The Washington Times isn't a professional newspaper anymore than Newsmax is a professional newspaper.
I linked to the Kos article because it has relevant sections of the US Code quoted in the article. I'm quite liberal and I know how slanted Kos can be. The US Code, by definition, cannot be biased or slanted.
This merger isn't about making more profits -- it is about cutting the bleeding that has occured now
Since the only way to stop the bleeding is to make more profit, the merger IS about making more profit. That was my only point. My views on profits and their evilness aren't at issue in this thread.
Ha! You linked to the Washington Times. Come on, thats like linking to Indymedia... a great resource if you like to reinforce your own incorrect beliefs. Did you know Bush was behind 9/11? Its on the Internet, so it must be true!
Even then, all of the "but Clinton did it too" apolgists are basically saying that they're holding God Bush to the same standards as "Slick Willy" Clinton. I thought Bush was about restoring honor and accountability to the White House... and here you go saying "but Clinton did it!"
From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals.
I'm glad you do.
Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.
A study was done in the UK a few years ago asking the question "Would you vote for the Liberal party (now the Lib Dems) if you thought they had a chance of winning?" The study showed a majority of people would vote for them, if they thought there was any chance of them winning an election.
And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote?
I vote for whomever I feel is most in line with my political philosophy, regardless of party. I really don't care if they win or lose, just so long as I'm satisfied that I voted my conscience. I don't really see much difference between most Democrats and Republicans. They don't argue much over policy, but over implementation details.
You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right
You, like the DLC, believe that voters' interests can be put on a chart and deduced. You can't say if Kerry moves more to the right, he will win more votes. People vote on more than just issue positions. Bush won because people thought that he was "a nice guy". I know people who were liberal minded who voted for Bush because "Kerry was a flip-flopper". Perhaps if someone stood up for what they believe in, even if it was unpopular, they'd get some votes for integrity.
I actually hope the Democrats tack to the right, as that might end up being what is needed for a strong 3rd party to emerge. Like I said before, I'm willing to allow the Republicans to run the country into the ground if it means some real reform in my lifetime. Just look at what has happened in the last few years when one party dominates all 3 branches of government. They'll hang themselves given enough time.
As RMS has said before, writing non-free software is not a necessity (I don't necessarily believe that). But then again, that doesn't answer your question.
My answer would be me and many others, so long as you agree to do the same for me (and I don't even have a mortgage!).
I can decide for myself what is best for me. Universal health care and public transportation are both best for me because I'm a college student, and subsequently, broke as hell.
The major party candidates know you think that way. John Kerry and Al Gore both ran campaigns betting that you'd hold your nose and vote for them rather than vote for someone you actually agreed with and believed could make a difference.
I particularly enjoyed many anti-war activists who signed a petition saying that they were voting for Kerry, but expected him to change his position on the war after they had helped elect him, or risk losing their support in the 2008 election. Kerry didn't care that people were holding their nose for him because a vote is a vote, no matter why it was cast.
Scenario:
Let us assume node_3 is a traditional liberal, who often sides with the Democrats. I am a candidate for the Democratic party, who knows that he(she?) and many others will vote for me no matter what my positions are. No amount of lobbying by node_3 and others like him(her) will ever change my mind because I already have their vote. I will instead devote my energies to change my platform to suit those who may not vote for me (likely making me more conservative). That is, by saying outright that you will vote for me, because voting for an independent is "wasting my vote", you have lost your only hold on my issue positions.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
My point is that we're going to have to crash a few times before the Democrats get their shit together. Sooner or later, they'll start swerving.
And the sooner we stop being adversarial towards our fellow man and start working together, the sooner we might reach paradise. Then again, "I've got mine, so fuck you" is an equally valid ethical system.
