Q: What guarantee do we have that these binary blobs don't contain root kits? A: None.
This really isn't acceptable.:(
Aw, c'mon! It's not like the NSA would risk vital US infrastructure, foreign trade, and financial/military/corporate/individual security by deliberately compromising the security of widely used operating systems, software, and/or encryption!
No need to enter the country to fall under US jurisdiction. Just have a US bank account will do.
Or post leaked information on the internet that the US government does not want exposed, no matter if you're not a US citizen nor received/published the information within the borders of the US or it's Territories.
Contrasting it against a white stormtrooper outfit, yes, even if I was some dumbass who didn't know what a stormtrooper was.
The principal may have been a dumbass, but the real problem here is the cops. The principal was somewhat justified in reporting him, since she didn't know if the gun was real or not. But the cops knew it was a toy, and arrested him anyway. As soon as they realized it was not a real gun, and didn't even look like a real gun, they should have said "This is not the stormtrooper we are looking for. You can go about your business."
I'm not arguing against people who are interested in putting the effort in to get CCW licenses. I'm not involved in that scene, but find your claims perfectly believable. I'm arguing against the idea that a handgun will make the typical person safer.
You're still generalizing here. Again, the point is that your 'typical moron' who *should not* be carrying a gun is legally weeded out by the processes and tests administered by licensed professionals that a legal concealed firearm carrying individual that I just described must go through, and accompanied by extremely harsh criminal sentences and strong enforcement against those who violate gun laws. Well, with the exception of the US AG & ATF who is/are apparently above the law, along with many others of both Partys across many Branches and positions, but that's another topic.
As I suggested in my prior post, go tour a range or two where the required training/lessons take place and *talk* to some people. Don't just take other people's word for something that is both so very important to get right, but also so easy and likely even enjoyable to see exactly for yourself what the facts are in an afternoon?
Oh, and check the DoJ's/FBI's own crime statistics of CCW license holders compared to general averages and even by demographic group. Legal gun owning/carrying people are not where the majority of gun violence/death or crime in general comes from by any stretch of the imagination to any reasonable person looking at those numbers.
The vast majority of US gun crime and violence is gang/drug-related and mostly in the inner city areas of the major US cities. Interestingly, the vast majority of those cities seem to have been controlled by a single Party for multiple decades. Cities who see more plurality in political leadership seems to correlate to fewer problems for those cities across multiple sectors.
Police and bodyguards are generally aware that they may well have to shoot somebody, and have made the decision that they're willing to kill. They also usually have fewer inhibitions about bringing a gun into a situation that might escalate. If a police officer thinks I might get violent, the police officer will be prepared for an attack if I'm within ten feet. It may well be that you're prepared to kill, and I'm not saying that's good or bad, but the majority of the population isn't.
There's your problem. You're generalizing. Legal CCW license holders in the US =/= the general population. Go tour/visit some local ranges. Talk to the people you meet and see there. They're generally delighted to be informative and helpful.
Almost everyplace requires a certain number of hours/classes (varies by loc.) of training and a certification issued by a licensed firearm instructor at a licensed range, as well as background checks including mental health history are performed. I'm not even sure that every police department or academy requires the mental health background check that most CCW licensing requires.
CCW holders have been asked multiple times by multiple people along the way if they're certain they both need to carry the weapon and if they fully understand and are able and willing to accept and carry out the legal responsibilities and obligations attendant and are tested by the licensed instructor on those obligations and requirements before being issued a license/permit.
The people who choose to go through all this generally are motivated and genuinely interested in personal security, tactical strategy and combat situational training, shooting sports in general, and community safety and protection.
The same is not true with too many police officers these days. Many are well trained, extremely professional, intelligent, always de-escalate situations if possible, and are unsung heroes in their communities Sadly, these days more and more carry because it's required by their employer and do the minimum amount of training and practice required, but otherwise have no genuine interest and are far from professional, and some I've seen are not even safe to allow to wander around armed anywhere, never mind out in public with innocent bystanders around.
