Apparently you are so smart you don't need to check the definition of "right wing" before you declare that your opinion is the definition
That's an entirely worthless definition you linked to. I already gave you the definition that I am using, and unlike yous it's actually useful for discussion.
Instead of using your false statements and opinions as proof, maybe you can cite an example showing your definition of "right wing". Specifically your assertion that it is a person that inherently believes they are better than another. I have yet to see you cite a single source.
I gave many examples illustrating exactly how the definition applies. Here is a good article running through the various similarities and differences.
Further more, these are really pretty simple concepts which I've explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense without a grasp of the definition of "right wing" even though the dictionary clearly states this definition does say a lot about you, none of it good, that is my opinion, not a fact like you would claim.
Like I said, the definition that you gave is completely worthless in any sort of discussion, and doesn't address anything in terms of what sort of behavior or actions are associated with such a stance. It also creates a fasle dichotomy by casting the political spectrum as a "left/right" divide when it's more complicated than that. Specifically It completely ignores the whole idea of Liberalism which is what the left and the right are both violently opposed to.
Actually I was stating that the Democrats have not changed over the last generation, say 50 years. Proof as indicated by continually promoting racist policies like affirmitive action and keeping former KKK members like Robert Byrd in there ranks. You fail to acknowledge either fact or cite any facts disproving said points other than your eloquent opinions like:
And you completely fail to acknowledge the simple basic fact that was pointed out to you many times that the vast majority of the blatant racists left the Democratic party en masse and went to the Republicans when the Democrats started standing up for civil rights. Whether or not there is one hanger on you can point to is irrelevant. The fact that you continually try to hold up one bad example to stand up against millions shows for far outside reason you're going with this.
Actually sir, that is your opinion, not a fact. Oh and here are your other "facts"
No, it is a fact that you are a deeply ignorant person. You have proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt by continually repeating nonsense after several people have already pointed out exaclty where and how *you* screwed up. Had you just been wrong once, then you would have been ignorant of that point and had you acted with integrity and stopped repeating idiotic nonsense you would have shown yourself to be a reasonable person. As it is, you have shown yourself to be a deeply ignorant person just as I said. It's a fact, not an opinion.
I could possibly be convinced of this if you would provide maybe some numbers, some links, anything will do, other than your baseless claims and opinion... At least qualify your statement with "One of the most corrupt" so you don't look dumb when someone else proves your opinion wrong with REAL proof other than an opinion.
Well, if you're that out of touch with reality nad current events then there is no way to have any sort of a rational discussion with you. Just look at how many of your scum are in prison, on trial, or under investigation right now. These aren't difficult concepts, Sparky. The fact that you're afraid to deal with reality as it is is the only thing holding you back from being a decent citizen.
Perhaps you are, I will not speculate your an idiot or ignorant like you so aptly like to
there is more historical evidence for the life of Christ than there will be for any of us a week after we die
Unlikely. My birth certificate is on file, so that's one piece of evidence. That means there is an infinite amount more historical evidence ofr my life.
There is not one single legitimate piece of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
So if your entire argument is made up of the same blatant lies, why even bother posting? You could take 5 minutes to actually learn something about the subject before posting something as deeply stupid and obviously false as that.
So your equating Republicans with extremist right wingers, odd, that sounds familiar....
No, I'm specifying that the *current* Congressional Republicans are extremist right wingers. This doesn not equate "Republican" and "right-winger" in all situations and most especially not in a historical context which is what is being discussed.
The OP was the one equating Republicans with the right wing and slavery, of which i find no indications of slavery being part of the right wing politics platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Nor would history or yourself, indicate proof of such a correlation
In fact I did provide exactly such proof. The idea that one person is inherently better than another to the extreme that it's ok for the one to own the other is entirely 100% right wing by definition.
In fact the predominately Liberal party in America has a former KKK member in its ranks, was pro-segregation in the south less than a generation ago, and currently is the party which supports racist policies that do not promote equality like affirmitive action. I guess we both agree, those are hardly liberal ideas
You keep making the same idiotic mistake and it has been pointed out to you by myself and several other people. So you know that you're not only wrong, but idiotically so. The Democrats are *now* largely considered to be "Liberal", but that word itself doesn't mean what it used to. Nor do the policies of the current Democratic party have much in common with the policies of the Democratic party of a hundred years ago. These are really pretty simple concepts which you've had explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense even through you know full well that it is complete crap since you've already been shown that many times does say a lot about you, none of it good.
Some, including myself, consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth and equality for ALL, not just a minority of people(ie: affirmitive action)
Well, you're wrong. What you're describing is classical Liberalism. The Right is not Liberal. The Right is violently opposed to Liberalism, and is in favor of corporate welfare and other types of wealth transfer from those who earn the money to those who already have money.
You can "consider" whatever you want, but you'll continue to be wrong. Further, by attempting to call Liberal policies "right wing", you are seeking to muddy the waters and to marginalize the entire concept. There is a very large, very distinct difference between Liberalism and it's vicious opponents, the Left and the Right which you are trying to bury.
I am sorry , I do not find any references or facts to back up your claim that Slavery is a right wing "thing" nor did you provide any. I assume by your logic Americas forefathers had been extremist right wingers?
It follows directly from the definition. It's nbot complicated.
In regards to the idea of slavery, the FFs *were* extremist right wing. They obviously weren't Liberal on that issue since slavery is the opposite of individual liberty. They obviously weren't left wing on slavery as they would have benned it. That only leaves right wing and given the fact that the right is defined by the manner of its opposition to Liberalism, it follows directly that it is an entirely right wing view.
Now on to your baseless insults of myself and the American people...
It wasn't a baseless insult of anything. You are a deeply ignorant person. You have proven that repeatedly. Stating that isn't an insult it's the statement of a fact.
So your basic gist is, I am foolish, silly and ignorant, The rest of the American citizenry is ignorant, and none of us know what we are talking about except for "enlightened" people like yourself which
My God, you even proved the grandparent's post for him.
Hardly. He made a totally insane statement directly contradicting every relevant fact and basic sanity. I pointed out the fact that he was lying. Calling a spade a spade isn't a problem, really. It's been years now that we've had to deal with this push for a gay hatred amendment and not one person has put forward one single reasonable point to support it. All we've heard is delusional rantings about how "teh faggotzors are destroying the world" with nothing to back it up.
People who spout out or lend any credibility to such idiotic rantings are delusional extremist religious nutjobs. Those are simple facts, not invective.
What exactly is reprehensible about my sig anyhow? There is a group of people who are working their asses off to make sure that our government can drag us away in the middle of the night to third world death camps to be tortured and murdered with no recourse to the law among numerous other crimes and acts of treason. I recommend self defense against these people and I'm the one who is reprehensible?!? Seriously, WTF? Maybe you should pay attention to history and realise that appeasing traitors, terrorists and murderers doesn't work.
