My examples are valid. I live in the D.C. area and those examples were socially staggering. People were hiding while getting gas and afraid to open their mail. You can't say the anthrax thing was done by a lone or few nuts, because we don't know who did it, how they did it, how they got the anthrax, or if they will do it again.
Granted the snipers were nuts, but effective nuts who were 9/11 sympathizers.
Ok... thanks for the links. But what about those who don't have internet access? I just feel that there is a lot more they could be doing. For everyone.
You notice they just completely stopped talking about it about six months ago. Well, they did use it right after the DNC (3 months ago), but it only applied to some buildings. I believe those warings are still in effect, even though the data the spurred them was 3 years old. This warning was thought by some to be an attempt to steal the Dem bounce. But they would never do that... would they.
A few example ofd validity: URL: http://www.fobiopatel.com/dongles /archives/2004/07/couple_arrested.php
Quote: "In September, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances. The Secret Service agreed that such censorship was wrong, said Witold Walczak, one of the lawyers that filed the lawsuit. 'They had an internal memo dated September 2002, saying they couldn't treat protesters differently or worse' than anyone else at a presidential appearance, Walczak said. 'The judge said any agent responsible for doing so could be held liable for damages.'""
URL: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/097663.htm Q uote: "It has been said that people get the sort of government they deserve, and it's rather sad to think that we deserve a government that handcuffs and removes people from public events paid for with public funds simply because they are expressing a message that is critical of the government -- even though people expressing pro-government messages in the exact same way are not only left alone but in fact encouraged in their behavior."
I could do this all day... Can you find ONE place where it says what was done to these people was just?
BTW... this was a public event not private (see above)
What law did they break? The charges of trespassing were dropped. So that ain't it.
Your ticketed event defense only holds up if it is a private members only event. If that was the case how did these folks get the tickets and how were they then allowed in? The fact that they were allowed in tells me that at one point, they were welcome. The minute they became unwelcome was when they exposed clothing that someone didn't like.
Did the event specifically say "No Anti-Bush T-shirts"? I doubt it because that may have been grounds to remove them and they wouldn't have had to use Trespassing as an excuse. Even then it isn't grounds to ARREST them. Re: Validity My entire arguement here is validated by the fact that these people are SUEING because their rights have been infinged upon. When they win (as the Judge in the topic of this thread has made apparent that they have a good case) I expect you to at least try and see it another way.
I would point out that (although not necessarily by al-queada) we have had terror here since 9-11
1)Anthrax being mailed to important people and people dying from it. Not to mention the effect is had on society: Mass Cipro sales and people not opening their mail. The Offender/s have not been caught.
2)DC area Sniper terrorists. These guys terrorized the whole area from Richmond to Baltimore for months. They were caught, but only because they were stupid. What is to stop a smart terrorist from doing the same thing?
I wouldn't say W is doing such a great job or the DoHS. Do you know what to do in case a Nuke goes off near you? I don't... you would think they would set up guides for each situation they can think of and publish them. Last I heard I was to buy plastic and duct tape. i.e. duck and cover. OTOH They did do that handy color chart. I feel much safer with that around.
I never said it was "Right"... I said it was _a_ RIGHT. And if you are an American citizen, then you have access to that right. Whether to abuse it or not is up to you.
Wearing an "I hate..." shirt is your right and the state/gov't should not inhibit that right. I don't suggest doning it, nor do I, can I, or will I ever tell someone NOT to do it. It is their RIGHT.
Being offended by something you read is just as dumb as being offended by someone calling you a name. But that is another discussion.
They weren't jailed for non-violent protest. They were arrested and released (no jail time) for trespassing.
WhatEVER...they were hadcuffed and removed...for wearing a T-Shirt! They can call it tresspassing, but that isn't the reason at all and we all know it. Isn't this just a little rediculous to you?
Please see my other post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126073& thresho ld=1&commentsort=3&tid=226&mode=thread&pid=1055672 6#10556940
Kerry's stump speeches are open to the public. Republicans make you sign a declaration of support before attending.
Who is being Orwellian here?
You seem to believe that one person's opinion worn on an article of clothing can be offensive enough to deserve arrest. But the bottom line is... that is a RIGHT protected by the constitution. Which is why these people in question are sueing.
It seems that you have some sort of T-shirt phobia. My question is... does it end there or are you terrified by all clothing and think that those wearing clothes should be removed from your sight? Being afraid of what people wear is closely akin to being afraid of one's skin color.
