So long as I have had my current winter coat, there have been no terrorist attacks on America. I will now use your logic and conclude that my winter coat is responsible for protecting us against terrorists. God forbid I ever get a new winter coat.
Also, please provide citations regarding the 6 times this act was invoked. I'm sure you've missed at least one since many proceedings under the PATRIOT Act are classified.
Yeah, a warrant signed by the FISC, which has never refused to sign off on a single warrant in its history. Read the article and tell me that the FISC is an independent court.
After upgrading from 5.11 to 5.12 something crazy went wrong with my 9800XT. No DirectX accelerations will work. I've tried to uninstall those drivers and go back to 5.11, but that didn't help either.
It certainly doesn't make sense that installing drivers can screw up hardware, but thats what it seems happened to me.
Yeah. I regularly read DailyKos and heard a lot about the propositions in California. These guys were all about the redistricting amendment in Ohio, but against the one in Calfornia. Why? Because it was Schwarzenegger's ballot issue. Not to mention they figured they'd (the Democrats) lose seats if they allowed fair and non-partisan redistricting. These two faced fuckers are the reason why I'll never register as a Democrat (nor any other party for that matter).
I feel for the Republicans in Massachusetts, California, etc as I am represented by nothing but Republicans from city council all the way up to President. One party rule is bad... mmmkay?
Shit. At least you have the Liberal Democrats. In fact, 9 different parties are represented in your parliament (10 if only Sinn Féin would take its seats).
The entire problem of the UK (and the US) is the first past the post system coupled with legislative districts. I don't know how it works in the UK regarding when new districts are added/removed/changed. There is a case before the Supreme Court on partisan redistricting in Texas. Basically redistricting is to be done every 10 years after a census. This time, they decided to do it mid-year in order to draw districts more favorable to Republicans.
Gerrymandering is the most important issue facing democracy, in my opinion. When the politicians select their voters, basically giving themselves a safe seat until they retire, something is wrong. In the 2004 congressional elections, 3 incumbents were defeated, except in Texas where many incumbents battled each other due to redistricting. In various opinion polls, the population regularly approves of congress at a rate near 30%, but yet we only sought to throw out 3 of them. Amazing.
I notice you keep coming back to the fact that if congress had no real power, bribes would be useless, which is true. What you don't take into account is that the people are the last true defense of the Constitution. If the government up and decided tomorrow that there is no guarantee to free speech in the Constitution, there is no one who can stop them, save the people.
The founders thought that seperation of powers would keep the government in check, but they did this without knowing the power of party politics. As we've seen time and time again under the current administration, the legislature is largely a rubber stamp for the president's agenda if it is controlled by the same party.
You often comment on how the people are to blame for the current state of affairs because they keep electing politicians who continuously defy the constitution. From that it reasons that the people want representatives who are going to do just that. Has it ever occured to you that a majority of the people want a government with near unlimited power? Many liberals want the government fix all of society's economic problems. Many conservatives want the government to fix all of society's social problems. You make the mistake of thinking that the average voter cares about the Constitution. All the average voter cares about are the hot button issues of the day, be they gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc. No one says "I believe in what Candidate X wants to do, but alas, the Constitution forbids the federal government from doing that. I cannot vote for him/her for that reason."
My point is that the if the people will not defend the Constitution, you can't expect politicians from doing the same (Ron Paul excepted). Unless everyone starts electing some hardcore deontologists who are willing to admit that the federal government doesn't have the power to do X even if X is a widely agreed upon thing to do, there is no chance to reclaim such a limited government.
The government can no longer discriminate based on race, gender or religious beliefs.
And yet neither can I.
Thats because there are such things as universal human rights. You shouldn't be able to discriminate on those grounds. The only grounds anyone should be able to discriminate on for any reason, private or public, is their skill level.
Its funny how we see the same problems in government, but come to completely opposite conclusions as to how to fix it. For instance:
1) I don't agree with the "money is speech" argument, but you are right. Campaign finance laws exist to keep the Ds and Rs in control. Whereas you think the way to fix the problem is to allow limitless contributions, I believe publicly funded elections with a complete ban on any contributions are the key.
2) Money does corrupt government. Of course, unlimited power does as well. You are correct that congress has overstepped its boundries. Of course, the public at large doesn't really care so long as boys aren't allowed to kiss or social security is kept intact. I freely admit that in some cases I fall in this group. I know that universal health care is unconstitutional, but I really don't care because of how much we need it. The point is, short of mass re-education, the people won't care if congress, the president, or the courts overstep their boundries, so long as they think the government is doing what they want. That is, the ends will justify the means for most people. In the end, the people are the last guardians of the constitution. If they let their representatives walk all over it, then they get what they deserve.
