101–110 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do prison time for a tweet anywhere that has any harassment, libel, obscenity, juror protection or many many other laws. What's the betting you only disagree with a single subcategory of these.
I suppose you can defend giving someone jailtime for hurt feelings, but it sounds pretty stupid to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hamilton argued that the very existence of the bill of rights invited the expansion of government into all those areas not expressly forbidden therein, but one might question Hamilton's motivations. That Washington 'quote' cannot be found before 1902. I agree with the sentiment, but false attribution does nothing to help our credibility.
Sorry if it's an apocryphal quote. I see what's happening in the UK, where people are prosecuted for speech and there is no limit to parliament's power (other than watered-down EU treaties and such) and I'm glad we have the first amendment, which prevents prior restraints and criminalizing unpopular speech.
Then why is it that the US ranks lower than the UK on the Press Freedom Index? How exactly has allowing the most vile and offensive hate speech protected you or improved your nation?
I'm reminded of a George Washington quote: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." In other words, government is, at its bare naked minimum, the monopoly of force. It must be contained, mistrusted, and treated as a necessary evil. Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who…
This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it. What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows tha…
Out of curiosity, what was the name of this class that you took and expect that most others have taken?
I'm reminded of a George Washington quote: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." In other words, government is, at its bare naked minimum, the monopoly of force. It must be contained, mistrusted, and treated as a necessary evil. Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who…
This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it. What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows tha…
What makes you think he genuinely thought that? My (admittedly limited) experience with state and national politicians is that most say in public exactly what benefits them the most at the moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Despite the USA being screwed up in so many ways, I still thank my lucky stars for the anti-federalists, who gave us the bill of rights. Without them, we would be much worse off today than we are." The current administration and the previous administrations don't care about the Bill of Rights.
Fortunately we have a legal system that, to some degree, does. Thus the outrage over secret courts which wave everything through (and the disturbance that a single unelected Supreme Court justice is responsible for the secret kangaroo court's appointments.)
A large body of decisions in trial and appellate courts at both the state and federal level, up to and including the SCOTUS provide plenty of evidence that this is not the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.
Kinda simple. We finance this bullshit by paying taxes. Why do we pay them? Because they force us to and convince us it's a good idea. What do we do about it? Use any form of money that is problematic to track and tax: cash, gold, Bitcoin. Pretty sure it's possible to live just on that - would be a little uncomfortable, but certainly less so than some violent action. And it would be a major blow to the government if…
Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere). People organised to protest using the Internet. People get educated using the Internet. In Cuba they exchange information using thumb drives. And every bullshitter (= our governments) should be afraid of it. They are, of course. And surveillance is their reaction. What will help is if everyone finally realises that…
> Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere). I think we need to make a distinction here. See Egypt, for example. A secular military government was in power for decades long (with support from the west). Their "Internet generation" got together and managed to overthrow Mubarak, and call for elections. They had elections, and the most organized party (Islamic)…
I agree that just because you get to democracy doesn't mean everything becomes peachy.
But what other systems are better 'ultimate solutions' for given countries?
Ie, maybe there's a country for which right now the most practical government is a Kingdom. King Ud helps the wagons run on time. What makes that government the most practical for that country right now? Are those factors changing over time? What will the 'ultimate' solution look like then?
Honestly, I've heard this a lot -- even in amazing books like "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" -- and I'm never sure what the author intends to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if everyone already realised that it's not about terrorism but doesn't know how to act and therefore falls into cynicism? If anyone knows what to do please step up and lead I am happy to follow.
Kinda simple. We finance this bullshit by paying taxes. Why do we pay them? Because they force us to and convince us it's a good idea. What do we do about it? Use any form of money that is problematic to track and tax: cash, gold, Bitcoin. Pretty sure it's possible to live just on that - would be a little uncomfortable, but certainly less so than some violent action. And it would be a major blow to the government if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it. What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows tha…
> 10 minutes of a law class Out of curiosity, what was the name of this class that you took and expect that most others have taken?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This philosophy is precisely why I was so dumbfounded to hear a congressman talk on the topic of the Patriot act on NPR. He recently flip-flopped from having been instrumental in writing it to being categorically for reform of it. What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. Anyone who's taken 10 minutes of a law class knows tha…
> What blew me away was that he genuinely did not think that the NSA would interpret the term "relevant" as broadly as humanly possible. What makes you think he genuinely thought that? My (admittedly limited) experience with state and national politicians is that most say in public exactly what benefits them the most at the moment.