You think that statements like "Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority." isn't hate speech? It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say "Well, if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway, it's legitimate to just hurt them right now already."
Actually, no that isn't hate speech because it happens after they are dead and after some mythical end of the world Apocalypse. And if you do anything to hasten either, you become one of the ones who is going to be tortured. The intent of the speech is to offer salvation of their soul, which is not hate however wrong or right that may be.
Christian churches used to insert "Jews" for "Group X". Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching. Fortunately, that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.
The comment wasn't used to, it was "does" as in present tense. All sorts of people have used religion for their own purposed just as they have government and any structure that they can seek power over. Speech you do no like is not hate speech.
But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for "Group X" where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching. And Christians used to act on this: Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, scientists, people engaging in premarital sex, illegitimate children, and other people they didn't like were discriminated against, tortured, and even killed. It's only civil, secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.
Again, you don't seem to understand the purpose of telling someone they will goto hell or your god doesn't approve of their actions. It isn't to incite hate but to offer salvation. You not liking the message does not mean the message is hate. Of course some people can use it to support their hate but that doesn't represent the entire religion or all religions.
And this just explains why farming subsidies need drastic reform. If ADM can glut itself at the teat of governmental subsidy, why can't the farmers (for whom the subsidies were intended, when they hit fallow periods) get an appreciable cut of the hand-out?
Actually, farming subsidies are more or less a national security issue, not really a keeping people in business issue. What most subsidies do is cause an excess of food to be produced that we then give to other countries in aid packages or stock for emergency use at home. The excess gives the country the ability to batter nature or other conditions that would otherwise cause a shortage. If a drought in Iowa and the mid west caused production to drop to 1/3 normal levels, we don't see wide spread shortages of food or the family food budget moving from $400 a month to $800 a month all the sudden Subsidies cause this buffer to happen which is why even with drought, floods (like the Mississippi a few years ago) and wildfire or a host of other things that could damage crops and food production, doesn't turn us into an Ethiopia with mass starvation and begging other countries for help.
I'm all in favor of efficient solutions, but when you look at the paper trail, the poor farmers keep getting jettisoned into half-handed tactics just to make bread, whilst Archers Daniel et al. absorb corporate welfare checks never intended for them.
I see what you are saying and agree with it. It's just that the alternative would be worse for a whole lot more people.
No, I'm not confusing them, I'm stating that there are different laws you can be charged with because the action is then different. If the action is unintentional, the charge is one thing, if the action is intentional, then you are charge with another. This is because the action became separate offenses even though the mechanics were the same.
This is only impotent to the conversation because if you think you are doing something legally, and it turns out you were wrong, then saying you should have done it legally instead would have resulted in you doing the same actions then finding out you were wrong.
We see evidence of evolution over even small intervals of time - or have you missed the latest version of swine flu?
Lol.. So minor changes is a kin to species becoming new and separate species. Ok, What should I name my kid's species, Me and his moma have blondish hair and he has a brownish black. That would make him a new species as evolution does right?
Oh wait, so the presence of part of a theory or idea makes the rest of it completely true. Well, hell. Why are we arguing for, John the baptist was a real person, mark luke and john was a real person, there is a good amount of evidence that Jesus was a real person. That means all of the bible should be true right? Wrong... The evidence you mention supports your idea but does not make the idea true or a fact just like you are arguing about religion.
Also, whether there are transcription errors in the bible is a moot point - the bible is provably false in many of it's declarations, and as such, can safely be ignored.
Provably false? Why don't you show me what is provably false. Everything else I have seen was either misconceptions, interpretations, and not the actual bible.
As for the big bang, there's proof it actually occurred. This proof contradicts the biblical account of creation. As for what came before, science doesn't make any claim - the bible does, and its' claim is full of shit, like the rest of it.
No.. there isn't proof it actually happened. There is evidence that shows it was likely to have occurred but no proof unless you are jumping in with a lot of faith in A+b=Xy. But even that doesn't explain what was there before and where the energy came from. Just like in religions, poof something magically happened and here we are. Out of nothing or the unknown all the sudden came--- sound familiar? We can call it science or religion because they all end up at that point when you ask were it came from.
If a scientist repeatedly comes out with irreproducable and/or tainted, results, we scrap all his data. It's the same standard as the bible - too many errors, so it should all be scrapped.
Really? what about macro evolution in which we have never been able to test for a specialization event or view one unless we bend the definitions of species for the purpose. And here you are convinced with just as much or more faith the most Christians.
As for ridiculing people for believing the bible - why not? Look at the failure of "faith-based family values". Sarah Palin let her kid sleep with her boyfriend in her home. Probably figured "can't lock the barn door after the horse has left"... but all that only came out after the campaign was over. F*ing hypocrites, the bunch of them.
Why not? Because you are claiming that what they are using as their justifications are wrong yet you used the exact same mechanisms for your beliefs in science. You are a hypocrite who isn't bringing anything to the table other then "I think this way, you need to too". You are just the same "do as I say not as I do, because I told you to".
As for Palin, the girl was 17, she is an adult by all accounts other then legal stature in some states. Also, you do not know that Palin let her hax sex, all you know is that someone claimed she let them sleep in the same room and they he said she probably knew what would happen. Your acting worse here then the bible thumpers you are decrying, at least when they say someone said something or something happened, it has been passed down for hundreds of years and not made up out of your disdain for a person.
