thats SCOTUS's literal only job. When debating discussion of what a SCOTUS judge would and would not do, 'find that in the constitution' is the ONLY argument. A SCOTUS judge cannot decide that some state law in Hawaii allows it, so lets just keep rolling as it is. Thats not his job.
and we really should disband the Army, the way the constitution SAID we should. The constitution allows for a Navy. An army can only be authorized for 2 years at a time. It was never intended to stand forever. To get around that, we have an Omnibus spending bill every other year that re-authorizes the Army.
The marines are still part of the Navy, says so right on the top of their paycheck.
Perhaps in other discussions 'find that in the constitution' makes less sense. But when discussing a judge and what he may or may not decide in his ruling on a case that will probably NEVER reach his court while service in SCOTUS, its the only argument that really matters. Did what he previously express correctly outline the actual constitutionality of the policy? If so then you cannot say it makes him ineligible. There are many laws on our books that are, in fact, unconstitutional. Until such time they get legally challenged, AND the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they will remain on the books, enforced, despite their unconstitutionality.
again you still are not lumping Facebook and Google into the same pool and requiring THEM to be Neutral and so therefore your argument is shit. You cannot pick and choose WHICH corporations have to follow the rules and which ones don't. The minute you do, the whole policy is shit and nothing more than cronyism. Unless you make a law that says NO corporation can decide, for themselves, what content to allow and what content to disallow.
If facebook were discovered to be lumping anything pro LBGT into their censorship of 'hate speech' or 'fake news' the demands for regulation would reach EPIC proportions. But every day they wage war against anything even _remotely_ affiliated with guns or the NRA and I dont hear even a fucking squeek from the hypocrites about neutrality. You could have a page or site that does nothing but talk about how to find old ww2 M1 Garands to restore to good condition, it doesnt matter, you will be flagged, you will get takedown notices, you will get banned for violation of terms.
Until you stop being a hypocrite and decide that Neutrality means Neutral PERIOD, not just sometimes, your going to deal with this shit forever.
In regards to your statement of "This has nothing to do with the Constitution", I think you need to go back to school and pay attention in civics class. The ONLY issues that appear before SCOTUS are ones DIRECTLY about constitutionality. The SCOTUS doesn't decide whats right OR fair, ONLY what is and is NOT a direct violation, or indirectly through principle, a violation of the constitution. With regards to this judge, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution. The lower courts are the ones who handle scope OUTSIDE of the constitution. Everything you say is wrong about his stance would make him a poor judge of a lesser court when presiding over net neutrality, but a great judge, should the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a policy or law come into question.
To be fair, Net Neutrality isnt even a fucking law. It was a wanna-be, side-step congress, rule; implemented by the FCC and the discretion of the LAST Administration. The same latitude the CURRENT administration had to once again change. The likelihood of Net Neutrality _EVER_ appearing before SCOTUS is unlikely. ATT or some other carrier would have to bring a case against the US Gov. The same government that practically handed them a monopoly in exchange for unfettered access to your personal email, internet communication, phone records, etc. Even if they were to strike it down, similar to the way a Travel Ban got stricken down, would not stop an administration from re-wording it to comply with what ever single facet was found in violation. Hence the 3 versions of a travel ban executive order.
so i take it you do not live in the US? Or perhaps live in a dense population? Even in suburbia there are neighborhoods where cable has not yet built infrastructure or the phone company only offers 6Mpbs x 384k DSL. There are even areas where DSL isnt an option because the nearest DSLAM is more than 6000ft of copper from the premises. If your suburb is more than 6000ft from the CO, and the number of units is under 500 in that neighborhood, they will not even bother to install a remote DSLAM and trunk fiber to it. In those cases, they have to wait until Cable rolls out service in their area, their choices are Cable, or pay for a cellular-internet plan and buy a router that does LTE/4G. And we all know what those speeds are really like. Just install the SpeedTest.net app on your mobile device and see how you are lucky to get 2Mbps at times, depending on distance from the tower, etc.
thats easily fixed by legislating away the ownership of last-mine from the service providers. Right now, excluding less than 0.5% of the markets, you can only get service to your house in 1 of 3 ways.
Through copper phone lines which require access via poles and interconnects owned by the phone company
Through coaxial, which is even more restrictive in access to poles and interconnects owned by the cable company
Through the Air. The only last-mile medium that is 'owned' by the FCC and has more than one player providing some form of service.
As long as the phone companies and cable companies retain the Monopoly on the last-mile, you will almost always be restricted to one or two choices. If those two collude to the same restrictions, pricing models, or any other bullshit, your choices are effectively no different.
Legislate the last-mine interconnects be completely non-affiliated 3rd parties who operate with public service commission oversight and transparency to give all providers equal access to all customers. In this situation capitolism WOULD fix it because you _could_ just switch carriers. Net Neutrality is a fix for a problem only because congress, after the Patriot Act, went out of their way to reduce the number of ISPs in order to make wire taps and warrants easier to manage. They created monopolies who collude with each other to become a Cartel. Take the last-mile away and competition will flourish.
you mean like Facebook and Youtube, deciding for themselves, what content to delete, what accounts to suspend, and what speech to censure with no legal recourse, no oversight, no transparency? That sort of restriction by content? Never once was that in breech of Net Neutrality. How is it conent on the servers I provide considered MY Property to decide what is and what is not acceptable, but the same data as it flows through my switches, routers, and fiber connections NOT considered the same property with the same discretion? This is why Net Neutrality had to go, as written. It was the furthest thing from Neutral, it was a rule, imposed without a law, restricting someone from doing something and yet allowing another company to do the exact same thing, they just happen to be your buddies. Its cronyism. There is a reason why Google logged more whitehouse visits during the Obummer administration than EVERY SINGLE OTHER LOBBYIST combined. They werent fucking talking about golfing all those times. Thats for sure.
So what did we get? We got Google drafting the language of Net Neutrality that makes ATT and other carriers subsidize their costs of running Youtube, while holding Facebook and Youtube EXEMPT from the same principles that the word Neutrality implies.
net neutrality is nothing of the fucking sort. You seem to be OK with Facebook and everyone else using another bullshit, partizan, bias'd organization, The Southern Poverty Law Center, to restrict access and content under the false flag of 'fighting fake news' or 'fighting against hate speech'. NONE of that was ever ONCE considered a violation of NET NEUTRALITY. Is it fucking Neutrality or isn't it? Don't pretend like its OK to restrict SOME kinds of things you happen to disagree with and then cry because ATT *might* keep you from getting to your internet porn sites. Thats EXACTLY how 'Net Neutrality' was fucking implemented. IT means its Neutrality - AS LONG AS WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE AGREES WITH OUR STANDARDS OF HOW YOU SHOULD THINK. If it doesn't, well these rules don't apply so restrict it all you want.
