{{ Interesting word "forces" in the second line.... In case of harm caused by libel or slander, there are the courts. }}

yea, I had second thoughts about using that term myself, but went with it anyways because the fact remains there's certain elements of "standards" "proven" to be sound I've no issue with making law or iron clad. When it comes most things I'm pretty liberal. I believe anyone has the right to pump themselves up with as much heroin, crack, whatever, as they like, I've also no issue with anyonee who prefers cock over vagina while stuffing gerbils up ones ass. I'm pretty much on board with most shit like that and feel people have the utmost right and freedom to those sorts of things. But when it comes to a little per-emptive common fucking sense as it applies to the public domain, sorry, I disagree. Sure, the courts can serve to compensate in the event of pure negligence, but seems an awful waste "after the fact" when you now have a corpse on your hands or a maiming which could just as easily been prevented in the first place. It was one thing during the horse and buggy days. It's another when you cram hundreds of people into a jumbo 747 which comes sailing out of the sky wiping out everything in it's path, passengers and all because of some dumbfuck corporate move or policy. Sure, you can always take it to court .."after the fact". Great. Tell that to the hundreds of lives who've been horribly affected and/or ended. All of which can be significantly minimized. I hear what you're saying but perhaps we simply need to agree on disagreeing.

{{ Do you read my posts in their entirety before posting? I address this later in my post. }}

I "read"... what was there and responded to BOTH your opening line AND what followed thereafter. I can't respond to what "isn't there". However, you go and do EXACTLY what you've JUST criticized me for with your OWN....

Blah blah blah blah blah.... tl;dr.

Which is interesting considering that you seem to expect others to digest the lengthy replies you feel entitled in dishing up and criticize them for their own tl;dr's they send your way.

You've been criticized for this on several occasions by many of the members here and you continue to FAIL in recognizing or refuse to acknowledge (not sure which) that in debate, doing so is perhaps the worst of all tactics to be had whenever something goes up against "your" premise, or ideological argument. ...and YOU DO THIS... A LOT, my friend. I've said it before and I'll say it again, in debate it's extremely bad form. It's a horribly telling characteristic common in those blinded by their own ideological mind set and seem predisposed to whipping out that card whenever shit goes sideways in their mind. Whatever man, I've said it before, I'll say it again to no avail I'm sure. You consistently seem to heavily rely upon fallacy in debate on a regular basis. Others keep saying it. I'm saying it here again, but alas it seems you might in fact have a little bit of this going on....

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Seems you wish to talk and debate political perspectives so long as it remains within the typically common "canned" variety. Sorry man, I don't do "canned" dialogue. Yes, I tangent because first of all the finer details of US geopolitical posturing is complex and far reaching and far too involved to be covered in a few short paragraphs. I've noticed you prefer your shit packaged nice and neat inside the box closer to your everyday town hall meeting. Fine, but that ain't me either.

Here's a tangent for ya. The exact quality and nature and effectiveness of any government will always be strongly predicated upon the health sanity and inherent psychology of it's electorate. That interests me more. Obama, Sanatorum, Ron Paul, whatever. It's really quite secondary. I seen enough of your shit to recognize you wish to be something of a Ron Paul cheerleader. Great. Deny that and being for something of a twat. Fact is we've all been getting the governments we deserve for a very long time. It's a thorny issue you seem less interested in. I would presume because in itself it throws something of a wrench into your rah rah rah.. sis boom bah ..lets go Ron Paul mantra. Fine. The beauty of this perhaps lies in your own tl;dr. There exists a very good chance you'll have passed this by and not see much of it if any at all. Other might. That interests me more.

Go team !....

{{ Focus dude;....you ramble like hell and go off on tangents. I stated that the crony capitalism media companies are being discredited. This is plainly apparent by the polls showing that news companies are at all time low trust levels with the American viewer. This is widely published. }}

lol, focus indeed... you just don't get it do ya. Who's denying they are "un-trusted" you crazy thick headed moop. (warning tangent ahead)... Take Government itself which overall has been taking a huge dive over the years and is now AT AN ALL TIME LOW... Take congress for instance which is undoubtedly MORE corrupt than its EVER been.. Does this stop the electorate from electing and RE-electing these same fucks over and over AND OVER again. Nope. The proof lies in the current reality. Same with CNN, in spite of it being little more than info-tainment continues to rake in fucking millions in sponsorship paying out millions to it's corporate executives, journalists and staff. Mark my fucking words. Polling suggests that approval ratings in congress are at an all time low. Watch what happens. Instead of shit canning the entire works and redressing the government, a provision clearly set out in the constitution, the pendulum will swing and a whole new set of corporately owned fuck wads will sit down after the next round of musical chairs.

why is that?

