Where was the ACLU during the Ruby Ridge or Waco?.... Oh silly me, that was a Democrat in the White House and it was us silly conservatives complaining.
Yes... silly you.
Might want to check your Republican talking points... Ruby Ridge occured in April of 1992... while George H.W. Bush was president. Nine months before Clinton took office.
If you're so loose with the facts on that... how can we take anything you say seriously? Blaming Clinton for Federal Government abuses that occured 9 months prior to his being sworn in as president? Geez.. you guys are really grasping now.
The ACLU has NEVER, repeat NEVER, argued against your right to say a prayer in school. In fact they've argued the opposite.
What they have argued, however, is that the school can lead you in prayer.
Prayer that is sanctioned, endorsed, or led by the public school is unconstitional. Individuals praying on their own and of their own volition has never been illegal... and the ACLU has never once filed a lawsuit or fought in any way against your right to say a prayer in school.. or your right to put up a religious display on your private property.
Quit believing the Bill O'Reilly's of the world.
The ACLU has fought against prayer sanctioned/endorsed by agents of the government (public school employees) and religious displays on public (i.e. government) property.
Quit believing the pack of lies from the right about the ACLU trying to stop your right to privately pray or display whatever religious symbols you want on your property. They never have, and they never will.
...The feeling is mutual, you flaming heap of PC pigshit. I sincerely hope that you get your fair share of the diversity you seem to love.
Already have. I'm married to a latina. And my boss.. who is a fantastic boss.. is half African-American.
And thanks for the well-wishes. My life is far more enriched by the "diversity" in it than your white-bread (and most-likely inbred) life could ever be.
"...and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
This poster... who doesn't have the guts to post other than AC... is what is wrong with this country. As an American, as a caucasian, as a human being.. I'm ashamed to share a planet with him, let alone a nation.
Yeah. It's kinda funny-- a large portion of the US male population can tell you the number of World Series in which Reggie White played, but can't tell you who Bob Ney is, or why the President spying on US citizens is a bad thing.
Know what's REALLY funny? Reggie White was a football player...
so the number of World Series' in which he played is the same number as Arlen Specter played... zero.
Anyone who actually studies the number of species on this planet and the rates of change in that number will be able to easily demonstrate to you that we're not headING for such a thing, we're already smack dab in the middle of one, caused by the continued (and rapidly accelerating) conversion of the planet's biomass into HUMAN mass...
but the Evolutionist crowd should be more open to the possibility that all things in the known world had a start initiated by intelligence
Sure.. but then the ID crowd needs to explain how something as complex as the intelligent designer came to be. What created the "intelligent designer"? Surely something is irreducibly complex as a being that could create the known universe must have had its own intelligent designer? No?
It's an endless circle that the ID crowd can't resolve, so they usually ignore.
Their typical answer, when pressed, is... "well.. God just is." No beginning, no end. Well then, why can't we equally say.. with exactly as much evidence.. the Universe just is. It's been an endless series of big-bang/expand/contract/big-bang-again forever.. that's as plausible as the "God just is" line.
A supreme being may exist.. No one can prove otherwise. But a supreme being is not necessary to explain the universe we live in.
don't I have a civil right to keep my phone records private or something?
Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".
It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.
I agree that the university has the right to sever all ties with this individual.
Those are consequences of his speech and he can continue speaking.
BUT!
They have no right nor jurisdiction for him to be required to perform community service and/or get counseling.
If I speak badly about an organization that I belong to.. the organization can expel me from its membership. But they cant force punishment on me in the form of community service or forced counseling.
That's where the university exceeded its bounds.
Legally, I think they have every right to suspend him and take away his scholarship. But that's the extent of their legal rights in this matter. Only a court of law can FORCE community service or counseling.
As far as Clinton goes, the impeachment was about a lot more than the blow job your side spins it as.
You're right. It wasn't about blow jobs. It was about lying about blow jobs.
And talk about spinning. You don't even know what the impeachment was officially about. You list 8 things that it was about, none of which came up in the impeachment hearings or in the charges.
It was about an entire pattern of abuses of power that include:
a) the mysterious deaths of senior cabinet officials
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
b) using the IRS audit as a means to go after political enemies
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
c) pardoning known terrorists
The pardonings in question happened AFTER the impeachment hearings.
d) involving the USA in Kosovo, without the consent of congress.
