"They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them."
Yeah, and lions eat antelopes. Not sure what your point is here, other than businesses will protect their interests. Not too insightful, seeing as it's been that way forever.
"Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
Listen, I understand your point, but you haven't made it here. All you've done is try to vilify MS and Sun, and that may get you karma, it doesn't explain why you think
"Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
The case is easy to make. Try doing it without the karma whoring.
"So what does Google know that I don't? I'm sure a lot, but I can't see them being right in this situation."
Because some blowhard on a web board clearly knows more about delivering content than Google and the reams of professionals they have.
The arrogance...
Sorry, there's nothing you can say that will convince me you know more than the people Google has, and why you would think otherwise is a testament to your own self-importance.
"Fujitec competitors Schindler and Thyssen have similar systems, but Fujitec says only its system incorporates artificial intelligence to learn the building's traffic flow.
"Our competitors are using destination-based systems, but they do not use predictive logic with historic data," Rennekamp said."
Is a meeting where the same topic is rehashed over and over. There are a lot of people who think it is necessary to explain things ad nauseum in as many different ways as they can. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it if there were a way to opt out once you get the point. This is one of the main sources of frustration at many of my meetings.
Listen we all see what happened. You were going to try to knock me down because you thought the definition I quoted wasn't accepted, and when I proved it was, you were stuck.
Next time make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about and you won't have to resort to arguing about the context of the argument with the person who started the argument in the first place.
"No, because it's so startlingly and blatantly obvious that Bush broke the law when he ordered/authorized these wiretaps."
Then you would help me out and direct me to a court case that says so. And if you're going to refer to the 72 Nixon case, be sure to read the section that talks about this
"The president claims two sources of legal authority: Congress' post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolution authorizing him to use force to repel terrorist threats, and his inherent constitutional power over military and foreign policy matters.
The standards that the court set for future cases in its 1972 ruling don't resolve either of those claims. The court did not anticipate a law such as the use-of-force resolution, although the justices rejected a similar argument by the Nixon administration that the existing wiretap law allowed the president to order surveillance for national security.
As for the constitutional issue, Powell's opinion specified that the court was considering only the president's authority over domestic security, and was expressing no view about foreign intelligence"
See that part? See how it says the issues in this case may not apply to the previous Nixon decision?
Or did you not know that? Or do you not care?
Why have you made up your mind, and ignored due process? Are you secretly a Constitutional schaolr, and even if you are SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO I QUOTED. Your opinion holds no more weight.
I want the court to make up its mind. Why? Because that's what it does. Because there are arguments here that I want to see made. Because I want to HEAR what everyone has to say before I make up MY mind.
Apparently you do it a different way.
"Yours are a good example."
Cute, but point it out smart guy. Being trite is pretty fun, but what have you proved apart from a quick wit? Point out the pro Bush parts, and I'll print them and eat them.
But "disagree with the lynch mob" doesn't equal "pro-murderer" and "disagree with you" doesn't equal "pro-Bush". Why you insist on thinking that way is an interesting question.
Because Merriam-Webster is where I got the definition from, and since thhat's a dictionary, and you're some guy on a web board who assumed he was right and isn't, I'll ignore you.
"Impeachment by the Congress defined very clearly, you can't substitute any old meaning in there when you're talking about a specific legal action."
And there's your mistake, I wasn't talking about the legal action. YOU assumed I was, and then tried to correct me.
If you thought I WAS talking about the legal definition, and not the vernacular, you should have ASKED first instead of assuming you knew what I meant.
Seriously, what's with the attitude? You were wrong, get over it.
Stop tryin to be such a fucking know-it-all, or at least make sure you're correct before you correct someone else.
is completely inconsistent with "innocent until proven guilty". How you fail to see that, or why you won't admit it, is pretty hard for me to understand.
YOU have no idea whether the taps were legal. In the absence of such a decision, he is INNOCENT until proven otherwise. It's called due process.
Do you understand now?
"what would you suggest we can do about it, if not apply public pressure"
Public pressure is not discarding the Constitution. You don't get to make up your mind about guilt or innocence until he's had his day(s) in court. Calling the wiretaps "illegal" is a determination that you DO NOT get to make. that's a really nice try at rationalization, but you know very well you can apply public pressure without making determinations of guilt or innocence.
