The worst turn we took after allowing the the Federal Reserve and before the War On Drugs, was the Red Scare. We fell into the dogma that capitalism was good, was big business, and that we should trust in it 100%. Anything else had nothing to contribute, including communism, and we went on literal witch hunts.
You two are so full of shit. The real whoops is yes, you both linked to the same article. Evidence you may be astroturfers.
Regardless, taking what mattack2 out of context is just sorry. He does what he said he does, and he does keep getting re-elected. That isn't to say he doesn't also do his job and try to get some off the money back to his district, when appropriate, as the article that you both link to explains.
And man, looking at your signature amRadioHed... hope rules and wisdom choke you? Hope anarchy rules and evil prevails? Are you serious? Please go live somewhere else then.
Oh and spun, it is you that are misquoting him it seems, and the article, not the LaTimes themselves. I think you can do better than that, but I hope not.
Why is he alive? Because the world is watching and they haven't seen an opportunity to cleanly get away with it. Congressmen Ron Paul stated that those that are behind it just admitted they assassinate some of our own citizens. You think they won't do it to him if they could get away with it? Really? Be done with the problem? If they don't, it is because they know it will cause more, plain and simple.
No, the first one is not free. A mistake is free. Saying you are against murder and killing someone out of rage, may have been a mistake. (Depression is a killer, no pun intended.) But planning to do it and taking out several people, you probably were not insane enough to not know what you were doing. But yet again, look at all of the evidence. Someone running on harsher penalties and capital punishment kind of discredits himself right away after murder, huh?
Now, I know those are extreme examples, but that is the best way to defend or refute and argument. I think you can see the point.
Sorry, I may not have seen you were being sarcastic, which isn't really true since you are right, that is what those in power dimensionally believe and teach others.
I have found THE truth. Others have found falsehood if they don't recognize the only truth. It is not my own to claim, it is but what it is, and that is reality and not lies and make believe.
How minute a difference in two things must there be for one to be false, or even heresy?
There must only be a difference, as small as you would like. If it is not the same as truth, then it is not truth. Don't you see?
Most things on the Internet are driven by profit. We should obey all the laws of the land, yes each and every one of them, even if they are not fair and we do not agree. The only time we should not obey, is if it compromises truth.
sidenote/ As my first "freak" (that's foe to you), may I ask why that was? You are now a friend to me.
I looked up the phrase three edged sword, and it seems to mean your side, their side, and the truth. Are you implying I have my own side, which isn't the truth?
I am still not sure what you mean, and it is not from my lack of wanting to understand... No, that isn't what it means, no there isn't a truth? I presume the latter instead of the former, but please refrain from trying to teach me foreign words that have loose translations at best. I will never get the meaning without knowing the language, i.e. think in that language.
Because, that is the only side I am on. In fact, that was that I was saying, there is only the truth, and anything else is not the truth, i.e. wrong.
Truth is a wave function, you never know how it will collapse. There are as many truths as there are observers and if you think you've collapsed it you haven't dug enough. Unless you are omniscient, but then you can force it to collapse to your truth using omnipotence.
No matter the observer, the truth is but the truth. It can only be found through understanding. Even relativity's consequences of speed and relative time differences are not contradictory (lies), just evidence for a deeper understanding of the truth.
You see, the observer chooses to be a slave to his lie (confusion), unless he holds judgment (decision) until it is proven and he finds the truth. Even your false dichotomy reference is a lie (misleading and therefore not the truth, and certainly not the third edge of a sword - the less than whole truth concept is a lie). While it is true the statement "If you are not with us, you are against us." often does not equal true, it may be in correct context.
As below illustrates, "If you are not with me (on the truth), then you are against me (and for lies.)" It does not qualify as a "false choice", but rather is indeed a true choice; the anti of a "false dichotomy".
John - Chapter 8
The Children of Abraham
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
The Children of the Devil
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not ho
I looked up the phrase three edged sword, and it seems to mean your side, their side, and the truth. Are you implying I have my own side, which isn't the truth? Because, that is the only side I am on. In fact, that was that I was saying, there is only the truth, and anything else is not the truth, i.e. wrong.
It is never good to treat others badly. Their was evidence that O.J. Simpson was guilty, however there is evidence that the police planted evidence, likely due to his fame. He, nor the public received a fair trial.