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
e) refusing congressional subpoenas for white house documents
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
f) deleting all of the white house email, in total violation of a congressional subpoena and numerous court orders
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
g) taking campaign contributions from the chinese
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
h) using public buildings for fundraising
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
Conversely, Bush has not broken -any- laws.
LOL. Ok, pal. You don't even know what the faux Clinton impeachment hearings were about, and now... just weeks after finding out that Bush violated laws by A) maintaining secret prisons outside the U.S. B) violating the Geneva conventions concerning torture C) illegal surveillence of U.S. citizens without a warrant, in violation of FISA law and the spirit and letter of the 4th amendment to the Constitution.... you say Bush has not broken any laws.
Your "king", your bible-thumping dyslexic power-hungry boy emperor, has wiped his ass with your Constitution of the United States.
"...Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies _ those that aren't automatically deleted right away _ unless there is a "compelling need." A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy."
By law, all government agencies are required to follow OMB guidelines. By law, not following an OMB guideline is illegal.
Also from TFA:
"Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally.""
No government agency can violate OMB guidelines. A government agency that violates OMB guidelines is breaking the law.
Yes... it's a very very very very minor offense, especially compared with the other NSA law-breaking that we've become privy to recently.
Yes... it pales in comparison to wire-tapping US citizens without a warrant. The law violated there is the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Yes... I realize that Bush-apologists are willing to overlook the principles enbodied in the 4th Amendment in order to protect us from the evil terrorists.
But... if this were 1999, and the EXACT SAME STORY came out about the Clinton administration, you would all be in a hissie fit calling for another round of impeachment hearings. If the Patriot Act were passed in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing and gave Janet Reno the surveillence powers that Ashcroft/Gonzalez have, you'd be calling for a revolution.
I personally don't think the cookie thing is a big deal... but it shows a pattern of disregard for the rule of law by this administration if they feel the ends justify the means. America doesn't work that way, and I want you hypocrits to admit you hold this President to a different standard with respect to the rule of law because he's a Republican.
I want the Washington Times, American Standard, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh and his hundreds of talk-radio clones, the Free Republic, and every other right-wing blowhard to be pushing for impeachment hearings over the NSA wire-tapping-without-a-warrant... as they surely would be doing if this were 1993-2000.
I want you Bushies to quit spinning when the president, and the people who work for him, are guilty of violating the law.
So is speeding. Don't tell me that you have never done that.
yeah, I have. And I've gotten tickets when I've gotten caught. Rule of law prevailed.
So is downloading music/software that you didn't pay for. Don't tell me that you have never done that.
Actually, I never have. But if I have, and I got caught, I should pay the consequences (according to the "rule of law" Republicans).
So are a number of other laws that should have been taken off the books long ago that people don't care about and law enforcement doesn't bother to enforce. They're all against the law as well.
Law enforcement doesn't care to enforce? Have they stopped giving out speeding tickets? Has the RIAA stopped taking music pirates to court? What memo did I miss?
The fact that you are expecting every employee at every level to be fully knowledgable of every law and every ramification for every action does nothing more than show that you are on a witch hunt.
No... I wish consistency from my Republican brethren when it comes to holding an administration accountable to the "rule of law". That's all we heard from Republicans throughout the Clinton presidency.. "no President is above the law" and "when the branch of government that is supposed to uphold the laws of the nation is guilty of breaking them, then impeachment is not only correct.. but necessary." and crap like that.
The Bush administration is not above the law just because you like him. Hold your president to the same standards you held the previous one that you DIDN'T like. Be consistent.. don't by a hypocrit. That's all I'm asking from my Republican brethren.
Okay, so the NSA puts a permanent cookie on the system. Why is this an issue?
Because it is against the law.
Prosecuting the "lying about blowjobs" was all about maintaining the "rule of law" for Republicans a half-decade ago.
But maintaining the "rule of law" no longer applies with Republican administration? That's what I'm getting from you in your post.
If the NSA did this, they broke the law. Doesn't matter if it is a stupid law. All my conservative friends told me in 1999 that the "rule of law" reigns supreme, no matter how minimal the offense.
