LOL, you really think the dems are leftwing? They talk slightly more leftwing than reps, but their politics are the same
The Democrats (nearly all) and many of the Republicans, especially the "establishment" Republicans, are Progressives.
Progressives are by definition leftist. Expecting more liberty and freedom from Progressives would be like expecting Ted Kennedy, were he still alive, to drive your daughter home safely from a party.
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies
Apparently you fell asleep in 2008 and just now woke up. The "right wing" hasn't had the presidency for nearly 4 years now. It hasn't had Congress for even longer.
Sorry. This is pure Left. As is NDAA, Fast & Furious, Solyndra et al, etc etc etc. And now the destruction by Executive Order, completely bypassing Congress and effectively nullifying the law by fiat, of one of Bill Clinton's biggest successes, welfare reform.
I, for one, welcome our government-cheese, foodstamp, and welfare-Cadillac-driving overlords?
Do you think when OWS complains about the proverbial "1%", they're somehow saying they support this collusion?
The people in the WH *ARE* the "1%"!! There's no "collusion" here, because they're the _same people_, in many cases, the *exact same people* that created the mess! They just changed office location and job title.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", well, how do you think they make us comply? The corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt, over-reaching, intrusive, and abusive government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
You'll never succeed trying to fix things from the "1%/corporations" side using government to prosecute them. How can you use the system of a corrupt government to prosecute those they are co-defendants with? You get what we've seen repeated ad nauseum over the last number of decades; "The "Justice" Show" where show trials are held, TV pundits bloviate, stern-sounding soundbites played, a few scapegoats are sacrificed, and afterwards everybody goes back to pretty much the way it's been without much really changing.
No, the US government actually takes computer security pretty damn seriously.
Well, they'd better hope the bad guys don't buy the same hardware that the MET police in Europe, and in the US, the Michigan State Police, are using to "slurp" all the data from smartphones, even when protected/encrypted.
And, why are you promoting an anti-TEA Party movie, when they've been pretty much the only ones in the US pointing stuff like this out and trying to hold them to account?
You actually think tea party is "pretty much the only ones in the US" against the collusion of WS and WH. Do you think when OWS complains about the proverbial "1%", they're somehow saying they support this collusion?
I'm not quite sure *WHAT* OWS's platform and agenda is. I hear and see them protesting for a lot of different things, everything from "kill the rich" to advocating socialist/communist/anarchist revolution or eliminating money, anti-Jew hate, and even Nazi-types screaming. I'm sure that somewhere in there amongst all that, there *are* those you speak of who firstly know of the facts I listed, and second, are actually angry at it instead of ignoring it for partisan political reasons. They're pretty much being drowned out by the extremists and crazies.
The TEA Party, on the other tentacle, has actually coherently and cohesively voiced their anger at just these sort of shenanigans and actually gotten allegedly like-minded political candidates elected to actually move forward in solving problems.
Although the relationship has gotten quite symbiotic and incestuous at this point between private-sector financial powers and the government, never doubt one thing when it comes down to brass tacks:
The guys that make the laws and have the guns and bombs and soldiers have the last word, because they can just arrest, prosecute, and imprison/execute the other guys and seize what they want just as they can to regular citizens if they chose to.
Government has the monopoly on force. That's where corruption starts. It's also the first place to start to clean up corruption and cronyism.
How can you use the system of a corrupt government to prosecute those they are co-defendants with? You get what we've seen repeated ad nauseum over the last number of decades; "The "Justice" Show" where show trials are held, TV pundits bloviate, stern-sounding soundbites played, a few scapegoats are sacrificed, and afterwards everybody goes back to pretty much the way it's been without much really changing.
I think it's way past time we had a "change in programming", don't you?
Then why is it that I get modded down for suggesting that OWS should be protesting in Washington D.C. instead of Wall St. NYC? If OWS wanted the Wall St. fat-cats to see their protest, they need to be where they're at. The WH.
And, why are you promoting an anti-TEA Party movie, when they've been pretty much the only ones in the US pointing stuff like this out and trying to hold them to account?
We, in Europe, and the USA, have much to learn from Iceland about how to survive a crippling financial crisis.
