Couldn't agree with parent more. The only reason our troops went there is the first place was so that the USSR wouldn't get any ideas about further expansion. I wish I had some mod points for the moronic comment above.... oh wait, I wouldn't need any to rate it -100 and stomp on it.
It is, no one can deny, but this figure clearly will slow down any legislative attempts on MySpace and the like because politicians would no longer be ostensibly "protecting the gullible, defenseless teens" but simply legislating morality. And we know what happened when they tried that. (See Prohibition if you can't remember)
...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
I hate to labor over this also but what do people not understand about this? It plainly says that no one may be excluded by the governor (or whoever is theoretically responsible for enforcing this), as long as they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." What the "provided" means is that if someone denies such a Supreme Being, they could theoretically be barred from office. Laws and the legislative branch don't even enter the equation. And as for barring such a law denying atheists office, that would almost certainly not be included in this section.
We all know that if this was indeed enforced, there would be a royal fuss about it and the Supreme Court would strike down that clause. That was the main premise of this discussion/argument (in case you didn't read the parent comment(s)).
When morons like you post it's almost funny. You didn't seem to understand a word of what I wrote. The post you replied to was reasonable, perhaps not your opinion, but reasonable, and so attacking it in the way you did was absolutely stupid.
I guess that answers my question, you're too stupid to understand what I wrote. Good to know. I'd like to know what kind of source you have. Personally, I have lots of high school friends who would absolutely hate having to leave school for a day because of the amount of makeup work they would be forced to wedge into their schedules. Maybe that's not the case where you live; if so, then we must agree to disagree.
So to summarize, apart from wandering far from the point and not even understanding my post, you did nothing except shout and point fingers. I appreciate it when you read my post before replying to it. By the way, when you start having to insult someone every other word, it means that the attack is personal and not conceptual. In other words flamebait. Mark Twain said that when you have nothing more to say, shut up, so I suggest that you either find something to say or shut up.
What you are saying is precisely my point. To use your example, Alex the Atheist may be barred from public office: that's what the Texas Constitution says. Plain and simple. Undeniably. You won't need another law, the governor or whomever is responsible for this just needs to point to the Texas Constitution and say, "Hey, Alex the Atheist, you don't believe a Supreme Being, so I'm going to stop you from holding another office." Kind of like we don't need a law to enforce freedom of speech, we can just point to the Constitution. However, as is the case today, nobody points this out and if Alex the Atheist won an election, he could become governor, legislator, or whatever with no problem.
Uhhh, why don't you take some of your own advice and stop fucking around or piping up without good reason? Many high schoolers I know would truly suffer if they missed a day of school.
We all can agree the RIAA does so much reprehensible shit but where you are wrong is that this is yet another example of it. A few questions for you to answer: how are the kids (both of them) supposed to commute to and from the lawyers' office? And by the way, parents driving is not an option because that would not only fuck up the kids' schedule, it would hurt the parents as well, who probably aren't going to be very happy about losing several hours of income.
With every word you write you edge closer to flaming and random attacks. After all, the RIAA is engaged in zealotry, not us. What else do you call intimidation suits? You know, we were having such a good time bashing the RIAA "Until jackasses like you came along to fuck it all up."
"...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [emphasis added]
meaning that no one is excluded as long as they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Presumably, they may be excluded if they do not acknowledge a "Supreme Being" (though this is not enforced for obvious reasons).
IANAL but this is just the correct legal terminology, dating back to when everybody in the United States was Christian (although the government was officially secular).
Just because your theory of an end run is convenient doesn't make it right.... the federal government is expressly granted funding powers in several categories in the Constitution, including funding for the mails and to ensure that the military may travel properly. There is no reason to call this an end run if they are using that as a control stream to make states do as they like.
Well, the abuse you're talking about has also been put to good uses: several of the civil rights reform laws passed in the 1960s used that type of tactic to ensure they were constitutional.
That's not quite the case. Imagine your average information thief. He/she can steal information in one of two ways: online or physically. Now let's say some innocent government or corporate employee left a laptop with sensitive data on it (such as proprietary secrets). Our thief can pick up this laptop, and if it's not encrypted as you suggest because the employee and his/her company are innocent of any criminal activity, the criminal can read the entire contents of the disk.
