"when Obama/Hillary take over in 2009, they shut it down . . . "
Is that a joke?
You're completely delusionsal if you think Obama or Clinton would give up one iota of the executive power that George Bush has amassed during his presidency. If you care anything about civil liberties, you'll vote for Ron Paul or some 3rd party candidate.
" . ..as the weaponry of the military continues to grow well beyond what the civilian population is allowed to own, the possibility of fighting back against a tyrannical government decreases."
I've heard that argument 1xE6 times, and it is no more true now than it was the first time. The power of the military has been well beyond what the civilian population has a RIGHT to own at least since the time that the A-bomb was developed.
Advanced weaponry is the differentiator only if the tyrannical government or occupying invader is willing to exterminate the vast majority of the civilian population along with the armed resistance. A few tactical nukes or neutron bombs would accomplish that goal, no robots and robot factories required. Otherwise, think about the U.S. in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan and the current debacle in Iraq.
Read "The War of the Flea" sometime. An excellent description of the futility of fighting a determined resistance on their home soil.
"C) absolutely insane (e.g. withdrawing from NAFTA and NATO), or some combination thereof."
Assuming that you favor policies that are in the best interest of the vast majority of the people of the U.S., I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why you would think that those ideas are "insane". Having an unprotected Southern border, and a military alliance that would require us to go to war in defense of places like Latvia and Estonia are the policies of the real lunatics.
"I prefer the status quo to Ron Paul's policies"
Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, Federal government dictating environmental policy to sovereign states, 20 million illegal immigrants, 9 trillion in Federal debt, record trade deficits, major military bases in over a hundred foreign countries, rampant de-valuation of the U.S. dollar . . . etc. etc.
Glad that at least SOMEONE is comfortable with the status quo.
Accountants use a term called "goodwill" to quantify an additional value that a business might have due to its reputation or other intangible positive qualities.
The RIAA has generated so much "badwill" over the past few years, it's hardly surprising that ANYTHING they advocate (no matter how fair, or sensible it may be) is going to be met with fierce and immediate opposition.
I think this whole big abortion discussion surrounding Ron Paul is simply a diversionary tactic being used by his opponents to type-cast him into one of the "side"s of a bitterly polarized issue. His supporters would be wise not to become bogged down in a pointless debate like this one trying to explain his position. People can find out exactly where he stands by reading his numerous public communications on the subject.
It should also obvious to anyone who is sincerely interested in this issue that the President can't simply use his executive power to overturn a Supreme Court decision(although Bush might like to think so).
That just gave me an idea. If the President used his powers to obtain personal data on millions of Americans from the telecom companies, couldn't he be sued for tortious interference of contract?
i.e. he knowingly interfered in a contractual obligation between the telecom companies and their customers with the intent of having one party in the relationship breach the contractual obligation. Maybe the class action lawsuits should be focused in that direction as well.
The point is that the telecom companies more than likely violated their stated policies regarding the privacy of their customers. This amnesty provision is stating that the victims of said privacy violations cannot sue the telecom companies.
If theses companies and their employees did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide . . . right? Why should the government pass a law granting them amnesty?
"Hitler uses the State to enforce survival of the fittest, Libertarians essentially put the burden on the Market . .."
Hitler used the state to promote his own personal theories of eugenics. That's "arbitrary" selection, not "natural" selection.
"Libertarians . . . prefer to blur the distinction between Nazism and Communism."
If that's true, I think the primary reason would be that both of those systems are fundamentally based on the supreme power of the state and(typically brutal) suppression of the individual. The core belief of Libertarianism is limiting the power of the state and promoting the freedom of the individual.
"the Commies were despised by the Nazis exactly because of the refusal to embrace survival of the fittest"
That's completely ridiculous. You're suggesting that Hitler attacked Russia because Communism didn't include an appropriate amount of social Darwinism? The fact is that Hitler, again based on his PERSONAL and ARBITRARY theories of genetic superiority, viewed the Slavs as an inferior people. He planned on military conquest and large scale ethnic cleansing in order to create a larger Germany populated by his "master race". That's not "Darwinistic" in any sense of the word.
If you want to do a hatchet job on Libertarians, try something a little less convoluted than Libertarians==Nazis and Atlas_Shrugged==Mein_Kampf.
Since when is "pounds" a useful unit of measurement applicable to a laser?
