That's a real smart move. So China, as long as it can find buyers in other countries, could pollute all they wanted and cause that other country to have to account for it. The biggest reason why China can find buyers in other countries is because they can produce crap cheaper by not worrying about the environment. All your solution would do is enable that and restrict production capabilities in the other countries.
Nowhere did I say all military spending was on Europe nor did I say we would save all military spending. I made an exact point about exact expenditures discussed specifically by the GP. I'm sorry you cannot follow along with something that simple, but it's your problem not mine.
Can't win for losing I guess. Hitler's top general said in his biography that if someone had enforced the Treaty of Versailles and stopped them from re-militarizing the Rhine, Germany would have been dead in their tracks. If the rest of Europe would have aided Poland, it would have stopped Germany in it's tracks and it never would have became a world war.
First off, if you create your own defense policy and stop relying on the US, our taxes will go down as we will spend less on the military. It is a win win for the US so please do.
Second, I'm not sure where you got the impression that the US was never spying on you in the first place? Carnivore, echelon, magic lantern, and a couple other programs that have existed since the mid 1900's were all about spying on European citizen with European countries spying on US citizens and sharing the important parts with each other.
To somehow say that makes the US pathological liars when the truth of the matter is that it's been out in the open for over 3 decades that I know of is a bit puzzling. Please cite the US diplomat or US government official who let you believe the EU wasn't being spied on.
Yes, Canada was owned by the British during the war of 1812. Saying Canada or the British kicked the US's ass in war is only true if you ignore the battles that were started by the British/Canadians and lost after Treaty of Ghent.
Severely outnumbered, a few soldiers and some dirt farmers volunteering, spanked the British very badly along the Mississippi river and New Orleans. While someone made a song about it that bastardizes the battle a bit, we put a whooping on the British navy.
Measuring "will of the people" by "how big is today's mob" is a poor substitute for the ballot box. Having a military that allows the people to control things only to the extent that the military likes what is going on is a poor substitute for rule of law.
You are right, but there was no legal mechanism to force the ballot box in the time span it appeared to be needed so this happen to create one. I do not support military coups but I do believe this action stopped Egypt from becoming a Syria.
As for Egypt's military- I am more then impressed with them. In the last uprising, they positioned themselves between the government supporters with firearms and the protesters with sticks, stones, and signs. They stopped a lot of senseless bloodshed from happening and stopped the situation from entering a Syria type rebellion. The situation has rose to the top again and the Egyptian military is once again, fighting strongly to save lives. You may not agree with them, but For what it's worth, I salute them.
I don't know why anyone would be comfortable knowing their only readily accessible means of transportation is to rely on others and hope they don't get mad and strike. America seems only content with situations like that when they are living near an ocean, otherwise, they prefer their independence and own vehicles.
I agree it is wrong to not do a government job because the government won't raise taxes and pay you what you want. But it only impacts those who rely on public transportation and I'm betting a lot less in this area will in the future.
"Who gives a rip about little Johnny's 5th grade book report".
"Hi Johnny, I hear you like trains, I have been told you are constantly writing book reports about trains. I like trains too. I wrote a bunch of book reports about them when I was in school too. I have a lot of trains set up in my basement, would you like to come over and play with them some time? We can order some pizza from that place you like (that you wrote about going to for the summer vacation report in 6th grade). Oh and don't tell you mom or dad you are coming over, then I would have to tell mine and they don't like me bringing anyone over. I'll meet you two blocks from the school in a white panel van. I'll be wearing a dark hoody and sun glasses. Tell your parents you are going to the library or something. It will be so much fun.
Sincerely, the creepy dude"
I envisioned it going down like that. I don't know, if anyone else gets access to the works, but it's possible that getting a job would be the last thing on his mind. I guess the bigger issue is informed consent from the parents as to what this crap is and instructing johnny to not put personally identifiable information there.
You can't understand the difference between ownership and possession.