Then why do police, judges, and many other government politicians and bureaucrats carry guns for protection and/or are protected by people carrying guns?
As a poster above correctly points out, *no* safety measure or thing is 100% effective in every single situation that could possible arise. Traffic signals, guard rails, on and on, none of these things or countless others are 100% effective in every situation, and some things, like seat belts & airbags, actually end up doing more harm than good in some cases.
Guns are relatively effective for personal protection and on balance are better to have than not have if a threat arises. Otherwise police would not carry firearms specifically for that purpose.
Which are only effectively countered by people defending themselves with guns.
God created Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Grandma (and the physically disabled, young women, etc) has a chance against a young, fit, male attacker if she has a gun. More than without a gun. Much more than blowing a "rape whistle" and peeing herself, or waiting for police who, in many small towns including the one I live in, typically wait at the donut shop until the shooting is over before arriving to take a report and have the body(s) removed. As one cop told me in a moment of frankness; "I ain't dodging gunfire for no $70k a year and a pension!"
Police in the US have no legal obligation to protect citizens.
Police handle the paperwork. Citizens are the true "first responders".
If it's not illegal for them to do without a judge/warrant then it's not illegal for citizens either. Just make sure to stream the data obtained in realtime to storage located outside the Five Eyes nations.
So the original (incorrect) post is modded at +3, while both mine and the guy saying I'm right are at +2. Thanks, moderators, for fact checking.
Wikipedia says I'm right and OP is wrong.
If it were not for your relatively low UID number, I'd say "you must be new here".
Facts and logic are fungible and elastic among Slashdotters when they negatively impact stubbornly-held (but incorrect nonetheless) worldviews, politics, (anti-)religious beliefs, and ideologies.
To a large extent Slashdot negative moderation serves the same purpose as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you!".
I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.
You "expect" these things, yet provide no details on how exactly you "expect" these things to be or become fact.
Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation? Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor? Altruism? Altruism is a virtue only when it is voluntarily given. Otherwise it is theft and slavery.
On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.
Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.
Then you have not thought things through logically, I'm afraid.
That's all fine and good until you have a large portion of the population either receiving said 'mincome' or in retirement. Have you checked what direction the demographics are trending in the US? Ever-fewer workers are supporting an ever-increasing population dependent on government. It's unsustainable and quickly approaching collapse already.
Where's the money going to come from to pay collective Pauls when you run short of select Peters to rob?
I'll just leave this here:
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Unfortunately, HRC's private email servers she hosted at her home while SoS are temporarily down due to a security issue. Authorities wanted to see the contents.
In reality, it's even worse, as requiring the telecoms to keep this data guarantees that the telecoms will use that data -- so the end result is an expansion of the the amount of spying that is being inflicted on us.
Exactly this. Government spying on its citizens is bad, don't get me wrong. However, there are remedies for this. It isn't easy, but you CAN vote out the current government and vote in people who will end the spying. Again, it's not easy and it might take time, but it's doable.
The problem is that ending domestic bulk data collection requires enforcing the Constitution, and although many are against mass surveillance, many more are against other things that the Constitution enshrines & protects, like civilian gun ownership and freedom of religion as just 2 examples off the top f my head.
Unfortunately, there are many people out there that would be more than willing to sacrifice many civil rights if only guns were banned, and/or any church that performs any weddings was forced to wed anyone of any sex regardless of long-held religious beliefs/doctrines of said church/religion.
See, that's the problem. There is disagreement among large numbers of people on exactly what the definition of "fit parent" is, who gets to decide what that definition is, and how it is interpreted/implemented/enforced, and if government even has the power under the Constitution to be involved at all.
Because we're a progressive world, where we successfully freed women from the oppresion of having a nice household, a partner who takes cares of them, and pursuing the ultimate biological goal of reproduction. Now they can enjoy being forced into being competitive just as men are. Remember girls, now you have to earn the right to use your womb now, better get working because you'll need the money in case you decide to unfreeze your eggs and have a baby a couple of years before your retirement.
