I will add this: the ONLY candidate out there who will oppose the power of corporate money over government is Paul. Again, it sure as Hell isn't Obama.
I agree with "dynamo". You'd better lose. Democrat or whatever-the-hell-you-call-yourself, why in the world would you want Obama? He hasn't done Democrats any favors. If anything, he has made half or more of the United States hate Democrats. He's your enemy, not your friend. The biggest mistake Democrats have made so far is not picking a real Democrat candidate, because I don't think the American people will give Obama a chance in hell at a second term. He's lied to and betrayed just about everybody, and to be honest, pretty much everybody is justified in hating his guts. And he sure as Hell hasn't done a thing to further any genuine Democratic principles, unless you count the principle of Spend Until Everybody Is Broke. Or his vaunted "Health Care" bill, which is dead in the water, because too many states have passed and continue to pass legislation effectively saying: "Stuff it, we won't comply."
Really. Get a clue, dude. If the Democrats want to NOT see another thinning as happened last year, they'd better do something OPPOSED to Obama, or they haven't even the slightest chance.
"Yeah, but the fudge factor due to self-selection bias and mis-reporting is probably pretty similar year-vs-year, so even if the absolute number is BS, it can still be a useful to compare to relative to prior years."
Not a bad point, but I don't know of any cases where it was done that way.
Yes, IUDs, the "morning after pill" and the like. I would certainly think they would be affected.
The problem is, many people do not look at these issues and continue them to their logical conclusion. Apparently they just think "Conception. Yeah, that makes sense to me." and stop there. Bogus.
"... he studios happen to have competent lawyers and what the studios are suing over is pretty much valid."
No, the ISSUES they are suing over might be pretty much valid, but the ways in which they have gone about it has been pretty much a comedy of errors: a plethora of suits in the wrong jurisdictions, a misuse of early discovery, disrespect of the courts, improper and even false evidence... I could go on and on.
Remember that of the many thousands of copyright suits they have filed in recent years, they have won exactly: one.
"Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US."
Citations? I don't think you understand the law very well.
"citations?"
I gave you a link to an article. If you have problems with them and their references, take it up with them. Or go hit Google... because that was hardly the only article on the subject. There are hundreds.
"There was proof he was associated with terrorists."
And your point is? Try this on for size, because it's true: Barack Obama has known associations with leftist domestic terrorist organizations. That has been demonstrated on good evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. Should we order him assassinated too?
"Association" is not guilt. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be debating this at all. And by the way, my point about his earlier arrest was in no way intended to be "ingenious", so it hardly bothers me that you don't find it so.
"He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008."
"Appears"? What does that mean? Please produce evidence yourself, that he "fully joined" and was a participant, rather than merely speaking out in their favor. They are not the same things.
"As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous...."
No, there is not a point at which mere speech becomes treason. And look it up in the Constitution yourself. Never mind, I've done it for you. Article 3, section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Please explain in detail: was al-Awlaki "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort"? That is beyond mere speech. Please explain what acts he committed that fit this definition. Further, I would be interested to know who those witnesses were, and what court they testified in.
And (in the next paragraph), it says that Congress will determine the punishment for treason. But note that the punishment must of course also be Constitutional, meaning among other things that it cannot be cruel or unusual. Frankly, I think obliteration by an unmanned drone might just fall in the "cruel and unusual" category.
Salary surveys suffer from the worst of all maladies that surveys can suffer from. Everything from self-selection bias to mis-reporting. Face it: compared to other kinds of surveys, NOBODY reports their salary accurately. Even worse, many who have low salaries never even participate.
While I often agree with McGonigle, I have to back you on this issue. Habeus Corpus cannot be "revoked" without an explicit amendment to the Constitution.
Further, keep in mind that these Court decisions, even Supreme Court decisions, are not irrevocable either. Constitutionally, it is up to the States to decide what the powers of the Federal government are according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court was never given that particular authority. The justification for that comment is spread throughout hundreds of historical documents, all of which have been ignored at one time or other by SCOTUS itself, of course, in its zeal to make the Federal government Lord of Everything.