3) This is due to the fact that the schools are meant to teach a very uncontroversial version of generally accepted facts... nothing to really do with voting systems.
4) I advocate removing party names from the ballot and that all ballots be paper, marked with an X in a box next to a candidate's name with a black sharpie marker. Too many problems arise with write-in only names.
5) I don't think that matching funds are illegal, but I think they are unnecessary for the major 2 parties. This is what happens when congress writes their own rules.
6) Agreed. Calling them debates is to distort the meaning of the word "debate".
7) Agreed again.
As far as writing yourself in, that may work in some localities. In Ohio, if a written-in name is not on the list of declared write-in candidates, the vote is not counted. If I did as you suggested, I'd effectively have a spoiled ballot, which means I could have just stayed home and achieved the same effect on the final returns.
You don't have to worry about a thing. No jury of anyone's peers will send someone to jail for telling someone the lyrics to a song or for telling someone how to play a song.
Its technically illegal to give an account of a football game. Think about that for a second. It is illegal for me to tell you what happened somewhere. If that ever went to trial do you think anyone would find such a person guilty?
I've been learning how to play bass guitar for the past two years, mostly by downloading tablature and playing along with various songs. This certainly falls under fair use, specifically teaching and scholarship. I can play a few dozen songs by memory, none of which have been performed publicly (in fact, I've never done a public performance of any song). Please tell me how I am a threat to the artists or even the copyright holders of these songs. I can't wait to see the statistics on how much they're losing in sheet music sales to piracy... likely somewhere in the billions of dollars.
Don't they know that many of their artists learned how to play music in much the same way, by hearing a song and effectively reverse engineering it? Elvis Costello didn't learn to read and write music until the mid 90s, nearly 20 years after his first album was released.Let them waste their money on lawyers "protecting" their "IP". It's just so amazing that these people are so devoted to making sure their copyrights are never infringed that they're going to dig themselves a grave. I, for one, can't wait.
I know the warranty will be void if you shave off the pubic hair yourself (intentional damage to the product), but you might want to try it anyway. Buy the hairless variety next time and you should be in good shape.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to me. Failing to hold myself to my morals is probably the worst.
When you find yourself fighting for your life the end absolutely does justify the means.
If its life and death, then I agree that a few morals can be bent. For example, if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to choose between torturing children and death, I don't think the right thing to do is to torture the children. I'd gladly take a bullet in order to die a moral person. Now if someone were to kill you unless you eat meat during Lent (assuming you're Catholic), I think God would forgive you, and you could still call yourself a moral person.
Most Democrats do. Especially those that have constituencies in the South.
I agree that on social issues, he'd probably be somewhere near the center of American politics, but on economics, he's a leftist on our scale. Chirac would never think of trying to dismantle the French welfare/social security system, nor would he try to eliminate the universal health care there. Could you imagine a "conservative" being amenable to socialized health care?
Just so you know, France's government isn't liberal. Google "Jean-Marie Le Pen" for the historical details, but they basically had to choose between doppelgangern of Gee-Dub or Pat Buchannon, and chose Bush's counterpart.
Just so you know, Chirac is to the left of most Democrats in the USA. Hence the "liberal" moniker.
I will now name all elected officials and their positions that I helped elect since I started voting in 2002.
Mike Adelman, Huron County Commissioner (2002) John Elmlinger, Huron County Auditor (2002) Paul E. Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court (2004) John Peterangelo, Fairborn City Schools Board of Education (2005) Tess Little, Fairborn City Schools Board of Education (2005)
I dare you to tell me that I am to blame for the laws of this country.
nowhere in the Constitution do I see any allotment for the Congress to control, regulate, criminalize or even define drug use
In fact, an amendment was needed to prohibit the production of alcohol. Somehow an amendment was not needed to prohibit marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or even caffeine.
I used the Sveasoft releases until I tried DD-WRT. It is much more stable than Talisman 1.04, and the features like QoS actually work. I suggest you give them a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Click
Dear Sir,
So long as I have had my current winter coat, there have been no terrorist attacks on America. I will now use your logic and conclude that my winter coat is responsible for protecting us against terrorists. God forbid I ever get a new winter coat.
Also, please provide citations regarding the 6 times this act was invoked. I'm sure you've missed at least one since many proceedings under the PATRIOT Act are classified.