See, I find that to be an interesting case. Years of jurisprudence have described what an "establishment of religion" is, much past the original intent of the constitution. I, for one, think that having "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and on money constitutes a violation of such an establishment, but doesn't actually go against what the founders had in mind when they wrote that into the first amendment. Similarly, the founders did not mean to write in a right to an abortion, but I'm still glad its there.
There is something in this post I want to point out to everyone who keeps tabs on dada21's anarchocapitalist rantings...
we took advantage of the housing bubble (caused by regulations, mind you)
I thought regulations were bad... but yet they enabled you to sell your house for an extremely inflated price. This regulation put lots of money in your pocket, did it not? Even if I'd agree that regulations were the cause, or even "bad", you'd have to admit that this one worked out well for you.
The upshot of increased freedom of trade, is increased wealth overall.
Up to a certain extent. First, many countries we outsource to have little to no labor laws. Workers are forbidden to collectively bargain with their employers, which gives employers the upper hand in dealing with "problem" employees who say that working 80 hrs/wk for $.50/hr just isn't cutting it.
Second, with increased wealth comes increased demand for energy, as energy consumption directly correlates with wealth. Everyone always likes to say that globalization and freer markets will allow people in all corners of the world to have the same quality of life as Americans. As of now, we don't have enough energy to allow everyone to live like those of us in 1st world countries. Hell, we can't even find a way to feed everyone, much less generate electricity for everyone. Of course, one would hope we can find a way to meet the world's increasing energy needs, but oil production is nearing its peak, and we've not found any viable alternative. Even if nuclear fusion came on-line tomorrow, the fact that Wal-Mart sells $10 t-shirts is because of suppressed wages in the countries that make them. To put it another way, how much more do you think your new P4 processor would cost if it was fabricated in the USA?
The fact that you state the amendments "did come in handy," means you concede the point, albeit in an understated way [...] I doubt the Senate would even have been debating the constitutionality of the Patriot Act whatsoever.
I'm saying they shouldn't be needed. Who knows what might have happened if no bill of rights would have been added? I'm willing to bet the government would have done as intended in Article I, Sec. 8 instead of reading the bill of rights as a listing, rather than a sampling. Regarding the PATRIOT Act, it is my theory that congress would look at Art. I, Sec. 8 and find that holding citizens w/o bail is not one of the delegated powers of congress.
Of course, my point would be moot if the majority of originalists and strict constructionists actually read the 9th Amendment. President Bush says he wants to appoint judges who won't find new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. That's very dangerous. Judges should be finding rights in the Constitution, by using the 9th Amendment. The more rights people have, the better (for the most part). People should reserve their rights more strongly, as they are the true guardians of the Constitution.
Whoa now, you actually wish the country had not created the Bill of Rights?
Yes, for the outlined reasons. They are completely redundant and unnecessary. As I said before, if the 1st Amendment were repealed, we would still have free speech since nowhere else in the Constitution is any power granted to the government to restrict those freedoms embodied in the said amendment.
First of all, if there had been no Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution itself would not have been ratified by the states; instead we'd be left with the Articles and the impotent national government it provided.
That is true; it was necessary to get everyone on board. Unfortunately, everyone, as feared, has taken the amendments to be a listing of rights, rather than an affirmation of some important ones.
Our rights to speech, religion, press and assembly would have been seriously undermined by local, state and federal governments had we not had a foundational document to point to, one which expressly recognized those rights.
I believe, if you check, most (if not all) state governments have constitutions that protect many of the same liberties embodied in the Federal Bill of Rights.
When one studies American jurisprudence one realizes this to be true - especially upon recognizing the pivotal role the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause had on the extension of the Bill of Rights to the states by way of Due Process clause incorporation.
I agree. They did come in handy. All I'm saying is that if one reads the Constitution properly, it can be agreed upon that those amendments are superfluous. The 9th and 10th Amendments were added to calm the fears of those who felt that they would be read as a listing of rights instead of a sampling of them. Of course, modern conservative jurisprudence pretends that the 9th does not exist (no right to privacy/abortion/etc.). Robert Bork is most famous for saying that the 9th Amendment is under an "ink blot" and that "judges should not permitted to make up what might be under the ink blot", effectively rendering it useless.
