Perhaps you should go back to high school. Governments have no rights, only powers granted by those who hold all rights inherently.
if they can do a superior job for less money
Nowhere in any constitution (state or federal) have I ever seen this stated, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say the statement is patently false. All authority in a Republic is derived from the governing charters that put basic controls on governmental entities. In our Republic, these state that any powers not specifically granted are off-limits.
do it with purely volunatary funds
If it was done with purely voluntary funds, it wouldn't be done by the government. If nothing else, the startup capital would be tax funds, which are never voluntary. Whenever the threat of being killed for lack of cooperation exists, there can be no truly voluntary action. If you don't pay taxes, the bottom line is that they can and will kill you if you don't cooperate at some point.
Fortunately you realize that the decision is correct for the simple reason that it is a state-by-state issue, and not federal.
Aww, poor you. Can't get cable modem access at more than 1Mb upstream. Forgive me if I don't sympathize.
They don't do it because there's no money in it.
If the government does it, it means that they'll force people who don't use the service to pay for it. BTW, it's called taxation. If you don't pay, they put you in jail. If you resist, they shoot you.
Call me crazy, but I don't want a telco around with the power to shoot me if I choose not to use their service, and then have the audacity to not pay them for a service I don't use.
At least with a private monopoly you can defend against thuggish tactics without being buried by law enforcement.
Try defending against thuggish local government. Depending on where you live, you may just end up in a box. At the very least they can make your life hell, and there's almost nothing you can do about it. Sort of like the Mafia. No, exactly like the Mafia.
USPS: government-run monopoly SPECIFICALLY authorized by the US Constitution.
See also: US military.
Try starting a competing military and see where that gets you.:)
"General welfare" Items affecting the lives, mostly pertaining to the protection of rights, of the public at large.
Having decent telephone service doesn't fall under this umbrella. People are not "forced" to pay for telephone service. They can take it or leave it. If they wish to have service, they can pick from the available service. If they don't like the price, they can go without. Obviously if someone is paying for service, it is worth as much or more to them than they are paying for the access. If they're paying more than it's worth to them, that's THEIR problem.
Monopoly: A business that exerts enough power to be able to force other companies or competing startups out of the market, and actually exercises this power for this purpose.
A shitty small-town telco is not a monopoly. They are the only game in town because nobody else wants to play in that location.
In large towns, the company complained about the most is usually the largest, not the only. You've still got choice, you just may not like it. That doesn't make it the problem of the people who support the tax base in your area (i.e. those who would be subsidizing your telephone calls for a government-run telco).
Would you be satisfied to eat a lime if you requested an orange by asking for "citrus fruit?"
"Democracy" when used to describe a system of government means something different that "Republic." In a democracy, your vote would elect the President. In our form of republic, it does not. There are other differences, but for those who don't consider the importance of semantics in everything (how they shape though patterns and such) one would probably not derive much meaning from the differences, as significant as they may be.
Just remember, Hitler was democratically elected within the Weimer Republic.
Amen! The government should never enter into business in any way, shape, or form. The sole basis for governmental power is the gun (If you don't believe me, ignore a court order, directions from an LEO, or a Congressional subpoena. You continue ignoring, and eventually you'll be staring down the barrel of a gun). That means that any commercial organization backed by a governmental entity is being supported by organized force.
Commercial entities operated by government agencies derive funding from taxes, and therefore compete on a playing field much like a monopoly. They have the leverage to shut others out.
Government officials can hamper private businesses that compete with them through excessive franchise fees, levies, "problems" with permits, etc.
Socialists, cover your eyes for the next bit. You probably won't like it.
<rant> Yeah, those rates are lower. You know why? Under threat of force, someone had to pay taxes to that government agency to subsidize a fucking telephone conversation. Only someone truly pathetic would consider that a good idea. If someone wants something, they should pay for it with their own damn money instead of complaining that it's "too expensive." Boo-fucking-hoo. You think it's gouging? Do without the service. "But that's inconvenient!" Know what? Tough! Anybody who says life is fair is naive. Nobody deserves a government subsidy for anything. Not a single frickin' thing. You want it, you work for it, or figure out some way to get someone to give it to you or get it for you in a cooperative fashion. Using force (as we've established that the government embodies) is for thieves. </rant>
Socialists piss me off. Yeah, I'm speaking of neocon Democrats and Republicans alike, you're all the same.
That said, co-ops that aren't subsidized by government entities are awesome. Nothing like the power of free association and a free (as much as you can get in this country) market to put power back into the hands of communities. Consentual socialism is fine, but remember the key word "consent". That means everyone involved. You put the force of government behind it, and you lose consent. Free association goes out the window (it means freedom to NOT associate too, ya know). And that, my friend, should be a hanging offense.
I had a similar incident happen with my father about 15 years ago. We were at the mall, and came out to head home. Walked to where his Isuzu Trooper was parked, opened the door, started the vehicle, went to drive away, and realized there was a fast food wrapper on the floor. Neither he nor I eat at McDonald's, so this was rather interesting. Turned out the vehicle was not his. His was two spaces down.
I've also seen the key to a Toyota open the lock on a different Toyota when my girlfriend's sister locked the keys in here car (albeit with a little work from a sometimes car-thief that she knew).
