I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the first response was already taken in the computer use policy and possible the handbook where it generally says you can use the work computers only for work related tasks.
Almost every computer use policy I have written said something to that measure.. Most employee handbooks I have read make that clear too.
Why would we want a new constitution when the current one isn't even followed. It's not followed because it doesn't let politicians do whatever in the hell they want to do so a new constitution will not change that at all.
And like missing the obvious there, I'm willing to bet you have no clue what the American Experiment in Democracy version 1.0 was in the first place and are in absolutely no position to declare that it has failed.
Here is a hint, your representatives do no represent you whatsoever at all. They represent the state. There is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that suggests the politicians have any responsibility to the public outside of being forbidden on infringing on certain rights the public already holds.
because the article and the summery and everything is pointing to the creation of top level domains not domains in the top levels. This is whatever comes after the dot as in ".com", not what comes before the . as in "whydoibother".com
It has absolutely no bearing on domains being registered in those top level domains. It only has to do with top level domains so things like.offensive can't be made. That being said, it's still not a good idea even though the logic you championed is completely irrelevant to the concept of discussion. No one is suggesting pulling.cn or.whatever out of the mix because pirateme registered a domain there.
I'm not blind to the obvious. I don't have some inborn hatred toward someone for their affiliation either.
And as far as narrow minded, there are things in politics which require that specifically. Most of which are where the government's constitutional role has been breached. Most of my objections to progressives in this site is where they are basically hypocrites in saying the constitution is everything in matters of the first amendment, the forth or fifth amendments, then saying it's just a piece of paper written by old guys wearing wigs which doesn't mean anything when it comes to states rights, the second amendment, and other areas they deem unimportant or would conveniently like to disappear.
And this pattern seems to be instilled in some so called progressives. Take FDR for instance. He actually said
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
in a speech pertaining to the Volstead act some two years before getting elected president and ignoring every principle he just stated in his new deal program. In fact, the initial rejection of the new deal programs cited them as being unconstitutional for the very same reasons FDR cited. It wasn't until after FDR decided to ignore the SCOTUS that they expanded the interstate commerce clause in a deal to save face.
BTW, that speech in it's entirety was printed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930.
So you see, the problem I have which you might consider me being narrow minded is not with the programs or suggestions, it's with the authority the government has in participating in them. IF the constitution was amended and they were given that authority as it has been in the past, then the focus would be on how to best implement those thoughts and ideas. But in general, it seems like they do not want to do that, they want to recreate the constitution's meaning when it suits them and only preserve what they think is suitable to their own goals.
And no, I'm not saying the right or conservatives are much different. It's just less obvious in most situations and a lot of times, they were lemon aid out of the lemons already given to them. Take this recent unconstitutional health care law. They claim it was taken from a republican proposal. A lot of them claim it was Romney care re-branded and others claim it's almost identical to a 1993 counter proposal to Hillary care so the right should be on board. What they are neglecting is that Romney care is a state program in which the state has legitimate authority, and the 1993 proposal went nowhere for a reason.
However, if someone were to amend the constitution, then there would be no constitutional objections to it. Hell, they could even get single payer government care assuming it could be paid for without upsetting most of the population.. And the most ridiculous part of this is that the left seems to cherish the Roe v Wade decision that says the government can't get into the private health care of citizens and forbid abortions, yet they seem to ignore that very essence in stating the reasons why they think the health car law is constitutional. In short, if it is constitutional, then the reasons why would completely negate Roe v. Wade.
I can't for the life of me understand why you got modded troll.. I didn't RTFA but I'm going on a wild guess and assuming that the hackers didn't walk into the NASDAQ HQ, sit at a terminal and guess a password while everyone walked by no noticing them.
But just in case someone out there failed to put knowledge from one area together with a comment in another, the situation is like this, the US government wants a kill switch for the internet. They claim it's to stop attacks. Recently, we saw Egypt shutting down the internet in order to suppress civil unrest and delay the information of it from leaving the country. The US government insists it's to combat an attack. And look here, someone attacked and hacked into a common tech related stock exchange and had the potential to manipulate honest earnings while steeling from millions of American's retirement funds.
does that sound like an attack the killl switch was designed to tackle? I don't know. I don't think it was staged either, But pointing it out was no where near a troll as the parent was modded.
Your view on "fairness" is exactly the argument of oppressors (or would-be oppressors). "It''s all perfectly fair, everyone is perfectly free to do exactly what I would have them do and then it's just fine". I doubt the conversation can get past that really.
Well, perhaps is you changed the term "I" to "the majority of people in the country", I can agree with you.
