So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
If those laws conflict with the Constitution, which the President is sworn to defend against internal enemies, then yes. No question about it. None of the three branches of government operate within the limits of the Constitution, which makes our government illegitimate.
What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you?
The right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's just one of many.
I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.
The executive branch is the only branch that can actually violate rights, because it's the branch that actually does things. Whether Congress approves or not is irrelevant, the 4th amendment is clear, generalized surveillance is illegal.
I suppose the same could be said of most religions but generally mainstream religions they don't have people screaming at walls, "disconnecting" from families, harassing ex-members
I suppose you've never known a gay person from a devoutly Christian family.
Why buy a corvette when you can buy a corolla? Corolla gets better milage, has 4 doors, greater interior volume, the highest safety ratings, and won't attract the attention of the cops.
Rights in Europe most definitely are based on current law AKA what the relevant government currently says you have
That's the same thing as saying you have no rights. If you only have the rights that the government says you do, it is impossible for the government to violate your rights. We all know this to be false, because oppressive governments exist.
Either rights exist, and they exist independently of the government, or they do not exist at all. The position Europe is trying to stake out is completely nonsensical.
When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position.
Except that they haven't converged on an acceptable middle position. They have converged on barbaric policies that only benefit the rich and powerful.
Tea partiers have been allowed to win because the policies they support will make the rich and powerful even more rich and more powerful. When an actual opposition movement arises (e.g. Occupy) there is violent retaliation from the authorities.
The problem isn't partisanship. The problem is that the worst abuses have bi-partisan support.
e.g. When was the last time John Boehner, Peter King, or Lindsey Graham supported an Obama policy? Before the NSA wiretapping became public, I can't remember a single instance.
e.g. Law and order conservatives could easily attack Obama for failing to enforce the law against bankers. But they choose not to attack this weakness, while making much, much stupider attacks. Why? Because they're all on the same payroll.
e.g. Obamacare was right out of the Heritage Foundation. While the right made a good show of oppositition, they knew they had won from the start. Nobody on either side of the aisle gave a moments thought to single payer, a.k.a. the way every civilized country manages health care.
e.g. The War on Drug Users. This is quite simply an atrocity that no honest, well meaning person can support. And yet no one on either side of the aisle has done anything to deescalate. Obama has sent more caregivers to prison than Bush did.
And so on, and so on. On every single important issue that faces America, there is broad bipartisan support for the worst possible policy.
Europe has it all backwards. And it's made obvious by statements like this:
He went on to explain that based on current laws citizens do not have a right to be removed from search indexes
Rights are not based on current law. They exist independently of law (or not at all, that's a valid argument too), and current law either respects or violates that right. If someone were to say "based on current law citizens do not have the right to choose their own religion", it would be abundantly clear that "current law" is oppressive.
Either the right to be forgotten exists or it does not. I'd suggest it does not, because it clearly conflicts with my own right to remember, and communicate.
In fact, I'd go so far as to point to the anonymizing of people as one of the more pernicious aspects of modern society (both as subject and as direct-object).
Far more harm is done by people who proudly sign their name and get rewarded for it than is done by anyone anonymous.
And I suppose you know more about the situation than CNN and the WSJ? It's possible they reported incorrectly, but businesses keep financial records so it should be easy to verify. What reason do you have to doubt those assertions besides their conflict with your predetermined narrative?
And would you please offer evidence that I'm a "feudalist"?
Capitalism is feudalism with better PR.
You're clearly an unabashed socialist; why be insulted by the mere reference?
I'm not insulted by the assertion that I'm a socialist. I'm insulted by the assertion that my support is blind. It's well supported by the available facts.
Go back and read my first post in this thread. All it did was more accurately describe the situation that actually happened, and I was able to provide references from respected journalistic sources. YOU were the one that interpreted my post as support. Why is that? Because the facts support the union, that's why.
It would be nice if internet feudalists didn't offer totally blind support for every robber baron.
I mean, are you denying that the union accepted several wage consessions before striking? Are you denying that management then gave themselves raises? Are these not facts?
The article's depiction of the company's fall omits crucial context and leaves readers with the impression that the act of discarding union workers is what allowed the "trimmed-down" company to re-emerge. The AP did not tell readers that, just three years prior to Mr. Rayburn's negotiations with labor, union workers made "substantial concessions" to aid the company's financial health, or that Hostess stopped contributing to workers' pensions and cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent."
Nor did the AP story mention the dramatic pay raises Hostess provided its executives during its financial struggles. For example, Brian Driscoll -- Hostess CEO in March 2011 -- received a salary increase from $750,000 to $2.25 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Tell me, in what way is my support blind? It appears to be supported by facts.
b) The only real motivation for the management team to stay with a sinking ship instead of looking for work elsewhere, when a management team was needed.
