Itinerant Air-Cooled

BellePlaine wrote:
It's so silly to blame greedy bankers/military/corps because those groups gets their advantage from our elected politicians

This is where spelling and punctuation and grammar count.

Did you mean:
A) It's so silly to blame greedy bankers/military/corps because those groups gets their advantage from our elected politicians
or:
B) It's so silly to blame greedy bankers/military/corps, because those groups gets their advantage from our elected politicians

A) is saying that it is silly to blame them for their advantages.
B) a simple comma changes the argument to say it is silly to blame them, because in fact their advantage comes from the politicians.

While I say (C) it is pure deflection to put a silly scold on those of us who have seen this country get raped by greed, and are attempting to at least call out the inequities and lies promulgated by those who have the most to lose if we wake up.
There is no rationalization or justification on Earth for the increasing inequity, none.
Colin

B.

While I say (C) it is pure deflection to put a silly scold on those of us who have seen this country get raped by greed, and are attempting to at least call out the inequities and lies promulgated by those who have the most to lose if we wake up.
There is no rationalization or justification on Earth for the increasing inequity, none.
Colin

I am not scolding those of us with so much to lose for calling out inequities and lies. I’m having a hard time finding the words, but my point is I’m frustrated by the movement to grow the government’s power to protect us from the government/corp/military complex. I believe that brave collective individuals are the Anti-Establishment, not more government protection.

BellePlaine wrote: I’m having a hard time finding the words, but my point is I’m frustrated by the movement to grow the government’s power to protect us from the government/corp/military complex.
I believe that brave collective individuals are the Anti-Establishment, not more government protection.

In other words, you perhaps see that many of these problems we have, the problems mentioned above, are in part due to the gov getting more power and it having a greater role than it should, and therefore it doesn't make sense to give it even more power.
Our problems seem to have steadily increased right along with the role of government increasing. And, our liberties decrease as the role of government increases.
Collective Individuals are the Anti-Establishment, Government and ruling elites are the establishment.
Feel free to correct or deny my attempt to expand upon what you were saying.

Did you hear Obama’s stump speech last night in Chicago? He’s making a campaign promise to give us faster internet service so the shop in rural America can have access to the world market. Really, is this a problem that we need our federal government to solve? Are we sure that we’re ready to give control of our internet service to the federal government? I cringe!

I vote hell no on that one. As long as corporations are in control of our government, they must not be given any control over the internet.

Plus... is the *speed* of internet service really what's keeping Mom and Pop Dime Store from competing with Walmart? What, they can't get their orders in fast enough or something?

BellePlaine wrote: I’m frustrated by the movement to grow the government’s power to protect us from the government/corp/military complex. I believe that brave collective individuals are the Anti-Establishment, not more government protection.

I almost don't understand this.

When American citizens take to the streets because of frustration with the status-quo, who are they hoping to change? This goes for the Tea Party as well as the Occupy Movement, whose attention are they seeking to get?

They are seeking to get the attention of the American people. The media is responsible for reporting the activities of these citizens seeking the attention of the American people.

When the American people have been informed of this efforts, they then do what about it? If they agree strongly, they petition their representatives, they try to generate legislation that reflects their goals, right?

In both cases, Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, successful action is only measured by legislation! By our government! It takes the power of the government to control the power of the government. If the Tea Party wants smaller government, they have to ask the government, through their legislators, to change the rules of the game. If Occupy Wall Street wants to regulate run-amok corporate behavior, they have to petition the government through our Constitional process to pass laws regulating the conduct of commerce.

Do regulations "grow the power of the government"? What if they merely reflect what the majority of Americans have decided would be good? Environmental regulations, financial regulations, energy use regulations, in what way do they grow the power of the government? Who goes home at the end of the day and says "ha HA! I am KING now that they passed a sulphur emissions limit!"?

I do not understand this suspicion against this Social Collective known as the United States of America, where we have agreed by vote to balance the system and keep it somewhat clean and organized.

You tell you kids to clean their rooms, obey the house rules, what is the difference between the family's need to regulate the household and the country's need to regulate the society?
Colin

I'm reasonably sure if you are a business in rural Oklahoma you'd embrace this. I had a colleague that tried to run a truck agency using some fly by night satelite service because that was all that was available. Every time there were sunspots, rain, snow or birds landing on the dish they were out of commission. Given virually every transaction they did from bookings to dispatch to finalization was done via the cloud I don't see how they could possibly have functioned without fast dependable internet service. I know I couldn't. I just wrote a check to AT&T. It seems to me corporations already have control over the internet.

Edited: This is in response to BellePlaine and Velokids post re Obama's Internet pledge

Belle Plaine wrote:Did you hear Obama’s stump speech last night in Chicago? He’s making a campaign promise to give us faster internet service so the shop in rural America can have access to the world market. Really, is this a problem that we need our federal government to solve? Are we sure that we’re ready to give control of our internet service to the federal government? I cringe!