So better get into engineering even if you don't like it because babies are fucking expensive now! Uh? you don't like it? well that's because your internalized patriarchy doesn't let you think straight you silly girl.
Obviously the only real solution is to force all children to be taken at birth to be raised and educated in government-run facilities until the age of majority, safe from bad parenting decisions and dangerous political/ideological ideas./s
I felt the need for the '/s' sarc tag, as there are actually a number of people, some in positions of power, who would take the above as a given, that children belong to the State first and parents second.
Is an apparent law enforcement officer (or group thereof) who is conducting their work illegally, really a law enforcement officer?
Nope, they are just Low-Earth Orbits then.
Take from that what you can comprehend. Don't try to understand it. My head hurts.
It's quite simple.
They are acting as agents of State Security, or "SS".
The SS operates without regard to laws or Constitutionally-mandated limits/restrictions to government powers. They believe as tyrants always have, that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
At a 2008 "distressed investors" forum, Ron Bloom, appointed Senior Counselor to President Obama for Manufacturing Policy in September 2009, said:
"Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market. Or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."
Then what exactly are you saying you want? Don't hide behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and tell me exactly what it is you are advocating that is in some way different to what George Washington delivered.
"Hide behind the Fed/Anti-Fed Papers"? Seriously? Why do you think "what George Washington delivered" and what the *other* founders agreed on and included in the design of the nation based on the discussions carried out through those very Fed/Anti-Fed Papers is different? You *do* realize that the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers are as close to code-comments for the Constitution as we can get, right?
It sounds like you have not invested sufficient time in learning and understanding the history of the design and theory of governance behind the US Constitution.
Until you have, there is no possibility of having a rational discussion.
If not, then say what you mean instead of this childish shit of suggesting we are better of with something other than an elected government.
Congratulations!
What a marvelous strawman you created and killed! Too bad I never said anything like that.
It was Congress who passed the Patriot Act in a rush in the first place to create this mess, and you want to give them even more ability to stampede things through without ample time for people to learn about, understand, and form opinions and advocate for or oppose legislation?
Please take the time to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers before criticizing a system you obviously do not understand.
A runaway/out-of-control Legislative branch is equally as dangerous to liberty as a runaway/out-of-control Executive or Judicial branch.
If you have a problem with the built-in safeguards against a runaway/out-of-control Congress included in the design of the US Congress by the authors of the Constitution, amend it.
So that the NSA et al can just get on with business as usual without elected officials telling them what to do?
Wait, I thought it was these same elected officials who authorized the "business as usual" you refer to? They were about to re-authorize the same "business as usual" when Sen. Paul filibustered, were they not? The US Freedom act which codified into law many of the provisions re: domestic surveillance, but which has been promoted as a "fix" despite that fact, was not up for a vote.
Gridlock was intentionally designed into the system as a safeguard against knee-jerk legislative responses in order that there was at least a chance that adults could rein-in such knee-jerk/runaway legislative actions.
You need to check your facts.
You'll love China. They've got all that without those expensive elections. Or how about the colonies when the King was in charge?
Again, rather than tossing accusations & insults you *really* need to check the facts and think before you embarrass yourself further.
As far as Kings and decrees go, the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has been doing a pretty good impression.
the rather obvious point is that our legislative rules are specifically designed so that congress accomplishes nothing when there is no majority to push things forward
Yes, quite true.
The tone of your replies to me seems to suggest I am arguing against the things you've stated when I've made no such statements, and in fact agree that gridlock is not a bad thing, and is in fact an intentional feature meant to slow and in some cases curb legislative excesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Q: What guarantee do we have that these binary blobs don't contain root kits?
A: None.
This really isn't acceptable. :(
Aw, c'mon! It's not like the NSA would risk vital US infrastructure, foreign trade, and financial/military/corporate/individual security by deliberately compromising the security of widely used operating systems, software, and/or encryption!
That's just crazy talk.
