Terror attack in Boston?

[Al Swearegen]

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. ..." This has been interpreted to mean that no government entity may curtail free speech and press activities. Photography in its broadest sense is protected as a form of free expression; however, constitutional protections are not absolute and may be subject to "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions," and the main keyword is "reasonable.

Although it says that. there are laws against filming the police. They recently passed a law in (Illinois?) which allows people to film police, so that the cops can't demand they stop filming.

The irony of course is that any time a police is in their car they are filming. If they pull you over they are filming you. Walk into any major metropolitan city, you are being filmed. Same goes for audio in respect to the police car.

Now I ask you, were you asked personally for your consent? Would you have a leg to stand on if as a citizen you were to question this surveillance? They want to remain unable to be censored. Their "If you have done nothing wrong then it should not matter...goes both ways"
America is just allowing its police and government and law courts strip its rights. That is all.

[TheoK]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

[sg1008]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

[Al Swearegen]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

Actually I disagree to some extent. The constitution was written reasonably well BUT when you get biased agendas in politics and bills are pushed through into legislation without any proper consultation or thought as to repercussions of what may be and the government is controlled by large interests groups and fear and ignorance lead to things to 'protect right" by granting too much power and too little rights.....then the original intents or sphere of control and governance matter not a damn, because you are light years away from the original rights granted

[TheoK]

The whole concept of a state appears absurd. It is obvious that totally free people never surrendered to this system voluntarily. Now I mean several thosand years back. It is so obvious that the smartest and richest psychopaths subjugated the absolute majority with brute force.

[sg1008]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

Actually I disagree to some extent. The constitution was written reasonably well BUT when you get biased agendas in politics and bills are pushed through into legislation without any proper consultation or thought as to repercussions of what may be and the government is controlled by large interests groups and fear and ignorance lead to things to 'protect right" by granting too much power and too little rights.....then the original intents or sphere of control and governance matter not a damn, because you are light years away from the original rights granted

I agree, but have to add that it was written reasonably well, on the back of a slave, with the blood of an Indian, by an indentured servant.
 

[Al Swearegen]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

Actually I disagree to some extent. The constitution was written reasonably well BUT when you get biased agendas in politics and bills are pushed through into legislation without any proper consultation or thought as to repercussions of what may be and the government is controlled by large interests groups and fear and ignorance lead to things to 'protect right" by granting too much power and too little rights.....then the original intents or sphere of control and governance matter not a damn, because you are light years away from the original rights granted

I agree, but have to add that it was written reasonably well, on the back of a slave, with the blood of an Indian, by an indentured servant.
 

Hence the "to some extent"...you did not miss that part did you? Hope not.

You are saying that the white settlers miswrote the Constitution and that its freedoms were badly written and set the wheels in motion to result in the same freedoms being extinguished for the white people down the track and the reason is that they wrote it badly is because they were supporting in their culture slave ownership and engaging in genocide against the local indigenous people of America. (Rather than being accused now of placing words in your mouth or trying to change your intention or whatever...I will say...this is my OPINION of what you are trying to say and my reading)

I am saying that the wrote a great constitution to protect "white interests" and the society has eroded these rights by degrees themselves AND the people who wrote the constitution were hypocrites, accepting a culture of slavery and subjugation BUT it does in no way relate to the constitution's strength and intent.

I am not disagreeing that genocide of an indigenous people is good nor that slavery is good. I do not understand its impact in your position.

[sg1008]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

Actually I disagree to some extent. The constitution was written reasonably well BUT when you get biased agendas in politics and bills are pushed through into legislation without any proper consultation or thought as to repercussions of what may be and the government is controlled by large interests groups and fear and ignorance lead to things to 'protect right" by granting too much power and too little rights.....then the original intents or sphere of control and governance matter not a damn, because you are light years away from the original rights granted

I agree, but have to add that it was written reasonably well, on the back of a slave, with the blood of an Indian, by an indentured servant.
 

Hence the "to some extent"...you did not miss that part did you? Hope not.

You are saying that the white settlers miswrote the Constitution and that its freedoms were badly written and set the wheels in motion to result in the same freedoms being extinguished for the white people down the track and the reason is that they wrote it badly is because they were supporting in their culture slave ownership and engaging in genocide against the local indigenous people of America. (Rather than being accused now of placing words in your mouth or trying to change your intention or whatever...I will say...this is my OPINION of what you are trying to say and my reading)

I am saying that the wrote a great constitution to protect "white interests" and the society has eroded these rights by degrees themselves AND the people who wrote the constitution were hypocrites, accepting a culture of slavery and subjugation BUT it does in no way relate to the constitution's strength and intent.

I am not disagreeing that genocide of an indigenous people is good nor that slavery is good. I do not understand its impact in your position.

Thank you for clarifying that it is your opinion. I really appreciate it.