If you want anyone to take you seriously instead of seeming as loony as the extremists you criticize, please tone the rhetoric down. It doesn't help any sort of debate.
Hardly. There is no debate on this topic. You have a group of people who are working to piss right in the face of everything this country stands for for purely delusional religious reasons. There is no point in debating them since one can't be reasoned out of a position that reason couldn't have gotten them into.
Debating them is worthless since they are immune to reason. Treating them as if there ideas were just their own reasonable opinions doesn't work either. Like a dog that won't stop shitting on the floor, you have to catch them at it and rub their noses in it. It still might not help since were these people posessed of even the most basic concept of decency, then there wouldn't even be an issue, but it can't hurt, and treating their lunatic rantings as what they are honestly and directly really is the best way to deal with any type of delusional fantasy world rantings.
Sort of. It was 3 things really. Mostly 2 though. Leftists coopted the word and started using it to describe themselves and their policies which were quite left of liberal in many cases. Right wingers demonized the concept, both in its original meaning and in its new, altered meaning.
Both the left and the right hate Liberalism fsar more than they hate each other, since they are very similar in many ways, most especially the fact that they both *love* big government and despise individual liberty.
Some actual Liberals probably did help screw it up themselves, but I think that's less of a factor than the other two.
I will agree with you on that, It just bothered me the parents post was equating right wingers with slavery... which is factually incorrect...
Now you're trying to equate "right winger" with Republican, so you're wrong again.
It is entirely factually correct. Slavery is entirely a right-wing thing. It's about as purely right wing an idea as it's possible to have.
The problem is that you don't actually know what any of these words mean and so you come across as pretty silly when you try to correct others.
"Right" and "Left" are best defined in terms of what they're right and left *of*, which is Liberalism. Classical Liberalism, that is.
Liberalism in a nutshell: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal".
Left means you *agree* with that fundamental principle but further believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to promote/enforce that equality.
Right means you fundamentally *disagree* with the idea that people should be treated equally and further you believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to keep them down and subservient to the elite.
So slavery is 100% a right wing thing.
Republicans and Democrats sometimes go along that left/right divide, but not always. For example, the current Republicans in congress are extremist right wingers which is perfectly in keeping with the fact that they are the most corrupt congress in our history by a huge margin. Giving huge gifts of our tax dollars to massively profitable companies is one of the more obviously extremist right wing actions they've taken.
Seriously, the 3 main divides politically in America now are Conservative/Liberal which is totally meaningless since modern Liberals ain't Liberal and modern Conservatives ain't that either. Democrat/Republican which is a simple matter of party membership and Left/Right which most people, yourself included, don't even know what are yet you still use them.
The fact that most "debates" in this country treat all 3 divides as the same jsut shows the hideous ignorance of our citizenry.
Seriously though, you really should try to at least have a basic idea what the hell you're talking about before you twice try to correct people when they are right. It makes you look ignorant and foolish.
I think you'll find the REAL objectives of some left-wingers who really are more interested in antagonizing the "religious" rather than winning the benefits of social partnerships for homosexuals.
What a load of idiotic crap.
The extremist nutjob religious psychos are the ones trying to shovre their evil psuedo religious crap onto the decent people in this country. People opposed to these sleazy hate mongering monsters are interested in keeping theocratic lunatics from destroying the fiundamental basis of this nation.
But, no, you must be right. It's obviously "teh eval left wingers" who are to blame again even though they aren't the ones trying to shove their ignorant hate based religious lunacy down other people's throats.
The sole cause of the issue is the extremist religious bigots. If they would grow up and start acting like human beings, then the entire issue would not even exist.
Nice try, Sparky. Try again when you have a position that is at the very least, sane.
I fail to see how wearing silk pajamas and prancing around will make you more manly.
Well, it's like the old joke about not having to outrun the bear, just your friend. It all depends on what you're trying to be more manly than. Prancing around in silk pajamas might not make you more manly than you already are, but compared to some people even doing so would probably still leave you more manly than them;-)
t is impossible to discuss Darwin, evolution, and for that matter any world view without introducing religion, because by definition, ANY world view IS religion. Christianity is religion. Evolution is religion. Forget the endless circular claims about scientific this or that, because by definition, science cannot make any statement on the supernatural, and therefore, because the element of the infinnite and supernatural is in play in ANY belief about origins, science by definition can make no statement on origins. Evolution may consist of a mile high-stack of research, but at the bottom of the pile is an article of faith. IN THE BEGINNING __________ . Whatever you fill in that blank is your article of faith.
That right there is where you went completely off the rails and demonstrated your deep lack of understanding of the topic you're attempting to discuss. Evolution doesn't address the origin of the universe. IN THE BEGINNING _______ isn't a question that is even relevant.
The theory of evolution addresses the hows and whys of the changes in lifeforms over billions of years. The origin of life is a completely different subject as you would have figured out by now if you actually had an honest interest in understanding the subject. Given the number of times that same fallacy is put forward and shot down, you must have tried harder to maintain your ignorance of such a simple basic fact than you would have had to try to understand it.
Heck, you even contradicted yourself:
science by definition can make no statement on origins.
I'll buy that. You then continue claiming that it does (which it clearly and explicitly doesn't) and then use that ragged strawman to go on with trying to project the religious nature of *your* beliefs onto people who might or might not have any religious beliefs of their own. The fact that plenty of religious and non-religious people accept evolution as a valid scientific theory should be a big hint that your extremist position isn't at all as clear and certain as you're pretending it is.
But the irony is I haven't pointed out anything that isn't already inherently present in the belief system. The only thing I've encouraged is a progression of thought to its logical consequences.
Except you haven't done that at all. You need to actually understand the subject you're discussing to be able to reach logical consequences and you're proven that you do not understand it at all.
Of course, that doesn't even address the fact that religious based morality is in no way absolute either as it depends on which god you arbitrarily decide to start believing in and further as shown by the histories of most major religions on how you personally choose to interpret the words of that god and even which particular writings that you arbitrarily choose to attribute to him.
Being periodically less than perfect in your pursuit of an objectively good body of ideals is not the same as being shrill, tantrum-having dictator in pursuit of an objectively evil agenda.
Red Herring.
The US is most often "less than perfect" in pursuit of evil ideals while waving a flag around and claiming to stand up for good ideals. Occasionally, we accidentally end up doing a good thing here or there.
We regularly murder democratically elected leaders for the crime of trying to make a better freer life for their people and install brutal murderous thugs in order to please US business interests.
We put Saddam in power, egged on the war with Iran and supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds.
Ho Chi Minh was the biggest fan the US ever had and after repeatedly begging us to help him liberate his people from colonial slavery and being told to fuck off he then as a last resort turned to the commies and then we jumped in to go murder hids already oppressed people.
