It's called freedom of choice as

• Book banning VP? - JA
  • its more than losing books - Roque
  • I heard this, but.... - Just me
    • She was mayor, constituents had asked her... - sam
      • Residents of Alaska - Roque
        • Makes me wonder if she/they truly - for what it's worth
          • I've clearly made up my mind - Chele
            • Me too, and I can't believe what is ignored - earlymt
            • Repeating untruths does not make it truth. - for what it's worth
              • Sarah Palin was asking because - Chele
                • "voters were concerned about the - for what it's worth
                  • I refer you to what was said - Chele
                    • no she was NOT doing her - Roque
                    • Palin might not have taken it anywhere - for what it's worth
                      • The constituents who brought her their concerns... - sam
                        • These constituents have to take - for what it's worth
                          • Exactly! The people had a right to be heard... - sam
                            • Point is we know nothing of what the - for what it's worth
                              • and I believe she will. When Clinton ran for president... - sam
                                • That's absurd because I have heard - for what it's worth
                                • this chick is more concerned - Roque
                                  • that should be First Amendment - Roque
  • Just keep trying to dig up your useless dirt on her. - So pathetic it is funny :) nm
    • Useless dirt? Would not say useless. - for what it's worth
      • exactly why I CANT vote for Obama. - too much about him to NOT trust. nm
        • It's called freedom of choice as - for what it's worth
          • The Republicans are totally AGAINST - freedom of choice. sm
    • Yeah, at least she is not friends or associates with - radicals like the big O is. nm
      • Yeah, let her take us back 40 years so everyone can have - Yo. (NM)
        • your ignorance is amazing -and O will bankrupt the - country with his high taxes,-been done before.nm
          • Gee, you must be a millionaire if you are worried about Obama and taxes. - Tax the rich; they won't even miss it.
        • Wow....even Germany and canada want O.... - sam
        • yeah, go back 50 yr, and take responsibility - sm
          • THe only problem with that is... - sam
            • Why can't more people see that? - mt
              • They are socialist/Marxist. That has been the... - sam

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I remember it well. 

It was a cute joke.  In case any of you missed it before it was removed from the board, one of the many places it can be found is http://www.justpetehere.com/2004/11/george_bush_pas.html.

Better do it quickly, though, because this post is sure to be removed as soon as the Cons start whining again.

 Check out the St. Pete Times, Sunday, 11/13/05, The Perspective, article by Robin Blummer. Sorry I don't have the link but it is easy to find. Talk about scary. By the way, I see that there are a number of comments to posts listed on the board but they are not available to see. Is this a new policy...we know people read or responded but we can't see what the response is?

See 2nd link. 

also includes freedom FROM religion.  It's funny to me that, as you said, people came to this country for freedom of religion (among other things).  Now that they're here christians try to impose the very problems associated with those in Britian on the people of this nation.  Christians are constantly trying to force their will upon others through politics.  Please explain to me how that demonstrates freedom of religion.  Doesn't that just put us back where we were?

Freedom of religion is a live and let live proposition....not a winner takes all competition.

It must be starting using the military as guinea pigs.  This idea of implanting chips is included toward the end of this scary trailer for America - Freedom to Fascism.  I definitely recommend viewing it.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937

A bill regarding control of the Catholic Church has exploded as one of the hottest issues of the session at the state Capitol - prompting charges and countercharges about religious freedom.

Have you guys heard about this. This is just insanity. 

The measure, which was raised as a committee bill by the Democratic co-chairs of the influential judiciary committee, would allow the finances of local parishes to be run by lay councils and would essentially remove power from Catholic pastors, who would serve in an advisory role. Opponents say the bill is clearly unconstitutional and would violate the First Amendment regarding the right to freedom of religion.

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
   
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
   
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
   
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true

Example:  A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

I.E., what the poster stated was freedom of speech, not slander, libel or defamation of character. It is a known fact that O hung around with not-so-nice people until he ran for President. Is that slander? Nope.