If you want to provide incentive for management to save the company, you have to tie financial reward to actually saving the company. These vultures sunk the company and still got paid. There's no reason to believe that wasn't their plan from the start.
Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc. Union: OK Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses Later... Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc. Union: OK Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses Later... Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc. Union: We're going on strike Mgt: We're going to liquidate the company if you do that Union: You're a bunch of liars and poopyheads Mgt: We warned you
Mgt takes company into Chapter 7 Union: Oh shit, they weren't kidding. Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses before this thing completely goes under [/evil cackle]
TOR is a great tool but you can also set yourself up with a SOCKs proxy very easily say on Amazon AWS (or any other cloud service) meaning, your encrypted traffic would go to their data center and exit out whatever local network pipe they use. It's not as sophisticated as TOR, where multiple hops are used but at least with Amazon's recent statement, they may resist secret demands for your info.
Come on now. A SOCKs proxy to a single host is a great solution for evading snooping by your own ISP (or IT department). But it's not even close to anonymous.
If you're trying to hide from the NSA, you cannot rely on anyone to protect your identity. The only way to be secure is for it to be impossible for anyone to divulge your identity. Tor comes closer to that than any other solution.
Yes, using Tor is going to attract attention. That's why we need as many people as possible to use Tor, to decrease the signal to noise ratio. If you have nothing to hide, you should be using Tor to help protect those who do.
Everyone already has the right to a trial; plea bargains do not take that right away.
Punishing someone for exercising a right IS taking that right away. The government here is deliberately increasing the cost of exercising your right to a trial in order to discourage you from doing so. I don't know how that could be more clear.
You might as well say "everyone has the right to free speech if he purchases a $100,000 free speech license for 24 hours". Yes, in some sense it's true that everyone still has that right. But what good is a right you cannot exercise?
You're confusing "fellow citizens" with "accomplices" here.
Until they are proven guilty, they are merely "fellow citizens". If you were a criminal scumbag and you thought you could get off easy by incriminating your upstanding neighbor, why wouldn't you?
There's nothing wrong with getting a robbery suspect to turn on his accomplices
There is something wrong with encouraging neighbors to spy on neighbors.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, absolutely. We have not had an administration that obeyed the law in my lifetime, and I don't think we ever will.
So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?
If those laws conflict with the Constitution, which the President is sworn to defend against internal enemies, then yes. No question about it. None of the three branches of government operate within the limits of the Constitution, which makes our government illegitimate.
What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you?
The right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's just one of many.
I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.
The executive branch is the only branch that can actually violate rights, because it's the branch that actually does things. Whether Congress approves or not is irrelevant, the 4th amendment is clear, generalized surveillance is illegal.
I suppose the same could be said of most religions but generally mainstream religions they don't have people screaming at walls, "disconnecting" from families, harassing ex-members
I suppose you've never known a gay person from a devoutly Christian family.
Marriage is a religious activity
Atheists don't get married?
It's a complete sham and a fraud.
So is every other religion.
They enrich the soul and give you a place in eternity
What's a "soul" and where is "eternity"? How big is the place I get in eternity if I take humanities? Do they need engineers to build it?
"Fallacy" is a kind way to put it. In reality, it's the "prosecutors intentional deception".
Why buy a corvette when you can buy a corolla? Corolla gets better milage, has 4 doors, greater interior volume, the highest safety ratings, and won't attract the attention of the cops.
Rights in Europe most definitely are based on current law AKA what the relevant government currently says you have
That's the same thing as saying you have no rights. If you only have the rights that the government says you do, it is impossible for the government to violate your rights. We all know this to be false, because oppressive governments exist.
Either rights exist, and they exist independently of the government, or they do not exist at all. The position Europe is trying to stake out is completely nonsensical.
When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position.
Except that they haven't converged on an acceptable middle position. They have converged on barbaric policies that only benefit the rich and powerful.
Tea partiers have been allowed to win because the policies they support will make the rich and powerful even more rich and more powerful. When an actual opposition movement arises (e.g. Occupy) there is violent retaliation from the authorities.
The problem isn't partisanship. The problem is that the worst abuses have bi-partisan support.
e.g. When was the last time John Boehner, Peter King, or Lindsey Graham supported an Obama policy? Before the NSA wiretapping became public, I can't remember a single instance.
e.g. Law and order conservatives could easily attack Obama for failing to enforce the law against bankers. But they choose not to attack this weakness, while making much, much stupider attacks. Why? Because they're all on the same payroll.
e.g. Obamacare was right out of the Heritage Foundation. While the right made a good show of oppositition, they knew they had won from the start. Nobody on either side of the aisle gave a moments thought to single payer, a.k.a. the way every civilized country manages health care.
e.g. The War on Drug Users. This is quite simply an atrocity that no honest, well meaning person can support. And yet no one on either side of the aisle has done anything to deescalate. Obama has sent more caregivers to prison than Bush did.
