I'm not saying ANY of that stuff you're putting in my mouth, Mr. strawman argument. The only thing I'm saying is that Bush is no Hitler. I'm *very much* in favor of free speech, and I don't think any protestors should be put in cages.
I never said that Bush was Hitler. You said that since people are allowed to carry signs saying that, that there is no problem. I pointed out the fact that people are not allowed to carry such signs anywhere near him and instead are locked in cages for having the audicity to attempt to exercise their rights to free speech. Your response was that since they are eventually let go that the fact that they were not allowed their right to free speech is not an issue.
So, I fail to see how I put anything in your mouth. That is what you said. There was no strawman.
But to say that since some protestors are temporarily put in cages for security purposes during an event then therefore Bush is equivalent to Hitler is to engage in simple minded hyperbole that trivializes the millions of defenseless people systematically killed by Hitler and his goons.
There you go again.
This has nothing to do with security. Its only possible purpose is to suppress free speech. Way to parrot the administrations bullshit. You seem quite eager to give up liberty in the name of security. The comparisons between Bush and Hitler have nothing to do with the holocaust. The fact is that even if the holocaust had never happened Hitler still wouldn't be remembered as a great guy. He would be remembered for suppressing dissent. He would be remebered for painting patriotic protesters as traitors. He would be remembered for starting wars based on lies and propaganda. You completely fail to understand what is being compared, and you fail to understand anything about the issue.
The fact is that there are lots of bad things about fascism. Your inability to recognize that is pretty amazing.
If you want people to come around to your point of view it's counterproductive to spread the "Bush = Hitler" meme. People just tune it out, and think you're a whacko. In your case though, maybe they're right.
Again. I never spread that meme, although you have no concept of what it is even about, and you seem to have no issue with free speech being violently and illegally suppressed.
All I said was that putting people in cages for having the audacity to exercise their right to free speech is contrary to the very idea of free speech.
You blindly argue against that point and call me a whacko for stating a simple tautology?!?
You aren't, by chance, one of those high school students recently surveyed that think the news should get government approval for everything they say are you?
Is that the basis for seperation of church and state?
Thousands of years of abuse of power is the basis for the seperation of church and state.
"The Christians are out to get us!". That's my whole point and that's what you appear to be doing. "OMG! My dollar bill says "in god we trust!!1!". I mean really. That's nuts to be offended by that.
If you haven't noticed, the Christians *are* out to get everybody who doesn't agree with them. Note the recent attempt to amend the constitution to explicitly declare a large segment of the population as second class citizens. If you honestly don't know that there is a large very organized movement of extremist psuedo Christian nut jobs lobbying for their religion to be made law, then you have not been paying attention.
This has nothing to do with the In God We Trust business, nor am I "offended" by it. I merely pointed out the simple fact that it is clearly establishing one set of religious beliefs over others. It is a simple statement, and you have done nothing to counter it. All you have done is say that you don't care about it which is certainly your right. Setting up a strawman rather than addressing the point does nothing for your credibility though.
Unfortunately some of us need everything spelled out exactly just to cover every possible scenario rather than use common sense (i.e. the original context of seperation of church and state).
Yes, some of us do. They're known as fundamentalists. They are fighting tooth and nail to destroy any seperation of church and state. They are far too ignorant to learn anything about history and realise that what they are fighting for has been done many times in the past and always to great harm for the majority of the people.
You have a perfect right to be as apathetic about this as you want to be, but if you're going to bother to speak up about it, at least try to understand what is being discussed.
You are saying that it is perfectly ok to take people who are doing their patriotic duty to stand up and make their voices heard and lock them in cages miles away from the event which they are protesting so that their voices will not be heard? You are saying that the first amendment is worthless. You are saying that you believe that our leaders should be allowed to do anything that they want without being made to realise that a huge percentage of the population disagrees with them for very well though out reasons. You are saying that our leaders have no responsibility whatsoever to respond to the will of the people, or even be aware of it.
You are saying all of these things are perfectly fine as long as they are eventually freed from their completely unconstitutional incarceration.
Wow. Why is it exactly that you want to live here rather than say China or somewhere where attitudes like yours are accepted rather than completely contrary to the purpose of this country?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?!?
FYI: If I'm a shill for the establishment, so are you. It's just a different establishment.
The only thing I demonstrated any support for was the right to free speech, which you are clearly dead set against. If being a decent human being is shilling, then more power to me. You are shilling for the purpose of getting everybody's rights stripped away. This includes your own.