"Impeachment is just bringing up charges, it does not imply guilt. It's like a trial."
I know, what made you think I didn't? I simply suggested that the law handle it, what gave you the idea that I was ignorant of the definiton of impeachment?
"So, if we want to legally determine whether POTUS is guilty, we've got to impeach him."
Tell that to the posters who have already decided that the wiretaps were "illegal". That was my point. There has been no decision of legality, yet you can find at least a dozen posts (easily) that use the phrase "illegal wiretaps".
I think you need to re-read my post, you seem to have completely missed the point.
"You know what? You are right. Maybe I am a little biased against Bush. I think you are biased for Bush, and giving him a pass on an obvious mistake."
Why, because I rail against the rampant hypocrisy of the other posters here on Slashdot?
Find a pro-Bush post. Do it. I'm waiting.
You won't, because I'm not, so stop using that tired tactic.
Isn't it just possible that I DESPISE people who rely on overstatement to make their cases, especially when it's not necessary.
Or maybe I'm just Pro-due process. Did you ever think of that? ANd then of cours, if you check a bit, I've stated in another post that I believe the wiretaps are illegal. So no pass there, how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
"Well, since we are at a disagreement, and there is no established case law, surely you are in support of an impeachment to decide whether or not the President broke the law?"
I'm in favor of whatever the law deems appropriate. If that's impeachment, then fine, I don't want a criminal for a President.
But "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the President too, or at leats it's supposed to. Apparently the other's screaming "illegal wiretap" have decided it doesn't.
"The remark was clearly intended to describe how we have become, like the soviets were, a police state."
Yes, and my remark was to draw attention to how ridiculous the comparison is. The very fact that he can make such a comparison is proof.
You see, people like you see flippant remarks about things like this as just some guy overstating his position for karma. Maybe.
But my point, and you can't deny this, is that many people actually believe such garbage. You appear to be one of those people.
"The only difference I ever saw between US Capitalism and Sovietism was in the US, the rich were powerful, and under the Soviets the powerful became rich."
Then you're an imbecile, and not worth talking to. Seriously.
My political agenda is to steer the discussion away from people like you, irrational reactionaries who see no difference between the Soviet Union and the US. You know, fringe kooks who ignore truth because lies get more karma.
And that list of "wars" was priceless. I haven't laughed at such an overt display of embellishment and distortion in a long time.
"That's funny... I must have missed the part where your right to say anything you want includes a guarantee of an audience."
Sure, as soon as you explain how what you said makes any sense.
You're free to take whatever measure you like, or none at all, to include or exclude yourself from spam lists. My measure took about 20 minutes, and the occasional maintenance. No one is forcing you to be an audience for anything.
See, what you want is convenience, and that is certainly NOT guaranteed in the Constitution.
"Oh please, like some parent stands a chance against all those marketers sloshing their emails, and their kids email boxes full of porn and other adult-only products. Come on let us be realistic..."
Ok, no unsupervised email access or television.
I've just eliminated 90% (it's a guess, fuck you if you don't like it) of the undesired marketing.
YOU need to be more realistic, and stop foisting the EASY part of parenting onto others.
I will not raise your kid, and I will not pay for others to do so. If you make me, I will sabotage the effort at every turn, and campaign as vigorously as I can against it at every opportunity.
The point is, if you genuinely think you can't control what your kid sees well enough, DON'T BE A FUCKING PARENT.
You just made excuses (lame ones) for all the shitty parents out there. Why would you want to help them like that?
"It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally"
Really? And it's not just as contemptuous to make up your mind about legality without case law to support you? (no, the 72 Nixon decision isn't conclusive and only partially applies because it didn't cover international suspects)
Or, does the fact that it's Bush make it ok for you to ignore the courts and make up your own mind?
You and all your kind screaming about "illegal" wiretaps are all hypocrites.
The wiretaps haven't been found to be illegal. NO THEY HAVE NOT. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
Now, the facts as they are seem to indicate that the taps were illegal, but that's not my point.
My point is, if you've been screaming about "illegal" wiretaps, why is it that you've excluded the courts in your decision making?
