Whether or not there is a well defined legal process, the power lies in the people.
You missed the most important part of that statement, which should be "within the law". Revolutionaries are rightly considered treasonous, whether or not you believe in their cause.
I think that Snowden did a great service to the Country when he undermined the power of the executive, and I am sure that there are others who agree.
People agreed with Snowden because he attempted to use the proper system and found no results. His act of turning the information over to the public was a matter of last resort, not first resort. Manning on the other hand receives no such accolades because they did not attempt the right way at all.
Following the 'Legal' process is sometimes the least effective measure to limit the power of a tyranny.
Failure to follow laws is a much faster way to tyranny, hence why we have a Constitution and Laws.
"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33"
Which tyrannical use of power are you attempting to claim happened? One approved by members of both houses, the executive branch, and reviewed by the judicial branch? I won't hold my breath for examples, which from leftists tend to be thought crimes and not actual events. Hell, you could surprise me.
If Brietbart is alt-right then so is every other media outlet. Alt-right is an arbitary term which is tacked on to anyone that does not support Leftism, just like homophobe, xenophobe, islamaphobe, racist, bigot, rapist, and countless other terms. You have lost all credibility and can no longer use the term to any effect.
Funny how you people advocating leftism can cherry pick a few articles out of hundreds of thousands published to label one media outlet with right leanings, but ignore all of the leftist media outlets doing the same damn thing.
Honest question: what behavior are you talking about? Many, many democrats have stated that they are willing to work with the new administration on areas of common ground. Many democrats have voted in favor of Trump's cabinet appointments.
Lets start with the declarations of impeachment that began back in November. How about the constant claims of racism, discrimination, islamaphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, and that anyone that does agree with their Leftism is one or all of those things.
How about the claims that illegal immigrants are not, and can not be, criminals and that the American people must not only welcome criminals but transfer wealth to them. In addition of course to any other group that the Democrats wish to import for political gain. How about the false claim that the moratorium on immigration was a "Muslim" ban, that controlling immigration and borders is anti-American and racist. How about them fighting against changes to the ACA even while the ACA has harmed far more Americans than it helped, with premiums up so far that middle class people can't pay, and deductibles going from on average 500/1000 to 5000/10000 for citizens.
What we are seeing is well beyond the normal hyperbole and exaggeration, it is outright lies and propaganda coming from the Democratic party. Having Perez and Ellison elected as the party leaders should be the icing on the cake, with both being vocal detractors of the US and the latter advocating violence, antisemitism, and Muslim extremism.
If your argument is that there are some sane people left in the Democratic party I'll give you that, but point out that they have no voice in the Democratic party. The Democratic party has become the party of identity politics.
They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior.
Right, so the mass of Conservative and Traditional Liberal (Sargon of Akkad) accounts were banned simply due to breaking rules. Anyone looking at bans can see is completely arbitrary and based on political opinions Twitter execs feel is a threat to their leftist leanings. Evidence does not support your claim, and the TOS does not admit that they ban people on the Conservative side simply for being Conservative and arguing against Leftism. You, like them, are being dishonst. Shame on you.
Private media companies are surely able to do as they please, but they also have a public obligation as a public facing company to present themselves _honestly_ to the public. Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
I have no problem with businesses who interface with the public being biased, controversial, or even portraying things I disagree with morally. I won't read the NY Times but respect that they came out and openly said they will do everything possible to destroy President Trump. An objective person will see that message and understand that what they read is coming from a biased position. I have no problem with Redtube providing free adult videos to people, and paying people to upload material. Morally objectionable to me, but they are honest about what they do and my morality is not universally supported.
Dishonesty is the problem with Twitter, who pushes itself as a free speech platform.
You are confusing undermining with something else. There is a well defined legal process for Government agencies to use to maintain balance and Law. In fact we obtained President Trump exactly due to the legal processes in place. Let us see if that person fits into your narrative, or if you are a shill.
Those people are hired to serve their country foremost, not their president.
Undermining _ANY_ branch of Government is a DIS-service to their Country. Reporting legal concerns has a channel and process to follow.
We The People must distance ourselves from Trump if we are to retain any credibility.
Say the same old people since well _before_ President Trump took office. You have no credibility, because you continue to claim he is guilty of thought crimes and therefor must go. Sad that you don't see your own idiocy, but hey. Keep killing off your party.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship - you don't like Twitland, go back over to Faceplace - it's not like there aren't other alternatives. Same with the second comment - people who like the service will keep using it. Those who don't will find another platform for their trolling - I'm sure 2chan or something like that is still available. Free market in action, baby...
