It's an ALARMINGLY small/medium/large amount. Be alarmed. It's a CONSPIRATORIALLY large/medium/small amount. They're out to get you. It's a nasty CORPORATE amount. You should be randomly angry that your soda isn't made in some guy's garage by 11-year-old soda hackers. It's an ANTI-CONSUMER amount. Consumers deserve more/less at a lower price (free if there was any justice, man). It's an UNSCIENTIFIC amount. Those Christians wouldn't let stem cells evolve into the right amount -- we hate them. It's an amount that VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS. Online. GEORGE BUSH hates your soda and makes the caffeine the wrong amount. Cheney hates the can.
The amount is most unfair to women and minorities and we could get it fixed if they'd stop outsourcing all the soda engineering jobs to Bangalore.
Obviously Sprint would have to fulfill the terms of their contract, just like the customer. Obviously. That's why I didn't say that earlier. Because it's obvious.
Lawrence had nothing to do with marriage contracts.
The Mass. Supreme Court used Lawrence as a basis to establish gay marriage in Mass. There's no way to say that the state has an interest in preventing polygamy when gay marriage is Constitutionally required to be legal. It's just a question of when.
Yes, I read it. Public schools can have any kind of speech at all at graduations, except no religion. And prayers must be prohibited by student speakers if the speeches are reviewed in advance. It's at least somewhat anti-freedom.
Public schools tend to be hostile toward (Christian) religion, but seem to have learned the rules over the years. I'll grant that the subject has been somewhat over-hyped. It wasn't nearly as easy to find examples as I thought.
It seems the ACLU has moved on to harassing the Boy Scouts.
I think it says something about rights not enumerated. I also don't think that it really gives Congress the power to make such sweeping laws..
Yeah, it leaves them to the states or the people. Texas is a state. Texas should have repealed the law because it was anachronistic. Instead, the Supreme Court said the US Constitution explicitly protects sodomy as a right and prohibits states from making laws against it. The Constitution does no such thing.
If the court can rewrite the Constitution whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, then we do not have a Constitutional government. When the court changes against your point of view, be careful, because the Constitution offers you zero protection.
That doesn't sound particularly pro-freedom to me, really.
I don't hear you saying he's incorrect though. Bigamy and polygamy will be made legal as the result of the Lawrence case. It's only a question of when.
Make no mistake, if the court had said that Congress didn't have the power to impose a national health plan, you wouldn't have heard a peep from Santorum or most if his ilk.
No. The difference is that Texas is a state and benefits from the 10th Amendment. The Congress isn't a state and is limited by that Amendment.
---
Is your point that conservatives should have to argue "who cares what the Constitution says" in order to be pro-freedom?
I agree with PS3 advocacy, but there's no reason to over-sell it with misinformation. There's no need to tear down the 360 either. The 360 is good too -- except when they need to be repaired due to hardware failure.
Wii is good for people who don't play games and/or don't have HD. I hear it's fun. I'm skeptical it'll be fun in 2 years, but I may be wrong.
That article lists a number of incidents. I don't see a policy or any conservative folks endorsing it though. It's certainly something to watch carefully and deal with to preserve freedom of the protesters and non-protesters alike.
On the other hand, the left does similar things and worse to anti-abortion protesters. And, of course, sometimes protest groups (including sometimes "liberal" ones) are violent -- violence by protesters infringes the freedom of the people assaulted or silenced by them.
Even when peaceful protesters block streets and infringe on the freedom to travel of the other users of the streets, who wins? Can you come up with a way of dealing with that situation where no one can claim their freedoms were harmed?
I'm not seeing how this makes conservatives anti-freedom.
Meanwhile though, there's the story of Tang Ming-Lin who was arrested for plowing his own land in 1994 because of claims that endangered rats and lizards were were on his land.
And you don't have to "prove" you've been listened to. You can clam you were and make a reasonable case you were. Convince some judges. You just can't sue based on "what if it happened to me!"
