Indeed, what you have quoted is NOT a conspiracy theory.
Which was the only point I made.
It's an anti-science strawman...
I suspect that he's been accused of conspiracy theory before, judging by his post, in which case it doesn't qualify as a strawman, but a pre-emptive answer to an anticipated objection. Since the first response calls him out as a conspiracy theorist, it was a justified expectation. It simply isn't a strawman. It might also be more accurately labelled science ignorant rather than anti-science, but whatever.
My point stands that I don't see a conspiracy theory in his post. The closest he comes to it is his claim that activists have politicized and issue, which is what I would have though is the whole purpose of activism, to politicize issues. To get action on them, you know? Hardly a conspiracy theory.
It is a good thing, when challenging people for misrepresenting the truth, to avoid misrepresenting the truth. Can anyone clarify to me the conspiracy theory the OP is propagating in that post? No? I thought not.
To determine that something is expanding you must first know its dimensions. Since we don't know the dimensions of the universe, we can't really tell if it is expanding or not. There is movement within the observed portion of the universe that is compatible with the concept of an expanding universe.
He wasn't talking about any scientific theories, he was rambling how any alternative scientific theories are being suppressed by some vast CONSPIRACY.
Really? I didn't read that.
It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
If there are to many people who can't think, there will be problems, in the same way as if there are to many people who can think.
What problems does it cause if there are too many people who can think? How many people capable of thinking is the optimum number? What action should we take to prevent an excess supply of people who can think?
If we have a secret agenda to prevent people from thinking, we don't have a free society (especially if it is successful). If we have an openly stated program of deliberately induced stupidity, who would participate?
Freedom of education, yes, instant freedom to not be educated would create a nightmare of a situation and in such case there would instantly be a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves and could potentially fall into a "mob rule" situation with nasty consequences.
We have a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves right now. My observation is that many people learn to dislike reading and history, for example, in school. But reading and a knowledge of history are in my view indispensable for those who desire self determination.
I will also need to find time to read that book you suggest.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20662 To be fair, I think the people proposing and implementing these ideas often had the best of intentions they could. Eugenics was considered compassionate and a social obligation by some, and only its association with the Nazis really brought it into disrepute.
I do appreciate the doublethink inherent in referring to the Constitution and revolutions while ranting against a slave class though.
If I've been engaging in doublethink, I'll need you to make it clearer to me. Hopefully I just haven't expressed myself well: I wasn't intending to rant against the slaves as such, but against the method used to captivate and suppress them, in this case government schooling.
Perhaps you are referring to the continued existence of slavery in the US after the revolution? It was slavery that was incompatible with the ideals of a free society and required doublethink.
In the American revolution and in the British Civil Wars which gave them representative government, there were those who fought for the crown. These people, after losing, were subject to representative governments against their will, but the right to representative government is still a freedom. I suppose they could have left and found another oppressive government of their choice, but my point was supposed to be:
Freedom does not become oppression simply because some people don't want it.
Similarly slavery does not become freedom just because some people choose it. There are people who have had the opportunity to escape slavery and have chosen to stay with their masters. They do not become free because they made the choice to stay.
Sigh. Why does people still insist on thinking global "warming" means it gets warmer?
It's because of the word "warming" I think. Some people are still clinging to the outdated notion that it means "to raise in temperature". I blame dictionaries.
Travel around Europe and all will tell you same, weather isn't as it used to be.
Just like language, it would seem. But you are right, England isn't wine producing country like it used to be, and Greenland hasn't yet regained the viable farming production it once had. Patience, Splab, all in good time.
If schooling were not compulsory then kids would have more time to have kids, breeding like locusts, and a devolution leading to separation of our species would occur at a faster rate.
Are you saying that it's a eugenics program to prevent "undesirables" from breeding? Well, perhaps you've read the book I recommended "The Measurement of Intelligence" as it promotes exactly that view.
In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people...
You appear to be advocating the necessity of genocide in the absence of controlled breeding programs. Your comment on their breeding causing "devolution" indicates that you hold them to be your genetic inferiors...
...whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?
