"if you provided every Muslim with (even more) free weapons, (even more) money"
Well, you are the one who implied that every Muslim has been given free weapons and money since they will be receiving (even more). Seems pretty sweeping to me.
I believe that others have made this point, but...
The United States of America has existed for almost 230 years. From the first day of its existence there have been people that wished to do it harm. Since that founding there have been people, both groups and individuals, who "wish to kill us" as so many politicians put it the last few year. We have survived for those 230 years with portions of the world, differing portions at different times, wishing us harm, and we have kept our freedoms intact. People have wished harm to the U.S. for 230 years. They will continue to do so until the day that the country no longer exists, whether that be in name or spirit. We kept our freedoms in the past even though they wished to kill us, why must we give them up now?
During the cold war the government tried to curtail and rescind many freedoms in the name of defeating communism, and many people backed them. The citizens came to their senses and demanded their rights back. I wonder if we will do so also.
Oh, very much so. You're right, the constitution doesn't defend the citizens from the government, the citizens are supposed to defend the constitution from the government.
Maybe not the whole military, but even a small percentage of the U.S. military could wreak havoc on large portions of its citizenry. Don't fool yourself. Just like China brought in loyalist troops from far provinces to crush the protests in Tieneman Square the U.S. could find enough to crush a revolt. Whether the loyalists where those who felt that they needed to honor their oaths, regardless of if they agreed with the government, or simply soldiers who believed in what the government was doing, or still others who would just do it for the power they felt it would bring them, They would be the ones with "REAL" assault weapons, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, and ground attack aircraft, not the revolutionaries.
But the U.S. Constitution is not a piece of paper. It is words. It is information. It is beliefs. Above all, the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme "law of the land" of the counrty I am a citizen of. If our Government ignores that fact, it is the right and duty of the citizens to use their powers to remove them and replace them with those who will follow those laws. (We still have elections, exercise your power, vote.) If the citizens ignore that fact then they should be ashamed. The preamble to the Constitution doesn't start with the words "We the Government of the United States", It starts with the words "We the People of the United States" Notice People is capitalized. It's a proper noun. The People own the United States, not the Government.
You're right. We can't force citizens to to exercise their rights, but that doesn't make the Consitution just a piece of paper, it just makes the citizens fools.
Well, I bet some of the Slashdot crowd can read legalese as well as the patent exameners, and really that doesn't matter. You read the patent. You think it means X, but it really means Y. You send information pertaining to prior art for X. Patent examener reviews your prior art, decides it isn't relevant to X, and is disqualified. Ta da. Basiclly this process is being tested so that examaners review prior art, not search for it.
BSD, as the full name implies, was the Berkley version of Unix, not the Bell labs version. That said, I thought part of the official split between UC Berkley and Bell Labs was that Bell got the name Unix, so BSD, although derived from Unix, is not legally UNIX. It's BSD. Which is Unix, but can't legally be called Unix. Um, I'm confused now.
Yes, but all the Supreme Court did was rule that the count at that time was to be the official count. They did not get to rule who won the election, just that the recounts were over and that Florida had to apply their laws to their EC members. I don't remember if Florida law requires their EC members to follow popular vote or not. I believe they do, or it would have been a fairly moot point. If the SCOTUS hadn't ruled, we could still be counting those ballots today, and that would be worse than either of the candidates winning.
Yes, the Electoral College does elect the President of the United States. The members of the EC are sent by their representative states governments. Each state has their own rules on how their representatives are to cast their votes. Some require that their EC members follow popular vote, and others don't. This was done so that a few states with large populations couldn't make smaller states irrelivant in national politics. If you don't like the manner in which your state nominates their EC members and their voting requirements get stumping to have your laws changed.
There was no logic. You made unfounded statements. Backed them up by stating that since *states* have passed overreaching legislation that has been overturned by the federal court system that if the Congress of the United States attempted to form a governmental control body it would also be nullified by the court system. It's a non sequiter.