Why is it that YOU het to determine what is illegal, and crow your head off about it, in absence of a court decision?
Isn't that what Bush is in trouble for here, failing to secure court approval?
So I guess it's ok to dismiss the legal process when it's Bush you're ranting against, but everyone else gets the protection of due process.
Like I said, hypocrites.
And for a teaser, read this
"Throughout his administration -- and especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- Bush has been aggressive in asserting executive powers. And part of his explanation for approving the spying program fits this pattern.
Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.
But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.
In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed.
The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch."
He said Nixon's lawyer should have obtained a search warrant from a judge before the government tapped the telephones of the alleged plotters.
"We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the president's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the 4th Amendment," Powell said.
But in the decision, Powell said the court was not ruling on the "president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
See that? Save your "The Supreme Court said..." because the decision you'll try to refer to wasn't specific to this case.
Yeah, the wiretaps were probably illegal. But you don't get to circumvent the court any more than Bush does.
Then either the article's author is lying (and writing this story and putting your name to it is a pretty god damned dumb thing to do if one is lying) or the anonymous guy on slashdot is.
The answer is yes, most of the population of readers here don't give a shit about submitters, and generally hate whiny fucks who make a point of crybabying about this issue.
Do you understand that? WE DO NOT CARE, STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD WITH THIS IDIOTIC TRIPE.
That "ton" of replies you mentioned was mostly the same two dozen or so bitches complaining. Calling the whiniest 3% a "ton" is stretching it. More like "a few isolated pricks".
Did you miss THAT?
I am so tired of people like you and this fucking stupid argument.
"The Un-American Activities Committee didn't kill people, but that is about the best thing that can be said for the organization and the org that became the FBI of that time. Hoover was the US Hilter."
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
The house Un-American Activities Committe was an organization that got out of control and was reigned in by the very government you equate to China's and Nazi Germany's.
That's the point your missing, and will ignore because your world view would be crippled. The US government makes mistakes, but as was stated, there are mechanisms for correcting those mistakes.
And Hitler? Come on, don't be such a fucking idiot.
"Look at the US history; we weren't that much better than the Germans. We had camps of Japanese-Americans. Ours just weren't "death" camps. They could have easily turned that way though."
And said before, those grievances were righted. Comparing the US internment camps with Nazi death camps is the worst kind of moronic hyperbole.
But since that's the entire body of your work, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on half truth and hyperbole, because the facts simply don't support you.
It must be nice for you to mold history to your delusions. I wish I could ignore the truth for stupid political reasons like you do, but I'm not an imbecile, so you have what it takes and I don't.
In cases like this there are always individuals that forget what's going on around them long enough to prove themselves idiots.
It always struck me as funny how often the same people bitching about American imperialism conveniently forget their previous arguments when it comes to the internet in China.
Sorry hypocrites, you can't have it both ways. China is a sovereign state, so while you may disagree, YOU have no right sticking your nose in their business, or spreading so-called "American values".
And you can thank the left for that particular argument, because I stole it straight from an anti-war in Iraq website.
"You say it's not censorship because he still can write whatever he wants somewhere else ; necessarily you think that censorship is censorship only when one can't absolutely write anywhere anything at anytime."
If you'd like to point to where I stated that, I'll discuss it with you. Please don't tell me what I think when I haven't stated it, because you obviously have more serious concerns related to how you think, or rather, don't.
But since I didn't say anything of the kind, why do you find the need to resort to straw men?
The school did NOTHING that in any way inhibited his ability to publish. His speech wasn't hindered in ANY way.
"Guess what ? You'll never have that censorship, because not even governments can enforce that without throwing somebody into jail..and even so I have no doubt somebody managed to write from jail.
So many know that the first expression of censorship is MENACING obliquely to take away something from you...striking you for not respecting the order to remain silent ; we know you'll talk but you'll have to pay a price for it ; good luck demonstrating this is censorship..it doesn't fit the definition, but the effect is that of self censorship:) eheheh subtle enough"
This is just stupid. Did the school do anything that in ANY way hindered this guy's speech? No. Why you think differently is either a failure of your education or your thought processes. Either way, your opinion isn't indicative of the law, or reality in general.