Strat
No need to enter the country to fall under US jurisdiction. Just have a US bank account will do.
Or post leaked information on the internet that the US government does not want exposed, no matter if you're not a US citizen nor received/published the information within the borders of the US or it's Territories.
That's just how fascists roll.
Strat
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/0nM0asnCXD0
Strat
I'm not arguing against people who are interested in putting the effort in to get CCW licenses. I'm not involved in that scene, but find your claims perfectly believable. I'm arguing against the idea that a handgun will make the typical person safer.
You're still generalizing here. Again, the point is that your 'typical moron' who *should not* be carrying a gun is legally weeded out by the processes and tests administered by licensed professionals that a legal concealed firearm carrying individual that I just described must go through, and accompanied by extremely harsh criminal sentences and strong enforcement against those who violate gun laws. Well, with the exception of the US AG & ATF who is/are apparently above the law, along with many others of both Partys across many Branches and positions, but that's another topic.
As I suggested in my prior post, go tour a range or two where the required training/lessons take place and *talk* to some people. Don't just take other people's word for something that is both so very important to get right, but also so easy and likely even enjoyable to see exactly for yourself what the facts are in an afternoon?
Oh, and check the DoJ's/FBI's own crime statistics of CCW license holders compared to general averages and even by demographic group. Legal gun owning/carrying people are not where the majority of gun violence/death or crime in general comes from by any stretch of the imagination to any reasonable person looking at those numbers.
The vast majority of US gun crime and violence is gang/drug-related and mostly in the inner city areas of the major US cities. Interestingly, the vast majority of those cities seem to have been controlled by a single Party for multiple decades. Cities who see more plurality in political leadership seems to correlate to fewer problems for those cities across multiple sectors.
Strat
Police and bodyguards are generally aware that they may well have to shoot somebody, and have made the decision that they're willing to kill. They also usually have fewer inhibitions about bringing a gun into a situation that might escalate. If a police officer thinks I might get violent, the police officer will be prepared for an attack if I'm within ten feet. It may well be that you're prepared to kill, and I'm not saying that's good or bad, but the majority of the population isn't.
There's your problem. You're generalizing. Legal CCW license holders in the US =/= the general population. Go tour/visit some local ranges. Talk to the people you meet and see there. They're generally delighted to be informative and helpful.
Almost everyplace requires a certain number of hours/classes (varies by loc.) of training and a certification issued by a licensed firearm instructor at a licensed range, as well as background checks including mental health history are performed. I'm not even sure that every police department or academy requires the mental health background check that most CCW licensing requires.
CCW holders have been asked multiple times by multiple people along the way if they're certain they both need to carry the weapon and if they fully understand and are able and willing to accept and carry out the legal responsibilities and obligations attendant and are tested by the licensed instructor on those obligations and requirements before being issued a license/permit.
The people who choose to go through all this generally are motivated and genuinely interested in personal security, tactical strategy and combat situational training, shooting sports in general, and community safety and protection.
The same is not true with too many police officers these days. Many are well trained, extremely professional, intelligent, always de-escalate situations if possible, and are unsung heroes in their communities Sadly, these days more and more carry because it's required by their employer and do the minimum amount of training and practice required, but otherwise have no genuine interest and are far from professional, and some I've seen are not even safe to allow to wander around armed anywhere, never mind out in public with innocent bystanders around.
Strat
Guns aren't usually going to protect people.
Then why do police, judges, and many other government politicians and bureaucrats carry guns for protection and/or are protected by people carrying guns?
As a poster above correctly points out, *no* safety measure or thing is 100% effective in every single situation that could possible arise. Traffic signals, guard rails, on and on, none of these things or countless others are 100% effective in every situation, and some things, like seat belts & airbags, actually end up doing more harm than good in some cases.
Guns are relatively effective for personal protection and on balance are better to have than not have if a threat arises. Otherwise police would not carry firearms specifically for that purpose.
Strat
Well, wouldn't want to keep "Your Snarky-ness' waiting. Here you go. Google supplies many, many, many more.