But buying two vehicles with the same cylindars. That's a trick.:)
It's not armies, navies, and air forces that repel invaders. They are used to take over countries, not defend them.
Over the course of history, it has been guerrilla warfare waged by small groups of armed individuals that have proved to be the most effective in repelling invaders. Those times when conventional warfare has been employed were those that saw the most casualties and devastation on all sides of a conflict.
Poland, France, and most of Europe had strict gun control at the time. None of the populace who were not in the military were armed, and hence were easily subjugated. You want a good example of an armed populace, look at the US incursions into Somalia. You don't hear about them too often, because the Army Rangers got their asses beat down by good ol' boys who lived there. The Army couldn't move very far very fast, because they had to secure every house, barn, chicken coop, outhouse, etc (It was actually an urban environment, but you get my point). The more armed individuals it is necessary to guard against, the more resources an invading or occupying force must expend to retain control of the territory. Vietnam was another good example. Anyone and everyone could be armed and dangerous, which means time and energy. These all work to the advantage of guerrilla fighters, but don't work for conventional armies.
Frankly, if an American dictator takes over, it will more than likely be guerrilla warfare that wins us free, as nobody on the outside would be willing to attack a nuclear superpower with conventional forces. Our only hope should that happen would be firearms in private hands, in private caches by those who fear (and many times seem to hope for) the worst.
And don't discount those accountants on Wall Street. Push the right buttons, and you can drive them right over the edge.:)
Lies, damn lies! They told me in public skool that we live in a democracy! Don't confuse the ramblings of the poorly informed with things like facts! Up is down! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
When somebody starts nitpicking on minutia, they have lost the argument.
That statement alone shows you know nothing about the law. The law thrives on precise details, though few of them are trifling as your chosen word would tend to imply.
The fact remains that you continue to insist he was within the bounds of his authority even when Nevada case law alone stands on the other side of the isle, not to mention previous Supreme Court rulings.
You have yet to cite any objective (i.e. something other than your own unsubstantiated opinion) support for your position, or provide any evidence whatsoever to refute the evidence I presented. I'll leave that record to stand on its own as to whose argument can hold more water.
You say you're for citizen's rights. You may even believe it. However, your comments betray your true position.
Sure your rights are protected. Are you in jail for speaking out against the government? Can you still buy a firearm?
A little simplistic, don't you think? Rights violations rarely occur in such a blatant manner.
This man was arrested for not having any ID, not for refusing to display it. If you bothered to watch the video, the officer asks "You got any ID on you?" Hiibel responds with, "No, I don't. Why should I have ID?"
The officer ends up arresting him after asking him if he's going to cooperate (produce ID), and Hiibel says no (he has already stated he HAS none on him, and so is UNABLE to comply). There must be an overall criminal charge to warrant a demand for identification, which was not met in this situation. The charge of domestic battery was supported by a witness who said he/she THOUGHT she saw the man hit the woman, a charge denied ON TAPE by both participants. It later turned out that the woman (Mimi) hit the man in the shoulder. Without the overriding criminal charge, the charge of failing to provide identification cannot stand in the face of the ruling in Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47.
There are lots of other rights violations, but rarely so public. So to make a blanket statement that rights are protected does not stand in the face of the many cases to the contrary. No, there are not systematic rights violations (with the exception of the "enemy combatant" designation, which strips individuals of all rights) as have happened in the past, but they're never far below the surface.
I wasn't sure where you were going with the common defense line, which is why I went with the assumption you were somehow trying to tie it to the case at hand. I apologize. You did not, in fact, ever state that explicitly.
It can be a difficult balancing act, but they've become increasingly heavy-handed in contrast to the types of intervention that were considered intrusive when the Constitution was initially written.
I have a firm grasp of many areas of law, this just happens to be my favorite. I suggest if you wish to be taken seriously that you support any further statements with the relevent controlling case law, as I tire of unsubstantiated prattling.
The police have the right to arrest somebody they suspect has been involved in a crime.
True, minus the fact that police powers are not rights, they are powers. There are important legal differences in the terms government officials acting in their official capacity are not acting within their "rights," they are acting with their powers as granted by whatever controlling legislation grants them their power.
What you said previously was that you would arrest someone not because you believed them to be involved in a crime, but only because they didn't tell you who they were. If you were arresting them for suspicion, you would have no reason to state that you were arresting them as a result of their refusal to identify themself. If you were arresting them for refusal to identify themself, that would have to be a crime for it to be a legitimate use of power. However, it cannot be made into a crime without a pre-existing suspicion re: Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47. You're either confused or advocating an abuse of power. I'm beginning to suspect that the former is true rather than the latter.
This is called hindering an investigation.
Only if they can prove refusal based on intent to hinder the police. Since nobody as-yet has perfected a mind-reading device (that I'm aware of), this is not a provable, and hence prosecutable, claim. He can simply claim protection under the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment. In terms police could understand, he could claim his right to remain silent.
The words of those two amendments are in plain English. Amendment 9 makes reference to rights not written in the Constitution because there ARE rights not written into the Constitution. I have a right to privacy and anonymity because nowhere in the Constitution are regulatory power over those issues granted to the federal government. Since the Constitution doesn't deny or disparage the rights to privacy and anonymity, power over those are reserved by the states (any whose Constitutions grant those powers to their respective states) or to the people. It's really pretty clear. Written in plain English.
