I'm not against taxation as it is necessary for roads, police, etc., but I am against one person being taxed at 50% while another gets a free ride simply because one is more successful and productive than the other.

So I take it you're in favor of taxing capital gains at the same rate as income?

It matters that the measure may only be one significant digit while the converted value makes it appear to be two significant digits.

They've apparently been lead to believe that NIMBY means "Nuclear In My Backyard Yes" instead of "Not In My Back Yard"

NIMBY shouldn't even be an issue at Yucca Mountain. It is located on one of the biggest military sites in the nation, right next to the place we tested some 900 nuclear weapons. It is as far from anyone's back yard as can be and right next to a radioactive wasteland.

If you issue a trillion dollars worth of bonds, a trillion dollars worth of assets is created on paper

The government doesn't simply 'print' bonds. It sells them. In order to buy a bond, someone has to transfer money to the government from someplace else. That is very different from printing money which doesn't require anything be taken out of the economy.

The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.

The entire foundation of your argument is wrong.

Federal spending as percent of GDP

$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X

As someone else pointed out, $X is the sum of many things plus $Y, so no matter how much $Y grows it will never exceed $X.

The Democrats and Republicans in congress are putting forth proposals to save 1-2 trillion dollars over the next decade which would continue to leave us with massive deficits over the next ten years. We would be a lot closer to balancing the budget if we would pull the military out of Iraq and Afgananistan, end the Bush tax cuts, and stop bailing out big companies.

I think the lower/broader tax plan is a great idea, and the balanced budget amendment is totally unworkable. Still, they are doing exactly what they said they'd do when elected.

A balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives and nearly passed the Senate in 1996. Instead of working with an amendment that nearly passed, they added numerous severe restrictions knowing full-well their radicalized version stood no chance of passing. That is not someone trying to accomplish what their constituents voted them into office for. It is someone grand-standing to create the appearance that they are doing something.

Furthermore, of all the amendments passed by congress only four of them did not have a deadline for the states to ratify them. Those four amendments are still out there waiting to be ratified by the states. We are still waiting for the Corwin Amendment (1861) to be ratified.

The latest proposed balanced budget amendment obviously started with the text of the 1996 version but, among other changes, the authors exemplified their recklessness by removing the seven year ratification deadline. That would set us up for a constitutional crisis when some states ratify, then revoke their ratification, new states are added to the union, a state splits into two states (like Virginia did), etc.

If the Tea Party is serious about their claims they could start by proposing a budget that actually meets their proposed constitutional amendment.

And her penalty was a $10 fine plus $4 in court costs*. Rosa Parks also spent one day in jail waiting to be bailed out. Her trial took place one week after she was charged.

Today, it would costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get the charges moved down to the real offense rather than some trumped-up felony. It would also cost tens of thousands of dollars to post bail. Anyone who can't post bail has to sit in jail awaiting trail which can potentially take years.

*adjusted for inflation $14 in 1955 would be $120 in 2011.

That didn't stop the US Supreme Court from ruling that police helicopters operating infared cameras scanning houses from above were not a "search."

I think you are referring to Kyllo v United States which ruled exactly the opposite of what you have stated. The court concluded that using infrared cameras to scan homes for leaking heat is a search and thus requires a warrant under the fourth amendment. The basis for the court's opinion was very similar to the grandparent post.

Of course, that ruling also involved Clarence "just bribe my wife" Thomas. So, maybe it'll one day be reversed by a saner court.

The ruling did indeed involve Thomas who joined the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision. Quite frankly I would consider any court that reverses the ruling to be less sane.

While the researchers make some good points from a technical perspective there really are more fundamental issues with PROTECT-IP. The proposed law would grant the government power to selectively censor websites without due process. Those are some pretty basic violations of the constitution and a huge threat to freedom of speech. And the reality is, the government is already doing this without the PROTECT-IP act.

I'm not Christian, but my government leaders all claim to be

Keith Ellison from Minnesota and Andre Carson from Indiana are both Muslim. Hank Johnson from Georgia and Mazie Hirono from Hawaii are both Buddhists. There are 13 Jewish Senators and 27 Jewish Representatives. Finally, congress includes one atheist, and nine members that have not identified their religion.

Wouldn't it only be incriminating testimony if you had *actually* killed a guy in 1998 at work?

It doesn't have to be true to be incriminating. Maybe someone at work died suddenly in 1998. Maybe someone at work died in 1988 in which case they will claim you mistyped the year. The passphrase didn't say it had to be your workplace. Perhaps a construction work was the victim of a hit-and-run in 1998 while he was at work. Whatever the case, you can bet that if law enforcement sees that passphrase they are going to investigate.

Install software without permission on 100 machines at two stores that each take and upload a picture to your personal server every minute. Return every day, for several days, doing so since apple wipes the machines every day. Remotely trigger the software to show a slide show of your making (calling doing so "arranging an exhibition")

Who is to say he did not have permission? Apple sets the machines out, powers them on, and let's people use them. They don't post a sign detailing what you can and can't do with the machines. The fact that Apple wiped the machines every day shows that Apple knew people were changing the state. Rather than lock the machines down, Apple permitted the changes but reverted to a known beginning state at the start of each day.

So the government is unable to prevent people leaking sensitive diplomatic cables and embarrassing videos and documents yet they can pull off massive false flag operations without a single person leaking the fact that it's a government operation? Umm, yeah right.

It doesn't require the government to carry out a false flag. It could easily be a single person at Fox News who has the password, goes to the library, posts the fake information and claims it was a hacker.

To convict someone of treason you need two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. The government will not get either of those so Manning will not be convicted of treason.

To prove treason, the government would also have to prove Manning was either levying war against the US or adhering to the enemies of the US.

It is also worth noting Manning has not been charged with treason.

Does violating their oath of office count?

From the constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

This is really aimed at government officials that commit crimes. If you are asking if judges can be removed from office because their rulings don't "support this Constitution" the answer is probably no. A judge has discretion to interpret the constitution. If congress disagrees with that interpretation they can amend the constitution.

Suppose the constitution is amended, a case with the exact same circumstances comes before the judge and he rules the same way regardless of the amendment. That is an issue that has not come up...