to hell with free speech

[Javelin]

An interesting copy and paste but not an answer to your assertion.

Please stick to what you have laid out.

Thank you for the compliment.  If you believe I copied and pasted that then perhaps I should think more of myself.

As to the issue at hand and the lurkers issues which he possess, if the answer does not stand out to either of you at this point then my point is proven in that the cause is already lost.  If what I have seen of late is a true representation of the conservative base then perhaps the other side which is arming itself would be the better camp to join.  For one thing is certain, at this rate we will be in civil war.

Amazing that went completely over both of your heads and you call yourselves conservatives, perhaps anarchists would be more fitting to your title.

I am done with this thread, the only fact you can recognize is one that suits your purpose for argument especially in the case of lurker.  Argumentative people only seek the argument, not a solution.  I do not have that much time to waste on him.

[Carl]

Thank you for the compliment.  If you believe I copied and pasted that then perhaps I should think more of myself.

As to the issue at hand and the lurkers issues which he possess, if the answer does not stand out to either of you at this point then my point is proven in that the cause is already lost.  If what I have seen of late is a true representation of the conservative base then perhaps the other side which is arming itself would be the better camp to join.  For one thing is certain, at this rate we will be in civil war.

Amazing that went completely over both of your heads and you call yourselves conservatives, perhaps anarchists would be more fitting to your title.

I am done with this thread, the only fact you can recognize is one that suits your purpose for argument especially in the case of lurker.  Argumentative people only seek the argument, not a solution.  I do not have that much time to waste on him.

Sorry that you are unable to answer for your own assertions but so be it.

Have a nice day.

[formerlurker]

The 2009 Official Catholic Directory has released new statistics on the Catholic population. The directory shows that there are 68.1 million Catholics in the United States, an increase of about one million from the previous year which maintains Catholics as 22 percent of the U.S. population.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_statistics_show_u.s._catholics_increase_in_numbers/

Pew's research per state (although I laugh at MA's results as it has a very large concentration of Catholics):

http://pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx

[formerlurker]

Thank you for the compliment.  If you believe I copied and pasted that then perhaps I should think more of myself.

As to the issue at hand and the lurkers issues which he possess, if the answer does not stand out to either of you at this point then my point is proven in that the cause is already lost.  If what I have seen of late is a true representation of the conservative base then perhaps the other side which is arming itself would be the better camp to join.  For one thing is certain, at this rate we will be in civil war.

Amazing that went completely over both of your heads and you call yourselves conservatives, perhaps anarchists would be more fitting to your title.

I am done with this thread, the only fact you can recognize is one that suits your purpose for argument especially in the case of lurker.  Argumentative people only seek the argument, not a solution.  I do not have that much time to waste on him.

You waste a lot of time on a nonsense view of the world, that is very limited it seems.   I picked God being erased as it is the premise of your rant -- back to morals, etc.    

The point of my question to you going right over your head as I knew it would.

God has not been erased.   Religion is alive and well in the United States.    The sensationalism surrounding the media pushing Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas does not signal armageddon (nor did it erase the meaning of the holiday from the minds and homes of Christians).  

Politics is the same as it was in the days our country was founded, and it will never change.

[rich_t]

AND what legislation provides them with the "ability"...... (again, please provide quote with language).

Seems it went right over your head.

Find a dictionary and look up the word "ability"

[formerlurker]

Seems it went right over your head.

Find a dictionary and look up the word "ability"

Really unbelievable that you actually typed that out.

If I said it once, I have said it a million times.... lewrockwell.com will rot your brain kids.   Just say no.

[rich_t]

Really unbelievable that you actually typed that out.

If I said it once, I have said it a million times.... lewrockwell.com will rot your brain kids.   Just say no.

Do not confuse the governments ability to do something with their legal authority to do it.  If you don't understand the difference between the government's ability and their legal authority to do something, then I feel sorry for you.

[formerlurker]

Do not confuse the governments ability to do something with their legal authority to do it.  If you don't understand the difference between the government's ability and their legal authority to do something, then I feel sorry for you.

Wow, really?   Your commentary has become on par with the DU.   

If they have no legal authority, they have no "ability."  Why don't you choke on that for a while.   I say choke as reality appears to be hard for you to swallow.   

[bkg]

Wow, really?   Your commentary has become on par with the DU.   

