So the Supreme Environmentalist sold his TV channel for $100 million in oil money. The planet thanks you Commander Gore!
They had an offer from Glenn Beck's network "The Blaze" to purchase Reason TV, and were swiftly rejected for ideological reasons, but the sale to Al Jaz was happily approved because they are "sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view".
Who knew Current TV had so many suitors? Before Al-Jazeera snapped up Al Gore's little-watched cable network, Glenn Beck tried to buy it, but, as Beck himself tweeted, "we were rejected by progressive owners." The conservative media personality's TheBlaze approached Current last year but was told that "the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view," according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Current's new pan-Arab owner may not align with everyone's point of view, either: Time Warner Cable yanked Current from its lineup within hours of the sale, right in the middle of Eliot Spitzer's nightly show. [Source]
So, I guess exploiting middle-east oil money and radical Islamic terrorism are more "aligned" with Al Gores' and Reason TVs' views.
Many countries have armies, too. What's your point? That all constitutions are the same? Really?
The US Constitution is unique in that it starts out in declaring and then working from the idea that men are naturally free, that they can rule themselves by peaceful general agreement without a king or supreme dictator/ruling party/etc, that the powers granted government come solely from the consent of the governed, that those powers can be rescinded/amended at the people's pleasure, and that the Constitution is a list of negative rights that constrain government against the people, and that the people retain all rights and freedoms not expressly forbidden, and that the government has no more powers than what is expressly written in plain language.
Whatever your opinion of the US Constitution and/or it's basis and meaning, I say that it's a hell of a lot more than simple correlation that the more the US Government has ignored/exceeded/violated, and just plain walked all over the Constitution, the worse things have gotten for the US, it's economy, it's level of government corruption and crony-ism, it's foreign relations, it's justice system, it's opportunities for people to make a better life, and it's citizens' freedoms, rights, and privacy.
As to your examples, they are exactly the point. When government power and control grow, it becomes a target for corruption. The larger and more powerful, less Constitutionally-constrained the legislative/regulatory apparatus, the more corruption there will be. Until a tipping-point is reached, whereupon corruption and government experience a singularity event, and tyranny takes control.
At least, that's *one* of the paths to tyranny, among others, that the US is well-nearing the end-game stages of. It's not the only one, nor the only one well on the way to the end-game, by a long-shot. However, there is much "overlap" in that reining in government power, size, and control will have a crippling effect on those other paths to tyranny that mostly depend on the existence of a powerful central government to take over.
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
Howdy TC! Good to see you on yet another thread where we can mostly agree.:)
However...:P
Not that I totally disagree with the quoted part of your post, but I personally know a lot of military members...many fairly high-ranking...that would refuse orders to deploy against and fire on citizens, and in fact, would side with the citizens, and coordinate with and act in their defense.
Why do you think the politicians have been building up the DHS and TSA, among many other domestic agencies/departments, both new and old, buying domestic agencies and departments multiple-hundreds-of-millions of rounds of hollow-point semi-auto ammunition (hollow-points can't be used militarily according to Geneva Convention rules) while exhausting our regular military on multiple foreign fronts long after the reasons given have been rendered irrelevant?
It would not be a slam-dunk, sure-win for the government, by any means. It would be extremely messy and long.
Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.
Precisely.
This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.
That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.
If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.
Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.
Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings...
What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceiling, or remove the shit?
I'll tell you what you don't do: Keep on spending as if nothing was wrong, and simply refuse to pay the collections agents. That's what refusing to raise the debt ceiling does, and that's why it wrecks our credit rating.
It's an entirely irresponsible "solution".
You've almost got it. However, it's not the debt ceiling causing the "collection agents" (economic consequences) to come. The so-called 'debt ceiling" is simply the amount that Congress has authorized the US government to borrow.
The "collection agents" are other nations, foreign banks and investment houses, etc that raise the interest they charge the US or refuse to loan the US money at all as the US becomes ever-more obviously unable to.pay back their debts, or even maintain the interest payments. They (the foreign banks/exchanges/nations) could care less what the US "debt ceiling" is, if we exceed it, or even have a "debt ceiling" at all.
They're like George Thoroughgood's landlady in the "story part" of the live recording of the song "One Bourbon, One Scotch, And One Beer"
"That don't befund me, 'long as I gets my rent next Friday!"
The US has...what was the number I saw?....Something on the order of $284 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?
And you think that not raising the artificial-and-arbitrary "debt ceiling" is the problem?
Yeah it would be exactly like that, if the government had as little power over the economy as a middle class family. But of course it has much more power than that, so its options are greater than that of the family.
Right, the government can do things that would put a citizen in prison, like print funny-money, and loan money to itself. The problem is, the rest of the world won't and doesn't go along with the fraud.
The rest of the world sees the US print money, sees they're at a point that the US will never be able to pay it's debts, and they raise prices and/or interest rates they charge the US for loans and what they import to the US.
Or they simply won't loan the US any money at all. No cops are going to arrest the US government, but the rest of the world will simply trade with and financially treat the US, it's currency, and it's credit like any other debt-ridden 3rd-world failed economy.
The government can enact all the reality-distortion-field financial/monetary/debt/stimulus/etc policies it likes, but, just as with physics, the physics (and in this case the world of international trade, finance, and currency exchanges) doesn't care if the government passed a law repealing gravity (or prints funny-money)...it will still happily drop it on it's head without a care, regardless.
