Although it seems to me that you are very narrowly referring to the mere technicalities of the election process within Florida. If so, changes in this area will still very much cement the status quo. I am much more concerned with the question if the federal election process as such is still adequate for the modern day US. IMHO it is utterly antiquated.
You are entitled to the opinion. I disagree with it (for complex reasons, mostly to do with state vs. federal power, that I am unwilling to discuss at this time, as I am too busy to do such a conversation justice).
If you want to condemn me as "being for the status quo," I have no problem with that, except that I am not for the status quo because it is the status quo, but because I happen to think that in this case, the status quo is correct.
Are you happy with the status quo or not?
Am I happy with an electoral college selecting the President? Yes. Am I happy with all of how we select the President? No. I want significant and far-reaching reforms in how our candidates are selected, everything from the pre-primary debates up through election day. I want more public accountability of the parties and the media. I want to dissolve the the CPD and open up the debates to every candidate who is on enough ballots to win enough votes to be President.
I am not happy with the status quo at all, as a whole. But I do like the electoral college.
Do you see the need for improvment on a biger scale than how Florida should go about counting votes?
I couldn't care less how Florida selects its electors. They can do it by vote in the legislature, by governor's fiat, whatever. But if it is a vote, it must be done -- including any recounts -- with the equal protection clause in mind (Amendment 14, Section 1). But equally important is Amendment 14, Section 2, which says, in part:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States... is denied to any of the [voters of such state], or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced...
Paraphrased: people do not have the federal right to vote for electors for President, but when they are GIVEN that right by the state, certain rules must apply. And Florida didn't follow them. All this just to say that I don't care how Florida selects its electors, because I don't live there, but if it is by vote, they need to do it fairly.
I should clarify that what I am speaking of in the "do what is right" in that post is that there is a lot of legal wrangling over the President's stance on Padilla's rights, including moves by various courts to say his lawyers must have access to him, reviews of the right of the President to name him an "unlawful combatant," and more. I don't worry about it because this is how it is supposed to work: someone in power does something we disagree with, that we think is wrong, and the courts carefully review it and render their decision. If the courts find in favor of the President in this case, then I'll complain.
The Constitution says that Congress should have the ultimate control. It still does. The President can act without Congressional approval, but must stop acting if the Congress says so, and cannot continue action without approval. So yes, it seems perfectly legitimate in terms of the Constitution, in both letter and spirit.
I can't answer if "this is the way the Constitution should be interpreted," because I think there is room for many Constitutional methods of dealing with the War Powers problem. I think this is a way the Constitution may be interpreted. As long as the ultimate authority rests with the Congress, I don't see a problem.
I would like to see the language from the War Powers Act tightened up some, to allow responses such as in Japan and Afghanistan without immediate Congressional approval, but to require approval in cases like Iraq; that is, where there is sufficient time for Congress to act. But again, this is not a deal-breaker, because Congress has the authority to stop the planes from flying at any moment.
Remember the fact that Congress DID approve of the recent action in Iraq. The original poster said "yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants." But it was Congress who authorized the action Bush took. I really don't see room for complaint, and don't see the point of this interrogation over something no one could reasonably claim is unconstitutional. If Congress had not approved it, then I could understand the questions. But it did. If Congress has attempted to stop the action, but Bush disregarded it, I could understand the questions. But they didn't.
All the arguments you provided aim to preserve the status quo.
That is worse than false, it is a lie. I specifically noted that I think Florida's election process should be modified from what it was in the 2000 election (apparently they improved it for 2002, I don't know how much work it still needs).
You carefully avoided referring to any ideals or 1st order values to justify the current state of affairs.
I did not defend the status quo, I defined it. It is a fact that the election process was properly followed. It is a fact that we do not have popular election for President. Nowhere in that post did I say those things were how they should be, just that it is how they are. You are making things up, and it only makes you look stupid.
Seriously, though, my complaint about your being an anonymous coward was more relevant and interesting than your "Canada is great and America sucks" transparent propoganda. Like the part about how America needs rules to prevent people being wiped out by zealotry, when it is Canada that actually HAS rules prohibiting hate speech. That's a nice bit of revisionism there.
