I'll have you know that I have not yet begun the nightly ravishing of the wine cellar! No sir! What would cause you to think that? I didn't misspell anything did I? (I have watched far to much Blackadder goes forth today)
Agreed, most are BS, but the problem is that they do exist and have consequences.
Okay, so we have a situation with bullshit laws + lack of privacy resulting in people getting into trouble they don't deserve to get into. However, it's pretty obvious that if we're going to do something about it, the thing to do is to fix the bullshit laws, not attempt to enforce privacy. As such, your point is moot.
This is a " moo point. Its like a cows point of view, it just doesnt matter, its moo"
Des, this is what comes from non-law types trying to argue law.
No, the Constitution doesn't specifically talk about privacy. However, the Court has found that privacy falls under the "penumbra" of rights granted by the Constitution. That's the origin of most of those statutes you tried to cite. Ever see the Constitution say anything about a right to get an abortion? That falls under the "penumbra". Part of the analysis in that line of cases had to do with privacy rights. Read up on that sort of thing if you want to defeat Rym in a Con Law debate about privacy.
Also, that Restatement you're talking about? Invasion of privacy is a tort for which you can sue or be sued for. That doesn't really mean it's a right anymore than it's a right to avoid injury by medical malpractice. Further, the Restatements are not actually law themselves. They're more like an explanation of the general state of law with citations to show what different jurisdictions do, what the majority and minority positions are, and so forth. It's persuasive, but not mandatory. NY state, for instance, may follow the Restatement to the letter. Then again, it may not.
Finally, it's progress that you tried to provide at least some sources, but you need to learn how to cite legal sources properly. It's not hard, but when it's not done right - like in your post, it looks like a dog's breakfast.
Des, this is what comes from non-law types trying to argue law.
No, the Constitution doesn't specifically talk about privacy. However, the Court has found that privacy falls under the "penumbra" of rights granted by the Constitution. That's the origin of most of those statutes you tried to cite. Ever see the Constitution say anything about a right to get an abortion? That falls under the "penumbra". Part of the analysis in that line of cases had to do with privacy rights. Read up on that sort of thing if you want to defeat Rym in a Con Law debate about privacy.
Also, that Restatement you're talking about? Invasion of privacy is a tort for which you can sue or be sued for. That doesn't really mean it's a right anymore than it's a right to avoid injury by medical malpractice. Further, the Restatements are not actually law themselves. They're more like an explanation of the general state of law with citations to show what different jurisdictions do, what the majority and minority positions are, and so forth. It's persuasive, but not mandatory. NY state, for instance, may follow the Restatement to the letter. Then again, it may not.
Finally, it's progress that you tried to provide at least some sources, but you need to learn how to cite legal sources properly. It's not hard, but when it's not done right - like in your post, it looks like a dog's breakfast.
I think you are arguing nuisances of my points. I'm not History, Law or other kind of research graduate student, so I will not even try develop skills akin to their abilities when that time can be properly spent on the skills that will help me "stack that paper". Frankly, I don't and shouldn't need to. There is a huge difference between "informed citizen" and "lawyer". I remember an argument I had with a PHD Biology student once. As an informed citizen I was interested in this person's field and how government money was being spent on helping this person's research. I found the summery of this person's research to be very exciting and I would cast my vote for anyone who would continue to fund this person. However in a conversation with this person, this person was so offended that I didn't fully understand what they where doing that they treated me rudely and with disrespect and alienated any support that I would possibly give them -- This person tried to hold me to their professional standard when I was not even trained in the basics of their field.
On another note you are basically making an "Ivory Tower" argument that what I said incorrect because I did not define it within the context of your definition. It's irrelevant most people whether the premise of a their "right" comes from a court case or directly from the constitution. The important thing is that it's there.
I run into this problem a lot in job interviews. My professors have stressed certain topics as being super important and when I show up to my internships they tend be completely unimportant.
@HungeryJoe: I consider myself to be pretty Liberal with a few issues that I stick to that are kind of centrist. My first experience with you turned me completely against you. Your first conversation with me gave me the impression that you saw yourself as an "Elite Liberal" and an "Elite Scholar" and everyone else didn't live up to you. I say Phooey on your attitude! But despite that I have been gaining more respect for you.