Seriously, think about that, you are who you hate. Do you hate yourself or something and get pissed off at people who act like you?
Or all the religious leaders who get caught in one sex scandal after another, even t
(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)
That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).
I understand what you are saying but I don't think you understand what I was saying.
Even with BigAgri, reverting to the old ways is labor intensive, costly and reduces product supplies. If either the farmer or the BigAgri businesses can't turn a profit and have to operate at a loss, they will go under and no one would be farming anymore (including BigAgri).
This means that either the prices shoot up because farmers and BigAgri need to be solvent to stay in business or there will be food shortages and the middle man or distributors will raise the prices and pocket a lot more money.
Farmers stay in business in today's times primarily by having an outside income source and one hell of a huge farm. Switching to these labor intensive old ways would prevent most of the from happening and it would require the costs of food to increase else they are completely out of business (including BigAgri).
That would require you to know the thoughts of the president at the stages of the program(s). You can't know that unless you are a magic mind reader or that he admits to it somehow and that information is passed back to you. Therefore, you are operating in pure speculation and attempting to impose malice over ignorance.
Unlike you, I actually studied this shit in seminary. The oldest texts we have are fragments form the book of Esther, dating to ~1500 BC - and even that was lost for a loooong time. For most of christianity's history, the oldest texts could only trace their lineage to the 9th century. Even the dead sea scrolls (which are nowhere near complete), aren't "original material", and were only found in the last century.
That doesn't matter. The stories are the same and hasn't changed outside of transcription errors because of the way they were worshiped and passed along. Having an actual script means little because it is common knowledge that large groups of people studied the scriptures and they corrected people who got it wrong. The 1500 BC texts will be the same as the versions before that. That practice is still in use today within the Jewish religion. You should have studied that in seminary too. But as it seems, you like to skip over things to make the point you want to.
We already have that way - it's called time + raw materials = evolution.
Actually, no we don't. We have an idea of a way but it has never- ever- been tested or reproduced in a lab or in the wild. Why is it you demand physical or concrete proof of a god but you will blindly accept science without any actually proof other then conjecture?
Sure I can - simple logic (which is something religion refuses to acknowledge). If god created everything, how did god come into existence? IE: Who created god? Answer that, or admit that god did not create everything, that the genesis account is full of horse manure (which shouldn't be too hard - you already admit that the biblical accounts are exaggerations and so we can dismiss all the so-called "miracles").
You can use the same logic on science too. What was there before the big bang? Where did it come from, how did the energy become involved to create the bang. Of course the answer to where did God come from is an impossible question because he/it isn't limited to our world. It's entirely possible that there are several gods or not gods at all, but saying you don't know where he came from does not invalidate the existence just like not knowing what was before the big bang or where it comes from does not invalidate it. I'm not here to validate god, But I am finding it interesting that you place a remarkable amount of faith in the unknown but are demanding others to drop their faith. Your Raw materials + evolution is little more then speculation as it has never been recreated. We have never created life from raw materials that weren't already a life. Yet you have just as much faith in the concept and being right as a born again christian does in their relationship with Jesus. It's simply amazing.
"spiritual revelations" - in other words, they believe because they believe. Not because of any physical proof. Because of a "need" to believe. Same as a lot of people believed that blacks were just animals, and it was okay to keep them as slaves - because it was against their financial interests to believe otherwise. Same as a lot of people are against equal rights for gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage - because it offends their prejudices, and meens acknowledging that others are equal to them, instead of sitting back and smuggly going "we're not sinners like THOSE people" - in other words, not because of any logic or a concern for equal rights or simple "do unto others" decency.
I guess you don't understand the concept. It's ok. People believe what they believe because of experiences that they have had or because someone somehow documented their experiences and passed the information along to them. It's like slowing the speed of light down in a vacuum or that we actually landed on the moon, you didn't do it but i'm sure your not questioning it because you somehow have faith in the accuracy
I understand what you are saying but the question comes down to, at the time, did the surgeon believe he had a right to do the job or not. Even if he found the right somewhere and made arrangements to cover it up if something went wrong, the fact is he still believed he had a right to do the procedure.
So in the context of the parent post (not law or right or wrong or anything), saying that he should have done it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions because bush initially believed it to be legal. This is little more then a logic issue, If you believe your actions are X, then after finding out they were actually Y, saying you should have done X would have resulted in you doing Y believing it was X. Knowing that X was illegal and became Y after the fact does nothing to the perception of what you was doing was X because you didn't know it was illegal until after the actions were taken.
No one was arguing that the ball would be held responsible. You were arguing that the owner of the ball is responsible for any damage the ball causes, which obviously is not true. And you agreed. So we're done there.
Ok, you just aren't getting the picture. A corporation is the ball. When the ball is a separate person, it can be held to it's own actions because it can operate independently from it's owners. If know one knows who threw the ball but we know who the owner of the ball it, the owner will be responsible regardless of anything else.
Even according to you, only if the owner was negligent in permitting someone else to drive their car. So we're done there.
