Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just found this quote from John Quincy Adam, the 6th president of the US.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. "

Why can't we have a bringerofgoodinfo instead?

At 2/8/04 03:12 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: YOu mean, like, e-mail and MSN messenger?

I think that is what he means.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " Benjamin Franklin

I would say bring back torture, mental and physical, back to punish people. The only problem is the world is getting overwhelmed with human rights. But yet aren't the people that commit crimes removing human rights, so theirs should be removed as well? I guess I'm the few people in this forum that believes in an eye for an eye. You can make any of your fancy sayings about it, you still need to realize that it is an effective way of treating criminals. This system we have right now isn't working so why preach for it?

The stock markets are going rather well lately, but at what costs? Inflation has been slowly devaluing (sp?) the american dollar caused by the lowering of the interest rates. Inflation can be, but not always, an indication of an upcoming recession. I feel the shit is going to hit the fan before it gets any better with all of this debt and borrowing devaluing the american dollar.

The thing is, I can't see anything about this that is for the sake of the American people. Maybe for the American government, but not for its people.

Oh yeah, forgot the link

Yahoo! News

Basically you just have to read the first 4 paragraphs and the last sentence.
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DES MOINES, Iowa - In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

Federal prosecutors refuse to comment on the subpoenas.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

The group, once targeted for alleged ties to communism in the 1950s, announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena on Monday.

"The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority," guild President Michael Ayers said in a statement.

Representatives of the Lawyer's Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) said they had not heard of such a subpoena being served on any U.S. university in decades.

Those served subpoenas include the leader of the Catholic Peace Ministry, the former coordinator of the Iowa Peace Network, a member of the Catholic Worker House, and an anti-war activist who visited Iraq (news - web sites) in 2002.

They say the subpoenas are intended to stifle dissent.

"This is exactly what people feared would happen," said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. "The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on."

The forum, titled "Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!" came the day before 12 protesters were arrested at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston. Organizers say the forum included nonviolence training for people planning to demonstrate.

The targets of the subpoenas believe investigators are trying to link them to an incident that occurred during the rally. A Grinnell College librarian was charged with misdemeanor assault on a peace officer; she has pleaded innocent, saying she simply went limp and resisted arrest.

"The best approach is not to speculate and see what we learn on Tuesday" when the four testify, said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, which is representing one of the protesters.

Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records.

He said the case brings back fears of the "red squads" of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.

According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, "all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting."

It also asks for campus security records "reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."

Several officials of Drake, a private university with about 5,000 students, refused to comment Friday, including school spokeswoman Andrea McDonough. She referred questions to a lawyer representing the school, Steve Serck, who also would not comment.

A source with knowledge of the investigation said a judge had issued a gag order forbidding school officials from discussing the subpoena
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question is, why would the feds want to know who is protesting or not? What good, or evil, would come out of it?

It's just good make up guys.

Yahoo News

TEHRAN, Iran - More than one-third of Iran's lawmakers resigned in protest Sunday over disputed elections and the parliamentary speaker charged ruling clerics with trampling on the rights of his countrymen.

Speaker Mahdi Karroubi appealed to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to help resolve the crisis caused by disqualification of thousands of liberal candidates from the Feb. 20 vote.

Some 124 lawmakers in the 290-seat Majlis, or parliament, resigned Sunday in a dramatic gesture intended to force the clerical hierarchy to reinstate the disqualified candidates.

The mass resignation "will determine Iran's direction: rule of absolute dictatorship or democracy," reformist lawmaker Mohammad Kianoush-Rad told The Associated Press.

Karroubi said he and reformist President Mohammad Khatami (news - web sites) started new efforts to resolve the crisis, holding discussions with Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters.

But Khamenei left the capital Tehran for an undisclosed location, making it difficult to reach him, parliamentary officials said.

Karroubi, the parliamentary speaker, launched a rare verbal attack on the Guardian Council, the unelected body of hard-line clerics that disqualified more than 2,400 reformist candidates from the legislative elections.

"Are you loyal to Islam if you pray daily, but then trample on the rights of the people?" said Karroubi, himself a cleric.

He accused the Guardian Council, whose 12 members are appointed by Khamenei, of "disrespecting democratic values and having no faith in a popular vote."

The furor began in early January when the Guardian Council disqualified more than 3,600 of the 8,200 people who filed papers to run in the polls. After protests and an opinion from Khamenei, the council on Friday restored 1,160 low-profile candidates to the list.

Reformists say the council disqualified liberal candidates to fix the election in favor of conservatives. Hard-liners lost control of the parliament in elections four years ago, and repeatedly have thwarted Khatami's efforts toward greater democracy and a relaxation of the Islamic social code.