When was the last time you were accosted by a t-shirt?
Your comparisons about privacy are apples to oranges. They weren't speaking to anyone rudely. They were wearing clothes. Then they were hadcuffed and detained. Is this right?
If you wore a "Cat's Sucks" T-shirt to the play Cats, there is not a damned thing anyone could do to you. It means that, in an extreme example that if the current powers don't like the little polo guy on your polo shirt, they could have the secret service remove you because they can't play polo. Then they could make you wear that polo shirt all the time so they know what you represent, then they could put you in a camp with all the other polo shirt wearers. Do you see where this is leading? Are you still for arresting people because of what they wear? If so, I would like to introduce you to some of my jewish friends.
How is it healthy for people to be jailed for non-violent protest? How is it "private" if anyone can buy a ticket? (as they did) And you are saying it is obnoxious to wear a tee-shirt? I got news for you... that is called freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression and what you are suggesting is OK and "healthy" is what I would call Facism.
The charges of tresspassing were dropped, but only after the damage was done so the President didn't have to see that some people don't like him.
This is exactly what is wrong with this administration. They refuse to believe that more than half of America and most of the world don't approve of what they are doing and they are willing to trounce upon, ignore and remove our civil rights for their own agendas.
And you think this is healthy?!?
Here is a better link (google cached) http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:VVEb em1ytvcJ: abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040914_1592.html+couple +arrested+wearing+anti+bush+shirts&hl=en
Very nice.. the parent makes a valid point and you feel the need to to point out that his logic has holes. This is about civil liberties being taken by this administration and those that oppose or go against this "regime" are tagged as UnAmerican or just thrown into jail. [http://www.elfis.net/phorum/read.php?f=45& i=139&t =139]
Using detectors to detect bombs or weapons is common sense, but jailing someone for wearing a t-shirt is WRONG. Finally someone with authority has said so. Please loosen your sphincter.
I believe that a 2 or even 3 thousand dollar tax cut, is not nearly as good as a job that pays (on average) $9000 more than it does currently.
Telling me you are giving me a tax cut in this situation is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue of jobs not paying what they used to and the cost of living increasing just like always.
And to be quite frank, it is my opinion that NONE of us should be getting tax cuts at all while we are at WAR. I believe that those that can afford it should be willing to pay more in a time of need and not be bitching that they want more back.
How are we supposed to pay for all this? Are Iraq and Afghanistan gonna get a bill from the US for "Liberating" them? Probably not.
While I don't disagree with you that the arrest of Dmitry _Sklyarov_ was unjust and the prosecution should focus on the corporation and not the individual, I believe the problem is John Ashcroft.
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention as I had never read anything about it. The law is disturbing. I found this article that is pretty informative about Dmitry Sklyarov and his case. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530420.h tml?leg acy=zdnn
I will consider this more in the upcoming days...
Thanks, that is the first legitimate evidence anyone has presented.
...According to Rumsfeld, four fifths of a country voting is ok. Isn't that enough?
"He said an election could perhaps be held in "three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great"."
>Kerry voted for and supports the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act.
Ok...
An over view of this act:
Highlights Generally:
Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.
Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.
Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."
States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
I guess I don't see what is wrong with this and doesn't (IMO) mean I shouldn't vote for him.
Kerry voted for and supports USA-PATRIOT.
Voted for, yes. But he has stated in the first debate that the way John Ashcroft has used this Act is unconstitutional. So, I believe he does support the law, but not how THIS administration is abusing it.
Kerry voted for and supports the war on Iraq.
Kerry voted for the right for the POTUS to use military power. The POTUS used that power, but in a very poor manner.
Saddam should have been removed, but a better plan should have been in place to do it.
Once again, I see this as a Bush flaw and not a Kerry flaw. Many support the war who feel that the way the war was waged has been a monumental disaster. I have to agree.
So far... no legitimate reasons have been given to NOT vote for Kerry.
I hope you are trying to be funny. If not I assume you are just another moron brainwashed by the Bush Fear-mongering. I would rather have a decorated veteran leading our country than a drunken frat boy who found god.
Well, I suppose _they_ would. They even have in fact, with the whole "We underestimated what we would need in Iraq quote". But... at least the American public would know that this guy has some humility (and is smart enough to remember that he had in fact made a few mistakes:(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp. asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326). A rare quality in today's politics, unless you count Richard Clark, who admitted his mistake/s.
