DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> "Let's stomp on Constitutional Amendments" thread
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 251 - 275 of 659, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/09/2013 10:40:15 PM · #251
Bah, President? Pluto isn't even a planet anymore ... :-(
06/09/2013 10:54:44 PM · #252
I'm sure this will be lost on most.

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1072257.jpg

Message edited by author 2013-06-09 22:55:14.
06/09/2013 11:32:02 PM · #253
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Cory:



Bear, while you're somewhat right, the truth is that I do think too large of a proportion of the population (read massive majority) are fucking melon-headed idiots.


Well, I've never.... I have never f'ed a melon-headed idiot. (Don't you love when grammar can be miscontructed?)

Carry on! (Just inserting a sound bite...)


Are you sure? If you're not a virgin there's AT LEAST a 60% probability that you have. I know I have - several in fact.

Never a melon-head. Idiots, for sure. But not melon-headed idiots.
06/09/2013 11:47:26 PM · #254
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by jmritz:

here he is


Good, I love his courage.


That young, with a GED? That level of access for a contractor?
Something smells here. I don't think we are about to be dazzled
with his brilliance. Prepared to be baffled by the bullsh*t.
Psyop. The real leaker is already dead.

Message edited by author 2013-06-09 23:48:10.
06/09/2013 11:54:47 PM · #255
And you obtained this inside information ... where?
06/09/2013 11:55:14 PM · #256
Originally posted by Erastus:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by jmritz:

here he is


Good, I love his courage.


That young, with a GED? That level of access for a contractor?
Something smells here. I don't think we are about to be dazzled
with his brilliance. Prepared to be baffled by the bullsh*t.
Psyop. The real leaker is already dead.


LOL, no, no I think it's quite true.

Frankly THIS is what worries me about the collection of the data, it's the melon-headed idiots in charge of the data. :)

Not that this guy is really an idiot, in truth, he's a superstar genius compared to many of your standard issue GS employees.
06/10/2013 12:48:25 AM · #257
Originally posted by Cory:


Frankly THIS is what worries me about the collection of the data, it's the melon-headed idiots in charge of the data. :)



And as we have heard, even melon-headed idiots get lucky. :)

Oh, yeah General, that info I pulled out of my a$$
Comes from reading too many spy novels. :)
06/10/2013 12:52:20 AM · #258
We only live in a plutocracy if we also admit it's been that way from the beginning. Washington, Jefferson, Adams all had great wealth (and sometimes great debt). On the other hand we have presidens who were raised in poverty and still rose to lead despite this. I'd say the proposition is overstated and it would be just as accurate (ie. only somewhat accurate) to say we live in a meritocracy where education is king.

Clinton, Reagan, Nixon were all born into modest means.

Message edited by author 2013-06-10 00:59:40.
06/10/2013 07:31:29 AM · #259
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We only live in a plutocracy if we also admit it's been that way from the beginning. Washington, Jefferson, Adams all had great wealth (and sometimes great debt). On the other hand we have presidens who were raised in poverty and still rose to lead despite this. I'd say the proposition is overstated and it would be just as accurate (ie. only somewhat accurate) to say we live in a meritocracy where education is king.

Clinton, Reagan, Nixon were all born into modest means.

Jason, you know as well as I do that it's not about the figureheads, it's about the powers that call the shots. If you don't acknowledge that in our current situation it's Big Money that runs the government, you're being willfully blind... Hell, SCOTUS currently insists that corporations are PEOPLE! How much more obvious can it get?

However, you're correct in the first statement; we've had plutocratic inclinations from the beginning. This country never has been a classic democracy of the common man, all myths to the contrary.

Message edited by author 2013-06-10 07:33:07.
06/10/2013 12:07:18 PM · #260
I can't imagine this isn't the natural inclination of any democracy. The wealthy will always possess more resources and education which they can utilize to advocate their position. How could it be otherwise? The SCOTUS ruling is logical even if we don't like the results. If an individual has the right to advocate his position, then a group of individuals would also maintain that right, no? (Believe me, I understand the ramifications of the ruling and how it will only hasten us down the road to our demise.)