Possession is ownership when there isn't a title or deed to determine otherwise or an outright admittance of not owning something. But by all means, please humor me and explain the difference.
As you determined only one reasonable meaning of the sentence, why would you spend so much time shooting down an intrepretation that you believe to be false? You are just a prick trying to pick a fight.
wow, did I kill your argument that badly that you had to resort to name calling? Either one of two things are happening here, you are wrong and won't admit it, or you are right and cannot explain it in an understandable way. Your results seem to be to say fuck it and attempt to win the debate by putting someone else down. Here is a small hint for ya, that doesn't really make you a winner anywhere outside of a third grade recess.
Not really. You see, the court has often set them back on track. and with the border searches, it was determined that the necessity of sovereignty provided an exception in limited situations. That's not being ignored.
But hey, if you are happy with the government suspending habeas corpus, stopping and searching you anywhere they see fit, denying your rights to protest those actions, then go ahead and keep arguing that the constitution is meaningless and the government doesn't have to follow it because they ignored it before. If it needs changed, then change it. Ignoring it only means it will be ignored when it is something you might care about. You cannot trust people to be good all the time nor can you trust people in power to just do something. There needs to be limits set in stone and those limits need to be solid as possible else we get the splitting hairs BS like enemy combatants and administrations blatantly lieing in federal court hoping the meaning of the word is- is ambiguous enough to technically cover his tracks.
You are so unable to consider a concept of non-ownership that it doesn't make sense to you. There were many places without ownership. Ownership of land post-dates government, not pre-dates it (which seems to prove you wrong). And the natives were happy to sell land for beads. If an alien dropped down and offered you some cool rocks for your air, why would you say no? It's not like they can "own" the air or take it from you. So when they build a huge hamster ball around the planet and suck the air out, how would you have forseen that?
Sigh.. ownership of land before government was who could keep what for their benefit. Usually it involved the use of force. Ownership is inherent in nature- just look at animals protecting their territory or even their nesting grounds. But we don't have to bother looking there because we know those native americans fought between themselves for ownership of land. You have been watching to much revisionist history, the white man did not do anything the natives weren't already doing to themselves, we just had concepts of the wheel and chemistry and did it better because of it.
I've owned a few houses in the US. You could do a title search on them and see the first owner. Prior to that date, according to current government records, it was unowned. It was only after governments did the concept of land ownership develop. That you come from a long line of people who grew up in areas with documented land ownership doesn't change reality, just your perception of it.
Almost all houses in existence today (in first world countries) have records of ownership dating back to when it was built. Even if there wasn't, I'm sure the person occupying it wouldn't just give it up as if they had absolutely no claim on it should someone else move in and displace them. I suspect you attempted to mean the land the house was one in which case no owner is a term of government meaning they didn't recognize claims of ownership on it at that time.
What you seem to be doing is confusing a title or deed as ownership. While that is the common method of laying legal claim to land or buildings, it isn't the only way. Before governments were even thought of in the sense that we see today, people have been fighting over who owns hunting grounds, water resources, fields for farming and so on. It's inherent in our nature and always will be unless someone is buffaloed by some indoctrination. It is a large reason why Marxism fails in practice and why it always morphs into some form of dictatorship.
So the rampant stock and real estate speculation and over-leveraged banks had nothing to do with it? Well I'll be darn. Here I always thought a stock market crash was caused by, well, an overvalued stock market. Instead apparently it has nothing to do with the stock market at all! Amazing the things you learn.
What is your problem? I never said nothing else was involved, but it is a historical fact that government price fixing (in the US) and foreign nationalism (Europe mostly) lead directly to the great depression. Don't sit there and pretend I said a bunch of other things because it doesn't fit the narrative you need in order to justify your ideology.
My dad and I both worked with those guys you claim are only in my mind. Mostly farm kids who grew up eating cornmeal mush three times a day because that's all their family could afford. Dumb as dirt, largely unable to do even simple math or write a letter, much less create a family budget or figure out how to save money for retirement.
and if they died from malnutrition due to the depression as you said, then this is a complete lie. Which is it? Did they die because life was so bad or did they live and you and your dad made friends of them? I would certainly think death is a qualifier for your later statement.
