Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why (Score 1) 470

by sumdumass (#48208699) Attached to: Shooting At Canadian Parliament

There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.

The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.

Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.

I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.

So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 227

by sumdumass (#48204345) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Yes it is sort of

It should be no different than any other evidence of a crime. If your car was stolen and used to rob a bank- or they just think it was-, similar circumstances would happen.

However, with the cash and asset forfieture it is a little backwards where the only evidence of any crime is the fact that it is in your posession and few times are there any charges filed at all.

But nontheless., there is a legal process no matter how horrid or abstract it may be. This does make it different than a law enforcement officer stealing identities and trying to impersonate people in order to ensnare people they otherwise would have no clue existed.

Oh.. and you do not have to convince me about how evil asset seizure is. I'm just saying at least there is a process.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1) 374

by sumdumass (#48203767) Attached to: Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

They most certainly did vote to change the rules in the recent past. No one but you in this thread is denying that and we are actually discussing the fact it may have been limited to hudicial nominies and can just as easily be done again to seat a Surgeon General. My claim is the reason it has not happened is because even if they did, not enough democrats would vote for him to pass.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1) 374

by sumdumass (#48203729) Attached to: Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

You mean except when they did it about a year ago to get around needing a super majority?

If it wasn't just done, your point would have more weight. But then i would point out that the position is not unmaned, there is an acting S.G. in place and has been ever since the post became vacant. Its just not a political shill doing the job right now.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1) 374

by sumdumass (#48202069) Attached to: Ebola Does Not Require an "Ebola Czar," Nor Calling Up the National Guard

Lol. Its not like the republicans can't just change it when they have control of the senate.

I find it interesting how strongly some people are willing to ignore reality in order to create and maintain a republican boogerman. Lets forget that the current thread topic is a lie and its a democrat problem getting the surgeon general nomination through and invent a distraction instead. Wow how simply stupid people become when ideology it at risk.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1) 374

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.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1) 374

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.

Comment: Re:Maybe we need a Surgeon General (Score 1, Informative) 374

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.

Comment: Re:'Bout time (Score 1) 173

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.

Comment: Re:'Bout time (Score 1) 173

"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.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 227

by sumdumass (#48199597) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

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.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 2) 227

by sumdumass (#48199521) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

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.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 0) 227

by sumdumass (#48195365) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

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.

Comment: Re:'Bout time (Score 2) 173

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.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?