The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Doc on June 19, 2010, 07:32:18 PM
-
WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.
As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+(Text+-+Politics)
-
Has nothing to do with free speech. This is invasion of privacy -- however, it has been in effect for quite some time. Terrorist organizations use cell phones and the internet to communicate.
-
Moderator's note:
Excellent topic Pat, however, it has been moved to "Politics" due to specific rules for the "Breaking News" forum.
doc
-
Has nothing to do with free speech. This is invasion of privacy -- however, it has been in effect for quite some time. Terrorist organizations use cell phones and the internet to communicate.
so it's ok to inhibit the free exercise of ideas and speech on an open forum in the name of "security"
-
so it's ok to inhibit the free exercise of ideas and speech on an open forum in the name of "security"
??
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.
-
??
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.
The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
-
The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
Where.
-
The US of course.
-
The US of course.
No, what law gives them that authority (actual quote from law if you are referring to the Patriot Act).
-
No, what law gives them that authority (actual quote from law if you are referring to the Patriot Act).
tsk tsk....
I posted "ability" not "authority".
-
Its funny how people actually think USA and Britain ever had proper free speech. Nowhere does.
-
tsk tsk....
I posted "ability" not "authority".
AND what legislation provides them with the "ability"...... (again, please provide quote with language).
-
AND what legislation provides them with the "ability"...... (again, please provide quote with language).
They dont need the legislation and if they want it they just do it. Some people actually still think we live within a Republic.
-
They dont need the legislation and if they want it they just do it. Some people actually still think we live within a Republic.
(http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little.jpg)
Atta boy!!!
-
(http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little.jpg)
Atta boy!!!
Yeah, do something useful, like go vote or something.
-
Yeah, do something useful, like go vote or something.
Before they take they right away from us too.... cause they have the "ability"..... cause it's no longer a republic......
hey, I am getting the hang of this. :-)
-
Before they take they right away from us too.... cause they have the "ability"..... cause it's no longer a republic......
hey, I am getting the hang of this. :-)
Because too many fail to recognize the true inherent problem within this country altogether. Edison said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. So whos the crazy one here? Not me.
-
Because too many fail to recognize the true inherent problem within this country altogether. Edison said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. So whos the crazy one here? Not me.
So this is your prophecy then and not reality?
-
Because too many fail to recognize the true inherent problem within this country altogether. Edison said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. So whos the crazy one here? Not me.
Please enlighten all of us.
-
So this is your prophecy then and not reality?
As typical the RINO is backwards taking fact as fiction.
-
Please enlighten all of us.
Modern Americans educate themselves so poorly as to the full circle of action and its reaction measuring history against current events. People too often cite an event or quote an individual without realizing the full circumstances that allowed for the said event to take place.
Today people look back to our founding fathers and find inspiration. Indeed there is much there to be found. Yet in all of today's quarrels all we can hear is the noise of upcoming elections and who will stand for what. While short term minds will scream this is the way and lead the masses into a victory for the "right" people forget to find a true measurement of value and posterity.
The entire value system of the American society has been eroded from the ground up. People no longer recognize the truth behind the inception of the American mind and system. God itself has been erased from history and from the lives of the American people. Yet to take away the "Great Awakening" from the history of the Revolution would in of itself never allowed the Revolution to take place. A British historian in the early 1800s noted that Americans would still be living under British rule if it had not been for those pesky preachers.
It was noted that without a Christian backbone that the American colonies would have exchanged one tyrant for another. Without a moral basis that is greater than man to measure a nation there can be no foundation upon which to build. Today we expect elections to simply fix our problems by simply putting in the "other" party. Stupidity abounds for time after time we have done this after our history had been erased and our constitution been made null and void and for nearly 100 years nothing has changed for the better but instead for the "progress of mankind".
Yet no one recognizes the futility and unbelievable stupidity which abounds. Each time around "the best of the worst" is elected with no real effect but to further enslave the next generation. Today we sit with a Marxist government that Germany itelsf would be envious of and yet we still proclaim Liberty. All the while most Americans cannot even truly define Liberty.
