RE: first amendment gone awray

RE: first amendment gone awray (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 1:41:58 PM)
And here I thought I heard lots of arguments saying science was always fact and everything else was fiction. Just looking for the facts.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 2:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey And here I thought I heard lots of arguments saying science was always fact and everything else was fiction. Just looking for the facts. Saying that science deals with facts is not the same as saying "science was always fact". You and I both know that people who say foolish things like that are...just saying foolish things. We have had electricity for a bit and we still refer to our knowledge of electricity as "theory".

KenDckey -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 3:21:09 PM)
gunny what is electrical theory I have no clue.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 3:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey gunny what is electrical theory I have no clue. It fills several thousand very large books. After all this time there are some basic things that we agree to but only because we cannot come up with a better model. The theory of electricity embraces(among other things) at least two models for current flow. One insists that the electrons flow others that the holes left by the "flowing" electrons flow the opposite direction. At the user level it is irrelevant at the concept and design stage perhaps a bit more.

KenDckey -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 3:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey gunny what is electrical theory I have no clue. It fills several thousand very large books. After all this time there are some basic things that we agree to but only because we cannot come up with a better model. The theory of electricity embraces(among other things) at least two models for current flow. One insists that the electrons flow others that the holes left by the "flowing" electrons flow the opposite direction. At the user level it is irrelevant at the concept and design stage perhaps a bit more. And what does that have to do with the price of rice in china?

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 3:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey gunny what is electrical theory I have no clue. It fills several thousand very large books. After all this time there are some basic things that we agree to but only because we cannot come up with a better model. The theory of electricity embraces(among other things) at least two models for current flow. One insists that the electrons flow others that the holes left by the "flowing" electrons flow the opposite direction. At the user level it is irrelevant at the concept and design stage perhaps a bit more. And what does that have to do with the price of rice in china? You did not ask about the price of rice in China. But if you are serious I would need to know what kind of rice and the quantities required. Also there would be issues re: shipping.

Real0ne -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/30/2015 5:55:13 PM)
then why do we call them 'laws' of physics?

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 8:09:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne then why do we call them 'laws' of physics? The laws of physics define the theory of physics. When one of the laws of physics is found to be a less than accurate representation of reality the law is modified or repealed....the heliocentric theory of the solar system replaced a earlier and less accurate model.

Real0ne -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 9:04:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey gunny what is electrical theory I have no clue. It fills several thousand very large books. After all this time there are some basic things that we agree to but only because we cannot come up with a better model. The theory of electricity embraces(among other things) at least two models for current flow. One insists that the electrons flow others that the holes left by the "flowing" electrons flow the opposite direction. At the user level it is irrelevant at the concept and design stage perhaps a bit more. And what does that have to do with the price of rice in china? I think gunny is pointing out that most things that people consider incontrovertible facts really boil down to 'strong evidence' instead. gunny was describing the difference between hole flow and electron flow. When we went from tubes to transistors we changed to hole flow since they are current rather than voltage controlled devices. For anyone who is not intimately familiar with electrical phenomena albeit totally off topic this is a fascinating demonstration regarding electric charge. http://video.mit.edu/watch/dissectible-capacitor-3540/ My point on the previous page is that literally everything we can conceive has been or will be corrupted by power money greed etc. and the irony is that our whole society is based on money which begets greed and power. Keep in mind the whole purpose of the gubblemint aside from protecting ourselves was to promote 'commerce'. America was not much more than a business adventure of the king, and the india company and other interests. Everything in law, the foundations are enforced through commerce and contract (necessity excepted), which can and is expanding and seeping into regulating nearly everything, even thought and now preemptive penalties (guesses and presumption), which are completely unconstitutional btw, hence the call for BoR. Its well understood that this (as far as government is concerned) is all not much more than a business contract between the serfs and overlords and those who wanna be overlords with money greed and power as its core 'religion'. The first amendment nor the constitution at large, except that which serves 'business' never truly took root because the majority of people in virtually all walks of life are primarily focused on and exercising their religion centered around the triune god of money greed and power, and as you can see in debate and especially profiles on the other side, that they corrupt everything in life to its lowest level, that being 'commerce'. That said do the amendments actually exist outside fanciful thinking since we have no right what so ever to 'exercise' our religion except that which the gubblemint gives us statutory permission to exercise. The 4th, how about 9th...10th...? 9th-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What rights? The gubblemint reads and interprets that as 'they' have rights and the ability to claim rights, they do not, they have none! 10th-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Another joke amendment. It ends at the state. anyone who has ever read or have even done a cursory review of the 60 million laws on the books only takes a moment to realize there are literally no rights left open to be claimed by people that the state has not already claimed to have the authority to regulate through commerce/necessity. Even your thoughts.