... his voting record sounds suspiciously like he's a Canadian agent...:-)
Wisconsin. Close enough;-) He is actually one of the *very* few members of Congress who wouldn't be a better person with a bullet hole where his face used to be.
Actually, without cameras and recorders about, the one or two politicians I've encountered off the record turn out to be reasonably intelligent people, who genuninely want to try to do what they perceive to be the Right Thing, for the country, their constituents, and themselves.
What, you expected that once the cameras were off that they'd suddenly start being honest?!? Bullshitting people is their business, and it looks like they made a sale.
Read up on the War of the Roses which was one of the reasons behind the "seperation of church and state" due to Protestantism.
Read up on the Salem Witch Trials. That happened here and was one of many abuses by religious fanatics that led to the common sense realization that allowing religious entities any power in government is *always* a bad idea.
I mean this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system,
Commonly stated but absolutely false. It was founded based on rational humanism.
Anyways, please get your facts straight (google is your friend and is referenced on Slashdot twice a day sometimes;P) before spouting "Christian brutality!". It was actually because of Protestants in England.
A. Your reasoning is simple and incomplete. B. Protestants are Christians.
I think it's you that needs to get your facts straight.
I'm certainly not arguing that forcing religion down someone's throat is a bad thing, but that was not the real debate. The debate is how the words "seperation of church and state" are being interpreted today as opposed to what they were truly based on.
They are being used as they were intended. You have done nothing to show otherwise. All you did was take a complex subject, attempt to simplify it to a single cause and completely fail to realise that even that backed up my point totally while ignoring the many other examples that show the same thing.
Reminds me of the people marching with signs reading "BUSH = HITLER". The very fact they can march in public holding that sign and nothing happens to them proves that it isn't true.
Unless, of course, Bush is anywhere nearby. Then they are locked in cages which are labeled "free speech zones". Of course that inconvenient fact gets in the way of your shilling.
It is the opposition party that want's to control your social security. The Republican party would like to give you the option of a private account.
Riiiight. If you actually think through what dumping billions into the stock market would do, then it doesn't look all cheery like you try to make it sound. The stock market has a value now. Magically increasng that worth by a tremendous amount by dumping cash into it won't add any real value. It will cause spikes and speculation for a time which will result in it eventually settling down to around its current value. Those set up to take advantage of this will manage to siphon a lot of that money off for themselves before buying back in at extremely reduced values. Oh, but I'm sure nobody thought of that.
It's a plain wealth transfer scam from the poor to the rich. Why else do you suppose when the Republicans are in the rich *always* get richer and the poor and middle class *always* get poorer.
Now if you can point out where I claimed to be a Democrat, your response would make sense. As it is, it doesn't.
Hey kids, do you want to know how to tell a partisan shill? They use any mention of their party as an excuse to go way the hell off topic to attack the other party.
The GOP also opposes national health care, which would "pay for others incompetences".
Or alternatively, it allows insurance companies and big pharma to keep raking in massive profits with crqappy service. Keep in mind that both parties are fans of this.
No rights are being threatened here on either side, so what is your point? This is an effort to inform the ISP's customers.
No, it's an effort to let government dictate morality. Or did you miss the part where the state decides what's good and bad.
The fact is that any adult who takes an interest in their children would already know about these capabilities if they feel that any given sites are inappropriate for them. Passing a bill mandating that ISPs provide filtering capability isn't an informational message. If the groups pushing for it had that as their goal, they would have spent their money on an awareness campaign rather than lobbying for new laws.
I notice that you have something against Republicans, according to your sig. Let me point a few things out to you.
Try actually pointing something out relevant to the sig if that's your purpose. Like why they're willing to go contrary to their stated beliefs (state's rights) in the interest of pushing amendments whose sole purpose is to discriminsate against a class of people benefitting nobody and promoting ignorant hatred. I hate hypocrites whatever their persuasion.
You can make all kinds of groupings and claim that a class of people is bad. That's called prejudice, unless you're talking about Christianity, in which case it's called "politically correct".
It gets really tiring hearing this ridiculous whining from members of the vast majority who are being prevented from shoving their faith down other people's throats. This is how it is supposed to work. This is exactly what the system was designed to accomplish, and it is working pretty well so far. I would be completely disgusted with myself if an honest look at myself demonstrated that I am exactly what our system of government was designed to protect freedom from. This is where you are. Think that through. Our constitution was designed to protect *all* of the people from people like you and you are promoting destroying the very thing that allowed this country to be great.