A much cheaper method for developing a 12,000 pound laser would be to embed a presentation pointer in a big concrete slab. Think the DoD would go for it?
You're actually suggesting that Ron Paul MUST be a terrible person and his politics are by definition WRONGg, just because a few extremists have endorsed his agenda????
You don't "make me" angry, but I get extremely frustrated with people who make such ridiculous arguments.
Wrong. The government is SUPPOSED to be "of the people" but that noble intent has long since been perverted. The FEDERAL Government is now a monstrosity whose goals are typically in direct conflict with the best interest of the people (the vast majority anyway). Let's see . . . 2 ongoing wars, $9 trillion in debt, The Patriot Act, the DMCA, warrantless wiretapping, 20 million illegal immigrants, record trade deficits, secret prisons, etc. etc. Is that serving the people and protecting democracy? Maybe you support those policies, and think that the people who oppose them are "radical fringe elements", but I certainly don't. It seems to me that Government and "the people" now exist in an increasingly adversarial relationship where a self-serving government now aims to suppress dissent and crush any opposition.
"The governments money is the people's money."
A fact that the elected officials in Washington blatantly ignore . . .
"it ceases to be the people's money . ..when private interests . . . corrupt the government"
Cut the Federal government down to about 25% of its current size, and there would be little incentive for private interests to hijack the election process, and fewer kickbacks to be doled out to the biggest campaign contributors.
Let's be straight. Ron Paul is running for President of The United States. His aim is to reduce the size and power of the FEDERAL government. That doesn't mean that you and the people in your state can't raise taxes, create a strong STATE government and provide additional public services. That's the whole intent of The Constitution, and it seems that Ron Paul wants to move us back in that direction.
>>Isn't that mostly because anyone can get them from a store?
Not exactly 'anyone'. e.g. convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and buying a firearm on behalf of someone else (called a straw purchase) is a crime in and of itself.
Think of the number of tons of illegal drugs that get imported into this country every year. I don't think it would be any more difficult to import firearms to service an illegal arms market.
"The bill's purpose is to establish a committee to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to assist federal officials in training and education efforts to prevent such things."
Read the definition of "Violent Radicalization" in the bill and then ask yourself if you want the government trying to prevent it.
It's a shame that the sensationalism in the summary diverted the discussion away from the substance of a genuinely SCARY piece of legislation. How about this instead:
"Congress Overwhelmingly Approves Thoughtcrime Bill" >By a vote of 400-6, Republicans and Democrats found the spirit of bipartisanship in passing a bill to study thoughtcrimes and how to combat them. . . .
If you care about Freedom of Speech, this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place! It's also another nice example of how the Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party when it comes to wars, eroding civil liberties, fiscal irresponsibility and anything else that screws over the American population.
"DEFINITIONS: (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
Environmentalist views must therefore constitute "violent radicalization" because fringe groups like ELF have committed acts of arson, vandalism and sabotage after adopting an environmentalist belief system and have perpetrated violent acts to bring about political and social change. I suppose anti-war views are going to become illegal as well if a street protest turns violent and some people get arrested? That's violence, it's ideologically based, and the goal is to bring about political change.
"FINDINGS: `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
OK, so adopting certain political views (violent radicalization) facilitates violence and the Internet helps facilitate the adoption of certain political views. Therefore, we need to regulate the Internet to prevent this from happening. Right?
And the scariest part of all:
"SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES . .."
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens . .."
WTF is this "In General" crap? Does that mean they'll "attempt" to respect civil liberties, but may simply ignore then as they see fit? Why does this need to be explicitly elaborated in the bill when The Constitution is still (supposedly) the supreme law of the land?
"What do Senators have to do with the value of the dollar?"
They pass legislation on government spending that adds trillions of dollars to our national debt, and ratify "Free Trade" agreements that practically guarantee enormous deficits.
"A large proportion of the population - including those who we pay to fight our cases in court - doesn't understand a number of basic scientific principles."
A poll conducted by the University of Chicago suggested that a large percentage of the population didn't know the orbital relationship between the earth and sun. Among those who did believe that the earth orbits the sun, only a subset knew that it takes ~1 year for a full orbit. IIRC, the percentages were 66% and 75% respectively, so only about half of those surveyed knew both.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, I'll waive my right to trial by jury. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but I'd wager that the average judge is vastly more intelligent than the average juror.
"I'm getting sick of this "candidates don't represent me" shit."
The candidates don't represent me.
