Well, we know which asshole would be standing there pouring drinks now, don't we?
Seriously, if a business gives you unlimited (something), you wouldn't feel the teensiest bit guilty then giving it away, costing them possible business?

Pretty clearly an incentive for business to never give people like you things like free refills. Congrats - you live in Europe.

Well, if you keep voting for the same thing, expecting different results, who is the crazy one?

I know, how about taking the fucking power away from people we have no access to and giving it back to the people to live their lives as they see fit? Oh right, because (R) want to toss Grandma off a cliff and (D) are in bed with the Islamists (IOW ... Fear Mongering).

Oh, don't forget to mention Somalia in your next reply.

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.

Autonomous drones show intent, where a drunk security guy doesn't (this case).

We keep voting the same people, same two corrupt parties into office. If that doesn't signify cultural acceptance I don't know what does.

The original poster implied it wasn't culturally acceptable in the US, and I was making it clear that under certain circumstances and depending on how you look at things, it is culturally acceptable, just narrower in scope.

AND if you ask me, it is always has been and will be culturally acceptable until such time as we start tossing the likes of everyone involved in things like TARP I and II in jail.

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.

Yeah, except that doesn't work well for a service. If they have people abusing it, they fire them, and/or prosecute them. And that is what needs discussion.

Its more like if an adult got some DWIs and they took their license away. Yeah, they can't be trusted with a car, but they still need to get to work because it isn't a matter of not getting their allowance money, they need to do their job to support their family and even their job place will suffer if they can't work.

In that case, the solution is public transit, or taxis, or someone driving them. Or in lesser cases, they still let you drive with an interlock device.

You really can't just say the law enforcement can't do something like this and take it away for awhile. Otherwise, you can't enforce laws and regulations. And when that happens, people get hurt, physically and financially. They either need it or not. If they need it, they can abuse it just as well later as they can now. We need a real solution other than taking it away.

I don't know if it's gotten to SCOTUS yet, but several state supreme courts and federal judges have ruled that you must give the password to decrypt your device if they have a warrant. What happens if you don't? I don't know.... contempt of court, I guess.

Windows NT 3.1 didn't have an NT kernel? Color me confused.

No, scratch that-- color you wrong.

This feature goes back to at least Windows NT 3.5 in 1994, and perhaps even Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The summary also implies that it always needs to be enabled, which it does not as it is the default when joined to a domain (and I think it is also the default on Enterprise and Server editions).

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.