The left belief system is alive and well in public schools, with nobody claiming that it's unconstitutional.
That's because the idea that all people are created equal and should not be oppressed by the followers of one particular religion is the belief system upon which the entire idea of America was founded and exists today.
This does NOT mean that having the 10 commandments in the courthouse is a violation. They're not FORCING you to become a "Christian".
Yes it absolutely does. This, more than anything else I'm aware of, is a fundamental violation of the seperation of Church and state.
A court *of law* is supposed to be a place where justice is dispensed based upon the laws of our country. Putting a monument to the laws of one particular group of religions is completely contrary to that goal. Given the brutal history of Jews and Christians with respect to those not of their faith, anybody going to a court in this country who isn't of those faiths is totally justified in being scared shitless of what could happen to them if the attitudes contained in said religions have anything whatsoever to do with the proceedings therein. I mean it was a direct result of Christian brutality that the whole freedom of religion thing was put into the constitution. Everybody likes to talk about how a lot of people came here fleeing religious persecution, but they almost always forget to mention that they were fleeing *from Christians*.
Do people honestly think that putting "In God We Trust" on currency is forcing people or brainwashing people to believe in a certain religion?
No, but that isn't the point. The point is that that is clearly an endorsement by the state of god. Is there any reason for it? Does it serve any potential good purpose? Of course not. It is there solely because religious people wanted to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. This is *always* a bad thing and I defy you to come up with a single example from all of history to contradict that.
The same Christian activists are at work here, protecting people's right to censor their own internet connection.
Right, and war is peace, 2+2=5 etc.. Your right to censor your own internet connection is not threatened. It never has been threatened, and nobody has ever suggested threatening it.
What this is is the typical crybaby response that we need the big nanny state government to make sure that we don't need to take any personal responsibility for our own lives. They want to make sure that everybody else has to pay for their own incompetence and their own inability to deal with reality in a mature manner.
It would be a tremendous step forward if these cowards could grow up and act like adults, but I don't forsee that happening any time soon.
Maybe they did start calling a stretch in Santa Monica that, but that's not really the Magnificent Mile.
The Magnificent Mile is a stretch of Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago. It used to basically be the lakefront before the fire. After that they bulldozed basically the entire city into the lake and built Lincoln Park, Grant Park and a bunch of other stuff on top of it.
Hope this helps, Darby (Southern California guy transplanted to Chicago.)
I was just saying that things like referrundums on the ballot give the true majority of the people the power to make their own laws. It has worked out very well in my state for over 100 years, without the arresting of people and such that you refer to.
Sure, and I agree with that. I also know enough history to know that typically groups of people typically exclude certain other groups and go as far as killing them outright. Our constitution is in place to prevent these things from happening. That's why laws get struck down. What state is that, by the way?
Wouldn't it be great if when over 50% of the people in this country say that the DMCA is crap, if it could just be done away with. Or if 50% could say they didn't want a broadcast flag or say they wanted a balanced budget it would happen. It would change the entire nature of politics in America. Right now all our representatives are being bought buy the coprorations and doing their bidding. I do agree with you that almost universally politicians are slime.
That would be great, but before that could work, we would need an informed populace. Given how badly informed people are here, and how powerful a force media manipulation is, I don't really see it working out all that much differently.
Honestly, I don't see any possible solution short of revolution at this point. The best that has ever done is temporary improvement before some other cabal takes over and starts fucking everybody. Human nature is a real bitch.
You obviously uniformly hate anyone involved in the current administration,
In fact, I hate almost everybody involved in the federal government at this point. That is based entirely on their actions though, so it's certainly not prejudice of any sort.
Nobody with any integrity would still be involved with this administration though.
The Lewinski thing was tame. It was a fucking blowjob. Sure, there were plenty of accusations thrown around and who knows, maybe some of them were true. It has nothing at all to do with the current situation which is that the administration and the Republican party have declared an all out war against truth, open government, and the like. Why is it that Bush sympathisers always try to play the Clinton card? I'm not a Democrat, and I could give a flying fuck about what the previous shithead did when we are talking about what the current fuckhead is doing right now.
Your final statement amounts to: my guys are the good guys, your guys are the bad guys so any tactic is ok. Thats a slippery path to follow and a bad argument to use to try and convince those on the other side to change their minds.
