McCain broke the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;)
How? Which law?
Obama advocates breaking (and has attempted to break) the Second.
Two things about this, (1) It wasn't until 2008 that there was a clear decision what the second amendment really meant. There has been a VERY LONG debate about whether or not it was a personal right or one which was tied with a "well regulated militia" (2) Which law are you talking about?
Lastly, there are no absolute rights, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. There is always an understanding that your "rights" stop when they infringe on the rights of others, best summarized by "your right to swing your fist stops at my face."
I'll vote for Obama (or anyone else, for that matter), if you can explain to me exactly how they are not pledging to break the supreme law of the land (or how they have not done so in the past).
What "Supreme law of the land" has Obama or McCain broken? BushII is obvious, of course.
You assume that state control is mandatory for roads, police, firemen, schools, and security (note: not military) to exist. In truth, the state has, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly on all except for fire departments (and California is working fast to correct that little oversight). All can exist apart from the state, and I say it's high time to give it a go.
Democrats being "more fiscally responsible" than Republicans is akin to saying that one snake's venom is slightly less toxic than another snake's. Both parties have spent like drunken sailors and promise to continue to do so in the future.
Voting for either party (and with Barr being the Libertarian candidate, either of the first three parties to come to mind) is a vote for more of the same.
As for raising taxes on the rich: do you consider your federal politicians to be middle class? Do you honestly believe that politicians will raise their own taxes, with laws free of loopholes?
You are just being a curmudgeon, "drunken sailors" is not part of a serious discussion.
Yup, wouldn't want that pesky little parchment called the "Constitution" to get in the way of the real issues...
Not at all, but the presidency doesn't make law, per se' and constitutional issues are mostly affected by the courts and the appointment of judges.
The point was that you're gonna win some and you are gonna lose some which ever candidate you choose. It is best to choose a candidate that has a record that is more akin to your core issues than the other.
People who equivocate the candidates by saying they are all crooks or all corrupt are being too simplistic. They are all corrupt, they ARE human after all, you have to accept that they are corrupt and get over it.
It is an imperfect system by imperfect humans which employs imperfect humans and it is imperfect.
It will ALWAYS be a choose of the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean that one choice isn't any better than the other. It just means that we have to elect flawed individuals.
Think of it this way, we are all flawed, everyone lies, everyone has stolen something, everyone has done something dishonest. That doesn't mean there aren't people we trust more than others.
I see assertions, but no evidence in your post. As for some of your statements: I'm solidly middle-class, and am paying 50% of my income in taxes of various sorts (federal, state, sales, property, gas, etc.). "Raise taxes", you say?? The Boston Tea Party came about over, what, a 4% tax? Oh, but they're "necessary." Somehow.
As for everything else, see my mini-book post in reply to one of your comments farther up the thread.
4% on tea.
The middle class is getting squeezed absolutely. The top 1% of the population holds 90+% of the wealth in the country and pay less than 40% of the taxes. That means 60% of the taxs comes from the remaining 10% of the nations wealth.
We need to raise the taxes on the top 1% of the population so the pay proportionally for their derived benefit.
We do need taxes. Roads, police, fire departments, schools, yes, even military are all important, you have to admit.
Say what you will, Clinton (a democrat) was far more fiscally responsible than Bush, BushII, or Reagan (republicans).
The idea that republicans are more fiscally responsible than democrats is a myth unproven by recent history. Also,republicans claim that they want smaller government, but when they had both chambers of congress and the presidency, government and the deficit grew more than any time before.
Lastly, for 30 years the republicans have been saying that government doesn't work, and under republican control, we see that they are right.
Both parties want to tax people to death. That's crap. Taxes are needed to provide important services to a society. Taxes are important. We need responsible expenditure.
Both parties want to keep spending money they do not have. Well, that's why we need to raise taxes and pay off our debts.
Both parties want war (only differing in the specific locations). Conflict is part of the human condition. It would be nice if that were not the case but reality is a bitch.
Both parties steal freedom from we, the people, every chance they get. Power seeks control, welcome to the human race. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Both parties are, in essence, the same. In some respects, true, in others not true. There are important differences.
Boycott the elections, force ALL the politicians out, and start over.
Boycotting the elections will not remove anyone, it will only remove your opinion from the electoral process.
I would agree that the telco immunity is a micro-issue, but the implication is not. He made a promise to hold them accountable and support a filibuster, and he did not. I no longer trust him to keep any of his other promises because of that.
