Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.
See Citizens United. The mainstream of the Democratic Party thinks that I have no 1st amendment rights when I band together with like-minded citizens to further a political objective.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
BTW, not to reply twice, but I visited Mammoth Caves National Park a few weeks ago and that policy really isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've got huge "No guns allowed" signs on all of the buildings, cave tours, etc. Hooray for the 2nd amendment, I'm now legally allowed to carry my gun in the parking lot at a National Park.....
Of course they don't actually enforce this policy with metal detectors so in reality it's a victim zone not a gun free zone. I'm sure the guy planning on committing a crime is going to be deterred by that sign on the front door.....
Name me a 3rd party that puts up candidates worth voting for and I'll consider it. The Libertarians are the ones that would appeal to me on paper but they always seem to nominate idiots. I remember their 2008 Presidential candidate best for waging a campaign against Wiccans in the military. Hardly seems compatible with the notion of limited Government and respect for civil liberties.
I looked for the "none of the above" option in 2008 but I could not find it. More's the pity.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
You do realize that, under Obama we've appointed two anti-RKBA justices to SCOTUS while blocking the re-importation of WW2 era firearms into the United States?
Besides, I wasn't specifically thinking of Obama when I made that statement. If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.
Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack.
Too bad that position is regarded as so extreme that most people won't get behind it. Personally I would support it in a New York minute.
Now we can cue up all the FUD about depressurization and 0.45" holes growing into man sized holes that suck everybody out of the plane, make pigs fly and turn cats and dogs into friends.....
I don't think/. as a site has much of a bias. Certainly the editors have their biases but they do a decent job in spite of them. The readership (and by extension the moderators) have their biases but they seem to ebb and flow with the general public. For a few months after Obama got elected you couldn't posit a right-leaning idea around here without it being modded into oblivion. As the country started to tilt away from the Democrats that began to change -- now you can put forth a right-wing idea around here and have a decent shot at getting a +5 out of it.
/. seems to be fairly representative of the mainstream of American political thought, though certain minority parties (the Libertarians in particular) seem to be overrepresented here. Not sure if that's an attribute of the internet or something specific to tech geeks.
so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long
I think your opinion is foolhardy but if you get modded down it's an abuse of the system. If I had mod points I'd toss one your way just for being brave enough to share your thoughts on this matter.
I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers.
That legitimate interest needs to be balanced against individual rights and liberty. At what point do we decide that we've tilted too far against individual rights and give up on the notion of playing whack-a-mole with the people that seek to harm us?
It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.
But even when something has happened it's been halted by the efforts of the passengers. No attack on an American airline in the post 9/11 world has been successful. The question I would posit is why do we respond like frightened little children to failed attempts at doing us harm?
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same.
That's not true. By voting for (R) or (D) you are expressing a preference for WHICH civil liberties you want to lose first.
Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
Want to lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights? Vote Republican.
Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....
do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?
You know it was a Democrat that said "The Buck Stops Here", right?
How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly?
TSA comes under Homeland Security which is a part of the Executive Branch the last time I checked. Guess who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
OMG, my school board made a decision I don't like, that damn Obama!
That's a stupid analogy. My school board is a local agency that's independent of the Federal (and State, for the most part) Government. TSA is nothing of the kind. Obama could fire the director of TSA tomorrow and end this bullshit policy if he was so inclined.
I've gotten around it by not flying anymore. Road trips for the win. Drove all the way to Salt Lake City last year. Drove all the way to NOLA this year. Sure, it limits me to visiting Canada and 49 of the 50 US States but it's better than the alternative, IMHO.
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy [marco.org]. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
I loved the guy around here (and I wish I could find his post) that said something like: In 200 years we've gone from "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to "Sure, you can pat me down, I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
Well, they MIGHT make a change. If they do it will be because they are afraid of Obama wielding more power, not because they have suddenly decided to embrace civil liberties. Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.
Think about all the Republican ranting and raving about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Then Bush came into office and they rolled over and played dead. GOP Congress-critters accused Clinton of wagging the dog when he took us into the Balkens. Those same Congress-critters were silent when Bush took us into Mesopotamia....
Add the embrace of these devices to my list of disappointments in the Obama administration. Not that I'm surprised -- he telegraphed himself very plainly on civil liberties when he backtracked on FISA -- but I'm still disappointed.