Admittedly, I was totally against W (I hate saying I'm against Bush) becuase I think he and his cronies are just evil. Then I took one of those voter tests and my beliefs alligned with Kerry's, so I did some research and I belive him to be a pretty stand up guy. I know he has exaggerated some facts (factcheck.org) but no where near the degree the other guys have. ["I own a lumber company?(smug laughter)"] Can anyone send me some FACTS as to why I shouldn't be voting for Kerry? I am trolling here. And please, let's keep it to this or the last decade (keep quiet swift boat supporters), and on issues that actually mean something.
Good research... I would mod you up if I had points. Someone responded earler that Kerry kept his answers to the point, while the others droned on. Even my atention was tested by W and Nader's windiness.
I seriously doubt that either of the big 2 (W and Kerry) wrote their responses. Well, maybe Kerry.
I would like to see more succint answers in the debate. I hate being taken off topic, or distracted all together. But I suppose that is the heart of politicking.
Oh come on... No one is going to crucify him for admitting what he did wrong. Unless of course, what he did wrong was illegal. Which makes me think... If he does get charged for something like say, lying to congress about his reasons for going to war, then he will have never been on record for admitting to anything. So, using this logic, it is brilliant (did I just call W brilliant? I must be high). There will never be a recored of him ever admitting to anything that he has done "wrong". So, the reason he does not respond is that he is afraid of criminal indictment. And he should be. IMHO
Hello, Site is being slashdotted and they know it.
Warning: Due to recent national publicity about this site, your results may not be available. Please bookmark this page and visit us in a few hours when traffic is reduced to more normal levels. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Slashdot Mirror
My examples are valid. I live in the D.C. area and those examples were socially staggering. People were hiding while getting gas and afraid to open their mail. You can't say the anthrax thing was done by a lone or few nuts, because we don't know who did it, how they did it, how they got the anthrax, or if they will do it again.
Granted the snipers were nuts, but effective nuts who were 9/11 sympathizers.
Ok... thanks for the links.
But what about those who don't have internet access?
I just feel that there is a lot more they could be doing. For everyone.
You notice they just completely stopped talking about it about six months ago.
Well, they did use it right after the DNC (3 months ago), but it only applied to some buildings. I believe those warings are still in effect, even though the data the spurred them was 3 years old.
This warning was thought by some to be an attempt to steal the Dem bounce.
But they would never do that... would they.
A few example ofd validity:s /archives/2004/07 /couple_arrested.php
Q uote:
URL:
http://www.fobiopatel.com/dongle
Quote:
"In September, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service, seeking an injunction against the Bush administration for segregating protesters at his public appearances. The Secret Service agreed that such censorship was wrong, said Witold Walczak, one of the lawyers that filed the lawsuit. 'They had an internal memo dated September 2002, saying they couldn't treat protesters differently or worse' than anyone else at a presidential appearance, Walczak said. 'The judge said any agent responsible for doing so could be held liable for damages.'""
URL:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/097663.htm
"It has been said that people get the sort of government they deserve, and it's rather sad to think that we deserve a government that handcuffs and removes people from public events paid for with public funds simply because they are expressing a message that is critical of the government -- even though people expressing pro-government messages in the exact same way are not only left alone but in fact encouraged in their behavior."
I could do this all day... Can you find ONE place where it says what was done to these people was just?
BTW... this was a public event not private (see above)
What law did they break?
The charges of trespassing were dropped.
So that ain't it.
Your ticketed event defense only holds up if it is a private members only event. If that was the case how did these folks get the tickets and how were they then allowed in? The fact that they were allowed in tells me that at one point, they were welcome. The minute they became unwelcome was when they exposed clothing that someone didn't like.
Did the event specifically say "No Anti-Bush T-shirts"? I doubt it because that may have been grounds to remove them and they wouldn't have had to use Trespassing as an excuse. Even then it isn't grounds to ARREST them.
Re: Validity
My entire arguement here is validated by the fact that these people are SUEING because their rights have been infinged upon. When they win (as the Judge in the topic of this thread has made apparent that they have a good case) I expect you to at least try and see it another way.