Since the officer was not a federal employee, I am assuming he either worked for the state of Nevada, or the local authorities. So what does the Bill of Rights have to do with the price of tea in China?
The protections in the Constitution are not just limits on the federal government, but are also limits on the state government. More specifically, the 10th amendment provides a specific limitation of both federal and individual state power. If it is not delegated to the federal goverment or prohibited to the state government, and it is also delegated to the state government within that state's Constitution (as there can be no grant of power from the populace without a state Constitution in place, and hence no state), it is reserved to the people. That includes the right to be free from undue government intrusion and interference,the right to privacy (extending throughout the public, private, and governmental spheres), the right of publicity, etc.
Now, I haven't delved far into Nevada's Constitution, but I can almost guarantee you there is no provision granting the power of law enforcement in Nevada to arrest someone for failure to identify themselves. It's generally protected in all states by a section that mimics the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, specifically the right to freedom of speech, and by extension the freedom not to speak, the right to be free from search or seizure without due process (reasonable suspicion not based on the simple exercise of a right, as exercising a right can never be converted into a crime), and
Oh, I wasn't implying that's what you meant. I should have been more explicit in my wording: there are a lot worse things out there than Bush. I do understand your sentiment though. What we have is a never-ending parade of self-indulgent babies who wish nothing more than to promote themselves and their petty agendas, to hell with everyone else.
Yes, there was a revolution in the 30's, and the revolutionaries won. FDR helped the revolutionaries win. He helped to permanently install socialism in the United States.
However, that wasn't actually what I was talking about. I was talking about his actions during the war. He signed EO9066 and EO9102, removing the rights of 120,000 Americans, stripping them of their property and dignity, and incarcerating them without due process for 4 years.
He forced 10,110,114 American men into involuntary servitude, stripping them of more rights than the 12,000 affected by EO9066. Many of them were ordered to their deaths against their will, the ultimate betrayal of individual rights.
FDR was also complicit in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, based on now-declassified documents pertaining to the breaking of the Japanese military code. They knew in advance.
He transformed the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor into a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government by creating a tax on the privilege of being employed, and the privilege of employing (neither of which are privileges, but absolute rights). When the Supreme Court laid the smack down on him, he extorted their complicity by threatening to destroy the integrity of the Judicial Branch by flooding the Court with partisans.
He removed the United States from a monetary standard backed by tangible wealth to one backed by nothing more than faith. After all, paper is worth what people believe it is, and nothing more.
FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress.
FDR signed legislation in order to fix prices and insulate people from the consequences of defaulting on contracts (ie the consequences of their actions as outlined clearly in contracts they agreed to).
Personally, I can't think of one good thing that FDR accomplished, but I can see a lot of people who are worse-off as a result. Just look at the abject failure of Social Security. Not only did it strip everyone of the right to work and enjoy all the fruits of their labors, but it has made generations of older people dependent on it, instead of having a family safety net. The family is busy paying taxes to fund the exact cost of Social Security at the current moment and so have nothing left to help support their elders and keep a family life together. All the surplus is spent on $1000.00 hammers and $800.00 toilet seats, or on renovating government offices to install a new spa or gym.
No, FDR wasn't a great president. He was the scum of the earth, and was only interested in acting along the same lines as his contemporaries Stalin and Churchill: an arrogant, power-hungry populist who had more ego and power than he had sense.
The only wartime president worth a damn in the entire history of the United States was Washington, and even he had his faults. At least he also had intelligence and principles, and was a reluctant leader. Those are the best.
You really don't know much about the judicial process do you? If you did, you'd know that the first line listed a case that was heard before and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not a legal precedent set by Texas, it's a legal precedent that told Texas, "You can't do that, you ignorant fuck."
you're = you are your = belonging to you --------------- Funny, you provide zero substantiation for your comment that my rights are protected. Also, making assumptions as you have in order to attack me personally reflects on your character, not mine. If you wish to get anyone to consider your viewpoint instead of simply dismissing you out-of-hand as childish and ignorant, try a different tack.
The "common defense" regards acts of war and invasion, and invoking it here is ludicrous. As for it authorizing the protection of certain rights, I wonder if you could perhaps provide the Article and section that this authorization to protect these "certain" rights is located in. I know of references to protecting the rights of the people from abuses by the government, but none that authorize the government to safeguard "certain" rights. Please, enlighten me.
We've got a long way to go before we hit Caligula, my friend.:)
The United States has been the most hated country on the planet for a while now, it's just that the populations of the countries that bore "friendly" governments are starting to turn on their elected officials as a result of the actions of our Commander-in-Smurf.
Also, you forget (or never new the true extent of) FDR. He was far worse than Bushie Jr. ever though about being in the realm of cancelling rights and abusing power. Out of all the other scum who've held the Oval Office, FDR most deserved to be killed.
If the guy didnt want to show ID, I would arrest him for suspicion of battery.
Then I hope to Hell that you never attain a position of power, because you're advocating an abuse of it. Arrest someone for suspicion of a specific crime on the grounds that they won't tell you who they are? If you have evidence or even suspicion, you don't need to know who they are to charge them.