...and you wish to keep them as a slave class. If you aren't joking, what an admission you have made in your post.
To readers of this thread who don't wish to keep a class of slaves: You have seen scum-e-bag's post. Revolutions are fought for the very reason of freeing people from such rule. Defend your 2nd amendment rights citizens, but what good will they do you if you can't decide who or when to shoot? How can you be a free person if a government agent teaches you how to think?
I am greatly in favor of education, but the idea that people need to live under compulsion for their own good is in my opinion completely incompatible with the ideals of a free society. Such a person is kept as a perpetual child, not a fate I wish for me or mine. Keep yourselves free.
.. the third class should prepare juniors and seniors to enter the workforce and start a career in computers.
The point of high school is not (or should not be) to prepare kids to be mindless worker drones. The point of high school is (or should be) to give them a good, basic education.
Got to back up plasmacutter here, that is quaint and starry-eyed.
The reason we have so many mindless worker drones is partly ascribable to the schooling system being specifically designed to produce them. Have a read of "The Measurement of Intelligence", by Lewis Madison Terman, it should be enough to cure any scepticism regarding that claim. A look at the role of schooling proposed in "The Communist Manifesto" as a method of bringing about social change ought to challenge your thinking about the purpose of compulsory government schooling too. In case you think I'm just on a right wing rant though, I quote: "Communists have not invented the intervention of society in
education; they do but seek to alter the character of that
intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the
ruling class." [emphasis mine]
The ruling class (communist or not) always seeks to control the thinking of the population in order to produce people who act for the benefit of the ruling class. The main tool to do this used to be religion, it has now been largely replaced with schooling. The west is largely ruled by government bureaucracy and corporations. School is controlled by government bureaucracy and corporations. We have a population that in general doesn't like to think too much and is very susceptible to propaganda. To think either that school doesn't have a role in producing such people or that it is somehow an accident strikes me as being overly trusting.
If school was really for your benefit and not someone else's, why did it need to be made compulsory? I can understand the desire for free education, but why compulsory?
If Linux is supposed to be free as in both speech and beer, then why should we be pushing it on people? That's not freedom.
An interesting point. Did the US become free as a result of the revolution, or was it non-free because the people loyal to the English monarchy had that freedom forced on them?
Perhaps there are just a certain amount of people who only take what is forced on them. Some people accepted monarchies because they were forced on them. Some people had democracy forced on them. Is the right to representative government less of a freedom because some people didn't want it?
My parents, for example, will never experience freedom in relation to software: they take what the salesman tells them to take. If the salesman tells them to take Linux someday, they will, but will not be more free as a result, IMO.
Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway.
Not true at all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/23/do2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/23/ixop.html In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials".
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is copied from the English Bill of Rights 1689, as are many of the other "American" rights. Where do you think the various US states got their Castle Doctrine? Seen many castles in the US recently?
I'm as sure as I can be that our founding fathers would be 'terrorists' to the british, some 200+ yrs ago.
I don't think so at all. The founding fathers engaged in prolonged efforts at fixing the issues within the law by petitions etc. The Declaration of Independence was also a significant difference.
If they had started killing English civilians on English soil in surprise attacks in an undeclared war, hiding their identities, then yes. They published their own names, gave an account of their grievances and their attempts at conciliation (having "a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind" which the current crop of terrorists certainly do not have) and made a public declaration of their intent. I think they would to a man have despised today's terrorists.
I'm in favor of copyright but not DRM, for pretty much the same reason that I'm in favor of speed limits but don't want a speed limited car. I'm pretty sure that people who are honest still don't want to pay for products deliberately made less functional.
Many legal types (not all obviously) are still stuck with the image of if you don't completely control what someone can do they'll completely abuse it and from that they'll design the contracts or licenses to reflect that, and recommend implementing a system that imposes the contract.
The typical legal method to control is contracts, not shackles. If your relationship has the assumption of sexual exclusivity, perhaps you could require (jokingly) that she wear a chastity belt (I disclaim responsibility for any consequences if you actually suggest this). Or speed limit her car. She ought to be able to understand the difference between legal restraint and physical restraint. If she is in favor of software patents, it should be even more clear to her that DRM is more akin to a non-functional product that a restrictive contract.