Once again, you need to read more carefully. I never implied that you were an idiot. Unless you are a member of the ESRB, and are ignoring threats by your federal legislative bodies.
Well, there is reason to think that the ESRB would take the threats seriously. Only an idiot would ignore threats by the government of a country, especially the one in which they reside.
Secondly, I don't expect the ESRB to ever be able to comply. Notice that I said "unpublished arbitrary standards".
Lastly, I didn't take the time to "defend the post" that you replied to. You need to read a bit more carefully. You asked a question. I answered that question. I never said a word about Bush. None. You will notice also that I used the terms "government" and "legislative" Never president, and I used no personal names at all.
But usually not until it's some of their friends and family, or even themselves, that are being sent to the prisons or dying. As long as it's the people they don't like being persecuted and killed they are fat, dumb, and happy.
Hm, lets see. What DOES the government have to do with the ESRB? Well, they have publicly announced in the past that if the industry did not regulate itself, they, the government, would step in and regulate them. This was the impetus for the creation of the ESRB. Later the government said that the ESRB needed to broaden their ratings enforcement or the government would step in and do so. Lately the government has said that they think that games are not being given ratings that are high enough for the ages listed due to the potential of mods, expansions, and hacks, and therefor will step in with legislative relief if the ESRB doesn't meet their unpublished arbitrary standards.
So, what exactly does the U.S. government have to do with the ESRB? They are the Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a self regulatory body that was created simply because of threats of legislative regulation of a sector of business in a free country. Pretty simple, see.
Slashdot Mirror
*** Stands and claps also. ***
"if you provided every Muslim with (even more) free weapons, (even more) money"
Well, you are the one who implied that every Muslim has been given free weapons and money since they will be receiving (even more). Seems pretty sweeping to me.
I believe that others have made this point, but...
The United States of America has existed for almost 230 years. From the first day of its existence there have been people that wished to do it harm. Since that founding there have been people, both groups and individuals, who "wish to kill us" as so many politicians put it the last few year. We have survived for those 230 years with portions of the world, differing portions at different times, wishing us harm, and we have kept our freedoms intact. People have wished harm to the U.S. for 230 years. They will continue to do so until the day that the country no longer exists, whether that be in name or spirit. We kept our freedoms in the past even though they wished to kill us, why must we give them up now?
During the cold war the government tried to curtail and rescind many freedoms in the name of defeating communism, and many people backed them. The citizens came to their senses and demanded their rights back. I wonder if we will do so also.
But it always is. At least for the citizens.
Oh, very much so. You're right, the constitution doesn't defend the citizens from the government, the citizens are supposed to defend the constitution from the government.
Maybe not the whole military, but even a small percentage of the U.S. military could wreak havoc on large portions of its citizenry. Don't fool yourself. Just like China brought in loyalist troops from far provinces to crush the protests in Tieneman Square the U.S. could find enough to crush a revolt. Whether the loyalists where those who felt that they needed to honor their oaths, regardless of if they agreed with the government, or simply soldiers who believed in what the government was doing, or still others who would just do it for the power they felt it would bring them, They would be the ones with "REAL" assault weapons, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, and ground attack aircraft, not the revolutionaries.
But the U.S. Constitution is not a piece of paper. It is words. It is information. It is beliefs. Above all, the Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme "law of the land" of the counrty I am a citizen of. If our Government ignores that fact, it is the right and duty of the citizens to use their powers to remove them and replace them with those who will follow those laws. (We still have elections, exercise your power, vote.) If the citizens ignore that fact then they should be ashamed. The preamble to the Constitution doesn't start with the words "We the Government of the United States", It starts with the words "We the People of the United States" Notice People is capitalized. It's a proper noun. The People own the United States, not the Government.
You're right. We can't force citizens to to exercise their rights, but that doesn't make the Consitution just a piece of paper, it just makes the citizens fools.
