Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The Founder (Score -1) 288

So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise. I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.

Then why are you listening to the Weather Channel, which has credentials even less impressive than John Coleman. That's the point. What makes the less experienced meteorologists at the Weather Channel a better authority than the more experienced and awarded meteorologist that founded it?

Comment Re:Once truth gasps its last breath... (Score 3, Interesting) 288

then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.

"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!

Comment The Founder (Score -1) 288

It's funny because John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, and winner of the American Meteorological -- that's a tough one -- Meteorological Society's award for broadcast meteorologist of the year spent more than 60 years reporting on the weather, and he is incensed that the station he started has decided to use it's platform for spreading propaganda about global warming.

He was so upset about the claims of manmade global warming that he wrote a letter to the UCLA's Hammer Museum for their forum that was called Tackling Climate Change. He said "You don't have both sides represented, and I'm here to tell you that manmade global climate change is a myth."

A few choice quotes from John Coleman:

You know, a climate skeptic can rarely get on TV, ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party. This is a tough go for people who don't believe in climate change. A lot study on this.

Well, it's very difficult for anybody to be against it [manmade climate change] because the media has told the nation over and over again, day after day for 20 years that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the sea -- the ice is melting, the storms are going to sweep the earth and that we're all gonna die of a heat wave. I mean, this is an incredible bad, bad science.

There are 9,000 PhDs and 31 scientists who have signed the petition that says [CO2] is not a significant greenhouse gas. Oh, it's small itsy bitsy but in greenhouse gas but it's not in any ways significant. And we are sure of it. It's not like, something I made up or just thought of. I've studied and studied and studied. And Roger Revelle, the great scientist who wrote that paper back in 1957 with Hans Suess changed his mind a decade later and said, Wait a minute, I think we were wrong. Don't anybody panic. I don't think there's any global warming." And that's when Al Gore said he was senile.

Al Gore had one class in science. Roger Revelle taught it to him. He got a D and yet he's made a billion dollars off to climate change. Shame on you Al Gore.

The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.

So the Weather Channel is upset that Breitbart is using it's video - AFTER PAYING FOR IT - to illustrate his stories. And the founder of the Weather Channel is upset that the media network he created is being used for things HE doesn't agree with.

Par for the course. And the usual suspects praise the Weather Channel for championing the AGW catechism, but they are no more of an authority on the issue than the very founder of that channel, who is excoriated for having an opinion.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?

That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.

That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.

Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.

Comment Re:EU is not Democracy (Score 1) 364

This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.

You're quoting an opinion that was (rightly) overturned. In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the "imminent lawless action" test, one that protects a broader range of speech. This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

"General Welfare" does NOT provide ANY powers to the Federal government above and beyond the enumerated powers. Because the Federal government is limited. If you just point to the "General Welfare" clause and claim it provides powers, you're saying that the Federal government power is unlimited. Full stop.

Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 221

Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats. Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.

Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.

Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: News with validated facts" category, even using mainstream sources. They send out LOTS of stuff with nothing to back it up but some vague "sources say" statement, indicating some anonymous statement from who-knows-who, far from anything "validated". How long did the story about Libyan soldier using viagra to rape thousands of women before it was outed as bullshit?

Comment Re:Liberty To Censor (Score 1) 221

Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply. You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.

These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?

Comment Re:Better be ready to be beat up when layed off wo (Score 1) 500

Mississippi has one of the larger percentages of union employees in the south. Not sure why you are so butthurt about unions? Do you have a problem with people getting together to try and get a better deal for themselves?

No, I have a problem with workers that are being exploited by an overbearing corporation and its overpaid bosses to also have to deal with being exploited by an overbearing and often corrupt union and its overpaid bosses. Mississippi has lots of union workers, and yet it's a right to work state. So why do the unions in Michigan and elsewhere think they need laws and the violent power of the state to force people to join a union against their will, and even take money out of the paychecks of people that get NO benefit from the union? Or extract union money from workers' paychecks for partisan lobbying activities?

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.

As if there is anyone that could sue to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and be considered to have standing...

In any case, as stated in the Federalist Papers #41 quoted above, the "general welfare" provides no specific powers at all beyond the enumerated ones, and, according to Madison, it's a ludicrous argument to claim that it does. The Department was actually justified based on the Commerce Clause (like so many of the laws instituting Federal overreach), so you're not even correct about the Constitutional justification that was used to establish it.

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.

Nope.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Comment Re:Provide this at the state level (Score 1) 265

Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....

Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.

Wrong.

In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

Slashdot Top Deals

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...