Do you honestly expect either Gore or Bush to know what slashdot is and what we would expect as an answer from them? I mean, we are nothing in the real world, a little web site that hosts discussions. Admittedly, it would be nice if they did their homework and personalized this a little, but on the other hand, it's also nice to see a politician who doesn't change his views depending on the audiance.
They seem to have completly forgotten that IBM is on the Linux bandwagon. Supporting it for everything from laptops to S/390 (sorry, z/390) systems. That ALONE is going to give a huge boost to both IBM and Linux if they continue along this policy.
if you want to be taken seriously, then remove the portions of your cause that are murdering terrorists - then maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.
So the wackos who shoot at forest loggers completly invalidate the enviornmental movement for you? How about the uni-bomber, does he make you ignore the liberal movement?
Are you under the impression that there are no wackos who share YOUR beliefs?
I thought it was global cooling, did it change again? Would you guys just make up your minds over what I'm supposed to be scared to death is going to happen at some constantly-moving-forward date.
I know plenty about Nader, despite your assumptions otherwise. I've read his web site (in fact all the candidates sites) and followed his work. I am familiar with the ideals he holds and the work he has done. My point is that he will not make a goos president. I am a very talanted mainframe systems programmer, so should I be qualified to be president?
Nader is the man who exposed the auto industry as horrible unsafe back in 1965 with "Unsafe at Any Speed."
That is wonderfull and I am grateful for the work he has done in this area. Remind me...this has WHAT to do with being president?
He spends most all his time reading documents often quite boring, and keeping an all-watching eye on corporations, government agencies, and the people at large.
So we are electing a dictator wannabe? Read the "all watching" sentance again and ask if that is what you really want from your president.
If you don't know whats going on, you can't possibly/effectively/ govern, regardless of experience in passing laws.
I agree, and he would be the right man for the job if watching corporations and lobbying for the enviornment was the job of the president. However, the president also needs to deal with forign officials and forign policy. The president needs to be diplomatic and work with both parties. Nader has shown himself (in my opinion) to be arrogant and self-righteous.
Nader is your typical idealistic third party candidate. He has wonderfull goals and ideals, I mean who DOESN'T support cleaner lakes, lower prices, and more government programs to help them. However, when you get right down to it, he has no understanding of economics, forign policy, diplomacy, etc. He has no plans that would actually work, and when you get past his rallying calls, there is no substance to them.
Lets look at that 'new tax'. The DEMOCRAT controlled congress created it, all Bush did was sign it. I say they both get blame for raising taxes, and bush certainly got his for breaking his promises (he got beat by Bill)
Having said that, where is the middle class tax cut Bill promised in '92? Or is it only bad when Republicians break promises?
Sounds great if we lived in a black and white world where it was as simple as that. However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution. We can't just say 'end polution' without having massive ramafications to the worlds economy (something most single issue candidates like Nader fail to understand).
So naturally, there has to be middle ground, and while it's great to have ideals like fighting polution, you also have to understand that millions of people's livelyhood and our very way of life produce polution. Do we just say 'fuck em' or do we handle this while looking at all the issues interrelated.
That and the question of does government fund abortion? I personally disagree with the procedure and do not want my money to pay for some moron who doesn't understand the concept to a condom to take the easy way out. Don't get me wrong, I support your right to have it done, I just don't feel like paying for it. Do you use tax dollers for this because YOU (or anyone else) see nothing wrong with it, even though I and many others do?
Everyone keeps harping on this "right to abortion" and even "constitutional right to abortion". Do you guys have a different constitution than I do? Can you kindly point out where it is stated that a woman has a right to do anything to her body? Does this mean that prostitution and drug use is ok?
Napster isn't really a good example of true p2p filesharing (like gnutella, freenet, etc).
Keep in mind that napster requires a central server to function, and that it is completly controled by a corporation. I don't think this has any real implications for p2p.
Granted, but I think the British did it on a larger scale. The point that the British wanted to conserve and set aside land for the indians and we wanted to kick them off their land being the cause for the war is still laughable though.
there were many reasons for the war of idependence - one chief one that doesn't get much play is that there was a huge amount of land speculation going on in lands that the British gov't was planning to protect from settlement from the colonies for the Iroquois to carve out a state for them
Oh please. The British are the only civilization with a worse record than the US in terms of conquring and spreading over native people's homeland and society. I agree the movie was slanted, but you aren't going to make your point effectivle if you put forth such an unbelievable arguement.
there was a concern that the British would make slavery illegal (which they did after the turn of the 18th century
So did we, it just took slightly longer. At the time of the revlotionary war slavery was not nearly the economic powerhouse it was before the civil war. Although I will concede that after the revolutionary war slavery skyrocketed, a mistake that this country eventually DID correct.
