to hell with free speech

[formerlurker]

You asked for examples - yet again - and I provided them - yet again - and you ignore them - yet again.

I see a pattern forming.  

Actually cheerleader, your friend was talking about "physical ability" as he has inside info that the government can take over the internet.  

Nice try being his defender though.

I was talking about unilateral action that is absent of authority -- whether you agree with that authority or not is not relevant.    There are safeguards to challenge the constitutionality of the authority.

Mere physical ability to act without legislation is not something routinely done by the government.    Again for those in the cheap seats -- THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE ABILITY TO PASS LEGISLATION.  ALWAYS.    

There is a definite pattern here.  

[formerlurker]

Sparky - neither Rich nor I have argued that anyone WILL do anything.

FL has gotten on her soapbox about the "ability" - which is the ONLY thing where I've pointed out she (and you, frankly) are incorrect. No one is sitting here iwth a crystal ball stating what WILL happen. Only what has happened... and since past actions are the best predicter of future, some of us do have a strong cynicism about what this and/or future administrations may do.

You need to group with your homie then as he is the one who posted this:

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

Sparky gave an example, as did Carl as to why this would not happen.  Hawkgirl came into the thread and was confused as to what the hell you were saying also.  Perhaps they are caught up in the soapbox too?   

[bkg]

Actually cheerleader, your friend was talking about "physical ability" as he has inside info that the government can take over the internet.  

WTF? now you're talking about "physical ability?"   

BTW - I'd like to know what line of business you are in... because now you're getting into a conversation that I think will prove WAY over your head - internet security.

[Hawkgirl]

formerlurker is an attorney...

 

[bkg]

You need to group with your homie then as he is the one who posted this:

Sparky gave an example, as did Carl as to why this would not happen.  Hawkgirl came into the thread and was confused as to what the hell you were saying also.  Perhaps they are caught up in the soapbox too?   

And I gave examples of where they abuse authority every day - hence the ability. You're focused on the one word - "physical" and have chosen to ignore real life examples where they ignore what they have the "legal" authority to do and do it anyway... Only - ONLY - when someone convinces SCOTUS to hear a challenge is the ability to do something actually called into question and reviewed.

[bkg]

formerlurker is an attorney...

That explains a lot... thanks.

[formerlurker]

WTF? now you're talking about "physical ability?"   

I am glad that you find that amusing because it is actually hysterical.   Proof again you have not read this thread.   Why don't you actually try reading rich_t's posts before commenting/defending again.

BTW - I'd like to know what line of business you are in... because now you're getting into a conversation that I think will prove WAY over your head - internet security.

Paralegal.   Way over my head?   how you do flatter yourself.   

[formerlurker]

And I gave examples of where they abuse authority every day - hence the ability. You're focused on the one word - "physical" and have chosen to ignore real life examples where they ignore what they have the "legal" authority to do and do it anyway... Only - ONLY - when someone convinces SCOTUS to hear a challenge is the ability to do something actually called into question and reviewed.

No you didn't.   You don't understand the content of the thread.  Have no idea what your pal is asserting, and here you are yet once again trying to post something you believe is germane.   It is not.   Read the thread. 

[formerlurker]

formerlurker is an attorney...

 

Paralegal.   

[bkg]

No you didn't.   You don't understand the content of the thread.  Have no idea what your pal is asserting, and here you are yet once again trying to post something you believe is germane.   It is not.   Read the thread. 

You went sideways after post 5 and 9. Every since then you have been more interested in winning than taking a single look at any of the items presented.

I've offered you plenty of examples where the gov't doesn't have the technical legal right, per COTUS, but have ignored and does so anyway, which again, you've chosen to ignore.

Seriously, put down the Saul Alinsky books and the inflated "I wanna be a trial lawyer" ego for long enough to address the points made. Then go back to the "if you can't attack the points, attack the person" model.

Try it once. See what happens.

[Randy]

I brought up a current situation going on right now of the Fed flaunting it's power in another thread.

BP spills a buttload of oil. White House decides the perfect time to further it's agenda has arrived and issues a moratorium on offshore drilling. It gets appealed to the courts. Court rules that it's BS and they can't do that. The administration says FU and reinstitutes the ban. There's your ability over legality example playing out right this second right in front of you.

[Randy]

Now the big question is, just what your definition of is is?

[formerlurker]

You went sideways after post 5 and 9. Every since then you have been more interested in winning than taking a single look at any of the items presented.