SCOTUS judges take cases and in doing so, only apply them to the constitution as written. They cannot consider other federal laws in the process. Only whether this issue violates the constitution. To do so, they not only read the constitution and its amendments, but all articles written by them men who created them. This means extensive historical reads from papers like The Federalist, etc. Because it is important to understand not just the exact wording of the constitution but the author's reasoning behind putting it there in the first place. A perfect example is how people misunderstand the word 'regulated' in the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with government 'regulations'. Well Regulated meant kept in proper working order in 1787 and was used throughout the land as such. Today nobody uses the phrase 'well regulated' to mean maintained in proper working order. In order to understand this wording, research into writings by the framers is needed to understand the use of these words, as they have clearly changed in their implied definition over time.
In what way is what a carrier wanting to do with his network that he sells access to unconstitutional in any manner that also does not make the practices of late by FaceBook and Youtube in their fake war on 'fake news' any different? Its the same thing. One restricts sites, one restricts content, two sides of the same fucking coin.
the thing is this MetaData, while I haven't seen the exact info stored, is more obscure. I remember some layman examples of how Project Carnivore worked. Its successor, Project Prism, puts carnivore to shame. From what I recall, even with records that do not specifically say anything at all about you, they can datamine to such a degree that its almost 'Minority Report' level of probability to figure out what actions you will partake in. How likely you are to have an affair based on a brief encounter, what hotel you are most likely to use for your affair even before you know yourself, etc. Using records without your identity tied to it, they can still figure out who you are, after pairing it with other records they sift through in real-time such as the stream of email and social media posts. They track your movements, your daily texts, everything, even without having to look at the content of the traffic itself. Its the real-time, AI, version of a nosy neighbor with a line directly to the cops the second you do something different than your usual routine.
How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow? They claim the right to decide that 90% of religious groups are 'hate speech' and ban them constantly while managing to do very little about FBLive live streams of gang rapes and beheadings. Or Youtube's decision to de-monitize every single gun-related channel, even if that content is merely about target shooting, safety, or even proper care and cleaning; despite it being completely legal and constitutionally protected. If Facebook is legally allowed to decide, for themselves, what sort of 'dialog' they want to allow in their GroupThink project, or Youtube decides who they want to punish for not fitting into their views; What right do you have telling another company (ie ATT) what they can or cannot restrict? Maybe we need to expand the 14th amendment, that guarantees equal treatment, to more than just race and gender.
This is the paramount problem with 'Net Neutrality'. They used the word Neutrality but its total bullshit. The net result is they forced carriers to absorb the cost of companies like Netflix. It is literally another example of government setting up a billion dollar empire. They use far-fetched examples of ATT blocking access to Netflix because it competes with HBO. But all they did was allow Netflix to exploit this and reduce their operating costs and saddle that burden on the carriers. There is nothing Neutral about it. If you want real neutrality then everyone gets a bandwidth meter and they pay by the byte, just like electricity. Nobody said it had to be prohibitively expensive, just uniformly metered to every occupant. Any world where ATT is told they cannot restrict the flow of data, or block the flow of data, should apply EQUALLY to content providers of Social Media. Instead of congress telling FB they need to do a better job policing they users, maybe FB needs to say 'you tell ME which users to sanction based on a system of Due Process' to congress and claim Neutrality otherwise. After all, should it not be the courts the decide when and if someone's 1st amendment rights can and should be censored? You can't have a bias'd and untrained bunch of tech flunkies like FB deciding for themselves, without true system of legal court system appeals, who is and who is not entitled to their constitutionally protected rights. Not so long as you believe your right to bandwidth and accessing the internet is beyond the rights of those paying to maintain and provide it to you.
If you want Neutrality then you best be ready to fuck over the content providers equally as much as you fuck over those just delivering said content.
not blocking content is one thing.... asking for standardized pricing is not even remotely realistic. The cost of equipment is considerable. When you're dealing with a technology(or more than one) that has distance limitations, your pricing model changes due to the density of population within that radius. In a major metropolis like Dallas or Manhattan you could easily create a PoP (Point of Presence) and reach 100% capacity, easily, within the 1000m distance that copper-based technologies strive to fall within. Take, for example, VDSL2. Once you reach 1000m your max bandwidth is ~40mb. Lets say you have a 2u shelf that will mux 96 copper pairs. On top of this equipment you'll need to invest into an A and B leg -48V DC power, fuse panel, a fiber uplink for the long haul, and a switch to bridge your concentrators with your uplink. This expense plus the lease/upkeep of the space this equipment resides in factor into your monthly operating costs of the equipment.
In a major metropolitan area, simply installing a rack in the utility space of a high-rise apartment building and a fiber run to the building to easily gain 96 customers, all whom would easily fall within the ideal 500m service range. To recover the initial $20k investment in creating the PoP over a 3year period you would only have to eat $6 per customer toward repayment on top of the operating cost of providing service to the building (bandwidth, fiber loop cost, power, lease). Lets say your wholesale cost of bandwidth is $2000/mo per gigabit to a carrier like Cogent. Lets say all 96 customers were watching 1 4K video stream at peak evening hours. at 15Mbps per 4K stream thats roughly 1.5Gbps of peak bandwidth you'd need to this location. So lets just say the operating expense of this location is around $2k in bandwidth and another $500/mo for the power and lease of the space. Assume another $1000/mo for your fiber loop back to your main location within the city. That's $37/mo plus the $6 recover of investment. So any amount over $43 is considered profit. This is an over simplified economic scale but it suffices for the illustration.
Now take the same build-out in a rural area. Some properties are more than 500m between buildings. In these rural situations, or even remote suburbs with a few options like cable, phone co, etc, you are lucky to get even 10 customers within the range of your concentrator, Additionally your loop costs and infrastructure costs increase as well. But simply using the exact same numbers above, as if it was possible to get these rates, Each customer has to pay $350/mo before the first profit is realized, assuming you actually closed the deal on 10 customers. In a more rural area its more cost effective to just run fiber directly to the building that is sitting on 10+ acres of land than to fool with any sort of build-out. That will cost, at a minimum, $3000/mo plus the cost of directional boring to get the fiber to you (I often see quotes north of $100k).