Sorry... I'm not letting the Bush-apologists off the hook when the tables are turned.
what is not mentioned enough is that there are three type of stem cells. 1. Adult, in use currently have had the most success with these. 2. umbilical cord stem cells, work great also, everyone should donate their child's cord. (my wife and i will around july 20th.) 3. stem cells from fetus's. they have only been found to cause cancer, they are testing with the ample set they have, and have not been able to have ANY success. 1,2 work great, 3 DOES NOT WORK at all yet.
This is patently false, which is why I suppose you posted as AC. Stem cells from fetuses have NOT been found to cause cancer - that is misinformation put out by religious right groups. And there is NOT an "ample set" of fetal stem cells to test with... Bush lied about that. There are only 12 lines available for legal research in this country, not the "over 60" that Bush told of.
Thank goodness that the current U.S. administration doesn't have control over research being done elsewhere in the world... so this important work is still being done - just without the U.S.'s help.
You can all cut through the bullshit by learning for yourselves what stem cell research is all about:
....that gives you the right to murder(as seen by the other side) a baby for better looking skin?
This straw man of yours.. "for better looking skin" is bit ridiculous. Find any reference in the article... or in any of the words by serious proponents of fetal stem cell research... that is referring to something as superficial as "better looking skin".
It's a false argument, and you know it. Nobody's talking about stem cell research for non-life-saving purposes.
It's a common tactic of "your side"... and it stinks.
and you also said this: So because you believe life begins when a baby leaves the mother's womb with absolutely nothing from me to indicate that. Fetal stem cell research is done with cells from unimplanted embryos... not from full-term babies. And you know it. Unimplanted embryos that were the result of IVFs and designated for the trash ANYWAY. You knew that too. We're not talking about "babies in their mother's wombs".. we're talking about embryos that have never been implanted IN a womb... AND NEVER WILL BE. And you knew that too.
But keep setting up your straw men to knock down. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you invent the other side of it.
Against God's will? Not hardly. More likely against harvesting the aborted babies for the material to make your skin look younger.
Nobody's talking about something as superficial as "making your skin look younger."
We're talking about curing Parkinson's.... and Alzheimer's... and cancer.
Don't worry... On January 20, 2009 we'll be rid of our bible-thumper President and science can resume its inexorable march forward again in this country.
...and you can resume your secret Operation Rescue meetings where you plan out clinic bombings in the name of "saving lives".
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... silly you.
Might want to check your Republican talking points... Ruby Ridge occured in April of 1992... while George H.W. Bush was president. Nine months before Clinton took office.
If you're so loose with the facts on that... how can we take anything you say seriously? Blaming Clinton for Federal Government abuses that occured 9 months prior to his being sworn in as president? Geez.. you guys are really grasping now.
What they have argued, however, is that the school can lead you in prayer.
Prayer that is sanctioned, endorsed, or led by the public school is unconstitional. Individuals praying on their own and of their own volition has never been illegal... and the ACLU has never once filed a lawsuit or fought in any way against your right to say a prayer in school.. or your right to put up a religious display on your private property.
Quit believing the Bill O'Reilly's of the world.
The ACLU has fought against prayer sanctioned/endorsed by agents of the government (public school employees) and religious displays on public (i.e. government) property.
Quit believing the pack of lies from the right about the ACLU trying to stop your right to privately pray or display whatever religious symbols you want on your property. They never have, and they never will.
Already have. I'm married to a latina. And my boss.. who is a fantastic boss.. is half African-American.
And thanks for the well-wishes. My life is far more enriched by the "diversity" in it than your white-bread (and most-likely inbred) life could ever be.
What we have now, I'm not sure has a name or parallel in history. What we have now is a corrupt corporate-despot partnership that has no name.
What we have sure as hell ain't a republic or a democracy.
Same difference.
sigh. We're almost there.
Would he be moderated up?
Know what's REALLY funny? Reggie White was a football player...
so the number of World Series' in which he played is the same number as Arlen Specter played... zero.
Well, then... insert obligatory "Soylent Green" reference here.
Sure.. but then the ID crowd needs to explain how something as complex as the intelligent designer came to be. What created the "intelligent designer"? Surely something is irreducibly complex as a being that could create the known universe must have had its own intelligent designer? No?