Nowhere did I say that the movie was the gospel truth. No movie is, they are entertainment. However, the truth lies somewhere between the movie version and yours.
Suprisingly I agree with you. However, we run into a realism vs idealism problem. Idealy, guns wouldn't exist. however they do. The question is how to get rid of them. Disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals give up their guns? Even if you eradicate all the guns on earth, it is not difficult for me to make one from scratch, and I'm am only 22 with a little machining background and some basic understanding of firearm theory, imagine what a skilled machinist could do. More importantly, imagine what a criminal would pay to have a "bootleg" gun build for them to take advantage of a completly unarmed population. Hell, this is ignoring the fact that somewhere in the world guns will be produced and we will have just as much success prevent guns being smuggled as we have with drugs.
In and ideal world, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked, walk in a NYC park at night, and not ever worry about being attacked by a group of thugs (armed with guns or not). Unfortunatly, this is not the ideal world, and preteding it is and living this way to set an example will only get me in trouble. I choose to be responsible about my safety and my family's and make sure I equiped to effectivly protect myself and them. Am I wrong to do so?
They may not be breaking a law that was written over 250 years ago, but they are breaking their social contract by being iresponsible and continuing the myth that you are "free" as long as you can own a lethal firearm.
By owning an AK-47 (which is used illegaly about 0.000001% of the time) they are breaking no social contract. Are you saying nobody can start a Militia and orginize? What other groups are wrong to be part of. Communist party? radical enviormentalists? We have freedom of speach and assembly in this country as long as you are not breaking any laws.
Heres another point: If the 2nd Amendment is so great, and every in the US is so pissed off with their current corrupt system of Government, why hasn't an armed uprising occured yet? Could it be that the average American gun owner is too stupid, ill informed and complacent to actually use the 2nd Amendment in the way it was intended?
Face it, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated law that should no longer apply.
That is an excellent point. However, I could make the same point about the first amendment, since it was also enacted to allow people to organize and speak up about a corrupt government. In fact the purpose of the two go hand in hand, so if the second has failed for this reason, so has the first.
But, you say, the need for the first amendment has changed over the years. Now we used it to voice unpopular opinions about greedy corporations, to distribute source code in a way that pisses off Sony, to protect journalists and their sources. Well the need for the second amendment has also changed over the years. I'm not saying that someday in the future an armed resistance by the public will not be necessary (it may, who knows?) but there are other compelling reasons for it. First, any law professor will tell you that it has been well established that the government (read: police) has no legal obgligation to protect you. The average response time for a 911 call is 45 minutes, and the average life sentance for a convicted criminal is sever years. I would consider it irresponsible of me to ignore the issue of my and my family's safety and not take steps to ensure it. Ultimatly, the most effective way for a woman to survive a violent encounter with a man is to resist with a firearm, coming in distant second is to submit to the man and hope he doesn't kill you, and coming way last is to resist with something inneffective, like peper spray or a knife (source: FBI stats). The fact remains that bad people out there have guns and so far gun laws haven't done anything to prevent this. The only person affected by gun laws is the law abiding gun owner.
Last, complete social breakdown DOES happen. During the LA riots many of the stores and homes in the area were ransacked and people were beaten (ironically in response to a beating). However, ALL of the stores and homes that had an owner with a gun protecting them were left alone, as were the occupants inside. Now if the store owner told you before the riot that he bought the gun in case a riot breaks out and he has to fight for his life and property while the city burned, you would probably have called him an right wing alarmist wacko, but it happend. This is still not a perfect world and while there is a chance that my life and my family's life could be placed in danger by a nut with a gun, I'm going to ensure that I have the means to protect myself. If you disagree with me, that is your right. However, you benefit from the fact that guns ARE prevelant in other people's homes. Don't believe me? Put up a big sign in your yard that says "this home is gun free" and make an example for others to follow. Insane? Dangerous? Then you benefit from the possibility that you COULD own and gun, and just might be able to put up armed resistance against an intruder.
Of course this wasn't like that : there were an equal number of good and bad people on both sides, and the war was mildly violent for the time. There were innocents killed on both side, but civilians were not specifically targeted.
