Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands
MFS! writes "Mount Shasta, California has become the latest city where the USA PATRIOT act is creating a controversy. This story at the Record-Searchlight describes petitioning by a local citizens' rights committee to order police to defy the PATRIOT act. To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage."
First you make laws and then you tell people not to obey them...
Well, not my cup of tea, but makes me wonder the sanity... oh the sanity...
-Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
Ok, so three states have passed anti-PA legislation?
What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?
Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)
NO.
State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.
I hope this rebellion that these states and cities shake up the US administration. From an outsiders point of view (I'm from the Netherlands) I find the actions taking by the US Administration very shocking. These movements taken by internal states and cities hopefully do them some good.
-- Cliff Albert
It is my understanding that the Supreme Court can't shoot it down unless there is a case presented to it that came to it through the appeals process. I don't believe they can dismiss any law as unconstitutional until it is challenged; I may be wrong though.
[ ]
The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Both parties do the same things.. they only call it something different.
Same net result in either case: Fewer rights, higher taxes, more invasions.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One word: standing. The Supreme Court only hear cases where the parties have standing. That means, some damage has to be done to you as a result of the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court does not test laws for constitutionality without a plaintiff who has standing.
Here's the trick though: if you fall victim to the Patriot Act, you may not have access to the judicial system. That means, you will never get a chance to challenge it in court.
This is considerably different from many other republican systems where the highest court can often test laws for constitutionality based on a single complaint of a citizen or a branch/agency of the government.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage
How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.
Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.
And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.
Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...
Please help metamoderate.
Or is that only the case for the constitution, and ammendments thereof?
For example let's say that Tennessee passed anti-DMCA legislation, and I get caught with mplayer/Xine/libcss on my my iBook. Could the MPAA still prosecute me under federal law? Would they have to extradite me to another state?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Is a 10th Amendment movement. Too bad most states have sold out like whores for "federal" money.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Doesn't the words Anti-Patriot scare the shit out of you?
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Americans have constantly disobeyed laws they viewed as unjust. Starting in revolutionary times with the Boston Tea Party, then moving forward to Henry David Thoreau, prohibition, Eugene Debs running for president from jail in defiance of the Espionage Act, and more recently the civil rights movement (M. L. King,). In this view, disobedience of the Patriot Act is not unique but continuation of this theme in American history
Protecting us from terrorists is the mask on the face of the legislation, but many of us see that as too much of an invasion of privacy.
I hope that this anti-patriot stuff comes to Minneapolis too, if it hasn't already.
More than enough BS
Right down to the doublespeak name.
The Patriot Act is a symptom of a sick government
We need to play the knee-jerk public reaction game at least as well as the administration to have hope of fighting them. Calling their unconstitutional act the "Patriot Act" is simply brilliant. Calling efforts to protect the Bill of Rights "Anti-Patriot Act efforts" is so dumb that only a /. editor would do so ;)
read here: google search: nullification crisis
...by the same people that were responsible for the PATRIOT act. Or is it? It's certainly possible that, by posting sentiments of dissent here, one could attract an extra bit of attention from the people that monitor internet communications. Hope you aren't in the habit of downloading "questionable content"...
Losers choose to abuse the use of "loose".
Come on. This is not a time for partisan politics. It is a time for unity.
if taxation without representation was cheaper.
(As a minor, that's essentially what I have.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I'll answer this troll.
The answer is: The future. Why open the door for abuse so that a future government can come along, and abuse its citizenry at will?
Only those who want to abuse others like this would even suggest such a thing.
Amen to that!
Or, at least, that's what I hear.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
The US government is trying to spread fear about terroism in order to gain support for such coercive acts, and then tries to pass them under a very sugarcoated and propaganda-ish name - "patriot", when there is nothing patriotic about it.
You'd think with the massive social connections of the Internet, we'd be seeing massive protest and rebellion of unpopular laws (like the DMCA).
But with the Internet comes a price--jaded apathy!
If people could just get their act together, like all those people on Slashdot who have their little boycotts that never go anywhere. I don't think I've ever heard of an Internet boycott or protest that actually got the momentum to do anything. Anyone know of any?
"Sufferin' succotash."
I'm not affiliated with the video or site, but this video does give some great facts on the patriot act as well as other conspiracy theories.
www.copvcia.com for more info, the video isn't worth buying but it is worth watching, try downloading it somewhere.
-mlr
Even if the local laws are easily overruled by federal mandates, a city-wide and state-wide act of civil disobedience sends a powerful message to the elected federal officials.
Keep in mind, most national senate/house members are profoundly out of touch with the communities they are supposed to represent. If, all of a sudden, the majority of your constituents demonstrate that they do not want the oppressive law you enacted to remain on the books, you might consider proposing a revocation, if you wish to be re-elected.
This is important. Even though the ill-concieved act was passed by a fear/power mad congress, it's critical to continue to publicly voice opposition to it, for as long as it takes to return the American fed to a sane level of checks and balance of power. If you are a freedom-loving American, it is your patriotic duty to publicly protest this foolish act before it does significant harm to our country and our culture.
Kremvax - Citizen, Patriot.
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.
Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.
The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.
What is it americans like saying to people from other countries again?
Something like:
If you don't like the god-dam laws of your god-dam country get the hell out.
An invigorating article on the same topic from Jim Lobe at Oneworld.net United States:
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 4 (OneWorld) - More than 130 communities with a combined population of more than 16 million people in 26 states have passed resolutions directing local police to refrain from using racial profiling, enforcing immigration laws, or participating in federal investigations that violate civil liberties, according to a new report released on the eve of this year's Fourth of July celebrations by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The 23-page report credits Ann Arbor, Michigan, with adopting the first resolution opposing key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, thus setting off a trend that shows no sign of abating.
"In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I hear one refrain over and over," says Laura Murphy, who heads the ACLU's Washington, D.C. legislative office. "If we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism."
"As this year's Fourth of July rolls around, we hope that this report will demonstrate to the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that we must be both safe and free."
The ACLU, whose local offices played a major role in support of dozens of resolutions around the country, stressed that among the jurisdications that have taken action are a number of traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as Oklahoma City, Missoula, Montana; and Falgstaff, Arizona.
Some of the larger cities include Denver, Colorado; Oakland and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Detroit, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. Three states have also adopted measures that call for strict respect for constitutional rights: Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont.
The report, 'Independence Day 2003: Main Street Fights the Federal Government's Insatiable Appetite for New Powers in the Post 9/11 Era,' says the burgeoning grassroots movement was launched after demands by Attorney General John Aschroft were agreed to by Congress, which, it charges, "encouraged an atmosphere of hysteria," by approving the USA PATRIOT Act in late October 2001 with little debate and few dissenting votes.
The Act included a number of controversial provisions that, in the ACLU's view, upset the balance between the citizen's privacy and political rights and the state's responsibility to ensure the security of the country.
Some of those provisions included expanding the power of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; approval of "sneak and peek" warrants which allow federal agents to enter private homes without notifying the owner until much later; weakening the standards for intelligence wiretaps by permitting them to be used for criminal invstigations under some circumstances; and making it easier for federal agents to obtain highly personal "business records," such as library loan records, of possible terrorist suspects.
The Act itself was followed up with a flurry of executive orders, regulations, policies and practices, such as denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" and establishing military commissions that fall short of minimum due process standards, which further eroded civil liberties protection, according to the ACLU.
On January 7, 2002, Ann Arbor became the first city in the country to pass a resolution in direct response to the PATRIOT Act and new federal policies. "We're very concerned about civil rights and the about the potential discrimination," City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell told ABC News at the time. "We spent a lot of time since September 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
Denver became the second city to approve a resolution after the ACLU there discovered the existence of 3,400 secret files on social activists that had been collected by the Denver Police over severa
The way judges are being chosen these days it'll never get that far.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
How about "I wish this post wasn't funny, but it is."
I've got three words for you: "Is our children learning?"
That said, it was incredibly funny. Good show.
Do you always write about the actions of laws like you're a sportscaster?
When the government fears the people, its democracy.
When the people fear the government, its tyrrany.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
If it gets much whackier over here, I'm getting the hell out, and the Netherlands is on my short list. So start figuring out how to recover some more of that floodland, cuz I'm not the only one. :)
(And on an only-vaguely related note, any fellow American afraid of repealing our drug laws should spend a week in Amsterdam. You'll wish -your- city was that nice.)