No reasonable person is expecting a representative to agree with them 100% of the time. When NO candidates and neither of the political parties agree with me on what I consider to be the most important issues however, it's not "shit" to point out the failures of our voting system and the non-representative duopolistic government.
1. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: majorities of both parties voted to approve them, and continue to support them.
2. Civil Liberties: Patriot Act passed with an overwhelming majority, both parties approve of extraordinary renditions, treatment of "enemy combatants", and warrantless surveillance.
3. Fiscal responsibility: In the last 20+ years, both parties have had their chance to control both the legislative branch and Presidency simultaneously, but we have deficits every year and the national debt continues to swell.
Show me a candidate that agrees with my position on these 3 issues (even if they disagree with every other political opinion I have) and I'll stop suggesting that I don't have a candidate to vote for who would represent my views.
"Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather . . . amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star."
Just because some fringe radicals support a particular candidate doesn't mean that candidate is "wrong" or somehow less deserving of support.
"[abortion] is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue . .."
I believe that a woman should be free to make that decision, but abortion is not a "right" in the same sense as the "Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution, and it should most definitely be left up to the states. Your "legal child abuse" scenario is a silly straw-man argument.
"Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments."
I don't see how restoring states' rights would impede discovery and development. If anything, you'd end up with MORE diversity. The fact that you point out a glaring difference between Texans and New Yorkers is even more evidence to show that a one size fits all Federal Government is inherently unworkable.
Slashdot Mirror
"when Obama/Hillary take over in 2009, they shut it down . . . "
Is that a joke?
You're completely delusionsal if you think Obama or Clinton would give up one iota of the executive power that George Bush has amassed during his presidency. If you care anything about civil liberties, you'll vote for Ron Paul or some 3rd party candidate.
"Terrorists that don't know the difference between sodium chloride and sodium hydroxide won't get far . . ."
I think you mean sodium chlorATE.
" . . .as the weaponry of the military continues to grow well beyond what the civilian population is allowed to own, the possibility of fighting back against a tyrannical government decreases."
I've heard that argument 1xE6 times, and it is no more true now than it was the first time. The power of the military has been well beyond what the civilian population has a RIGHT to own at least since the time that the A-bomb was developed.
Advanced weaponry is the differentiator only if the tyrannical government or occupying invader is willing to exterminate the vast majority of the civilian population along with the armed resistance. A few tactical nukes or neutron bombs would accomplish that goal, no robots and robot factories required. Otherwise, think about the U.S. in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan and the current debacle in Iraq.
Read "The War of the Flea" sometime. An excellent description of the futility of fighting a determined resistance on their home soil.
"C) absolutely insane (e.g. withdrawing from NAFTA and NATO), or some combination thereof."
Assuming that you favor policies that are in the best interest of the vast majority of the people of the U.S., I'd like to hear a rational explanation as to why you would think that those ideas are "insane". Having an unprotected Southern border, and a military alliance that would require us to go to war in defense of places like Latvia and Estonia are the policies of the real lunatics.
"I prefer the status quo to Ron Paul's policies"
Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary renditions, Federal government dictating environmental policy to sovereign states, 20 million illegal immigrants, 9 trillion in Federal debt, record trade deficits, major military bases in over a hundred foreign countries, rampant de-valuation of the U.S. dollar . . . etc. etc.
Glad that at least SOMEONE is comfortable with the status quo.
Accountants use a term called "goodwill" to quantify an additional value that a business might have due to its reputation or other intangible positive qualities.
The RIAA has generated so much "badwill" over the past few years, it's hardly surprising that ANYTHING they advocate (no matter how fair, or sensible it may be) is going to be met with fierce and immediate opposition.
" . . .a documentary based on the Silmarilion. That would be awesome beyond all reason"
It would be worth it just to hear people try to come up with the correct pronunciations of all the elvish words.
I think this whole big abortion discussion surrounding Ron Paul is simply a diversionary tactic being used by his opponents to type-cast him into one of the "side"s of a bitterly polarized issue. His supporters would be wise not to become bogged down in a pointless debate like this one trying to explain his position. People can find out exactly where he stands by reading his numerous public communications on the subject.
It should also obvious to anyone who is sincerely interested in this issue that the President can't simply use his executive power to overturn a Supreme Court decision(although Bush might like to think so).
