prove you're not drunk/high before you can start your car and you're not allowed to change radio stations (or maybe the radios got banned?) just remember, they're only keeping you safe. :)
My phone came with a GPS navigation app. Any time it is moving, it blanks the screen and says "GPS Navigation Not Allowed While Moving."
And who made that phone/navigation app so we can be sure to never ever buy it?
To add to this....
Paper maps (and their on screen equivalents) are fine when you're sitting in a hotel or at home deciding where you want to go. They are fine, to a degree, when you're on the road and you have a passenger.
However, they've got nothing on a well designed navigation system when one is actually on the road. Here in the States, and other places similarly designed, you can get around the Interstate system to a large degree without a map or navigation as long as you know exactly where you're going and in which direction that is from you. However, once you get off the Interstate it is really really nice to have the navigation system for the end portion of the trip when you're on little side roads you're unfamiliar with.
On top of all of this, I find it fairly interesting and a bit disturbing that contained within all these proposals, in addition to revenue generation at the local level, is the presumption that it is the job of nanny/father government to take care of every little thing in life. Even several of the comments on here just presume that somehow it is the role of government to prevent these distractions in the first place. I've yet to see a single comment questioning whether that is proper in the first place, just how intrusive it should be and in which direction.
And people wonder why the government is so powerful and intrusive these days?
Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault
No, the last three are Obama's fault. Clinton had plenty of screw-ups too (oh, how I can list them). But I would contend that the "Axis of Evil" speech stands out as a particularly epic diplomatic and strategic fuck-up. It served no positive purpose, and put two countries on the nuclear path who didn't need to be.
I thought the Axis of Evil speech was in 2002, not 1993 when North Korea gave the non-proliferation treaty the finger. Arguably their program started about that time if not before then.
Iran had also been at it for a good long while. Neither of them heard that speech and said "oh damn, the US might kick our ass sometime in the future so we better develop nukes!". Whether the speech was a good idea or not it absolutely didn't put anyone on a path to anywhere.
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".
Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)
Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections? In that case the US looks like the 3rd Reich reborn.
Iranian elections are the same as what is in the US much like a paper airplane is the same as an F-16. Yeah, they can both fly and they kinda sorta look the same.
If your opinion of the US can be reduced to the 3rd Reich, even using election rhetoric as a measure, then I'm not sure what else can be said. I'm not saying all is roses and I'm sure that was a bit of hyperbole, but still. That's a bit much, no?
Yes, which was a blunder -- but it was still a mistranslation.
Was it corrected? If so, fair enough. If not, it would be hard to imagine it was left to stand unintentionally, no?
I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.
Fair enough and I had heard such things before. Also, you're like the 20th person to point that out. :)
Either way, it is still a long long way from a mistranslation to "but they really only want to get along with everyone and have peace on earth!", no?
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist.
Except that there's valid controversy about whether he meant "wipe Israel off the map" or "see the Israeli government disappear."
And even so, rhetoric to appeal to the base isn't necessarily the same as a direct statement of intent. Remember Reagan declaring the Soviet Union illegal and saying bombing would begin (as a sound test) or McCain singing "Bomb, bomb Iran?"
Yeah, I'm aware of the possibility it was mistranslated (intentionally or otherwise). However, that's still a long way from saying that all they want is to get along with everyone else. Also, the Reagan/McCain thing isn't even close to the same type of thing. Reagan was obviously a joke and though I'm not certain of the McCain reference I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say it was much the same.
I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.
Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.
The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Understand now?
I understood in the first place. However, all the benefits are only present if both parties are using an iOS 5 device. Otherwise, one party is getting relatively expensive text message.
Or to put it another way, it's awesome for you (because as you said you don't have to do anything special) but could end up sucking hard for your recipient. I say sucking hard as I imagine that, in general, people who are sending messages for free are more likely to use the system more like chat and less like relatively expensive SMS. Speaking for myself, I know that's exactly how I treat google voice messages, even though they are supposed to be more like SMS and less like standard chat.