Furthermore, what if this guy had been wanted in another state for rape/murder/whatever?
Apparently you've never read the 5th amendment. You don't have to incriminate yourself. You have no duty to produce evidence that the police can use to link you to a crime. Saying otherwise could mean many things, but none of them say anything positive about your character or subject-matter knowledge.
if you have nothing to hide
This is the last ditch rationale of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own merits. Maybe he DOES have something to hide. Maybe he thinks the cop is being a dick, and doesn't wish to help him do his job. Oh, and maybe try reading the 9th and 10th amendments if you think there's no right to anonymity. The government is not given the power to regulate anonymity or privacy anywhere in the Constitution, and thus that is a right retained by the people (or the States, for those whose constitutions are written to include regulatory power over aforementioned issues).
All the more reason to not carry a government-issued ID unless absolutely necessary. They cannot force you to produce what you do not have.
You're un-American if you believe that those terrorists have rights!
They deserve to be tortured, just look at them and where they come from!
Don't you realize that they want to destroy our way of life?
They hate us because we're free to tow the party line!
If you don't agree, you must be one of those damn towel-head sympathizers! Enemy combatant!
Comrades, take him away!
All your rights are belong to us! -------------------- The terrorists haven't destroyed our way of life and never had the power to. They just gave those in power an excuse to finish destroying our way of life and national heritage.
Think Kerry will be any different than Bush? Just remember that they're both avowed and dedicated Bonesmen. They are no different on the inside, they just attempt to give the illusion of being different on the outside.
Okay, it always boggles my mind that people don't stop to consider what the point of the Bill of Rights was: to specifically enumerate areas where the government may not intrude, to protect specific rights from abuses by those in power.
If you want a good context for what the Bill of Rights was designed to do, read the fucking 3rd Amendment.
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Oh you poor, naive person. A manager who understands what they're managing? Generally they are fired for trying to do their job.
Managers' main qualifications tend to be sucking up, toadying, and playing favorites. Such quaint notions as actually understanding and doing their job is just plain unnatural. At least in America.
Responded to only for the benefit of those who don't know any better. The person who wrote this comment is one of those, but will probably never bother to learn more on that which they spout so vociferously about.
Ah, not only anonymous and a coward, but ignorant too. It's not about Jews (as pertaining to religion), it's about Israelis. Only the ignorant and misinformed confuse the two. Much of Israel is secular, especially the military. It's like using Islamic and Arabic interchangeably. Only the ignorant do it. One is specifically a religious term. The other is a nationality.
They beat off the Arabs in several wars, yes, but not without US help. Without the US, Britain, and the former USSR, Israel would be a pipe dream. Learn your WWII history. Where do you think Israel got their funding and military hardware to begin with? Where do you think they purchase a majority of it now? They have no land on which to build major industry, hence they have to buy almost everything they need.
As for nukes that they've developed, you're wrong again. While they do have nuclear capacity, they did not and could not have done it by themselves. The US turned a blind eye to their covert development (what is now public record) with the help of France. France procured heavy water from Norway and violated the purchase agreement by secretly transporting it to Israel. They also flew in the major components to build Israel's first nuclear reactor.
But of course you'd add racist overtones to your message. If people are thinking I'm a racist, they're more than likely not thinking that I'm right or wrong based on the actual facts of the argument, whether or not I am. It's a childish tactic, though it does work to some degree. Those it works on are not those I'm interested in reaching as an audience though, so it's neither here nor there whether it works, really.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Generally the insults people throw at others are those that hit closest to their own home. It's funny how things work on the internet, because you never really know what the person on the other end looks like. For all you know, I could be black. But you don't, and so you make stupid assumptions instead of dealing strictly with the facts.:)
My father's rules were simple, and not really restrictive. Be courteous, use common sense, and let him know where I was. I could go out any time I wanted, as long as I told him where I would be. Everything else was set by example. Example and explanation was what worked for me.
My friends occasionally party or use pot. Most of my high-school peers were the preppy, honor student type. My senior party consisted mostly of everyone drinking and having sex. Same goes for the senior trip (from which I abstained after the bore that was the senior party).
My friends had parents a lot like mine. Some more so than others. They've used drugs recreationally for years now. I have never used drugs, except for the OTC general use kind. I attribute it more to personal informed choice than anything else. Make the information available in a non-threatening manner, and kids will make their own choice, period.
The follow-up to this from the Eagle Scout/musician/teacher helps to reinforce my point in much the same way that your post does. Being such doesn't mean you'll be good. Neither does it mean you won't be.
Nurture helps to set the stage for the information available to reason through and ultimately choose a course of action at any given time. But raise 1,000 children the same way, and give them the same choices, and you won't get the same results with each one. The more information is available to them, the more their own individual characteristics will show through.
