Functional marriages also have a profound role in the creation of next-generation's winners and achievers.
Functional marriages have nothing to do with anything, as marriage is just a title. Functional relationships seem more likely to cause whatever it is you're talking about. Marriage needn't enter into it; it's just that people with certain mentalities are more likely to get married.
Rites of passage are part of the culture and not necessarily religious if that's what you're referring to by "magical thinking".
Rites of passage might as well be religious; they employ the same shallow level of critical thinking, and especially so in cases like this.
Not necessarily. I've met people who've considered divorce, decided to stick together and ended up being quite happy.
But I also said, "If they can make up, they would do that anyway."
At least one of those couples would have split had they not been married.
There's no way to know that.
And what about people who split up *because* they were married?
For many, having children is a conscious choice.
You are incorrect. Whether people admit to it or not, they are controlled by instinct. While yes, it is possible to use birth control or adopt, that does not mean that instincts don't play a huge part in making someone decide to mate; they do. At any rate, marriage has *nothing* to do with it, and far more to do with the person's mentality.
Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind.
That depends on what you mean by "mental degeneration." I find most people utterly idiotic and I'd even say that their minds are diseased. One person's "crazy" is another's "genius."
As far as I know there is no case registered yet.
That's because they have no chance to be isolated. If they go out of society, they lose all the benefits. And again, being a "social animal" is quite different from being an antisocial animal who only sees other people as providers of entertainment, like that guy claimed to be above.
You may think yourself as different and unique as you want
I'm not even talking about myself.
Think what you want, but you absolutely adore the taste of feces. Accept it.
What are "social justice hipsters"? Well, regardless, it isn't "powerful" in any objective way and has nothing to do with being white or middle class. It doesn't really grow any of the things you mentioned, either; people with certain mentalities do that, and that has nothing to do with titles.
And you attribute this to him not marrying? For what reason?
Marriage isn't a magical, divine thing; it's nothing more than a title. It won't fix bad relationships, and it won't magically make people stay together.
The biggest problem with money when you get married, is that your partner will have different things that they like to splurge on and things that they are willing to do without.
Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.
You enjoy having feces rubbed all over your face. Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.
Stop generalizing. Just because most people are like that doesn't mean 100% of all people on the planet are. Believe it or not, mutations actually occur, and there people born with various genetic and psychological defects. Are you saying it is impossible for someone to not be a "social animal" (a disgusting term, by the way)?
Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.
"need" is different from want. But if being sociopathic and thinking of other human beings as nothing more than insects who deliver content to you is what you meant by interaction, then maybe that guy finds interaction enjoyable.
But I don't think that is what is often meant by "human beings are social animals."
Yes, those who enjoy privacy and don't want the government to violate their rights are just nutters who hate the government. I can tell that you're a genius.
The main problem is that society started thinking it would be a good idea if every loser under the sun went to college. In reality, this just caused colleges to drop their standards to accommodate the new trash and raise prices. As if it wasn't bad enough before, colleges and universities are pumping out incompetent 'products' by the thousands.
For someone who loves his freedoms and humanity so much, you seem to spare no effort in insulting people who don't share your views.
Right. I also have the freedom to insult people. If I were suggesting that government thugs come and infringe upon your freedoms for disagreeing with me, then I'd be more like you. But I do no such thing.
As for me insulting you, I can't help myself. I'm so sick of you naive ignoramuses ruining every country on the planet with your fascism.
Freedom and respect are earned.
I don't know where you live, but here in the US, you don't have to do anything to earn freedom; you already have it, and it's thanks to the actions of people centuries ago that that's true.
As for "respect," well, don't you expect the government to respect the law and the constitution that gives it its powers to begin with, or do you just want it to do whatever it wants if it pleases you? You seem to be shamelessly supporting tyranny.
You are not born with them, no matter what a piece of paper might say.
Actually, that's not true in the case of freedom. Anyone born at this time will be born under a government established under the US constitution, and will have guaranteed freedoms from birth.
In order to enjoy its benefits you have to pay a price. Nothing in life is free.
Exactly: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I must remain vigilant against the government, and against people like you who seek to strip us all of our freedoms. I wonder why it is that you favor the government so much that you feel the need to utterly disregard the rule of law? You do realize that the US constitution is the highest law of the land in the US and that the government has no authority to violate it under any circumstances, correct?