We installed and propped up the Shah of Iran against the wishes and best interests of the Iranian people which make any animosity they have toward us *entirely* justified. In fact they would be fools to trust us in any way.
Seriously, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and pay attention once in a while instead of continuing to bleat that idiotic crap you keep spewing.
Have you actually been correct about anything in the last 6 years?
WMD: you constantly spouted the party line like a fool. Plame gate: You absolutely denied any possibility of administration involvement claiming it was all common knowledge to those "in the know" Again, you look like a fool.
Iraq involvement with al Queda: Wrong again.
Dude, seriously, sane people when they are constantly wrong stop look around and realise that they need to adjust their attitudes.
You just keep barreling along repeating idiotic nonsense even though it's the same liars saying it. You really are completely laughable at this point.
Blind idiotic jingoism is the problem, more of it ain't the solution.
I know most people in government have an above room-temperature IQ, so it never ceases to amaze me how such idiocy can be put forth by otherwise moderately intelligent people.
Would it help you stop being amazed if you knew that the reference room only has 1 wall. no roof and was at the south pole?
After you finish reading Langer's book you'll understand that the whole point of the Elite inventing Left/Right, Black/White, Men/Woman, Democrats/Republicans is all about the antithesis of "rationale discourse". It's all about causing adistraction - so that there is no rational discourse.
So, men and women were invented by the "Elite".
Wow, that's really far out.
I understand quite well about the power of polarization as a tool of control. You are not even pretending to get my simple point, so good day sir.
I don't think I said anywhere that none of the issues are the fault of the US or Israel.
No, you said that they hate us just becaise we're us and completely failed to address the fact that we have given them plenty of reasons to hate us.
Years of our policies have gotten us to where we are today, and they aren't just policies that were started when Bush Jr. took office. You post like you know exactly how to fix everything yet you don't offer up many ideas. I feel like I'm conversing with John Kerry..."bush sucks, but I don't have any ideas of my own, oh yeah bush sucks."
I'm aware that there were problems already before we got Bush. My point is that given his multiple acts of treason, and crimes against humanity in specific his entirely made up excuses to invade Iraq that as long as we continue to allow him to keep his office and do nothing to punish him for his crimes then we are saying loud and clear to everybody in the world that we do not give a flying fuck about integrity, honesty, decency or anything else of that nature.
The simple fact is that until we do clean our own house and do show that we actually do stand against murdering a bunch of innocent people to steal their shit, that there are no ideas that can do anything to fix anything.
As long as we continue to *prove* that we are a nation of liars, thugs, and murderers then nobody in their right mind coulkd possibly believe a damn thing we say.
*That* is the problem that has a simple solution.
The problems in the middle east are complex and do not admit a simple solution. We can not even begin any meaningful discussion of addressing it until we do deal with the elephant in the living room.
Oh, you did offer up one idea, cut Israel off and let them get pushed into the ocean.
It's a better idea than blindly supporting *everything* they do and condemning *everything* the Palestinians do. Dealing with it in an honest manner would go a long fucking way to helping, but it is the exact same problem we face in terms of credibility and caused by the exact same idiotic black and white absolutist thinking.
I think my whole previous post was about how things aren't black and white. You seem to think things are easy to fix, just toss Bush and all will be right with the world. That seems like a pretty black and white idea to me. I also don't think I mentioned anywhere of people being pure evil. Way to put words in my mouth.
No, tossing Bush will not fix everything. It will make it *possible* to even start thinking about real fixes. There is a major difference there. As long as he is in power and even after, as long as he is not prosecuted for his crimes, then our integrity will be shit. That is the point that you are failing to get. It is a very simple solution to that part of the problem. But until that happens it isn't even possible to talk about a solution to the other issues.
And what domestic issues does this fix? With technology the way it is nowadays the wiretapping issue was bound to come up regardless. Better to have it be settled by the supreme court now rather than later.
The complete lack of integrity which we as a nation have demonstrated by allowing Bush to remain in office after blatantly making up lies in order to carry out a plan the members of his administration had had in place since Clinton was in office. Hell making up the lies in response to an attack on our nation was part of the fucking plan or do you not even read what your dear leaders write and weren't aware of that little fact?
And dear lord, since people are likely to abuse technology it's therefore good that the President knowingly violated the law and the constitution? Where do you come up with this stuff?
If world politic were as simple as you seem to think we should've had world peace years ago.
Had I said that, you might have a point. If it were possible to be trusted when everybody knows you're lying through your teeth, then there wouldn't be a *need* to fix that first.
He has a whole group of people now who he's gotten to hate the US just because we are the US.
Right, sure. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that we made up a bunch of lies in order to excuse blowing their families to pieces. You have a truly amazing intellect to have figured out how that was totally irrelevant compared to the simple fact that we are the US.
Wow.
What about the rest of the middle east who hates Israel? The US policy has been to support Israel. Do we withdraw that support and let the rest of the middle east push them into the ocean?
Why not? It would be the fair thing to do for the people who used to live there before they got tossed out on their asses because the west felt bad about the holocaust. Give them a chunk of Germany and call it a day.
Israel has brought a lot of hatred and anger against itself through their own actions. Yes there are people who hate them just because, but ignoring their terroristic actions completely and putting all the blame on the Arabs is stupid, ignorant, and yet another *legitimate* reason that we are hated.
I couldn't care less about Israel. They take billions in welfare from us, use it for terrorism, piss off a bunch of people and we *rightfully* get a lot of the blame for it.
The simple basic fact of reality that you continually fail to grasp is that things are not black and white. We are not magically always right and good and people who dislike us are not magically pure evil.
I have even touched on the religious fundamentalist who need someone to point to in their speeches as someone to hate so they can easily keep power.
And of course, had you touched on it you would have completely left out the ones in Israel and the ones here because magically nothing is our fault.
I'm not saying that our current path is the best way to solve the issues, but to say that the issues are simple and easily fixed shows a lack of knowledge about what got us to where we are today.
You're talking about completely different issues than I was when I was referring to their simplicity. I'm talking about our domestic issues. Those are simple and clear cut. The solution is the impeachment, prosecution and execution of the current administration.
Instead of having both sides bitch over things like if we should be in Iraq or if should allow wiretaps, it would be much more productive to try and figure out a plan to fix the mess that currently is called the middle east. Work that plan out and then align our actions with it.
Yes, and figuring out that since we did make up a bunch of lies as an excuse to invade Iraq that our credibility *is* shit is a major first step. Quitting spouting idiotic ignorant crap like "durrr they hate us because we're the US" instead of taking an honest look at the real honest legitimate reasons that they absolutely do have to hate us is another major necessary step that has to be taken before we can even pretend to come up with a productive plan.
