Open Question: why do people claim that Hitler was a pagan, when there is so much evidence that he was christian?

There are plenty of quotes online that convey that Hitler was pagan, but there are also many that convey that he was christian (below are a host of quotes that convey he was motivated by religion) So how can you definitively state that he was definitely not Christian? The other argument made is that he was pagan and he merely used christianity to manipulate the masses, but if that was true, then wouldn't that mean at the very least that the members and supporters of Nazis were indeed christians? Furthermore, Germany was a christian nation during the third reich, so even if you believe Hitler wasn't a christian, how can you deny that the Nazis themselves weren't church going citizens. Why is this argument accepted among Christians to vindicate all christians from Hitler, but Muslims on the other hand are all guilty of guilt by association? " I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work." ~ Adolf Hitler “…God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work…” — Adolf Hitler, as stated in a radio address on January 30, 1945 “I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.” -- Adolf Hitler God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany. --Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler "The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them." --Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on April 26, 1933 "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on October 24, 1933 "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'" -Adolf Hitler's prayer, from Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Chapter 13 more

Open Question: why don't people blame all Christians for the Nazis/Hitler when they blame all Muslims for al-qaeda.?

Hitler said it himself, he hated and killed so many jews because he was a christian. Thus, guilt by association means all christians are terrorists since this logic is applied to muslims, right? These were all words that came out of Hitler's mouth, so why are historians in the West claiming that he was purely pagan? If he actually hated Christianity, then why did he state the following? " I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work." ~ Adolf Hitler “…God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work…” — Adolf Hitler, as stated in a radio address on January 30, 1945 “I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.” -- Adolf Hitler God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany. --Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler "The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them." --Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on April 26, 1933 "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on October 24, 1933 "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'" -Adolf Hitler's prayer, from Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Chapter 13 more

Resolved Question: I wrote something in English. Would you check to see if there are any odd expressions?

I am a student learning English. I wrote something in English to practice it. Would you check to see if there are any awkward expressions? I've attended another English class other than my original English class. Explaining the difference between my class and another class I attended, my class was taught by a native speaker, whereas another class's teacher was a domestic person. I wanted to see what another class was like, and there was a free class once a month to advertise the class, so I registered it. However, during the class, I couldn't but help feel bad. For two hours, the male teacher didn't teach English. He just talked about how foolish students were, how inefficient the classes by native speakers were and how smart he was. I became speechless. He might want to emphasize that hearing ability was needed prior to attending to the conversation class with native speakers. However, I thought he had to phrase it differently. He said it as if the classes by foreigners were the waste of time and only his class was the best. (He progresses his class by letting students watch the English video repeatedly to enhance their listening skill.) Plus, he made some rude comments about old students. He said that they had studied English in a wrong way and that's why they were here. He sneered at them saying "If you are good at English, why don't you just go out and speak English with native speakers? You can't, right? Because you've studied in a wrong way until you are at that age." For two hours, such rude comments continued. I felt uncomfotable with his impolite manners, but I was patient of his speech to be polite. Finally two hours passed by, but he didn't stop bragging and ignoring. I had another class at that time, so I stood quietly and tried to go out. The teacher shouted, "Hey, why do you go out?" I answered, "I had another class." And then, he said to me, "Is it not because I sound boring?" I smiled in a polite way, "No, it is not.", and I never came back. more

Resolved Question: Why do you bother allowing answers that are completely untrue and, at best, are merely opinions?

Most of the answers you receive for questions are not researched to assist the public in learning accurate information. Why do we demand truth in law and civil and criminal courts, truth in advertising, etc., but truth in media interferes with "free speech"? How do we educate the public and ensure the continuation of democracy if we are not given the truth? Without truth, this "Ask" site is worthless. more

Resolved Question: Is Yahoo Answers Violating our Constitutional Rights?

How many of you have had their comments of questions deleted..because a individual "feels" like it was inappropriate...What protects our freedom of expression? The Y.A. guidelines are very vague... 1.Venting, ranting or using hate speech, This is very generalizing Who decides what is venting or ranting?..(Hate speech should be enforced) 2.Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format. Chatting is a form of communication between two or more people. This rule is very vague..and when you think about it..its kind of silly. 3.Being mean or obscene This is ridicules..What is Mean or Obscene for one person might be acceptable behavior for another. You shouldn't have a rule enforced on you because of your personality...Its unconstitutional. 4.Exploiting the community I agree with this one. I wouldn't want every other post being a person trying to sell you something at their website.. 5.Cheating Kind of Vague but I agree .. 6.Violating the law I agree with this one,but its Ironic because I think Yahoo is breaking the law by violation our 1st amendment. 7.Behaving maliciously This is another vague description. in the description it states this <(Don't post links to sites that contain viruses or malicious programs or that interfere with the operation of Yahoo! Answers.)>.. I agree with the description..but its still kind of vague.. 8.Misusing Answers I agree with this one, you wouldn't want someone using Y.A. for intentions that it wasn't designed for. 9.Doing harm This shouldn't be here because it is generalizing. What you think is safe could be seen as harmful to others. That's the rules we are supposed to abide by on Yahoo Answers..but here is the law that Yahoo has to abide by.(Yahoo is an American Company in California, so United States Law applies to them) First Amendment - Religion and Expression Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 1.Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. I haven't broken any of Yahoo Answers guidelines..but it will be interesting to see what reason they use for taking down my question.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-07-06-internet-freedom_N.htm more

Resolved Question: In what ways is the UK more free than the USA?

1. Guns are banned 2. Hate speech is banned 3. We can have sex at 16 4. We can leave school at 16 5. Free health care 6. Free dental care 7. Free eye care 8. Free education 9. Easy access to welfare 10. Abortion advertised on TV 11. Religion suppressed 12. Atheism promoted 13. CCTV Everywhere 14. Have to recycle by law 15. Not a punishable offense to smoke weed 16. No capital punishment 17. No life imprisonment more

Resolved Question: Do you like this political poster generation site?

I thought it seemed a great way to express free speech and people can show they're not all brainwashed by the Murdoch media. They think they're great having tax dodgers pay for all the lying advertising and having all the Murdoch owned media such as Sky news, The Sun, the Times and ITV spread propaganda in favour of the Conservatives, but there's a poster generation site where you can change the Tory posters to something more accurate: http://mydavidcameron.com/ Here's one somebody else made earlier: http://yfrog.com/0rpostertemplatej more

Resolved Question: Is Columbia South Carolina Ready for an African-American Mayor?

Columbia, SC (WLTX) -- Seven of the eight candidates running for mayor gave their vision for the city Tuesday night. Voters filled a banquet hall in North Columbia to hear from those seeking election for mayor. As each person entered, they had a chance to write down a question of their own for the candidates. Each mayoral hopeful was given two minutes each to answer a series of those questions. Topics covered included the bus system, law enforcement, and how much power a mayor should have in office. To finish up, each candidate shared their number one priority if elected. Below you can read some of what they had to say. "I want to make sure that each one of your children and grandchildren have the same opportunities I had as a child. Our focus on our campaign is clear, we want to focus on, our priorities will be making sure we have a safe city," said Steve Benjamin. "You want safe, secure streets and homes and you want to know that your money is being spent responsibly by your city government. If you don't have those two things you don't have confidence and you don't have trust," said Steve Morrison. "Trim the budget, you know, get rid of any unnecessary items. Clean is the crime free neighborhoods, and of course that comes from funding the police department," said Sparkle Clark. "When I'm mayor of the City of Columbia, everybody will be heard, not everybody will be agreed with, and at no point will an individual "want" overwhelm a collective good," said Kirkman Finlay. "The first thing we have to do is fix the budget, period. We have no idea how much money we have, we have no idea where it's going," said Gary Myers. "My priorities are number one take care of the budget and our finances. Number two take care of our city employees. You gotta have city employees who care and want to stay here to take care of you," said Joseph Azar. "If we can have true civic involvement, and we can make people feel like their government does care about them, and does want to listen to them, I feel like that's the solution. Because right now there's not any money," said Aaron Johnson. Columbia's elections take place April 6th. Your Comments Read reactions to this story Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) yatahey wrote: Who won? 2/2/2010 11:45 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink anchor425 wrote: lol...now we get a new stooge.....hummmm vision for the future??....wez goin back to the 30's 3rd world time.....if we are lucky enough to hold on to it...if not Columbia will be back to the stone age in no time.......look around !...soo how much smoke where theses guys blowin at us?..................hang'em all and bring in a fresh batch.........................capt.k.fred 2/2/2010 11:49 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink yatahey wrote: I have a question. Where's the racial slur film? 2/3/2010 12:01 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink trixsterl wrote: anchor425....all you do on this commet site is whine....why dont YOU get off your high horse and run for Mayor? 2/3/2010 6:06 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink Dapandico wrote: Where is the educational video on graffiti at the Cola City Hall? Trixsterl - Check your thermo control panel. 2/3/2010 6:12 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (5) Report Abuse Permalink tonkatoy wrote: Columbia should have gotten some of the cash fro clunker cars, given them to the bus riders, and disbanded the bus sytem, which is a tragic drain of money. I'm glad I live in Lexco. Oh, yeah, did they ever release the tapes of the City Hall Grafitti Artist? 2/3/2010 8:11 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (4) Report Abuse Permalink donnielex wrote: If I were to have the opportunity to run Columbia, two of my platforms would be- placing cameras outside of the homeless centers and photographing, identifying and investigating every homeless person. Cleaning up the river. Columbia needs to adopt my proposal from fifteen years ago to make use of the Green Diamond property to create a man-made wetlands to remediate the effluent from the wastewater plant. They need to take the many millions of dollars received in water and sewer fees and start treating stormwater during low-flow periods. 2/3/2010 1:12 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend Report Abuse Permalink CensorProof wrote: Please, can we all agree to not vote for Sparkle Clark? SC's been through enough in the past year without the added embarrassment of having a mayor with a stripper name. 2/3/2010 3:23 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink bugtussell wrote: colubia has more

Resolved Question: Is Columbia South Carolina Ready for a African-American Mayor?

