JustinW

Maybe reworded so that it cannot hamper free speach or get in the way of providing justice for misdeeds. (if we are under the assumption that that is why it was passed in the first place) Okay, we've agreed the potential is present. Why isn't it right to assume that the motivation and justification for this law isn't as stated? It was clearly stated that this law was meant for those that have been found to be connected with Alquaeda, the Taliban, and the like. Why do you feel that this isn't the case? And that it has something to do directly with protesters against wall street? I know you said that congressmen are in bed with big business, but the fact remains that you would have to come across a direct connection with those businesses and the lawmakers that had dealings with presenting, promoting, and the passing of this law.

As an afterthought; why is it that people think that a global government would be so much better anyway? Generally given enough time any government gets corrupt or does things that conflict with the best interests of people that hurt or demoralize a good portion of the population. Why put the world on a track to become part of such conflictive emotion when it comes to instituting ideologies they don't agree with or the possibility of the government governing for profit? Is it because the world might have a bigger voice to influence change once that sort of thing starts to happen? Is it because people think that if the whole world was involved that corruption and greed would be less likely to happen to a world government? I was raised to never rely on the government for the simple fact that the more you rely on them to fulfill you're needs, the less you rely on yourself. The less you rely on yourself, the less control you have over yourself and the more you rely on someone else to provide for you. That is what independence is about isn't it? The ability to not be controlled and the freedom to provide for yourself and your family? Self preservation tells me not to put all my eggs in one basket (so to speak). And I may be paranoid but given enough time a government that rules over the world will get out of hand and won't be easy to stop if it does. Sorry for the double post.

From my understanding so far, it seems that the standard model by judging distance by light years, would mean that the objects observed are viewed now as they were that many years ago. As to say if you viewed something now that was 4 billion light years away, that isn't the way it looks now. It is the way it looked 4 billion years ago. Is that not the case? Another question I've wondered, but probably as simply answered as my first, was if space is expanding at more than the speed of light then why does light reach us in the first place? If it is space that is expanding, and not galaxies moving at that speed, then how does the light outrun the growing distance?

Yes, in the big picture it is what matters. But the reason the bill was presented in the first place was overlooked and misrepresented. Although I don't agree with the possibility of this law being missused by a wrongfull interpretation of the wording. I also don't agree with the misrepresentation of meaning and intent that was demonstrated in this thread. For those to say that this law will be used in such a way, to me, is definitely arguable. Denying free speach was never the intent of the law and was the main topic of concern in this thread in which I was arguing against.

I meant the seperation into different paths from a common ancestor. I have been looking for it with no luck so far, but once I find it I'll link it. From what I recall it was said that it was this ability to produce the sugar and deal with malaria better that allowed our evolution to hit a period of acceleration. For all I know it might be all hog wash, but I'll post it when I find it. I have found some more information on the matter. It wasn't that we stopped producing a sugar, it was that the sugar we produced changed. Here is a link. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-10-sexual-sugar-molecule-human.html tell me what you think.

It's not a perfect vacuum. Just the closest there is. If you fall, you speed up because of gravity. You have to prove that there is something dense enough out there for its gravity to affect the whole universe. You haven't. The part about losing pressure you haven't given information for either. You just say we're losing pressure. Where do I find the information or study on that. It seems that the expansion part is general consensus. At what rate is the universe cooling? Where is the info and study on that too? Just out of curiousity.

If you read back you can tell I wasn't talking about you specifically. In all the scenarios that were put forth there was mention of cops, congress, and government agency that is apart of this so called "inevitable crackdown" on free speech. Apparently the crowd, the family and friends of the protestor, the media that those family and friends might go to, and the cop that doesn't ask questions even when a badge is flashed in his face. Although you could find a scenario for keeping those people quiet, the question still remains. If they would go through all the trouble to silence one guy out of the crowd. How would that ever work towards silenceing the whole crowd, that by the scenario you presented, would never know the reason he was taken or that he was even taken at all? It seems that for this law to work in silencing free speech, you would have to spread the message that if you speak out you will be held as a terrorist. A DHS agent who pulls a guy out of a crowd and tells the cop to keep it hush hush isn't exactly spreading that message. And if that kind of message was spread, you can bet the public in general would be up in arms about it. I don't know.... I've been known to be pretty stubborn. Look all of these scenarios are possible, yes. But as iNow said was my iligitamate argument, it is "highly unlikely". For several different reasons. The DHS has it's different ranking members who give the orders and carry them out. There are the witnesses that would have to be made to be quiet. There are the family and friends of people detained who would have to be made to be quiet. Out of all of those people the media would find out eventually and they would have to be made to keep quiet. There are too many factors in these scenarios to make them plausable. Does the wording in the law make these scenarios possible? Yes. But to say that this will happen to silence large majorities of the American public isn't accurate and a little paranoid sounding. With the people I know and the demonstrators that I've seen on T.V., I think us as Americans are too stubborn to be made to be quiet. There's alot of people who'll speak out against anything just because they're in the mood. Let alone once given a reason.