Velokid1 wrote:I vote hell no on that one. As long as corporations are in control of our government, they must not be given any control over the internet.

Plus... is the *speed* of internet service really what's keeping Mom and Pop Dime Store from competing with Walmart? What, they can't get their orders in fast enough or something?

I fear that we are losing all perspective. Do you remember the push to lay railroad tracks across the country or rural electrification project in the 30s and 40s and the interstate highway system too? Sure there was hue and cry against wasting our time and energy to provide transportation and electricity to the bumpkins. How did it work out? Any private corporation willing to stick their neck out with large infrastructure projects? Heck no. Some things need to be done with the support of all of us. Like rebuilding our nation's fresh and waste water systems. We are crumbling. It is stupid. I believe in maintenance and upgrade. It is cheaper in the long run to stay ahead of the deterioration.

We are falling behind in our technology on the world stage. This only stifles innovation and networking. There are immediate jobs to be had in improving our wireless infrastructure, and the inventiveness of the American people can only be enhanced by a world-class internet connectivity. How did we become such dinosaurs so utterly devoid of interest in the possible?

Did we fear the government would control the railroads? the interstates? the lights in our homes? Velokid, who is the internet bogeyman here? Government or corporations?

Does every goddamn idea our President puts out have to be shit on?

Good points, but I have always lived in small towns and my internet has gone down once in 20 years, for a 24-hour period, so I guess I don't see the urgency.

RussellK wrote:I just wrote a check to AT&T. It seems to me corporations already have control over the internet.

Edited: This is in response to BellePlaine and Velokids post re Obama's Internet pledge

Yes, if we are measuring "control" by who is being paid for the service. What AT&T does not control is the content. They control the delivery itself, but note that if they were to take that delivery away, people would have grounds to not pay their bill and AT&T would be dead.

So the only power they have currently is to deny service entirely, which would be suicide for them and is thus unlikely.

Velokid1 wrote: Yes, if we are measuring "control" by who is being paid for the service. What AT&T does not control is the content. They control the delivery itself, but note that if they were to take that delivery away, people would have grounds to not pay their bill and AT&T would be dead.

So the only power they have currently is to deny service entirely, which would be suicide for them and is thus unlikely.

Agreed. I forgot my sarcasm smiley.

I wonder just how much control they would want over content. One of the arguments they successfully make right now is they are merely a conduit thus share no responsibility for content. When you think about the amount badness that runs through the internet (scams, kidddie porn, terror etc) I wonder if they'd willingly give up that shield.

Velokid1 wrote:
Plus... is the *speed* of internet service really what's keeping Mom and Pop Dime Store from competing with Walmart?

Good point. If anything it will take even more away from the local community and keep people stuck to getting everything they need via the internet shipped from somewhere far away.

It would be a very tricky thing. It makes me sad how accessible hardcore pornography is today on the internet, and how accessible it will be for my two boys starting here in the next year or two (oldest one is 9). And I'm no prude when it comes to pornography. I'm just glad that when I was 12 I was perusing my father's Playboys and not internet videos involving pooping and bondage and face moisturizers. But the censorship of the internet is a slippery slope, especially given this new "it's now legal for us to make anyone involved with anything like terrorism disappear" legislation. It seems that our legislators are not nearly as discerning as I when it comes to passing laws that trod upon our liberties. (And yes, it pisses me off that I can't even type that last sentence without sounding like a Libertarian... but let's ignore that for now.)

Velokid1 wrote:It would be a very tricky thing. It makes me sad how accessible hardcore pornography is today on the internet, and how accessible it will be for my two boys starting here in the next year or two (oldest one is 9). And I'm no prude when it comes to pornography. I'm just glad that when I was 12 I was perusing my father's Playboys and not internet videos involving pooping and bondage and face moisturizers. But the censorship of the internet is a slippery slope, especially given this new "it's now legal for us to make anyone involved with anything like terrorism disappear" legislation. It seems that our legislators are not nearly as discerning as I when it comes to passing laws that trod upon our liberties. (And yes, it pisses me off that I can't even type that last sentence without sounding like a Libertarian... but let's ignore that for now.)

Velo, you don't sound like a Libertarian. You sound like an evolving soul. I beat the RP thing too much around here that it probably turns people off.

Seriously, though, what about how easy it is to have access to hardcore porn? I'm worried about my kids too. As if parenting weren't hard enough already. Do we as parents treat it like drugs and alcohol and tell them about it? Let them learn about it under our watch so they learn how to deal with it our way as opposed to completely ignoring the subject forcing them to sneak around and over-indulge when we are not watching.