I've offered you plenty of examples where the gov't doesn't have the technical legal right, per COTUS, but have ignored and does so anyway, which again, you've chosen to ignore.

Seriously, put down the Saul Alinsky books and the inflated "I wanna be a trial lawyer" ego for long enough to address the points made. Then go back to the "if you can't attack the points, attack the person" model.

Try it once. See what happens.

That was not the question though was it?   Clearly you haven't read anything.   

[formerlurker]

I brought up a current situation going on right now of the Fed flaunting it's power in another thread.

BP spills a buttload of oil. White House decides the perfect time to further it's agenda has arrived and issues a moratorium on offshore drilling. It gets appealed to the courts. Court rules that it's BS and they can't do that. The administration says FU and reinstitutes the ban. There's your ability over legality example playing out right this second right in front of you.

They have reinstated the ban?   Do you have a link for that?

[NHSparky]

They have reinstated the ban?   Do you have a link for that?

Secretary Salazar WANTS to reinstate the ban.  Haven't done it yet because they have to challenge and get the judge's decision overturned first.

[Hawkgirl]

Paralegal.   

Oh sorry....I must have misunderstood a post you wrote a while back..

[bkg]

That was not the question though was it?   Clearly you haven't read anything.   

Again - go read the posts I suggested... which were exactly about my point... Just because you refuse to address it, doesn't make it so.

[rich_t]

WTF? now you're talking about "physical ability?"   

BTW - I'd like to know what line of business you are in... because now you're getting into a conversation that I think will prove WAY over your head - internet security.

Actually it was I that was talking about physical ability.   

[bkg]

Actually it was I that was talking about physical ability.   

I was just pointing out the fact that she can't stay on one topic - she switches from ability, to legal ability, then lasers on physical ability... Anything to avoid the facts. Ability is ability - the method (legal, physical, etc) is a separate issue.

[rich_t]

I was just pointing out the fact that she can't stay on one topic - she switches from ability, to legal ability, then lasers on physical ability... Anything to avoid the facts. Ability is ability - the method (legal, physical, etc) is a separate issue.

She doesn't seem to handle being wrong very well.

 

[formerlurker]

Oh my God please close this thread.   

[NHSparky]

Oh my God please close this thread.   

C'mon, FL--you know that they have to get in the last word every single time!

It's the "ista" way.

[vesta111]

Oh my God please close this thread.   

I believe that there have been things in the past that have shown that laws have been passed against the wishes of the majority.

What gave the government the right to place their own citizens in camps on the west coast during WW2.??  What gave the States the right to round up, imprison and confiscate their property.?

What were the law makers thinking when they tried to pass a law that all males of Japanese decent be sterilized at birth.??   That was a real  close call for us  Americans that calmer heads were aghast at the idea.

Why in the 1970's did I have to fill out a government license application to operate a CB rig and affirm that I did not and had never been a member of the John Birch Society or the Communist party ??

Anyone remember or read about the  UnAmerican activities Senate Committee of being  on the hunt to out big bad Reds.?  This  from the 1950's that destroyed lives of anyone suspected of being a Commie.  

Today I have great fear of the NEW Miranda Rights changes just enacted where a suspect does not now have to be told they may keep quiet and not say one word unless they have a Lawyer present.---Catch 22 is if the suspect opens their mouth to request a Lawyer then they have agreed to speak with the police as they have just spoken ---ARRRRRRRG. I got this information from a site on AOL News  a few months ago and have not heard anything at all about this since then.

The internet can be controlled very easy, as with the CB license that was once needed the Government can require those of us with computers to get a license to use them.  The providers can be placed under the thumb of the Government and only send out news they feel is approved for the current administration.

This reminds me of the rules and laws the police use, they can lie to a suspect but the suspect cannot lie to them.  So the Government can lie to us, but we cannot lie to them.  Better to lie to a cop then the IRS.

We can now be jailed for the so called hate speech---what was freedom to speak your mind is now being censured.  It has only just begun, the re education of America.

[TheSarge]

so it's ok to inhibit the free exercise of ideas and speech on an open forum in the name of "security"

Step away from the gasoline and matches there Human Torch.

If we didn't give a rats ass about what you had to say the topic would have been flushed entirely.

Instead a very courteous Moderator moved it to the proper place and as a courtesy let you know about it.

YOUR response should be "thank you".

[TheSarge]

Yeah, do something useful, like go vote or something.

Aww look who came down out of their isolated cabin in the woods.

You're just pissed cause he nails you with that picture.