Columbia, SC (WLTX) -- Seven of the eight candidates running for mayor gave their vision for the city Tuesday night. Voters filled a banquet hall in North Columbia to hear from those seeking election for mayor. As each person entered, they had a chance to write down a question of their own for the candidates. Each mayoral hopeful was given two minutes each to answer a series of those questions. Topics covered included the bus system, law enforcement, and how much power a mayor should have in office. To finish up, each candidate shared their number one priority if elected. Below you can read some of what they had to say. "I want to make sure that each one of your children and grandchildren have the same opportunities I had as a child. Our focus on our campaign is clear, we want to focus on, our priorities will be making sure we have a safe city," said Steve Benjamin. "You want safe, secure streets and homes and you want to know that your money is being spent responsibly by your city government. If you don't have those two things you don't have confidence and you don't have trust," said Steve Morrison. "Trim the budget, you know, get rid of any unnecessary items. Clean is the crime free neighborhoods, and of course that comes from funding the police department," said Sparkle Clark. "When I'm mayor of the City of Columbia, everybody will be heard, not everybody will be agreed with, and at no point will an individual "want" overwhelm a collective good," said Kirkman Finlay. "The first thing we have to do is fix the budget, period. We have no idea how much money we have, we have no idea where it's going," said Gary Myers. "My priorities are number one take care of the budget and our finances. Number two take care of our city employees. You gotta have city employees who care and want to stay here to take care of you," said Joseph Azar. "If we can have true civic involvement, and we can make people feel like their government does care about them, and does want to listen to them, I feel like that's the solution. Because right now there's not any money," said Aaron Johnson. Columbia's elections take place April 6th. Your Comments Read reactions to this story Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) yatahey wrote: Who won? 2/2/2010 11:45 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink anchor425 wrote: lol...now we get a new stooge.....hummmm vision for the future??....wez goin back to the 30's 3rd world time.....if we are lucky enough to hold on to it...if not Columbia will be back to the stone age in no time.......look around !...soo how much smoke where theses guys blowin at us?..................hang'em all and bring in a fresh batch.........................capt.k.fred 2/2/2010 11:49 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink yatahey wrote: I have a question. Where's the racial slur film? 2/3/2010 12:01 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink trixsterl wrote: anchor425....all you do on this commet site is whine....why dont YOU get off your high horse and run for Mayor? 2/3/2010 6:06 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink Dapandico wrote: Where is the educational video on graffiti at the Cola City Hall? Trixsterl - Check your thermo control panel. 2/3/2010 6:12 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (5) Report Abuse Permalink tonkatoy wrote: Columbia should have gotten some of the cash fro clunker cars, given them to the bus riders, and disbanded the bus sytem, which is a tragic drain of money. I'm glad I live in Lexco. Oh, yeah, did they ever release the tapes of the City Hall Grafitti Artist? 2/3/2010 8:11 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (4) Report Abuse Permalink donnielex wrote: If I were to have the opportunity to run Columbia, two of my platforms would be- placing cameras outside of the homeless centers and photographing, identifying and investigating every homeless person. Cleaning up the river. Columbia needs to adopt my proposal from fifteen years ago to make use of the Green Diamond property to create a man-made wetlands to remediate the effluent from the wastewater plant. They need to take the many millions of dollars received in water and sewer fees and start treating stormwater during low-flow periods. 2/3/2010 1:12 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend Report Abuse Permalink CensorProof wrote: Please, can we all agree to not vote for Sparkle Clark? SC's been through enough in the past year without the added embarrassment of having a mayor with a stripper name. 2/3/2010 3:23 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink bugtussell wrote: colubia has more

Resolved Question: Is Columbia South Carolina Ready for A Black Mayor?

Columbia, SC (WLTX) -- Seven of the eight candidates running for mayor gave their vision for the city Tuesday night. Voters filled a banquet hall in North Columbia to hear from those seeking election for mayor. As each person entered, they had a chance to write down a question of their own for the candidates. Each mayoral hopeful was given two minutes each to answer a series of those questions. Topics covered included the bus system, law enforcement, and how much power a mayor should have in office. To finish up, each candidate shared their number one priority if elected. Below you can read some of what they had to say. "I want to make sure that each one of your children and grandchildren have the same opportunities I had as a child. Our focus on our campaign is clear, we want to focus on, our priorities will be making sure we have a safe city," said Steve Benjamin. "You want safe, secure streets and homes and you want to know that your money is being spent responsibly by your city government. If you don't have those two things you don't have confidence and you don't have trust," said Steve Morrison. "Trim the budget, you know, get rid of any unnecessary items. Clean is the crime free neighborhoods, and of course that comes from funding the police department," said Sparkle Clark. "When I'm mayor of the City of Columbia, everybody will be heard, not everybody will be agreed with, and at no point will an individual "want" overwhelm a collective good," said Kirkman Finlay. "The first thing we have to do is fix the budget, period. We have no idea how much money we have, we have no idea where it's going," said Gary Myers. "My priorities are number one take care of the budget and our finances. Number two take care of our city employees. You gotta have city employees who care and want to stay here to take care of you," said Joseph Azar. "If we can have true civic involvement, and we can make people feel like their government does care about them, and does want to listen to them, I feel like that's the solution. Because right now there's not any money," said Aaron Johnson. Columbia's elections take place April 6th. Your Comments Read reactions to this story Report item as: (required) X Obscenity/vulgarity Hate speech Personal attack Advertising/Spam Copyright/Plagiarism Other Comment: (optional) yatahey wrote: Who won? 2/2/2010 11:45 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (2) Report Abuse Permalink anchor425 wrote: lol...now we get a new stooge.....hummmm vision for the future??....wez goin back to the 30's 3rd world time.....if we are lucky enough to hold on to it...if not Columbia will be back to the stone age in no time.......look around !...soo how much smoke where theses guys blowin at us?..................hang'em all and bring in a fresh batch.........................capt.k.fred 2/2/2010 11:49 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink yatahey wrote: I have a question. Where's the racial slur film? 2/3/2010 12:01 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink trixsterl wrote: anchor425....all you do on this commet site is whine....why dont YOU get off your high horse and run for Mayor? 2/3/2010 6:06 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (3) Report Abuse Permalink Dapandico wrote: Where is the educational video on graffiti at the Cola City Hall? Trixsterl - Check your thermo control panel. 2/3/2010 6:12 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (5) Report Abuse Permalink tonkatoy wrote: Columbia should have gotten some of the cash fro clunker cars, given them to the bus riders, and disbanded the bus sytem, which is a tragic drain of money. I'm glad I live in Lexco. Oh, yeah, did they ever release the tapes of the City Hall Grafitti Artist? 2/3/2010 8:11 AM EST on wltx.com Recommend (4) Report Abuse Permalink donnielex wrote: If I were to have the opportunity to run Columbia, two of my platforms would be- placing cameras outside of the homeless centers and photographing, identifying and investigating every homeless person. Cleaning up the river. Columbia needs to adopt my proposal from fifteen years ago to make use of the Green Diamond property to create a man-made wetlands to remediate the effluent from the wastewater plant. They need to take the many millions of dollars received in water and sewer fees and start treating stormwater during low-flow periods. 2/3/2010 1:12 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend Report Abuse Permalink CensorProof wrote: Please, can we all agree to not vote for Sparkle Clark? SC's been through enough in the past year without the added embarrassment of having a mayor with a stripper name. 2/3/2010 3:23 PM EST on wltx.com Recommend (1) Report Abuse Permalink bugtussell wrote: colubia has more

Voting Question: Questions on 'Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms'?

MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. Which of the following statements about civil rights is NOT true? A - Each person's rights are relative to the rights of others. B - Rights sometimes conflict with one another. C - Some rights may be limited in wartime. D - Rights are extended only to citizens. 2. The Free Exercise Clause gives people the right to A - assemble and express their views on public matters. B - hold meetings and parades on public streets without permits. C - believe whatever they choose to believe in matters of religion. D - exercise anywhere they choose. 3. Which of the following statements about prior restraint is TRUE? A - Prior restraints are usually upheld by the Supreme Court. B - The Constitution guarantees the right of prior restraint. C - The Supreme Court has only rarely upheld prior restraints. D - Prior restraints are necessary to prevent censorship. 4. Laws against seditious speech have been upheld by the Supreme Court if they A - disagree with the government in public. B - urge people to vote against the government. C - urge people to overthrow the government. D - support the party out of power. 5. Government has the right to make reasonable rules regulating assemblies A - to uphold its limits on free speech. B - to protect against the inciting of violence or the endangerment of life. C - in situations that may involve protest against government policies. D - if rules are applied individually regarding content. 6. The Due Process Clause guarantees that A - the National Government will not interfere with constitutional rights. B - States are not bound by their State constitutions in matters of individual rights. C - States will not deny people any basic or essential liberties. D - State governments will police the National Government. 7. A democracy must allow freedom of expression, otherwise A - a dictatorship cannot exist. B - office seekers cannot run for office. C - government will collapse. D - democracy does not really exist. 8. Which of the following statements about commercial speech is TRUE? A - It is legal to print false or misleading advertising only to benefit government-funded products. B - Cigarette ads are permitted on radio and television. C - Federal law forbids pharmacies from advertising prescription drug prices. D - Commercial speech is protected by the 1st and 14th amendments. 9. Which has received the most limited 1st Amendment protection? A - radio and television B - magazines C - movies D - newspapers 10. The Supreme Court has ruled that demonstrations on private property A - are protected by the First Amendment. B - are not protected by the First Amendment if demonstrators are trespassing. C - have the same protections as those on public property. D - are legal if speeches are given. more

Resolved Question: Canadians aren't free?

