@deathcow & @criticalthud : Profit engine has a lot to do with it. Private entities are like virii. They can ONLY encourage things which increase growth / profit. It's a conflict of interest to reduce crime. Companies like Serco scare the crap out of me - cos most people don't know they even exist.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Biggest-Company-You-ve-Never-Heard-Of

I'm not sure the scale argument holds up. It's just comforting to think America is big like Texas. The application of law across a 100M to 300M shouldn't someones attitude or morality when making a decision. If the pop density per Sq Mile was the issue the US has plenty of open space, and the cities are not that more populated than any other. Nor is the poorest American poorer.

I don't think it's even the volume of drugs coming over from central/south america... although the zealous enforcement of imprisonment probably doesnt help. Drugs may not be the gateway to crime - but being imprisoned certainly seems to be.

I'd side with the 'extreme liberty' argument.

Haven't bought this lower taxes = jobs at all. I don't know how anyone can hear them say it and not tell them to go fuck right off with that nonsense.

Now if they say "lower taxes IF we create X number of jobs not counting bringing back laid off employees, etc" then we'd have a conversation. But it's grabbing lower taxes while at best bringing back laid off employees as the workload increases, which the workload is going to increase despite whatever the tax rate may be...people can only cut out certain things for so long until absolutely need them when it comes to manufactured goods whether it be paint, siding, car parts, clothes, water heater, etc. Stuff breaks, wears out, needs maintenance, etc.

What the discussion should be put to is raising taxes, but allowing companies to expand their operations (including hiring more people) and keep the current tax rate. So there is incentive to put money into expansion instead of into their cash reserves and sitting on it. And there should be similar thinking to that when it comes to corporations going forward. Laws limiting their ability to enter into bankruptcy while paying out bonuses to the people who led them into the hole, because it is a total conflict of interest to have people drawing excessive non-salaried money out of a company that should be conserving. They should be directing them, by law, into actions which benefit the US society first and foremost and global society secondary so they have a "healthy to the economy" but profitable operation and not the current parasitic relationship going on where the corporation takes everything and pisses on everyone else. It's creating an animosity that really doesn't need to exist between the citizenry and the corporations.

It would be a good staging point to attack the Nazis based on the dark side of the moon.
Iron Sky
Or would that represent a conflict of interest for Newt, attacking Nazis that is.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.




>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.
No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.
Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.
Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?
As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.
And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223
Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?
How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?
So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?
I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.
Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

ha!

well, let's just put this in perspective then...
26 of our 50 states took the obama healthcare initiative to our highest court.
wouldn't this be the same conflict of interest if any state funds were used to host any activity to which our supreme court justices were invited and attended? (by any measure, they are the plaintiffs in this case.)

answer: yes, by your very myopic and obtuse assessment... it would.

take a deep breath, pull your heads out of your behinds, and realize A. that this is one-sided reporting of a bipartisan pasttime, and B. that the members of our SCOTUS are selected because they are the premier interpreters of our nation's constitution, and therefore given the benefit of the doubt because of the long road and fractious appointment process that has brought them to their positions.

frankly, i don't care which way they vote on this issue - i live overseas. but if i were a betting man, i'd wager that we see a 5-4 / 6-3 split, both against the constitutionality of the current plan. this will clearly disrupt your shortsighted view of political partisanism.

seriously, don't bother to respond to my comments if you don't understand the issue, or are too lazy to do your homework.

rachel maddow is figuratively the unwanted offspring of a beck / limbaugh coupling, where they then pissed on the infant and put her up for adoption.

simply put: she inherited their style but has an axe to grind with their politics.

"1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs."

The point is there are a small group of people that have a large amount of welth and are using that wealth to control the political and legal system and have basicly hijacked the democracy. That is what the 99% ers are protesting.

until You remove control from people who have a compleat conflict of interest then you cannot address the core aspect of job creation.
If these protests have the desired effect , the knock on result would be that government and industry can rationally approach things in a way that might work and would in the end result in a better quality of life for more people and most likely more jobs.

"2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, "

They blame fox news because it is a media outlet owned by the small % of super rich people and a part of there method of using wealth to control the nation. fox news is also entirely disingenuous and presents its self as a news station and fair and balanced when in fact it solely exists to push the agenda of the very rich in society.

