Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Aug 27, 2007 19:35:26 GMT -5
bamabelle said:
Well, we actually have a MULTI-Party system....it's just that we only usually have TWO major candidates and a system set up for two major primaries. But that can change.....easily! IF enough people get INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what are we going to do about it???? Point fingers and complain about who didn't vote for who or who voted for who and shouldn't have? Or force the candidates to focus on REAL ISSUES instead of letting them run elections on patriotic rhetoric, finger pointing, and attacking their opponents on how UN-patriotic and IMMORAL they are.....that's the only chance we have for REAL change.....I say NO ONE gets a free ride anymore...hold everyone's feet to the same fire and see who jumps first......
I'd say a realistic end game for the Iraqi war, Affordable Universal Health Care in America, and a realistic solution for saving Social Security ought to keep them all busy for this election season....
That's why I voted for Nader in 2000. The Green Party was really gaining momentum and was almost at the 5% needed to get serious consideration during the next election. Of couse, they fudged the numbers so they got less that 5%, and then raised the bar to something like 20%. so they do their best to keep it at a 2 party system (more like 1 party).
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
The system is headed for collapse and it seems that until then no one wants to take the time to stop the impending train wreck.
Man I sound depressing.
Sigh, yeah you do, Troo. Stallion was right about the Green Party almost getting to the magic "Third Party" numbers...and with Global Warming becoming a major issue I think it could make a comeback (tho' not with Nader at the helm....) or some socio-eco centric party like it..... And yes, the "corporate media" is a hurdle. But they operate on the same $$$ principal that everyone else does. We stop spending the $$$ on their products (cable, newspapers, ads, movies, concert tix (ouch! yeah....that one hurts!) etc then they will start listening to us. And yes, all valid points about having to work harder and longer....it won't be easy, we are WAAAY behind the curve....we've been complacent far too long...
OR
We can just sit around for another couple decades and complain about why we are in such bad shape and hope our kids or grandkids fix it for us. Or move to another country that has a vastly superior method of government. Except I'm pretty sure that there really isn't one, it's all just an illusion. Those multi-tiered parliamentary systems have to form all those multi-political "coalitions" to gain power....and it's always in flux as to who is REALLY in power at any given time....and one group can always shift their allegiance to another "coalition" and give them power....thereby making for a somewhat unstable political environment and talk about ripe for corruption....whew! "Hey! I got 5 votes for sale over here, how many you need for a majority???" Nah.....not any better. Just different.
well there are ways of getting rid of a corrupt governent that controls everything and gives you no options. we did it with the british. but thats the reason they are trying to take away our first and second amendment rights and use these scare tactics to keep everyone distracted while they are doing it.
Last Edit: Aug 27, 2007 20:18:00 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
Post by spookymonster on Aug 28, 2007 8:45:37 GMT -5
Some choice quotes:
The first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man. Unless he understands this, he does not grasp the essential meaning of his life.
Huey Newton, Revolutionary Suicide, 1973
[/i] Every revolution was first a thought in one man's mind; and when the same thought occurs to another man, it is the key to that era.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essays: First Series, 1841
[/i] A great revolution is never the fault of the people, but of the government.
Goethe, Conversations with Goethe, 1824
[/i] You cannot buy the Revolution. You cannot make the Revolution. You can only be the Revolution. It is in your spirit or it is nowhere.
Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
[/i] Perhaps a revolution can overthrow autocratic despotism and profiteering or power-grabbing oppression, but it can never truly reform a manner of thinking; instead, new prejudices, just like the old ones they replace, will serve as a leash for the great unthinking mass.
Immanuel Kant, What Is Enlightenment
[/i] ...and last, but certainly not least:
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
Hmm as long as we are throwing out some revolution quotes:
A modern revolutionary group heads for the television station. Abbie Hoffman
I was probably the only revolutionary referred to as cute. Abbie Hoffman
Revolution is not something fixed in ideology, nor is it something fashioned to a particular decade. It is a perpetual process embedded in the human spirit. Abbie Hoffman
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it. Abbie Hoffman
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. Abbie Hoffman
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Aug 28, 2007 14:16:31 GMT -5
And a few more quotes
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free...” --- Utah Phillips
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" ---Mario Savio
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free...” --- Utah Phillips
I wish Bush-type judges agreed w/ Phillips .