And giving someone consequences for their speech isn't censorship either, and it's moronic to suggest otherwise as you did.
The blog wasn't school related, so it didn't have to come down.
It worries me that people like you who are so clearly ignorant of the law decide to open their yaps and comment on it.
"Responsible of saying that some unnamed person who does teach in a particular way is that and that ? Responsible for spreading rumors, mocking and ridiculing in a oblique way that can be understood ONLY by people who ALREADY know the person and can evalute firsthand ?
That's called SATIRE and obviously those who don't know what satire is and how it works respond vehemently to it and appeal to responsability they often selectively forget."
No again, moron. That's called breach of contract, which is the only applicable law because... wait for it...
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.
Re-read that, then throw yourself down some stairs (hopefully to knock loose a few working brain cells) then come back and explain why you are wrong.
Hint- Marquette is a private entity.
Oh, and it's not satire by the Supreme Court's definition, which you should have looked up before making an idiot of yourself. I'm sure you didn't realize there was a definition of satire, because the your experience with this topic consists of smoke sessions in your dorm with your other well meaning, but factually deficient friends and associates. They were idiots too, and wrong just like you are.
Seriously, why do people like you even bother to post when you're so obviously incapable of actually reading and UNDERSTANDING the law?
"I really don't think "the signatory agrees to never say or do anything we disagree with or find objectionable, forever and ever" is really an actionable contractual clause."
And I don't think resorting to absurd hyperbolic statements is really a good way to discuss this.
Slashdot Mirror
"They are just using their power and influence to dictate policies that favor them."
Yeah, and lions eat antelopes. Not sure what your point is here, other than businesses will protect their interests. Not too insightful, seeing as it's been that way forever.
"Sure it would encourage investment....from large companies like MS and Sun. They of course will reap most of the benefits aswell. Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
Listen, I understand your point, but you haven't made it here. All you've done is try to vilify MS and Sun, and that may get you karma, it doesn't explain why you think
"Software patents are a bad idea and stifle creativity."
The case is easy to make. Try doing it without the karma whoring.
"So what does Google know that I don't? I'm sure a lot, but I can't see them being right in this situation."
Because some blowhard on a web board clearly knows more about delivering content than Google and the reams of professionals they have.
The arrogance...
Sorry, there's nothing you can say that will convince me you know more than the people Google has, and why you would think otherwise is a testament to your own self-importance.
"Fujitec competitors Schindler and Thyssen have similar systems, but Fujitec says only its system incorporates artificial intelligence to learn the building's traffic flow.
"Our competitors are using destination-based systems, but they do not use predictive logic with historic data," Rennekamp said."
Is a meeting where the same topic is rehashed over and over. There are a lot of people who think it is necessary to explain things ad nauseum in as many different ways as they can. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it if there were a way to opt out once you get the point. This is one of the main sources of frustration at many of my meetings.
Just like the definition I quoted.
God you're a pompus twit.
Listen we all see what happened. You were going to try to knock me down because you thought the definition I quoted wasn't accepted, and when I proved it was, you were stuck.
Next time make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about and you won't have to resort to arguing about the context of the argument with the person who started the argument in the first place.
"No, because it's so startlingly and blatantly obvious that Bush broke the law when he ordered/authorized these wiretaps."
Then you would help me out and direct me to a court case that says so. And if you're going to refer to the 72 Nixon case, be sure to read the section that talks about this
"The president claims two sources of legal authority: Congress' post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolution authorizing him to use force to repel terrorist threats, and his inherent constitutional power over military and foreign policy matters.
The standards that the court set for future cases in its 1972 ruling don't resolve either of those claims. The court did not anticipate a law such as the use-of-force resolution, although the justices rejected a similar argument by the Nixon administration that the existing wiretap law allowed the president to order surveillance for national security.
As for the constitutional issue, Powell's opinion specified that the court was considering only the president's authority over domestic security, and was expressing no view about foreign intelligence"
See that part? See how it says the issues in this case may not apply to the previous Nixon decision?
Or did you not know that? Or do you not care?
Why have you made up your mind, and ignored due process? Are you secretly a Constitutional schaolr, and even if you are SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO I QUOTED. Your opinion holds no more weight.