I don't know if you are getting it yet - Karl Rove had only one goal in mind in the last election - to win. Kerry had one goal in mind - to win.
No, it's you who isn't getting my point. All that I am saying is that "left" and "right" in political terms are useful definitions to enable rational discourse.
The fact that so few people have any idea what they actually do mean yet still toss them around willy nilly is a problem due to the fact that it does make rationally discussing politics very difficult.
The Democrats are not "Left" although they do sometimes support or promote things which are accurately described as "Left". Likewise for every other combination: Democrat-right, Republican-left Republican-right.
You need to read Dr. Ellen J. Langer's book "The Power Of Mindful Learning" to help you get rid of all of the Urban Myths that have been pumped into your head in school and in the so-called Left Leaning Media (which of course doesn't exist - another Urban Myth)
No, I don't *need* to read this book to get rid of urban myths. I don't subscribe to that nonsense as *you* would be able to tell had you actually read what I wrote rather than making up some crappy idea about what you thought I was saying.Seriously, how could you have been capable of reading what I wrote and conclude that I think the Democrats==Left and the Republicans==Right which is what you seem to be saying you think.
I am well aware of the fact that power works for itself, however as I stated the ways in which it does this can vary significantly and recognizing that fact and additionally recognizing how it does vary *and* having a language in which it can be discussed is important.
Thank god for the Daily Show. Well actually thank Daily for the Daily show - he was priceless last night.
John *Daly* is a professional golfer and a drunk. Jon Stewart is the host of the Daily Show. You repeatedly screw up something that simple and then question my understanding of basic issues without even attempting to read what I wrote?!? Wild, man. Just far out.
Who are you going to murder when a democrat becomes the next president and continues on just like Bush?
If that happens, then them. It's not like there is anything remotely difficult to understand here. None of the current issues are particularly complicated.
If a dem gets elected you think the world will suddenly love US and the terrorist will stop?
It depends on what they do, doesn't it? It's not like people magically started hating us for no reason. We had to murder a bunch of them first, kick them around, torture their families and all of that sort of thing. If we made an honest effort to stop fucking people over and apologized for our history of brutality, then yes, obviously, we would be in a better position and at less risk of terrorist attacks.
The Dems have no history indicating that they'd actually do such a thing, but what might happen in the future does not excuse current crimes, now does it?
How was that nonsense in any way relevant to anything?
It is curious that someone who has a sig that advocates killing someone with a different political ideology wants to lecture the rest of us on treason.
The fact that you would even make such a ridiculous statement shows your lack of basic reading comprehension coupled with a deep ignorance of current events.
Political ideology has nothing to do with active support for multiple repeated acts of treason.
When a group of people actively conspire to make it legal for my own government to drag me away to a third world shithole to be tortured to death with no recourse to the law, then that is a direct, unprovoked act of aggression against me, you, and everybody else in the world. My sig quite clearly and obviously advocates nothing but completely justified acts of self defense of my person and my nation.
Where the fuck did you get the ridiculous idea that it has anything to do with ideology?
Oh, I get it. So you should only delay the ruling if you're wrong. I
No, you missed a really simple point.
When the government asks the courts if it can fuck the people, then the answer is "no" until they can prove their case.
When it is discovered that the government is already fucking the people, then the proper response is "stop" until they can prove their case.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with eliminating the courts.
In this case, the government decided that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission. They knew full well that they didn't have the right and they did it anyway. They only bothered to ask permission when they were caught commiting treason.
Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.
No, there was an approval for military action. Against Afghanistan and against Iraq based on proven lies. There was no declaration of war and this ain't a war. It's not even possible to make it a war.
Therefore, the war powers act doesn't apply, hence it is unconstitutional.
Look at the facts, don't just parrot idiotic lies. You might not give a flying fuck about your liberty, but you are selling mine out with yours and the second amendment should be your biggest worry and that of the shitbags you defend in their assaults on all of the rest of us.
If you respond, please answer this question: do they somehow have a greater right than you do in forcing a court order to be enforced before it has been properly reviewed?
It's not a question of a "greater right". It's a complete reversal of the entire basis of this nation from of by and for the people to *against* the people.
I did read your argument and it was crap becasue it disregarded that basic fact. Putting a gun to a woman's head and forcing her to carry a child for 9 months and then forcing her to raise it after she has already decided that she is incapable of doing all that responsibly is about as monstrous of a situation as you could possibly come up with. Preventing that sort of shit is the point of the constitution.
The people trying to force her to do all that are not the ones involved. They have no place whatsoever sticking their nose into that.
The current situation is the same in the sense that the government is trying to destroy the entire concept of liberty by listening into anything they want. The reversal is that on the one hand the government would be *stopped* from shoving its nose right up her cunt into her womb. Your position is that they should be allowed to do any god damned thing they please until forcibly stopped.
You are contradicting yourself in your own example by forgetting that it is the people who have the rights and the government that has the restrictions *by default*.
As to your claim that it's not obviously unconstitutional, go read the fucking thing. Fourth amendment. It's spelled out absolutely. What they're doing *they can not fucking do*
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
Do us all a favor and go read the fucking constitution. This is not a complex issue requiring deliberation. It is spelled out directly in the fourth amendment that they absolutely positively under no circumstances whatsoever can do this.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick how did you ever get out of high school without knowing this shit?!?
Obviously this isn't popular with many people on Slashdot, but it is how the courts need to work. In the reverse, a court could, for example, declare that abortion was unconstitutional. If it didn't delay its ruling until higher courts analyzed it, it would affect hundreds of thousands to millions of women.
The difference being that your example would be an extreme, violation, abuse and invasion of an individual citizen's body by the government which absolutely must be blocked from happening immediately to avoid trampling all over the most basic idea of civil rights until deemed absolutely necessary (if even then).
The case in question is, as you pointed out, exactly the reverse and should be treated as such, meaning:
It is already happening in direct violation of our civil rights and so until it is proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely necessary it must be stopped immediately.
One is the government trying to shove its nose where it doesn't belong and rightly being smacked down. The other is the government being discovered illegally and unconstitutionally shoving it's head up our asses to see what we are eating and should be smacked down *hard* and you claim they should explore away at their leisure for as long as they choose to delay the case.
Apples and oranges my anonymous friend. Apples and oranges.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you are so smart you don't need to check the definition of "right wing" before you declare that your opinion is the definition
That's an entirely worthless definition you linked to.
I already gave you the definition that I am using, and unlike yous it's actually useful for discussion.
Instead of using your false statements and opinions as proof, maybe you can cite an example showing your definition of "right wing". Specifically your assertion that it is a person that inherently believes they are better than another. I have yet to see you cite a single source.
I gave many examples illustrating exactly how the definition applies.