Breathing is a choice! Should you be afflicted with this abominable urge to breathe, you can surely cure it with a simple plastic bag if you have an ounce of initiative. This makes nearly as much sense as your arguments.
lol.. Ok, this just shows how inept your argument really is. If you do not breathe, you do not live. If you do not have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, nothing happens to you. If you fail to marry someone of the same sex, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to marry altogether, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to ever have sex with anyone, nothing life threatening happens to you. Being gay is absolutely not like breathing. And yes, even if you put a plastic bag over your sexual organs while having sex, nothing life-threatening happens to you (*unless you have one of the rare allergic reactions to latex or the spermicide found in condoms).
Anyways, no matter how much you want to make the choice, or why, it's still a choice and still completely different then anything with any life ending consequences attached to it. To more accurately compare it to something, you might be able to compare it to buying a car. You may be genetically predispositions to liking the style of corvettes, you may even be genetically predispositions to the color blue, but in the end, buying a blue corvette is still a choice you have to consciously make. And you are not going to die by not buying one or even by buying a red Ford Torus instead. And yes, just like cars, there are some that are legal on the road and there are some that are not legal to be on the road.
Well, as long as we are playing the political reality game, Yes, by bush and company who, for all their faults, did not seize domain names like this.
Oh and smaller government doesn't necessarily mean no government powers. It means constitutional limits as well as constitutional support for those government powers. At the risk of turning this into a cliche begging for political flames and trolling, Smaller government, I don't think that means what you think it means.
In Oregon a referendum to do so was voted down. It appears the citizens of that state are happy to pay a little more at the pump to provide jobs that could otherwise be spread out amongst other industries.
Well, that or the people who objected couldn't afford the gas to drive to the polling place and vote for the ban of the ban.
Maybe I should move to Oregon so my college and other accreditation wouldn't stand in my way of getting a job pumping gas. Or better yet, I could open a gas station, organize it as a club, sell memberships, make all members volunteer-employees, and sell the gas at lower costs with those volunteer employees pumping it.
Anyways, if that is actually something the people of Oregon want to do, more power to them. I guess my scam would fail. But I have done other things to get around the smoking ban in my state too. A bar I own part of, we purchased an old motor home and parked it in the courtyard of the beer garden. Gutted out the inside, put a cage around the drivers area, and extended out the sides, and put a covered awning going to the side door of the establishment. Now "members" can go into a comfortable, heated environment that escapes the regulation defining building and smoke while drinking any time they want, those that don't smoke can stay inside, and all I have to do is keep the tags current and drive it around the block ever month or so. The bar is a dump, but it's the most popular bar in town.
You should probably know that current thinking is that homosexuality is based in biology, not psychology. So to is menstruation for women. However, as for your point, if it was instead because of legislation, I certainly would support having it nullified on grounds of fairness. I'm guessing you are probably hetero. Homosexuals are just as capable of being heterosexual as you are of being homosexual (and find it about as desirable). The only ones who have anything like a choice are bisexuals.
Even if it turns out to be accurate that all gay people are Darwinistic mutants attempting to end their contributions to the gene pool (which I don't believe), preference is always precedes a choice in labeling someone gay. Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not labeled a homosexual until a point in time they participate in homosexual relations with someone. To say there isn't a choice is ridiculous, there always is a choice. It's just a matter of if how you want to make that choice. Make it one way, and you are free to participate in societies little venture called marriage. Make it another way, and you need judges making shit up in order to allow you to participate in that same marriage. Either way, the point wasn't about whether I agree with gays or not, Personally, I could care less (as their act of not procreating seems to be natures way of strengthening the gene pool if you want to get all evolutionist about it), the point was about courts not following the law and inventing things to make their opinion matter over the will of the people or set rules that society agreed to live by.
You certainly are not suggesting that if you agree with it, it's ok to ignore the constitution, ignore the state's constitution, or the rules and methods of law built around them are you? I mean if you are, then it points out how silly the idea of banning politicians from office if some court decides they voted from something they claim is unconstitutional. I mean think about that.
If the law is not based on fairness, then those who are treated unfairly are fully justified in destroying the society if they can. That doesn't sound like a very good state of affairs.
No they are not.In a free society, they are entitled to change societies mind peacefully, but if it doesn't happen, they are not entitled to destroy anything. They are however, entitled to move somewhere else.
But lets explore this a little more. In 1919, communists infiltrated the socialist parties in the US, they also had their own party. They did not come close to equaling a majority of Americans so they plotted to overthrow the government and install a Stalinist type regime in it's place. Most of these people were foreigners. This plan progressed over the next couple of years and was finally discovered by the US government and ended with the deportation of all non-natural participants that the government could find. The rest went into hiding and the communist party was outlawed for the first time in US history. Those communist and socialist thought things were unfair. Did they have the right to destroy society and put whatever it wanted in it's place? I ask this not because I'm particularly against communism or socialism, those points are ancillary. The point is, that if any group of people has the right to destroy society because of what it thinks isn't fair, then the government is a group of people who can destroy society by ignoring the constitution when it thinks it's fair. Not only can that happen which negate your entire point, Islamic fascist would hold that right too, or just about any other groups that is seen as hostile to freedom. The right to destroy society either exists for all, or it doesn't exist at all. The proper answer to that is to peacefully change society's mind. Not destroy it to serve your own purpose.