I didn't pay attention to politics until my country started to scare me. Recently.
Is not PATRIOT II, as many here seem to think.
It's actually the JINGOISM ACT, proposed as a secret law by Ashcroft. Since secret laws are a provision of the PATRIOT act, you will never hear of the JINGOSIM ACT until after you're arrested.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
I used [Megabank]'s services to pay my tuition bills at [esteemed UK university]. Today, I was called by [megabank] and was told that if I didn't tell them where the funds were coming from that I used to pay my tuition came from, that my accounts would be closed and my case referred to the federal government. While "my personal savings" was a good enough answer for them, good god, what shite.
In defense of [Megabank], they didn't seem to happy to have to make these phone calls, but told me that they were required to by the patriot act. in fact, the woman even spoke frankly that the company saw this as a waste of time and money too.
The states can still leave the Union when they want. I wonder if any legislators remember this part of the Constitution?
Good Grief. - Charles Brown
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------------
However, in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollough vs. Maryland that federal laws supercede state laws. More information can be found here.
The ruling states
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.
Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom). They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election. There is a distinctly political tinge to some of the court's decisions, and I would not be surprised to see them uphold the Patriot Act, to please Der Fuhrer. He wants the right to run the "guvmint" as he sees fit, and civil liberties be damned. This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Wasn't this one of the causes of the civil war??
Anyone know of any organizations that are actively fighting to get rid of the Patriot Act that one could donate time/money to? Other than the obvious ACLU...
Only requirement for good karma: be pedantic as much and as often as possible.
It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.
I have long had--perhaps undeservedly--a deep and abiding faith in the genius of the American people.
But you can expect a PR campaign unlike any seen since The Matrix Reloaded's when this date comes nigh. There will be strenuous efforts to illustrate to the American people "all the lives that have been saved" because of the Patriot Act's existence.
The only interesting question is who will be in power at that point? As it seems clear to me that _this_ (that is, who is *behind* the act) is the determining factor as to whether or not Republicans will support it.
There is NO way on God's good earth that if Gore had won '00 and the PATRIOT Act had been born under his tutelage that conservatives wouldn't have been shouting from sea to shining sea about the encroachment to privacy this act represents.
That was one of the first moments I understood the difference between conservative and Republican.
By a wide margin, I identify more readily with the former than the latter (and in fact it's sad to me to see folks [including conservative commentators], even folks such as Ashcroft, who *so* abhorred the encroachment on liberty such measures represented now turning heel and supporting the same--merely b/c they are the ones holding the purse strings & the power).
Will the American public be reluctant to be snow-jobbed by this inevitable PR campaign? Or will there be a linger of distrust--especially if WMDs are never found in Iraq? Will common sense prevail?
Stay tuned.
"Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom)"
The Supreme Court did NOT put Bush in office. This is a popular but false urban legend. Bush had already won the vote in Florida. The Supreme Court merely shut down a ballot-tampering attempt by the Gore camp that Gore hoped would put him on top (and it turned out that Gore lost the count he demanded when all was said and done).
"They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election."
No, the votes had already been counted. They did not appoint anyone: they let the winner stay the winner.
"This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people."
That is every president's right.
Hey! Put that Ann Coulter book down and pay attention: you have been hoodwinked, bamboozled!
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Internal deterioration is always the least destructive way to dissolve the latest, greatest world empire.
Hi
Ask me for personal information, and I'll give it to you... I'll give you the logs printed with --highly-verbose onto hollerith cards. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll be able to find a machine that can read them in a few months. Oh, and you'll also need to manually sort them. Those kids are always marking out the card ID numbers!
What you mean is: "If one group is thrown in jail more frequently than another group then I will pull them over more frequently and throw them in jail."
I hope you're not a programmer. If you are, I hope you don't work at a nuclear plant.
Poor, poor President Nixon, he gets such a bad rap.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
He is. There is a trend right now where many senior citizens (and others) are ordering the very same drugs they get in the USA from Canada at 20-50% of the price. Some US agency (i forget which) is getting ready to start airing ad campaingns stating how "dangerous" this practice can be. (In order to protect the bottom line, which is hurting from the faster, more efficient, and far cheaper Canadian alternatives. Maybe they are already, I don't watch TV.) So I think he may have been joking... albeit hard to tell.
> There are no constitutional rights to privacy.
You mean 'the constitutional right to privacy is not enumerated. The U.S. Supreme, though ruling on a different issue, has confirmed this right on June 26th 2003.
Such as? I'm genuinely curious, not doubting you; I think it would be interesting to examine the merits of such a system. There would seem to be a lot more pressure on the legislature to not pass laws they know are unconstitutional, pressure that I wish existed in the US. It would save us all a lot of time and resources.
There are no constitutional rights to privacy.
The word "privacy" might not be explicity used in the Constitution, but one could make a strong case that the 4th and 10th amendments to the Constitution establish the principle that privacy (at least from the Government itself) is guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even if the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There are rights that are even more fundamental than those enumerated by the Constitution... those are the "self-evident truths" and "inalienable" rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. It would be easy to argue that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that doesn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Hitler's Reich Marshall Goering at Nuremberg Trials
I don't necessarily agree with that judicial set-up however. It allows for a crusading judiciary or petty suits tying up the system. (Can you imagine if corproations were able to challenge any law they wanted to? It would make the post-colonial Indian judicial system look like a model of efficiency.)
However, I think there should be a special provision in cases like this where the law itself takes any possible plantif to remove the law out of the regular judicial system by its very function.
PATRIOT is a scary, scary law.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Only in America ( thank goodness). In how many other countries could something like this to happen, and still be a part of the governmantal process? All REAL Republicans should ban together to undo this anti American legislation. It is contrary to the historic philosophy of the party. When Republican leadership starts running around acting like Demoncrats, its time to change the leadership.
According to the US Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments, there are constitutional rights to privacy. The Court found I think in Griswold v Connecticut that the right to privacy was constitutionally protected, and cited approvingly a definition of privacy from an 1890 law review article that called it "the right most valued by civilized man."
Did you know that they removed the word 'gullible' from the dictionary?
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Germany is the only other system I'm familiar with in that regard. When a law passes parliament (Bundest and Bundesrat), there's usually two ways to get the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) to rule on the law.
One way is to basically sue parliament for passing an unconstitutional law. Theoretically anybody can do this but it's usually some kind of interest group that will attempt this. Based on the merits of the case, the court will decide to hear it and make a ruling. The consequence, if the verdict is affirmative to the plaintiff's position, is usually that the law is nullified and parliament is instructed to pass a new one. This is what happened several times with the abortion law. It's important here to realize that the constitutional court does not usually say how the law should be although it might hint at some possible implementations. Specifically, the court didn't decide how abortion was to proceed in contrast to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
A second way is through somewhat called a "Normenkontrollklage". The term is typical of German legalese and means literally "norm control suit". The purpose of it is to challenge whether a unit of the government has violated the constitution in its actions. If, for example, one of the house of parliament votes on a bill and that vote is invalid for whatever reason but the president of the parliament at the time of the vote determined it to be valid, a Normenkontrollklage can be filed with the constitutional court to determine if the parliament followed the rules correctly.
In the case in question two years ago, an immigration law was before the Federal Council (similar to the US Senate as it is a body representing the states). The German constitution says that all delegates of a state have to vote the same for the vote to be valid. Well, during row call, the "governor" of one of the states answered in the name of the state with yes, the deputy governor asnwers with no. The Federal Council president asks again to clarify. The governor again says yes and the deputy says something like "you know my vote on this". The Federal Council president then counted the votes of that state as yes which led to quite a stir in the council chambers. The Christian Democrats (in the opposition at that time) filed a suit with the constitutional court challenging the outcome of the vote and won. The immigration law was thus nullified and had to go through the parliamentary process again. It's now sitting in conference committee, if I remember correctly.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
""Our government has a checks and balances system," Pieruccini said. "While sometimes it moves slowly, these cases . . . are going to find their way up to the Supreme Court."
So this means that as long as the Bush Administration can pass civil liberty eroding laws faster than the Supreme Court can hear them our society will move towards being a suppressive, totalitarian type of government.