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome.
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome, to think that you can order your government thugs to infringe upon people's privacy, freedom, and the law so you can feel safe. That's the ultimate form of entitlement, my dear insect.
No one "owes" you anything.
Who are you quoting? I never even used that word.
As to whether anyone "owes" me anything or not, well, the government definitely does. In the US, the government only has certain powers and may not violate people's rights except under very, very specific circumstances (For instance, they need warrants to conduct many types of searches.). The government certainly owes its citizens respect towards the law and the constitution; the latter of which is *the highest law of the land* in the US. Try reading the US constitution sometime, since this story is US-centric.
but there is a limit to what is reasonable without hurting other people.
No one is talking about hurting other people. They're talking about respecting people's freedoms.
Collecting and analyzing information is painless.
Incorrect. It violates people's privacy and freedom and, in this case, the constitution. But you don't seem to care about any of that.
The bottom line is, innocent people's communications shouldn't be spied on, and the government should have to get a warrant before they can collect any information on someone.
What this should teach you is that there is a gray area of what privacy you can give up without the sky falling down on everyone.
What it teaches me is that many countries are on the road to tyranny. We've already seen it in many areas, from draconian copyright laws, to LOVEINT, to the TSA, to the NSA spying. Not even the Holocaust happened that long ago. You are very ignorant of history indeed.
There are many countries in the world (North Korea, China, many middle east countries, etc.) where the governments would just love to have all this technology to use against their citizens, and some already do have it and use it. Why, then, is it so inconceivable to you that human beings in similar positions in other countries could also abuse it, especially since they already have?
And whether the sky falls or not is irrelevant. As I said, since I have principles, I believe freedom to be more important than security, so take your tyranny and shove it up your ass.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Maybe for you government cheerleaders, it does. However, the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and we aren't free if we give away our freedoms, nor are we brave if we do so.
Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
Absolute bullshit. For one thing, as of now, we get neither. Second of all, try arguing that in any other case and see what happens. Malware can be automated. Does that make it okay? You can ruin people's life with automation. You obviously didn't think this through.
In reality, it is still a gross violation of the fourth amendment and people's privacy if machines are collecting the information.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
The government shouldn't really have access to specific information there, either.
Again, you have proven yourself to be willfully ignorant of history and the hundreds of millions lives lost due to corrupt governments. If you honestly think that this will not be abused, or that privacy somehow doesn't matter, then you're living in a literal fantasy land that you need to emerge from. Repeat after me: "The people in the government are human beings; they are not perfect angels." Repeat that enough times until your worthless brain understands what it means.
There are plenty of governments that intercept communications for the sake of security and none of the doomsday prophesies you eluded to have taken place.
Oh, there have been abuses, even if you're not aware of them. We already know that the NSA abused its powers (LOVEINT).
But even if there weren't abuses, you'd also have to trust current governments and absolutely every future government to never abuse their powers to silence those who do or say things it doesn't like, and if you have that level of trust, I can only say that you are disgustingly foolish.
Freedom of Expression and police work are not incompatible.
Of course not, but that's a mere straw man. This has to do with privacy, the fourth amendment (Which you, once again, outright ignored!), and the abuses that will inevitably take place if they have all this data.
What you call "anti-freedom" I call "trust in the government".
What you call "trust in the government" I call "ignorance of history."
I don't think you can live in a society where citizens distrust the government to do absolutely anything.
The government is a *necessary evil*; everything it does should be questioned to see if it's truly necessary or good, and powers that are easily abused shouldn't be given to them. Powers that violate people's rights should also be out of the question. Privacy is a right, and the fourth amendment is being violated.
No one is saying the government shouldn't exist; they're saying it shouldn't be collecting everyone's data and should have to get individual warrants to target each individual they wish to target.
How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
Because medicare has nothing to do with your private communications.
My point is that if you take off those cynical glasses and view the government with a little bit more trust then you come to realize that there is a legitimate need to intercept data in order to catch malicious individuals.
I recognize no such need, but even if there were a need, I would reject this 'solution' solely because it violates people's privacy and rights.
You would do well to not ignore most of my comment. I addressed exactly why it is foolish to trust the government with such power. I can only presume, at this point, that you are not only utterly ignorant of the historical abuses of governmental power, but willfully ignorant, since you ignore any evidence that debunks your notion that the government is made up of perfect angels.