That black mark certainly is meaningful. There are very few people who buy houses in cash, for example, and that black mark can be particularly painful. Not to mention companies are beginning to pull credit reports during the interview process for employees.
Granted very few people can pay for their first house with cash unless they get an inheritance or something, but I don't consider the idea of living continually on credit to be a sound one. Once your first house is paid off, why borrow again? My wife and I have never had credit except for house, car and student loans. We own our house and cars, by not continually making payments to credit companies you can save the money for things you need.
Even as far back as Old Testament law, loaning money to people was known as a way to subjugate them.
Check the blessing Deuteronomy 28: 12,13 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and the curse
Deuteronomy 28: 44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
Now regardless of religious belief or lack of, it should be fairly clear just looking around us now that living in perpetual debt is crazy and you cannot live as a free people if you do so.
And regarding employment: Start a business. Most people here are in the US, stop living your lives by permission and live as free people. You don't need permission of the bank to buy something and you don't need permission from a corporation to make money. At some point your ancestors did not have employment and lived by their own initiative. Stop buying into the lie that you are incapable of independence.
It's the "refuses to even consider and evaluate these options" part I was focusing on. The rest might be hyperbole, but you can only say that with certainty if you consider and evaluate the options.
From TFA: "A strategic Free Software utilization in public administration could create thousands of jobs as well as a significant decrease in software licensing costs. However, Quebec's public administration refuses to even consider and evaluate these options."
If it is true they haven't even evaluated the other options the complaint is valid.
The pirates use the proceeds from armed robbery to bribe the commoners into supporting the return to power of a king who has been off fighting a religious war?
What's the dealeo with all these ridiculously tiny "fully functional" Linux boxes coming out? Does anyone have a use for them, other than attempting to cram a distributed computing network into a backpack?
No, in a country with this much employment rather than self-employment, he would have expected it...
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. ... and did expect it...
I don't meet the US immigration requirements at the moment. I have little formal education. Unless my wife (who has a degree) wins the lottery, my best bet is the immigration through investment. I can visit, but I'm still a while off being able to immigrate.
You being from Australia, I probably wouldn't agree with your politics
Most Australians don't agree with my politics.
but I agree with your moral fiber expressed on your post and believe it would be an asset to the nation.
Thank you. I look forward to being a contributor to you great country.
You're actually the first I've heard negative things from (apart from the aforementioned video game laws).
Read the comment on this opinion piece which has this as part of the reply:
JB: Actually yr right about me forgetting to unload on the majesty of the Law. I should have. Although, without a First Amendment we are much more constrained in the criticism we can make of the bench. Contempt of Court applies swiftly and mercilessly.
We do not have a constitutional protection of free speech, we don't have the right to bear arms, we have only common law protection against being forced to incriminate ourselves. You don't hear bad things about it from Australians because most of them are quite ok with it being like this. The only thing many people understand about the US is that you have a different accent and a lot of guns (which scares them). Most have no idea of the ideals this country was founded on.
The difference between the AC and the non-AC? The AC legitimately believes there are people out there fear. The non-AC just likes to talk conspiracies.
Or the non-AC thinks they can win any resulting confrontation/conflict, or thinks that the issue is more important than their safety and can't be dealt with effectively being anonymous.
If you're not sure you can win and don't think being AC will be effective, you will speak out publicly if brave, remain AC if not. That's where the "brave" distinction is. That said, the saying "Discretion is the better part of valor" can have merit, depending on the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, what you have quoted is NOT a conspiracy theory.
Which was the only point I made.
It's an anti-science strawman ...
I suspect that he's been accused of conspiracy theory before, judging by his post, in which case it doesn't qualify as a strawman, but a pre-emptive answer to an anticipated objection. Since the first response calls him out as a conspiracy theorist, it was a justified expectation. It simply isn't a strawman. It might also be more accurately labelled science ignorant rather than anti-science, but whatever.