I had heard somewhere of a theory that said, the mutation that seperated humans from apes had something to do with a sugar produced in the body to fight off malaria. I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it though. But interesting non the less.

So what I mean is that by the arguments heard here it's not just congress working towards this goal. It's every cop, government agency, big business, those throughout America that support it, along with congress, all working together to shut down the free speech of Americans? Sorry if this sounds like a conspriacy theory but it's got the earmarks for one. Maybe...but you're not just talking about the indoctrination of the DHS. You're talking about the indoctrination of a lot more than that. It would take the cooperation and servitude of anybody from individual cops all the way up through the ranks to make it work as you're claiming it will. That sounds like a conspiracy to me. And one too large to be thought of as pliable. After some thought I agree with this. All of these people that you claim are involved in this...don't you see where it might sound a little too big to be a conspiratorial act to close the mouths of those who speak out against what they feel is wrong? It seems like you've included everybody in America except those who think as you do on the issue. iNow's quote, Is this apposed to "I'm pretty sure this is what they're going to do now". It would take alot of cooperation through alot of different people to first; make a move like this, and second; to keep something like this quiet. I damn sure agree with you that this sort of thing shouldn't be on the books in the first place. But to use something like this to a degree that you all are talking about seems just as farfetched and speculative as any arguement I've posed so far.

That was exactly the argument I posed. I believe he was trying to refer to the piston as it is connected to the crank. I gave the argument that, yes, that part of the connection doesn't stop because it never changes trajectory. Just rotates in a circular motion to lift the piston up and down. So I guess it is just a matter of being specific. It was sort of a pointless conversation out of boredome. But I saw it as I was write and he was wrong. But the trajectory of the crank doesn't change in the same way as the trajectory of the piston.

I had just had a discussion with a friend of mine about whether a piston's motion stops before it changes direction. He argued that since it pivots on a circular motion from the bottom that it didn't. I say that if he was talking about the piston itself, then it did. Since a piston only goes up and down in the sleeve, then it would have to stop in order to go the opposite direction. I just wanted to get some of your thoughts. Does an object have to stop in order to move in the opposite direction? I believe the answer is yes.

Who is they? This is starting to sound like a big conspiracy theory. I would have to say, that is a good example. I will have to think about this a little bit. I know it is an enfringement on peoples rights on one hand, but on the other hand I would have to know what those inventions were and if they actually posed a threat to national security. We don't know who those people were or if they were actually treated bad or not. Here we go with this they scenario again. It's awfull convinient how all of these people are working together in unison toward the common goal of persecuting the masses. I wonder why I didn't get the memo. I don't know what to say to this. We should have done it right the first time as far as I'm concerned. There were no WMDs at the time we went in, but there had been. I'm not saying that it wasn't a lie, but I'm saying it needed to be done no matter what excuse we used.

Did they lock 'em up and throw away the key? I would label the threat of my wife making me watch soap operas if I stay home from work "low level terrorism". But does that mean I'm going to lock up my wife for an indefinite amount of time? Well.......Probably not. It's a far fetched idea that our government will stifle the free speech of an entire group of people in such a manner. I can understand the concern with the videos above, but protest demonstrations have had a habbit of getting out of hand since way before these laws have come about.

I was reading about the vacuum energy of space and got two conflicting answers. It said that free space was estimated to be 10^-9 Joules per cubic meter. But another theory had it at 10^113 joules per cubic meter using the Planck constent. Now since a vacuum is created by removing matter from space I assumed that with space expanding, compared to matter in that space, the greater the negative pressure of the vacuum. And visa versa. So I thought that if the universe were expanding, it would be reflected in the measure of vacuum. Vacuum theoretically can get stronger unitl it reaches what's called a perfect vacuum. Which theoretically can't happen without all matter being removed. At least this is what I've gotten out of the short amount of reading I've done about it so far.

And has anyone ever been tried under the act? Assuming we would even hear about it in the first place. Just because the law states something doesn't mean it can be used as an example. But, if you could find a case that someone was persecuted without just cause under the letter of that law, then it would be a legitimate example. You probably could, assuming that the law would be interpreted in a way that overlooks the phrase premeditated. In your scenario of the OWS rally the situation wouldn't fall under those conditions. It seems like you're automatically assuming that everyone is out get someone. Detaining protesters as being terrorists just to get them to shut up would raise a stink that Washington D.C. couldn't even wash off. Look, I'm not arguing the fact that this law isn't a step in the wrong direction where our rights and freedoms are concerned. I'm just saying that it is highly unlikely that it will be used in such a manner.

