You seem to miss the point that the Supreme Court gets to say what the law is, it isn't just an opinion when they say it, unlike for you. If you don't acknowledge that the Supreme Court decides what the law is, then you don't really either understand or have a useful opinion on the matter. You are then left as a fringe nutcase.
I agree. Government has no right to limit either a person's private behavior or their medical decisions.
You miss the point. If the Supreme Court had stuck with the text of the Constitution in deciding those cases, then they would not have been decided as they were. There are questions that the Constitution is silent upon, and powers not given to the Federal government are reserved for the states and the people. You may think it unwise, but sodomy laws would still be on the books, as would the various contraception laws.
Various scholars see Roe v Wade as one of the court's biggest blunders. The country was already heading in that direction anyway, but to move things along they had to fabricate law to do it. There will be more mischief to come from both that and Lawrence v Texas. You will very likely see polygamy legalized in your lifetime, and some scholars are already setting their sights on the next boundary.
One trial court judge and made a preliminary ruling, the final decision hasn't been reached yet. If he continues to rule that way his decision will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
If SCOTUS rules that some NSA activity is unconstitutional it would be against prior precedent, but possible. In that event I would acknowledge that the law has changed.
According to my calculator, Snowden was an ice cube floating in a hot tub.
NSA was previously reported to be downsizing their system administration staff by 90%, and implementing the two man rule, on top of completing the rollout of new security systems to catch this sort of thing.
Besides, out of about 40,000 NSA employees:
About one person per year loses control and spies on a love interest, for which they are disciplined and lose their job. A couple of people per decade, more or less, engage in "whistle blowing," sometimes for what they believe is waste, or fraud, sometimes over what they think is illegal behavior. A couple of people per decade are arrested for spying - essentially none of which have had Snowden's access. Once in a generation or two you see a crime rising to above the pack, but hardly anything has yet really approached Snowden's level of betrayal.
When right turns to wrong, resistance becomes an obligation.
The problem is that nobody has demonstrated that in this case. All we really get are hyperbole, distortions, or false claims that the government is engaged in oppression.
Your example of the Soviet Union is specious. Being forced to vote for the Communist party is simply window dressing on a dictatorship.
As to the US, you have more than two choices as to party. Although there is broad general agreement on various questions such as "should the government passively allow Americans to be killed," there are many meaningful differences between the main two parties. If you think that is not the case, then please, illuminate us as to what you think is important? What is it that "actually matters" that isn't different between the Democrats and Republicans that you think should be different?
The story should be about the illegal activities of the NSA.
That would be a very short and boring story indeed as it doesn't really seem to exist in any meaningful way. The big story is NSA activities that some people find disagreeable.
So you are suggesting that the actual text of the Constitution should be the basis for decisions? I'm intrigued. Just think of the possibilities.... Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, gone.
Narrator: The bug-eyed Blackberry has entered the clearing.... by the way its moving it appears to be looking for market share. But wait, what's this? It looks like an iSnakepad has grabbed it in a lightning fast strike! The iSnakepad is wrapping itself around the bug-eyed Blackberry and is starting to squeeze. Sadly now, there can be but one outcome.
I won't think less of you if you happen to recant should a successful 9/11 scale attack strike your hometown after the growing number of leaked NSA document articles teaches al Qaida how to successfully avoid US surveillance. If you tell the American people there really isn't any way to keep al Qaida from finding out, let alone China or......
You know if you don't stand up and say enough of this shit its never going to stop.
Let me guess,.... you don't think that argument applies to terrorism too?
I get almost side swiped at least once per day while driving on the highway.
Do you see no difference between random accidents and deliberate violent acts that will continue if not checked?
more people are killed by their diets and the chemicals used in food,
That they choose to eat. Do you want government intervention against this suicide by one plate at a time? Or do you recognize that the consequences of what you eat and how much you exercise are on you at some level? Are you really unable to ethically differentiate between deliberate assaults that can kill people immediately and a little to much sugar over 50 years of a lifetime? One cooked too much a day is the same as a truck bomb at the mall, or even more serious?
