The US has gone to hell and will probably stay there for eternity

[harryting]

Again, how does the OP has to do with Dark Vader (Cheney, Bush)?

The right to inspect contents is nothing new and the court just reaffirm that in no uncertain term. Don't like it? Have the do nothing congress make a law specifically to address that.

 

[TimothyMoulder]

... I can read, write, and say what I want,

Well, not exactly

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736008820080807?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

The terrorists we're up against are interested in making us change our ways of thought and action, in making us "bow down" to their belief system (and by that, I don't mean Islam, just their poisonous take on it).

When things like this happen, it's the clearest evidence the terrorists are indeed winning. All the money, all the procedures, all the work and research spent on preventing attacks, and it means nothing because a handful of nut-jobs have managed to instill enough fear in Joe Citizen to make him change his plans, for fear of pi$$ing them off.

Somebody mentioned a wall, and that the wall is meaningless because terrorists use the door. But it's more insidious than that. Terrorists use the threat of violence to make the people inside the wall subservient to them.

We're fighting this thing all wrong. It's psychological warfare, punctuated by violence, and this is evidence that we're losing.

Instead of seizing our computers and x-raying our shoes, the government needs to be figuring out how a cartoon of mohammed in a danish newspaper leaves 20 people dead in Afghanistan, and a book that's supposed to be complimentary to Islam is getting cancelled our of sheer... terror.

TM

 

[S7Guy]

Well, not exactly

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736008820080807?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

But, that has nothing to do about the constitution or our rights. That was a business decision made by a private company, and publishers have been making decisions just like it for years. It doesn't in any way impact my rights at all.

 

[TimothyMoulder]

But, that has nothing to do about the constitution or our rights. That was a business decision made by a private company, and publishers have been making decisions just like it for years. It doesn't in any way impact my rights at all.

I beg to differ. This book will never see the light of day, and while businessmen pulled the plug, they did so for politically-based concerns.

Besides, it's no secret that objectivity is dead and gone in the media, which has everything to do with our rights. It used to be the spin doctors trying to manipulate the media, now it's the media trying to manipulate us to the tune of their owners.

The Wall Street Journal staff staged a walk-out over Rupert Murdoch's bid to buy the paper out, and even after his promises of editorial integrity being preserved, the Editor in Chief was forced out immediately after he bought it.

And in all fairness, yes, everybody BUT Fox News is definitely in the tank for Obama. McCain's add was both hilarious and brilliant. I like Obama, but I haven't "felt that thrill running up my leg".

TM

 

[S7Guy]

Still, it did not impede the author's right to free speech. She can still publish herself, recite it on the street corner, or whatever. This stuff happens all the time.

For instance, while you are at work, your right to free speech is constrained to some degree by your employer. If you are meeting with customers, he can't have someone discussing anything that would potentially offend a customer (this pretty much covers politics, religion, ***, etc). The same thing goes for a publisher- in this case, it related to Islam, but publishers have pulled the plug on thousands of stories and books in the past.

So, remember that the constitution says the government cannot deny free speech, but it doesn't say anything about anyone else.

 

[TimothyMoulder]

Still, it did not impede the author's right to free speech. She can still publish herself, recite it on the street corner, or whatever. This stuff happens all the time.

For instance, while you are at work, your right to free speech is constrained to some degree by your employer. If you are meeting with customers, he can't have someone discussing anything that would potentially offend a customer (this pretty much covers politics, religion, ***, etc). The same thing goes for a publisher- in this case, it related to Islam, but publishers have pulled the plug on thousands of stories and books in the past.

So, remember that the constitution says the government cannot deny free speech, but it doesn't say anything about anyone else.

Hmmm... I think you got me on that one Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

I would protest by refusing to watch anything Murdoch is attached to, but demmit, I'm an American Idol junkie...

TM

 

[ivo.maenen]

[font=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Francois Voltaire (1694-1778)


[/font]

 

[mrtweaver]

I have only one thing to say and it makes things really clear. THE SYSTEM IS ONLY AS GOOD AND HONEST AS THE PEOPLE RUNNING IT! You get a bunch of corrupt idiots running it then it all goes to H.E. double hockey sticks. Look at our system of govenment. As has been said in this thread, it did not get to where it is overnight. It took long complex small baby steps and when you have the kind of stuff you mention here, it makes it all that much more sweet and tempting for someone corrupt to use it.

Rootboy

What the problem with biometric data base.
It make things easy.
It will be very hard to steal your identity.
We have finger print system at the airport.
When I came or live I go through the machine.put my hand and the gate open.I don't need to show passport.
Israeli ID and passports very easy to fake.
With biometric chip it would be imposable.
You will not have to carry ID with you.
One card for all.ID drive license etc.
Lot of good reasons why it good.

Any how nice to know someone here read Israeli news.
Any particular contact to Israel?

 

[mrtweaver]

Another good movie that does the same type of thing is NATIONAL TREASURE with Nicholas Cage. He takes the ladies fingerprint from a wine glass and using superglue and a thumb condom makes a print of her thumb and uses it to get into the secure section of the national archives building.

The only way would be to withdraw your salary in cash on payday and never use plastic.

Doesnt stop a hacker though. Maybe execute or castrate the hackers.. an effective deterrent would help.

What about the big banks etc? Surely they are most responsible for providing poor systems and safeguards. Maybe the CEO's should be held criminally responsible for any hacks.. that would make them sit up and take notice.

I remember a film one (James Bond?) wherethey needed a finger prints to get in a security door and he had stick on ones to match the bad guy...
Interesting debate now

 

[CeCo3]

I apologize for not having more time during the week to respond as various points of view are shared.

