If congress passes a law whereby the authority of the United States is used to deprive people of their right to free speech what difference does it make if other countries are involved.
As for your speculation about how much the FBI was involved, it is just that, speculation.
More than that. One of the prime countries to crack down on Indymedia in Europe has been Italy, the largest country of the indymedia sites effected by this. If you look back to the protest in Genoa, Italy you will find that the Italian Caribinieri(paramilitary) went into a school housing an indymedia collective and beat the people inside quite horribly. So bad that the news crews that toured the building afterwards found blood throughout.
Burlesconi is a media barron. He, or his family, control somewhere aroubd 95% of private Italian media. He really doesn't want competition.
This is not to say that he necesarily was the major factor behind this; only that that is, a far as I can tell, the most likely explination.
If that is true then I'd say any law which requires the FBI to cooperate with foreign treaties or gives them the power, or authority, to cooperate must be unconstitional.
It doesn't matter if the UK doesn't respect the US constitution. The first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere in there does it say that it is permissible to make laws which prohibit the free speech of *anyone*, regardless of geographic location. Therefore, any law passed which allows the FBI to cooperate with foreign governments in an attack against free speech is not only a betrayal of the values of the US, it is also unconstitutional.
What's the difference between the Pope telling them to do it and God directly telling them to do it? That's essentially the difference between Catholic and Protestant.
Ok, you had a decent argument until you said: "Words mean what they mean, the people who wrote the constitution had a particular meaning and purpose in mind (which is well documented) and thats what we should go by when we read it because that is what it "says"" That's complete bullshit. Words do not mean now what they meant then. And the people that wrote the constitution may have had a particular meaning and purpose, but that was two hundred and thirty some years ago. To pretend that their purpose was at all based in any modern reality is absurd.
Unfortunately thats faulty logic. You may end up losing an amount of money equivilent to whatyou would have made in the first 3.5 onths of the year, but you are paid for that time.
I've seen a lot of anti-income tax arguements, but few of them actually hold up to scrutiny. Not that I think th income tax is a good thing per say, but it is in fact legal.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The wall is a completely different story. That does seem to be stopping the attacks. The point was that simply killing lots of "them", whomever that may be, does not a victory make.
If we weren't talking about suicide bombers I'd agree with you. You see guerilla warfare does not work the same way as State versus State warfare. The whole point of guerilla warfare is that you can't distinguish the guerillas from the general population, thus you are forced to inflict casualties upon civilians thereby increasing support for the guerillas. 10 to 1 casualty rates are pretty standard in guerilla warfare, but it isn't the casualty rates that determine the outcome.
The point of me having a gun isn't tht the strongest survive or "win", it's that communities will find a way to protect themselves.
Spain during the revolution in the thirties for one. Pretty much every major country was against the Anarchist. In fact, it was so important that the Anarchists be defeated that russia supported the Fascists.
Because it is transliterated from Arabic there are multiple "correct" spellings. Also, different countries, the UK as the grandparent poster mentioned he came from, spell it differently.
Slashdot Mirror
You made me giggle; that happens far too little here.
I can't lose, it was a joke.
If congress passes a law whereby the authority of the United States is used to deprive people of their right to free speech what difference does it make if other countries are involved.
As for your speculation about how much the FBI was involved, it is just that, speculation.
More than that. One of the prime countries to crack down on Indymedia in Europe has been Italy, the largest country of the indymedia sites effected by this. If you look back to the protest in Genoa, Italy you will find that the Italian Caribinieri(paramilitary) went into a school housing an indymedia collective and beat the people inside quite horribly. So bad that the news crews that toured the building afterwards found blood throughout.
Burlesconi is a media barron. He, or his family, control somewhere aroubd 95% of private Italian media. He really doesn't want competition.
This is not to say that he necesarily was the major factor behind this; only that that is, a far as I can tell, the most likely explination.
If that is true then I'd say any law which requires the FBI to cooperate with foreign treaties or gives them the power, or authority, to cooperate must be unconstitional.
I'd guess that a lot of finger crossing and praying will happen on Nov. 2nd.
It doesn't matter if the UK doesn't respect the US constitution. The first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere in there does it say that it is permissible to make laws which prohibit the free speech of *anyone*, regardless of geographic location. Therefore, any law passed which allows the FBI to cooperate with foreign governments in an attack against free speech is not only a betrayal of the values of the US, it is also unconstitutional.
I didn't see Fascist, Nazi or Hitler in the post once. That's reasoned debate for both sides these days.
Sorry, what I meant is:
What's the difference between a Politician believing that god told them to do it and the Pope actually telling them?
What's the difference between the Pope telling them to do it and God directly telling them to do it? That's essentially the difference between Catholic and Protestant.
and where would one find one of these accounts?
Are there any that guarantee the %10?
Ok, you had a decent argument until you said:
"Words mean what they mean, the people who wrote the constitution had a particular meaning and purpose in mind (which is well documented) and thats what we should go by when we read it because that is what it "says""
That's complete bullshit. Words do not mean now what they meant then. And the people that wrote the constitution may have had a particular meaning and purpose, but that was two hundred and thirty some years ago. To pretend that their purpose was at all based in any modern reality is absurd.
Kids don't like school because they love to learn, and school is not about learning. The key lessons kids are taught in school are:
1) Punctuality
2) Rote memorization
3) Respect for Authority
Well, my mother teaches computers at a high school and they have Cisco gear for classes. They have a Cisco Academy.
Unfortunately thats faulty logic. You may end up losing an amount of money equivilent to whatyou would have made in the first 3.5 onths of the year, but you are paid for that time.
I've seen a lot of anti-income tax arguements, but few of them actually hold up to scrutiny. Not that I think th income tax is a good thing per say, but it is in fact legal.
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Hey!
It's hard work, you know.
It's hard work.
You're right, I was thinking of the No Child Left Behind program. Which has not been adequately funded.
The wall is a completely different story. That does seem to be stopping the attacks. The point was that simply killing lots of "them", whomever that may be, does not a victory make.
Not if it were inside of a sentient creature.
If we weren't talking about suicide bombers I'd agree with you. You see guerilla warfare does not work the same way as State versus State warfare. The whole point of guerilla warfare is that you can't distinguish the guerillas from the general population, thus you are forced to inflict casualties upon civilians thereby increasing support for the guerillas. 10 to 1 casualty rates are pretty standard in guerilla warfare, but it isn't the casualty rates that determine the outcome.
Because that's worked so well for the Israelis.
They didn't throw any money at head start, it's just another unfunded goernment mandate.
Not that the Dems are any better about unfunded government mandates mind you.
How's the closet?
Just wait for the Space Tether then they'll be everywhere.
The point of me having a gun isn't tht the strongest survive or "win", it's that communities will find a way to protect themselves.
Spain during the revolution in the thirties for one. Pretty much every major country was against the Anarchist. In fact, it was so important that the Anarchists be defeated that russia supported the Fascists.
Because it is transliterated from Arabic there are multiple "correct" spellings. Also, different countries, the UK as the grandparent poster mentioned he came from, spell it differently.