Not at all. I don't have any guys. Republicans are slime without exception. Democrats are slime with very few (if any) exceptions.
But when guys are as bad as these pieces of garbage wrapped in skin then it's esssential to stop them. It completely sucks that we are at this point, but we are. Rational discussion in politics is dead. The Republicans do get pretty much sole credit for that. Hannity, Rush, Coulter etc. came around for the purpose of poisoning rational discourse. They have created a propaganda machine that constantly seeks to destroy truth.
*The whole reason we got on this topic is that you were repeating the current lie that they are actively sowing.*
Also, just because someone votes for one party doesn't mean they're putting party before country. Maybe they have different beliefs than you do. Your goal should be to affect their beliefs, not belittle tnem.
That wasn't my point. My point was that the Republicans in Washington vote along party lines for things that are unarguably against their oath of office because it promotes party goals.
People of both parties ignore their party's evil actions while decrying those of the other, but the Republicans have made it an essential part of their platform. Witness the attacks on moderate Republicans. That isn't possible on that scale with the Democrats because they have such a diversity of groups each pulling their own way.
As to your response on Tyranny of the majority, I'm not sure what it is that I said that you disagree with. Unless you would willingly turn up at the appointed time if it was voted that you and your family should be put to death in the town square because your shirt looks funny (for example).
That is the fundamental flaw with Democracy, and it is the reason that we have a constitution. So are you saying that you're willing to watch your family die based on a whim of the populace? I'm not sure what other angle there is for you to disagree on that point.
So, because the US goes to war (Unlike any other country in the history of mankind), Americans have to be better than normal people?
Obviously, there is no way you could have gotten anything even close to that from what I said so you're clearly trolling.
When we are attacked by party A and in response we invade party B who has no relation to party A based on a not even elaborate web of blatant lies, then that erodes our integrity.
It has nothing to do with going to war. It is totally irrelevant if Iraq becomes the best place in the world to live tommorrow.
Bush and co used evidence that they knew full well was false as well as blatantly making shit up as a justification for this occupation.
Also, you didn't address the issue of throwing people into prison camps with zero evidence of guilt of anything.
Nor did you address the various times we have overthrown democratically elected governments to install brutal murdering dictators.
So, yes, if we want to regain any integrity at all, the bar is higher than for those who haven't done such things. It's really a simple concept. Let me guess, you don't think America can ever do anything wrong and anybody who says we do is an evil liberal?
You know what. I'm starting to have some real second thoughts on doing so again. I don't want to start any flame war here on this, but the only real reason I vote Republican is because I hate abortion.
Hopefully that will be a lesson to you about the evils of making political decisions that affect billions of people all over the world based on a single issue of personal morals with no bearing on politics.
It's always the same regardless of what the particular issue is.
This provision may get shot down as unconstitutional.
The SC just struck down a law preventing the federal government from coming into your house dragging you away at gunpoint and throwing you in a cage for growing medicine in your backyard to treat terminal diseases.
I hardly think they'll do a damned thing to promote freedom.
Isn't this the worst-case scenario that the defenders of the Second Amendment have been describing for years? Presumably we'll now see them storming the White House with hunting rifles.
Integrity would demand that, but they're mostly ok with big government as long as them damn faggits and towelheads ain't treated like humans.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people like the one that happened on 9/11. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for blowing up skyscrapers with airplanes. NONE.
Integrity would demand then, that you agree there is no justification for the slaughter of 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were in no way involved in 9/11.
But we are doing it.
That is the justification for the next attack.
It's a pretty simple equation. Unless, you think it's only bad when Americans die.
We concluded that either we stay, and I use my legal education to try to save the US, or we punk out and try to immigrate to Canada based on her 1337 d0ct0r skillz ("Skilled Worker Class Immigration" I believe it is).
If you go for option 2, get married before filing your paperwork. It'll move you way up in line. Curiously, America gives singles higher preference.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying ANY of that stuff you're putting in my mouth, Mr. strawman argument. The only thing I'm saying is that Bush is no Hitler. I'm *very much* in favor of free speech, and I don't think any protestors should be put in cages.
I never said that Bush was Hitler. You said that since people are allowed to carry signs saying that, that there is no problem.
I pointed out the fact that people are not allowed to carry such signs anywhere near him and instead are locked in cages for having the audicity to attempt to exercise their rights to free speech.
Your response was that since they are eventually let go that the fact that they were not allowed their right to free speech is not an issue.
So, I fail to see how I put anything in your mouth. That is what you said. There was no strawman.
