_x_ Reaching Bizarre Conclusions Without Any Information
_x_ Failure to Understand Why Good Rules Don't Have Exceptions
No people in their current form can survive on "principles." Guidelines for societal structure cannot be based on the current moral frenzy of the day. This would turn every single act of government (as if it weren't already) into the logical fallacy "appeal to emotion."
There's a reason we follow the law to the letter, as opposed to religion by interpretation. It's so all parties are absolutely clear on what is acceptable and what is not. The constitution is a remarkably just system. You'll likely find that current laws you feel are unfair are actually already prohibited by a piece of paper 300 years old.
Correct. It lists the only two crimes warranting a conviction of treason as levying war against the United States or "giving... [the enemy] Aid and Comfort." I was surprised to find this out myself, recently.
I disagree. The ideal trial attempts to make the process equal for both parties in order to arrive at a just resolution.
Why should the defendant have more rights in a case simply because we find the crime in that instance more heinous? Justice based on emotion is not justice at all.
No, they will not. And you could go one further and say that my point is completely invalid because it would require bank account and social security numbers to be made public if used in court.
Frankly, I have no idea how to deal with those types of situations, but it needs to be pointed out that the system as it is is in violation of the sixth amendment.
trivilizing the loss of life in the US and overseas due to terrorism.
Their ideology aside, the "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan are repelling foreign invaders at this point and focusing their attacks on military targets.
Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not give the people the right to overthrow a corrupt government. They have always had that right.
The Constitution is a document of Rights and Responsibilities, not a Document to give you carte-blanch freedoms.
Wrong. The Constitution simply asserts Natural Law -- that some things are simply because they are. It does not say "The people can do X". It says "The government may NOT do X."
From the Declaration of Independenced, which shows how the creators of the Constitution thought: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Since when has "freedom of speech" been a "nearly absolute right"?
Since we let it. The first amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged. That law is still on the books. Therefore, any laws regarding the issues you mentioned are illegal.
You're assuming the one nation will last for any reasonable length of time. The success rate of a worldwide superpower eventually getting toppled is hovering at a pretty steady 100% so far.
Um, how exactly? Just start blowing up every geosynchronus sattelite in the entire Middle East? The people in charge of the military (big corporate) might not take kindly to that at all.
Hi, I work for the UK government. We're a little concerned about your use of the words "child" and "porn" in succession.
If you wouldn't mind coming down to the station to prove your use of this phrase was indeed innocent, we can forgo the unpleasant step of siezing all your assets until they can be checked for Compliance.
A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article... believing that it is likely to be so used... to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Computer Misuse Act
"Article" sounds pretty broad to me. It can mean object. I may be able to commit computer offense with a hammer, for chrissakes.
You are wrong because:
_x_ total logical disconnect.
Your arguement basically states that corruption is okay as long as it provides some benefit. That demonstrates an astounding level of audacity even the corporations haven't reached yet. Congratulations.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong because:
_x_ Reaching Bizarre Conclusions Without Any Information
_x_ Failure to Understand Why Good Rules Don't Have Exceptions
No people in their current form can survive on "principles." Guidelines for societal structure cannot be based on the current moral frenzy of the day. This would turn every single act of government (as if it weren't already) into the logical fallacy "appeal to emotion."
There's a reason we follow the law to the letter, as opposed to religion by interpretation. It's so all parties are absolutely clear on what is acceptable and what is not. The constitution is a remarkably just system. You'll likely find that current laws you feel are unfair are actually already prohibited by a piece of paper 300 years old.
Correct. It lists the only two crimes warranting a conviction of treason as levying war against the United States or "giving... [the enemy] Aid and Comfort." I was surprised to find this out myself, recently.
I disagree. The ideal trial attempts to make the process equal for both parties in order to arrive at a just resolution.
Why should the defendant have more rights in a case simply because we find the crime in that instance more heinous? Justice based on emotion is not justice at all.
No, they will not. And you could go one further and say that my point is completely invalid because it would require bank account and social security numbers to be made public if used in court.
Frankly, I have no idea how to deal with those types of situations, but it needs to be pointed out that the system as it is is in violation of the sixth amendment.
trivilizing the loss of life in the US and overseas due to terrorism.
Their ideology aside, the "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan are repelling foreign invaders at this point and focusing their attacks on military targets.
Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
You missed the point of the Constitution :(
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution did not give the people the right to overthrow a corrupt government. They have always had that right.
The Constitution is a document of Rights and Responsibilities, not a Document to give you carte-blanch freedoms.
Wrong. The Constitution simply asserts Natural Law -- that some things are simply because they are. It does not say "The people can do X". It says "The government may NOT do X."
From the Declaration of Independenced, which shows how the creators of the Constitution thought: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Waterboarding. It not just for brown people anymore!
Since when has "freedom of speech" been a "nearly absolute right"?
Since we let it. The first amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged. That law is still on the books. Therefore, any laws regarding the issues you mentioned are illegal.
Repeat after me:
1) Terrorism is an inconsiquential threat.
2) Every law passed since 9/11 is part of a grab for power.
3) Profit.
The Constitution trumps everything, the Attorney General included
Not the army. And at this point, we should be finding out exactly where they stand.
Send people who break the law to a lawless land? If they gave the skills and savvy to adapt, it might be just what they were hoping for.
apparently not :)
You're assuming the one nation will last for any reasonable length of time. The success rate of a worldwide superpower eventually getting toppled is hovering at a pretty steady 100% so far.
Funny, "offtopic" is the exact same response the government is giving to that man's grievances!
And that is why mankind still has wars.
Um, how exactly? Just start blowing up every geosynchronus sattelite in the entire Middle East? The people in charge of the military (big corporate) might not take kindly to that at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_warfare
Hi, I work for the UK government. We're a little concerned about your use of the words "child" and "porn" in succession.
If you wouldn't mind coming down to the station to prove your use of this phrase was indeed innocent, we can forgo the unpleasant step of siezing all your assets until they can be checked for Compliance.
Cheers,
your Elder Sibling.
A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article... believing that it is likely to be so used... to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Computer Misuse Act
"Article" sounds pretty broad to me. It can mean object. I may be able to commit computer offense with a hammer, for chrissakes.
You are wrong because:
_x_ total logical disconnect.
Your arguement basically states that corruption is okay as long as it provides some benefit. That demonstrates an astounding level of audacity even the corporations haven't reached yet. Congratulations.
Unfortunately, yes.
Think about it this way -- do the police and prosecutors get sent to PMITA prison if they put away an innocent man?
Depending how loose your defintition of "power button" is, your patent might be going a tad too far.
Just ask the ladies...
people have to take out patents and protect them agressively because otherwise someone else can come and demand a slice of their business
We used to call that "free enterprise."