Would this have been able to happen without Sweden's strange "rape" laws? No, probably not. Would the case have received as much attention from authorities if it was an ordinary person? Again, perhaps not, but that's the price of fame and notoriety: famous and well-known people often get different treatment — and what treatment they do get garners massive news coverage.
Regardless of Sweden's laws, or his high profile, anyone is blind if they think think the governments of the world didn't have any influence in getting him on Interpol's radar and arrested for their own agenda. What he is accused of did not warrant being on a most wanted list. Him being put on Interpol's radar is in fact a dirty trick, and had the intended result of purposefully putting him not under a negative light, but a negative spotlight in order to allow the mass public to not be outraged with the way they have treated Wikileaks. Without it, and soon being arrested , Paypal, Amazon, and his domain provider would not have all consecutively, in a short time frame, cut him off. (yes, I believe they knew his arrest was also just a matter of time as long as they kept increasing the pressure)
""Like it or not, commercial open source companies are still companies, and the economics of the online world have everything to do with their present and their future."
Sure, the economies of the online world have everything to do with their present and future, which is PRECISELY why we can allow them to be spoiled. We have two choices, THE right way (and there is only one when it comes to freedom and openness, with honesty and well, openness), or the wrong way. Compromises are like bad apples, they spoil the whole barrel.
We can find a solution to anything, but it is not by sacrificing our morals. Don't want to tell me what your doing by tracking me? Not in the spirit of open source; and you can go to hell, where your sins belong.
Hear that sound? That was the main idea of my post flying at mach 12 a foot over your head. Well, not completely, you did state they are semi sane not demoralizing and also likely inhibiting their employees with locked down white-list only access.
But let me help you out, the Aussie government as reported on Slashdot has been flirting with destroying the privacy and free access to the web in many ways. That should be what is an issue to be on Slashdot, this story? Not even in the idle section imho.
I have a project I am working on, if you are interested in possibly getting involved...
I wasn't suggesting he run for office either, unless he wanted to. But as I wouldn't likely ever do it, I couldn't advocate it either. I was mainly commenting on the revolution, which I feel will not be guided by politicians, and based on peace to be successful.
George Bush Sr. also promoted Monsanto and argued that because we eat food with DNA, eating food with altered DNA is safe. (and the same thing) Are we the public that dumb, or are they for thinking we'd fall for that? DNA makes an organism what it is, poisonousness, allergy laden, compatible with nature, etc. I don't care to be a beta tester with my food. That's just eating it, not to mention the cost to society from cross-pollination into others farms, and so on.
He won't likely dare judge himself by his own words, even though that is not what you likely meant. But maybe hey, I don't know him at all, and he does. I have been wrong before.
I was going to friend you, but hey you already are! Keep hitting them with logic and at least they have to lie to themselves, instead of just being delusional.
Agreed, honest man by his voting record through and through. Saying you own the baby in your belly is like saying the government owns the citizens in it's belly.
I have a choice to not drive. Millions don't have a license. Game, set, match.
(I could go one, but I don't care to argue with you when you think I should HAVE to pay at any point for anything. That is not freedom, but slavery, ala to the company store - government, insurance companies, and anyone else that derives income from this scandal.)
You don't need a boogie man, they exist. But you are right, the WOT is the next best choice... wait what?
How much police force is enough? Enough to do the job. How many is that? Well, you have to examine how much crime there is. And certainly, there are too many crimes, that is things that should not be criminal. Go after the low hanging fruit first, and decriminalize victim-less crimes like possessing cannabis for instance. That would indeed instantly lower the needed manpower.
But the real solution is changing the business model. Instead of rewarding politicians for collars, you should be rewarding them on their ratio to collars to crime. Less crime, higher ratio. If the ratio goes to low, reduce your police force and/or start diverting funds to detectives and their training. Allow them more freedom to work on cases of there choosing ala Googles's 25%(?) paid time to work on what they want. Then, THEN the police force will shine. (closing harder out of the box solving cases.)
Oh, and while you're at it, divert some funds to "communication" classes for the patrolmen. When you treat people a certain way, it tends to be a self fulfilling prophesy. And that isn't good for the "right" kind of police business model.
Slashdot Mirror
sudo stop making me laugh with stuff I have already seen. (And was probably in my sub-conscience when I wrote the post you replied to.)
Okay, okay, it WAS oblig.