Most people are only concerned with, "Can I use this to defend myself" or "Will someone try to fuck me with this". If you feel obligated to break it down into all the "academically" correct categories and use proper notation, by all means please do! I have to study for my next job interview and review the mechanisms that Java uses to protect memory from programs before I delve into the dark arcane arts of academic writing! However I will not allow this to be used as an excuse to deter me from my civic duty as I see it and go home and not be involved in politics and philosophy.
We live in a world where massive corporations are people and if they wrong you they get to fight you as an individual while using their vast corporate resources and teams of skilled professionals(See the recent Supreme Court ruling about how women can't file a class action suit against Walmart for gender discrimination because there are too many of them). Not being involved because I am not an aspiring liberal arts grad student is not an option!
As a fellow Liberal with the skills that you would like to see others use, maybe you should work on team building and use those skills to help put forth a document that effectively represents the FRC's position. Don't alienate potential allies because they aren't elite enough in your eyes. Otherwise you are just here on the internet to bask in your own glory and not really make a difference. See my Argument on paddling up the stream of moral relativism. Everyone is going with the flow and reaping the benefits of all the bad stuff while the elite moral guy paddles up the stream spending all his effort. Ultimately the elite moral guy can only say, "at least I did the right thing, that makes me better" and everyone else, swimming in their money pits like scrooge McDuck say, "yeah whatever guy". It would be cool if we could come up with a general consensus that we could mostly agree on while leaving some of the minor issues as pet issues that we care about on an individual basis.
I think the insults are getting weaker. I think it would have been stronger to say it looked more like the dog's breakfast after it had been properly digested and expelled, but you didn't take it that far. I personally didn't think the citations looked that bad, because they were all a Google search away
I agree with Desimos that using dead soldiers for arguments by people that never even knew those dead soldiers is a pretty bullshit move; I don't think anybody has argued that. The argument is whether government should enforce certain rights, blah blah blah. I think HungryJoe hit it in reference to lawsuits.
The freedom of press is legally protected. The government itself is responsible for insuring freedom of the press. Privacy is a civil matter, and can be protected through lawsuits and such. The government is not responsible for insuring privacy.
I think the insults are getting weaker. I think it would have been stronger to say it looked more like the dog's breakfast after it had been properly digested and expelled, but you didn't take it that far. I personally didn't think the citations looked that bad, because they were all a Google search away
I agree with Desimos that using dead soldiers for arguments by people that never even knew those dead soldiers is a pretty bullshit move; I don't think anybody has argued that. The argument is whether government should enforce certain rights, blah blah blah. I think HungryJoe hit it in reference to lawsuits.
The freedom of press is legally protected. The government itself is responsible for insuring freedom of the press. Privacy is a civil matter, and can be protected through lawsuits and such. The government is not responsible for insuring privacy.
I'm okay with this.
Are you allowed to cause harm or injury to others(mental, physical, emotional, or professional) by exercising your rights? Was it Ok for Joe McCarthy to accuse all the people of being traitors with no evidence what-so-ever thus removing them from most of their professions, and also from politics? He has the right to free speech, correct?
Privacy is a civil matter, and can be protected through lawsuits and such. -- I agree
The government is not responsible for insuring privacy. -- True! But at the same time if your privacy is violated due to negligence of government, government should be held accountable.
It's not Government's responsibility to prevent all crime. That's impossible. Realistically the Government can really only deter crime without violating peoples' freedoms. There should be penalties associated with these violations, and victims should have legal recourse so that they aren't just walked all over.(All of these things already exist) However, it is self evident that even with deterrents, people will still perform these actions, because a majority of crime is irrational. Remember "The Press" essentially consists of mega corps that place bounties on news, pictures and sound bites and then private reporters run around and try to get.(The Blogger sphere feeds of this primary source, very few bloggers are actually on the street looking for news) That's a fiercely competitive market and requires regulation since there are real peoples' live involved. (And anyone who thinks that fierce competition and no regulation means that people won't do horrible things to others to one-up each other has been living under a rock for the last 10 years). And now I have come back full circle to the core of my anti-Neo-Liberal, anti-laissez-faire philosophy.