An encrypted drive makes this harder and is in use by many large corporations, many of which are not tainted by corruption and/or criminal activity.
You're right. I was just trying to be funny. lol I guess it didn't work. I agree with you fully, that this show was all started by the pirates, and now the MAFIAA are lashing out against everyone in an attempt to catch the pirates.
The RIAA wants pirates to feel that when they are being trapped by the RIAA that they are dealing with other criminals.... but the RIAA doesn't need any special permission to do that.... they're a pack of criminals to start with!
While there are occasionally violations of the 1st Amendment, free speech zones are not one. The First Amendment says nothing about where but only says that the government may not limit when, how, or what provided that the content does not advocate such things as the violent overthrow of the United States government (overthrow is acceptable but not violent overthrow). Plus, as I stressed earlier, free speech zones are only used for truly major events. Regular demonstrations on Pennsylvania Ave or in other major cities are not contained in this manner unless there is a major event going on where hecklers might be a security issue (when it might threaten an important official's personal safety). As for the Bill of Rights being perfect, I say that imperfection is one of the founding principles of democracy. Utopian systems like communism or socialism don't work very well in most cases (exception: Sweden has done all right as a socialist nation) but democracy, by ensuring that at least a majority are contented, will be inherently imperfect. Therefore, its governing documents are imperfect. I agree with you that the fanatics who proclaim that America or the Constitution is perfect should get a life, but I would defend the point of view that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a good start and are not fundamentally flawed.
I'll pass on the nudity issue--I think we should agree to disagree just as on the drugs.
The elections are somewhat of a black box, but as in Canada, party representatives are allowed to be there to watch. Also, if you can look at it this way, imagine, for the sake of argument, that in one precinct/district, the voting machines were incorrectly registering all Democratic votes as Republican votes. Chances are that similar errors are occurring elsewhere (though this is no substitute). But in the end things should balance, and chances are that errors are not much more common than anywhere else. Also, as a rule, national elections are for one thing at a time as well here and the only time we have multiple votes being cast at once is each year in November when local issues are decided (like tax referendums for example).
About the maximum campaign donation, if it could be reduced to $10000 or $5000 that would be wonderful, though I think $1000 is a little extreme. But even with a $50000 cap, candidates do not simply follow the wishes of their financiers. The laws which benefit businesses versus people are not motivated by money but instead by party lines. As a rule (though this is not 100% true) the Republican Party favors business over individuals because they believe that it is businesses which drive the economy. The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that consumers drive the economy. That is where you get the pro-business (or pro-consumer) laws from.
I read those articles on forfeitures and I am shocked. I did not know about those previously... time to do some research! But I agree fully that any seizures before someone has been convicted (in criminal cases) or found responsible (in civil cases) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unwarranted search and seizure.
On to drugs and alcohol. I'll only say that the reason the Constitution was amended for alcohol was that any federal law banning alcohol would be unconstitutional because the federal government has no right granted in the Constitution to ban alcohol. However, for drugs, I think the difference is that practically no one smoked marijuana (in present form or quantity) but instead smoked tobacco so there was little true resistance to a ban on marijuana. These days, that ban is heavily challenged in the courts and now California has a law which legalizes marijuana for medical purposes (of course unconstitutional but it is symbolic).
I say that only the Bush administration violates the principle because while we did indeed intervene in Latin America (not something to be proud of), in those days, anyone fighting a communist was fighting for "freedom." I accept that in 20/20 hi
China for starters... it has millions of people imprisoned for dissent or related crimes. The United States does not do this. The U.S. arrests drug users because there is a very clear law which bans drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. The difference I suppose between a law in China and a law here is that the legal process is transparent and also there is the rule of law.
OK, I think I'll apologize for being so harsh on you. I was replying directly to your ideas and not considering the above comment.