The Bush administration has done more to destroy our way of life than any group of terrorists ever could. And the funny think is, is that the Republican party put Mr. Bush in power, not through the election process alone but in large part through litigation.
It seems to me that our laws are more and more being held hostage as tools for special interest groups.
If we want to reverse this trend we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office. Something that this Administration is apparently lacking.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
What else is there to download? If I want anything else I can go to the library.
Whitewater and Vince Foster also come to mind. Yeah, never proven, but not really investigated either.
It seems silly to compare the relative evilness of my guy vs. yours (was Hitler really that much worse than Pol Pot, Ed Gein vs. Bundy). This kind of alligence to party stucture is what makes the US history of abuses possible (divide and conquer). Could we just say uniformly that the Republicrates are a pretty heinous bunch, and there really should be some change?
What you mean is: "If one group is thrown in jail more frequently than another group then I probably will have pulled them over more frequently to throw them in jail."
Fine difference. Of course, that's just how I feel.
To get a better word, we might look at current policies which amount to "let them eat cake", and use the appropriate word.
chauvinism
If the government controled teacher, ministers, preists, etc. have never taught this word to you, look it up.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Clinton not telling the truth in a civil case totally unrelated to carrying out the duties of the office of President pales in comparison to Nixon's crimes:
I think to this day it burns up the 'Publicans that they didn't get anything on Clinton, unless their aim was to drag his name through the mud-- and they can't really claim any credit for that. Clinton's mistakes in his private life are his own. That they ever became grounds for impeachment is totally ludicrous. Nixon, on the other hand, failed to do what Bushie is attempting to do: subvert our democracy. Bushie found a convenient excuse: the "war of Scare-orism". Only a diligent citizenry will keep him from succeeding.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
"Anti-Patriot" has taken on a new meaning lately. It used to be an English phrase, and it meant antipathy or disobedience toward one's country. Now, "anti-patriot" and "anti-patriotic" are Newspeak phrases. They merely imply that. According to current usage, they refer to disagreement with or opposition to the Bush Administration and its political allies.
There have been a lot of scary people asserting themselves as being the only "patriots", so no, "anti-patriot" no longer scares me. Once you realize how people have been playing games with the language you were taught in grade school, you realize how much the things you learned about patriotism when you were growing up no longer apply.
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." How stupid are we to swallow this shit? I'm sure they could have made an acronym to spell "QUISLING" or "TRAITOR" if they wanted, but smart traitors know to drape the flag around themselves and everything they do. When they introduce the anti-subversion bill, it's going to have an acronym like "MOM" or "APPLEPIE".
Just say no to politicians. It's tile to start electing real people.
This post is paid for by the friends of FooGoo.
Please vote for FooGoo as the next governor of California.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
As a testiment to the poor quality of the education system in California the previous post should read "it's time to start electing real people".
I'LL BE BAHK!
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
No joke. Check this out Fraser Institute.
"The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.4 weeks. Patients in New Brunswick experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (5.0 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20.0 weeks)."
Down here in good old redneck Alabama, when my doctor decided I needed an MRI on my hip, I got it the very next day. If I were Canadian, I'd still be waiting (read: suffering). If you love your healthcare system, by all means stay there with it.
Well, unfortunately, due to obstructionism in the senate, NO judges are being chosen at all.
-Bucky
Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas are all cases where the Supreme Court determined that there is indeed a right of privacy. Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order to spell out exactly how people can be guaranteed freedom from government influence on their lives.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson
I found that here
Dude, there's a reason children don't have the right to vote. I also think 18 is a a little older than they should be allowed (I'd be more in favor of 16) but it's still way ahead of much of the "civilized" world. Some places you can't even have sex until you're 21, fer chrissake - or at all, unless you're married in a muslim ceremony.
Could things be better? Sure... but they could be much worse, too. Children in the US are eligible for free medical care and food under WIC; the government helps parents who cannot care for their children. But do you really want "the government" treating children "better?" We are already to the point children are routinely yanked from their homes with very little (zero) evidence of abuse. Beyond providing free food, medicine and even housing, what else would you have "the government" do? Perhaps all newborns should just become wards of the state so we don't have those nasty parents fucking up their lives? Federal orphanages for "bringing up baby" right? I'm sure the corporations making Billions building and managing prisons would just love that business expansion opportunity...
And what is to stop the next gov. from attaining the sad state of affairs we currently have? And the next one? Yeah, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". That sounds like eternal slavery to me. Given that the Constitution was written in a very different frame of reference then we are currently in, it might be a good idea to start re-evaluating the Constitution, and chart a new direction entirely. Given that armed militias don't really have the resources to combat a limited nuclear exchange (humor) or implement the best technologies, or the abuses shown by corporations; a strong federal government is going to be an evil necessity. Don't want them Canadians getting ideas. But the terms of that arrangement should be renegotiated. I still like trying public servants who abuse their position for treason. Flat tax, strong State's rights, and perhaps even the right to cede from the Union should the entanglements become too much to bear (if you join an organization, you should have the right to unjoin, as it were, or the Gov. is nothing better than an armed gang. Even the Mafia has better terms). I digress. Anyway, the point is (without sounding to Pollyanna) we already have most of the ideas and knowledge to make the US a better place than it currently is. We lack political will. It becomes a question of do you want to sacrifice now for something better, or continue the sacrifices you're currently making for...
Bwaaahahahahah! Thank you, your comment *totally* made my day! (Yes, I am saddened to report that I *agree* with you. Now if only we could get flat taxes...)
C|N>K
Keep in mind the worrying number of Americans who do believe that WMDs HAVE been found, even if it isn't the case. And the even scarier amount of people who even believe that Iraq USED WMDs in the war....
If that many believe WMDs have been found, how many can be tricked into accepting fantasies about how the war "forced" Hussein into destroying them quickly and other bullshit to counteract any distrust? The same survey referred to in the link above also point out how high the support still was for the war at that point.
It might be possible to prevent the Patriot act from being extended, but not if one relies on the distrust of the public - it will take MASSIVE work to get people to understand what's at stake.
I still can't see what's so bad about the Patriot act. It's there to protect us. Perhaps the opposition to it is a Liberal/Democrat sort of thing.
No data, no cry
No kidding. Thank god for the Democrats, I was really impressed with the way they all stood up to Bush and voted against the Patriot Act.
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
That may be just as unhealthy as the number of American politicians who got voted out of office with lead slugs.
Tech Public Policy stuff
There have been numerous news reports of terrorist acts that have been stopped. The bombing of the Space Needle in Seattle is just one. I am sure there are many acts that have been stopped buy the government that we don't know of. I don't know what choice the President had but to invoke some kind of act to prevent future attacks. If he sat idly by and did nothing, that would have been just as bad wouldn't it? However, as a Republican I do disagree in part with the Patriot Act, but what could have been done to soothe the American people after we were attacked? The average person, I believe, wants to see "something" done.
Good Grief. - Charles Brown
Well, sounds almost like in Hong Kong. The "Chinese" government would like to put in laws that allow anyone/anybody/any company that is deemed to be "subversive" or "threat to national security" in jail first, ask questions later.
Next you know, over half a MILLION people are demonstrating in the streets against it (official government figures put it at 500,000 people, but more realistic figures at 600-700,000 people at least).
With a population of only 6.5 million people to start with, you're looking at a _HUGE_ number of people demonstrating.
And if this law is put in place, people will RIOT in the streets against it.
Now tell me... if CHINESE people are willing to stand up for their rights and freedoms (and risk so much in doing so), how come USA people cannot do the same now?
**FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS
If one group is examined for criminal activity more closely then another group, then that group will yeild more criminals.
Fine, the US has much better healthcare than Canada. /sarcasm
Good grief, i can't even believe i'm arguing over this.
Jeremy
The US tends to overthrow dictators.
Only where it is in its interest to do so.
The US supported saddam in his war against Iran. They gave his troops training and supplies.
Bush Snr described Saddam as "our kind of guy" ( his words, look it up. ) whilst he was gasing Kurds.
The majority of Americans seem to believe that other countries hate america because of the freedom it allows its citizens. I believe the countries that hate america the most hate it because of the freedom it takes away from their nation states.