Yeah, like NOT putting the very people responsible for the bank's failures in powerful government positions.
Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
Obama Administration: Chairman, Presidentâ(TM)s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)
They should just change the name from the "White House" to "Goldman Sachs House". Yeah, I'm sure they'll do the right thing to protect regular US taxpayers.
No, weaken corporate America's stranglehold on government.
That's the problem, the government is made up of people. Hand any group of people a large amount of power and they will become corrupt. If it's not with the corporations, it will be trade unions/guilds, or banks/financial houses, or churches, or foreign governments/interests, or whoever/whatever fills the power-vacuum left by the corporations.
As long as they have the "good" of their power to sell, there will always be buyers, and as long as humans are human, there will always be those in government anxious to sell. That's the reason for a weak central government. The principle of keeping the central government relatively weak is not some ideological thought-exercise, it's the best way discovered so far to deal with the very practical reality that people that have power will abuse it. You just don't give them much, and then watch them like a hawk.
It's because the US abandoned this basic principle that we face many of the dire problems that we do today. We sat back, fat and happy, feeding at the public/government trough, and let them expand and expand their programs, their taxes and debt, and their powers for decades. Now we either fix it or face collapse in the very near future. We are not immune to the same thing that's happening in Greece, and we are on the same path.
the ground station should have an anti-missile defense system-- someone could drop an IR homing missile into their beam and ruin their whole day.
A small array of IR photodiodes and a comparator sending yaw & pitch feedback to a mini RC-aircraft-type controller/servo system to control tail-vanes on a home-built rocket or even to help guide a programmable autonomous Raspberry-PI-controlled quadrotor might be places to start for an improvised system.
I'm not aware of any currently-operational or even testing-stage military anti-quadrotor weapons systems. Especially one that could successfully engage multiple simultaneous flying targets capable of helo-type flight characteristics, and track & engage targets from multiple-hundreds of feet altitude down to near-ground altitude, or even inside a structure.
'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.
Way past bedtime here as well, an all-too-often occurrence, I'm afraid.:)
No, no flaming or anything here. As a matter of fact, I get the distinct feeling that when it comes down to basic principles, we're probably closer than either of us expects. We share many of the same basic concepts and ideas, we just use different phrasings and word-meanings to describe and express them with that are unique parts of each of our society's differing cultures and history.
English is simultaneously one of the best, most flexible and descriptive languages, *and* one of the most horrible, contradictory, mish-mash and conditional hodgepodges of something billing itself as "language" that it has, through misunderstandings, probably started almost as many wars as it has ever settled.:)
More than that, his long term plan was to replace the content distribution channels with an alternative model using megaupload. He already had some celebrities lined up, and a promotional video and song done. That's significantly more than just being a fixer.
Oh, you mean he threatened the big US media/content cartel's monopoly on distribution?
As desperate as the big US media/content cartels have gotten lately in trying to prop up their dying business model by attacking "this whole 'open, anonymous internet' thing", I'm surprised they didn't just pay someone to put two rounds in the back of his head, execution-style, and post the video online as an example.
It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot. The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government...
This is because Conservatives (and libertarians) are only subsets of the US Republican Party which is viewed as mainly "conservative", and another very powerful subset in the Republican Party are the Progressives which make up much of the Republican "old guard" party officials, etc.
Progressives in the US have all but totally co-opted the Democrats and have made heavy inroads into the Republicans as well.
And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.
If these are free citizens voluntarily engaging in creative finance and business as you describe without government programs or interference, then that's not the classic definition of "socialism", which involves government ownership/control of business and finance.
This is getting government out of the way so private citizens can innovate and improve their own and their fellow's lives. What you describe is more of a "small-"L" libertarian"-style of conservatism, an ideological position which I find has much merit, as it contains many of the ideas which I generally believe to be right and true.
Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.
Things may be different in Canada. Here in the US, the small-"L" libertarian-leaning conservatives embrace the concept of minimal laws & regulations and less nanny-state control, effectively making fewer behaviors and acts illegal, and so does not equate with "if you don't agree, you''l go to jail or worse".
I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a WINNAH! Give the man a see-gar!