So you Republicans seem to think that Canada is not a free country. Well let me tell you I beg to differ. Free Speech: The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication Under section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. In the United States freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including copyright protection, the Miller test for obscenity and greater regulation of so-called commercial speech, such as advertising. The Miller test in particular rarely comes into effect. SO WE ARE BOTH LIMITED IN THE SAME WAYS. As for health care... I have lived in Canada most of my life, and have friends, family, coworkers, and associates from all walks of life, and a wide range of political views. The one thing that remains constant though, is that they are all happy with our current health care system, and pity Americans for being so far behind the curve on that regard. Our prime-minister supports the Iraq war so go figure that one out. He's a dick. We're just glad he hasn't joined in. We don't live in igloos. We are ALWAYS ahead of America in the UN's annual list of most livable countries. So what's so bad about living in Canada? more

Resolved Question: Is this a good self esteem speech?

Self Esteem First I’d like to say that you will most likely disagree with a lot that I’ll be talking about right now. That’s ok, I’m not asking you to agree only to consider my points and make a decision based on your own consciousness and reasoning. In our current society a lot of people lack self esteem, they cover it up with false persona’s and false reasoning. You can see it around when you walk on the street, a sure sign of low self esteem is a face that looks the life has drained away from it. A sure sign of low self esteem is a person who lives in ever lasting misery while telling everyone around them there life is great. It’s a plague right now and the cure is simple yet difficult to follow. Personally I’ve had many instances where I break my own rules and in turn suffer. But first what is Self Esteem? Self Esteem as defined by the dictionary is; Pride in oneself or Self-respect The simple solution to increase self esteem is to rely on no other judgement than your own. To allow nobody to determine the path you wish to walk. That is where Self Esteem arises from. The hint is hidden in the dictionary, Pride in oneself. This pride can only ever come if you are the sole person with all the responsibility. In this day and age society takes up responsibility. People must be saved from themselves whenever possible, they can’t take care of themselves this seems to imply. Responsibility is considered a burden, something to bear and painfull. It’s a place where stress arises from. The image that comes to mind is atlas carrying the world on his shoulders, being responsible for everyone. The only time responsibility is a burden is when you are taking responsibility for other people's lifes. When you take responsibility solely for your own life it becomes a source of joy, joy of knowing that YOU are in control of your life. Not society, not your parents, not your peers. YOU are the only one responsible for YOUR life. And from that pride and joy arises because you KNOW that all your achievements are yours alone. If you wish to be able to respect yourself then you must live by your own code of value’s. You must obey your own Code that you aquired through reasoning. You are not a slave to what others tell you, you are a free person, free to chose whatever you wish. And from this self respect and pride will come, self esteem wil return and your life will take on a new direction. Low self esteem arises when you compromise your own value’s to please other people. The result in most cases is that both suffer, there self esteem is lowered because you assumed responsibility over there life and your self esteem is lowered because you did not follow the things you value. Lets assume the responsibility to cure our low self esteem, lets start healing ourselves right now. Lets stop giving away responsibility like it’s a burden, lets accept it fully and enjoy its presence. This is your birthright, nobody can take it away from you unless you allow them to. At this time and age where we are constantly bombarded with advertising designed to unconsciously take away the responsibility of chosing how to spend your money. In this time and age where society as a whole is more then willing to assume responsibility. This ability to take responsibility for yourself is more important then ever before. Lets be the ones who assume responsibility and walk with a head held up high. Lets be the ones with a impeccable self esteem. Proud of our abilities. Proud of our minds. Proud of living on this beautifull planet. __________________ Don't think...Act more

Resolved Question: Looking for website, email, or contact info for Larry Flynt Publications?

I'm a student in a business program and we've been asked to pick an unconventional business model and do some research on it. I would like to use Larry Flynt Publications. (yes, the people that do Hustler, but they also run a casino and have a history of tackling risky free speech centered ventures and making a profit off it) The problem is I can't find any website for them. Of course their's the Hustler website but that's not what I'm looking for, I'm specifically looking for the holding company that manages the 'empire'. I'd like to email them with a few of the questions for my class but I can't find a website to even find an email address off of. I've tried this in the business section of yahoo answers but all I keep getting are spambots advertising websites. more

Resolved Question: If Christian advertising is ok (free speech and all that), why can't Christians stand non-belief advertising?

The moment you put No God on a billboard, why do so many Christians show their true colors -- i.e., their hateful and intolerant side? Free speech works both ways, in case you didn't realize it.Austin, TX -- the Christian way of disagreeing is to cut off the heads of people they disagree with or just dislike. Try the inquisitions, genocides in N. America, S. America, Africa, slavery, persecution in 4 continents... Yes, it is interesting. more

Resolved Question: Can the owner of the Sun and Fox talk credibly about freedom of press?

Rupert Murdoch: Gulf states should open up to foreign media Guardian Unlimited, March 10, 2010 Rupert Murdoch called on Gulf states to open up their markets to global competition from companies such as his own News Corporation by cutting regulation and ending censorship. In a keynote speech expounding the value of media content for its ability to contribute to global economic growth at the inaugural Abu Dhabi Media Summit, Murdoch said light-touch regulation would help the oil-rich Arab city state build an effective creative industry. "A creative sector flourishes best in societies where governments intervene with a light hand," he told an audience of 550 delegates at the inaugural summit. Echoing a theme that is likely to be repeated at other events during the two-day summit, Murdoch promoted the idea of paying for content in a digital age in which much is expected to be free. "In many parts of the world, we are finding that the best way to finance quality content is by having a balance of advertising and subscription revenue," he said. Murdoch, the owner of the Times and the Sun in the UK as well as the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and Fox in the US, also made a call for press freedom in a country criticised by others for its censorship. more

Resolved Question: Is it right to deny an equal right to free speech to people because their OPPONENTS might get violent?

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2620345&p=1 York University in Toronto is currently marking "Israel Apartheid Week", during which all manner of hate speech will be tolerated as long as it's sufficiently anti-Israel. As vehemently as I disagree with those who sponsor and support this attack on the only democratic nation in the Middle East, I support their right to do so, as Canada is a country in which one's freedom of speech is paramount...particularly on a college campus, where a free exchange of ideas is supposed to be especially sacred. The problem is that such freedom is apparently only extended to certain students and organizations. When the student group Christians United for Israel applied to use university space to host a program of pro-Israel speakers, a series of conditions were imposed by the university which were far in excess of those imposed on the anti-Israel people: the student group would have to pay for additional security by campus and Toronto police, their speakers had to be listed and approved, and no advertising would be permitted on campus...none of which applied to the anti-Israel people. The reason for the disparity? "A university spokesman told the Jewish Tribune that it insisted on the more stringent requirements on pro-Israel groups 'due to the participation of individuals who they claim invite the animus of anti-Israel campus agitators.'" So if supporters of Israel were to become as violent as their opponents, restrictions would be placed on those opponents as well? In what parallel universe does this make sense? What do you think of this blatant disregard for equal rights and the free exchange of ideas at one of North America's largest public universities?morris: I believe I pointed that out in my question. Maybe I should have included pictures for you.jane: In that case, why wasn't the same rationale applied to the anti-Israel people? Either the tender sensibilities of others are paramount for all, or they are for none. It can't change from case to case.locutus: Only partially correct. The courts have recently begun to roll back such egregious violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as they did in vindicating Mark Steyn. more

Resolved Question: I Need Help with CIVICS TODAY (I will give you the points for the best Answer)?

1. Which of the following is NOT a factor that influences justices when they decide a Case? A. legal views B. Social condition C. the law D. direct political pressue 2. Which of the following provides an inexpensive and convenient way for citizens to get directyl directly involved in an election? A. e-mailing candidates B. party web sites C. grassroots Web sites D. newsgroups 3. Human rights include all of the following rights EXCEPT: A. safety B. food C. wealth D. shelter 4. What of the following is NOT a power or duty of a state governor? A. adopt laws B. appoint officials C. issue executive orders D. prepare a budget 5. Which of the following countries ia an example of a present-day totalitarian regime? A. Mexico B. Soviet Union C. Great Britain D. North Korea 6. _____ can be used to cut the government's debts. A. Surpluses B. Bonds C. Taxes D. Deficits 7. Which of the following terms does NOT describe the United States economy. A. free enterprise B. government-run C. market economy D. capitalism 8. What was the written plan for government drawn up by the Plymuth colnists? A. Articles of Confederation B. magna carta C. declaration of independence D. mayflower compact 9. The defendant is formally presented with charges and asked to enter a plea at the: A. booking B. arraignment C. indictment D. sentencing 10. Workers who cut a company's costs by being more efficient are an example of which factor affecting supply? A. productivity B. technology C. changes in the cost of resource D. changes in taxes and subsidies 11. In the 1980s, what type of economies became increasngly unattractive? A. market economies B. mixed economies C. command economies D. traditional economies 12. The U.S. House of Representatives and the terms for debate are controlled by the powerful: A. rules committee B. conference committee C. speaker of the House D. committee chairperson 13. Which of the following is NOT part of the governmen's role in regulating market activities? A. regulating natural monopolies B. regulating advertising and product lables C. regulating mergers D. regulating prouct safety 14. which of the follwing is NOT an example of an item that would have elastic demand? A. an expensive item B. an item taht has attractive substitutes C. an item that can be purchased later D. an itemthat has few substitutes 15. The U.S. Chamber of Commercere represents which type of interest group A. special cause interest group B. ethnic interst group C. economic interest group D. public interest group 16. What typ of lawsit cn be filed when a person is accidentally injured or killed? A. negligence suit B. equity suit C. breachof contract suit D. property dispute 17. Which of the following is NOT a case that usually would be heard in a federal court? A. a dispute over patent right B. a dipute over child support C. a suit involving the U.S. Defense Deparatment D. a case involving a violation of the freedom of speech 18. When manufactures buy raw materials like steeel, plastic, and glass, they are acting in their role as. A. producers B. consumers C. charitable organization D. employes 19. what signals that a price is too high? A. shorage B. surplus high demand C. high demand D. market supply 20. Which of the following is one way for the FEd to stimulate the economy? A. contract the money supply B. sell treasury bills C. raise the discount rate D. buy U.S. government bonds 21. Someone who move permenetly to a new country is referred toas a(n) A. immigrant B. naturalized citizen C. citizen D. alien 22. Which United Nations agency tries to promote a higher standard of living around the world? A. security council B. general assembley C. Economics and Social Council D. Trusteeship Council 23. Who counts the electoral vote and declares the winner as the next president? A. The electoral college B. stae representatives C. stae governors D. congress 24. When tow parties cannot agre on the term of a new contact, they might bring in a thired party who tries to help the3m reach an agreement. This prosess is know as. A. collective bargaining B. arbitration C. negotations D. mediation 25. Which of the following is NOT an automatic stabilizer for the economy/ A. tax cuts B. progressive federal income taxes C. welfare programs D. unemployment insurance programs more

