http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Either way, with a simple majority vote, they could change that too. Thats all they had to change the rules last time even if it was limited to judicial nominies.

Oh, and slate isn't exactly a conservative site last time i checked. But i see they are trying to be less liberal so go figure.

Awe.. isn't that sweet. You are mad because i shot down your conspiracy with simply facts that anyone paying attention over the last year would already know.

I'm sorry you hate me now but i still love you.

Btw, [sic] the way you used it doesn't mean what you think it means and more than likely neither does dumass. But hey, those are just facts too.

Interesting, the truth is overrated.

You mean the republicans in the senate where the democrats changed the rules so the republicans cannot block appointments any more? The current nomination for the Surgeon General cannot even pass with a majority democrat senate (with the new lower vote requirement).

But Obama himself has stated several times we do not need a Czar for this. He finally had to do something because of all the screw ups making it appear like no one could find their own ass in Texas. I do not think they two situations could be remotely linked together given those two facts.

Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses,

There are a lot more offices than the federal ones. When you start looking at the state and local ones, you see where they do actually represent the people. But the third parties seem to just grab a handful of attention here and there and not even enough representation to control a city council or county board. That's where the two big parties get their power and strength from despite the federal offices appearing to be out to lunch most of the time.

2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.

You do realize that there are several tea parties right? It's more of a movement than a single power/party even though there seems to be a dominent part of it. As with abortion, all I have heard them speak about is tax monies being used to fund them. If they have come out and said more, I haven't heard (which doesn't mean it hasn't happened). But the very nature of tax money or government funding of abortion is political due to the fact it is a political entity involved. I don't see how it can be kept out of politics unless no tax funding for abortion ever happens.

So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.

The vast majority of third parties are somewhat the same. There will be a few key issues they vehemently take stands on but the rest if either echoing democrat or republican positions as stated by the idealists if not in reality. But even if it is true as you say about the Tea (Taxed Enough Already)Party- it does not mean someone else cannot do the same and infiltrate one of the parties. That's the great thing about primaries. If you win, you stop the party from running a candidate against you in the election.

People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.

I agree somewhat. You cannot have complete freedom because people simply do not think about what they are doing and how it impacts others. Take the libertarian stance on drugs, it's fine and all as long as the user can support their own habit and not harm others. But as we know with history and addictive substances, sometimes they lose jobs, ruin families, resort to stealing, try to operate machinery (cars for instance) and kill others and so on. It's not like we haven't tried it before or anything. And before it was illegal, it wasn't exactly peachy king either.

And yes, it is because as you suggest, people do not take responsibility for themselves.

"The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area."

That's not the problem. Neither do the other two parties and they do fine

Actually, the two parties do represent the people and they do it quite well. They mostly do it on the local and state level. There are 108 republicans and 55 democrats in office in Ohio without even getting into the county and city data. The vast exposure most people have with the two parties is on the state and local level. They tend to be happy with them and those parties tend to act differently then on the national level (likely because their actions hit closer to home for the most part which makes them more answerable than federal candidates).

The problem is that you're (and the rest of us) voting for the two candidates that the "Lesters" have picked for us to vote on. The game is rigged.

No, the game is not rigged, it is a lot like playing risk but with 80 or more different boards at a time. You and Lessig seem to be looking at the large board and ignoring the others. They pick those for us because we have picked on all the other boards. If the third parties wanted to play, they could do the same if they got on the other boards and took some ground.

There is more to this than federal offices. You will always feel the way you do if you ignore the rest.

I was talking about the law and appeals process. However unfair it may seem, a legal process does exist with both and they can be challenged.

As for the CFAA, section F seems to provide exemptions for law enforcement engaged in any "lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity". The interesting thing would be if the LEO somehow did not have anything lawful.

Did you even read your own link?

Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there -

Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Here is another humdinger from the article you posted-

Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases â" 4,455 â" where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money.

Now if there was no "legal process", how does that happen? I mean if they can just take it without any legal process involved whatsoever, then there would be absolutely nothing to challenge.

Why you were modded up while I was modded down is beyond me. I'm actually factually correct and you failed to even read the article you posted. Well, this is slashdot after all, the mods likely failed to read it too.

or you're being silly, and boys and girls on average really do have different interests naturally even if there is a certain percentage of exceptions.

Someone made fun of your mediocre operating system with the crappy editor

Mint has achieved some mainstream success, non-geeks use it and like it. I haven't abandoned it yet, so answer is "probably not if Clem and the team keep paying attention to user needs and wants", which is totally the opposite of Ubuntu philosophy

Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.

Arresting someone then taking over their account has nothing of the sorts. Creating an account that impersonates someone they arrested in order to entrap someone else doesn't either.

I think it is a bit different.

Someone would have to check if dead people were getting tickets, early and often

The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.

I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.

Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).

Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.

No shit. I already have an accurate three day forcast for the home and office. Its called a thermostat and airconditioning.

What would be nice is a weekend forecast that would say something different than chance of drunkeness, loud music, and women laughing when you ask them to go home with you. Maybe something like dude, she's a he or crowded- stay home and drink or similar. Of course i'm not sure how a barometer would forcast the mangirl problem. Perhaps i should jusr checkand see if my glasses need updating.