But the fact remains that even SCOTUS has never had the Constitutional authority to do that. Proof of that would take far more time and room than I have here at the moment, but it is so, nevertheless.
"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." -- Thomas Jefferson, re: the U.S. Constitution, in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798
It's only "factually incorrect" if you buy Obama's statement that his administration would not enforce the law in that manner against civilians.
The fact is, that doesn't matter. Obama is out of there at the end of the year anyway, and he knows it. He can't promise what the next administration will do.
"We won't enforce it that way," is the most dangerous lie ever told by Government. And it's ALWAYS a lie.
By that I mean, for example: Customs at the border has the legal ability to search through your computer, without your consent. TSA has no such authority. The 4th Amendment applies (or is supposed to apply, according to the courts) when it comes to all other travel.
"Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely."
Yes, you are mistaken. The TSA has no such authority. They are not military, for one thing.
Also, keep in mind: the ability to search your effects at will is limited to entering the United States. It is NOT allowed under the Constitution for inter- or intra-state travel. You have 4th Amendment rights when traveling within and between states. While there may be some authority for TSA to conduct searches, it is strictly limited if you are not traveling into or out of the country.
I am in favor of Ron Paul, but his position on abortion does indeed bother me. It is the only thing I have found over which I significantly disagree with him.
First, let's get something straight. I, too, was fooled by the fact that he had voted against abortion laws. He has, on the other hand (I just learned this the other day) repeatedly introduced legislation that would Federally define human "life" as beginning at conception. (And "conception" is generally viewed as the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg.) This would open cans of worms of all kinds. The most recent of those was proposed in 2011.
For one thing, it does not make "perfect sense". If life begins at conception, not only would states probably be compelled to define abortion as murder (thereby effectively removing the right of the states to determine such matters themselves), but it would bring up even more questions than it solves.
For example, what then of the majority of fertilized eggs, which do not implant in the womb? Probably somewhere around 80% or more of them. Should not people be compelled to try to save them, too? Legally they would be "human life", and so to casually drop them in the toilet would also be murder... or at least negligent homicide.
And it just gets worse from there.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a "one-issue" person, and I am still in favor of Paul over those other candidates, who have a plethora of issues that together go far beyond just abortion. But it is troubling, indeed.
Good point. But if the RSS reader is only providing a summary and a link to the original article, no matter where it came from, it's still probably fair use.
"The US killed him under a war proclamation. You may disagree with that, but that's also black and white."
No, it did not. That is the only place I disagree with you here.
Awlaki was never shown to actually be an enemy combatant. See the article I linked to in my reply to that other person. The fact is that the U.S. had detained Awlaki previously but had to let him go for lack of evidence that he was actually involved in any terrorism.
The only thing we know him to be "guilty" of is speaking out against the United States. That is not a crime, or an act of war.
Your "proclamation of war", regardless of whether it is Constitutional (it is not) still doesn't cover assassination of people who are not enemy combatants.
See my reply to the other person who asked this question.
"You attempt to justify this by stating that Yemen's sovereignty was not violated, but this is wholly irrelevant."
No, I did not. I didn't even bring the subject up. The only relevance of Yemen at all is that it was outside the war zone. I made no statement about its sovereignty at all, except to state in my other reply (exactly as you did here) that it is irrelevant.
"You also attempt to make the case that there was some sort of "war proclamation" that justifies this, which suggests that you're a bit confused about war legalities."
No, again I did not say this. Are you sure you are replying to the right person? I am well aware of Congress' responsibility to declare war. I think you must have the wrong person.
"Your argument fails, due to misinformation. Please, read the foundational documents of US law. You will learn much. "
I am a long-time student of U.S. political history, and I neither stated those things or disagree with you. I am pretty sure you replied to the wrong person.
What I hate is corruption of government, and government violation of the law. That is the opposite of good government, for which I have only love.
Explain to me how it is "rational" to order the assassination of someone who was not an enemy combatant, and whose only guilt was of speaking against the United States.
