I imagine that's the Somalian equivalent of being a millionaire in Europe or the U.S.
What good does that do you when your friendly local warlord can show up with more guns than you and take it away? If these people truly cared about their country as their mouthpieces claimed, they'd be doing something about the people who have run it into the ground.
since "passing ships" have destroyed their livelihood.
Don't the warlords who destroyed their country and turned it into a failed state deserve some (most?) of the blame for that? If they still had a functioning state they would have a Coast Guard and the ability to regulate their waters. Why don't they turn all of those AK-47s and RPGs on the warlords?
This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in
That's too bad, it might be a more solid investment than subprime mortgages and credit default swaps;) I wonder what Jim Cramer is bullish on them or not?
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property and human beings hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
They have a choice of joining the islamists as suicide bombers, the genocidal warlords as child soldiers or becoming a pirate.
Actually they have another choice. They could turn those AK-47s that are so easy to come by on the assholes that are fucking up their country. Neutralize the warlords and islamist extremists and the rest of the world might be more willing to invest the resources and capital required to help lift that country out of poverty.
If nothing else at least they could take control of their own destiny for a change.
But if you hit someone over the head with a club, then they pick the club up and hit you back, don't come crying to me.
Who is this "you" that you are referring to? Go troll through my posting history. I cried foul when the Republicans did this. If they had any semblance of power in DC right now I'd be finding things to criticize them for.
Yeah, that amazes me. My girlfriend's health insurance recently raised the co-pay of her birth control of choice from tier 2 ($25) to tier 3 ($50). You'd think they'd have a financial incentive to give that shit away for free.....
Here in MA, that locker would be in violation of State Law requiring those in possession of firearms to obtain a license
Given that the Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce it would seem to me that Federal jurisdiction would override MA's jurisdiction on this matter. In any case, ships aren't being hijacked off the coast of Cape Cod, are they?
In any case, I suspect that your laws will be struck down or at least limited in scope once the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states. There's also something in the Constitution called the full faith and credit clause. I don't see how states like MA (or my home state of NY for that matter) get to reject out of state concealed carry permits.
To throw a bone to my liberal friends who hate guns I also don't see how the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is Constitutional either.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself.
There's another point that I could have made. Most states don't require you to carry insurance. They require you to prove that you have the financial resources to cover the property damage and/or bodily injury caused by an automobile accident. Here in New York State you can post a bond with the state for the minimum required liability limits if you don't wish to carry automobile insurance.
Regardless, I do think it's a great distinction. The health insurance mandate is going to apply to every citizen. Just by virtue of being an American citizen you will be compelled to carry health insurance. Such a mandate has never before existed in the history of our Republic and I regard it as an extremely dangerous precedent. Your "Montana shock" example is nothing more than hyperbole. You can live in many parts of the United States without an automobile. My city has a population of <50,000 and still manages to have a halfway decent bus system. You don't have to live in New York City or Boston to get by without an automobile.
One last point I would raise: Obama used this issue to browbeat both of his major opponents on. He insisted repeatedly throughout the campaign that he was not in favor of an individual mandate. He also promised not to raise taxes on those earning <$200,000. If he signs this bill into law then it should be readily apparent even to his base that the promises that come out of his mouth are as meaningless as those of his predecessor.
It's also worth pointing out that one side of the political spectrum calling the other side of the political spectrum "hypocrites" is pretty ridiculous.
Your right of course. I probably should have pointed out that they are all hypocrites.
So everyone cannot be trusted with guns, or freedom for that matter
If someone abuses their gun ownership rights then we can take that right away from them. What we can't do is to take it away from EVERYONE because of the MINORITY of people that can't be trusted.
Part of the 5th amendment reads "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Taking away the gun ownership rights of criminals is perfectly acceptable. Taking away my rights because of criminals is not.
No where in my post did I imply that the Republicans were innocent. What did I say that lead you to believe that? I was addressing my post at the people who claim that the Democrats are better for civil liberties than Republicans. They clearly aren't.
2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.
Freedom of association is protected by the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of my papers and effects. The 10th amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to Congress to the states or the people. I'd say that's enough reference for anybody.
3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.
Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.
4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.
Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.
You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Those people deserve to go to jail. The income tax is constitutional. If Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing a health insurance mandate and 3/4 of the states ratify it then I'll shut up about how it's unconstitutional. If they pass it without doing that then it deserves to be struck down as the freedom infringing power grab that it really is.
I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?
It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly.
You'd know that anyway. The cellular network is broken up into zones to lessen the load on the paging channel. Pages are the way that the network locates your phone for incoming calls, pings, SMS, etc. If you had one giant nationwide paging zone then you'd have far too many paging requests to handle. So they break the network up into zones and at a minimum are always going to know which zone your phone is located in. In a rural area these zones might stretch for quite a distance but in more urban areas they tend to be smaller, as more phones equals more paging traffic.