Here is a good article running through the various similarities and differences.
Further more, these are really pretty simple concepts which I've explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense without a grasp of the definition of "right wing" even though the dictionary clearly states this definition does say a lot about you, none of it good, that is my opinion, not a fact like you would claim.
Like I said, the definition that you gave is completely worthless in any sort of discussion, and doesn't address anything in terms of what sort of behavior or actions are associated with such a stance.
It also creates a fasle dichotomy by casting the political spectrum as a "left/right" divide when it's more complicated than that. Specifically It completely ignores the whole idea of Liberalism which is what the left and the right are both violently opposed to.
Actually I was stating that the Democrats have not changed over the last generation, say 50 years. Proof as indicated by continually promoting racist policies like affirmitive action and keeping former KKK members like Robert Byrd in there ranks. You fail to acknowledge either fact or cite any facts disproving said points other than your eloquent opinions like:
And you completely fail to acknowledge the simple basic fact that was pointed out to you many times that the vast majority of the blatant racists left the Democratic party en masse and went to the Republicans when the Democrats started standing up for civil rights. Whether or not there is one hanger on you can point to is irrelevant.
The fact that you continually try to hold up one bad example to stand up against millions shows for far outside reason you're going with this.
Actually sir, that is your opinion, not a fact. Oh and here are your other "facts"
No, it is a fact that you are a deeply ignorant person. You have proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt by continually repeating nonsense after several people have already pointed out exaclty where and how *you* screwed up.
Had you just been wrong once, then you would have been ignorant of that point and had you acted with integrity and stopped repeating idiotic nonsense you would have shown yourself to be a reasonable person.
As it is, you have shown yourself to be a deeply ignorant person just as I said.
It's a fact, not an opinion.
I could possibly be convinced of this if you would provide maybe some numbers, some links, anything will do, other than your baseless claims and opinion... At least qualify your statement with "One of the most corrupt" so you don't look dumb when someone else proves your opinion wrong with REAL proof other than an opinion.
Well, if you're that out of touch with reality nad current events then there is no way to have any sort of a rational discussion with you. Just look at how many of your scum are in prison, on trial, or under investigation right now.
These aren't difficult concepts, Sparky.
The fact that you're afraid to deal with reality as it is is the only thing holding you back from being a decent citizen.
Perhaps you are, I will not speculate your an idiot or ignorant like you so aptly like to
There's more evidence for the life of Christ than there is for the Civil War, George Washington, or you or I.
Wrong again.
There is not one single solitary piece of evidence for the life of Christ.
Get over it and stop lying.
there is more historical evidence for the life of Christ than there will be for any of us a week after we die
Unlikely.
My birth certificate is on file, so that's one piece of evidence.
That means there is an infinite amount more historical evidence ofr my life.
There is not one single legitimate piece of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
So if your entire argument is made up of the same blatant lies, why even bother posting? You could take 5 minutes to actually learn something about the subject before posting something as deeply stupid and obviously false as that.
So your equating Republicans with extremist right wingers, odd, that sounds familiar....
No, I'm specifying that the *current* Congressional Republicans are extremist right wingers. This doesn not equate "Republican" and "right-winger" in all situations and most especially not in a historical context which is what is being discussed.
The OP was the one equating Republicans with the right wing and slavery, of which i find no indications of slavery being part of the right wing politics platform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Nor would history or yourself, indicate proof of such a correlation
In fact I did provide exactly such proof. The idea that one person is inherently better than another to the extreme that it's ok for the one to own the other is entirely 100% right wing by definition.
In fact the predominately Liberal party in America has a former KKK member in its ranks, was pro-segregation in the south less than a generation ago, and currently is the party which supports racist policies that do not promote equality like affirmitive action. I guess we both agree, those are hardly liberal ideas
You keep making the same idiotic mistake and it has been pointed out to you by myself and several other people. So you know that you're not only wrong, but idiotically so.
The Democrats are *now* largely considered to be "Liberal", but that word itself doesn't mean what it used to. Nor do the policies of the current Democratic party have much in common with the policies of the Democratic party of a hundred years ago.
These are really pretty simple concepts which you've had explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense even through you know full well that it is complete crap since you've already been shown that many times does say a lot about you, none of it good.
Some, including myself, consider the political Right to include those forms of liberalism that emphasize the free market more than egalitarianism in wealth and equality for ALL, not just a minority of people(ie: affirmitive action)
Well, you're wrong.
What you're describing is classical Liberalism. The Right is not Liberal. The Right is violently opposed to Liberalism, and is in favor of corporate welfare and other types of wealth transfer from those who earn the money to those who already have money.
You can "consider" whatever you want, but you'll continue to be wrong. Further, by attempting to call Liberal policies "right wing", you are seeking to muddy the waters and to marginalize the entire concept.
There is a very large, very distinct difference between Liberalism and it's vicious opponents, the Left and the Right which you are trying to bury.
I am sorry , I do not find any references or facts to back up your claim that Slavery is a right wing "thing" nor did you provide any. I assume by your logic Americas forefathers had been extremist right wingers?
It follows directly from the definition. It's nbot complicated.
In regards to the idea of slavery, the FFs *were* extremist right wing. They obviously weren't Liberal on that issue since slavery is the opposite of individual liberty. They obviously weren't left wing on slavery as they would have benned it. That only leaves right wing and given the fact that the right is defined by the manner of its opposition to Liberalism, it follows directly that it is an entirely right wing view.
Now on to your baseless insults of myself and the American people...
It wasn't a baseless insult of anything.
You are a deeply ignorant person. You have proven that repeatedly. Stating that isn't an insult it's the statement of a fact.
So your basic gist is, I am foolish, silly and ignorant, The rest of the American citizenry is ignorant, and none of us know what we are talking about except for "enlightened" people like yourself which
My God, you even proved the grandparent's post for him.
Hardly. He made a totally insane statement directly contradicting every relevant fact and basic sanity. I pointed out the fact that he was lying. Calling a spade a spade isn't a problem, really. It's been years now that we've had to deal with this push for a gay hatred amendment and not one person has put forward one single reasonable point to support it. All we've heard is delusional rantings about how "teh faggotzors are destroying the world" with nothing to back it up.
People who spout out or lend any credibility to such idiotic rantings are delusional extremist religious nutjobs.
Those are simple facts, not invective.
What exactly is reprehensible about my sig anyhow? There is a group of people who are working their asses off to make sure that our government can drag us away in the middle of the night to third world death camps to be tortured and murdered with no recourse to the law among numerous other crimes and acts of treason.
I recommend self defense against these people and I'm the one who is reprehensible?!?
Seriously, WTF?
Maybe you should pay attention to history and realise that appeasing traitors, terrorists and murderers doesn't work.