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", the corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
Or, just continue the blind partisanship and ignore it, and things will continue on getting worse and worse for everyone.
I've got bad news from the Canadian side, though. We currently have a majority government that likes ramming through any legislation it pleases, en masse [economist.com], regardless of public outcry or long-established conventions regarding parliamentary procedure.
Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", the corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
Or, just continue the blind partisanship and ignore it, and things will continue on getting worse and worse for everyone.
1. If a law limits or bans guns and isn't found to be constitutional, then it's constitutional. No need to get into specifics, we're talking about people's right to pursue legislation, not specifics about what could or couldn't be constitutional. People have a right to find that the framers were wrong, as we have a process to address that possibility and change the constitution. It's American, and the way it's supposed to be done.
That's not what is happening. Laws and regulations are being passed that are on their face unconstitutional and full-well known to be unconstitutional when passed, like the DC gun ban. The courts/SCOTUS are NOT the final arbitrators of what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not perfect and it's decisions are not final. The SCOTUS also upheld the Dredd Scott decision. We the people are the ones that make the ultimate determination as to what is Constitutional, as it is our right and duty to abolish a government that does not serve our interests or protect our rights and freedoms, preferrably through peaceful due process, but failing that, by armed resistance if necessary as a last resort. That's one of the primary reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment. As a means to remove the government by force when, not if, it becomes a tyrant. All governments eventually grow and become more tyrannical over time.
I don't know where in my post is said anything about lynching Zimmerman. My statement about my feelings on the law stands. I'd be happy to answer a relevant question to what I posted. Based on that law, he wasn't even arrrested. He had too much leeway to kill and too much. Luckily, he was arrested and a proper presentation of evidence can take place
If you truly believe that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and that there are not sufficient facts at this time to be possible to determine innocence or guilt, then you're poisoning the well for making a fair determination by stating Zimmerman was wrong to shoot. A police officer has no more rights than any other citizen. If a police officer may legally shoot someone for the officer's own protection that keeps moving towards an officer in a threatening manner despite the officer having a clear means to escape the situation, why can't anyone else?
It's not cowardly or unamerican for someone to pursue legal means to ban guns, from laws at every level up to and including a constitutional amendment if they don't agree with it. If its done through legal means, it's as american as following the current constitution, and as american as owning guns.
Well, I disagree about it not being un-American or unpatriotic, unless of course one starts from the premise that those who wrote the Constitution were fundamentally wrong about the value of individual liberty and what it takes to achieve and keep it.
As far as attempting to ban guns, as foolish and ignorant of reality as that whole concept is, if an Amendment to the Constitution can be passed to overturn the 2nd Amendment, fine. That's not what's happening however, as those in favor of banning guns know the vast majority of Americans favor the 2nd Amendment. What's happening instead are attempts to "get around", "get past", or just plain outright ignore the Constitution, further weakening ALL the Rights it protects.
If one can ban guns without an Amendment, what about the 1st Amendment and free speech/press, or any of the other rights and freedoms? If you allow one Amendment to be ignored, then any Amendment can be ignored. They'll eventually get to one that you like.
I personally don't mind gun ownership, but laws like "Stand Your Ground" give people like Zimmerman too much leeway to kill 'suspicious' people based on those very irrational fears and inadequacies you speak of.
Oh crap, you're not one of those crazy-ass "poor innocent Trayvon was murdered" types that are ready to lynch Zimmerman and throw out a perfectly reasonable law that allows people to not be (dead) victims, all when there has been no trial and nobody besides Zimmerman knows what actually happened between Zimmerman and this young adult, are you? So, are you in favor of putting senior citizens on death row that protect themselves from attackers under the situations and circumstances spelled out under "Stand Your Ground"?
That Act created the National Guard by taking the individual *official* State Militias (NOT volunteer civilian militias) under Federal control as dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. It says nothing about abolishing volunteer civilian citizens' militias. Units under the control of the regular US military and reserves are not civilian militias by definition.
You keep throwing different stuff out there hoping something will stick, yet you're unable or unwilling to refute any of my points with anything of substance.