Resolved Question: Should the government be able to run non-stop television adds endorsing liberal incumbents next election?

The government after all, is made up of people. So, wouldn't it be depriving them of free speech to try preventing them from spending unlimited amounts of money on television ad's for the next campaign season? I say we push the government to pass a budget that allocates at least 10 billion dollars to television advertising for non-corporatist incumbents, so they can effectively combat the corporate money, that is expected to flow towards corporatist sell-out candidates (in the form of television advertising), following the recent SCOTUS ruling.Rationality - Do you have any doubt that if repub's can take advantage of something like this, that they won't? If they can do it, they will do it. The problem now is, that the Repub's (and quite a few Dem's) won't need to with the recent SCOTUS ruling allowing big corporations to much more openly endorse these guys with television advertising.Rela - Now, why do I get the feeling that you probably consider anything that is not on Fox or Rush, as able to be written off as "liberal"... more

Resolved Question: Liberty and Justice for All Government help?

Matching For questions 1–5, match the letters of each of the following terms to its corresponding statement. A. United States citizen B. first ten amendments C. person born or naturalized in the U.S. D. Fourteenth Amendment E. human rights 1. citizen (1 point) 2. keepers of the rights (1 point) 3. basic freedoms (1 point) 4. due process (1 point) 5. Bill of Rights (1 point) 6. This entity has the final rule on the establishment clause. (2 points) * the Supreme Court * a religious leader * Congress * a state court 7. Political parties and interest groups who influence the action of government must have this freedom. (2 points) * freedom of religion * freedom of libel * freedom of assembly * freedom to slander 8. This is a key step in the naturalization process. (2 points) * a trial * a hearing * to obtain a warrant * to seek counsel 9. As a citizen, you have access to public records because of this act. (2 points) * Sunshine Act * Freedom of Information Act * Civil Rights Act * USA Patriot Act 10. This is the official notice of a lawsuit. (2 points) * affidavit * tort * warrant * summons 11. Censorship of information before it is published is called (2 points) * shield laws. * sequester. * prior restraint. * gag order. 12. This is false speech. (2 points) * defamatory speech * prior restraint * pure speech * symbolic speech 13. This "law of blood" grants citizenship to children born to a United States citizen. (2 points) * jus soli * jus sanguinis * naturalization * expatriation 14. The separation of one group of people from the larger group is called (2 points) * rational basis test. * a strike. * segregation. * naturalization. 15. Cases involving this decide the limits of the government's power and the rights of the individual. (2 points) * statutory law * administrative law * constitutional law * family law 16. Schools operated by a church or religious group are called (2 points) * state schools. * parochial schools. * public schools. * secular schools. 17. This urges resistance to lawful authority or advocates the overthrow of the government. (2 points) * slander * defamatory speech * libel * seditious speech 18. This is considered commercial speech and is given less protection under the First Amendment. (2 points) * a radio or television program * motion pictures * advertising * Web sites 19. Unless there is a labor dispute, the Court has upheld laws that prohibit (2 points) * picketing. * protection for marchers. * assembly on public property. * assembly on private property. 20. This prohibits government from unduly interfering with the freedom of religion. (2 points) * precedent clause * sedition clause * establishment clause * free exercise clause more

Voting Question: Can Democrats and Republicans agree on this?

Excuse the spelling.. The Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as I understand it, basicly opens the door for unlimited corporate funds to flood into our political system in the form of advertising. Media dollars are gold in politics... Can Republicans and Democrats agree that there needs to be less corporate money in politics and not more? What is the argument that corporations have the same free speech rights as people? I wrote a song about it, feel free to listen but its not nessary to answer the question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvBSw9hXNiY (you may need to copy and paste to your browser) So, are you Republican, Democrat, Green, or other? And do you think that congress should, with whatever means, nullify the Supreme Court Decision. I know its a long question. Thanks for your time. more

Resolved Question: Hey, finally something Conservatives, Liberals AND Independents agree on?

From Yahoo News 2/17/2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137 "Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision" It appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations [even foreign interests] to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns. ================= [My 2 cents]: With this ruling, which said that corporations have the SAME (free speech) rights as citizens, the entire American political system is now "FOR SALE" ! The problem is that corporations are NOTHING like people; corporations have NO SOULS; NO HEART; their ONLY motivation is $money$ ! If you agree that "pay-to-play" is not fair, write your federal Congressmen*, and the President, and ask them to sponsor a bill to restrict campaign contributions from any single person or company (to maybe $1000) . To enact this, one alternative might be for the government to give anyone who wants to run a set amount of money (say $5 million for a congressional seat and $20 million for President). Then they would all have the same amount of money to spend on advertising, and not be beholden to anyone for votes. Also, term limits (maybe 12 years) on Congressmen would prevent them from becoming so powerful and potentially corrupt. Or, does anyone have a better idea? Thanks. * If you don't know who your elected officials are, go to http://www.congress.org, and type in your ZIP. more

Resolved Question: Now that 80% of those polled OPPOSE the Supreme Court, what now?

See the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137 Another friend and I independently posted questions just after the fact expressing shock and concern at the Supreme Court's decision to grant "Freedom of Speech" rights to US corporations so that they could contribute unlimited money to any election campaign up to the day of the polls. My own question expanded to include the opinion expressed by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who described the ruling as "a debacle". In both cases, most answers supported the Court, and gave various explanations from the vague to the specific, including one 'Top Contributor' in the "Law and Ethics" category where I posted who condescendingly pointed out that The Constitution's guarantee to free speech did mentions "individuals" in its actual wording at all. I found that explanation downright Orwellian, and said so. But it did seem to match the opinion of the Court, and the majority of those responding on Yahoo Answers to my dumbfounded confusion. Now, only two weeks later, the vast majority of public opinion and that of lawmakers seems to bear out my initial reaction of disbelief. So. What to do now, and what does the decision mean in terms of the future of US elections? Are we, the public, as immune to advertising as the answerers claimed? Am I just Chicken Lickin' running around saying "The sky has fallen in!" ? Now that it appears that an unprecedented majority see this decision the same way -- as a travesty and a hideously dangerous precedent: What to do, and who will do it through what means?Of course that should be "the Constitution...did NOT mention 'individuals'... Thumbs Up to you Mike from Scottsdale> Due to your intro, guess/hope the rest is ironic. As for Spock, I have heard extensive reporting about the decision, and the interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling both by legal experts and lay commentators seems unanimous -- whatever the side. Only the question of right or wrong was brought. I guess you think Sandra Day O'Connor, whose opinion I heard first-hand, is under-informed about the Law and The Constitution? more

Resolved Question: Amendment to limit corporate political speech?

How would you word an amendment to prevent corporations from using advertising and front organizations from influencing politics without limiting the free speech of media and other public interest entities? (This is only about "corporate speech" not about contributions which is another topic.) The reason for this is that money available to corporations is limitless compared to that of public service organizations and individuals. Thus corporations can inundate the voter with their point of view to affect legislation and elections. Few voters have the resources to investigate their claims and even less have the desire to. Thus, the one with the loudest megaphone gets the message across. My example: No entity deriving funding for the sale of a product or service, sale or exchange of stock may engage in activities that support or oppose: a candidate, office holder, political party or current legislation.Sure, we could add unions but how would this be worded so as not to conflict with the first amendment. However, I present the comparison of unions to corporations in that unions get 100% of their funding from it's members who from a labor/business point of view are more homogenous then the stock holders of a corporations.The buy of congress is not new, in fact a book about it was written in 1998 and the problem is just getting worse. The latest supreme court decision is just one more nail in the coffin of democracy. more

Resolved Question: Question about the supreme court corporate free speech rule?

I have been confused a bit by this article which was sent to me by a “libertarian”: Napolitano says “Alito was right” http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/ I am having a bit of trouble sorting this out. As far as I can tell, the ruling means that any entity – corporation or labor union or group of whoever – can not directly contribute to a political campaign, but can set up a separate satellite ‘campaign’ that orbits outside the existing candidate and buys advertising to support that candidate. Am I reading this correctly? Furthermore, the Napolitano article states that “…the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. ” Which would technically be correct if the satellite campaign idea is correct. However the article goes on to say: ” The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling.” And this would mean that foreigners and foreign-owned corporations can not participate in any satellite campaign organization. Is that correct? Finally, what constitutes a foreign-owned corporation? Does that mean 100% foreign owned? Or just partially foreign owned – like say News Corp. which is 5.7% owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia? more

Resolved Question: when is a police state not a police state?