If you want anyone to take you seriously instead of seeming as loony as the extremists you criticize, please tone the rhetoric down. It doesn't help any sort of debate.
Hardly. There is no debate on this topic. You have a group of people who are working to piss right in the face of everything this country stands for for purely delusional religious reasons. There is no point in debating them since one can't be reasoned out of a position that reason couldn't have gotten them into.
Debating them is worthless since they are immune to reason.
Treating them as if there ideas were just their own reasonable opinions doesn't work either.
Like a dog that won't stop shitting on the floor, you have to catch them at it and rub their noses in it. It still might not help since were these people posessed of even the most basic concept of decency, then there wouldn't even be an issue, but it can't hurt, and treating their lunatic rantings as what they are honestly and directly really is the best way to deal with any type of delusional fantasy world rantings.
Actually I think liberals did it to themselves.
Sort of. It was 3 things really. Mostly 2 though.
Leftists coopted the word and started using it to describe themselves and their policies which were quite left of liberal in many cases.
Right wingers demonized the concept, both in its original meaning and in its new, altered meaning.
Both the left and the right hate Liberalism fsar more than they hate each other, since they are very similar in many ways, most especially the fact that they both *love* big government and despise individual liberty.
Some actual Liberals probably did help screw it up themselves, but I think that's less of a factor than the other two.
I will agree with you on that, It just bothered me the parents post was equating right wingers with slavery... which is factually incorrect...
Now you're trying to equate "right winger" with Republican, so you're wrong again.
It is entirely factually correct. Slavery is entirely a right-wing thing. It's about as purely right wing an idea as it's possible to have.
The problem is that you don't actually know what any of these words mean and so you come across as pretty silly when you try to correct others.
"Right" and "Left" are best defined in terms of what they're right and left *of*, which is Liberalism.
Classical Liberalism, that is.
Liberalism in a nutshell: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal".
Left means you *agree* with that fundamental principle but further believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to promote/enforce that equality.
Right means you fundamentally *disagree* with the idea that people should be treated equally and further you believe that the power of the state should be used against the individual to keep them down and subservient to the elite.
So slavery is 100% a right wing thing.
Republicans and Democrats sometimes go along that left/right divide, but not always. For example, the current Republicans in congress are extremist right wingers which is perfectly in keeping with the fact that they are the most corrupt congress in our history by a huge margin. Giving huge gifts of our tax dollars to massively profitable companies is one of the more obviously extremist right wing actions they've taken.
Seriously, the 3 main divides politically in America now are Conservative/Liberal which is totally meaningless since modern Liberals ain't Liberal and modern Conservatives ain't that either. Democrat/Republican which is a simple matter of party membership and Left/Right which most people, yourself included, don't even know what are yet you still use them.
The fact that most "debates" in this country treat all 3 divides as the same jsut shows the hideous ignorance of our citizenry.
Seriously though, you really should try to at least have a basic idea what the hell you're talking about before you twice try to correct people when they are right. It makes you look ignorant and foolish.
I think you'll find the REAL objectives of some left-wingers who really are more interested in antagonizing the "religious" rather than winning the benefits of social partnerships for homosexuals.
What a load of idiotic crap.
The extremist nutjob religious psychos are the ones trying to shovre their evil psuedo religious crap onto the decent
people in this country. People opposed to these sleazy hate mongering monsters are interested in keeping theocratic lunatics from destroying the fiundamental basis of this nation.
But, no, you must be right. It's obviously "teh eval left wingers" who are to blame again even though they aren't the ones trying to shove their ignorant hate based religious lunacy down other people's throats.
The sole cause of the issue is the extremist religious bigots. If they would grow up and start acting like human beings, then the entire issue would not even exist.
Nice try, Sparky.
Try again when you have a position that is at the very least, sane.
I fail to see how wearing silk pajamas and prancing around will make you more manly.
;-)
Well, it's like the old joke about not having to outrun the bear, just your friend.
It all depends on what you're trying to be more manly than. Prancing around in silk pajamas might not make you more manly than you already are, but compared to some people even doing so would probably still leave you more manly than them
t is impossible to discuss Darwin, evolution, and for that matter any world view without introducing religion, because by definition, ANY world view IS religion. Christianity is religion. Evolution is religion. Forget the endless circular claims about scientific this or that, because by definition, science cannot make any statement on the supernatural, and therefore, because the element of the infinnite and supernatural is in play in ANY belief about origins, science by definition can make no statement on origins. Evolution may consist of a mile high-stack of research, but at the bottom of the pile is an article of faith. IN THE BEGINNING __________ . Whatever you fill in that blank is your article of faith.
That right there is where you went completely off the rails and demonstrated your deep lack of understanding of the topic you're attempting to discuss.
Evolution doesn't address the origin of the universe. IN THE BEGINNING _______ isn't a question that is even relevant.
The theory of evolution addresses the hows and whys of the changes in lifeforms over billions of years. The origin of life is a completely different subject as you would have figured out by now if you actually had an honest interest in understanding the subject. Given the number of times that same fallacy is put forward and shot down, you must have tried harder to maintain your ignorance of such a simple basic fact than you would have had to try to understand it.
Heck, you even contradicted yourself:
science by definition can make no statement on origins.
I'll buy that. You then continue claiming that it does (which it clearly and explicitly doesn't) and then use that ragged strawman to go on with trying to project the religious nature of *your* beliefs onto people who might or might not have any religious beliefs of their own. The fact that plenty of religious and non-religious people accept evolution as a valid scientific theory should be a big hint that your extremist position isn't at all as clear and certain as you're pretending it is.
But the irony is I haven't pointed out anything that isn't already inherently present in the belief system. The only thing I've encouraged is a progression of thought to its logical consequences.
Except you haven't done that at all. You need to actually understand the subject you're discussing to be able to reach logical consequences and you're proven that you do not understand it at all.
Of course, that doesn't even address the fact that religious based morality is in no way absolute either as it depends on which god you arbitrarily decide to start believing in and further as shown by the histories of most major religions on how you personally choose to interpret the words of that god and even which particular writings that you arbitrarily choose to attribute to him.
Being periodically less than perfect in your pursuit of an objectively good body of ideals is not the same as being shrill, tantrum-having dictator in pursuit of an objectively evil agenda.
Red Herring.
The US is most often "less than perfect" in pursuit of evil ideals while waving a flag around and claiming to stand up for good ideals.
Occasionally, we accidentally end up doing a good thing here or there.
We regularly murder democratically elected leaders for the crime of trying to make a better freer life for their people and install brutal murderous thugs in order to please US business interests.
We put Saddam in power, egged on the war with Iran and supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds.
Ho Chi Minh was the biggest fan the US ever had and after repeatedly begging us to help him liberate his people from colonial slavery and being told to fuck off he then as a last resort turned to the commies and then we jumped in to go murder hids already oppressed people.