If no one can even come close to showing they were harmed by this program, then how is it harmful? Should the courts go around preemptively prohibiting whatever they want based on what-if?
That's because the Supreme Court was wrong. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from having anti-sodomy laws. It's not about sodomy, it's about the court saying they don't care what the Constitution says. The ruling was/is illegitimate. We'd actually like to have a Constitutional government, not one where we're ruled by the whims of 9 unelected guys in robes.
If the Supreme Court were to rule to uphold this, then they would essentially be curtailing their own power to check the Executive Branch. I can understand an Appellate COurt not necessarily seeing that, but I don't the Supreme Court would be that blind to their own power.
While the Supreme Court is ruling that they should be commander-in-chief of the armed forces (intelligence gathering troops at the NSA in this case), maybe they should just take the power to declare war and to levy taxes too? Also, why not take the power to appoint judges?
I guess I don't understand the wish for an all-powerful Supreme Court. I guess it gets around those messy elections with people choosing their leaders and governing themselves -- those can be inconvenient for some people.
Except this doesn't violate Constitutional rights.
There's a bunch of case law that indicates that this operation was Constitutional. It's not conclusive one way or the other without a Supreme Court ruling.
Someone who was actually listened to could sue. But there are actually only a very few incidents where that occurred, and no one has sued yet. If none of the people actually affected by this have filed suit, it might make someone wonder how big of a problem it is.
But when you're trying to score political points, you have to work with what you've got.
1. You're thinking of 50 years ago. This no longer applies. Mainstream conservatives don't intend any interference with private, consensual sex.
2. Not an example. Who has proposed a restriction on peaceful demonstrations? Did you see where Cindy Sheehan bought a house in Crawford TX to protest for years on end?
3. Conservatives have this one in common with liberals. I agree though, this ought to be reconsidered.
- Prayer in public school (Freedom of/from religion)
There's no prayer in public school. No one intends to mandate prayer in public school. Conservatives especially don't. Conservatives want children to be free to pray in school if they choose. Sometimes, they get opposed by "liberal" anti-religion groups. So conservatives are actually for freedom and liberal/leftist groups are against freedom in this case.
That is actually a very good example.
- Censorship of the media (Freedom of expression)
Example? Remember the idea is to come up with an example of some freedom conservatives are against. This is an example of a freedom conservatives are for.
For example: "Liberals" want freedom of expression limited for tobacco companies. They're keeping the tobacco companies from advertising their products.
- New York's "free speech zones" (Freedom of assembly)
I don't know much about New York, but since when have conservatives had any power in New York? I have not heard of these free speech zones.
- Suspension of Habeas Corpus (Right to Due Process)
For whom? See above where I'm asking for an example. Are you talking about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the US Civil War?
- Warrantless wiretapping (Right to privacy and due process)
Suspect cross-border communications can be subject to search during a war. It's part of fighting the war. You're claiming a freedom to communicate with known or suspected terrorists in other countries now?
- Canadian border passport nonsense (Right to travel)
Border again. The US has the obligation and the right to control the border. That means they can ask for reliable ID.
Do you really think that there should be absolute freedom for anyone (terrorists, invading armies, etc.) to cross any border for any reason with absolutely no scrutiny?
I guess conservatives are against the "freedom" for you to murder your neighbors too, but that wasn't really in the spirit of the question.
- The Schiavo case (Interference with medical care)
I actually agree with you here. The government should not have been involved tin this case the way it was. But there's no inherent right for a guy to kill his wife. Some government involvement may be expected in these cases. It's a tough call for a thinking individual.
There's a lot of room for discussion here. An honest discussion would put the conservatives on the side of freedom with the liberals on the side of government control. Talking-points-style discussions would try to pretend that fighting terrorism infringes important freedoms.
I've nothing against the tapping in and of itself, I keep on the legal side of the fence...
This is a poor argument. The right to be free from search doesn't turn on personal preference.
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party.