Twitter being a private company does not mean that they can't censor, in fact we know that Twitter and places like "Faceplace" as you so kindly put it, they do censor. The question is whether or not a private company can legally censor and should protections be put in place to ensure people know that information is censored.
I believe that they have the legal right to censor, but also believe that they should be required to provide legal notification on what they censor and why. There is a difference between free speech and propaganda, and it should be obvious to people which the platform supports. Paid advertisements have to do this today, and I believe its within bounds to demand the same for any social media platform.
Before I begin, I will say that my opinion would be the exact same no matter which party held the office. The NSA is not supposed to be a political entity, it is supposed to serve the American people as a whole. Any person in any agency that refuses to support the current administration should absolutely leave, and do so in a hurry. Any person in the agency being forced to work against the interests of the current administration should blow the whistle on the people making demands which harm the Country.
While we have seen some churn in every administration change, what I notice quite differently with this one is that agencies believe it's okay to damage the country instead of just leaving their job. I spent a decade working DOD and experienced numerous administration changes. Taking a crap on administration was never before seen as okay, yet that is what the current leaks are designed to do.
Another anecdote to consider is that my family was mostly Democratic party members. The behavior of the Democratic party for the last several months has pushed every single one of them away. The current behavior has turned them into enemies of the Democratic party. That sentiment is being echoed across the country as they continue to try and destroy the current Administration. The Democrats continuing to push hard for identity politics is going to continue to diminish support. Look at their visual in the message last night in the Response to the Presidential address to Congress. What image does a bunch of elder white people from the South, all sitting with stern faces, project? Racial harmony sure didn't come to mind. (these shots are well planned, not impromptu)
The job of the minority party in Government is not to undermine the majority, it is to keep their side relevant in law making and conversation.
I see plenty of people watching their phones, Computers, and iPads instead of a TV. I would think that number would reconcile the difference much more than bigger screens.
That all said, disposable income for lower and all ranks of middle class is considerably down over the last decade. That means less toys and gadgets around those same houses. The Middle class has always been the source of fluid income in the economy, and starving those people has caused a big stagnation in the country.
If you want real innovation, you need to have the person who is really doing the asking do the vetting directly, or hire an outside consultant to do it.
So your recommendation is to bring in the Bobs?
The hard part is finding the bosses that listen to ideas for change, which are very rare. As GP stated, many people see change as dangerous. Worse than that, many people feel change makes them look bad. Their idea 10 years ago was great, and their ego relies on that same idea hanging around. Their usefulness to the company is challenged by new ideas, so they push back against it.
Grass roots activism is the best way to go, but not always successful. I have left many a company because they refuse to change, even when it's detrimental to their business. At least two of those companies I left ended up suffering from the exact problem I tried to solve for them, and they called asking me for help. Burned bridges can happen in either direction.
I don't look at the Internet alone for new music, I scan stations on drives and find things. Just like we did when I was a kid and had no internet. Using the internet for "discovery" means that you get someones recommendations based on your current taste or what's trending. That same principle occurs on the Radio, but if you scan you find new genres.
While the quality of music on radio may be worse than physical mediums, the importance of Radio is that it exposes people to new music and personalities. Not all are good, not all are bad so your appreciation varies. I was exposed to countless people and musicians because of Radio. Seems to me that this person has a vested interest in pushing a particular brand of medium, so expect their opinion to be self serving and with extreme bias.
Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. It is physically impossible for anyone to sit for 2 hours without food or drink... Sheesh. I hope you recognize sarcasm.
You should check a person's post history before attempting to insult them. A Constitutional Conservative is about as far from "liberal" as you can get. Dumbass trolls..
Hollywood could have been utilizing these services for at least a decade, and probably helped push the technology along. They would rather have people visit a theater since their profits can be higher and media tightly controlled.
I don't go to movies, and haven't for about a decade. The mandatory 15 minutes of commercials, price for the film, hassle of parking, insane price for drinks and a snack all add up to a big "no thanks" from me. If they streamed I'd probably pay for a movie now and then, but as is I wait for it to be on TV.
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
So by your own definition, the DPRK has to be a Republic and can't be a dictatorship. There is no way to match the definition with the reality of the case. Your point is moronic.
