I strongly agree. If you read the linked article (I saw it last week), one of the cops even said that we should stop referring to these people as "Mass Murderers" and start calling them "Glory Killers". Too bad that the media companies wouldn't agree to limit their coverage. Maybe use the name and the picture once or twice. Then, a policy of no more pictures and referring to him only as "the killer" or "the (child) murderer".
No. Instead, the name gets used hundreds of times on national TV, the picture is shown on every TV station, news web site and major print publication, giving these scum EXACTLY the infamy they are trying to achieve. I'd put MUCH more blame on the MainStream Media than I would on video games or guns or music.
... and traffic tickets were meant to be a deterrent rather than a revenue source, I'd advocate giving LEOs a lot more flexibility on the traffic laws. Speed limits painted on fixed signs which are valid 24/7/365 are dumb. Doing 10+ over the limit at 2:00AM on Sunday is a lot different than doing it at 5:00PM Friday. Universal BAC limit is also sort of stupid. A dedicated drinker at 0.85 is going to be less impaired than a non-drinker at 0.75. Same with this "distracted driving" stuff. Putting on your cosmetics and fixing your hair could be just as distracting/dangerous as using Google Glass. If only...
YES, they are. It has absolutely nothing to do with deficiencies in their motor skills. It has everything to do with their proclivity to take risks (willingly, or by under-estimation) and their lack of driving experience. These days, I would also argue that they have a greater propensity for being distracted by their gadgets. Look at a curve showing risk of accident vs. age. Huge drop from 15 to 25. Continues downward, and sort of levels off in the mid '40's range before having a slight up-tick in the early '60's.
More people = more economic activity in general. I don't think you can make such a sweeping generalization either. How is Maine doing vs. Texas or S. Carolina for instance?
As for Red/Blue are you just talking about the presidential election? There are many states where you have a mix of reps, senators, governors and state legislatures, so it's hard to paint a state a single color.
My question to that question is:
If the blue states think their political philosophy and public policy are so vastly superior, why are they so critical of the idea of states' rights? Shouldn't they want to shrink the federal government, limit redistribution of wealth to red states and use their tax dollars for their own states?
"To regulate bitcoins all the government has to do is regulate the organisations that convert bitcoins into useful currencies,"
What "organizations"? There are services e.g. 'bitinstant' which are built on top of the bitcoin model, but they are not a critical to the system. You can buy and sell bitcoins with cash directly from other individuals.
Your Naivety is grounded in the fact that you can't conceptualize a model of exchange that's independent from banks and governments.
I don't want the government being the entity which grants the status of "legitimacy". Would you argue that the U.S. dollar is a "legitimate" currency even though it has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the course of a century? How about the Zimbabwe dollar? Is that "legitimate" because it has some fancy printing and a government seal of approval?
The economy would definitely be miserable if we actually discarded the current unsustainable model. Hard to expect free markets to fix things overnight when government has spent decades undermining productive capacity while building a smoke & mirrors economy based on perpetual debt accumulation.
The 'state' has already failed. You just haven't realized it yet. Keep holding onto those 'legitimate' Federal Reserve Notes however. What could go wrong when Ben Bernanke is engaging in $80B per month in artificial credit expansion?
Money laundering? BS. If they cared about money laundering then they'd go after the bankers who are laundering millions of dollars in drug money for the cartels.
What this is really about is a banker-government that will do anything and everything possible to prevent alternatives to their fiat + fractional reserve monopoly on money. These parasites absolutely can't have us serfs using a money supply which they can't control and manipulate in order to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Giving someone the plans for how to make a weapon which they then build and then subsequently use to injure someone doesn't qualify as "assault" by any stretch of the imagination.
I think the "clarification" they're talking about is in regard to existing firearms laws, not laws regarding assault.
The detailed technical specification of a firearm isn't exactly a secret. There are at least half a dozen companies that make AR-15 style rifles to the same basic specification. All it takes is the skill and the right machine tools. The 3D printing technology is just lowering the skill and equipment barrier.
You think a person that created a DIY guide for building a firearm is somehow responsible for ALL criminal misuses of ALL firearms built using that plan? While we're at it, let's just convict the company that created the actual 3D printing hardware too. Aren't they just as "guilty" as the guy who made the plans? Let's go after the company that manufactured the raw materials, the truck driver that transported these materials, the retail outlet that sold them, the ISP that allowed the plans to be downloaded and everyone else in the entire supply chain too.
Apply your illogic to every other product on the planet which *might* be used to cause harm for an idea of just how ridiculous your suggestion is.
"Well, not legally, obviously, but if he can do it secretly..."
It's not "secret" at all. They are doing it right out in the open with the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and the later assassination of his son. Both of whom were U.S. citizens, and neither of whom was ever so much as charged with a crime.