I want the court to make up its mind. Why? Because that's what it does. Because there are arguments here that I want to see made. Because I want to HEAR what everyone has to say before I make up MY mind.
Apparently you do it a different way.
"Yours are a good example."
Cute, but point it out smart guy. Being trite is pretty fun, but what have you proved apart from a quick wit? Point out the pro Bush parts, and I'll print them and eat them.
But "disagree with the lynch mob" doesn't equal "pro-murderer" and "disagree with you" doesn't equal "pro-Bush". Why you insist on thinking that way is an interesting question.
"Are you serious? You do realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to a person's innocence/guilt in the eyes of the law, right?"
Well since the thread has been about the legality of Bush's actions, what did you think I meant, and why are you discussing anything else?
His actions aren't illegal, and you have no court decision that says otherwise.
If you were discussing something else tha the law, I wasn't, so don't.
Because Merriam-Webster is where I got the definition from, and since thhat's a dictionary, and you're some guy on a web board who assumed he was right and isn't, I'll ignore you.
"Impeachment by the Congress defined very clearly, you can't substitute any old meaning in there when you're talking about a specific legal action."
And there's your mistake, I wasn't talking about the legal action. YOU assumed I was, and then tried to correct me.
If you thought I WAS talking about the legal definition, and not the vernacular, you should have ASKED first instead of assuming you knew what I meant.
Seriously, what's with the attitude? You were wrong, get over it.
Stop tryin to be such a fucking know-it-all, or at least make sure you're correct before you correct someone else.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER, look it up.
"Saying I think this guy did something illegal,"
is completely inconsistent with "innocent until proven guilty". How you fail to see that, or why you won't admit it, is pretty hard for me to understand.
YOU have no idea whether the taps were legal. In the absence of such a decision, he is INNOCENT until proven otherwise. It's called due process.
Do you understand now?
"what would you suggest we can do about it, if not apply public pressure"
Public pressure is not discarding the Constitution. You don't get to make up your mind about guilt or innocence until he's had his day(s) in court. Calling the wiretaps "illegal" is a determination that you DO NOT get to make. that's a really nice try at rationalization, but you know very well you can apply public pressure without making determinations of guilt or innocence.
Stop relying on lazy thinking.
"You're equating impeachment with criminality, which are not nearly the same thing."
I get it. You simply misunderstood my post.
I was using the OTHER definiton of impeachment, the one that reads
"Main Entry: 1impeach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct"
If prez is criminal then impeach his ass. The usage is fine, even if you're not familiar with it.
"Impeachment is just bringing up charges, it does not imply guilt. It's like a trial."
I know, what made you think I didn't? I simply suggested that the law handle it, what gave you the idea that I was ignorant of the definiton of impeachment?
"So, if we want to legally determine whether POTUS is guilty, we've got to impeach him."
Tell that to the posters who have already decided that the wiretaps were "illegal". That was my point. There has been no decision of legality, yet you can find at least a dozen posts (easily) that use the phrase "illegal wiretaps".
I think you need to re-read my post, you seem to have completely missed the point.
I asked myself those questions.
But then I started laughing too hard because the questions were so dumb.
"You know what? You are right. Maybe I am a little biased against Bush. I think you are biased for Bush, and giving him a pass on an obvious mistake."
Why, because I rail against the rampant hypocrisy of the other posters here on Slashdot?
Find a pro-Bush post. Do it. I'm waiting.
You won't, because I'm not, so stop using that tired tactic.
Isn't it just possible that I DESPISE people who rely on overstatement to make their cases, especially when it's not necessary.
Or maybe I'm just Pro-due process. Did you ever think of that? ANd then of cours, if you check a bit, I've stated in another post that I believe the wiretaps are illegal. So no pass there, how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
"Well, since we are at a disagreement, and there is no established case law, surely you are in support of an impeachment to decide whether or not the President broke the law?"
I'm in favor of whatever the law deems appropriate. If that's impeachment, then fine, I don't want a criminal for a President.
But "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the President too, or at leats it's supposed to. Apparently the other's screaming "illegal wiretap" have decided it doesn't.
"The remark was clearly intended to describe how we have become, like the soviets were, a police state."