But to say that since some protestors are temporarily put in cages for security purposes during an event then therefore Bush is equivalent to Hitler is to engage in simple minded hyperbole that trivializes the millions of defenseless people systematically killed by Hitler and his goons.
There you go again.
This has nothing to do with security. Its only possible purpose is to suppress free speech. Way to parrot the administrations bullshit. You seem quite eager to give up liberty in the name of security.
The comparisons between Bush and Hitler have nothing to do with the holocaust. The fact is that even if the holocaust had never happened Hitler still wouldn't be remembered as a great guy. He would be remembered for suppressing dissent. He would be remebered for painting patriotic protesters as traitors. He would be remembered for starting wars based on lies and propaganda.
You completely fail to understand what is being compared, and you fail to understand anything about the issue.
The fact is that there are lots of bad things about fascism. Your inability to recognize that is pretty amazing.
If you want people to come around to your point of view it's counterproductive to spread the "Bush = Hitler" meme. People just tune it out, and think you're a whacko. In your case though, maybe they're right.
Again. I never spread that meme, although you have no concept of what it is even about, and you seem to have no issue with free speech being violently and illegally suppressed.
All I said was that putting people in cages for having the audacity to exercise their right to free speech is contrary to the very idea of free speech.
You blindly argue against that point and call me a whacko for stating a simple tautology?!?
You aren't, by chance, one of those high school students recently surveyed that think the news should get government approval for everything they say are you?
Is that the basis for seperation of church and state?
Thousands of years of abuse of power is the basis for the seperation of church and state.
"The Christians are out to get us!". That's my whole point and that's what you appear to be doing. "OMG! My dollar bill says "in god we trust!!1!". I mean really. That's nuts to be offended by that.
If you haven't noticed, the Christians *are* out to get everybody who doesn't agree with them. Note the recent attempt to amend the constitution to explicitly declare a large segment of the population as second class citizens. If you honestly don't know that there is a large very organized movement of extremist psuedo Christian nut jobs lobbying for their religion to be made law, then you have not been paying attention.
This has nothing to do with the In God We Trust business, nor am I "offended" by it.
I merely pointed out the simple fact that it is clearly establishing one set of religious beliefs over others. It is a simple statement, and you have done nothing to counter it. All you have done is say that you don't care about it which is certainly your right. Setting up a strawman rather than addressing the point does nothing for your credibility though.
Unfortunately some of us need everything spelled out exactly just to cover every possible scenario rather than use common sense (i.e. the original context of seperation of church and state).
Yes, some of us do. They're known as fundamentalists. They are fighting tooth and nail to destroy any seperation of church and state.
They are far too ignorant to learn anything about history and realise that what they are fighting for has been done many times in the past and always to great harm for the majority of the people.
You have a perfect right to be as apathetic about this as you want to be, but if you're going to bother to speak up about it, at least try to understand what is being discussed.
What? They just let them GO?!?
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
You are saying that it is perfectly ok to take people who are doing their patriotic duty to stand up and make their voices heard and lock them in cages miles away from the event which they are protesting so that their voices will not be heard?
You are saying that the first amendment is worthless.
You are saying that you believe that our leaders should be allowed to do anything that they want without being made to realise that a huge percentage of the population disagrees with them for very well though out reasons.
You are saying that our leaders have no responsibility whatsoever to respond to the will of the people, or even be aware of it.
You are saying all of these things are perfectly fine as long as they are eventually freed from their completely unconstitutional incarceration.
Wow. Why is it exactly that you want to live here rather than say China or somewhere where attitudes like yours are accepted rather than completely contrary to the purpose of this country?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?!?
FYI: If I'm a shill for the establishment, so are you. It's just a different establishment.
The only thing I demonstrated any support for was the right to free speech, which you are clearly dead set against.
If being a decent human being is shilling, then more power to me.
You are shilling for the purpose of getting everybody's rights stripped away. This includes your own.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
... his voting record sounds suspiciously like he's a Canadian agent ... :-)
;-)
Wisconsin. Close enough
He is actually one of the *very* few members of Congress who wouldn't be a better person with a bullet hole where his face used to be.
Actually, without cameras and recorders about, the one or two politicians I've encountered off the record turn out to be reasonably intelligent people, who genuninely want to try to do what they perceive to be the Right Thing, for the country, their constituents, and themselves.
What, you expected that once the cameras were off that they'd suddenly start being honest?!?