So you want a policy/law that says they cant charge joe schmo more than metropolitan rates for this service that will cost a provider $100k in buildout cost and another $3500/mo in operating costs??? Here is what is going to happen. They will create another sort of Universal Services group whose job it is to roll out the modern equivalent of the Rural Electrification Project. Metropolitan residents will start seeing new fees and services on their bill along with increase expenses in order to subsidize the buildout and cost of connecting Rural America. The average bill for a Metropolitan dweller will now pay $200+/mo for his services so that Rural America can get some resemblance of broadband at $150/mo. But hey, it complies with the law because the rural dweller is paying something close to what the Metropolitans are paying, even if its not quite as good.
As long as distance and attenuation are as severely limiting as they currently are, the ratio of expense and density severely impact the footprint and availability of broadband in the USA. Pla
This is not how it has always been. Not with regard to adding new fingerprints. How do I know? Because my daughter does not have the faintest clue what my appleID is, hell my wife doesnt even know. Its not my email account for damn sure. She is 15 now. This happened back on my 5S. As far as asking to turn on touchID for purchases, every - single - time I get a purchase request (family sharing where kids have to request permission to get an app) and I authorize it, it constantly nags me to turn on touchID and does it in a way that someone not paying attention could accidentally enable it. I really wish there was a 'never fucking ask me this shit again' button. Its like I am being punished for choosing a more complex method of security instead of opting for the easy-button.
in fact, just now, on an iphone8 using the latest IOS
I went to settings -> TouchID & Passcodes and it only asked for a PIN. Then it let me add another fingerprint without further challenge to authentication.
It _should_, instead, require AppleID to get to this screen. It does not.
Sure turning ON 'iTunes & App Store' requires you to log into the apple store, which they seemed to get half-right. But if that was already enabled then adding another fingerprint has less security than the original enabling, which is weaker security. Every new fingerprint should have to authenticate to the highest level of security previously established. If having to enter an appleID was needed to enable purchases, then every subsequent added fingerprint should re-require the very same authentication. Maybe PIN code is enough to enable unlock the phone, as its literally an analogue for the same function. But PIN is not an analogue for secure transactions and allowing the lesser privileged mechanism to create users with higher privileges than itself is fundamentally flawed. How do you not see this? This would be called a privilege escalation exploit if this were to be conducted on a workstation or server.
another note, once you validate with the PIN to get to 'touchID and Passcodes' you can turn on and off Apple Pay all day long without having to authenticate shit. Why is the app store requiring higher level auth but the rest of your credit cards not??? Again 2 tiers of security and the WEAKER of the two is the one being sufficient. Is Apple Pay not as important as iTunes & App Store when it comes to making sure the right asshole is really authorizing this?
PIN code should be enough to get to the TouchID & Passcode screen to view settings. I'll even grant that changing the setting for 'iphone unlock' be unrestricted once you PIN validated to this screen. Every other setting, however, including adding fingerprints, should require AppleID to change their settings.
Personally I don't enable anything but 'unlock' because biometrics are crap. They are too easily fooled. Just today Google announced new libraries and code to help improve the vulnerabilities of bio-metrics. A photocopy of a fingerprint should not trick a fingerprint reader, but they do. Which goes back to the original post, that assuming that phones doing financial transactions are very secure is questionable at best. I gave fingerprint as just one example of how this is not very secure due to the privilege escalation symptom I am trying to describe. However, the most secure password in the world is useless if someone figures out how to trick an API into skipping that step and going straight to accepting commands. Hell even my key fob on my 2007 VW passat had a mechanism that if it was outside of the range of my car and the unlock button got hit 5 times within X amount of time, it disabled the key fob. That kept people from finding the fob, and walk through the parking lot looking for the car by pressing the lock or unlock key. To re-enable the fob you had to take the removable/ejectable key from the fob to unlock the door (key slot covered and not apparent to those not owning a vw) and once in the car you had to plug the fob into the dash to re-activ
Then why dont they ask for a PIN code when making a purchase? After all, you seem to think itâ(TM)s so fucking secure, I did, by the way, mention it was âoeyears ago âoe. It was actually just a four digit numerical value back then. It wasnt until around thr iphone6 that they switched to even 6 digits. Apple clearly established two levels of security; one being higher than the other one. The PIN code has ALWAYS been considered less secure and unacceptable for financial authorizations. If this is the case then why the fuck did they let you use the same inferior mechanism when adding a fingerprint which is considered on par with the level of security that the Apple ID provides? Again youâ(TM)re giving an enduser account certain rootlevel permissions without making them authenticate. If you establish 2 tiers of authorization, then even a halfwit knows you require the higher auth to make root level changed like addjng new users (fingerprints). For the very same reson that corp computers require you to enter domain, user, AND passeord instead of picking the username off a list and keyjng a password. A PIN is nothing more than the same thing, half the information is already filled out.
Incorrect. And a pin code is not as secure as appleID password. I have figerprint purchases turned off. And every single fucking time I buy anything, the goddamn thing tries to turn it back on. Where is the âoefuck you, I said fucking NO 12 times agoâoe button? However, is it too much to ask for appleid password to alter the authentication method? I have to give this password to do an update or authorize a purchase, But a simple pin number is all that is required to add new accounts??? Thatâ(TM)s like giving a guest account access to the adduser or chgrp command without express permission. There are plenty of reasons why family menbers would need to unlock your phone but not be able to make purchases. When this problem occured it didnt even make you auth to add a new fingerprint. It simply required the phone to already be unlocked. Any retard suggesting you dont hand your child your phone to use has never actually had kids, or atleast raise them. Sit in a Dr office waiting room for 2hrs with your kid and see how long it is before youre letting them play games on your phone to keep them distracted. If this has never happened to you then youve either never had kids or couldnt be bothered to be a parent, probably sacked the mom to do all those tasks.
The point is, fingerprint is bullshit. It is fooled even by photocopies and more importantly the permissions required to set that up are vastly less secure than the security invoked when touchID is disabled. It should, at least, be on par with the auth required should you not have touchID enabled. You dont even have to guess a username for PIN authentication. At the time, PIN was merely 4 digits. To this day they still dont require appleid to alter those settings even though every other wallet-based transaction requires touchID OR appleID auth. I dont get how this is difficult to grasp. Stop letting guest accounts alter user permissions and require root level auth first.
That fingerprint authentication is bullshit. A few years ago I discovered that my daughter added her fingerprint to my authentication just so that she didnâ(TM)t have to type in the pin number to unlock my phone. She was 10. Then they started rolling out fingerprint purchases out of the App Store. They didnâ(TM)t even have the foresight to require you to enter in your Apple ID and password to add a new fingerprint. They simply record your phone to be unlocked from a simple pin. And there in lies the fundamental flaw. What good is all this super security if the mechanism to add new trustees has no security. And there in lies a fundamental flaw. What good is all the super security if the mechanism to add new trustees has no security?