But hey, if it helps you sleep better at night to think America is repressive and Canada is enlightened, go for it.
And while I didn't slam your writing, I find it interesting that you say Canadians are relatively educated, in spite of your poor writing. Hey, I am not the one who said it, you did.
I think the fundamental difference here is that I am willing to state openly what I believe, while you are so confident in the reasonableness of your beliefs that you post anonymously.
Look, this is exactly what I'm talking about - fiddling with technicalities to make things fit.
The point is that they are not technicalities. I didn't go to technicalities to shoot down the things you said, I spoke plainly. Everyone captured in war is NOT a POW. Gore DID lose the election. Those weapons DO cause mass destruction. Those are not technicalities at all.
Bush won the election process, not the election
There is no distinction. They are one in the same, and always have been.
the majority in Florida (counting everybody - isn't that novel?) voted for Gore
That is false. A vote that is not properly cast and counted is not a vote. If you want to complain that Florida's counting and elections procedures suck, go ahead -- I'll join you -- but that doesn't change the fact that the legal procedure was followed and *therefore* Bush won the election. (Note also that if the count had been done as Gore wanted it, he still would have lost.)
the majority in the U.S voted for Gore.
There is no meaningful sense in which that is true. First, no one except for electors voted for Gore, and a majority of electors voted for Bush; there is no popular vote for President (nor even a Constitutional right to popular vote for electors, that is done by state legislation).
Second, even if you want to say "a majority in the U.S. vote for Gore electors," that cannot possibly be meaningful. It's like saying that your football team should have won because it got more yards, instead of more points. If that number were meaningful, the campaigns would have worked differently, and people would have VOTED differently. Many Republicans stayed home in Massachusetts because Bush had no chance to win the state's electors. The same thing goes for Democrats in other states. The number is absolutely meaningless, except as a curiosity.
And I won't even touch your complete abuse of "liberate", other than to suggest you certainly wouldn't want your property and bank account "liberated" in the same way.
Since, were I an Iraqi, I'd likely be dead or in jail or exile... I don't think that's interesting.
yeah it's really chilling to have laws against calling someone say.. a filthy nigger, or greedy rotten jew that should burn in an oven...
Yes, it really is. Because the next unpopular views they come for will be yours. A Canadian court has already sa
man I hate living in a country with common sense. the guts to call racists racists and punish them from inciting hatred and violence. Chilling..
Incitement to violence is a separate crime, and is already on the books in the U.S. As to hatred, the freedom to hate others is absolutely fundamental to the idea of free speech and free expression. That you and I find the hatred distasteful is the very reason why it is so important to protect it, because popular speech does not need protection.
Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants".
Nothing changed about definitions to make this the case. The Al Qaeda combatants, because they are not fighting for a country, but are in effect mercanaries, are not granted all the protectsion of the Geneva Convention. Now, as I understand it, if there is a question as to their legal status, some sort of court should determine their status. But even if the US is blocking such a move (I've not heard of it, but let's assume it), even if it is not properly applied in this case, the definition the US is using -- distinguishing certain prisoners from prisoners of war -- is perfectly legitimate.
The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense".
It is a liberation. Sure, some of the people don't feel liberated, but most of them seem to (if not from the US than from Hussein, and hopefully the US will leave soon). And no one in the Bush Administration has ever said it is a 'purely "pre-emptive defense".' It never happened. They never said the war was purely about one thing, whether it was self-defense, liberation, terrorism, or enforcement of the Gulf War cease-fire.
Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything.
Apart from people, plants, animals, etc.? Uh huh.
And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
So? That's a smart move. If the US says the war is over, they need to turn over all the prisoners they are currently questioning. That wouldn't be very smart.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
Did the proper legal procedure get followed in the vote count in Florida? Yes. You can disagree with the court's ruling, but there is no room for disagreement that they have the final word, and they gave their final word. Proper legal procedure was followed, and Bush won the Florida electors properly and legally, and Bush had the most national votes for President. He therefore won. Please stop making stuff up.
Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
Don't blame Bush, if you are looking at historical trends. This started in 1950 with President Harry S Truman in the Korean "War". The point is that there is nothing new about this, and a long history of the courts and Congress saying that this interpretation is reasonable.
It depends on how you mean. The ancient symbol the swastika is based on has existed for thousands of years, though its prongs were pointing in the opposite direction in most (though not all) depictions, IIRC.
But that was a different symbol, even if it looked exactly the same. A symbol is more than a physical depiction, it is a symbol of something. The swasitka differs from its ancient cousin in that it refers to Nazism. In that sense, no, the swasitka did not predate Nazism.
Anyway, I am not sure what prompted your question, or whether my answer is instructive, but I hope that helps.
Is there a huge difference between Gore and Bush? Yes. Between Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles? Alfonse D'Amato and Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio? Yes. There are huge differences between many of these candidates. There are also significant similarities.
And rightfully so. Ayn Rand is nothing but a shill for those monied barbarians who want to gut the state of all power so they can rape and plunder the people to their exclusive benefit.
Perhaps that kind of "philosophy" worked well then were less than 1 billion humans on the planet, but right now, when we are close to 6 billion with only perhaps 10% eating properly every day, it is time to curb the capacity of a little rapacious minority to accummulate wealth at the expense of majority.
And because the ideas are ones you dislike, they should be censored. This is exactly the kind of restriction of liberty I am bemoaning; thanks for helping out.
A man was fined in 2001, and the ruling was upheld this year, in Saskatchewan for saying he didn't like gays in a newspaper ad, by posting some Bible verses.
I note that you present to our American cousins a law that they have no way of knowing about, that represents only one part of Canada, and you represent it as the law of the entire nation.
I never intended to do so, and I conceded readily that it is only the law of one province.
You imply in your pleadings that the police are running around arresting people for saying "I hate (your favourite minority here)" like some kind of Stasi, which is simply NOT TRUE.
I implied no such thing.
Back on the farm, we call this type of intellectual dishonesty FUD.
No worse than your insistence that I implied what I never did.
And to speak of intellectural dishonesty, one of your main arguments is that the law is rarely applied, which is also the case with the US laws you are complaining about. How many citizens have been named enemy combatants? That's what I thought.
And perhaps more importantly, the point is not what the President says, but what the government can get away with, and the courts have not allowed the administration to get away with what it has wanted to in regard to Padilla (such as restricting his access to his attorneys). I've always disagreed with the treatment of Padilla in this regard by the administration, but I've never really cared, because I am confident the courts will do what is right, as they usually do in such cases. And so far, they've not disappointed me in Padilla's case, unlike the Saskatchewan court that upheld the fines for expression of free speech.
The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities
I know what the law is for. That doesn't make it right. I didn't link to it because I consider its purpose both obvious and irrelevant to my complaint.
Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions.
Technically true, but I never said there was prior restraint, and I never used the word censorship. Allow me to use the word now, however, to note the fact that such laws cause people to be censored in effect, because of the fear of prosection, even without prior restraint.
This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!
Right, they have different laws to accomplish similar censorship.
Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US.
In your misinformed opinion.
And next time, please at least get you facts straight
Interesting thing to say, since you've not noted one thing I said that was incorrect.:-)
You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.
As stated, the statement above is false. You can only do it if it is private, not if it is public. The law very clearly says a public "statement" is illegal.
Ayn Rand was a stupid cow. She basically took the thought process, renamed and atheized it, and was acclaimed only because of the latter action.
I don't disagree with the sentiment.:-) But the action the Canadian government took is chilling. The power the Canadian government asserts to censor speech it finds distasteful is a serious breach of the human right to expression.
I wouldn't say there's serious problems with liberty in Canada.
That's nice, but I just demonstrated there are such problems.
Unlike the US there is no constitutional mistrust of the government (i.e. the right to bare arms).
Short sleeves uber alles!
The ability to limit speech by the government, given to it by the people.