Don't forget #9 either:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yeah, a warrant signed by the FISC, which has never refused to sign off on a single warrant in its history. Read the article and tell me that the FISC is an independent court.
*cough*
.sig
See
Yes, thanks. In fact, I was due for a complete format and reinstall, and even that didn't help.
I'd be careful.
After upgrading from 5.11 to 5.12 something crazy went wrong with my 9800XT. No DirectX accelerations will work. I've tried to uninstall those drivers and go back to 5.11, but that didn't help either.
It certainly doesn't make sense that installing drivers can screw up hardware, but thats what it seems happened to me.
Yeah. I regularly read DailyKos and heard a lot about the propositions in California. These guys were all about the redistricting amendment in Ohio, but against the one in Calfornia. Why? Because it was Schwarzenegger's ballot issue. Not to mention they figured they'd (the Democrats) lose seats if they allowed fair and non-partisan redistricting. These two faced fuckers are the reason why I'll never register as a Democrat (nor any other party for that matter).
... mmmkay?
I feel for the Republicans in Massachusetts, California, etc as I am represented by nothing but Republicans from city council all the way up to President. One party rule is bad
Delayed, not vetoed
Shit. At least you have the Liberal Democrats. In fact, 9 different parties are represented in your parliament (10 if only Sinn Féin would take its seats).
The entire problem of the UK (and the US) is the first past the post system coupled with legislative districts. I don't know how it works in the UK regarding when new districts are added/removed/changed. There is a case before the Supreme Court on partisan redistricting in Texas. Basically redistricting is to be done every 10 years after a census. This time, they decided to do it mid-year in order to draw districts more favorable to Republicans.
Gerrymandering is the most important issue facing democracy, in my opinion. When the politicians select their voters, basically giving themselves a safe seat until they retire, something is wrong. In the 2004 congressional elections, 3 incumbents were defeated, except in Texas where many incumbents battled each other due to redistricting. In various opinion polls, the population regularly approves of congress at a rate near 30%, but yet we only sought to throw out 3 of them. Amazing.
Look at his history. He's a troll.
(cue blind squirrel finding a nut)
Even though it says most stories should be submitted to index, I hardly ever do. I suggest you do the same.
I notice you keep coming back to the fact that if congress had no real power, bribes would be useless, which is true. What you don't take into account is that the people are the last true defense of the Constitution. If the government up and decided tomorrow that there is no guarantee to free speech in the Constitution, there is no one who can stop them, save the people.
The founders thought that seperation of powers would keep the government in check, but they did this without knowing the power of party politics. As we've seen time and time again under the current administration, the legislature is largely a rubber stamp for the president's agenda if it is controlled by the same party.
You often comment on how the people are to blame for the current state of affairs because they keep electing politicians who continuously defy the constitution. From that it reasons that the people want representatives who are going to do just that. Has it ever occured to you that a majority of the people want a government with near unlimited power? Many liberals want the government fix all of society's economic problems. Many conservatives want the government to fix all of society's social problems. You make the mistake of thinking that the average voter cares about the Constitution. All the average voter cares about are the hot button issues of the day, be they gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc. No one says "I believe in what Candidate X wants to do, but alas, the Constitution forbids the federal government from doing that. I cannot vote for him/her for that reason."
My point is that the if the people will not defend the Constitution, you can't expect politicians from doing the same (Ron Paul excepted). Unless everyone starts electing some hardcore deontologists who are willing to admit that the federal government doesn't have the power to do X even if X is a widely agreed upon thing to do, there is no chance to reclaim such a limited government.
The government can no longer discriminate based on race, gender or religious beliefs.
And yet neither can I.
Thats because there are such things as universal human rights. You shouldn't be able to discriminate on those grounds. The only grounds anyone should be able to discriminate on for any reason, private or public, is their skill level.
Its funny how we see the same problems in government, but come to completely opposite conclusions as to how to fix it. For instance:
... nothing to really do with voting systems.
1) I don't agree with the "money is speech" argument, but you are right. Campaign finance laws exist to keep the Ds and Rs in control. Whereas you think the way to fix the problem is to allow limitless contributions, I believe publicly funded elections with a complete ban on any contributions are the key.