And again, you ignore the fourth amendment issue. Do you even care that the constitution is being violated to do this, or do you just want to let the government run amok if it helps you feel safe from the (largely nonexistent, by the way) terrorist bogeyman?
Then you're anti-freedom and you hate the principles that American was founded on. Freedom is more important than security. If you don't agree, move to North Korea, you insect.
And if it does, I will do the same thing I did on 9/11: Encourage people to not surrender their freedoms for safety. Our principles are tested in dark times, and you've made it clear that you are completely without them.
We just need to make sure that the data remains as anonymous as possible until the last moment, at which point they acquire a warrant to dig out specific names.
Throughout history, corrupt governments have murdered hundreds of millions of people, and yet you, in your irrational fear of terrorists, want to give the government the power to collect information on essentially everyone. You are a fool. You are just giving the government the power to blackmail people it doesn't like; to put people it doesn't like in prison for violating laws it creates, even if those laws are completely immoral; and to put its targets
The abuse of this "metadata" (which is just data, by the way) is an inevitability, and if you actually cared about freedom or the constitution in the least, you would reject the "safety" you believe this will bring and accept that freedom has risks. But hey, you didn't mention the constitution once, so I guess you don't even care if the government follows the very document that spells out its powers to begin with!
But go ahead; make this country even worse with your profound ignorance and lack of principles. Go ahead and continue believing that the people in the government are perfect angels, despise the fact that history disproves your fantasy (Even in the US, we had slavery, Jim Crow laws, discrimination against women, the internment of Japanese citizens, and much more.) thousands of times over. Go ahead... but please move elsewhere and do it.
To say that he isn't involved at all is just idiotic. Since he's continuing these same practices, he's just as much of a criminal as Bush, Cheney, and every politician that didn't vote against the Patriot Act.
The "lack of standing" issue is absolutely disgusting and weakens the checks and balances that our system is supposed to have. Violating people's rights should give *anyone* automatic standing.
Wrong. Saying that you don't like a specific part of the constitution is 100% different from saying that we should violate it. It is perfect possible to dislike certain parts of the constitution and think it should be amended, yet still say we should follow it. You're ignorant.
Better at solving arbitrary problems and performing calculations that are spelled out for you, most likely. Better at innovating and actually understanding what you're doing, though? No.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law.
Which is exactly what I said when I mentioned that they have "a bit of power."
No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
If you'd like, I could just say that you're drawing too many of your opinions from authority figures, but it really doesn't change anything.
And I see no fallacy by that name, though there's probably something similar. If taken literally, it's probably more of a straw man.
What? You do realize that this is about the government trying to make a law that forbids in-flight phone calls, right? It's not the private property owners deciding to do this; it's the government. That's what people are objecting to.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
The judges are just people with opinions and a bit of power; they have their own opinions as to how to interpret the constitution, but not facts.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Courts should *not* be changing the constitution; amendments should. However, such an amendment exists, and while it was ultimately the courts that interpreted it in that way to make things such as the first amendment apply to the states, it was the constitutional amendment that did it.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
Why is it that some people assume that people who question the government do not know how it's supposed to operate? I'm well aware, and I know it's not operating correctly. Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
Republicans? We should be keeping the One Party out of the power structure. The republican party is part of the One Party, but they're only one part of it. They all want to take away our rights, as is proven by all the egregious violations of people's rights and the constitution that have been happening for quite some time now.
Slashdot Mirror
Functional marriages also have a profound role in the creation of next-generation's winners and achievers.
Functional marriages have nothing to do with anything, as marriage is just a title. Functional relationships seem more likely to cause whatever it is you're talking about. Marriage needn't enter into it; it's just that people with certain mentalities are more likely to get married.
Rites of passage are part of the culture and not necessarily religious if that's what you're referring to by "magical thinking".
Rites of passage might as well be religious; they employ the same shallow level of critical thinking, and especially so in cases like this.
Not necessarily. I've met people who've considered divorce, decided to stick together and ended up being quite happy.
But I also said, "If they can make up, they would do that anyway."
At least one of those couples would have split had they not been married.
There's no way to know that.
And what about people who split up *because* they were married?
For many, having children is a conscious choice.