If you're the type of person who thinks that millions of people facing starvation because it's more profitable to sell the food elsewhere (which has happened repeatedly before governments started stepping in) is acceptable then I doubt that there is a place in civilization for you. This whole "me first, everything for me, greed is good" philosophy is utterly at odds with the ever-expanding sense of community that has created modern civilization.
There you go inventing things I supposedly said or believe in without a shred of evidence. I'm sorry I even bothered with your delusional ass in the first place. Nothing you say can be trusted as you proved that you make crap up as needed right here.
I do not really care if someone is starving because food is being sold somewhere else. That has nothing to do with what was said. History also refutes your premise largely because before government and the infrastructure brought about by it, food did not travel well or keep long and had to be created and sold locally. It is government that created the ability to sell food elsewhere while people around you starve in the first place. Anyways, here is a hint, if it is not yours, you are not entitled to it. If someone wants to sell something 2 thousand miles away and it is theirs, you being 10 feet away is meaningless. If you want it so bad, get off your ass and make it yourself or find another supplier.
But you are right, dieing on the cross and coming back to life does mean he doesn't give a shit about a lot of things- as long as you except Jesus as your savior. But even Jesus said something about giving to Cesar what is Cesar's.
How is something inalienable when it can be violated. A violation of inalienable rights does not make it alienable, It makes it a violation of your rights.
Here is the problem. The constitution has built within itself a way to change it. There are two ways to change it, it is designed to be changed as needed if needed. There have only been two changes that could have been unconstitutional to make and the time limits on them have long expired.
So if you truly believe the constitution is out dated, then change it, not ignore it. As a document, it is the only thing keeping the government in check even though it tends to want to ignore it or creativly construe it. This entire ignoring parts you disagree with means they will ignore parts you likely agree with. Massive data collections of the population and watching all your electronic and telephone communications is probably one of them. The very same argument you made about it being old and outdated can be made about the first amendment, about the 4th and 5th amendments or anything else in it.
It is a moral failing if we change the constitution without going through the process of changing the constitution. The country will always be divided when this happens.
Wrong.. You are confusing the ability to keep your possessions with the right to have them. The American Indians certainly had a right to own the lands we purchased from them and the lands we took from them. Titles or deeds for land are only a way to identify a lawful owner in order for you to keep it should a dispute arise.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of EQUAL. It doesn't matter what the motivation is, if one has an advantage the other does not, they are not EQUAL.
So presumably you would be comfortable with being spied on by the UK or Russia or China. It would be okay with you if these foreign powers are watching everything you do, are recording every communication you make. It's only a problem when it is your own government? Or is it just that you have no problem with other people being spied on as long as you personally are not under surveillance?
Many people already live under constant surveillance. I have 18 security cameras between my home and farm buildings, gates, and driveways. All have audio and everyone in my home or who works for me knows about them too. Almost every approach and building entrance is on tape (digital storage), No 0ne has ever expressed to me that they feel theirs rights are being violated.
Now here is why they don't mind. You see, I have no power over them. I have some over the employees, but that is limited and if it is ever abused, they will just find other things to do then help me (they are all part timers earning extra cash). But the government has power over its citizens which is why we find it objectionable. You can't easily shop somewhere else or move to another country when the government is behind it.
This leads us to foreigners. The US has no power over citizens of foreign nations. Spying on China or Germany's citizens or terrorists or whatever outside of US citizens or US persons (foreigners inside the jurisdiction of the US) is next to meaningless. On the same note, the UK or Russia or China have no power over me. No I wouldn't be comfortable with it, I would expect the government to make it stop. But that doesn't make it a human right violation or anything serious.
We've known for decades that the US and various European nation spy on each others citizens to get around internal laws and regulations. Echelon, carnivore, main core, and magic lantern have been known of since the 90's.