As for the spousal privilege, granted it's not the 5th amendment but it does come from the sam
So you believe it's perfectly fair that because of an innate trait gays cannot marry someone they are attracted to but heteros can?
Do you think it's unfair that women have a menstrual cycle and men do not? The law is a way because society decide that's the way they wanted it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's not unfair that I can get a license and drive a car where someone who decided to drink and drive lost their license and the law forbids it. They chose to act in ways society decided that wasn't what they wanted, now there are things they can't participate in.
That's about as fair as saying you DO provide equal access because you don't have a rule against people in wheelchairs using your spiral staircase just like the able bodied do.
So are you saying that gay people are crippled, injured, or diseased and not capable physically or mentally doing the same things normal people can? Actually they are not. They do have a preference in their sexuality but it's a choice to act on that preference. To make your statement more accurate, it would have to be someone in a wheelchair because they think it's fun to ride in one and no other reason. At least then we have an apples to apples comparison.
An alternative would be to do away with the civil marriage and make that a purely religious matter. Then the state will need to recognize a legal companion in order to deal with everything from emergency medical decisions to inheritance. The 5th amendment would also come into play there. Obviously, the government would have no right at all to tell you who your legal companion could be. We do have freedom of association.
well, that's an idea if society decides to go along with it. But the issue that brought this discussion to this point was society deciding one thing, making it law, and some judicial activism interfering with that based on nothing coming close to law.
However, that would have nothing to do with the 5th amendment. The right not to testify against a spouse is something entirely developed in law and not the 5th amendment at all. It comes from the legal concept of two people becoming one in all matters after marriage. It comes from back when women had little to no rights and they depended on their man to do most everything. If we did away with marriage as a legal concept, there is no reason to carry that over.
I thought you were talking about fairness in the other things I mentioned like going light on the exemployee who stole from the company after not being able to make a living due to crap the company did. And yes, the california court case is completely different then that. They created law that was completely contrary to both existing law and the will of the people.
Furthermore, there is no fairness argument in regard to gay marriage. Anyone is capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex once they reach the age of consent and consent from both parties is given. Gays were not/are not denied that at all. They simply chose to not participate and then demanded a new right that didn't exist even though its similar to marriage.
And before you pick up on love and all the other horseshit associated with extra rights for gays, the law doesn't take love into consideration one but nor does it take religion into consideration. Two people who love each other can get married or they can stay unmarried, inter-religious couples can do the same. Gays can marry in every state also, they just don't want to marry the opposite sex. And not only was that the law in California, it was the will of the people as expresses in more then one election.
The also had a lot less ways to coordinate the protests or hide from repercussions of doing so in the process.
It's a communications, command and control situation. Extra unorganized protesters are a lot less of a threat then a few well organized and motivated ones.
In the states, we use similar tactics. Except we don't deny access. Instead we infiltrate and provoke then take out the leadership to drop the organization and coordination.
Fairness may not be part of the law in practice (for that matter, the right to an attorney, due process, and many other things are constructively denied), but it is there at least in principle. I certainly won't fault the one judge who remembers that once in a while nor would I decry it as activism.
I wouldn't fault them necessarily either but I also don't think I would call it judicial activism. Perhaps some cases might border that line.
You don't entirely escape, unfortunately. However, if the various state superior courts or federal Supreme court get too far out of hand (especially if they start abusing their power in personal vendettas), there are procedures for impeachment. Surely toying with the meaning of the Constitution for personal political gain would fall somewhere under "High crimes and misdemeanors".
And the spike on the tracks derailing that train is who does the impeachments. Currently, it's the politicians (at least on the federal level) who would be appointing biased political cronies in the first place.
In the scenario laid out, it would literally be the fox guarding the hen house. Not too many people ever get impeached from office for doing something that self appointed majority agrees with.
In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But then again, we wouldn't have judicial activism or politicians who do not comprehend the constitution either.
In the US, plagiarism is a means or method of copyright violation. It's typically head of more in an academic environment and with ethics, but according to most definitions, to plagiarize means to copy anthers work, concept or ideas and present it as your own. Sure, they use different words, but it boils down to the same.
Copyright is so broad in the US, that the copying and distribution of someone else' works is almost alway covered by it. There are exceptions to copyright violations which give rise to fair use. That would be excluded from copyright as well would something in the public domain (no valid copyright). So yes, while plagiarism could be different from copyright, I'm not sure I am seeing anything here that would make this situation different.