Our bill of rights is actually not broken quite as often as you think because much of the language is more reserved than the modern interpretation in the courts (privacy for example only references no search and seizure but today is construed to mean that the government cannot tap phones without a warrant, etc. (I agree b/c the Constitution should be flexible and adapt). Now on the topic of foreign prisoners and torture you have a point. I despise Bush as much as you do for that. But as for free speech, you were influenced too much by the Free Speech Zones article. It's not that restrictive here. Free speech zones are only employed for very large events where top security is paramount (like the inauguration of the President or a national political convention).
As for equality, remember that slavery ended about 140 years ago and exists in the United States to the same extent as it does in Canada (i.e. traffickers). As for men and women being unequal, that is bullshit. At least as far as I have seen, men and women are treated equally. The incident at the Superbowl simply has to do with a millenia-old tradition of clothing. It doesn't cause an uproar anywhere (in the first world) if men expose their upper body but it is at least looked down upon if women go around with an exposed upper body anywhere. It's just not done. What's different between the United States and Canada in that type of situation is not the ideals or the country, but the media reaction. Television ran that one for months, it was all we heard about on the radio for weeks. But little happened from a governmental point of view.
OK, on to the political issues. While the elections are a "black box" as you put it, this was done intentionally because in the early 20th century, big industrial bosses would send deputies to the elections to ensure their employees voted their way. Those who didn't were fired. Old-fashioned, perhaps, but the secret ballot is necessary to ensure fair elections. Also, I know about gerrymandering, but it's not as frequent as Wikipedia perhaps puts it. It does occur, but efforts are made to stop it and even when these fail, usually the congressman or congresswoman is put under scrutiny. As for politicians supporting financial backers and such, there is a law which prohibits any entity (corporation or private citizen) from contributing more than $50,000 to a candidate for any purpose. Believe me, this law is more than enforced by the legions of lawyers on either side of the fence ready to heap legal shame on the other side. Plus, even if ten directors of a megabucks company contribute $50,000 apiece, remember that they only get one vote each, and therefore ten total. The politician could care less about money (he/she cannot use it after the campaign) but instead about being elected. So in general, politicians will support their electorate, not their biggest backers.
As for marijuana, I will for the sake of argument accept your story (it seems a little far-fetched but I guess some of my ideas are too). However, despite the injustice of the law, it is still a law. And until it is not a law, it must be enforced. Otherwise the entire system of rule of law on which all democracies are based breaks down. I will also point out that hemp/marijuana/whatever you want to call it is dangerous and has hurt many people. It also has good uses, I accept that, but is also (too) easily abused. I will also have to disagree that it was a political law which banned hemp/marijuana... according to your story it was economic.
It is true that our country has a large portion of its population in jail but I do not know what to make of this. Many are drug offenders, but as explained above, we must enforce the law against hemp/marijuana while it is a law. As for police taking property away from drug offenders, I have never heard of that happening... could you provide an example of even one case
Well, if they do indeed put up these files on P2P, then they ought to be paying fines to artists for improper use of name (as in madonna.mp3) and they should be sued by whomever for using P2P software. After all, they are the proponents of the theory that having a BitTorrent client means that you illegally download music/videos, so clearly by posting....
I don't know why they bother with fancy names. It's kind of like former East Germany... it was the German Democratic Republic but everyone knew there was no inkling of republic or democracy about it. They should just ask for permission to falsify, lie, cheat, steal, and so on.
you guys run around as if you're fucking better then everyone else because a bunch of slavers got together and said that all men are equal
I think you are being a little hard on the United States. To start, most of us do not run around thinking we are better than everyone else. The vast majority of Americans believe they are equal to anyone else, in Canada or any other nation. Plus, I'm sure Canada also has wild fanatics who "run around as if they're fucking better than anyone else." Second, what is a slaver? If you mean slave owner, please stop making such stupid and groundless accusations. It is true that many of the members of the Continental Congress which wrote the Declaration of Independence were slave owners, but recall that this was an accepted practice at the time. To boot, what is your problem with equality? And to answer your "practice what we preach" accusation, I ask you to look at the United States today, not 200 years ago. You know, when you attack the United States for what it did more than 100 years ago, you sound like some kind of loser because you have nothing better to criticize.