When the government spends itself into a hole and starts devaluing its' currency as the US has been doing, then other nations, foreign financial institutions, etc, will demand ever-higher interest rates, and eventually refuse to loan the US money at all, which is currently in the process of happening. We're buying our own bonds because of that, like reaching into one pocket and putting that money into the other and believing that gives you more money.
It also means anything we buy non-domestically will have it's price raised to make up for the lost value of the inflated/devalued currency.
Creating shitty analogies never solved any problem.
Good thing I was simply explaining a concept and not trying to solve any problems then, eh?
Here's something that might help someone who just truly doesn't understand this whole "fiscal cliff" thing.
"Fiscal Cliff" put in a much better perspective
>Lesson # 1:
U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000 New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000 National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000 Recent Budget cuts: 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700 Money the family spent: $38,200 New debt on the credit card: $16,500 Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 Total budget cuts so far: $385
Do you think bankruptcy can be very far off, with that budget?
Got it?...OK, now...
>Lesson # 2
Here's another way of looking at the "Debt Ceiling":
Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings...
What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceiling, or remove the shit?
This is not rocket-surgery, people.
Those who try to tell you that the government continuously deficit-spending, printing money, and adding to the national debt...especially at the alarmingly-increasing rates seen over the last 20 years...is a good thing and/or nothing to worry about, are either uninformed idiots that have lapped up the propaganda like starving kittens do milk, or are knowingly flat-out lying to you for the sake of ideology and/or politics.
They're insulting you, as they don't think you're smart enough to tell that they're full of shit. All too often, they're right.
Would it be more fair if we didn't give them the right to vote, if laws could be passed and implemented without their input?
How about more people pay taxes, even if it's a very small amount, so they too have skin in the game and the curve of tax rate progression could be shallower for everyone? That way, everyone shares the pain when they vote for those who advocate for tax rates to go up.
But, that would throw a monkey-wrench into politicians buying votes, wouldn't it? Good lord, politicians might have to actually win election based on their own merit and track record rather than promises of free stuff! Disaster!
Even if the Republicans cut taxes all they want, and spending, unopposed by anyone, it would not solve any fiscal issues
Tell it to JFK. And President Harding.
There's a word for your ideas....let me think...
Oh, yeah!
"Wrong."
Disproven again and again throughout US history.
Forgivable, though. You're probably a victi...err...a product of the modern US "educational" system.
The top 1% control 43% of the wealth of the nation....gosh, that's awfully close to the amount of income tax they pay. Shit, don't let that get out, it might hurt their pity party.
That's all fine and good for the "get those rich guys and TAKE what they have!" crowd of useful idiots that socialists and communists stir up by appealing to envy and greed, but it still doesn't address any of the points I made, now does it?
Is it fair that half the people who vote on taxes don't pay any, and another quarter pays a relatively very small share? Why should they care if the tax rate is ridiculous?
That's mob-rule, nothing less. That's armed robbery by the non-taxpaying majority using the government as the stick-up man and fall-guy.
You also didn't have any answer for this:
And, do you think the rich will just wait around to have their wealth confiscated? Ask the French actor Gerard Depardieu. When the rich move their wealth and themselves out of reach, who do you think the government will come after for their tax-money "fix"?
Also, see all the rich that are fleeing NY and CA, many of whom are choosing to leave the country altogether. Corporations have been fleeing for decades now, and now it's coming down to individuals. Do we wait until there is no manufacturing, no jobs, and no investment capital left before we decide that, just maybe, raising tax rates...yet again...on the minority actually paying taxes in order to redistribute it to others who do not pay taxes is not the answer?
I'm sorry, but even the simple math doesn't work. There's no way that raising tax rates can bring in enough revenue to sustain the current government spending, unfunded liabilities, and entitlements at anywhere near their current cost without a collapse.
Even if the Democrats raised all the tax rates they want, by as much as they want, unopposed by anyone, it would still be a drop in the ocean and have no real effect on the fiscal collapse that's in our near-future if major cuts, like 20-30-40% or more in government spending, are not instituted post-haste.
Besides, hell, even _*I*_ have a better track record than Timmy "TurboTax" Geithner does!
Let's talk "fairness:" The top 10% of income earners in this country already pay over 70% of federal income taxes, and the top 1% (the rich) already pay almost 40%. Is that not enough? Almost half of those who work pay no federal income taxes. Is that fair? Is it healthy for so few to pay so much, and for so many to pay nothing? When almost half the population has no skin in the game, and another quarter pay only a very small share of total taxes, it is easy to demonize or exploit the richâ"it's called the "tyranny of the majority."
And, do you think the rich will just wait around to have their wealth confiscated? Ask the French actor Gerard Depardieu. When the rich move their wealth and themselves out of reach, who do you think the government will come after for their tax-money "fix"?
They're in leadership positions in both parties and are deeply-entrenched in the government bureaucracy. That's why no matter which party wins elections, nothing much (that really matters) changes. The only real battles are between Progressives who want to start filling up the FEMA camps now, and the ones that think the frogs should be heated a bit longer first.
I.e. any user that actually wants to tinker with the system.