As for the constitution, it isn't being attacked… It has always been open to interpretation… The great thing about the constitution is that it was so brilliantly constructed that it is almost impervious to manipulation. –S7Guy

I politely disagree- it has been attacked to varying degrees since its inception. And since the early part of the 20th century, most branches and levels of government have been increasingly seated with those who are indifferent or outright hostile to the Constitution. Just because it hasn’t been ammended in awhile doesn’t mean the judges haven’t been able to twist the Constitution to suit a particular need. Look no further than the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision in 2005 in which the majority ruled that governments could take property from one owner and transfer it to another for "development." There went emminent domain. I’m sure it was just oversight on the part of the Founders and successive courts and only this particular court finally and properly adjudicated.

Yes, it was very brilliantly constructed. Perhaps in their haste to make it brief and simple, the Founders left the “why’s” to be discovered in the Federalist Papers, which in our day has made it much easier to create rights out of thin air. Again, our enemies within have found it much easier to work through the judiciary than to attempt to ammend the Constitution itself.

We interfere and get involved it too many things and places. –Peter Nachtwey

Yes, I completely agree. Again, that is because of the incredible influence the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on the matter of affairs within not only government, but media, academia, public education, commerce and non-governmental organizations. They are master puppeteers behind the scenes.

We can't save the world if we can't save ourselves. –Peter Nachtwey

Again, I agree. Once the U.S. falls, who will champion true freedom and liberty anywhere in the world? The U.N.? Hah! Another fallacious organization disguised as being benevolent. I am not being haughty nor do I wish to sound superior to those in other countries visiting this sight. Quite the contrary, as benefactors of being born into this wonderful country, we have an obligation to ensure the Constitution is preserved intact for successive generations, not only for our own benefit, but for those around the world.


[QUOTE]What I am asking all of you in the US to do is to vote against all those in government that will not defend the constitution of the US. There is nothing more important. Without the constitution you/we have nothing. –Peter Nachtwey[/QUOTE]
I second that. Forget the presidential election. Concentrate on your congressional and local representatives. Not my original thought, but a good one.

Growing up with Star Trek I believe in the 'prime directive'. –Peter Nachtwey

Not sure what you meant here, Peter. FYI only, Gene Roddenberry was a one-worlder and U.N. proponent. Ever wonder why the United Federation of Planets logo looked eerily similar to the U.N. logo? (There evidence is more evidence than that about Gene.) I enjoyed exploring strange new worlds with the Enterprise in 70’s reruns, but fortunately did not acquire any of Roddenberry's leftist philosophy.

Enough for now. Again, thanks Phil.

CeCo3

 

[LadderLogic]

Quote:

We interfere and get involved it too many things and places. –Peter Nachtwey

Yes, I completely agree. Again, that is because of the incredible influence the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on the matter of affairs within not only government, but media, academia, public education, commerce and non-governmental organizations. They are master puppeteers behind the scenes.

Quote:
We can't save the world if we can't save ourselves. –Peter Nachtwey

Again, I agree. Once the U.S. falls, who will champion true freedom and liberty anywhere in the world? The U.N.? Hah! Another fallacious organization disguised as being benevolent. I am not being haughty nor do I wish to sound superior to those in other countries visiting this sight. Quite the contrary, as benefactors of being born into this wonderful country, we have an obligation to ensure the Constitution is preserved intact for successive generations, not only for our own benefit, but for those around the world.

Am I the only one to notice a logical fallacy between the two paragraphs quoted? Either the US is a "champion" and as such is bound to "interfere", or any "interferring" is nothing but the work of shady forces behind the scenes.

 

[leitmotif]

I do not believe that what is right for the USA is right for the rest of the world. If they want to copy our social and political structure that is fine with me. If they dont that is OK too.

Seem to recall a little country in WWII right next to Germany who were never invaded. Was called Switzerland. Maybe they have some pretty good ideas also. I like the idea of their military supposedly every able male is fully equipped to defend their homeland. Might be kind of tough to invade when the neighborhood is a whole dang company ready and equipped to fight and the bridges are built with the demolition charges built in.

Which kind of takes me to Iraq.
First as an example --- there was little lawlessness in the West during the post Civil War. Everyone had guns knew how to use them, were sick and tired of fighting, and put up with little nonsense.

Now then WHEN we pull out of Iraq
let us assume there are more "good Iraqis" than "bad Iraqis"
SO we ship in a couple of shiploads of arms and arm everyone in the country that can carry one. Now you have more armed good guys who will (in my simplistic theory) shoot the bad guys because they are tired of their nonsense. Need more weapons good guys - well send another ship.
I predict the streets will be covered in blood some the good guys but mostly the bad guys.
There is a hole in my theory ie the two religous factions. Well if they want to shoot each other up over religous battles that is OK with me too.

I am sick and tired of us being the self assigned mother to the world.
Dan Bentler

 

[504bloke]

The one who had Maggie Thatcher as his b!+ch? Just checking.

And then it was Tony the b!+ch who took it up the a$$

 

[LadderLogic]

I am sick and tired of us being the self assigned mother to the world.

That's understandable. But the alternative may be much worse.

 

[leitmotif]

That's understandable. But the alternative may be much worse.

There is the argument that if we had not been so isolationist (as I obviously tend to be) that IF we had gotten involved earlier WWII may have been shortened or somehow prevented.

Most of the time I have enough troubles comprehending the questions much less coming up with the answers. If I had all the perfect answers I would be richer than Bill Gates.

Dan