Face it. There are no other reasons to disarm US citizens other than to enslave them and make them dependent on government and helpless against government tyranny.
My father risked his life and was wounded in WW2 to secure my rights and my liberties including the right to keep and bear firearms. I will not see them destroyed without putting my life on the line to defend them as my father did. Those are some real "Dreams From My Father" that were paid for in blood and human lives.
I don't want crazies walking the streets armed to the teeth against their imaginary enemies.
You've got that already despite the laws against it. They're already out there. No matter how many laws or how severe you make the penalties, criminals and crazies do and will have guns in the US. The choice now is to either allow people to defend themselves or force them to become and remain helpless victims.
You seem to prefer the criminals and crazies have defenseless people to victimize.
I do not.
You are free to make yourself a helpless victim. You are NOT free to force others to become helpless victims simply to placate your own irrational fears, your own perceived inadequacies, and/or lack of courage and character.
I think T.J. had people like you in mind when he said:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
No, spoken like someone who values his freedoms. Guns are simply the tool that allows people to achieve and retain it.
So when did you last turn up for militia duties? never, i am assuming as there is no militia.
Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day. Not active duty however. Hopefully we will never need to become active.
The gun ownership was put there to stop foreign invaders, not to arm the populace against each other.
Wrong.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Madison
This part of the constitution has been misquoted again and again...
Not according to those who wrote it. Forgive me again for deferring to their own words over that of some poster on Slashdot.
statements like "Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however" shows exactly why nutters like you should be disarmed and deloused.
As to your ad hominem personal attacks, I expect no less from cowards who are SO afraid to be responsible for their own safety that they want to remove the ability of others to be responsible for their own safety, in order that attention not be drawn to their craven and cowardly nature.
You do know that the right to bear arms is related to the forming of a militia to fight tyranny. Funny how when people talk about their constitutional rights they leave off that part.... So given there are no militias, then you don't need arms. America's fascination with guns always seems bizarre to me.
Every man is already part of the militia by virtue of being a citizen.
But here, let me allow a few people with more authority on the subject add their thoughts.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the whole body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington
"When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." - Thomas Jefferson
And finally, my reply just wouldn't be complete without adding these two:
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." - James Madison
And:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Seems like those gentlemen disagree with your holding on the 2nd Amendment.
You'll forgive me (and most other Americans) if we defer to them instead of those like you who wish to disarm the people and render them defenseless. As you can see, we were warned long ago that those like you would come.
Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, you really think the dems are leftwing?
They talk slightly more leftwing than reps, but their politics are the same
The Democrats (nearly all) and many of the Republicans, especially the "establishment" Republicans, are Progressives.
Progressives are by definition leftist. Expecting more liberty and freedom from Progressives would be like expecting Ted Kennedy, were he still alive, to drive your daughter home safely from a party.
Strat
The USA, with its abyssmal right wing social and economic policies
Apparently you fell asleep in 2008 and just now woke up. The "right wing" hasn't had the presidency for nearly 4 years now. It hasn't had Congress for even longer.
Sorry. This is pure Left. As is NDAA, Fast & Furious, Solyndra et al, etc etc etc. And now the destruction by Executive Order, completely bypassing Congress and effectively nullifying the law by fiat, of one of Bill Clinton's biggest successes, welfare reform.
I, for one, welcome our government-cheese, foodstamp, and welfare-Cadillac-driving overlords?
Strat
Do you think when OWS complains about the proverbial "1%", they're somehow saying they support this collusion?
The people in the WH *ARE* the "1%"!! There's no "collusion" here, because they're the _same people_, in many cases, the *exact same people* that created the mess! They just changed office location and job title.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", well, how do you think they make us comply? The corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt, over-reaching, intrusive, and abusive government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
You'll never succeed trying to fix things from the "1%/corporations" side using government to prosecute them. How can you use the system of a corrupt government to prosecute those they are co-defendants with? You get what we've seen repeated ad nauseum over the last number of decades; "The "Justice" Show" where show trials are held, TV pundits bloviate, stern-sounding soundbites played, a few scapegoats are sacrificed, and afterwards everybody goes back to pretty much the way it's been without much really changing.
Strat
No, the US government actually takes computer security pretty damn seriously.
