Your statement is neither what I said, nor what I think. I was describing the philosophy that, until recently, was used by those considered liberal in the US to achieve certain goals that could not be achieved at the ballot box.
I don't care who is reinterpreting the Constitution. Anytime the rules of society are altered by any entity other that We the People, I have great concerns. Even then, the ramifications should always be well considered.
It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.
I never said it was exclusively liberals doing this, I said "usually". I am sure this hint of negativity concerning the holy concept of "liberal" that has spawned most of the ad hominem attacks. Since yours, and a few others, were considered responses, however, I will response and consider any response you care to give.
As a side note, while it is easy to get into arguments about conservative versus liberal, this was not my point and I want to preface that I allow each to describe themselves and have a general perspective that, in the areas that concern me, conservative = proud liberal. My perspective established, the modern day concept of liberal should never be confused with the proud liberal and, similarly, neo-cons are not conservative. One favors a nanny state that supports libertinism and the other supports a nanny state that promotes social repression. Of course, like any quick and dirty assessment, the afore is inaccurate, but it does describe my general perspective.
Now, in direct response to your comment, all I can say is consider the Warren Court and how that has shaped the last several decades. This does not mean all decisions were bad but, if you look, most certainly enhanced the power of the Federal government.
This is why I caution the embrace of a "new judicial philosophy". It can be used to push liberal or, more recently, neo-con agendas. And the Federal government does not share power.
The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be...
Knowing how lawyers push at all fringes of law, I am not sure how much difference it really makes and would point to the example of how many times the various European constitutions have been rewritten but, in general, I agree with your first point.
The second problem with the Constitution is that it is too hard to amend...
I view this as a positive, not a negative. Neither of us have room, or likely education, for a scholarly treatise on the framer's Constitutional philosophy but I don't want the foundational rules of my society changing as suits current fad. Whether it be whim of the mob or whim of the nine. The modern philosophy of a living constitution promotes just this. I believe a Constitutional Republic really does mean something.
Consequently, while I feel as disenfranchised from the process as anyone these days, Congress is the people's only access to the functioning of the Federal Government. (Once can seek remedy in the courts, but rarely does that alter the functioning.) Consequently, I believe we have a very vested interest in any change to the Constitution and should be a party to that process. Judicial fiat by ANY philosophy (there can people live with that statement?) is of great concern.
Unfortunately, the second problem finds a solution which is ready made by the first :...
Did you agree with the Medical marijuana decision? That was a perfectly correct decision based on the philosophy that EVERYTHING falls under the Federal government's jurisdiction, which shall always take precedence to the will of any local population. The major flaw I see with the Constitution is that is set up three branches of government with the expectation that they would watch over each other. It never seemed to occur to the framers that while each would seek to preserve its own turf, as expected, but that doing so would not precluded each working together to enhance the power of the Federal government over all.
The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.
No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States; this has never been done.)
What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.
Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.
Same way the republicrats enforce all such laws; they will howl for enforcement and claim high crimes and misdemeanors when the law can be applied by any stretch of the imagination to someone or some entity who is causing them problems.
Then, when the bad law does not stick, they scream partisanship and attempt to tighten it up.
I doubt it. At this point, there would be no real political mileage in doing so.
If the dems did, the reps could trade barbs with them about Barney Frank, ad nauseum. It was pressure from the conservatives, not the liberals, that caused Foley to resign. He is gone, the dems took congress, mission accomplished.
Furthermore, raising the issue will almost always segue into societal issues concerning homosexuality, which neither side really wants to address.
The trouble is, you are asking a rather complex theological question that many theologians have spent their entire lives studying. The short version is those that have faith in Christ believe his assertion that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.
What that means, imprecisely, is that in order to be acceptable before God you must follow all the laws of the Old Testament - and really mean it. (See the lust in heart = adultery in Matthew.)
Consequently, since God recognized humanity couldn't do it, Christ acted as the perfect sacrifice and took upon Himself our sins and freed us from the Law so we could be reconciled with God. Therefore, having completed His task, it is upon His authority to follow the new standards he has set for us.
Regrettably, many Christians prefer to live in the Old Testament.
Well, yeah, this is the straw man that the many on the left, at least in the US, puts forth every chance they get. Of course, where people are authorized to carry concealed these blood baths never seem to materialize. But the select few keeps up the fear mongering.
By the way, are you arguing that only the State should be armed? You may want to read your own posts. It wasn't out of control armed citizens who were the problem.