There is one possible curb to this natural inclination. One foil which should maintain advocacy for the poor and the alien. We are, however, doing our best to extinguish it from the outside while portions rot from the inside.
06/10/2013 12:15:42 PM · #261
One could wish that the wealthier and more educated among us would be in the forefront of social advocacy... noblesse oblige, so to speak.
06/10/2013 12:45:34 PM · #262
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

One could wish that the wealthier and more educated among us would be in the forefront of social advocacy... noblesse oblige, so to speak.


Yes, I agree one can always wish and hope. It would definitely be nice.
06/10/2013 12:54:46 PM · #263
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The SCOTUS ruling is logical even if we don't like the results.

Please find the word "corporation" in the Constitution. There is nothing requiring corporations be granted equal rights to individual citizens.

If corporations are going to be granted rights equal to individual citizens, where do we stop -- does General Motors now get to vote too?

I'd be more impressed with the "logic" of the ruling if corporations were also subject to the same responsibilities as citizens, and subject to the same penalties when they violate the law.

Becoming a a corporation is a privilege, not a right -- it is a legal fiction designed to insulate the owners from individual legal responsibility and liability. If I kill someone, I go to jail. If a corporation kills hundreds, they pay a big fine. As someone recently said "I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

One could wish that the wealthier and more educated among us would be in the forefront of social advocacy... noblesse oblige, so to speak.


Yes, I agree one can always wish and hope.

And that is different from prayer ... how?

Message edited by author 2013-06-10 12:56:07.
06/10/2013 01:11:52 PM · #264
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yes, I agree one can always wish and hope.

And that is different from prayer ... how?


I dunno. Depends on who's on the other end of your wishes and hopes. ;)

I'm not here to defend Citizens United, only to say I understand the logic: an individual has the right to advocate his position, therefore, a group of individuals also have that right. Wouldn't you feel that a union of workers would maintain the right to advocate under the banner of "the union"? The logic is no different.

Like I said, I understand the darker ramifications of the ruling, but that, to me, is a weakness of the constitution, not the individuals who made this ruling. (Don must think I'm a democrat for that).

Message edited by author 2013-06-10 13:12:07.
06/10/2013 01:53:14 PM · #265
Corporations are inherently the opposite of unions. Corporate Boards are chock full of the CEOs of all the other corporations. If the fact that the leadership of all corporations is in the hands of an elite few is not enough, the use of mutual funds and the like have effectively removed any control from stockholders, much less accountability. Add to that the fact that in modern times compensation for the top is based upon short term high risk gains, rather than long term performance. Finally, all this is quite scary when you let these corporate "people" spend without check to gain even more influence in an over-lobbied legislature. All the while Unions are coming from a point of weakness and lack of funds, to level the playing field for the masses, not to skew it for the few. They are not perfect institutions, for sure, but is either truly Naive or truly conservative to equate the "individual nature" of unions with the "individual nature" of corporations.
06/10/2013 01:53:40 PM · #266
The question in Citizens United is not whether a group ha a right to express their views, but whether they have a right to spend unlimited funds from unidentified sources in support or opposition to candidates or legislation.

Clearly corporations are not "similarly situated" as individuals in their ability to acquire and spend large amounts of money, so I see no reason different rules can't apply.
06/10/2013 02:34:08 PM · #267
Paul, corporations may not be, on average, "similarly situated", but the bell curve for each has overlap. There are individuals with more money than corporations. Your argument would not hold unless you are prepared to limit these rich individuals as well.

BJ, I wasn't speaking to their purposes at all. You can read angelic or nefarious purposes into either group all you want. It doesn't matter to the law. If it winds up being the source of our downfall, then the seeds were planted in the Constitution (or at least in the first amendment).
06/10/2013 02:49:23 PM · #268
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul, corporations may not be, on average, "similarly situated", but the bell curve for each has overlap. There are individuals with more money than corporations. Your argument would not hold unless you are prepared to limit these rich individuals as well.