BTW - If you believe what you say why post as AC?
I think you make a very good point. To further elaborate on your point and to make an analogy, the constitution does not spell out that citizens have the right to breathe air. Does this mean we do *not* have the right to breathe air? Or does it mean those who drafted the constitution assumed future governments could grasp the idea of fundamental rights and didn't bother spelling out any and every possible right that may need to be protected?
Just because something isn't in the constitution, doesn't mean it isn't a right our forefathers intended to have protected.
So I whole heartedly agree with what you say and just wished to expand on it with that analogy that popped in my head.
Beware blue cats moving at
"3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests"
Cite one reputable news organization reporting that information. To my knowledge, only *1* city (Arcata, California) has passed an anti-Patriot Act law. The numbers you cite are cities and states expressing their displeasure with the Patriot Act. Those cities have said, "We don't like the Patriot Act." Arcata has said, "It is illegal for you to comply with the Patriot Act." BIG DIFFERENCE.
Arcata City Council passes "Anti-Patriot Act" ordinance
Golly, that must be why Canada (and most industrialized nations with nationalized health care systems) have lower infant mortality, longer median lifespan - better health by most metrics - than the good ole' US of A.
My two physician friends from the UK who've spent time working in the US laugh themselves silly about the state of clinical medicine here. They laugh about the lack of preventative medicine, they laugh about the overuse of absurdly expensive diagnostics that are not substantially better (gotta justify the expense of that new MRI machine), they laugh at the procedure-based pay system, where an MD's income is directly tied to the number and types of procedures performed. You're gonna have that lower back surgery whether it is likely to help you or not - the doc has payments on an 8-series beemer and a cottage in the Hamptons. Or maybe she's a young doctor just scraping by and she's choosing between bankruptcy and $250,000 in student loans.
Either way, you lose.
Repressive anti-freedom legilation has its roots in liberal philosophy. America is strong because the people are empowered, not the federal government. A government only becomes strong at the expense of the people. This has always and will always be true. A strong Federal government results in a week America.
As a Libertarian leaning Republican, I strongly appose the PATRIOT Act. One only need to study the history of the events leading up to WWII and the subsequent invasion of France, to understand the problem with it.
Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!
The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?
There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?
The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.
If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
What a Vague article. Obviously written by a liberal. It did not cite specific actions of the Patriot act as worded in the ratified bill. I know the democrats are, in general, not patriotic however; I know there are certian mandates in this bill that do violate our privacy as well as interferes with businesses, especially the ISPs. This law should be amended, but not by democrats or replublicans, because both are trying to create to powerful of a governmnent against the people and not for the people. California ,with its virtually impeached governer, wants ILLEGAL aliens to have a legal drivers license. WHAT THE HELL. I'm done with both of them. I'm going Libertarian although the Replubicans are the lesser of the 2 evils.
***Yet, France has no problems executing Greenpeace activists.***
You make a good point there. Personally, I don't think European countries can claim moral superiority over the United States. In fact, when France was faced with a similar set of circumstances, they went all out and tortured and killed thousands of people to find the "terrorists". This was over the independence of Algeria. This was the first time a colony struck back direcly at the capital of the colonizing power. Interestingly enough, France lost that war, so I'm not sure if it's appropriate for the United States to emulate their model.
***(although some of the hatred of the US is a result of mean-spiritedness. For example, hatred of Jews is rampant in the Middle East, and many hate the US for standing up for the rights of people who happen to be Jewish)***
Don't forget the hathred of Arabs. From where I stand, Arabs are hated much more than the Jews. In fact, the expression "anti-semite" originally came from the hathred of Arabic speaking people, which the Jews happen to be a part of.
"if US governments didn't keep on installing and overthrowing murderous dictators on a regular basis, depending on who they prefer today)" ***....as shown there, your ignorance of history. The US tends to overthrow dictators.***
I don't think the original poster is ignorant of your version of history. After all, everyone who went to an American high school and everyone who has access to Fox News already knows your version of history. Besides, he agrees that the US does overthrow murderous dictators. That's not his point. His point is that the US also tends to install and replace dictators with *other* murderous dictators. That's his point.
Well, my doctor is ready to do the total hip replacement right now, but as long as the pain isn't too bad and the bone hasn't collapsed, I'm going to wait a while. Avascular necrosis is a bitch.
that make Washington a bad person?
he was a man of his times just like any person is of theirs. heck, Washington was out of office before England freed thier black slaves.
it is improper to judge people in history with the laws and norms of your time. ask any historian.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
"buy the government"
How Freudian.
The "Patriot" act is the primary reason I won't be voting for Bush next time around.
If you need to understand why, then I suggest you don't have a clue as to why this country was founded.
Its the most anti-American law that's been passed in my lifetime (50 years).
I am reminded of a bad made for TV movie (I think it was "Amerika"). Anyway, the movie itself was pretty blasé, but it did have one really chilling scene in it. The movie itself was about a shadow gov. replacing the elected one (err, something like that. It was a long time ago; the details are probably not precise). Anyway, one guy finds out and is talking with one of the members from the shadow gov. They pass some people protesting in the street, and the lead says something like "See, the people will not stand for this." The member from the shadow gov. says something to the effect of the protest was actually staged by the shadow gov. It makes the people feel like they are doing something important, when all they are doing is destroying their neighborhood. They vent a little steam, feel better, and go back to work. Nothing real accomplished. The protest allows the shadow gov. to keep tabs on the disgruntled, and channel their energies to meaningless exercises. When ever I see a large mob, I think of this, and feel exasperated. Problem is that most of the "patriots" aren't terribly organized, and most have an innate distrust of that degree of intra-cooperation (does not bode well for integrity). That keeps them splintered and ultimately powerless (in the normal idea of that word). We are suspicious of each other, we keep our doors locked, we are splintered and isolated. Diffuseness is its' own type of power, but it will take a better man to figure out how to implement it well. For the time being, I think everyone calling in to work on the same day would be a better idea. Go fly a kite or play with the kids. See all the others who share your same basic ideas just being people. The loss of capitol would be very nerve wracking. Probably just as worthless, but much easier to obtain.
acting Police Chief Bill Pieruccini, who said he "The bottom line is at this point, I support the laws and the Constitution the way that the legislators we've elected have seen fit to pass," Pieruccini said. "That's one of my duties as a police chief . . .
Another one of your duties is to the community.
Forgot that one didn't we?
Do you think all Bible-thumpers are so closed-minded?
Most of them don't even know about the "Tomson" New Testament I provided a link to - and if they did, they'd vilify it out of habit since it isn't their "pet" translation (i.e., the KJV).
Most of them vilify people like me who blur the gender lines without actually being homosexual.
Most of them selectively read the Bible.
Most of them are probably rah-rahing Asscroft now.
I'm a Bible-thumper, I'm a conservative, but I'm a libertarian, I'm open-minded, and I'm not a fscking WASP. I eat stereotypes for lunch. I've probably gone through as much in my 23.5 years as many of you Slashbots have ever gone through, and my emotional state has the scars to show it. I'm not your typical right-wing fundie radical.
That said, we should take the Pat Act and use it against Our Greatest Terrorists (Asscroft and Dubya) and see how they like it.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I'm full aware of the Netherland's pro-drug-abuse policy resulting in dope-fiends all over the place. Much worse. If you like that kind of thing, good riddance to you.
Yes, clearly the Dutch government is trying to promote drug abuse. That would be a fair depiction.
Y'know, I find knee-jerk, right-wing, war-on-an-intangible-noun rhetoric offensive, but I still think it should be legal. It's clearly not good for you, but there seems to be an awful lot of people with an unhealthy attachment to it, and who am I to argue? Besides, if it were illegal, I'd have to put up with unsavory types roaming the streets of downtown, selling bootleg tapes of Fox News and Ari Fleischer propaganda rallies to shady-looking passers by in their Ford trucks.
At least this way you guys stay in your living rooms and sports bars staying fat and happy on beer, football and dubyah.
And I'm just gonna take a wild stab here, but you became "full aware of the Netherland's pro-drug-abuse policy" by some means other than visiting Holland?
I didn't pay attention to politics until my country started to scare me. Recently.