Um, no. For example, failing to fill out a form correctly is "not follow[ing] the rules and restrictions set for it by itself". Running planes into the WTC is a threat from a malicious foreign party.
The level of danger from a threat depends on the nature of the threat.
Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher?
They can try. They will fail. They have a bad case.
Suspect cross-border communications are subject to search during a war.
No. The Supreme Court would likely rule the same way and probably won't even agree to accept the case.
This ruling was no surprise to folks outside the anti-Bush, anti-war echo chambers. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling received widespread ridicule from numerous legal scholars. It was not a ruling with sound legal foundations. That's why it was stayed so quickly and then eventually overturned.
If you expected a different result then you are trusting unreliable sources of information.
What's your point? Very short dictionary definitions don't define the actions of people.
The folks called "liberal" in the US are generally in favor of removing power and money from individuals and giving it to the government. The idea is that the government will then redistribute the power and money to more deserving people. That's not consistent with your definition, so the definition has limited usefulness in describing reality.
Also, "conservatives" in the US support greater freedoms in all situations, with one or two exceptions. That's why you never hear actual examples of conservatives taking freedoms away (abortion being the exception). Beyond abortion, what are 3 examples?
Do you really think there's a right to receive phone calls across national borders from a known terrorists without the threat of monitoring? Is that the best example you can come up with?
AMD may have lost their edge a little. But they used to look good by comparison with Intel, and now they look bad by that same comparison. Improvements at Intel are the major factor.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an ALARMINGLY small/medium/large amount. Be alarmed.
It's a CONSPIRATORIALLY large/medium/small amount. They're out to get you.
It's a nasty CORPORATE amount. You should be randomly angry that your soda isn't made in some guy's garage by 11-year-old soda hackers.
It's an ANTI-CONSUMER amount. Consumers deserve more/less at a lower price (free if there was any justice, man).
It's an UNSCIENTIFIC amount. Those Christians wouldn't let stem cells evolve into the right amount -- we hate them.
It's an amount that VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS. Online.
GEORGE BUSH hates your soda and makes the caffeine the wrong amount. Cheney hates the can.
The amount is most unfair to women and minorities and we could get it fixed if they'd stop outsourcing all the soda engineering jobs to Bangalore.
Obviously Sprint would have to fulfill the terms of their contract, just like the customer. Obviously. That's why I didn't say that earlier. Because it's obvious.
If someone is on the phone 25 times in a month, there is clearly something wrong with the service.
Or something wrong with the person calling. It could be either one or both.
What's the problem with Sun again? When the open source guys said "gimme, gimme, gimme" Sun didn't give them everything fast enough?
What's the big benefit of being randomly angry with randomly selected organizations based on 'net advocacy? Can't we all just get along?
Lawrence had nothing to do with marriage contracts.
The Mass. Supreme Court used Lawrence as a basis to establish gay marriage in Mass. There's no way to say that the state has an interest in preventing polygamy when gay marriage is Constitutionally required to be legal. It's just a question of when.
Explain what makes them unreliable. Show their history of being wrong.
You have the freedom to drop your cell-phone carrier if you're unhappy.
Do you think Sprint should be denied the freedom to drop a customer if Sprint is unhappy?
Yes, I read it. Public schools can have any kind of speech at all at graduations, except no religion. And prayers must be prohibited by student speakers if the speeches are reviewed in advance. It's at least somewhat anti-freedom.
Public schools tend to be hostile toward (Christian) religion, but seem to have learned the rules over the years. I'll grant that the subject has been somewhat over-hyped. It wasn't nearly as easy to find examples as I thought.
It seems the ACLU has moved on to harassing the Boy Scouts.
I think it says something about rights not enumerated. I also don't think that it really gives Congress the power to make such sweeping laws..
Yeah, it leaves them to the states or the people. Texas is a state. Texas should have repealed the law because it was anachronistic. Instead, the Supreme Court said the US Constitution explicitly protects sodomy as a right and prohibits states from making laws against it. The Constitution does no such thing.