The minute your phone makes/receives a call or SMS they know which tower it's on. From that point forward it's child's play to locate the customer. You don't even need to do triangulation either. At a minimum you can figure out which sector of the tower they are on -- that will narrow down their location to a 120 degree slice of the tower's coverage. With GSM you can use the timing advance to figure out their range from the tower, in 550 meter segments. I believe there's also a way to compute the distance from the tower in CDMA networks without needing to do triangulation.
Any such power has been reserved to the STATES or the people.
There's also the concept of freedom of association to consider. Congress can't compel me by force of law to associate with anybody, including a health insurance company. Might be able to make a claim under the 4th amendment as well. If I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects then how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?
You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.
You've never paid attention to history if you think that government won't eventually be corrupted and abuse it's power.
he funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"
It really doesn't matter that they use GPS. Any transmitting radio device can be tracked. It's just a matter of having the right tools and the training to do so. The question you've got to ask yourself is whether or not the convenience of a cell phone is worth the trade off of the phone company having access to your whereabouts whenever you carry said cell phone with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine that's the Somalian equivalent of being a millionaire in Europe or the U.S.
What good does that do you when your friendly local warlord can show up with more guns than you and take it away? If these people truly cared about their country as their mouthpieces claimed, they'd be doing something about the people who have run it into the ground.
since "passing ships" have destroyed their livelihood.
Don't the warlords who destroyed their country and turned it into a failed state deserve some (most?) of the blame for that? If they still had a functioning state they would have a Coast Guard and the ability to regulate their waters. Why don't they turn all of those AK-47s and RPGs on the warlords?
Who is this "you guys" that you are referring to? I've never voted for a Republican for any office higher than County Executive.
Just tell them about your extensive experience with RPGs.
Does extensive experience with panzerfausts count the same?
This is not something Wall Street bankers are going to be investing in
That's too bad, it might be a more solid investment than subprime mortgages and credit default swaps ;) I wonder what Jim Cramer is bullish on them or not?
C: Its funny because its true.
No it's not. Even the most die-hard capital 'L' Libertarian would agree that the enforcement of property and human rights are a legitimate function of the state. That would include preventing assholes with AK-47s from holding property and human beings hostage until a nice fat ransom is paid.
They have a choice of joining the islamists as suicide bombers, the genocidal warlords as child soldiers or becoming a pirate.
Actually they have another choice. They could turn those AK-47s that are so easy to come by on the assholes that are fucking up their country. Neutralize the warlords and islamist extremists and the rest of the world might be more willing to invest the resources and capital required to help lift that country out of poverty.
If nothing else at least they could take control of their own destiny for a change.
When did Hitler invade Finland?
But if you hit someone over the head with a club, then they pick the club up and hit you back, don't come crying to me.
Who is this "you" that you are referring to? Go troll through my posting history. I cried foul when the Republicans did this. If they had any semblance of power in DC right now I'd be finding things to criticize them for.
Yeah, that amazes me. My girlfriend's health insurance recently raised the co-pay of her birth control of choice from tier 2 ($25) to tier 3 ($50). You'd think they'd have a financial incentive to give that shit away for free.....
Here in MA, that locker would be in violation of State Law requiring those in possession of firearms to obtain a license
Given that the Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate and foreign commerce it would seem to me that Federal jurisdiction would override MA's jurisdiction on this matter. In any case, ships aren't being hijacked off the coast of Cape Cod, are they?
In any case, I suspect that your laws will be struck down or at least limited in scope once the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states. There's also something in the Constitution called the full faith and credit clause. I don't see how states like MA (or my home state of NY for that matter) get to reject out of state concealed carry permits.
To throw a bone to my liberal friends who hate guns I also don't see how the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" is Constitutional either.
If you think that's a great distinction, you're fooling yourself.
There's another point that I could have made. Most states don't require you to carry insurance. They require you to prove that you have the financial resources to cover the property damage and/or bodily injury caused by an automobile accident. Here in New York State you can post a bond with the state for the minimum required liability limits if you don't wish to carry automobile insurance.
Regardless, I do think it's a great distinction. The health insurance mandate is going to apply to every citizen. Just by virtue of being an American citizen you will be compelled to carry health insurance. Such a mandate has never before existed in the history of our Republic and I regard it as an extremely dangerous precedent. Your "Montana shock" example is nothing more than hyperbole. You can live in many parts of the United States without an automobile. My city has a population of <50,000 and still manages to have a halfway decent bus system. You don't have to live in New York City or Boston to get by without an automobile.
One last point I would raise: Obama used this issue to browbeat both of his major opponents on. He insisted repeatedly throughout the campaign that he was not in favor of an individual mandate. He also promised not to raise taxes on those earning <$200,000. If he signs this bill into law then it should be readily apparent even to his base that the promises that come out of his mouth are as meaningless as those of his predecessor.