Actually, all 50 states have laws making the owner of the vehicle ultimately responsible for any damage the vehicle causes. This was part of the mandatory insurance coverage issues.
You said, "if I was working for a company, and the situation came about as you described, then when you found out I was over worked and tired driving the car, you could sue the company because they had a duty to ensure I was a safe driver in an appropriate condition to drive". So is the company absolved of responsibility if they don't technically own the car I was driving? If not, then it's further evidence that responsibility doesn't go to the owner of an object, but rather it's the responsibility of those people who were negligent or reckless. So we're done there.
If you are in an accident while on the job in any car owned by any person or company and you were at fault or partially responsible for the accident, then the Company can be liable for any of your actions while on the job. This liability can come from two different concepts, Vicarious liability and direct liability. Vicarious liability is when they failed to do something that could have prevented an act for any reason. Direct liability would be if they knew you were tired and coerced you to do something resulting in the accident. Often direct liability comes after being ordered to do something illegal. It's pretty easy to point out where a company failed in their responsibilities in supervision or observance of laws or whatever.
No, no, no, no. The point is businesses don't have a "right" to be profitable. Your claim as to why businesses needed to be granted the right to free speech was that otherwise some particular business might not be as profitable. As they have no right to be profitable, I don't see why the need to be profitable demands that they be granted special additional rights.
Yes they do. Businesses are nothing more then collections of people and they have very much the same rights as those people. I, you, the guy next door, and any other citizen or legal residence has the right to comment on and effect change in laws and policies that effect their ability to profit. This is a fundamental right the country was founded with.
Nowhere does it say that special rights should be granted to non-persons for the sake of profit. Doesn't even imply such a thing.
That's absurd. The constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS. It restricts governments from taking rights away. You would never find anything in the constitution granting any right to anyone except where it give the government powers to do something.
You've held throughout this argument that a business are inherently the same sort of thing as cars, but we need to grant them "personhood" merely because it's beneficial to those businesses. Should we establish that it would be in the best interest of a car to be considered a "person", is it necessary that we also give cars the freedom of speech? Why not, since the Constitution is silent on the subject? Nowhere does it say, "cars aren't people".
Oh please. The legal situation here is actually not terribly complex.
At the time, Bush and his legal advisers never claimed that the search programs respected the 4th Amendment, because they obviously didn't. The official legal argument was that it didn't apply because the President said it was important to executing his Presidential Duties that it not. So, it basically comes down to whether you buy that bullshit. Does the Constitution say the President can just write a note that says that he doesn't think he has to follow a law passed by Congress, or if he really has to he can ignore the Bill of Rights and that's it? Gee, that's not in the Constitution. So maybe you can make a legal argument for it, but don't tell me it's apparent, and that you aren't working backwards from the desired conclusion. As if lawyers, especially our previous two AG's, work any other way. Yeah, they "accidentally" broke the law due to a "misunderstanding". Not "thought they could pile up enough BS to get away with it."
Actually, there are times when certain parts of the constitution apply and don't apply. The 4th amendment never applied to telephone calls until 1968 and in that ruling and several afterward, the requirement for a warrant was specifically exempted from national security taps. The FISA laws which were put in place specifically because cops were getting the NSA and CIA to do "national security" taps on domestic cases and sidestepping the newly require warrant specification for tapping phones. And to that part, the FISA then as well as presently did not respect the 4th amendment in the way you are claiming it should have been.
As for breaking the law, I wasn't arguing otherwise. I can argue that if you want but I havn't in this story thread at all. What i was pointing out was that there is a logic problem saying they should have acted legally when their intentions was to act legally. In other words, the same shit would have happened because they thought they had a legal right to do what was done until more people found out and told them they didn't.
So frankly I'm glad the Judicial Branch has come through once again and denied the specious reasoning no matter who is presenting it. The main reason all those Gitmo detainees are still in legal Limbo is because the Judicial denied Bush the ability to convict them of crimes in military courts. Funny how the least Democratic branch of government ends up being such a defender of our freedoms. Of course when they don't you can't do a lot about it, but that just makes the result all the more astounding.
I agree however, I don't expect the judicial branch to rule the TSP illegal. I believe they will resort back to a separation or powers argument like the ones the Marshal court used quite a bit in the first supreme court to combat the feud between the Jeffersonians and the federalist. It may take several appeals and a judge who is not on a board representing one of the plaintiffs but it's likely to happen.
That's absolutely, completely wrong. So very, very, very, very, very wrong. Whether or not you *believe* something to be illegal has no effect on whether it *is* legal, even if you're the president. And even if they acted in good faith, they can't use that defense because they didn't have a proper inquiry as to the legality of the wiretapping program.
You are so wrong here is isn't funny. Where you are wrong is in the perception, the law has nothing at all to do with it. If a person a person does X believing it is legal to do X, then saying they should have done something X in a legal way would have resulted in in the same damn X.
The law at this point has nothing to do with it because they were working under the assumption that the TSP was legal and to date, no one has proven it not to have been legal. There is a court case that might show it to be illegal but it hasn't been ruled on yet. You stating that it is illegal is nothing more then you stating it is illegal, it probably is illegal, but it has nothing at all to do with the actions they took when they thought it was legal.