Absolutely -- plenty of places have limits on individual contributions to campaigns -- hence the move by those with lots of money (those who own the corporations) to get around those limits by laundering the money through the corporate entity.
06/10/2013 04:23:17 PM · #269
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul, corporations may not be, on average, "similarly situated", but the bell curve for each has overlap. There are individuals with more money than corporations. Your argument would not hold unless you are prepared to limit these rich individuals as well.

Absolutely -- plenty of places have limits on individual contributions to campaigns -- hence the move by those with lots of money (those who own the corporations) to get around those limits by laundering the money through the corporate entity.


You may find this quote from Wiki pertinent Paul...

This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[27] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy.

The wiki article is interesting in that you can see that the majority opinion is more concerned with interpretation of previous law and precedent to their natural conclusions ("If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.") while the minority opinion is concerned with the ramifications of the decision (the decision, "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."). I think Blindjustice, of all people, would understand the first is a better application of the phrase "justice is blind" than the latter.

Message edited by author 2013-06-10 16:23:59.
06/11/2013 12:30:40 AM · #270
Originally posted by NSA:

This is Bruce, from the NSA. It has come to our attention that you are trampling on the authority we have taken upon ourselves by criticizing our recent surveillance actions dedicated to keeping you safe. This is a crime, not only against civilized society, but against the government, and your dear leader. We respectfully ask you turn yourself in. Amnesty will be given to those who also turn in their parents, children, friends, relatives and/or co-conspirators. You have been warned: we are watching & listening & collecting - we live to collate, after all. Our next action will be a knock on your door after midnight. You might want to dtaft a note to those you care about so they'll know why you disappeared unexpectedly.


Just got this. Oh dear!
06/11/2013 03:47:02 PM · #271
I thought it was interesting that many of the companies that Snowden revealed are cooperating with the NSA have denied certain aspects of his assertions. Then yesterday I came across several articles in tech-oriented publications such as the following:

Tech Giants Built Segregated Systems For NSA

Excerpt: "By working to create “a locked mailbox and give the government the key” which the New York Times reported, rather than allowing widespread monitoring, the firehose is restricted to a trickle of specific requests. When the NSA has specific people they want to data about, they make a specific, legal request for that data that the tech companies are required to comply with. Google or Facebook then puts the specific requested data into the locked mailbox where the government can access it. This keeps requested data about suspected terrorists or other people who are threats to national security segregated from that of innocent users."

And today, this article:

Google Asks Government to Let Them Reveal How Many National Security Data Requests They Get

Excerpt: "Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users’ data are simply untrue. However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation."

Most interesting to learn would be the scope of the NSA requests, if the govt. allows it.
06/11/2013 06:37:53 PM · #272
billy_mays.png But wait, there's more!
06/11/2013 09:25:08 PM · #273
I always thought congress should wear Nascar uniforms after Citizens united. Or they could all wear NRA tattoos...

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1072355.jpg
06/11/2013 10:36:01 PM · #274
According to Dave Ross' radio commentary today, the other whistleblowers talked about all of this at a "teach-in" in New York about a year ago. Of course, they didn't get much press coverage then, since it seemed just the paranoid fantasies of some left-wing nut jobs ...
Originally posted by Linked Transcript:

By the way, this is how the teach-in ended:

"Remember, whatever happens to either of us, even if there is a videotape,
it was murder," said Appelbaum. The audience chuckled.

"Seriously," he added. "Bill, you agree?"

"I make it perfectly clear to all the lawyers I have, I will never commit suicide," said Binney.

"Same here," said Appelbaum.

Of course, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you ...
06/12/2013 07:51:42 AM · #275
The biggest difference between Obama and Bush is in their personal style.

Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 06:20:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 06:20:03 AM EDT.