Do you really not understand the difference between WMDs (Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons) and conventional weapons? I'm just trying to figure out whether you're just exceptionally ill-informed or lying out your ass. Everybody knew that there were conventional explosives in Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had them under close watch. It was under the U.S. occupation of Iraq that the Bush administration ignored warnings and let these explosives get into the hands of insurgents and terrorists.
I would be concerned if that Moonie newspaper's article made any sense. Kerry never said he met with the U.N. Ambassadors. Why don't they ask Kerry which officials of each country he met with before publishing bull like that.
The current Massachusetts Constitution allows gays to marry. It was the Constitution that was approved by the legislature however long ago. If the legislature doesn't like that Consitution, then they can change it. I don't understand what civics lesson you missed.
I bet those radical Islamists are happy about the 350 tons of high explosives that the Bush administration let them have. It's like there's a steel cage deathmatch and our guy is Pee Wee Herman. God help us if the radical islamists are given another four years of the Bush administration "protecting us" like this.
Why would Kerry introduce a bill to repeal or modify the DMCA when it wouldn't get any support in a Republican-controlled Congress? I'm amazed that the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress and yet complain about what Kerry hasn't done. They're in control. If they want to do something, they've had four years to do it now. What are they waiting for?
Judges have the responsibility for determining whether the laws of a state are consistent with its consistution. If the Massachusetts constitution says that people have equal protection under the law, then judges are doing what they have a obligation to do in striking down any laws which contradict that right. If you don't like that and you live in Massachusetts then change the Constitution, but don't complain about judges doing their jobs.
Why don't you make that judgment after a Kerry administation? We've given Bush four years to prove that he's qualified to be President and it's fair to say that he's giving Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of Worst President of All Time.
On a day that it is reported that despite being warned about the risk of theft the Bush administration let 350 tons of high explosives disappear in Iraq, you claim that the country can't survive a Kerry administration?!?! The Bush administration let Osama Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora, then when he had to do damage-control Bush declared that he's not very concerned about where he is. Then, to cap it all of, he had the gall to lie about whether he had ever said it in the third debate. The truth is that we need an administration that cares about what reality is like and doesn't live in its own echo-chamber. We need a Kerry administration to save the Republic.
I guess you think that because these people work in bathrooms, that they aren't entitled to the protections that the law provides. It's disgusting to me that both you and CNN think that this is "funny".
Before you bad-mouth Kerry, you should have the decency to watch GOING UPRIVER. People don't learn much about history these days. It's worthwhile to see someone who was making it at 27. It can be downloaded with Bittorrent at
GOING UPRIVER
You're missing the point. The President is one person..who picks the entire Executive Branch. Why don't you people ever get that? Don't think the executive branch has power? Ever heard of executive orders , administrative rules, prosecutorial discretion...
Did they program into the simulation that we have the Keystone Kops running this administration? They would probably attack the wrong city, with troops with broken down equipment, in search of weapons that aren't there, sparking a nationwide uprising. Supercomputer simulations aren't going to address problems like those. Well, maybe a wiser administration in the near future could use this data.
You're going to have to give some justification for these two claims rather than just baldly stating them. Otherwise, I'm just going to believe what you say in your.sig
This is the text of the Student Organization Handbook
OSA and ASSU have the responsibility to take administrative action against individuals and/or groups that violate University and ASSU regulations. Such actions may include loss of recognition, resulting in loss of access to University services, and/or referral to the Dean of Students Office or Judicial Affairs for possible disciplinary action.
The University interpreted their written policies as not allowing the John Kerry Power Hour. Thus they have made a rule, subjecting students to disciplinary sanction for speech which would be protected if it were produced off-campus. If there was any question of whether they would be subject to sanction, that was answered when the organizers were told that they would face the Judicial Panel if they went ahead with the meeting.
This is the relevant section of the Leonard Law referring to Private Colleges.
California Education Code 94367. (a) No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution."
Stanford has made a rule which subjects students to disciplinary sanction for conducting in speech which would be protected where it produced off campus. Could this be more clear-cut? I don't understand why you are harping on this question of whether there has actually been any sanction yet.
