so has misplaced energies,,,,

I would rather have freedom and no inconvienence over luxuries

IM quite happy with a balance of sacrifice/responsibility/inconvenience(whatever one calls it)

and

privilege

And I do not wish to sacrifice my freedoms, be inconvienenced, but still live responsibly.

good luck finding a culture with no inconveniences,,,,,

this one isnt going that way, too many privileges that are becoming entitlements


'to whom much is given, much is expected'

not,,,'give me what I want how I want and dont ask of me anything but what I want to give,,,;

but back to the
OP...


does sir paul actually mention specifically what part of the bill supports his conclusions,,,,,,?

When the inconvienence gets to you pulling your car ove to be checked by TSA at every stop remember the warnings. When the road ways get covered my checkpoints. Its coming to a interstate near you.

ok

(shakes head)

I have nothing really to add to this.

Some of us are gonna be in for a HARD lesson one day.......that's all I'll say.

something tells me that one day wont be anytime soon,,,,

The fact that it violates the 4th amendment. To answer your question-one can cite any clause in the bill, but if you insist on a specific part-the entire executive summary.

fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.




summary of SOPA at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03261:@@@L&summ2=m&



...still dont see the connection,,,would be nice for someone to point it out,,,,,,

The day of reckoning is here already, I'm afraid. One of many victims (a list that grows almost daily): Kathryn Johnston. Police obtained a warrant,broke in and killed this old lady and then planted drugs in her home to cover up.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-shooting-of-elderly-woman-tragic-unfortunat/nD9wC/
ATLANTA — Three Atlanta police officers were shot and wounded and an elderly woman killed at a house in northwest Atlanta Tuesday night.The woman, identified by relatives as 92-year old Kathryn Johnston, opened fire on the officers from the narcotics division at a house at 933 Neal Street, according to officials.
Atlanta Police Asst. Chief Alan Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday that an undercover officer made a drug purchase at Johnston’s address late Tuesday afternoon from a male suspect. Officers were able to obtain a search warrant after that.
Asst. Chief Dreher said as they were executing the search warrant, the officers announced themselves and then forced open the door. Officials say the warrant was a “No Knock” warrant – meaning that the officers did not knock before forcing open the door, but they did announce themselves.
Dreher said as soon as the officers forced open the door, Johnston shot at the officers and the officers returned fire to protect themselves. One officer was shot 3 times – once in the leg, on the side of the face and once in his bulletproof vest. One officer was hit in the leg and another hit in their arm. All officers are on paid administrative leave pending an investigation – as is common.
Officials say they have not made any arrests in the case and they have not located the male suspect. Dreher said suspected narcotics were recovered from the home but they are awaiting lab results to confirm the items are drugs.
Dreher said a marked patrol vehicle was parked in front of the residence and the word “Police” was written across the front and back of the narcotics team’s vests. He also said only a matter of minutes passed between when officers arrived on the scene and when they forced open the door.
Asst. Chief Dreher referred to the incident as a, “tragic and unfortunate incident.”
The woman's niece, Sarah Dozier, says that she bought her aunt a gun to protect herself. Relatives believe Johnston was frightened by the officers and opened fire.
Her relatives say Johnston had lived in the house for about 17 years.
"They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there's no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they've got the wrong house," Dozier said. "I'm mad as hell." Officials say they had the correct house and that the warrant they had was legal.
She says the officers "shot her down like a dog."
Police say the investigation is continuing.

if abuse of authority is the day of reckoning, ID suppose america has been in reckoning since it was founded


I would call this the expected and usual imperfections, not things that should go uninvestigated or unaddressed, but not things that should cause panic about some potential doomsday,,,,,

You might be surprised.

It's easy for you to say though if you deny it's happening. You won't be able to deny it forever though.

That's an interesting story, but I can't say I believe it as written.

Whether they had the correct house can easily be proven by paperwork and police reports.

The way the article was written was a bit biased. The woman's niece was quoted as saying "They shot her down like a dog." Of course a family member would not be unbiased about what happened, and was probably not a witness to what happened so she was just ranting.

Also, "dogs" don't have guns and dogs don't shoot at you when you bust into the house.

And whether or not drugs were being sold out of that house has not been proven either. Even drug pushers have grandma's, and most grandma's will shoot to protect their children.

And I don't know any 92 year old grandma who keeps a loaded gun handy (very handy) for no reason. They said she started shooting as soon as they came in.

On the other hand, she's dead and the dead don't tell tales. And what the cops say could be a big fat lie too.

All I can say is that this case needs some serious investigation and evidence.

I dont deny anything except that there is some pending doomsday upon us in which we will be completely enslaved with no freedoms because of a bill against piracy or terrorism

Another thing to point out is, anyone, particularly a "suspected drug dealer" who shoots three cops is likely to get shot to death even if they are a 92 year old grandmother.

Now here is another possible story:

What if the cops busted in and they blasted her. When they realized how that would not look too good, they found her gun, probably up in the top of the closet, and they shot each other in places that were not too damaging or fatal to justify killing her.

Wow any number of possibilities.

We need the Brenda Lee Johnson, the Closer to solve this one.

Case in point. You make the best slave for them because you accept all this willingly. That's what they want and need to accomplish their goals. And with people like yourself going along they are doing it.

History tells us that The State will overstep its boundaries when it's ever given the chance.

'to whom much is given, much is expected'

-----------

Bingo.

