Lol.. i'm not wrong. Trucks pay more than four times as much but more importantly, the amount of taxes collected are enough to cover the maintinence from the combined damages on the roads the trucks drive on. It would likely be enough for all the roads if portions of the money wasn't taken and used for other things.

What? Lol

This is the opposite result of less regulation. The government was sharing the costs of bringing broadband to rural areas. Now they cannot because a single entity by regulation changed a definition that specifically applies.

Do you see how your statement defeatz itself in context?

He did not say only criminals use it, he said criminals love to use it. Also, as long as that is the theme being pushed by the governments (propaganda), his point is still valid as governments and law enforcement are demonizing it and it will make them the enemy.

You are crazy if you think the amount of wear and tear or damage to a road from one truck is 8 million a year. The prius is getting over charged but that doesn't matter.

Now your facts are a bit off too. A tandem axle has a weight limit of 34,000 lbs which effectively reduces your 20,000 to 15,000. and the steer axle is limited to 12,000 lbs. The 20,000 lbs is only if there is ten feet between center line of the axles even if they are rated for 20k or there is only a single axle on the truck besides the steer axle. But we are talking about semis now unless you want to change the goal posts again.

  Also, the prius has single tires per axle side and a semi has dual tires or the equivilant in what is called a super single. Its not a direct comparison but the math works out to the truck paying over 4 times as much as the prius anyways.

That's sort of how Ruby Ridge got started. The FBI and ATF badgered a guy to spy on skinheads around the bend from his house and in the process tried to get him to sell illegal arms to them.. he refused but eventualy did something with a shotgun and told s guy how to saw it shorter than the legal limits then they shot his family up trying yo arrest him gor illegal firearm sales.

Its actually a bit more complicated than that but the elements are sll there. Some of the other so called stand offs in the 90s started similar. Except i think those went beyond what the fed agencies were trying to do making it less obvious. Weaver was railroaded for sure though.

Lol.. its laid out withing the constitution.

To act as a unified front to foreihn matters of the state, to set up post offices and roads, to settle disputes between the states, to provide for the common defence, and a couple other things.

You do understand that the states are or were actual countries who formed a union surendering only part of their soveregnty for these purposes right? The state is where this taking care of the people if it is to happen is supposed to be. This is why all fed programs in such manner other than social security and medicare is pushed thriugh the states. It id why all constitutionsl amendments that prohibit acts or action of the people (slavery for instance) has an explicite statement giving congress the ability to enact laws to achieve the amendment's purpose.

Wrong, I'm holding in my hands an amendment mandating every single female US citizen to have an abortion immediately. As soon as its passes it is the law. I also have one about reducing gravity, which I suspect will be more popular.

You do understand that you do not amend the constitution by passing a law right? There are two distinct processes to amend the constitution and as a practical matter, it would never be ratified.

Glad you have heard about amendments though, amazing power they have, assuming it is the will of the people. We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further, also we can amend ourselves into a communist dictatorship.

And if it ever happened, then what I said would still be true because of the time it was said. But it is impractical that any constitutional amendment like that would be ratified. Also, the amendment process has little to do with "the will of the people". The people do not vote on them nor do they have much of a say on them. It's left to the states and congress which the people have influence over.

True, but this is a particualrly loud, if inconvenient voice. Osama won in 2001, it may have been a pyrrhic victory for him personally, but if you didn't notice the insane increase in police power, TSA power, FBI power before and after you must have been under a rock. Osama scared people.

I guess you wouldn't get the point if you stepped on it and it went through you shoe. People can complain and bitch all they want, it doesn't make them correct or wrong because of it. It just makes them loud enough for you to listen to.

I'm talking about the citizens of the United States, who are the only thing that actually matters.

and that still does not negate anything I have said. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.

That's missing the point of being constitutionally limited and directed in powers but it is also still contrary to the GP's assertion of

"Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do, there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify."

However, yes, if enough people go through the processes, they can change the constitutions to give the government newly created powers or even restrict the government even more.

I can see that you have never read the US constitution or passed a government and civics class. Do they even have those in high school any more?

Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do

Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.

there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify.

I don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.

Honestly intent doesn't matter for shit, the guys that wrote it are dead.

It matters simply because it is what constitutes the federal government. Without it, we would have 50 different countries more or less. That is how the USA was formed, the 13 colonies became 13 countries and they surrendered some of their sovereignty to a central government when they constituted one which is why there is a constitution.

When I leave my young urban mecca and visit more traditional venues, all I hear is how the Obama isn't doing enough to stop crime, terrorists, drugs, etc.; how he's weakened the government and pussified the United States, that we need a republican back in there to kick out the muslims and put some order in.

You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.

These people aren't bothered by spying, torture, or big government interventions. They want safety and they do vote. Their message is no doubt inconsistent, they also complain about "big government" and "regulation" and "wasting money". But listening carefully they don't consider the military, a well stocked police force or an elaborate spy network to be 'wasting" and they consider it a priority.

Maybe they know more than you do or something? The military and spying is actually constitutional duties of the US government. Well, not spying in particular but national defense under which the spying is excused away.

The young urbans, by contrast, largely don't care about this at all, and instead want the government focusing its efforts on other things, mostly economy & socially oriented; listening carefully to them speak they merely have contempt for the police state, they don't vote strongly against it.

I'm seeing a theme here. You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government. They even look at Keynesian economics as if it will somehow save things when it is the reason they want improvement. I'm not saying anything specifically is better, I'm saying these uninformed idiots should take a course on government and civics and realize they have a lot more control directly at local levels starting with themselves.

Yes, making war is a constitutional provision.

The US government is not supposed to take care ofits citizens. The US constitution lays out what it is supposed to do and the only reason it can get by with what you complain about is because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.

Well- i do not condone terrorism or terrorist organizations - but i do have a about 250 bazookas in a fresh tub i could bargain sell you. They are the topps.

If interested, write tuity fruity on an envelope and slip it under the coin return for the third payphone past the news stand at the corner of elm and high. I'll have a dropped a price there tonight.

Well, not only is it entrenched in that way, there are a lot of laws and regulations that detail the mechanics of an elevator. This is even before liability issues and indurance consideration even come into play. So it isn't that just anything else could be used either. Of course there is no telling how much of those regulations are because of what you mentioned and what is pure safety.

Something being banned or made illegal does not prevent it from happening. It just prevdnts it from happening legally. See speeding for reference.

I eonder how that will trickle to ISP provided Email if the make ISPs common carriers?.