|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Wow, I'm starting to come around. All you liberal fearmongers and turning me to your point of view. Uh oh. |
Funny what happens when we use that wonderful gift from God, our brains! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| In that case, taking the Devil's Advocate stance should be clear, and if there is a chance of ambiguity, it should be stated clearly. |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| God I love it when BLT tries to go all rational. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| In that case, taking the Devil's Advocate stance should be clear, and if there is a chance of ambiguity, it should be stated clearly. |
No. |
I'll play: Yes.
Son, you defended Homeland for getting firefighters to spy. Take a stand: for or against, because your fence-sitting BS before has been called: you're trolling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: Re: FDNY: Spies with hoses. |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
For chrissake... can't you ever just have a conversation and leave the devil's advocate *beep* melting away the back of your own brain? Need you inflict it on the rest of us?
|
My conversations always involve considering the alternative. |
This current American government has already suspended civil liberties and tortures people. If it had a spotless record on civil liberties, a small expansion of government into the homes of average citizens wouldn't be all that problematic (though I would still oppose it). But when a government that has as much contempt for liberty as does this one and directs government agencies to start spying on citizens we have a serious problem.
You smoke weed dude? Do you think that otherwise law-abiding smokers should fear this? How about people with pirated games/Dvd/cd's? Government expansion happens step by step. Today, they want "terrorists" but tomorrow the MPAA is whispering in their ear for just a touch more power. It will not stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Masan
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So as a firefighter you should ignore anything suspicious?
Sound like DHS is merely informing the FDNY of what a terrorist may look like.
Sparsely furnished home, aircraft manuals, etc.
Should FDNY report to NYPD if they see signs of arson?
Should FDNY report to NYPD if they see signs of child abuse?
It's not like DHS is asking FDNY to carry tasers and tase anyone with
sparse furnishings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
So as a firefighter you should ignore anything suspicious?
Sound like DHS is merely informing the FDNY of what a terrorist may look like.
Sparsely furnished home, aircraft manuals, etc.
Should FDNY report to NYPD if they see signs of arson?
Should FDNY report to NYPD if they see signs of child abuse?
It's not like DHS is asking FDNY to carry tasers and tase anyone with
sparse furnishings. |
In my city, Windsor, they had a program where they trained cab drivers to spot crimes in progress. Oh well. It's one thing to ask librarians to report people for checking out suspicious books, it's another thing to train fire fighters what might be worth reporting and what is just noise.
I remember once a coworker called a task force line trying to catch Paul Bernardo. This was before anyone knew it was Paul Bernardo. Anyway, she heard these two guys talking about taking apart a car. Since they were blue collar people eating in a Wendy's in a nice upper class Toronto burb, they must be serial killers in her white bread mind. She called the tip line and tried to report them. See, she wasn't fooled. When they were talking about tearing a part a car, she really knew it was code for dismembering a school girl.
Long and short of it, it's not a bad thing to teach people who to spot x so they don't waste your time with y. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: FDNY: Spies with hoses. |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
For chrissake... can't you ever just have a conversation and leave the devil's advocate *beep* melting away the back of your own brain? Need you inflict it on the rest of us?
|
My conversations always involve considering the alternative. |
This current American government has already suspended civil liberties and tortures people. If it had a spotless record on civil liberties, a small expansion of government into the homes of average citizens wouldn't be all that problematic (though I would still oppose it). But when a government that has as much contempt for liberty as does this one and directs government agencies to start spying on citizens we have a serious problem.
You smoke weed dude? Do you think that otherwise law-abiding smokers should fear this? How about people with pirated games/Dvd/cd's? Government expansion happens step by step. Today, they want "terrorists" but tomorrow the MPAA is whispering in their ear for just a touch more power. It will not stop. |
I have no doubt provisions of the patriot act, like the previous RICO, will start to be applied to areas where they weren't intended. RICO was sold on the need to bust down on organized crime but has found uses/abuses in other ways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Famous_cases
That said, training fire fighters when to report something does not necessarily seem like a bad idea for reasons previously expressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: FDNY: Spies with hoses. |
|
|
The PATRIOT Act already also applies to child pornography and drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Montag
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs,
Books and Free Speech Across America
2007 12 04
By Mike Adams | newstarget.com
The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism "Prevention" Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA).
The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com
This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated.
This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml
The bill states:
�...ideologically based violence� means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual�s political, religious, or social beliefs ...
Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:
� A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
� A non-violent street protest
� A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
� A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
� A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency
You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.
If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("... use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs ...")
If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("... to promote the individual's political beliefs ...")
If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("... planned use of force to promote a social belief ...")
The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal act.
Must-see video: Naomi Wolf's lecture on 10 steps to fascism
There's a video lecture you simply MUST watch. It's by Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America. She covers this topic with great elegance and a deep understanding of history.
MORE ...
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2397 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism "Prevention" Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). |
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Governments can pass any crazy laws they want. But oh well. There's a thing called the first amendment that would kill it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, mm2, your observation is that the current American government has respected their constitution? That all the laws they have passed, and that are in effect, are in full legal line with the constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They, the government, certainly would argue that point. However, that is for the courts to decide. Under Article III of the constitution, the courts, any court for that matter, reserve the right to strike any law from the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|