The poster was giving an opinion. That is freedom of speech. If it was slander, O would have be having a lot of lawsuits on his hands towards all the people who have ever stated anything against him, which would probably be around 250,000,000....including me...out of 300,000,000 people living in the USA.

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision ruled that President Bush's effort to railroad tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees in kangaroo courts violates both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

Better late than never, but it sure took a long time for the checks and balances to call a halt to the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the executive.

The Legal Times quotes David Remes, a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling: At the broadest level, the Court has rejected the basic legal theory of the Bush administration since 9/11 – that the president has the inherent power to do whatever he wants in the name of fighting terrorism without accountability to Congress or the courts.

Perhaps the Court's ruling has more far-reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.

Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The U.S. itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief U.S. prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.

The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There are many reasons to impeach Bush. His flagrant disregard for international law, U.S. civil liberties, the separation of powers, public opinion, and human rights associate Bush with the worst tyrants of the 20th century. It is true that Bush has not yet been able to subvert all the institutions that constrain his executive power, but he and his band of Federalist Society lawyers have been working around the clock to eliminate the constraints that the U.S. Constitution and international law place on executive power.

Republicans are outraged that liberal judges have prevented Bush from protecting us from terrorists. In the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist said that Republicans will propose legislation to enable Bush to get around the Supreme Court's decision. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) already had a bill ready. What sense does it make to talk about liberal opposition when liberal Republicans like Specter are falling all over themselves to kowtow to Bush?

Americans are going to have to decide which is the greater threat: terrorists, or the Republican Party's determination to shred American civil liberties and the separation of powers in the name of executive power and the war on terror.

The rest of the world has already reached a decision. A Harris Poll recently conducted for the Financial Times found that the populations of our European allies – Britain, France, Italy, and Spain – view the United States as the greatest threat to global stability.

A Pew Foundation survey released the same week found that 60 percent of the British believe that Bush has made the world less safe and that 79 percent of the Spanish oppose Bush's war on terror.

Republicans and conservatives equate civil liberties with homosexual marriage, abortion, racial quotas, flag burning, banning of school prayer, and crime resulting from a lax punishment of criminals. This is partly the fault of the ACLU and left-wingers, who go to extremes to make a point. But it is also the fault of conservatives, who believe that their government is incapable of evil deeds.

In their dangerous and ill-founded belief, conservatives are in total opposition to the Founding Fathers, who went to the trouble of writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect us from our government. Most conservatives believe that they do not need constitutional protections, because they are not doing anything wrong. Conservatives have come to this absurd conclusion despite the Republicans' decision to sell out the Bill of Rights for the sake of temporary power.

A number of important books have recently been published decrying America's decaying virtue. In Lawless World, the distinguished British jurist, Philippe Sands, documents the destruction by George Bush and Tony Blair of the system of international law put in place by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. In The Peace of Illusions, Christopher Layne documents the American drive for global hegemony that threatens the world with war and destruction. Americans are enjoying a sense of power with little appreciation of where it is leading them.

Congress has collapsed in the face of Bush's refusal to abide by statutory law and his signing statements, by which Bush asserts his independence of U.S. law. Bush has done what he can to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp of his unaccountable power by placing John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench. Though much diminished by these appointments, the Court found the strength to rise up in opposition to Bush's budding tyranny.

Amazingly, on the very same day in England, where our individual rights originated, the High Court struck down Tony Blair's anti-terrorism laws as illegal breaches of the human rights of suspects. As with the Bush regime, the Blair regime tried to justify its illegality on the grounds of protecting the public, but a far larger percentage of the British population than the American understands that the erosion of civil liberty is a greater threat to their safety than terrorists.

Thus, in the two lands most associated with civil liberties, courts have struck down the tyrannical acts of the corrupt executive. Perhaps the fact that courts have reaffirmed the rule of law will give hope and renewed strength to the friends of liberty to withstand the assaults on freedom that are the hallmarks of the Bush and Blair regimes. On the other hand, the two tyrants might ignore the courts as they have statutory law.

What's to stop them?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.

I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.

I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.

May God help us all.