Wait, you think there are ones who aren't?

But then they took a SOPA to the knee.

Keynesians would suggest a road not a ditch. While the idea is hiring people to do stuff will stimulate the economy, (since those people would spend the money they earn) you would still hope to get something out of the deal. Roads, airports, bridges, parks, ports, canals. Digging and then refilling holes might work but if you make useful stuff then you have it for people to use in transporting goods. Hiring peopel to build stuff you'll use is a better deal than hiring them to pound sand.

Wrong you must convince enough people to care enough to vote for someone who will undo this airport mess instead of someone promising to do something else that they want. If republicans want it gone but care more about say abortion then it doesn't help. If democrats want it gone but care more about sat abortion then it doesn't help. They'll elect people who will do what the voters want about abortion and what they themselves want about maintaining their own power by setting up a police state. Agreeing isn't enough, it has to be made a major issue.

3 was mainly in response to "Oh wait. She's a lib so it doesn't count, right? I'm sure it's in the Constitution somewhere that the Speaker of the House can spend thousands on hard liquor while traveling abroad." I wasn't commenting on it being a good idea to do so only that it's disingenuous to suggest the constitution would need to mention booze on airplanes, it is a framework the rest is built on not checklist of every specific allowed expenditure.

It isn't that I have no concern about government waste. If --and big if since it's uncited-- ArcherB's claims are true I would certainly want to hear some justification for them. This doesn't really justify making the above rant here and now though. There are people I don't like either, that doesn't justify pulling them out as a boogyman and throwing a bitchfest about them every time someone I do like is criticized.

1 [citation needed] If you must copy and paste from your favorite right wing talking points blog please show your work
2 How does overspending on flights relate to hypocrisy?
3 It isn't in the constitution that the capital have bathrooms but it does, this falls under "necessary and proper". Congress is empowered to do things not explicitly listed in order to exercise one of their enumerated powers, this is called implied powers.
4 Do you have any point at all or was this just an excuse to insult someone on the other side you don't like? Free speech and all that so feel free but it is annoying to see posts like this that are not only off topic but fail to make any point at all.

Yes there's inflation and yes paying unemployment benefits will do better at creating jobs than not doing it. Money moves up not down.

And Why not? Unemployment doesn't sit in bank accounts or go into the stock market, it doesn't get spent on gold. It is used to pay for stuff like food and clothing. Unemployment benefits go directly into the economy. Grocery stores pay their employees who go buy stuff letting more people pay their employees and suppliers. Those people get money and again need to buy stuff, demand goes up, production goes up, employment goes up. Money moves up the ladder to the very wealthy who control the resources.

It beats the hell out of cutting taxes for the wealthy, where they would just have more money for the sake of having it. It isn't like they create jobs. They just sit on it till they can use it to make more money, that doesn't happen when there's no demand for anything.

I'd much rather see money sent to where it'll be used for a bit before it makes its way to people who's only use for it is as some kind of +dicksize.

Cory Doctorow wrote about this in Down and out in the Magic Kingdom including ending the current damaged but still functioning you and replacing it with the freshest backup as a way to avoid having to recover from injuries.

In the US the objection is the 4'th amendment. If you'd like the police to have access to any and all of your information go ahead and give it to them. I'd personally rather not have them come bother me because they found my fingerprint in a gas station that got robbed 4 hours after I made a purchase and thus I don't want them to have any data about my fingerprints that's tied to things like my name and address.

Some of those children might have the same objection.

If the police or anyone else generate a hash from a fingerprint and compares it to a list of hashes generated by the school then then the school has effectively given the police a database of fingerprints.

If this doesn't bother you maybe you should be reading foxnews.com instead of slashdot.

The 10 commandments would make a stable society? Really? Do you know how many things some fringe or another will consider idolatry? Honor thy father? Who's going to know and how? How do you enforce it? Don't covet? There goes any market for anything besides necessities, do you propose communism? There is one god, so say goodbye to freedom of worship since one god means one church that all must belong to. Don't commit adultery? On a moral level I agree but does a free society regulate what's done by consenting adults in private? I sure hope not. Keep the sabbath? In a free society that's my choice. Do not take the lord's name in vain? Why?.

Really only three commandments are worth anything, don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness.

I thought that was Starship Troopers.

Regulation as well as deregulation laws written by the regulated, rubber stamped by the bought dogs of politics, are the cause of monopolies and bailouts. The end user/ consumer do not enter into the equation, except when someone has to clean up (pay for)the mess.

That IS what the law says in your own post:

So if I'm not carrying one of the listed forms of identification, which is wholly in my right as a US citizen not to, then according to this clause, I am presumed to be an alien unlawfully present in the US. Perhaps you should read it before making crap up.

And stop bringing up the ICE strawman. ICE, as a federal agency, doesn't and cannot stop random people for no reason. That is why I'm not concerned about ICE. But to answer your curiosity, yes, I have been complaining about the Patriot Act's unconstitutional broadening of federal law enforcement power.

Granted, the police didn't handle the situation the best, and in most of the other videos I don't know enough to comment, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

So.. you're invalidating my argument after confessing you cannot shoot down the remaining (majority) of my examples. Look... I can come up with hundreds of examples. Have you got time to shoot them all down with swamp gas theories?

Let me reiterated my point so it does not get lost. The law is no buffer preventing any police offer from arresting, detaining, or abusing you at any time or any location.