So, you're saying that you want to censor everybody else in the world in order to keep you from "accidentally" viewing material you personally don't want to see.

That is not an acceptable argument.

I'm going to have to go donate some money to the ACLU and ask them to spend it on an education campaign; obviously there are still a lot of people who don't have a clue about the first amendment.

The point, I would expect, is that by removing the channel by which it circulates puts a barrier between the demand and the source, and hence reduces the incentive to make it. That would reduces the amount which is made.

I don't think that this proposal was intended to be instead of arresting the people who make it.

With that said, your point "The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it." is a good one. By that argument, any such material which was not produced using real children-- anime, comics, art, even photorealistic digital modelling-- should not be included in the category.

Philosophical agreement with the law and/or the law agreeing with the laws of physics?

Try using that logic to get a plastic bag at a Safeway in San Mateo County, California.

If you accept that the drugs can be illegally acquired simply by approaching the undercover cop and offering them money, what is the issue with the sting operation being disbanded?

NB: In case you were wondering, me linking or not linking does not make my site illegal; you clicking or not clicking in a jurisdiction where you clicking would be illegal is an illegal act by YOU, not an illegal act by me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

Technically nothing, but there are all sorts of zoning, tax, mortgage origination, and other hoops to jump through that generally make it pay better in bulk, which means for corporations, as opposed to private individuals. The one place I've seen where it's pretty much down to a turn the crank process is for TICs (Tenants In Common) in San Francisco, which I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, due to bylaws which require your neighbors having to approve the sale if you ever want to leave. I'd rather have a condo.

My meta-advice would be to go back to the proposition process, and remove prop 13 protection for non-residential and non-residential commercial properties, but as previously noted, this would be unlikely to be successful in changing the vector, since the people you hurt the most with it will be the large holding companies, like the Kaiser Family Trust, and the real estate moguls, like the Schwarzeneggers.

"Filthy, Tricksy Hobbitses!"

There. I said it first.

Informed voters are NOT dangerous!

They only become dangerous when you allow them ballot options which would result in substantive change. As long as you provide them only Aristotelian A/B choices similar to "Heads, I win"/"Tails, you lose", then things keep moving in the direction that the people whose job it is to draft the choices want them to move.

This is one of the reasons that the California voter initiative process pissed them off, and it's the reason that recent initiative results have simply been ignored, and the powers behind big government has done what it wanted to do in the first place anyway, from funding projects that failed to pass public muster, to ignoring constitutional changes, to slipping in language to prop 13 at the last minute to have it also apply to commercial property, after public debate was complete.

The upshot, in particular of the prop 13 change, was that each property owned by a large company is actually owned by a newly incorporated holding company. Then, rather than selling the property, as is done with non-commercial property, and having its tax rate corrected at that point, they sell the holding company to another company. Since the property has not changed hands (it's still owned by the same holding company), the tax rate effectively never corrects on commercial property, and the burden, over time falls more and more upon non-commercial property owners, while the commercial property owners get a free ride.

So as long as the outcome of a vote won't rock the status quo boat, it really doesn't matter which option of those presented wins, nothing changes the progression vector.

It's kind of elegant engineering, if you think about it; it's on the order of the "Demopoll" concept in Frank Herbert's "The Whipping Star".

Given that you once again provided no citations (assuming you are the same person, and not a new one who also fails to provide citations for your attack posts), I guess you are talking about David Duke, who first tried to run as a presidential candidate as a Democrat in 1988, and then as a Republican in 1992, and failed to get traction in either case because neither party would have him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

So your reasoned and well thought out political argument is the same one used by children who do not want to pick up their toys, to wit: "You touched it last!"; is that the gist of it?

What I got from those incidents was that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want anything to do with the KKK, regardless of their preferences -- which, given the Duke candidacies, appears to be "either of the two major parties where we can get our camel's nose into their tent", rather than an expressed preference.

Unless you has someone else in mind? Citation needed.

"Which part of the brain do you need to zap to" ...

Several answers:

* The part that makes someone an experimental neuroscientist of the type which are currently conducting this research?
* The part that allow Marie Curie to kill herself with radiation poisoning before it was known radiation was dangerous?
* The part that caused Thomas Edison to do shotgun testing of materials for a lightbulb filament?
* The part that caused Johnny Knoxville to make the Jackass series?
* The part that caused Geoffrey Robson to kill himself while working to improve wingsuits?
* The part that caused Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee to allow themselves to be bolted into Apollo 1?
* The part that caused Vijay Pande to believe crowd-sourcing science was a good idea?
* etc.

Pick your part.

Citation needed - their platform is here, and contains none of the things you claim it contains:

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

No, I'm not a Republican, I'm just sick of seeing shit slung at political groups without supporting evidence.

Talk about a wild midseason replacement!

Each week, we eliminate some of them, until the live broadcast, at which point America texts in their votes, and they pick one to be black hole?

Having the right to own a gun does not require you to own one.
Exercising that right and owning one does not require you to serve in a militia.

Also, you are not using the definitions of "militia" and "regulated" from the 15 April 1755 version of Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language".

If you want to be entirely accurate, it refers to able-bodied males of a certain age range who have received some training in group tactics utilizing arms. Owning the arms in the first place is a necessary, but not sufficient, precondition for joining a militia and receiving that training, just as age, maleness, and being able-bodied were each necessary, but not sufficient, preconditions. Finally, there was the precondition of training having been competed, before a militia could be considered to be "well regulated".

Requiring someone to be a member of a militia before they are allowed to own arms is therefore putting the cart before the horse.

You should also be aware that "arms" was intentionally used, as it was a broader term that would also encompass privately owned cannon mounted on trading vessels, and from exploding bombardment loads for those cannons, all the way down to hunting knives or pitchforks. The framers of the constitution were perfectly aware of what a "gun" was, and deliberately chose the broader term to include stronger weapons than guns. They effectively, by that choice, included all of the best military weapons available of their day.

I don't know... given your scenario, apparently there is a guy at the NSA tracking the majority of 500 million people for no reason...

That's an easy rule to plug: steal someone's phone instead.