Doesn't Motherla...Fath...erm, Homeland Security say that type of suspicious activity makes you a likely pedoterroristinfringer? Will they even still issue passports and allow such people to leave the country anymore?/sarc
I don't know what Modern Progressivism is but liberalism is not what it used to be. Thomas Jefferson in advocating for liberty and small government was a liberal. Most so called liberals in the US are almost the opposite of him. They want bigger not smaller government. Conservatives are no better, they too want bigger government. The only difference between conservatives and today's liberals is what part of government will be big and what part will be small if not gone. For instance conservatives want morality police while fake liberals want to redistribute wealth.
By "modern" liberalism, I'm not referring to Jeffersonian libertarianism/liberal. I meant the US "Progressive" movement from the early 1920s that became widely discredited and then switched names to "Liberal" to escape the ridicule their ideological failures earned them. Same failed ideology, different name, chosen purposefully to create confusion with "classic" liberalism, the Jeffersonian kind.
Can't find fault with anything you've written here.:) Nice to come across another person on/. with critical thinking skills. Sadly, that's all too rare these days anywhere one looks. Hope your Christmas was happy and peaceful, and best wishes for the new year.
Unless, of course, you're actually Bill Gates and want to fund such a project. (Hey Bill, it *would* be a nice "in your face!" payback for all that "monopoly" stuff the government threw at you! Just sayin'.:-) )
Strat
Except it was government granted monopolies that made Bill Gates wealthy. That is what copyrights are, government granted monopolies.
Falcon
Quite right, Falcon, old bird!:-)
Government has the "carrot".
And government has the "stick".
That's precisely what makes government and those in it so very, very dangerous, and therefor should be watched like hawks and should only be given *just* enough power to do what the citizens want it to do, and no more, and do only those things, and no more.
Maybe Bill might see himself as one of the very, very few people with anywhere near the kind of wealth and clout needed to pull something like that off, and feels more as he's gotten older, that helping in such a way might keep the way open after he is gone for the next guy in a garage to succeed. Yeah, me too, but, hey. Reality is often much stranger than fiction, right?
People have been increasingly propagandized and conditioned over the last several generations to think that giving the government ever more power over them, and control over ever-more wealth, will result in more and more entitlements, benefits, "fairness", bread-and-circuses, miniature flying unicorn ponies, Captain Planet, whatever.
What *actually* happens, however, is that once government and those in it reach a certain level of power and control, they no longer have to even pay lip-service to any of that happy nonsense, and then the "economic crisis" (they aren't getting enough of your economy!), austerity measures, and tax hikes kick in, along with things like fully-militarized police, gun confiscations, and permanent "temporary" checkpoints.
All I can say for the year past and the new year almost upon us is; "Hang on, kids!...because things are gonna get "the bad parts in the history books" rough in the US *and* the rest of the world for a few decades before it gets better, if ever, if there are not dramatic changes in the next year or two."
Cheers, eh?
Miniature flying unicorn ponies would be kind of cool, though.
That is, as long as they ONLY "went" when NOT flying!:-)
Corny capitalism is a natural outgrowth of deregulation. And deregulation is good because it lets the market take care of itself.
So all is well with the world.
Wait, what? 0.o
Dude, set the pipe down and step away. Do it. Do it now.
Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of too much government power and control over private business combined with corruption, not too little control, just as with crony-capitalism's big brother, straight-up fascism.
Actually, if I remember correctly, you already can't do this. I believe their is a rule about charter planes not being able to sell open tickets AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane. I believe that last piece is in place because if we were able to coalesce groups for the sole purpose of cheaper/better/easier flying then the airlines would go out of business. This sounds like a scenario where you can wear your "capitalism hat" and say they should be more competitive. But if you think about it, the collapse of the air industry which has regularly scheduled trips would be very bad for, at the very least, regular long distance transit.
Frankly, I think the rule is a bit of a joke. It actively prevents improvement in certain areas. But I like knowing that if I needed to get across the country tomorrow, I totally could.
I'd like to see some sort of cite or reference for your statements, especially about; "...AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane.".
I'm not totally ignorant here, as I was an avionics technician for GA (General Aviation) aircraft for many years, which private charters are a part of, and I've never heard of not being able to charter a flight as a group. It makes no sense, as that's how many, many charter flights happen. Group hunting excursions to Alaska, group vacations, etc are booked all the time. I know they can't sell tickets like commercial airlines do, but that's not necessary here.
This is simply a means for organizing people who would like to fly from "A" to "B" and empowering them to network together to book a private flight like any other group does currently. No different really than putting a $SPECIALTYTRIP sign-up sheet up on the bulletin board at $YOUREMPLOYER, except done with computers via the internet.
This would simply allow people who have no other common interests or connections other than the time frame, origin, and destination locations in common to find each other and book a charter flight together. A law or regulation would basically have to make what is perfectly legal in meat-space illegal if it's done using a computer and the internet.
Screw the airlines and the government! We'll build our own air travel industry...with blackjack, and hookers!
What, you'd dare to go against giant corporations and the government? Are you a progressive? A c-c-c-communist!?
No, I'm a capitalist. What we have now is not capitalism. It's what's been called "crony-Capitalism", otherwise known as soft Fascism. The Progressives and communists are the ones in power in Washington, D.C. currently, and largely have been to a grater or lesser extent for decades and in both major political parties and the labor unions.
As to whether or not I'd "dare", the point is moot, as I don't have the resources to even dream of attempting something like that.