We installed and propped up the Shah of Iran against the wishes and best interests of the Iranian people which make any animosity they have toward us *entirely* justified. In fact they would be fools to trust us in any way.
Seriously, you really need to pull your head out of your ass and pay attention once in a while instead of continuing to bleat that idiotic crap you keep spewing.
Have you actually been correct about anything in the last 6 years?
WMD: you constantly spouted the party line like a fool.
Plame gate: You absolutely denied any possibility of administration involvement claiming it was all common knowledge to those "in the know" Again, you look like a fool.
Iraq involvement with al Queda: Wrong again.
Dude, seriously, sane people when they are constantly wrong stop look around and realise that they need to adjust their attitudes.
You just keep barreling along repeating idiotic nonsense even though it's the same liars saying it.
You really are completely laughable at this point.
Blind idiotic jingoism is the problem, more of it ain't the solution.
I know most people in government have an above room-temperature IQ, so it never ceases to amaze me how such idiocy can be put forth by otherwise moderately intelligent people.
Would it help you stop being amazed if you knew that the reference room only has 1 wall. no roof and was at the south pole?
After you finish reading Langer's book you'll understand that the whole point of the Elite inventing Left/Right, Black/White, Men/Woman, Democrats/Republicans is all about the antithesis of "rationale discourse". It's all about causing adistraction - so that there is no rational discourse.
So, men and women were invented by the "Elite".
Wow, that's really far out.
I understand quite well about the power of polarization as a tool of control. You are not even pretending to get my simple point, so good day sir.
I don't think I said anywhere that none of the issues are the fault of the US or Israel.
No, you said that they hate us just becaise we're us and completely failed to address the fact that we have given them plenty of reasons to hate us.
Years of our policies have gotten us to where we are today, and they aren't just policies that were started when Bush Jr. took office. You post like you know exactly how to fix everything yet you don't offer up many ideas. I feel like I'm conversing with John Kerry..."bush sucks, but I don't have any ideas of my own, oh yeah bush sucks."
I'm aware that there were problems already before we got Bush.
My point is that given his multiple acts of treason, and crimes against humanity in specific his entirely made up excuses to invade Iraq that as long as we continue to allow him to keep his office and do nothing to punish him for his crimes then we are saying loud and clear to everybody in the world that we do not give a flying fuck about integrity, honesty, decency or anything else of that nature.
The simple fact is that until we do clean our own house and do show that we actually do stand against murdering a bunch of innocent people to steal their shit, that there are no ideas that can do anything to fix anything.
As long as we continue to *prove* that we are a nation of liars, thugs, and murderers then nobody in their right mind coulkd possibly believe a damn thing we say.
*That* is the problem that has a simple solution.
The problems in the middle east are complex and do not admit a simple solution. We can not even begin any meaningful discussion of addressing it until we do deal with the elephant in the living room.
Oh, you did offer up one idea, cut Israel off and let them get pushed into the ocean.
It's a better idea than blindly supporting *everything* they do and condemning *everything* the Palestinians do.
Dealing with it in an honest manner would go a long fucking way to helping, but it is the exact same problem we face in terms of credibility and caused by the exact same idiotic black and white absolutist thinking.
I think my whole previous post was about how things aren't black and white. You seem to think things are easy to fix, just toss Bush and all will be right with the world. That seems like a pretty black and white idea to me. I also don't think I mentioned anywhere of people being pure evil. Way to put words in my mouth.
No, tossing Bush will not fix everything. It will make it *possible* to even start thinking about real fixes. There is a major difference there. As long as he is in power and even after, as long as he is not prosecuted for his crimes, then our integrity will be shit. That is the point that you are failing to get.
It is a very simple solution to that part of the problem. But until that happens it isn't even possible to talk about a solution to the other issues.
And what domestic issues does this fix? With technology the way it is nowadays the wiretapping issue was bound to come up regardless. Better to have it be settled by the supreme court now rather than later.
The complete lack of integrity which we as a nation have demonstrated by allowing Bush to remain in office after blatantly making up lies in order to carry out a plan the members of his administration had had in place since Clinton was in office.
Hell making up the lies in response to an attack on our nation was part of the fucking plan or do you not even read what your dear leaders write and weren't aware of that little fact?
And dear lord, since people are likely to abuse technology it's therefore good that the President knowingly violated the law and the constitution?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
If world politic were as simple as you seem to think we should've had world peace years ago.
Had I said that, you might have a point. If it were possible to be trusted when everybody knows you're lying through your teeth, then there wouldn't be a *need* to fix that first.
He has a whole group of people now who he's gotten to hate the US just because we are the US.
Right, sure. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that we made up a bunch of lies in order to excuse blowing their families to pieces. You have a truly amazing intellect to have figured out how that was totally irrelevant compared to the simple fact that we are the US.
Wow.
What about the rest of the middle east who hates Israel? The US policy has been to support Israel. Do we withdraw that support and let the rest of the middle east push them into the ocean?
Why not? It would be the fair thing to do for the people who used to live there before they got tossed out on their asses because the west felt bad about the holocaust. Give them a chunk of Germany and call it a day.
Israel has brought a lot of hatred and anger against itself through their own actions.
Yes there are people who hate them just because, but ignoring their terroristic actions completely and putting all the blame on the Arabs is stupid, ignorant, and yet another *legitimate* reason that we are hated.
I couldn't care less about Israel. They take billions in welfare from us, use it for terrorism, piss off a bunch of people and we *rightfully* get a lot of the blame for it.
The simple basic fact of reality that you continually fail to grasp is that things are not black and white. We are not magically always right and good and people who dislike us are not magically pure evil.
I have even touched on the religious fundamentalist who need someone to point to in their speeches as someone to hate so they can easily keep power.
And of course, had you touched on it you would have completely left out the ones in Israel and the ones here because magically nothing is our fault.
I'm not saying that our current path is the best way to solve the issues, but to say that the issues are simple and easily fixed shows a lack of knowledge about what got us to where we are today.
You're talking about completely different issues than I was when I was referring to their simplicity.
I'm talking about our domestic issues. Those are simple and clear cut. The solution is the impeachment, prosecution and execution of the current administration.
Instead of having both sides bitch over things like if we should be in Iraq or if should allow wiretaps, it would be much more productive to try and figure out a plan to fix the mess that currently is called the middle east. Work that plan out and then align our actions with it.
Yes, and figuring out that since we did make up a bunch of lies as an excuse to invade Iraq that our credibility *is* shit is a major first step.
Quitting spouting idiotic ignorant crap like "durrr they hate us because we're the US" instead of taking an honest look at the real honest legitimate reasons that they absolutely do have to hate us is another major necessary step that has to be taken before we can even pretend to come up with a productive plan.