What utter nonsense. First, the country was founded with an agreement that constitutes a proposed relationship with its citizens- not China's citizens. Second, the founders saw it fit to only preclude the government of the United States of America from trampling on some of those rights. The founders could care less about what happened to foreigners in foreign countries unless it somehow benefited them.
Thomas Jefferson- one of the most dominate founders in the creation of this country- created the first standing navy and marine force and sent them to Tripoli to smack the smile off the ottoman empire's face because they smarted off to him as an ambassador to France. Well, it had more to do with the ottoman empire attacking US vessels and enslaving the crews (which is what the smart remark was over) but even then we used spies to spy on Tripoli. This also BTW, was one of our first noncommercial dealings with Kuwait after becoming a country (which Kuwait supported us during the revolution and before.)
Slashdot Mirror
You just go on welfare like everyone else. The government has lots of money and they give it to you for free.
Idiocracy?
That's a real smart move. So China, as long as it can find buyers in other countries, could pollute all they wanted and cause that other country to have to account for it. The biggest reason why China can find buyers in other countries is because they can produce crap cheaper by not worrying about the environment. All your solution would do is enable that and restrict production capabilities in the other countries.
Lol.. I can see why you replied anonymously.
Nowhere did I say all military spending was on Europe nor did I say we would save all military spending. I made an exact point about exact expenditures discussed specifically by the GP. I'm sorry you cannot follow along with something that simple, but it's your problem not mine.
And the lack of one- WWII.
Can't win for losing I guess. Hitler's top general said in his biography that if someone had enforced the Treaty of Versailles and stopped them from re-militarizing the Rhine, Germany would have been dead in their tracks. If the rest of Europe would have aided Poland, it would have stopped Germany in it's tracks and it never would have became a world war.
Is it worse then planets in our solar system?
Long Live Pluto!!!
First off, if you create your own defense policy and stop relying on the US, our taxes will go down as we will spend less on the military. It is a win win for the US so please do.
Second, I'm not sure where you got the impression that the US was never spying on you in the first place? Carnivore, echelon, magic lantern, and a couple other programs that have existed since the mid 1900's were all about spying on European citizen with European countries spying on US citizens and sharing the important parts with each other.
To somehow say that makes the US pathological liars when the truth of the matter is that it's been out in the open for over 3 decades that I know of is a bit puzzling. Please cite the US diplomat or US government official who let you believe the EU wasn't being spied on.
Yes, Canada was owned by the British during the war of 1812. Saying Canada or the British kicked the US's ass in war is only true if you ignore the battles that were started by the British/Canadians and lost after Treaty of Ghent.
Severely outnumbered, a few soldiers and some dirt farmers volunteering, spanked the British very badly along the Mississippi river and New Orleans. While someone made a song about it that bastardizes the battle a bit, we put a whooping on the British navy.
You are right, but there was no legal mechanism to force the ballot box in the time span it appeared to be needed so this happen to create one. I do not support military coups but I do believe this action stopped Egypt from becoming a Syria.
As for Egypt's military- I am more then impressed with them. In the last uprising, they positioned themselves between the government supporters with firearms and the protesters with sticks, stones, and signs. They stopped a lot of senseless bloodshed from happening and stopped the situation from entering a Syria type rebellion. The situation has rose to the top again and the Egyptian military is once again, fighting strongly to save lives. You may not agree with them, but For what it's worth, I salute them.
I don't know why anyone would be comfortable knowing their only readily accessible means of transportation is to rely on others and hope they don't get mad and strike. America seems only content with situations like that when they are living near an ocean, otherwise, they prefer their independence and own vehicles.
I agree it is wrong to not do a government job because the government won't raise taxes and pay you what you want. But it only impacts those who rely on public transportation and I'm betting a lot less in this area will in the future.