... the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments....
we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
I would argue that this is the natural outcome of capitalism in a system where people must work to survive.
You can argue that all you want, but your position is based on willful ignorance. I gave the answer " Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free." and you chose to ignore it. You can read "Wealth of Nations" if you have doubts, but seems like you are pretty happy yelling from the dark.
When defining capitalism Smith said that the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments. Not quite like too big to fail, but too big to control so similar. For this reason, Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free.
Today however, we don't practice capitalism. We have Government enforced monopolies. Politicians benefit from kickbacks and stock options, monopolies gouge customers, and the average person is screwed. IP laws have ensured that competition can be squashed in court long before they ever become a threat.
To reiterate for the anti-capitalist comments that normally follow a thread like this, we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
Not that long ago most of the "jobs American's won't do" were done exactly by Americans. Simple labor was done by high school kids (with record low labor participation rates today), Students on break from College (also record low labor participation), or entry level jobs for people not sure what to do with their careers (now mostly unemployed).
Employers given the ability to pay illegal workers less money and work them more hours has led to a lack of entry level and low level jobs. Why would a farmer hire young adults, especially considering the restrictions the State puts on workers below 18 and pay minimum wage? Why pay them more than minimum wage even if they are extremely productive? They won't, because they can get more labor at less money and not have to worry about anyone from State looking at how they treat labor.
To your last point: "ME" is the most important thing in many relationships, not "WE". That message and value has been preached by both 2nd and 3rd wave feminists since the 70s. Feminists 3rd wave has been so vocal that we now have groups of MGTOWS, massive low rates of marriage, low birthrate (which to many is the point of those movements), and a society growing more and more immoral/degenerate. Further, you can't be so foolish as to not understand that gold diggers exist. Unfortunately this means that if you want old fashioned family values, it may be easier to import them. Your slight is a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not there is a well defined legal process, the power lies in the people.
You missed the most important part of that statement, which should be "within the law". Revolutionaries are rightly considered treasonous, whether or not you believe in their cause.
I think that Snowden did a great service to the Country when he undermined the power of the executive, and I am sure that there are others who agree.
People agreed with Snowden because he attempted to use the proper system and found no results. His act of turning the information over to the public was a matter of last resort, not first resort. Manning on the other hand receives no such accolades because they did not attempt the right way at all.
Following the 'Legal' process is sometimes the least effective measure to limit the power of a tyranny.
Failure to follow laws is a much faster way to tyranny, hence why we have a Constitution and Laws.
"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 33"
Which tyrannical use of power are you attempting to claim happened? One approved by members of both houses, the executive branch, and reviewed by the judicial branch? I won't hold my breath for examples, which from leftists tend to be thought crimes and not actual events. Hell, you could surprise me.
If Brietbart is alt-right then so is every other media outlet. Alt-right is an arbitary term which is tacked on to anyone that does not support Leftism, just like homophobe, xenophobe, islamaphobe, racist, bigot, rapist, and countless other terms. You have lost all credibility and can no longer use the term to any effect.
Funny how you people advocating leftism can cherry pick a few articles out of hundreds of thousands published to label one media outlet with right leanings, but ignore all of the leftist media outlets doing the same damn thing.
Honest question: what behavior are you talking about? Many, many democrats have stated that they are willing to work with the new administration on areas of common ground. Many democrats have voted in favor of Trump's cabinet appointments.
Lets start with the declarations of impeachment that began back in November. How about the constant claims of racism, discrimination, islamaphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, and that anyone that does agree with their Leftism is one or all of those things.
How about the claims that illegal immigrants are not, and can not be, criminals and that the American people must not only welcome criminals but transfer wealth to them. In addition of course to any other group that the Democrats wish to import for political gain. How about the false claim that the moratorium on immigration was a "Muslim" ban, that controlling immigration and borders is anti-American and racist. How about them fighting against changes to the ACA even while the ACA has harmed far more Americans than it helped, with premiums up so far that middle class people can't pay, and deductibles going from on average 500/1000 to 5000/10000 for citizens.
What we are seeing is well beyond the normal hyperbole and exaggeration, it is outright lies and propaganda coming from the Democratic party. Having Perez and Ellison elected as the party leaders should be the icing on the cake, with both being vocal detractors of the US and the latter advocating violence, antisemitism, and Muslim extremism.
If your argument is that there are some sane people left in the Democratic party I'll give you that, but point out that they have no voice in the Democratic party. The Democratic party has become the party of identity politics.