This is the same with every democracy. Every government has the ability to limit speech, and does so. It is the ways in which it is limited which are at issue.
The people have the power to effect change in the government, as we have representation from both the left (NDP) and right (PC, The alliance is just short of a SIG).
So because the people exercised their power to put the Republicans in power, the people therefore have... no power? Riiiiiiight.
7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a group or class of persons, or
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group or class of persons.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.
This makes e.g. display of the swastika, in public, illegal. The only thing to me more offensive than the ideas behing the swastika is the idea that the government should prohibit them from being publicly expressed.
It also has a chilling impact on comedians and serious public discourse. The Ayn Rand Institute had its information blocked by Canadian officials from shipment to the U. of Toronto.
The pamphlets were eventually released. But the issue is not whether a few pro-Israel writers are allowed, for the moment, to publish our ideas in Canada. The issue is that the Ayn Rand Institute had to seek the permission of Canadian customs to do so. Speech is not free if it is allowed only by permission of the state.
I can't add much more to that.
Although I will add: I realize the US has its own serious problems with liberty. I am much less concerned with what is happening now in wartime than I am with copyright and the DMCA (corporate speech vs. public speech). I am just saying that Canada has serious problems with liberty, too, and something about stones in glass houses.
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
No, I am talking about hate SPEECH legislation. American has hate crimes legislation too, though I think it is mostly nonsense. If someone beats me up because I am tall and beats you up because you're Chinese... sorry, I don't feel like I am any better off than you are. I know it is different because "hate crimes" *may* have effects beyond the actual act, but I still dislike the idea of penalizing people for their thoughts. But that is not what I am talking about.
What I am talking about is that it is illegal for me in Canada, and many European nations, to say I hate you because you are a part of some protected group group. Hate Speech. This is surely a freedom I do not wish to exercise, but to take away such a fundamental component of free expression -- the expression of unpopular ideas -- is chilling.
I am no fan of the ACLU, but I am proud that they recognize that such liberties are some of the most important to protect, because someone else's banned abhorrent view today could be your banned abhorrent view tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow it will be illegal to speak out against government officials, or corporate executives, or spammers.
I am not saying the US is admirable in comparison to Canada, overall. I think it is mostly a wash (except for, perhaps, when you throw the DMCA into the mix... ugh). I'm just saying that Canada has its own problems with liberty (I mentioned hate speech, but there are many others, including in the health care business...), and I frankly couldn't care less about a Canadian's idea to lecture American on relative liberties. Attacking a specific policy is fine, but to make it a "the US is authoritarian, has less liberty, blah blah blah" is nonsensical tripe.
"yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants."
First of all, "war" does not mean "military action." Hundreds of years of precedent maintain that the President, as Commander in Chief, may use military force abroad without the initial consent of Congress (though that consent must be granted at some point, else the troops must be recalled).
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.
Nothing in the War Powers Act takes away from the Constitution, which says, the Congress has the power "to declare war." Declaring war is a political act not directly related to the use of force. The Constitution says nothing about the use of force. It does grant Congress strong powers over the military, but the War Powers Act, if anything, *shrinks* the power of the President by disallowing long-term military action without Congressional approval, and enumerating the power of Congress to end military action at any time.
So, as the Congress did authorize the use of force, and as it has not been 60 days even if it had not, and as the Constitution does not prohibit it and the War Powers Act and precedent allows it, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what has happened or is happening in Iraq, in regard to the power to use military force.
The information in my Apple ID was fine. It really was. I tried it with and without the security code. Creating a new account is simply unacceptable; I use the same Apple ID for dozens of different things, and I am not going to manage a new account. Thankfully, Apple has fixed the problem -- for me, anyway -- and it works fine now.
Slashdot Mirror
You are entitled to the opinion. I disagree with it (for complex reasons, mostly to do with state vs. federal power, that I am unwilling to discuss at this time, as I am too busy to do such a conversation justice).
If you want to condemn me as "being for the status quo," I have no problem with that, except that I am not for the status quo because it is the status quo, but because I happen to think that in this case, the status quo is correct.
Are you happy with the status quo or not?