The council denies political motives and argues that the disqualified candidates lacked the criteria to stand for election, even though more than 80 of them were elected in 2000.

Those lawmakers resigned Sunday.

"An election whose result is clear beforehand is a treason to the rights and ideals of the nation," resigning legislators Rajab Ali Mazrouei told the parliament.

The leader of the biggest reform party in parliament, Mohammad Reza Khatami, resigned and accused the Guardian Council of killing all opportunities for resolving the dispute.

"There is no hope for a solution. We will not participate in this sham election. Even if all those disqualified are reinstated today, there will be no time for competition. Elections on February 20th are illegitimate," said Reza Khatami, the president's younger brother and a deputy speaker.

Iran's leading reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, has called a meeting Monday and is expected to announce a boycott of the polls.

President Khatami called an emergency Cabinet meeting to discuss the dispute Saturday, but was forced to postpone it when he suffered severe back pain and was confined to his house by doctors.

On Saturday, President Khatami suggested his government would call off the elections.

"My government will only hold competitive and free elections ... the parliament must represent the views of the majority and include all (political) tendencies," he said.

If he follows through, that would leave voting in the hands of hard-liners most likely relying on elite Revolutionary Guards and supporting military forces to organize the polls.

Many hard-line legislators did not attend Sunday's session, apparently hoping to deny it a quorum. But the quorum of 194 of the Majlis' total 290 seats was reached.

Of those attending, 124 resigned.

Karroubi said each resignation would be considered and put to the vote in future sessions, but he did not say how long that process would take.

One resigning legislator, Mohsen Mirdamadi, said that if hard-liners tried to hold the elections without government support, it would be "a full-fledged coup with the help of military forces."

At 2/1/04 06:49 AM, Vowl wrote: The European Union

Unifying economy, unifying ideas and opinions. I can see your point here.

At 1/31/04 04:46 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: why should illegal combatants, held in accordance with the geneva convention, whose arrests were in a foreign warzone recieve aid from american (or other) law enforcement organisation or judiciaries?

Maybe because there are two american civilians down there. Maybe because we actually invaded Afghanistan to remove an uncooperating Taliban, which we placed in power so that we could get some benefits from the area. Or could it be that everyone should have the right to a trial and shouldn't be sentenced to life in jail without anyone defending him? Or could it also be that the rest of the world believes they should have a fair trial?

At 1/31/04 12:52 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: the judicial system is quite capable of protecting victims of corruption and punishing those who would abuse their positions within law enforcement agencies to such ends. chances are it wouldn't even go to court, that is if someone was actually stupid enough to make an arrest without evidence of any sort.

Just like the people down at Guantanom Bay, it seems like they are getting a ton of judicial system support down there.

At 1/30/04 08:10 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: i still do not understand how peaceful protesters could be construed as attempting to use violence/force, or the threat thereof, in order to make people do what they want. a violent protest(essentialy a riot), already illegal, would fit that description.

i havent read anything in there that limits "the way you can protest" yet, would you care to provide a quote?

It is just that this act allows police officers, FBI agents, and all other government officials the ability to use their own discresion in determining whether or not something appears to be endangering the public. Into this a person could bring into their racism and use that as justification for beating the crap and arresting protestors. If a police officer doesnt like a group of people and he is ordered to watch over the protest, if someone starts screaming in their face the chants he has the power to arrest them by just saying he was being a terrorists, and that penalty would be a lot more severe than what it would be today. It is once again too iffy, it allows too much interpretation on the part of an individual.

Dam did I kill this topic?

At 1/30/04 05:33 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: I know the Russian economy sucks, but look how much room they have to expand!

It's actually quite hard for the Russian people to expand to the east because it is so freaking cold there. The east has tons of resources including oil, but it is too cost prohibitive because of the cold.

Dean - 50
Edwards- 46
Kerry - 40
Clark - 40
Sharpton - 33
Kucinich - 33
Lieberman - 26
And Bush is at 6

hey stonedpimp, isn't that for the regular's topic?

Ahh Malcom X was his name....

Bombkangaroo, you need to realize that I'm looking at all of the US's history and saying that this will not work. Whenever you get a group of people that are together and someone from the other side comes along someone is going to get intimidated. It doesn't matter how peaceful the situation is. Look at the sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement, besides Dr. I forgot his name, most of the protests were peaceful. But what happened? Because of their ideas and of their color they got hosed and had dogs sicked onto them. The government of those areas were the ones that did that. Let me also say this act limits the way you can protests. This act is just too iffy for myself. Also the act gives people to make their own decision on what is supposed to happen or allows people their own interpretation of the act, no matter how clear they tried to make it. Who is to say that they appeared to be acting in a intimidational manner(some bushian speech there for ya). Look at 4 B for that manner. It is just too easily manipulated.