They are also claiming quite openly that their actions are legal. The ACLU has been working to force them to actually release a document which provides the legal justification for the policy, but so far, The White House has refused.
The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress never passed a declaration of war for either the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions. These were done by presidential order. Therefore, both wars could have been ended by presidential order, and Ron Paul promised to issue such orders. It doesn't matter who "opposed" this. It's the decision of the president. If the military commanders had refused to obey, they could have been dismissed.
""Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Democrat policies..."
Democratic policies like the Patriot Act, military commissions act, NDAA, TARP, ongoing and massive federal deficits, arbitrary assassination of U.S. citizens, Federal Reserve monetary policy, etc? LOL. Agreed, they aren't purely Democratic policies, but these policies have overwhelming bipartisan support.
Do you really need a link to prove that Obama ordered a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Yes, he's Commander-In-Chief, and this was an undeclared war. Therefore, he could have ordered an immediate troop withdrawal on his first day in office.
Re: Iraq:
"decision to leave Iraq...was not actually taken by President Obama â" it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government."
As the other comment attempted to point out, the Iraqi government refused to sign a new Status Of Forces Agreement to extend the U.S. troop presence. As such, Obama was compelled to withdraw on the Bush timetable. I suppose the other option would have been to start a new war to overthrow the new government.
What makes you think that US citizens are in control of this government?
The federal government has declared that even US citizens can be labeled "suspected terrorists" by government bureaucrats and arbitrarily murdered or imprisoned. They are blatantly ignoring The Constitution. Furthermore, they are claiming that for "national security" reasons, their un-Constitutional policies are immune from the judicial review which was formerly an integral part of our system of checks and balances.
Please direct the blame where it belongs and don't equate the US people with the US government.
"The FBI only cares if you embarass a major campaign contributor..."
Unauthorized access to a government computer is a crime, even if you don't do any damage. The degree to which they will go after you and any resulting penalty will depend on whether or not the government likes you.
"If you want to see real government destruction of dissidents that I invite you to look at country's like Venezuela, Tibet, Russia, Iran or North Korea."
That's the standard by which we should judge the behavior of the USA government? As long as they are better than those other countries, it's OK to engage in crackdowns on peaceful political dissidents?
You think he leaked those documents for the sake of personal fame?
The government and military SHOULD be embarrassed for their egregious war crimes and blatant misrepresentation of facts to the American people. I think this leak was hugely significant. We should give Manning a medal and prosecute the war criminals, starting with Cheney and Bush.
What "plea deal" was the government offering to Aaron Swartz? It's my understanding that they would not accept anything less than a lengthy prison term.
"Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible."
Nonsense. Large scale development projects happen all the time without the government forcibly evicting people from their property. Most people will sell to the developer if the price is right. If the little old lady wants to keep her house, they can move the development project somewhere else.
Eminent Domain is about "public use" of a particular piece of land. The Kelo case was an abomination that twisted this into "private use with a public fringe benefit of higher tax revenue".
Then, the supposed "public benefit" hardly even materialized. The developers never actually followed through on the project, then, in 2009, Pfizer pulled out of New London entirely.
"Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse"
Ask the people of say, Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Afghanistan or Iraq how well those checks and balances on government are doing at limiting "abuses".
Even if two rival militias fought a war, the resulting death and destruction would be absolutely trivial as compared to the untold death and destruction that governments can and do cause.
The federal government protects the profits of big pharma by banning the re-importation of medications and medical devices sold in other countries. Hopefully this ruling sets a precedent for a challenge to that ridiculous prohibition. There's no valid reason that a drug should sell for $X in the USA and sell for a tiny fraction of that price just over the border.
Funny how the government is all in favor of "free trade" until it threatens some deep-pocketed special interest group.
"It's not enough to kill bad legislation, like CISPA it will just keep getting reintroduced - we need to be supporting good legislation."
Right. These power-mad creeps are conducting a relentless assault on our civil liberties and forcing us to pay them while they do it. I don't think there are any legislative barriers anymore. When they blatantly ignore The Constitution, what other laws can hold them back?
The only solution I see is to strip the federal government down to about 20% of its current size and force a balanced budget. That would go a long way toward eliminating special interest influence and corruption in general. These slime would also be forced to focus on real priorities with no spare time and resources to continue their power grabs.
Slashdot Mirror
I strongly agree. If you read the linked article (I saw it last week), one of the cops even said that we should stop referring to these people as "Mass Murderers" and start calling them "Glory Killers". Too bad that the media companies wouldn't agree to limit their coverage. Maybe use the name and the picture once or twice. Then, a policy of no more pictures and referring to him only as "the killer" or "the (child) murderer".