It doesn't matter how nice OR rude your kids seem, they will surprise you.:)
The only thing you can do is do the best you can with the information available to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments have every right to compete
Perhaps you should go back to high school. Governments have no rights, only powers granted by those who hold all rights inherently.
if they can do a superior job for less money
Nowhere in any constitution (state or federal) have I ever seen this stated, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say the statement is patently false. All authority in a Republic is derived from the governing charters that put basic controls on governmental entities. In our Republic, these state that any powers not specifically granted are off-limits.
do it with purely volunatary funds
If it was done with purely voluntary funds, it wouldn't be done by the government. If nothing else, the startup capital would be tax funds, which are never voluntary. Whenever the threat of being killed for lack of cooperation exists, there can be no truly voluntary action. If you don't pay taxes, the bottom line is that they can and will kill you if you don't cooperate at some point.
Fortunately you realize that the decision is correct for the simple reason that it is a state-by-state issue, and not federal.
Aww, poor you. Can't get cable modem access at more than 1Mb upstream. Forgive me if I don't sympathize.
They don't do it because there's no money in it.
If the government does it, it means that they'll force people who don't use the service to pay for it. BTW, it's called taxation. If you don't pay, they put you in jail. If you resist, they shoot you.
Call me crazy, but I don't want a telco around with the power to shoot me if I choose not to use their service, and then have the audacity to not pay them for a service I don't use.
Damn straight!
At least with a private monopoly you can defend against thuggish tactics without being buried by law enforcement.
Try defending against thuggish local government. Depending on where you live, you may just end up in a box. At the very least they can make your life hell, and there's almost nothing you can do about it. Sort of like the Mafia. No, exactly like the Mafia.
Never! There is no 10th amendment! :)
USPS: government-run monopoly SPECIFICALLY authorized by the US Constitution.
:)
See also: US military.
Try starting a competing military and see where that gets you.
"General welfare"
Items affecting the lives, mostly pertaining to the protection of rights, of the public at large.
Having decent telephone service doesn't fall under this umbrella. People are not "forced" to pay for telephone service. They can take it or leave it. If they wish to have service, they can pick from the available service. If they don't like the price, they can go without. Obviously if someone is paying for service, it is worth as much or more to them than they are paying for the access. If they're paying more than it's worth to them, that's THEIR problem.
Monopoly: A business that exerts enough power to be able to force other companies or competing startups out of the market, and actually exercises this power for this purpose.
A shitty small-town telco is not a monopoly. They are the only game in town because nobody else wants to play in that location.
In large towns, the company complained about the most is usually the largest, not the only. You've still got choice, you just may not like it. That doesn't make it the problem of the people who support the tax base in your area (i.e. those who would be subsidizing your telephone calls for a government-run telco).
"Republic" is a clarification of "democracy." :)
Would you be satisfied to eat a lime if you requested an orange by asking for "citrus fruit?"
"Democracy" when used to describe a system of government means something different that "Republic." In a democracy, your vote would elect the President. In our form of republic, it does not. There are other differences, but for those who don't consider the importance of semantics in everything (how they shape though patterns and such) one would probably not derive much meaning from the differences, as significant as they may be.
Just remember, Hitler was democratically elected within the Weimer Republic.
Amen! The government should never enter into business in any way, shape, or form. The sole basis for governmental power is the gun (If you don't believe me, ignore a court order, directions from an LEO, or a Congressional subpoena. You continue ignoring, and eventually you'll be staring down the barrel of a gun). That means that any commercial organization backed by a governmental entity is being supported by organized force.
Commercial entities operated by government agencies derive funding from taxes, and therefore compete on a playing field much like a monopoly. They have the leverage to shut others out.
Government officials can hamper private businesses that compete with them through excessive franchise fees, levies, "problems" with permits, etc.
Socialists, cover your eyes for the next bit. You probably won't like it.
<rant>
Yeah, those rates are lower. You know why? Under threat of force, someone had to pay taxes to that government agency to subsidize a fucking telephone conversation. Only someone truly pathetic would consider that a good idea. If someone wants something, they should pay for it with their own damn money instead of complaining that it's "too expensive." Boo-fucking-hoo. You think it's gouging? Do without the service. "But that's inconvenient!" Know what? Tough! Anybody who says life is fair is naive. Nobody deserves a government subsidy for anything. Not a single frickin' thing. You want it, you work for it, or figure out some way to get someone to give it to you or get it for you in a cooperative fashion. Using force (as we've established that the government embodies) is for thieves.
</rant>
Socialists piss me off. Yeah, I'm speaking of neocon Democrats and Republicans alike, you're all the same.
That said, co-ops that aren't subsidized by government entities are awesome. Nothing like the power of free association and a free (as much as you can get in this country) market to put power back into the hands of communities. Consentual socialism is fine, but remember the key word "consent". That means everyone involved. You put the force of government behind it, and you lose consent. Free association goes out the window (it means freedom to NOT associate too, ya know). And that, my friend, should be a hanging offense.
I had a similar incident happen with my father about 15 years ago. We were at the mall, and came out to head home. Walked to where his Isuzu Trooper was parked, opened the door, started the vehicle, went to drive away, and realized there was a fast food wrapper on the floor. Neither he nor I eat at McDonald's, so this was rather interesting. Turned out the vehicle was not his. His was two spaces down.
:)
I've also seen the key to a Toyota open the lock on a different Toyota when my girlfriend's sister locked the keys in here car (albeit with a little work from a sometimes car-thief that she knew).
But buying two vehicles with the same cylindars. That's a trick.