Amskeptic wrote: They are seeking to get the attention of the American people. The media is responsible for reporting the activities of these citizens seeking the attention of the American people.
When the American people have been informed of this efforts, they then do what about it? If they agree strongly, they petition their representatives, they try to generate legislation that reflects their goals, right?

Yes the people try to get other peoples attention to then change the gov.
But, it has been observed that what changes or the legislation that gets added isn't what the people want. Also, this doesn't mean it is right. Having a democracy where the majority rules over others without proper observance of individual rights is a very bad thing.

Amskeptic wrote: In both cases, Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, successful action is only measured by legislation! By our government! It takes the power of the government to control the power of the government. If the Tea Party wants smaller government, they have to ask the government, through their legislators, to change the rules of the game. If Occupy Wall Street wants to regulate run-amok corporate behavior, they have to petition the government through our Constitional process to pass laws regulating the conduct of commerce.

The problem is
1) those in power do what they want because now they can violate rights.
2) The Constitution is a limited document limiting the powers of the gov. It is not a free for all where the majority or mob can make any rule it desires.

Amskeptic wrote:Do regulations "grow the power of the government"? What if they merely reflect what the majority of Americans have decided would be good? Environmental regulations, financial regulations, energy use regulations, in what way do they grow the power of the government? Who goes home at the end of the day and says "ha HA! I am KING now that they passed a sulphur emissions limit!"?

Some go home and say, "ha ha, I made it hard for anyone else to do this but my big corporation with the team of lawyers. Only my big firm can now do this. We wrote the laws to insure Haliburton, or Carlisle group will prosper".
But that's just it. They don't reflect what the people want. Giving the gov more power than was intended, recommended or right has caused a mob of evil people to flock to it because those who control it can gain so much. YES, regulations GROW the power of the government. The POWER of the GOV is not always the will of the people, but the will of those elites who control so much that they keep getting into office. Or, it is the will of a misguided mob. Once again, it is important to observe individual rights.

Amskeptic wrote: I do not understand this suspicion against this Social Collective known as the United States of America, where we have agreed by vote to balance the system and keep it somewhat clean and organized.

This is just it. What was agreed upon by the few men writing the Dec and Const was to institute a gov to protect our liberties, to make states republics onto themselves, and to democratically vote in people to insure this.
NOT to Balance a two party system, where people vote for the team that best reflects their desires, and then hopes they don't violate our rights too much as they violate others rights to give me more beni's.

Amskeptic wrote: You tell you kids to clean their rooms, obey the house rules, what is the difference between the family's need to regulate the household and the country's need to regulate the society?
Colin

I have answered this one before. I understand if you don't agree, but I'm gonna answer it again.
It is understood that kids our too young to be on their own and it is understood that it is the parents responsibility.
It is not suppose to be understood that we are not capable of making decisions for ourselves, and the government is responsible.
That is the difference. What Parents are to kids is not the same as what the gov is to free people in free country. Your comparison may be more valid if it was in a country that hadn't yet declared independence from a king.

BellePlaine wrote:Velo, you don't sound like a Libertarian. You sound like an evolving soul. I beat the RP thing too much around here that it probably turns people off.

I don't know about that, but I want to point out that the way I value liberty and not having truly unreasonable or harmful laws impressed upon me is not something new for me. I like to think of myself as constantly evolving (a euphamism for getting older, in some ways) but my love of being able to direct my own life isn't new. Which is precisely why I resent the fact that now when I express those feelings, it just sounds like the litany I hear all the time from Libertarian friends. I have to admit that part of me feels like Libertarians have hijacked the concepts of freedom and liberty over the past several years. Meaning that the true meaning of those words is malleable, like all words, and I don't like that I can no longer use them without people assuming the idea I'm expressing comes from my aligning myself with Libertarian politics.

I ramble too much, sorry.

BellePlaine wrote:Do we as parents treat it like drugs and alcohol and tell them about it? Let them learn about it under our watch so they learn how to deal with it our way as opposed to completely ignoring the subject forcing them to sneak around and over-indulge when we are not watching.

My opinion: yes. I actually remember when I was in middle school, my father always had this big collection of new and vintage Playboys, and it was sort of a joke that they knew I got into them from time to time. Well eventually I found hidden away somewhere a more hardcore porn magazine of my father's. (Because I was a little asshole and would rifle through his belongings as if they were my own...) My mom left for work and I was to catch the bus 20 minutes later, so I went to look at this magazine and of course my mom comes back home to get something she forgot and catches me. Well, that evening she sits me down and gives me this talk, the gist of which was: "You do realize that there's a difference between sex and f**king, right? If you don't, let me know and I'll explain it."

My worry for my boys isn't that they'll be tainted and go the Hell... I just want them to be able to enjoy respectful, deep, passionately sexual relationships without confusing sex with the strange, twisted version of sex that is depicted in almost every internet porn video out there. I could go into details about what exactly I find disturbing about them, but I won't.