joether -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 12:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 while im here, we fall prey to this sort of thinking frequently---the first amendment speaks to government, not relationships between employers and employees, so this isn't a first amendment issue. Any school that accepts money from student loans, has to abide by the rules of the US Government. It's one of those 'buyer-seller' agreements not often talked about out in the open. Meaning both sides have to be in agreement to the 'terms and conditions' of the sale before a transaction takes place. Besides having to follow the law like anyone else, Northwest Univ., agrees to the terms from the US Government. Doing otherwise would result in a few 'tens of percentage points' of current students not being allowed to study there. This would mean the school would go bankrupt within a few short years. Therefore, Northwest Univ., is locked to the unwritten contract at the academic level.... How does that all relate to the educator and story? If the school bars the teacher from publishing a piece of work, the US Government could with hold funds. No major university will ever take that kind of risk! However, the publisher does have some latitude to determine what is acceptable and not, for academic work. Usually there are some pretty tight rules most in the public are unaware of existing. To which begs the question: How many on this forum, have actually read and (more importantly) understand what the professor wanted to be published? Because if you read and understand the document, then the next logical question becomes: Do you understand the rules and conditions by which an author can publish material through the journal? I'm going to take the educated guess that the answer to both questions is 'No'. So here you all are, talking about something you really do not understand at its fine points of the 1st amendment. You and others are talking on things way outside of the context. Perhaps you should read the piece, study the rules of the publisher, and review the lengthy discussion between the actual academics, before debating the issue. There exists an abundant amount of subtleties to this whole topic that are not be expressed here.

joether -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 12:10:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne then why do we call them 'laws' of physics? "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements." SOURCE

tj444 -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 12:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey A good point but sometimes principle outweighs the consequences otherwise. that is rarely true, imo.. most people forget about those nasty unexpected consequences.. and they actually rarely consider how far things can go, which can include being harmed or death of the person.. after all, how many would do what MLK did for his principles (even tho he was eventually murdered for them), how many people do what Snowden did for his principles (& live in exile forever, future murder still a possibility also).. just sayin'..

joether -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 12:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey A good point but sometimes principle outweighs the consequences otherwise. that is rarely true, imo.. most people forget about those nasty unexpected consequences.. and they actually rarely consider how far things can go, which can include being harmed or death of the person.. after all, how many would do what MLK did for his principles (even tho he was eventually murdered for them), how many people do what Snowden did for his principles (& live in exile forever, future murder still a possibility also).. just sayin'.. Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! If he lived by his principles, he would never taken a job by the National Security Agency (NSA). If he was against someone having secerts, why join an organization known for its secrets? You want someone with principles and does stuff on behave of the US Citizens of this nation? Senator Elizabeth Warren!

tj444 -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 2:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey A good point but sometimes principle outweighs the consequences otherwise. that is rarely true, imo.. most people forget about those nasty unexpected consequences.. and they actually rarely consider how far things can go, which can include being harmed or death of the person.. after all, how many would do what MLK did for his principles (even tho he was eventually murdered for them), how many people do what Snowden did for his principles (& live in exile forever, future murder still a possibility also).. just sayin'.. Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! If he lived by his principles, he would never taken a job by the National Security Agency (NSA). If he was against someone having secerts, why join an organization known for its secrets? You want someone with principles and does stuff on behave of the US Citizens of this nation? Senator Elizabeth Warren! your opinion is different than mine.. I applaud Snowden and what he did.. I dont know that he was against someone having secrets, imo what he was opposed to was violating peoples privacy and doing so in ways that are illegal, immoral and all encompassing.. If he broke any laws, then it was as a result of the govt/NSA/other letter agencies breaking the law..

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (8/31/2015 10:18:24 PM)
quote: Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! I am unclear as to what law Mr. Snowden boke but the law that the U.S. government broke is quite clear. If one knows of a crime and does not report it doesn't that make them an accessory to that crime? quote: If he lived by his principles, he would never taken a job by the National Security Agency (NSA). Do you really believe that he knew that the NSA was breaking the law and that is why he went to work there? quote: If he was against someone having secerts, why join an organization known for its secrets? I have never heard of him saying he was against anyone having secrets he was upset that the NSA was breaking the law. ps: I have my dictionary and, my neighbor who is an EE for the mine is having dinner with me . Would you have time to discuss your opinions about Mr. Musk's failures as an engineer?

joether -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 1:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey A good point but sometimes principle outweighs the consequences otherwise. that is rarely true, imo.. most people forget about those nasty unexpected consequences.. and they actually rarely consider how far things can go, which can include being harmed or death of the person.. after all, how many would do what MLK did for his principles (even tho he was eventually murdered for them), how many people do what Snowden did for his principles (& live in exile forever, future murder still a possibility also).. just sayin'.. Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! If he lived by his principles, he would never taken a job by the National Security Agency (NSA). If he was against someone having secerts, why join an organization known for its secrets? You want someone with principles and does stuff on behave of the US Citizens of this nation? Senator Elizabeth Warren! your opinion is different than mine.. I applaud Snowden and what he did.. I dont know that he was against someone having secrets, imo what he was opposed to was violating peoples privacy and doing so in ways that are illegal, immoral and all encompassing.. If he broke any laws, then it was as a result of the govt/NSA/other letter agencies breaking the law.. I think Mr. Snowden broke the law. That there exists processes by which someone can make their viewpoint known on a given piece of classified information in a diplomatic and legal mannerism. This process was created to help protect information that could be used by the nation's enemies. Mr. Snowden knew of this process before he 'took the law into his own hands'. We do not condone vigilantism on the streets of America; why would we allow it within the NSA? What if someone you cared was put into danger because of Mr. Snowden's actions? Would you be so cavalier in your attitude in praising the guy? I understand why the federal government was spying. Even understand that people got upset about this. The part I can not understand is this: Corporations are governments onto themselves. That they spy on Americans for all sorts of reasons (many of them not legal or ethical). Yet, the folks whom are against the US Government spying on them, are completely 'OK' with these companies doing the same thing.