They blame republicans more so than democrats because republican policy benefits the super rich more so than the democrats policy , having said that I think most people don't even see this as a republican or democrats issue the fact is both governments are largely as bad as each other. Fact is if you have enough money you can simply lobby things into existence evan if they are a detriment to the society at large.

"3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan"

there game plan and what they want is ridiculously clear and simple they want wealth to be more evenly spread and for policy and laws to be made based on what is good for the majority of people in the country not a select few that happen to be super wealthy.

The reason why they are having to protest and kick up a fuss how they are is because democracy is so fundimentaly broken and tilted towards wealth deciding things that unless you are rich or in a high up cooperate position you cannot have any influence to gain traction.







>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Sorry but I don't think I missed your point. Also I am not playing ignorant. I didn't think those points needed recognition.
I recognize unemployment is at an all time high.
I recognize a large percentage of those are college graduates.
I believe everything you said. I pretty much agreed with your idea, sorry if I'm misinterpreting is that, jobs are hard to get these days even for college students and there is a definite issue with over qualifications.
I don't understand what I said that would induce a statement from you encouraging a response from me in the terms "You are right, and I was wrong". I re-read what I wrote and don't think that there was any blanket statement made, let alone one that has an extreme contradiction to what you said. So sorry if I'm a little lost. If you could quote the statement I made that you clearly disagree with I would be happy to discuss.
One of my points I feel like you may of missed, is that College is graduating more people in fields then there are jobs for that field. Which isn't helpful because people end up "throwing away" their degrees and getting jobs in other fields and now have to pay off student loans making it hard to get by.
I do recognize the issue with Entry Level Jobs. In programming I see job offerings all the time that say "Entry Level Position" then on it "2-4 years experience" I already have a job so I every time I see that I've started e-mailing those companies "2-4 Years expierience" !== "Entry Level" (!== means not equal, nerd joke).
Also their is a difference between Lying and omission from a Resume. I guess I shouldn't of used "Lie". My bad. Their is nothing wrong with not putting in PHD and rather just putting in BA. You don't have to put everything on a resume, I mean I've seen some with people with Dog Watching on their resume. A lot of job consultants will tell you not to make one generic and use it for everyone. Tweak it to what's important to the company you are applying for. Not lying.
My issue with this whole "99%":
1) How is picketing Wall Street helping Jobs. These people don't have a game plan, they are just screaming. Wall Street guys are huge douche bags, but at the same time I still have money in the market and my portfolio is still doing well. It's growth has definitely slowed over the past few years but it is still more then 3 years ago. Mainly I diversified. All these people who lost all their money had all their eggs in one basket. Which there is a saying for that.
2) They keep blaming Fox News / Republicans. But a republican isn't president, and for a period Democrats held House and Senate and President. During these times They still blamed Fox News / Republicans for everything. Dems had all the power at a time and didn't do shit with it. I just want to know when they are going to start holding Obama accountable. Obama is a terrible president. The problem is when I say that people think I'm defending Bush or some crap. Fuck Bush. Fuck Obama. Give me another Option. I though Clinton did a fine job. So did Bush Sr.
3) I can't get behind these people because they have no Game Plan. If they had Action Items Examples "Fire This Person", "Pass This Bill", "something" I could possibly get behind their ideas and message. But they don't so I don't even know what they want. They just go "I don't like the economy and the job situation". Nobody does. Hell even Rich do, the higher employment is, the more money Ford, Chevy, Coca Cola, other big companies make. So they are not against jobs.
To quote Lewis Black "Republicans have Bad Ideas, Democrats have No Ideas".
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
I am slightly frustrated (annoyed) that you missed my point, given that I think I made it very clear.
Not everyone who is having trouble finding a job is undereducated, not willing to explore labor jobs, educated in something that is not useful, or self-entitled.
In fact, quite the opposite. Most people I know who are having trouble finding work are unemployed because they lack industry experience, which they can't get because no one is hiring entry level positions. Thus, your reductive and simplistic rant is an naive interpretation of the current economic situation. As such, your blanket statements about people who can't find a job are simply false.
I gave a specific example that demonstrated empirically (a concrete example of) my point. To reiterate (repeat), highly educated people are unable to obtain labor jobs due to their credentials, because companies like Safeway, Wholes Foods, Walmart, etc fear these employees will not stay long enough to recoup any investment in training.
The fact that you persist in clinging on to your beliefs and cant say simply "You are right, and I was wrong. Good point, I should not have made a blanket statement" indicates to me that you are willfully ignorant (intentionally making an effort to not understand).
I look forward to your reply.
Here are the specific answers to your questions:
1) I am an experimental physicist and my wife is a biologist.
2) At research universities (Harvard, Stanford, etc), Professors hired based on research. Typically they are pioneers in their field and have numerous high profile publications.
3) My position is based on merit. As I said, I received numerous awards based on my academic and research performance.
4 & 5) non sequiturs (off topic).
6) You advice is to LIE! What is she supposed to say she has done for employment in the last 6 years? Are you kidding me?
>> ^ptrcklgrs:
1) My first question is what is your PHD in.
2) College sadly has gotten to be a for profit education system.
3) IV league schools probably only 10% of the people who go there, got in on merit.
4) I had a teacher in college who made us Buy his book... I had great teachers and I had shitty teachers.
5) I just want to be able to get rid of the shitty teachers to bring in more great teachers.
6) I undestand your issue with being over qualified and it sucks. If I were you or your wife, I would leave it off my resume and lie. If your dealing with Safeway or a big company, no one is getting hurt. I wouldn't do that to a Mom and Pop Shop.