Please read the article. It is simply a verbatum text copy of Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa regarding his greviances against the USA. The fact that it was an Israeli site is because Google's Pagerank system put it first.
As to the rest of your points, I'm not going to speak to them as you've not even read the link. I will go on record as having the same opinion as a professor of mine, Dr. Mark Sirkin, a leading expert on Arab-Israeli relations:
What the United States needs to do is go in and say "look, I don't care who started it, we're going to finish it right now".
In fact, I was wrong. They have refused to sign off on a warrant, please see the article I linked to previously says they did turn one down in 2002, 24 years after the court was created.
It is widely known they they almost never turn down warrants. This link doesn't corroborate exactly (4 turned down in 2003, not 2002), but it still gets my point across, that the FISC isn't much of an independent judiciary.
If you read the commentary (see.sig), you can see that some founders were of the opinion that a bill of rights would do just that, deny or disparge other rights retained by the people (the states). I really wish they hadn't ratified the bill of rights. They are redundant to the effect of saying that if the first amendment would be repealed, we would no longer have free speech, free press, etc. We would still have those freedoms as no branch of government is given the power to restrict those freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
The Washington Times isn't a professional newspaper anymore than Newsmax is a professional newspaper.
I linked to the Kos article because it has relevant sections of the US Code quoted in the article. I'm quite liberal and I know how slanted Kos can be. The US Code, by definition, cannot be biased or slanted.
Reread your own post:
This merger isn't about making more profits -- it is about cutting the bleeding that has occured now
Since the only way to stop the bleeding is to make more profit, the merger IS about making more profit. That was my only point. My views on profits and their evilness aren't at issue in this thread.
Ha! You linked to the Washington Times. Come on, thats like linking to Indymedia ... a great resource if you like to reinforce your own incorrect beliefs. Did you know Bush was behind 9/11? Its on the Internet, so it must be true!
I know its Kos, but read it anyway.
... and here you go saying "but Clinton did it!"
Even then, all of the "but Clinton did it too" apolgists are basically saying that they're holding God Bush to the same standards as "Slick Willy" Clinton. I thought Bush was about restoring honor and accountability to the White House
This merger isn't about making more profits -- it is about cutting the bleeding that has occured now that hard drive space is a commodity.
... come on man, you know that.
And the only want to stop the bleeding is to make more profits
From the day after the election to the primaries, I can make a difference, lobby for liberal democrats (there are many) and liberal ideals.
I'm glad you do.
Between the three choices, a DLC Dem, a NeoCon Rep and a super-cool Independent, and let's say the odds are (as they usually are), something like 50.00-50.00-0.00 (rounded to the nearest hundredth), my next four years are going to either be DLC or NeoCon. Voting "none of the above" will not shield me from the effects of whoever wins.
A study was done in the UK a few years ago asking the question "Would you vote for the Liberal party (now the Lib Dems) if you thought they had a chance of winning?" The study showed a majority of people would vote for them, if they thought there was any chance of them winning an election.
And on the topic of playing chicken, by putting yourself on the fringe, why on Earth would a candidate court your vote?
I vote for whomever I feel is most in line with my political philosophy, regardless of party. I really don't care if they win or lose, just so long as I'm satisfied that I voted my conscience. I don't really see much difference between most Democrats and Republicans. They don't argue much over policy, but over implementation details.
You think you're punishing them for not being liberal enough, but you risk pushing them further to the right
You, like the DLC, believe that voters' interests can be put on a chart and deduced. You can't say if Kerry moves more to the right, he will win more votes. People vote on more than just issue positions. Bush won because people thought that he was "a nice guy". I know people who were liberal minded who voted for Bush because "Kerry was a flip-flopper". Perhaps if someone stood up for what they believe in, even if it was unpopular, they'd get some votes for integrity.