You're elections, who knows if they are honest
They are. In fact, they are some of the most fair elections in the world. I challenge you to find evidence of dishonesty in our elections. Sure, there have been isolated incidents. But I'm sure there have been incidents in Canadian elections too. When you make accusations, please also make sure you have evidence to support them.
The USA is the most unfree first world country
You have ventured from the area of simple ignorance to the area of random, far-fetched, absolutely groundless accusations. Please tell me how we are the least free first-world nation. We do not watch every street corner in our cities. We guarantee the rights enumerated in our Constitution (please read about it before replying... you will learn something). I know the United States is not a perfect nation--none are--but it is certainly not the worst (even of the first world nations).
The politicians write the election boundaries to their advantage. Free speech is considered who ever has the money can bribe ctrl-w finance the politicians (for favours)
What you are attacking is not clear. It sounds like a SCO accusation to me. But to rebut the things I see here: politicians do not interfere with elections, period. It just does not happen. Also, free speech is respected and is not a pay-for thing. Before you wildly attack the United States' policies, please make sure you are attacking something worthwhile and that you have evidence to support you.
And you have millions of political prisoners
Where did you get that piece of shit? I ask you to prove it or offer credible evidence to that effect. So you think drug users are political prisoners. Remember, regardless of your opinion on the legalization of drugs, it is still against the law in the United States to be in possession of a controlled substance, and therefore we have every right to arrest drug users/dealers. Plus, what do you mean, they "only hurt Mr. Hearst"? If you mean they attacked politicians or the current administration, then what you are saying is just wrong. While it may be popular where you live to think that Bush arrests dissenters, it is simply not true (and the fact that I am posting is evidence).
If Americans were a little bit honest perhaps they would get some respect
The thing is that the vast majority are honest. Completely honest. I think that right here it is you not being honest. Seriously, since when have all Americans (or even most of them) been liars? Or perhaps are you using members of the current administration as a stereotype for all Americans? Let me tell you right now, flat out, that the American people appreciate
Since it was a sealed document that O'Gara spoke of, then it must have been either SCO or IBM which revealed it to her...
But IBM isn't that dumb and has much more to lose than SCO by not following procedure. Oh, and did I mention that SCO was the one which attempted to read a sealed e-mail in open court? So I think SCO, in addition to all their FUD, is now on the breaking-rules path.
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) was the driving force behind the secularization of Turkey and to this day Turks revere him as a savior. For all of his faults (including the Armenian genocide), Ataturk was adamant that Turkey be completely secular even if 98% of Turks are Muslim. Based on their virtual deification of Ataturk, the Turks would not violate his most strongly-felt principle.
The censorship law/decision currently may be a stepping stone, but not towards Islamic fundamentalist propaganda and the like.
I understand your point of view but I object to my tax dollars going to an organization which is collecting money through patent licenses. I have no problem with government-funded research or an increase in government funding for research, but if a research organization is going to patent their research (certainly not a very ethical practice [remember the genome patents]), then they lose their government funding and have to make their own money for research with their licensing.
p>It's the same with large companies such as MS or IBM (or smaller companies as in this case). We don't want the government handing out money to a corporation, such as one which engages in a lot of R&D, simply because they are doing research.
I think the real message of these motions has nothing to do with SCO being full of lies and crap (which they indeed are) but instead shows just how much they care about PJ's message and Groklaw. You know, if her site was not the 758th most visited on the web (Netcraft) or if she was more supportive of IBM, maybe they wouldn't go after her, but because she reveals the truth and thereby exposes all of SCO's FUD and other crap while maintaining a relatively neutral point of view, she is a thorn - a really sharp, heavy thorn - in SCO's and BSF's side.
I am tempted to simply ignore you but will give a chance with this allegation: can you show me that Al Qaeda does not exist as a sophisticated group? I say it does; and we have found training camps in Afghanistan. Your turn.
The reason I said a decade is that there is a certain point at which tissues start to break down: heart attacks and strokes would be just as likely as before. Maybe one group would gain fifty years but another only five.
