Welcome to the real USA. A country built on hate, violence, lies, betrayal, theft, etc.
Only the concept of inalienable rights serves to do the history of the USA justice. Nothing else does. There's never been a time when you could actually exercise your inalienable rights without someone wanting you to pay for the privilege.
So if they write a law in Swahili that commands those who utter a specific word be executed on the spot?
The complexity of the law is so great at this point that they might as well be written in a foreign language as far as most people are concerned. Even lawyers are not literate in most law. That's why we have so many legal specialties. Nobody can cover all of it. It's simply too vast.
Plus, most laws today require a law library to comprehend, because they are simply piecemeal modifications to existing laws, and hence are completely incomprehensible without the entire body of law that they amend.
Ignorance of most laws is certainly an excuse. Ignorance of common sense ethical and moral laws is the only thing for which there is no excuse (those pertaining to force or fraud by-and-large).
Congress produces rules and regulations that govern their own operation, at the whim of the legislators.
You're right though, legislators should be removed from office for not reading bills. However, that would require their constituents to give enough of a damn to find out what their crackmonkeys are doing in Congress. But they don't, so they deserve what they get.
There should be a law against making laws inaccessible to the public... but don't let people know about it...
There is one, sort of. A requirement for a law to be enforceable is that it be accessible to the public. This is accomplished through the Federal Register, which records all Public Laws and is published regularly.
The problem is not that the law was not published, but that they won't tell him which law they are basing their position on. However, those two actions (not publishing versus enforcement without notification of the basis) are the same in substance even if they don't have the same form.
In this day and age, I'd say that ignorance of many (probably most, actually) laws are a good excuse. There are so many ludicrous laws, and they change so frequently that nobody can be sure at any given time what they are.
There's a reason law is called a practice. Not even the people who pass the laws know what the laws contain much (perhaps most) of the time. Notice how the campaign finance laws are coming back to bite those who sponsored them in the ass. They never bothered to read them, or they never would have voted for them.
And of course everyone of voting age is to blame. Societies get the governments they deserve. The USA is certainly a good indication of the truth of that maxim.
Funny thing is, he'd have a lot easier time defending himself if he had done just that. If he had ripped-off Falwell's design and made a parody, he'd have been obviously in the clear, even if it was confusing at first. In making his site crystal-clear at the top that it is not a parody, even though it is factual, he hurt himself. It's really too bad.
I'd like to point out that you specifically mention the way something is "packaged" as determining the basis for trademark infringement.
Have you looked at the site? Nobody could mistake that for Falwell's site. Right at the top is a link to Falwell's site with a note saying the site [fallwell.com] is not Jerry Falwell's. Any possible confusion is de minimus.
Trademark infringement occurs when a trademark is used to deceive (for whatever reason, financial or not). There is no deception in this case. Any possible perceived deception is put to rest with the very first sentence on the page.
>now Jerry F. is trying to use his trademark to take away his right to have his name on his own site.
>But that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? Meaning "HIS trademark". Jerry Falwell has rights by being the trademark owner.
These are two separate issues. A trademark does not preclude the right of others to mention you, flattering or unflattering, so long as those comments are truthful, stated opinion, or parody. Trademark rights do not give, and have not ever given, owners the right to prevent their use in that manner. Trademark rights involve commercial use, and preventing unlawful use that might harm commercial image. No deception = no (legally redressable) harm.
If they were guilty, even if they send out 5,000,000 discs, they got a killer deal on this one. Look at the cost per disc to mass-produce. Each copy costs the company almost nothing, yet they can claim losses of ~$24.99 per disc.
Why innovate when you can get Congress or a regulartory agency to lay the hammer down on competitors? I see major lawsuits in the future to try and gain access to these networks, and in the current national socialist environment in the US, it is more than likely the path that will be taken.
However, I still hold out hope that those with integrity will win out. It just doesn't normally happen than way. The road to Hell is always the easiest, unfortunately.
There was actually a time when the right to use the public highways and byways in the common manner was still recognized. It is possible to walk across the US, but only with careful route planning. You cannot walk on roads above a certain size, and sometimes those are the only thoroughfares through what is otherwise private property (which you cannot travel across without permission).