Bullshitting people is their business, and it looks like they made a sale.
Read up on the War of the Roses which was one of the reasons behind the "seperation of church and state" due to Protestantism.
;P) before spouting "Christian brutality!". It was actually because of Protestants in England.
Read up on the Salem Witch Trials. That happened here and was one of many abuses by religious fanatics that led to the common sense realization that allowing religious entities any power in government is *always* a bad idea.
I mean this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system,
Commonly stated but absolutely false. It was founded based on rational humanism.
Anyways, please get your facts straight (google is your friend and is referenced on Slashdot twice a day sometimes
A. Your reasoning is simple and incomplete.
B. Protestants are Christians.
I think it's you that needs to get your facts straight.
I'm certainly not arguing that forcing religion down someone's throat is a bad thing, but that was not the real debate. The debate is how the words "seperation of church and state" are being interpreted today as opposed to what they were truly based on.
They are being used as they were intended.
You have done nothing to show otherwise. All you did was take a complex subject, attempt to simplify it to a single cause and completely fail to realise that even that backed up my point totally while ignoring the many other examples that show the same thing.
A corporation exists to make money, and it will do anything to achieve that goal unless someone or something forces restraint. The law won't.
Government exists to provide that restraint.
You've just given an admirable demonstration of the fact that the US government is a fascist democracy.
Reminds me of the people marching with signs reading "BUSH = HITLER". The very fact they can march in public holding that sign and nothing happens to them proves that it isn't true.
Unless, of course, Bush is anywhere nearby. Then they are locked in cages which are labeled "free speech zones". Of course that inconvenient fact gets in the way of your shilling.
It is the opposition party that want's to control your social security. The Republican party would like to give you the option of a private account.
Riiiight. If you actually think through what dumping billions into the stock market would do, then it doesn't look all cheery like you try to make it sound. The stock market has a value now. Magically increasng that worth by a tremendous amount by dumping cash into it won't add any real value. It will cause spikes and speculation for a time which will result in it eventually settling down to around its current value. Those set up to take advantage of this will manage to siphon a lot of that money off for themselves before buying back in at extremely reduced values.
Oh, but I'm sure nobody thought of that.
It's a plain wealth transfer scam from the poor to the rich. Why else do you suppose when the Republicans are in the rich *always* get richer and the poor and middle class *always* get poorer.
Now if you can point out where I claimed to be a Democrat, your response would make sense. As it is, it doesn't.
Hey kids, do you want to know how to tell a partisan shill? They use any mention of their party as an excuse to go way the hell off topic to attack the other party.
The GOP also opposes national health care, which would "pay for others incompetences".
Or alternatively, it allows insurance companies and big pharma to keep raking in massive profits with crqappy service. Keep in mind that both parties are fans of this.
No rights are being threatened here on either side, so what is your point? This is an effort to inform the ISP's customers.
No, it's an effort to let government dictate morality. Or did you miss the part where the state decides what's good and bad.
The fact is that any adult who takes an interest in their children would already know about these capabilities if they feel that any given sites are inappropriate for them.
Passing a bill mandating that ISPs provide filtering capability isn't an informational message. If the groups pushing for it had that as their goal, they would have spent their money on an awareness campaign rather than lobbying for new laws.
I notice that you have something against Republicans, according to your sig. Let me point a few things out to you.
Try actually pointing something out relevant to the sig if that's your purpose. Like why they're willing to go contrary to their stated beliefs (state's rights) in the interest of pushing amendments whose sole purpose is to discriminsate against a class of people benefitting nobody and promoting ignorant hatred.
I hate hypocrites whatever their persuasion.
You can make all kinds of groupings and claim that a class of people is bad. That's called prejudice, unless you're talking about Christianity, in which case it's called "politically correct".
It gets really tiring hearing this ridiculous whining from members of the vast majority who are being prevented from shoving their faith down other people's throats. This is how it is supposed to work. This is exactly what the system was designed to accomplish, and it is working pretty well so far.
I would be completely disgusted with myself if an honest look at myself demonstrated that I am exactly what our system of government was designed to protect freedom from.
This is where you are. Think that through. Our constitution was designed to protect *all* of the people from people like you and you are promoting destroying the very thing that allowed this country to be great.
The left belief system is alive and well in public schools, with nobody claiming that it's unconstitutional.
That's because the idea that all people are created equal and should not be oppressed by the followers of one particular religion is the belief system upon which the entire idea of America was founded and exists today.