Without a refounding of God within our culture, our home and our lives we will do nothing but once again replace one tyrant with another. We no longer will be subject to choice but rather a subject to their whims. A State that is not founded upon principle and morality is founded upon nothing at all but the whims of mankind. If mankind is any measurement for the benefit of a nation for thousands of years I truly pity our children for they will be the ones which truly suffer in the times to come.
-
As typical the RINO is backwards taking fact as fiction.
I have yet to see fact from you.
-
God itself has been erased from history and from the lives of the American people.
Oh really? I would ask you to back up your comments, but meh --why go through that again right?
I will ask you this however -- who erased God?
-
Modern Americans educate themselves so poorly as to the full circle of action and its reaction measuring history against current events. People too often cite an event or quote an individual without realizing the full circumstances that allowed for the said event to take place.
Today people look back to our founding fathers and find inspiration. Indeed there is much there to be found. Yet in all of today's quarrels all we can hear is the noise of upcoming elections and who will stand for what. While short term minds will scream this is the way and lead the masses into a victory for the "right" people forget to find a true measurement of value and posterity.
The entire value system of the American society has been eroded from the ground up. People no longer recognize the truth behind the inception of the American mind and system. God itself has been erased from history and from the lives of the American people. Yet to take away the "Great Awakening" from the history of the Revolution would in of itself never allowed the Revolution to take place. A British historian in the early 1800s noted that Americans would still be living under British rule if it had not been for those pesky preachers.
It was noted that without a Christian backbone that the American colonies would have exchanged one tyrant for another. Without a moral basis that is greater than man to measure a nation there can be no foundation upon which to build. Today we expect elections to simply fix our problems by simply putting in the "other" party. Stupidity abounds for time after time we have done this after our history had been erased and our constitution been made null and void and for nearly 100 years nothing has changed for the better but instead for the "progress of mankind".
Yet no one recognizes the futility and unbelievable stupidity which abounds. Each time around "the best of the worst" is elected with no real effect but to further enslave the next generation. Today we sit with a Marxist government that Germany itelsf would be envious of and yet we still proclaim Liberty. All the while most Americans cannot even truly define Liberty.
Without a refounding of God within our culture, our home and our lives we will do nothing but once again replace one tyrant with another. We no longer will be subject to choice but rather a subject to their whims. A State that is not founded upon principle and morality is founded upon nothing at all but the whims of mankind. If mankind is any measurement for the benefit of a nation for thousands of years I truly pity our children for they will be the ones which truly suffer in the times to come.
An interesting copy and paste but not an answer to your assertion.
Because too many fail to recognize the true inherent problem within this country altogether.
Please stick to what you have laid out.
-
Because too many fail to recognize the true inherent problem within this country altogether. Edison said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. So whos the crazy one here? Not me.
Actually, it was Rita Mae Brown who said that first in the early 80's. The attributations to Einstein, Edison, and Ben Franklin are all false. Sounds like someone's been hitting the paranoia well just a wee bit too often.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
:whatever:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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).
-
"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????
-
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.
-
NOW who is arguing theory vs. practice????
I am not arguing it at all.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
What are you talking about? Examples of what? You are so far of course here from the OP that it isn't even funny.
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.
The idea that the government is going to seize the internet unilaterally (which I guess now is what "ability" means -- still spinning so who knows where it will land -- Lincoln had language of the Constitution to suspend HB, still waiting for a precedence on "ability" he is referring to) I have said is DU nonsense, but now I know I was correct in pointing to Lewrockwell. The DU nutjobs ain't got nothing on the lewrockwell libertarian crazy. Not a blessed thing.
-
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?
listen for the helicopters.... they are coming dude....
-
listen for the helicopters.... they are coming dude....
More insults?
Is that ALL you have left?
Try debating the facts. Or are they inconvenient for you?
-
More insults?
Is that ALL you have left?
Try debating the facts. Or are they inconvenient for you?
Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"
Just one.
-
Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"
Just one.
One such example has already been provided by another poster.
Why don't you do your own home work if you desire other examples?
You simply refuse to believe that the US Government has the physical ability to shut down the internet and want to argue about it.
No more, no less.
Please note that I still haven't called you names or otherwise insulted you like asking for your DU name.
You go on and believe what you wish to. I really don't give a damn.
-
One such example has already been provided by another poster.
Where?
Why don't you do your own home work if you desire other examples?