You are incorrect. Whether people admit to it or not, they are controlled by instinct. While yes, it is possible to use birth control or adopt, that does not mean that instincts don't play a huge part in making someone decide to mate; they do. At any rate, marriage has *nothing* to do with it, and far more to do with the person's mentality.
only the shallowest of spouses will stick around
Only shallow spouses who never loved you to begin with would leave.
For some people it's just a title, for others it's a major rite of passage.
The latter type of person is what I would call an "idiot." Frankly, you don't want to be involved with magical thinkers to begin with.
So there is a bit more incentive to try and work things out.
If they're unhappy enough to consider divorce as an option, they'll just be unhappy. If they can make up, they would do that anyway.
Also with marriage often comes children and even more entanglement.
Children have little to do with marriage, but with basic reproductive urges.
I mean things like acquiring multiple personalities, schizophrenia, acute clinical depression etc.
Most people could have all of those things and they wouldn't be any less annoying than they are currently.
So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.
So you basically have absolutely no evidence supporting your position. Cute.
And what position? You mean the one where I accept that it is possible for such people to exist, rather than arrogantly claim that none do?
Find me a person that can survive indefinitely alone without mental degeneration and I promise to change my mind.
That depends on what you mean by "mental degeneration." I find most people utterly idiotic and I'd even say that their minds are diseased. One person's "crazy" is another's "genius."
As far as I know there is no case registered yet.
That's because they have no chance to be isolated. If they go out of society, they lose all the benefits. And again, being a "social animal" is quite different from being an antisocial animal who only sees other people as providers of entertainment, like that guy claimed to be above.
You may think yourself as different and unique as you want
I'm not even talking about myself.
Think what you want, but you absolutely adore the taste of feces. Accept it.
What are "social justice hipsters"? Well, regardless, it isn't "powerful" in any objective way and has nothing to do with being white or middle class. It doesn't really grow any of the things you mentioned, either; people with certain mentalities do that, and that has nothing to do with titles.
And you attribute this to him not marrying? For what reason?
Marriage isn't a magical, divine thing; it's nothing more than a title. It won't fix bad relationships, and it won't magically make people stay together.
The biggest problem with money when you get married, is that your partner will have different things that they like to splurge on and things that they are willing to do without.
How is that specific to getting married?
Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.
You enjoy having feces rubbed all over your face. Things are as they are, you can accept them or pretend they are otherwise, that is your prerogative but that won't make them different.
Stop generalizing. Just because most people are like that doesn't mean 100% of all people on the planet are. Believe it or not, mutations actually occur, and there people born with various genetic and psychological defects. Are you saying it is impossible for someone to not be a "social animal" (a disgusting term, by the way)?
Exactly and by this you admit that you need interaction to other people in the form of absorbing information generated by them.
"need" is different from want. But if being sociopathic and thinking of other human beings as nothing more than insects who deliver content to you is what you meant by interaction, then maybe that guy finds interaction enjoyable.
But I don't think that is what is often meant by "human beings are social animals."
Yes, those who enjoy privacy and don't want the government to violate their rights are just nutters who hate the government. I can tell that you're a genius.
The main problem is that society started thinking it would be a good idea if every loser under the sun went to college. In reality, this just caused colleges to drop their standards to accommodate the new trash and raise prices. As if it wasn't bad enough before, colleges and universities are pumping out incompetent 'products' by the thousands.
For someone who loves his freedoms and humanity so much, you seem to spare no effort in insulting people who don't share your views.
Right. I also have the freedom to insult people. If I were suggesting that government thugs come and infringe upon your freedoms for disagreeing with me, then I'd be more like you. But I do no such thing.
As for me insulting you, I can't help myself. I'm so sick of you naive ignoramuses ruining every country on the planet with your fascism.
Freedom and respect are earned.
I don't know where you live, but here in the US, you don't have to do anything to earn freedom; you already have it, and it's thanks to the actions of people centuries ago that that's true.
As for "respect," well, don't you expect the government to respect the law and the constitution that gives it its powers to begin with, or do you just want it to do whatever it wants if it pleases you? You seem to be shamelessly supporting tyranny.
You are not born with them, no matter what a piece of paper might say.
Actually, that's not true in the case of freedom. Anyone born at this time will be born under a government established under the US constitution, and will have guaranteed freedoms from birth.