Why?

I do have a distaste for the free markets where higher profits = the only business ethics that exist. And I'm simply more distrusting of corporations than I am of my own government.

There is a bit of a conflict of interest there no matter who you favor though because of the lobbying that goes on in Washington. Laws created because of lobbyists, as a general rule I find, tend to not favor the people or the liberty you hold so dear. And therein lies the problem that I have with a lot of libertarian ideology in general.

The more markets and businesses are unregulated the more freedom and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Allow me to use privatized prisons as an example of what I mean: Prisons run as businesses have no incentives to decrease their prison population. They trade the cost of doing business for quality rehabilitation.

From this study by The University of Chicago and Harvard:

Prisons seem to Žt reasonably well into our framework. Although
in some respects prison contracts are very detailed, they
are still seriously incomplete. There are signiŽcant opportunities
for cost reduction that do not violate the contracts, but that, at
least in principle, can substantially reduce quality. Moreover,
from the available evidence we have the impression that the
world may not be far from the assumptions of Proposition 4.
First, the welfare consequences of quality deterioration might be
of the same magnitude as those of cost reduction
------------------------------------------------

I'm all for free markets, but the government needs to be there to protect the rights of the people whenever appropriate.

Now when it comes to the Republican party as a whole, generally they support de-regulation as long as it doesn't meet of the following criteria: something the religious right wants done OR something that guarantees rights/money to private institutions.

However, those don't seem like the kind's of things that Ron Paul would support, so I would support him to counterbalance their, in my opinion, insane ideas about how we should run this country.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wow. I'm a bit shocked, I have to admit. Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Would be the first Republican I would vote for.

Look at Madoff, people knew for years that he was lying and scheming and stealing and nothing was done until absolutely no one could deny that he was. How do we expect people to act?

Now THAT is a much more fair and logical assessment than Russell's foolish brand of populism, or the typical neolib socialist rah-rah found on the Sift.

You're right. Citizens everywhere are angry when large companies, financial institutions, banks, or whatever other 'capitalist' source you care to name rakes in billions of dollars using shady, unethical tactics - but is able to skate away with only wrist slaps. Who isn't angry about stuff like that? I sure am. Contrary to what the average neolib may think - fiscal conservatives such as myself are not saying that 'big money' should not have to pay their fair share.

The problem is not the companies pulling these kinds of shenanigans though. The PROBLEM is that governments have an incestuous relationship with these big organizations, and are writing the laws (or ignoring them) in such a way as to create this tooth-gnashing dynamic. In the United States, the federal government's JOB (in fact its ONLY job) is to be a place where people can go to redress their grievences. Government is supposed to be the referree that only steps in the game when there is a foul - so to speak.

But that's not what happens in Britain, the US, or any of these other so-called 'social democracies'. What has happened is that the central governments in these nations have BECOME the 'big money' bad guys. The governments are the biggest providers of housing. The biggest providers of food. The biggest providers of money. The biggest providers of health care. The biggest providers of retirement. The biggest financial house. The biggest in just about everything. And yet at the same time they are the ones that write the laws that are supposed to be protecting the citizens from abuses. It is a huge conflict of interest.

