Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Of course... (Score 1) 419

It was about the Republicans tying to force Democrats to defund ObamaCare, the partial funding offers were just a way to turn phrase it as a negotiation rather than a hostage taking.

The constitution gives the power of the purse to the House of Representatives. It's the House's prerogative to determine what gets funded and what does not. The shutdown occurred because Senate Democrats wanted to obstruct the House's Constitutionally provided power.

Either you turn them away to die (unconscionable). Cover them with some kind of public healthcare (Tea Party should hate that). Do what they were doing previously, which is to have them covered only by the people paying insurance (Tea Party should have that more). Or have a mandate.

I can't help buy be amused when someone who has expressed nothing but antipathy towards to the Tea Party has some idea of what they "should" think.

What solution do you have for this problem that is consistent with the Tea Party principals?

I reject the premise that it's the government's role to solve all problems.

So I played a bit loose with the terminology but default could eventually lead to actual default if receipts plummet or have an unexpected shortfall and there's insufficient capital to pay the debt.

Technically possible but that wasn't going to happen. The US Government takes in nearly 20 times the amount of money it needs to service the debt.

But exercise is very limited when you're a representative of the government, prayer to open council meetings is a definite problem as are religious displays in schools and on government property.

Only in their official capacity as a government representative. But notice that at the beginning of ever session of the Supreme Court, the phrase "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" is uttered. Does THAT violate the Separation of Church and State?

Ok. Show me the fraud. Show me the cases of illegal aliens or fraudsters casting votes in any significant numbers in any election.

That's the sticky wicket, isn't it? You would be the arbiter of "significant". I'll decline to play that game.


Comment Re:Of course... (Score 1) 419

Many establishment Republicans supported an individual mandate. They're the ones who pressured Boehner to to cave during the shutdown.

The government was never in danger of a default on the debt. The debt service would have been paid first. What we were looking at was forced austerity, not default.

There is no "Separation of church and state" in the constitution. There is a prohibition on establishment of a state religion.

In what way does an ID requirement disenfranchise minorities? You have to argue that minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID if you think that requiring one is designed to disenfranchise them.

But, never let the truth get in the way of your leftist rhetoric.


Comment Re:Of course... (Score 1) 419

To take the Tea Party metaphor they're the worst of both worlds, their principles are constantly changing, but whatever principle they decide on their actions are completely uncompromising.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. The Tea Party has been consistent. Lower taxes, smaller government and adherence to the Constitution.

Individual members have their own agendas too but the thing that unites all of the various Tea Party factions is that they agree on something.


Comment They misunderstand the problem. (Score 1) 473

Doubt and dissent aren't caused by doubt and dissent.

People respond to personalities every bit as much as they respond to the information presented.

Instead of "All of the evidence we've ever found supports the belief that natural selection leads to the evolution of new species."

A lot of trolls say things like "Evolution is real. God is fake. Darwin fucks the baby Jesus IN THE ASS! LOLOLOLOLOLOL"

In other words, being abrasive will cause people to oppose the ideas that you support, even if you're otherwise right.


Comment Re:proving parent right... (Score 1) 356

It's not illegal to possess cash. Not even large amounts of cash. If he never saw drugs, he had no actual knowledge that anything illegal was going on. His incarceration wasn't about upholding the law, it was about making an example so that next person would know that he better cooperate with the feds.


Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?