2) Money does corrupt government. Of course, unlimited power does as well. You are correct that congress has overstepped its boundries. Of course, the public at large doesn't really care so long as boys aren't allowed to kiss or social security is kept intact. I freely admit that in some cases I fall in this group. I know that universal health care is unconstitutional, but I really don't care because of how much we need it. The point is, short of mass re-education, the people won't care if congress, the president, or the courts overstep their boundries, so long as they think the government is doing what they want. That is, the ends will justify the means for most people. In the end, the people are the last guardians of the constitution. If they let their representatives walk all over it, then they get what they deserve.
3) This is due to the fact that the schools are meant to teach a very uncontroversial version of generally accepted facts
4) I advocate removing party names from the ballot and that all ballots be paper, marked with an X in a box next to a candidate's name with a black sharpie marker. Too many problems arise with write-in only names.
5) I don't think that matching funds are illegal, but I think they are unnecessary for the major 2 parties. This is what happens when congress writes their own rules.
6) Agreed. Calling them debates is to distort the meaning of the word "debate".
7) Agreed again.
As far as writing yourself in, that may work in some localities. In Ohio, if a written-in name is not on the list of declared write-in candidates, the vote is not counted. If I did as you suggested, I'd effectively have a spoiled ballot, which means I could have just stayed home and achieved the same effect on the final returns.
You don't have to worry about a thing. No jury of anyone's peers will send someone to jail for telling someone the lyrics to a song or for telling someone how to play a song.
Its technically illegal to give an account of a football game. Think about that for a second. It is illegal for me to tell you what happened somewhere. If that ever went to trial do you think anyone would find such a person guilty?
I've been learning how to play bass guitar for the past two years, mostly by downloading tablature and playing along with various songs. This certainly falls under fair use, specifically teaching and scholarship. I can play a few dozen songs by memory, none of which have been performed publicly (in fact, I've never done a public performance of any song). Please tell me how I am a threat to the artists or even the copyright holders of these songs. I can't wait to see the statistics on how much they're losing in sheet music sales to piracy ... likely somewhere in the billions of dollars.
Don't they know that many of their artists learned how to play music in much the same way, by hearing a song and effectively reverse engineering it? Elvis Costello didn't learn to read and write music until the mid 90s, nearly 20 years after his first album was released.Let them waste their money on lawyers "protecting" their "IP". It's just so amazing that these people are so devoted to making sure their copyrights are never infringed that they're going to dig themselves a grave. I, for one, can't wait.
I know the warranty will be void if you shave off the pubic hair yourself (intentional damage to the product), but you might want to try it anyway. Buy the hairless variety next time and you should be in good shape.
... but be advised that the links do not point to his site, but the actual article (are the editors doing this or has he given it up).
I must disagree.
Death is not the worst thing that can happen to me. Failing to hold myself to my morals is probably the worst.
When you find yourself fighting for your life the end absolutely does justify the means.
If its life and death, then I agree that a few morals can be bent. For example, if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to choose between torturing children and death, I don't think the right thing to do is to torture the children. I'd gladly take a bullet in order to die a moral person. Now if someone were to kill you unless you eat meat during Lent (assuming you're Catholic), I think God would forgive you, and you could still call yourself a moral person.
He opposes gay civil unions
Most Democrats do. Especially those that have constituencies in the South.
I agree that on social issues, he'd probably be somewhere near the center of American politics, but on economics, he's a leftist on our scale. Chirac would never think of trying to dismantle the French welfare/social security system, nor would he try to eliminate the universal health care there. Could you imagine a "conservative" being amenable to socialized health care?
Just so you know, France's government isn't liberal. Google "Jean-Marie Le Pen" for the historical details, but they basically had to choose between doppelgangern of Gee-Dub or Pat Buchannon, and chose Bush's counterpart.
Just so you know, Chirac is to the left of most Democrats in the USA. Hence the "liberal" moniker.
I will now name all elected officials and their positions that I helped elect since I started voting in 2002.
Mike Adelman, Huron County Commissioner (2002)
John Elmlinger, Huron County Auditor (2002)
Paul E. Pfeifer, Ohio Supreme Court (2004)
John Peterangelo, Fairborn City Schools Board of Education (2005)
Tess Little, Fairborn City Schools Board of Education (2005)
I dare you to tell me that I am to blame for the laws of this country.
nowhere in the Constitution do I see any allotment for the Congress to control, regulate, criminalize or even define drug use
In fact, an amendment was needed to prohibit the production of alcohol. Somehow an amendment was not needed to prohibit marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or even caffeine.
I used the Sveasoft releases until I tried DD-WRT. It is much more stable than Talisman 1.04, and the features like QoS actually work. I suggest you give them a try.