I actually hope the Democrats tack to the right, as that might end up being what is needed for a strong 3rd party to emerge. Like I said before, I'm willing to allow the Republicans to run the country into the ground if it means some real reform in my lifetime. Just look at what has happened in the last few years when one party dominates all 3 branches of government. They'll hang themselves given enough time.
Here's an idea. I'll work for self-actualization and you can work for material goods. Does that work?
Only on /. can you get modded down for the truth.
As RMS has said before, writing non-free software is not a necessity (I don't necessarily believe that). But then again, that doesn't answer your question.
My answer would be me and many others, so long as you agree to do the same for me (and I don't even have a mortgage!).
Yeah, but have you seen the prices?
I can decide for myself what is best for me. Universal health care and public transportation are both best for me because I'm a college student, and subsequently, broke as hell.
You've hit on something very important.
I have no other choice
The major party candidates know you think that way. John Kerry and Al Gore both ran campaigns betting that you'd hold your nose and vote for them rather than vote for someone you actually agreed with and believed could make a difference.
I particularly enjoyed many anti-war activists who signed a petition saying that they were voting for Kerry, but expected him to change his position on the war after they had helped elect him, or risk losing their support in the 2008 election. Kerry didn't care that people were holding their nose for him because a vote is a vote, no matter why it was cast.
Scenario:
Let us assume node_3 is a traditional liberal, who often sides with the Democrats. I am a candidate for the Democratic party, who knows that he(she?) and many others will vote for me no matter what my positions are. No amount of lobbying by node_3 and others like him(her) will ever change my mind because I already have their vote. I will instead devote my energies to change my platform to suit those who may not vote for me (likely making me more conservative). That is, by saying outright that you will vote for me, because voting for an independent is "wasting my vote", you have lost your only hold on my issue positions.
This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.
My point is that we're going to have to crash a few times before the Democrats get their shit together. Sooner or later, they'll start swerving.
First, because it is still a democracy
Hitler was elected in free and fair elections.
And the sooner we stop being adversarial towards our fellow man and start working together, the sooner we might reach paradise. Then again, "I've got mine, so fuck you" is an equally valid ethical system.
See, I find that to be an interesting case. Years of jurisprudence have described what an "establishment of religion" is, much past the original intent of the constitution. I, for one, think that having "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and on money constitutes a violation of such an establishment, but doesn't actually go against what the founders had in mind when they wrote that into the first amendment. Similarly, the founders did not mean to write in a right to an abortion, but I'm still glad its there.
There is something in this post I want to point out to everyone who keeps tabs on dada21's anarchocapitalist rantings ...
... but yet they enabled you to sell your house for an extremely inflated price. This regulation put lots of money in your pocket, did it not? Even if I'd agree that regulations were the cause, or even "bad", you'd have to admit that this one worked out well for you.
we took advantage of the housing bubble (caused by regulations, mind you)
I thought regulations were bad
Where in that sentence (Hell, we can't even find a way to feed everyone) did I say anything about production?
The upshot of increased freedom of trade, is increased wealth overall.
Up to a certain extent. First, many countries we outsource to have little to no labor laws. Workers are forbidden to collectively bargain with their employers, which gives employers the upper hand in dealing with "problem" employees who say that working 80 hrs/wk for $.50/hr just isn't cutting it.
Second, with increased wealth comes increased demand for energy, as energy consumption directly correlates with wealth. Everyone always likes to say that globalization and freer markets will allow people in all corners of the world to have the same quality of life as Americans. As of now, we don't have enough energy to allow everyone to live like those of us in 1st world countries. Hell, we can't even find a way to feed everyone, much less generate electricity for everyone. Of course, one would hope we can find a way to meet the world's increasing energy needs, but oil production is nearing its peak, and we've not found any viable alternative. Even if nuclear fusion came on-line tomorrow, the fact that Wal-Mart sells $10 t-shirts is because of suppressed wages in the countries that make them. To put it another way, how much more do you think your new P4 processor would cost if it was fabricated in the USA?