The thing about Obama that I think I respect is that he will change his mind when he considers something.
I've thought long and hard about the telco immunity thing and while I'd like to see them punished for what they did, I can accept that they cooperated with the government and were assured that what as being asked to do was legal (or would be) in the name of national security.
If a police officer asks for assistance, its hard -- even dangerous -- to say no. I can see that point of view, especially with the hysteria of 9/11. BushCo is clearly guilty of breaking the law and should be prosecuted. I'm more angry with Pelosi than I am with Obama.
We've had 8 years of a guy who's proud that he does not change his mind or is not introspective. Its kind of refreshing to see a candidate that appreciates the "gray" area between divisive issues and can articulate the perspective.
I'm going to vote for the candidate that "best" represents my concerns.
Then you lose your voice in the process. Your 3rd party candidate isn't getting elected, period, end of story.
This contest will be close and every vote matters. So, you have to choose betwen two things:
(1) Vote for a lesser of two evils based on your view of "lesser evil" and have actual input to the electoral process.
(2) Vote for the 3rd party candidate who won't get elected and remove your influence from the fight for lesser evil.
Politics is a longer game than football. Occasionally a hail-mary pass wins the game, but more often than not it is the slow, steady, deliberate offensive taking small steps. More to the point, the game never ends, the forces you beat never quit.
That is a childish perspective, progress is made in steps. Is there one candidate who you think is any better than the other, even by a little bit?
If you don't think so, you are a fool. There are many differences in these candidates and I can't believe they could be seen as "equally bad."
So, you lose the opportunity to affect the outcome to make it less worse.
Maturity is patience. The old people keep winning because they know patience wins, the young people keep losing because they think they can change things over night.
Sorry, I'm just pissed off at the micro-issue morons. Gun control, telco immunity, abortion rights, etc. These "micro-issues' distract from the whole.
You aren't going to EVER get someone with whom you agree with 100% all the time unless its you.
Weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates, CAREFULLY, and think about who will best serve the country as a whole. Weigh the VP choice as well, McCain is old enough to die or become incapacitated and Obama is black, I can imagine the KKK or some white supremacy group trying to off him ASAP. Those guys are scary crazy, if you think islamic terrorists are crazy, you haven't seen the KKK. They'll kill a black man with no remorse, they enjoy it. (It isn't a racist troll and don't tell me you haven't heard it before. I'm just an engineer looking at the potential issues.)
Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.
This election is IMPORTANT. Don't screw around and take your citizenship and right to vote seriously. Vote for the best all around package, knowing full well that there are no perfect people, and they will disagree with you on various issues, but *mostly* represent you.
As for the micro-issues:
Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo. If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.
RIAA, well that's the courts and congress. We need to fight it there.
Isn't it strange/scary/odd that someone is looking at passwords?
On a similar note, every time I have to reboot a Windows box or have to enter a reason for a shut down/restart I enter "Microsoft sucks" or "F%$#k you Bill Gates" (without the censorship)
You don't own OSX. You have licenced a copy. Same with Windows etc. The licence specifies what you can and can't do with the licenced software. If you don't like the terms of the licence then don't buy it. You don't have an entitlement.
That's the issue, I'm pretty sure that they do not have the right to dictate that level of control.
If I buy a copy of OS/X upgrade and I abide by the law and do not sell copies of it, who is Apple to tell me how to use it? Yea, sure, the EULA *tries* to create conditions of use, but I as a US citizen have rights under copyright law.
At issue is how much control do the makers of things we buy have over how we use them. IMHO, Apple should loose big. HUGE.
I have been thinking about the telcom immunity issue. What they did is illegal, sure, but who is "breaking the law?"
If a police officer commands you to rob a bank, who is more criminal? You or the cop? Of course you are guilty of the crime, but the cop is the one who created the scenario and motivation. You would not have broken the law had the officer not compelled you to do so.
So, BushCo should be charged with the crime and the telcos are accessories.
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
But are the evidence and the materials available for independent investigation? No. Who reviews and confirms the NIST conclusions with the same data? SOP in scientific inquiry.
Why would NIST have an agenda?
Why would NASA's climate statements be edited by politicians, deleting references to global warming? Why would the army withhold evidence that soldiers were killed by friendly fire? Why would Dick Cheney refuse to testify in congress?
Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data?
What people? You mean people on the government payroll who depend on a security clearance for their livelihood? Did you read the report on the Challenger explosion? Think about it.
Have you ever even met a scientist? Yes LOTS of them. People I'm sure you've heard of too.
Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith.
That is conjecture, why do they require leaps of faith? On film there are clearly explosions on floors well below the impact site and leading the collapse. I'm open to the explanation that the explosions are the result of the floors collapsing ahead of the building, that makes sense, but it is not the only possible explanation.
I'm a skeptic, why is the evidence NOT available for independent research? Why can't chemical analysis be done on the rubble by INDEPENDENT scientists? When people withhold information, there is reason to be skeptical.
Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult. Again, I say you must be trying to convince yourself you are right. You try to paint me as a religious nut job, but all I've said in this whole interchange is that I'm skeptical and I don't believe either explanation. It is you that "believe" the NIST and call me a religious crackpot for not believing as you do.
The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
A lot of very good scientists have done some very good work and have been very wrong. An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing, but wrong, conclusions can be made. An independent investigation is the only way to come to the facts.
Again, I don't necessarily accept that it was a controlled demolition, but there are a number of things that don't make sense.
Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic.
Again, you insult, you impugn, if you were confident of your arguments, you wouldn't need to do that. So, I guess you must not really believe the NIST argument and NEED to irrationally protect it, otherwise you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
McCain broke the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;)
How? Which law?
Obama advocates breaking (and has attempted to break) the Second.
Two things about this, (1) It wasn't until 2008 that there was a clear decision what the second amendment really meant. There has been a VERY LONG debate about whether or not it was a personal right or one which was tied with a "well regulated militia" (2) Which law are you talking about?
Lastly, there are no absolute rights, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie house. There is always an understanding that your "rights" stop when they infringe on the rights of others, best summarized by "your right to swing your fist stops at my face."
sounds an awful lot like the Nuremberg Defense to me.
The actual history of the Nuremberg trials is a lot more complicated then the movies make it.
I'll vote for Obama (or anyone else, for that matter), if you can explain to me exactly how they are not pledging to break the supreme law of the land (or how they have not done so in the past).
What "Supreme law of the land" has Obama or McCain broken? BushII is obvious, of course.
You assume that state control is mandatory for roads, police, firemen, schools, and security (note: not military) to exist. In truth, the state has, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly on all except for fire departments (and California is working fast to correct that little oversight). All can exist apart from the state, and I say it's high time to give it a go.
Democrats being "more fiscally responsible" than Republicans is akin to saying that one snake's venom is slightly less toxic than another snake's. Both parties have spent like drunken sailors and promise to continue to do so in the future.
Voting for either party (and with Barr being the Libertarian candidate, either of the first three parties to come to mind) is a vote for more of the same.
As for raising taxes on the rich: do you consider your federal politicians to be middle class? Do you honestly believe that politicians will raise their own taxes, with laws free of loopholes?
You are just being a curmudgeon, "drunken sailors" is not part of a serious discussion.
Yup, wouldn't want that pesky little parchment called the "Constitution" to get in the way of the real issues...
Not at all, but the presidency doesn't make law, per se' and constitutional issues are mostly affected by the courts and the appointment of judges.
The point was that you're gonna win some and you are gonna lose some which ever candidate you choose. It is best to choose a candidate that has a record that is more akin to your core issues than the other.
People who equivocate the candidates by saying they are all crooks or all corrupt are being too simplistic. They are all corrupt, they ARE human after all, you have to accept that they are corrupt and get over it.
It is an imperfect system by imperfect humans which employs imperfect humans and it is imperfect.
It will ALWAYS be a choose of the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean that one choice isn't any better than the other. It just means that we have to elect flawed individuals.
Think of it this way, we are all flawed, everyone lies, everyone has stolen something, everyone has done something dishonest. That doesn't mean there aren't people we trust more than others.
I see assertions, but no evidence in your post. As for some of your statements: I'm solidly middle-class, and am paying 50% of my income in taxes of various sorts (federal, state, sales, property, gas, etc.). "Raise taxes", you say?? The Boston Tea Party came about over, what, a 4% tax? Oh, but they're "necessary." Somehow.
As for everything else, see my mini-book post in reply to one of your comments farther up the thread.
4% on tea.
The middle class is getting squeezed absolutely. The top 1% of the population holds 90+% of the wealth in the country and pay less than 40% of the taxes. That means 60% of the taxs comes from the remaining 10% of the nations wealth.
We need to raise the taxes on the top 1% of the population so the pay proportionally for their derived benefit.
We do need taxes. Roads, police, fire departments, schools, yes, even military are all important, you have to admit.