Unless, of course, you're actually Bill Gates and want to fund such a project. (Hey Bill, it *would* be a nice "in your face!" payback for all that "monopoly" stuff the government threw at you! Just sayin'.:-) )
The rich can ride in private jets, while the poor (if they can afford to fly at all) have to put up with flying coach and submitting to invasive security theater and now to having to give up personal information because they can't afford the rates charged for not revealing that information (rates which the rich can easily afford).
You know, there's a huge business opportunity here for someone with some resources and the balls to upset the airline industry and the government.
How about a website that acts sort of like a travel/booking site and an auction site, sort of like a cross between Amazon, Orbitz, and Ebay, only the "goods" up for auction will be air-charter services. Get these small and medium charter services competing for bookings. The more that bid on a flight, the lower the price, as a charter service can charge less per passenger if they can be reasonably sure of packed flights. The more that use the service, the lower the prices for everyone.
Once businesses start using it, the game would be all but over except for the death-spasms for the current airline industry (and the TSA...hard to justify spending billions for agents to sit cooling their heels in increasingly-empty commercial terminals).
Eventually, unless government stepped in to prevent individuals from organizing together to book private flights (which would be a bugger in the details to try to prevent), the charter services would grow until they replaced the old airlines.
If the airlines and government can't or won't make air travel reasonable in price, service quality, or "junk-groping", then treat the airlines and government like censorship on the 'net, and route around the greedy, pompous, megalomaniacal, corrupt bastards.
If they won't fix the air travel industry, build a new air travel industry the way that people on the 'net are funding and creating all sorts of other things from open source software projects.to business startups.
Although it's likely the government would step in to somehow halt any such movement towards grass-roots air travel, maybe forcing it to have to do so would at least bring the topic "above the fold", to use an old newspaper term, and the popular public pressure generated would have some mitigating effect on the horrible state of commercial air travel in the US.
Or, everybody can bitch and moan on internet forums and blogs and do the same things they've been doing, and fighting the fight on their terms. That's worked well so far.
Design a system so driverless cars, run by PROGRAMMERS, don't take advantage of the system. Uhhhhhh... has anyone ever heard of SPAM or computer viruses? Why won't people try to take advantage of any new system?
Any driverless car system will necessarily be "run" by programmers, whether or not the end up in some sort of network or not. Heck, modern cars are already "run" by programmers, with all the computers modern vehicles use to do everything from run the engine to enabling auto-park features.
I also didn't take a stance on whether I thought driverless cars were a good idea or not. There will be trade-offs, not the least of which will be further privacy intrusions regarding data generated and/or recorded by the vehicle and/or the network.
"Mama will always find out where you've been." - "Mother" - Pink Floyd
I'm not proud to be a gun owner, nor am I ashamed... Any more than I'm proud or ashamed to own carpet on my floor. It's just a normal part of life.
It is *not* a normal part of life. That's just fucked up.
Hey, c'mon now...this is a big world with many cultures with wildly-differing ideas and standards about what constitutes "normal".
Gun ownership IS a normal part of life in the US simply by the numbers alone, just as wiping your ass with your bare hand and police/government routinely doing most anything they want to you and those you love is likely a normal part of life where you live, and which he might find "fucked up".
"How do you give a ticket to a driverless car?" is the wrong question.
The right one is how do you design the system such that tickets won't happen because the concept is meaningless and obsolete? The AI needs to be tied in to a wireless data network that combines satellite and terrestrial coverage that provides everything from exact details of every traffic/parking law & regulation wherever it is, speed limits for every section of every road, and obey override commands from authorities.
Otherwise, driverless car owners will be a revenue source for police and counties/towns/cities hungry for cash that learn how to set up situations that intentionally cause driverless cars without such a data network to technically break some traffic law.
I may well have provided at least one of the reasons above. Many towns/counties/cities depend on income from traffic and parking fines.
As long as driverless cars are not networked in this way, they will only be practical for use in limited areas. It would almost have to happen for near-100% adoption or anything close.
Well, unless, of course, one severely limited the majority of citizens' ability to legally travel, to well-mapped and controlled government-approved residential and commercial/industrial/metropolitan areas, unless "legitimate" need is demonstrated. Sort of like "Logan's Run" without the domes to keep people in. Just government enforcement of travel limitations. For the greater good, of course.
... I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.
Do I have to remind you that the so-called "Fast & Furious" ATF gunwalking scandal provided a lot of guns to Mexicans???? Mexico may have strict gun laws, but thanks to USA ATF those laws don't work!
Aw, jeez, here we go again with this old trope. This has already been debunked six ways from Sunday numerous times, but still gets repeated ad nauseum by gun control proponents.
How about we look at the actual numbers as reported by the GAO? (US Government Accountability Office for non-USians)
According to the June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (the particular report that is cited for high percentages of guns in Mexico being from the US), some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
Therefor, your claim is disingenuous at best, and outright propaganda and lies at worst.
Here's another set of numbers.
Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. Thatâ(TM)s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.*
Strat
* For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) at http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm. For school firearms murders, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, "School Associated Violent Deaths," The National School Safety Center Report (June 3, 2002) at http://www.nssc1.org./ In addition to the 22 murders which occurred on school property or at school-sponsored events, there were another two shooting deaths which were accidents and twelve which were suicides.
Slashdot Mirror
So the Supreme Environmentalist sold his TV channel for $100 million in oil money. The planet thanks you Commander Gore!