I would point out that (although not necessarily by al-queada) we have had terror here since 9-11
1)Anthrax being mailed to important people and people dying from it. Not to mention the effect is had on society: Mass Cipro sales and people not opening their mail.
The Offender/s have not been caught.
2)DC area Sniper terrorists. These guys terrorized the whole area from Richmond to Baltimore for months. They were caught, but only because they were stupid. What is to stop a smart terrorist from doing the same thing?
I wouldn't say W is doing such a great job or the DoHS.
Do you know what to do in case a Nuke goes off near you?
I don't... you would think they would set up guides for each situation they can think of and publish them.
Last I heard I was to buy plastic and duct tape. i.e. duck and cover.
OTOH They did do that handy color chart. I feel much safer with that around.
I never said it was "Right"... I said it was _a_ RIGHT. And if you are an American citizen, then you have access to that right. Whether to abuse it or not is up to you.
Wearing an "I hate..." shirt is your right and the state/gov't should not inhibit that right. I don't suggest doning it, nor do I, can I, or will I ever tell someone NOT to do it. It is their RIGHT.
Being offended by something you read is just as dumb as being offended by someone calling you a name.
But that is another discussion.
They weren't jailed for non-violent protest. They were arrested and released (no jail time) for trespassing.
& thresho ld=1&commentsort=3&tid=226&mode=thread&pid=1055672 6#10556940
WhatEVER...they were hadcuffed and removed...for wearing a T-Shirt!
They can call it tresspassing, but that isn't the reason at all and we all know it.
Isn't this just a little rediculous to you?
Please see my other post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126073
Unless you are hearing t-shirts speak (which I wouldn't be surprised with at this point) you cannot be accosted by a t-shirt.
Kerry's stump speeches are open to the public.
Republicans make you sign a declaration of support before attending.
Who is being Orwellian here?
You seem to believe that one person's opinion worn on an article of clothing can be offensive enough to deserve arrest.
But the bottom line is... that is a RIGHT protected by the constitution. Which is why these people in question are sueing.
It seems that you have some sort of T-shirt phobia. My question is... does it end there or are you terrified by all clothing and think that those wearing clothes should be removed from your sight? Being afraid of what people wear is closely akin to being afraid of one's skin color.
When was the last time you were accosted by a t-shirt?
Your comparisons about privacy are apples to oranges.
They weren't speaking to anyone rudely. They were wearing clothes. Then they were hadcuffed and detained. Is this right?
If you wore a "Cat's Sucks" T-shirt to the play Cats, there is not a damned thing anyone could do to you.
It means that, in an extreme example that if the current powers don't like the little polo guy on your polo shirt, they could have the secret service remove you because they can't play polo.
Then they could make you wear that polo shirt all the time so they know what you represent, then they could put you in a camp with all the other polo shirt wearers.
Do you see where this is leading?
Are you still for arresting people because of what they wear? If so, I would like to introduce you to some of my jewish friends.
How is it healthy for people to be jailed for non-violent protest?
b em1ytvcJ: abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040914_1592.html+couple +arrested+wearing+anti+bush+shirts&hl=en
How is it "private" if anyone can buy a ticket? (as they did)
And you are saying it is obnoxious to wear a tee-shirt?
I got news for you... that is called freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression and what you are suggesting is OK and "healthy" is what I would call Facism.
The charges of tresspassing were dropped, but only after the damage was done so the President didn't have to see that some people don't like him.
This is exactly what is wrong with this administration. They refuse to believe that more than half of America and most of the world don't approve of what they are doing and they are willing to trounce upon, ignore and remove our civil rights for their own agendas.
And you think this is healthy?!?
Here is a better link (google cached)
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:VVE
There are plenty more out there too...
Very nice.. the parent makes a valid point and you feel the need to to point out that his logic has holes.& i=139&t =139]
This is about civil liberties being taken by this administration and those that oppose or go against this "regime" are tagged as UnAmerican or just thrown into jail.
[http://www.elfis.net/phorum/read.php?f=45
Using detectors to detect bombs or weapons is common sense, but jailing someone for wearing a t-shirt is WRONG. Finally someone with authority has said so.
Please loosen your sphincter.
I believe that a 2 or even 3 thousand dollar tax cut, is not nearly as good as a job that pays (on average) $9000 more than it does currently.
Telling me you are giving me a tax cut in this situation is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue of jobs not paying what they used to and the cost of living increasing just like always.