Walking is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Horse travel is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Automobiles cannot be the common manner, as their use is a privilege. So tell me, what is the common manner of using the public roads? After all, inherent in the right to move about freely is the right to use the public roads in the common manner. What does one have the right to do on the public roads?
Note: Anything you must obtain a license for is a privilege, subject to revocation on the terms of the grantor: marriage, driving, working in almost any professional field, operating a business, etc.
You're right on the money. They want everyone to look OVER THERE when they scream "terrorism."
It's a buzzword like "communist" or "drug dealer."
That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read the Nevada opinion. "WTF? Like a terrorist or sniper (two terms used by the majority to rationalize this decision) is going to refuse to show ID or give their name."
No, they'd whip out their ID (fake or not, as the parent said, the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate IDs), state their name, and be perfectly willing to "help" in any way they could. You don't draw attention to yourself when you're a criminal in most cases, and especially not when you've got a large agenda.
Would that this King George lose his "colonies" in the same manner as King George III. I've always liked Jefferson's quote about the blood of tyrants. The tree is coming due for a good watering.
Just because you are required to show ID does not mean the police can randomly arrest you, for example.
Completely correct. One does not equal the other. The issue tends to be that they're often symptoms of the same condition. The police can, in fact, randomly arrest you. It's extraordinarily easy to come up with some reason or other in many circumstances. Also, people have continually confused "demand ID" with "demand you talk (tell me your name)." The arrest was a result of the latter, not the former. If you watch the video, Hiibel's first response to the request for ID is that he doesn't have any. It snowballs from there, with the officer asking his name repeatedly. He was arrested for exercising the right to remain silent, not for failure to show ID.
Basically, SCOTUS amended the right to remain silent. You can remain silent unless asked your name. If you remain silent to that question, they take you to jail for obstructing an investigation.
Also, Scalia mentioned that it is the responsibility of every American to tell all that he or she knows upon questioning. While we're at it, why not throw out the 5th amendment completely? The only people who make use of it are those guilty of crimes anyway. He doesn't exclude self-incrimination in that statement, so he must not support the right of people to not incriminate themselves.
Scalia is a great guy to have in your court (take the pun as you will) some games. In others, he really just needs to be shot.
1) I never stated most people cared. I stated what is a general sentiment among those who do.
2)What you do with your cherished right is fine, and I won't attempt to stop you. The exercise was not what I was addressing. The cowardice of leaders who won't take responsibility is what I was addressing. As Commander-in-Chief, GWB implicitly accepted responsibility for all acts made by US personnel.
4)"Do as I say, not as I do," does work to a certain extent with some individuals, but the damage done by contradictory actions and words is rarely ever outweighed by the benefit of being a hypocritical ass. It's the very definition of being a hypocritical ass.
5)Re: Christian fundamentalist rant. Corruption doesn't work so overtly in most cases, and those who are corrupt are most often cowards who will back down in the face of mounted opposition. That is why the world is not a blasted wasteland: because people are sheep, and once they get fleeced enough, the corrupt are cowards who run for the hills. Wars start when the corrupt are allowed to build until the point few can challenge them.
6) Unaccountable vs accountable. There are always good people who will look out for those without the capability. They don't claim the authority because they are good people, but they do what is right. I've seen it frequently in my life. Those who are unaccountable (the only accountablity being to not piss off those who will kill you) become dictators, just as GWB wants to dictate to countries who do not recognize him as world's policeman. Fortunately, there are countries who have the capability to fight back, and he doesn't piss them off. He shows that he truly is a coward.
7)Does a corporate CEO go hungry? No, one is about survival. Who is more likely to fleece investors of millions of dollars and not get caught. If caught, who would be more likely to spend years in jail? Anyway, I see your point. Semantically, you are correct. It is not the power that corrupts, it merely attracts the corrupt.
9)That's why I am the way I am. I abhor all 16 evils. The many nickel-and-dime you out of your rights, while the one takes them all at once. It all amounts to the same, it's just that people are more willing to tolerate slow and steady encroachment because they are blind. Just because people are blind and think things are alright and "we have it better here so quit bitching" doesn't mean it's alright. So, I'll continue to sow dissent, because evil is still evil. I'm not interested in whether it's lesser or greater, I'm not going to support it. You can feel free to, but I'm not you.