And so on, and so on. On every single important issue that faces America, there is broad bipartisan support for the worst possible policy.
Europe has it all backwards. And it's made obvious by statements like this:
He went on to explain that based on current laws citizens do not have a right to be removed from search indexes
Rights are not based on current law. They exist independently of law (or not at all, that's a valid argument too), and current law either respects or violates that right. If someone were to say "based on current law citizens do not have the right to choose their own religion", it would be abundantly clear that "current law" is oppressive.
Either the right to be forgotten exists or it does not. I'd suggest it does not, because it clearly conflicts with my own right to remember, and communicate.
In fact, I'd go so far as to point to the anonymizing of people as one of the more pernicious aspects of modern society (both as subject and as direct-object).
Far more harm is done by people who proudly sign their name and get rewarded for it than is done by anyone anonymous.
No, Actually, they're not facts.
And I suppose you know more about the situation than CNN and the WSJ? It's possible they reported incorrectly, but businesses keep financial records so it should be easy to verify. What reason do you have to doubt those assertions besides their conflict with your predetermined narrative?
And would you please offer evidence that I'm a "feudalist"?
Capitalism is feudalism with better PR.
You're clearly an unabashed socialist; why be insulted by the mere reference?
I'm not insulted by the assertion that I'm a socialist. I'm insulted by the assertion that my support is blind. It's well supported by the available facts.
Go back and read my first post in this thread. All it did was more accurately describe the situation that actually happened, and I was able to provide references from respected journalistic sources. YOU were the one that interpreted my post as support. Why is that? Because the facts support the union, that's why.
Read the link. They provide citations CNN, KansasCity.com, and the WSJ. Do you have any reason to believe that the events did not happen as described?
It would be nice if internet feudalists didn't offer totally blind support for every robber baron.
I mean, are you denying that the union accepted several wage consessions before striking? Are you denying that management then gave themselves raises? Are these not facts?
Tell me, in what way is my support blind? It appears to be supported by facts.
b) The only real motivation for the management team to stay with a sinking ship instead of looking for work elsewhere, when a management team was needed.
If you want to provide incentive for management to save the company, you have to tie financial reward to actually saving the company. These vultures sunk the company and still got paid. There's no reason to believe that wasn't their plan from the start.
It went more like this.
Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
Union: OK
Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses
Later...
Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
Union: OK
Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses
Later...
Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
Union: We're going on strike
Mgt: We're going to liquidate the company if you do that
Union: You're a bunch of liars and poopyheads
Mgt: We warned you
Mgt takes company into Chapter 7
Union: Oh shit, they weren't kidding.
Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses before this thing completely goes under [/evil cackle]
This is a US problem. I stopped caring about a week ago. If he's broke the law, issue an international arrest warrant. If he hasn't, don't.
I agree, but who are we going to get to arrest President Obama?
TOR is a great tool but you can also set yourself up with a SOCKs proxy very easily say on Amazon AWS (or any other cloud service) meaning, your encrypted traffic would go to their data center and exit out whatever local network pipe they use. It's not as sophisticated as TOR, where multiple hops are used but at least with Amazon's recent statement, they may resist secret demands for your info.
Come on now. A SOCKs proxy to a single host is a great solution for evading snooping by your own ISP (or IT department). But it's not even close to anonymous.
If you're trying to hide from the NSA, you cannot rely on anyone to protect your identity. The only way to be secure is for it to be impossible for anyone to divulge your identity. Tor comes closer to that than any other solution.
You assume that people who are hiding from federal law enforcement are engaged in misdeeds.
Yes, using Tor is going to attract attention. That's why we need as many people as possible to use Tor, to decrease the signal to noise ratio. If you have nothing to hide, you should be using Tor to help protect those who do.
Everyone already has the right to a trial; plea bargains do not take that right away.
Punishing someone for exercising a right IS taking that right away. The government here is deliberately increasing the cost of exercising your right to a trial in order to discourage you from doing so. I don't know how that could be more clear.
You might as well say "everyone has the right to free speech if he purchases a $100,000 free speech license for 24 hours". Yes, in some sense it's true that everyone still has that right. But what good is a right you cannot exercise?
You're confusing "fellow citizens" with "accomplices" here.
Until they are proven guilty, they are merely "fellow citizens". If you were a criminal scumbag and you thought you could get off easy by incriminating your upstanding neighbor, why wouldn't you?
There's nothing wrong with getting a robbery suspect to turn on his accomplices
There is something wrong with encouraging neighbors to spy on neighbors.