Say what you will, Clinton (a democrat) was far more fiscally responsible than Bush, BushII, or Reagan (republicans).
The idea that republicans are more fiscally responsible than democrats is a myth unproven by recent history. Also,republicans claim that they want smaller government, but when they had both chambers of congress and the presidency, government and the deficit grew more than any time before.
Lastly, for 30 years the republicans have been saying that government doesn't work, and under republican control, we see that they are right.
Except Nvidia is selling known-bad desktop graphics parts as "good" desktop graphics parts,
How do you know this? I'd need to see proof, not just commentary and rumor.
Most likely it is just a Q.A. process issue.
Both parties want to tax people to death.
That's crap. Taxes are needed to provide important services to a society. Taxes are important. We need responsible expenditure.
Both parties want to keep spending money they do not have.
Well, that's why we need to raise taxes and pay off our debts.
Both parties want war (only differing in the specific locations).
Conflict is part of the human condition. It would be nice if that were not the case but reality is a bitch.
Both parties steal freedom from we, the people, every chance they get.
Power seeks control, welcome to the human race. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Both parties are, in essence, the same.
In some respects, true, in others not true. There are important differences.
Boycott the elections, force ALL the politicians out, and start over.
Boycotting the elections will not remove anyone, it will only remove your opinion from the electoral process.
I would agree that the telco immunity is a micro-issue, but the implication is not. He made a promise to hold them accountable and support a filibuster, and he did not. I no longer trust him to keep any of his other promises because of that.
The thing about Obama that I think I respect is that he will change his mind when he considers something.
I've thought long and hard about the telco immunity thing and while I'd like to see them punished for what they did, I can accept that they cooperated with the government and were assured that what as being asked to do was legal (or would be) in the name of national security.
If a police officer asks for assistance, its hard -- even dangerous -- to say no. I can see that point of view, especially with the hysteria of 9/11. BushCo is clearly guilty of breaking the law and should be prosecuted. I'm more angry with Pelosi than I am with Obama.
We've had 8 years of a guy who's proud that he does not change his mind or is not introspective. Its kind of refreshing to see a candidate that appreciates the "gray" area between divisive issues and can articulate the perspective.
How does it feel to be a stooge for the established party?
Which party would that be?
It is foolish to think that there is no corruption in government and it is equally foolish to think there is nothing you can do about it.
People who equivocate all corruption and all candidates and through away their vote are EXACTLY how the government got to where it is.
I'm going to vote for the candidate that "best" represents my concerns.
Then you lose your voice in the process. Your 3rd party candidate isn't getting elected, period, end of story.
This contest will be close and every vote matters. So, you have to choose betwen two things:
(1) Vote for a lesser of two evils based on your view of "lesser evil" and have actual input to the electoral process.
(2) Vote for the 3rd party candidate who won't get elected and remove your influence from the fight for lesser evil.
Politics is a longer game than football. Occasionally a hail-mary pass wins the game, but more often than not it is the slow, steady, deliberate offensive taking small steps. More to the point, the game never ends, the forces you beat never quit.
The Intel 486SX was a defective 486DX who's numeric processor was dead or not working.
Most very very large scale integrated chips have defects. Depending on the nature of the defect, they simply categorize the part differently.
A chip is not fast enough for a high speed gaming system? Us it in an embedded device.
Buy it, if it fails, return it. Just because nVidia has issues you know about, don't think for an instant that ATI doesn't.
...lesser of evils, I'll stay Peter Pan.
That is a childish perspective, progress is made in steps. Is there one candidate who you think is any better than the other, even by a little bit?
If you don't think so, you are a fool. There are many differences in these candidates and I can't believe they could be seen as "equally bad."
So, you lose the opportunity to affect the outcome to make it less worse.
Maturity is patience. The old people keep winning because they know patience wins, the young people keep losing because they think they can change things over night.
Sorry, I'm just pissed off at the micro-issue morons. Gun control, telco immunity, abortion rights, etc. These "micro-issues' distract from the whole.
You aren't going to EVER get someone with whom you agree with 100% all the time unless its you.
Weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates, CAREFULLY, and think about who will best serve the country as a whole. Weigh the VP choice as well, McCain is old enough to die or become incapacitated and Obama is black, I can imagine the KKK or some white supremacy group trying to off him ASAP. Those guys are scary crazy, if you think islamic terrorists are crazy, you haven't seen the KKK. They'll kill a black man with no remorse, they enjoy it. (It isn't a racist troll and don't tell me you haven't heard it before. I'm just an engineer looking at the potential issues.)