Just dont buy a Toyota Camry if it has the feature. I guess its the massive amount of these cars in existence, but its one of the most stolen cars. It doesnâ(TM)t draw as much attention if youâ(TM)re driving a stolen Camry then, letâ(TM)s say, a Corvette. If youâ(TM)re driving around in a stolen Corvette, and you look as though you donâ(TM)t have enough money to rub two nickels together, you are probably going to get stopped and questioned.
Well one typically has two, so there is always some means, albeit inconvenient, of regaining access. The upside is while it might be single point of failure, its typically a fails-safe design. Ive never seena factory recall because a car was allowing anyone with any key to access it. Failures happen. Its murphys law. Designing to fail in a safe position is engineering design crteria.
Except having a physical key requires actually having the key in your posession. Some cars are more suceptible to hotwiring and slimjims, but thats the least common way cars are stolen and its pretty obvious when observed. I suspect with this that someone will discover a flaw in the API that allows any user to bypass authentication and execute the unlock feature. Its the same reason i dont have digital locks on my house. Why make it easy on them?
Label it the âoeCar/Boat Challengeâ on YouTube and thousands of teens will be duped into commiting grand theft auto overnight. Afterall, they dont seem to think for themselves anymore. Theyve been turned into lemmings and indoctrinated into GroupThink. Nobody even uses the expression âoeIf everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?!â Because, they probably would. See Tide Pod challenge for a perfect example of this.
Cuba is pretty resource poor with little access to metals and plastics. We should start trading with them for recyclables. They could really use the materials.
if you think that the Democrats are any better, you need to go get a spectrum analyzer on the coolaid your drinking. I see two parties doing their best to create a Serf class. The GOP wants to stagnate wages in order to keep the costs down for corporations, and in turn attempt to keep cost of living down to prevent riots. The Democrats need their party members to actually go vote. For whatever reason they have a higher ratio of sit-on-their-asses-and-not-do-shit members than other parties. If they actually did something about minorities and gave them an equal chance, they would not be pissed off voters. Keeping the minorities pissed off, and carefully deflecting the blame away from the democrats, is a significant method of guaranteeing voter turnout. People who are happy with life seldom vote. This is the reason the partisanship has been steadily ramping up since the mid 90s. Back in the 80s and early 90s voter turnout was in the teens. Meanwhile as long as the constituents are all equally pissed off and at each others throats, nobody notices both parties robbing the coffers and padding their bank accounts.
This is why I became a libertarian over a decade ago. I quickly realized that both main-stream parties were in it for themselves and their sick obsession with power. Anyone truly serving the country would step the fuck down when they got diagnosed with brain tumors, or was taking some very expensive Alzheimer medication and still spacing out and slurring their speech, or goes around wearing some sort of support structure that one hides underneath a winter scarf and a heavy wool coat in the middle of may in 90F weather to make people think they are in perfect health. A true patriot would step aside for whats best for the country and not be so filled with such ego that nobody, not one other person out of the 150Million in this country, could possibly do as good if not better job.
you do realize the history of the KKK was drenched deeply in the Democrat party right? It was founded by southern democrats to prevent black people from voting. Its amazing how often the Republican party gets blamed for racism. The republicans have their list of flaws.. but KKK is definitely not one of them.
the civil war, a bunch of southern democrats, angry at the election of a republican president, seceded from the union to form a new nation, one were slavery was to remain legal.
Jim Crow laws, enacted by white-Democratic dominated state legeslatures in the 19th century to mandate racial segregation
civil rights act of 1964 - Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats
maybe you should stop drinking the coolaid and realized that everything you've been told is a lie. There isnt one party worth this loyalty from you. They are all undeserving, they just have manipulated you into thinking all the world problems lay squarely on their competition. Its simply not mathematically possible for one side to do no right, and the other to do no wrong.
unless my history teachers from the 80s were wrong, and this predates all this polarized politcal correctness, fascims is the polar opposite of communism/socialism. It came as a knee-jerk reaction of communism taking hold among the self appointed 'eleets' who felt it trendy to call themselves communists. They looked down on the common person with disdain, noses in the air, basking in their sense of superiority. The commoners really resented this, so when the nazi party came about and talked about issues that were near and dear to the average 'joe the plumber', Fascism surfaced. If you take any idea and push it to the borders of its possibility you will always result in extremism. Fascism is capitolism run amok to the point of government propping it up to prevent self-correction.
if these self-appointed anti-fascists groups were truly interested in stopping the next fascist movement, maybe the should identify the source of unrest instead of just going out and provoking violence. Its more productive to find out why the average worker is so unhappy that he sees an extremist as the only hope for his/her future. If you can solve the unhappiness, extremists groups like nationalists/fascists or liberal/communists would not be able to take hold. At the end of the day, everyone just wants to be happy and feel like their life matters. If you can solve that one simple need, the media and factions of government would not be so easy to polarize society and pit one half against the other.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and _domestic_...
Based on your comment, it is a pretty good bet that you do not live in the US. Obviously the concept of Liberty or Death is blind to you. When a group of thugs, under the guise of calling themselves 'Police', violate the Constitution and shred the 4th amendment in the process of shredding the 2nd amendment, they have declared WAR on the Constitution and the people of the United States. It is not terrorism to defend against domestic enemies. Terrorism is a act of violence perpetrated against an innocent group of individuals for the purpose of making a statement to an entirely different group of people or its government. Taking up arms, declaring war on the constitution, and illegally searching house to house makes them anything BUT innocent people. According to Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, you are to only follow LAWFUL orders given by officers and your superiors. Following an unlawful order is something one does at their own peril. Any police that does not resign and instead commits crimes against the people takes such actions at their own peril. They have in such declared war on the people of the United States. It is every citizens responsibility to rise up and defend the constitution and its people, and become the militia that the founding fathers intended.
i could think of no better way of being in proper working order for a militia than training. However, certain groups are very much opposed to any sort of organized training courses on battlefield tactics.
no, because law enforcement is mostly pro-gun too. They just dont want shit-bags to have it. If they are forced to go door to door what your going to find is 'bait' houses set up for searches. and when 10 or 12 cops are digging through the house... BOOM! the whole fucking house explodes with 12 dead cops and all their canines, etc. The next 12 cops will be less likely to be so anxious to search another house. After about 50 or 60 of these incidents, they will stop searching houses and just pretend like they rounded them all up. Nobody wants to risk death for a job they don't completely agree with anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
thats SCOTUS's literal only job. When debating discussion of what a SCOTUS judge would and would not do, 'find that in the constitution' is the ONLY argument. A SCOTUS judge cannot decide that some state law in Hawaii allows it, so lets just keep rolling as it is. Thats not his job.
and we really should disband the Army, the way the constitution SAID we should. The constitution allows for a Navy. An army can only be authorized for 2 years at a time. It was never intended to stand forever. To get around that, we have an Omnibus spending bill every other year that re-authorizes the Army.
