Yes I do as a matter of fact. I think both sides are at fault but it is the situation in general that doesn't help matters. It really does not matter who is right and who is wrong for this to have an effect. A lot of Europe already does not like the United States so this is just another reason. It also gives the Italian government a reason to pull out of Iraq, which the Italian people want.Originally Posted by The Captain
I just think its always dark, and that its just more apparent to the public now with the war and all.
Thanks Captain for the link, its truly...disturbing.. ._.;;
The Patriot Act is the Sept. 11 product to give the government, an unbeilevable amount of power(*unbeilevable in US terms*). Now i agree that some parts of it are needed, but those pieces should be ripped from the metaphorical flesh of the document and be passed through Congress individually.
Not quite, I'd say;
Which basically says that the constitution doesn't have to spell out every right people have, for them to have it. Privacy is considered a right by most of the public, and so it is a right. I'm not a lawyer, but based on that amendment, I'd be inclined to say that a very convincing argument could be made that any law, or judge ruling, that violates privacy is unconstitutional.
I wonder how these dumb high school kids would feel if they had someone follow them for a week and tell them what they can and can not say. Then see what they say about the matter. Idiots.
Sig under construction.
I doubt Berlusconi would ever do that
I'm inclined to agree with you on that one.I wonder how these dumb high school kids would feel if they had someone follow them for a week and tell them what they can and can not say. Then see what they say about the matter. Idiots.However, in their defense, most High School students got into politics in the post 9-11 world of fear and uncertanty, which the Bushies played to the hilt. :rolleyes2
You never know what will happen. The ally troops firing at your troops and killing them when they were on a rescue mission is a pretty big thing. I also don't like the way the pentagon handled it by not releasing any testimony from our troops when the Italian government released the testimony of what happened from the agent that survived. Paints a really bad picture.I doubt Berlusconi would ever do that
I don't really know Italy's stance on the whole thing but it just doesn't sound good over all for the US.
EDIT: I just realized that I have not kept up with this story over the past few days so maybe things have changed drastically. From what I read when it happened this is the impression that I got.
Last edited by edczxcvbnm; 03-11-2005 at 12:33 AM.
Ah, so in that case, the "right to" anything could just be made up and given to the people.Which basically says that the constitution doesn't have to spell out every right people have, for them to have it. Privacy is considered a right by most of the public, and so it is a right. I'm not a lawyer, but based on that amendment, I'd be inclined to say that a very convincing argument could be made that any law, or judge ruling, that violates privacy is unconstitutional.
Yes, there is a general "right to privacy" - in criminal cases, as I have already explained. But the "right of privacy" as most people think of it is nonexistant, as shown by court precedent. It has been ruled constitutional for employers to force employees to wear tracking badges; and for employers to read their employees' emails, even non-job related ones; and for employers/parents to read diary entries/other private journal-writings of employees/kids; and many other cases that I could list. There is no social "right to privacy." The right to privacy only relates in criminal cases to the defendent's/witnesses' "expectation of privacy," which relates to the necessity of a warrant as shown in the 4th amendment - basically, only applies to police and other federal agents which require a warrant.
Just like the "seperation of church and state" - another myth. The so-called "seperation" is only somewhat similar to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the government can pass no laws that "establishes or excludes" religion - not the same thing by any standards.
The patriot act is basically a rerun of the alien act which was in effect I believe in the early 19th century. This gave the government the right to deport any foreigner they felt was dangerous to the country. It also gives the government the power to not give habeas corpus ( a trial) and simply imprison those they find threatening (Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the civil war) All in all the Patriot act is about as Patriotic as Mein Kempf.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here this is the War room"
While it may be true that the words "seperation of church and state" don't actually apear in the constitution, it's pretty clear what their intent was. THey did not want religion and government to mix, and 9/11 is a perfect example of why. And by the way, the constitution was designed to change and grow with the times. They knew it wasn't perfect when they wrote it.Just like the "seperation of church and state" - another myth. The so-called "seperation" is only somewhat similar to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the government can pass no laws that "establishes or excludes" religion - not the same thing by any standards.
The original founders absolutely did not mean the complete seperation of church and state. The founding fathers opened the First Congress meetings with a prayer - an action that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court(opening a legislative session of government with a prayer).
The Constitution states that the government can pass no laws to either establish nor exclude religion. The sole intent was to limit the religious persecution that stemmed from England. It was not to completely exclude religion from public affairs.
I could rant on, again, but this is for another debate.
Raistlin speaks truth, on both the right to privacy and the seperation of church and state. In fact, the concept of seperation of church and state was originally intended to protect the church from the government, and not the other way around, as many people believe it was.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Actually, it was mostly the deists who were behind the seperation of church and state. They didn't want Christians telling them what to believe, and many of them, such as Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, were distrustful of the church.
Yeah, despite attempts to rewrite history, not all of the founding fathers were Christian. As mentioned, Thomas Jefferson and John Q. Adams weren't. Nor were Benjamin Frankly, Ethan Allen, James Madison, or George Washington. They were deists. They did not believe in the bible, or in churches. Thus, they didn't want the church to be butting into government, telling them what to believe.
Were most of the founding fathers Christian? Yeah. But not all of them, and some of the most influential weren't. Virtually every step of the constitution was paved with comprimise. The northern states wanted to abolish slavery, but the southern states wanted to keep it. So, some states had slavery, some didn't. Some of them wanted democracy. Others wanted a more stable government. So we got representative democracy. Prayer at the beginning of Congress was one of these comprimises. The Christians wanted to kick things off with a prayer, and the deists didn't care to stop them.
But to imply that all of the founding fathers were Christian would be false, just as it would be false to claim that America was founded as a Christian nation. Seperation of church and state was created to protect the infidel from the believer, as much as to protect the believer from the infidel.
Couldn't have put it better.
Posting Permissions