"Hi Johnny, I hear you like trains, I have been told you are constantly writing book reports about trains. I like trains too. I wrote a bunch of book reports about them when I was in school too. I have a lot of trains set up in my basement, would you like to come over and play with them some time? We can order some pizza from that place you like (that you wrote about going to for the summer vacation report in 6th grade). Oh and don't tell you mom or dad you are coming over, then I would have to tell mine and they don't like me bringing anyone over. I'll meet you two blocks from the school in a white panel van. I'll be wearing a dark hoody and sun glasses. Tell your parents you are going to the library or something. It will be so much fun.
Sincerely, the creepy dude"
I envisioned it going down like that. I don't know, if anyone else gets access to the works, but it's possible that getting a job would be the last thing on his mind. I guess the bigger issue is informed consent from the parents as to what this crap is and instructing johnny to not put personally identifiable information there.
Possession is ownership when there isn't a title or deed to determine otherwise or an outright admittance of not owning something. But by all means, please humor me and explain the difference.
wow, did I kill your argument that badly that you had to resort to name calling? Either one of two things are happening here, you are wrong and won't admit it, or you are right and cannot explain it in an understandable way. Your results seem to be to say fuck it and attempt to win the debate by putting someone else down. Here is a small hint for ya, that doesn't really make you a winner anywhere outside of a third grade recess.
Not really. You see, the court has often set them back on track. and with the border searches, it was determined that the necessity of sovereignty provided an exception in limited situations. That's not being ignored.
But hey, if you are happy with the government suspending habeas corpus, stopping and searching you anywhere they see fit, denying your rights to protest those actions, then go ahead and keep arguing that the constitution is meaningless and the government doesn't have to follow it because they ignored it before. If it needs changed, then change it. Ignoring it only means it will be ignored when it is something you might care about. You cannot trust people to be good all the time nor can you trust people in power to just do something. There needs to be limits set in stone and those limits need to be solid as possible else we get the splitting hairs BS like enemy combatants and administrations blatantly lieing in federal court hoping the meaning of the word is- is ambiguous enough to technically cover his tracks.
Sigh.. ownership of land before government was who could keep what for their benefit. Usually it involved the use of force. Ownership is inherent in nature- just look at animals protecting their territory or even their nesting grounds. But we don't have to bother looking there because we know those native americans fought between themselves for ownership of land. You have been watching to much revisionist history, the white man did not do anything the natives weren't already doing to themselves, we just had concepts of the wheel and chemistry and did it better because of it.
Almost all houses in existence today (in first world countries) have records of ownership dating back to when it was built. Even if there wasn't, I'm sure the person occupying it wouldn't just give it up as if they had absolutely no claim on it should someone else move in and displace them. I suspect you attempted to mean the land the house was one in which case no owner is a term of government meaning they didn't recognize claims of ownership on it at that time.
What you seem to be doing is confusing a title or deed as ownership. While that is the common method of laying legal claim to land or buildings, it isn't the only way. Before governments were even thought of in the sense that we see today, people have been fighting over who owns hunting grounds, water resources, fields for farming and so on. It's inherent in our nature and always will be unless someone is buffaloed by some indoctrination. It is a large reason why Marxism fails in practice and why it always morphs into some form of dictatorship.
You will find that we can ignore those gods
What is your problem? I never said nothing else was involved, but it is a historical fact that government price fixing (in the US) and foreign nationalism (Europe mostly) lead directly to the great depression. Don't sit there and pretend I said a bunch of other things because it doesn't fit the narrative you need in order to justify your ideology.
and if they died from malnutrition due to the depression as you said, then this is a complete lie. Which is it? Did they die because life was so bad or did they live and you and your dad made friends of them? I would certainly think death is a qualifier for your later statement.
There you go inventing things I supposedly said or believe in without a shred of evidence. I'm sorry I even bothered with your delusional ass in the first place. Nothing you say can be trusted as you proved that you make crap up as needed right here.