Well, they'd better hope the bad guys don't buy the same hardware that the MET police in Europe, and in the US, the Michigan State Police, are using to "slurp" all the data from smartphones, even when protected/encrypted.
http://grownupgeek.com/police-now-slurp-cell-phone-data-minutes
Strat
I'm not quite sure *WHAT* OWS's platform and agenda is. I hear and see them protesting for a lot of different things, everything from "kill the rich" to advocating socialist/communist/anarchist revolution or eliminating money, anti-Jew hate, and even Nazi-types screaming. I'm sure that somewhere in there amongst all that, there *are* those you speak of who firstly know of the facts I listed, and second, are actually angry at it instead of ignoring it for partisan political reasons. They're pretty much being drowned out by the extremists and crazies.
The TEA Party, on the other tentacle, has actually coherently and cohesively voiced their anger at just these sort of shenanigans and actually gotten allegedly like-minded political candidates elected to actually move forward in solving problems.
Strat
Why address the puppet rather than the puppeteer?
Although the relationship has gotten quite symbiotic and incestuous at this point between private-sector financial powers and the government, never doubt one thing when it comes down to brass tacks:
The guys that make the laws and have the guns and bombs and soldiers have the last word, because they can just arrest, prosecute, and imprison/execute the other guys and seize what they want just as they can to regular citizens if they chose to.
Government has the monopoly on force. That's where corruption starts. It's also the first place to start to clean up corruption and cronyism.
How can you use the system of a corrupt government to prosecute those they are co-defendants with? You get what we've seen repeated ad nauseum over the last number of decades; "The "Justice" Show" where show trials are held, TV pundits bloviate, stern-sounding soundbites played, a few scapegoats are sacrificed, and afterwards everybody goes back to pretty much the way it's been without much really changing.
I think it's way past time we had a "change in programming", don't you?
Strat
that's disgusting
so much for meritocracy. more like plutocracy
Then why is it that I get modded down for suggesting that OWS should be protesting in Washington D.C. instead of Wall St. NYC? If OWS wanted the Wall St. fat-cats to see their protest, they need to be where they're at. The WH.
And, why are you promoting an anti-TEA Party movie, when they've been pretty much the only ones in the US pointing stuff like this out and trying to hold them to account?
Puzzled it makes me, yes.
Strat
We, in Europe, and the USA, have much to learn from Iceland about how to survive a crippling financial crisis.
Yeah, like NOT putting the very people responsible for the bank's failures in powerful government positions.
Obama Administration: Deputy Director, National Economic Council
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Financial Analyst
Obama Administration: Chairman, Presidentâ(TM)s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Board Member (Chairman, 1990-94; Director, 2005-)
Obama Administration: Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Partner and Co-head of Finance
Obama Administration: Undersecretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, State Department
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group
Obama Administration: Ambassador to Germany
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Head of Goldman Sachs, Frankfurt
Obama Administration: Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: Lobbyist 2005-2008; Vice President for Government Relations
Obama Administration: Advisor to Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geitner
Former Goldman Sachs Title: President and Chief Operating Officer (1999-2003)
They should just change the name from the "White House" to "Goldman Sachs House". Yeah, I'm sure they'll do the right thing to protect regular US taxpayers.
Strat
So, agreeing with the "+5 Insightful" OP gets me a "-1 Troll"?
How strange.
Or not, seeing as this is /.
Strat
No, weaken corporate America's stranglehold on government.
That's the problem, the government is made up of people. Hand any group of people a large amount of power and they will become corrupt. If it's not with the corporations, it will be trade unions/guilds, or banks/financial houses, or churches, or foreign governments/interests, or whoever/whatever fills the power-vacuum left by the corporations.
As long as they have the "good" of their power to sell, there will always be buyers, and as long as humans are human, there will always be those in government anxious to sell. That's the reason for a weak central government. The principle of keeping the central government relatively weak is not some ideological thought-exercise, it's the best way discovered so far to deal with the very practical reality that people that have power will abuse it. You just don't give them much, and then watch them like a hawk.