Am I happy with an electoral college selecting the President? Yes. Am I happy with all of how we select the President? No. I want significant and far-reaching reforms in how our candidates are selected, everything from the pre-primary debates up through election day. I want more public accountability of the parties and the media. I want to dissolve the the CPD and open up the debates to every candidate who is on enough ballots to win enough votes to be President.
I am not happy with the status quo at all, as a whole. But I do like the electoral college.
Do you see the need for improvment on a biger scale than how Florida should go about counting votes?
I couldn't care less how Florida selects its electors. They can do it by vote in the legislature, by governor's fiat, whatever. But if it is a vote, it must be done -- including any recounts -- with the equal protection clause in mind (Amendment 14, Section 1). But equally important is Amendment 14, Section 2, which says, in part:
Paraphrased: people do not have the federal right to vote for electors for President, but when they are GIVEN that right by the state, certain rules must apply. And Florida didn't follow them. All this just to say that I don't care how Florida selects its electors, because I don't live there, but if it is by vote, they need to do it fairly.
I've already commented on that.
I should clarify that what I am speaking of in the "do what is right" in that post is that there is a lot of legal wrangling over the President's stance on Padilla's rights, including moves by various courts to say his lawyers must have access to him, reviews of the right of the President to name him an "unlawful combatant," and more. I don't worry about it because this is how it is supposed to work: someone in power does something we disagree with, that we think is wrong, and the courts carefully review it and render their decision. If the courts find in favor of the President in this case, then I'll complain.
The Constitution says that Congress should have the ultimate control. It still does. The President can act without Congressional approval, but must stop acting if the Congress says so, and cannot continue action without approval. So yes, it seems perfectly legitimate in terms of the Constitution, in both letter and spirit.
I can't answer if "this is the way the Constitution should be interpreted," because I think there is room for many Constitutional methods of dealing with the War Powers problem. I think this is a way the Constitution may be interpreted. As long as the ultimate authority rests with the Congress, I don't see a problem.
I would like to see the language from the War Powers Act tightened up some, to allow responses such as in Japan and Afghanistan without immediate Congressional approval, but to require approval in cases like Iraq; that is, where there is sufficient time for Congress to act. But again, this is not a deal-breaker, because Congress has the authority to stop the planes from flying at any moment.
Remember the fact that Congress DID approve of the recent action in Iraq. The original poster said "yeah the constitution also says that congress is the only one allowed to call war but Bush does it whenever he wants." But it was Congress who authorized the action Bush took. I really don't see room for complaint, and don't see the point of this interrogation over something no one could reasonably claim is unconstitutional. If Congress had not approved it, then I could understand the questions. But it did. If Congress has attempted to stop the action, but Bush disregarded it, I could understand the questions. But they didn't.
All the arguments you provided aim to preserve the status quo.
That is worse than false, it is a lie. I specifically noted that I think Florida's election process should be modified from what it was in the 2000 election (apparently they improved it for 2002, I don't know how much work it still needs).
You carefully avoided referring to any ideals or 1st order values to justify the current state of affairs.
I did not defend the status quo, I defined it. It is a fact that the election process was properly followed. It is a fact that we do not have popular election for President. Nowhere in that post did I say those things were how they should be, just that it is how they are. You are making things up, and it only makes you look stupid.
These kind of hair split arguments make America all so popular with the rest of the world.
Saying that defining things properly is "hair-splitting" is what makes me disregard your opinion.
Cry a little more, it helps your cause, really ...
Seriously, though, my complaint about your being an anonymous coward was more relevant and interesting than your "Canada is great and America sucks" transparent propoganda. Like the part about how America needs rules to prevent people being wiped out by zealotry, when it is Canada that actually HAS rules prohibiting hate speech. That's a nice bit of revisionism there.
But hey, if it helps you sleep better at night to think America is repressive and Canada is enlightened, go for it.
And while I didn't slam your writing, I find it interesting that you say Canadians are relatively educated, in spite of your poor writing. Hey, I am not the one who said it, you did.
