Umm, no. My point is that the US isn't violating it's own laws or Constitution, and your attempts to object to the government enforcing the current laws because some alleged future law might be unjust is nothing but silliness.
None of which has anything to do with the case being discussed. The owner of the car paid to have an On*Star system put in so that he could track his car if it were stolen. It was stolen. He tracked it. None of this has anything to do with `government [having] tracking devices everywhere' or anything of the sort.
And by the way, if you want actual news about the tragedy in Zimbabwe instead of sorry attempts to shoehorn events there into someone's sorry pet leftism, check out
ZW News, which is a publication of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, and has actual reporting from Zimbabwe instead of your pitiful apologetics for Mugabe's murder and torture of his political opponents.
Who decides what crime is? Easy, numbnuts -- the elected representatives of the people of the United States do, in accordance with the Constitution of the United states.
Or are you suggesting that nothing should be illegal?
Which exactly holds up stonehand's point -- you can come up with two counterexamples, against the hundreds of al-Qaeda members being held in Camp X-Ray, and the thousands captured or killed in Afghanistan.
Care to explain how a university asking students not to serve content over
the university's pipe can possibly be considered a violation of the
first ammendment? At all?
The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to a free T3 over which to
speak, you know...
None of which interferes with your ability to send postal mail anonymously
or even untraceably, both abilities which we as a society have decided we
consider valuable.
Besides -- if tracking illegal postal mail were as easy as you seem to suggest, we
would have arrested the Anthrax terrorist some time ago, now wouldn't we have?
All of which misses the point, which is that this is a democracy, and
at the end of the day, it is the American people who have to make up
their mind who to elect, and by extension what the country will do.
That is why debates about what the country should do are inherently debates
between Americans. Everyone else is welcome to their opinion, but as long
as this is a democracy, they aren't the ones who will decide.
Hmm, gee -- the duly elected representative of a democratic government
performing his Constitutional duty to defend his country within the rule
of law or a totalitarian dictator discarding the rule of law in order to
pursue his fantasies of ethnic extermination and racial ascendency...
When your car is broken, you seek the advice of a mechanic. The advice of a baker
may be good, but it doesn't have the same presumption of validity.
When you want advice on what America should do, go to an American -- that's why this is
a democracy.
That said, I have no problem with consideration of opinions from any
source; in this you are right on. This is different from the apparent belief of many Europeans and others
that they have some sort of moral high ground, and should have veto power over
actions of ours which they don't agree with.
I would certainly hope that you do not rob the bank because you believe that robbery is wrong of itself, and not because you don't want to hurt the bank teller's feelings...
At any rate, this doesn't give any answer as to why you would ask the bank teller's opinion before putting up curtains within your home, now does it? That is what we're talking about here, after all, the hubris of those in other countries who feel that their opinion is reason enough to derail actions within the US which the American people want and the American Constitution provide for.
Because, again, at the end of the day, we are a democratic republic, and that means that the opinion of our own people will be the deciding factor in our decisions, not the opinions of European appeasers or third world kleptocrats.
Rather than random invective, perhaps you can present a rational
argument (any rational argument) why we would possibly consider
the opinions of people in other countries in deciding what to do within
the US?
Isn't it amazing how many people who would scream their lungs out if
an American tried to tell them how to run their country think that they
have a God-given right to object to domestic policy initiatives here?
NEWSFLASH: the US president is responsible to the Constitution and the
People of the United States. He is not responsible to make the
Europeans feel important, the UN feel relevant, or the assembled dictators
of the third world feel appeased.
The detention of enemy combatants under military jurisdiction (not without
due process, by the way, just without the strict timelines imposed by civilian
jurisdiction) is a practice which goes back to the earliest days of our Republic,
and which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently
in the 1942 case Ex Parte Quirin.
If you want to claim that this is prohibited by the Bill of Rights, by the way,
you'll have to explain why Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights) used this
during his presidency against French and British saboteurs...
I'm reasonably sure that I didn't say anything that disagrees with what you're
saying. Rating engines are one tool out of many They are useful as far as they go, and no further.
I wouldn't recommend anyone believe the hype that these are
`fire and forget' services. OTOH, they do have their uses, combined with knowing what
your kids are doing, and helping them find good things to do.
Anyway, tell us more about the company you run.:-)
Of course, it's only slander or libel if it's not true. Given that this site engages in holocaust denial and can't make up its mind whether Jews use the blood of gentiles in their baking, it's not at all clear that the site doesn't properly fit in the category `hate speech' on a voluntary, independent rating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no. My point is that the US isn't violating it's own laws or Constitution, and your attempts to object to the government enforcing the current laws because some alleged future law might be unjust is nothing but silliness.
None of which has anything to do with the case being discussed. The owner of the car paid to have an On*Star system put in so that he could track his car if it were stolen. It was stolen. He tracked it. None of this has anything to do with `government [having] tracking devices everywhere' or anything of the sort.