It's not armies, navies, and air forces that repel invaders. They are used to take over countries, not defend them.
:)
Over the course of history, it has been guerrilla warfare waged by small groups of armed individuals that have proved to be the most effective in repelling invaders. Those times when conventional warfare has been employed were those that saw the most casualties and devastation on all sides of a conflict.
Poland, France, and most of Europe had strict gun control at the time. None of the populace who were not in the military were armed, and hence were easily subjugated. You want a good example of an armed populace, look at the US incursions into Somalia. You don't hear about them too often, because the Army Rangers got their asses beat down by good ol' boys who lived there. The Army couldn't move very far very fast, because they had to secure every house, barn, chicken coop, outhouse, etc (It was actually an urban environment, but you get my point). The more armed individuals it is necessary to guard against, the more resources an invading or occupying force must expend to retain control of the territory. Vietnam was another good example. Anyone and everyone could be armed and dangerous, which means time and energy. These all work to the advantage of guerrilla fighters, but don't work for conventional armies.
Frankly, if an American dictator takes over, it will more than likely be guerrilla warfare that wins us free, as nobody on the outside would be willing to attack a nuclear superpower with conventional forces. Our only hope should that happen would be firearms in private hands, in private caches by those who fear (and many times seem to hope for) the worst.
And don't discount those accountants on Wall Street. Push the right buttons, and you can drive them right over the edge.
Lies, damn lies! They told me in public skool that we live in a democracy!
Don't confuse the ramblings of the poorly informed with things like facts!
Up is down!
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Free-market.net kicks ass. :)
When somebody starts nitpicking on minutia, they have lost the argument.
That statement alone shows you know nothing about the law. The law thrives on precise details, though few of them are trifling as your chosen word would tend to imply.
The fact remains that you continue to insist he was within the bounds of his authority even when Nevada case law alone stands on the other side of the isle, not to mention previous Supreme Court rulings.
You have yet to cite any objective (i.e. something other than your own unsubstantiated opinion) support for your position, or provide any evidence whatsoever to refute the evidence I presented. I'll leave that record to stand on its own as to whose argument can hold more water.
You say you're for citizen's rights. You may even believe it. However, your comments betray your true position.
Sure your rights are protected. Are you in jail for speaking out against the government? Can you still buy a firearm?
A little simplistic, don't you think?
Rights violations rarely occur in such a blatant manner.
This man was arrested for not having any ID, not for refusing to display it. If you bothered to watch the video, the officer asks "You got any ID on you?" Hiibel responds with, "No, I don't. Why should I have ID?"
The officer ends up arresting him after asking him if he's going to cooperate (produce ID), and Hiibel says no (he has already stated he HAS none on him, and so is UNABLE to comply). There must be an overall criminal charge to warrant a demand for identification, which was not met in this situation. The charge of domestic battery was supported by a witness who said he/she THOUGHT she saw the man hit the woman, a charge denied ON TAPE by both participants. It later turned out that the woman (Mimi) hit the man in the shoulder. Without the overriding criminal charge, the charge of failing to provide identification cannot stand in the face of the ruling in Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47.
There are lots of other rights violations, but rarely so public. So to make a blanket statement that rights are protected does not stand in the face of the many cases to the contrary. No, there are not systematic rights violations (with the exception of the "enemy combatant" designation, which strips individuals of all rights) as have happened in the past, but they're never far below the surface.
I wasn't sure where you were going with the common defense line, which is why I went with the assumption you were somehow trying to tie it to the case at hand. I apologize. You did not, in fact, ever state that explicitly.
It can be a difficult balancing act, but they've become increasingly heavy-handed in contrast to the types of intervention that were considered intrusive when the Constitution was initially written.
You need to learn how to articulate better.
I have a firm grasp of many areas of law, this just happens to be my favorite. I suggest if you wish to be taken seriously that you support any further statements with the relevent controlling case law, as I tire of unsubstantiated prattling.
The police have the right to arrest somebody they suspect has been involved in a crime.
True, minus the fact that police powers are not rights, they are powers. There are important legal differences in the terms government officials acting in their official capacity are not acting within their "rights," they are acting with their powers as granted by whatever controlling legislation grants them their power.
What you said previously was that you would arrest someone not because you believed them to be involved in a crime, but only because they didn't tell you who they were. If you were arresting them for suspicion, you would have no reason to state that you were arresting them as a result of their refusal to identify themself. If you were arresting them for refusal to identify themself, that would have to be a crime for it to be a legitimate use of power. However, it cannot be made into a crime without a pre-existing suspicion re: Brown v. Texas 443 U.S. 47. You're either confused or advocating an abuse of power. I'm beginning to suspect that the former is true rather than the latter.
This is called hindering an investigation.
Only if they can prove refusal based on intent to hinder the police. Since nobody as-yet has perfected a mind-reading device (that I'm aware of), this is not a provable, and hence prosecutable, claim. He can simply claim protection under the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment. In terms police could understand, he could claim his right to remain silent.
The words of those two amendments are in plain English. Amendment 9 makes reference to rights not written in the Constitution because there ARE rights not written into the Constitution. I have a right to privacy and anonymity because nowhere in the Constitution are regulatory power over those issues granted to the federal government. Since the Constitution doesn't deny or disparage the rights to privacy and anonymity, power over those are reserved by the states (any whose Constitutions grant those powers to their respective states) or to the people. It's really pretty clear. Written in plain English.