8)I'd have to check your story on Democratic presidents, but more than likely it is true. What Democrats do is fuck up domestic policy. They leave foreign policy to the warlords (Republicans). Democrats want a society that is egalitarian while Republicans want an aristocracy. Both need a police state to accomplish their goals, as there are too many people who don't fit into either a specific class (aristocracy) or who want to rise above the median (egalitarianism).
Hates the USA and hates US citizens are two separate concepts. They are not interchangeable. I wish to make that distinction first and foremost. Most of the citizens of various nations who actually pay attention to such things do in fact have an opinion of the USA, though not necessarily US citizens. Reaction to US citizens is generally favourable, while reaction the the US government is not (i.e. the USA in general).
We strive to be a better place while other countries claim their life is perfect how could you ask for anything more.
Last I checked, it was pretty common to be called un-American for questioning the status quo. If you want something different, the response is often "get the fuck out then!" That's not a very rosy view of striving to be a better place. Only certain progress is tolerated, just like in the rest of the world. The US is absolutely no different in spirit, only in the rules that constrain those who "govern." The petty, corrupt, arrogant individuals who are drawn to power are just the same. They just have different opportunities from those in other countries.
Admit problems? Who admits problems? There people who tell others they have problems, but there is little admission by those who actually have them. What "we" have is finger-pointing, with little productive being done about any of it.
By teaching our kids this we hope they will be BETTER than us because they will know how we want them to act instead of copying our evilness.
"Do as I say, not as I do." Anyone who believes those words work is naive. Children do as they see, not as they hear. I have no problem striving for a better world. What I have a problem with is those who say they are striving for a better world while copying those who have run down the road to disaster. The US isn't making a better world, the US is making a better world for power-mongers.
An unaccountable authority is better than none at all? I pity you your naiveté. Show me an unaccountable authority, and I'll show you a place that would be better off with no authority. The adage about absolute power is absolutely correct. I know of no circumstance that it has not fulfilled the criteria for absolute corruption.
We didn't hear about suicide bombers in Afghanistan before the war, either, so what's your point? Suicide bombers by-and-large are Saudi or Palestinian. Afghanistan was picked because they wouldn't cooperate with the US attempts to find Osama bin Laden. Oh, sure, we toppled the big, bad Taliban. Now they have 15 different warlord groups instead of 1. We traded them one evil for another. I don't think anyone over there is singing the praises of the US for their "liberation."
I'm sure the CIA is happy that the Taliban is gone. The Taliban banned poppy farming, and now Afghanistan is back on top of the opium trade. Covert funding galore. Funding that was originally used to train Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians. Gotta love the good ol' USA. The usually train and arm their own enemies. Been doing it for a long, long time. Why stop now? They're training the Iraqi army, and once open elections are given to the Iraqi people, there'll be a fundamentalist Iraqi government that doesn't like the US in charge of the troops the US trained and the military hardware the US sold to them. Yay!
That was a major thread through my post. I haven't actually read the entire text of the act, so I'm not sure if entire sections were added to existing law (I would assume that there are probably instances of that within the PATRIOT Act).
I know that at least a major portion of it was simply changes to existing law. Did my previous post make it appear as if I was stating otherwise? I apologize if that is the drift that you got from it.:)
Actually, Saddam Hussein was complying with the inspectors when Bush invaded. Many U.S. citizens don't like to believe that, but it is the truth. He granted access to all locations that he had previously forbidden access to, before the U.S. invaded.
Saddam was much more interested in saving his own skin than anything else, which is why he granted access when he realized war was inevitable otherwise. His mistake was not realizing that war was inevitable no matter what he did.
Basically there is no more informed consent in this country. This is not due to external controls that prevent its exercise, but more as a result of a steady decline in people actually learning (and caring) about the world at-large and their place (how they can and do fit into it, rather than a "station") in it. Forget about informed consent, people don't even care enough to consent in the first place, let alone spend the time to decide which way to go. Liberty will always be hard, because not only do those who want it have to fight those who want to control it, they also have to fight the inertial mass of those who just don't give a damn (and who thus resist movement in any direction).
People are so ignorant that most don't realize 9/11 was a result of our troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. That's it. That's the entire reason, spoken from the lips of bin Laden himself. Also, who trained bin Laden in the first place?