I think the gp was referring to the fact that, statistically, most father daughter molestation scenarios are opportunist, meaning they usually involve multiple concomitants such as alcohol/drugs, divorce/unhappy relationships, etc. Opportunistic molesters are not true pedophiles in that they do not specifically target and prefer children.
Of course, statistics don't mean a damn if you're the one getting fucked up the arse by the old man but there is a recognized difference in the field.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the fact[2] that campaign finance reform has anything to do with limiting attack advertising. Silly me, I thought it was to prevent undue influence from moneyed interests, and to level the playing field for those candidates not independently wealthy.
Then you were suckered. Look at how it actually works out. Incumbents can speak, established media can speak. You and I? Not so much.
It was great in theory, but never trust ANY politician to vote against their own interests.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me".
Well. Fair enough. They don't have a knife to my throat and I don't have to watch a movie burned to my computer if I am unwilling to purchase it in that format. But again, there is that aspect of, I shouldn't have to when I am merely wanting to watch or listen to a movie/song, that I already purchased. Or, even just burn a 5 second sequence of the movie for a start-up splash on my own (and just my own) computer, which is what started me down this road of hate and discontent.
And though perhaps a bit exaggerated, remember, the MP/RIAA have taken upon themselves to defined what is "criminal" in this interaction. I am just turning it around on them. If they are going to ignore fair use and assert that backing up/watching my previously purchased DVD or CD on any hardware other than the original is stealing (be it burning to my computer's HD or another disk - like I used to with cassette tapes so that when a tape player ate a cassette I wasn't SOL), then by that same measure, I am asserting that they are prepared to steal from me by requiring a second purchase to fully utilize, as best fits my lifestyle, something that I have already legitimately purchased.
Yeah, all these threads were what I was trying to avoid with my caveat: "my opinion". There is a preponderance of belief that if I can get away with it under the law, it is ok. No sense of honor or personal integrity. I shouldn't have to explain that people who provide a service or thing for money expect a remuneration from any individuals that benefit from that service or thing. Similarly, if one uses the law to trample people's rights (DMCA), then they are also acting immorally.
If you only focus only on what is legal, not what is right, then (mis)use of the DMCA is to be expected and we are back to might (good lawyers) makes right. On the other hand, I am not blind to what the MP/RIAA are doing. They are attempting to make me pay for something twice (or more) because of medium changes, which is not a cost outlay of the artists and musicians. Consequently, they are stealing from me.
Which brings me back to my ultimate point: Since the MP/RIAA are abusing our collective rights and have allowed for no middle ground , I have no choice but to side with those who ethics I find questionable. After all, they are only playing the legal game that the MP/RIAA have devised, and THEY are not taking away my rights of fair use.
The MPAA (and the RIAA) have systematically and emphatically drawn a line that delineates between "no rights for the consumer" - approved, and "everything else" - criminal.
Because of their hard stance that consumers have NO rights and their disregard of fair use rights, they have forced me, because I want my fair use rights, to become their opposition.
Now, if any of their reps are reading this, they should understand exactly what I mean and why they should notice. I am one of those people who believe that ripping a movie with the intention of watching it and keeping it, but never paying for it, is stealing. (And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)
Consequently, for me to side against the RI/MPAA means that I find their actions more objectionable than those whose philosophy I do not respect or agree with. They have driven this and I will oppose them at every measure.
And, no, I don't use my disgust at the MP/RI AA to justify ripping movies or music that I do not already own or legally download. I still don't do that.
But I will side with those who do engage in this type of activity against those who would steal MY rights every time. MP/RIAA change your ways or find yourself fighting those who might otherwise have supported your argument.
I think you and several others are creating a false and irrelevant dichotomy. It doesn't matter if the environmentalist perspective is represented. It wasn't a report on the merits of burning fossil fuels, it was a report on how much oil remains. Like it or not, the people involved would be very interested and knowledgeable in this area. They might be lying to themselves out of false hope that their way of life won't change anytime soon but the amount of oil is apples and oranges to the underlying Environmental concerns.
That concern is whether or not we should be burning fossil fuels at all. And while that is a advisable discussion, it isn't relevant to a presentation on the amount of oil available. Concerns about the environment are not mitigated because more oil exists than previously thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Well spoken.
Your statement is neither what I said, nor what I think. I was describing the philosophy that, until recently, was used by those considered liberal in the US to achieve certain goals that could not be achieved at the ballot box.
I don't care who is reinterpreting the Constitution. Anytime the rules of society are altered by any entity other that We the People, I have great concerns. Even then, the ramifications should always be well considered.
It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.