It changes the level of distribution for your Drunken Party Photo from "a few friends" to "the entire globe". Which unfortunately includes your current employer, or the HR department of the new company you're trying to join.
Unless your friends are idiots and/or you have a public profile, how could the HR department find you? I don't have a Facebook profile. I have wound up on a few of my friends pages but they are smart enough not to put my last name up there. My first name is a fairly common one so I'm not at all worried about HR searching me out.....
It's not a "fine", it's a "civil judgment" and as such is about as worthless as the paper it's written on. Ask OJ Simpson how effective civil judgments are at compelling payment.
The worst thing that will happen to her is a trip to the bankruptcy lawyer.
If you couldn't get rid of judgments through bankruptcy then what would be the point of bankruptcy? You stop paying your credit card bill. Eventually they sue you. When they win they get a judgment. Now you can't discharge that debt? That doesn't make any sense, does it?
She replied with a sigh "No, they're a bunch of subpoena by the RIAA and MPAA. By law, we have to comply with the court order to match the requested IP recorded on a specific date to our customers account". Damn!
I'd be interested to know if there's a law that says they have to keep those records in the first place. I was never made aware of such a law when I worked in the ISP business and we rotated our radius logs to/dev/null on a monthly basis.
There is relevant case law that has put willful copyright infringement under this exemption
That's the second time you've mentioned this, do you have a citation to back it up? I'm really curious, because I asked my bankruptcy attorney about this case specifically and she indicated that it would more likely than not be ruled to be a dischargable debt.
If they couldn't be there wouldn't be much point to having the bankruptcy code. What do you think happens if your credit card company sues you and wins? They get a civil judgment.....
In most states, they can place liens against her property - assuming she has any.
Move to Florida. Unlimited homestead exemption. Why do you think OJ moved there?
Bankruptcy may be an option but she may not be able to even escape it there because of he state laws and the legal details surrounding this particular case.
Bankruptcy is Federal. State laws only come into play with regards to determining which of your assets are exempt from the bankruptcy estate. It's Federal law that determines which debts can be discharged.
For a native-American woman mother of four, with a job as a natural resource coordinator in Indian reservation? I might be wrong, but don't think $54,000 is doable either.
Time to find a good bankruptcy lawyer. Hope she picks a better one than she did for her first RIAA trial....
You believe wrong. In the State of New York (generally regarded as one of the more left-wing states in our union) I have the right to use deadly force against you if you decide to commit burglary or arson against my home. Other American jurisdictions go even further than this.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar
You can't "ambush" a burglar until they decide to break into your home and whether or not they are armed is immaterial. In fact, whether or not somebody is "armed" has zero bearing on determining if a shoot was justifiable or not. The standard is whether or not they had the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to cause you grievous bodily injury. An 80 year old man is not expected nor required to enter into fisticuffs with an 18 year old man just because the 18 year old is unarmed. If he fears for his life then he can use deadly force.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
Tough shit, they were in his house and he was alone with nobody else to protect him. Who the hell are you to Judge him for defending himself?
In the United States he would have gotten a pat on the back and a "job well done" from the responding police officers, even in our most liberal of jurisdictions.
Charging me more money if I don't do what they want is not a tax credit. It's a penalty. It also breaks two of Obama's campaign promises, one being his opposition to the whole notion of a mandate and the other being his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000/yr.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't see how you're thinking the 1st Amendment rights would go away first under the Dems.
See Citizens United. The mainstream of the Democratic Party thinks that I have no 1st amendment rights when I band together with like-minded citizens to further a political objective.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
BTW, not to reply twice, but I visited Mammoth Caves National Park a few weeks ago and that policy really isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've got huge "No guns allowed" signs on all of the buildings, cave tours, etc. Hooray for the 2nd amendment, I'm now legally allowed to carry my gun in the parking lot at a National Park.....
Of course they don't actually enforce this policy with metal detectors so in reality it's a victim zone not a gun free zone. I'm sure the guy planning on committing a crime is going to be deterred by that sign on the front door.....
Name me a 3rd party that puts up candidates worth voting for and I'll consider it. The Libertarians are the ones that would appeal to me on paper but they always seem to nominate idiots. I remember their 2008 Presidential candidate best for waging a campaign against Wiccans in the military. Hardly seems compatible with the notion of limited Government and respect for civil liberties.
