Ok fair enough, I just wanted to make sure you know I am not an "establishment" republican. I don't like war (on people, substances or ideas), I don't like mass surveillance, I'm not scared of terrorists (and I don't call them "losers"), I don't like big government - be it in the pharmacy, supermarket or your bedroom.

The federal government is broken or not functioning properly, but it is not weak. It is working exactly how the majority of the people we elect want it to and it is very effective.

Yeah I know that its kind of a pipe dream to hope that there is any hope for significant upward mobility to really return in the near future and giving power back to the states would hardly solve a lot of these problems. Most people don't care enough to vote in town elections and then complain about the bylaws - DUH!


I just get angry when people rally against "the 1%" and "those greedy millionaires."

The millionaire who owns a couple restaurants in the area? The millionaire who owns a few auto-body shops? The millionaire who owns a local pest-control business? The millionaire doctor at your local hospital? These aren't the bad guys.

A million dollars is 20x the average US income while a billion dollars is 20,000x the average US income. Comparing one million to one billion is like comparing one thousand to one million - but its always those evil millionaires fucking us all over.

This post was edited by murder567 on Nov 27 2017 06:25pm

The founders would probably die from laughing at you.

they'd think i was insane, because an 18th century person can't conceptualize things like our modern technological world.

but to suggest they wouldnt preemptively put limits on things is absurd. over time with out perspective we honed in on fair law by restricting overboard provisions they wrote, given the same perspective of 300 years they'd do the same. that's what perspective is.

Yeah I'm sure they had no idea that human technology would advance over the coming centuries.

your sarcasm is duly noted, but it doesn't address what i'm saying at all.

an 18th century person can't conceptualize the modern cell phone and internet aided reality we all live in, it's a few steps too far. Not quite showing cavemen a lighter gap, but that's a good nonequivalent example.

In fact, to your credit, the founding fathers did predict advancement, they just couldn't tell where it was going. its part of the reason they pushed for such broad systems of law where precedent can play such a heavy role with a system that's designed to limit subjectivity as much as it can. Surely they understood we would go placed, but to say they'd understand a computer is silly. It's like introducing a modern person to the incan base 20 system, it makes no sense.

Look back in history if you need this proven, look for the forward looking thinkers. Tesla, Orwell, etc. They all come around the time of the industrial revolution when the concepts we're mastering were first introduced. And even there their descriptions are vague, "people will all be connected by devices" etc. To dial back another 150 years....

I can certainly see where you are coming from but I don't like putting limits on Constitutional rights.

For example:

The founders said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so anyone today is free to stockpile muskets and cannonballs - all other firearms will be confiscated!

The founders said the right to free speech shall not be infringed so anyone today is free to communicate by voice, quill and parchment - all other forms of speech will be censored!

but i can't buy a soviet era nuke, or a tank, or NATO rounds thanks to Obummer. so....

Free speech has remained pretty untainted as a legal violation, but its been targeted via hate speech as an aggravating factor and even additional charge.

But the founders never imagined the internet could exist, maybe they wouldn't have wanted anonymous free speech over broadband? Cyberbullying takes many lives every year after all.


For what it's worth, I firmly believe that hate speech is Constitutionally protected. So long as your speech doesn't directly cause imminent violence, it is legal.

Madonna can say that she has thought about blowing up the White House, perfectly fine. What Madonna can't do, is organize a group on Pennsylvania Ave and instruct the mob to jump the fence and plant their bombs around the foundation.

Al Sharpton can rally a crowd and say that they should be taking out their revenge on police, that's fine. What Sharpton can't do its point out a particular police officer and goad the crowd into attacking this man.

This post was edited by murder567 on Nov 28 2017 03:22pm