Quit letting your blind hatred for Bush screw with your logic.
Bullshit. We're not talking about asking Joe Schmoe's public practice for legal advice. We're talking about the highest-ranking government officials here. You can ask the Justice Department and Attorney General to review the legality of a program, that's their job, and they're just as trustworthy as the administration or intelligence agencies that ran the programs.
Lol.. So everyone in the government should know about all the secrete programs the government is conducting. Yea, right. That will result in no secrete programs remaining to be secrete. Get your head out of your ass.
You fail in knowing the facts. The islamic group in question was tapped before the program was known to the public and considered illegal. This has nothing to do with the overall legality of the TSP or any right or wrong you are attempting to assign to it. When the op say's they could have gotten a legal tap, the problem is that they thought or was working under the assumption that it was a fucking legal tap. You cannot say they should have done X when they thought they were doing X and it turned out later to be Y for whatever reason. This is a logic problem, not you wanting to bash the bush administration.
Actually, it's his readership. I don't particularly buy into the entire global warming scam but it is well known that what he said is true as the claims are being made.
However, there is a subset of people who either don't pay attention or attempt to use global warming for their own purposes.
Bullshit. For millions of years, corn (and its ancestors) grew happily in the wild, uncultivated earth with only sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide for sustenance. For thousands of years, up until the mid-20th century, it grew on cultivated land with the addition of animal waste as a fertilizer. Just because we currently use petroleum-enhanced fertilizers to increase yields and lessen the need for crop rotation does NOT mean that they are in any way "required".
What you describe is more costly then the current system. Prices still go up.
More bullshit. Cattle are currently fattened in feedlots using corn because it means higher profits from higher yield and more marbled (and therefore more expensive) muscle tissue. 100% natural-grass-fed cattle use up ZERO pounds of corn, and that's pretty much all they had to eat before they were domesticated.
And this way takes about a year and a half longer to bring a cow to market. Again, driving costs up. BTW, grass in pasture lands do no grow in the winter, hay is usually brought in and sometime corn silage when corn is not used as a feed.
And yes, I do raise cattle on grass and hay.
Also, the processes you are describing was economical before the need to feed as many people as are alive today was there. The ox or horse pulling a plow will not farm enough land for our current usages. Corn and animal prices would skyrocket if we went back to them.
You know, you sort of sound like one of those "you can make rope from hemp and it's better then the rope in use today" type people. Except that when we switch to synthetic fibers, it wasn't because hemp rope was better, it was because the synthetic rope lasted about 3 years on the ocean where hemp rope needed replacing every 6 to 8 months. It made sense to use the synthetic crap because it was more efficient and cheaper. The same is with your, "they did it 2000 years ago, we can do it again today" attitude. While it is true, it can be done again, it can't be done efficiently or effectivly. And yes, I also live in Amish country and see a lot of farms worked in the old ways. They have five or more kids to a family and have them in the fields working by the time they are three or four. IT also takes them 10 to 15 times longer to prepare a field, about just as long to plant it, and longer then that to harvest it.
The way it is now, most farmers have a profession outside the farm because the farm can't support them solely. IF they all went back to the old ways, then expect a serious increase in food prices or a shortage of food.
Actually, all Co2 created this way would be completely carbon neutral seeing how all fat is from food that grows by either eating carbon from the air or eating a plant that does that. We would be no different with the planet then we are today.
I didn't say it was ok, I said it wasn't 800 years.
And the reason it is in the constitution is because England suspended habeas corpus on the colonies in several instances and the founders saw that it might be necessary at some time, they wanted to limit that time to when it was absolutely necessary. So even if we remove the 140 years ago with Lincoln, we has 250 years ago with king George.
And your point is what? Did they or did they not assume the program was legal until it was determined not to be?
The op I respondid to said if those guy were so bad, they could have gotten a legal tap. Well, when that tap was made, they thought it was legal so the in effect did get a legal tap.
I'm in no way arguing their innocence with the comment. I'm stating that if something was thought to of been legal, no matter how they reached that conclusion, they were getting a legal tap even though later they found it to be illegal. It's not like they knew it was illegal and did it anyways in the beginning. And all the secrecy was because it was a secret program. You don't real go around asking everyone if this secrete program is legal, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore.
The administration got a hack lawyer to say it was legal. It was so hacky that other administration officials who came on board later had no choice but to revoke the legal justifications used for the program. Any legitimate legal scholar who reads that opinion will point out that it's complete bullshit (it makes me wonder how many people they had to ask before they found one who would write the bullshit they wanted to hear)
Allow me to extend your analogy. You ask your passenger to tell you there's no one in your blind spot. The passenger looks over his shoulder and sees that there's a car in your blind spot, but tells you to change lanes anyway.
Oh, and good intentions cannot be used to find someone not guilty, only to mitigate their punishment.
My comment wasn't about finding someone guilty or not. It was about the parent which I replied to that said if the terrorist we so bad, they could have gotten a legal wiretap. The administration was operating for the most part under the assumption that they were legal, whether because of some hack lawyer or not. So saying they could have gotten a legal wiretap when at the time of this tap, it was presumed legal is not in line with correct logic.
It doesn't matter whether you were malicious or merely erred, you were still at fault and should be held accountable for your actions.