The hypocracy over positions on state's rights is not something unique to Ashcroft. Every major policial group does exactly the same thing. If your group has more power in local smaller governments than in the national government, then you pretend to favor States' rights because that's where your group has more power. If the opposite happens, you favor federal power. Look at the two largest parties of Republicrats and Democlicans, whichever one happens to be in the minority in Congress at the time is the one that happens to be touting states' rights at that time.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Oh, and the Fraser Institute is so far right it isn't even on the map - it makes Fox News look fair and balanced.
Btw, it's kinda strange that such a "superior" system results in lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality, yet takes a larger percentage of GDP...
This is exactly why there was some argument against having a bill of rights in the constitution in the first place. The fear was that if you explicitly state what rights *DO* exist, it sounds very much like you are saying that something being disallowed is the norm until stated otherwise. Some would have rather had the constitution phrased the opposite way around - state was citizens are NOT allowed to do, and state that anything not explicitly mentioned in that list is allowed.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Sheesh, never any mod points when I actually want 'em. This Scientific American article deals with some of the same issues.
Whaaa? No, they make plenty of money. (And our generic manufacturers make plenty of money selling off-patent drugs at a fraction of the price.) The reason they charge so much in the U.S. is because they can (no price controls or reference-based pricing), and because they spend more on advertising in the U.S. than on research (advertising for drugs is extremely limited in Canada).
I would type it here, but you deserve the moderation and I don't.
There was a challenge to civil rights legislation by some restaurant owners who wanted to run whites-only restaurants, and held that the federal government did not have the authority to regulate restaurant entry policies (as such authority was not granted anywhere in the constitution). They lost, with the federal courts holding that the interstate commerce clause applied. Why? The restaurant bought some of its supplies from out-of-state suppliers.
Now in this case the end was a good one (overturning of segregation), but that's still some pretty specious reasoning.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
As for waitng lists. Yes, there are waiting lists for many non-critical surgeries. Yes, the system isn't perfect, but we are actively trying to fix it. We spend quite a bit less to provide the same services in Canada than in the USA. Part of this due to efficiencies of scale, and part is due to our less litigous society which means expensive tests that are mainly done to stave off lawsuits are not routinely done.
Anarchists never rule
"Now, are you talking about the US system or the Canadian system here"
This is the Canadian health care system, which is set up to severely limit coverage for those called "special needs" people.
"You're damned right the US system is set up to deny basic healthcare to the "wrong" sorts of people (anyone Ayn Rand would call a "loser", FWIW)"
No, the US healthcare system includes giveaways to the poor: medicare/medicaid. Nothing Randian about it.
The concern isn't that the Canadian drugs are cheaper. They're the SAME drugs, but they are subsidized. That's what's considered dangerous about the practice. If the Canadian price is 50% of the price in the US, that's because a US citizen going up there is making Canadian citizens pay the other 50% of the price for him through their taxes.
That is not a sustainable system in the long run.
If you don't pay the taxes for the subsidized item, then you should be paying the full price for that item.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I am not a citizen of the Netherlands, but I am a resident. I know for a fact that drug use in the Netherlands is among the lowest in Europe (and less than half that of the USA).
Yeah, there are some "dope-fiends" around, but fewer than you think. Actually, they are mostly the tourists! But (outside of Amsterdam, where they are a medical case, not so much a threat [except to your unpadlocked bicycle!]) there are basically NO crack-fiends, or heroin-fiends, or whatever else you care to name that litters the streets of all big American cities.
I, for one, know where I am much safer, and prefer to live.
As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.
National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.
By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
... then you know that this is not going to get any traction here. Sure, there are the few folk who fought for ten years to keep that chicken murdering Colonel from moving into town, but the overall political climate here is not amiable to this.
I hereby move that we rename the legislation "The Fluffy Bunnies and Kittens Act". Who could be against that?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sounds like good ol' fashioned McCarthyism arresting people who we suspect to be Terrorists.
It also is reminiscent of the witch hunts. It also sounds similar to the start of Nazi Germany with the secret police.
Meanwhile, numerous interest groups are taking aim at the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, which would strengthen the Patriot Act by allowing the government to make secret arrests, place unrestricted wiretaps and create DNA databases on ordinary Americans.
We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.
My recollection is that none of them read it. The Act wasn't distributed prior to the vote. That is passed with one (?) dissention says worlds about those who voted yes, none of it complimentary. They've gone on to do nothing about it for two years, only now, when the public is starting to realize just how little threat there really was and how much damage the Act has done to civil liberties, do these same "representatives" find the time to look through what they passed?
They voted based on polls, they're 'reconsidering' based on polls. Hindsight and principle are not factors.
How many cities passed legislation against the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that Bill Clinton signed into law after the Oklahoma City bombing? Being the precursor to PATRIOT you'd think that some of these civil libertarians would have noticed it.
Good point. Does the act require anywhere that you have to give up the requested information in a format that can be _easily_ read?
This might be a good idea for those librarians whose associations haven't drafted shredding rules.
"Sorry, sir... but we've found it was easiest to keep our records in Yiddish that has been phonetically translated into Germanic runes. No, I'm afraid we don't have any programs to reverse the process."
~ Leilah
I don't think it's offtopic as it's related to exactly this page, not any other.
Less is more !
Take a look at "this".
We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.
You are absolutely right. Our forefathers had the wisdom and foresight to construct an unbelievable document that would span time. They wrote this document and the Bill of Rights (also referred to as the Rights of Man) after the War of Independence to keep future generations from suffering abuse and misconduct by the government. This "Living Document" has survived more than 200 years without revision, and I don't believe we should start now.
My bud shadowbearer was just being helpful! I guess I'd better consult Bartlett's next time, to keep from bringing other people to grief.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Thats not exactly true. What happens is the goverment tells the company making it what the price will be and they can either have their drug on the list of approved drugs at that price or not sell any.
Drug prices in the US are just odd. What happens is you walk into the pharmacy and give them your insurance card and a prescription. Say its for something cheap like penicillin. Thats entered into the computer which calls you insurance company and they send back three numbers, the price of the drug, how much you pay the pharmacy and how much the insurance company will pay the pharmacy. So in the Penicillin case if you have a $25 drug plan the numbers may look like $38.95, $25, -21.75. So you think your getting a good deal since you only paid $25 for that $38.95 worth of drugs but the pharmacy has to pay your insurance company 21.75 our of the $25 they collected. Had you gone in with the prescription and paid cash, it would have cost you somewhere between $3 and $5.
When I've had to buy prescription drugs in Australia (who has a state medical system like Canada in addition to a private system), I tend to pay an extra few cents on for a $15 precsription becaue I don't have a goverment medical card. On common drugs that treat common problems, the govement isn't subsidizing the price much. It also means that the range of antibiotics that are prescribed tend to be the ones on the goverment plan and not the expensive ones that are being pushed by the drug compaines.
The US agency you're refering to is this FDA. When I first heard about this I was livid. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is a drug safety and standards ogranization. It SHOULD NOT be a lobby organization for the pharma companies, but with Bush in the White House I guess this is to be expected.
All your base are belong to us!
The Greens?
The Peace & freedom party?
The Liberitarians?
Guess I'll just have another 6pack
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
That you have a public school education.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
Read this article by Robert Bork. Summary: you have probably been seriously mislead about the PATRIOT Act.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
You might want to brush up on your Constitutional reading there, buddy. There are four paths for an amendment to be ratified -- granted, only two of them have been used, but all four are possible:
1) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
2) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
3) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Constutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations
4) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Constitutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations.
So, there are two methods of dissolving the federal government where the federal government isn't even involved. Plus, remember -- Congress is voted from the people, so if it got to the point where the feds were so bad that the public would support government dissolution, the public could (and would) vote in people who felt the same way.
The patriot act is an encroahment on are rights as a Free people. What's next you tick off the wrong goverment official and then they can say your a terrorist and arrest you without a warrent. We now have almost no privacy because of this. What's next obtain files and supposedly any "incrimanating" evidence without a warrent? Come on this is outrageous.
Are you nuts? Bob Barr (not a left wing ANYTHING) has joined forces with the ACLU among many other Right wing personalities.They have joined the ACLU because of things like the Patriot Act and other legislation.
