Am I the only one who is disturbed by the fact that the DC Police havent arrested this guy? When did politicians become some sort of exempt social class? For example, if I walked up to a congressman and grabbed him by the back of the neck and the arm and started asking him "Who are you", I am quiet certain that I would be spending the night in the DC jail until arraigned.

A simple assault charge is no big deal, but its still assault, and the congressman should still be charged, just like any other person. There is no excuse, no status, no station, that exempts a person from equal justice.

Globalism isnt bad. Its bad when its done in a Marxist way. A free, global market, is a good thing. Global stability is a good thing. When people have food, shelter, and hope, its a good thing. Intertwining economies through government policy is bad, but it isnt bad when it happens because of free market principles. I don't believe in spreading liberty at the point of the spear, but I believe in containing tyranny with all reasonable means.

What I disagree with Glenn Beck and most Libertarians is the idea that people will be free if they so choose, and that the US should be non involved in foreign affairs. This is a naive perspective that is as destructive as getting into a land war in Asia. The United States and the rest of the western world are profiting greatly from the relative stability in the developing world. To withdraw military force, or adopt a posture of absolute neutrality would spin the world back to the multi-polar nightmare that existed pre-WWII.

What we have seen over the past 15 years is a trend for government not to govern according to the law, but to play favorites with certain interest groups. Free market lifts societies out of poverty (Eastern Europe) and promotes liberty when the government forces foreign nations to play fairly. This is not the case with our relationship with China, for example, where the Chinese government has the most lopsided, protectionist policies in the world. Yet, because our government favored short term gain over enforcing equal trade, we are now suffering the consequences, and people are further away from liberty than they were 20 years ago.

Really? You know McCain that well? Ever hear of McCain-Feinstein Law? Its an absolutely progressive, anti-constitutional, anti-first amendment law. It was his law (bears his name), and it was partially struck down by the supreme court, and rightly so. If this doesn't prove his progressive/statist nature, what will? Does he have to set up gulags or seize farms for state control?

As far as the republican party during the Bush senior years, they ignored the Constitution with Medicare plan D. Sure, the tax cuts were great, pro-free market, but being pro-free market doesnt mean conservative or liberty minded. Continuing the statist agenda of increased entitlements is proof enough for me.

As for Neo-Conservatives being "statists" or statist leaning, please provide some examples of where Neo-Conservatism espouses or promotes statism (considering I justified my remarks about McCain being a statist).

... Never to play at all. Arguing the value of God given rights gives credence to the discussion. As a society, we need to step back and start treating our rights as sacred... the same way Liberals treat race. Talking bad about the constitution should make companies fire you. Make an anti-constitution comment should make public officials unelectable by the masses. If a politician goes on stage and screams the N word, no one would associate with them. The same stigma should be given to these mental disease ridden avatards.

The vernacular is very confused these days. Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with political philosophy. Its the thoughts of the like minded people within them that terms the identity of the parties. For example, if we take parties as they were form, the Republicans are "anti-slavery" and the Democrats are "pro-slavery". Republicans are pro-centralized government, Democrats are pro-decentralized government. Republicans are for unconstitutional change, while Democrats are for strict constitutional adherence. All of these comments are taken straight out of the context of 1858-1864, during the civil war. The Republicans were for forcing new states to be either "slave" or "free", and the Democrats were for "popular sovereignty" (aka: let the states choose if they want to be slave or free).

Today, as well as 5 years ago, the Republican party is much different, as well as the Democrat party is different (though not much more). The Republicans AND the Democrats during the Bush years were both predominantly run by "Statists". Ala: They want central authority, have no regard with limited government, and believe that freedom is a gift from government. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a bunch of other Republicans fall into the "statist" definition. These "neo-statists" under GWB caused a LOT of problems for the United States and the rest of the world, especially in the developing world, by supporting policies that favored the foundation of strong central governments, and government controlled economies.

Neo-Conservatives (I am one) are opposed to tyrannical government, would not embrace tyrannical government (which was easily identified with GWB white house in the middle east, and central aisian dictators), and would be willing to reach out to protect democracies from neighboring tyrannical regimes. GWB and the republican congress during that time, did not differentiate between tyrannical or free societies when it gave support, it simply gave support to nations that were acting in the interests of the United States (without consideration to the actions of the source). As a Neo-Conservative, I believe that the United States must maintain a strong military in order to ensure global economic stability, which our own economy relies heavily upon. Neo-conservatives do not believe in simply striking the head off every dictator we come across, but it is vital that we not let WWII happen because the world is being run by a bunch of Neo-Marxists and Neville Chamberlains.

Todays Republican party is in a fight between "Conservatives" (of all flavors) and "Statists" (which the Left likes to call "Moderates"). The various Conservative factions have a solid rallying point, "The Constitution". The Democratic party today has nothing to do with the democratic party of the past (Kennedy and beyond). Todays Democrats are the Far Left, and their only common point is that they dislike the US for whatever reason and in varying degree's. This can be seen with leftists hecklers heckling Obama and Pelosi at well vetted Potemkin style town halls.

The Libertarians are also very closely related to Conservatives, and I would sleep soundly at night if the argument was between Conservative ideas and Libertarian ideas, but its not. Its between American ideas and European Marxist ideas. Fortunately, I think the statists are going to be run out of the Republican party, and going to be embraced by the left. Arlen Spectre and that loser from Florida, have shown their true colors. A couple more key Statist republicans to go, and there will be almost NO similarity between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Compare that to nearly 4-5 years ago when there was nearly no difference (at least in propaganda).