It's because the US abandoned this basic principle that we face many of the dire problems that we do today. We sat back, fat and happy, feeding at the public/government trough, and let them expand and expand their programs, their taxes and debt, and their powers for decades. Now we either fix it or face collapse in the very near future. We are not immune to the same thing that's happening in Greece, and we are on the same path.
Strat
the ground station should have an anti-missile defense system-- someone could drop an IR homing missile into their beam and ruin their whole day.
A small array of IR photodiodes and a comparator sending yaw & pitch feedback to a mini RC-aircraft-type controller/servo system to control tail-vanes on a home-built rocket or even to help guide a programmable autonomous Raspberry-PI-controlled quadrotor might be places to start for an improvised system.
I'm not aware of any currently-operational or even testing-stage military anti-quadrotor weapons systems. Especially one that could successfully engage multiple simultaneous flying targets capable of helo-type flight characteristics, and track & engage targets from multiple-hundreds of feet altitude down to near-ground altitude, or even inside a structure.
Strat
'tis bedtime here so for now all I can say is we're using different dictionaries and need to give thought about our words as we obviously have different meanings for common words. Anyways good-night and if I'm not too burnt out tomorrow I'll continue the conversation as it is interesting as long as not taking things as flame-bait.
Way past bedtime here as well, an all-too-often occurrence, I'm afraid. :)
No, no flaming or anything here. As a matter of fact, I get the distinct feeling that when it comes down to basic principles, we're probably closer than either of us expects. We share many of the same basic concepts and ideas, we just use different phrasings and word-meanings to describe and express them with that are unique parts of each of our society's differing cultures and history.
English is simultaneously one of the best, most flexible and descriptive languages, *and* one of the most horrible, contradictory, mish-mash and conditional hodgepodges of something billing itself as "language" that it has, through misunderstandings, probably started almost as many wars as it has ever settled. :)
Strat
More than that, his long term plan was to replace the content distribution channels with an alternative model using megaupload. He already had some celebrities lined up, and a promotional video and song done. That's significantly more than just being a fixer.
Oh, you mean he threatened the big US media/content cartel's monopoly on distribution?
As desperate as the big US media/content cartels have gotten lately in trying to prop up their dying business model by attacking "this whole 'open, anonymous internet' thing", I'm surprised they didn't just pay someone to put two rounds in the back of his head, execution-style, and post the video online as an example.
Strat
It's a problem with language, especially English which has evolved in different directions in different cultures. Strictly speaking conservative just means not wanting change and progressive means embracing change. Thing is change encompasses a lot. The libertarians perhaps should disassociate themselves so much to the Conservatives as the Conservatives actions (and I remember back to Nixon) have not been small government...
This is because Conservatives (and libertarians) are only subsets of the US Republican Party which is viewed as mainly "conservative", and another very powerful subset in the Republican Party are the Progressives which make up much of the Republican "old guard" party officials, etc.
Progressives in the US have all but totally co-opted the Democrats and have made heavy inroads into the Republicans as well.
And by socialism I mean things like credit unions instead of banks, co-ops in many situations especially infrastructure and perhaps insurance (mutual funds) and employee owned businesses, all socialist ideas without big government.
If these are free citizens voluntarily engaging in creative finance and business as you describe without government programs or interference, then that's not the classic definition of "socialism", which involves government ownership/control of business and finance.
This is getting government out of the way so private citizens can innovate and improve their own and their fellow's lives. What you describe is more of a "small-"L" libertarian"-style of conservatism, an ideological position which I find has much merit, as it contains many of the ideas which I generally believe to be right and true.
Strat
Modern Conservatism, an idea so good that if you don't agree, you'll go to jail or worse.
Things may be different in Canada. Here in the US, the small-"L" libertarian-leaning conservatives embrace the concept of minimal laws & regulations and less nanny-state control, effectively making fewer behaviors and acts illegal, and so does not equate with "if you don't agree, you''l go to jail or worse".
Strat
I don't care which party is the bigger asshole this generation: take away all the power and budget we can from the federal government, and it won't matter nearly so much.
DING! DING! DING!
We have a WINNAH! Give the man a see-gar!
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", the corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
Or, just continue the blind partisanship and ignore it, and things will continue on getting worse and worse for everyone.
