Do US Citizens need to fear the government knocking on the door at midnight?
Yes, actually (you're just one anonymous tip away from having a SWAT team redecorate your home), but they are more scared of being accused of a crime, put on a ter'rist list, investigated for child porn possession, or sued into bankruptcy. Different tactics, same result.
Were John Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Glenn Beck or Bill Orielly arrested for their blatant attacks of the government?
Those people do not threaten the regime. At best they are largely ignored; at worst, they may effect a slight shift in voting patterns between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans, depending on the political party they happen to rant against, which serves nicely to distract the population from the real issues.
No? Ohh ok. Then once again, I bring up that while not perfect, the US is far from the Totalitarian state some think it is.
You don't need to beat up your slaves if other methods of control are more effective.
The word totalitarian has a meaning. A country working towards gay rights is not a country that it becoming totalitarian.
Yes, it does. Allow me to use the wording from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible." How exactly "gay rights" interfere with totalitarianism?
The fact that you would call the US a Totalitarian Police State means that you have very little understanding of the a Totalitarian Police State actually is.
Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.
A "Totalitarian State" strives to have total control of its subjects. A "Totalitarian Police State" utilizes the police to achieve that objective. The states you mentioned (Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany) used violent means on a large scale to achieve such control but the US does not need to. It can use different tactics to achieve its objectives.
Let's try an example:
1) You're in elementary school. Bobby, the schoolyard bully, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he and his friends will beat you up. 2) You're in elementary school. Suzy, the teacher's pet, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to her, she will accuse you of attacking her and you'll face expulsion. 3) You're in elementary school. Jimmy, the sneak, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he's got a really embarrassing video of you that he threatens to put on youtube.
Bobby, Suzy and Jimmy have the same objective but their tactics are different and, depending on their intended victim, will be more or less effective.
Bottom line, the US has ways to eliminate dissent that are more subtle and sophisticated than those employed by the DPRK but are no less effective.
In order to change a democratic system, you first have to either elect candidates that will effect that change, or start a revolution. It is up to you to decide which route you want to follow.
How can you vote for smaller government, when the party that SAYS they stand for smaller government increase the size of the government faster than their opposition?
This assumes that the only choice is either D or D. This is incorrect.
If there were a viable alternative, then you might have a point.
There are alternatives, but it will take time and effort to make them viable. You are welcome to participate.
Only a minority (about one in four) of teenage users will develop an abusive or dependent relationship with the drug. This points to the fact that specific genetic or behavioral factors influence the likelihood that drug use will continue.
What is missing is the comparative data on those that were introduced to drugs after their teens. If the percentage in that group is higher than 25%...
> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.
You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.
Let's try to keep a modicum of civility. Using words like "nonsense" and "moronic" does nothing to advance your argument.
The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.
If you really believe that this is the case then you are off the hook.
However, as the court said, if you know (or have a good reason to believe) that the driver is not "capable of being in control of himself and the situation", and still send this driver a text message, you should share the blame for the consequences. Yes, this is a pretty far-fetched hypothetical situation, but it can happen.
It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.
And it is your duty to avoid knowingly putting them in a situation where they will likely "do dangerous stupid shit".
You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.
Not at all. "He" just wants you to bear the moral responsibility for your actions.
Well, what alternatives do you suggest? Catholic monarchy? Communist central committee? Military dictatorship? Come on, let us all know, we are waiting with bated breath.
How about fixing your broken separation of powers to make it work in practice? Or is it too radical a suggestion?
He must be one of those super-sophisticated foreigners who speak multiple languages, unless us redneck hicks here in the US!
Unless what? Can't even use proper grammar in your native tongue? Sucks to be dumb, isn't it?
"Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?
Separation of powers.
Is that when the executive branch lies to the legislature with impunity; the judicial branch operates secret courts and complains that it cannot effectively oversee said executive branch, who does not even care to follow the meager guidelines it set for itself, while violating your constitution on an ongoing basis?
But hey, I may be wrong about that. Maybe your separation of powers does work and I am just ignorant of the facts. So feel free to educate me with some RECENT example.
You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password?
How is that "financial data"?
Sorry, English is my 3rd language so I may have used the wrong term. I meant the data that allows access to your finances.
Are you stupid or something?