I hate to tell you this, guy, but such speech is protected by our Constitution. It is not an "act of war".
"Enemy combatants can be captured etc, but it requires boots on the ground, lots of them. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have those in the areas these people are..."
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.
"And how is it against the law?... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."
Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.
It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.
Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.
Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you.
Try reading this article.
That is the theory, but I don't think I buy the reality. Of course I have never been directly involved in any of those suits, and I would prefer not to be, so I do not have direct experience. But I have a sneaking suspicion that RIAA and MPAA are actually more involved than that, and that the lawsuits are actually "by the copyright holder" in name only. More specifically, I think RIAA and MPAA actually do most of the dirty work, and just slap the name of the studio on it.
"It's beyond fair use, it's more like free speech: what these news organizations are suggesting is that someone should have to pay to even discuss what they're publishing. It's sickening."
I agree, but that's really what "fair use" is all about: striking a balance between free speech, and somebody's ability to make a living delivering news.
I do not believe that the failure of certain businesses (traditional newspapers for example) is sufficient grounds for changing the rules of fair use, considering that, as you said, it involves free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I will add this: the ONLY candidate out there who will oppose the power of corporate money over government is Paul. Again, it sure as Hell isn't Obama.
I agree with "dynamo". You'd better lose. Democrat or whatever-the-hell-you-call-yourself, why in the world would you want Obama? He hasn't done Democrats any favors. If anything, he has made half or more of the United States hate Democrats. He's your enemy, not your friend. The biggest mistake Democrats have made so far is not picking a real Democrat candidate, because I don't think the American people will give Obama a chance in hell at a second term. He's lied to and betrayed just about everybody, and to be honest, pretty much everybody is justified in hating his guts. And he sure as Hell hasn't done a thing to further any genuine Democratic principles, unless you count the principle of Spend Until Everybody Is Broke. Or his vaunted "Health Care" bill, which is dead in the water, because too many states have passed and continue to pass legislation effectively saying: "Stuff it, we won't comply."
Really. Get a clue, dude. If the Democrats want to NOT see another thinning as happened last year, they'd better do something OPPOSED to Obama, or they haven't even the slightest chance.
I don't agree with you. That is to say, yes, I agree it has gotten pretty bad, but it has actually been worse at times, before this.
Things will get better. Eventually. We can help them along by electing a President with both principles and testicles: Ron Paul.
ANY of the other Presidential candidates, including Obama of course, will simply give us more of the same.
"Yeah, but the fudge factor due to self-selection bias and mis-reporting is probably pretty similar year-vs-year, so even if the absolute number is BS, it can still be a useful to compare to relative to prior years."
Not a bad point, but I don't know of any cases where it was done that way.
Yes, IUDs, the "morning after pill" and the like. I would certainly think they would be affected.
The problem is, many people do not look at these issues and continue them to their logical conclusion. Apparently they just think "Conception. Yeah, that makes sense to me." and stop there. Bogus.
"... he studios happen to have competent lawyers and what the studios are suing over is pretty much valid."
No, the ISSUES they are suing over might be pretty much valid, but the ways in which they have gone about it has been pretty much a comedy of errors: a plethora of suits in the wrong jurisdictions, a misuse of early discovery, disrespect of the courts, improper and even false evidence... I could go on and on.
Remember that of the many thousands of copyright suits they have filed in recent years, they have won exactly: one.
You completely missed the point. They don't have the authority to "allow" it or disallow it, if it is only a summary and a link to the original.
The LAW "allows" it.
"Minor problem - the Supreme Court only deals with laws within the sovereignty of the US."
Citations? I don't think you understand the law very well.
"citations?"
I gave you a link to an article. If you have problems with them and their references, take it up with them. Or go hit Google... because that was hardly the only article on the subject. There are hundreds.
"There was proof he was associated with terrorists."
And your point is? Try this on for size, because it's true: Barack Obama has known associations with leftist domestic terrorist organizations. That has been demonstrated on good evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. Should we order him assassinated too?
"Association" is not guilt. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be debating this at all. And by the way, my point about his earlier arrest was in no way intended to be "ingenious", so it hardly bothers me that you don't find it so.