My point stands that I don't see a conspiracy theory in his post. The closest he comes to it is his claim that activists have politicized and issue, which is what I would have though is the whole purpose of activism, to politicize issues. To get action on them, you know? Hardly a conspiracy theory.
It is a good thing, when challenging people for misrepresenting the truth, to avoid misrepresenting the truth. Can anyone clarify to me the conspiracy theory the OP is propagating in that post? No? I thought not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expanding
To determine that something is expanding you must first know its dimensions. Since we don't know the dimensions of the universe, we can't really tell if it is expanding or not. There is movement within the observed portion of the universe that is compatible with the concept of an expanding universe.
He wasn't talking about any scientific theories, he was rambling how any alternative scientific theories are being suppressed by some vast CONSPIRACY.
Really? I didn't read that.
It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship.
If there are to many people who can't think, there will be problems, in the same way as if there are to many people who can think.
What problems does it cause if there are too many people who can think? How many people capable of thinking is the optimum number? What action should we take to prevent an excess supply of people who can think?
If we have a secret agenda to prevent people from thinking, we don't have a free society (especially if it is successful). If we have an openly stated program of deliberately induced stupidity, who would participate?
Freedom of education, yes, instant freedom to not be educated would create a nightmare of a situation and in such case there would instantly be a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves and could potentially fall into a "mob rule" situation with nasty consequences.
We have a class of people who have difficulty thinking for themselves right now. My observation is that many people learn to dislike reading and history, for example, in school. But reading and a knowledge of history are in my view indispensable for those who desire self determination.
I will also need to find time to read that book you suggest.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20662 To be fair, I think the people proposing and implementing these ideas often had the best of intentions they could. Eugenics was considered compassionate and a social obligation by some, and only its association with the Nazis really brought it into disrepute.
I do appreciate the doublethink inherent in referring to the Constitution and revolutions while ranting against a slave class though.
If I've been engaging in doublethink, I'll need you to make it clearer to me. Hopefully I just haven't expressed myself well: I wasn't intending to rant against the slaves as such, but against the method used to captivate and suppress them, in this case government schooling.
Perhaps you are referring to the continued existence of slavery in the US after the revolution? It was slavery that was incompatible with the ideals of a free society and required doublethink.
In the American revolution and in the British Civil Wars which gave them representative government, there were those who fought for the crown. These people, after losing, were subject to representative governments against their will, but the right to representative government is still a freedom. I suppose they could have left and found another oppressive government of their choice, but my point was supposed to be:
Freedom does not become oppression simply because some people don't want it.
Similarly slavery does not become freedom just because some people choose it. There are people who have had the opportunity to escape slavery and have chosen to stay with their masters. They do not become free because they made the choice to stay.
Sigh. Why does people still insist on thinking global "warming" means it gets warmer?
It's because of the word "warming" I think. Some people are still clinging to the outdated notion that it means "to raise in temperature". I blame dictionaries.
Travel around Europe and all will tell you same, weather isn't as it used to be.
Just like language, it would seem. But you are right, England isn't wine producing country like it used to be, and Greenland hasn't yet regained the viable farming production it once had. Patience, Splab, all in good time.
If schooling were not compulsory then kids would have more time to have kids, breeding like locusts, and a devolution leading to separation of our species would occur at a faster rate.
Are you saying that it's a eugenics program to prevent "undesirables" from breeding? Well, perhaps you've read the book I recommended "The Measurement of Intelligence" as it promotes exactly that view.
In such a case, besides war, how do you propose that we rid ourselves of such people ...
You appear to be advocating the necessity of genocide in the absence of controlled breeding programs. Your comment on their breeding causing "devolution" indicates that you hold them to be your genetic inferiors...
...whilst maintaining a class who is indifferent to mindless servitude?
...and you wish to keep them as a slave class. If you aren't joking, what an admission you have made in your post.
To readers of this thread who don't wish to keep a class of slaves: You have seen scum-e-bag's post. Revolutions are fought for the very reason of freeing people from such rule. Defend your 2nd amendment rights citizens, but what good will they do you if you can't decide who or when to shoot? How can you be a free person if a government agent teaches you how to think?