They had an offer from Glenn Beck's network "The Blaze" to purchase Reason TV, and were swiftly rejected for ideological reasons, but the sale to Al Jaz was happily approved because they are "sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view".
http://now.msn.com/glenn-beck-tried-to-buy-current-tv-but-was-rejected
Who knew Current TV had so many suitors? Before Al-Jazeera snapped up Al Gore's little-watched cable network, Glenn Beck tried to buy it, but, as Beck himself tweeted, "we were rejected by progressive owners." The conservative media personality's TheBlaze approached Current last year but was told that "the legacy of who the network goes to is important to us and we are sensitive to networks not aligned with our point of view," according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Current's new pan-Arab owner may not align with everyone's point of view, either: Time Warner Cable yanked Current from its lineup within hours of the sale, right in the middle of Eliot Spitzer's nightly show. [Source]
So, I guess exploiting middle-east oil money and radical Islamic terrorism are more "aligned" with Al Gores' and Reason TVs' views.
"By their actions, ye shall know them."
Strat
Think what you could do with a vibrating trident!
Simultaneously spear three servings of some REALLY juicy sushi?
(Try saying "juicy sushi" 5 times in a row as quickly as you can.)
Maybe pleasure kinky mermaid-triplets?
Strat
Reality check: many countries have constitutions.
Many countries have armies, too. What's your point? That all constitutions are the same? Really?
The US Constitution is unique in that it starts out in declaring and then working from the idea that men are naturally free, that they can rule themselves by peaceful general agreement without a king or supreme dictator/ruling party/etc, that the powers granted government come solely from the consent of the governed, that those powers can be rescinded/amended at the people's pleasure, and that the Constitution is a list of negative rights that constrain government against the people, and that the people retain all rights and freedoms not expressly forbidden, and that the government has no more powers than what is expressly written in plain language.
Whatever your opinion of the US Constitution and/or it's basis and meaning, I say that it's a hell of a lot more than simple correlation that the more the US Government has ignored/exceeded/violated, and just plain walked all over the Constitution, the worse things have gotten for the US, it's economy, it's level of government corruption and crony-ism, it's foreign relations, it's justice system, it's opportunities for people to make a better life, and it's citizens' freedoms, rights, and privacy.
As to your examples, they are exactly the point. When government power and control grow, it becomes a target for corruption. The larger and more powerful, less Constitutionally-constrained the legislative/regulatory apparatus, the more corruption there will be. Until a tipping-point is reached, whereupon corruption and government experience a singularity event, and tyranny takes control.
At least, that's *one* of the paths to tyranny, among others, that the US is well-nearing the end-game stages of. It's not the only one, nor the only one well on the way to the end-game, by a long-shot. However, there is much "overlap" in that reining in government power, size, and control will have a crippling effect on those other paths to tyranny that mostly depend on the existence of a powerful central government to take over.
Strat
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
Howdy TC! Good to see you on yet another thread where we can mostly agree. :)
However... :P
Not that I totally disagree with the quoted part of your post, but I personally know a lot of military members...many fairly high-ranking...that would refuse orders to deploy against and fire on citizens, and in fact, would side with the citizens, and coordinate with and act in their defense.
Why do you think the politicians have been building up the DHS and TSA, among many other domestic agencies/departments, both new and old, buying domestic agencies and departments multiple-hundreds-of-millions of rounds of hollow-point semi-auto ammunition (hollow-points can't be used militarily according to Geneva Convention rules) while exhausting our regular military on multiple foreign fronts long after the reasons given have been rendered irrelevant?
It would not be a slam-dunk, sure-win for the government, by any means. It would be extremely messy and long.
Strat
Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.
Precisely.
This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.
That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.
If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.
Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.
Strat
You've almost got it. However, it's not the debt ceiling causing the "collection agents" (economic consequences) to come. The so-called 'debt ceiling" is simply the amount that Congress has authorized the US government to borrow.
The "collection agents" are other nations, foreign banks and investment houses, etc that raise the interest they charge the US or refuse to loan the US money at all as the US becomes ever-more obviously unable to.pay back their debts, or even maintain the interest payments. They (the foreign banks/exchanges/nations) could care less what the US "debt ceiling" is, if we exceed it, or even have a "debt ceiling" at all.
They're like George Thoroughgood's landlady in the "story part" of the live recording of the song "One Bourbon, One Scotch, And One Beer"
"That don't befund me, 'long as I gets my rent next Friday!"
The US has...what was the number I saw?....Something on the order of $284 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?
And you think that not raising the artificial-and-arbitrary "debt ceiling" is the problem?
May want to re-think that one. Just sayin'.
Strat
Yeah it would be exactly like that, if the government had as little power over the economy as a middle class family. But of course it has much more power than that, so its options are greater than that of the family.
Right, the government can do things that would put a citizen in prison, like print funny-money, and loan money to itself. The problem is, the rest of the world won't and doesn't go along with the fraud.
The rest of the world sees the US print money, sees they're at a point that the US will never be able to pay it's debts, and they raise prices and/or interest rates they charge the US for loans and what they import to the US.
Or they simply won't loan the US any money at all. No cops are going to arrest the US government, but the rest of the world will simply trade with and financially treat the US, it's currency, and it's credit like any other debt-ridden 3rd-world failed economy.
The government can enact all the reality-distortion-field financial/monetary/debt/stimulus/etc policies it likes, but, just as with physics, the physics (and in this case the world of international trade, finance, and currency exchanges) doesn't care if the government passed a law repealing gravity (or prints funny-money)...it will still happily drop it on it's head without a care, regardless.