It certainly does matter. Accidents are usually minor misdemeanors and don't carry any jail time. If it was malicious, then it can be a felony carrying several years in prison.
In the eyes of the law, it wouldn't have mattered, you were still at fault and liable for damages. Especially if you claimed you checked your blindspot and missed them, since that implies that you weren't paying close enough attention.
Yes, but your not looking at the context. You are at fault if you hit someone. If it is an accident, you pay a fine and move on. If you hit the person intentionally, you are then charge with vehicular assault and face fail time.
The point is that the administration was under the impression it was acting legally.
Similarly, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that they 'thought' it was legal. Legal in this instance being them going to their lawyers and saying "I want you to tell me this is legal so I can claim I was told it was legal". It only matters if it actually were legal.
The law doesn't really matter in this context. The person I was responding to said "Since they are such an awful bunch(and to be fair, they do seem to be), it would have been really fucking easy to do the surveillance in a legal manner." Now when the administration thought it was a legal program, then they did what the op asked of them even if it turned out to be wrong.
Exactly! The person who threw it, not the person who owns it.
Unless the person who owns it gave it to the person who threw it for that purpose. There is a whole aspect of law you want to skip here. But the point was that the ball couldn't be held responsible.
Again, yes! The person who leaves the keys in an accessible place, and not the person who owns the car.
No, the owner of the car will be liable. You can trust me on that or look it up in your state law.
It's not that they "take responsibility" and therefore suffer the loss. The loss is already suffered. It's just that, since no one in particular is responsible, no one else is liable to compensate the owner for his loss.
No, they suffer the loss because they are the only ones responsible for their property. If someone else was at fail or could be blamed, they would be entitled to be compensated to be made whole again, when they are responsible, it's up to them to make themselves whole.
Erm...?! It's impossible that no one is legally at fault, and yet it might be found that no driver is at fault. Ok.
It is impossible for no one to be at fault. What is possible is not enough evidence to determine if either party is at fault. There is a big difference, someone is still at fault, it just can't be legally proven.
Ok, so yet another example where it isn't the owner of property who is responsible, but instead the negligent party that caused the event. Are you trying to make my argument for me?
No, both the owner and the negligent person is responsible in that situation. And yes, it happens all the time where truck drivers and delivery agents get in accidents after being in violation of their hours of service laws and the company is sued in addition to the driver. Respondeat Superior- let the master answer, this concept places liability for the actions of anyone working for you, onto you. It is a very common legal construct that the entire legal system in the US is based around.
The only point being made is your ignorance of the law.
Exactly my point. That some business might not be as profitable does not trump the public welfare.
No, no, no. Public welfare does not trump the rights of a business. A business being profitable is essential to public welfare. I said public health, not welfare.
Well it was founded on the idea of maintaining liberty for its citizens, which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion here. The preservation of individual freedom of speech (for a *person*) is vital to the purpose of our government, but guaranteeing profitability of a company is not.
You obviously don't understand what liberty entails. Liberty entails the ability to venture into enterprise (do business, start companies ect..) No where in the constitution does it say it only applies to people in the literal sense and specifically in the first amendment, it say congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now what part of make no law abridging the freedom of speech do you not understand?
You keep talking about all these various issues (most of which you're wrong about), but you're generally not really addressing the question of why corporations should be granted rights normally reserved for people.
Ok, first of all, no one is granted rights, no one has rights reserved. It is either you right or it isn't your right. The constitution does not give you any rights, it specifically bars the government from taki
Obama can't do anything legally. Public officials are pretty much exculpated from acts done in good faith in public office. Breaking a law to avoid a death is a common excuse to violate the law. For instance, it you jaywalk in order to pull a small child out of the street, should you be cited. If you are, a legal principle called "necessity" would get you out of the fine. It's illegal to shoot someone, illegal to discharge a firearm within so many feet of a dwelling and illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits in most areas, but you won't ever be charged with any of that if you shoot an aggressor to save your life or the life of someone else who isn't the aggressor in most places. The president and his administration claimed it was to prevent another 9/11 and the nations security depended on it.
Anyways, Obama knows that nothing will happen and he will just look more like a bitter old fool like he does when it get's pointed out that the stimulus hasn't created one new job yet and he referred to inheriting the economy from Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no that isn't hate speech because it happens after they are dead and after some mythical end of the world Apocalypse. And if you do anything to hasten either, you become one of the ones who is going to be tortured. The intent of the speech is to offer salvation of their soul, which is not hate however wrong or right that may be.
The comment wasn't used to, it was "does" as in present tense. All sorts of people have used religion for their own purposed just as they have government and any structure that they can seek power over. Speech you do no like is not hate speech.
Again, you don't seem to understand the purpose of telling someone they will goto hell or your god doesn't approve of their actions. It isn't to incite hate but to offer salvation. You not liking the message does not mean the message is hate. Of course some people can use it to support their hate but that doesn't represent the entire religion or all religions.