I'm sure we could craft a law that takes into account such things as the classic yelling fire in a movie house or fighting words. It's all theoretical anyway since none of the asshats in office are going to vote in a law that will push them out.
Agreed!
When you can't get something good, you try to make do to the extent that you can.
Yes, I understand that. However, I was more trying to point out that more then voting for the right guy was going to be needed. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that either.
You know the Constitution is explicitly NOT an exhaustive list of rights, yes?
It is but not in the sense you probably are thinking. The constitution is an exhausted list of rights the federal government has over the people and it even shows which rights of the state or the people specifically cannot be revoked. The constitution doesn't give anyone but government rights. The best it does for citizens is list specific rights the government isn't supposed to be allowed to intrude on. The rights held by the citizens are already there.
Fairness is part of the foundation of law. Without it, there can be no justice.
No really in practice. Take a fired ex employee who is starving because among other things, the company illegally blackballed him in his job searches. So this guy robs one of the stores he worked at and takes enough money to eat on for a month. He's still a thief and still subject to a law he violated when normally, he could have just got another job and got on with his life. We as a society, typically ignore fairness for the explicit discouragement of behavior. Now a crafty lawyer might be able to get that hypothetical guy off by using a necessity defense and claiming the company was the means to drive him there, but it's a gamble. Another example might be, you borrow a friends car, his insurance or registration is lapsed and you get the ticket for it. By most orders of fairness, the owner of the car should be accountable for that, but in most jurisdictions, it will be whoever was driving when it happened.
So fairness in a practical sense isn't really followed. Instead, there is a defined rule on what fairness actually is when being prosecuted. Unfortunately, the same people who make the laws, are typically the same people who define this fairness to the extent the constitutions will allow.
Nevertheless, those issues are why I said a 3 strikes law. Anyone could mess up once. Another strike because anyone could be on the wrong side of judicial activism once. By the third time, they're out of excuses.
I don't disagree with you, I just do not see how you can entirely escape the judicial activism. It's bad now, but it's not really all that common. Wait until it can be used as a weapon to remove your political opponent from office. Then most every decision will have something based around it for the purpose of politics.
You must admit, a political attempt to disrupt the speech of the people is a rather serious threat to the Constitution.
Not really. I don't see the constitution protecting all forms of speech. I'll skip past the entire fire in crowded movie theater stigma seeing how the nature of the alarm and panic is lost on the safer modern theaters. But how about when someone consistently threatens and berates someone, perhaps even when they are a witness or victim to a crime and the speech is an attempt to coerce them into not aiding the legitimate prosecution of that crime. Or how about someone who murders a family then becomes rich from selling books and the rights to movies about that murder. How about the speech of someone who is actively attempting to violently overthrow the government to impose a dictatorship or something similar. and that's without getting into disgusting things like the promotion of child porn and so on.
I don't really see all speech as protected speech under the constitution. I see the majority of it just as that, but there are areas in which there is simply no justification for putting up with the harm or potential harm it could cause.
I like many many others do try to avoid electing asshats, but it seems that mostly asshats are running and the media filters most non-asshats out of the debates.
Truthfully, in American politics, we havn't voted for the best guy or non-asshat in a long time. We have been on either a damage control mission or a give me mission and sometimes both. We are selecting politicians based around what they will do for me, or what they won't do for them. It's not leaders who are for the people, it's leaders who are for me and not them. The reason why the media filters some of them is largely due to the fact they attract more people who are just a subset of the above but think differently as to what they want. In recent times, it's because there was no real expectation of policy too. Take Ron Paul for instance, No matter what you think about him, you can't deny that people on the internet pushing him as a presidential candidate in 2004 laid claims to him doing so many things or supporting them, that is was easy to enter one site and read contradicting claims without digging very deep at all. Now that may be more of a sign of his supporters then him, but it's a sign of no real expectation of policy.
Honestly, the death penalty is a bit much, and there are a lot more things that should get a politician sanctioned. For one, I would like a 3 strikes (or perhaps 2) law barring anyone from office if they vote in favor of any legislation that is later narrowed or struck down as unconstitutional. If they either know so little about the Constitution or hold it in such disdain, they are unfit to make laws.
I would agree if we didn't have the thread of judicial activism around. And no, I'm not talking about the we read the constitution and my side lost activist, I'm talking about the entire "we will create a right where one didn't exist" activism like the California supreme court did to defeat the voter approved gay marriage ban. If you read their argument on over turning it, you will see that they didn't cite law or constitutional issues, they cited fairness and other things that had nothing to do with the law or constitutionality.
With that in the system, you would have the problem of people who actually do know the constitution being barred from office because of politics and not the actual unconstitutionality of any law. Look at the recent health care legislation that has been ruled unconstitutional by two courts now. One side is claiming judicial activism while another side is claiming victory. What if it's both?