And by the way, if you want actual news about the tragedy in Zimbabwe instead of sorry attempts to shoehorn events there into someone's sorry pet leftism, check out ZW News, which is a publication of the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust, and has actual reporting from Zimbabwe instead of your pitiful apologetics for Mugabe's murder and torture of his political opponents.
That may be even dumber than the earlier AC post.
Who decides what crime is? Easy, numbnuts -- the elected representatives of the people of the United States do, in accordance with the Constitution of the United states.
Or are you suggesting that nothing should be illegal?
It was stolen, he tracked it. The people who stole it were caught.
What's your complaint exactly?
Which exactly holds up stonehand's point -- you can come up with two counterexamples, against the hundreds of al-Qaeda members being held in Camp X-Ray, and the thousands captured or killed in Afghanistan.
Looks like pretty good odds to me...
Care to explain how a university asking students not to serve content over the university's pipe can possibly be considered a violation of the first ammendment? At all?
The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to a free T3 over which to speak, you know...
None of which interferes with your ability to send postal mail anonymously or even untraceably, both abilities which we as a society have decided we consider valuable.
Besides -- if tracking illegal postal mail were as easy as you seem to suggest, we would have arrested the Anthrax terrorist some time ago, now wouldn't we have?
Interesting. So can we assume that you never send or receive postal mail? Really?
It's been holding steady at zero for over two hundred years now -- so I guess that's not the standard you're looking for. :-)
All of which misses the point, which is that this is a democracy, and at the end of the day, it is the American people who have to make up their mind who to elect, and by extension what the country will do.
That is why debates about what the country should do are inherently debates between Americans. Everyone else is welcome to their opinion, but as long as this is a democracy, they aren't the ones who will decide.
Hmm, gee -- the duly elected representative of a democratic government performing his Constitutional duty to defend his country within the rule of law or a totalitarian dictator discarding the rule of law in order to pursue his fantasies of ethnic extermination and racial ascendency...
Go Godwin yourself...
Often, yes.
The solution to Hitler's war on Europe and the world was more war, to defeat and disarm him. The result was a stable and peaceful democracy.
Appeasement and disarmament were patently unsuccessful at acheiving the same ends. Above, I provided plenty of other examples where this was the case.
When your car is broken, you seek the advice of a mechanic. The advice of a baker may be good, but it doesn't have the same presumption of validity.
When you want advice on what America should do, go to an American -- that's why this is a democracy.
That said, I have no problem with consideration of opinions from any source; in this you are right on. This is different from the apparent belief of many Europeans and others that they have some sort of moral high ground, and should have veto power over actions of ours which they don't agree with.
It was the addition of more American soldiers, not less, that resulted in
Show me anything like these which has been acheived through disarmament...
In a word, yes. It's called `democracy'.
I would certainly hope that you do not rob the bank because you believe that robbery is wrong of itself, and not because you don't want to hurt the bank teller's feelings...
At any rate, this doesn't give any answer as to why you would ask the bank teller's opinion before putting up curtains within your home, now does it? That is what we're talking about here, after all, the hubris of those in other countries who feel that their opinion is reason enough to derail actions within the US which the American people want and the American Constitution provide for.
Because, again, at the end of the day, we are a democratic republic, and that means that the opinion of our own people will be the deciding factor in our decisions, not the opinions of European appeasers or third world kleptocrats.
Rather than random invective, perhaps you can present a rational argument (any rational argument) why we would possibly consider the opinions of people in other countries in deciding what to do within the US?
Can you?
And a good thing you did.
Isn't it amazing how many people who would scream their lungs out if an American tried to tell them how to run their country think that they have a God-given right to object to domestic policy initiatives here?
NEWSFLASH: the US president is responsible to the Constitution and the People of the United States. He is not responsible to make the Europeans feel important, the UN feel relevant, or the assembled dictators of the third world feel appeased.
The detention of enemy combatants under military jurisdiction (not without due process, by the way, just without the strict timelines imposed by civilian jurisdiction) is a practice which goes back to the earliest days of our Republic, and which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in the 1942 case Ex Parte Quirin .
If you want to claim that this is prohibited by the Bill of Rights, by the way, you'll have to explain why Madison (the author of the Bill of Rights) used this during his presidency against French and British saboteurs...
Care to provide a single example of a right which you believe Mr. Ashcroft is in favor of `stripping'?
I wouldn't recommend anyone believe the hype that these are `fire and forget' services. OTOH, they do have their uses, combined with knowing what your kids are doing, and helping them find good things to do.
Anyway, tell us more about the company you run. :-)
Of course, it's only slander or libel if it's not true. Given that this site engages in holocaust denial and can't make up its mind whether Jews use the blood of gentiles in their baking, it's not at all clear that the site doesn't properly fit in the category `hate speech' on a voluntary, independent rating system.
Seconded. What a fun book. :-)