I do not really care if someone is starving because food is being sold somewhere else. That has nothing to do with what was said. History also refutes your premise largely because before government and the infrastructure brought about by it, food did not travel well or keep long and had to be created and sold locally. It is government that created the ability to sell food elsewhere while people around you starve in the first place. Anyways, here is a hint, if it is not yours, you are not entitled to it. If someone wants to sell something 2 thousand miles away and it is theirs, you being 10 feet away is meaningless. If you want it so bad, get off your ass and make it yourself or find another supplier.
God isn't dead, he's supernatural.
But you are right, dieing on the cross and coming back to life does mean he doesn't give a shit about a lot of things- as long as you except Jesus as your savior. But even Jesus said something about giving to Cesar what is Cesar's.
No, its simply incomplete. The phrase is "constitutionally protected rights" and due to laziness or other reasons, has been shortened.
You don't think I can violate your rights?
How is something inalienable when it can be violated. A violation of inalienable rights does not make it alienable, It makes it a violation of your rights.
Here is the problem. The constitution has built within itself a way to change it. There are two ways to change it, it is designed to be changed as needed if needed. There have only been two changes that could have been unconstitutional to make and the time limits on them have long expired.
So if you truly believe the constitution is out dated, then change it, not ignore it. As a document, it is the only thing keeping the government in check even though it tends to want to ignore it or creativly construe it. This entire ignoring parts you disagree with means they will ignore parts you likely agree with. Massive data collections of the population and watching all your electronic and telephone communications is probably one of them. The very same argument you made about it being old and outdated can be made about the first amendment, about the 4th and 5th amendments or anything else in it.
It is a moral failing if we change the constitution without going through the process of changing the constitution. The country will always be divided when this happens.
Wrong.. You are confusing the ability to keep your possessions with the right to have them. The American Indians certainly had a right to own the lands we purchased from them and the lands we took from them. Titles or deeds for land are only a way to identify a lawful owner in order for you to keep it should a dispute arise.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of EQUAL. It doesn't matter what the motivation is, if one has an advantage the other does not, they are not EQUAL.
It will still be fun as his facts don't say what he thinks they say. Or at least they do not validate the GP
Many people already live under constant surveillance. I have 18 security cameras between my home and farm buildings, gates, and driveways. All have audio and everyone in my home or who works for me knows about them too. Almost every approach and building entrance is on tape (digital storage), No 0ne has ever expressed to me that they feel theirs rights are being violated.
Now here is why they don't mind. You see, I have no power over them. I have some over the employees, but that is limited and if it is ever abused, they will just find other things to do then help me (they are all part timers earning extra cash). But the government has power over its citizens which is why we find it objectionable. You can't easily shop somewhere else or move to another country when the government is behind it.
This leads us to foreigners. The US has no power over citizens of foreign nations. Spying on China or Germany's citizens or terrorists or whatever outside of US citizens or US persons (foreigners inside the jurisdiction of the US) is next to meaningless. On the same note, the UK or Russia or China have no power over me. No I wouldn't be comfortable with it, I would expect the government to make it stop. But that doesn't make it a human right violation or anything serious.
We've known for decades that the US and various European nation spy on each others citizens to get around internal laws and regulations. Echelon, carnivore, main core, and magic lantern have been known of since the 90's.
What utter nonsense. First, the country was founded with an agreement that constitutes a proposed relationship with its citizens- not China's citizens. Second, the founders saw it fit to only preclude the government of the United States of America from trampling on some of those rights. The founders could care less about what happened to foreigners in foreign countries unless it somehow benefited them.
Thomas Jefferson- one of the most dominate founders in the creation of this country- created the first standing navy and marine force and sent them to Tripoli to smack the smile off the ottoman empire's face because they smarted off to him as an ambassador to France. Well, it had more to do with the ottoman empire attacking US vessels and enslaving the crews (which is what the smart remark was over) but even then we used spies to spy on Tripoli. This also BTW, was one of our first noncommercial dealings with Kuwait after becoming a country (which Kuwait supported us during the revolution and before.)