The marines are still part of the Navy, says so right on the top of their paycheck.
Perhaps in other discussions 'find that in the constitution' makes less sense. But when discussing a judge and what he may or may not decide in his ruling on a case that will probably NEVER reach his court while service in SCOTUS, its the only argument that really matters. Did what he previously express correctly outline the actual constitutionality of the policy? If so then you cannot say it makes him ineligible. There are many laws on our books that are, in fact, unconstitutional. Until such time they get legally challenged, AND the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, they will remain on the books, enforced, despite their unconstitutionality.
again you still are not lumping Facebook and Google into the same pool and requiring THEM to be Neutral and so therefore your argument is shit. You cannot pick and choose WHICH corporations have to follow the rules and which ones don't. The minute you do, the whole policy is shit and nothing more than cronyism. Unless you make a law that says NO corporation can decide, for themselves, what content to allow and what content to disallow.
If facebook were discovered to be lumping anything pro LBGT into their censorship of 'hate speech' or 'fake news' the demands for regulation would reach EPIC proportions. But every day they wage war against anything even _remotely_ affiliated with guns or the NRA and I dont hear even a fucking squeek from the hypocrites about neutrality. You could have a page or site that does nothing but talk about how to find old ww2 M1 Garands to restore to good condition, it doesnt matter, you will be flagged, you will get takedown notices, you will get banned for violation of terms.
Until you stop being a hypocrite and decide that Neutrality means Neutral PERIOD, not just sometimes, your going to deal with this shit forever.
In regards to your statement of "This has nothing to do with the Constitution", I think you need to go back to school and pay attention in civics class. The ONLY issues that appear before SCOTUS are ones DIRECTLY about constitutionality. The SCOTUS doesn't decide whats right OR fair, ONLY what is and is NOT a direct violation, or indirectly through principle, a violation of the constitution. With regards to this judge, it has EVERYTHING to do with the constitution. The lower courts are the ones who handle scope OUTSIDE of the constitution. Everything you say is wrong about his stance would make him a poor judge of a lesser court when presiding over net neutrality, but a great judge, should the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a policy or law come into question.
To be fair, Net Neutrality isnt even a fucking law. It was a wanna-be, side-step congress, rule; implemented by the FCC and the discretion of the LAST Administration. The same latitude the CURRENT administration had to once again change. The likelihood of Net Neutrality _EVER_ appearing before SCOTUS is unlikely. ATT or some other carrier would have to bring a case against the US Gov. The same government that practically handed them a monopoly in exchange for unfettered access to your personal email, internet communication, phone records, etc. Even if they were to strike it down, similar to the way a Travel Ban got stricken down, would not stop an administration from re-wording it to comply with what ever single facet was found in violation. Hence the 3 versions of a travel ban executive order.
so i take it you do not live in the US? Or perhaps live in a dense population? Even in suburbia there are neighborhoods where cable has not yet built infrastructure or the phone company only offers 6Mpbs x 384k DSL. There are even areas where DSL isnt an option because the nearest DSLAM is more than 6000ft of copper from the premises. If your suburb is more than 6000ft from the CO, and the number of units is under 500 in that neighborhood, they will not even bother to install a remote DSLAM and trunk fiber to it. In those cases, they have to wait until Cable rolls out service in their area, their choices are Cable, or pay for a cellular-internet plan and buy a router that does LTE/4G. And we all know what those speeds are really like. Just install the SpeedTest.net app on your mobile device and see how you are lucky to get 2Mbps at times, depending on distance from the tower, etc.
thats easily fixed by legislating away the ownership of last-mine from the service providers. Right now, excluding less than 0.5% of the markets, you can only get service to your house in 1 of 3 ways.
Through copper phone lines which require access via poles and interconnects owned by the phone company
Through coaxial, which is even more restrictive in access to poles and interconnects owned by the cable company
Through the Air. The only last-mile medium that is 'owned' by the FCC and has more than one player providing some form of service.
As long as the phone companies and cable companies retain the Monopoly on the last-mile, you will almost always be restricted to one or two choices. If those two collude to the same restrictions, pricing models, or any other bullshit, your choices are effectively no different.
Legislate the last-mine interconnects be completely non-affiliated 3rd parties who operate with public service commission oversight and transparency to give all providers equal access to all customers. In this situation capitolism WOULD fix it because you _could_ just switch carriers. Net Neutrality is a fix for a problem only because congress, after the Patriot Act, went out of their way to reduce the number of ISPs in order to make wire taps and warrants easier to manage. They created monopolies who collude with each other to become a Cartel. Take the last-mile away and competition will flourish.
you mean like Facebook and Youtube, deciding for themselves, what content to delete, what accounts to suspend, and what speech to censure with no legal recourse, no oversight, no transparency? That sort of restriction by content? Never once was that in breech of Net Neutrality. How is it conent on the servers I provide considered MY Property to decide what is and what is not acceptable, but the same data as it flows through my switches, routers, and fiber connections NOT considered the same property with the same discretion? This is why Net Neutrality had to go, as written. It was the furthest thing from Neutral, it was a rule, imposed without a law, restricting someone from doing something and yet allowing another company to do the exact same thing, they just happen to be your buddies. Its cronyism. There is a reason why Google logged more whitehouse visits during the Obummer administration than EVERY SINGLE OTHER LOBBYIST combined. They werent fucking talking about golfing all those times. Thats for sure.
http://googletransparencyproje...
So what did we get? We got Google drafting the language of Net Neutrality that makes ATT and other carriers subsidize their costs of running Youtube, while holding Facebook and Youtube EXEMPT from the same principles that the word Neutrality implies.
net neutrality is nothing of the fucking sort. You seem to be OK with Facebook and everyone else using another bullshit, partizan, bias'd organization, The Southern Poverty Law Center, to restrict access and content under the false flag of 'fighting fake news' or 'fighting against hate speech'. NONE of that was ever ONCE considered a violation of NET NEUTRALITY. Is it fucking Neutrality or isn't it? Don't pretend like its OK to restrict SOME kinds of things you happen to disagree with and then cry because ATT *might* keep you from getting to your internet porn sites. Thats EXACTLY how 'Net Neutrality' was fucking implemented. IT means its Neutrality - AS LONG AS WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE AGREES WITH OUR STANDARDS OF HOW YOU SHOULD THINK. If it doesn't, well these rules don't apply so restrict it all you want.