When the government spends itself into a hole and starts devaluing its' currency as the US has been doing, then other nations, foreign financial institutions, etc, will demand ever-higher interest rates, and eventually refuse to loan the US money at all, which is currently in the process of happening. We're buying our own bonds because of that, like reaching into one pocket and putting that money into the other and believing that gives you more money.
It also means anything we buy non-domestically will have it's price raised to make up for the lost value of the inflated/devalued currency.
Creating shitty analogies never solved any problem.
Good thing I was simply explaining a concept and not trying to solve any problems then, eh?
Strat
Here's something that might help someone who just truly doesn't understand this whole "fiscal cliff" thing.
"Fiscal Cliff" put in a much better perspective
>Lesson # 1:
U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent Budget cuts: 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts so far: $385
Do you think bankruptcy can be very far off, with that budget?
Got it?...OK, now...
>Lesson # 2
Here's another way of looking at the "Debt Ceiling":
Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings...
What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceiling, or remove the shit?
This is not rocket-surgery, people.
Those who try to tell you that the government continuously deficit-spending, printing money, and adding to the national debt...especially at the alarmingly-increasing rates seen over the last 20 years...is a good thing and/or nothing to worry about, are either uninformed idiots that have lapped up the propaganda like starving kittens do milk, or are knowingly flat-out lying to you for the sake of ideology and/or politics.
They're insulting you, as they don't think you're smart enough to tell that they're full of shit. All too often, they're right.
Strat
Would it be more fair if we didn't give them the right to vote, if laws could be passed and implemented without their input?
How about more people pay taxes, even if it's a very small amount, so they too have skin in the game and the curve of tax rate progression could be shallower for everyone? That way, everyone shares the pain when they vote for those who advocate for tax rates to go up.
But, that would throw a monkey-wrench into politicians buying votes, wouldn't it? Good lord, politicians might have to actually win election based on their own merit and track record rather than promises of free stuff! Disaster!
Even if the Republicans cut taxes all they want, and spending, unopposed by anyone, it would not solve any fiscal issues
Tell it to JFK. And President Harding.
There's a word for your ideas....let me think...
Oh, yeah!
"Wrong."
Disproven again and again throughout US history.
Forgivable, though. You're probably a victi...err...a product of the modern US "educational" system.
Happy New Year! :)
Strat
The top 1% control 43% of the wealth of the nation. ...gosh, that's awfully close to the amount of income tax they pay. Shit, don't let that get out, it might hurt their pity party.
That's all fine and good for the "get those rich guys and TAKE what they have!" crowd of useful idiots that socialists and communists stir up by appealing to envy and greed, but it still doesn't address any of the points I made, now does it?
Is it fair that half the people who vote on taxes don't pay any, and another quarter pays a relatively very small share? Why should they care if the tax rate is ridiculous?
That's mob-rule, nothing less. That's armed robbery by the non-taxpaying majority using the government as the stick-up man and fall-guy.
You also didn't have any answer for this:
And, do you think the rich will just wait around to have their wealth confiscated? Ask the French actor Gerard Depardieu. When the rich move their wealth and themselves out of reach, who do you think the government will come after for their tax-money "fix"?
Also, see all the rich that are fleeing NY and CA, many of whom are choosing to leave the country altogether. Corporations have been fleeing for decades now, and now it's coming down to individuals. Do we wait until there is no manufacturing, no jobs, and no investment capital left before we decide that, just maybe, raising tax rates...yet again...on the minority actually paying taxes in order to redistribute it to others who do not pay taxes is not the answer?
I'm sorry, but even the simple math doesn't work. There's no way that raising tax rates can bring in enough revenue to sustain the current government spending, unfunded liabilities, and entitlements at anywhere near their current cost without a collapse.
Even if the Democrats raised all the tax rates they want, by as much as they want, unopposed by anyone, it would still be a drop in the ocean and have no real effect on the fiscal collapse that's in our near-future if major cuts, like 20-30-40% or more in government spending, are not instituted post-haste.
Besides, hell, even _*I*_ have a better track record than Timmy "TurboTax" Geithner does!
Strat
If you raised taxes to 100% for everyone making $68K/yr and up, it would fund the US Federal Government for approximately NINE DAYS!
The top 10% pays over 70% of total federal income taxes. The top 1% pays 40% of total federal income taxes.
Here's a good piece using the government's data and has a nice chart.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1044651-tax-share-by-bracket-an-update
Let's talk "fairness:" The top 10% of income earners in this country already pay over 70% of federal income taxes, and the top 1% (the rich) already pay almost 40%. Is that not enough? Almost half of those who work pay no federal income taxes. Is that fair? Is it healthy for so few to pay so much, and for so many to pay nothing? When almost half the population has no skin in the game, and another quarter pay only a very small share of total taxes, it is easy to demonize or exploit the richâ"it's called the "tyranny of the majority."
And, do you think the rich will just wait around to have their wealth confiscated? Ask the French actor Gerard Depardieu. When the rich move their wealth and themselves out of reach, who do you think the government will come after for their tax-money "fix"?
Strat
It's stuff like this that make me wonder what the hell is wrong with my country.