The government is not responsible for insuring privacy. -- True! But at the same time if your privacy is violated due to negligence of government, government should be held accountable
Those families that feel so violated, through fault of the government, have an avenue of civil litigation for recourse.
The government is not responsible for insuring privacy. -- True! But at the same time if your privacy is violated due to negligence of government, government should be held accountable
Those families that feel so violated, through fault of the government, have an avenue of civil litigation for recourse.
And Obama STILL has way less vacation days than every other Republican president in recent history. So yeah, I'm still happy with him.
So let me get this straight. It doesn't matter that unemployment has nearly doubled since Bush left office? It doesn't matter that the Taliban is more successful than they have ever been in killing Americans serving in Afghanistan? It doesn't matter that the dollar has lost trenendous value? It doesn't matter that the stock market is dropping like a rock? It doesn't matter that Obama has turned off so many moderates that there is a very real possibility of a Republican being elected in 2012?
Nice objectivity, MacRoss. Your argument is as mature as a third grader saying "I know you are but what am I?" To add to the embarrassment, you didn't even factor in data such as the 75 rounds of golf in 3 years (versus 25 for Bush in 8 years) or the fact that he's stopped working to attend 35 fundraising events in 3 years (versus 3 for Bush).
I was criticizing Obama based on the state of the union at this time. You were defending him based on irrelevant data concerning some personal grudge you can't get over. Who has made the better argument?
You're right, MacRoss. As long as Obama does 0.05% better than Bush, we shouldn't complain at all about his performance. What a great yardstick. Too bad it only makes Obama look better regarding vacations. Who cares about the economy, eh?
It's so funny to see how much you suffer from a lock of objectivity, MacRoss. Sad, but also funny. Well... strike that... It's just sad.
It's okay if Obama is fiddling while Washington burns, as long as his music is just a little sweeter than someone who last fiddled three years ago... He's so dreamy!
Hey Kilarney what do you think of the derp brigade last night. Fox news commentators were saying it was a good night for Barack Obama and none of the candidates had any show of leadership on any issue. (especially the economy)
You're right, MacRoss. As long as Obama does 0.05% better than Bush, we shouldn't complain at all about his performance. What a great yardstick. Too bad it only makes Obama look better regarding vacations. Who cares about the economy, eh?
You're implying that Bush did a better job on the economy? In what ways? More jobs were created on his watch? He balanced the budget? He was fiscally responsible and put all his expenditures where everyone could see them?
I didn't see the debate last night, so I really can't comment on it. I'm certainly not impressed with many of the candidates who attended.
As for the economy, both Bush Jr. and Obama have done poorly. I would not choose either of them to be my economic advisor. Having said that, and without addressing causation, I would love a return to Bush unemployment and deficit levels.
The economy is terrible. It's been that way for over a decade thanks to Republicans killing all kinds of regulations. Obama taking a day off or a weekend off is not going to make or break the economy. ESPECIALLY since every time he presented those festering whiny stubborn ingrates with any plan that involved raising taxes on the stupidly rich, the Republicans plugged their ears and went "LALALLALAA we can't hear you!". Bush did a worse job on the economy, period. Terry Schiavo could have done a better job than Bush on the economy because all that asshole had to do was NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. What is going on in the market now is a direct result of the Republican stubborn insistence that we move to a two class system where the classes are "I have a ton of money" wealthy and "Fuck you." on the other end of the spectrum. I don't care how many games of golf he plays as long as he's taking positive action and getting things done when he's not. That's one of many reasons I hate Bush so much was that not only did he spend half his time dicking around the Whitehouse or at his fucking Texas ranch doing fuck-all, but when he DID do anything it was ALWAYS harmful. He mishandled every single event, blew the economy with deregulation, got involved in wars in countries we had no business being in, AND took more time off than anyone ever. Does the economy suck? Yes, but let's place blame where it actually needs to be. Republicans have said "no" for years to everything, EVERYTHING, because it wasn't their majority. No compromises, no deals, no movement. Just childish, spiteful, lying and fear-mongering because they got their asses kicked out after ten years of debacles.