Well, modern firewalls, and perhaps firewalls from the past, can generally count concurrent connections from a single source do some number crunching magic with the speed or rate of connections and simply drop packets from that source as an attack. Even the elcheapo sub $500 zywall's will do this automatically in a separate process if you have the item set.
I think a problem with some firewall setups might be where there is an actual reply like when rejecting a packet or returning a response of something. A dropped packet doesn't take a reply and could possibly save bandwidth in the process because less outgoing needs to be dealt with. I'm sure there are ways to get around that, but I'm not sure that makes exposing a host server any more beneficial. In fact, it should react in the same way and just drop packets to ports that aren't alive too.
I know there was a case about phone numbers where the database wasn't protected, but that hinged a lot on the law requiring the numbers to be published and publicly available/distributed to everyone in the local calling areas.
So it takes messing with your internet to get you fired up.
Perhaps it would be easier to just pay attention more and not vote the asshats into office in the first place?
Perhaps death and physical harm is not what's needed but a recall option to which any politician can be removed from office upon a certain set of criteria and be barred from serving office for a set amount of time would be more appropriate. At least then you wouldn't have a mess created by a governor who got thrown out just to get reelected when the mess got worse and the incumbent reached a term limit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the first response was already taken in the computer use policy and possible the handbook where it generally says you can use the work computers only for work related tasks.
Almost every computer use policy I have written said something to that measure.. Most employee handbooks I have read make that clear too.
The thirteen colonies were a sovereign state once too. Most of the UK and Russia and Mexico was too. It could get ugly fast if that's a criteria.
Why would we want a new constitution when the current one isn't even followed. It's not followed because it doesn't let politicians do whatever in the hell they want to do so a new constitution will not change that at all.
And like missing the obvious there, I'm willing to bet you have no clue what the American Experiment in Democracy version 1.0 was in the first place and are in absolutely no position to declare that it has failed.
Here is a hint, your representatives do no represent you whatsoever at all. They represent the state. There is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that suggests the politicians have any responsibility to the public outside of being forbidden on infringing on certain rights the public already holds.
because the article and the summery and everything is pointing to the creation of top level domains not domains in the top levels. This is whatever comes after the dot as in ".com", not what comes before the . as in "whydoibother".com
It has absolutely no bearing on domains being registered in those top level domains. It only has to do with top level domains so things like .offensive can't be made. That being said, it's still not a good idea even though the logic you championed is completely irrelevant to the concept of discussion. No one is suggesting pulling .cn or .whatever out of the mix because pirateme registered a domain there.
I bet that would make a great chat room domain you would go into a lot.
I'm not blind to the obvious. I don't have some inborn hatred toward someone for their affiliation either.
And as far as narrow minded, there are things in politics which require that specifically. Most of which are where the government's constitutional role has been breached. Most of my objections to progressives in this site is where they are basically hypocrites in saying the constitution is everything in matters of the first amendment, the forth or fifth amendments, then saying it's just a piece of paper written by old guys wearing wigs which doesn't mean anything when it comes to states rights, the second amendment, and other areas they deem unimportant or would conveniently like to disappear.
And this pattern seems to be instilled in some so called progressives. Take FDR for instance. He actually said
in a speech pertaining to the Volstead act some two years before getting elected president and ignoring every principle he just stated in his new deal program. In fact, the initial rejection of the new deal programs cited them as being unconstitutional for the very same reasons FDR cited. It wasn't until after FDR decided to ignore the SCOTUS that they expanded the interstate commerce clause in a deal to save face.
BTW, that speech in it's entirety was printed in the New York Times, March 3, 1930.
So you see, the problem I have which you might consider me being narrow minded is not with the programs or suggestions, it's with the authority the government has in participating in them. IF the constitution was amended and they were given that authority as it has been in the past, then the focus would be on how to best implement those thoughts and ideas. But in general, it seems like they do not want to do that, they want to recreate the constitution's meaning when it suits them and only preserve what they think is suitable to their own goals.
And no, I'm not saying the right or conservatives are much different. It's just less obvious in most situations and a lot of times, they were lemon aid out of the lemons already given to them. Take this recent unconstitutional health care law. They claim it was taken from a republican proposal. A lot of them claim it was Romney care re-branded and others claim it's almost identical to a 1993 counter proposal to Hillary care so the right should be on board. What they are neglecting is that Romney care is a state program in which the state has legitimate authority, and the 1993 proposal went nowhere for a reason.
However, if someone were to amend the constitution, then there would be no constitutional objections to it. Hell, they could even get single payer government care assuming it could be paid for without upsetting most of the population.. And the most ridiculous part of this is that the left seems to cherish the Roe v Wade decision that says the government can't get into the private health care of citizens and forbid abortions, yet they seem to ignore that very essence in stating the reasons why they think the health car law is constitutional. In short, if it is constitutional, then the reasons why would completely negate Roe v. Wade.