If they have no legal authority, they have no "ability."  Why don't you choke on that for a while.   I say choke as reality appears to be hard for you to swallow.   

Funny... they just mandated health insurance for all.. They don't have the "legal authority" but they just used that ability.

You seem to be ignoring current events in your view of how gov't works.

[rich_t]

Wow, really?   Your commentary has become on par with the DU.    

If they have no legal authority, they have no "ability."  Why don't you choke on that for a while.   I say choke as reality appears to be hard for you to swallow.  

I see....  You never looked up the definition of the word "ability"

You don't understand the difference and therefore opt to start insulting.  Perhaps I should have used the word "capacity" or "capability" instead of "ability" but I suspect you might not like it that way either.

So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?  

Notice that I'm not the one using insults.  I'll leave that to you if it's all you've got to go on.  It's not my job to convince you of anything here, so I'll just leave it at that.

[rich_t]

Funny... they just mandated health insurance for all.. They don't have the "legal authority" but they just used that ability.

You seem to be ignoring current events in your view of how gov't works.

Not to mention past events.

It can be argued that Lincoln lacked the "legal authority" to suspend Habeus Corpus, but he did it anyway; or so they taught us in American History class when I was in high school.

[NHSparky]

Funny... they just mandated health insurance for all.. They don't have the "legal authority" but they just used that ability.

You seem to be ignoring current events in your view of how gov't works.

And when the court challenges wind their way through the courts, and the GOP takes over the House and Senate in November, and the White House in 2012, then "healthcare reform" is as good as gone.

[rich_t]

And when the court challenges wind their way through the courts, and the GOP takes over the House and Senate in November, and the White House in 2012, then "healthcare reform" is as good as gone.

I hope you are right.  But I will remain sceptical about that. 

[formerlurker]

Funny... they just mandated health insurance for all.. They don't have the "legal authority" but they just used that ability.

You seem to be ignoring current events in your view of how gov't works.

Awe, but that wasn't what he was saying is it?   They already have the ability to do it......

Nice spin though.

The Constitution gives them the "ability" by the way.   Just thought I would throw that out there.   It's kind of how government works. 

[bkg]

And when the court challenges wind their way through the courts, and the GOP takes over the House and Senate in November, and the White House in 2012, then "healthcare reform" is as good as gone.

People thought that would happen with SS as well... never did.

You're counting your chickens before they hatch.

[formerlurker]

I see....  You never looked up the definition of the word "ability"

You don't understand the difference and therefore opt to start insulting.  Perhaps I should have used the word "capacity" or "capability" instead of "ability" but I suspect you might not like it that way either.

So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?  

Notice that I'm not the one using insults.  I'll leave that to you if it's all you've got to go on.  It's not my job to convince you of anything here, so I'll just leave it at that.

Wow, are you spinning a comment you couldn't back up.   For the record I know the difference between ability and authority (thanks for the offer to feel sorry for me, that's not an insult is it?).     The government does not have the authority to seize the internet.  Lieberman is floating a bill to Congress trying to get that authority, but it won't pass.  Congress has the "ability" to pass laws, and have had that authority since the Constitution was ratified.     Let's look at the progression of posts here shall we?  

OP discusses monitoring the internet, not free speech as the poster indicated.   This has been included in the Patriot Act for some time.   Apples and oranges.    You come on to the thread with this:

My post to OP:

Quote from: formerlurker on June 20, 2010, 06:42:47 am
??

Where are they inhibiting, and this is already in the Patriot Act.   This is not the new legislation they are proposing where they actually can take over the internet.  

Your reply:

The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

Which leads the casual observer to question what in the hell are you talking about -- they had the ability?  by whose authority.    

We play the back and forth dance of you being obtuse and requesting I pull out my dictionary as you meant the Feds has had the ability to pass a law.... yada yada yada, are you kidding right now?

Please by all means allow to respond to your post then had I known this was your intent in posting.

Your post:

The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

My reply:

No sh%t Sherlock.   However, they haven't exercised their "ability" to seize the internet (by passing legislation) yet have they?  


 
 

[Carl]

This is kind of veering off into a tangent based a little bit on semantics and some on simply hypothetical what ifs?

I would say the government as long as they have the force of the military behind them have the "ability" to do whatever it pleases or at least to attempt to.
That is not the same as having a legal authority to do it nor does it mean that a government will do an extra constitutional action and not be legally challenged on it thus "getting away" with it.