SCOTUS judges take cases and in doing so, only apply them to the constitution as written. They cannot consider other federal laws in the process. Only whether this issue violates the constitution. To do so, they not only read the constitution and its amendments, but all articles written by them men who created them. This means extensive historical reads from papers like The Federalist, etc. Because it is important to understand not just the exact wording of the constitution but the author's reasoning behind putting it there in the first place. A perfect example is how people misunderstand the word 'regulated' in the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with government 'regulations'. Well Regulated meant kept in proper working order in 1787 and was used throughout the land as such. Today nobody uses the phrase 'well regulated' to mean maintained in proper working order. In order to understand this wording, research into writings by the framers is needed to understand the use of these words, as they have clearly changed in their implied definition over time.
In what way is what a carrier wanting to do with his network that he sells access to unconstitutional in any manner that also does not make the practices of late by FaceBook and Youtube in their fake war on 'fake news' any different? Its the same thing. One restricts sites, one restricts content, two sides of the same fucking coin.
what the phone company may or may not disclose about your phone records is defined under CPNI legislatively under the 1996 Telecom Act and FCC policy.
https://searchnetworking.techt...
the thing is this MetaData, while I haven't seen the exact info stored, is more obscure. I remember some layman examples of how Project Carnivore worked. Its successor, Project Prism, puts carnivore to shame. From what I recall, even with records that do not specifically say anything at all about you, they can datamine to such a degree that its almost 'Minority Report' level of probability to figure out what actions you will partake in. How likely you are to have an affair based on a brief encounter, what hotel you are most likely to use for your affair even before you know yourself, etc. Using records without your identity tied to it, they can still figure out who you are, after pairing it with other records they sift through in real-time such as the stream of email and social media posts. They track your movements, your daily texts, everything, even without having to look at the content of the traffic itself. Its the real-time, AI, version of a nosy neighbor with a line directly to the cops the second you do something different than your usual routine.
How is this any different than Facebook deciding what sort of comments they are going to allow? They claim the right to decide that 90% of religious groups are 'hate speech' and ban them constantly while managing to do very little about FBLive live streams of gang rapes and beheadings. Or Youtube's decision to de-monitize every single gun-related channel, even if that content is merely about target shooting, safety, or even proper care and cleaning; despite it being completely legal and constitutionally protected. If Facebook is legally allowed to decide, for themselves, what sort of 'dialog' they want to allow in their GroupThink project, or Youtube decides who they want to punish for not fitting into their views; What right do you have telling another company (ie ATT) what they can or cannot restrict? Maybe we need to expand the 14th amendment, that guarantees equal treatment, to more than just race and gender.
This is the paramount problem with 'Net Neutrality'. They used the word Neutrality but its total bullshit. The net result is they forced carriers to absorb the cost of companies like Netflix. It is literally another example of government setting up a billion dollar empire. They use far-fetched examples of ATT blocking access to Netflix because it competes with HBO. But all they did was allow Netflix to exploit this and reduce their operating costs and saddle that burden on the carriers. There is nothing Neutral about it. If you want real neutrality then everyone gets a bandwidth meter and they pay by the byte, just like electricity. Nobody said it had to be prohibitively expensive, just uniformly metered to every occupant. Any world where ATT is told they cannot restrict the flow of data, or block the flow of data, should apply EQUALLY to content providers of Social Media. Instead of congress telling FB they need to do a better job policing they users, maybe FB needs to say 'you tell ME which users to sanction based on a system of Due Process' to congress and claim Neutrality otherwise. After all, should it not be the courts the decide when and if someone's 1st amendment rights can and should be censored? You can't have a bias'd and untrained bunch of tech flunkies like FB deciding for themselves, without true system of legal court system appeals, who is and who is not entitled to their constitutionally protected rights. Not so long as you believe your right to bandwidth and accessing the internet is beyond the rights of those paying to maintain and provide it to you.
If you want Neutrality then you best be ready to fuck over the content providers equally as much as you fuck over those just delivering said content.
not blocking content is one thing.... asking for standardized pricing is not even remotely realistic. The cost of equipment is considerable. When you're dealing with a technology(or more than one) that has distance limitations, your pricing model changes due to the density of population within that radius. In a major metropolis like Dallas or Manhattan you could easily create a PoP (Point of Presence) and reach 100% capacity, easily, within the 1000m distance that copper-based technologies strive to fall within. Take, for example, VDSL2. Once you reach 1000m your max bandwidth is ~40mb. Lets say you have a 2u shelf that will mux 96 copper pairs. On top of this equipment you'll need to invest into an A and B leg -48V DC power, fuse panel, a fiber uplink for the long haul, and a switch to bridge your concentrators with your uplink. This expense plus the lease/upkeep of the space this equipment resides in factor into your monthly operating costs of the equipment.
In a major metropolitan area, simply installing a rack in the utility space of a high-rise apartment building and a fiber run to the building to easily gain 96 customers, all whom would easily fall within the ideal 500m service range. To recover the initial $20k investment in creating the PoP over a 3year period you would only have to eat $6 per customer toward repayment on top of the operating cost of providing service to the building (bandwidth, fiber loop cost, power, lease). Lets say your wholesale cost of bandwidth is $2000/mo per gigabit to a carrier like Cogent. Lets say all 96 customers were watching 1 4K video stream at peak evening hours. at 15Mbps per 4K stream thats roughly 1.5Gbps of peak bandwidth you'd need to this location. So lets just say the operating expense of this location is around $2k in bandwidth and another $500/mo for the power and lease of the space. Assume another $1000/mo for your fiber loop back to your main location within the city. That's $37/mo plus the $6 recover of investment. So any amount over $43 is considered profit. This is an over simplified economic scale but it suffices for the illustration.
Now take the same build-out in a rural area. Some properties are more than 500m between buildings. In these rural situations, or even remote suburbs with a few options like cable, phone co, etc, you are lucky to get even 10 customers within the range of your concentrator, Additionally your loop costs and infrastructure costs increase as well. But simply using the exact same numbers above, as if it was possible to get these rates, Each customer has to pay $350/mo before the first profit is realized, assuming you actually closed the deal on 10 customers. In a more rural area its more cost effective to just run fiber directly to the building that is sitting on 10+ acres of land than to fool with any sort of build-out. That will cost, at a minimum, $3000/mo plus the cost of directional boring to get the fiber to you (I often see quotes north of $100k).