It's an endless circle that the ID crowd can't resolve, so they usually ignore.
Their typical answer, when pressed, is... "well.. God just is." No beginning, no end. Well then, why can't we equally say.. with exactly as much evidence.. the Universe just is. It's been an endless series of big-bang/expand/contract/big-bang-again forever.. that's as plausible as the "God just is" line.
A supreme being may exist.. No one can prove otherwise. But a supreme being is not necessary to explain the universe we live in.
Your post is a troll, to be sure... but yes. You do have such a civil right. It's called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has read that to be an implicit Right to Privacy.
Just because the current administation (and to be fair, many past administrations) has wiped their collective asses with the 4th Amendment doesn't mean that it no longer applies.
My cell phone calls are my personal effects.
This has nothing to do with Bush... this time. But it again shows the erosion of our personal liberties. And your flippant response notwithstanding, you're going to regret it one day when you wake up and wonder why you can't do or say the things you used to be able to do and say in this "free country".
It didn't start under Bush.. but it's not being rolled back by the current crowd in Washington either. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, with the very notable exception of Russ Feingold, are fighting for our freedoms anymore.
Those are consequences of his speech and he can continue speaking.
BUT!
They have no right nor jurisdiction for him to be required to perform community service and/or get counseling.
If I speak badly about an organization that I belong to.. the organization can expel me from its membership. But they cant force punishment on me in the form of community service or forced counseling.
That's where the university exceeded its bounds.
Legally, I think they have every right to suspend him and take away his scholarship. But that's the extent of their legal rights in this matter. Only a court of law can FORCE community service or counseling.
Just MHO.
FEAR ME... FOR I AM THE COCKMASTER! MUWAHAHAHAHA!
Maybe it was a compliment.
If their party logo had a (C) or (TM) next to it.
I'm even using the same name.... The Piracy Party.
And there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
You're right. It wasn't about blow jobs. It was about lying about blow jobs.
And talk about spinning. You don't even know what the impeachment was officially about. You list 8 things that it was about, none of which came up in the impeachment hearings or in the charges.
It was about an entire pattern of abuses of power that include:
a) the mysterious deaths of senior cabinet officials
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
b) using the IRS audit as a means to go after political enemies
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
c) pardoning known terrorists
The pardonings in question happened AFTER the impeachment hearings.
d) involving the USA in Kosovo, without the consent of congress.
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
e) refusing congressional subpoenas for white house documents
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
f) deleting all of the white house email, in total violation of a congressional subpoena and numerous court orders
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
g) taking campaign contributions from the chinese
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
h) using public buildings for fundraising
Not part of the impeachment hearings.
Conversely, Bush has not broken -any- laws.
LOL. Ok, pal. You don't even know what the faux Clinton impeachment hearings were about, and now... just weeks after finding out that Bush violated laws by A) maintaining secret prisons outside the U.S. B) violating the Geneva conventions concerning torture C) illegal surveillence of U.S. citizens without a warrant, in violation of FISA law and the spirit and letter of the 4th amendment to the Constitution.... you say Bush has not broken any laws.
Your "king", your bible-thumping dyslexic power-hungry boy emperor, has wiped his ass with your Constitution of the United States.
Hope you're proud.
"...Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies _ those that aren't automatically deleted right away _ unless there is a "compelling need." A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy."
By law, all government agencies are required to follow OMB guidelines. By law, not following an OMB guideline is illegal.
Also from TFA:
"Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally.""
No government agency can violate OMB guidelines. A government agency that violates OMB guidelines is breaking the law.
Yes... it's a very very very very minor offense, especially compared with the other NSA law-breaking that we've become privy to recently.
Yes... it pales in comparison to wire-tapping US citizens without a warrant. The law violated there is the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Yes... I realize that Bush-apologists are willing to overlook the principles enbodied in the 4th Amendment in order to protect us from the evil terrorists.
But... if this were 1999, and the EXACT SAME STORY came out about the Clinton administration, you would all be in a hissie fit calling for another round of impeachment hearings. If the Patriot Act were passed in 1993 after the first World Trade Center bombing and gave Janet Reno the surveillence powers that Ashcroft/Gonzalez have, you'd be calling for a revolution.