According to the liberal tradition, as it runs through Locke, Hume, Mill and Hayek, everyone has—or should be regarded as having—an equal right to his life, liberty and property. This means that everyone should be equal before the law. A married woman should not lose the right to own property, unless she agrees in advance. A Roman Catholic should not be prohibited from inheriting under his father’s will. An atheist or Jew should not be denied justice because he will not swear as a witness on the New Testament. Everyone should have the same right of access to the courts. Everyone should have the same rights to freedom of thought and speech and faith, and to freedom of association, and to freedom from arbitrary fine or imprisonment. If the owner of a business puts a note in his window advertising that he will not deal with Jews or homosexuals, or the disabled, that is his right. As a libertarian, I would regard this kind of announcement with distaste, and I might refuse, because of it, to deal with that business. But that is the limit of proper disapproval. It is not a matter for interference by the authorities. Since 1997, we have had a bewildering 4,000 new criminal offences created—many dealing with censorship of speech and publication. They are usually enforced by a summary—and often arbitrary and even corrupt process. The traditional courts and their procedure have also been transformed, so that no one whose legal education ended before 1997 has the faintest idea of how to enforce his rights. We have been made formally subject to the European Union. The country has been deliberately flooded with immigrants, as former Blair speechwriter Andrew Neather recently boasted. And the purpose of mass immigration has been to break up the solidarity of the ruled. I was born in a free country. People could speak as they pleased and live without constant supervision. If a policeman knocked on my parents’ front door, their only worry was that he might have bad news. I now live in a police state. Recent legal reforms have completely displaced common law protections and all offenses are now arrestable. If I am accused of so much as dropping a sweet wrapper on the ground, I can be arrested and taken to a police station. There, I shall have my fingerprints and a DNA sample taken. Even if I am released without charge, these records will be kept indefinitely. They will also be shared with several dozen foreign governments, who will often regard presence on a DNA database as evidence of a criminal record. The natural response is that sensible men do all that is needed to avoid any police attention. That means prompt obedience to commands that may have no legal basis. And what is that but a police state? I now live in a country where I have to be aware that private meetings and even private conversations are subject to paid informers and can lead to prosecution and professional ruin. So when is a police state, not a police state? more

Resolved Question: If Obama's speech is so motivational why did his speech lose the last 3 elections for the Democrats?

First in New Jersey's Governor race, next in Virginia's governor's race and then in the senate Mass. race. Next up Ohio where he will undoubtedly lose that state as well. Obama is free advertising for the RNC hehe A new poll out of Ohio, which is called the Buckeye State but is really a political keystone state in this year's midterm election and beyond -- waves a large flag about Democratic hopes to hold the governor's office. Ohio Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, like many incumbents across the country, is sliding into deep trouble when racked up against his Republican opponent, former Ohio congressman John Kasich. According to the Ohio Newspaper Poll as published in the Dayton Daily News, Kasich currently leads Strickland 51-45. Last fall, despite earnest campaign efforts by the White House, Democrats lost control of the governors' offices in Virginia and New Jersey. Another three dozen are up this year. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/more-trouble-enroute-for-obama-now-ohio-tipping.html more

Voting Question: On the topic of controversial superbowl ads: ad for a gay dating site rejected by CBS?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/29/national/main6154905.shtml (And then reported on by their own news network, no less) So the topic of the anti-abortion ad has been around this site recently, my basic stance as well as that of a few others being that even if you disagree with the message (which I, incidentally, do), the free speech is more important than the issue - it should be allowed to air. So here, we have an ad pulled for little reason other than that is shows two guys kissing. As the site's spokesperson said, not only are heterosexual makeout sessions ordinary for such TV, we see much more overtly sexual stuff being advertised in such slots regularly (condoms, erectile dysfunction treatments, herpes medications - stuff that goes a bit above kissing in terms of explaining it to the kids), but obviously the difference is that this is same-sex. Should CBS show the ad? more

Resolved Question: What about the Supreme Court and campaign spending?

According to a spokesperson on NPR this morning, the decision to allow unlimited spending by corporations for campaign advertising is covered by the guarantee of free speech. The point is (so said the commentator), that under the law corporations are "an individual" and so benefit from the same rights as anyone else. Sure. So, when there's an issue I want decided a certain way, I'll just go out and buy myself some fat blocks of air-time like them, right? Honestly, I keep pinching myself thinking I will wake up. This CAN'T make sense to anyone in their right mind, can it? A society where the highest court makes Law that the public view of any issue should be measured by the amount of money you can spend, and that corporations are considered to be 'individuals' as in "All men are created equal"?rickinno...: Your points are well taken, and no doubt formed the basis of the Court's decision. As you saw fit to add the 'liberal' barb, I'll quote an attorney who responded to my aunt's request after my grandfather's death to ascertain "exactly what constitutes default under Arkansas law". Her intent was to evict the tenant-farmer who had lived on grandfather's property for over 30 years, in order to seize the land and house he had made of nothing in the Great Depression, taking it for "the family" -- and incidentally of course, herself: He said: "Your legal position is sound. However, your moral position stinks." There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. Something that self-styled "Conservatives", whether judges or plain citizens might do well to consider when they are busy upholding tradition.Other viewpoints and answers here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylc=X3oDMTB1a2x0anY5BF9TAzIxMTU1MDA0NDMEc2VjA3BlZXBfZQRzbGsDcQ--?qid=20100122090142AAiN3iB more

Resolved Question: Do Conservatives honestly realize how they are being used and played, eg: the Conservative Courts' Decision?

The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election. “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. "Remember their names: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. Yesterday, from within the dark isolation of the Supreme Court, these five men pulled off a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority. In an unprecedented perversion of judicial power, this court cabal has decreed that corporations have a free-speech "right" to dip into their corporate coffers and spend unlimited sums of money to elect or defeat candidates of their choosing. Corporate interests already had too much money power over our political system. No other group in America comes anywhere near the spending clout that this relatively small clutch of wealthy special interests wields over our elections and government. So it's ludicrous for anyone – much less Supreme Court judges – to argue that the corporate voice is a victim of political "censorship." This is not merely judicial activism, it is judicial radicalism. Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangerous rise of corporate power, declaring that must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Today, I'm sure that founding patriots like Jefferson are not simply spinning in their graves at the Supreme Court's surrender to this aristocracy – they're trying to claw their way out of their graves to throttle all five of the traitors." Jim HightowerBarney...5-4 Vote: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas every last one of them appointed by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS...par for the course for Conswervative Voters...the Corporations Thank You. more

Resolved Question: Why is msnbc and others so angry about the supreme court decision...?

...to allow corporations (and unions) to SPEND as much as they want on any candidate that they choose? They had already found they have free speech rights, just like the rest of us. The court didn't say they could CONTRIBUTE as much as they want to any candidate, just that they could SPEND as much as they want (to advertise or whatever). We as individuals can SPEND as much as we want on any candidate, too. We have a limit on what we can CONTRIBUTE, though (I'm not sure if corps will have a limit, they better). GE is a corporation that owns msnbc...don't they spend unlimited amounts to promote their agenda/candidates (through news/opinion) , probably so they can benefit themselves? Isn't CNN owned by a corporation, and don't they sort of do the same? Is/doesn't FOX? I guess my point is that corporations come in all shapes and sizes, just like people, but only a few own media companies with news and opinion that they can use to unfluence debates and try to sway minds 24 hours a day if they choose. And isn't this good for unions and other smaller corporations (like the man I saw at the pep rally in Ohio, who can't build turbines here because GE has the rights or whatever)? The 2010 election is on the horizon. Fair is fair. What do you think? I'm really looking for input, not hate.Maybe we will get LOTS of ads, but fair is fair...why should GE and other corporations who own news stations have unlimited ability to influence people (through news and opinion), but others can't (since they don't own media). Where is THAT fair?Yeah, we're ready for it this time! The People!May be, splitter...I hope someone spends $ to promote that this really might be fair, not "the end of democracy," as Overman put it.sagaceou...do you think it's fair GE has unlimited free speech rights THROUGH msnbc, but any corp who doens't own media can say nothing?So, myrrdin, you think it's ok for GE to promote their special interests (through msnbc), but no others can promote their special interests since they don't own media?mugsy, some how I get it! ;) more

Resolved Question: Where is the "level the playing field" rhetoric coming from in the campaign-finance decision?

Why are conservatives claiming the decision somehow "levels the playing field" for corporations? As though corporations weren't already inordinately and massively influencing the political process. And because, you know, before this decision, corporations were just being totally oppressed by all the rest of us $30,000-a-year individuals, while we're being constantly, inescapably inundated with corporate "free speech" (i.e., advertising) from all sides on a daily basis. I can't even take a p*ss in a bar bathroom without staring at corporate "free speech." How are conservatives making the corporations out to be the little guy here? Are people orbiting Mars? Not even unions have the kind of cash and assets that corporations have to dump on campaign propaganda. They're in different worlds. more

Resolved Question: Where do I go from here? Speech topics? Help!?

Ok, so I have to write a paper on the topics I want to give speeches on for my communications class. Two of my speeches have to be informative, one has to persuasive, and the last one has to be a commemorative speech. I've narrowed down my choices to some topics I would like to present on, but I feel that they are too vague. Here are the topics I've chosen: 1. Famous advertising campaigns. 2. Social networking sites 3. Plastic surgery 4. Reality shows 5. Celebrity gossip/Paparazzi Besides providing the history of these topics what other information can I present? What questions can I ask? How can I narrow these topics even further? Please help! Any ideas will be appreciated. By the way, if you have any other topics in mind feel free to list them. Thanks! more

Resolved Question: Why do Christians pretend Hitler was not christian?