EDIT: Oh, and another thing, even looking at Politifact, the things that have stalled or that Obama has failed to come through on? Yeah, mostly economic fixes that were blocked by....guess who?...Derpublicans. So, here we have a president who very well could have fixed the economic problems, but a petulant opposing party wanted to make the economy so bad that they could try to pin it on Obama and win in 2012. Which, if you look at the debate the other day, is looking like they have little chance of actually winning, what with that peanut gallery of tea-baggers and morons.
Edit^2: Oh yeah, and he made it so that states can opt-out of the moronic, draconian NCLB shit-pile that Bush also created.
Keep believing. People like you are a reason Obama will be a one term president. Obama doesn't have to worry about accountability. Your wing if the party, suffering from cult of personality, is doing tremendous harm to your actual agenda.
You really are just a left version of a teabagger. As a moderate, it is sad to see the polarization that has gripped our country.
Keep believing. People like you are a reason Obama will be a one term president. Obama doesn't have to worry about accountability. Your wing if the party, suffering from cult of personality, is doing tremendous harm to your actual agenda.
You really are just a left version of a teabagger. As a moderate, it is sad to see the polarization that has gripped our country.
Tea-bagger? Right. Because I let all my decisions be ruled by fear instead of fact, and I'm willing to sacrifice the rest of the country to get my way. If you think Obama is the source of the problems we're facing right now, you're one of the most short-sighted 'moderates' I've ever met. Am I 'polarized'? Dunno. I see the right wing conservative party making decisions that are so clearly aimed at self-serving that it boggles my mind when other people try to say it's good for the economy. If recoiling from insanity and fiscal stupidity and patently false economic schemes is 'polarized', than call me whatever you want. I support the Democrat party because they're the one option of the three or so floating around that don't seem hell-bent on creating a society based in selfishness and survival of the fittest.
You really are just a left version of a teabagger. As a moderate, it is sad to see the polarization that has gripped our country.
See the thing I don't understand in your criticism is that Obama is a moderate and is getting a TON of criticism from the left and right. So he should be up your alley. Moderate :-p
Keep believing. People like you are a reason Obama will be a one term president. Obama doesn't have to worry about accountability. Your wing if the party, suffering from cult of personality, is doing tremendous harm to your actual agenda.
You really are just a left version of a teabagger. As a moderate, it is sad to see the polarization that has gripped our country.
Sometimes, the extremes are right. Moderation in all things, including moderation.
My issue is with our two party system. Whether or not Obama is a moderate (and in some areas he has been), Washington is more worried about their next election than the long term health of our country. That's a problem, IMHO.
Washington is more worried about their next election than the long term health of our country
A conservative politician who intelligently debated his positions, listened to his opponents, and compromised pragmatically on ideology when necessary for the safety, security, and/or betterment of our nation and its people would garner more respect from me than almost everyone in congress today despite my ideology being fundamentally opposed to conservatism.
I would argue that there hasn't been a debate in congress in the last several decades. Not one.
Washington is more worried about their next election than the long term health of our country
A conservative politician who intelligently debated his positions, listened to his opponents, and compromised pragmatically on ideology when necessary for the safety, security, and/or betterment of our nation and its people would garner more respect from me than almost everyone in congress today despite my ideology being fundamentally opposed to conservatism.
I would argue that there hasn't been a debate in congress in the last several decades. Not one.
This. If there was a member of another party who at MINIMUM made sense in their decisions and policies, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.
Washington is more worried about their next election than the long term health of our country
A conservative politician who intelligently debated his positions, listened to his opponents, and compromised pragmatically on ideology when necessary for the safety, security, and/or betterment of our nation and its people would garner more respect from me than almost everyone in congress today despite my ideology being fundamentally opposed to conservatism.
I would argue that there hasn't been a debate in congress in the last several decades. Not one.
This. If there was a member of another party who at MINIMUM made sense in their decisions and policies, I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.
I think all of these people make perfect sense. You just need to understand that they are bought by a special interest(or corporation) and vote for policy along those lines. From that perspective all of this makes sense. It only fails to make sense if your perspective is that they are there to vote for the betterment of the United States and its Peoples.
It doesn't matter that the Taliban is more successful than they have ever been in killing Americans serving in Afghanistan?