The whole housing bubble was created not because banks suddenly came up with the brilliant idea of bundling mortgages into bigger deals to trade. It happened because the government repealed the LAW that prevented financial houses from doing that stuff. But why? Because government (Barney Frank) wanted UFFOWDUBBLE HOWSEING and wanted to use Freddie/Fannie to engineer it. But banks made no money loaning money to folks that couldn't afford a mortgage - so they came up with the whole bundling sceme to make it all work. Well - any idiot knew it couldn't last (except Frank of course) and pop goes the bubble. Where do the citizens go to 'redress their grievences'? The banks? They were ordered to make the bad loans by government? The government? You can't sue them. So the citizens get screwed, the banks have to be bailed out, and the government makes out like a bandit.

The answer is not bigger government and more taxes. The answer is smaller government, with limited powers and fewer responsibilities. And above all - government MUST be removed from the market equation. When government is both IN the market AND ALSO is in charge of picking the winners and losers - it will always pick itself. The perception of 'big money' getting away with crap only increases as government becomes stronger and stronger (as socialist governments always do).

Government must be 100% removed from the marketplace, and THEN it can serve its proper role as a recourse to appeal to for a redress of grievences and enforce proper restrictions on private organizations that engage in shenanigans.

I have no idea how the interpretation of the law works - nor do I care to partake in that arguement.

But I believe that using his Government position to rally people together to pray to his God is clearly a conflict of interest. Soliciting, endorsing and hosting a massive prey-in to help him be a better leader and to divine his way through his job is massively offensive to those people he serves that don't buy into that cultist and useless practice.

He is in that JOB because he is supposed to have the skills to perform that job. Just by saying he needs every one to assemble and pray clearly states that he is not only incompetent to perform his duties but he is turning to religion to help lead the government.

There is no reason why he should be evoking religion and prayer to help lead the people. Those that are atheist or don't endorse the validity of prayer should be offended because and have the right to point out the separation between church and state because it's a massive slap in the face.

The man being paid to lead the people - All the people in that state - to use his elected powers to orchestrate and fix that which needs fixing in order to keep the state running smoothly, is turning to Hocus-Pocas, Mumbo-Jumbo to do the job for him. It's a natural feeling for the religious Sheeple to feel calmed and re-assured after they prey and what a warm hug-fest this is for them. They will go away feeling like things are better now that they have placed everything in their prayers and God's hands. But in fact, absolutely nothing gets accomplished. Nothing gets addressed and nothing is solved. Everything is the same as it was when they went in. The only difference is now there is less opposition within the religious majority. This in turn becomes a political platform.

And besides all of that, who want's to bet how many of the expenses from this event, paid by the governor, become tax write off expenses!

The transcription is from a different message. Here's the right one:

Greetings, members of NATO. We are Anonymous.

In a recent publication, you have singled out Anonymous as a threat to „government and the people“. You have also alleged that secrecy is a ‘necessary evil’ and that transparency is npt always the right way forward.

Anonymous would like to remind you that the government and the people are, contrary to the supposed foundations of „democracy“, distinct entities with often conflicting goals and desires. It is Anonymous’ position that when there is a conflict of interest between the government and the people, it is the people’s will which must take priority. The only threat transparency poses to government is to threaten government’s ability to act in a manner which the people would disagree with, without having to face democratic consequences and accountability for such behaviour. Your own report cites a perfect example of this, the Anonymous attack on HBGary. Whether HBGary were acting in the cause of security or military gain is irrelevant – their actions were illegal and morally reprehensible. Anonymous does not accept that the government and/or the military has the right to be above the law and to use the phoney cliche of „national security“ to justify illegal and deceptive activities. If the government must break the rules, they must also be willing to accept the democratic consequences of this at the ballot box.We do not accept the current status quo whereby a government can tell one story to the people and another in private. Dishonesty and secrecy totally undermine the concept of self rule. How can the people judge for whom to vote unless they are fully aware of what policies said politicians are actually pursuing?

When a government is elected, it is said to „represent“ the nation it governs. This essentially means that the actions of a government are not the actions of the people in government, but are actions taken on behalf of every citizen in that country. It is unacceptable to have a situation in which the people are, in many cases, totally and utterly unaware of what is being said and done on their behalf – behind closed doors.

Anonymous and WikiLeaks are distinct entities. The actions of Anonymous were not aided or even requested by WikiLeaks. However, Anonymous and WikiLeaks do share one common attribute: They are no threat to any organization – unless that organization is doing something wrong and attempting to get away with it.