I looked for the "none of the above" option in 2008 but I could not find it. More's the pity.
You do realize that, under Obama we signed into law the expansion of gun rights in national parks [rawstory.com] (was outlawed, now legal)?
You do realize that, under Obama we've appointed two anti-RKBA justices to SCOTUS while blocking the re-importation of WW2 era firearms into the United States?
Besides, I wasn't specifically thinking of Obama when I made that statement. If you think Democrats are friendly towards the notion of the 2nd amendment I invite you to relocate to New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey or California. Come and see what Democrats do to the 2nd amendment when they have unchecked power.
Don't forget, had there been a Texan with a pistol on each of those airplanes on 9/11, there would have been no terrorist attack.
Too bad that position is regarded as so extreme that most people won't get behind it. Personally I would support it in a New York minute.
Now we can cue up all the FUD about depressurization and 0.45" holes growing into man sized holes that suck everybody out of the plane, make pigs fly and turn cats and dogs into friends.....
Something that amuses me about you Americans is that most of your internet media outlets like /. are so rabidly against the Republicans
You've never read Pudge's journal, have you? ;)
I don't think /. as a site has much of a bias. Certainly the editors have their biases but they do a decent job in spite of them. The readership (and by extension the moderators) have their biases but they seem to ebb and flow with the general public. For a few months after Obama got elected you couldn't posit a right-leaning idea around here without it being modded into oblivion. As the country started to tilt away from the Democrats that began to change -- now you can put forth a right-wing idea around here and have a decent shot at getting a +5 out of it.
/. seems to be fairly representative of the mainstream of American political thought, though certain minority parties (the Libertarians in particular) seem to be overrepresented here. Not sure if that's an attribute of the internet or something specific to tech geeks.
so I don't expect this post to be visible for very long
I think your opinion is foolhardy but if you get modded down it's an abuse of the system. If I had mod points I'd toss one your way just for being brave enough to share your thoughts on this matter.
I don't think you could make the case that airports don't have a legitimate interest in screening passengers.
That legitimate interest needs to be balanced against individual rights and liberty. At what point do we decide that we've tilted too far against individual rights and give up on the notion of playing whack-a-mole with the people that seek to harm us?
It's not perfect, of course, but it's a heck of a lot better than hoping something won't happen.
But even when something has happened it's been halted by the efforts of the passengers. No attack on an American airline in the post 9/11 world has been successful. The question I would posit is why do we respond like frightened little children to failed attempts at doing us harm?
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same.
That's not true. By voting for (R) or (D) you are expressing a preference for WHICH civil liberties you want to lose first.
Want to lose your 1st and 2nd amendment rights? Vote Democrat.
Want to lose your 4th and 5th amendment rights? Vote Republican.
Want to lose your 10th amendment rights? Vote for any of the above....
do you think the president makes all the decisions in all departments?
You know it was a Democrat that said "The Buck Stops Here", right?
How about he discuss thinks Obama does that's in his realm or responsibly?
TSA comes under Homeland Security which is a part of the Executive Branch the last time I checked. Guess who is in charge of the Executive Branch?
OMG, my school board made a decision I don't like, that damn Obama!
That's a stupid analogy. My school board is a local agency that's independent of the Federal (and State, for the most part) Government. TSA is nothing of the kind. Obama could fire the director of TSA tomorrow and end this bullshit policy if he was so inclined.
I've gotten around it by not flying anymore. Road trips for the win. Drove all the way to Salt Lake City last year. Drove all the way to NOLA this year. Sure, it limits me to visiting Canada and 49 of the 50 US States but it's better than the alternative, IMHO.
or having you genitals felt up. Seriously that's their policy [marco.org]. They think if they subject everybody to public humiliation that people will opt for private humiliation instead.
I loved the guy around here (and I wish I could find his post) that said something like: In 200 years we've gone from "Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" to "Sure, you can pat me down, I don't want to miss my connecting flight."
Well, they MIGHT make a change. If they do it will be because they are afraid of Obama wielding more power, not because they have suddenly decided to embrace civil liberties. Such is what passes for "checks and balances" these days -- we don't check the other branches of Government but we do check the other political party because by god they are out to destroy America as we know it.