If some country were to annually bomb your city, would you want it stopped? What if they only killed and maimed fewer people than died in traffic accidents each year? By your accounting rules that should be something to ignore, right?
there's the governmental outrage about these food terrorist companies that are causing serious damage to out health and economy.
I hear that most governments have agencies devoted to stopping mass death by bad food or drugs, such as tainted hamburger. There seem to be no shortage of regulations in those cases.
If some company were inserting a poison that would kill you within days into cupcakes, don't you think that would be stopped? Why would you want to stop deliberately poisoned cupcakes but not bombs?
Since key causes of disease include the personal choices of bad diet and not enough exercise, are you advocating that the government dictate what you eat everyday, and how much exercise you get? Is that the government you want?
On top of that terrorism is good for the economy and populations control.
As long as the population it is "controlling" isn't you, right? Question - why is terrorism "good for the economy and population control" when bad food isn't? If you are ok with people being killed, isn't more better? Especially if they choose to do it? Or are you suggesting that murder is ok, but suicide over 60 years isn't?
When cosmetologists work on a model, they refine and test their techniques until they can successfully predict how everything will turn out, and in fact time proves their predictions right.
What if it turns out that bad hair days are simply on hiatus?
So where are the battles? Where are the mass arrests? Where are the ambushes? What cities are surrounded or occupied by the army or marines?
All you seem to have shown is some border enforcement, some police activity, some surveillance activity, and that's about it. That isn't much of a "war."
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't a strawman, it is a parallel. (You will notice I am not attacking that idea.)
Snowden's actions are aiding the foreign adversaries of both America and the West.
So, you believe the NSA hardly ever fucks up.
Where do you think I wrote that, exactly?
You seem to miss the point that the Supreme Court gets to say what the law is, it isn't just an opinion when they say it, unlike for you. If you don't acknowledge that the Supreme Court decides what the law is, then you don't really either understand or have a useful opinion on the matter. You are then left as a fringe nutcase.
I agree. Government has no right to limit either a person's private behavior or their medical decisions.
You miss the point. If the Supreme Court had stuck with the text of the Constitution in deciding those cases, then they would not have been decided as they were. There are questions that the Constitution is silent upon, and powers not given to the Federal government are reserved for the states and the people. You may think it unwise, but sodomy laws would still be on the books, as would the various contraception laws.
Various scholars see Roe v Wade as one of the court's biggest blunders. The country was already heading in that direction anyway, but to move things along they had to fabricate law to do it. There will be more mischief to come from both that and Lawrence v Texas. You will very likely see polygamy legalized in your lifetime, and some scholars are already setting their sights on the next boundary.
One trial court judge and made a preliminary ruling, the final decision hasn't been reached yet. If he continues to rule that way his decision will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
If SCOTUS rules that some NSA activity is unconstitutional it would be against prior precedent, but possible. In that event I would acknowledge that the law has changed.
You seem to think that about the entire US government anyway.
According to my calculator, Snowden was an ice cube floating in a hot tub.
NSA was previously reported to be downsizing their system administration staff by 90%, and implementing the two man rule, on top of completing the rollout of new security systems to catch this sort of thing.
Besides, out of about 40,000 NSA employees:
About one person per year loses control and spies on a love interest, for which they are disciplined and lose their job.
A couple of people per decade, more or less, engage in "whistle blowing," sometimes for what they believe is waste, or fraud, sometimes over what they think is illegal behavior.
A couple of people per decade are arrested for spying - essentially none of which have had Snowden's access.
Once in a generation or two you see a crime rising to above the pack, but hardly anything has yet really approached Snowden's level of betrayal.
When right turns to wrong, resistance becomes an obligation.
The problem is that nobody has demonstrated that in this case. All we really get are hyperbole, distortions, or false claims that the government is engaged in oppression.
Your example of the Soviet Union is specious. Being forced to vote for the Communist party is simply window dressing on a dictatorship.
As to the US, you have more than two choices as to party. Although there is broad general agreement on various questions such as "should the government passively allow Americans to be killed," there are many meaningful differences between the main two parties. If you think that is not the case, then please, illuminate us as to what you think is important? What is it that "actually matters" that isn't different between the Democrats and Republicans that you think should be different?
There don't seem to be many people replicating Kim Philby's actions as Snowden did. That would seem to be suggestive.