Actually, farming subsidies are more or less a national security issue, not really a keeping people in business issue. What most subsidies do is cause an excess of food to be produced that we then give to other countries in aid packages or stock for emergency use at home. The excess gives the country the ability to batter nature or other conditions that would otherwise cause a shortage. If a drought in Iowa and the mid west caused production to drop to 1/3 normal levels, we don't see wide spread shortages of food or the family food budget moving from $400 a month to $800 a month all the sudden Subsidies cause this buffer to happen which is why even with drought, floods (like the Mississippi a few years ago) and wildfire or a host of other things that could damage crops and food production, doesn't turn us into an Ethiopia with mass starvation and begging other countries for help.
I see what you are saying and agree with it. It's just that the alternative would be worse for a whole lot more people.
No, I'm not confusing them, I'm stating that there are different laws you can be charged with because the action is then different. If the action is unintentional, the charge is one thing, if the action is intentional, then you are charge with another. This is because the action became separate offenses even though the mechanics were the same.
This is only impotent to the conversation because if you think you are doing something legally, and it turns out you were wrong, then saying you should have done it legally instead would have resulted in you doing the same actions then finding out you were wrong.
Lol.. So minor changes is a kin to species becoming new and separate species. Ok, What should I name my kid's species, Me and his moma have blondish hair and he has a brownish black. That would make him a new species as evolution does right?
Oh wait, so the presence of part of a theory or idea makes the rest of it completely true. Well, hell. Why are we arguing for, John the baptist was a real person, mark luke and john was a real person, there is a good amount of evidence that Jesus was a real person. That means all of the bible should be true right? Wrong... The evidence you mention supports your idea but does not make the idea true or a fact just like you are arguing about religion.
Provably false? Why don't you show me what is provably false. Everything else I have seen was either misconceptions, interpretations, and not the actual bible.
No.. there isn't proof it actually happened. There is evidence that shows it was likely to have occurred but no proof unless you are jumping in with a lot of faith in A+b=Xy. But even that doesn't explain what was there before and where the energy came from. Just like in religions, poof something magically happened and here we are. Out of nothing or the unknown all the sudden came--- sound familiar? We can call it science or religion because they all end up at that point when you ask were it came from.
Really? what about macro evolution in which we have never been able to test for a specialization event or view one unless we bend the definitions of species for the purpose. And here you are convinced with just as much or more faith the most Christians.
Why not? Because you are claiming that what they are using as their justifications are wrong yet you used the exact same mechanisms for your beliefs in science. You are a hypocrite who isn't bringing anything to the table other then "I think this way, you need to too". You are just the same "do as I say not as I do, because I told you to".
As for Palin, the girl was 17, she is an adult by all accounts other then legal stature in some states. Also, you do not know that Palin let her hax sex, all you know is that someone claimed she let them sleep in the same room and they he said she probably knew what would happen. Your acting worse here then the bible thumpers you are decrying, at least when they say someone said something or something happened, it has been passed down for hundreds of years and not made up out of your disdain for a person.
Seriously, think about that, you are who you hate. Do you hate yourself or something and get pissed off at people who act like you?
Really? What hate is offered? I'm seriously curious, point me to what you think the hate is.
That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).
I understand what you are saying but I don't think you understand what I was saying.
Even with BigAgri, reverting to the old ways is labor intensive, costly and reduces product supplies. If either the farmer or the BigAgri businesses can't turn a profit and have to operate at a loss, they will go under and no one would be farming anymore (including BigAgri).
This means that either the prices shoot up because farmers and BigAgri need to be solvent to stay in business or there will be food shortages and the middle man or distributors will raise the prices and pocket a lot more money.
Farmers stay in business in today's times primarily by having an outside income source and one hell of a huge farm. Switching to these labor intensive old ways would prevent most of the from happening and it would require the costs of food to increase else they are completely out of business (including BigAgri).
That would require you to know the thoughts of the president at the stages of the program(s). You can't know that unless you are a magic mind reader or that he admits to it somehow and that information is passed back to you. Therefore, you are operating in pure speculation and attempting to impose malice over ignorance.
That doesn't matter. The stories are the same and hasn't changed outside of transcription errors because of the way they were worshiped and passed along. Having an actual script means little because it is common knowledge that large groups of people studied the scriptures and they corrected people who got it wrong. The 1500 BC texts will be the same as the versions before that. That practice is still in use today within the Jewish religion. You should have studied that in seminary too. But as it seems, you like to skip over things to make the point you want to.
Actually, no we don't. We have an idea of a way but it has never- ever- been tested or reproduced in a lab or in the wild. Why is it you demand physical or concrete proof of a god but you will blindly accept science without any actually proof other then conjecture?
You can use the same logic on science too. What was there before the big bang? Where did it come from, how did the energy become involved to create the bang. Of course the answer to where did God come from is an impossible question because he/it isn't limited to our world. It's entirely possible that there are several gods or not gods at all, but saying you don't know where he came from does not invalidate the existence just like not knowing what was before the big bang or where it comes from does not invalidate it. I'm not here to validate god, But I am finding it interesting that you place a remarkable amount of faith in the unknown but are demanding others to drop their faith. Your Raw materials + evolution is little more then speculation as it has never been recreated. We have never created life from raw materials that weren't already a life. Yet you have just as much faith in the concept and being right as a born again christian does in their relationship with Jesus. It's simply amazing.