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy"- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence" - ditto
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Aug 28, 2007 14:46:36 GMT -5
troo said:
stallion said:
"The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free...” --- Utah Phillips
I wish Bush-type judges agreed w/ Phillips .
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy"- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence" - ditto
for the solution to these problems, see quote number 2
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy"- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence" - ditto
What the frick?
Scalia is not even remotely alone in thinking that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. Some judges believe that the Constitution should be read literally, and nothing in the Constitution expressly says that we are guaranteed a right to privacy. The right to privacy has been extrapolated as a sort of "umbrella" created by the other rights that were expressly provided for. In general, the right to privacy has held up pretty well, and hopefully, it will continue to do so. But there are undoubtedly judges who don't think it should (at least not on a Constitutional basis). So, it's a horrifying statement, but it has some basis in reality.
I have no explanation for the second statement. That's just plain appalling.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Aug 28, 2007 15:16:51 GMT -5
oleander124 said:
troo said:
I wish Bush-type judges agreed w/ Phillips .
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy"- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence" - ditto
What the frick?
Yes, that is American justice on the march to fascism. Of course that's just 1 of 9 justices but Scalia does seem to be goose-stepping along that trecherous path.
Log Lady is correct that the Constitution does not explicitly define a "right to privacy." The Fourth Amendment does, however, define our right to live without "unlawful search and seizure." That does seem to come close to defining a right to privacy, since privacy can be defined as living without government searches. And just try and waltz in to a celebrity mansion unannounced and see if you can argue that they had no actual right to privacy. I'm sure they'd buy that in court.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
[Log Lady is correct that the Constitution does not explicitly define a "right to privacy." The Fourth Amendment does, however, define our right to live without "unlawful search and seizure." That does seem to come close to defining a right to privacy, since privacy can be defined as living without government searches. And just try and waltz in to a celebrity mansion unannounced and see if you can argue that they had no actual right to privacy. I'm sure they'd buy that in court.
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. I don't think that even Scalia would try to argue that the government has the right to come into your house for no reason. And the Fourth Amendment actually protects a lot more than that.
The thing is, when the Supreme Court made their decisions that people could do things like be gay, have pornography in their homes, and use contraceptives, those decisions were all based on a constitutional right to privacy. Ultimately, these are the cases that led up to Roe v. Wade. And it is this constitutional right to privacy that Scalia (and other people who read the Constitution literally) believe does not exist.
And, for the record, if I were to try to walk into a celebrity's home without permission, they may well have a civil and/or criminal case against me, but they would not have a case based on a constitutional right to privacy, which is what Scalia said doesn't exist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Scalia. I think he's a scary, scary man.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Aug 28, 2007 17:25:40 GMT -5
^^^^ You are correct. I was trying to illustrate that the "right to privacy" is a nebulous notion that is actually comprised of numerous, seperate, unrelated rights. Property rights, the Fourth Amendment and the other precidents you mentioned create a notion of a right to privacy, when in literal terms we don't necessarily have any right to privacy. One thing about it all that confuses me (as a former student of media law) is that the law states that we have no expectation of privacy in a public place, or if we are in view from a public place (every paparazzi knows this). So do we have an expectation of privacy in private? and if so, is this different than a "right to privacy?" I'm not a law student. Maybe you could clear that up for me.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
^^^^ You are correct. I was trying to illustrate that the "right to privacy" is a nebulous notion that is actually comprised of numerous, seperate, unrelated rights. Property rights, the Fourth Amendment and the other precidents you mentioned create a notion of a right to privacy, when in literal terms we don't necessarily have any right to privacy. One thing about it all that confuses me (as a former student of media law) is that the law states that we have no expectation of privacy in a public place, or if we are in view from a public place (every paparazzi knows this). So do we have an expectation of privacy in private? and if so, is this different than a "right to privacy?" I'm not a law student. Maybe you could clear that up for me.