Think about all the Republican ranting and raving about Bill Clinton when he was in office. Then Bush came into office and they rolled over and played dead. GOP Congress-critters accused Clinton of wagging the dog when he took us into the Balkens. Those same Congress-critters were silent when Bush took us into Mesopotamia....
Washington was dead on about political parties.
Add the embrace of these devices to my list of disappointments in the Obama administration. Not that I'm surprised -- he telegraphed himself very plainly on civil liberties when he backtracked on FISA -- but I'm still disappointed.
It changes the level of distribution for your Drunken Party Photo from "a few friends" to "the entire globe". Which unfortunately includes your current employer, or the HR department of the new company you're trying to join.
Unless your friends are idiots and/or you have a public profile, how could the HR department find you? I don't have a Facebook profile. I have wound up on a few of my friends pages but they are smart enough not to put my last name up there. My first name is a fairly common one so I'm not at all worried about HR searching me out.....
It's not a "fine", it's a "civil judgment" and as such is about as worthless as the paper it's written on. Ask OJ Simpson how effective civil judgments are at compelling payment.
The worst thing that will happen to her is a trip to the bankruptcy lawyer.
If you couldn't get rid of judgments through bankruptcy then what would be the point of bankruptcy? You stop paying your credit card bill. Eventually they sue you. When they win they get a judgment. Now you can't discharge that debt? That doesn't make any sense, does it?
She replied with a sigh "No, they're a bunch of subpoena by the RIAA and MPAA. By law, we have to comply with the court order to match the requested IP recorded on a specific date to our customers account". Damn!
I'd be interested to know if there's a law that says they have to keep those records in the first place. I was never made aware of such a law when I worked in the ISP business and we rotated our radius logs to /dev/null on a monthly basis.
There is relevant case law that has put willful copyright infringement under this exemption
That's the second time you've mentioned this, do you have a citation to back it up? I'm really curious, because I asked my bankruptcy attorney about this case specifically and she indicated that it would more likely than not be ruled to be a dischargable debt.
If they couldn't be there wouldn't be much point to having the bankruptcy code. What do you think happens if your credit card company sues you and wins? They get a civil judgment.....
I still think a bullet to the head of the RIAA CEO would do a world of good.
Umm, yeah, I'm all for the 2nd amendment but isn't that just a tad bit extreme?
And again and again until these idiots stop turning Our citizens into slaves via outrageous 1.5 million dollar/life sentences
Who got a life sentence for copyright infringement?
In most states, they can place liens against her property - assuming she has any.
Move to Florida. Unlimited homestead exemption. Why do you think OJ moved there?
Bankruptcy may be an option but she may not be able to even escape it there because of he state laws and the legal details surrounding this particular case.
Bankruptcy is Federal. State laws only come into play with regards to determining which of your assets are exempt from the bankruptcy estate. It's Federal law that determines which debts can be discharged.
For a native-American woman mother of four, with a job as a natural resource coordinator in Indian reservation? I might be wrong, but don't think $54,000 is doable either.
Time to find a good bankruptcy lawyer. Hope she picks a better one than she did for her first RIAA trial....
as I believe is the custom in the US.
You believe wrong. In the State of New York (generally regarded as one of the more left-wing states in our union) I have the right to use deadly force against you if you decide to commit burglary or arson against my home. Other American jurisdictions go even further than this.
What you don't have is a right to ambush an unarmed burglar
You can't "ambush" a burglar until they decide to break into your home and whether or not they are armed is immaterial. In fact, whether or not somebody is "armed" has zero bearing on determining if a shoot was justifiable or not. The standard is whether or not they had the ABILITY and OPPORTUNITY to cause you grievous bodily injury. An 80 year old man is not expected nor required to enter into fisticuffs with an 18 year old man just because the 18 year old is unarmed. If he fears for his life then he can use deadly force.
That would be "had the nerve to shoot the person who was fleeing his property, in the back"
Tough shit, they were in his house and he was alone with nobody else to protect him. Who the hell are you to Judge him for defending himself?
In the United States he would have gotten a pat on the back and a "job well done" from the responding police officers, even in our most liberal of jurisdictions.
Charging me more money if I don't do what they want is not a tax credit. It's a penalty. It also breaks two of Obama's campaign promises, one being his opposition to the whole notion of a mandate and the other being his promise not to raise taxes on those earning <$250,000/yr.