LOL. Is it? Really? Its more dangerous to live in Los Angeles than it is to do a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. You should read the LA Times homicide blog from time to time.

Police have no power. They can detain, but they cannot imprison. The judicial system is the only group who can really do anything to you within the frame work of the law. And of course, the judges cannot create laws because they do not have the authority, that lies with the elected politicans. If you dont like the laws the police are enforcing, petition your representatives to have it changed. If you find it to hard to change, its because the Statists have consolidated too much power at the federal level, thus making over turning bad laws more difficult, and thus making cops and judges more menacing to freedom.

Of course, its probably just easier to rage against the under paid guys who have to deal with the people no one else would ever dream of.

A lot of company aren't cheap asses, but instead like to make the most from their money. Companies that provide support to open source products need to figure out better ways to generate cash. Our shop is heavily open source, but we also pay for software. We put the money we do not spend on things like operating systems into more hardware. The money doesn't "disappear" or go under some rich white guys mattress. It goes into more resources to accomplish the core goal of the company which is to sell a product (which isn't computer related, but the saved money still gets invested into IT).

Here is the secret that Red Hat is missing, and other open source companies are quickly figuring out. And since I dont ever plan on being an owner of a software company, I'll tell the world for free. Turning "open source software" into an "appliance" is where all the real money is going, and is the reason why Apple, a HUGE consumer of open source, is a multi-billion dollar company, and Red Hat is more and more becoming yesterdays news.

I am an "American Worker" (as opposed to one of the other pretend social classes), who wakes up at 4am, drives 1 hour to arrive at my job at 5am, and then work till 4pm, to drive home for 5pm. I have a score of network switches, a hundred servers, multiple SAN's and tape libraries, documentation to create and maintain, logs to review, security audits to perform, management to manipulate into doing the right thing, firewall policies to write, implement, test, and further document... and thats just the stuff I havent blanked out. Then when I come home I have a wife to tend to, an adoption process (which thus far has consumed well over 120 hours in just 4 short months, with only 2-3 more months to go), and household chores to complete. Not to mention charity work, distant family to communicate with, and entertain fleeting thoughts of entertainment. Somehow, I am going to have to shove "exercise" back into that schedule, before I die of some work related death sentence. By the end of the day I get between 4-6 hours sleep, before i have to wake up and start doing it again.

I'd never, ever, be able to do it without coffee.

On the weekend I can go without coffee if I can get enough sleep (8-10 hours). Of course, weekends are for getting the non work related things which couldnt be completed during the week.

This is what the gparent meant about caffine addiction being an American problem. To be honest, I wouldnt trade it in for a longer life living in a bankrupt sun belt socialism.

I'll play the representative from the DailyKOS:

See, people have been convinced that they need to be slaves to corporations, and that we are suppose compete with one another instead of working together. If the super rich didnt horde all the money, there wouldnt be starving people in Africa. The invisible hand of the free market is bull shit because white people have been stealing from all the native peoples around the world since those evil tax evading europeans declared themselves free from the benevolent iron of an efficient and benevolent monarchy.

Ever see Avatar? Thats EXACTLY what life would be like if Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin weren't getting in the way of dear leaders virtuous social, economic and environmental justice plans. See, if you dont understand, go look up the latest Noam Chomsky quotes, disaster predictions from Carl Sagan, or a randomly selected quote out of context from a revered historical conservative (such as the founders).

Seriously. Go work for the man all you want and emit CARBON DIOXIDE and kill the world I'm going back to complaining about all the evils that we still must suffer under George Bush.

Oh, and random anti-Christian insult!

Sincerely,
Random DailyKosDot poster

How is this "insightful"? Companies have so many different criteria for hiring and retaining employees why is external personal conduct so seemingly extreme? Because a business or government entity has a code of conduct that extends beyond the work place, doesnt make you a "slave" to that company or government entity. Being captured at gun point, put in shackles, and forced to perform some sort of service against your will (the consequences being corporal punishment or death) is slavery. Dont like the job requirements, dont work there.

The 1st Amendment protects peoples freedom of speech from the Federal government, not from the consequences of private entities in society. You should be able to say whatever you want without the government penalizing you (without causing unjust harm), but that doesnt mean everyone should be forced by the government to have to listen to your stupidity, or be impartial towards you.

Businesses should fire people who are too stupid to understand the impact of their actions on their company. If you work in a business... lets say something in the First Responder, or Public Safety industry... perception and image is extremely important. Public confidence goes a long way in making First Responders life easier, and safer. This can be clearly seen in areas where police are viewed as brutal (no one snitches on crime), where first responders never show up (Flavor Flav's, "9/11 is a joke in your town").

The constitution applies largely to restricting the Federal Government, not private citizens.

I wish I wouldnt have blown all my mod points today or I would have modded you up. Your dead right. Implementing something the wrong way is similar to building a mansion on the sand. Understanding the sheer destructive force of a kludge is what separates the senior engineers (and sysadmins in particular) from the rest. This is why you get a crusty veteran shooting down all your bright ideas without ever really explaining it. Because its a game of chess, kludges lead to checkmates... but only the pro's can see that far ahead.