Intruder shot by 73-year-old: http://www.cbs46.com/story/263...
84-year-old Richmond woman shoots intruder: http://abc7news.com/archive/79...
82-year-old woman kills 2 teens who broke into her home: http://news.aazah.com/content/...
'Not Here': 53-year-old woman shoots intruder: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07...
Yeah, go ahead, take away Grandma's only effective defense. Humoring your hoplophobia is much more important than Grandma's life, after all, right?
I don't typically resort to name-calling, but in this case I must call it like I see it and point out that you, Sir, are a moron.
Strat
Guns have strong offensive uses.
Which are only effectively countered by people defending themselves with guns.
God created Man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Grandma (and the physically disabled, young women, etc) has a chance against a young, fit, male attacker if she has a gun. More than without a gun. Much more than blowing a "rape whistle" and peeing herself, or waiting for police who, in many small towns including the one I live in, typically wait at the donut shop until the shooting is over before arriving to take a report and have the body(s) removed. As one cop told me in a moment of frankness; "I ain't dodging gunfire for no $70k a year and a pension!"
Police in the US have no legal obligation to protect citizens.
Police handle the paperwork. Citizens are the true "first responders".
Strat
Just get the right librarian for the job.
Ook.
What, you don't like our current one who unofficially goes by the moniker '343 Guilty Spark'?
Strat
You didn't think the government was going to give up their addiction to surveillance crack that easily, did you?
Well, you could always turn the crackpipe around on them and let them burn their lips. The equipment is available to anyone. Used/refurbished, even.
http://www.testequipmentdepot....
Stream the data realtime to storage in a non-Five-Eyes nation. Maybe Ecuador? They are not too happy with the US/Airstrip One about now.
Strat
Stingray phone tracking has been going on in secret for a while now. Even by some local police departments.
And equipment to do the same thing to them is easily obtainable by the public.
http://www.testequipmentdepot....
If it's not illegal for them to do without a judge/warrant then it's not illegal for citizens either. Just make sure to stream the data obtained in realtime to storage located outside the Five Eyes nations.
Strat
So the original (incorrect) post is modded at +3, while both mine and the guy saying I'm right are at +2. Thanks, moderators, for fact checking.
Wikipedia says I'm right and OP is wrong.
If it were not for your relatively low UID number, I'd say "you must be new here".
Facts and logic are fungible and elastic among Slashdotters when they negatively impact stubbornly-held (but incorrect nonetheless) worldviews, politics, (anti-)religious beliefs, and ideologies.
To a large extent Slashdot negative moderation serves the same purpose as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you!".
Strat
I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.
You "expect" these things, yet provide no details on how exactly you "expect" these things to be or become fact.
Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation? Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor? Altruism? Altruism is a virtue only when it is voluntarily given. Otherwise it is theft and slavery.
On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.
Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.
Strat
I support universal basic income guarantee
Then you have not thought things through logically, I'm afraid.
That's all fine and good until you have a large portion of the population either receiving said 'mincome' or in retirement. Have you checked what direction the demographics are trending in the US? Ever-fewer workers are supporting an ever-increasing population dependent on government. It's unsustainable and quickly approaching collapse already.
Where's the money going to come from to pay collective Pauls when you run short of select Peters to rob?
I'll just leave this here:
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Strat
Hmm... maybe someone should start up a spin-off called LobbyRoad where politicians can meet to trade kickbacks and favors in an anonymous setting?
Done & done.
https://www.clintonfoundation....
Unfortunately, HRC's private email servers she hosted at her home while SoS are temporarily down due to a security issue. Authorities wanted to see the contents.
Strat
The problem is that ending domestic bulk data collection requires enforcing the Constitution, and although many are against mass surveillance, many more are against other things that the Constitution enshrines & protects, like civilian gun ownership and freedom of religion as just 2 examples off the top f my head.