I think the fundamental difference here is that I am willing to state openly what I believe, while you are so confident in the reasonableness of your beliefs that you post anonymously.
Look, this is exactly what I'm talking about - fiddling with technicalities to make things fit.
... I don't think that's interesting.
The point is that they are not technicalities. I didn't go to technicalities to shoot down the things you said, I spoke plainly. Everyone captured in war is NOT a POW. Gore DID lose the election. Those weapons DO cause mass destruction. Those are not technicalities at all.
Bush won the election process, not the election
There is no distinction. They are one in the same, and always have been.
the majority in Florida (counting everybody - isn't that novel?) voted for Gore
That is false. A vote that is not properly cast and counted is not a vote. If you want to complain that Florida's counting and elections procedures suck, go ahead -- I'll join you -- but that doesn't change the fact that the legal procedure was followed and *therefore* Bush won the election. (Note also that if the count had been done as Gore wanted it, he still would have lost.)
the majority in the U.S voted for Gore.
There is no meaningful sense in which that is true. First, no one except for electors voted for Gore, and a majority of electors voted for Bush; there is no popular vote for President (nor even a Constitutional right to popular vote for electors, that is done by state legislation).
Second, even if you want to say "a majority in the U.S. vote for Gore electors," that cannot possibly be meaningful. It's like saying that your football team should have won because it got more yards, instead of more points. If that number were meaningful, the campaigns would have worked differently, and people would have VOTED differently. Many Republicans stayed home in Massachusetts because Bush had no chance to win the state's electors. The same thing goes for Democrats in other states. The number is absolutely meaningless, except as a curiosity.
And I won't even touch your complete abuse of "liberate", other than to suggest you certainly wouldn't want your property and bank account "liberated" in the same way.
Since, were I an Iraqi, I'd likely be dead or in jail or exile
yeah it's really chilling to have laws against calling someone say.. a filthy nigger, or greedy rotten jew that should burn in an oven...
Yes, it really is. Because the next unpopular views they come for will be yours. A Canadian court has already sa
man I hate living in a country with common sense. the guts to call racists racists and punish them from inciting hatred and violence. Chilling..
Incitement to violence is a separate crime, and is already on the books in the U.S. As to hatred, the freedom to hate others is absolutely fundamental to the idea of free speech and free expression. That you and I find the hatred distasteful is the very reason why it is so important to protect it, because popular speech does not need protection.
Afghanistan prisoners of war are actually "unlawful combatants".
Nothing changed about definitions to make this the case. The Al Qaeda combatants, because they are not fighting for a country, but are in effect mercanaries, are not granted all the protectsion of the Geneva Convention. Now, as I understand it, if there is a question as to their legal status, some sort of court should determine their status. But even if the US is blocking such a move (I've not heard of it, but let's assume it), even if it is not properly applied in this case, the definition the US is using -- distinguishing certain prisoners from prisoners of war -- is perfectly legitimate.
The invasion of Iraq is a "liberation", and purely "pre-emptive defense".
It is a liberation. Sure, some of the people don't feel liberated, but most of them seem to (if not from the US than from Hussein, and hopefully the US will leave soon). And no one in the Bush Administration has ever said it is a 'purely "pre-emptive defense".' It never happened. They never said the war was purely about one thing, whether it was self-defense, liberation, terrorism, or enforcement of the Gulf War cease-fire.
Nerve gas and bio-weapons are "weapons of mass destruction", even though they kill without the destruction of anything.
Apart from people, plants, animals, etc.? Uh huh.
And the U.S dare not declare any war ever "over" (not even in Afghanistan), lest they be expected to live up to their obligations as the owners of the new territory - it's just the "end of major hostilities" now.
So? That's a smart move. If the US says the war is over, they need to turn over all the prisoners they are currently questioning. That wouldn't be very smart.
And apparently "losing an election" means something else too now.
Did the proper legal procedure get followed in the vote count in Florida? Yes. You can disagree with the court's ruling, but there is no room for disagreement that they have the final word, and they gave their final word. Proper legal procedure was followed, and Bush won the Florida electors properly and legally, and Bush had the most national votes for President. He therefore won. Please stop making stuff up.