I never said it was exclusively liberals doing this, I said "usually". I am sure this hint of negativity concerning the holy concept of "liberal" that has spawned most of the ad hominem attacks. Since yours, and a few others, were considered responses, however, I will response and consider any response you care to give.
As a side note, while it is easy to get into arguments about conservative versus liberal, this was not my point and I want to preface that I allow each to describe themselves and have a general perspective that, in the areas that concern me, conservative = proud liberal. My perspective established, the modern day concept of liberal should never be confused with the proud liberal and, similarly, neo-cons are not conservative. One favors a nanny state that supports libertinism and the other supports a nanny state that promotes social repression. Of course, like any quick and dirty assessment, the afore is inaccurate, but it does describe my general perspective.
Now, in direct response to your comment, all I can say is consider the Warren Court and how that has shaped the last several decades. This does not mean all decisions were bad but, if you look, most certainly enhanced the power of the Federal government.
This is why I caution the embrace of a "new judicial philosophy". It can be used to push liberal or, more recently, neo-con agendas. And the Federal government does not share power.
The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be...
Knowing how lawyers push at all fringes of law, I am not sure how much difference it really makes and would point to the example of how many times the various European constitutions have been rewritten but, in general, I agree with your first point.
The second problem with the Constitution is that it is too hard to amend...
I view this as a positive, not a negative. Neither of us have room, or likely education, for a scholarly treatise on the framer's Constitutional philosophy but I don't want the foundational rules of my society changing as suits current fad. Whether it be whim of the mob or whim of the nine. The modern philosophy of a living constitution promotes just this. I believe a Constitutional Republic really does mean something.
Consequently, while I feel as disenfranchised from the process as anyone these days, Congress is the people's only access to the functioning of the Federal Government. (Once can seek remedy in the courts, but rarely does that alter the functioning.) Consequently, I believe we have a very vested interest in any change to the Constitution and should be a party to that process. Judicial fiat by ANY philosophy (there can people live with that statement?) is of great concern.
Unfortunately, the second problem finds a solution which is ready made by the first : ...
Did you agree with the Medical marijuana decision? That was a perfectly correct decision based on the philosophy that EVERYTHING falls under the Federal government's jurisdiction, which shall always take precedence to the will of any local population. The major flaw I see with the Constitution is that is set up three branches of government with the expectation that they would watch over each other. It never seemed to occur to the framers that while each would seek to preserve its own turf, as expected, but that doing so would not precluded each working together to enhance the power of the Federal government over all.
The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.
No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States; this has never been done.)
What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.
Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.
Exactly how do they intend to enforce this?
Same way the republicrats enforce all such laws; they will howl for enforcement and claim high crimes and misdemeanors when the law can be applied by any stretch of the imagination to someone or some entity who is causing them problems.
Then, when the bad law does not stick, they scream partisanship and attempt to tighten it up.
Stay away from the Windows.
Personally, if I was the EO(Evil Overlord) of the USA, I'd institute...
Good news, the position for new EO is opening next year. So far, yours is the best platform, if you are interested.
You did, however, get me to stare at your sig for a while.
I doubt it. At this point, there would be no real political mileage in doing so.
If the dems did, the reps could trade barbs with them about Barney Frank, ad nauseum. It was pressure from the conservatives, not the liberals, that caused Foley to resign. He is gone, the dems took congress, mission accomplished.
Furthermore, raising the issue will almost always segue into societal issues concerning homosexuality, which neither side really wants to address.
Nonsense. I wish I had the movie rights.
The trouble is, you are asking a rather complex theological question that many theologians have spent their entire lives studying. The short version is those that have faith in Christ believe his assertion that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.
What that means, imprecisely, is that in order to be acceptable before God you must follow all the laws of the Old Testament - and really mean it. (See the lust in heart = adultery in Matthew.)
Consequently, since God recognized humanity couldn't do it, Christ acted as the perfect sacrifice and took upon Himself our sins and freed us from the Law so we could be reconciled with God. Therefore, having completed His task, it is upon His authority to follow the new standards he has set for us.
Regrettably, many Christians prefer to live in the Old Testament.
Can't buy moose in a grocery store.
Well, yeah, this is the straw man that the many on the left, at least in the US, puts forth every chance they get. Of course, where people are authorized to carry concealed these blood baths never seem to materialize. But the select few keeps up the fear mongering.
By the way, are you arguing that only the State should be armed? You may want to read your own posts. It wasn't out of control armed citizens who were the problem.