But then again, I could be wrong.... the average of five and fifty is 32.5 to begin with:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't agree with parent more. The only reason our troops went there is the first place was so that the USSR wouldn't get any ideas about further expansion. I wish I had some mod points for the moronic comment above.... oh wait, I wouldn't need any to rate it -100 and stomp on it.
It is, no one can deny, but this figure clearly will slow down any legislative attempts on MySpace and the like because politicians would no longer be ostensibly "protecting the gullible, defenseless teens" but simply legislating morality. And we know what happened when they tried that. (See Prohibition if you can't remember)
...nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.I hate to labor over this also but what do people not understand about this? It plainly says that no one may be excluded by the governor (or whoever is theoretically responsible for enforcing this), as long as they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." What the "provided" means is that if someone denies such a Supreme Being, they could theoretically be barred from office. Laws and the legislative branch don't even enter the equation. And as for barring such a law denying atheists office, that would almost certainly not be included in this section.
We all know that if this was indeed enforced, there would be a royal fuss about it and the Supreme Court would strike down that clause. That was the main premise of this discussion/argument (in case you didn't read the parent comment(s)).
When morons like you post it's almost funny. You didn't seem to understand a word of what I wrote. The post you replied to was reasonable, perhaps not your opinion, but reasonable, and so attacking it in the way you did was absolutely stupid.
I guess that answers my question, you're too stupid to understand what I wrote. Good to know. I'd like to know what kind of source you have. Personally, I have lots of high school friends who would absolutely hate having to leave school for a day because of the amount of makeup work they would be forced to wedge into their schedules. Maybe that's not the case where you live; if so, then we must agree to disagree.So to summarize, apart from wandering far from the point and not even understanding my post, you did nothing except shout and point fingers. I appreciate it when you read my post before replying to it. By the way, when you start having to insult someone every other word, it means that the attack is personal and not conceptual. In other words flamebait. Mark Twain said that when you have nothing more to say, shut up, so I suggest that you either find something to say or shut up.
What you are saying is precisely my point. To use your example, Alex the Atheist may be barred from public office: that's what the Texas Constitution says. Plain and simple. Undeniably. You won't need another law, the governor or whomever is responsible for this just needs to point to the Texas Constitution and say, "Hey, Alex the Atheist, you don't believe a Supreme Being, so I'm going to stop you from holding another office." Kind of like we don't need a law to enforce freedom of speech, we can just point to the Constitution. However, as is the case today, nobody points this out and if Alex the Atheist won an election, he could become governor, legislator, or whatever with no problem.
You know, the real winners in all these suits are the lawyers who get megabucks regardless of the outcome....
Uhhh, why don't you take some of your own advice and stop fucking around or piping up without good reason? Many high schoolers I know would truly suffer if they missed a day of school.
We all can agree the RIAA does so much reprehensible shit but where you are wrong is that this is yet another example of it. A few questions for you to answer: how are the kids (both of them) supposed to commute to and from the lawyers' office? And by the way, parents driving is not an option because that would not only fuck up the kids' schedule, it would hurt the parents as well, who probably aren't going to be very happy about losing several hours of income.
With every word you write you edge closer to flaming and random attacks. After all, the RIAA is engaged in zealotry, not us. What else do you call intimidation suits? You know, we were having such a good time bashing the RIAA "Until jackasses like you came along to fuck it all up."
Actually, it does.
The law states
meaning that no one is excluded as long as they "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." Presumably, they may be excluded if they do not acknowledge a "Supreme Being" (though this is not enforced for obvious reasons).IANAL but this is just the correct legal terminology, dating back to when everybody in the United States was Christian (although the government was officially secular).
Just because your theory of an end run is convenient doesn't make it right.... the federal government is expressly granted funding powers in several categories in the Constitution, including funding for the mails and to ensure that the military may travel properly. There is no reason to call this an end run if they are using that as a control stream to make states do as they like.
Well, the abuse you're talking about has also been put to good uses: several of the civil rights reform laws passed in the 1960s used that type of tactic to ensure they were constitutional.
That's not quite the case. Imagine your average information thief. He/she can steal information in one of two ways: online or physically. Now let's say some innocent government or corporate employee left a laptop with sensitive data on it (such as proprietary secrets). Our thief can pick up this laptop, and if it's not encrypted as you suggest because the employee and his/her company are innocent of any criminal activity, the criminal can read the entire contents of the disk.