So you want a policy/law that says they cant charge joe schmo more than metropolitan rates for this service that will cost a provider $100k in buildout cost and another $3500/mo in operating costs??? Here is what is going to happen. They will create another sort of Universal Services group whose job it is to roll out the modern equivalent of the Rural Electrification Project. Metropolitan residents will start seeing new fees and services on their bill along with increase expenses in order to subsidize the buildout and cost of connecting Rural America. The average bill for a Metropolitan dweller will now pay $200+/mo for his services so that Rural America can get some resemblance of broadband at $150/mo. But hey, it complies with the law because the rural dweller is paying something close to what the Metropolitans are paying, even if its not quite as good.
As long as distance and attenuation are as severely limiting as they currently are, the ratio of expense and density severely impact the footprint and availability of broadband in the USA. Pla
This is not how it has always been. Not with regard to adding new fingerprints. How do I know? Because my daughter does not have the faintest clue what my appleID is, hell my wife doesnt even know. Its not my email account for damn sure. She is 15 now. This happened back on my 5S. As far as asking to turn on touchID for purchases, every - single - time I get a purchase request (family sharing where kids have to request permission to get an app) and I authorize it, it constantly nags me to turn on touchID and does it in a way that someone not paying attention could accidentally enable it. I really wish there was a 'never fucking ask me this shit again' button. Its like I am being punished for choosing a more complex method of security instead of opting for the easy-button.
in fact, just now, on an iphone8 using the latest IOS
I went to settings -> TouchID & Passcodes and it only asked for a PIN. Then it let me add another fingerprint without further challenge to authentication.
It _should_, instead, require AppleID to get to this screen. It does not.
Sure turning ON 'iTunes & App Store' requires you to log into the apple store, which they seemed to get half-right. But if that was already enabled then adding another fingerprint has less security than the original enabling, which is weaker security. Every new fingerprint should have to authenticate to the highest level of security previously established. If having to enter an appleID was needed to enable purchases, then every subsequent added fingerprint should re-require the very same authentication. Maybe PIN code is enough to enable unlock the phone, as its literally an analogue for the same function. But PIN is not an analogue for secure transactions and allowing the lesser privileged mechanism to create users with higher privileges than itself is fundamentally flawed. How do you not see this? This would be called a privilege escalation exploit if this were to be conducted on a workstation or server.
another note, once you validate with the PIN to get to 'touchID and Passcodes' you can turn on and off Apple Pay all day long without having to authenticate shit. Why is the app store requiring higher level auth but the rest of your credit cards not??? Again 2 tiers of security and the WEAKER of the two is the one being sufficient. Is Apple Pay not as important as iTunes & App Store when it comes to making sure the right asshole is really authorizing this?
PIN code should be enough to get to the TouchID & Passcode screen to view settings. I'll even grant that changing the setting for 'iphone unlock' be unrestricted once you PIN validated to this screen. Every other setting, however, including adding fingerprints, should require AppleID to change their settings.
Personally I don't enable anything but 'unlock' because biometrics are crap. They are too easily fooled. Just today Google announced new libraries and code to help improve the vulnerabilities of bio-metrics. A photocopy of a fingerprint should not trick a fingerprint reader, but they do. Which goes back to the original post, that assuming that phones doing financial transactions are very secure is questionable at best. I gave fingerprint as just one example of how this is not very secure due to the privilege escalation symptom I am trying to describe. However, the most secure password in the world is useless if someone figures out how to trick an API into skipping that step and going straight to accepting commands. Hell even my key fob on my 2007 VW passat had a mechanism that if it was outside of the range of my car and the unlock button got hit 5 times within X amount of time, it disabled the key fob. That kept people from finding the fob, and walk through the parking lot looking for the car by pressing the lock or unlock key. To re-enable the fob you had to take the removable/ejectable key from the fob to unlock the door (key slot covered and not apparent to those not owning a vw) and once in the car you had to plug the fob into the dash to re-activ
Then why dont they ask for a PIN code when making a purchase? After all, you seem to think itâ(TM)s so fucking secure, I did, by the way, mention it was âoeyears ago âoe. It was actually just a four digit numerical value back then. It wasnt until around thr iphone6 that they switched to even 6 digits. Apple clearly established two levels of security; one being higher than the other one. The PIN code has ALWAYS been considered less secure and unacceptable for financial authorizations. If this is the case then why the fuck did they let you use the same inferior mechanism when adding a fingerprint which is considered on par with the level of security that the Apple ID provides? Again youâ(TM)re giving an enduser account certain rootlevel permissions without making them authenticate. If you establish 2 tiers of authorization, then even a halfwit knows you require the higher auth to make root level changed like addjng new users (fingerprints). For the very same reson that corp computers require you to enter domain, user, AND passeord instead of picking the username off a list and keyjng a password. A PIN is nothing more than the same thing, half the information is already filled out.
Incorrect. And a pin code is not as secure as appleID password. I have figerprint purchases turned off. And every single fucking time I buy anything, the goddamn thing tries to turn it back on. Where is the âoefuck you, I said fucking NO 12 times agoâoe button? However, is it too much to ask for appleid password to alter the authentication method? I have to give this password to do an update or authorize a purchase, But a simple pin number is all that is required to add new accounts??? Thatâ(TM)s like giving a guest account access to the adduser or chgrp command without express permission. There are plenty of reasons why family menbers would need to unlock your phone but not be able to make purchases. When this problem occured it didnt even make you auth to add a new fingerprint. It simply required the phone to already be unlocked. Any retard suggesting you dont hand your child your phone to use has never actually had kids, or atleast raise them. Sit in a Dr office waiting room for 2hrs with your kid and see how long it is before youre letting them play games on your phone to keep them distracted. If this has never happened to you then youve either never had kids or couldnt be bothered to be a parent, probably sacked the mom to do all those tasks.
The point is, fingerprint is bullshit. It is fooled even by photocopies and more importantly the permissions required to set that up are vastly less secure than the security invoked when touchID is disabled. It should, at least, be on par with the auth required should you not have touchID enabled. You dont even have to guess a username for PIN authentication. At the time, PIN was merely 4 digits. To this day they still dont require appleid to alter those settings even though every other wallet-based transaction requires touchID OR appleID auth. I dont get how this is difficult to grasp. Stop letting guest accounts alter user permissions and require root level auth first.
That fingerprint authentication is bullshit. A few years ago I discovered that my daughter added her fingerprint to my authentication just so that she didnâ(TM)t have to type in the pin number to unlock my phone. She was 10. Then they started rolling out fingerprint purchases out of the App Store. They didnâ(TM)t even have the foresight to require you to enter in your Apple ID and password to add a new fingerprint. They simply record your phone to be unlocked from a simple pin. And there in lies the fundamental flaw. What good is all this super security if the mechanism to add new trustees has no security. And there in lies a fundamental flaw. What good is all the super security if the mechanism to add new trustees has no security?