"He dropped out of society and appears to have fully joined AQ in 2008."
"Appears"? What does that mean? Please produce evidence yourself, that he "fully joined" and was a participant, rather than merely speaking out in their favor. They are not the same things.
"As for speaking out against the gov, that's one thing, but there's a point where it becomes traitorous. ..."
No, there is not a point at which mere speech becomes treason. And look it up in the Constitution yourself. Never mind, I've done it for you. Article 3, section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Please explain in detail: was al-Awlaki "adhering to [our] enemies, giving them aid and comfort"? That is beyond mere speech. Please explain what acts he committed that fit this definition. Further, I would be interested to know who those witnesses were, and what court they testified in.
And (in the next paragraph), it says that Congress will determine the punishment for treason. But note that the punishment must of course also be Constitutional, meaning among other things that it cannot be cruel or unusual. Frankly, I think obliteration by an unmanned drone might just fall in the "cruel and unusual" category.
Salary surveys suffer from the worst of all maladies that surveys can suffer from. Everything from self-selection bias to mis-reporting. Face it: compared to other kinds of surveys, NOBODY reports their salary accurately. Even worse, many who have low salaries never even participate.
I'll believe it when it hits my own pocketbook.
While I often agree with McGonigle, I have to back you on this issue. Habeus Corpus cannot be "revoked" without an explicit amendment to the Constitution.
Further, keep in mind that these Court decisions, even Supreme Court decisions, are not irrevocable either. Constitutionally, it is up to the States to decide what the powers of the Federal government are according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court was never given that particular authority. The justification for that comment is spread throughout hundreds of historical documents, all of which have been ignored at one time or other by SCOTUS itself, of course, in its zeal to make the Federal government Lord of Everything.
But the fact remains that even SCOTUS has never had the Constitutional authority to do that. Proof of that would take far more time and room than I have here at the moment, but it is so, nevertheless.
"The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." -- Thomas Jefferson, re: the U.S. Constitution, in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798
"Factually incorrect."
It's only "factually incorrect" if you buy Obama's statement that his administration would not enforce the law in that manner against civilians.
The fact is, that doesn't matter. Obama is out of there at the end of the year anyway, and he knows it. He can't promise what the next administration will do.
"We won't enforce it that way," is the most dangerous lie ever told by Government. And it's ALWAYS a lie.
"Seeing as they just passed a defence bill allowing indefinite detention without trial for suspected terrorists, for now I would just go with it."
Spoken like a true sheep. That doesn't even apply to TSA!!!
By that I mean, for example: Customs at the border has the legal ability to search through your computer, without your consent. TSA has no such authority. The 4th Amendment applies (or is supposed to apply, according to the courts) when it comes to all other travel.
"Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely."
Yes, you are mistaken. The TSA has no such authority. They are not military, for one thing.
Also, keep in mind: the ability to search your effects at will is limited to entering the United States. It is NOT allowed under the Constitution for inter- or intra-state travel. You have 4th Amendment rights when traveling within and between states. While there may be some authority for TSA to conduct searches, it is strictly limited if you are not traveling into or out of the country.
I am in favor of Ron Paul, but his position on abortion does indeed bother me. It is the only thing I have found over which I significantly disagree with him.
First, let's get something straight. I, too, was fooled by the fact that he had voted against abortion laws. He has, on the other hand (I just learned this the other day) repeatedly introduced legislation that would Federally define human "life" as beginning at conception. (And "conception" is generally viewed as the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg.) This would open cans of worms of all kinds. The most recent of those was proposed in 2011.
For one thing, it does not make "perfect sense". If life begins at conception, not only would states probably be compelled to define abortion as murder (thereby effectively removing the right of the states to determine such matters themselves), but it would bring up even more questions than it solves.
For example, what then of the majority of fertilized eggs, which do not implant in the womb? Probably somewhere around 80% or more of them. Should not people be compelled to try to save them, too? Legally they would be "human life", and so to casually drop them in the toilet would also be murder... or at least negligent homicide.
