The end times are upon us. I find myself in agreement with not just Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). It’s not just me. Right Wing News’ John Hawkins — not exactly a cheerleader for bipartisan consensus — is publicly standing with Warren, Pelosi, and their liberal allies in the House and Senate. As have conservative Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), Townhall.com’s Amy Otto, and Tea Party Patriots, among many others. And I’m not only opposed to the omnibus bill that squeaked through the House and may fail in the Senate. I’m flat-out agreeing with the principles upon which Pelosi and Warren are making their stand — specifically, their opposition to what Hawkins called “the GOP’s sop to the banks on derivatives along with their sleazy attempt to change campaign finance rules to benefit incumbents.” It’s infuriating. In its first significant legislative effort since winning the Senate in a landslide last month, the Beltway’s GOP leadership has chosen to secure a special campaign-finance reform loophole for the election arms of both parties. Furthermore, it worked with the Democratic establishment to put taxpayers on the hook for risky investments by bankers. And we haven’t even gotten to the fact that the bill offers only a few small improvements to the federal budget while still spending far too much. Likewise, the few mediocre — at best — pro-life efforts are offset by Republican support for slightly expanding the federal funding of abortion and continued funding for population control efforts. This latest debacle is just more evidence that the wool is always going to be pulled over the heads of conservatives. Enough is enough, especially since the media has clearly decided that shutdowns are cool when Democrats do them. On Friday, Noah warned the GOP leadership that “to dismiss this ire from conservatives as a mere fit of pique among conservatives…would be a foolish approach to this development.” He’s right. Our country is in serious trouble, and none of the allegedly “reasonable” voices in Washington are doing much about it. As such, I’m proud to add my (small) voice to the growing cascade of conservatives and liberals that have decided it’s time to take the power back from both parties. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/13/elizabeth-warren-and-nancy-pelosi-are-right/While I find the idea of siding with Nancy Pelosi personally abhorrent, I will side with Senator Warren and ignore the troll who is an apologist for the NSA. I don't like a lot of Warren's more socialist-leaning ideas about taxing the rich just because they're rich, but I wholly respect her crusade to shine light on the crony-capitalism in DC that is crippling this country politically and economically. The two-party system is the death of democracy. There is no choice here, but a large apparatus geared towards making it appear so. The more choices voters have, the less power the parties have, so naturally the democrats and republicans have ensured that third parties can't get on the ballot or get into debates. With a stranglehold on power, each party bestows favors and riches to their lobbying groups. It doesn't matter which party you belong to, each party has insiders who reap the rewards for rigging the system in their favor. The two-party system has to end. |
|
|
|
You gotta buy that stairway to heaven.  I suppose that's always been true, e.g. tithing. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't there an inherent problem with accepting a discount in exchange for praying anyway? Like, doesn't that make you a bad christian?
The government has anti-corruption laws known as pay-to-play rules. Maybe the Pope should institute a pay-to-pray rule.
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to say that it's been a couple weeks since you first mentioned news of increasing the rates for full members, and there's been nothing since then. For awhile, there was not many campaigns, and that gave this one an advantage. But now there are new campaigns with higher rates and escrowed funds, so this campaign is no longer competitive. Will you be addressing this situation? I'm not asking you to be the highest paying, or even match the highest paying, but at least be in the ballpark and be competitive. Right now there are several campaigns that pay more than 2x what this campaign pays for full members.
Please let us know if a decision regarding the pay rate increase is imminent, or if the idea has been abandoned. But 2 weeks is more than enough time to review the situation and render a decision.
Thanks for an otherwise well-run campaign, and your time.
All FM who made 20+ posts were paid @ 0.00015BTC/post. I hope this pay-rate is okay for FM.
~~MZ~~
dude, last page  Holy balls. I completely missed it. Sorry MZ. I totally derped on you. |
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to say that it's been a couple weeks since you first mentioned news of increasing the rates for full members, and there's been nothing since then. For awhile, there was not many campaigns, and that gave this one an advantage. But now there are new campaigns with higher rates and escrowed funds, so this campaign is no longer competitive. Will you be addressing this situation? Right now there are several campaigns that pay more than 2x what this campaign pays for full members. I'm not asking you to be the highest paying, or even match the highest paying, but at least be in the ballpark and be competitive.
Please let us know if a decision regarding the pay rate increase is imminent, or if the idea has been abandoned. But 2 weeks is more than enough time to review the situation and render a decision.
Thanks for an otherwise well-run campaign, and your time.
|
|
|
|
......
I don't mean to suggest Obamacare is bad or good - I just don't understand why it's such a popular topic when its effects are almost nonexistent outside the related expansion of Medicaid in most states, which could've been done by simply expanding Medicaid - and I doubt "Obamacaid" would've caught on. ....