It depends. Out of the two of us, am I the one nitpicking on words and ignoring the big picture?
1) Governments may share data. What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?
That's a US matter, not a German matter: obviously, if the US government can't legally spy on US citizens, it should also be legally prohibited to get this data from third parties.
"Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?
3) Governments are composed of people. What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?
I don't really care if they do; why would I?
You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password? Or, if your bank does the silly "identity verification" questions, let's settle for your address, DOB, etc.
But if I did, how would that be different from any other crook trying to rip me off?
Exactly my point. The "government" is comprised of individual people, some of whom may be "crooks trying to rip [you] off".
I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.
There are several problems with your reasoning:
1) Governments may share data. What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?
2) Governments may leak data. Yoo are an Amerikan, ya? Yoo vill spy for us or ve vill publish ze correspondence vis ze mistress. Ze vife vill not like zis...
And, the most important: 3) Governments are composed of people. What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?
However, the subject is complicated. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on irreligion and peruse the sub-topics. The number of variations are enough to make your head spin.
When I was looking for work, I used it to find people who worked at places I wanted to apply to and ask them questions about the company. Some even offered to pass my resume to the hiring manager (bypassing some of the HR screening).
Eventually, I went to work for a company that an ex-coworker of mine worked for but had that option not been available, I would have been better off for using LI in my job search.
So no, not worthless. You just have to know how to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.hdfury.com/ Makes any DVD player 100% compatible with any TV. And it removes ALL of the useless encryption and DRM.
Kind of expensive
Are there terrible teachers? Yes. Should we fire them? Yes.
Do I sense an implied "but the union won't let us"?
Or are government rules and regulations, and punitive actions only applicable for the little guy?
Bingo!
Do US Citizens need to fear the government knocking on the door at midnight?
Yes, actually (you're just one anonymous tip away from having a SWAT team redecorate your home), but they are more scared of being accused of a crime, put on a ter'rist list, investigated for child porn possession, or sued into bankruptcy.
Different tactics, same result.
Were John Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Glenn Beck or Bill Orielly arrested for their blatant attacks of the government?
Those people do not threaten the regime. At best they are largely ignored; at worst, they may effect a slight shift in voting patterns between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans, depending on the political party they happen to rant against, which serves nicely to distract the population from the real issues.
No? Ohh ok. Then once again, I bring up that while not perfect, the US is far from the Totalitarian state some think it is.
You don't need to beat up your slaves if other methods of control are more effective.
The word totalitarian has a meaning. A country working towards gay rights is not a country that it becoming totalitarian.
Yes, it does. Allow me to use the wording from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."
How exactly "gay rights" interfere with totalitarianism?
at some levels we still have a functioning democracy
No, you don't.
Allowing you to choose between Kang and Kodos every 4 years does not a functioning democracy make.
The fact that you would call the US a Totalitarian Police State means that you have very little understanding of the a Totalitarian Police State actually is.
Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.
A "Totalitarian State" strives to have total control of its subjects. A "Totalitarian Police State" utilizes the police to achieve that objective.
The states you mentioned (Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany) used violent means on a large scale to achieve such control but the US does not need to. It can use different tactics to achieve its objectives.
Let's try an example:
1) You're in elementary school. Bobby, the schoolyard bully, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he and his friends will beat you up.
2) You're in elementary school. Suzy, the teacher's pet, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to her, she will accuse you of attacking her and you'll face expulsion.
3) You're in elementary school. Jimmy, the sneak, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he's got a really embarrassing video of you that he threatens to put on youtube.
Bobby, Suzy and Jimmy have the same objective but their tactics are different and, depending on their intended victim, will be more or less effective.
Bottom line, the US has ways to eliminate dissent that are more subtle and sophisticated than those employed by the DPRK but are no less effective.
Isn't it Putin's job?
In order to change a democratic system, you first have to either elect candidates that will effect that change, or start a revolution.
It is up to you to decide which route you want to follow.
It prevents freedom.
How can you vote for smaller government, when the party that SAYS they stand for smaller government increase the size of the government faster than their opposition?
This assumes that the only choice is either D or D. This is incorrect.
If there were a viable alternative, then you might have a point.
There are alternatives, but it will take time and effort to make them viable. You are welcome to participate.
On its face police cannot enforce every law on the books.
Which is good evidence that there are way too many laws.