This does NOT mean that having the 10 commandments in the courthouse is a violation. They're not FORCING you to become a "Christian".
Yes it absolutely does. This, more than anything else I'm aware of, is a fundamental violation of the seperation of Church and state.
A court *of law* is supposed to be a place where justice is dispensed based upon the laws of our country. Putting a monument to the laws of one particular group of religions is completely contrary to that goal. Given the brutal history of Jews and Christians with respect to those not of their faith, anybody going to a court in this country who isn't of those faiths is totally justified in being scared shitless of what could happen to them if the attitudes contained in said religions have anything whatsoever to do with the proceedings therein.
I mean it was a direct result of Christian brutality that the whole freedom of religion thing was put into the constitution. Everybody likes to talk about how a lot of people came here fleeing religious persecution, but they almost always forget to mention that they were fleeing *from Christians*.
Do people honestly think that putting "In God We Trust" on currency is forcing people or brainwashing people to believe in a certain religion?
No, but that isn't the point. The point is that that is clearly an endorsement by the state of god.
Is there any reason for it?
Does it serve any potential good purpose?
Of course not. It is there solely because religious people wanted to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. This is *always* a bad thing and I defy you to come up with a single example from all of history to contradict that.
The same Christian activists are at work here, protecting people's right to censor their own internet connection.
Right, and war is peace, 2+2=5 etc..
Your right to censor your own internet connection is not threatened. It never has been threatened, and nobody has ever suggested threatening it.
What this is is the typical crybaby response that we need the big nanny state government to make sure that we don't need to take any personal responsibility for our own lives.
They want to make sure that everybody else has to pay for their own incompetence and their own inability to deal with reality in a mature manner.
It would be a tremendous step forward if these cowards could grow up and act like adults, but I don't forsee that happening any time soon.
if there was a "simple mathematical algorithm" for beating poker, it would have long ago been discovered and would be in common use.
If there was a solution to the very simple "Fermat's Last Theorem", then it would have been discovered long ago.
The rest of your comment sounds totally reasonable, but assuming that just because it hasn't been found yet means it doesn't exist doesn't work.
Tomcat is a very slow reference implimentation, java web apps are almost never deployed using tomcat.
I suppose the 3 interviews and 2 job offers I recently got for sysadmin positions with heavy Tomcat must be an illusion.
Yeah, you're right, nobody is using it.
Maybe they did start calling a stretch in Santa Monica that, but that's not really the Magnificent Mile.
The Magnificent Mile is a stretch of Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago.
It used to basically be the lakefront before the fire.
After that they bulldozed basically the entire city into the lake and built Lincoln Park, Grant Park and a bunch of other stuff on top of it.
Hope this helps,
Darby
(Southern California guy transplanted to Chicago.)
Don't forget marmite mining for our British friends.
I was just saying that things like referrundums on the ballot give the true majority of the people the power to make their own laws. It has worked out very well in my state for over 100 years, without the arresting of people and such that you refer to.
Sure, and I agree with that. I also know enough history to know that typically groups of people typically exclude certain other groups and go as far as killing them outright. Our constitution is in place to prevent these things from happening. That's why laws get struck down.
What state is that, by the way?
Wouldn't it be great if when over 50% of the people in this country say that the DMCA is crap, if it could just be done away with. Or if 50% could say they didn't want a broadcast flag or say they wanted a balanced budget it would happen. It would change the entire nature of politics in America. Right now all our representatives are being bought buy the coprorations and doing their bidding. I do agree with you that almost universally politicians are slime.
That would be great, but before that could work, we would need an informed populace. Given how badly informed people are here, and how powerful a force media manipulation is, I don't really see it working out all that much differently.
Honestly, I don't see any possible solution short of revolution at this point. The best that has ever done is temporary improvement before some other cabal takes over and starts fucking everybody. Human nature is a real bitch.
You obviously uniformly hate anyone involved in the current administration,
In fact, I hate almost everybody involved in the federal government at this point. That is based entirely on their actions though, so it's certainly not prejudice of any sort.
Nobody with any integrity would still be involved with this administration though.
The Lewinski thing was tame. It was a fucking blowjob. Sure, there were plenty of accusations thrown around and who knows, maybe some of them were true.
It has nothing at all to do with the current situation which is that the administration and the Republican party have declared an all out war against truth, open government, and the like.