No. Instead, the name gets used hundreds of times on national TV, the picture is shown on every TV station, news web site and major print publication, giving these scum EXACTLY the infamy they are trying to achieve. I'd put MUCH more blame on the MainStream Media than I would on video games or guns or music.
... and traffic tickets were meant to be a deterrent rather than a revenue source, I'd advocate giving LEOs a lot more flexibility on the traffic laws. Speed limits painted on fixed signs which are valid 24/7/365 are dumb. Doing 10+ over the limit at 2:00AM on Sunday is a lot different than doing it at 5:00PM Friday. Universal BAC limit is also sort of stupid. A dedicated drinker at 0.85 is going to be less impaired than a non-drinker at 0.75. Same with this "distracted driving" stuff. Putting on your cosmetics and fixing your hair could be just as distracting/dangerous as using Google Glass.
If only...
YES, they are. It has absolutely nothing to do with deficiencies in their motor skills. It has everything to do with their proclivity to take risks (willingly, or by under-estimation) and their lack of driving experience. These days, I would also argue that they have a greater propensity for being distracted by their gadgets.
Look at a curve showing risk of accident vs. age. Huge drop from 15 to 25. Continues downward, and sort of levels off in the mid '40's range before having a slight up-tick in the early '60's.
More people = more economic activity in general. I don't think you can make such a sweeping generalization either. How is Maine doing vs. Texas or S. Carolina for instance?
As for Red/Blue are you just talking about the presidential election? There are many states where you have a mix of reps, senators, governors and state legislatures, so it's hard to paint a state a single color.
My question to that question is:
If the blue states think their political philosophy and public policy are so vastly superior, why are they so critical of the idea of states' rights? Shouldn't they want to shrink the federal government, limit redistribution of wealth to red states and use their tax dollars for their own states?
"To regulate bitcoins all the government has to do is regulate the organisations that convert bitcoins into useful currencies,"
What "organizations"? There are services e.g. 'bitinstant' which are built on top of the bitcoin model, but they are not a critical to the system. You can buy and sell bitcoins with cash directly from other individuals.
Your Naivety is grounded in the fact that you can't conceptualize a model of exchange that's independent from banks and governments.
I don't want the government being the entity which grants the status of "legitimacy". Would you argue that the U.S. dollar is a "legitimate" currency even though it has lost 95% of its purchasing power over the course of a century? How about the Zimbabwe dollar? Is that "legitimate" because it has some fancy printing and a government seal of approval?
The economy would definitely be miserable if we actually discarded the current unsustainable model. Hard to expect free markets to fix things overnight when government has spent decades undermining productive capacity while building a smoke & mirrors economy based on perpetual debt accumulation.
The 'state' has already failed. You just haven't realized it yet. Keep holding onto those 'legitimate' Federal Reserve Notes however. What could go wrong when Ben Bernanke is engaging in $80B per month in artificial credit expansion?
Money laundering? BS. If they cared about money laundering then they'd go after the bankers who are laundering millions of dollars in drug money for the cartels.
What this is really about is a banker-government that will do anything and everything possible to prevent alternatives to their fiat + fractional reserve monopoly on money. These parasites absolutely can't have us serfs using a money supply which they can't control and manipulate in order to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Giving someone the plans for how to make a weapon which they then build and then subsequently use to injure someone doesn't qualify as "assault" by any stretch of the imagination.
I think the "clarification" they're talking about is in regard to existing firearms laws, not laws regarding assault.
The detailed technical specification of a firearm isn't exactly a secret. There are at least half a dozen companies that make AR-15 style rifles to the same basic specification. All it takes is the skill and the right machine tools. The 3D printing technology is just lowering the skill and equipment barrier.
You think a person that created a DIY guide for building a firearm is somehow responsible for ALL criminal misuses of ALL firearms built using that plan? While we're at it, let's just convict the company that created the actual 3D printing hardware too. Aren't they just as "guilty" as the guy who made the plans? Let's go after the company that manufactured the raw materials, the truck driver that transported these materials, the retail outlet that sold them, the ISP that allowed the plans to be downloaded and everyone else in the entire supply chain too.
Apply your illogic to every other product on the planet which *might* be used to cause harm for an idea of just how ridiculous your suggestion is.
"Well, not legally, obviously, but if he can do it secretly..."
It's not "secret" at all. They are doing it right out in the open with the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and the later assassination of his son. Both of whom were U.S. citizens, and neither of whom was ever so much as charged with a crime.
They are also claiming quite openly that their actions are legal. The ACLU has been working to force them to actually release a document which provides the legal justification for the policy, but so far, The White House has refused.
"we pulled out of Iraq the day that Bush's plan had us leave Iraq"
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/
"but we have only left one war..."
Seriously? You need a link to prove that the U.S. military is still in a war in Afghanistan?