Your assertion. Put up, or please just stop already.
You simply refuse to believe that the US Government has the physical ability to shut down the internet and want to argue about it.
Where did I say that again?
Please note that I still haven't called you names or otherwise insulted you like asking for your DU name.
You go on and believe what you wish to. I really don't give a damn.
You were deliberately obtuse, which is of course your game here. No more. No less.
-
Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?
-
Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?
I was looking for an example of this type of scenario already occurring, which rich_t claims has happened.
-
Just to be clear rich_t, this example would be absent of legislative authority (whether Constitutional or not) provided for by Congress, or the Constitution (suspension of HB).
:)
-
People thought that would happen with SS as well... never did.
You're counting your chickens before they hatch.
Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.
Here we have a VERY different situation.
-
Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.
Here we have a VERY different situation.
I just hope that the remaining conservative justices stay healthy for the next 2+ years.
-
Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?
I remember where a Government decided to suspend the 2nd amendment and sent law enforcement and National Guard Troops in to confiscate citizens guns after a little storm called Katrina.
The SCOTUS exists to take back our rights from the Government when they get uppity and pass laws and implement things beyond their boundaries. It happens all the time.
Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet. They have lots of excuses they can use to do it. Lets just make up something here and say as an example that ole Joran Van Der Sloot was meeting young girls online and killing them in exotic locations rather than picking them up in bars. There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.
All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.
-
I remember where a Government decided to suspend the 2nd amendment and sent law enforcement and National Guard Troops in to confiscate citizens guns after a little storm called Katrina.
The SCOTUS exists to take back our rights from the Government when they get uppity and pass laws and implement things beyond their boundaries. It happens all the time.
Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet. They have lots of excuses they can use to do it. Lets just make up something here and say as an example that ole Joran Van Der Sloot was meeting young girls online and killing them in exotic locations rather than picking them up in bars. There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.
All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.
Exactly.
-
What are you talking about? Examples of what? You are so far of course here from the OP that it isn't even funny.
Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"
Just one.
Provided an example, you didn't like it... so now you ask for more examples?
You're a bit all over the place with this topic, dude... Examples already posted, yet you continue to claim that gov't has no ability to do something that a document says they cannot... Yet they have and continue to do it - on a regular basis, almost - so I honestly have no idea what side of the argument you're on anymore.
But I have to agree with Rich_t... if you're only responses are insults, you're not adding anything to the conversation or your position.
-
Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.
Here we have a VERY different situation.
And we've had conservative SCOTUS (and all branches of gov't) on and off since then... never been ruled to violate COTUS, has it?
If we take the words of the governing documents as Gospel, then it shouldn't matter who or when... it just matters what... If we state gov't has no ability to do X when a CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS is residing, but they do when a LIBERAL SCOTUS is residing, then we have no need for a Constitution at all, frankly.
-
Provided an example, you didn't like it... so now you ask for more examples?
You're a bit all over the place with this topic, dude... Examples already posted, yet you continue to claim that gov't has no ability to do something that a document says they cannot... Yet they have and continue to do it - on a regular basis, almost - so I honestly have no idea what side of the argument you're on anymore.
But I have to agree with Rich_t... if you're only responses are insults, you're not adding anything to the conversation or your position.
You have absolutely no idea what you are defending.
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.
rich_t's response
The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
Why don't you actually read the entire thread prior to racing in with your pom-poms on auto-pilot for your pal?
Congress has had the "ability" to pass legislation since the Constitution was ratified. I even commented to that in this very thread. That isn't what rich_t was inferring though here was it as it pretty much is what I had said in the post he was replying to?
Congress passed legislation mandating health coverage. Constitutionality? to be decided.
Not the example I am looking for, but of course you all know that.
rich_t claims they have the physical ability to seize the internet and as such will do so as they have done so in the past. Example please?
The seizing of weapons in NO was done based on their interpretation of the Lousiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. Again, legislation passed. Constitutionality to be decided? The NRA settled their lawsuit so I guess they feel a violation of second amendment is something that can be settled???
Unilaterally acting without authority, but based on mere ability? Haven't seen it. Would like an example. If it is as widespread as rich_t claims, it should be easy to supply one.
His premise. Not mine.
-
Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet.