Why is it that Bush sympathisers always try to play the Clinton card? I'm not a Democrat, and I could give a flying fuck about what the previous shithead did when we are talking about what the current fuckhead is doing right now.
Your final statement amounts to: my guys are the good guys, your guys are the bad guys so any tactic is ok. Thats a slippery path to follow and a bad argument to use to try and convince those on the other side to change their minds.
Not at all. I don't have any guys.
Republicans are slime without exception.
Democrats are slime with very few (if any) exceptions.
But when guys are as bad as these pieces of garbage wrapped in skin then it's esssential to stop them.
It completely sucks that we are at this point, but we are. Rational discussion in politics is dead. The Republicans do get pretty much sole credit for that. Hannity, Rush, Coulter etc. came around for the purpose of poisoning rational discourse.
They have created a propaganda machine that constantly seeks to destroy truth.
*The whole reason we got on this topic is that you were repeating the current lie that they are actively sowing.*
Also, just because someone votes for one party doesn't mean they're putting party before country. Maybe they have different beliefs than you do. Your goal should be to affect their beliefs, not belittle tnem.
That wasn't my point. My point was that the Republicans in Washington vote along party lines for things that are unarguably against their oath of office because it promotes party goals.
People of both parties ignore their party's evil actions while decrying those of the other, but the Republicans have made it an essential part of their platform. Witness the attacks on moderate Republicans. That isn't possible on that scale with the Democrats because they have such a diversity of groups each pulling their own way.
As to your response on Tyranny of the majority, I'm not sure what it is that I said that you disagree with. Unless you would willingly turn up at the appointed time if it was voted that you and your family should be put to death in the town square because your shirt looks funny (for example).
That is the fundamental flaw with Democracy, and it is the reason that we have a constitution.
So are you saying that you're willing to watch your family die based on a whim of the populace?
I'm not sure what other angle there is for you to disagree on that point.
So, because the US goes to war (Unlike any other country in the history of mankind), Americans have to be better than normal people?
Obviously, there is no way you could have gotten anything even close to that from what I said so you're clearly trolling.
When we are attacked by party A and in response we invade party B who has no relation to party A based on a not even elaborate web of blatant lies, then that erodes our integrity.
It has nothing to do with going to war. It is totally irrelevant if Iraq becomes the best place in the world to live tommorrow.
Bush and co used evidence that they knew full well was false as well as blatantly making shit up as a justification for this occupation.
Also, you didn't address the issue of throwing people into prison camps with zero evidence of guilt of anything.
Nor did you address the various times we have overthrown democratically elected governments to install brutal murdering dictators.
So, yes, if we want to regain any integrity at all, the bar is higher than for those who haven't done such things.
It's really a simple concept.
Let me guess, you don't think America can ever do anything wrong and anybody who says we do is an evil liberal?
You know what. I'm starting to have some real second thoughts on doing so again. I don't want to start any flame war here on this, but the only real reason I vote Republican is because I hate abortion.
Hopefully that will be a lesson to you about the evils of making political decisions that affect billions of people all over the world based on a single issue of personal morals with no bearing on politics.
It's always the same regardless of what the particular issue is.
Most of us were hoping that the goverment would see the patriot act as a temporary solution at best.
Only the most naive people with zero understanding of human nature believed that for an instant.
It was an undisguised power grab from the start.
This provision may get shot down as unconstitutional.
The SC just struck down a law preventing the federal government from coming into your house dragging you away at gunpoint and throwing you in a cage for growing medicine in your backyard to treat terminal diseases.
I hardly think they'll do a damned thing to promote freedom.
Isn't this the worst-case scenario that the defenders of the Second Amendment have been describing for years? Presumably we'll now see them storming the White House with hunting rifles.
Integrity would demand that, but they're mostly ok with big government as long as them damn faggits and towelheads ain't treated like humans.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION for the slaughter of thousands of innocent people like the one that happened on 9/11. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for blowing up skyscrapers with airplanes. NONE.
Integrity would demand then, that you agree there is no justification for the slaughter of 10s of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were in no way involved in 9/11.
But we are doing it.
That is the justification for the next attack.
It's a pretty simple equation.
Unless, you think it's only bad when Americans die.
We concluded that either we stay, and I use my legal education to try to save the US, or we punk out and try to immigrate to Canada based on her 1337 d0ct0r skillz ("Skilled Worker Class Immigration" I believe it is).
If you go for option 2, get married before filing your paperwork. It'll move you way up in line.
Curiously, America gives singles higher preference.