I am greatly in favor of education, but the idea that people need to live under compulsion for their own good is in my opinion completely incompatible with the ideals of a free society. Such a person is kept as a perpetual child, not a fate I wish for me or mine. Keep yourselves free.
The point of high school is not (or should not be) to prepare kids to be mindless worker drones. The point of high school is (or should be) to give them a good, basic education.
Got to back up plasmacutter here, that is quaint and starry-eyed.
The reason we have so many mindless worker drones is partly ascribable to the schooling system being specifically designed to produce them. Have a read of "The Measurement of Intelligence", by Lewis Madison Terman, it should be enough to cure any scepticism regarding that claim. A look at the role of schooling proposed in "The Communist Manifesto" as a method of bringing about social change ought to challenge your thinking about the purpose of compulsory government schooling too. In case you think I'm just on a right wing rant though, I quote: "Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class." [emphasis mine]
The ruling class (communist or not) always seeks to control the thinking of the population in order to produce people who act for the benefit of the ruling class. The main tool to do this used to be religion, it has now been largely replaced with schooling. The west is largely ruled by government bureaucracy and corporations. School is controlled by government bureaucracy and corporations. We have a population that in general doesn't like to think too much and is very susceptible to propaganda. To think either that school doesn't have a role in producing such people or that it is somehow an accident strikes me as being overly trusting.
If school was really for your benefit and not someone else's, why did it need to be made compulsory? I can understand the desire for free education, but why compulsory?
If Linux is supposed to be free as in both speech and beer, then why should we be pushing it on people? That's not freedom.
An interesting point. Did the US become free as a result of the revolution, or was it non-free because the people loyal to the English monarchy had that freedom forced on them?
Perhaps there are just a certain amount of people who only take what is forced on them. Some people accepted monarchies because they were forced on them. Some people had democracy forced on them. Is the right to representative government less of a freedom because some people didn't want it?
My parents, for example, will never experience freedom in relation to software: they take what the salesman tells them to take. If the salesman tells them to take Linux someday, they will, but will not be more free as a result, IMO.
Guns are not really an issues there was never much of a gun ownership culture in the UK anyway.
Not true at all. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/23/do2302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/23/ixop.html
In a material sense, Britain today has much less of a "gun culture" than at any time in its recent history. A century ago, the possession and carrying of firearms was perfectly normal here. Firearms were sold without licence in gunshops and ironmongers in virtually every town in the country, and grand department stores such as Selfridge's even offered customers an in-house range. The market was not just for sporting guns: there was a thriving domestic industry producing pocket pistols and revolvers, and an extensive import trade in the cheap handguns that today would be called "Saturday Night Specials".
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is copied from the English Bill of Rights 1689, as are many of the other "American" rights. Where do you think the various US states got their Castle Doctrine? Seen many castles in the US recently?
so does that count as 2 seperate instances of copyright violation?
No, since it's an article about patents, not copyrights.
I'm as sure as I can be that our founding fathers would be 'terrorists' to the british, some 200+ yrs ago.
I don't think so at all. The founding fathers engaged in prolonged efforts at fixing the issues within the law by petitions etc. The Declaration of Independence was also a significant difference.
If they had started killing English civilians on English soil in surprise attacks in an undeclared war, hiding their identities, then yes. They published their own names, gave an account of their grievances and their attempts at conciliation (having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which the current crop of terrorists certainly do not have) and made a public declaration of their intent. I think they would to a man have despised today's terrorists.
I'm in favor of copyright but not DRM, for pretty much the same reason that I'm in favor of speed limits but don't want a speed limited car. I'm pretty sure that people who are honest still don't want to pay for products deliberately made less functional.
Many legal types (not all obviously) are still stuck with the image of if you don't completely control what someone can do they'll completely abuse it and from that they'll design the contracts or licenses to reflect that, and recommend implementing a system that imposes the contract.
