Re: HIllary takes on Lockheed Martin Global (Censorship) Solutions
Hmm. Mr. Livingston: If what your site claims is true, then that would indeed be very disturbing.
On the other hand, have you considered other possibilities. Have you possibly been caught up in an anti spam filter which has tagged you out because of the way you launch multiple repeating posts??
"I just checked "credibility" on Wikipedia and discovered that the term was coined in 1994 by President Ben Franklin after he rescued the Challenger astronauts from certain death."
Ridiculing your own imagined lie? Sorry, not convincing ----> /sarcFail
"a lot of people are unfamiliar with how much American money is in Baidu. Tremendous amounts. Insane amounts. It's entirely possible they've bought lobbyist protection."
Anonymous, The crap you come up with sometimes is amazing. Lessee... 'Baidu hasn't been seized because lobbyists are probably protecting them'.
Please recall that the domain seizures have been brought to us courtesy of career executive branch administrators at ICE, and not at the direction of elected members of Congress (with the latter being the more natural domain of lobbyists). Notice that if lobbyists are able to sway the guys at ICE, then without prejudice we can plainly call it bribery and not campaign contributions.
So if you are suspecting that Baidu's "insane" money does buy protection, it would appear that you are painfully close to saying that guys in ICE are susceptible to bribes.....Hmmm.
"terrorists are people who intend to do the country (and the Western world) harm are doing by exploiting the very freedoms you hold dear" ... [followed by a bunch of crap where you tell us we just have to give up freedom because otherwise they are gonna come kill us]
To be blunt: Your argument is craven and cowardly.
Freedom is worth taking a risk for. Why don't you stand and defend the right to have the freedom, rather than just surrender to fear
If you don't think risk is unacceptable and freedom can't be weighed against it, then consider the decision you make to get in your car every day. A car is a freedom machine, but cars kill more people than terrorists. So why aren't you walking?
The apology statement by Dr. Alex Karp also included this (not included in Mike's quotation):
“I have made clear in no uncertain terms that Palantir Technologies will not be involved in such activities."
So while Palantir seeks to distance themselves from HBGary, how genuine are they when it was Palantir's name headlining the Powerpoint slide which described plans to undermine Greenwald
"Once people start talking about inalienable rights, honestly, I just tune it out."
Yes, and I understand why you, and most other lawyers do exactly that. You tune out because the law in the United States is assumed to be the practical application of those philosophical underpinnings... and because spending time talking about philosophy sometimes can get in the way of getting real work done. After all, we live in practice, and not in theory. --Fair enough
However, it remains true that if citizens find that the law does not accurately represent the principles on which our country was founded, then that's when those citizens will be ready (and many would argue should be ready) to consider actions such as jury nullification.
I must point out that if you fail to consider this point of view as being valid, it would be easy to conclude that you don't really believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote.
Mike: Those were well written statements. Thank-you for contributing them.
Did you happen to include the citations/references with the submissions? I know it is pretty easy to Google this stuff up, but I wonder if someone who is predisposed to believe accepted and existing points of view will be motivated to do even the least bit of research to explore data leading to other conclusions.
... Meanwhile over in the Senate, Leahy is busy working on a permanent extension of the Act.
Perhaps this is a hopeful sign that won't see the light of day.
"I simply for the life of me do not understand this natural right argument you've been making over several threads. Do you have any case-law that demonstrates your point? You know I love the case-law. :)"
Joe: Case-law is the wrong place to look, but there is an excellent answer to your question. I think you should remember that people who are not lawyers tend to believe there is a difference between what is right or true, and what is legal. They also have a belief that there is a distinction between a natural right and a legal right. Many lawyers consider only the law, and the statutory rights it grants, to have any significance in society.
I don't know if you have forgotten that this different perspective exists, but if not, then you certainly seem ready to deny its validity.
If the latter is true, I would refer to not to case-law, but rather to another source, a singularly important document written by Thomas Jefferson in which he affirms a belief in inalienable right, which is a synonym for natural right. To refresh our memory here are some important excerpts.
"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 alteror 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.
AJ, the above is part of a document which is taken as a foundational statement for what Americans believe. Can you tell me that you honestly believe that the fundamental beliefs expressed are wrong?
Don't tell me that the only way the people are allowed to make changes is by the mechanisms of existing government, because the disruption of the existing government was exactly what was being undertaken when this document was written. The justification for that disruption is plainly seen in Jefferson's words, to be the unalienable rights of men.
Dunn v. US (1932) was a prohibition enforcement case. This was one of many cases of jury nullification which were instrumental provoking the overturn of prohibition. Lawmakers were forced to act when it became apparent that the general public simply did not accept the law, and would not enforce a law they did not believe in.