No need to wonder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States
They're in leadership positions in both parties and are deeply-entrenched in the government bureaucracy. That's why no matter which party wins elections, nothing much (that really matters) changes. The only real battles are between Progressives who want to start filling up the FEMA camps now, and the ones that think the frogs should be heated a bit longer first.
Strat
I assume soon either it'll be OK for any device to be locked down, or all devices will have to be "openable".
I wonder how that's gonna turn out...
Depends on how many MS/Apple/Sony etc executives and politicians that we test for flammability and high-velocity impact resistance.
Strat
I.e. any user that actually wants to tinker with the system.
Doesn't Motherla...Fath...erm, Homeland Security say that type of suspicious activity makes you a likely pedoterroristinfringer? Will they even still issue passports and allow such people to leave the country anymore? /sarc
Strat
By "modern" liberalism, I'm not referring to Jeffersonian libertarianism/liberal. I meant the US "Progressive" movement from the early 1920s that became widely discredited and then switched names to "Liberal" to escape the ridicule their ideological failures earned them. Same failed ideology, different name, chosen purposefully to create confusion with "classic" liberalism, the Jeffersonian kind.
Can't find fault with anything you've written here. :) Nice to come across another person on /. with critical thinking skills. Sadly, that's all too rare these days anywhere one looks. Hope your Christmas was happy and peaceful, and best wishes for the new year.
Strat
Quite right, Falcon, old bird! :-)
Government has the "carrot".
And government has the "stick".
That's precisely what makes government and those in it so very, very dangerous, and therefor should be watched like hawks and should only be given *just* enough power to do what the citizens want it to do, and no more, and do only those things, and no more.
Maybe Bill might see himself as one of the very, very few people with anywhere near the kind of wealth and clout needed to pull something like that off, and feels more as he's gotten older, that helping in such a way might keep the way open after he is gone for the next guy in a garage to succeed. Yeah, me too, but, hey. Reality is often much stranger than fiction, right?
People have been increasingly propagandized and conditioned over the last several generations to think that giving the government ever more power over them, and control over ever-more wealth, will result in more and more entitlements, benefits, "fairness", bread-and-circuses, miniature flying unicorn ponies, Captain Planet, whatever.
What *actually* happens, however, is that once government and those in it reach a certain level of power and control, they no longer have to even pay lip-service to any of that happy nonsense, and then the "economic crisis" (they aren't getting enough of your economy!), austerity measures, and tax hikes kick in, along with things like fully-militarized police, gun confiscations, and permanent "temporary" checkpoints.
All I can say for the year past and the new year almost upon us is; "Hang on, kids!...because things are gonna get "the bad parts in the history books" rough in the US *and* the rest of the world for a few decades before it gets better, if ever, if there are not dramatic changes in the next year or two."
Cheers, eh?
Miniature flying unicorn ponies would be kind of cool, though.
That is, as long as they ONLY "went" when NOT flying! :-)
Strat
Corny capitalism is a natural outgrowth of deregulation. And deregulation is good because it lets the market take care of itself.
So all is well with the world.
Wait, what? 0.o
Dude, set the pipe down and step away. Do it. Do it now.
Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of too much government power and control over private business combined with corruption, not too little control, just as with crony-capitalism's big brother, straight-up fascism.
Sheesh! Buy 'em books, send 'em to school...
Strat
Actually, if I remember correctly, you already can't do this. I believe their is a rule about charter planes not being able to sell open tickets AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane. I believe that last piece is in place because if we were able to coalesce groups for the sole purpose of cheaper/better/easier flying then the airlines would go out of business. This sounds like a scenario where you can wear your "capitalism hat" and say they should be more competitive. But if you think about it, the collapse of the air industry which has regularly scheduled trips would be very bad for, at the very least, regular long distance transit.
Frankly, I think the rule is a bit of a joke. It actively prevents improvement in certain areas. But I like knowing that if I needed to get across the country tomorrow, I totally could.
I'd like to see some sort of cite or reference for your statements, especially about; "...AND cannot be booked by people who formed a group specifically for the purpose of chartering a plane.".
I'm not totally ignorant here, as I was an avionics technician for GA (General Aviation) aircraft for many years, which private charters are a part of, and I've never heard of not being able to charter a flight as a group. It makes no sense, as that's how many, many charter flights happen. Group hunting excursions to Alaska, group vacations, etc are booked all the time. I know they can't sell tickets like commercial airlines do, but that's not necessary here.
This is simply a means for organizing people who would like to fly from "A" to "B" and empowering them to network together to book a private flight like any other group does currently. No different really than putting a $SPECIALTYTRIP sign-up sheet up on the bulletin board at $YOUREMPLOYER, except done with computers via the internet.
This would simply allow people who have no other common interests or connections other than the time frame, origin, and destination locations in common to find each other and book a charter flight together. A law or regulation would basically have to make what is perfectly legal in meat-space illegal if it's done using a computer and the internet.
Screw the airlines and the government! We'll build our own air travel industry...with blackjack, and hookers!
Strat
What, you'd dare to go against giant corporations and the government? Are you a progressive? A c-c-c-communist!?
No, I'm a capitalist. What we have now is not capitalism. It's what's been called "crony-Capitalism", otherwise known as soft Fascism. The Progressives and communists are the ones in power in Washington, D.C. currently, and largely have been to a grater or lesser extent for decades and in both major political parties and the labor unions.
As to whether or not I'd "dare", the point is moot, as I don't have the resources to even dream of attempting something like that.