While I'm not going to argue that the movie was slanted (and I'd have nothing against England producing a movie that told their story), there were civilians targeted. One could argue that the reason the war esculated was the actions of the British. Keep in mind that most DIDN'T want to break with England at the time, the heavy handedness of the British army killing protestors is what changed many minds.
Another thing : in the movie, UK soldiers burn women and children in a church. Such a thing never happened during the civil war (it only happened once in France in 1944, when the SS took vengeance over a vilage and killed everybody this way)
Such a thing DID happen during the civil war, but we are talking about the Revolutionary War (a simple mistake, I know what you meant). I honestly don't know if that happened during the war or not. We certainly didn't have the reporting capabilities we have now, so if it did it did happen we wouldn't even necessarily know.
We all know the American public doesn't learn history in books, so what will they think once they see the movie ?
As I've said to others in this article, the generalizations of Americans being stupid and arrogant is the same as me saying all Mexicans are dirty, all Japanese shifty, and all Jews greedy. Perhaps you should get your opinions of a population from a source other than movies and the occational ignorant tourist.
The Japenese were not doing anything illegal when they were rounded up during WW2, nor were all the people proecuted under McCarthy during the great "red scare". Are we to assume that for the first time our huge federal government is NOT corrupt and IS to be trusted not to abuse it's power. That takes a virtual leap of faith doesn't it?
It's an interesting point of view, but a simple journey into the writings and speaches of the framers of the constitution shows that your interpretation is indeed incorrect. They clearly state that it was intended to bestow the right to the entire population. I direct you to the writings of Madison and Jefferson specifically, who have much to say on this. Of note is that many considered the right of the population to bear arms more important than speech and debated took place to decide if it should be first. The amendment took many forms as it was writen and re-writen, and ended up the only amendment with a justification. If you don't want to look up the intended meaning of militia, here are some explinations:
Samuel Adams:
"It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control... The militia is composed of free citizens.
Patrick Henry:
"The great object is, that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
George Mason:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
I also would submit to you that your interpretation implies that of all the amendments that make up the bill of rights, the second is the only one that does not apply to the people, only the government. In fact, the term "the people" is also used in the first and fourth amentments to grant rights. Does the phrase "the people" take on a different meaning and refer to a different group when applied in these amendments?
Finkployd
Re:So "open" and "free" are only good sometimes ?
on
Carnivore Demo Report
·
· Score: 2
Simple, there is a difference between public and private. We are private citizens. The FBI is a public entity, using our money to build a device to spy on us. I see nothing wrong with their benefactors requesting to know what they are doing and keep them honest. Remember this is a government that locked up Japanese during WW2, prosecuted anyone who uttered the word "communism" and shoots people's family's because they are "isolationist survivalist" wackos. Are we to assume that they will NOT abuse their power for the first time ever?
As I said, we aren't comparing the right to privacy of two equal groups. The FBI SHOULD be subject to public scrutany, however few people in this country care about Carnavore so I imagine it will be quietly installed (with the vocal whinings of some insignificant geeks:) and the rest of the country won't know or care. Then we just have to trust them to not abuse their power. Unfortunatly history is not un the side of that blind trust.
I can understand U-571, but the Patriot? Come on, that was pretty factually correct (with a few "story enhancing" parts thrown in, nothing major). After all, history is nothing if not a point of view (had the Nazi's won the war, our history books would have viewed the events leading up to the war in a completly different light). We decided we had it with Britain taxing us and imposing it's will on us, we decided we wanted to be independant, and they didn't take it well. War ensued and we won, thus creating a country. Sure we are going to view them as the bad guys and us as the hero's in that war.
I also find it amusing that you would judge an entire popultion based on a few tourists you have seen. I could make the same racial connection by saying Japenese are all rude and impatiant because plenty of the tourists I've seen constantly cut in lines and ignore similar protocols.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you honestly expect either Gore or Bush to know what slashdot is and what we would expect as an answer from them? I mean, we are nothing in the real world, a little web site that hosts discussions. Admittedly, it would be nice if they did their homework and personalized this a little, but on the other hand, it's also nice to see a politician who doesn't change his views depending on the audiance.
Finkployd
They seem to have completly forgotten that IBM is on the Linux bandwagon. Supporting it for everything from laptops to S/390 (sorry, z/390) systems. That ALONE is going to give a huge boost to both IBM and Linux if they continue along this policy.