I guess you don't understand the concept. It's ok. People believe what they believe because of experiences that they have had or because someone somehow documented their experiences and passed the information along to them. It's like slowing the speed of light down in a vacuum or that we actually landed on the moon, you didn't do it but i'm sure your not questioning it because you somehow have faith in the accuracy
I understand what you are saying but the question comes down to, at the time, did the surgeon believe he had a right to do the job or not. Even if he found the right somewhere and made arrangements to cover it up if something went wrong, the fact is he still believed he had a right to do the procedure.
So in the context of the parent post (not law or right or wrong or anything), saying that he should have done it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions because bush initially believed it to be legal. This is little more then a logic issue, If you believe your actions are X, then after finding out they were actually Y, saying you should have done X would have resulted in you doing Y believing it was X. Knowing that X was illegal and became Y after the fact does nothing to the perception of what you was doing was X because you didn't know it was illegal until after the actions were taken.
Ok, I see the point now.
Ok, you just aren't getting the picture. A corporation is the ball. When the ball is a separate person, it can be held to it's own actions because it can operate independently from it's owners. If know one knows who threw the ball but we know who the owner of the ball it, the owner will be responsible regardless of anything else.
Actually, all 50 states have laws making the owner of the vehicle ultimately responsible for any damage the vehicle causes. This was part of the mandatory insurance coverage issues.
If you are in an accident while on the job in any car owned by any person or company and you were at fault or partially responsible for the accident, then the Company can be liable for any of your actions while on the job. This liability can come from two different concepts, Vicarious liability and direct liability. Vicarious liability is when they failed to do something that could have prevented an act for any reason. Direct liability would be if they knew you were tired and coerced you to do something resulting in the accident. Often direct liability comes after being ordered to do something illegal. It's pretty easy to point out where a company failed in their responsibilities in supervision or observance of laws or whatever.
Yes they do. Businesses are nothing more then collections of people and they have very much the same rights as those people. I, you, the guy next door, and any other citizen or legal residence has the right to comment on and effect change in laws and policies that effect their ability to profit. This is a fundamental right the country was founded with.
That's absurd. The constitution DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS. It restricts governments from taking rights away. You would never find anything in the constitution granting any right to anyone except where it give the government powers to do something.
Yes, they are object of property. IF they
Actually, there are times when certain parts of the constitution apply and don't apply. The 4th amendment never applied to telephone calls until 1968 and in that ruling and several afterward, the requirement for a warrant was specifically exempted from national security taps. The FISA laws which were put in place specifically because cops were getting the NSA and CIA to do "national security" taps on domestic cases and sidestepping the newly require warrant specification for tapping phones. And to that part, the FISA then as well as presently did not respect the 4th amendment in the way you are claiming it should have been.
As for breaking the law, I wasn't arguing otherwise. I can argue that if you want but I havn't in this story thread at all. What i was pointing out was that there is a logic problem saying they should have acted legally when their intentions was to act legally. In other words, the same shit would have happened because they thought they had a legal right to do what was done until more people found out and told them they didn't.
I agree however, I don't expect the judicial branch to rule the TSP illegal. I believe they will resort back to a separation or powers argument like the ones the Marshal court used quite a bit in the first supreme court to combat the feud between the Jeffersonians and the federalist. It may take several appeals and a judge who is not on a board representing one of the plaintiffs but it's likely to happen.
You are so wrong here is isn't funny. Where you are wrong is in the perception, the law has nothing at all to do with it. If a person a person does X believing it is legal to do X, then saying they should have done something X in a legal way would have resulted in in the same damn X.
The law at this point has nothing to do with it because they were working under the assumption that the TSP was legal and to date, no one has proven it not to have been legal. There is a court case that might show it to be illegal but it hasn't been ruled on yet. You stating that it is illegal is nothing more then you stating it is illegal, it probably is illegal, but it has nothing at all to do with the actions they took when they thought it was legal.
Quit letting your blind hatred for Bush screw with your logic.
Lol.. So everyone in the government should know about all the secrete programs the government is conducting. Yea, right. That will result in no secrete programs remaining to be secrete. Get your head out of your ass.
You fail in knowing the facts. The islamic group in question was tapped before the program was known to the public and considered illegal. This has nothing to do with the overall legality of the TSP or any right or wrong you are attempting to assign to it. When the op say's they could have gotten a legal tap, the problem is that they thought or was working under the assumption that it was a fucking legal tap. You cannot say they should have done X when they thought they were doing X and it turned out later to be Y for whatever reason. This is a logic problem, not you wanting to bash the bush administration.
Actually, it's his readership. I don't particularly buy into the entire global warming scam but it is well known that what he said is true as the claims are being made.
However, there is a subset of people who either don't pay attention or attempt to use global warming for their own purposes.
What you describe is more costly then the current system. Prices still go up.
And this way takes about a year and a half longer to bring a cow to market. Again, driving costs up. BTW, grass in pasture lands do no grow in the winter, hay is usually brought in and sometime corn silage when corn is not used as a feed.
And yes, I do raise cattle on grass and hay.
Also, the processes you are describing was economical before the need to feed as many people as are alive today was there. The ox or horse pulling a plow will not farm enough land for our current usages. Corn and animal prices would skyrocket if we went back to them.