Plate of shrimp.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
Irrelevant. The McCarthy communist witch-hunt was unconstitutional regardless.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
I believe the NRA is against the Patriot Act and last time I checked they were a right wing organization.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Such as? I'm genuinely curious, not doubting you; I think it would be interesting to examine the merits of such a system.
In Canada there is a procedure called a "referral", where the government can send a proposed law to the Supreme Court of Canada and get an opinion on it. This procedure is not used very often but the new law about gay marriages will apparently be "referred" before being passed.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
When the laws get you down, find ways to work with them.
Of note: Five technically legal signs for your library.
Kevin Fox
In reading thru all these comments, It's plain to see that most if not the majority of those posting have actually read the patriot act.
Not only that - it expires soon enough.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Are you nuts? /.
Of course I am , I'm on
Bob Barr (not a left wing ANYTHING)
Barr is a politician
How many libertys are you missing right now?
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I believe the NRA is against the Patriot Act and last time I checked they were a right wing organization
Why do you say that they are a right wing orginization? AFAIK they just support the second admendment.(NRA life member)
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
You mean 'the constitutional right to privacy is not enumerated.
The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Whitewater and Vince Foster also come to mind. Yeah, never proven, but not really investigated either.
Whitewater was never really investigated? Then what the hell did Kenneth Starr spend $44 million on?
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
There is no Statue of Metaldetector framing the Statue of Liberty.
Living in Denver, Colorado, I find myself constantly surrounded by right-wing bandwagon-hopping jingoist Bush supporters that all but carry the fasces around on their tomahawks. It makes one liberal minded independent feel like a bit of an island, and it sure is good to see all of the overwhelming logic and liberal (if not necessarily independent or individual) thought going on here.
I know I've come to expect the anti-anti-Privacy stuff from the \. crowd, but it's still nice to see that I'm not the only person in town who sends off a couple letters a week to my state legislators etc. letting them know what pissants I think they are.
------
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --George W. Bush, in Jan. 2000
Revise that to "Just SAY no to Politicians" and I would agree with you.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Yeah, one could make a strong case that the 10th amendment mean anything. The "right" to privacy is just the popular meaning of the day.
I could say that it is self-evident and inaliable that an unborn baby have the right to life, and you could say the same about the right to abortion. Not all things are as self evindent as we would like.
Well, actually...
A dictatorship or monarchy would have you believe they do have the right to govern the country, because they are the best / born in the right bloodline. This kind of mentality is dangerous, and seems to be being adopted by most PMs/presidents around the world now. 'Elected dictatorship'.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Let me guess, they supported someone you personally didnt agree with so you ditched them.
You haven't quite understood the point of the ACLU, have you?
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
At least most of them aren't posting as an "Anonymous Coward".
As well it should be! I saw a drug add with women lying in the sun and children playing in a park, saying, "Ask your doctor for X."
I had NO idea what the hell it did, it's side effects, or why I should make decisions that my doctor went to school for over 8 years to be able to do. Drug adds are a sad example of Corporate America having more say through piece-of-shit advertisements than our most educated and respected citizens. It makes me so goddamned sick.
Not at all it is because they are now a left wing radical group.that is why I am no longer a member.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
To recapture the ACLU and bring it back to the original purpose would be a labor that would take decades and millions. The Ford Foundation is one of the major sponsors of the ACLU and Henery Ford was an admitted Scocialist. Like you at one time I was a liberal Time tends to change that as experiance teaches you that some (a lot ) of what you learned in school is pure Bullcrap.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
Just because Nixon was a bad guy doens't make Clinton not a bad guy. Both subverted the law and got away with it!
Perjury, lieing under oath is a crime, and should be. If he didn't want to say anything, then he should have either pleaded the fifth (I'm not sure if he could, does that apply in a civil case?), had his lawyer object, or told the truth, and then appealed the decision as made partially on a question that he should not have had to answer. Lieing is NOT forgivable. Doesn't matter if it is your political party of the other party, you should not allow your leader to get away with it or any other crime.
I'll grant that who the president sleeps with is a private matter, so long as it is discreetly done between consenting adults. However someone claimed sexual harrasement, and once that happens other things are often brought to light that otherwise we wouldn't care about.
Still, IMHO Clinton was a bad president Claiming credit for ecconomic cycles that he can't control. (and so on), but that he would have been a bad president even if he hadn't lied under oath. By lieing under oath though he was IMO no longer fit to serve. Nixon at least resigned - eventially.
You know what I want to do? I want to show people burning alive, hidiously deformed people running around, a landfill, then say 'Ask your doctor about Paxil' or some real drug.
Sure, the drug companies will hit the roof, but I haven't actually said anything about their product, according to their logic.
I want to to require each drug company, every time they run an ad that mentions a drug, to include full and dtailed medical information about that drug, with every scrap of research that's ever been done on it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I wonder why everyone assumes that someone who is not a Republican is automatically a Democrat, or a supporter of what Democrats are doing. I can tell you first hand that most people who are against what the Republicans are doing right now are not too happy with Democrats either. The Democrats have done little to stop the policies of this Administration. Considering third parties have little chance succeding in this type of government, I sure do hope they straighten their act out. I'm hopeful that at least one of the progressive anti-war canidates wins the primary so the American public can have a real choice this time around. The Democrats were getting to conservative and too content for Liberals to back.
Time makes more converts than reason
Well, let's see. Jim Guy Tucker and Susan McDougal were convicted on fraud charges. A key material witness ends up dead. And a bunch of documents are never located.
Starr had no prosecutorial experience and, because of this, $44 million is spent on a fishing expedition... which later helps to turn up the Lewinsky thing.
In the face of this, you mean to tell me that a clear and definitive answer concerning Whitewater was reached? That is what I mean by not really investigated.
If I had that many happy accidents concerning any aspect of my life, my ass would be in a major sling.
I mean, seriously, people. No one has to live in DC except the president, and he doesn't need Congressional representation. All Congressmen have a place in DC, but, duh, they rather obviously have Congresional representation.
'Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!' 'Well...stop doing that!'
If you want to vote on your state's electors that make up the electorial college...maybe you should live in a frickin state!
And I'm a little confused as to why they should get a vote and not people in other US territories, like Guam and the Virgin Islands and Iraq. (Just kidding about Iraq, ha ha.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Hmmm. I don't think so. Regressive would be the term to desrcibe Republicans who want to repeal the entire New Deal and bring the country back to the late 19th century, a time of greed and inequality. Please explain to me how Bush has tried to end the war. You can't just throw something that unsupported out there without providing some valid evidence. The same goes for calling people like Dean and Kucinich pro-war (Iraq war that is, as that is what I was talking about).
Time makes more converts than reason
Why hasn't this been shot down in the Supreme Court by now
Because there aren't any cases before the Supreme Court.
then again there an outnumbering amount of Republicans, well we should balence that next election.
Supreme Court justices aren't elected, and their appointments are for life.
Any constitutional rights granted to women?
cheers- raga
Agree 100 percent! As much as I appreciate and honor e-mail, let me suggest that Anonymous Coward's "couple of letters" be taken literally and snail mail be used to your beloved government leadership. Real mail carries a lot more weight -- as they actually weigh as well as count letters pro and con on a given issue. Then they are submitted -- in most offices -- to the boilerplate specialists who thank you for sending your good thoughts along. Sending snail mail doesn't prevent the e-mails also. Both help!
Those who trade freedom for security will soon have neither.
Hang on, I've seen drug ads in US magazines like the US edition of Reader's Digest, where the vast majority of the space in the ad (I'm talking *pages* here) was taken up with closely spaced print detailing the results of the trials, the list of contra-indications, known side effects, other stuff from/about the FDA etc. etc. We don't get anything like that in the UK. The only place you see that is in the packet itself after you've bought it/been prescribed it.
Has this apparently strict US requirement been done away with now? Or is it that you are saying they can get away without any of this *iff* they avoid actually making any claims about the drug?
Anti-Israel != Anti-semite.
I have Jewish friends but I think Israel should become Palestine. I've read most of Chomsky's stuff and I don't see anything hateful about his writings except for hate of illocial foreign policy. Maybe in his earlier writings there was something, but I've never seen any evidence that he's anti-semitic.
By the way, we meet on one point - Kucinich would be a bad president. He's not a good leader.