An encrypted drive makes this harder and is in use by many large corporations, many of which are not tainted by corruption and/or criminal activity.
You're right. I was just trying to be funny. lol I guess it didn't work. I agree with you fully, that this show was all started by the pirates, and now the MAFIAA are lashing out against everyone in an attempt to catch the pirates.
The RIAA wants pirates to feel that when they are being trapped by the RIAA that they are dealing with other criminals.... but the RIAA doesn't need any special permission to do that.... they're a pack of criminals to start with!
While there are occasionally violations of the 1st Amendment, free speech zones are not one. The First Amendment says nothing about where but only says that the government may not limit when, how, or what provided that the content does not advocate such things as the violent overthrow of the United States government (overthrow is acceptable but not violent overthrow). Plus, as I stressed earlier, free speech zones are only used for truly major events. Regular demonstrations on Pennsylvania Ave or in other major cities are not contained in this manner unless there is a major event going on where hecklers might be a security issue (when it might threaten an important official's personal safety). As for the Bill of Rights being perfect, I say that imperfection is one of the founding principles of democracy. Utopian systems like communism or socialism don't work very well in most cases (exception: Sweden has done all right as a socialist nation) but democracy, by ensuring that at least a majority are contented, will be inherently imperfect. Therefore, its governing documents are imperfect. I agree with you that the fanatics who proclaim that America or the Constitution is perfect should get a life, but I would defend the point of view that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a good start and are not fundamentally flawed.
I'll pass on the nudity issue--I think we should agree to disagree just as on the drugs.
The elections are somewhat of a black box, but as in Canada, party representatives are allowed to be there to watch. Also, if you can look at it this way, imagine, for the sake of argument, that in one precinct/district, the voting machines were incorrectly registering all Democratic votes as Republican votes. Chances are that similar errors are occurring elsewhere (though this is no substitute). But in the end things should balance, and chances are that errors are not much more common than anywhere else. Also, as a rule, national elections are for one thing at a time as well here and the only time we have multiple votes being cast at once is each year in November when local issues are decided (like tax referendums for example).
About the maximum campaign donation, if it could be reduced to $10000 or $5000 that would be wonderful, though I think $1000 is a little extreme. But even with a $50000 cap, candidates do not simply follow the wishes of their financiers. The laws which benefit businesses versus people are not motivated by money but instead by party lines. As a rule (though this is not 100% true) the Republican Party favors business over individuals because they believe that it is businesses which drive the economy. The Democrats, on the other hand, believe that consumers drive the economy. That is where you get the pro-business (or pro-consumer) laws from.
I read those articles on forfeitures and I am shocked. I did not know about those previously... time to do some research! But I agree fully that any seizures before someone has been convicted (in criminal cases) or found responsible (in civil cases) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unwarranted search and seizure.
On to drugs and alcohol. I'll only say that the reason the Constitution was amended for alcohol was that any federal law banning alcohol would be unconstitutional because the federal government has no right granted in the Constitution to ban alcohol. However, for drugs, I think the difference is that practically no one smoked marijuana (in present form or quantity) but instead smoked tobacco so there was little true resistance to a ban on marijuana. These days, that ban is heavily challenged in the courts and now California has a law which legalizes marijuana for medical purposes (of course unconstitutional but it is symbolic).
I say that only the Bush administration violates the principle because while we did indeed intervene in Latin America (not something to be proud of), in those days, anyone fighting a communist was fighting for "freedom." I accept that in 20/20 hi
China for starters... it has millions of people imprisoned for dissent or related crimes. The United States does not do this. The U.S. arrests drug users because there is a very clear law which bans drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. The difference I suppose between a law in China and a law here is that the legal process is transparent and also there is the rule of law.
OK, I think I'll apologize for being so harsh on you. I was replying directly to your ideas and not considering the above comment.