What do you have to back this up? Did you also take into account troop ops? I'm going to be snarky here, but does that make the rest of the NATO troops invulnerable?
Comments
No, the Constitution doesn't specifically talk about privacy. However, the Court has found that privacy falls under the "penumbra" of rights granted by the Constitution. That's the origin of most of those statutes you tried to cite. Ever see the Constitution say anything about a right to get an abortion? That falls under the "penumbra". Part of the analysis in that line of cases had to do with privacy rights. Read up on that sort of thing if you want to defeat Rym in a Con Law debate about privacy.
Also, that Restatement you're talking about? Invasion of privacy is a tort for which you can sue or be sued for. That doesn't really mean it's a right anymore than it's a right to avoid injury by medical malpractice. Further, the Restatements are not actually law themselves. They're more like an explanation of the general state of law with citations to show what different jurisdictions do, what the majority and minority positions are, and so forth. It's persuasive, but not mandatory. NY state, for instance, may follow the Restatement to the letter. Then again, it may not.
Finally, it's progress that you tried to provide at least some sources, but you need to learn how to cite legal sources properly. It's not hard, but when it's not done right - like in your post, it looks like a dog's breakfast.
On another note you are basically making an "Ivory Tower" argument that what I said incorrect because I did not define it within the context of your definition. It's irrelevant most people whether the premise of a their "right" comes from a court case or directly from the constitution. The important thing is that it's there.
I run into this problem a lot in job interviews. My professors have stressed certain topics as being super important and when I show up to my internships they tend be completely unimportant.
@HungeryJoe: I consider myself to be pretty Liberal with a few issues that I stick to that are kind of centrist. My first experience with you turned me completely against you. Your first conversation with me gave me the impression that you saw yourself as an "Elite Liberal" and an "Elite Scholar" and everyone else didn't live up to you. I say Phooey on your attitude! But despite that I have been gaining more respect for you.
Most people are only concerned with, "Can I use this to defend myself" or "Will someone try to fuck me with this". If you feel obligated to break it down into all the "academically" correct categories and use proper notation, by all means please do! I have to study for my next job interview and review the mechanisms that Java uses to protect memory from programs before I delve into the dark arcane arts of academic writing! However I will not allow this to be used as an excuse to deter me from my civic duty as I see it and go home and not be involved in politics and philosophy.
We live in a world where massive corporations are people and if they wrong you they get to fight you as an individual while using their vast corporate resources and teams of skilled professionals(See the recent Supreme Court ruling about how women can't file a class action suit against Walmart for gender discrimination because there are too many of them). Not being involved because I am not an aspiring liberal arts grad student is not an option!
As a fellow Liberal with the skills that you would like to see others use, maybe you should work on team building and use those skills to help put forth a document that effectively represents the FRC's position. Don't alienate potential allies because they aren't elite enough in your eyes. Otherwise you are just here on the internet to bask in your own glory and not really make a difference. See my Argument on paddling up the stream of moral relativism. Everyone is going with the flow and reaping the benefits of all the bad stuff while the elite moral guy paddles up the stream spending all his effort. Ultimately the elite moral guy can only say, "at least I did the right thing, that makes me better" and everyone else, swimming in their money pits like scrooge McDuck say, "yeah whatever guy". It would be cool if we could come up with a general consensus that we could mostly agree on while leaving some of the minor issues as pet issues that we care about on an individual basis.
I agree with Desimos that using dead soldiers for arguments by people that never even knew those dead soldiers is a pretty bullshit move; I don't think anybody has argued that. The argument is whether government should enforce certain rights, blah blah blah. I think HungryJoe hit it in reference to lawsuits.
The freedom of press is legally protected. The government itself is responsible for insuring freedom of the press. Privacy is a civil matter, and can be protected through lawsuits and such. The government is not responsible for insuring privacy.
I'm okay with this.
Privacy is a civil matter, and can be protected through lawsuits and such. -- I agree
The government is not responsible for insuring privacy. -- True! But at the same time if your privacy is violated due to negligence of government, government should be held accountable.