Since the officer was not a federal employee, I am assuming he either worked for the state of Nevada, or the local authorities. So what does the Bill of Rights have to do with the price of tea in China?
The protections in the Constitution are not just limits on the federal government, but are also limits on the state government. More specifically, the 10th amendment provides a specific limitation of both federal and individual state power. If it is not delegated to the federal goverment or prohibited to the state government, and it is also delegated to the state government within that state's Constitution (as there can be no grant of power from the populace without a state Constitution in place, and hence no state), it is reserved to the people. That includes the right to be free from undue government intrusion and interference,the right to privacy (extending throughout the public, private, and governmental spheres), the right of publicity, etc.
Now, I haven't delved far into Nevada's Constitution, but I can almost guarantee you there is no provision granting the power of law enforcement in Nevada to arrest someone for failure to identify themselves. It's generally protected in all states by a section that mimics the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, specifically the right to freedom of speech, and by extension the freedom not to speak, the right to be free from search or seizure without due process (reasonable suspicion not based on the simple exercise of a right, as exercising a right can never be converted into a crime), and
Oh, I wasn't implying that's what you meant. I should have been more explicit in my wording: there are a lot worse things out there than Bush. I do understand your sentiment though. What we have is a never-ending parade of self-indulgent babies who wish nothing more than to promote themselves and their petty agendas, to hell with everyone else.
Yes, there was a revolution in the 30's, and the revolutionaries won. FDR helped the revolutionaries win. He helped to permanently install socialism in the United States.
However, that wasn't actually what I was talking about. I was talking about his actions during the war. He signed EO9066 and EO9102, removing the rights of 120,000 Americans, stripping them of their property and dignity, and incarcerating them without due process for 4 years.
He forced 10,110,114 American men into involuntary servitude, stripping them of more rights than the 12,000 affected by EO9066. Many of them were ordered to their deaths against their will, the ultimate betrayal of individual rights.
FDR was also complicit in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, based on now-declassified documents pertaining to the breaking of the Japanese military code. They knew in advance.
He transformed the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of ones' labor into a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government by creating a tax on the privilege of being employed, and the privilege of employing (neither of which are privileges, but absolute rights). When the Supreme Court laid the smack down on him, he extorted their complicity by threatening to destroy the integrity of the Judicial Branch by flooding the Court with partisans.
He removed the United States from a monetary standard backed by tangible wealth to one backed by nothing more than faith. After all, paper is worth what people believe it is, and nothing more.
FDR did not believe in Constitutional checks and balances - he tried to destroy and was prepared to defy the Supreme Court and Congress.
FDR signed legislation in order to fix prices and insulate people from the consequences of defaulting on contracts (ie the consequences of their actions as outlined clearly in contracts they agreed to).
Personally, I can't think of one good thing that FDR accomplished, but I can see a lot of people who are worse-off as a result. Just look at the abject failure of Social Security. Not only did it strip everyone of the right to work and enjoy all the fruits of their labors, but it has made generations of older people dependent on it, instead of having a family safety net. The family is busy paying taxes to fund the exact cost of Social Security at the current moment and so have nothing left to help support their elders and keep a family life together. All the surplus is spent on $1000.00 hammers and $800.00 toilet seats, or on renovating government offices to install a new spa or gym.
No, FDR wasn't a great president. He was the scum of the earth, and was only interested in acting along the same lines as his contemporaries Stalin and Churchill: an arrogant, power-hungry populist who had more ego and power than he had sense.
The only wartime president worth a damn in the entire history of the United States was Washington, and even he had his faults. At least he also had intelligence and principles, and was a reluctant leader. Those are the best.
You really don't know much about the judicial process do you? If you did, you'd know that the first line listed a case that was heard before and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not a legal precedent set by Texas, it's a legal precedent that told Texas, "You can't do that, you ignorant fuck."
you're = you are
your = belonging to you
---------------
Funny, you provide zero substantiation for your comment that my rights are protected. Also, making assumptions as you have in order to attack me personally reflects on your character, not mine. If you wish to get anyone to consider your viewpoint instead of simply dismissing you out-of-hand as childish and ignorant, try a different tack.
The "common defense" regards acts of war and invasion, and invoking it here is ludicrous. As for it authorizing the protection of certain rights, I wonder if you could perhaps provide the Article and section that this authorization to protect these "certain" rights is located in. I know of references to protecting the rights of the people from abuses by the government, but none that authorize the government to safeguard "certain" rights. Please, enlighten me.
We've got a long way to go before we hit Caligula, my friend. :)
The United States has been the most hated country on the planet for a while now, it's just that the populations of the countries that bore "friendly" governments are starting to turn on their elected officials as a result of the actions of our Commander-in-Smurf.
Also, you forget (or never new the true extent of) FDR. He was far worse than Bushie Jr. ever though about being in the realm of cancelling rights and abusing power. Out of all the other scum who've held the Oval Office, FDR most deserved to be killed.
If the guy didnt want to show ID, I would arrest him for suspicion of battery.