The worst turn we took after allowing the the Federal Reserve and before the War On Drugs, was the Red Scare. We fell into the dogma that capitalism was good, was big business, and that we should trust in it 100%. Anything else had nothing to contribute, including communism, and we went on literal witch hunts.
I think I have a solution that can address that. Care to hear more?
You two are so full of shit. The real whoops is yes, you both linked to the same article. Evidence you may be astroturfers.
Regardless, taking what mattack2 out of context is just sorry. He does what he said he does, and he does keep getting re-elected. That isn't to say he doesn't also do his job and try to get some off the money back to his district, when appropriate, as the article that you both link to explains.
And man, looking at your signature amRadioHed... hope rules and wisdom choke you? Hope anarchy rules and evil prevails? Are you serious? Please go live somewhere else then.
Oh and spun, it is you that are misquoting him it seems, and the article, not the LaTimes themselves. I think you can do better than that, but I hope not.
Why is he alive? Because the world is watching and they haven't seen an opportunity to cleanly get away with it. Congressmen Ron Paul stated that those that are behind it just admitted they assassinate some of our own citizens. You think they won't do it to him if they could get away with it? Really? Be done with the problem? If they don't, it is because they know it will cause more, plain and simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5b7M04xPRE&feature=player_embedded
No, the first one is not free. A mistake is free. Saying you are against murder and killing someone out of rage, may have been a mistake. (Depression is a killer, no pun intended.) But planning to do it and taking out several people, you probably were not insane enough to not know what you were doing. But yet again, look at all of the evidence. Someone running on harsher penalties and capital punishment kind of discredits himself right away after murder, huh?
Now, I know those are extreme examples, but that is the best way to defend or refute and argument. I think you can see the point.
Sorry, I may not have seen you were being sarcastic, which isn't really true since you are right, that is what those in power dimensionally believe and teach others.
I have found THE truth. Others have found falsehood if they don't recognize the only truth. It is not my own to claim, it is but what it is, and that is reality and not lies and make believe.
How minute a difference in two things must there be for one to be false, or even heresy?
There must only be a difference, as small as you would like. If it is not the same as truth, then it is not truth. Don't you see?
You are right, and doesn't make what I said any less true.
Most things on the Internet are driven by profit. We should obey all the laws of the land, yes each and every one of them, even if they are not fair and we do not agree. The only time we should not obey, is if it compromises truth.
sidenote/ As my first "freak" (that's foe to you), may I ask why that was? You are now a friend to me.
I looked up the phrase three edged sword, and it seems to mean your side, their side, and the truth. Are you implying I have my own side, which isn't the truth?
Mu.
I am still not sure what you mean, and it is not from my lack of wanting to understand... No, that isn't what it means, no there isn't a truth? I presume the latter instead of the former, but please refrain from trying to teach me foreign words that have loose translations at best. I will never get the meaning without knowing the language, i.e. think in that language.
Because, that is the only side I am on. In fact, that was that I was saying, there is only the truth, and anything else is not the truth, i.e. wrong.
False dichotomy.
Truth is a wave function, you never know how it will collapse. There are as many truths as there are observers and if you think you've collapsed it you haven't dug enough. Unless you are omniscient, but then you can force it to collapse to your truth using omnipotence.
No matter the observer, the truth is but the truth. It can only be found through understanding. Even relativity's consequences of speed and relative time differences are not contradictory (lies), just evidence for a deeper understanding of the truth.
Two Edges of a Sword
You see, the observer chooses to be a slave to his lie (confusion), unless he holds judgment (decision) until it is proven and he finds the truth. Even your false dichotomy reference is a lie (misleading and therefore not the truth, and certainly not the third edge of a sword - the less than whole truth concept is a lie). While it is true the statement "If you are not with us, you are against us." often does not equal true, it may be in correct context.
As below illustrates, "If you are not with me (on the truth), then you are against me (and for lies.)" It does not qualify as a "false choice", but rather is indeed a true choice; the anti of a "false dichotomy".
John - Chapter 8
The Children of Abraham
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”
34Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”
39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
The Children of the Devil
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not ho
I looked up the phrase three edged sword, and it seems to mean your side, their side, and the truth. Are you implying I have my own side, which isn't the truth? Because, that is the only side I am on. In fact, that was that I was saying, there is only the truth, and anything else is not the truth, i.e. wrong.
It is never good to treat others badly. Their was evidence that O.J. Simpson was guilty, however there is evidence that the police planted evidence, likely due to his fame. He, nor the public received a fair trial.