It's not Government's responsibility to prevent all crime. That's impossible. Realistically the Government can really only deter crime without violating peoples' freedoms. There should be penalties associated with these violations, and victims should have legal recourse so that they aren't just walked all over.(All of these things already exist) However, it is self evident that even with deterrents, people will still perform these actions, because a majority of crime is irrational. Remember "The Press" essentially consists of mega corps that place bounties on news, pictures and sound bites and then private reporters run around and try to get.(The Blogger sphere feeds of this primary source, very few bloggers are actually on the street looking for news) That's a fiercely competitive market and requires regulation since there are real peoples' live involved. (And anyone who thinks that fierce competition and no regulation means that people won't do horrible things to others to one-up each other has been living under a rock for the last 10 years). And now I have come back full circle to the core of my anti-Neo-Liberal, anti-laissez-faire philosophy.
Nice objectivity, MacRoss. Your argument is as mature as a third grader saying "I know you are but what am I?" To add to the embarrassment, you didn't even factor in data such as the 75 rounds of golf in 3 years (versus 25 for Bush in 8 years) or the fact that he's stopped working to attend 35 fundraising events in 3 years (versus 3 for Bush).
I was criticizing Obama based on the state of the union at this time. You were defending him based on irrelevant data concerning some personal grudge you can't get over. Who has made the better argument?
You're right, MacRoss. As long as Obama does 0.05% better than Bush, we shouldn't complain at all about his performance. What a great yardstick. Too bad it only makes Obama look better regarding vacations. Who cares about the economy, eh?
It's so funny to see how much you suffer from a lock of objectivity, MacRoss. Sad, but also funny. Well... strike that... It's just sad.
It's okay if Obama is fiddling while Washington burns, as long as his music is just a little sweeter than someone who last fiddled three years ago... He's so dreamy!
I'm curious.
As for the economy, both Bush Jr. and Obama have done poorly. I would not choose either of them to be my economic advisor. Having said that, and without addressing causation, I would love a return to Bush unemployment and deficit levels.
Bush did a worse job on the economy, period. Terry Schiavo could have done a better job than Bush on the economy because all that asshole had to do was NOT CHANGE ANYTHING. What is going on in the market now is a direct result of the Republican stubborn insistence that we move to a two class system where the classes are "I have a ton of money" wealthy and "Fuck you." on the other end of the spectrum.
I don't care how many games of golf he plays as long as he's taking positive action and getting things done when he's not. That's one of many reasons I hate Bush so much was that not only did he spend half his time dicking around the Whitehouse or at his fucking Texas ranch doing fuck-all, but when he DID do anything it was ALWAYS harmful. He mishandled every single event, blew the economy with deregulation, got involved in wars in countries we had no business being in, AND took more time off than anyone ever.
Does the economy suck? Yes, but let's place blame where it actually needs to be. Republicans have said "no" for years to everything, EVERYTHING, because it wasn't their majority. No compromises, no deals, no movement. Just childish, spiteful, lying and fear-mongering because they got their asses kicked out after ten years of debacles.
EDIT: Oh, and another thing, even looking at Politifact, the things that have stalled or that Obama has failed to come through on? Yeah, mostly economic fixes that were blocked by....guess who?...Derpublicans. So, here we have a president who very well could have fixed the economic problems, but a petulant opposing party wanted to make the economy so bad that they could try to pin it on Obama and win in 2012. Which, if you look at the debate the other day, is looking like they have little chance of actually winning, what with that peanut gallery of tea-baggers and morons.
Edit^2: Oh yeah, and he made it so that states can opt-out of the moronic, draconian NCLB shit-pile that Bush also created.
You really are just a left version of a teabagger. As a moderate, it is sad to see the polarization that has gripped our country.
Am I 'polarized'? Dunno. I see the right wing conservative party making decisions that are so clearly aimed at self-serving that it boggles my mind when other people try to say it's good for the economy. If recoiling from insanity and fiscal stupidity and patently false economic schemes is 'polarized', than call me whatever you want. I support the Democrat party because they're the one option of the three or so floating around that don't seem hell-bent on creating a society based in selfishness and survival of the fittest.
I would argue that there hasn't been a debate in congress in the last several decades. Not one.
Kilarney is a troll. Thought you ought to know.