---------------- One thing I like about Oregon is the first line of the State Constitution, after the Preamble:
We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
I, for one, don't give my authority or consent. Now to convince everyone else.:)
Bring on the "Troll" mods, 'cause my post is certainly vitriolic enough to warrant them.:)
Note: I use "American" to mean "the U.S.A." and I put this note here because it is a very ego-centric use of the term, but it only occurred to me in hindsight. As most people in the Western Hemisphere know, other than U.S. citizens, many individuals who live in the Western Hemisphere claim the title of "American," simply because we all live in the Americas.
"Slander" would not be the term you're looking for. "Libel" would be correct for the idea that you were attempting to convey.
Let's see, US territory has been attacked by (and I'm not making a distinction between provoked and unprovoked attacks here) Spain, Britain, France, and Japan. All other attacks have occurred when "we" weren't at home (i.e. we were in someone else' country). I'm pretty sure I haven't left any out, because it hasn't happened very often. That's my definition of "starting shit." If you're using another definition, such as being belligerent while not even remotely possessing the ability to "start shit," (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, every Central American country, many South American countries, many African countries, etc) then I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest, and will not further reply.
Moving on, there's a reason why the rest of the world hates the US. Actually, there are many reasons. You seem to imply that I am a socialist and anti-defense, but this is an assumption on my part since you don't come right out and say it. If this assumption of mine is correct, you sir, are an idiot. You know the routine: Ass-u-me. Well, I take out the "me" part, because assumptions just make an ass out of the assumer, unless they spell out that they're making assumptions.
I do make my own world a better place, by removing as much support as I possibly can from the US government. I do it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. My better world is a world without an unaccountable global policeman, where empires are gutted and left to rot in the wind, and the arrogant warmongers have no support, and hence no power. This country was built on broken promises and blatant double-dealing (every treaty ever made with the natives), hypocrisy (the slave-holders signing the Declaration of Independence), religious intolerance (way too many things to count), and every other manner of bad behaviour that one could think of. The only thing that lends this country any credence is that it has always had a handful of individuals willing to actually live by the ideals it was founded on. What takes away that credence is the mass of others who hold up those ideals and cry that they are hated for them, when they are never lived by them in the first place. Kind of like a certain religion I know...
"America" as an amorphous entity does not exist. "America" is a political illusion. It is a shield for those who wish to cover their actions with the will of "the people." There is no "us," are no "we, the people," only a group of individuals who may or may not be spoken for when "our" interests are invoked. I know my interests are never invoked, but that's not what I want. I don't want some figurehead putting words in my mouth. I don't want to take the reins, I want them taken off the fucking horse.
You're right, America is not the be-all-end-all, and it never will be. However, there are those who want it to be, and they'll ride that horse until they're forced off or it drops dead under them. Someone (or in this case, some country) that assumes leadership without being asked is an idiot for complaining about the conditions. Anyone who supports the U.S. has no right to complain about not receiving any support in turn. Very few outside the U.S. asked for a leader, protector, or welfare agency. Those who did rarely had the authority to ask for it on the behalf of others. Anyone who whines about the U.S. not being supported is naive in the extreme. Individuals tend not to support those who declare themselves "l
Yes, they still have to get one, no they don't need a real court judge (just their special sneak-and-peek court judge), and no, they don't necessarily have to ever tell you what they did or what they took.
So, rigau is correct in that they don't have to present a warrant. There are no statistics on how often it happens, because they don't have to report it anywhere that is of public record. Nobody with any authority can say for certain what is or is not the case about secret warrants, because if they did and actually had the authority, they would be hauled off to jail for violating the secrecy of the warrant procedure.
Great country, America: Living up to its history of lies, deception, double-dealing, and bullying tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the real USA. A country built on hate, violence, lies, betrayal, theft, etc.
Only the concept of inalienable rights serves to do the history of the USA justice. Nothing else does. There's never been a time when you could actually exercise your inalienable rights without someone wanting you to pay for the privilege.
So if they write a law in Swahili that commands those who utter a specific word be executed on the spot?
The complexity of the law is so great at this point that they might as well be written in a foreign language as far as most people are concerned. Even lawyers are not literate in most law. That's why we have so many legal specialties. Nobody can cover all of it. It's simply too vast.