I doubt that's anywhere close to accurate. For example, small businesses are struggling with the implications of the new taxes. My insurance costs almost tripled. The IRS added 18,000 more goons for enforcement. The effects are certainly not almost non existent. I didn't think of that. I'd guess your employer significantly subsidized healthcare costs where wages (especially for single adults) typically exceed Medicaid income tests and now face higher costs because they have to go from their own insurance pool of productive, able-bodied people to a massive pool of all sorts of people. I thought the practice of companies paying for insurance'd pretty much died off outside, say, $100k+/yr jobs where the tax benefits of taking health care over increased pay gets pretty extreme. The IRS has no effective way of enforcing the individual mandate. They're claiming they'll withhold federal tax refund checks, but a household failing the Medicaid income tests are unlikely to be receiving a tax refund (though this could be extremely different state-by-state, and some states do asset tests). The IRS/government has actually explicitly said they will not enforce the individual mandate. The whole concept of Obama care is a joke, it is just a ploy to get more people on a new entitlement program so more people will vote democrat Do you have a source for this claim? Because I've not heard it, I find it hard to believe, and it undercuts the entire system if there's no penalty for not joining. Spendulus is right about enforcing the mandate. It's not a criminal action, it's administrative. There are fees and interest, which if you don't pay may eventually wind up with a criminal complaint, but the IRS is an administrative agency. |
|
|
|
According to longstanding precedent, the police have no duty to protect anyone, and all lawsuits against them alleging same are tossed. Police however swear an oath to not do exactly what they do, and are effectively immune from any real consequences for breaking it. I wanted to be a cop before I learned about the dark side of the blue line.
Against them personally, yes lawsuits will be tossed. However The police department and the city/multiplicity they work for is a different story as the victim can claim that their procedures caused them to be put in harms way Against _any_ entity, tossed. There is no officer named District of Columbia. Cities have settled lawsuits in the past when shotty police work has resulted in death by criminals This discussion's context was about the longstanding precedent that police have no duty to protect any innocent from harm. While at the same time they can kill the slightest, victimless, non-violent "criminal" only moving his/her cardiopulmonary muscles, and suffer no real consequences. Having your employer use taxpayers' money to compensate your victim is not a real consequence, and neither is losing your job. Only losing your freedom and all assets is. When a police officer kills someone it is almost always going to be in self defense. The case of Michael Brown is a template as to the kind of reasons that police will kill someone - if they don't then the criminal is going to kill the officer. This is exactly the reason why we have the 2nd amendment You try to cling to your Second Amendment right around a cop, and you're going to get shot. That's what they do, especially if you're not white. Your Second Amendment right is just an excuse for a cop to claim self-defense, and we've all seen that when they invoke self-defense, they're untouchable in the eyes of the law. |
|
|
|
|
I understand there's still a chance the governor vetos the bill. He's a lame duck, so he doesn't have anything to lose by vetoing it on principle. The problem is the law was passed as part of another law, so it's not being passed on its merits, and it won't be vetoed without consequence to the bill it was attached to.
Actually, best case scenario would be a line item veto, which would force the legislators to go on the record as to why they're such police-state apologists when they try to defend it or override the veto, and give the public a chance to flood their offices with angry calls.
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan, have you given any further thought to launching a similar site denominated in any other crypto?
|
|
|
|
When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.
I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.
This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision... Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are. Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court. I actually agree with that. Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, the headline is what many people will see and will be intimidated by. In practice, the police will be able to harass those who are recording and even if the law at some point determines they were wrong to do so, the video still gets messed with, the stigma is still applied and the discouragement factor is still there. The law takes years to get sorted out even in cases where there are clear violations...if anything, this is just buying time and a little bit of credibility for those who don't deserve it. Yeah, I agree with both of you. My original reply was just nit-picky in that I was distinguishing that the new law wasn't written in violation of the IL Supreme Court's earlier ruling. The legislator's actually think they wrote a constitutional law. I disagree, and I hope the court will too when this inevitably gets challenged when the police do what police do: violate rights. |
|
|
|
The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works. The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.
I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win. My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free. Yep! Stop the presses! We just agreed on something Wilikon. |
|
|
|
When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.
I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.
This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision... Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are. |
|
|
|
That video is still a blurry piece of shit and damn near worthless as evidence.
The video is simple support. What was done by the cops should never have been done that way.  Everybody agrees with that. What should be the consequences of that action - that is the debate. He should be indicted and there should be a trial. The video is enough to question whether excessive force was used. The trial will allow the cop to give his side of the story, and a jury should decide if he unjustly took a life. |
|
|
|
As for the bill referenced in the OP...
It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists. To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal. Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).