I don't know if you are getting it yet - Karl Rove had only one goal in mind in the last election - to win. Kerry had one goal in mind - to win.
No, it's you who isn't getting my point.
All that I am saying is that "left" and "right" in political terms are useful definitions to enable rational discourse.
The fact that so few people have any idea what they actually do mean yet still toss them around willy nilly is a problem due to the fact that it does make rationally discussing politics very difficult.
The Democrats are not "Left" although they do sometimes support or promote things which are accurately described as "Left". Likewise for every other combination:
Democrat-right, Republican-left Republican-right.
You need to read Dr. Ellen J. Langer's book "The Power Of Mindful Learning" to help you get rid of all of the Urban Myths that have been pumped into your head in school and in the so-called Left Leaning Media (which of course doesn't exist - another Urban Myth)
No, I don't *need* to read this book to get rid of urban myths. I don't subscribe to that nonsense as *you* would be able to tell had you actually read what I wrote rather than making up some crappy idea about what you thought I was saying.Seriously, how could you have been capable of reading what I wrote and conclude that I think the Democrats==Left and the
Republicans==Right which is what you seem to be saying you think.
I am well aware of the fact that power works for itself, however as I stated the ways in which it does this can vary significantly and recognizing that fact and additionally recognizing how it does vary *and* having a language in which it can be discussed is important.
Thank god for the Daily Show. Well actually thank Daily for the Daily show - he was priceless last night.
John *Daly* is a professional golfer and a drunk. Jon Stewart is the host of the Daily Show. You repeatedly screw up something that simple and then question my understanding of basic issues without even attempting to read what I wrote?!?
Wild, man. Just far out.
Who are you going to murder when a democrat becomes the next president and continues on just like Bush?
If that happens, then them. It's not like there is anything remotely difficult to understand here. None of the current issues are particularly complicated.
If a dem gets elected you think the world will suddenly love US and the terrorist will stop?
It depends on what they do, doesn't it?
It's not like people magically started hating us for no reason. We had to murder a bunch of them first, kick them around, torture their families and all of that sort of thing.
If we made an honest effort to stop fucking people over and apologized for our history of brutality, then yes, obviously, we would be in a better position and at less risk of terrorist attacks.
The Dems have no history indicating that they'd actually do such a thing, but what might happen in the future does not excuse current crimes, now does it?
How was that nonsense in any way relevant to anything?
It is curious that someone who has a sig that advocates killing someone with a different political ideology wants to lecture the rest of us on treason.
The fact that you would even make such a ridiculous statement shows your lack of basic reading comprehension coupled with a deep ignorance of current events.
Political ideology has nothing to do with active support for multiple repeated acts of treason.
When a group of people actively conspire to make it legal for my own government to drag me away to a third world shithole to be tortured to death with no recourse to the law, then that is a direct, unprovoked act of aggression against me, you, and everybody else in the world.
My sig quite clearly and obviously advocates nothing but completely justified acts of self defense of my person and my nation.
Where the fuck did you get the ridiculous idea that it has anything to do with ideology?
Hey, when you are in a hole, quit digging.
Ruling in 2004, first Bush appointee in 2005.
Regardless, remove "stacked" and the point remains.
Quitting digging when dirt is being shovelled on your head is suicide.
Oh, I get it. So you should only delay the ruling if you're wrong. I
No, you missed a really simple point.
When the government asks the courts if it can fuck the people, then the answer is "no" until they can prove their case.
When it is discovered that the government is already fucking the people, then the proper response is "stop" until they can prove their case.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with eliminating the courts.
In this case, the government decided that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
They knew full well that they didn't have the right and they did it anyway. They only bothered to ask permission when they were caught commiting treason.
You are flat out wrong, and the supreme court says so:
Well, a stacked court by a treasonously selected president authorizing unconstitutional actions is a much bigger problem then, isn't it.
BTW, nice sig inciting to violence. =)
Not at all. Recommending defense of my nation against traitors savagely attacking it.
Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.
No, there was an approval for military action. Against Afghanistan and against Iraq based on proven lies.
There was no declaration of war and this ain't a war. It's not even possible to make it a war.
Therefore, the war powers act doesn't apply, hence it is unconstitutional.
Look at the facts, don't just parrot idiotic lies. You might not give a flying fuck about your liberty, but you are selling mine out with yours and the second amendment should be your biggest worry and that of the shitbags you defend in their assaults on all of the rest of us.
If you respond, please answer this question: do they somehow have a greater right than you do in forcing a court order to be enforced before it has been properly reviewed?
It's not a question of a "greater right". It's a complete reversal of the entire basis of this nation from of by and for the people to *against* the people.
I did read your argument and it was crap becasue it disregarded that basic fact.
Putting a gun to a woman's head and forcing her to carry a child for 9 months and then forcing her to raise it after she has already decided that she is incapable of doing all that responsibly is about as monstrous of a situation as you could possibly come up with. Preventing that sort of shit is the point of the constitution.
The people trying to force her to do all that are not the ones involved. They have no place whatsoever sticking their nose into that.
The current situation is the same in the sense that the government is trying to destroy the entire concept of liberty by listening into anything they want. The reversal is that on the one hand the government would be *stopped* from shoving its nose right up her cunt into her womb. Your position is that they should be allowed to do any god damned thing they please until forcibly stopped.
You are contradicting yourself in your own example by forgetting that it is the people who have the rights and the government that has the restrictions *by default*.
As to your claim that it's not obviously unconstitutional, go read the fucking thing. Fourth amendment. It's spelled out absolutely. What they're doing *they can not fucking do*
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
Do us all a favor and go read the fucking constitution. This is not a complex issue requiring deliberation. It is spelled out directly in the fourth amendment that they absolutely positively under no circumstances whatsoever can do this.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick how did you ever get out of high school without knowing this shit?!?
Obviously this isn't popular with many people on Slashdot, but it is how the courts need to work. In the reverse, a court could, for example, declare that abortion was unconstitutional. If it didn't delay its ruling until higher courts analyzed it, it would affect hundreds of thousands to millions of women.
The difference being that your example would be an extreme, violation, abuse and invasion of an individual citizen's body by the government which absolutely must be blocked from happening immediately to avoid trampling all over the most basic idea of civil rights until deemed absolutely necessary (if even then).
The case in question is, as you pointed out, exactly the reverse and should be treated as such, meaning:
It is already happening in direct violation of our civil rights and so until it is proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely necessary it must be stopped immediately.
One is the government trying to shove its nose where it doesn't belong and rightly being smacked down. The other is the government being discovered illegally and unconstitutionally shoving it's head up our asses to see what we are eating and should be smacked down *hard* and you claim they should explore away at their leisure for as long as they choose to delay the case.
Apples and oranges my anonymous friend. Apples and oranges.