Plus, most laws today require a law library to comprehend, because they are simply piecemeal modifications to existing laws, and hence are completely incomprehensible without the entire body of law that they amend.
Ignorance of most laws is certainly an excuse. Ignorance of common sense ethical and moral laws is the only thing for which there is no excuse (those pertaining to force or fraud by-and-large).
Laws don't govern the legislative process.
Congress produces rules and regulations that govern their own operation, at the whim of the legislators.
You're right though, legislators should be removed from office for not reading bills. However, that would require their constituents to give enough of a damn to find out what their crackmonkeys are doing in Congress. But they don't, so they deserve what they get.
There should be a law against making laws inaccessible to the public... but don't let people know about it...
There is one, sort of. A requirement for a law to be enforceable is that it be accessible to the public. This is accomplished through the Federal Register, which records all Public Laws and is published regularly.
The problem is not that the law was not published, but that they won't tell him which law they are basing their position on. However, those two actions (not publishing versus enforcement without notification of the basis) are the same in substance even if they don't have the same form.
In this day and age, I'd say that ignorance of many (probably most, actually) laws are a good excuse. There are so many ludicrous laws, and they change so frequently that nobody can be sure at any given time what they are.
There's a reason law is called a practice. Not even the people who pass the laws know what the laws contain much (perhaps most) of the time. Notice how the campaign finance laws are coming back to bite those who sponsored them in the ass. They never bothered to read them, or they never would have voted for them.
And of course everyone of voting age is to blame. Societies get the governments they deserve. The USA is certainly a good indication of the truth of that maxim.
Flynt's parody.
:)
It's hilarious.
Shh! Don't confuse the issue with facts!
4) Put up big sign that people can't miss when they come in the door that says: We're not Scientologists, if you want them go next door.
Closer to what really happened. Changes the answer a bit, doesn't it?
Funny thing is, he'd have a lot easier time defending himself if he had done just that. If he had ripped-off Falwell's design and made a parody, he'd have been obviously in the clear, even if it was confusing at first. In making his site crystal-clear at the top that it is not a parody, even though it is factual, he hurt himself. It's really too bad.
I'd like to point out that you specifically mention the way something is "packaged" as determining the basis for trademark infringement.
Have you looked at the site? Nobody could mistake that for Falwell's site. Right at the top is a link to Falwell's site with a note saying the site [fallwell.com] is not Jerry Falwell's. Any possible confusion is de minimus.
Trademark infringement occurs when a trademark is used to deceive (for whatever reason, financial or not). There is no deception in this case. Any possible perceived deception is put to rest with the very first sentence on the page.
>now Jerry F. is trying to use his trademark to take away his right to have his name on his own site.
>But that's really the crux of the matter isn't it? Meaning "HIS trademark". Jerry Falwell has rights by being the trademark owner.
These are two separate issues. A trademark does not preclude the right of others to mention you, flattering or unflattering, so long as those comments are truthful, stated opinion, or parody. Trademark rights do not give, and have not ever given, owners the right to prevent their use in that manner. Trademark rights involve commercial use, and preventing unlawful use that might harm commercial image. No deception = no (legally redressable) harm.
Redundant, yeah, because the article was all about the cost of the settlement. That's the ticket, right...
</sarcasm>
If they were guilty, even if they send out 5,000,000 discs, they got a killer deal on this one. Look at the cost per disc to mass-produce. Each copy costs the company almost nothing, yet they can claim losses of ~$24.99 per disc.
RIAA attorneys: "W00t!"
Why innovate when you can get Congress or a regulartory agency to lay the hammer down on competitors? I see major lawsuits in the future to try and gain access to these networks, and in the current national socialist environment in the US, it is more than likely the path that will be taken.
However, I still hold out hope that those with integrity will win out. It just doesn't normally happen than way. The road to Hell is always the easiest, unfortunately.
There was actually a time when the right to use the public highways and byways in the common manner was still recognized. It is possible to walk across the US, but only with careful route planning. You cannot walk on roads above a certain size, and sometimes those are the only thoroughfares through what is otherwise private property (which you cannot travel across without permission).
