Even better, were this held on private land. If private land I need the permission from the land owner. If he says no bad for me because the USC does not factor in private actions. So I try public lands, but ah, that is owned by the government thus I still need to ask permission to hold a protest.
You seem to be forgetting one thing in your analysis: In the U.S., the government is supposed to be owned by the people, the public (I'm not saying it is, mind you), so public lands are supposed to be owned by the people, to be used by the people.
Having to to ask permission to exercise your right of peaceful assembly on public lands, of which you are part owner, seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution, as it is intended.
I'm not so sure that all the major religions really contradict each other so much. They [mostly] believe in the same god, just a different implementation of that god (like who is his offspring, or the real prophets). The similarities are pretty striking when you think about it...
1. The whole deity thing 2. Theirs is the only religion; everybody else is an "infidel," "sinner," or "satanist" 3. Everybody who is not one of them should be either converted or killed (there are some exceptions to this one) 4. They all believe that nobody can be ethical without their religion, and 5. Usually, the poor people who go to services pay for the lavish lifestyles of their religious "leaders"
Needless to say, I don't believe in any of that religious claptrap either (except FSM, of course).
...well then: IF ALL SURVELLIANCE that went on was on the up and up then the Telcos have nothing to worry about.
This just made me realize something in the whole FISA / wiretapping / privacy debate... Have you noticed that those who, in support of increased surveillance, trot out the argument "if you're doing nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about" are usually the same people who insist that telecom immunity is necessary? Do they not really believe their own argument? Or does that argument only apply to us "little people?"
The real problem is that it shows him for what he is, a politician.
That may be a problem for him, but not for the people. I think that it is better to know now that he is just another slimy, thieving politician, rather than finding out after the elections. He probably doesn't realize just how many people who were going to vote for him are now going to vote third-party. He'll be in for a bit of a surprise there.
As a prior Obama donor, you can also call his campaign and demand your donation back (which you can re-gift to the EFF, too). Based on reading posts on the Obama web site, I see that there are a lot of people doing that.
As a related note, it would be interesting to see the campaign contribution numbers over June and July, just to see if July is negative.
It is the last-chance argument used by those who are so steeped in party dogma that they can no longer think for themselves, as is telling people for whom to vote or not to vote. Shame, that. Why not let people research, think, and decide for themselves who would be the best person for the job?
Finally! Somebody who gets it. I can't believe that people are still so stupid as to believe everything told to them in a 30-second sound bite in the MSM, such as the "wasted vote" myth. After all, that myth was propagated by the same media companies that support (and buy off) major party candidates only; why would the MSM not spread that myth? Are those who blame the third-party voters that afraid to put the blame where it rightfully belongs? Whatever happened to critical thinking skills?
I really did think that Obama was the one to bring about real change in this country. As I read somewhere else... "good-bye hope, and welcome back cynicism." What a sucker I was:(
Or if you think that his stance on FISA shows an endemic problem in his character, then go right ahead.
This is the reason that I am no longer voting for him. It's not just FISA (that's the straw that broke the camel's back), but he seems to be shifting on just about every part of his original platform. Now, there is even talk that he probably won't support withdrawing from Iraq. At this rate, by January, he will be just as much of a Bush-clone as McCain would be.
His FISA vote not only shows me that he has the usual character flaws of any other politician, but that he also cares not for the Constitution. This is most frustrating since he has taught Constitutional Law in the past.
Thank you for that link; I couldn't even find that one. Based on that, it does look like ex post facto has a more limited definition than I originally thought. I shall stop spouting about ex post facto now....:)
I can not find any documentation that the SCOTUS has ruled about this issue at all. It is my belief that retroactive immunity is ex post facto. That belief may be incorrect, and if it is I'll happily admit it (and not spout about it any more;).
All I could find when searching is a bunch of debates about the subject (most on/. of course), with a bunch of non-attorneys like me discussing it. If the SCOTUS has issued a ruling on this, does anybody have a link? I would like to read it.