Then I hope to Hell that you never attain a position of power, because you're advocating an abuse of it. Arrest someone for suspicion of a specific crime on the grounds that they won't tell you who they are? If you have evidence or even suspicion, you don't need to know who they are to charge them.
Furthermore, what if this guy had been wanted in another state for rape/murder/whatever?
Apparently you've never read the 5th amendment. You don't have to incriminate yourself. You have no duty to produce evidence that the police can use to link you to a crime. Saying otherwise could mean many things, but none of them say anything positive about your character or subject-matter knowledge.
if you have nothing to hide
This is the last ditch rationale of those whose arguments cannot stand on their own merits. Maybe he DOES have something to hide. Maybe he thinks the cop is being a dick, and doesn't wish to help him do his job. Oh, and maybe try reading the 9th and 10th amendments if you think there's no right to anonymity. The government is not given the power to regulate anonymity or privacy anywhere in the Constitution, and thus that is a right retained by the people (or the States, for those whose constitutions are written to include regulatory power over aforementioned issues).
All the more reason to not carry a government-issued ID unless absolutely necessary. They cannot force you to produce what you do not have.
Damn Commies!
You're un-American if you believe that those terrorists have rights!
They deserve to be tortured, just look at them and where they come from!
Don't you realize that they want to destroy our way of life?
They hate us because we're free to tow the party line!
If you don't agree, you must be one of those damn towel-head sympathizers! Enemy combatant!
Comrades, take him away!
All your rights are belong to us!
--------------------
The terrorists haven't destroyed our way of life and never had the power to. They just gave those in power an excuse to finish destroying our way of life and national heritage.
Think Kerry will be any different than Bush? Just remember that they're both avowed and dedicated Bonesmen. They are no different on the inside, they just attempt to give the illusion of being different on the outside.
Okay, it always boggles my mind that people don't stop to consider what the point of the Bill of Rights was: to specifically enumerate areas where the government may not intrude, to protect specific rights from abuses by those in power.
If you want a good context for what the Bill of Rights was designed to do, read the fucking 3rd Amendment.
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (USSC+)
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 . Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal [p*48] security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Oh you poor, naive person. A manager who understands what they're managing? Generally they are fired for trying to do their job.
Managers' main qualifications tend to be sucking up, toadying, and playing favorites. Such quaint notions as actually understanding and doing their job is just plain unnatural. At least in America.
Responded to only for the benefit of those who don't know any better. The person who wrote this comment is one of those, but will probably never bother to learn more on that which they spout so vociferously about.
:)
:)
Ah, not only anonymous and a coward, but ignorant too. It's not about Jews (as pertaining to religion), it's about Israelis. Only the ignorant and misinformed confuse the two. Much of Israel is secular, especially the military. It's like using Islamic and Arabic interchangeably. Only the ignorant do it. One is specifically a religious term. The other is a nationality.
They beat off the Arabs in several wars, yes, but not without US help. Without the US, Britain, and the former USSR, Israel would be a pipe dream. Learn your WWII history. Where do you think Israel got their funding and military hardware to begin with? Where do you think they purchase a majority of it now? They have no land on which to build major industry, hence they have to buy almost everything they need.
As for nukes that they've developed, you're wrong again. While they do have nuclear capacity, they did not and could not have done it by themselves. The US turned a blind eye to their covert development (what is now public record) with the help of France. France procured heavy water from Norway and violated the purchase agreement by secretly transporting it to Israel. They also flew in the major components to build Israel's first nuclear reactor.
But of course you'd add racist overtones to your message. If people are thinking I'm a racist, they're more than likely not thinking that I'm right or wrong based on the actual facts of the argument, whether or not I am. It's a childish tactic, though it does work to some degree. Those it works on are not those I'm interested in reaching as an audience though, so it's neither here nor there whether it works, really.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Generally the insults people throw at others are those that hit closest to their own home. It's funny how things work on the internet, because you never really know what the person on the other end looks like. For all you know, I could be black. But you don't, and so you make stupid assumptions instead of dealing strictly with the facts.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
My father's rules were simple, and not really restrictive. Be courteous, use common sense, and let him know where I was. I could go out any time I wanted, as long as I told him where I would be. Everything else was set by example. Example and explanation was what worked for me.
:)
My friends occasionally party or use pot. Most of my high-school peers were the preppy, honor student type. My senior party consisted mostly of everyone drinking and having sex. Same goes for the senior trip (from which I abstained after the bore that was the senior party).
My friends had parents a lot like mine. Some more so than others. They've used drugs recreationally for years now. I have never used drugs, except for the OTC general use kind. I attribute it more to personal informed choice than anything else. Make the information available in a non-threatening manner, and kids will make their own choice, period.
The follow-up to this from the Eagle Scout/musician/teacher helps to reinforce my point in much the same way that your post does. Being such doesn't mean you'll be good. Neither does it mean you won't be.
Nurture helps to set the stage for the information available to reason through and ultimately choose a course of action at any given time. But raise 1,000 children the same way, and give them the same choices, and you won't get the same results with each one. The more information is available to them, the more their own individual characteristics will show through.
It doesn't matter how nice OR rude your kids seem, they will surprise you.
The only thing you can do is do the best you can with the information available to you.