And to back up - stalinist? Lunatic? He is on the fringe, to be sure, and he's certainly a socialist. However, speaking as a socialist, I'm here to tell you that we HATE Stalin. He ruined his nation and the entire leftist movement (although the Soviets never had anything resembling socialism). I'm sure if Chomsky read that he was stalinist, he'd piss himself laughing. And if you want proof that he's not a lunatic, just hear him state facts. No opinions, just facts. You'll then see where he's coming from.
Wanna rant back? Email me! falsified@gmx.net. ICQ: 6034332.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
I hope you don't really believe this. Bush cutting taxes for rich people is not making government less greedy when everyone in the administration is rich. It's by far the richest administration ever. They're simply self-serving. To suggest they are doing for the good of the country, at a time of war no less, is laughable. I'd be surprised if you even had the slightest grasp on history if you are willing to call the new deal regressive.
He invaded Iraq and overthrow the cause of the war.
And the cause of war was? WMD? No. Liberating Iraq? No. So what was it? Iraq was a crippled country with a crippled military. They were a threat to no one. Meanwhile the US continues to ignore Africa because it holds nothing of value to then.
If they had their way, Saddam would still be in power funding his war of terror against Israel, and also executing at least a thousand Iraqis a month (while also preparing more aggression against Kuwait and other countries). Thanks to Bush, this war is over.
Show me the proof. I don't see how Saddam could prepare to do anything with such a crippled mess of a country. BTW genius, 7,000 innocent civilians were killed in the war. How long has it been? Four months? I guess they were doing better under Saddam them.
The most these two you named can be called is forgettable losers. They hate the country and its people, and Americans in return think little of them. Kucinich is even endorsed by Noam Chomsky, a noted Stalinist pseudo-intellectual and anti-semite of the lunatic fringe.
Thankfully, these extremists will never sway more than the rabid 5 to 10 percent extremists.
People like you love to call everyone a radical, a communist, or anti-american. It's the only way to defend such an utterly ridiculous arguement. Why don't you actually print something useful rather than slander everyone without any evidence to back it up? It's obvious you haven't read a damn thing by Noam Chomsky. It's also obvious you have blind faith in a government based soley on your party affiliation. It's quite sad.
There was never a valid reason to go to war. Satelite photos showing "WMD" have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden were proven fabrications (even before the war). Liberating Iraqi's is just something that the administration used to sway people. They said it themselves many times. There have been and still are much worse regimes out there but it has never been an agenda for this administration.
The tax cut to the rich was worth more to the pockets of the top %1 than the social security and medicare deficiencies combined. The rich seemed to get along fine before without tax cuts. Why not fix the problems we have before giving away the farm?
Bush, the man, is an ignorant and arrogant person. He lacks even basic diplomacy skills. His leadership is out of the wild west. Shoot first and ask questions later. Whether you like it or not we all have to live in this world together. Bush and his cronies are single-handedly threating the security of our entire nation. The United States is now the most feared country in the world. The United States also has a large military empire, with military installations in every corner of the world. That makes everyone nervous. In these times it's better to talk softly and carry a big stick. Mouthing off to the whole world as Bush does is childish and personally I can't see how a grown adult could support him.
Time makes more converts than reason
The only grey area is smoking in public. You have a human right to fuck your health over as much as you want, just don't fuck with my air. (Don't piss in my swimming pool or install Windows on my server either.)
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
because we all know how well prohibition worked.
Out of curiosity, why was an ammendment necessary for prohibition of alcohol but not for that of stronger narcotics?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
You can get more information about this kind of legal activity at http://www.civildisobedience.us
Fight for your rights - no one else will.
It's all about the Wizards First Rule.
o ok &item=0812548051
If you've read the book, you know what I'm talking about.
http://my.linkbaton.com/get?lbCC=q&nC=q&genre=b
The toughness of the laws is compensated
by the unnecessity to abide by them.
Considered harmful.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about and have never been to Holland.
Holland has one of the lowest percentages of addicts in Europe and certainly a much lower percentage than the US. It's also the same with teenage pregnancies...
Dang, I get modded down to -1 for my Repo Man quote.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Yes we heard your claim. Got any facts or do you just want to keep repeating your bollocks?
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights.
-- H.L. Mencken
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
I said: "That is not a sustainable system in the long run."
You said: "That is the case for any socialized system."
In that case I invite you to stop using the roads,
and if you use public water and sewer that you shut it off right now and install a septic tank and dig a well.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Hence all the idiotic commerials that don't even explain what the product is for, so they don't run disclaimers.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You say there is no way that Bush could send troops to the LA City Council and quote history in the 1830? A piece of history that maybe only rings so true in my head because I come from the survivors of such a law, and it all happened right here in the state I now live in, Georgia. Yes in the US of A. Back then Gold was found in the Cherokee Nation. My people did not want the raping of the land for the yellow metal and certainly did not want it mined for free. Besides it was our yard. (Shouldn't a person have the right not to let a a stranger dig holes in his yard?), but being stupid savages we didn't want to bend to the will of progress and let a chosen few get rich. So..... An attack was staged on some white families that lived near the border at where friendly with the Cherokees and supported their stand on the issue. They were all killed. Arrows and such where spread through the area to put the blame on the Cherokees. So the State of Georgia stood up and said look what these savages have done! We must wipe them out! The National Guard was called (Yes the same one here today!) and our land was invaded. Supposely to free us also from our savage ways to make us civilized, never if we where called the "Civilized Tribe" Then the Feds where called in and to make a longs story short the man's whose picture in on a twenty dollar bill. Rounded us all up that was left after killing off those that wouldn't leave without a fight, and march us through the winter to Oklahoma. 14,000 died along that trail. Many more that were not counted died before the removal. A lot of people... Women, kids, old people. Not just warriors. My own Grandfather was killed by the Georgia National Guard INSIDE is own home defending his family when they came in the middle of the night like cowards, and a man's home is suppose to be his castle. All for what... Money and Power for who? The USA! Money then had the color of the yellow metal. Now days money is black and comes in barrels. Think about this short version of this old story and see if it relates to the happenings of today. Can't happen here??? It already has many times. It just wasn't your family in the pickle barrel so you forget history. I was taught this story as a child. I am now fifty years old, fought in Vietnam for these right that they are taking away, and now a crimmal for even writing these words. (Yes desention is now a crime against the government of which was born from desenction). Yes a simple act of writing is now a crime if you write the wrong words. (Didn't we used to call that communism?) My point is history does repeat itself because we forget the lessons of the past. It can happen here! And it is LOOK AROUND! All I ask is for you to look at the past and be leery of your own government. They are there for their own good not yours. Like someone else commented. People that would run for an office is the ONE you don't want in office! Some people here have commented "Vote them out" in the last election here in Georgia I couldn't vote for the candidate I wanted there was no space for a "write in" (My vote was for Nader) so mine didn't;t even get to count. When you only have two crooks to vote for you are going to get screwed. Do you really think there are "two parties" or only "one" power at work here. Just something is think about.........
Meby we should call this \. since it kinda leans to the left.(of course then you would have to use DOS
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
You can trust you goverment ask any Indian
That word they call that law... Wasn't it the word they used for those long haired dope smoking guys that dressed up like sombody else and threw a bunch of tea in the drink?
Let me hijack a cigarette truck and see who goes to jail.
Well I can go to jail for writing this!!!
The "Liberal Media" myth has been propogated for years by uninventive conservatives for years. You don't have to respond to any questions by the media if you can discount them all. Even several prominent Republicans have admitted to the "liberal media myth". It's called working the refs.
It is not laughable: it is true: the administration has put forth an excellent domestic agenda.
Sadly you have shown your true colors as a greedy pig. Who cares that we have had our rights taken away from us? Who cares that we are commiting horrible crimes to people in Guantanam Bay? I'm gonna get a fat paycheck! That makes everything better. Fool.
It is regressive since it got the rulers much more involved in the lives of the people. It should have been temporary. Instead, it became a permanent power grab.
Actually it provided for a country that took care of its citizens. This is a good thing. Not everyone can be a billionaire CEO.
