Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 107

we need to acknowledge that many of the additional "free market reforms" that your friends advocate for bring us much much closer to functional slavery

Functional slavery would more correctly be the debt shackles imposed by Progress.

Has it occurred to you that differing sets of priorities for "liberties" is not automatically a bad thing? Not everyone thinks that your notion of "freedom" - as applied to the market before the individual - is the most important.

Adolf certainly did not.

Comment Re:You better fix your unicode characters (Score 1) 17

It wouldn't matter to me if they were Hindu, Jewish, or atheist. What bugs me is when someone doesn't practice what they preach.

That is an excellent, succinct capturing of my point.

If government had no hand in marriage, the "gay marriage" issue would have never come up.

I see what you did there, and usually come at this as: the federal government was constituted to handle inter-state and international issues. Period. Full stop. Eliminating chattel slavery was a good thing, but the subsequent over-reach has not been.

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 107

More than once you have argued for the federal government to step in when you felt that state governments were doing the wrong thing.

Well, yes. That would be an example of the vertical checks and balances I was mentioning. You wouldn't want, for example, chattle slavery to return.

There are many definitions of liberty

One of the side effects of our Progressive setting of emotion over reason is imprecision of language. But that makes it easier for our liberal fascist overlords to keep the people divided and parked on the plantation.

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 107

The Democrats have given up on the left entirely and followed the GOP to the right.

I guess that might arguably be the case for Congressional Democrats, for a couple of reasons:
(a) The GOP has the majority, though that has amounted to roughly shag-all in the way of fiscal sanity.
(b) Democrats have to, you know, reflect the will of the people who are going to turn out for the election. Or not.
But how do you square your argument with. . .Bernie Sanders? Is he a sideshow like Trump?

Federalist is a strange choice of word from you

I've referred to myself as such more or less regularly. "Federalist" means understanding that our separation of powers, historically, meant three levels of government in addition to three branches. That was before we opted for Progressive bureaucratic tyranny.

Liberty-oriented is, however, just a weasel term in politics.

Liberty-oriented means anti-statist, anti-Progressive, and skeptical of anything the Left has to say.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 285

No, there were no WMDs in Iraq

Ok, so the WMDs in Iraq, used by Saddam to kill thousands of people in Iraq - those didn't exist? This sort of nonsense is supposed to make you sound credible? Who do you think your audience is - people just like you, but even dumber, who won't wonder if you paid any attention whatsoever to stacks of dead people killed with Iraq's chemical weapons? Man, it must be really annoying to be you, with reality being such a constant irritant like that.

Comment Re:Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score 1) 107

Unlike fustakrakich, I think you have to start somewhere. While the last 7 years have shown the GOP to be substantially equivalent to the godless Commie sodomite horde that is the Democrat party (witness James Webb looking *completely* out of place trying to run for POTUS as a Democrat), the Republicans are the cleaner end of the Progressive turd to start the work of restoring a capitalist, federalist, liberty-oriented system in these United States.

Comment Re:Not too hard (Score 1) 67

At the moment, the big US banks are rolling out "chip and sign", where you slide the card into a reader, but sign with a digital pen rather than enter a PIN. From a security standpoint, it's no better than the mag-swipe and sign system, as nobody verifies the signature anyway.

No, it's much better than the magstripe system because you can't clone a chip card, whereas its trivial to clone a magstripe card (e.g., using a skimmer). Magstripe: something you have, except it's easy to copy, so the bad guys might have it too. Chip and sign: something you have. Chip and PIN: something you have and something you know.

Sure, chip and PIN is more secure, but it's not true that chip and sign is "no better than the mag-swipe and sign".

How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.