Yes, and my remark was to draw attention to how ridiculous the comparison is. The very fact that he can make such a comparison is proof.
You see, people like you see flippant remarks about things like this as just some guy overstating his position for karma. Maybe.
But my point, and you can't deny this, is that many people actually believe such garbage. You appear to be one of those people.
"The only difference I ever saw between US Capitalism and Sovietism was in the US, the rich were powerful, and under the Soviets the powerful became rich."
Then you're an imbecile, and not worth talking to. Seriously.
My political agenda is to steer the discussion away from people like you, irrational reactionaries who see no difference between the Soviet Union and the US. You know, fringe kooks who ignore truth because lies get more karma.
And that list of "wars" was priceless. I haven't laughed at such an overt display of embellishment and distortion in a long time.
"That's funny... I must have missed the part where your right to say anything you want includes a guarantee of an audience."
Sure, as soon as you explain how what you said makes any sense.
You're free to take whatever measure you like, or none at all, to include or exclude yourself from spam lists. My measure took about 20 minutes, and the occasional maintenance. No one is forcing you to be an audience for anything.
See, what you want is convenience, and that is certainly NOT guaranteed in the Constitution.
"Oh please, like some parent stands a chance against all those marketers sloshing their emails, and their kids email boxes full of porn and other adult-only products. Come on let us be realistic..."
Ok, no unsupervised email access or television.
I've just eliminated 90% (it's a guess, fuck you if you don't like it) of the undesired marketing.
YOU need to be more realistic, and stop foisting the EASY part of parenting onto others.
I will not raise your kid, and I will not pay for others to do so. If you make me, I will sabotage the effort at every turn, and campaign as vigorously as I can against it at every opportunity.
The point is, if you genuinely think you can't control what your kid sees well enough, DON'T BE A FUCKING PARENT.
You just made excuses (lame ones) for all the shitty parents out there. Why would you want to help them like that?
"It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally"
Really? And it's not just as contemptuous to make up your mind about legality without case law to support you? (no, the 72 Nixon decision isn't conclusive and only partially applies because it didn't cover international suspects)
Or, does the fact that it's Bush make it ok for you to ignore the courts and make up your own mind?
You and all your kind screaming about "illegal" wiretaps are all hypocrites.
The wiretaps haven't been found to be illegal. NO THEY HAVE NOT. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
Now, the facts as they are seem to indicate that the taps were illegal, but that's not my point.
My point is, if you've been screaming about "illegal" wiretaps, why is it that you've excluded the courts in your decision making?
Why is it that YOU het to determine what is illegal, and crow your head off about it, in absence of a court decision?
Isn't that what Bush is in trouble for here, failing to secure court approval?
So I guess it's ok to dismiss the legal process when it's Bush you're ranting against, but everyone else gets the protection of due process.
Like I said, hypocrites.
And for a teaser, read this
"Throughout his administration -- and especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- Bush has been aggressive in asserting executive powers. And part of his explanation for approving the spying program fits this pattern.
Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.
But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.
In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed.
The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch."
He said Nixon's lawyer should have obtained a search warrant from a judge before the government tapped the telephones of the alleged plotters.
"We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the president's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the 4th Amendment," Powell said.
But in the decision, Powell said the court was not ruling on the "president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
See that? Save your "The Supreme Court said..." because the decision you'll try to refer to wasn't specific to this case.
Yeah, the wiretaps were probably illegal. But you don't get to circumvent the court any more than Bush does.
And using them in ridiculous comparisons to US policy is sad.
But, why use logic and reasonwhen you can rely on hyperbole and loaded language?
Then either the article's author is lying (and writing this story and putting your name to it is a pretty god damned dumb thing to do if one is lying) or the anonymous guy on slashdot is.
Yeah, it must be the author...
You asked
"Am I missing something?"
The answer is yes, most of the population of readers here don't give a shit about submitters, and generally hate whiny fucks who make a point of crybabying about this issue.
Do you understand that? WE DO NOT CARE, STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD WITH THIS IDIOTIC TRIPE.
That "ton" of replies you mentioned was mostly the same two dozen or so bitches complaining. Calling the whiniest 3% a "ton" is stretching it. More like "a few isolated pricks".