At this point it becomes a discussion of how far might a government go,what would be the reaction of the population,would the military revolt...
No one knows so all is speculation.

When was the Louisiana purchase...early 1800s and it was a matter of debate if I was taught correctly that there was no provision for the United States to have done that.
I would have to dig deeper to see if it was challenged or just accepted.
Not sure we would argue that that was a poor decision to have been made so it can cut both ways.
If one wants to assume that a government is dark and rouge then all kinds of stuff can be brought up...think back to how stupid we all thought the DUmmies were to believe that President Bush was going to suspend or cancel elections and so on.

[bkg]

This is kind of veering off into a tangent based a little bit on semantics and some on simply hypothetical what ifs?

I would say the government as long as they have the force of the military behind them have the "ability" to do whatever it pleases or at least to attempt to.
That is not the same as having a legal authority to do it nor does it mean that a government will do an extra constitutional action and not be legally challenged on it thus "getting away" with it.

At this point it becomes a discussion of how far might a government go,what would be the reaction of the population,would the military revolt...
No one knows so all is speculation.

When was the Louisiana purchase...early 1800s and it was a matter of debate if I was taught correctly that there was no provision for the United States to have done that.
I would have to dig deeper to see if it was challenged or just accepted.
Not sure we would argue that that was a poor decision to have been made so it can cut both ways.
If one wants to assume that a government is dark and rouge then all kinds of stuff can be brought up...think back to how stupid we all thought the DUmmies were to believe that President Bush was going to suspend or cancel elections and so on.

Good points here.

[formerlurker]

Not to mention past events.

It can be argued that Lincoln lacked the "legal authority" to suspend Habeus Corpus, but he did it anyway; or so they taught us in American History class when I was in high school.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

[rich_t]

OK...

This is for the lazy and/or stubborn and/or those that just refuse to "get it", whom I need NOT name:

a·bil·i·ty   /əˈbɪlɪti/  Show Spelled[uh-bil-i-tee]  
–noun, plural -ties.  

1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.

[emphasis added.]

I guess some folks think that the goverment lacks the physical power or capacity to take over the internet as it currently exists in the US.

I for one know they do.  Their legal authority to do so is not an issue, as the US government has proven time and time and time again that they will attempt and actually do things that they have no legal (read constitutional) authority to do.

From 2000-2009 I worked for one of the largest ISP providers in the world as a network engineer.  I know what type of s/w and h/w upgrades that the FED mandated be installed.  I know that these upgrades provide the federal government the "ability", "capability" and/or "capacity to do more than merely just monitor.

I am not at liberty to discuss the details due to certain confidentiality agreements that are still legally binding. (which I probably just stretched at bit).

[bkg]

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

NOW who is arguing theory vs. practice????

[formerlurker]

OK...

This is for the lazy and/or stubborn and/or those that just refuse to "get it", whom I need NOT name:

a·bil·i·ty   /əˈbɪlɪti/  Show Spelled[uh-bil-i-tee]  
–noun, plural -ties.  

1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.

[emphasis added.]

I guess some folks think that the goverment lacks the physical power or capacity to take over the internet as it currently exists in the US.

I for one know they do.  Their legal authority to do so is not an issue, as the US government has proven time and time and time again that they will attempt and actually do things that they have no legal (read constitutional) authority to do.

From 2000-2009 I worked for one of the largest ISP providers in the world as a network engineer.  I know what type of s/w and h/w upgrades that the FED mandated be installed.  I know that these upgrades provide the federal government the "ability", "capability" and/or "capacity to do more than merely just monitor.

I am not at liberty to discuss the details due to certain confidentiality agreements that are still legally binding. (which I probably just stretched at bit).

Honestly, what is your DU name?

Kindly read Carl's post.  Thanks. 

[formerlurker]

NOW who is arguing theory vs. practice????

I am not arguing it at all.   

[bkg]

I am not arguing it at all.   

That's all you're arguing, dude.

Quoting what they are supposed to have the right to do has nothing - NOTHING - to do with what they decide to do. Standing up and saying "COTUS says this, therefore that's how it works" means nothing (sadly. ).... How many examples do you need?

[rich_t]

Honestly, what is your DU name?
 

Really is that the best you can do in defense of your opinion?  Result to insults and accuse others of being a DU member merely because you don't like what they are saying?