Walking is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Horse travel is not the common manner of using public roads. It is restricted. Automobiles cannot be the common manner, as their use is a privilege. So tell me, what is the common manner of using the public roads? After all, inherent in the right to move about freely is the right to use the public roads in the common manner. What does one have the right to do on the public roads?
Note: Anything you must obtain a license for is a privilege, subject to revocation on the terms of the grantor: marriage, driving, working in almost any professional field, operating a business, etc.
You're right on the money. They want everyone to look OVER THERE when they scream "terrorism."
It's a buzzword like "communist" or "drug dealer."
That was the first thought that crossed my mind when I read the Nevada opinion. "WTF? Like a terrorist or sniper (two terms used by the majority to rationalize this decision) is going to refuse to show ID or give their name."
No, they'd whip out their ID (fake or not, as the parent said, the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate IDs), state their name, and be perfectly willing to "help" in any way they could. You don't draw attention to yourself when you're a criminal in most cases, and especially not when you've got a large agenda.
Would that this King George lose his "colonies" in the same manner as King George III. I've always liked Jefferson's quote about the blood of tyrants. The tree is coming due for a good watering.
Just because you are required to show ID does not mean the police can randomly arrest you, for example.
Completely correct. One does not equal the other. The issue tends to be that they're often symptoms of the same condition. The police can, in fact, randomly arrest you. It's extraordinarily easy to come up with some reason or other in many circumstances. Also, people have continually confused "demand ID" with "demand you talk (tell me your name)." The arrest was a result of the latter, not the former. If you watch the video, Hiibel's first response to the request for ID is that he doesn't have any. It snowballs from there, with the officer asking his name repeatedly. He was arrested for exercising the right to remain silent, not for failure to show ID.
Basically, SCOTUS amended the right to remain silent. You can remain silent unless asked your name. If you remain silent to that question, they take you to jail for obstructing an investigation.
Also, Scalia mentioned that it is the responsibility of every American to tell all that he or she knows upon questioning. While we're at it, why not throw out the 5th amendment completely? The only people who make use of it are those guilty of crimes anyway. He doesn't exclude self-incrimination in that statement, so he must not support the right of people to not incriminate themselves.
Scalia is a great guy to have in your court (take the pun as you will) some games. In others, he really just needs to be shot.
1) I never stated most people cared. I stated what is a general sentiment among those who do.
2)What you do with your cherished right is fine, and I won't attempt to stop you. The exercise was not what I was addressing. The cowardice of leaders who won't take responsibility is what I was addressing. As Commander-in-Chief, GWB implicitly accepted responsibility for all acts made by US personnel.
4)"Do as I say, not as I do," does work to a certain extent with some individuals, but the damage done by contradictory actions and words is rarely ever outweighed by the benefit of being a hypocritical ass. It's the very definition of being a hypocritical ass.
5)Re: Christian fundamentalist rant. Corruption doesn't work so overtly in most cases, and those who are corrupt are most often cowards who will back down in the face of mounted opposition. That is why the world is not a blasted wasteland: because people are sheep, and once they get fleeced enough, the corrupt are cowards who run for the hills. Wars start when the corrupt are allowed to build until the point few can challenge them.
6) Unaccountable vs accountable. There are always good people who will look out for those without the capability. They don't claim the authority because they are good people, but they do what is right. I've seen it frequently in my life. Those who are unaccountable (the only accountablity being to not piss off those who will kill you) become dictators, just as GWB wants to dictate to countries who do not recognize him as world's policeman. Fortunately, there are countries who have the capability to fight back, and he doesn't piss them off. He shows that he truly is a coward.
7)Does a corporate CEO go hungry? No, one is about survival. Who is more likely to fleece investors of millions of dollars and not get caught. If caught, who would be more likely to spend years in jail? Anyway, I see your point. Semantically, you are correct. It is not the power that corrupts, it merely attracts the corrupt.
9)That's why I am the way I am. I abhor all 16 evils. The many nickel-and-dime you out of your rights, while the one takes them all at once. It all amounts to the same, it's just that people are more willing to tolerate slow and steady encroachment because they are blind. Just because people are blind and think things are alright and "we have it better here so quit bitching" doesn't mean it's alright. So, I'll continue to sow dissent, because evil is still evil. I'm not interested in whether it's lesser or greater, I'm not going to support it. You can feel free to, but I'm not you.