In order to enjoy its benefits you have to pay a price. Nothing in life is free.
Exactly: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I must remain vigilant against the government, and against people like you who seek to strip us all of our freedoms. I wonder why it is that you favor the government so much that you feel the need to utterly disregard the rule of law? You do realize that the US constitution is the highest law of the land in the US and that the government has no authority to violate it under any circumstances, correct?
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome.
You sound like you suffer from entitlement syndrome, to think that you can order your government thugs to infringe upon people's privacy, freedom, and the law so you can feel safe. That's the ultimate form of entitlement, my dear insect.
No one "owes" you anything.
Who are you quoting? I never even used that word.
As to whether anyone "owes" me anything or not, well, the government definitely does. In the US, the government only has certain powers and may not violate people's rights except under very, very specific circumstances (For instance, they need warrants to conduct many types of searches.). The government certainly owes its citizens respect towards the law and the constitution; the latter of which is *the highest law of the land* in the US. Try reading the US constitution sometime, since this story is US-centric.
but there is a limit to what is reasonable without hurting other people.
No one is talking about hurting other people. They're talking about respecting people's freedoms.
Collecting and analyzing information is painless.
Incorrect. It violates people's privacy and freedom and, in this case, the constitution. But you don't seem to care about any of that.
The bottom line is, innocent people's communications shouldn't be spied on, and the government should have to get a warrant before they can collect any information on someone.
What this should teach you is that there is a gray area of what privacy you can give up without the sky falling down on everyone.
What it teaches me is that many countries are on the road to tyranny. We've already seen it in many areas, from draconian copyright laws, to LOVEINT, to the TSA, to the NSA spying. Not even the Holocaust happened that long ago. You are very ignorant of history indeed.
There are many countries in the world (North Korea, China, many middle east countries, etc.) where the governments would just love to have all this technology to use against their citizens, and some already do have it and use it. Why, then, is it so inconceivable to you that human beings in similar positions in other countries could also abuse it, especially since they already have?
And whether the sky falls or not is irrelevant. As I said, since I have principles, I believe freedom to be more important than security, so take your tyranny and shove it up your ass.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. When the economy is bad, expect less government handouts. When security is bad, expect less privacy. It all goes hand in hand.
Maybe for you government cheerleaders, it does. However, the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and we aren't free if we give away our freedoms, nor are we brave if we do so.
Meaning: you get privacy from humans, but not machines. As it should be.
Absolute bullshit. For one thing, as of now, we get neither. Second of all, try arguing that in any other case and see what happens. Malware can be automated. Does that make it okay? You can ruin people's life with automation. You obviously didn't think this through.
In reality, it is still a gross violation of the fourth amendment and people's privacy if machines are collecting the information.
Are you nuts? What is more private than one's health? Is it really anyone's business what diseases I have? Health care is *very* much about privacy!
The government shouldn't really have access to specific information there, either.
Again, you have proven yourself to be willfully ignorant of history and the hundreds of millions lives lost due to corrupt governments. If you honestly think that this will not be abused, or that privacy somehow doesn't matter, then you're living in a literal fantasy land that you need to emerge from. Repeat after me: "The people in the government are human beings; they are not perfect angels." Repeat that enough times until your worthless brain understands what it means.
Now, go get molested at an airport, you insect.
There are plenty of governments that intercept communications for the sake of security and none of the doomsday prophesies you eluded to have taken place.
Oh, there have been abuses, even if you're not aware of them. We already know that the NSA abused its powers (LOVEINT).
But even if there weren't abuses, you'd also have to trust current governments and absolutely every future government to never abuse their powers to silence those who do or say things it doesn't like, and if you have that level of trust, I can only say that you are disgustingly foolish.
Freedom of Expression and police work are not incompatible.
Of course not, but that's a mere straw man. This has to do with privacy, the fourth amendment (Which you, once again, outright ignored!), and the abuses that will inevitably take place if they have all this data.
What you call "anti-freedom" I call "trust in the government".
What you call "trust in the government" I call "ignorance of history."
I don't think you can live in a society where citizens distrust the government to do absolutely anything.
The government is a *necessary evil*; everything it does should be questioned to see if it's truly necessary or good, and powers that are easily abused shouldn't be given to them. Powers that violate people's rights should also be out of the question. Privacy is a right, and the fourth amendment is being violated.