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
No, you only have to care whether they have an iOS 5 device or not. I suppose if every last one of your friends and family fall into that category then you're right. On the other hand, if they aren't all die hard Apple people and have non-Apple devices your logic and simplicity go right out the window.
Or you use gtalk which is available on all devices.
I'd never seen anything quite so unpleasant from Facebook.
Oh well.
Because constantly shifting privacy settings and suddenly finding out something you thought was "private" (to the degree such things are on a social site) are now shared with the world is totally awesome.
As to What's Hot (I agree they shouldn't have made it blend in with other posts)...
Turn it's slider down to zero. Poof, no more What's Hot.
http://bit.ly/zcvTPK
Seriously? How about basic civics class? What do YOU think authorizes the government to exist?
It depends on the government in question, but the most broad answer would be consent of its citizens, aka "public contract".
dude, go find a high school and sit in on a civics class, seriously.
If they teach that US is "republic not a democracy" in civics classes in US, that's really sad. In civics I did in my school, we actually learned what all those things mean, and we've learned them from examples of many different countries, not just our own; nor did we get stuck on archaic 250-year-old definitions.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic. Period.
References:
CIA World Fact Book
Wikipedia
And of course the Constitution itself.
Words mean something. If your school taught you that the US is a "democracy" then I'm sorry but your school taught you wrong.
I think saying it would be practically indentured service is putting it too mildly. When they speak of how when Apple made a change shortly before product launch and the factory supervisors went around waking up the workers in the on site housing in the middle of the night giving them some tea and sending them to the factory floor to begin retooling in the wee hours of the am, that isn't the sort of treatment an indentured servant is subject to, that is the way you treat slave labor.
Ok you wouldn't give slaves tea first, but other than that there is little difference that I can see.
Not to say that they have the greatest of times over there, I have some measure of direct information this subject, however there is a huge difference between "low pay for long hours" and "slavery". Words mean something. Don't abuse them.
You seem to be applying your Western worldview to a situation in which it doesn't apply. :-)
Pretty much, and here's why:
Yours is another bullshit argument, like, "I hunt to eat". If the part you enjoyed was "stalking and tracking" you could take a camera instead of a gun. Let's not pretend that for hunters, for "sportsmen", that it's anything but the killing that gets their dicks hard.
See, if you were halfway honest, you would have said, "and simply because I enjoyed the process of stalking and tracking and killing that is "bad" and "evil"?"
But you left out "...and killing" because you realize it makes you sound creepy. Because there are lots of ways to "stalk and track" that don't involve something dying for your fun.
For a lot of "sportsmen", the "stalking and tracking" is just a waste of time so they go and jack a deer. Because it's a blood sport. Because it's all about the killing. The killing and the trophies.
Interesting. So if I kill a cow trapped in a barn and say "it's for food" then that's perfectly logical and reasonable. If I shoot X with Y in location Z and say "it's for food" then it's "bad'.
The disconnect here is that you view the situation as pure intent with no consideration to the undeniable fact that the result is exactly the same. Just to be clear here, we're not talking about torturing an animal as compared to quickly killing it for food. We're talking about food being gathered in a way that you see as barbaric and "blood sport".
I might be tempted to agree with you as to it all being about the "killing" if most hunters were just leaving the results of the hunt out in the field after cutting off whatever trophy was desired. There might be some who do that, but given the cost and pain in the ass of hunting I can't say that they are even remotely close to the majority.
You say my argument is bullshit simply because it doesn't agree with your rather limited world view. You claim to be a gun owner and to shoot regularly. That might be possible but you've given reason to doubt it. If you really are, I'm sure you're aware that the same kind of "logic" you're employing here has been leveled at gun owners to argue for gun bans. After all, your handguns are for nothing but murdering innocent people and serve no other purpose at all. Any argument about self-defense is just bullshit, right?
And by way of disclosure, I don't hunt. I've no interest in hunting, though I may someday learn the skill as knowing how to do such things could be handy at times.
So let me get this straight...