8)I'd have to check your story on Democratic presidents, but more than likely it is true. What Democrats do is fuck up domestic policy. They leave foreign policy to the warlords (Republicans). Democrats want a society that is egalitarian while Republicans want an aristocracy. Both need a police state to accomplish their goals, as there are too many people who don't fit into either a specific class (aristocracy) or who want to rise above the median (egalitarianism).
Hates the USA and hates US citizens are two separate concepts. They are not interchangeable. I wish to make that distinction first and foremost. Most of the citizens of various nations who actually pay attention to such things do in fact have an opinion of the USA, though not necessarily US citizens. Reaction to US citizens is generally favourable, while reaction the the US government is not (i.e. the USA in general).
We strive to be a better place while other countries claim their life is perfect how could you ask for anything more.
Last I checked, it was pretty common to be called un-American for questioning the status quo. If you want something different, the response is often "get the fuck out then!" That's not a very rosy view of striving to be a better place. Only certain progress is tolerated, just like in the rest of the world. The US is absolutely no different in spirit, only in the rules that constrain those who "govern." The petty, corrupt, arrogant individuals who are drawn to power are just the same. They just have different opportunities from those in other countries.
Admit problems? Who admits problems? There people who tell others they have problems, but there is little admission by those who actually have them. What "we" have is finger-pointing, with little productive being done about any of it.
By teaching our kids this we hope they will be BETTER than us because they will know how we want them to act instead of copying our evilness.
"Do as I say, not as I do." Anyone who believes those words work is naive. Children do as they see, not as they hear. I have no problem striving for a better world. What I have a problem with is those who say they are striving for a better world while copying those who have run down the road to disaster. The US isn't making a better world, the US is making a better world for power-mongers.
An unaccountable authority is better than none at all? I pity you your naiveté. Show me an unaccountable authority, and I'll show you a place that would be better off with no authority. The adage about absolute power is absolutely correct. I know of no circumstance that it has not fulfilled the criteria for absolute corruption.
We didn't hear about suicide bombers in Afghanistan before the war, either, so what's your point? Suicide bombers by-and-large are Saudi or Palestinian. Afghanistan was picked because they wouldn't cooperate with the US attempts to find Osama bin Laden. Oh, sure, we toppled the big, bad Taliban. Now they have 15 different warlord groups instead of 1. We traded them one evil for another. I don't think anyone over there is singing the praises of the US for their "liberation."
I'm sure the CIA is happy that the Taliban is gone. The Taliban banned poppy farming, and now Afghanistan is back on top of the opium trade. Covert funding galore. Funding that was originally used to train Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians. Gotta love the good ol' USA. The usually train and arm their own enemies. Been doing it for a long, long time. Why stop now? They're training the Iraqi army, and once open elections are given to the Iraqi people, there'll be a fundamentalist Iraqi government that doesn't like the US in charge of the troops the US trained and the military hardware the US sold to them. Yay!
That was a major thread through my post. I haven't actually read the entire text of the act, so I'm not sure if entire sections were added to existing law (I would assume that there are probably instances of that within the PATRIOT Act).
:)
I know that at least a major portion of it was simply changes to existing law. Did my previous post make it appear as if I was stating otherwise? I apologize if that is the drift that you got from it.
Quite correct, I wasn't paying close enough attention. :)
Except this is 2^(odd number)-1, so if it's the lower of a twin prime, adding +2 would indeed make it another prime.
Only if it's the higher twin prime would it be divisible by 3.
Actually, Saddam Hussein was complying with the inspectors when Bush invaded. Many U.S. citizens don't like to believe that, but it is the truth. He granted access to all locations that he had previously forbidden access to, before the U.S. invaded.
Saddam was much more interested in saving his own skin than anything else, which is why he granted access when he realized war was inevitable otherwise. His mistake was not realizing that war was inevitable no matter what he did.
You're preaching to the choir. :)
:)
Basically there is no more informed consent in this country. This is not due to external controls that prevent its exercise, but more as a result of a steady decline in people actually learning (and caring) about the world at-large and their place (how they can and do fit into it, rather than a "station") in it. Forget about informed consent, people don't even care enough to consent in the first place, let alone spend the time to decide which way to go. Liberty will always be hard, because not only do those who want it have to fight those who want to control it, they also have to fight the inertial mass of those who just don't give a damn (and who thus resist movement in any direction).