Bush himself refers to the war against Iraq as a "war" in speeches. What makes it not a war?
Don't blame Bush, if you are looking at historical trends. This started in 1950 with President Harry S Truman in the Korean "War". The point is that there is nothing new about this, and a long history of the courts and Congress saying that this interpretation is reasonable.
It depends on how you mean. The ancient symbol the swastika is based on has existed for thousands of years, though its prongs were pointing in the opposite direction in most (though not all) depictions, IIRC.
But that was a different symbol, even if it looked exactly the same. A symbol is more than a physical depiction, it is a symbol of something. The swasitka differs from its ancient cousin in that it refers to Nazism. In that sense, no, the swasitka did not predate Nazism.
Anyway, I am not sure what prompted your question, or whether my answer is instructive, but I hope that helps.
Is there a huge difference between Gore and Bush? Yes. Between Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles? Alfonse D'Amato and Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio? Yes. There are huge differences between many of these candidates. There are also significant similarities.
And rightfully so. Ayn Rand is nothing but a shill for those monied barbarians who want to gut the state of all power so they can rape and plunder the people to their exclusive benefit.
Perhaps that kind of "philosophy" worked well then were less than 1 billion humans on the planet, but right now, when we are close to 6 billion with only perhaps 10% eating properly every day, it is time to curb the capacity of a little rapacious minority to accummulate wealth at the expense of majority.
And because the ideas are ones you dislike, they should be censored. This is exactly the kind of restriction of liberty I am bemoaning; thanks for helping out.
A man was fined in 2001, and the ruling was upheld this year, in Saskatchewan for saying he didn't like gays in a newspaper ad, by posting some Bible verses.
I note that you present to our American cousins a law that they have no way of knowing about, that represents only one part of Canada, and you represent it as the law of the entire nation.
I never intended to do so, and I conceded readily that it is only the law of one province.
You imply in your pleadings that the police are running around arresting people for saying "I hate (your favourite minority here)" like some kind of Stasi, which is simply NOT TRUE.
I implied no such thing.
Back on the farm, we call this type of intellectual dishonesty FUD.
No worse than your insistence that I implied what I never did.
And to speak of intellectural dishonesty, one of your main arguments is that the law is rarely applied, which is also the case with the US laws you are complaining about. How many citizens have been named enemy combatants? That's what I thought.
And perhaps more importantly, the point is not what the President says, but what the government can get away with, and the courts have not allowed the administration to get away with what it has wanted to in regard to Padilla (such as restricting his access to his attorneys). I've always disagreed with the treatment of Padilla in this regard by the administration, but I've never really cared, because I am confident the courts will do what is right, as they usually do in such cases. And so far, they've not disappointed me in Padilla's case, unlike the Saskatchewan court that upheld the fines for expression of free speech.
Does Canada have problems with liberty too?
That was my point, both expressed and implied.
Yes but not as serious as the US.
In your opinion.
Argh, bumped the submit button. Not finished! :-)
:-)
The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities
I know what the law is for. That doesn't make it right. I didn't link to it because I consider its purpose both obvious and irrelevant to my complaint.
Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions.
Technically true, but I never said there was prior restraint, and I never used the word censorship. Allow me to use the word now, however, to note the fact that such laws cause people to be censored in effect, because of the fear of prosection, even without prior restraint.
This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!
Right, they have different laws to accomplish similar censorship.
Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US.
In your misinformed opinion.
And next time, please at least get you facts straight
Interesting thing to say, since you've not noted one thing I said that was incorrect.
You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.
As stated, the statement above is false. You can only do it if it is private, not if it is public. The law very clearly says a public "statement" is illegal.
Ayn Rand was a stupid cow. She basically took the thought process, renamed and atheized it, and was acclaimed only because of the latter action.
:-) But the action the Canadian government took is chilling. The power the Canadian government asserts to censor speech it finds distasteful is a serious breach of the human right to expression.
I don't disagree with the sentiment.