Doesn't matter. The law applies to all colleges in California public and private, regardless of where they get their funds. The only exception is for colleges controlled by a religious institutions, which Stanford is not. The section applying to Private Colleges reads as follows:
"California Education Code 94367. (a) No private postsecondary educational institution shall make or enforce any rule subjecting any student to disciplinary sanctions solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside the campus or facility of a private postsecondary institution, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article 1 of the California Constitution."
I've been at Universities for years as a student and teacher. I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against by academic staff for a political opinion. There are standards of argument which must be maintained, and people need to justify the claims that they make. I don't know whether Conservatives consider that threatening, but that's not bias, that's inquiry.
No one is being disrespectful of UCSD's viewpoint. Their viewpoint has been thoroughly discussed and people are trying to assess whether it holds water. I don't see what this has to do with being young or being old though. Maybe you just stop caring about your rights when you get older. If so, then let's pray for the youth of the world.
The following is an editorial from The Stanford Daily by Kai Stinchcombe (not me).
University Free Speech Restrictions Are Illegal
Stanford is illegally restricting my constitutional rights. Yesterday they prevented me from engaging in a peaceful assembly on campus to exercise my freedom of speech. I won't let them stop me again.
Last week two friends of mine invited students to get together for an hour to make phone calls on behalf of John Kerry. That's a classic First Amendment activity. When the British government banned Committees of Correspondence, constituted by the patriots to write letters opposed to King George, the men who eventually framed the Constitution vowed never to tolerate a government that restricted peacefully assembly or free expression. They wrote the First Amendment to protect events like the John Kerry Power Hour.
In its wisdom, the California legislature passed the Leonard Law, section 94367 of the California Educational Code, to protect the First Amendment rights of California's students. The law protects on-campus activities that would be protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment if performed off-campus.
Cut to the present. Stanford's administration decided that the proposed John Kerry Power Hour constituted an event, and that University policy prohibits partisan political events on campus.
This was a good-faith interpretation of a good-faith policy, intended to protect Stanford's not-for-profit status. As a 501c3 nonprofit, Stanford University cannot use its facilities or other resources in a way that advantages one candidate over another. Because of recent apparent violations of this policy, administators were intent on full enforcement. The administration decided that, rather than allow equal access to White Plaza for supporters of any candidate, the University would prohibit this sort of event altogether.
In light of the Leonard Law, though, this interpretation seems illegal. Students' right to gather in public areas off-campus to advocate for John Kerry is constitutionally protected, and the Leonard Law extends that right onto campus.
The Power Hour was scheduled for White Plaza, Stanford's designated open-to-the-public free speech zone. The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued. Accordingly, they decided to have the "John Kerry Power Hour" off-campus in a private residence.
It seems the only legal, nonpartisan University policy would be to allow students of any opinion to peacefully assemble and exercise their free speech rights anywhere on campus where students are allowed to gather.
The Leonard Law allows students to obtain court injunctions against illegal university policies. I checked with a handful of lawyers, and with folks from the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, and they seemed to think that the case would be a slam dunk on our end if it came to that.
I hope it won't come to that, because the administration's decision to push the event off campus wasn't just illegal, it's also a bad policy. Young people are increasingly alienated from the political process. If Stanford students are passionate about politics and eager to get involved, the University should put as few restrictions as possible in the way of their idealism.
This coming Sunday at 1pm, I intend to peacefully assemble in White Plaza to express my opinion. As an individual I'll be advocating for John Kerry, but I hope students for Bush join me, because free speech is bigger than any political party. I hope the University also understands that, and lifts the restrictions before then.
The political process only works if people get involved. The time is now: as George Bush declared in the debate the other night, freedom is on the march. Nobody's stopping our generation from weighing in.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really not understand the difference between WMDs (Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons) and conventional weapons? I'm just trying to figure out whether you're just exceptionally ill-informed or lying out your ass. Everybody knew that there were conventional explosives in Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had them under close watch. It was under the U.S. occupation of Iraq that the Bush administration ignored warnings and let these explosives get into the hands of insurgents and terrorists.
I would be concerned if that Moonie newspaper's article made any sense. Kerry never said he met with the U.N. Ambassadors. Why don't they ask Kerry which officials of each country he met with before publishing bull like that.
The current Massachusetts Constitution allows gays to marry. It was the Constitution that was approved by the legislature however long ago. If the legislature doesn't like that Consitution, then they can change it. I don't understand what civics lesson you missed.
