>> ^ulysses1904:

His "Station to Station" performance at Madison Square Garden in 1976 is still my favorite concert of all time. He was brilliant back then.


He's always been brilliant. I rather suspect he always will be.

His "Station to Station" performance at Madison Square Garden in 1976 is still my favorite concert of all time. He was brilliant back then.

>> ^bareboards2:

No, silly.... you're not a fool. Although I did just call you silly -- am I digging myself into a hole here?
This stupid internet doesn't come with a tone of voice. If anything, I was the fool -- it is a crap inaccurate title and I knew it and I used it anyway in a craven bid to catch eyes. Sex and controversy "sell" vids, and I am a.... CAPITALIST. A Madison Avenue, lowest common denominator ADVERTISER.
Rule one in marketing -- don't call your target audience a fool! Dang.
You know whats funny? First I misunderstand you, then you misunderstand me. My "fool-comment" was in jest.

So we're even now

No, silly.... you're not a fool. Although I did just call you silly -- am I digging myself into a hole here?

This stupid internet doesn't come with a tone of voice. If anything, I was the fool -- it is a crap inaccurate title and I knew it and I used it anyway in a craven bid to catch eyes. Sex and controversy "sell" vids, and I am a.... CAPITALIST. A Madison Avenue, lowest common denominator ADVERTISER.

Rule one in marketing -- don't call your target audience a fool! Dang.

>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^bareboards2:
He's a boat act racist. (PS I was making a joke....)
>> ^TheGenk:
Where did he admit to being racist, exactly?


Well, that makes me look like a fool now, doesn't it? ...thank you!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live.

Reminds me of this quote from James Madison, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

Madison of course knew men weren't angels. The paragraph (and indeed the entire Federalist paper it's contained in) speaks to the entire problem one must solve when designing a government.

It's why I'm leery of people who want to reinvent society without taking any of that commentary into consideration.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

I agree, they're all hard problems. I'm just saying there's no easy fix. Unwinding the government doesn't seem like a fix for any of them.

On the environment, I actually agree with the Reason answer above. We need to move away from treating the environment as an unowned collective commons, and set up a property regime.

A.K.A, Cap & trade.

You don't seem to understand my point. I never said that they rule the bill of rights to be unconstitutional, that would be absurd. I said that they decide when a law is actually infringing on your constitutional rights. For instance, they might decide on whether or not laws dictating the permitting requirements for demonstration are an infringement on your right to free expression granted by the first amendment. In this particular case, they held that they are not. That is, they upheld the constitutionality of the law in question against direct challenges. Further, they set the precedent that dancing can potentially be considered a form of demonstration.

That is, in this particular case, they've found that laws drafted by the legislature are not infringing on your constitutional rights, and as I've pointed out, they have the constitutional authority to do so.

So what's your beef?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bmacs27:
I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.
It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?
I'll repeat:
Rights are not granted by law.
Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

>> ^bmacs27:

I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.
So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.
>> ^marbles:
If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.


??? Um, you do realize the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, right? So what you're saying is the courts can rule that part of the constitution is unconstitutional? Yeah, ok.

It's vague because my argument isn't about what authority the courts do have, it's about what authority they do NOT have. If you want to take it somewhere else, then go ahead. The burden of proof is on you And so far it's strike 1 with "Judicial Review". Try again?

I'll repeat:

Rights are not granted by law.

Law exists to protect rights, not the other way around.

I'd like to, but I need you to define your terms first. "Constitutional responsibilities" are fairly vague. For instance, in Article III of the constitution it grants the US Supreme Court the "judicial power" of the united states. Historically (since Marbury v Madison in 1803), that has been interpreted to mean the US Supreme Court holds the power of "Judicial Review." That is, they assess the constitutionality of legislation drafted by the legislative branch.

So yes, they do decide where, or if you will, "in which case" the Bill of Rights applies.

>> ^marbles:

If you want to dispute something I've said, then do it. Stop trying to take this exchange to a new place.

video shot around Union Square park, Madison Square park and Times SQ.

I doubt any Madison Ave agency could come up with a better ad.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

•Corrupt union leaders then personally negotiate with thier pet-elected corrupt politicians to freeze unrealistic pay, benefits, and work rules for unions


Throughout this entire mess, I have not seen any evidence of the lazy, overpaid union workers like the right keeps claiming. Where is the gravy train? From the studies I've seen, the union workers are at best paid a few percentage points higher than non-union. And the ones I believe, which take into account required education levels and responsibilities, indicate that public sector union workers could do better in the private sector.

I don't buy it. If the union workers are earning too much money, show us the proof and we will elect officials who run on the platform of negotiating for more reasonable pay levels. That hasn't happened, and it makes me believe that it's a load of bullshit.

Even if it is true, the proper route is to demonstrate the problem to the public, not bust the unions. We're the boss, remember? It's our money. Let everybody decide how to fix the problem if there is one. But right now, the majority of Americans are firmly behind unions. This whole Republican union-busting movement is a despicable end-run around the will of the people. And if there is any justice, they will be crushed for it in the next election.

You are welcome, my liege.
In reply to this comment by Tymbrwulf:
Much appreciated quality, kp

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*quality

>> ^bobknight33:

High School graduate motivating the masses. Hitler was a high school dropout. Nothing like the uneducated motivating the masses. I don't care for Moore, but just ust had to give a poke
Click for list of Richest 400 Americans So should we just take their billions just because their rich?
Sounds like class warfare.
Agreed, should have let the banks collapse.
Agreed that government is corrupt. Only through strict adherence to the Constitution. That only comes from leaders with a strong moral compass and a people desiring the best for America, not what best for themselves.


So you would rather have people who have a substantially smaller amount of money take a pay cut instead of the rich? This definitely sounds like class warfare.

Thanks for the promote!!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*promote

Totally awesome, thanks for the dp... i mean... double promote!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*doublepromote