We do not wish to threaten anybody’s way of life. We do not wish to dictate anything to anybody. We do not wish to terrorize any nation.

We merely wish to remove power from vested interests and return it to the people – who, in a democracy, it should never have been taken from in the first place.
The government makes the law. This does not give them the right to break it. If the government was doing nothing underhand or illegal, there would be nothing „embarassing“ about Wikileaks revelations, nor would there have been any scandal emanating from HBGary. The resulting scandals were not a result of Anonymous’ or Wikileaks’ revelations, they were the result of the CONTENT of those revelations. And responsibility for that content can be laid solely at the doorstep of policymakers who, like any corrupt entity, naively believed that they were above the law and that they would not be caught.

A lot of government and corporate comment has been dedicated to „how we can avoid a similar leak in the future“. Such advice ranges from better security, to lower levels of clearance, from harsher penalties for whistleblowers, to censorship of the press.

Our message is simple: Do not lie to the people and you won’t have to worry about your lies being exposed. Do not make corrupt deals and you won’t have to worry about your corruption being laid bare. Do not break the rules and you won’t have to worry about getting in trouble for it.

Do not attempt to repair your two faces by concealing one of them. Instead, try having only one face – an honest, open and democratic one.

You know you do not fear us because we are a threat to society. You fear us because we are a threat to the established hierarchy. Anonymous has proven over the last several years that a hierarchy is not necessary in order to achieve great progress – perhaps what you truly fear in us, is the realization of your own irrelevance in an age which has outgrown its reliance on you. Your true terror is not in a collective of activists, but in the fact that you and everything you stand for have, by the changing tides and the advancement of technology, are now surplus to requirements.

Finally, do not make the mistake of challenging Anonymous. Do not make the mistake of believing you can behead a headless snake. If you slice off one head of Hydra, ten more heads will grow in its place. If you cut down one Anon, ten more will join us purely out of anger at your trampling of dissent.

Your only chance of defeating the movement which binds all of us is to accept it. This is no longer your world. It is our world – the people’s world.

We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

That sounds good on the surface, but then you have to figure in that representatives represent actual voters. That means people who the highest amount of vested interest in something have no representations over it. Take the people in New Orleans, they had some interest in levies. With that type of ban, they would be unable to have a representation on issues like that.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.


It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be no incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.



Federal funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is not pork barrel for a particular locale, so they would be free to vote on that. ACOE is responsible for building levies. Also, they should get it done at the state or local level.

That sounds good on the surface, but then you have to figure in that representatives represent actual voters. That means people who the highest amount of vested interest in something have no representations over it. Take the people in New Orleans, they had some interest in levies. With that type of ban, they would be unable to have a representation on issues like that.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.


It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be no incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:
This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.



It wouldn't apply to spending that helps _everybody's_ district as a coherent federal program. It would apply to pork barrel spending on a specific project in a specific constituency. A common case is that if they're a few votes short of passing a bill, they tack on pork barrel spending amendments for a few senators' states to get them to switch sides. Those senators would be required to recuse themselves from the final vote under my system. Then there would be less incentive for the majority to pass these pork barrel amendments.

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.


>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist how about signing on to some sort of Instant Runoff Voting campaign, instead of begging people to vote for people who didn't even make it on the ballot in 2008, and who likely won't even run in 2012?
Also, I can tell you from personal experience that you can't really count on massive political transformation to happen from the White House down. It's gotta be from the bottom up.
If Paul were leading a movement to try to make the grassroots of the right anti-war, maybe I'd have a bit more affinity for him. But he isn't doing that at all. Instead, he mostly just comes on TV, bashes Democrats for wars (and anything else going wrong), mumbles something about Republicans being guilty "too", and suggests that the only solution is for him personally to have more authority and power. That has totally soured me on Paul, and really makes me think is just another sociopath in search of political power for his own gratification.
Rather than pin your hopes on individual politicians, I suggest you go for shifting public opinion. If enough people strongly believe that America should give up its role as a military superpower, then there will be endless politicians from both parties who will be all too happy to hop in front of that parade.
Incidentally, most of us liberals and Democratic voters already feel that way. You might want to look at the other political coalition, since they seem to feel pretty strongly about maintaining America's military preeminence forever.



What kind of spending of federal funds wouldn't end up in your district though? Perhaps I don't understand the setup, though?
>> ^jwray:

This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.