I bet those radical Islamists are happy about the 350 tons of high explosives that the Bush administration let them have. It's like there's a steel cage deathmatch and our guy is Pee Wee Herman. God help us if the radical islamists are given another four years of the Bush administration "protecting us" like this.
Why would Kerry introduce a bill to repeal or modify the DMCA when it wouldn't get any support in a Republican-controlled Congress? I'm amazed that the Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress and yet complain about what Kerry hasn't done. They're in control. If they want to do something, they've had four years to do it now. What are they waiting for?
Seeing as he's seen how badly an administration can abuse the Patriot Act, he's likely to want to amend it.
Why would someone introduce a bill that he knows will not pass a Republican congress?
Judges have the responsibility for determining whether the laws of a state are consistent with its consistution. If the Massachusetts constitution says that people have equal protection under the law, then judges are doing what they have a obligation to do in striking down any laws which contradict that right. If you don't like that and you live in Massachusetts then change the Constitution, but don't complain about judges doing their jobs.
Why don't you make that judgment after a Kerry administation? We've given Bush four years to prove that he's qualified to be President and it's fair to say that he's giving Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of Worst President of All Time.
On a day that it is reported that despite being warned about the risk of theft the Bush administration let 350 tons of high explosives disappear in Iraq, you claim that the country can't survive a Kerry administration?!?! The Bush administration let Osama Bin Laden get away in Tora Bora, then when he had to do damage-control Bush declared that he's not very concerned about where he is. Then, to cap it all of, he had the gall to lie about whether he had ever said it in the third debate. The truth is that we need an administration that cares about what reality is like and doesn't live in its own echo-chamber. We need a Kerry administration to save the Republic.
We've got one particular dumb Texan that we'd love to send on a permanent vacation.
If radio were an open market, then I might agree with you, but this is a market where competition is limited by the limitations of the spectrum.
I guess you think that because these people work in bathrooms, that they aren't entitled to the protections that the law provides. It's disgusting to me that both you and CNN think that this is "funny".
Before you bad-mouth Kerry, you should have the decency to watch GOING UPRIVER. People don't learn much about history these days. It's worthwhile to see someone who was making it at 27. It can be downloaded with Bittorrent at GOING UPRIVER
You're missing the point. The President is one person..who picks the entire Executive Branch. Why don't you people ever get that? Don't think the executive branch has power? Ever heard of executive orders , administrative rules, prosecutorial discretion...
Did they program into the simulation that we have the Keystone Kops running this administration? They would probably attack the wrong city, with troops with broken down equipment, in search of weapons that aren't there, sparking a nationwide uprising. Supercomputer simulations aren't going to address problems like those. Well, maybe a wiser administration in the near future could use this data.
You get your car home and wait 2 days for "emerge system" to finish.
You're going to have to give some justification for these two claims rather than just baldly stating them. Otherwise, I'm just going to believe what you say in your .sig
The University interpreted their written policies as not allowing the John Kerry Power Hour. Thus they have made a rule, subjecting students to disciplinary sanction for speech which would be protected if it were produced off-campus. If there was any question of whether they would be subject to sanction, that was answered when the organizers were told that they would face the Judicial Panel if they went ahead with the meeting.
This is the relevant section of the Leonard Law referring to Private Colleges.
Stanford has made a rule which subjects students to disciplinary sanction for conducting in speech which would be protected where it produced off campus. Could this be more clear-cut? I don't understand why you are harping on this question of whether there has actually been any sanction yet.
"The students were told that they could not assemble in any location on campus, and would face the Judicial Panel if they continued."
What part of "facing the Judicial Panel" didn't you understand?
Athletic merchandise is their big cash cow though. They would never let anyone threaten that.
I've been at Universities for years as a student and teacher. I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against by academic staff for a political opinion. There are standards of argument which must be maintained, and people need to justify the claims that they make. I don't know whether Conservatives consider that threatening, but that's not bias, that's inquiry.
No one is being disrespectful of UCSD's viewpoint. Their viewpoint has been thoroughly discussed and people are trying to assess whether it holds water. I don't see what this has to do with being young or being old though. Maybe you just stop caring about your rights when you get older. If so, then let's pray for the youth of the world.