I personally don't think the cookie thing is a big deal... but it shows a pattern of disregard for the rule of law by this administration if they feel the ends justify the means. America doesn't work that way, and I want you hypocrits to admit you hold this President to a different standard with respect to the rule of law because he's a Republican.
I want the Washington Times, American Standard, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh and his hundreds of talk-radio clones, the Free Republic, and every other right-wing blowhard to be pushing for impeachment hearings over the NSA wire-tapping-without-a-warrant... as they surely would be doing if this were 1993-2000.
I want you Bushies to quit spinning when the president, and the people who work for him, are guilty of violating the law.
He's not king... just because you like him.
So is speeding. Don't tell me that you have never done that.
yeah, I have. And I've gotten tickets when I've gotten caught. Rule of law prevailed.
So is downloading music/software that you didn't pay for. Don't tell me that you have never done that.
Actually, I never have. But if I have, and I got caught, I should pay the consequences (according to the "rule of law" Republicans).
So are a number of other laws that should have been taken off the books long ago that people don't care about and law enforcement doesn't bother to enforce. They're all against the law as well.
Law enforcement doesn't care to enforce? Have they stopped giving out speeding tickets? Has the RIAA stopped taking music pirates to court? What memo did I miss?
The fact that you are expecting every employee at every level to be fully knowledgable of every law and every ramification for every action does nothing more than show that you are on a witch hunt.
No... I wish consistency from my Republican brethren when it comes to holding an administration accountable to the "rule of law". That's all we heard from Republicans throughout the Clinton presidency.. "no President is above the law" and "when the branch of government that is supposed to uphold the laws of the nation is guilty of breaking them, then impeachment is not only correct.. but necessary." and crap like that.
The Bush administration is not above the law just because you like him. Hold your president to the same standards you held the previous one that you DIDN'T like. Be consistent.. don't by a hypocrit. That's all I'm asking from my Republican brethren.
Because it is against the law.
Prosecuting the "lying about blowjobs" was all about maintaining the "rule of law" for Republicans a half-decade ago.
But maintaining the "rule of law" no longer applies with Republican administration? That's what I'm getting from you in your post.
If the NSA did this, they broke the law. Doesn't matter if it is a stupid law. All my conservative friends told me in 1999 that the "rule of law" reigns supreme, no matter how minimal the offense.
Sorry... I'm not letting the Bush-apologists off the hook when the tables are turned.
This is patently false, which is why I suppose you posted as AC. Stem cells from fetuses have NOT been found to cause cancer - that is misinformation put out by religious right groups. And there is NOT an "ample set" of fetal stem cells to test with... Bush lied about that. There are only 12 lines available for legal research in this country, not the "over 60" that Bush told of.
Thank goodness that the current U.S. administration doesn't have control over research being done elsewhere in the world... so this important work is still being done - just without the U.S.'s help.
You can all cut through the bullshit by learning for yourselves what stem cell research is all about:
Stem Cell FAQ by Stem Cell Research Foundation
This straw man of yours.. "for better looking skin" is bit ridiculous. Find any reference in the article... or in any of the words by serious proponents of fetal stem cell research... that is referring to something as superficial as "better looking skin".
It's a false argument, and you know it. Nobody's talking about stem cell research for non-life-saving purposes.
It's a common tactic of "your side"... and it stinks.
and you also said this: So because you believe life begins when a baby leaves the mother's womb with absolutely nothing from me to indicate that. Fetal stem cell research is done with cells from unimplanted embryos... not from full-term babies. And you know it. Unimplanted embryos that were the result of IVFs and designated for the trash ANYWAY. You knew that too. We're not talking about "babies in their mother's wombs".. we're talking about embryos that have never been implanted IN a womb ... AND NEVER WILL BE. And you knew that too.
But keep setting up your straw men to knock down. It's a lot easier to win an argument when you invent the other side of it.
Nobody's talking about something as superficial as "making your skin look younger."
We're talking about curing Parkinson's.... and Alzheimer's... and cancer.
Don't worry... On January 20, 2009 we'll be rid of our bible-thumper President and science can resume its inexorable march forward again in this country.
stem cells from unimplanted embryos desginated for the trash heap != dead babies
pathetic.