Unless, of course, you're actually Bill Gates and want to fund such a project. (Hey Bill, it *would* be a nice "in your face!" payback for all that "monopoly" stuff the government threw at you! Just sayin'. :-) )
Strat
The rich can ride in private jets, while the poor (if they can afford to fly at all) have to put up with flying coach and submitting to invasive security theater and now to having to give up personal information because they can't afford the rates charged for not revealing that information (rates which the rich can easily afford).
You know, there's a huge business opportunity here for someone with some resources and the balls to upset the airline industry and the government.
How about a website that acts sort of like a travel/booking site and an auction site, sort of like a cross between Amazon, Orbitz, and Ebay, only the "goods" up for auction will be air-charter services. Get these small and medium charter services competing for bookings. The more that bid on a flight, the lower the price, as a charter service can charge less per passenger if they can be reasonably sure of packed flights. The more that use the service, the lower the prices for everyone.
Once businesses start using it, the game would be all but over except for the death-spasms for the current airline industry (and the TSA...hard to justify spending billions for agents to sit cooling their heels in increasingly-empty commercial terminals).
Eventually, unless government stepped in to prevent individuals from organizing together to book private flights (which would be a bugger in the details to try to prevent), the charter services would grow until they replaced the old airlines.
If the airlines and government can't or won't make air travel reasonable in price, service quality, or "junk-groping", then treat the airlines and government like censorship on the 'net, and route around the greedy, pompous, megalomaniacal, corrupt bastards.
If they won't fix the air travel industry, build a new air travel industry the way that people on the 'net are funding and creating all sorts of other things from open source software projects.to business startups.
Although it's likely the government would step in to somehow halt any such movement towards grass-roots air travel, maybe forcing it to have to do so would at least bring the topic "above the fold", to use an old newspaper term, and the popular public pressure generated would have some mitigating effect on the horrible state of commercial air travel in the US.
Or, everybody can bitch and moan on internet forums and blogs and do the same things they've been doing, and fighting the fight on their terms. That's worked well so far.
Strat
Design a system so driverless cars, run by PROGRAMMERS, don't take advantage of the system.
Uhhhhhh... has anyone ever heard of SPAM or computer viruses?
Why won't people try to take advantage of any new system?
Any driverless car system will necessarily be "run" by programmers, whether or not the end up in some sort of network or not. Heck, modern cars are already "run" by programmers, with all the computers modern vehicles use to do everything from run the engine to enabling auto-park features.
I also didn't take a stance on whether I thought driverless cars were a good idea or not. There will be trade-offs, not the least of which will be further privacy intrusions regarding data generated and/or recorded by the vehicle and/or the network.
"Mama will always find out where you've been." - "Mother" - Pink Floyd
Strat
Hey, c'mon now...this is a big world with many cultures with wildly-differing ideas and standards about what constitutes "normal".
Gun ownership IS a normal part of life in the US simply by the numbers alone, just as wiping your ass with your bare hand and police/government routinely doing most anything they want to you and those you love is likely a normal part of life where you live, and which he might find "fucked up".
Strat
"How do you give a ticket to a driverless car?" is the wrong question.
The right one is how do you design the system such that tickets won't happen because the concept is meaningless and obsolete? The AI needs to be tied in to a wireless data network that combines satellite and terrestrial coverage that provides everything from exact details of every traffic/parking law & regulation wherever it is, speed limits for every section of every road, and obey override commands from authorities.
Otherwise, driverless car owners will be a revenue source for police and counties/towns/cities hungry for cash that learn how to set up situations that intentionally cause driverless cars without such a data network to technically break some traffic law.
I may well have provided at least one of the reasons above. Many towns/counties/cities depend on income from traffic and parking fines.
As long as driverless cars are not networked in this way, they will only be practical for use in limited areas. It would almost have to happen for near-100% adoption or anything close.
Well, unless, of course, one severely limited the majority of citizens' ability to legally travel, to well-mapped and controlled government-approved residential and commercial/industrial/metropolitan areas, unless "legitimate" need is demonstrated. Sort of like "Logan's Run" without the domes to keep people in. Just government enforcement of travel limitations. For the greater good, of course.
Strat
... I know Mexico has strict laws that simply don't work.
Do I have to remind you that the so-called "Fast & Furious" ATF gunwalking scandal provided a lot of guns to Mexicans???? Mexico may have strict gun laws, but thanks to USA ATF those laws don't work!
Aw, jeez, here we go again with this old trope. This has already been debunked six ways from Sunday numerous times, but still gets repeated ad nauseum by gun control proponents.
How about we look at the actual numbers as reported by the GAO? (US Government Accountability Office for non-USians)
According to the June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (the particular report that is cited for high percentages of guns in Mexico being from the US), some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
Therefor, your claim is disingenuous at best, and outright propaganda and lies at worst.
Here's another set of numbers.
Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. Thatâ(TM)s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.*
Strat
* For football deaths, see Frederick O. Mueller, Annual Survey of Football Injury Research: 1931-2001, National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (February 2002) at http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/SurveyofFootballInjuries.htm. For school firearms murders, see Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, "School Associated Violent Deaths," The National School Safety Center Report (June 3, 2002) at http://www.nssc1.org./ In addition to the 22 murders which occurred on school property or at school-sponsored events, there were another two shooting deaths which were accidents and twelve which were suicides.
U mad Congressman?
Strat