"Deny that and being for something of a twat."

should read as....

Deny that and you're being something of a twat.

There has been dramatic changes in technology since the horse-and-buggy days, but human nature is just the same. The Constitution was set up to put limits on power by government or branches of government. It is human nature that people with power will abuse it.

sort of agree with both sides of the media issue. the fact that Ron Paul is polling as high as he is is a testament to a decent number of Americans who don't rely on mainstream media bias, because we can all agree that the four major networks hate RP.

at the same time instead of letting complete free market principles govern media, I would rather regulate insofar as requiring them to broadcast who they are funded by. same thing that happens in a scientific journal, you MUST declare all of your conflicts of interest, i.e. who you get your grants from, so that it is easily apparent to the viewer/reader if you have any potential bias. THEN let the people decide which news outlets they want to use.

that seems sensible Monte

{{There has been dramatic changes in technology since the horse-and-buggy days, but human nature is just the same.}}

Human nature the same, (or arguably not the same) does not alter or change the fact that as the circumstances change, evolve or develop, the model should or in my opinion must be adjusted so as to remain aligned as much as is possible with the "map" or territory it's meant to represent. Failing to do the temporal upkeep has shown to increase the incidence of failures, breakdowns, hazards, subsequently an inverted decrease in the model's effectiveness and ability to be applied onto said territory. Off hand I know of no exceptions to that rule. Much of your premises hinges on... "what is human nature exactly"... and whether or not it is indeed changeable... In either case, I personally don't find your two statements interdependent of each other in that the levels of abstractions I would say are being somewhat confused on your part. What I'm suggesting is that in either scenario what I'm saying there still stands...

{{ The Constitution was set up to put limits on power by government or branches of government. It is human nature that people with power will abuse it. }}

At risk of answering with a dichotometric either/or rebuttal, if what you're saying is in fact true... then even the constitution itself could not stop that. As in human nature is human nature and nothing can stop that ever, period end of story.

The term "limits" cannot really be used without it implying... a "range". If the constitution were designed to eliminate ALL power, the whole idea of granting "limits" to government becomes a moot point. Subsequently, it's generally understood government shall be entitled a range of power, with limits placed upon that power. If you're of the Anarchistic persuasion, then it's a whole other argument. Hierarchical Government in your mind has no place in society period. That aside, the never ending debate falls to the given fact we've chosen to grant government some range of power and how far exactly do we allow that reach. These are are issues to be, or ought to be decided by the voting constituency. Myself personally, certain guidelines, regulations as it applies to public safety if done ethically, for instance the role Warnock Hersey plays in that realm is merely one small example and is something I remain perfectly fine with. As I said, I believe you and I are opposites side of the fence here and in all likely hood probably won't come to any agreement in the the foreseeable future.

{{ the fact that Ron Paul is polling as high as he is is a testament to a decent number of Americans who don't rely on mainstream media bias, because we can all agree that the four major networks hate RP. }}

I'm not so sure. I often have CNN on in the background just to keep on eye on their Fail-O-Meter and I'm often surprised at the level of support that network sends Paul to the point I'm a little baffled Ron Paul isn't polling much higher. Several commentaries while certainly discussing the whole perception of un-electabilty issue have been very favorable, sane and quite rational, often suggesting if Americans would just wake the fuck up, Ron Paul would be a no brainer. Seems to me it's not CNN that hates Ron Paul in as much as his rival Republicans, especially Mitt Romney who's reaction to Ron Paul if you look carefully is often one of total horror, HORROR I say, whenever Ron Paul talks foreign policy and can't imagine how Ron Paul could even speak of such diabolical ideas perhaps whispered in Ron's ear by Satan himself. Somehow I get a real charge outta watchin Mitt squirm over the fact he's forced to be up on the same stage with demon spawn Paul, heh.

Santorum has had it especially hard on CNN lately and essentially been pilloried as a total fruitcake crackpot douchebag. Cant say I'm not pretty fuckin happy about that. Newt, while certainly given cred for his academic understanding on foreign policy, which in a number of ways I also respect has been branded as unstable. Watching him carefully and given his historical behavior(s) I've come to the same conclusion.

{{ at the same time instead of letting complete free market principles govern media, I would rather regulate insofar as requiring them to broadcast who they are funded by. same thing that happens in a scientific journal, you MUST declare all of your conflicts of interest, i.e. who you get your grants from, so that it is easily apparent to the viewer/reader if you have any potential bias. THEN let the people decide which news outlets they want to use. }}

indeed, you'd think the same would apply to media as well, sadly it's not

If human nature stays the same, putting power against power will work the same.

{{ If human nature stays the same, putting power against power will work the same. }}

ok