Nobody takes you seriously in a discussion if you say "federal mafia". Just a heads up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.
Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.
>> ^NetRunner:
@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?



I believe it is a human right.

The Constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. That doesn't mean a right to privacy couldn't be created (good luck enforcing it). AFAIK, legal flapdoodle during Roe v. Wade 'created' a right to privacy.

Am improved balance of power between the States and the federal mafia should exist.

>> ^NetRunner:

@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

@quantumushroom so you're not a tenther? You believe people have a Constitutional right to privacy?

My immediate thought on reading the description was that they were voting to make sure AIs couldn't claim constitutional rights. I'm happier with the real meaning. >> ^rebuilder:

Cut to the robot slave uprising.

>> ^Edgeman2112:

Oh cmon now.
The senate passed it, but the house hasn't voted yet, and Obama strongly objects to this which makes a veto likely. The bill is not law. Stop playing the fear factor or I won't take your seriously every again.


The video states that it currently is not law, but it is on its way to potentially becoming law. It provides details of what the proposed law is and why it is a threat to our civil liberties, and effectively states that as citizens it is our right to stand up against the injustices of our government. As citizens it is our duty to be informed voters.

While their screwy video production makes them look quite kooky, the point they are making is very valid. Unfortunately the average US voter is too busy watching the 700 Club to bother researching and understanding the issues that affect our country in any detail beyond a propaganda laden sound bite. This video does serve its purpose. To help bring about awareness. We are discussing it in some manner, so in that way it is a success.

It is a responsible citizen's duty to understand, and research an issue thoroughly and to come to one's own conclusion. This video does one thing. It brings about a dialog that the US corporate propaganda laden media establishment will NOT start in any meaningful way. With any luck, it will help encourage the average lazy uneducated US voter to use that thing in their head called a brain and to stop taking everything on 'faith', and become participatory democratic citizens.

In a Democracy, when we stop thinking. When we start trusting our government without question. When we stop protesting our grievances as our constitutional rights grant. Then we have lost our Democracy. We might as well hand over the reigns to a dictatorship.

>> ^quantumushroom:

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.
2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.
3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?
Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.
>> ^jwray:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.



Being tall is a bona fides requirement to excel in basketball. Heterosexuality is not necessary to do what the boy scouts do.

I have no qualms with calling the BSA leadership bigots because they are fucking bigots. Nothing's wrong with pledge refusers. Unison recitation of anything is appalling and reminiscent of the Borg, Nuremberg rallies, and church.

1. It's beyond ridiculous to argue the Pledge somehow establishes a State-supported religion. Or any religion. Government favors only government and more government.

2. Though there mayhaps should be, there is no (impossible to enforce) Constitutional right to privacy. Peer pressure? Welcome to the real world.

3. Why worry over "massive harassment" of Pledge refuseniks but have no second thoughts about calling the BSA "bigots" for setting standards? Are you equally concerned the NBA is "bigoted" against short people?

Once again, atheists' image problem is theirs to correct, starting with the aforementioned and ending with the ALWAYS OUTSPOKEN belief that to be an atheist is to be automatically smarter than theists.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Atheists' image problem is theirs to correct.
Pro-tip: highlighting a lone jackhole attempting to eliminate the words "under God" from our VOLUNTARY Pledge of Allegiance, antagonistic billboards and declaring war on the Boy Scouts only enrages the masses.

1. Even if nobody ever recited the pledge, it would still be unconstitutional (establishment clause violation) to have it official, in writing, that the government favors theism.
2. Even though it's voluntary, when the teacher leads the whole class in reciting the pledge, there is a lot of peer pressure and it violates the students free exercise rights and/or their right to privacy since they have to either say something they don't believe or be outed publicly (leading to massive harassment if they're in some horrible backwards bible belt district).
3. The Boy Scouts' continued bigotry against homosexuals and atheists (as mandated by the top leadership but not necessarily followed by local chapters) is a big deal. I used to be a Boy Scout, and have nothing else against them.

>> ^Grimm:

No, I addressed the fact that you did not answer my question....you only gave a poor apples to oranges (something that is a constitutional right to something that is not) "what if" analogy. You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad. But unless I skipped it please show me were you gave examples (not what ifs) of what was wrong pre 1980 that was vastly improved by adding the Fed DOE.>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Grimm:
Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

Umm, you kind of ignored my answer to this question.



Jesus, are you being intentionally dense? Or, is it congenital?

"You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad."

Try reading what I wrote next time.

"Reagan's head of the Department of Education was William (come on number 7!) Bennett (who went on to be the Drug Czar under Bush the First). Bennett implemented "reforms" to the Dept. of Ed. such as:"

This is like trying to have an intelligent discussion with shinny about religion. And like those conversations--it's over.

Ignore!

No, I addressed the fact that you did not answer my question....you only gave a poor apples to oranges (something that is a constitutional right to something that is not) "what if" analogy. You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad. But unless I skipped it please show me were you gave examples (not what ifs) of what was wrong pre 1980 that was vastly improved by adding the Fed DOE.>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Grimm:
Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

Umm, you kind of ignored my answer to this question.

Your Constitutional rights are worth shit if the government doesn't stand by them. Still think the US is Free(tm)?

The main stream media is the liberal media that's my point. Society needs more people figuring that out. For as much as people hate them (FOX news, Glen Beck etc,) they do bring stories forth stories that the main stream does not. EX. Main stream imply that Muslims are a peaceful religion. Its not. The true desire of this religion is to convert or kill. They treat their women like dogs. How can Americans tolerate that? But yet main stream media play stories that they are a nice bunch of people. >> ^alcom:

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."
More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:
"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."
>> ^bobknight33:
This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

@bobknight33, who said anything about liberal? I think the larger issue is the "chilling" effect legal action and the loss of corporate sponsorship has on objective reporting in the modern media. From wikipedia:
"In a legal context, a chilling effect is the term used to describe the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a constitutional right by the threat of legal sanction."

More to Farrakhan's point, read this article from 2006 on eneregygrid.com - here's a snip:

"US liberal media is dying because it has started to play by the same rules as mainstream media — primary being not to annoy your corporate sponsors by presenting anything too radical."

>> ^bobknight33:

This guy, like the left is wrong!
GE is the largest media empire. GE is so left leaning it is falling over. Its so large, its over 120 Billion larger than it #2 competitor Walt Disney who only did 36 Billion in revenues.. Fox is owned by News Corp who only did 30 Billion in revenue. Sounds like the left is the king of slant.
2009 revenues: $157 billion GE
2009 revenues: $36.1 billion Disney
2009 revenues: $30.4 billion News Corp ( FOX)
2009 revenues: $25.8 billion Time Warner
Who owns what in Media link

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

This sort of protection is becoming common practice. Watch the Hot Coffee movie.

>> ^http://hotcoffeethemovie.com:

.........Mandatory binding arbitration clauses have become standard in credit card and real estate contracts, applications for bank loans and leasing cars, employment contracts and even some HMO policies. In some states, they may apply broadly to insurance contracts. If you’ve bought a car, had a credit card, purchased a computer, used a cell phone, invested in stocks, had insurance, saw a doctor or worked for a large corporation during the last decade, chances are you unwittingly forfeited your constitutional right to access the courts by “agreeing to” mandatory binding arbitration, even though you may not have even realized it.