Smoking marijuana can lead to serious consequences, up to and including becoming a POT-US.
From the article you linked to:
Only a minority (about one in four) of teenage users will develop an abusive or dependent relationship with the drug. This points to the fact that specific genetic or behavioral factors influence the likelihood that drug use will continue.
What is missing is the comparative data on those that were introduced to drugs after their teens.
If the percentage in that group is higher than 25%...
> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.
You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.
Let's try to keep a modicum of civility. Using words like "nonsense" and "moronic" does nothing to advance your argument.
The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.
If you really believe that this is the case then you are off the hook.
However, as the court said, if you know (or have a good reason to believe) that the driver is not "capable of being in control of himself and the situation", and still send this driver a text message, you should share the blame for the consequences.
Yes, this is a pretty far-fetched hypothetical situation, but it can happen.
It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.
And it is your duty to avoid knowingly putting them in a situation where they will likely "do dangerous stupid shit".
You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.
Not at all. "He" just wants you to bear the moral responsibility for your actions.
Can you stop complaining about Firefox already?
Oh, wait, nevermind...
So you advocate a get out of jail free card for anyone who only sold a few bags of dope [?]
Yes.
or 'only' robbed a few liquor stores?
No.
How about if they "only" committed tax fraud?
Debatable.
Well, what alternatives do you suggest? Catholic monarchy? Communist central committee? Military dictatorship? Come on, let us all know, we are waiting with bated breath.
How about fixing your broken separation of powers to make it work in practice? Or is it too radical a suggestion?
He must be one of those super-sophisticated foreigners who speak multiple languages, unless us redneck hicks here in the US!
Unless what? Can't even use proper grammar in your native tongue?
Sucks to be dumb, isn't it?
Separation of powers.
Is that when the executive branch lies to the legislature with impunity; the judicial branch operates secret courts and complains that it cannot effectively oversee said executive branch, who does not even care to follow the meager guidelines it set for itself, while violating your constitution on an ongoing basis?
But hey, I may be wrong about that. Maybe your separation of powers does work and I am just ignorant of the facts. So feel free to educate me with some RECENT example.
How is that "financial data"?
Sorry, English is my 3rd language so I may have used the wrong term. I meant the data that allows access to your finances.
Are you stupid or something?
It depends. Out of the two of us, am I the one nitpicking on words and ignoring the big picture?
That's a US matter, not a German matter: obviously, if the US government can't legally spy on US citizens, it should also be legally prohibited to get this data from third parties.
"Legality" only matters when it can be enforced. Pray tell who is enforcing the law on the US government?
I don't really care if they do; why would I?
You don't? In this case, may I have your online banking URL, username and password?
Or, if your bank does the silly "identity verification" questions, let's settle for your address, DOB, etc.
But if I did, how would that be different from any other crook trying to rip me off?
Exactly my point. The "government" is comprised of individual people, some of whom may be "crooks trying to rip [you] off".
I have no problem with the German government trying to spy on me. Why? Because the German government has no jurisdiction over me. German state security can't appear on my doorstep and arrest me, no matter how much Merkel or her minions may disapprove of me.
There are several problems with your reasoning:
1) Governments may share data.
What prevents "Merkel or her minions" to give some or all of the information they gathered about you to Obama and his minions?
2) Governments may leak data.
Yoo are an Amerikan, ya? Yoo vill spy for us or ve vill publish ze correspondence vis ze mistress. Ze vife vill not like zis...
And, the most important:
3) Governments are composed of people.
What if one of "Merkel's minions" decides to sell your financial data to the highest bidder?
This comic pretty much summarizes it.
However, the subject is complicated. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on irreligion and peruse the sub-topics. The number of variations are enough to make your head spin.
You expect people to start searching for all of your comments before they address any?
Pj, you gutless coward! Come back!
Please explain how exactly is PJ more of a "gutless coward" than you are?
Your mother's BMI is above 30.
So don't mess with her...
When I was looking for work, I used it to find people who worked at places I wanted to apply to and ask them questions about the company.
Some even offered to pass my resume to the hiring manager (bypassing some of the HR screening).
Eventually, I went to work for a company that an ex-coworker of mine worked for but had that option not been available, I would have been better off for using LI in my job search.
So no, not worthless. You just have to know how to use it.