Re-reading my GP post, I guess it wasn't clear enough. I'll try to speak more slowly this time around.
This is not "just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally," as you say (I hope you weren't trying to put words into my mouth). The telecom companies knowingly broke the law, and the people within those companies who made those decisions should be prosecuted as well as sued by those affected. The administration should also be held to account for those illegal requests.
As for your question about evidence... I think there is already enough evidence out there to impeach him as well as many others in the administration, and prosecute them all successfully. Impeachment has to come before prosecution, and that is "off the table."
This isn't about Bush. It's about the balance of powers in the government. It's about corruption. I won't deny that I despise Bush (that's another rant for another day), but I would despise any president that has arrogated this amount of power to the Executive. I would despise any president that is complicit with this level of corruption. Bush happens to be the current top crook; in a few months, we'll have a different top crook.
I'll sigh, too. This all is certainly worthy of it.
(the Democrats who were elected to stand up to George W. have done nothing but act like his plantation slaves).
You, sir, are too kind.
The slaves had to be abducted, chained, and whipped in order to obey "orders." These crooks in congress require no such coercion; they do it voluntarily (that being said, my rep, Jim Moran (VA), voted against this bill, so he in exempt from the above statement in this case).
As someone posted above, from the constitution, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This means that the legislative branch cannot pass a retroactive law, either to provide immunity or to prosecute people. This bill is unconstitutional, but it will take a hell of a fight and a lot of money to get the supreme court to rule on it as such.
I have to say that GP did do a good job of explaining the way it currently is. Unfortunately, the constitution, the rights of the citizens, and the public trust do not fit with the scheme of things. It now really is all about payoffs and corruption, pretty much in all three branches of government.
I would be happy to start with going after the telecom companies first. Because executives usually look out for number one first, they will spill the beans on the administration just to save their own asses. Then, we would have even more evidence to use in a criminal trial.
Thank you! I'm pleased to see that at least my rep voted against it! No surprise there though, because his DC office's voicemail was already full when I tried to call at about 8:00 AM.
The only compromise I see here is that the legislators are so willing to compromise the rights of the citizens. The house approved this as a payoff to Bush for not vetoing their war spending bill. What a freakin compromise! They just said, "Hey! Don't veto the war funding that you requested, and we'll be happy to tear up the fourth amendment, too!"
That's one of the main points of the bill. The weird thing is that this morning, there was an editorial in the Washington Post indicating that the newspaper supports the bill.
It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill at just about the same time that this article made the front page of/.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be forgetting one thing in your analysis: In the U.S., the government is supposed to be owned by the people, the public (I'm not saying it is, mind you), so public lands are supposed to be owned by the people, to be used by the people.
Having to to ask permission to exercise your right of peaceful assembly on public lands, of which you are part owner, seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution, as it is intended.
42
1. The whole deity thing
2. Theirs is the only religion; everybody else is an "infidel," "sinner," or "satanist"
3. Everybody who is not one of them should be either converted or killed (there are some exceptions to this one)
4. They all believe that nobody can be ethical without their religion, and
5. Usually, the poor people who go to services pay for the lavish lifestyles of their religious "leaders"
Needless to say, I don't believe in any of that religious claptrap either (except FSM, of course).
Are you sure it's not this guy?
;)
I just sent $25.00 through Paypal to Ray. It's not much, but all I can afford at the moment.
I like that theory so much... I had to make it my sig. Classic!
This just made me realize something in the whole FISA / wiretapping / privacy debate... Have you noticed that those who, in support of increased surveillance, trot out the argument "if you're doing nothing wrong, there's nothing to worry about" are usually the same people who insist that telecom immunity is necessary? Do they not really believe their own argument? Or does that argument only apply to us "little people?"