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239340-defense-chief-chuck-hagel-in-afghanistan-were-still-at-war?lite
Notice that they talk about a time-table for pulling out U.S. troops in 2014. This is 2013, which should clue you in that the troops are still there.
The President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Congress never passed a declaration of war for either the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions. These were done by presidential order. Therefore, both wars could have been ended by presidential order, and Ron Paul promised to issue such orders. It doesn't matter who "opposed" this. It's the decision of the president. If the military commanders had refused to obey, they could have been dismissed.
""Ron Paul" is just a sigil for people who agree with Democrat policies..."
Democratic policies like the Patriot Act, military commissions act, NDAA, TARP, ongoing and massive federal deficits, arbitrary assassination of U.S. citizens, Federal Reserve monetary policy, etc? LOL. Agreed, they aren't purely Democratic policies, but these policies have overwhelming bipartisan support.
Do you really need a link to prove that Obama ordered a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Yes, he's Commander-In-Chief, and this was an undeclared war. Therefore, he could have ordered an immediate troop withdrawal on his first day in office.
Re: Iraq:
"decision to leave Iraq ...was not actually taken by President Obama â" it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government."
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/#ixzz2OBQRZXos
As the other comment attempted to point out, the Iraqi government refused to sign a new Status Of Forces Agreement to extend the U.S. troop presence. As such, Obama was compelled to withdraw on the Bush timetable. I suppose the other option would have been to start a new war to overthrow the new government.
What makes you think that US citizens are in control of this government?
The federal government has declared that even US citizens can be labeled "suspected terrorists" by government bureaucrats and arbitrarily murdered or imprisoned. They are blatantly ignoring The Constitution. Furthermore, they are claiming that for "national security" reasons, their un-Constitutional policies are immune from the judicial review which was formerly an integral part of our system of checks and balances.
Please direct the blame where it belongs and don't equate the US people with the US government.
As long as you pay the taxes in full and on time, the government doesn't give a damn about what you think.
"The FBI only cares if you embarass a major campaign contributor..."
Unauthorized access to a government computer is a crime, even if you don't do any damage. The degree to which they will go after you and any resulting penalty will depend on whether or not the government likes you.
"If you want to see real government destruction of dissidents that I invite you to look at country's like Venezuela, Tibet, Russia, Iran or North Korea."
That's the standard by which we should judge the behavior of the USA government? As long as they are better than those other countries, it's OK to engage in crackdowns on peaceful political dissidents?
You think he leaked those documents for the sake of personal fame?
The government and military SHOULD be embarrassed for their egregious war crimes and blatant misrepresentation of facts to the American people. I think this leak was hugely significant.
We should give Manning a medal and prosecute the war criminals, starting with Cheney and Bush.
"He could have saved all his money and spent little to no time in jail"
Wrong. The government would not accept a plea deal that didn't carry a lengthy jail sentence.
What "plea deal" was the government offering to Aaron Swartz? It's my understanding that they would not accept anything less than a lengthy prison term.
"Without it any large scale redevelopment project would be impossible."
Nonsense. Large scale development projects happen all the time without the government forcibly evicting people from their property. Most people will sell to the developer if the price is right. If the little old lady wants to keep her house, they can move the development project somewhere else.
Eminent Domain is about "public use" of a particular piece of land. The Kelo case was an abomination that twisted this into "private use with a public fringe benefit of higher tax revenue".
Then, the supposed "public benefit" hardly even materialized. The developers never actually followed through on the project, then, in 2009, Pfizer pulled out of New London entirely.
"Our government has checks and balances innate to its structure that are designed to limit abuse"
Ask the people of say, Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Afghanistan or Iraq how well those checks and balances on government are doing at limiting "abuses".
Even if two rival militias fought a war, the resulting death and destruction would be absolutely trivial as compared to the untold death and destruction that governments can and do cause.
The federal government protects the profits of big pharma by banning the re-importation of medications and medical devices sold in other countries. Hopefully this ruling sets a precedent for a challenge to that ridiculous prohibition. There's no valid reason that a drug should sell for $X in the USA and sell for a tiny fraction of that price just over the border.
Funny how the government is all in favor of "free trade" until it threatens some deep-pocketed special interest group.
"When will people figure this out?"
Never.
"It's not enough to kill bad legislation, like CISPA it will just keep getting reintroduced - we need to be supporting good legislation."
Right. These power-mad creeps are conducting a relentless assault on our civil liberties and forcing us to pay them while they do it. I don't think there are any legislative barriers anymore. When they blatantly ignore The Constitution, what other laws can hold them back?
The only solution I see is to strip the federal government down to about 20% of its current size and force a balanced budget. That would go a long way toward eliminating special interest influence and corruption in general. These slime would also be forced to focus on real priorities with no spare time and resources to continue their power grabs.