The fact that you state the amendments "did come in handy," means you concede the point, albeit in an understated way [...] I doubt the Senate would even have been debating the constitutionality of the Patriot Act whatsoever.
I'm saying they shouldn't be needed. Who knows what might have happened if no bill of rights would have been added? I'm willing to bet the government would have done as intended in Article I, Sec. 8 instead of reading the bill of rights as a listing, rather than a sampling. Regarding the PATRIOT Act, it is my theory that congress would look at Art. I, Sec. 8 and find that holding citizens w/o bail is not one of the delegated powers of congress.
Of course, my point would be moot if the majority of originalists and strict constructionists actually read the 9th Amendment. President Bush says he wants to appoint judges who won't find new rights not spelled out in the Constitution. That's very dangerous. Judges should be finding rights in the Constitution, by using the 9th Amendment. The more rights people have, the better (for the most part). People should reserve their rights more strongly, as they are the true guardians of the Constitution.
Whoa now, you actually wish the country had not created the Bill of Rights?
Yes, for the outlined reasons. They are completely redundant and unnecessary. As I said before, if the 1st Amendment were repealed, we would still have free speech since nowhere else in the Constitution is any power granted to the government to restrict those freedoms embodied in the said amendment.
First of all, if there had been no Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution itself would not have been ratified by the states; instead we'd be left with the Articles and the impotent national government it provided.
That is true; it was necessary to get everyone on board. Unfortunately, everyone, as feared, has taken the amendments to be a listing of rights, rather than an affirmation of some important ones.
Our rights to speech, religion, press and assembly would have been seriously undermined by local, state and federal governments had we not had a foundational document to point to, one which expressly recognized those rights.
I believe, if you check, most (if not all) state governments have constitutions that protect many of the same liberties embodied in the Federal Bill of Rights.
When one studies American jurisprudence one realizes this to be true - especially upon recognizing the pivotal role the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause had on the extension of the Bill of Rights to the states by way of Due Process clause incorporation.
I agree. They did come in handy. All I'm saying is that if one reads the Constitution properly, it can be agreed upon that those amendments are superfluous. The 9th and 10th Amendments were added to calm the fears of those who felt that they would be read as a listing of rights instead of a sampling of them. Of course, modern conservative jurisprudence pretends that the 9th does not exist (no right to privacy/abortion/etc.). Robert Bork is most famous for saying that the 9th Amendment is under an "ink blot" and that "judges should not permitted to make up what might be under the ink blot", effectively rendering it useless.
Please read the article. It is simply a verbatum text copy of Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa regarding his greviances against the USA. The fact that it was an Israeli site is because Google's Pagerank system put it first.
As to the rest of your points, I'm not going to speak to them as you've not even read the link. I will go on record as having the same opinion as a professor of mine, Dr. Mark Sirkin, a leading expert on Arab-Israeli relations:
What the United States needs to do is go in and say "look, I don't care who started it, we're going to finish it right now".
Thanks for the correction. See my follow-up post.
In fact, I was wrong. They have refused to sign off on a warrant, please see the article I linked to previously says they did turn one down in 2002, 24 years after the court was created.
It is widely known they they almost never turn down warrants. This link doesn't corroborate exactly (4 turned down in 2003, not 2002), but it still gets my point across, that the FISC isn't much of an independent judiciary.
If you read the commentary (see .sig), you can see that some founders were of the opinion that a bill of rights would do just that, deny or disparge other rights retained by the people (the states). I really wish they hadn't ratified the bill of rights. They are redundant to the effect of saying that if the first amendment would be repealed, we would no longer have free speech, free press, etc. We would still have those freedoms as no branch of government is given the power to restrict those freedoms.
Read the reasons for yourself.