People are so ignorant that most don't realize 9/11 was a result of our troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. That's it . That's the entire reason, spoken from the lips of bin Laden himself. Also, who trained bin Laden in the first place?
----------------
One thing I like about Oregon is the first line of the State Constitution, after the Preamble:
We declare that all men, when they form a social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
I, for one, don't give my authority or consent. Now to convince everyone else.
Bring on the "Troll" mods, 'cause my post is certainly vitriolic enough to warrant them. :)
Note: I use "American" to mean "the U.S.A." and I put this note here because it is a very ego-centric use of the term, but it only occurred to me in hindsight. As most people in the Western Hemisphere know, other than U.S. citizens, many individuals who live in the Western Hemisphere claim the title of "American," simply because we all live in the Americas.
"Slander" would not be the term you're looking for. "Libel" would be correct for the idea that you were attempting to convey.
Let's see, US territory has been attacked by (and I'm not making a distinction between provoked and unprovoked attacks here) Spain, Britain, France, and Japan. All other attacks have occurred when "we" weren't at home (i.e. we were in someone else' country). I'm pretty sure I haven't left any out, because it hasn't happened very often. That's my definition of "starting shit." If you're using another definition, such as being belligerent while not even remotely possessing the ability to "start shit," (i.e. Iraq, Vietnam, every Central American country, many South American countries, many African countries, etc) then I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest, and will not further reply.
Moving on, there's a reason why the rest of the world hates the US. Actually, there are many reasons. You seem to imply that I am a socialist and anti-defense, but this is an assumption on my part since you don't come right out and say it. If this assumption of mine is correct, you sir, are an idiot. You know the routine: Ass-u-me. Well, I take out the "me" part, because assumptions just make an ass out of the assumer, unless they spell out that they're making assumptions.
I do make my own world a better place, by removing as much support as I possibly can from the US government. I do it with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. My better world is a world without an unaccountable global policeman, where empires are gutted and left to rot in the wind, and the arrogant warmongers have no support, and hence no power. This country was built on broken promises and blatant double-dealing (every treaty ever made with the natives), hypocrisy (the slave-holders signing the Declaration of Independence), religious intolerance (way too many things to count), and every other manner of bad behaviour that one could think of. The only thing that lends this country any credence is that it has always had a handful of individuals willing to actually live by the ideals it was founded on. What takes away that credence is the mass of others who hold up those ideals and cry that they are hated for them, when they are never lived by them in the first place. Kind of like a certain religion I know...
"America" as an amorphous entity does not exist. "America" is a political illusion. It is a shield for those who wish to cover their actions with the will of "the people." There is no "us," are no "we, the people," only a group of individuals who may or may not be spoken for when "our" interests are invoked. I know my interests are never invoked, but that's not what I want. I don't want some figurehead putting words in my mouth. I don't want to take the reins, I want them taken off the fucking horse.
You're right, America is not the be-all-end-all, and it never will be. However, there are those who want it to be, and they'll ride that horse until they're forced off or it drops dead under them. Someone (or in this case, some country) that assumes leadership without being asked is an idiot for complaining about the conditions. Anyone who supports the U.S. has no right to complain about not receiving any support in turn. Very few outside the U.S. asked for a leader, protector, or welfare agency. Those who did rarely had the authority to ask for it on the behalf of others. Anyone who whines about the U.S. not being supported is naive in the extreme. Individuals tend not to support those who declare themselves "l
You're forgetting about sneak-and-peek warrants.
Yes, they still have to get one, no they don't need a real court judge (just their special sneak-and-peek court judge), and no, they don't necessarily have to ever tell you what they did or what they took.
So, rigau is correct in that they don't have to present a warrant. There are no statistics on how often it happens, because they don't have to report it anywhere that is of public record. Nobody with any authority can say for certain what is or is not the case about secret warrants, because if they did and actually had the authority, they would be hauled off to jail for violating the secrecy of the warrant procedure.
Great country, America: Living up to its history of lies, deception, double-dealing, and bullying tactics.