And to be quite frank, it is my opinion that NONE of us should be getting tax cuts at all while we are at WAR.
I believe that those that can afford it should be willing to pay more in a time of need and not be bitching that they want more back.
How are we supposed to pay for all this?
Are Iraq and Afghanistan gonna get a bill from the US for "Liberating" them? Probably not.
While I don't disagree with you that the arrest of Dmitry _Sklyarov_ was unjust and the prosecution should focus on the corporation and not the individual, I believe the problem is John Ashcroft.
h tml?leg acy=zdnn
I appreciate you bringing this to my attention as I had never read anything about it. The law is disturbing.
I found this article that is pretty informative about Dmitry Sklyarov and his case.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530420.
I will consider this more in the upcoming days...
Thanks, that is the first legitimate evidence anyone has presented.
Any more than that will confound the entire state of Florida.
...According to Rumsfeld, four fifths of a country voting is ok.
Isn't that enough?
"He said an election could perhaps be held in "three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. But in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great"."
Ok...
An over view of this act:
I guess I don't see what is wrong with this and doesn't (IMO) mean I shouldn't vote for him.
Kerry voted for and supports USA-PATRIOT.
Voted for, yes. But he has stated in the first debate that the way John Ashcroft has used this Act is unconstitutional. So, I believe he does support the law, but not how THIS administration is abusing it.
Kerry voted for and supports the war on Iraq.
Kerry voted for the right for the POTUS to use military power. The POTUS used that power, but in a very poor manner.
Saddam should have been removed, but a better plan should have been in place to do it.
Once again, I see this as a Bush flaw and not a Kerry flaw. Many support the war who feel that the way the war was waged has been a monumental disaster. I have to agree.
So far... no legitimate reasons have been given to NOT vote for Kerry.
Thanks for playing.
I hope you are trying to be funny. If not I assume you are just another moron brainwashed by the Bush Fear-mongering.
I would rather have a decorated veteran leading our country than a drunken frat boy who found god.
Next...
>And since that is the case, do we really want someone as President that was just "the other guy"?
In our current situation...HELL YES!
Fortunately for us, Kerry _is_ qualified and fit to be POTUS.
Well, I suppose _they_ would. They even have in fact, with the whole "We underestimated what we would need in Iraq quote".. asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326).
;-p
But... at least the American public would know that this guy has some humility (and is smart enough to remember that he had in fact made a few mistakes:(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp
A rare quality in today's politics, unless you count Richard Clark, who admitted his mistake/s.
Oh.. btw, _my_ gmail invite worked.
Admittedly, I was totally against W (I hate saying I'm against Bush) becuase I think he and his cronies are just evil.
Then I took one of those voter tests and my beliefs alligned with Kerry's, so I did some research and I belive him to be a pretty stand up guy. I know he has exaggerated some facts (factcheck.org) but no where near the degree the other guys have. ["I own a lumber company?(smug laughter)"]
Can anyone send me some FACTS as to why I shouldn't be voting for Kerry?
I am trolling here. And please, let's keep it to this or the last decade (keep quiet swift boat supporters), and on issues that actually mean something.
Good research...
I would mod you up if I had points.
Someone responded earler that Kerry kept his answers to the point, while the others droned on.
Even my atention was tested by W and Nader's windiness.
I seriously doubt that either of the big 2 (W and Kerry) wrote their responses. Well, maybe Kerry.
I would like to see more succint answers in the debate. I hate being taken off topic, or distracted all together. But I suppose that is the heart of politicking.
Good post!
Oh come on... No one is going to crucify him for admitting what he did wrong.
Unless of course, what he did wrong was illegal. Which makes me think... If he does get charged for something like say, lying to congress about his reasons for going to war, then he will have never been on record for admitting to anything.
So, using this logic, it is brilliant (did I just call W brilliant? I must be high).
There will never be a recored of him ever admitting to anything that he has done "wrong".
So, the reason he does not respond is that he is afraid of criminal indictment. And he should be. IMHO
Excellent!
Twain had the right idea and folks today just don't get it. (well, some of 'em don't)
Thanks
A hatchet job on Bush was already televised. I think it was called "The First Debate"
Hello,
Site is being slashdotted and they know it.
Warning: Due to recent national publicity about this site, your results may not be available. Please bookmark this page and visit us in a few hours when traffic is reduced to more normal levels. We apologize for any inconvenience.