That may be a problem for him, but not for the people. I think that it is better to know now that he is just another slimy, thieving politician, rather than finding out after the elections. He probably doesn't realize just how many people who were going to vote for him are now going to vote third-party. He'll be in for a bit of a surprise there.
As a related note, it would be interesting to see the campaign contribution numbers over June and July, just to see if July is negative.
It is the last-chance argument used by those who are so steeped in party dogma that they can no longer think for themselves, as is telling people for whom to vote or not to vote. Shame, that. Why not let people research, think, and decide for themselves who would be the best person for the job?
I really did think that Obama was the one to bring about real change in this country. As I read somewhere else... "good-bye hope, and welcome back cynicism." What a sucker I was :(
This is the reason that I am no longer voting for him. It's not just FISA (that's the straw that broke the camel's back), but he seems to be shifting on just about every part of his original platform. Now, there is even talk that he probably won't support withdrawing from Iraq. At this rate, by January, he will be just as much of a Bush-clone as McCain would be.
His FISA vote not only shows me that he has the usual character flaws of any other politician, but that he also cares not for the Constitution. This is most frustrating since he has taught Constitutional Law in the past.
Thank you for that link; I couldn't even find that one. Based on that, it does look like ex post facto has a more limited definition than I originally thought. I shall stop spouting about ex post facto now.... :)
All I could find when searching is a bunch of debates about the subject (most on /. of course), with a bunch of non-attorneys like me discussing it. If the SCOTUS has issued a ruling on this, does anybody have a link? I would like to read it.
This is not "just to try to get evidence against Bush because you haven't been successful in finding anything else you could actually prove he did illegally," as you say (I hope you weren't trying to put words into my mouth). The telecom companies knowingly broke the law, and the people within those companies who made those decisions should be prosecuted as well as sued by those affected. The administration should also be held to account for those illegal requests.
As for your question about evidence... I think there is already enough evidence out there to impeach him as well as many others in the administration, and prosecute them all successfully. Impeachment has to come before prosecution, and that is "off the table."
This isn't about Bush. It's about the balance of powers in the government. It's about corruption. I won't deny that I despise Bush (that's another rant for another day), but I would despise any president that has arrogated this amount of power to the Executive. I would despise any president that is complicit with this level of corruption. Bush happens to be the current top crook; in a few months, we'll have a different top crook.
I'll sigh, too. This all is certainly worthy of it.
Oops! Sorry about that. I meant to include it in the summary. Thanks for putting the bill number out there.
The slaves had to be abducted, chained, and whipped in order to obey "orders." These crooks in congress require no such coercion; they do it voluntarily (that being said, my rep, Jim Moran (VA), voted against this bill, so he in exempt from the above statement in this case).
As someone posted above, from the constitution, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." This means that the legislative branch cannot pass a retroactive law, either to provide immunity or to prosecute people. This bill is unconstitutional, but it will take a hell of a fight and a lot of money to get the supreme court to rule on it as such.
I have to say that GP did do a good job of explaining the way it currently is. Unfortunately, the constitution, the rights of the citizens, and the public trust do not fit with the scheme of things. It now really is all about payoffs and corruption, pretty much in all three branches of government.
I would be happy to start with going after the telecom companies first. Because executives usually look out for number one first, they will spill the beans on the administration just to save their own asses. Then, we would have even more evidence to use in a criminal trial.
Thank you! I'm pleased to see that at least my rep voted against it! No surprise there though, because his DC office's voicemail was already full when I tried to call at about 8:00 AM.
The only compromise I see here is that the legislators are so willing to compromise the rights of the citizens. The house approved this as a payoff to Bush for not vetoing their war spending bill. What a freakin compromise! They just said, "Hey! Don't veto the war funding that you requested, and we'll be happy to tear up the fourth amendment, too!"
It was my hope that the article would be posted in time for people to contact their representatives, but also, the scumbags passed the bill at just about the same time that this article made the front page of /.. The roll call is not available on Thomas yet though.