That just gave me an idea. If the President used his powers to obtain personal data on millions of Americans from the telecom companies, couldn't he be sued for tortious interference of contract?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
i.e. he knowingly interfered in a contractual obligation between the telecom companies and their customers with the intent of having one party in the relationship breach the contractual obligation. Maybe the class action lawsuits should be focused in that direction as well.
The point is that the telecom companies more than likely violated their stated policies regarding the privacy of their customers. This amnesty provision is stating that the victims of said privacy violations cannot sue the telecom companies.
If theses companies and their employees did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to hide . . . right? Why should the government pass a law granting them amnesty?
I thought the image of a "giant moonster" was rather funny.
"Hitler uses the State to enforce survival of the fittest, Libertarians essentially put the burden on the Market . . ."
Hitler used the state to promote his own personal theories of eugenics. That's "arbitrary" selection, not "natural" selection.
"Libertarians . . . prefer to blur the distinction between Nazism and Communism."
If that's true, I think the primary reason would be that both of those systems are fundamentally based on the supreme power of the state and(typically brutal) suppression of the individual. The core belief of Libertarianism is limiting the power of the state and promoting the freedom of the individual.
"the Commies were despised by the Nazis exactly because of the refusal to embrace survival of the fittest"
That's completely ridiculous. You're suggesting that Hitler attacked Russia because Communism didn't include an appropriate amount of social Darwinism? The fact is that Hitler, again based on his PERSONAL and ARBITRARY theories of genetic superiority, viewed the Slavs as an inferior people. He planned on military conquest and large scale ethnic cleansing in order to create a larger Germany populated by his "master race". That's not "Darwinistic" in any sense of the word.
If you want to do a hatchet job on Libertarians, try something a little less convoluted than Libertarians==Nazis and Atlas_Shrugged==Mein_Kampf.
where they invented Raman Noodles . . . "The Raman Research Institute".
And now it's light trapping nano-soup!
(Of course it will be sold in dehydrated form, so you have to add water and apply your own magnetic field before it's ready.)
Since when is "pounds" a useful unit of measurement applicable to a laser?
A much cheaper method for developing a 12,000 pound laser would be to embed a presentation pointer in a big concrete slab. Think the DoD would go for it?
Thoughtcrime bill (violent radicalization and homegrown . . . whatever)
Criminalization of open Wi-Fi providers for criminals using their network
Now the copyright police? I expect that my browser cache has a bunch of copyrighted material and registered trademarks in it.
Signing off so I can clear it.
You're actually suggesting that Ron Paul MUST be a terrible person and his politics are by definition WRONGg, just because a few extremists have endorsed his agenda????
You don't "make me" angry, but I get extremely frustrated with people who make such ridiculous arguments.
"The government is the people . . ."
.when private interests . . . corrupt the government"
Wrong. The government is SUPPOSED to be "of the people" but that noble intent has long since been perverted. The FEDERAL Government is now a monstrosity whose goals are typically in direct conflict with the best interest of the people (the vast majority anyway). Let's see . . . 2 ongoing wars, $9 trillion in debt, The Patriot Act, the DMCA, warrantless wiretapping, 20 million illegal immigrants, record trade deficits, secret prisons, etc. etc. Is that serving the people and protecting democracy? Maybe you support those policies, and think that the people who oppose them are "radical fringe elements", but I certainly don't. It seems to me that Government and "the people" now exist in an increasingly adversarial relationship where a self-serving government now aims to suppress dissent and crush any opposition.
"The governments money is the people's money."
A fact that the elected officials in Washington blatantly ignore . . .
"it ceases to be the people's money . .
Cut the Federal government down to about 25% of its current size, and there would be little incentive for private interests to hijack the election process, and fewer kickbacks to be doled out to the biggest campaign contributors.
Let's be straight. Ron Paul is running for President of The United States. His aim is to reduce the size and power of the FEDERAL government. That doesn't mean that you and the people in your state can't raise taxes, create a strong STATE government and provide additional public services. That's the whole intent of The Constitution, and it seems that Ron Paul wants to move us back in that direction.
"Regardless of the sheer idiocy of this bill, is it even remotely enforceable?"
It couldn't be "universally" enforced, but it could definitely be "selectively" enforced.
>Getting an illegal gun isn't particularly hard
>>Isn't that mostly because anyone can get them from a store?
Not exactly 'anyone'. e.g. convicted felons are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, and buying a firearm on behalf of someone else (called a straw purchase) is a crime in and of itself.