They suspend/ban accounts that break their rules of appropriate behavior.
Right, so the mass of Conservative and Traditional Liberal (Sargon of Akkad) accounts were banned simply due to breaking rules. Anyone looking at bans can see is completely arbitrary and based on political opinions Twitter execs feel is a threat to their leftist leanings. Evidence does not support your claim, and the TOS does not admit that they ban people on the Conservative side simply for being Conservative and arguing against Leftism. You, like them, are being dishonst. Shame on you.
Private media companies are surely able to do as they please, but they also have a public obligation as a public facing company to present themselves _honestly_ to the public. Their TOS and EULA do not state that they banish people expressing opinions that don't fit their political leanings, which would surely have impact on how many people join, or continue to use, that service.
I have no problem with businesses who interface with the public being biased, controversial, or even portraying things I disagree with morally. I won't read the NY Times but respect that they came out and openly said they will do everything possible to destroy President Trump. An objective person will see that message and understand that what they read is coming from a biased position. I have no problem with Redtube providing free adult videos to people, and paying people to upload material. Morally objectionable to me, but they are honest about what they do and my morality is not universally supported.
Dishonesty is the problem with Twitter, who pushes itself as a free speech platform.
You are confusing undermining with something else. There is a well defined legal process for Government agencies to use to maintain balance and Law. In fact we obtained President Trump exactly due to the legal processes in place. Let us see if that person fits into your narrative, or if you are a shill.
Those people are hired to serve their country foremost, not their president.
Undermining _ANY_ branch of Government is a DIS-service to their Country. Reporting legal concerns has a channel and process to follow.
We The People must distance ourselves from Trump if we are to retain any credibility.
Say the same old people since well _before_ President Trump took office. You have no credibility, because you continue to claim he is guilty of thought crimes and therefor must go. Sad that you don't see your own idiocy, but hey. Keep killing off your party.
First of all, it's a private company doing it, so it's not censorship - you don't like Twitland, go back over to Faceplace - it's not like there aren't other alternatives. Same with the second comment - people who like the service will keep using it. Those who don't will find another platform for their trolling - I'm sure 2chan or something like that is still available. Free market in action, baby...
Twitter being a private company does not mean that they can't censor, in fact we know that Twitter and places like "Faceplace" as you so kindly put it, they do censor. The question is whether or not a private company can legally censor and should protections be put in place to ensure people know that information is censored.
I believe that they have the legal right to censor, but also believe that they should be required to provide legal notification on what they censor and why. There is a difference between free speech and propaganda, and it should be obvious to people which the platform supports. Paid advertisements have to do this today, and I believe its within bounds to demand the same for any social media platform.
Before I begin, I will say that my opinion would be the exact same no matter which party held the office. The NSA is not supposed to be a political entity, it is supposed to serve the American people as a whole. Any person in any agency that refuses to support the current administration should absolutely leave, and do so in a hurry. Any person in the agency being forced to work against the interests of the current administration should blow the whistle on the people making demands which harm the Country.
While we have seen some churn in every administration change, what I notice quite differently with this one is that agencies believe it's okay to damage the country instead of just leaving their job. I spent a decade working DOD and experienced numerous administration changes. Taking a crap on administration was never before seen as okay, yet that is what the current leaks are designed to do.
Another anecdote to consider is that my family was mostly Democratic party members. The behavior of the Democratic party for the last several months has pushed every single one of them away. The current behavior has turned them into enemies of the Democratic party. That sentiment is being echoed across the country as they continue to try and destroy the current Administration. The Democrats continuing to push hard for identity politics is going to continue to diminish support. Look at their visual in the message last night in the Response to the Presidential address to Congress. What image does a bunch of elder white people from the South, all sitting with stern faces, project? Racial harmony sure didn't come to mind. (these shots are well planned, not impromptu)
The job of the minority party in Government is not to undermine the majority, it is to keep their side relevant in law making and conversation.
You are correct, I'm tired also so skimmed a bit too quickly :)
I see plenty of people watching their phones, Computers, and iPads instead of a TV. I would think that number would reconcile the difference much more than bigger screens.
That all said, disposable income for lower and all ranks of middle class is considerably down over the last decade. That means less toys and gadgets around those same houses. The Middle class has always been the source of fluid income in the economy, and starving those people has caused a big stagnation in the country.