Just dont buy a Toyota Camry if it has the feature. I guess its the massive amount of these cars in existence, but its one of the most stolen cars. It doesnâ(TM)t draw as much attention if youâ(TM)re driving a stolen Camry then, letâ(TM)s say, a Corvette. If youâ(TM)re driving around in a stolen Corvette, and you look as though you donâ(TM)t have enough money to rub two nickels together, you are probably going to get stopped and questioned.
Well one typically has two, so there is always some means, albeit inconvenient, of regaining access. The upside is while it might be single point of failure, its typically a fails-safe design. Ive never seena factory recall because a car was allowing anyone with any key to access it. Failures happen. Its murphys law. Designing to fail in a safe position is engineering design crteria.
Except having a physical key requires actually having the key in your posession. Some cars are more suceptible to hotwiring and slimjims, but thats the least common way cars are stolen and its pretty obvious when observed. I suspect with this that someone will discover a flaw in the API that allows any user to bypass authentication and execute the unlock feature. Its the same reason i dont have digital locks on my house. Why make it easy on them?
Label it the âoeCar/Boat Challengeâ on YouTube and thousands of teens will be duped into commiting grand theft auto overnight. Afterall, they dont seem to think for themselves anymore. Theyve been turned into lemmings and indoctrinated into GroupThink. Nobody even uses the expression âoeIf everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?!â Because, they probably would. See Tide Pod challenge for a perfect example of this.
Cuba is pretty resource poor with little access to metals and plastics. We should start trading with them for recyclables. They could really use the materials.
if you think that the Democrats are any better, you need to go get a spectrum analyzer on the coolaid your drinking. I see two parties doing their best to create a Serf class. The GOP wants to stagnate wages in order to keep the costs down for corporations, and in turn attempt to keep cost of living down to prevent riots. The Democrats need their party members to actually go vote. For whatever reason they have a higher ratio of sit-on-their-asses-and-not-do-shit members than other parties. If they actually did something about minorities and gave them an equal chance, they would not be pissed off voters. Keeping the minorities pissed off, and carefully deflecting the blame away from the democrats, is a significant method of guaranteeing voter turnout. People who are happy with life seldom vote. This is the reason the partisanship has been steadily ramping up since the mid 90s. Back in the 80s and early 90s voter turnout was in the teens. Meanwhile as long as the constituents are all equally pissed off and at each others throats, nobody notices both parties robbing the coffers and padding their bank accounts.
This is why I became a libertarian over a decade ago. I quickly realized that both main-stream parties were in it for themselves and their sick obsession with power. Anyone truly serving the country would step the fuck down when they got diagnosed with brain tumors, or was taking some very expensive Alzheimer medication and still spacing out and slurring their speech, or goes around wearing some sort of support structure that one hides underneath a winter scarf and a heavy wool coat in the middle of may in 90F weather to make people think they are in perfect health. A true patriot would step aside for whats best for the country and not be so filled with such ego that nobody, not one other person out of the 150Million in this country, could possibly do as good if not better job.
you do realize the history of the KKK was drenched deeply in the Democrat party right? It was founded by southern democrats to prevent black people from voting. Its amazing how often the Republican party gets blamed for racism. The republicans have their list of flaws.. but KKK is definitely not one of them.
the civil war, a bunch of southern democrats, angry at the election of a republican president, seceded from the union to form a new nation, one were slavery was to remain legal.
Jim Crow laws, enacted by white-Democratic dominated state legeslatures in the 19th century to mandate racial segregation
civil rights act of 1964 - Goldwater was one of just six Senate Republicans to vote against the bill in 1964, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, passing with an overall 290-130 vote. While most Democrats in both chambers voted for it, the bulk of the opposition still was from Democrats
maybe you should stop drinking the coolaid and realized that everything you've been told is a lie. There isnt one party worth this loyalty from you. They are all undeserving, they just have manipulated you into thinking all the world problems lay squarely on their competition. Its simply not mathematically possible for one side to do no right, and the other to do no wrong.
unless my history teachers from the 80s were wrong, and this predates all this polarized politcal correctness, fascims is the polar opposite of communism/socialism. It came as a knee-jerk reaction of communism taking hold among the self appointed 'eleets' who felt it trendy to call themselves communists. They looked down on the common person with disdain, noses in the air, basking in their sense of superiority. The commoners really resented this, so when the nazi party came about and talked about issues that were near and dear to the average 'joe the plumber', Fascism surfaced. If you take any idea and push it to the borders of its possibility you will always result in extremism. Fascism is capitolism run amok to the point of government propping it up to prevent self-correction.
if these self-appointed anti-fascists groups were truly interested in stopping the next fascist movement, maybe the should identify the source of unrest instead of just going out and provoking violence. Its more productive to find out why the average worker is so unhappy that he sees an extremist as the only hope for his/her future. If you can solve the unhappiness, extremists groups like nationalists/fascists or liberal/communists would not be able to take hold. At the end of the day, everyone just wants to be happy and feel like their life matters. If you can solve that one simple need, the media and factions of government would not be so easy to polarize society and pit one half against the other.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and _domestic_ ...
Based on your comment, it is a pretty good bet that you do not live in the US. Obviously the concept of Liberty or Death is blind to you. When a group of thugs, under the guise of calling themselves 'Police', violate the Constitution and shred the 4th amendment in the process of shredding the 2nd amendment, they have declared WAR on the Constitution and the people of the United States. It is not terrorism to defend against domestic enemies. Terrorism is a act of violence perpetrated against an innocent group of individuals for the purpose of making a statement to an entirely different group of people or its government. Taking up arms, declaring war on the constitution, and illegally searching house to house makes them anything BUT innocent people. According to Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, you are to only follow LAWFUL orders given by officers and your superiors. Following an unlawful order is something one does at their own peril. Any police that does not resign and instead commits crimes against the people takes such actions at their own peril. They have in such declared war on the people of the United States. It is every citizens responsibility to rise up and defend the constitution and its people, and become the militia that the founding fathers intended.
i could think of no better way of being in proper working order for a militia than training. However, certain groups are very much opposed to any sort of organized training courses on battlefield tactics.
no, because law enforcement is mostly pro-gun too. They just dont want shit-bags to have it. If they are forced to go door to door what your going to find is 'bait' houses set up for searches. and when 10 or 12 cops are digging through the house... BOOM! the whole fucking house explodes with 12 dead cops and all their canines, etc. The next 12 cops will be less likely to be so anxious to search another house. After about 50 or 60 of these incidents, they will stop searching houses and just pretend like they rounded them all up. Nobody wants to risk death for a job they don't completely agree with anyway.