Congress exists and will stop this legislation.
There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.
I don't think he has that authority -- as we witnessed today, a federal judge has allowed an injunction against his EO banning offshore drilling. We do have safeguards in place.
All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.
Injuction banning the EO would happen, and it would be the White House filing appeals. Congress in the meanwhile would put an end to it with legislation. I just don't see it happening, even with the supermajority.
-
You have absolutely no idea what you are defending.
rich_t's response
Why don't you actually read the entire thread prior to racing in with your pom-poms on auto-pilot for your pal?
Congress has had the "ability" to pass legislation since the Constitution was ratified. I even commented to that in this very thread. That isn't what rich_t was inferring though here was it as it pretty much is what I had said in the post he was replying to?
Congress passed legislation mandating health coverage. Constitutionality? to be decided.
Not the example I am looking for, but of course you all know that.
rich_t claims they have the physical ability to seize the internet and as such will do so as they have done so in the past. Example please?
The seizing of weapons in NO was done based on their interpretation of the Lousiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. Again, legislation passed. Constitutionality to be decided? The NRA settled their lawsuit so I guess they feel a violation of second amendment is something that can be settled???
Unilaterally acting without authority, but based on mere ability? Haven't seen it. Would like an example. If it is as widespread as rich_t claims, it should be easy to supply one.
His premise. Not mine.
Try reading reply #44 of this thread.
After that go find another leg to hump you ignorant bitch.
Ya see FL, you ain't the only one with the "ability" to insult others.
:popcorn:
Do you comprehend the term "ability" yet?
ROFLMAO.
-
Try reading reply #44 of this thread.
After that go find another leg to hump you ignorant bitch.
Ya see FL, you ain't the only one with the "ability" to insult others.
:popcorn:
Which is what you spun it around to didn't you sport? Except is makes no sense does it when you look at your first response to my post? I never questioned the military's "physical ability" to take over the internet.
You are clearly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas light display are you?
-
Which is what you spun it around to didn't you sport? Except is makes no sense does it when you look at your first response to my post? I never questioned the military's "physical ability" to take over the internet.
You are clearly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas light display are you?
I am bright enough to know that you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong. What's your DU name?
-
I am bright enough to know that you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong. What's your DU name?
:rotf:
The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
Go ahead and pick a meaning here kids.
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 never once said or inferred this.
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.
Ah but it is the issue and it is the topic of this thread. At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but have come to realize that it isn't deliberate is it?
-
I posted that The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
FL has spent a lot of time trying to prove they don't, yet has provided no evidence to prove her assertaion.
She seems to be ignorant of the definition of the word "ability".
She has demanded what part of the "written" law gives the FED the "authority". When it was pointed out that legal "authority" had no bearing on physical "ability" she started with the insults.
She refuses to believe that the FED has mandated ISPs to perform s/w and H/w upgrades that allow the FED not only the "ability" to montior, but to take control.
In other words she doesn't like reality and prefers to live in a world of "as it should be".
I don't live in that world. I live in the world as it "actually" is.
-
So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?
Still waiting for an example of this rich_t -- which won't come as we all know.
-
I posted that The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.
FL has spent a lot of time trying to prove they don't, yet has provided no evidence to prove her assertaion.
She seems to be ignorant of the definition of the word "ability".
She has demanded what part of the "written" law gives the FED the "authority". When it was pointed out that legal "authority" had no bearing on physical "ability" she started with the insults.
She refuses to believe that the FED has mandated ISPs to perform s/w and H/w upgrades that allow the FED not only the "ability" to montior, but to take control.
In other words she doesn't like reality and prefers to live in a world of "as it should be".
I don't live in that world. I live in the world as it "actually" is.
Never once said this, and have directed all of my questions from the beginning to legal authority.
Reality is something that has been lost in your world for quite some time.
-
Never once said this, and have directed all of my questions from the beginning to legal authority.
.
Stop lying.
Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.
Your own ****ing posts prove it. Deal with it.
-
Lets then make the assumption that as of 8:00 PM EDT the President declares that the Internet is no longer in the realm of free domain but is an arm of the Executive.
Anything taking an adversarial position to O the all powerful will be illegal and punishable.
What will be the reaction from Congress,Rush,Hannity,the public?