I plug a cow with a .22 Magnum in the head in a barn.. that's "good" and "acceptable"...
I shoot a deer in the field with whatever kind of gun/bow/whatnot... and simply because I enjoyed the process of stalking and tracking that is "bad" and "evil"?
End result, dead animal turned to food.
If, for whatever crazy ass reason as I wouldn't want one, I decided to keep and mount the head, does that change one damned thing in the end?
If you fly your property over my property for the purpose of harassment and spying, I'd be surprised if a court really took your claims of vandalism particularly interesting.
If they didn't fly their "drone" over there specifically for that purpose, it wouldn't have gotten shot at, would it?
However, in this case, let's note that the shooters had already engaged law enforcement, who had said that the observers weren't doing anything illegal.
So, in the analogy where I've got a camera on the beach, you've already called the cops, and they've said, nope, it's legal.
So you are claiming that it sill might be your right to smash my camera on the beach? And that it might not be a criminal act?
The beach is a public place (presuming a public beach) whereas this location was not. This location also clearly had a very thick screen of trees. In short, their spy equipment got smashed up while they were trying to perform an act not too dissimilar to a peeping tom. I'm on the fence about shooting flying rats released from boxes, but they were clearly spying and filming on/over private property for the purpose of harassment and intimidation.
I would have shot their "drone" down without hesitation (providing it could be done safely).
That... is an extremely long way of saying:
"I believe that Government is should, in fact, act as Mother and Father according to the will of the majority. We should not be allowed to act as we wish, only as we are allowed by Mother and Father. Regardless of whether or not our actions bring harm to others."
You're okay with the government using violence on your part to force people to conform to the way you want things, as long as it doesn't conflict too strongly with what you want and believe. You defend this twisted logic by saying that if a person doesn't like this they should just move.
The difference between you and I is that I believe the only proper role of government is to defend our basic rights. You believe the role of government is to keep us "safe". These are two diametrically opposed ideas. Mine says government should stay out of our business unless someone is harming someone else. Yours says government should give us permission for every little thing and absent that permission we shouldn't be allowed to do as we wish. In mine we are the masters of government, in yours government is our master.
You'd be a tyrant, or support them, if only you had the means.
And people wonder why government gets larger and more intrusive every day......
So, in short, you want the kind gentle arms of Government to wrap around you and keep you safe and secure. You want Government to be Mother and Government to be Father. They know best.
You say you're not okay with "constant eroding of rights", but only after you ask for others in government or the establishment to make your decisions for you and to use force on you or anyone else if dares to disagree.
Based on your statements you appear to feel that you're not enough of an adult to make your own decisions and take responsibility for the outcomes. That's an unfortunate thing, but it is also your problem. What makes it truly despicable and bordering on evil is that you then go on to project those inadequacies on everyone else and demand that Government take their ability to make their own decisions away from them as well.
If you wish to be treated as a child for all your life that's up to you. The rest of us are adults and we can make our own decisions without any bloody help from you and those like you.
By way of disclosure, I don't do "drugs". I don't understand those who do them knowing the consequences thereof. That said, I damned sure wouldn't try and treat them like children and take away their ability to choose for themselves. As long as they are doing no harm to anyone else, it is none of my business what they do.
Then again, I believe that adults should be treated as such. Unfortunately, not everyone does these days.
You don't understand. Meth is a suicidal drug. Like a moth to a flame. The addition to pleasure yourself to death is Insatiable. Legalizing a cheap a pure medical grade of meth would only accelerates the suicidal process. One you cross over, forget trying to come back. Your life is effectively over.
Might as well catch AIDs. That would be far better.
Sounds terrible.. Okay, show me the grant of authority in the Constitution for the War on (some) Drugs and you can get right on that. Oh? There isn't one?
Right, either you're in favor of a Constitutionally responsible government or you're not. You're either truly a conservative in favor of individual rights and small limited government, or you're not.
So which is it? Is government Mother and Father to keep you safe and secure or is it the defender of individual liberty? You can't have it both ways.