Hitler said it himself, he hated and killed so many jews because he was a christian. " I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work." ~ Adolf Hitler “…God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work…” — Adolf Hitler, as stated in a radio address on January 30, 1945 “I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.” -- Adolf Hitler God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany. --Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler "The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them." --Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on April 26, 1933 "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler, from a speech on October 24, 1933 "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'" -Adolf Hitler's prayer, from Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Chapter 13 more

Resolved Question: What do you do to promote a vegan lifestyle?

A beef association withdrew $600,000,000.00 worth of advertising from network television after Oprah declared she would never eat a hamburger again. Is there any question why network television doesn't give you the truth about the health and environmental effects of dairy, egg, fish, and meat consumption? http://www.madcowboy.com/ http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/laws/existlaw.htm The following states have what is called "Food-Disparagement" laws, which put people like Oprah in a position to defend their intentions with regard to the facts. This legislation in effect stifles free speech. Louisiana 1991 Idaho 1992 Mississippi 1994 Georgia 1994 Colorado 1994 South Dakota 1994 Texas 1995 Florida 1995 Arizona 1995/ 96 Alabama 1996 Oklahoma 1995 Ohio 1996 North Dakota 1997 more

Resolved Question: Freedom of Speech, Truth in Lending, False Advertising- any common ground?

Our constitution grants us the right to free speech and that is in great part what has kept America strong. There have been several laws passed that protect consumers (or did until recently) such as Truth in Lending and False Advertising. These laws came about because of unscrupulous lenders and lies about products. We have always accepted our news people with respect and accepted their integrity as a given. However, it seems we are now being smothered with talk show host on radio and TV that do nothing but twist facts, rant and rave and complain about everyone and everything. They twist words, comments and events around to make them into something that they are not. If we can not expect the truth from the media then maybe we need to rethink our Freedom of Speech rights. Why can people like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh be allowed to continue their twisted babbling and ranting? How can we expect the rest of the world to have any respect for America or for us to have any credibility when these radicals do nothing but bad mouth everything we do?Well done Pat Z; I agree with you 110%. My biggest concern are those who are easily led astray by the radical rantings. A talk show host in Nevada talks terribly close to insurection; a weak minded listener could very well end up trouble. more

Voting Question: Can you check my grammar in english?

Hello, This is a part of my cover letter and if you find any grammar mistakes, please correct and improve them. Thanks. *** At that time, J, president of *** came to our club and gave a speech. J said that the reason *** became the first in car industry is because *** always think about customers first. Since it was very impressed to me, I became a big fan of Mr. J and B***. I am supplying for after sales warranty intern because I think that after sales service is almost as important as the initial purchase. It helps to ensure that customers are satisfied with their purchases and a happy customer become a loyal customer. A loyal customer is free advertising as they will tell others of the great service they receive. Plus, the next time that customer wants to make a purchase they will remember the company. more

Resolved Question: Why are Hispanics trying to control free speech Latino leaders are displeased with what they see want Dobbs?

Why are Hispanics trying to control free speech Latino leaders are displeased with what they see want Dobbs fired ? Two national advocacy organizations have joined the campaign against CNN show host Lou Dobbs, saying that most Latino leaders are displeased with what they see as his inflamatory remarks on immigration and other issues and some are threatening to target advertisers that support his show. In doing so, advocacy groups Democracia Ahora and the League of United Latin American Citizens are joining a coalition of Latino groups targetting Dobbs in 25 U.S. cities -- including Latino Leadership and the Democracia Ahora chapter in Orlando. CNN's public relations office in Atlanta had not responded Friday to requests for comment. The Lou Dobbs Tonight show on CNN focuses on immigration as one of its top issues and often criticizes Hispanic advocacy organizations. Dobbs had to apologize earlier this year after accusing the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of condoning "Mexico's export of drugs and illegal aliens to the United States." Most recently, he has upset Hispanic leaders because of his focus on "illegal alien loopholes" in health care reform that many have denounced as false claims. Democracia Ahora said it will launch its own "Enough is Enough!" push to counter "the daily drum roll of misinformation and offensive commentary" on Dobbs' show. The organization had Bendixen and Associates conduct a survey of Hispanic leaders that showed most of them "are offended" by the show "as a result of his direct verbal attacks on the immigrant community and his misguided characterization of the Hispanic community as a whole." The Democracia group found that 90 out of 100 Hispanic leaders "ranging from members of Congress and heads of Latino advocacy groups, to CEOs of top American companies and the most prestigious Hispanic journalists and academics in the country" disapprove of Dobbs' show. “Latinos are contributing to the fabric of this great nation in immeasurable ways, from backbreaking work in the nation’s farm fields to active civic engagement and participation in the Democratic process," said Jorge Mursuli, President of Democracia Ahora. "It is truly unconscionable that a world class news network such as CNN continues to directly and indirectly attack our community." The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is complaining that Dobbs is attacking their organization specifically, having called it a “left wing socio-ethnocentric group.” “Over the years, Lou Dobbs has consistently used his CNN platform to spread hate and fear. We are asking his sponsors to stop advertising on his show,” said LULAC president Rosa Rosales. http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_hispanicaffairs/2009/09/drop-lou-dobbs-fight-escalates-as-hispanic-groups-target-advertisers.html Where are these same voices in the make Mexico a better country debate ? more

Resolved Question: What is your opinion on this... as a parent and as an objective American citizen?

The following quote is from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/01tobacco.html?_r=3&hpw (from a "CDC Public Health News Update" I receive weekly via email). "Tobacco companies in the United States filed the first lawsuit, in federal district court in Kentucky, against the Food and Drug Administration, challenging a recently enacted federal law containing marketing and speech restrictions. The landmark law, signed by President Barrack Obama in June, requires new warning labels on packaging, limits advertising to black and white for certain audiences comprised of greater than 15% or two million readers under age 18, and bans advertising within 1000 feet of a school or playground, among other restrictions, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights of the tobacco companies. Floyd Abrams, an attorney representing Lorillard Tobacco Company, argues, “The government has great power to protect children from certain products, including cigarettes, but tobacco is a legal product for adults. When you cut back their ability to speak to lawful purchasers, you do start running into legal issues.” Clifford E. Douglas, executive director of University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network contends, “If there’s any commercial speech that is constitutional to restrict, it’s the type of marketing covered in this legislation.” Altria Group, Inc., maker of Marlboro products, is not a participant in this lawsuit and supported the bill which is designed to reduce promotion of tobacco use to children and youth smoking." As a parent, I am happy to see this done to limit children being subjected to such advertising, especially since studies prove that children are much more susceptible to its influence. As a patriotic American I feel angered at the arrogance of our current government for enacting a federal law that blatantly limits someone's (even the disgusting tobacco companies, LOL) freedom of speech. The freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution were not meant to be manipulated to suit different situations like this. A big part of me also sees this as just more big government trying to do the job that parents should be doing themselves. What is your opinion? And please be respectful of others' opinions! Thanks! more

Resolved Question: What is your opinion on this... as a parent and as an objective American?

The following quote is from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/01tobacco.html?_r=3&hpw (from a "CDC Public Health News Update" I receive weekly via email). "Tobacco companies in the United States filed the first lawsuit, in federal district court in Kentucky, against the Food and Drug Administration, challenging a recently enacted federal law containing marketing and speech restrictions. The landmark law, signed by President Barrack Obama in June, requires new warning labels on packaging, limits advertising to black and white for certain audiences comprised of greater than 15% or two million readers under age 18, and bans advertising within 1000 feet of a school or playground, among other restrictions, which critics argue violate First Amendment free speech rights of the tobacco companies. Floyd Abrams, an attorney representing Lorillard Tobacco Company, argues, “The government has great power to protect children from certain products, including cigarettes, but tobacco is a legal product for adults. When you cut back their ability to speak to lawful purchasers, you do start running into legal issues.” Clifford E. Douglas, executive director of University of Michigan Tobacco Research Network contends, “If there’s any commercial speech that is constitutional to restrict, it’s the type of marketing covered in this legislation.” Altria Group, Inc., maker of Marlboro products, is not a participant in this lawsuit and supported the bill which is designed to reduce promotion of tobacco use to children and youth smoking." As a parent, I am happy to see this done to limit children being subjected to such advertising, especially since studies prove that children are much more susceptible to its influence. As a patriotic American I feel angered at the arrogance of our current government for enacting a federal law that blatantly limits someone's (even the disgusting tobacco companies, LOL) freedom of speech. The freedoms afforded to us by the Constitution were not meant to be manipulated to suit different situations like this. A big part of me also sees this as just more big government trying to do the job that parents should be doing themselves. What is your opinion? And please be respectful of others' opinions! Thanks! more

Resolved Question: How is it even possible for a corporation to deny someone free speech by choosing not to advertise somewhere?

Broadcast and cable advertising is the purchase of the right to present one's message during a specific chunk of airtime. If a corporation chooses not to purchase a particular chunk of airtime, how does that in any way deny the rights of the person who might speak during that airtime? Free speech means the freedom to speak without prior restraint by the government. If the government were to shut down a television program merely because it didn't like the program's content, that would probably be an infringement of free speeech (subject to certain narrow exceptions). How in the world could anyone think that a corporation choosing not to advertise on a particular television program is the same thing as a government restriction on free speech? Is our educational system so weak that its products fail so completely to understand the whole concept of "free speech" as articulated by the founders of this nation? more

Resolved Question: Why is Wal-Mart not supporting free speech by boycotting Glenn Beck?