I think the gp was referring to the fact that, statistically, most father daughter molestation scenarios are opportunist, meaning they usually involve multiple concomitants such as alcohol/drugs, divorce/unhappy relationships, etc. Opportunistic molesters are not true pedophiles in that they do not specifically target and prefer children.
Of course, statistics don't mean a damn if you're the one getting fucked up the arse by the old man but there is a recognized difference in the field.
Did you just equate kung-foo movies (as a genre) with good media?
LOL
So...
A hacker : slut broke into a pornographic database.
Hmmm. This story just gets better and better.
Then you were suckered. Look at how it actually works out. Incumbents can speak, established media can speak. You and I? Not so much.
It was great in theory, but never trust ANY politician to vote against their own interests.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me".
Well. Fair enough. They don't have a knife to my throat and I don't have to watch a movie burned to my computer if I am unwilling to purchase it in that format. But again, there is that aspect of, I shouldn't have to when I am merely wanting to watch or listen to a movie/song, that I already purchased. Or, even just burn a 5 second sequence of the movie for a start-up splash on my own (and just my own) computer, which is what started me down this road of hate and discontent.
And though perhaps a bit exaggerated, remember, the MP/RIAA have taken upon themselves to defined what is "criminal" in this interaction. I am just turning it around on them. If they are going to ignore fair use and assert that backing up/watching my previously purchased DVD or CD on any hardware other than the original is stealing (be it burning to my computer's HD or another disk - like I used to with cassette tapes so that when a tape player ate a cassette I wasn't SOL), then by that same measure, I am asserting that they are prepared to steal from me by requiring a second purchase to fully utilize, as best fits my lifestyle, something that I have already legitimately purchased.
I smell a disturbance in the Force; as if a 1000 MPAA execs all suddenly crapped their pants at the same time.
Yeah, all these threads were what I was trying to avoid with my caveat: "my opinion". There is a preponderance of belief that if I can get away with it under the law, it is ok. No sense of honor or personal integrity. I shouldn't have to explain that people who provide a service or thing for money expect a remuneration from any individuals that benefit from that service or thing. Similarly, if one uses the law to trample people's rights (DMCA), then they are also acting immorally.
If you only focus only on what is legal, not what is right, then (mis)use of the DMCA is to be expected and we are back to might (good lawyers) makes right. On the other hand, I am not blind to what the MP/RIAA are doing. They are attempting to make me pay for something twice (or more) because of medium changes, which is not a cost outlay of the artists and musicians. Consequently, they are stealing from me.
Which brings me back to my ultimate point: Since the MP/RIAA are abusing our collective rights and have allowed for no middle ground , I have no choice but to side with those who ethics I find questionable. After all, they are only playing the legal game that the MP/RIAA have devised, and THEY are not taking away my rights of fair use.
I agree.
The MPAA (and the RIAA) have systematically and emphatically drawn a line that delineates between "no rights for the consumer" - approved, and "everything else" - criminal.
Because of their hard stance that consumers have NO rights and their disregard of fair use rights, they have forced me, because I want my fair use rights, to become their opposition.
Now, if any of their reps are reading this, they should understand exactly what I mean and why they should notice. I am one of those people who believe that ripping a movie with the intention of watching it and keeping it, but never paying for it, is stealing. (And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)
Consequently, for me to side against the RI/MPAA means that I find their actions more objectionable than those whose philosophy I do not respect or agree with. They have driven this and I will oppose them at every measure.
And, no, I don't use my disgust at the MP/RI AA to justify ripping movies or music that I do not already own or legally download. I still don't do that.
But I will side with those who do engage in this type of activity against those who would steal MY rights every time. MP/RIAA change your ways or find yourself fighting those who might otherwise have supported your argument.
I think you and several others are creating a false and irrelevant dichotomy. It doesn't matter if the environmentalist perspective is represented. It wasn't a report on the merits of burning fossil fuels, it was a report on how much oil remains. Like it or not, the people involved would be very interested and knowledgeable in this area. They might be lying to themselves out of false hope that their way of life won't change anytime soon but the amount of oil is apples and oranges to the underlying Environmental concerns.
That concern is whether or not we should be burning fossil fuels at all. And while that is a advisable discussion, it isn't relevant to a presentation on the amount of oil available. Concerns about the environment are not mitigated because more oil exists than previously thought.
Two...
You forgot three: all the above.
Sounds to me like it should be called S & M.
(Oh come on, you knew this comment was coming.)
Driving around in a golf cart and drinking beer.
Sheesh. (dumb ass n00b questions, I tell ya... :o)