


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The basic question no one has asked is... (Score 1) 335

by rilian4 (#41095377) Attached to: Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work
Your comment is excellent. Those in power (usually liberals) that pass these kinds of laws simply have the exact opposite mindset from freedom. Whether it be gun control, seat belts or cell phones or any other aspect of your life, if you haven't hurt anyone, there is no reason for the government to step in. There are plenty of laws on the books in all 50 states about murder and assault but governments feel the need to tack on controls over gun ownership. There are plenty of laws on the books about manslaughter yet governments feel the need to go after drivers who simply spoke to someone on the phone even if they didn't cause a fatal crash. Those in government want to control every aspect of our lives thus continual passing of laws that restrict people's freedom all in the name of safety, security, etc.

Comment: Re:It's even worse (Score 1) 826

by rilian4 (#41095123) Attached to: Booted From Airplane For Wearing Anti-TSA T-shirt
Delta could still be held liable (lawsuit for example) for not letting the guy and his wife on the place since they purchased tickets. If the TSA were the ones who escorted him off the plane, you might have a place to say that the TSA had no authority to do so as it would then be a 1st amendment violation as TSA is part of the federal government. If company representatives escorted him off, then 1st amendment certainly would not apply.

Comment: Re:Environmentally friendly? (Score 1, Insightful) 164

by rilian4 (#40984821) Attached to: Alternative To QR Code Uses NFC and Cheap Rectennas

They are seen as a ... environmentally friendly way to overcome the limitations and inconvenience of QR codes...

I'm mystified how that works. Its not like QR codes are inherently toxic by shape, like prions, nanoparticles, or asbestos fibers.

Using the phrase 'Environmentally Friendly' is how you get liberals to use (or at the very least not blacklist) your product whether it has anything to do with actually being helpful to the environment or not.

Comment: Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score 4, Funny) 571

by rilian4 (#40973839) Attached to: Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin
Giving people an option to take their money out of Social Security is the right thing to do. Getting rid of socialism in the government can only improve government and the economy. Freedom will win out every time. If one could wave a magic wand and get rid of the incumberance of medical insurance, we'd immediately see a drastic reduction in medical expenses. In a truly free economy w/o insurance to prop it up, the medical industry would have to drastically reduce costs as no one can pay what they charge now.

The answer is not more insurance, that makes the problem worse. The answer is to get the 800lb government gorilla off of our collective chests and let us be free.

Comment: Re:The movie was too violent for me (Score -1, Offtopic) 263

by rilian4 (#40719113) Attached to: Movie Review: <em>The Dark Knight Rises</em>
If you are going to have the gall to violate my right to bear arms, please pass an amendment striking down the 2nd amendment from the bill of rights. At least then it would be legal. Until then the government is legally restricted from taking away anyone's guns (not that they don't violate the constitution on a daily basis and do it anyway)

Comment: you were warned... (Score -1, Troll) 513

and you ignored the warning. Those of us who were not in the liberal democratic camp (libertarians, conservatives, etc) warned that this man was exceedingly dangerous to elect as president and that many many freedoms would be lost despite his promises to the contrary and you all voted for him anyway. You are reaping what you sowed. This country has lapsed into a dictatorship.

Comment: Re:I'm okay with this (Score 1) 299

by rilian4 (#40312093) Attached to: Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories
Wrong. Liberty is not a 2 way street. Liberty is about freedom from direction. The US Constitution (your country's laws will vary) was written to limit government to the powers stated within. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in the constitution that allows government to limit the liberty of the individual without cause and due process. Conversely, an individual police officer *is* a free citizen as well as a law-enforcement agent. If said officer is charged with a crime (in this case using more force than is allowed for the situation, etc), then they have the right to defend themselves in court as would any other citizen.

Comment: Re:What a terrible idea (Score 1) 842

by rilian4 (#40259489) Attached to: California City May Tax Sugary Drinks Like Cigarettes
Outlawing a product that is in high demand will simply drive up the price and put it on the black market. See Prohibition Era. It didn't work then (it led to a massive spike in violent crime that disappeared virtually overnight when the ban was overturned) and it won't work now. What the ban on alcohol did not do was reduce alcohol consumption. It just drove people who consumed underground and into doing it illegally. It's not the government's job to tell free citizens what they can and can't put into their body. They can educate. They can advise. They can tax. But they have no right nor power granted in the constitution to force free citizens *not* to consume something. This country is so twisted around and has forgotten what made it great...Freedom. Pure and Simple.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous, Impossible, Etc. (Score 1) 398

by rilian4 (#40088639) Attached to: Legislation In New York To Ban Anonymous Speech Online

This is why I never bought the whole "we should leave more things up to the states to decide" line of argument: as bad as the US Congress is, state legislatures are generally solidly worse; they just don't get as much press. Or maybe this is just a New York thing and other states are different, I don't know.

The constitution doesn't give you a choice. It clearly states that power not explicitly delegated to the federal government must be relegated to the states or the people. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

Comment: Re:wait until after graduation (Score 2) 238

by rilian4 (#39879863) Attached to: NYC Teachers Forbidden To "Friend" Students
Your statement is over-broad. In general, you might be correct but what if, for example, that teacher has kids that are best friends with a student in the school s/he teaches in? What if that teacher is something like a scout-master and interacts w/ students that way outside of school? What if they wish to use social media in those ways? Why would that be wrong all of a sudden? I could go on all day with examples...

The problem here is in defining a non-harmful action (in this case friending someone through social media) as criminal simply because it *might* lead to a harmful criminal action (inappropriate physical/sexual relationship). This entire line of thinking has handcuffed American society for decades and taken away freedoms constantly. The government should not interfere (at any level, fed, state or local) with citizens lives unless harm has been done to a citizen by another citizen (that harm can take many, physical, sexual, etc).

Comment: Re:Ötzi no bang Utz's wife again! (Score 1) 104

by rilian4 (#39870375) Attached to: Oldest Intact Red Blood Cells Found on Iceman

Monogamy is relativity new. A few hundred years old.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years. The Apostle Paul's letters on the subject date back to the first century and the Ten Commandments(Do not commit adultery) to before 1000 BC.