If you want real innovation, you need to have the person who is really doing the asking do the vetting directly, or hire an outside consultant to do it.
So your recommendation is to bring in the Bobs?
The hard part is finding the bosses that listen to ideas for change, which are very rare. As GP stated, many people see change as dangerous. Worse than that, many people feel change makes them look bad. Their idea 10 years ago was great, and their ego relies on that same idea hanging around. Their usefulness to the company is challenged by new ideas, so they push back against it.
Grass roots activism is the best way to go, but not always successful. I have left many a company because they refuse to change, even when it's detrimental to their business. At least two of those companies I left ended up suffering from the exact problem I tried to solve for them, and they called asking me for help. Burned bridges can happen in either direction.
I don't look at the Internet alone for new music, I scan stations on drives and find things. Just like we did when I was a kid and had no internet. Using the internet for "discovery" means that you get someones recommendations based on your current taste or what's trending. That same principle occurs on the Radio, but if you scan you find new genres.
While the quality of music on radio may be worse than physical mediums, the importance of Radio is that it exposes people to new music and personalities. Not all are good, not all are bad so your appreciation varies. I was exposed to countless people and musicians because of Radio. Seems to me that this person has a vested interest in pushing a particular brand of medium, so expect their opinion to be self serving and with extreme bias.
CNN is slow
No need for cheap shots.
Humor aside, https://www.minds.com/ was having issues also.
Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. It is physically impossible for anyone to sit for 2 hours without food or drink... Sheesh. I hope you recognize sarcasm.
You should check a person's post history before attempting to insult them. A Constitutional Conservative is about as far from "liberal" as you can get. Dumbass trolls..
Google has quite a bit of capital to start new ventures, and most of those things fit with their core business.
Hollywood could have been utilizing these services for at least a decade, and probably helped push the technology along. They would rather have people visit a theater since their profits can be higher and media tightly controlled.
I don't go to movies, and haven't for about a decade. The mandatory 15 minutes of commercials, price for the film, hassle of parking, insane price for drinks and a snack all add up to a big "no thanks" from me. If they streamed I'd probably pay for a movie now and then, but as is I wait for it to be on TV.
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
So by your own definition, the DPRK has to be a Republic and can't be a dictatorship. There is no way to match the definition with the reality of the case. Your point is moronic.
... the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments. ...
we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
I would argue that this is the natural outcome of capitalism in a system where people must work to survive.
You can argue that all you want, but your position is based on willful ignorance. I gave the answer " Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free." and you chose to ignore it. You can read "Wealth of Nations" if you have doubts, but seems like you are pretty happy yelling from the dark.
When defining capitalism Smith said that the biggest failure of mercantilism was that monopolies ran rampant. They hired their own armies, fixed prices and gouged, and made their own laws often going against their own governments. Not quite like too big to fail, but too big to control so similar. For this reason, Smith said that the primary job of Government under a capitalist system is to stop monopolization to keep trade free.
Today however, we don't practice capitalism. We have Government enforced monopolies. Politicians benefit from kickbacks and stock options, monopolies gouge customers, and the average person is screwed. IP laws have ensured that competition can be squashed in court long before they ever become a threat.
To reiterate for the anti-capitalist comments that normally follow a thread like this, we are not living under a capitalist economy. It is crony capitalism at best, but closer to fascism.
You are confusing "hypothetical" and "asinine"
Not that long ago most of the "jobs American's won't do" were done exactly by Americans. Simple labor was done by high school kids (with record low labor participation rates today), Students on break from College (also record low labor participation), or entry level jobs for people not sure what to do with their careers (now mostly unemployed).
Employers given the ability to pay illegal workers less money and work them more hours has led to a lack of entry level and low level jobs. Why would a farmer hire young adults, especially considering the restrictions the State puts on workers below 18 and pay minimum wage? Why pay them more than minimum wage even if they are extremely productive? They won't, because they can get more labor at less money and not have to worry about anyone from State looking at how they treat labor.
To your last point: "ME" is the most important thing in many relationships, not "WE". That message and value has been preached by both 2nd and 3rd wave feminists since the 70s. Feminists 3rd wave has been so vocal that we now have groups of MGTOWS, massive low rates of marriage, low birthrate (which to many is the point of those movements), and a society growing more and more immoral/degenerate. Further, you can't be so foolish as to not understand that gold diggers exist. Unfortunately this means that if you want old fashioned family values, it may be easier to import them. Your slight is a troll.