Finkployd
if you want to be taken seriously, then remove the portions of your cause that are murdering terrorists - then maybe I'll listen to what you have to say.
So the wackos who shoot at forest loggers completly invalidate the enviornmental movement for you? How about the uni-bomber, does he make you ignore the liberal movement?
Are you under the impression that there are no wackos who share YOUR beliefs?
Finkployd
I thought it was global cooling, did it change again? Would you guys just make up your minds over what I'm supposed to be scared to death is going to happen at some constantly-moving-forward date.
Finkployd
The President's duties are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
Finkployd
I know plenty about Nader, despite your assumptions otherwise. I've read his web site (in fact all the candidates sites) and followed his work. I am familiar with the ideals he holds and the work he has done. My point is that he will not make a goos president. I am a very talanted mainframe systems programmer, so should I be qualified to be president?
/effectively/ govern, regardless of experience in passing laws.
Nader is the man who exposed the auto industry as horrible unsafe back in 1965 with "Unsafe at Any Speed."
That is wonderfull and I am grateful for the work he has done in this area. Remind me...this has WHAT to do with being president?
He spends most all his time reading documents often quite boring, and keeping an all-watching eye on corporations, government agencies, and the people at large.
So we are electing a dictator wannabe? Read the "all watching" sentance again and ask if that is what you really want from your president.
If you don't know whats going on, you can't possibly
I agree, and he would be the right man for the job if watching corporations and lobbying for the enviornment was the job of the president. However, the president also needs to deal with forign officials and forign policy. The president needs to be diplomatic and work with both parties. Nader has shown himself (in my opinion) to be arrogant and self-righteous.
Finkployd
Yeah, I personally hate having decisions. I really prefer to have someone (like the government) decide how to spend my money who I should support.
Finkployd
Yes, prostitution is okay. Look at George Bush.
:)
Yeah, that was a mature retort
Hate to burst any bubbles here, but Gore is just as "owned", only by big oil, China, etc.
Finkployd
Nader is your typical idealistic third party candidate. He has wonderfull goals and ideals, I mean who DOESN'T support cleaner lakes, lower prices, and more government programs to help them. However, when you get right down to it, he has no understanding of economics, forign policy, diplomacy, etc. He has no plans that would actually work, and when you get past his rallying calls, there is no substance to them.
Finkployd
Lets look at that 'new tax'. The DEMOCRAT controlled congress created it, all Bush did was sign it. I say they both get blame for raising taxes, and bush certainly got his for breaking his promises (he got beat by Bill)
Having said that, where is the middle class tax cut Bill promised in '92? Or is it only bad when Republicians break promises?
Finkployd
Sounds great if we lived in a black and white world where it was as simple as that. However, I can state with almost certainty that YOUR job and way of life creates polution. We can't just say 'end polution' without having massive ramafications to the worlds economy (something most single issue candidates like Nader fail to understand).
So naturally, there has to be middle ground, and while it's great to have ideals like fighting polution, you also have to understand that millions of people's livelyhood and our very way of life produce polution. Do we just say 'fuck em' or do we handle this while looking at all the issues interrelated.
That and the question of does government fund abortion? I personally disagree with the procedure and do not want my money to pay for some moron who doesn't understand the concept to a condom to take the easy way out. Don't get me wrong, I support your right to have it done, I just don't feel like paying for it. Do you use tax dollers for this because YOU (or anyone else) see nothing wrong with it, even though I and many others do?
Finkployd
Everyone keeps harping on this "right to abortion" and even "constitutional right to abortion". Do you guys have a different constitution than I do? Can you kindly point out where it is stated that a woman has a right to do anything to her body? Does this mean that prostitution and drug use is ok?
Finkployd
Napster isn't really a good example of true p2p filesharing (like gnutella, freenet, etc).
Keep in mind that napster requires a central server to function, and that it is completly controled by a corporation. I don't think this has any real implications for p2p.
Finkployd
I can't believe someone beat me to posting this. I was all set to brag on our behalf :)
Finkployd
Granted, but I think the British did it on a larger scale. The point that the British wanted to conserve and set aside land for the indians and we wanted to kick them off their land being the cause for the war is still laughable though.