Will they also shut down the public airwaves to prevent talk about it?
Will the various private ISP providers comply and will law enforcement act.
If they refuse will the military be called on and as I understand it they can`t be used as law enforcement. (someone knowing please explain the exact details of this)
Would a field commander comply with an unconstitutional order and courts not act?
I think that is enough to suggest the whole thing is bit more involved then an EO and perhaps is bordering on the silly (my opinion).
Now another hypothetical and scarily perhaps a more realistic one.
A terrorist nuke levels a major American city killing perhaps millions.
What amount of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are we willing to sacrifice and for how long?
-
Stop lying.
Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.
Your own ****ing posts prove it. Deal with it.
Okay, rich--let's go with your logic. The United States military has the "ability" to use nuclear weapons on its own citizens.
Well, in your little world, we should all be cowering in fear because it's certain to happen any second now.
Yep...any second now...tick...tock...tick...tock.
-
Stop lying.
Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.
Your own ****ing posts prove it. Deal with it.
Why don't you point them out to me sport?
Oh, and still waiting for this -- anytime you are ready. Maybe bkg will spot you an example as you are incapable of original thought it seems.
So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?
-
Okay, rich--let's go with your logic. The United States military has the "ability" to use nuclear weapons on its own citizens.
Well, in your little world, we should all be cowering in fear because it's certain to happen any second now.
Yep...any second now...tick...tock...tick...tock.
I told him to listen for the helicopters.... he whined I was picking on him.
But we know things don't we Sparky.....
-
Now another hypothetical and scarily perhaps a more realistic one.
A terrorist nuke levels a major American city killing perhaps millions.
What amount of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are we willing to sacrifice and for how long?
That is an excellent question -- you should start a thread with this.
Depends on who did it, but I would imagine I would be willing to preserve the union by most means possible.
-
I told him to listen for the helicopters.... he whined I was picking on him.
But we know things don't we Sparky.....
Rich and bkg--the CC "istas".
Lord help us all.
-
Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.
Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".
Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.
What am I missing here? :popcorn:
-
That is an excellent question -- you should start a thread with this.
Depends on who did it, but I would imagine I would be willing to preserve the union by most means possible.
What the heck,could be interesting.
-
To be more specific. Government is forcing american people to buy healthcare insurance. We are in the process of challenging that. But government still did it.
I believe that is what RichT and bkg mean when they say "ability"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.
Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".
Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.
What am I missing here? :popcorn:
We have neither universal healthcare nor restricted Internet access.
Next?
-
We have neither universal healthcare nor restricted Internet access.
Next?
Because the Obama administration was dumb enough to state that it wouldn't take effect until 2014. Hopefully it will be repealed......but that's not the point.
-
Obama administration wants to pass universal healthcare.
Democrat majority in congress passes universal healthcare.
Obama administration wants restricted access to the Internet. (Government controlled internet)
Democrat majority in congress passes restricted internet access "law".
Government just had the "ability" to restrict internet access.
What am I missing here? :popcorn:
See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about. Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.
They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.
-
To be more specific. Government is forcing american people to buy healthcare insurance. We are in the process of challenging that. But government still did it.
I believe that is what RichT and bkg mean when they say "ability"
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You would think, but no.
-
Because the Obama administration was dumb enough to state that it wouldn't take effect until 2014. Hopefully it will be repealed......but that's not the point.
Actually, that's EXACTLY the point. Unless the Judiciary has completely lost its mind and the Constitution means NOTHING anymore, they'll declare huge portions of it unconstitutional, if not the entire thing outright.
Checks and balances, dear--again, justice is a process, not a result.
-
See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about. Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.
They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.
I typed out a long response and lost it...so I'll just say I know that an internet law hasn't passed. And don't think one will.
-
I typed out a long response and lost it...so I'll just say I know that an internet law hasn't passed. And don't think one will.
Because again, what the alarmist "istas" like Rich and bkg don't want to admit is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you WILL.
-
Unless the Judiciary has completely lost its mind and the Constitution means NOTHING anymore,
If we retain the 5-4 Conservative Majority in the SCOTUS, then it's perfectly plausible to believe Obamacare will be repealed.