Third party? Don't be an idiot. A third party will not get elected in this cycle, maybe we can work for a viable third party over time, but not now.
This election is IMPORTANT. Don't screw around and take your citizenship and right to vote seriously. Vote for the best all around package, knowing full well that there are no perfect people, and they will disagree with you on various issues, but *mostly* represent you.
As for the micro-issues:
Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo. If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.
RIAA, well that's the courts and congress. We need to fight it there.
Damn!!! You beat me to that
An old programming axiom now looks more true than ever:
"Variables don't and constants aren't"
Isn't it strange/scary/odd that someone is looking at passwords?
On a similar note, every time I have to reboot a Windows box or have to enter a reason for a shut down/restart I enter "Microsoft sucks" or "F%$#k you Bill Gates" (without the censorship)
I think more people should do this. :-)
I have a new record minium time required for going from "not knowing something is available" to "wanting something badly."
each side
As if "each side" of a cube needs to be specified. Journalism trumps geometry.
You don't own OSX. You have licenced a copy. Same with Windows etc. The licence specifies what you can and can't do with the licenced software. If you don't like the terms of the licence then don't buy it. You don't have an entitlement.
That's the issue, I'm pretty sure that they do not have the right to dictate that level of control.
If I buy a copy of OS/X upgrade and I abide by the law and do not sell copies of it, who is Apple to tell me how to use it? Yea, sure, the EULA *tries* to create conditions of use, but I as a US citizen have rights under copyright law.
At issue is how much control do the makers of things we buy have over how we use them. IMHO, Apple should loose big. HUGE.
I have been thinking about the telcom immunity issue. What they did is illegal, sure, but who is "breaking the law?"
If a police officer commands you to rob a bank, who is more criminal? You or the cop? Of course you are guilty of the crime, but the cop is the one who created the scenario and motivation. You would not have broken the law had the officer not compelled you to do so.
So, BushCo should be charged with the crime and the telcos are accessories.
This is excellent, in 20 years paraplegics should be able to walk just like people with two functional legs.
I can't believe it will remain as bulky or clumsy. An $20K is nothing compared to what it provides.
As I said, the NIST report, fully ready for your review, is available in it's entirety.
But are the evidence and the materials available for independent investigation? No. Who reviews and confirms the NIST conclusions with the same data? SOP in scientific inquiry.
Why would NIST have an agenda?
Why would NASA's climate statements be edited by politicians, deleting references to global warming? Why would the army withhold evidence that soldiers were killed by friendly fire? Why would Dick Cheney refuse to testify in congress?
Given all the people involved, how on earth would you manage a consensus based on flawed data?
What people? You mean people on the government payroll who depend on a security clearance for their livelihood? Did you read the report on the Challenger explosion? Think about it.
Have you ever even met a scientist?
Yes LOTS of them. People I'm sure you've heard of too.
Are you not aware that each and every argument you have against the official explanation requires MASSIVE leaps of faith.
That is conjecture, why do they require leaps of faith? On film there are clearly explosions on floors well below the impact site and leading the collapse. I'm open to the explanation that the explosions are the result of the floors collapsing ahead of the building, that makes sense, but it is not the only possible explanation.
I'm a skeptic, why is the evidence NOT available for independent research? Why can't chemical analysis be done on the rubble by INDEPENDENT scientists? When people withhold information, there is reason to be skeptical.
Far more than is needed to accept the NIST findings. This is why you are a religious crackpot.
Again, you insult. Again, I say you must be trying to convince yourself you are right. You try to paint me as a religious nut job, but all I've said in this whole interchange is that I'm skeptical and I don't believe either explanation. It is you that "believe" the NIST and call me a religious crackpot for not believing as you do.
The NIST report is available to anyone who wants it.
But is the evidence? How many INDEPENDENT studies have been done?
A lot of very good scientists have done some very good work and have been very wrong. An agenda can cloud thinking and very plausible and convincing, but wrong, conclusions can be made. An independent investigation is the only way to come to the facts.
Again, I don't necessarily accept that it was a controlled demolition, but there are a number of things that don't make sense.
Until you do you are just a crackpot lunatic.
Again, you insult, you impugn, if you were confident of your arguments, you wouldn't need to do that. So, I guess you must not really believe the NIST argument and NEED to irrationally protect it, otherwise you'd be forced to accept something you can't accept: doubt.