Did you miss THAT?
I am so tired of people like you and this fucking stupid argument.
"The Un-American Activities Committee didn't kill people, but that is about the best thing that can be said for the organization and the org that became the FBI of that time. Hoover was the US Hilter."
This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
The house Un-American Activities Committe was an organization that got out of control and was reigned in by the very government you equate to China's and Nazi Germany's.
That's the point your missing, and will ignore because your world view would be crippled. The US government makes mistakes, but as was stated, there are mechanisms for correcting those mistakes.
And Hitler? Come on, don't be such a fucking idiot.
"Look at the US history; we weren't that much better than the Germans. We had camps of Japanese-Americans. Ours just weren't "death" camps. They could have easily turned that way though."
And said before, those grievances were righted. Comparing the US internment camps with Nazi death camps is the worst kind of moronic hyperbole.
But since that's the entire body of your work, it doesn't surprise me that you rely on half truth and hyperbole, because the facts simply don't support you.
It must be nice for you to mold history to your delusions. I wish I could ignore the truth for stupid political reasons like you do, but I'm not an imbecile, so you have what it takes and I don't.
In cases like this there are always individuals that forget what's going on around them long enough to prove themselves idiots.
It always struck me as funny how often the same people bitching about American imperialism conveniently forget their previous arguments when it comes to the internet in China.
Sorry hypocrites, you can't have it both ways. China is a sovereign state, so while you may disagree, YOU have no right sticking your nose in their business, or spreading so-called "American values".
And you can thank the left for that particular argument, because I stole it straight from an anti-war in Iraq website.
"You say it's not censorship because he still can write whatever he wants somewhere else ; necessarily you think that censorship is censorship only when one can't absolutely write anywhere anything at anytime."
If you'd like to point to where I stated that, I'll discuss it with you. Please don't tell me what I think when I haven't stated it, because you obviously have more serious concerns related to how you think, or rather, don't.
But since I didn't say anything of the kind, why do you find the need to resort to straw men?
The school did NOTHING that in any way inhibited his ability to publish. His speech wasn't hindered in ANY way.
"Guess what ? You'll never have that censorship, because not even governments can enforce that without throwing somebody into jail
So many know that the first expression of censorship is MENACING obliquely to take away something from you...striking you for not respecting the order to remain silent ; we know you'll talk but you'll have to pay a price for it ; good luck demonstrating this is censorship..it doesn't fit the definition, but the effect is that of self censorship
This is just stupid. Did the school do anything that in ANY way hindered this guy's speech? No. Why you think differently is either a failure of your education or your thought processes. Either way, your opinion isn't indicative of the law, or reality in general.
And giving someone consequences for their speech isn't censorship either, and it's moronic to suggest otherwise as you did.
The blog wasn't school related, so it didn't have to come down.
It worries me that people like you who are so clearly ignorant of the law decide to open their yaps and comment on it.
"Responsible of saying that some unnamed person who does teach in a particular way is that and that ? Responsible for spreading rumors, mocking and ridiculing in a oblique way that can be understood ONLY by people who ALREADY know the person and can evalute firsthand ?
That's called SATIRE and obviously those who don't know what satire is and how it works respond vehemently to it and appeal to responsability they often selectively forget."
No again, moron. That's called breach of contract, which is the only applicable law because... wait for it...
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES.
Re-read that, then throw yourself down some stairs (hopefully to knock loose a few working brain cells) then come back and explain why you are wrong.
Hint- Marquette is a private entity.
Oh, and it's not satire by the Supreme Court's definition, which you should have looked up before making an idiot of yourself. I'm sure you didn't realize there was a definition of satire, because the your experience with this topic consists of smoke sessions in your dorm with your other well meaning, but factually deficient friends and associates. They were idiots too, and wrong just like you are.
Seriously, why do people like you even bother to post when you're so obviously incapable of actually reading and UNDERSTANDING the law?
"I really don't think "the signatory agrees to never say or do anything we disagree with or find objectionable, forever and ever" is really an actionable contractual clause."
And I don't think resorting to absurd hyperbolic statements is really a good way to discuss this.
Try again when your argument isn't so ridiculous.