I can't for the life of me understand why you got modded troll.. I didn't RTFA but I'm going on a wild guess and assuming that the hackers didn't walk into the NASDAQ HQ, sit at a terminal and guess a password while everyone walked by no noticing them.
But just in case someone out there failed to put knowledge from one area together with a comment in another, the situation is like this, the US government wants a kill switch for the internet. They claim it's to stop attacks. Recently, we saw Egypt shutting down the internet in order to suppress civil unrest and delay the information of it from leaving the country. The US government insists it's to combat an attack. And look here, someone attacked and hacked into a common tech related stock exchange and had the potential to manipulate honest earnings while steeling from millions of American's retirement funds.
does that sound like an attack the killl switch was designed to tackle? I don't know. I don't think it was staged either, But pointing it out was no where near a troll as the parent was modded.
Well, perhaps is you changed the term "I" to "the majority of people in the country", I can agree with you.
lol.. Ok, this just shows how inept your argument really is. If you do not breathe, you do not live. If you do not have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, nothing happens to you. If you fail to marry someone of the same sex, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to marry altogether, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to ever have sex with anyone, nothing life threatening happens to you. Being gay is absolutely not like breathing. And yes, even if you put a plastic bag over your sexual organs while having sex, nothing life-threatening happens to you (*unless you have one of the rare allergic reactions to latex or the spermicide found in condoms).
Anyways, no matter how much you want to make the choice, or why, it's still a choice and still completely different then anything with any life ending consequences attached to it. To more accurately compare it to something, you might be able to compare it to buying a car. You may be genetically predispositions to liking the style of corvettes, you may even be genetically predispositions to the color blue, but in the end, buying a blue corvette is still a choice you have to consciously make. And you are not going to die by not buying one or even by buying a red Ford Torus instead. And yes, just like cars, there are some that are legal on the road and there are some that are not legal to be on the road.
Well, as long as we are playing the political reality game, Yes, by bush and company who, for all their faults, did not seize domain names like this.
Oh and smaller government doesn't necessarily mean no government powers. It means constitutional limits as well as constitutional support for those government powers. At the risk of turning this into a cliche begging for political flames and trolling, Smaller government, I don't think that means what you think it means.
Well, that or the people who objected couldn't afford the gas to drive to the polling place and vote for the ban of the ban.
Maybe I should move to Oregon so my college and other accreditation wouldn't stand in my way of getting a job pumping gas. Or better yet, I could open a gas station, organize it as a club, sell memberships, make all members volunteer-employees, and sell the gas at lower costs with those volunteer employees pumping it.
Anyways, if that is actually something the people of Oregon want to do, more power to them. I guess my scam would fail. But I have done other things to get around the smoking ban in my state too. A bar I own part of, we purchased an old motor home and parked it in the courtyard of the beer garden. Gutted out the inside, put a cage around the drivers area, and extended out the sides, and put a covered awning going to the side door of the establishment. Now "members" can go into a comfortable, heated environment that escapes the regulation defining building and smoke while drinking any time they want, those that don't smoke can stay inside, and all I have to do is keep the tags current and drive it around the block ever month or so. The bar is a dump, but it's the most popular bar in town.
And he just got reelected so you know his stand on this isn't posturing for next years election.
He seems genuine and worthy.. even though I typically do not like democrats. I guess he is one of the few good ones left.
Even if it turns out to be accurate that all gay people are Darwinistic mutants attempting to end their contributions to the gene pool (which I don't believe), preference is always precedes a choice in labeling someone gay. Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not labeled a homosexual until a point in time they participate in homosexual relations with someone. To say there isn't a choice is ridiculous, there always is a choice. It's just a matter of if how you want to make that choice. Make it one way, and you are free to participate in societies little venture called marriage. Make it another way, and you need judges making shit up in order to allow you to participate in that same marriage. Either way, the point wasn't about whether I agree with gays or not, Personally, I could care less (as their act of not procreating seems to be natures way of strengthening the gene pool if you want to get all evolutionist about it), the point was about courts not following the law and inventing things to make their opinion matter over the will of the people or set rules that society agreed to live by.
You certainly are not suggesting that if you agree with it, it's ok to ignore the constitution, ignore the state's constitution, or the rules and methods of law built around them are you? I mean if you are, then it points out how silly the idea of banning politicians from office if some court decides they voted from something they claim is unconstitutional. I mean think about that.
No they are not.In a free society, they are entitled to change societies mind peacefully, but if it doesn't happen, they are not entitled to destroy anything. They are however, entitled to move somewhere else.