Would this have been able to happen without Sweden's strange "rape" laws? No, probably not. Would the case have received as much attention from authorities if it was an ordinary person? Again, perhaps not, but that's the price of fame and notoriety: famous and well-known people often get different treatment — and what treatment they do get garners massive news coverage.
Regardless of Sweden's laws, or his high profile, anyone is blind if they think think the governments of the world didn't have any influence in getting him on Interpol's radar and arrested for their own agenda. What he is accused of did not warrant being on a most wanted list. Him being put on Interpol's radar is in fact a dirty trick, and had the intended result of purposefully putting him not under a negative light, but a negative spotlight in order to allow the mass public to not be outraged with the way they have treated Wikileaks. Without it, and soon being arrested , Paypal, Amazon, and his domain provider would not have all consecutively, in a short time frame, cut him off. (yes, I believe they knew his arrest was also just a matter of time as long as they kept increasing the pressure)
""Like it or not, commercial open source companies are still companies, and the economics of the online world have everything to do with their present and their future."
Sure, the economies of the online world have everything to do with their present and future, which is PRECISELY why we can allow them to be spoiled. We have two choices, THE right way (and there is only one when it comes to freedom and openness, with honesty and well, openness), or the wrong way. Compromises are like bad apples, they spoil the whole barrel.
We can find a solution to anything, but it is not by sacrificing our morals. Don't want to tell me what your doing by tracking me? Not in the spirit of open source; and you can go to hell, where your sins belong.
Hear that sound? That was the main idea of my post flying at mach 12 a foot over your head. Well, not completely, you did state they are semi sane not demoralizing and also likely inhibiting their employees with locked down white-list only access.
But let me help you out, the Aussie government as reported on Slashdot has been flirting with destroying the privacy and free access to the web in many ways. That should be what is an issue to be on Slashdot, this story? Not even in the idle section imho.
I have a project I am working on, if you are interested in possibly getting involved...
I wasn't suggesting he run for office either, unless he wanted to. But as I wouldn't likely ever do it, I couldn't advocate it either. I was mainly commenting on the revolution, which I feel will not be guided by politicians, and based on peace to be successful.
George Bush Sr. also promoted Monsanto and argued that because we eat food with DNA, eating food with altered DNA is safe. (and the same thing) Are we the public that dumb, or are they for thinking we'd fall for that? DNA makes an organism what it is, poisonousness, allergy laden, compatible with nature, etc. I don't care to be a beta tester with my food. That's just eating it, not to mention the cost to society from cross-pollination into others farms, and so on.
He won't likely dare judge himself by his own words, even though that is not what you likely meant. But maybe hey, I don't know him at all, and he does. I have been wrong before.
I was going to friend you, but hey you already are! Keep hitting them with logic and at least they have to lie to themselves, instead of just being delusional.
Agreed, honest man by his voting record through and through. Saying you own the baby in your belly is like saying the government owns the citizens in it's belly.
I have a choice to not drive. Millions don't have a license. Game, set, match.
(I could go one, but I don't care to argue with you when you think I should HAVE to pay at any point for anything. That is not freedom, but slavery, ala to the company store - government, insurance companies, and anyone else that derives income from this scandal.)
He doesn't get much done due to the attitudes of people like you. You did this, you did.
Bizarre principles? I don't know where to being...
You don't need a boogie man, they exist. But you are right, the WOT is the next best choice... wait what?
How much police force is enough? Enough to do the job. How many is that? Well, you have to examine how much crime there is. And certainly, there are too many crimes, that is things that should not be criminal. Go after the low hanging fruit first, and decriminalize victim-less crimes like possessing cannabis for instance. That would indeed instantly lower the needed manpower.
But the real solution is changing the business model. Instead of rewarding politicians for collars, you should be rewarding them on their ratio to collars to crime. Less crime, higher ratio. If the ratio goes to low, reduce your police force and/or start diverting funds to detectives and their training. Allow them more freedom to work on cases of there choosing ala Googles's 25%(?) paid time to work on what they want. Then, THEN the police force will shine. (closing harder out of the box solving cases.)
Oh, and while you're at it, divert some funds to "communication" classes for the patrolmen. When you treat people a certain way, it tends to be a self fulfilling prophesy. And that isn't good for the "right" kind of police business model.
I agree 100%.