The typical legal method to control is contracts, not shackles. If your relationship has the assumption of sexual exclusivity, perhaps you could require (jokingly) that she wear a chastity belt (I disclaim responsibility for any consequences if you actually suggest this). Or speed limit her car. She ought to be able to understand the difference between legal restraint and physical restraint. If she is in favor of software patents, it should be even more clear to her that DRM is more akin to a non-functional product that a restrictive contract.
Smart users don't even have WGA installed on their legal copies of XP (yes, I like to think I'm one of those).
Why do you say you might want to think you're a legal copy of XP?
That black mark certainly is meaningful. There are very few people who buy houses in cash, for example, and that black mark can be particularly painful. Not to mention companies are beginning to pull credit reports during the interview process for employees.
Granted very few people can pay for their first house with cash unless they get an inheritance or something, but I don't consider the idea of living continually on credit to be a sound one. Once your first house is paid off, why borrow again? My wife and I have never had credit except for house, car and student loans. We own our house and cars, by not continually making payments to credit companies you can save the money for things you need.
Even as far back as Old Testament law, loaning money to people was known as a way to subjugate them.
Check the blessing Deuteronomy 28: 12,13 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail;
and the curse
Deuteronomy 28: 44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
Now regardless of religious belief or lack of, it should be fairly clear just looking around us now that living in perpetual debt is crazy and you cannot live as a free people if you do so.
And regarding employment: Start a business. Most people here are in the US, stop living your lives by permission and live as free people. You don't need permission of the bank to buy something and you don't need permission from a corporation to make money. At some point your ancestors did not have employment and lived by their own initiative. Stop buying into the lie that you are incapable of independence.
It's the "refuses to even consider and evaluate these options" part I was focusing on. The rest might be hyperbole, but you can only say that with certainty if you consider and evaluate the options.
From TFA: "A strategic Free Software utilization in public administration could create thousands of jobs as well as a significant decrease in software licensing costs. However, Quebec's public administration refuses to even consider and evaluate these options."
If it is true they haven't even evaluated the other options the complaint is valid.
So, the pirates are kind of like Robin Hood.
The pirates use the proceeds from armed robbery to bribe the commoners into supporting the return to power of a king who has been off fighting a religious war?
What's the dealeo with all these ridiculously tiny "fully functional" Linux boxes coming out? Does anyone have a use for them, other than attempting to cram a distributed computing network into a backpack?
Yes. "Computer Virus Aboard the ISS"
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html
...
... and did expect it ...
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.
No, in a country with this much employment rather than self-employment, he would have expected it
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Whats stopping you from coming over?
I don't meet the US immigration requirements at the moment. I have little formal education. Unless my wife (who has a degree) wins the lottery, my best bet is the immigration through investment. I can visit, but I'm still a while off being able to immigrate.
You being from Australia, I probably wouldn't agree with your politics
Most Australians don't agree with my politics.
but I agree with your moral fiber expressed on your post and believe it would be an asset to the nation.
Thank you. I look forward to being a contributor to you great country.
You're actually the first I've heard negative things from (apart from the aforementioned video game laws).
Read the comment on this opinion piece which has this as part of the reply:
JB: Actually yr right about me forgetting to unload on the majesty of the Law. I should have. Although, without a First Amendment we are much more constrained in the criticism we can make of the bench. Contempt of Court applies swiftly and mercilessly.
We do not have a constitutional protection of free speech, we don't have the right to bear arms, we have only common law protection against being forced to incriminate ourselves. You don't hear bad things about it from Australians because most of them are quite ok with it being like this. The only thing many people understand about the US is that you have a different accent and a lot of guns (which scares them). Most have no idea of the ideals this country was founded on.
The difference between the AC and the non-AC? The AC legitimately believes there are people out there fear. The non-AC just likes to talk conspiracies.
Or the non-AC thinks they can win any resulting confrontation/conflict, or thinks that the issue is more important than their safety and can't be dealt with effectively being anonymous.
If you're not sure you can win and don't think being AC will be effective, you will speak out publicly if brave, remain AC if not. That's where the "brave" distinction is. That said, the saying "Discretion is the better part of valor" can have merit, depending on the situation.