Ah, but you forget, we have a mult-tiered legal system in this country and constitutional law is not the only law of the land....municipal and state solicitation and trespass laws would cover some of the situations you are talking about....
What bothers me most is that we seem to imply that a "right to privacy" is not granted in the Constitution so it does not exist. To me the right to be left alone is a primary inherent right whether the government grants it or not. The Scalia view that the government must grant us such rights is scary.
Scalia's view on executing innocent people comes from a school of thought common in Bush appointees that as long as the procedures are correctly followed through with, innocence is irrelevant. The Texas Supreme court has stated this also.
It comes down to whether we have rights or are granted rights.
It comes down to whether we have rights or are granted rights.
Geez, MUST we remind W of EVERYTHING he was supposed to have learned in school? ???
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
It's the Declaration of Independence. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"....sounds like they were granted by someone a whole lot higher up than him.....Privacy may not be mentioned explicitily, but Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness leave a whole lot open to interpretation....not to mention all that about overthrowing oppressive govs that DENY those unalienable rights..... ;D
hmm well i would normally make the argument that people in power dont actually beleive in religion they just use it as a tool to manipulate the masses of weak minded brainwashed followers. that is afterall the reason religion was created. but i think bush is just such a tool that he might actually beleive he talks to god and has to reform the earth so that jesus can return. godd**n these people are crazy. in a couple thousand years people are gonna look back on this nuts like we look on voodoo and nuts now. its just insane!!!! ya the magic guy in the sky!!! its absolutely insane. it is beyond my grasp how so many people can believe this crap!!
Last Edit: Aug 28, 2007 18:17:42 GMT -5 by Dude - Back to Top
^^^^ You are correct. I was trying to illustrate that the "right to privacy" is a nebulous notion that is actually comprised of numerous, seperate, unrelated rights. Property rights, the Fourth Amendment and the other precidents you mentioned create a notion of a right to privacy, when in literal terms we don't necessarily have any right to privacy. One thing about it all that confuses me (as a former student of media law) is that the law states that we have no expectation of privacy in a public place, or if we are in view from a public place (every paparazzi knows this). So do we have an expectation of privacy in private? and if so, is this different than a "right to privacy?" I'm not a law student. Maybe you could clear that up for me.
I can't really say about an expectation of privacy with regard to things like paparazzi. As far as the Fourth Amendment goes, in order for there to be an illegal search and seizure, you have to have an "expectation of privacy" in whatever is being searched. Generally speaking, you have an expectation of privacy in your home. Beyond that, the best answer I can give is really that it is determined on a case-by-case basis. The basic idea is whether you have "an expectation of privacy that society would recognize." I know that "it just depends on the circumstances" doesn't really clarify a whole lot, but that's the way the law works a lot of times. It can be really frustrating, and the flexibility can work for or against people in different cases. But, that's the way it is.
And troo:
What bothers me most is that we seem to imply that a "right to privacy" is not granted in the Constitution so it does not exist. To me the right to be left alone is a primary inherent right whether the government grants it or not. The Scalia view that the government must grant us such rights is scary.
if an imaginary "creator" grants you rights wouldnt those rights be imaginary also? it appears so.
hmm well i would normally make the argument that people in power dont actually beleive in religion they just use it as a tool to manipulate the masses of weak minded brainwashed followers. that is afterall the reason religion was created. but i think bush is just such a tool that he might actually beleive he talks to god and has to reform the earth so that jesus can return. godd**n these people are crazy. in a couple thousand years people are gonna look back on this nuts like we look on voodoo and nuts now. its just insane!!!! ya the magic guy in the sky!!! its absolutely insane. it is beyond my grasp how so many people can believe this crap!!
IF enough people get INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what are we going to do about it???? Point fingers and complain about who didn't vote for who or who voted for who and shouldn't have? Or force the candidates to focus on REAL ISSUES instead of letting them run elections on patriotic rhetoric, finger pointing, and attacking their opponents on how UN-patriotic and IMMORAL they are.....that's the only chance we have for REAL change.....I say NO ONE gets a free ride anymore...hold everyone's feet to the same fire and see who jumps first......