Finkployd
there were many reasons for the war of idependence - one chief one that doesn't get much play is that there was a huge amount of land speculation going on in lands that the British gov't was planning to protect from settlement from the colonies for the Iroquois to carve out a state for them
Oh please. The British are the only civilization with a worse record than the US in terms of conquring and spreading over native people's homeland and society. I agree the movie was slanted, but you aren't going to make your point effectivle if you put forth such an unbelievable arguement.
there was a concern that the British would make slavery illegal (which they did after the turn of the 18th century
So did we, it just took slightly longer. At the time of the revlotionary war slavery was not nearly the economic powerhouse it was before the civil war. Although I will concede that after the revolutionary war slavery skyrocketed, a mistake that this country eventually DID correct.
Nowhere did I say that the movie was the gospel truth. No movie is, they are entertainment. However, the truth lies somewhere between the movie version and yours.
Finkployd
Suprisingly I agree with you. However, we run into a realism vs idealism problem. Idealy, guns wouldn't exist. however they do. The question is how to get rid of them. Disarm the law abiding citizens and hope the criminals give up their guns? Even if you eradicate all the guns on earth, it is not difficult for me to make one from scratch, and I'm am only 22 with a little machining background and some basic understanding of firearm theory, imagine what a skilled machinist could do. More importantly, imagine what a criminal would pay to have a "bootleg" gun build for them to take advantage of a completly unarmed population. Hell, this is ignoring the fact that somewhere in the world guns will be produced and we will have just as much success prevent guns being smuggled as we have with drugs.
In and ideal world, I should be able to leave my doors unlocked, walk in a NYC park at night, and not ever worry about being attacked by a group of thugs (armed with guns or not). Unfortunatly, this is not the ideal world, and preteding it is and living this way to set an example will only get me in trouble. I choose to be responsible about my safety and my family's and make sure I equiped to effectivly protect myself and them. Am I wrong to do so?
Finkployd
They may not be breaking a law that was written over 250 years ago, but they are breaking their social contract by being iresponsible and continuing the myth that you are "free" as long as you can own a lethal firearm.
By owning an AK-47 (which is used illegaly about 0.000001% of the time) they are breaking no social contract. Are you saying nobody can start a Militia and orginize? What other groups are wrong to be part of. Communist party? radical enviormentalists? We have freedom of speach and assembly in this country as long as you are not breaking any laws.
Heres another point: If the 2nd Amendment is so great, and every in the US is so pissed off with their current corrupt system of Government, why hasn't an armed uprising occured yet? Could it be that the average American gun owner is too stupid, ill informed and complacent to actually use the 2nd Amendment in the way it was intended?
Face it, the 2nd Amendment is an outdated law that should no longer apply.
That is an excellent point. However, I could make the same point about the first amendment, since it was also enacted to allow people to organize and speak up about a corrupt government. In fact the purpose of the two go hand in hand, so if the second has failed for this reason, so has the first.
But, you say, the need for the first amendment has changed over the years. Now we used it to voice unpopular opinions about greedy corporations, to distribute source code in a way that pisses off Sony, to protect journalists and their sources. Well the need for the second amendment has also changed over the years. I'm not saying that someday in the future an armed resistance by the public will not be necessary (it may, who knows?) but there are other compelling reasons for it. First, any law professor will tell you that it has been well established that the government (read: police) has no legal obgligation to protect you. The average response time for a 911 call is 45 minutes, and the average life sentance for a convicted criminal is sever years. I would consider it irresponsible of me to ignore the issue of my and my family's safety and not take steps to ensure it. Ultimatly, the most effective way for a woman to survive a violent encounter with a man is to resist with a firearm, coming in distant second is to submit to the man and hope he doesn't kill you, and coming way last is to resist with something inneffective, like peper spray or a knife (source: FBI stats). The fact remains that bad people out there have guns and so far gun laws haven't done anything to prevent this. The only person affected by gun laws is the law abiding gun owner.
Last, complete social breakdown DOES happen. During the LA riots many of the stores and homes in the area were ransacked and people were beaten (ironically in response to a beating). However, ALL of the stores and homes that had an owner with a gun protecting them were left alone, as were the occupants inside. Now if the store owner told you before the riot that he bought the gun in case a riot breaks out and he has to fight for his life and property while the city burned, you would probably have called him an right wing alarmist wacko, but it happend. This is still not a perfect world and while there is a chance that my life and my family's life could be placed in danger by a nut with a gun, I'm going to ensure that I have the means to protect myself. If you disagree with me, that is your right. However, you benefit from the fact that guns ARE prevelant in other people's homes. Don't believe me? Put up a big sign in your yard that says "this home is gun free" and make an example for others to follow. Insane? Dangerous? Then you benefit from the possibility that you COULD own and gun, and just might be able to put up armed resistance against an intruder.