I wouldn't say there's serious problems with liberty in Canada.
... no power? Riiiiiiight.
That's nice, but I just demonstrated there are such problems.
Unlike the US there is no constitutional mistrust of the government (i.e. the right to bare arms).
Short sleeves uber alles!
The ability to limit speech by the government, given to it by the people.
This is the same with every democracy. Every government has the ability to limit speech, and does so. It is the ways in which it is limited which are at issue.
The people have the power to effect change in the government, as we have representation from both the left (NDP) and right (PC, The alliance is just short of a SIG).
So because the people exercised their power to put the Republicans in power, the people therefore have
This makes e.g. display of the swastika, in public, illegal. The only thing to me more offensive than the ideas behing the swastika is the idea that the government should prohibit them from being publicly expressed.
It also has a chilling impact on comedians and serious public discourse. The Ayn Rand Institute had its information blocked by Canadian officials from shipment to the U. of Toronto.
I can't add much more to that.
Although I will add: I realize the US has its own serious problems with liberty. I am much less concerned with what is happening now in wartime than I am with copyright and the DMCA (corporate speech vs. public speech). I am just saying that Canada has serious problems with liberty, too, and something about stones in glass houses.
Are you talking about the hate crimes legislation?
... sorry, I don't feel like I am any better off than you are. I know it is different because "hate crimes" *may* have effects beyond the actual act, but I still dislike the idea of penalizing people for their thoughts. But that is not what I am talking about.
... ugh). I'm just saying that Canada has its own problems with liberty (I mentioned hate speech, but there are many others, including in the health care business ...), and I frankly couldn't care less about a Canadian's idea to lecture American on relative liberties. Attacking a specific policy is fine, but to make it a "the US is authoritarian, has less liberty, blah blah blah" is nonsensical tripe.
IE. I cannot go and beat up a black or a native american just because they are black or native americans.
No, I am talking about hate SPEECH legislation. American has hate crimes legislation too, though I think it is mostly nonsense. If someone beats me up because I am tall and beats you up because you're Chinese
What I am talking about is that it is illegal for me in Canada, and many European nations, to say I hate you because you are a part of some protected group group. Hate Speech. This is surely a freedom I do not wish to exercise, but to take away such a fundamental component of free expression -- the expression of unpopular ideas -- is chilling.
I am no fan of the ACLU, but I am proud that they recognize that such liberties are some of the most important to protect, because someone else's banned abhorrent view today could be your banned abhorrent view tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow it will be illegal to speak out against government officials, or corporate executives, or spammers.
I am not saying the US is admirable in comparison to Canada, overall. I think it is mostly a wash (except for, perhaps, when you throw the DMCA into the mix
First of all, "war" does not mean "military action." Hundreds of years of precedent maintain that the President, as Commander in Chief, may use military force abroad without the initial consent of Congress (though that consent must be granted at some point, else the troops must be recalled).
Further, Congress overwhelmingly approved last fall a bill giving the President the authority to use military force against Iraq.
See the War Powers Act of 1973, which says, in part:
Nothing in the War Powers Act takes away from the Constitution, which says, the Congress has the power "to declare war." Declaring war is a political act not directly related to the use of force. The Constitution says nothing about the use of force. It does grant Congress strong powers over the military, but the War Powers Act, if anything, *shrinks* the power of the President by disallowing long-term military action without Congressional approval, and enumerating the power of Congress to end military action at any time.
So, as the Congress did authorize the use of force, and as it has not been 60 days even if it had not, and as the Constitution does not prohibit it and the War Powers Act and precedent allows it, there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what has happened or is happening in Iraq, in regard to the power to use military force.
Oopsie on you.
In Canada, it is illegal to say you dislike certain people for certain reasons. They have a ways to go before they can criticize the U.S.
Sweet. I wish I had time to help.
The information in my Apple ID was fine. It really was. I tried it with and without the security code. Creating a new account is simply unacceptable; I use the same Apple ID for dozens of different things, and I am not going to manage a new account. Thankfully, Apple has fixed the problem -- for me, anyway -- and it works fine now.