Our bill of rights is actually not broken quite as often as you think because much of the language is more reserved than the modern interpretation in the courts (privacy for example only references no search and seizure but today is construed to mean that the government cannot tap phones without a warrant, etc. (I agree b/c the Constitution should be flexible and adapt). Now on the topic of foreign prisoners and torture you have a point. I despise Bush as much as you do for that. But as for free speech, you were influenced too much by the Free Speech Zones article. It's not that restrictive here. Free speech zones are only employed for very large events where top security is paramount (like the inauguration of the President or a national political convention).
As for equality, remember that slavery ended about 140 years ago and exists in the United States to the same extent as it does in Canada (i.e. traffickers). As for men and women being unequal, that is bullshit. At least as far as I have seen, men and women are treated equally. The incident at the Superbowl simply has to do with a millenia-old tradition of clothing. It doesn't cause an uproar anywhere (in the first world) if men expose their upper body but it is at least looked down upon if women go around with an exposed upper body anywhere. It's just not done. What's different between the United States and Canada in that type of situation is not the ideals or the country, but the media reaction. Television ran that one for months, it was all we heard about on the radio for weeks. But little happened from a governmental point of view.
OK, on to the political issues. While the elections are a "black box" as you put it, this was done intentionally because in the early 20th century, big industrial bosses would send deputies to the elections to ensure their employees voted their way. Those who didn't were fired. Old-fashioned, perhaps, but the secret ballot is necessary to ensure fair elections. Also, I know about gerrymandering, but it's not as frequent as Wikipedia perhaps puts it. It does occur, but efforts are made to stop it and even when these fail, usually the congressman or congresswoman is put under scrutiny. As for politicians supporting financial backers and such, there is a law which prohibits any entity (corporation or private citizen) from contributing more than $50,000 to a candidate for any purpose. Believe me, this law is more than enforced by the legions of lawyers on either side of the fence ready to heap legal shame on the other side. Plus, even if ten directors of a megabucks company contribute $50,000 apiece, remember that they only get one vote each, and therefore ten total. The politician could care less about money (he/she cannot use it after the campaign) but instead about being elected. So in general, politicians will support their electorate, not their biggest backers.
As for marijuana, I will for the sake of argument accept your story (it seems a little far-fetched but I guess some of my ideas are too). However, despite the injustice of the law, it is still a law. And until it is not a law, it must be enforced. Otherwise the entire system of rule of law on which all democracies are based breaks down. I will also point out that hemp/marijuana/whatever you want to call it is dangerous and has hurt many people. It also has good uses, I accept that, but is also (too) easily abused. I will also have to disagree that it was a political law which banned hemp/marijuana... according to your story it was economic.
It is true that our country has a large portion of its population in jail but I do not know what to make of this. Many are drug offenders, but as explained above, we must enforce the law against hemp/marijuana while it is a law. As for police taking property away from drug offenders, I have never heard of that happening... could you provide an example of even one case
Well, if they do indeed put up these files on P2P, then they ought to be paying fines to artists for improper use of name (as in madonna.mp3) and they should be sued by whomever for using P2P software. After all, they are the proponents of the theory that having a BitTorrent client means that you illegally download music/videos, so clearly by posting....
I don't know why they bother with fancy names. It's kind of like former East Germany... it was the German Democratic Republic but everyone knew there was no inkling of republic or democracy about it. They should just ask for permission to falsify, lie, cheat, steal, and so on.
you guys run around as if you're fucking better then everyone else because a bunch of slavers got together and said that all men are equal
I think you are being a little hard on the United States. To start, most of us do not run around thinking we are better than everyone else. The vast majority of Americans believe they are equal to anyone else, in Canada or any other nation. Plus, I'm sure Canada also has wild fanatics who "run around as if they're fucking better than anyone else." Second, what is a slaver? If you mean slave owner, please stop making such stupid and groundless accusations. It is true that many of the members of the Continental Congress which wrote the Declaration of Independence were slave owners, but recall that this was an accepted practice at the time. To boot, what is your problem with equality? And to answer your "practice what we preach" accusation, I ask you to look at the United States today, not 200 years ago. You know, when you attack the United States for what it did more than 100 years ago, you sound like some kind of loser because you have nothing better to criticize.