I wrote them and asked them this question. Here is their lousy reply. --- On Tue, 8/25/09, Walmart Customer Service <cstreply@wal-mart.com> wrote: From: Walmart Customer Service <cstreply@wal-mart.com> Subject: Response from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Ref #000000023745942) To: r*****r1@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 3:06 PM Thank you for your message. Dear Obamahood, Thank you for your letter. We appreciate you taking the time to write and express your opinion. We want to take a minute to help you understand our advertising philosophy, especially as it relates to some cable news shows. Our ads are targeted at moms, and fundamentally these ads are about saving people money so they can live better. We buy advertising on shows that run the spectrum politically and socially because we want to be on the programs moms are watching. As our core customer, she is "the boss." At the same time, we want to make sure our commercials don't appear in programs that detract from the message we are trying to deliver. While provocative programming can be both interesting and entertaining to its loyal viewers, it can also be polarizing. That's just not a place we think we should be. The message becomes more about the controversy and less about what we are trying to say to our customers. I hope this gives you a better understanding of our position. Thanks again for reaching out to us. Sincerely, Walmart Customer Care For further correspondence regarding this issue, please reply to this email. ----Your Original Comments Were---- Dear Wal-Mart, I am writing about your decision to drop advertising from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News regarding his anti Barack Obama statments. I object to your decision. The issue that we need to discuss about your decision is if Wal-Mart supports the US Constitution and free speech. Freedom of Speech protects not only "good" speech, but also controversial speech. Why is it that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other leaders of the black community can call people "hymies", "crackers", and "blood sucking Jews" and get away with it, but their organizations still get finanancial suppoprt from stores like Wal-Mart? However Glenn Beck makes a controversial remark about President Obama and Wal-Mart drops support.You are free to advertise where you want, however I am free to not purchase from your stores. As long as you withhold advertising from conservative dominated news shows, I will be a one man boycott of your stores. I would much rather support an organization that supports the US Constition than support an organization that is trying to silence a critic of the president. Wal-Mart is clearly a supporter of president Obama. What ever happened to keeping politics and religion seperate from business? Sincerely, Obamahood ----------------------------------------- ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. ********************************************************************** Wal-Mart Confidential **********************************************************************Wal-Mart is free to advertise where they want. But if they continue to support political shows on MSNBC, CNN, and other liberal networks, they are showing their true colors. more

Resolved Question: Answer 4 of the following 10 questions with responses of at least 200 words?

Answer 4 of the following 10 questions with responses of at least 200 words (each question is worth 4 points). Make sure that you number your responses with the corresponding number from below and answer the question asked, discussing the applicable law and its application to the situation described. Your final exam submission should be posted to your Individual Forum not later than Sunday (Day 6). Enjoy! 1. The city of Greenville enacted a city zoning ordinance to prohibit outdoor advertising display signs, including billboards. On-site signs at a business’s location were exempted from this rule. The city based the restriction on traffic safety and aesthetics. Roadside Media Enterprises, a company in the business of leasing commercial billboards to advertisers, sued the city of Greenville, alleging that the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional because it infringes on free speech rights. Is the ordinance unconstitutional? 2. List and discuss at least three differences between civil and criminal law and give an example of each. 3. What legal and ethical issues should a business consider when deciding whether or not to do business globally? How can you compare and contrast between ethical issues in the US and ethical issues in other countries? 4. Cody offered to sell certain land to Daniel for $50,000, by a letter, which was signed by Cody. The letter specified that the deal was to be closed by November 1, 2008 and that the entire payment was to be in cash. Daniel accepted the offer by letter, but his letter stated that payment was to be made one-half at closing and one-half thirty days later. Cody never responded. Discuss in detail whether there is a valid contract between Cody and Daniel. Is there a contract? 5. What are the significant factors to consider in selecting the form of a business? List and explain at least three. 6 During the interview Gale had with Leslie Accounting Firm, Gale was asked whether she had any children, whether she planned to have any more children, to what church she belonged and what her husband did for a living. Are these questions illegal? Why or why not? 7 At the end of all her written communications, an employee writes, “have a blessed day.” One of employer’s most important clients requests that employee not do so, and employer asks employee to stop. Employee refuses, saying it is a part of her religion. If employee sues the employer for religious discrimination, then is she likely to win? Why or why not? 8. Sandy notices a dog tied to a chain behind a fence and recognizes it as belonging to an acquaintance who lives a couple of blocks away. Sandy goes to the acquaintance’s house and says, “Your dog is tied up in someone’s yard, and for $100 I will tell you where. The dog’s owner says, “No way! I can’t believe you won’t simply tell me where the dog is!” The dog’s owner drives around the neighborhood and finds the dog and retrieves it. The next day Sandy notices an advertisement in the paper where the owner offered a reward of $200 for information leading to the return of her dog. Discuss Sandy’s rights. 9. Bob is at the Boston Biceps Bodybuilding Club riding an exercise bike. Bob wants to change the station on the television which is mounted high on a nearby wall. He reaches for the remote control device, and finds that another member has accidentally taken the remote control and left behind a cellular phone. Bob drags the exercise bike over to the television. He stands on the seat of the exercise bike in order to reach the television, but the seatpost breaks and Bob falls to the floor. Bob is not more

Resolved Question: What do you think about our taxpayer money spent on ....?

WALL STREET JOURNAL............ Order a reprint of this article now JULY 2, 2009.Congress's Travel Tab Swells Spending on Taxpayer-Funded Trips Rises Tenfold; From Italy to the Galápagos.ArticleComments (171)more in Politics ». By BRODY MULLINS and T.W. FARNAM WASHINGTON -- Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galápagos Islands. The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago. The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data. View Full Image Gov. Bob Riley via Flickr Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (left) and Sen. Richard Shelby in June on a river cruise in Paris, where U.S. politicians met with defense-industry executives. . Lawmakers say that the trips are a good use of government funds because they allow members of Congress and their staff members to learn more about the world, inspect U.S. assets abroad and forge better working relationships with each other. The travel, for example, includes official visits to American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Journal analysis, based on information published in the Congressional Record, also shows that taxpayer-funded travel is a big and growing perk for lawmakers and their families. Some members of Congress have complained in recent months about chief executives of bailed-out banks, insurance companies and car makers who sponsored corporate trips to resorts or used corporate jets for their own travel. Although complete travel records aren't yet available for 2009, it appears that such costs continue to rise. The Journal analysis shows that the government has picked up the tab for travel to destinations such as Jamaica, the Virgin Islands and Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Lawmakers frequently bring along spouses on congressional trips. If they take commercial flights, they have to buy tickets for spouses. If they fly on government planes -- as they usually do -- their spouses can fly free. Paris Air Show In mid-June, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii) led a group of a half-dozen senators and their spouses on a four-day trip to France for the biennial Paris Air Show. An itinerary for the event shows that lawmakers flew on the Air Force's version of the Boeing 737, which costs $5,700 an hour to operate. They stayed at the Intercontinental Paris Le Grand Hotel, which advertises rooms from $460 a night. The lawmakers were invited to a dinner party at the U.S. Embassy and had cocktails at a private party at the Eiffel Tower. Mr. Inouye attended a dinner sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association, a U.S. trade group. Another senator on the trip, Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, took a cruise on the River Seine with defense-industry executives and elected officials from Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Mr. Inouye and Mr. Shelby declined to comment. . Often, lawmakers combine trips to war zones with visits to more tranquil spots. In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Democratic lawmakers to visit U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a day. Before landing in Kabul, the eight lawmakers and their entourage of spouses and aides spent eight days in Italy, spending $57,697 on hotels and meals. A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi says that she was working in Italy, meeting with U.S. troops at Aviano Air Base, laying a wreath at the Florence American Cemetery, giving a speech to Italian lawmakers and visiting the Pope, among other things. Homeland Security Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, led a group to Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Panama. "This trip further solidified the message that homeland security does not begin or end at our borders," says Mr. Thompson's spokeswoman. Journal Communitydiscuss..“ The very people who try to scold executives for flying on private jets turn around and hop on their private jet – paid for by you, the taxpayer. ” .— Daniel Baker. Many congressional trips have been to Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2008, lawmakers and aides took 113 trips to Iraq, according to the Journal analysis, down slightly from the prior year. Not much money is spent in the war zones. Lawmakers are not allowed to stay overnight in Iraq and receive only minimal spending allowances for their one-day visits. In mid-February, for example, six House lawmakers traveled to Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain and Afghanistan. Each lawmaker reported spending $1,500 more

Resolved Question: Where has freedom of speech gone?

I was banned from straightdope.com. The reason they gave me was: reopened closed thread. I did reopen a closed thread three days ago, because one of the moderators says that I had opened it in the wrong section. I opened it again in it's proper place and it stayed open for two days. A moderator and charter members even joined in. It was closed again due to wrong category, I complained and they asked if I would like it moved instead of closed. I said yes, it was moved and reopened by the moderator. Then I opened a new conversation: Title: The Click 101-Impressions vs. Clickthroughs and why you should click Getting your name out is tough these days. Raising enough funds for an excellent ad campaign can be exhaustive and making money off ads on your site without a airtight campaign is near impossible. Even search engine optimization (that creates sites that look like they were designed by mindless robots)to get a good page rank becomes less and less effective every time an engine gets updated. However, the system is flawed. Corporate America and the Advertising gurus have made an undeniable mistake, assumption. They assumed they could impress images and words about their products and ideas into the minds of the masses (approximately 90% of the time)without anyone clicking through. That's exactly what a impression is, an impression on your brain. A clickthrough is you clicking on a ad. They bet that the average human being will not click on the ads due to the speed of life, jealousy and other massive internal problems in Society as a whole. What does this do for them? It raises tons of money for companies selling adspace, which they make off of impressions(micro pennies on the dollar)while providing an inexpensive solution for their corporate(giant ants) clientele(5 million dollars for 5 billion impressions is a great deal for these money masters.). Meanwhile, millions of visited sites created by common citizens are being exploited. They pour their hearts and souls into these sites so that the masses(they hope)will enjoy their works. Then these diligent, hardworking little ants try to find a way to eat. Uh oh, here comes corporate America(giant ants)with some good news, "You can put our names and images on the face of every page in your entire web body and if somebody clicks on us we'll pay you a quarter." The little ant(common citizen)replied, "Wow, big brother, a Quarter, if I get three of those I can get a candy bar, thanks!" The little ants put their(big bother ant's)ads up and are immediately deemed sellouts by the crowd. Whether it be a nascar racer with too many stickers on his helmet, or a boxer, with Larry's Hardware on his a$$, that has no heart. The real sellouts are the manipulated masses that allow inexpensive to nearly free brainwashing through and by big brother ant(Corporate America) impressions. Here's the solution, exploit Corporate America back. Click on at least two ads or more that you see on every site you visit that allows you to absorb the little ants(common citizens)juices for free. Who cares if you're interested in what the ad that you're clicking on has to offer(these ads are still impressing into your brain, make them pay for those impressions)? Click, click, click, was that so hard(It's self satisfying and fun too!) Don't worry, corporate America will survive. Even if some of the old players get removed by the board and are replaced by new players. There's still a board and it's ok if some of the little ants become big ants and vice versa, just don't tick off the Anteater! So, join The Click and play the game. There's no membership required!Click, click, click! [close/] Twenty minutes later my account was deleted by people who claim to have been fighting ignorance since 1973. Where has freedom of speech gone since 1973? more

