P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 14-07-07, 12:04 PM   #21
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed View Post
Your refusal to answer a simple question about your statement marks you as just another lying shitstain who won't stand behind his own words. You ought to run for political office.
I did,25 years ago and won.I was on the local council for 8 years.I won a 2nd term.
If you really want to know?I stood as an independent in my local ward.I got 57% of the vote cast first time and 62% the next.Want to know how?Easy by knocking doors and talking to people.I went out three nights a week going round the ward asking what people wanted from the council.You would be surprised at what people really care about.I did Okay got some things done,mostly simple things like proper timetables for the bin men and the like.Anything on party lines was hard to get passed.
Outside work commitments meant I had to resign,I couldn't give the job my fullest attention.

This little simple question.

"Also what freedoms have Americans lost? What can they not do now compared to what they could do let us say ten years ago?"

How about “sneak and peek” with no redress to the law for a start.
Want some more?
How about the FBI able to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order.

Now as Sinner quite rightly points out,losing some freedoms might be sensible to combat terrorists.
But and here's the catch,where is the oversee.That these agency's know what they're doing.If you have ever worked in a big organisation you would realise that safeguards are critical so mistakes don't happen.After 9/11 and the cock ups around that,do you trust your government agency's to get it right.On that subject,can you think of a good reason for evidence of a crime scene to be destroyed before being examined?I can't.
In Britain the debate about how long we can hold suspects is going on against the background of foiled plots.
Most Brits in my experience don't like the idea of holding people without good evidence.This is because of the several cock ups made in the 70's and 80's.
Albed it's a debate that needs to be had not on party lines.
But of course,when somebody has a different point of view to you,you can't stand it.

You seem to me a very selfish person.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-07, 04:09 PM   #22
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvachat View Post
Now as Sinner quite rightly points out,losing some freedoms might be sensible to combat terrorists.
no, it's not, mal - as the man says (Ben Franklin, i think), give up your freedom to get security and you will ultimately get neither.

in particular, the modern "conservative" (and i use the term loosely) chooses to ignore and/or distort the wiretapping issue completely: the issue is not whether we should eavesdrop on terrorists (of course we should), but rather that the government should adhere to the mechanism to legally do so, in order to assure that this power is not abused.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-07-07, 06:37 PM   #23
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default So true

Malva, once again, nailed it.



__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-07, 03:44 AM   #24
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

Your right of course Knife it's a very thin line.
I don't like the idea of giving up freedom to get security.
I'm no fan of CCTV at all.Here in Britain they are everywhere.But they have been used to catch a good number of criminals.My wife says she feels safer in town with the CCTV about.So as I say it's a thin line.Powers to stop and search are another,but it's when it starts getting misused is the problem.Having recourse to the law and proper safeguards are needed.Thank God for the house of lords I say.At least they give these things a good looking at.
The problem to me is when you get an extreme government using these powers for control reasons.
I dread to think what it would be like now if TBW had access to the technology we have today.She used our police for political reasons.She hated working people with a hate.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-07, 09:57 AM   #25
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvachat View Post
Here's something to think about.

"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship"
Really, well I disagree and there has to be limits. People can not be allowed to walk around and say or print what ever they want too. Things like saying you have a bomb at an airport, yelling fire in a movie theater, yelling he has a gun at a crowded event to cause panic. There has to be some “censorship” or rules put on people when it comes to “freedom of speech as you put it.

Quote:
"The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
Don’t care about international law, who is suppose to enforce this “law”, the UN. That’s a joke….

Quote:
"the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary"
Same as above, There has to be limitations, and I and everyone should understand why we need these limitations.

Quote:
Note the phase " limitation of this freedom is necessary"
And Yes, and It is necessary.

Quote:
Who deems it necessary?
The State?
I guess.

Quote:
"The US Supreme Court has spoken of the ability to criticize government and government officials as "the central meaning of the First Amendment."

"Some suggest that when citizens refrain from voicing their discontent because they fear retribution"

"Since 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech"

I can show you case after case where using so called "free speech" is curtailed because of retribution by people in so called positions of power.
Please do, and if people don’t speck up because of that reason, well that has absolutely nothing to do with the Law or “censorship”.

I can show case after case where freedom of speech and expression is protected, from Larry Flint to flag burning to Nazi and KKK rallies.


Quote:
It stands to reason if you insult your boss,you go.
Call your wife or girlfriend a stupid c*nt. I won’t, but not because I or anyone in the USA as lost the right to Freedom of Speech”. Limits Mal, people need limitations, or there could be consequences

Quote:
But if you write a letter to a paper with a point of view about something not concerning your work that your boss doesn't like?
Or stating a point of view about anything unrelated to his or her work or workplace?
Maybe a point of view about dog baiting.
But because your boss goes dog baiting he sacks you.
right or wrong?

You might well think you have freedom of speech but you're very much mistaken.
As for your name calling it's becoming bit of a bore.
It's silly and it detracts from your point of view.

Now let's be sensible some restrictions on speech are necessary in lots of areas.But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution.

Do you really think that is the case now in the States?
Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc

Quote:
What is the quote from your president?

You either with us or your with the terrorists?
So if you disagree with his way,your on the side of the terrorist?Strange point of view that.
Anyway for the record,I don't dislike America or Mr Bush.
I just think your going down the road to a fascist state.