If the court can rewrite the Constitution whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, then we do not have a Constitutional government. When the court changes against your point of view, be careful, because the Constitution offers you zero protection.
That doesn't sound particularly pro-freedom to me, really.
I don't hear you saying he's incorrect though. Bigamy and polygamy will be made legal as the result of the Lawrence case. It's only a question of when.
Make no mistake, if the court had said that Congress didn't have the power to impose a national health plan, you wouldn't have heard a peep from Santorum or most if his ilk.
No. The difference is that Texas is a state and benefits from the 10th Amendment. The Congress isn't a state and is limited by that Amendment.
---
Is your point that conservatives should have to argue "who cares what the Constitution says" in order to be pro-freedom?
Home is not an MMO. Not an MMO game anyway.
I agree with PS3 advocacy, but there's no reason to over-sell it with misinformation. There's no need to tear down the 360 either. The 360 is good too -- except when they need to be repaired due to hardware failure.
Wii is good for people who don't play games and/or don't have HD. I hear it's fun. I'm skeptical it'll be fun in 2 years, but I may be wrong.
That article lists a number of incidents. I don't see a policy or any conservative folks endorsing it though. It's certainly something to watch carefully and deal with to preserve freedom of the protesters and non-protesters alike.
On the other hand, the left does similar things and worse to anti-abortion protesters. And, of course, sometimes protest groups (including sometimes "liberal" ones) are violent -- violence by protesters infringes the freedom of the people assaulted or silenced by them.
Even when peaceful protesters block streets and infringe on the freedom to travel of the other users of the streets, who wins? Can you come up with a way of dealing with that situation where no one can claim their freedoms were harmed?
I'm not seeing how this makes conservatives anti-freedom.
Meanwhile though, there's the story of Tang Ming-Lin who was arrested for plowing his own land in 1994 because of claims that endangered rats and lizards were were on his land.
I am not a lawyer. These guys are and here is their analysis.
And you don't have to "prove" you've been listened to. You can clam you were and make a reasonable case you were. Convince some judges. You just can't sue based on "what if it happened to me!"
If no one can even come close to showing they were harmed by this program, then how is it harmful? Should the courts go around preemptively prohibiting whatever they want based on what-if?
ACLU THREATENS TO SUE SCHOOLS OVER GRADUATION PRAYER
Also, here's a 51-page report that details these kind of incidents: http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/LLI.pdf
That's because the Supreme Court was wrong. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from having anti-sodomy laws. It's not about sodomy, it's about the court saying they don't care what the Constitution says. The ruling was/is illegitimate. We'd actually like to have a Constitutional government, not one where we're ruled by the whims of 9 unelected guys in robes.
Also:
If the Supreme Court were to rule to uphold this, then they would essentially be curtailing their own power to check the Executive Branch. I can understand an Appellate COurt not necessarily seeing that, but I don't the Supreme Court would be that blind to their own power.
While the Supreme Court is ruling that they should be commander-in-chief of the armed forces (intelligence gathering troops at the NSA in this case), maybe they should just take the power to declare war and to levy taxes too? Also, why not take the power to appoint judges?
I guess I don't understand the wish for an all-powerful Supreme Court. I guess it gets around those messy elections with people choosing their leaders and governing themselves -- those can be inconvenient for some people.
Except this doesn't violate Constitutional rights.
There's a bunch of case law that indicates that this operation was Constitutional. It's not conclusive one way or the other without a Supreme Court ruling.
Someone who was actually listened to could sue. But there are actually only a very few incidents where that occurred, and no one has sued yet. If none of the people actually affected by this have filed suit, it might make someone wonder how big of a problem it is.
But when you're trying to score political points, you have to work with what you've got.
1. You're thinking of 50 years ago. This no longer applies. Mainstream conservatives don't intend any interference with private, consensual sex.
2. Not an example. Who has proposed a restriction on peaceful demonstrations? Did you see where Cindy Sheehan bought a house in Crawford TX to protest for years on end?