Unfortunately, there are many people out there that would be more than willing to sacrifice many civil rights if only guns were banned, and/or any church that performs any weddings was forced to wed anyone of any sex regardless of long-held religious beliefs/doctrines of said church/religion.
Strat
Not everyone is a fit parent.
See, that's the problem. There is disagreement among large numbers of people on exactly what the definition of "fit parent" is, who gets to decide what that definition is, and how it is interpreted/implemented/enforced, and if government even has the power under the Constitution to be involved at all.
Strat
Obviously the only real solution is to force all children to be taken at birth to be raised and educated in government-run facilities until the age of majority, safe from bad parenting decisions and dangerous political/ideological ideas. /s
I felt the need for the '/s' sarc tag, as there are actually a number of people, some in positions of power, who would take the above as a given, that children belong to the State first and parents second.
Strat
It's quite simple.
They are acting as agents of State Security, or "SS".
The SS operates without regard to laws or Constitutionally-mandated limits/restrictions to government powers. They believe as tyrants always have, that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
At a 2008 "distressed investors" forum, Ron Bloom, appointed Senior Counselor to President Obama for Manufacturing Policy in September 2009, said:
"Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market. Or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, 'cause they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
This mentality is not uncommon across government, especially the higher one looks.
Strat
Then what exactly are you saying you want? Don't hide behind the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and tell me exactly what it is you are advocating that is in some way different to what George Washington delivered.
"Hide behind the Fed/Anti-Fed Papers"? Seriously? Why do you think "what George Washington delivered" and what the *other* founders agreed on and included in the design of the nation based on the discussions carried out through those very Fed/Anti-Fed Papers is different? You *do* realize that the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers are as close to code-comments for the Constitution as we can get, right?
It sounds like you have not invested sufficient time in learning and understanding the history of the design and theory of governance behind the US Constitution.
Until you have, there is no possibility of having a rational discussion.
Good day, sir.
Strat
If not, then say what you mean instead of this childish shit of suggesting we are better of with something other than an elected government.
Congratulations!
What a marvelous strawman you created and killed! Too bad I never said anything like that.
It was Congress who passed the Patriot Act in a rush in the first place to create this mess, and you want to give them even more ability to stampede things through without ample time for people to learn about, understand, and form opinions and advocate for or oppose legislation?
Please take the time to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers before criticizing a system you obviously do not understand.
A runaway/out-of-control Legislative branch is equally as dangerous to liberty as a runaway/out-of-control Executive or Judicial branch.
If you have a problem with the built-in safeguards against a runaway/out-of-control Congress included in the design of the US Congress by the authors of the Constitution, amend it.
Strat
So that the NSA et al can just get on with business as usual without elected officials telling them what to do?
Wait, I thought it was these same elected officials who authorized the "business as usual" you refer to? They were about to re-authorize the same "business as usual" when Sen. Paul filibustered, were they not? The US Freedom act which codified into law many of the provisions re: domestic surveillance, but which has been promoted as a "fix" despite that fact, was not up for a vote.
Gridlock was intentionally designed into the system as a safeguard against knee-jerk legislative responses in order that there was at least a chance that adults could rein-in such knee-jerk/runaway legislative actions.
You need to check your facts.
You'll love China. They've got all that without those expensive elections. Or how about the colonies when the King was in charge?
Again, rather than tossing accusations & insults you *really* need to check the facts and think before you embarrass yourself further.
As far as Kings and decrees go, the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. has been doing a pretty good impression.
Strat
Didn't you see the Snowden docs last year saying Israel became the Sixth Eye?
No, I apparently missed it. Thanks, I will investigate and if accurate, modify my opinion accordingly.
Strat
the rather obvious point is that our legislative rules are specifically designed so that congress accomplishes nothing when there is no majority to push things forward
Yes, quite true.
The tone of your replies to me seems to suggest I am arguing against the things you've stated when I've made no such statements, and in fact agree that gridlock is not a bad thing, and is in fact an intentional feature meant to slow and in some cases curb legislative excesses.
Strat
Yes, and...?
Was there a point here?
Strat