You know, you sort of sound like one of those "you can make rope from hemp and it's better then the rope in use today" type people. Except that when we switch to synthetic fibers, it wasn't because hemp rope was better, it was because the synthetic rope lasted about 3 years on the ocean where hemp rope needed replacing every 6 to 8 months. It made sense to use the synthetic crap because it was more efficient and cheaper. The same is with your, "they did it 2000 years ago, we can do it again today" attitude. While it is true, it can be done again, it can't be done efficiently or effectivly. And yes, I also live in Amish country and see a lot of farms worked in the old ways. They have five or more kids to a family and have them in the fields working by the time they are three or four. IT also takes them 10 to 15 times longer to prepare a field, about just as long to plant it, and longer then that to harvest it.
The way it is now, most farmers have a profession outside the farm because the farm can't support them solely. IF they all went back to the old ways, then expect a serious increase in food prices or a shortage of food.
Actually, all Co2 created this way would be completely carbon neutral seeing how all fat is from food that grows by either eating carbon from the air or eating a plant that does that. We would be no different with the planet then we are today.
I didn't say it was ok, I said it wasn't 800 years.
And the reason it is in the constitution is because England suspended habeas corpus on the colonies in several instances and the founders saw that it might be necessary at some time, they wanted to limit that time to when it was absolutely necessary. So even if we remove the 140 years ago with Lincoln, we has 250 years ago with king George.
And your point is what? Did they or did they not assume the program was legal until it was determined not to be?
The op I respondid to said if those guy were so bad, they could have gotten a legal tap. Well, when that tap was made, they thought it was legal so the in effect did get a legal tap.
I'm in no way arguing their innocence with the comment. I'm stating that if something was thought to of been legal, no matter how they reached that conclusion, they were getting a legal tap even though later they found it to be illegal. It's not like they knew it was illegal and did it anyways in the beginning. And all the secrecy was because it was a secret program. You don't real go around asking everyone if this secrete program is legal, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore.
My comment wasn't about finding someone guilty or not. It was about the parent which I replied to that said if the terrorist we so bad, they could have gotten a legal wiretap. The administration was operating for the most part under the assumption that they were legal, whether because of some hack lawyer or not. So saying they could have gotten a legal wiretap when at the time of this tap, it was presumed legal is not in line with correct logic.
It certainly does matter. Accidents are usually minor misdemeanors and don't carry any jail time. If it was malicious, then it can be a felony carrying several years in prison.
Yes, but your not looking at the context. You are at fault if you hit someone. If it is an accident, you pay a fine and move on. If you hit the person intentionally, you are then charge with vehicular assault and face fail time.
The point is that the administration was under the impression it was acting legally.
The law doesn't really matter in this context. The person I was responding to said "Since they are such an awful bunch(and to be fair, they do seem to be), it would have been really fucking easy to do the surveillance in a legal manner." Now when the administration thought it was a legal program, then they did what the op asked of them even if it turned out to be wrong.
Unless the person who owns it gave it to the person who threw it for that purpose. There is a whole aspect of law you want to skip here. But the point was that the ball couldn't be held responsible.
No, the owner of the car will be liable. You can trust me on that or look it up in your state law.
No, they suffer the loss because they are the only ones responsible for their property. If someone else was at fail or could be blamed, they would be entitled to be compensated to be made whole again, when they are responsible, it's up to them to make themselves whole.
It is impossible for no one to be at fault. What is possible is not enough evidence to determine if either party is at fault. There is a big difference, someone is still at fault, it just can't be legally proven.
No, both the owner and the negligent person is responsible in that situation. And yes, it happens all the time where truck drivers and delivery agents get in accidents after being in violation of their hours of service laws and the company is sued in addition to the driver. Respondeat Superior- let the master answer, this concept places liability for the actions of anyone working for you, onto you. It is a very common legal construct that the entire legal system in the US is based around.
The only point being made is your ignorance of the law.
No, no, no. Public welfare does not trump the rights of a business. A business being profitable is essential to public welfare. I said public health, not welfare.
You obviously don't understand what liberty entails. Liberty entails the ability to venture into enterprise (do business, start companies ect..) No where in the constitution does it say it only applies to people in the literal sense and specifically in the first amendment, it say congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Now what part of make no law abridging the freedom of speech do you not understand?
Ok, first of all, no one is granted rights, no one has rights reserved. It is either you right or it isn't your right. The constitution does not give you any rights, it specifically bars the government from taki
Obama can't do anything legally. Public officials are pretty much exculpated from acts done in good faith in public office. Breaking a law to avoid a death is a common excuse to violate the law. For instance, it you jaywalk in order to pull a small child out of the street, should you be cited. If you are, a legal principle called "necessity" would get you out of the fine. It's illegal to shoot someone, illegal to discharge a firearm within so many feet of a dwelling and illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits in most areas, but you won't ever be charged with any of that if you shoot an aggressor to save your life or the life of someone else who isn't the aggressor in most places. The president and his administration claimed it was to prevent another 9/11 and the nations security depended on it.
Anyways, Obama knows that nothing will happen and he will just look more like a bitter old fool like he does when it get's pointed out that the stimulus hasn't created one new job yet and he referred to inheriting the economy from Bush.