And it just gets worse from there.
Don't get me wrong. I am not a "one-issue" person, and I am still in favor of Paul over those other candidates, who have a plethora of issues that together go far beyond just abortion. But it is troubling, indeed.
Sounds to me like these "permits" unconstitutionally restrict your freedom to peacefully assemble.
Yes, you were, and that is obviously the source of confusion.
Have a good day.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. If they're actually on the up-and-up, then fine. I just wasn't convinced that is the case.
Good point. But if the RSS reader is only providing a summary and a link to the original article, no matter where it came from, it's still probably fair use.
"The US killed him under a war proclamation. You may disagree with that, but that's also black and white."
No, it did not. That is the only place I disagree with you here.
Awlaki was never shown to actually be an enemy combatant. See the article I linked to in my reply to that other person. The fact is that the U.S. had detained Awlaki previously but had to let him go for lack of evidence that he was actually involved in any terrorism.
The only thing we know him to be "guilty" of is speaking out against the United States. That is not a crime, or an act of war.
Your "proclamation of war", regardless of whether it is Constitutional (it is not) still doesn't cover assassination of people who are not enemy combatants.
"And how is it against the law?"
See my reply to the other person who asked this question.
"You attempt to justify this by stating that Yemen's sovereignty was not violated, but this is wholly irrelevant."
No, I did not. I didn't even bring the subject up. The only relevance of Yemen at all is that it was outside the war zone. I made no statement about its sovereignty at all, except to state in my other reply (exactly as you did here) that it is irrelevant.
"You also attempt to make the case that there was some sort of "war proclamation" that justifies this, which suggests that you're a bit confused about war legalities."
No, again I did not say this. Are you sure you are replying to the right person? I am well aware of Congress' responsibility to declare war. I think you must have the wrong person.
"Your argument fails, due to misinformation. Please, read the foundational documents of US law. You will learn much. "
I am a long-time student of U.S. political history, and I neither stated those things or disagree with you. I am pretty sure you replied to the wrong person.
Bullshit. I don't hate the government.
What I hate is corruption of government, and government violation of the law. That is the opposite of good government, for which I have only love.
Explain to me how it is "rational" to order the assassination of someone who was not an enemy combatant, and whose only guilt was of speaking against the United States.
I hate to tell you this, guy, but such speech is protected by our Constitution. It is not an "act of war".
So you say *I* am being "irrational"?? Haha.
"Enemy combatants can be captured etc, but it requires boots on the ground, lots of them. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have those in the areas these people are..."
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse for the government to break it. So that's just too damned bad.
"And how is it against the law? ... no sovereignty was violated, no treaties broken."
Correct about the sovereignty, wrong about the treaties.
It is illegal for the U.S. (our own law) to assassinate someone without due process of law. Awlaki was outside any recognized war zone, and was never proven to be an enemy combatant. Any agreement with Yemen is irrelevant.
Further, we DO have treaties with other countries regarding the rules of war, and this was VERY CLEARLY a violation of those treaties.
Remember that al-Awlaki had been previously picked up by U.S. authorities, but they had to release him because there was no proof of his involvement with terrorist plots. His only guilt was of speaking against the United States. Which is a protected right, in case I need to remind you. Try reading this article.
That is the theory, but I don't think I buy the reality. Of course I have never been directly involved in any of those suits, and I would prefer not to be, so I do not have direct experience. But I have a sneaking suspicion that RIAA and MPAA are actually more involved than that, and that the lawsuits are actually "by the copyright holder" in name only. More specifically, I think RIAA and MPAA actually do most of the dirty work, and just slap the name of the studio on it.
"It's beyond fair use, it's more like free speech: what these news organizations are suggesting is that someone should have to pay to even discuss what they're publishing. It's sickening."
I agree, but that's really what "fair use" is all about: striking a balance between free speech, and somebody's ability to make a living delivering news.
I do not believe that the failure of certain businesses (traditional newspapers for example) is sufficient grounds for changing the rules of fair use, considering that, as you said, it involves free speech.