Think of the number of tons of illegal drugs that get imported into this country every year. I don't think it would be any more difficult to import firearms to service an illegal arms market.
Just tell the project manager that you have discovered that someone on the team is leaking your source to the Internet. Show him the URL and say
"See? This is identical to the code that you wrote, including the comments."
"The bill's purpose is to establish a committee to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and to assist federal officials in training and education efforts to prevent such things."
Read the definition of "Violent Radicalization" in the bill and then ask yourself if you want the government trying to prevent it.
It's a shame that the sensationalism in the summary diverted the discussion away from the substance of a genuinely SCARY piece of legislation. How about this instead:
." ."
"Congress Overwhelmingly Approves Thoughtcrime Bill"
>By a vote of 400-6, Republicans and Democrats found the spirit of bipartisanship in passing a bill to study thoughtcrimes and how to combat them. . . .
If you care about Freedom of Speech, this should be setting off alarm bells all over the place! It's also another nice example of how the Republicans and Democrats are basically the same party when it comes to wars, eroding civil liberties, fiscal irresponsibility and anything else that screws over the American population.
"DEFINITIONS: (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
Environmentalist views must therefore constitute "violent radicalization" because fringe groups like ELF have committed acts of arson, vandalism and sabotage after adopting an environmentalist belief system and have perpetrated violent acts to bring about political and social change. I suppose anti-war views are going to become illegal as well if a street protest turns violent and some people get arrested? That's violence, it's ideologically based, and the goal is to bring about political change.
"FINDINGS: `(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
OK, so adopting certain political views (violent radicalization) facilitates violence and the Internet helps facilitate the adoption of certain political views. Therefore, we need to regulate the Internet to prevent this from happening. Right?
And the scariest part of all:
"SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES . .
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens . .
WTF is this "In General" crap? Does that mean they'll "attempt" to respect civil liberties, but may simply ignore then as they see fit? Why does this need to be explicitly elaborated in the bill when The Constitution is still (supposedly) the supreme law of the land?
"What do Senators have to do with the value of the dollar?"
They pass legislation on government spending that adds trillions of dollars to our national debt, and ratify "Free Trade" agreements that practically guarantee enormous deficits.
"A large proportion of the population - including those who we pay to fight our cases in court - doesn't understand a number of basic scientific principles."
A poll conducted by the University of Chicago suggested that a large percentage of the population didn't know the orbital relationship between the earth and sun. Among those who did believe that the earth orbits the sun, only a subset knew that it takes ~1 year for a full orbit. IIRC, the percentages were 66% and 75% respectively, so only about half of those surveyed knew both.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, I'll waive my right to trial by jury. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but I'd wager that the average judge is vastly more intelligent than the average juror.
"I'm getting sick of this "candidates don't represent me" shit."
The candidates don't represent me.
No reasonable person is expecting a representative to agree with them 100% of the time. When NO candidates and neither of the political parties agree with me on what I consider to be the most important issues however, it's not "shit" to point out the failures of our voting system and the non-representative duopolistic government.
1. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: majorities of both parties voted to approve them, and continue to support them.
2. Civil Liberties: Patriot Act passed with an overwhelming majority, both parties approve of extraordinary renditions, treatment of "enemy combatants", and warrantless surveillance.
3. Fiscal responsibility: In the last 20+ years, both parties have had their chance to control both the legislative branch and Presidency simultaneously, but we have deficits every year and the national debt continues to swell.
Show me a candidate that agrees with my position on these 3 issues (even if they disagree with every other political opinion I have) and I'll stop suggesting that I don't have a candidate to vote for who would represent my views.
"Ron Paul? Take a look at any message board where 9/11 "truthers" gather . . . amongst the mentally unbalanced, Ron Paul is practically a rock star."
."
Just because some fringe radicals support a particular candidate doesn't mean that candidate is "wrong" or somehow less deserving of support.
"[abortion] is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue . .
I believe that a woman should be free to make that decision, but abortion is not a "right" in the same sense as the "Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution, and it should most definitely be left up to the states. Your "legal child abuse" scenario is a silly straw-man argument.
"Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments."
I don't see how restoring states' rights would impede discovery and development. If anything, you'd end up with MORE diversity. The fact that you point out a glaring difference between Texans and New Yorkers is even more evidence to show that a one size fits all Federal Government is inherently unworkable.