Strat
I've got bad news from the Canadian side, though. We currently have a majority government that likes ramming through any legislation it pleases, en masse [economist.com], regardless of public outcry or long-established conventions regarding parliamentary procedure.
Gee, we're having the same problem just to your south. Maybe they're caused by people who share a common ideology; one that demands ever-more centralized government control over ever-more aspects of everyone's lives, fewer individual rights and liberties, ever-more monitoring and censorship of all voice/data communications, and ever-more loss of freedoms, jobs, and massive redistribution of wealth under Utopian "social justice" and "economic justice" banners that are the new-speak for Marxist-style ideologies involving class warfare and wealth-redistribution to divide, inflame, incite, and distract the population and destabilize the society.
It doesn't matter whether you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%" or "evil big government" that's the problem, the solution to either/both starts with reining in government power.
If you believe it's the "evil corporations/1%", the corporations and ultra-rich use the power of corrupt government to exercise their power. If you believe it's "evil big-government", then of course government power is their tool.
Can't we at least agree that handing the government more power is a bad idea? Because no matter which side you're on, that just gives more power to your (our) enemies.
Or, just continue the blind partisanship and ignore it, and things will continue on getting worse and worse for everyone.
Strat
Quite a hazard to aircraft, though I'm puzzled as to why it would be a necessary requirement.
Strat
1. If a law limits or bans guns and isn't found to be constitutional, then it's constitutional. No need to get into specifics, we're talking about people's right to pursue legislation, not specifics about what could or couldn't be constitutional. People have a right to find that the framers were wrong, as we have a process to address that possibility and change the constitution. It's American, and the way it's supposed to be done.
That's not what is happening. Laws and regulations are being passed that are on their face unconstitutional and full-well known to be unconstitutional when passed, like the DC gun ban. The courts/SCOTUS are NOT the final arbitrators of what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not perfect and it's decisions are not final. The SCOTUS also upheld the Dredd Scott decision. We the people are the ones that make the ultimate determination as to what is Constitutional, as it is our right and duty to abolish a government that does not serve our interests or protect our rights and freedoms, preferrably through peaceful due process, but failing that, by armed resistance if necessary as a last resort. That's one of the primary reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment. As a means to remove the government by force when, not if, it becomes a tyrant. All governments eventually grow and become more tyrannical over time.
I don't know where in my post is said anything about lynching Zimmerman. My statement about my feelings on the law stands. I'd be happy to answer a relevant question to what I posted. Based on that law, he wasn't even arrrested. He had too much leeway to kill and too much. Luckily, he was arrested and a proper presentation of evidence can take place
If you truly believe that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and that there are not sufficient facts at this time to be possible to determine innocence or guilt, then you're poisoning the well for making a fair determination by stating Zimmerman was wrong to shoot. A police officer has no more rights than any other citizen. If a police officer may legally shoot someone for the officer's own protection that keeps moving towards an officer in a threatening manner despite the officer having a clear means to escape the situation, why can't anyone else?
Strat
It's not cowardly or unamerican for someone to pursue legal means to ban guns, from laws at every level up to and including a constitutional amendment if they don't agree with it. If its done through legal means, it's as american as following the current constitution, and as american as owning guns.
Well, I disagree about it not being un-American or unpatriotic, unless of course one starts from the premise that those who wrote the Constitution were fundamentally wrong about the value of individual liberty and what it takes to achieve and keep it.
As far as attempting to ban guns, as foolish and ignorant of reality as that whole concept is, if an Amendment to the Constitution can be passed to overturn the 2nd Amendment, fine. That's not what's happening however, as those in favor of banning guns know the vast majority of Americans favor the 2nd Amendment. What's happening instead are attempts to "get around", "get past", or just plain outright ignore the Constitution, further weakening ALL the Rights it protects.
If one can ban guns without an Amendment, what about the 1st Amendment and free speech/press, or any of the other rights and freedoms? If you allow one Amendment to be ignored, then any Amendment can be ignored. They'll eventually get to one that you like.
I personally don't mind gun ownership, but laws like "Stand Your Ground" give people like Zimmerman too much leeway to kill 'suspicious' people based on those very irrational fears and inadequacies you speak of.