On the post: Hillary Clinton Talks The Talk On Internet Freedom; Will The Administration Walk The Walk?
Re: HIllary takes on Lockheed Martin Global (Censorship) Solutions
On the other hand, have you considered other possibilities. Have you possibly been caught up in an anti spam filter which has tagged you out because of the way you launch multiple repeating posts??
On the post: If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If The Whole World Knows A False Statement Was Made About You... Why Still Sue For Defamation?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re:
---Obviously no one else in Congress would ever care about any of that.
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, not convincing ----> /sarcFail
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lessee... 'Baidu hasn't been seized because lobbyists are probably protecting them'.
Please recall that the domain seizures have been brought to us courtesy of career executive branch administrators at ICE, and not at the direction of elected members of Congress (with the latter being the more natural domain of lobbyists).
Notice that if lobbyists are able to sway the guys at ICE, then without prejudice we can plainly call it bribery and not campaign contributions.
So if you are suspecting that Baidu's "insane" money does buy protection, it would appear that you are painfully close to saying that guys in ICE are susceptible to bribes.....Hmmm.
On the post: Online Appliance Shop Makes Customers Sign Agreement Threatening Criminal Libel Suits For Negative Reviews
Re: Tech Dirt mistake
On the post: Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True
Re: Typo?
'...no "there" there' is a figure of speech sometimes heard in the US.
On the post: As Expected, House Agrees To Extend Patriot Act With No Discussion, No Oversight
Re: Re:
Freedom is worth taking a risk for.
Why don't you stand and defend the right to have the freedom, rather than just surrender to fear
If you don't think risk is unacceptable and freedom can't be weighed against it, then consider the decision you make to get in your car every day.
A car is a freedom machine, but cars kill more people than terrorists.
So why aren't you walking?
On the post: Firm Involved In Planning Attack On Journalist Glenn Greenwald To Hurt Wikileaks Apologizes; Cuts Ties With HBGary Federal
Palantir is GENUINELY sorry??
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Maybe you should check out Anonymous's stomping grounds
The problem is you don't know what you don't know.
To some of us, that is obvious.
What's more, you've already been caught in verifiable errors.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Source References
...
373 tabs?!?!
holy s**t, just imagine the old days before tabbed browsing when each page was a window
:)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You tune out because the law in the United States is assumed to be the practical application of those philosophical underpinnings... and because spending time talking about philosophy sometimes can get in the way of getting real work done. After all, we live in practice, and not in theory.
--Fair enough
However, it remains true that if citizens find that the law does not accurately represent the principles on which our country was founded, then that's when those citizens will be ready (and many would argue should be ready) to consider actions such as jury nullification.
I must point out that if you fail to consider this point of view as being valid, it would be easy to conclude that you don't really believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
Re:
Here is a direct link to the 2011 annual report by IP Czar Victoria Espinel , to which these articles make reference.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Source References
Von Hippel's website at MIT also has links to many of his publications, including the downloadable book, The Sources of Innovation.
A collection of papers by James Bessen and Michael Meurer can be found at ResearchonInnovation.org.
A preview of their book, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk. can be found HERE. That page also has links to podcasts and video lectures they have done.
On the post: The White House Wants Advice On What's Blocking American Innovation
Source References
Did you happen to include the citations/references with the submissions?
I know it is pretty easy to Google this stuff up, but I wonder if someone who is predisposed to believe accepted and existing points of view will be motivated to do even the least bit of research to explore data leading to other conclusions.
On the post: Surprise: House Did NOT Automatically Extend The Patriot Act
Perhaps this is a hopeful sign that won't see the light of day.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you should remember that people who are not lawyers tend to believe there is a difference between what is right or true, and what is legal. They also have a belief that there is a distinction between a natural right and a legal right.
Many lawyers consider only the law, and the statutory rights it grants, to have any significance in society.
I don't know if you have forgotten that this different perspective exists, but if not, then you certainly seem ready to deny its validity.
If the latter is true, I would refer to not to case-law, but rather to another source, a singularly important document written by Thomas Jefferson in which he affirms a belief in inalienable right, which is a synonym for natural right.
To refresh our memory here are some important excerpts. AJ, the above is part of a document which is taken as a foundational statement for what Americans believe. Can you tell me that you honestly believe that the fundamental beliefs expressed are wrong?
Don't tell me that the only way the people are allowed to make changes is by the mechanisms of existing government, because the disruption of the existing government was exactly what was being undertaken when this document was written. The justification for that disruption is plainly seen in Jefferson's words, to be the unalienable rights of men.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legality of "jury nullification"
Next >>