I got most of the quotes from Wikipedia.
Not sure if you consider that a credible source or not?


Under the Constitution of the USA he is protected to say things like that, and I disagree, the USA is far far from becoming a Fascist State. And he is not my President. I am Irish Canadian...
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-07, 04:07 PM   #26
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution.

Do you really think that is the case now in the States?
Quote:
Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc
Now that's the way men in my part of the world answer a question, with an honest and straightfoward reply. Not the waffling bullshit or answering a question with a question crap like you despicable scumbags do. You'll probably never understand how to be a man malva and you'll never understand why you disgust me just like most politicians.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-07, 05:44 PM   #27
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

malvachat, ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment, you need to separate theory from practice when you talk about these things. Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income and turn the United States into a socialist welfare state. But that hasn't happened and nobody would stand for it if it did. It's the same with the 1st Amendment. Under special circumstances the government can limit free speech, and if they had the ability to define those circumstances (which they don't) they might limit it entirely. But even if they could put an end to our free speech it wouldn't mean they had. I present this post as evidence; if you're reading this then it means I haven't been censored.

None the less, to be fired from one's job for one's words is not the same as censorship. My boss probably wouldn't fire me for my opinions, but even if he did he still couldn't stop me from expressing them. You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences. If we never wanted our opinions to have consequences then we would never express them, would we?

If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be surprised when the things you say come back around and hurt you. The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't.

Last edited by Mazer : 16-07-07 at 06:03 PM.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-07, 07:38 PM   #28
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer View Post
If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum.
perhaps he could teach us all how to be more manly and less disgusting.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-07, 03:31 AM   #29
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

Probably too late for that. Once alcohol and drugs do their damage; or brainwashing by religious fanatics; there's little chance I can reorganize those damaged brain cells so you respect the truth.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-07, 06:45 AM   #30
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

I can see where your coming from Mazer.
What I've picked out is.

"You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences"

"The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't"

I suppose it's the consequences that happen to restrict your free speech.To me that's the same.This price to pay thing.
I fully understand there has to be limits.

Now sinner said this
"But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution"

And he says

"Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc

Have not all these people been personally attacked.
Not the issue they have raised?
Are they not tarred with a brush as being "far left nut jobs"?
This happens the other way round as well of course.
Neo cons comes to mind.
Shoot the messenger sort of thing is what I find so wrong in a so called free society.It happens here in the UK as well.

"Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income"

I'm a bit puzzled about this one.
It stands to reason I'm not a student of the constitution,but I watched this a while ago and wondered about this tax thing.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...arch&plindex=0

Now,as to

"ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment"

Sinner I don't mind at all,sometimes he say daft things.but mostly he answers from his point of view without the silly name calling.
For example
Daft thing to say.
"Don’t care about international law"
Answers from his point of view
"the USA is far far from becoming a Fascist State"
What I said was they're "going down the road to a fascist state"
Albed can sometimes can say some sensible thing,I have even agreed with him on a couple of occasions(I know shame on me)But the silly chat is like listening to a child in a school yard.So to tell me to become a man is so silly.
But now I know he's a brain surgeon I'll see him differently.

"I can reorganize those damaged brain cells"
Do you get medals for doing that as well?
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-07, 08:52 AM   #31
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

That sort of thing is beyond current neurosurgery. What I was thinking was a shock inducing device to be actuated whenever you lie or act like a scumbag. Such devices are commonly used on dogs to modify their behaviour and there was even a drug rehab center using them on clients, which got some protest from the liberal media.

Enough negative stimulus will cause the brain to reorganize neuron pathways to avoid the pain, at least for somewhat normal brains. Maybe we can break your harmful beer addiction and you'll be able to think clearly like an unimpaired person.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-07, 12:02 PM   #32
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malvachat View Post
Now sinner said this
"But when it comes to criticizing government and government officials,free and open discussion should be allowed without fear of retribution"

And he says

"Yes I do. Cindy Sheehan, Mike Moore, John Stewart, Al Franken, Bill Maher, etc etc etc

Have not all these people been personally attacked.
Not the issue they have raised?
Are they not tarred with a brush as being "far left nut jobs"?
Well, the government is not the source of those personal attacks. For the most part those individuals have been wholly ignored by the government. It is the public and members of the press who have slung mud at them, and the 1st amendment also protects mudslinging, within limits. If our government made it so we never faced any criticism, it would have to abridge our critics' freedom of speech to do so.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-07, 02:57 PM   #33
pisser
Guv
 
pisser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Skynet, CA
Posts: 923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed View Post
"horseshit" "the administration"
That's just about right......
pisser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 7th, 2006 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 1 05-01-06 02:20 PM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 24th, ’05 JackSpratts Peer to Peer 5 25-12-05 08:09 PM
Another 9/11-Style Attack Is Good For Bush Repo Political Asylum 17 17-07-04 05:23 PM
COUP D'ETAT:The Real reason Tenet and Pavitt resigned from the CIA floydian slip Political Asylum 4 09-06-04 08:02 PM
Europeans Like Bush Even Less Than Before JackSpratts Political Asylum 24 20-05-04 08:08 PM






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)