joether -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 1:50:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! I am unclear as to what law Mr. Snowden boke but the law that the U.S. government broke is quite clear. If one knows of a crime and does not report it doesn't that make them an accessory to that crime? 18 US Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information That carries with it some VERY serious penalties if found guilty of it. Like imprisonment and execution. If Mr. Snowden didn't break any laws, then why isn't he in the United States of America? Or is a US Citizen above the laws of the land? People say he would not get a fair trial. Yet, that is the risk of....ANYONE....in the court system. In the past, the current, and the future. If the man was found guilty, these people would argue he didn't get a fair trial. How do we determine if someone got a fair trial? That is why we have an Appellate Court. They review the case and give a verdict. If still not satisfied, there is the Supreme Court. In the case of a federal law issue, this would be the US Supreme Court. If people are still not happy with the verdict; tough shit. quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: If he lived by his principles, he would never taken a job by the National Security Agency (NSA). Do you really believe that he knew that the NSA was breaking the law and that is why he went to work there? Since the man is to afraid to show up in the United States, let alone a court room to which facts and evidence can be submitted for review; we might never really know. Frankly, if you enter employment with the CIA, FBi, or NSA an are completely unaware of all the 'cloak and dagger' stuff; Your and Idiot! Yes, the NSA is all about secrets. And they are very often monitored for their actions by Congress. Most Americans did not read the Patriot Act just as they did not read the Affordable Care Act. As such they have had other people with political agendas 'inform them' on how to think and behave given the law. How many times have you seen me correcting conservatives on this forum that got bullshit information from some right-wing publication on the ACA? Its fair to say that most Americans are not informed, directly speaking, of the Patriot Act. quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: If he was against someone having secerts, why join an organization known for its secrets? I have never heard of him saying he was against anyone having secrets he was upset that the NSA was breaking the law. If he wasn't against anyone having secrets, why did he perform his actions? How do we determine if a law was broken? A ) Place it within the realm of 24/7 media 'discussions' that push political agendas B ) Within a court of law Yes, Mr. Snowden and most Americans that side with him, went with Option 'A'. The correct method was Option 'B'. It is one thing to say the government is breaking the law and show public information. It is quite a bit different to say the government is breaking the law and release classified information to the public. Because then it raises the question: "Does the Ends Justify the Means"? If 'yes', then what is the point of having laws? Lets just throw out the US Constitution and everything else. There is a reason why we have laws. There is a reason why classified information is not released to the public. There is a reason that there are VERY stiff penalties to those circumstances. That we have people that do not understand this concept, REALLY DOES, show their level of education. And that education is descending towards 'fucking clueless and useless US Citizen'. quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez ps: I have my dictionary and, my neighbor who is an EE for the mine is having dinner with me . Would you have time to discuss your opinions about Mr. Musk's failures as an engineer? Not on this topic. Maybe on another topic.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 6:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez ps: I have my dictionary and, my neighbor who is an EE for the mine is having dinner with me . Would you have time to discuss your opinions about Mr. Musk's failures as an engineer? Not on this topic. Maybe on another topic.[/quote] Not to worry young man. You take as much time as you feel necessary to research your topic. I think that there are some here who shoot from the lip,so to speak, because they heard some thing from someone. I think those who take the time to research their subject before expounding usually have a more fulfilling experience from the discussion.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 7:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Mr. Snowdin did not live by his principles; he broke the law! I am unclear as to what law Mr. Snowden boke but the law that the U.S. government broke is quite clear. If one knows of a crime and does not report it doesn't that make them an accessory to that crime? 18 US Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information That carries with it some VERY serious penalties if found guilty of it. Like imprisonment and execution. If Mr. Snowden didn't break any laws, then why isn't he in the United States of America? Or is a US Citizen above the laws of the land? People say he would not get a fair trial. Yet, that is the risk of....ANYONE....in the court system. In the past, the current, and the future. If the man was found guilty, these people would argue he didn't get a fair trial. How do we determine if someone got a fair trial? That is why we have an Appellate Court. They review the case and give a verdict. If still not satisfied, there is the Supreme Court. In the case of a federal law issue, this would be the US Supreme Court. If people are still not happy with the verdict; tough shit. It was a two part question.

Thegunnysez -> RE: first amendment gone awray (9/1/2015 7:05:07 PM)
quote: Do you really believe that he knew that the NSA was breaking the law and that is why he went to work there? Since the man is to afraid to show up in the United States, let alone a court room to which facts and evidence can be submitted for review; we might never really know. I asked your opinion. I did not ask what might happen in court.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875