The law is vague, but it hasn't been used to detain anyone, or any group of people for protesting. And I don't think it would be used in such a way. They would have to have justifiable cause, some connection or shady action, that links someone to these groups. The way I've heard folks talk about it here makes it seem like they are pulling people off the streets at random in the name of fighting terrorism. I don't know this for sure, but it would seem that the groups mentioned in that link must have given some cause to be labeled as dangerous. Maybe made some sort of threats or insinuated an act of violence or property damage to be looked at as a danger.

I was commenting on the premise of using labeling someone a terrorist to stifle free speech. I think it is a far leap to imply the government can silence Americans with the threat of being labeled a terrorist.

I have also mentioned that the framework has already been laid to fix such things. It has been the bad decisions of people working under that framework who have abused the system. I wouldn't say that part of the system is flawed but the decisions that were made using that system that were flawed. Another framework wouldn't be any different unless you took the option of decision making out of it entirely. You could never put in enough, "what not to do"s, to cover bad or hurtfull decision making. Again, bad decision making. This is probably one that I actually would have to agree with. Although I haven't heard of a better way yet, I don't much care for our current system of voting. That is a framework which could be changed for the better. Again, bad decision making.

Freedom. And at the time it could never be accomplished under English rule. I don't believe I've heard anything that couldn't be solved through other methods, or how you think our current framework stifles the objectives that were layed out. You just state that we need an updated frame work without explaining WHY. If our current framework stifles the objects you have set forth through this change, please, by all means share. Untill that time I can't agree that we need this sort of change or that the objectives can't be reached under our current framework.

kitkat, I think this is wild speculation at best. I don't see our country putting down protestors in such a manner. The more of them you put down the more that will be on the streets the next morning. I believe those in power know that no matter what side of the aisle they're standing on.

The reason I haven't given as many reasons for this thing to work is that no one has convinced me that it can or needs to in a way such as global government. I have suggested a change in foreign policy for this precise reason. And what is it that our constitution doesn't provide that would allow for this? I don't see the need to change our constitution to fit this frame work. Like I've said before, I think these are good intentions that we need to apply to our future goals. We could fix these things through foreign policies rather than constitutional redrafting. The fact that I am opposed to a global government is due to the fact that it could turn as bad just as quickly as it could be good. To consider the possibility of success you also have to consider the possibility of failure. Why risk such a big possibility of failure when you could accomplish all of these objectives through other means. Also it sounds that the frame work you want for the world would intail those already provided by our own.

Once explained it seems so simple. I don't know why I didn't understand in the first place. Maybe I was in an argumentative mood when I watched the video. Just out of curiousity, does anyone happen to know if the vacuum pressure of space is changing with the rate of expansion? And if not, why not? I'm sure someone has heard me ask this before, but I don't think I've ever gotten a clear answer.

I see your point. I just thought it might be valid to look at some of the ramifications if things did go south with such a government. Agreed. It was just an example of how badly things can be handled when political feelings get hurt. Correction for Lybia is the best thing for Lybia in the long run. But was devestating to the people that suffered along the way. It couldn't be done without violent conflict. That is what I was saying about a global government. Creating a possibility for a correction of such a magnitude would lead to global conflict which would cause people to suffer around the world. The bigger the problem, the bigger the conflict in most cases. I believe I have. Though probably not enough. I guess I am just a pessimist. I'll try to be less of one in the future. The OP was "convention, local or global" and I origionally thought, why at all? The problems I've heard presented aren't constitutional problems from an American's stand point. The only things that I've heard that applied to constitutionallity would be for other countries to adopt one that is closer to ours. So you can see where I could be pessimistic about change in the US constitution when it is unecessary when not hearing any problems that fall under constitutionallity as it applies to America's problems. This is where I gave one way to start with.

Right, so the expansion is at the same rate all around. It's just that galaxies closer to us are moving at a speed more relative to ours?

A government that is given enough power will always have it's corruption. And once a world government is instituted who's to say what they will do in the future once given the power. Maybe they will start to impose on countries for the sake of profit as you've mentioned before. Once a form of global government is accepted by a majority of the world the rest would have no choice but to follow suit. That I consider an imposition even though indirect. It happened with slavery. Not to say that slavery was right, it is merely an example of states going to war over government instituting laws that they felt weren't right. And I feel that if the corruption got bad enough to infringe on the liberty of that state, that yes they would. Here in Texas secession was talked about, here and there, over the last several years. Although it was a stupid thing to even suggest, it shows how strong people believe in their liberties. The risk of opening pandora's box. If a global government ever got out of hand, it would be devistating for the globe. If they did who could oppose without global conflict. It would be up to that global government to play nice and be diplomatic. As it stands now, if my country got to a point where I could no longer live in it, I have the option (however hard) to move to another that is more acceptable. With a global government you have nowhere to go.