I'd think, the 1st Amendment ought to protect their speech, at least...
Sorry, I should have been more clear in my remarks. Tax evaders ought to go to jail.
It's also worth pointing out that one side of the political spectrum calling the other side of the political spectrum "hypocrites" is pretty ridiculous.
Your right of course. I probably should have pointed out that they are all hypocrites.
Granny should hit the gym and fight back
Granny is the perfect example of somebody who needs a gun.
So everyone cannot be trusted with guns, or freedom for that matter
If someone abuses their gun ownership rights then we can take that right away from them. What we can't do is to take it away from EVERYONE because of the MINORITY of people that can't be trusted.
Part of the 5th amendment reads "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Taking away the gun ownership rights of criminals is perfectly acceptable. Taking away my rights because of criminals is not.
No where in my post did I imply that the Republicans were innocent. What did I say that lead you to believe that? I was addressing my post at the people who claim that the Democrats are better for civil liberties than Republicans. They clearly aren't.
2. You quote the Constitution like fundamentalists quote the Bible; you're damn sure there's something about 'insert rantable subject here' in there but you have no proof of reference.
Freedom of association is protected by the 1st amendment. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of my papers and effects. The 10th amendment reserves all powers not specifically granted to Congress to the states or the people. I'd say that's enough reference for anybody.
3. The Federal Government doesn't HAVE to have the power to 'fine people for not buying a product'; your State/Commonwealth has been doing it for years with Auto Insurance. Don't want to pay those insurance bills? Then you don't get to drive that car of yours.
Having a car is a choice. The health insurance mandate is a mandate that will be imposed just by virtue of being born on American soil. If you draw breath then you will be subject to this mandate. If you can't see the difference between the two then there's no point in discussing this matter with you.
4. You sir, can take your tinfoil hat and leave and we'll not shed a tear... Go form your own country or find one that you like better. You don't even have to wait until 2010.
Ah, the old "if you don't like this, leave" argument. Funny how you leftists cried foul when the rightists made that argument but now use it yourselves. Fucking hypocrites.
You'll be arguing these fine legal points in courts, until the judges get bored with it and begin fining you for contempt as they already do to people, who argue, that the entire Income Tax is unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].
Those people deserve to go to jail. The income tax is constitutional. If Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment authorizing a health insurance mandate and 3/4 of the states ratify it then I'll shut up about how it's unconstitutional. If they pass it without doing that then it deserves to be struck down as the freedom infringing power grab that it really is.
I love it! You get an informative mod and I get a troll one for saying the exact same thing. Moderator hypocrisy seems to be on full display today, doesn't it?
It also requires knowing where somebody is at, else you'll be triangulating Baltimore when the suspect is over in Philly.
You'd know that anyway. The cellular network is broken up into zones to lessen the load on the paging channel. Pages are the way that the network locates your phone for incoming calls, pings, SMS, etc. If you had one giant nationwide paging zone then you'd have far too many paging requests to handle. So they break the network up into zones and at a minimum are always going to know which zone your phone is located in. In a rural area these zones might stretch for quite a distance but in more urban areas they tend to be smaller, as more phones equals more paging traffic.
The minute your phone makes/receives a call or SMS they know which tower it's on. From that point forward it's child's play to locate the customer. You don't even need to do triangulation either. At a minimum you can figure out which sector of the tower they are on -- that will narrow down their location to a 120 degree slice of the tower's coverage. With GSM you can use the timing advance to figure out their range from the tower, in 550 meter segments. I believe there's also a way to compute the distance from the tower in CDMA networks without needing to do triangulation.
Any such power has been reserved to the STATES or the people.
There's also the concept of freedom of association to consider. Congress can't compel me by force of law to associate with anybody, including a health insurance company. Might be able to make a claim under the 4th amendment as well. If I have the right to be secure in my papers and effects then how the hell does the Federal Government have the power to demand to know whether or not I'm carrying insurance?
You are paranoid, a conspiracy nut and have a highly inflated self-image if you honestly think that anyone in the government gives a flying fuck about what you're doing.
You've never paid attention to history if you think that government won't eventually be corrupted and abuse it's power.
Your latter guess has been mandated by law since the passage of the 1996 telecommunications act.
Remember who signed that into law the next time you hear someone try to tell you that Democrats are actually better than Republicans.
he funny thing is, those of us who saw this coming and knew that any sort of GPS capability for which it is technically possible for the phone company to read that GPS data would be abused in this fashion were usually called "paranoid" or "conspiracy nuts"
It really doesn't matter that they use GPS. Any transmitting radio device can be tracked. It's just a matter of having the right tools and the training to do so. The question you've got to ask yourself is whether or not the convenience of a cell phone is worth the trade off of the phone company having access to your whereabouts whenever you carry said cell phone with you.