No one is saying the government shouldn't exist; they're saying it shouldn't be collecting everyone's data and should have to get individual warrants to target each individual they wish to target.
How can you trust them with your health/life (you want "medicare" right?) but not with your communication?
Because medicare has nothing to do with your private communications.
My point is that if you take off those cynical glasses and view the government with a little bit more trust then you come to realize that there is a legitimate need to intercept data in order to catch malicious individuals.
I recognize no such need, but even if there were a need, I would reject this 'solution' solely because it violates people's privacy and rights.
You would do well to not ignore most of my comment. I addressed exactly why it is foolish to trust the government with such power. I can only presume, at this point, that you are not only utterly ignorant of the historical abuses of governmental power, but willfully ignorant, since you ignore any evidence that debunks your notion that the government is made up of perfect angels.
And again, you ignore the fourth amendment issue. Do you even care that the constitution is being violated to do this, or do you just want to let the government run amok if it helps you feel safe from the (largely nonexistent, by the way) terrorist bogeyman?
Then you're anti-freedom and you hate the principles that American was founded on. Freedom is more important than security. If you don't agree, move to North Korea, you insect.
At least metadata is somewhat anonymous.
It's not even somewhat anonymous. The EFF has written about this.
It *will* happen.
And if it does, I will do the same thing I did on 9/11: Encourage people to not surrender their freedoms for safety. Our principles are tested in dark times, and you've made it clear that you are completely without them.
We just need to make sure that the data remains as anonymous as possible until the last moment, at which point they acquire a warrant to dig out specific names.
Throughout history, corrupt governments have murdered hundreds of millions of people, and yet you, in your irrational fear of terrorists, want to give the government the power to collect information on essentially everyone. You are a fool. You are just giving the government the power to blackmail people it doesn't like; to put people it doesn't like in prison for violating laws it creates, even if those laws are completely immoral; and to put its targets
The abuse of this "metadata" (which is just data, by the way) is an inevitability, and if you actually cared about freedom or the constitution in the least, you would reject the "safety" you believe this will bring and accept that freedom has risks. But hey, you didn't mention the constitution once, so I guess you don't even care if the government follows the very document that spells out its powers to begin with!
But go ahead; make this country even worse with your profound ignorance and lack of principles. Go ahead and continue believing that the people in the government are perfect angels, despise the fact that history disproves your fantasy (Even in the US, we had slavery, Jim Crow laws, discrimination against women, the internment of Japanese citizens, and much more.) thousands of times over. Go ahead... but please move elsewhere and do it.
To say that he isn't involved at all is just idiotic. Since he's continuing these same practices, he's just as much of a criminal as Bush, Cheney, and every politician that didn't vote against the Patriot Act.
The "lack of standing" issue is absolutely disgusting and weakens the checks and balances that our system is supposed to have. Violating people's rights should give *anyone* automatic standing.
Wrong. Saying that you don't like a specific part of the constitution is 100% different from saying that we should violate it. It is perfect possible to dislike certain parts of the constitution and think it should be amended, yet still say we should follow it. You're ignorant.
Better at solving arbitrary problems and performing calculations that are spelled out for you, most likely. Better at innovating and actually understanding what you're doing, though? No.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law.
Which is exactly what I said when I mentioned that they have "a bit of power."
No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
If you'd like, I could just say that you're drawing too many of your opinions from authority figures, but it really doesn't change anything.
And I see no fallacy by that name, though there's probably something similar. If taken literally, it's probably more of a straw man.
What? You do realize that this is about the government trying to make a law that forbids in-flight phone calls, right? It's not the private property owners deciding to do this; it's the government. That's what people are objecting to.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
The judges are just people with opinions and a bit of power; they have their own opinions as to how to interpret the constitution, but not facts.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Courts should *not* be changing the constitution; amendments should. However, such an amendment exists, and while it was ultimately the courts that interpreted it in that way to make things such as the first amendment apply to the states, it was the constitutional amendment that did it.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
Why is it that some people assume that people who question the government do not know how it's supposed to operate? I'm well aware, and I know it's not operating correctly. Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
Republicans? We should be keeping the One Party out of the power structure. The republican party is part of the One Party, but they're only one part of it. They all want to take away our rights, as is proven by all the egregious violations of people's rights and the constitution that have been happening for quite some time now.