Finkployd
Of course this wasn't like that : there were an equal number of good and bad people on both sides, and the war was mildly violent for the time. There were innocents killed on both side, but civilians were not specifically targeted.
While I'm not going to argue that the movie was slanted (and I'd have nothing against England producing a movie that told their story), there were civilians targeted. One could argue that the reason the war esculated was the actions of the British. Keep in mind that most DIDN'T want to break with England at the time, the heavy handedness of the British army killing protestors is what changed many minds.
Another thing : in the movie, UK soldiers burn women and children in a church. Such a thing never happened during the civil war (it only happened once in France in 1944, when the SS took vengeance over a vilage and killed everybody this way)
Such a thing DID happen during the civil war, but we are talking about the Revolutionary War (a simple mistake, I know what you meant). I honestly don't know if that happened during the war or not. We certainly didn't have the reporting capabilities we have now, so if it did it did happen we wouldn't even necessarily know.
We all know the American public doesn't learn history in books, so what will they think once they see the movie ?
As I've said to others in this article, the generalizations of Americans being stupid and arrogant is the same as me saying all Mexicans are dirty, all Japanese shifty, and all Jews greedy. Perhaps you should get your opinions of a population from a source other than movies and the occational ignorant tourist.
Finkployd
The Japenese were not doing anything illegal when they were rounded up during WW2, nor were all the people proecuted under McCarthy during the great "red scare". Are we to assume that for the first time our huge federal government is NOT corrupt and IS to be trusted not to abuse it's power. That takes a virtual leap of faith doesn't it?
Finkployd
As long as they aren't breaking laws, yes. That is how this country works.
Finkployd
It's an interesting point of view, but a simple journey into the writings and speaches of the framers of the constitution shows that your interpretation is indeed incorrect. They clearly state that it was intended to bestow the right to the entire population. I direct you to the writings of Madison and Jefferson specifically, who have much to say on this. Of note is that many considered the right of the population to bear arms more important than speech and debated took place to decide if it should be first. The amendment took many forms as it was writen and re-writen, and ended up the only amendment with a justification. If you don't want to look up the intended meaning of militia, here are some explinations:
... The militia is composed of free citizens.
Samuel Adams:
"It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control
Patrick Henry:
"The great object is, that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Thomas Jefferson:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
George Mason:
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
I also would submit to you that your interpretation implies that of all the amendments that make up the bill of rights, the second is the only one that does not apply to the people, only the government. In fact, the term "the people" is also used in the first and fourth amentments to grant rights. Does the phrase "the people" take on a different meaning and refer to a different group when applied in these amendments?
Finkployd
Simple, there is a difference between public and private. We are private citizens. The FBI is a public entity, using our money to build a device to spy on us. I see nothing wrong with their benefactors requesting to know what they are doing and keep them honest. Remember this is a government that locked up Japanese during WW2, prosecuted anyone who uttered the word "communism" and shoots people's family's because they are "isolationist survivalist" wackos. Are we to assume that they will NOT abuse their power for the first time ever? :) and the rest of the country won't know or care. Then we just have to trust them to not abuse their power. Unfortunatly history is not un the side of that blind trust.
As I said, we aren't comparing the right to privacy of two equal groups. The FBI SHOULD be subject to public scrutany, however few people in this country care about Carnavore so I imagine it will be quietly installed (with the vocal whinings of some insignificant geeks
Finkployd
I can understand U-571, but the Patriot? Come on, that was pretty factually correct (with a few "story enhancing" parts thrown in, nothing major). After all, history is nothing if not a point of view (had the Nazi's won the war, our history books would have viewed the events leading up to the war in a completly different light). We decided we had it with Britain taxing us and imposing it's will on us, we decided we wanted to be independant, and they didn't take it well. War ensued and we won, thus creating a country. Sure we are going to view them as the bad guys and us as the hero's in that war.
I also find it amusing that you would judge an entire popultion based on a few tourists you have seen. I could make the same racial connection by saying Japenese are all rude and impatiant because plenty of the tourists I've seen constantly cut in lines and ignore similar protocols.
Finkployd
And line numbers and all the GOTOs, it would be impossible to carry on a conversation :)
Finkployd