I said I agree. Of course it was written well...they wanted it to be superior. I was just pointing out it's hypocrisy...which has everything to do with how it was implemented. Having laws which protect rights for some but not all can really turn something good on it's head. That context cannot be separated from the document because it has had everything to do with the discussion about people and rights in this country from day 1, until now.

[Parts]

What you just mentioned is the absurdity of all states, though - no one ever gave their consent to be ruled by a state at all.

Well, someone did...either via agreement, or acquiescence.

See, the thing about our forefathers was- they were so friggin' high on the idea of having thousands of acres of "unowned" land to claim, that they didn't make very intelligent or ethical decisions, and were easily led on by people who promised to protect their "right" to do whatever they wanted.

Just imagine you get on a boat and land on a giant continent and are told, just take your pick, you can do whatever you want. People went beserk, and then they were all afraid of the beasts (fauna) and savages (people) which were indigenous, so they supported anyone who would protect their land and cattle and sought to "tame" the entire contient with wheat fields, as such.

And of course, at the time, slaves were merely livestock...they didn't really see them as men, but as the missing link between monkeys and white people. So, whatever rights they gave to animals they gave to slaves. And then, all the sudden immigrants started pouring in from other parts of the world (not just white people), so ppl got real nervous because the land is for white people...they didn't want it to be a china or a mexico...they wanted it to be the best version of white culture.

This was supposed to be a white country. People still believe that it is.

 

It didn't get off to a great start (ethically) so now it's tripping on itself trying to make up for previous missteps. Unfortunately, it's not doing a good job...but on the bright side, people are more aware of their rights (as humans) than they once were (even as they are being taken away).

Actually I disagree to some extent. The constitution was written reasonably well BUT when you get biased agendas in politics and bills are pushed through into legislation without any proper consultation or thought as to repercussions of what may be and the government is controlled by large interests groups and fear and ignorance lead to things to 'protect right" by granting too much power and too little rights.....then the original intents or sphere of control and governance matter not a damn, because you are light years away from the original rights granted

I agree, but have to add that it was written reasonably well, on the back of a slave, with the blood of an Indian, by an indentured servant.
 

Hence the "to some extent"...you did not miss that part did you? Hope not.

You are saying that the white settlers miswrote the Constitution and that its freedoms were badly written and set the wheels in motion to result in the same freedoms being extinguished for the white people down the track and the reason is that they wrote it badly is because they were supporting in their culture slave ownership and engaging in genocide against the local indigenous people of America. (Rather than being accused now of placing words in your mouth or trying to change your intention or whatever...I will say...this is my OPINION of what you are trying to say and my reading)

I am saying that the wrote a great constitution to protect "white interests" and the society has eroded these rights by degrees themselves AND the people who wrote the constitution were hypocrites, accepting a culture of slavery and subjugation BUT it does in no way relate to the constitution's strength and intent.

I am not disagreeing that genocide of an indigenous people is good nor that slavery is good. I do not understand its impact in your position.

Thank you for clarifying that it is your opinion. I really appreciate it.

I said I agree. Of course it was written well...they wanted it to be superior. I was just pointing out it's hypocrisy...which has everything to do with how it was implemented. Having laws which protect rights for some but not all can really turn something good on it's head. That context cannot be separated from the document because it has had everything to do with the discussion about people and rights in this country from day 1, until now.

Generally you can't judge history by today's standards it must be looked at in context of it's time. Socially and culturally people 200 years ago where very different than they are today.   

[sg1008]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/north_america/jan-june13/boston_04-25.html

[Yuri Bezmenov]

DAMN, but it has been a fuuuuuuucked up week.  :/

i hope you weren't stuck with a one night stand all day long when the city was on lockdown.  That would have been fucked up.

Screwier.  My hard drive was dying all week, and I don't have a smartphone.  I had no fucking clue what was happening half the time.

Fucking millennial!!

[El]

DAMN, but it has been a fuuuuuuucked up week.  :/

i hope you weren't stuck with a one night stand all day long when the city was on lockdown.  That would have been fucked up.

Screwier.  My hard drive was dying all week, and I don't have a smartphone.  I had no fucking clue what was happening half the time.

Fucking millennial!!

...not even sure how to unpack your response here, but, for one thing, did you read the part where I didn't have a smartphone?

(Still don't, btw)

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I think Pappy was alluding to how we old people grew up in an era where only banks and NASA had computers. Mobile phones were science fiction. And we found out what was going on in the world by reading newspapers and watching the news on TV.

[El]

I think Pappy was alluding to how we old people grew up in an era where only banks and NASA had computers. Mobile phones were science fiction. And we found out what was going on in the world by reading newspapers and watching the news on TV.

Didn't, and don't, have cable.  *shrug*

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I think Pappy was alluding to how we old people grew up in an era where only banks and NASA had computers. Mobile phones were science fiction. And we found out what was going on in the world by reading newspapers and watching the news on TV.

Didn't, and don't, have cable.  *shrug*

Some people like to think they know everything about you based on your skin colour and what generation you belong to. I wouldn't sweat it.