Resolved Question: Is Sara Palin overdoing her outrage?

Dave Letterman apologized immediately for his mistake, but Palin and right-wing Republicans are using his remark to manipulate CBS into firing him because Letterman is not supporting the Republican view point, unlike Fox Media. Palin and the Republicans want to censor any TV show and celebrity that is not on their side. What has happened to FREE SPEECH ? Republicans have even made a web site telling their supporters to contact CBS advertisers and demand that they stop advertising on the Letterman show. Should corporations be encouraged to control what you and I see on TV? I don't think so, do you? If you agree, then e-mail those companies and tell them to: Keep Letterman. Here's an e-mail list of the companies Palin Republicans want to censor what we watch. They need to be reminded that non-Republicans also watch TV and buy their products. Want to stop Republicans' attack on Dave Letterman Show? I don't like that Palin and her evangelical supporters are lobbying to fire Dave Letterman, using as an excuse his mistake over which daughter was at the game Letterman apologized immediately for his error in judgment, but Palin and her cronies see this as a chance to shut up a talk show host who is not blindly pro Republican. (like the Fox media gang.) The Republicans have organized a web site asking people to lobby CBS advertisers to tell them to pull ads from CBS if CBS doesn't do as the Republicans demand. Is this the sort of Republican censorship we want in America? Where were their complaints when a reporter made extremely unkind criticisms of Chelsea Clinton? They were silent. Smells like a double standard to me. Here's an e-mail list of some of the people Palin is telling to ask for Letterman to be fired. If you agree that it is wrong to encourage big corporations to control what we watch, e-mail those people and remind them that non-Republicans also buy/use their products. kchang12@conus.jnj.com, kendra.walker@hilton.com, stephen.schonberg@edelman.com, nicole_bender@gap.com, allison.costello@ketchum.com, gary.kelly@wnco.com, ginger.hardage@wnco.com, linda.rutherford@wnco.com, jcaron@olivegarden.com, chamilton@us.loreal.com, rcaruso@us.loreal.com, sdavidowitz@us.loreal.com, leeann.silver@kaobrands.com, jriley@ea.com, paul.michaels@effem.com, michele.kessler@effem.com, ryan.bowling@effem.com, bonnie.mcpeake@bestwestern.com, troy.rutman@bestwestern.com, jdonahoe@ebay.com, amarks@ebay.com, jmallabo@ebay.com, tammyl.cyphert@intel.com, nancy.bhagat@intel.com, william.h.mueller@intel.com, mark_templin@toyota.com, bill_ussery@toyota.com, julie_alfonso@toyota.com, greg_thome@toyota.com, craig_taguchi@toyota.com, stephen.schoof@capitalone.com, tatiana.stead@capitalone.com, julie.rakes@capitalone.com, diana.don@capitalone.com, john.lee@hilton.com, dawn.ray@hilton.com more

Resolved Question: I am doing my expository speech on iPods I need some help please?

here is what I have right now .... CAN SOMEONE please help me and give me some interesting facts and something i could include thanks : HERE IS WHAT I HAVE •iPods Notes •iPod is the brand of portable media players designed and marketed by Apple Inc. and launched on October 23, 2001. •Apple has lauched four verisons, shuffle, nano, classic, and touch •Apple's iTunes software can be used to transfer music to the iPod •As of September 2008, more than 173,000,000 iPods had been sold worldwide, making it the best-selling digital audio player in history •History •The iPods line came from Apple's "digital hub" category, when the company began creating software for the growing market of personal digital devices. Digital cameras, video cameras and organizers had been selling on mainstream markets, but the company found existing digital music players big and clunky or small and useless •The name iPod was brought to the table by Vinnie Chieco, a freelance copywriter, who was called by Apple to figure out how to get the word out about iPods. After Chieco saw a prototype, he thought of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey and the phrase "Open the pod bay door, Hal!", which refers to the white EVA Pods of the Discovery One spaceshipApple researched the trademark and found that it was already in use. Joseph N. Grasso of New Jersey had originally listed an "iPod" trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in July 2000 for Internet information The first iPod kiosks had been demonstrated to the public in New Jersey in March 1998, and commercial use began in January 2000, but had apparently been discontinued by 2001. The trademark was registered by the USPTO in November 2003, and Grasso assigned it to Apple Computer, Inc. in 2005. •iTunes •Most everyone who uses or has an ipod uses iTunes for all their music needs. You can download itunes for free off the internet. Once you have it on your desktop you open it and go into iTunes Store and you can buy all your songs there. Each song is $.99 or $1.29 depending on how new the song is. The store became the market leader soon after it was launched. You can also buy movies, tv-shows, music videos, audiobooks,iPod games, podcasts, and buy or get free Apps for a iPod touch. •Many accessories for the iPod line were made. This market is sometimes described as the iPod ecosystem. Some accessories such as sound recorders, FM radios, wired remote controls, and audio and visual cables for TV. Other accessories offer features like the Nike+iPod pedometer and the iPod Camera Connector. •Since October 2004, iPod lines has dominated digital music player sales in the United States, with over 90% of the market and over 70% of the market for all types of players •Some downsides to iPods are battery issues, reliability, and durability. The advertised battery life on most models is different from the real-world. Most iPods were advertised with a 14-hour battery. A MP3.com put out and article saying that it was vitually impossible. In 2003, lawsuits were charged against Apple, complaining that the batteries lasted for shorter lengths of time than said and that the batteries slowy lost power over time and decreasing the battery life even more. The lawsuit was setteled and for people who were involved got $50 store credit, or battery change. iPods have been criticized for their short life-span and fragile hard drives, It concluded that some models were more durable than others. •iPods have many different size compbaliltiy ranging from 512MB to 160GB, that’s 250 songs to 40,000 songs more

Resolved Question: Business Law Question?

I have an assignment in which I need to figure out whom would win a particular case and why. The general idea is that an advertising company owns several billboards in a city. The city passes an ordinance that prohibits outdoor advertising to prevent distracted drivers. The company sues the city. Who wins, and why? I'm not looking for the answer, but I'm pretty lost as to where I should be looking. I'm not sure if I should be looking into civil torts, violation of an Amendment (free speech), or an intellectual property violation. Just a hint of where I should be looking would be great. Thanks! more

Resolved Question: What steps does one take to challenge a municipal law as unconstitutional?

Indianapolis has enacted an ordinance that violates the Fourth Amendment of protection from illegal search and seizure, and possibly the First Amendment of free speech. The ordinance states that an individual may not have a "for sale" sign on HIS vehicle on HIS property, and if he does, the city may tow it. This would be an illegal seizure, and also a violation of the First Amendment, since you should be able to freely advertise that your vehicle is for sale. What steps do I need to take in order to challenge this ordinance as being unconstitutional? Good question for law students... more

Resolved Question: Why are so many government officials lacking in common sense?

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and its Pinellas County chapter filed a federal lawsuit Feb. 24 against Clearwater on behalf of a Clearwater business, The Complete Angler. “The ACLU of Florida seeks to prevent the city from further proceeding against (owners Heriberto, “Herb,” and Lorraine Quintero) for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech and political protest,” read an ACLU press release regarding the lawsuit. The Quinteros opened the bait shop at 705 N. Fort Harrison Ave. on Feb. 1, 2008, said Herb Quintero, and shortly afterwards commissioned an artist to paint a mural of local game fish on one of the shop’s outdoor walls. The shop began getting notices of code violations in March 2008, claiming that the mural was in fact an additional sign, or advertising, although there are no words or a logo on the image. “We made numerous attempts to talk to the city, but they insisted that the mural, because it’s a depiction of fish, would constitute as additional signage because we are a tackle store,” Quintero said. “Our argument has always been that it was never made or painted to convey any information to the public. There is no logo or text. It just depicts local game fish in the area. It’s artwork and is covered under the First Amendment. It’s freedom of expression.” The Quinteros paid $690 in fines to the city and were ordered to cover up the mural.http://www.tbnweekly.com/pubs/clearwater_citizen/content_articles/030409_cit-01.txt more

Free advertising Home
Free Advertising Site
Free Advertising On Internet
Risk Free Advertising
Free Website Submit
Classified Advertising
Free Classified
Free Advertising For Websites
Free Advertising Boards
Free Website Create
Free Online Business Advertising
Advertising On The Internet

Privacy Policy