The story should be about the illegal activities of the NSA.
That would be a very short and boring story indeed as it doesn't really seem to exist in any meaningful way. The big story is NSA activities that some people find disagreeable.
So, the NSA had good people too?
Has. The ratio marginally improved after Snowden left.
Ask s.petry.
So you are suggesting that the actual text of the Constitution should be the basis for decisions? I'm intrigued. Just think of the possibilities.... Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, gone.
Narrator: The bug-eyed Blackberry has entered the clearing.... by the way its moving it appears to be looking for market share. But wait, what's this? It looks like an iSnakepad has grabbed it in a lightning fast strike! The iSnakepad is wrapping itself around the bug-eyed Blackberry and is starting to squeeze. Sadly now, there can be but one outcome.
It appears that the earlier Slashdot story about trolls needs to be updated. They not only post, but moderate as well.
If you think that US foreign policy has anything to do with al Qaida's existence then you are wholly ignorant of their motivation.
What has NSA spying achieved? Here are some hints:
NSA helped foil terror plot in Belgium, documents, officials say
In a New History of NSA, Its Spies' Successes Are [Redacted]
Who do you blame for the food that ends up on your plate and then in your mouth on a daily basis?
Some lawyers (particularly the ones dealing with political unlikeables, like the Gitmo remnants)....
Not every lawyer intervening on behalf of terrorists has discharged their responsibilities in a lawful manner.
Conviction of disbarred lawyer Lynne Stewart upheld for smuggling messages to jailed terrorist
I won't think less of you if you happen to recant should a successful 9/11 scale attack strike your hometown after the growing number of leaked NSA document articles teaches al Qaida how to successfully avoid US surveillance. If you tell the American people there really isn't any way to keep al Qaida from finding out, let alone China or ......
You know if you don't stand up and say enough of this shit its never going to stop.
Let me guess, .... you don't think that argument applies to terrorism too?
I get almost side swiped at least once per day while driving on the highway.
Do you see no difference between random accidents and deliberate violent acts that will continue if not checked?
more people are killed by their diets and the chemicals used in food,
That they choose to eat. Do you want government intervention against this suicide by one plate at a time? Or do you recognize that the consequences of what you eat and how much you exercise are on you at some level? Are you really unable to ethically differentiate between deliberate assaults that can kill people immediately and a little to much sugar over 50 years of a lifetime? One cooked too much a day is the same as a truck bomb at the mall, or even more serious?
If some country were to annually bomb your city, would you want it stopped? What if they only killed and maimed fewer people than died in traffic accidents each year? By your accounting rules that should be something to ignore, right?
there's the governmental outrage about these food terrorist companies that are causing serious damage to out health and economy.
I hear that most governments have agencies devoted to stopping mass death by bad food or drugs, such as tainted hamburger. There seem to be no shortage of regulations in those cases.
If some company were inserting a poison that would kill you within days into cupcakes, don't you think that would be stopped? Why would you want to stop deliberately poisoned cupcakes but not bombs?
Since key causes of disease include the personal choices of bad diet and not enough exercise, are you advocating that the government dictate what you eat everyday, and how much exercise you get? Is that the government you want?
On top of that terrorism is good for the economy and populations control.
As long as the population it is "controlling" isn't you, right? Question - why is terrorism "good for the economy and population control" when bad food isn't? If you are ok with people being killed, isn't more better? Especially if they choose to do it? Or are you suggesting that murder is ok, but suicide over 60 years isn't?
It Could Be Worse
I wouldn't worry about him too much, he is obviously a second rate hack. A true pro would have blamed Bush for the rock.
When cosmetologists work on a model, they refine and test their techniques until they can successfully predict how everything will turn out, and in fact time proves their predictions right.
What if it turns out that bad hair days are simply on hiatus?
Agreed. There's a distinct difference between rejecting a request because one does not agree, versus because one cannot acquiesce in the first place.
The EU did both in this action.
So where are the battles? Where are the mass arrests? Where are the ambushes? What cities are surrounded or occupied by the army or marines?
All you seem to have shown is some border enforcement, some police activity, some surveillance activity, and that's about it. That isn't much of a "war."