BUT what if we get a bunch of liberal zealots/judicial activists in there?....what if Obama gets to appoint the next 2 supreme court justices and makes the SCOTUS liberal leaning. While we know their job is to interpret...if history is any indicator...what is to stop judges from legislating from the bench?
-
I look at it this way--the longer Kagan keeps opening her yap, the less likely she'll ever be seated. The Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee had better reach down and find a pair and stand up to this obviously unqualified and totally reactionary nominee. If she's sent packing, Obama is going to realize he can't put up someone as far left as her, particularly if the Senate swings as much as the House is projected to.
Further down the road, I see Ginsburg retiring next. Pretty hard to go any more to the left than her, frankly. Hopefully by then we're at the 2012 election.
-
I look at it this way--the longer Kagan keeps opening her yap, the less likely she'll ever be seated. The Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee had better reach down and find a pair and stand up to this obviously unqualified and totally reactionary nominee. If she's sent packing, Obama is going to realize he can't put up someone as far left as her, particularly if the Senate swings as much as the House is projected to.
Further down the road, I see Ginsburg retiring next. Pretty hard to go any more to the left than her, frankly. Hopefully by then we're at the 2012 election.
I hope so...and Bush was smart to appoint a young Roberts as the Chief Justice. He'll be around along time, I hope.
-
Why don't you point them out to me sport?
Oh, and still waiting for this -- anytime you are ready. Maybe bkg will spot you an example as you are incapable of original thought it seems.
I've already provided an example that you refuse to acknowledge.
-
I've already provided an example that you refuse to acknowledge.
Post #65.
Just back away from the pom-poms.
-
See how easy that was -- except that is not what he is talking about. Legal authority -- the authoirty of Congress to pass legislation, is what I was discussing.
They haven't passed the internet law yet -- the sponsors are backpedaling on it now.
And you keep missing the point. You're so stuck in the black and white of the texts that we all hold dear that you are refusing to see what is already happening.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to monitor phone calls w/o a warrant? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to search a car for drugs w/o your permission? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that private property owners "police" people in their establisment to ensure they don't smoke? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that you wear a seatbelt? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to "regulate" guns produced and sold within the confines of a single state? They do it every day.
You're so wrapped up in what is "legal" that you've ignored what they've been ABLE to do.
How many examples do you need?
-
And you keep missing the point. You're so stuck in the black and white of the texts that we all hold dear that you are refusing to see what is already happening.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to monitor phone calls w/o a warrant? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to search a car for drugs w/o your permission? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that private property owners "police" people in their establisment to ensure they don't smoke? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to demand that you wear a seatbelt? They do it every day.
Does the gov't have the LEGAL authority to "regulate" guns produced and sold within the confines of a single state? They do it every day.
You're so wrapped up in what is "legal" that you've ignored what they've been ABLE to do.
How many examples do you need?
:banghead:
Oh I know, here's a thought. Why don't you read the thread from page 1 forward. Mmmkay?
-
Because again, what the alarmist "istas" like Rich and bkg don't want to admit is that simply because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you WILL.
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.
-
:banghead:
Oh I know, here's a thought. Why don't you read the thread from page 1 forward. Mmmkay?
You asked for examples - yet again - and I provided them - yet again - and you ignore them - yet again.
I see a pattern forming. :rotf:
-
You asked for examples - yet again - and I provided them - yet again - and you ignore them - yet again.
I see a pattern forming. :rotf:
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. :whatever:
-
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?
-
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?" :rotf: :rotf:
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.
-
formerlurker is an attorney...
:popcorn:
-
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.
-
formerlurker is an attorney...
That explains a lot... thanks.
-
WTF? now you're talking about "physical ability?" :rotf: :rotf:
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. :lmao:
-
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 is an attorney...
:popcorn:
Paralegal.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Now the big question is, just what your definition of is is?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Paralegal.
Oh sorry....I must have misunderstood a post you wrote a while back..
-
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.
-
WTF? now you're talking about "physical ability?" :rotf: :rotf:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:fuelfire:
-
Oh my God please close this thread. :whatever:
-
Oh my God please close this thread. :whatever:
C'mon, FL--you know that they have to get in the last word every single time!
It's the "ista" way.
-
Oh my God please close this thread. :whatever:
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.
-
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".
-
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.