But lets explore this a little more. In 1919, communists infiltrated the socialist parties in the US, they also had their own party. They did not come close to equaling a majority of Americans so they plotted to overthrow the government and install a Stalinist type regime in it's place. Most of these people were foreigners. This plan progressed over the next couple of years and was finally discovered by the US government and ended with the deportation of all non-natural participants that the government could find. The rest went into hiding and the communist party was outlawed for the first time in US history. Those communist and socialist thought things were unfair. Did they have the right to destroy society and put whatever it wanted in it's place? I ask this not because I'm particularly against communism or socialism, those points are ancillary. The point is, that if any group of people has the right to destroy society because of what it thinks isn't fair, then the government is a group of people who can destroy society by ignoring the constitution when it thinks it's fair. Not only can that happen which negate your entire point, Islamic fascist would hold that right too, or just about any other groups that is seen as hostile to freedom. The right to destroy society either exists for all, or it doesn't exist at all. The proper answer to that is to peacefully change society's mind. Not destroy it to serve your own purpose.
Do you think it's unfair that women have a menstrual cycle and men do not? The law is a way because society decide that's the way they wanted it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's not unfair that I can get a license and drive a car where someone who decided to drink and drive lost their license and the law forbids it. They chose to act in ways society decided that wasn't what they wanted, now there are things they can't participate in.
So are you saying that gay people are crippled, injured, or diseased and not capable physically or mentally doing the same things normal people can? Actually they are not. They do have a preference in their sexuality but it's a choice to act on that preference. To make your statement more accurate, it would have to be someone in a wheelchair because they think it's fun to ride in one and no other reason. At least then we have an apples to apples comparison.
well, that's an idea if society decides to go along with it. But the issue that brought this discussion to this point was society deciding one thing, making it law, and some judicial activism interfering with that based on nothing coming close to law.
However, that would have nothing to do with the 5th amendment. The right not to testify against a spouse is something entirely developed in law and not the 5th amendment at all. It comes from the legal concept of two people becoming one in all matters after marriage. It comes from back when women had little to no rights and they depended on their man to do most everything. If we did away with marriage as a legal concept, there is no reason to carry that over.
I thought you were talking about fairness in the other things I mentioned like going light on the exemployee who stole from the company after not being able to make a living due to crap the company did. And yes, the california court case is completely different then that. They created law that was completely contrary to both existing law and the will of the people.
Furthermore, there is no fairness argument in regard to gay marriage. Anyone is capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex once they reach the age of consent and consent from both parties is given. Gays were not/are not denied that at all. They simply chose to not participate and then demanded a new right that didn't exist even though its similar to marriage.
And before you pick up on love and all the other horseshit associated with extra rights for gays, the law doesn't take love into consideration one but nor does it take religion into consideration. Two people who love each other can get married or they can stay unmarried, inter-religious couples can do the same. Gays can marry in every state also, they just don't want to marry the opposite sex. And not only was that the law in California, it was the will of the people as expresses in more then one election.
The also had a lot less ways to coordinate the protests or hide from repercussions of doing so in the process.
It's a communications, command and control situation. Extra unorganized protesters are a lot less of a threat then a few well organized and motivated ones.
In the states, we use similar tactics. Except we don't deny access. Instead we infiltrate and provoke then take out the leadership to drop the organization and coordination.
I wouldn't fault them necessarily either but I also don't think I would call it judicial activism. Perhaps some cases might border that line.
And the spike on the tracks derailing that train is who does the impeachments. Currently, it's the politicians (at least on the federal level) who would be appointing biased political cronies in the first place.
In the scenario laid out, it would literally be the fox guarding the hen house. Not too many people ever get impeached from office for doing something that self appointed majority agrees with.
In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But then again, we wouldn't have judicial activism or politicians who do not comprehend the constitution either.
I was going to moderate this story but already posted in it.
It's ok because I couldn't find the Motha fsck'n funny mod anyways and wanted you to know that deserved way more then just funny.
Of course there is be some out there wondering what is so funny about 2Pigeons1Packet. I suppose they should keep wondering.
In the US, plagiarism is a means or method of copyright violation. It's typically head of more in an academic environment and with ethics, but according to most definitions, to plagiarize means to copy anthers work, concept or ideas and present it as your own. Sure, they use different words, but it boils down to the same.
Copyright is so broad in the US, that the copying and distribution of someone else' works is almost alway covered by it. There are exceptions to copyright violations which give rise to fair use. That would be excluded from copyright as well would something in the public domain (no valid copyright). So yes, while plagiarism could be different from copyright, I'm not sure I am seeing anything here that would make this situation different.
Agreed!
Yes, I understand that. However, I was more trying to point out that more then voting for the right guy was going to be needed. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that either.
It is but not in the sense you probably are thinking. The constitution is an exhausted list of rights the federal government has over the people and it even shows which rights of the state or the people specifically cannot be revoked. The constitution doesn't give anyone but government rights. The best it does for citizens is list specific rights the government isn't supposed to be allowed to intrude on. The rights held by the citizens are already there.