Horde. Dang it. I should never type while eating. Really bad for spelling skills.
So, the Hoard gets a cute race, and the Alliance gets the cool race. Seems par for the course.
Well, I bet some of the Slashdot crowd can read legalese as well as the patent exameners, and really that doesn't matter. You read the patent. You think it means X, but it really means Y. You send information pertaining to prior art for X. Patent examener reviews your prior art, decides it isn't relevant to X, and is disqualified. Ta da. Basiclly this process is being tested so that examaners review prior art, not search for it.
BSD, as the full name implies, was the Berkley version of Unix, not the Bell labs version. That said, I thought part of the official split between UC Berkley and Bell Labs was that Bell got the name Unix, so BSD, although derived from Unix, is not legally UNIX. It's BSD. Which is Unix, but can't legally be called Unix. Um, I'm confused now.
Yes, but all the Supreme Court did was rule that the count at that time was to be the official count. They did not get to rule who won the election, just that the recounts were over and that Florida had to apply their laws to their EC members. I don't remember if Florida law requires their EC members to follow popular vote or not. I believe they do, or it would have been a fairly moot point. If the SCOTUS hadn't ruled, we could still be counting those ballots today, and that would be worse than either of the candidates winning.
Yes, the Electoral College does elect the President of the United States. The members of the EC are sent by their representative states governments. Each state has their own rules on how their representatives are to cast their votes. Some require that their EC members follow popular vote, and others don't. This was done so that a few states with large populations couldn't make smaller states irrelivant in national politics. If you don't like the manner in which your state nominates their EC members and their voting requirements get stumping to have your laws changed.
Oh gods yes! Boatloads. Tankerloads! Want a few? Their free. Can't beat the price.
Oh, they will. I just hope Google wins this.
I like that last reason. Going to be VERY popular with Blizzard support, me thinks.
Thanks for the spelling correction. As to your Ad Hominem... No, I do not believe that I am.
There was no logic. You made unfounded statements. Backed them up by stating that since *states* have passed overreaching legislation that has been overturned by the federal court system that if the Congress of the United States attempted to form a governmental control body it would also be nullified by the court system. It's a non sequiter.
Once again, you need to read more carefully. I never implied that you were an idiot. Unless you are a member of the ESRB, and are ignoring threats by your federal legislative bodies.
Well, there is reason to think that the ESRB would take the threats seriously. Only an idiot would ignore threats by the government of a country, especially the one in which they reside.
Secondly, I don't expect the ESRB to ever be able to comply. Notice that I said "unpublished arbitrary standards".
Lastly, I didn't take the time to "defend the post" that you replied to. You need to read a bit more carefully. You asked a question. I answered that question. I never said a word about Bush. None. You will notice also that I used the terms "government" and "legislative" Never president, and I used no personal names at all.
But usually not until it's some of their friends and family, or even themselves, that are being sent to the prisons or dying. As long as it's the people they don't like being persecuted and killed they are fat, dumb, and happy.
Hm, lets see. What DOES the government have to do with the ESRB? Well, they have publicly announced in the past that if the industry did not regulate itself, they, the government, would step in and regulate them. This was the impetus for the creation of the ESRB. Later the government said that the ESRB needed to broaden their ratings enforcement or the government would step in and do so. Lately the government has said that they think that games are not being given ratings that are high enough for the ages listed due to the potential of mods, expansions, and hacks, and therefor will step in with legislative relief if the ESRB doesn't meet their unpublished arbitrary standards.
So, what exactly does the U.S. government have to do with the ESRB? They are the Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of a self regulatory body that was created simply because of threats of legislative regulation of a sector of business in a free country. Pretty simple, see.
Pinky, sometimes you amaze me.
The $$ should BE part of the logic.
I thought it was "fluid iron core". Hmm. A quick google has both terms being used even though thay don't mean quite the same thing.