3. Conservatives have this one in common with liberals. I agree though, this ought to be reconsidered.
4. See #3.
There's been no ruling that the Executive Branch violated the 4th Amendment, de facto or otherwise.
Ok, one at a time:
- Prayer in public school (Freedom of/from religion)
There's no prayer in public school. No one intends to mandate prayer in public school. Conservatives especially don't. Conservatives want children to be free to pray in school if they choose. Sometimes, they get opposed by "liberal" anti-religion groups. So conservatives are actually for freedom and liberal/leftist groups are against freedom in this case.
That is actually a very good example.
- Censorship of the media (Freedom of expression)
Example? Remember the idea is to come up with an example of some freedom conservatives are against. This is an example of a freedom conservatives are for.
For example: "Liberals" want freedom of expression limited for tobacco companies. They're keeping the tobacco companies from advertising their products.
- New York's "free speech zones" (Freedom of assembly)
I don't know much about New York, but since when have conservatives had any power in New York? I have not heard of these free speech zones.
- Suspension of Habeas Corpus (Right to Due Process)
For whom? See above where I'm asking for an example. Are you talking about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the US Civil War?
- Warrantless wiretapping (Right to privacy and due process)
Suspect cross-border communications can be subject to search during a war. It's part of fighting the war. You're claiming a freedom to communicate with known or suspected terrorists in other countries now?
- Canadian border passport nonsense (Right to travel)
Border again. The US has the obligation and the right to control the border. That means they can ask for reliable ID.
Do you really think that there should be absolute freedom for anyone (terrorists, invading armies, etc.) to cross any border for any reason with absolutely no scrutiny?
I guess conservatives are against the "freedom" for you to murder your neighbors too, but that wasn't really in the spirit of the question.
- The Schiavo case (Interference with medical care)
I actually agree with you here. The government should not have been involved tin this case the way it was. But there's no inherent right for a guy to kill his wife. Some government involvement may be expected in these cases. It's a tough call for a thinking individual.
There's a lot of room for discussion here. An honest discussion would put the conservatives on the side of freedom with the liberals on the side of government control. Talking-points-style discussions would try to pretend that fighting terrorism infringes important freedoms.
I've nothing against the tapping in and of itself, I keep on the legal side of the fence...
This is a poor argument. The right to be free from search doesn't turn on personal preference.
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party.
Um, no. For example, failing to fill out a form correctly is "not follow[ing] the rules and restrictions set for it by itself". Running planes into the WTC is a threat from a malicious foreign party.
The level of danger from a threat depends on the nature of the threat.
Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher?
They can try. They will fail. They have a bad case.
Suspect cross-border communications are subject to search during a war.
No. The Supreme Court would likely rule the same way and probably won't even agree to accept the case.
This ruling was no surprise to folks outside the anti-Bush, anti-war echo chambers. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling received widespread ridicule from numerous legal scholars. It was not a ruling with sound legal foundations. That's why it was stayed so quickly and then eventually overturned.
If you expected a different result then you are trusting unreliable sources of information.
What's your point? Very short dictionary definitions don't define the actions of people.
The folks called "liberal" in the US are generally in favor of removing power and money from individuals and giving it to the government. The idea is that the government will then redistribute the power and money to more deserving people. That's not consistent with your definition, so the definition has limited usefulness in describing reality.
Also, "conservatives" in the US support greater freedoms in all situations, with one or two exceptions. That's why you never hear actual examples of conservatives taking freedoms away (abortion being the exception). Beyond abortion, what are 3 examples?
Do you really think there's a right to receive phone calls across national borders from a known terrorists without the threat of monitoring? Is that the best example you can come up with?
AMD may have lost their edge a little. But they used to look good by comparison with Intel, and now they look bad by that same comparison. Improvements at Intel are the major factor.
You mean a mainstream media story was over-hyped to the point of it being more-or-less false?
You don't understand how important their opinions are. The iPhone has to succeed/fail. Because they want it that way and their opinions matter.