Oh crap, you're not one of those crazy-ass "poor innocent Trayvon was murdered" types that are ready to lynch Zimmerman and throw out a perfectly reasonable law that allows people to not be (dead) victims, all when there has been no trial and nobody besides Zimmerman knows what actually happened between Zimmerman and this young adult, are you? So, are you in favor of putting senior citizens on death row that protect themselves from attackers under the situations and circumstances spelled out under "Stand Your Ground"?
Strat
Militia Act of 1903 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 [wikipedia.org]
That Act created the National Guard by taking the individual *official* State Militias (NOT volunteer civilian militias) under Federal control as dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. It says nothing about abolishing volunteer civilian citizens' militias. Units under the control of the regular US military and reserves are not civilian militias by definition.
You keep throwing different stuff out there hoping something will stick, yet you're unable or unwilling to refute any of my points with anything of substance.
Face it. There are no other reasons to disarm US citizens other than to enslave them and make them dependent on government and helpless against government tyranny.
My father risked his life and was wounded in WW2 to secure my rights and my liberties including the right to keep and bear firearms. I will not see them destroyed without putting my life on the line to defend them as my father did. Those are some real "Dreams From My Father" that were paid for in blood and human lives.
Strat
The militia was formed into the National Guard.
[citation needed]
I don't want crazies walking the streets armed to the teeth against their imaginary enemies.
You've got that already despite the laws against it. They're already out there. No matter how many laws or how severe you make the penalties, criminals and crazies do and will have guns in the US. The choice now is to either allow people to defend themselves or force them to become and remain helpless victims.
You seem to prefer the criminals and crazies have defenseless people to victimize.
I do not.
You are free to make yourself a helpless victim. You are NOT free to force others to become helpless victims simply to placate your own irrational fears, your own perceived inadequacies, and/or lack of courage and character.
I think T.J. had people like you in mind when he said:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
So it is being a coward to not want to carry a gun.... haha sure.
No, not at all. You're free to be a helpless victim all you wish.
It IS cowardly to attempt to deprive others of the right to defend oneself and the ability to not be a helpless victim, however.
"Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day"
Where did you dream that up?
Try reading the posts you're responding to. Specifically, the quotes I provided from the founders. I'd even 'bolded' the parts that refer to this.
and it is interesting to see that gun ownership makes you less safe, not more safe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Yeah, yeah...lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I can also statistically prove you don't exist, so maybe I AM a nutcase as you suggest, responding to non-existent posts by a non-existent person.
Strat
spoken like a true gun-nut.
No, spoken like someone who values his freedoms. Guns are simply the tool that allows people to achieve and retain it.
So when did you last turn up for militia duties? never, i am assuming as there is no militia.
Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day. Not active duty however. Hopefully we will never need to become active.
The gun ownership was put there to stop foreign invaders, not to arm the populace against each other.
Wrong.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Madison
This part of the constitution has been misquoted again and again...
Not according to those who wrote it. Forgive me again for deferring to their own words over that of some poster on Slashdot.
statements like "Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however" shows exactly why nutters like you should be disarmed and deloused.
As to your ad hominem personal attacks, I expect no less from cowards who are SO afraid to be responsible for their own safety that they want to remove the ability of others to be responsible for their own safety, in order that attention not be drawn to their craven and cowardly nature.
Strat
You do know that the right to bear arms is related to the forming of a militia to fight tyranny. Funny how when people talk about their constitutional rights they leave off that part.... So given there are no militias, then you don't need arms. America's fascination with guns always seems bizarre to me.
Every man is already part of the militia by virtue of being a citizen.
But here, let me allow a few people with more authority on the subject add their thoughts.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the whole body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington
"When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." - Thomas Jefferson
And finally, my reply just wouldn't be complete without adding these two:
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." - James Madison
And:
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
Seems like those gentlemen disagree with your holding on the 2nd Amendment.
You'll forgive me (and most other Americans) if we defer to them instead of those like you who wish to disarm the people and render them defenseless. As you can see, we were warned long ago that those like you would come.
Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however.
Strat