No really in practice. Take a fired ex employee who is starving because among other things, the company illegally blackballed him in his job searches. So this guy robs one of the stores he worked at and takes enough money to eat on for a month. He's still a thief and still subject to a law he violated when normally, he could have just got another job and got on with his life. We as a society, typically ignore fairness for the explicit discouragement of behavior. Now a crafty lawyer might be able to get that hypothetical guy off by using a necessity defense and claiming the company was the means to drive him there, but it's a gamble. Another example might be, you borrow a friends car, his insurance or registration is lapsed and you get the ticket for it. By most orders of fairness, the owner of the car should be accountable for that, but in most jurisdictions, it will be whoever was driving when it happened.
So fairness in a practical sense isn't really followed. Instead, there is a defined rule on what fairness actually is when being prosecuted. Unfortunately, the same people who make the laws, are typically the same people who define this fairness to the extent the constitutions will allow.
I don't disagree with you, I just do not see how you can entirely escape the judicial activism. It's bad now, but it's not really all that common. Wait until it can be used as a weapon to remove your political opponent from office. Then most every decision will have something based around it for the purpose of politics.
Not really. I don't see the constitution protecting all forms of speech. I'll skip past the entire fire in crowded movie theater stigma seeing how the nature of the alarm and panic is lost on the safer modern theaters. But how about when someone consistently threatens and berates someone, perhaps even when they are a witness or victim to a crime and the speech is an attempt to coerce them into not aiding the legitimate prosecution of that crime. Or how about someone who murders a family then becomes rich from selling books and the rights to movies about that murder. How about the speech of someone who is actively attempting to violently overthrow the government to impose a dictatorship or something similar. and that's without getting into disgusting things like the promotion of child porn and so on.
I don't really see all speech as protected speech under the constitution. I see the majority of it just as that, but there are areas in which there is simply no justification for putting up with the harm or potential harm it could cause.
Truthfully, in American politics, we havn't voted for the best guy or non-asshat in a long time. We have been on either a damage control mission or a give me mission and sometimes both. We are selecting politicians based around what they will do for me, or what they won't do for them. It's not leaders who are for the people, it's leaders who are for me and not them. The reason why the media filters some of them is largely due to the fact they attract more people who are just a subset of the above but think differently as to what they want. In recent times, it's because there was no real expectation of policy too. Take Ron Paul for instance, No matter what you think about him, you can't deny that people on the internet pushing him as a presidential candidate in 2004 laid claims to him doing so many things or supporting them, that is was easy to enter one site and read contradicting claims without digging very deep at all. Now that may be more of a sign of his supporters then him, but it's a sign of no real expectation of policy.
I would agree if we didn't have the thread of judicial activism around. And no, I'm not talking about the we read the constitution and my side lost activist, I'm talking about the entire "we will create a right where one didn't exist" activism like the California supreme court did to defeat the voter approved gay marriage ban. If you read their argument on over turning it, you will see that they didn't cite law or constitutional issues, they cited fairness and other things that had nothing to do with the law or constitutionality.
With that in the system, you would have the problem of people who actually do know the constitution being barred from office because of politics and not the actual unconstitutionality of any law. Look at the recent health care legislation that has been ruled unconstitutional by two courts now. One side is claiming judicial activism while another side is claiming victory. What if it's both?
Excuse me, I just dropped my token.. Can you check to see if it's under your desk?
Not laughing at you, laughing with you. Yes, CIO's can be more imaginative then a 3 year old.
Well, modern firewalls, and perhaps firewalls from the past, can generally count concurrent connections from a single source do some number crunching magic with the speed or rate of connections and simply drop packets from that source as an attack. Even the elcheapo sub $500 zywall's will do this automatically in a separate process if you have the item set.
I think a problem with some firewall setups might be where there is an actual reply like when rejecting a packet or returning a response of something. A dropped packet doesn't take a reply and could possibly save bandwidth in the process because less outgoing needs to be dealt with. I'm sure there are ways to get around that, but I'm not sure that makes exposing a host server any more beneficial. In fact, it should react in the same way and just drop packets to ports that aren't alive too.
Sure it's like a database. But the database would be covered wouldn't it?
According to this, it would be in most cases.
I know there was a case about phone numbers where the database wasn't protected, but that hinged a lot on the law requiring the numbers to be published and publicly available/distributed to everyone in the local calling areas.
So it takes messing with your internet to get you fired up.
Perhaps it would be easier to just pay attention more and not vote the asshats into office in the first place?
Perhaps death and physical harm is not what's needed but a recall option to which any politician can be removed from office upon a certain set of criteria and be barred from serving office for a set amount of time would be more appropriate. At least then you wouldn't have a mess created by a governor who got thrown out just to get reelected when the mess got worse and the incumbent reached a term limit.
Perhaps he could use the arm for that?