You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation". "(d)Private conversation For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is. I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension. The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on. e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble. NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard). Actually you didn't "cite" parts of the "private conversation" definition, you INTERPRETED IT. If you know anything about law you would know words ONLY MEAN what they say they mean in the definition. If they defined "private conversation" as talking to a stadium full of people, talking to a stadium full of people would now be "private". Your standard understanding of the definitions of the words are MEANINGLESS UNLESS DEFINED, and they are defined, exactly how I quoted, not how you INTERPRETED it. The law clearly states " when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." All a cop has to do is SAY HE INTENDED for the conversation to be private, now law enforcement gets to pick and choose which evidence is admissible. The part that says "under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." is COMPLETELY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any time there is a law regarding police that states something should have to be "reasonable" it is ABUSED HEAVILY, because for something to be "reasonable" you only have to again create another idea in your head to fabricate a REASON for your expectation of privacy. Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere. When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that. I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me. |
|
|
|
BUT WAIT - It gets weird. Now in California, this happened? http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/11/oakland-protester-unmasked-as-undercover"An undercover law enforcement officer attempted to infiltrate an anti-police brutality protest in Oakland, California, last night. But once his cover was blown, he drew his gun. A photographer snapped pictures of him pointing it directly at the camera." Art imitates life imitates art.  I get that they are defending themselves against the guy on the ground (who allegedly hit one of the officers). But why the gun pointed at the camera? A Canon is not a cannon. When I saw this picture, my first thought was "Is he a thug wanna-be, or poorly trained?" What cop holds a gun like that? |
|
|
|
Oh please, if you actually look at the users doing this you'll find it's not actually as many as they're claiming, yes there are dumbasses out there and we have our own homophobic and racist morons that I constantly bait because it's funny but if things were really that bad you wouldn't even be on here. Same goes for sexism really, if I ever see a woman bitching about misogny and actually look at the comments made towards her it's usually just a few assholes trying to spam her, as was the case with this woman, she then decided that all men are the enemy and we as gamers needed to be attacked.
Again, I'm not speaking to any claims made by others, but from my own personal experiences. It's far too pervasive to be "just a few assholes." I'm making no judgments as to whether Ms. Sarkeesian's personal story is true or not. She could be lying her ass off, but still be describing an accurate situation; one I've seen myself. |
|
|
|
|
Whether or not the original "agitators" have credibility isn't relevant to me. The underlying truth that there is rampant misogyny, racism, and homophobia on the internet holds true for the gaming community as well, as it is just a smaller subset of the whole internet. You don't have to spend very long on Xbox live or any MMO to run into these things. Ms. Sarkeesian could be proven to have made up all her allegations and personal experiences, but it wouldn't change my perception of the problems, as I am a gamer, and I've seen name-calling and taunts firsthand, and I don't think it's a small number people causing this problem.
|
|
|
|
The people who don't understand the purpose and value of local control and federalism have a lot of reading to do! My concern with the federalism argument is where is the line between local autonomy and the unjust infringement of freedom? The fact that a law or ordinance has wide-spread local support doesn't make it just. It's just a smaller group of people restricting freedom. |
|
|
|
The majority of people who oppose Obamacare also known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" don't even have a clue how it works. The new guideline basically aims to make health care more affordable for everyone. It's not exactly a free handout. The tax increase of .009% only applies if you make more than $200,000 so you can imagine who is voicing their protests for it and brainwashing the masses who don't make anywhere near that to do the same.
I understand how it works, I don't make more than $200,000 a years, and I'm still opposed to it. What the program "aims to do" and what it actually does are not the same. Government has a long-running problem with unintended consequences. Unfortunately, the two parties act out of political necessity now, not with any design on what is best for the country. Democrats needed a major policy accomplishment, so this was rushed and rammed through. The vast majority of the Congress didn't read the bill, let alone understand it or be able to foresee the unintended consequences the bill would create. Republicans aren't opposing out of a sense of what is good for the country either. They're opposition is rooted in denying Democrats a major policy win. My opposition to the bill is on principle. You can't be forced to buy something you don't want to buy, and someone else's problems cannot be made to be your own by government. Everyone is born free and equal, and as a free and equal person to everyone, you cannot be forced an obligation to them unwillingly, which is what socialized medicine is at its base. Your unwillingness to help others who are less fortunate makes you a bad person, but you're free to be a bad person because you're free. |
|
|
|
I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.
This is clearly not true. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't take the extra effort to intentionally misspell the name every time. Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it... I care. I was wondering why you did it, as I've never seen it done before but it was obviously intentional. While I had my theory about it, I didn't necessarily assume to know your motivation for doing it, which is why I asked. In any event, I have my answer now. I wasn't asking to ridicule you or debate the merits of it, just to understand. Hm. I really did not believe you were trying to ridicule Wilikon as he is but a puppet purely created to have a 'good' time on the bitcointalk forum. My explanation was clear I thought. Yes I am not a fan of obama and to let anyone knows it I write 0bama. There is not much to it really. As this is not my thread I would hate to be impolite and derail it more with a back and forth here. But you are welcome to move to any of my threads as I am not afraid to derail them myself No need for private messages as I do not care for them. Now... Back to that evil 0bamacare shall we  Hijacking, as suggested so as not to further derail someone else's topic. Quote is from other topic. So is "Wilikon" a pseudo-character? Based on your political beliefs, but exaggerated? Or something like that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