The cause of the war in that area was Saddam Hussein. This war had been going on for decades. (By the way, about the WMD: France and Germany believed, and rightly so, that they existed)
No. How can you claim "rightly so" when nothing has been found. Who cares what France and Germany think? I don't. I care whethere there was actual evidence and there wasn't. Saddam was not attacking another country. His army was too weak to do anything. Don't you remember the US pummeling them 12 years ago?
Ignore? You call spending billions in foreign aid "ignoring"?????
Typical conservative. Throw money at it. It will go away.
He proudly admitted funding anti-israeli terrorists. He still claimed Kuwait as his own imperial territory.
Wow, he claimed he owned it. Well I claim I own the US but that's not true. Just to set you straight, I think Saddam is a horrible person but Kuwait should technically belong to Iraq. It was once one country but Kuwait became the rich land for the Imperialists left there when they became free of Imperial rule.
He invaded Kuwait with his crippled mess of a country years ago. With his recent mess of a country, he was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year.
Uhh. We crippled their country in that war. I didn't think that would go over your head.
Because Saddam used them as human shields. Another reason he had to go.
Well ok then those don't count! They didn't really die.
It figures you are pro-Saddam. Things were so much better.
Man you conservatives can't come up with any different tactics. You all use the same ones. Not an inventive bunch. I prefer to be called anti-american. That at least makes me laugh.
I only reserve such terms for people when it is accurate to use them. I did not use the term Radical, however. I only used Communist for members of the Communist Party. I only use anti-american for inviduals who want to make the country significantly worse. I use the term Stalinist for those like Chomsky who write at great length in support of Stalinist regimes (Chomsky actually supported Pol Pot's "killing fields").
No again. I don't know how you confused what went on. Chomsky did not support that at all. He just attempted to make the facts straight. When things get bad people, especially the media, tend to blow things out of proportion. Many incidences like this have occurred during the latest Iraq war. Chomsky just wanted people to know the cold truth not the sensationalism.
I've given plenty of evidence.
Sorry, I forgot to qualify that with "useful"
I've read dozens of his writings. Typically, they have several lies per paragraph
Time makes more converts than reason
What of Lenin? Is he a saint too? He overthrew a democratic government, and killed millions.
LOL. This guy thinks they elected czars by voting in the Russian Empire.
...annexing these independent countries to the new empire (against their will, but that is what empires do).
Pretty much like the Empire of the U.S. of A.? Oh, but in in doublethink that's called "liberating".
What you're basically saying here is that America is an Empire.
"LOL. This guy thinks they elected czars by voting in the Russian Empire."
Where did you get your knowledge of history from, Bazooka Joe Comics? The Tsars (or Czars) had already been deposed, and Russia had a democratic government. It was this government (Kerensky), not the Czars, that Lenin overthrew.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
No, perhaps I wasn't clear. (First of all, I'm a Missouri resident, and I'm pretty sure our system works quite like Ohio's does.)
My complaint is, when you're issued a traffic ticket, the "court date" is for traffic court - which generally ends up being a parade of "offenders" lined up to get 10 seconds of time with the judge. You have no opportunity to plead your case at this point. All the judge wants to hear is "guilty" or "innocent". (Of course, most people who didn't already value their time enough to simply pay a lawyer to convert the ticket into a non-moving violation and pay said fines just plead "guilty" at this point, and get it all over with.)
If you do claim your innocence at this stage of the "game", you're given another court date (typically scheduled right at the dinner hour, or immediately after you get home from work - so better not be late!). This time through, you still don't get much of a trial. Again, you wait your turn to talk to the judge, who pretty much just wants you to agree to some sort of "deal". (EG. How about you just pay us $100 and we'll knock the points off on this violation?) If you truly stand your ground and say "I'm NOT GUILTY so I WON"T PAY A DIME!" - the rest of the people laugh at you, and you're sent to the "prosecutor" to "work something out".
From here, it's anyone's guess how it will play out - but they REALLY don't want to have to schedule another trial date for you, so they'll try their hardest to just get you to pay them some cash to make it all go away. (If you're lucky and persistent enough, they might just throw the case out... but you never got to actually argue your innocence.)
That's why I say, you don't REALLY get a trial on traffic offenses anymore. They simply give out too many tickets for this stuff - and they want to run you through a system that amounts to tax collection.
Yup. Hopefully we have a favorable decision in Brown v. FEC, and get rid of McCain-Feingold.
You forget that even conservatives concede to this myth.
Bush is more protective of our rights than Clinton (I know, this is not saying much). His FCC has held the line to protect the First Amendment against those who want government to make media policy to "keep Rupert Murdoch in line" or censor Clear Channel because they play bad pop. The 2nd Amendment is being protected better. There are many other examples (including equal rights regardless of race, and children's rights).
So the fact that the government needs no excuse to spy on you or anyone else on the internet doesn not bother you? How about the fact that the executive branch can itslef decide who constitutes a terrorist and hold them without outside contact to the world, even to consult with a lawyer. Or how about those poor people from green peace and various other left-wing organizations who were told by airlines that they could not fly because they were on a list. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's ok.
Exactly what has the FCC done to protect First amendment rights?
Please include an example among the "many" of Bush protecting children's rights and ensuring protection of equal rights?
(including the time he supported Pol Pot during the killing field days)
You fail to mention the facts that the right wing US government supported Pol Pot and even helped with the killings. They then proceeded to turn around and condemn the acts and sensationalize the events to make it look even worse. The worst thing about the scenario is that it was bad enough without lying about it. Chomsky only pointed this out.
It gave plenty of good reasons to retaliate.
You see this is what you always come up with when you try to provide evidence. This is not evidence. You claim something without supporting a word of it.
It doesn't mean that this power should be maximized and abused. The government has the right to execute people too, but does this mean it should be done all the time, or at all? As for Stealing, what do you call it when someone takes your property under threat of force? The Randists have made a good point on this one.
Conservatives always want to think the government is stealing from them. It's lunacy. Fact 1: The United States has the richest people in the world among its citizens. Most other developed countries tax much more and they seem to complain less about it although they do still complain. Fact 2: The government needs to tax people in order to operate. The rich aren't taxed "more", the poor are taxed "less". Taxes don't incrementally get higher without end. There is a threshold. If you fall below it then you get to pay less because you shouldn't be asked to pay as much taxes if it kills you. Other taxes that tend to garner from the rich are there because they are not necessity. If you wish to live in extravagance then you should be willing to pay for it and that means taxes too.
The same is true of Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter is an actual nuclear engineer! (You probably did not know that). I'm not one for spelling flames, but in the context you are pushing, it should be pointed out that you did not even spell the word correctly.
So a typo means I'm just as dumb? I know how to spell it and I know how to say it. I made a mistake, I'm not ignorant on the subject.
What about the large number of European countries that were allies with the U.S. against Iraq (it is a a large number, perhaps larger than the France and Germany axis: I do not know for sure). Countries like Poland, not countries like France who which were allied with Mr. Hussein and have had recent marches against the "Jewish global banking conspiracy"
Oh you mean the coalition of the bought? The same coalition that didn't send
Time makes more converts than reason
I also find it amusing that there is now a witness to the blatant lying of this Administration. Bush and his cronies lied to us. Shouldn't he be impeached for that? After all, Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob and Americans didn't die for that.
Time makes more converts than reason
Not really
Time makes more converts than reason
The US is not an empire, and has not been involved i the imperialism game since before WW 2.
Wrong. The US is very much an empire, it fills almost every criteria. But Americans in general tend to fail to recognise this, just like Mark Hertsgaard says in his excellent book The Eagle's Shadow: Why America fascinates and infuriates the World. A must read if you want to know the problems the rest of the world has with the US' policies abroad.
Regards,
Vox
What's you're point? I'm already familiar with the Ninth Amendment. However, you don't quite understand the word 'enumerated' and, furthermore, the reason of my post. I guess.
r y& va=enumerate
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictiona
Main Entry: enumerate
Pronunciation: i-'n(y)ü-m&-"rAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ated; -ating
1 : to ascertain the number of : COUNT
2 : to specify one after another : LIST
The point of the post that you responded to was this:
Yes, the right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the Constitution but, still, it exists.
I misinterprereted the parent then. I thought it was saying "the right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the Constitution, therefore, it doesn't exist."
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Yea, no big deal. I just don't like being mistook ;)