At 1/30/04 04:12 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 1/30/04 03:24 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

The definition of terrorists usually doesn't include influencing the government.

terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

That is terrorism. In the bill they defined what domestic terrorism is in which that definition will override any other definition, wich i have already stated the definition of domestic terrorists.

Why are there cops whenever people are peacefully protesting?

because protests can, and sometimes do, either get hijacked by extremists, or otherwise simply get out of hand and turn bad. the police are neccessary to ensure that people do not abuse the right to peaceful protest, or to infringe on one another's right to peaceful protest. they are there for everyone's benefit.

So then people are afraid of protestors?

At 1/30/04 03:53 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Nah, it should still be four years, but unlimited terms is good. It's kinda weird disallowing someone another shot at being prez if the people want him in.

I don't know I'm just never a fan of repealing an amendment even though we have done it before. Also the reason I'd rather say 6 years is so that the president doesn't have to worry about getting elected so they can do what is good for the country, not for what is good for their name. If we don't like the president after a few years then we should be able to get rid of them.

At 1/30/04 03:11 PM, red_skunk wrote: The US really wants to use small-time nuclear weapons, nobody will do anything about it. We're already using depleted uranium all over the place, highly radioactive..

Radiation isn't extremely bad. A high amount of it just like anything, including water, can be fatal. But still, we have no reason to be using the depleted uranium due to the possible side effects it could result in. Also, I'm wondering how can uranium be depleted(I haven't learned this yet), does it have less neutrons or is it just the by-products of uranium-238 which really isn't uranium?

Just an interesting note whenever I was researching uranium, radium is ove a million times more radioactive than uranium and radium was used in some glow-in-the-dark clocks in the mid 1900's. Radium

At 1/29/04 09:02 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: you realise that defenition of a terrorist has existed since before the patriot act?

The definition of terrorists usually doesn't include influencing the government.

please someone explain how peaceful protesters could possibly be mistaken as doing either of those things?

Why are there cops whenever people are peacefully protesting?

from what i have seen of it (i havent read it in its entirety, a link would be appreciated) the investigators still have to obtain warrants and inform people of searches (of course the search can be carried out without prior notice). unless someone has something to hide i do not see how they could possibly have anything to fear from it, correct me if i am wrong of course, but i do want to see some justification for any arguments against my points.

Here you go...

Also I haven't gone into the warrant stuff yet so I can't really say anything on that.

At 1/29/04 10:36 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: *blank stare at raven from me*
I don't think so

Have you ever seen a protests? Why would they need police even though they are peacefully protesting? Police's jobs are to protect and to serve, how is being at a protest protecting or serving? If there is absolutely no fear of protestors then there shouldn't be any cops at a protest.

At 1/30/04 12:40 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/29/04 11:18 PM, diazepim wrote: Another example of ugly smart bitch... Marth Stewart...
If you have a dumb good looking girl.. i.e. Monica Lewinsky...

Wait. Let me get this straight: Your saying Monica is hotter than Martha?

I just think he is trying to say Monica gives better head than Martha.

I'd actually say it'd be China. Their economy has been growing astronomically in the past decade. They have the workforce there if something is needed or they have the technology to accomplish something. They are one of the new space powers as they have sent a person into space using their own rockets. They have the technology, the power, and the people to push themselves into the future.

I actually would consider nuclear weapons right now as obselete because if one country would use it in this day and age the whole world would declare war on them or restrict trade. Also, I feel that many Europeans think that the world is going into an almost global state because of their economies.

At 1/25/04 09:11 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Oh please, he's not Thomas Jefferson using the 'Alien and Sedition Acts' to imprison a man whose wife he was sleeping with.

You are a fucking idiot for supporting the Patriot Act. I was just reading that dam thing and it can be misused so much. Just like in the definition of a Domestic Terrorists, a person appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Good reason right because we don't want those bad influences do we? We don't want people protesting down the street screaming their beliefs, now do we? It will and probably already has been misused in that way. Who is to say their not intimidating anyone? Let me read into this a little more....

At 1/29/04 06:36 PM, red_skunk wrote: Still, it's kind of odd that half of discretionary spending in the US is sent to the military.

I would attribute that to the majority of the votes are coming from people during the Cold War Era when national security meant a huge army. If a politician says "Hey we're spending too much money on our military" he will probably be slandered as un-patriotic because he is trying to weaken America. Another politician would probably come by and say "I will make a defense shield that no one will be able to hurt us" and he will get elected. It's all a competition, to see who can get into office. If only we extended the length of office to 6 years instead of 4. If only all citizens of the US could vote including teens and children. If only....

I love homosexuals, in a....ummm... straight kind of way.