You're elections, who knows if they are honest
They are. In fact, they are some of the most fair elections in the world. I challenge you to find evidence of dishonesty in our elections. Sure, there have been isolated incidents. But I'm sure there have been incidents in Canadian elections too. When you make accusations, please also make sure you have evidence to support them.
The USA is the most unfree first world country
You have ventured from the area of simple ignorance to the area of random, far-fetched, absolutely groundless accusations. Please tell me how we are the least free first-world nation. We do not watch every street corner in our cities. We guarantee the rights enumerated in our Constitution (please read about it before replying... you will learn something). I know the United States is not a perfect nation--none are--but it is certainly not the worst (even of the first world nations).
The politicians write the election boundaries to their advantage. Free speech is considered who ever has the money can bribe ctrl-w finance the politicians (for favours)
What you are attacking is not clear. It sounds like a SCO accusation to me. But to rebut the things I see here: politicians do not interfere with elections, period. It just does not happen. Also, free speech is respected and is not a pay-for thing. Before you wildly attack the United States' policies, please make sure you are attacking something worthwhile and that you have evidence to support you.
And you have millions of political prisoners
Where did you get that piece of shit? I ask you to prove it or offer credible evidence to that effect. So you think drug users are political prisoners. Remember, regardless of your opinion on the legalization of drugs, it is still against the law in the United States to be in possession of a controlled substance, and therefore we have every right to arrest drug users/dealers. Plus, what do you mean, they "only hurt Mr. Hearst"? If you mean they attacked politicians or the current administration, then what you are saying is just wrong. While it may be popular where you live to think that Bush arrests dissenters, it is simply not true (and the fact that I am posting is evidence).
If Americans were a little bit honest perhaps they would get some respect
The thing is that the vast majority are honest. Completely honest. I think that right here it is you not being honest. Seriously, since when have all Americans (or even most of them) been liars? Or perhaps are you using members of the current administration as a stereotype for all Americans? Let me tell you right now, flat out, that the American people appreciate
Since it was a sealed document that O'Gara spoke of, then it must have been either SCO or IBM which revealed it to her...
But IBM isn't that dumb and has much more to lose than SCO by not following procedure. Oh, and did I mention that SCO was the one which attempted to read a sealed e-mail in open court? So I think SCO, in addition to all their FUD, is now on the breaking-rules path.
No, no, no!
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) was the driving force behind the secularization of Turkey and to this day Turks revere him as a savior. For all of his faults (including the Armenian genocide), Ataturk was adamant that Turkey be completely secular even if 98% of Turks are Muslim. Based on their virtual deification of Ataturk, the Turks would not violate his most strongly-felt principle.
The censorship law/decision currently may be a stepping stone, but not towards Islamic fundamentalist propaganda and the like.
I understand your point of view but I object to my tax dollars going to an organization which is collecting money through patent licenses. I have no problem with government-funded research or an increase in government funding for research, but if a research organization is going to patent their research (certainly not a very ethical practice [remember the genome patents]), then they lose their government funding and have to make their own money for research with their licensing.
p>It's the same with large companies such as MS or IBM (or smaller companies as in this case). We don't want the government handing out money to a corporation, such as one which engages in a lot of R&D, simply because they are doing research.I think the real message of these motions has nothing to do with SCO being full of lies and crap (which they indeed are) but instead shows just how much they care about PJ's message and Groklaw. You know, if her site was not the 758th most visited on the web (Netcraft) or if she was more supportive of IBM, maybe they wouldn't go after her, but because she reveals the truth and thereby exposes all of SCO's FUD and other crap while maintaining a relatively neutral point of view, she is a thorn - a really sharp, heavy thorn - in SCO's and BSF's side.
I am tempted to simply ignore you but will give a chance with this allegation: can you show me that Al Qaeda does not exist as a sophisticated group? I say it does; and we have found training camps in Afghanistan. Your turn.
The reason I said a decade is that there is a certain point at which tissues start to break down: heart attacks and strokes would be just as likely as before. Maybe one group would gain fifty years but another only five.
But then again, I could be wrong.... the average of five and fifty is 32.5 to begin with :-)