Every human being, every living thing, every social construct (institutions) will always try to get more. This I call in my personal philosophy "encroaching". Or "encroachment".

Countries want to get bigger. Trees want more sunshine. Men and women want more money and social recognition. Fish want more food. The HIV virus wants more humans. The school wants more money, prestige, and good research facilities, led by better and better brains. A humourist wants bigger and bigger laughs.

To whom much is given, will expect much, becasue everything expects more. If you give them little, they will expect more, too, but more than little will still be little. But more than much is a lot. We notice that.

"Encroachment." I like this, coz it's so true. One of the basic natures driving our little universe on this planet.

---------

So the government wants more control and more influence.

People want more luxuries and more freedom.

Terrorists want more of us dead.

This makes the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable actions by the government constantly move. The problem is, once a boundary is pushed out and the territory is widened, nobody in the winners' side wants to move the boundary back, and reduce the territory to the old demarcation area.

It's like income tax. In every country of the world, in every last fing one of them, personal income tax was introduced as a "temporary measure". Guess what. It's a temporary measure to reduce the comfort of the people who make up society, and it was so sweet a temporary measure for society, that it was made into permanent.

Society is not one person, it is not government, it is not anyone. It is the whole system of the country.

Income tax funded the salaries of lawmakers;
Income tax funded the salaries of emergency services (property tax is a form of income tax);
Income tax funded military spending;
Income tax funded space program;
Income tax funded scientific and technological research;
Income tax funded the welfare system, both corporate and individual;
People enjoy luxuries coz the poor don't rob them, coz they have the welfare money (I know... this is theory)
People enjoy luxuries coz the poor companies can keep on employing the people, so they can continue enjoying their luxuries;
Because of research, more and more luxuries are available to be enjoyed;
Because of the military, international conditions are ensured to enjoy luxuries.

This is why income tax stayed with us. Not because stupid congressmen wanted us to fork over our hard earned dollars to them to satisfy their selfish greedy needs. That too, sure, but most of the income tax money is spent on other things.

How much tax is too much? How much tax is not enough? Again, encroachment happens. Taxes are never cut, and when they are, it creates a disaster, due to services not being cut. Congress cuts tax, and prays that it will be okay.

Encroachment. Everybody, everything wants more, and more and more. They will fight if you want to reduce what they want.

The idea is not about "he has a lot, he wants even more," and not "give your servant a finger and he'll want your arm".

It is, instead, a universal phenomenon, "encroachment".

------

Gov and terrorists and citizens are battling it out now on the fronts of security, of lawful lawlessness, of continued enjoyment of luxuries.

Encroachment is sometimes bi-lateral, and in those times it's easy to take sides.

In a tri-lateral issue, like the Patriot act and the South Park act, we don't know how to take sides. We are not smart enough. We take sides, nevertheless, but that's only because we are good at taking sides. Nobody can make a proper judgment or a proper solution in a three-way contest for encroaching.

--------

There is another type of encroaching, which is simply impossible to settle: Ideological encroachment. it is impossible to settle because ideology, as such, has no evolutionary precedence, which can tell us if this is good or bad. Encroachment is always good, and that is why it is the basic nature of everything. Ideological encroachment is strange, it gives us no definite answer how we ought to react to it.

Take, for instance, the abortion issue. It is an issue that is fuelling a feud of legal and moral minds, and it is completely undecidable. It is undecidable because we can't actually tell when the human spirit gets first formed (in the lingo of atheists) or given to the individual by god (theist view for consideration). Nobody can decide this properly, in a way that leaves no other possible recourse for the other side but to capitulate.

This abortion thing is a bad fight, coz evolution has not put into humans how to react to it. Nobody can win it, nobody can lose it. It's a... a... philosophical fight. And we are still able to kill others because they oppose us.

Encroachment, on the other hand, is a very easily grasped, transparent, and obviously positive thing to do from the individual's point of view, or of social structures point of view (of factories, law firms, CGA firms, the military, coutnries, schools, hospitals, delivery installations, etc.).


It's okay to kill to defend our land, and it's okay to risk being killed for getting more property. Everyone agrees on that, although the risk levels willingly undertaken vary from individual to individual.

If, however, it's a three-way fight, we lose our orientation. Wars therefore are always between two well-defined nations or groups of nations. "We" against "them." War on communists, war on drugs, the WWII, war on crime. But in Nicaragua was a lost war, because there were three factions. The situation in The Kongo in the 1950s and 1960s was compeltely unsolvable and there was no human who had the insight to have a prover overview or understanding, also because it was a three-sided battle. This thing here, the SOPA act, is another three-way contest. Not good.

The Russian communism only got off the groud because although the Russians had a three-way pull, too, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks got rid of the czar, and then and only then did they go at each other's throats. They reduced the three-way fight into two pieces of two-way fights each.

Chess, my friends. Or who sleeps on the wet spot, or who takes out the garbage. You against me, he agains her, vice versa. Go to the game, or go shopping. Hm. Somebody will win. Somebody will lose. It's not a bloody three-way undecidable fight when you don't know whom to shoot at next, because boudnaries and alliances are always playing a topsy-curvy game.

Child rearing is another problem because the parents may represent two separate, and opposing opinions what their kid must do, and the kid himself has a third opinion. Dysfunctional families are borne out of this.

The Congress. Us against them, and the president is either in the "us" camp or in the "against" camp. No problem, this will always work, and it does not matter who is the "us" and who is the "them".

Watch out for a Green Party president, or any other third party president. All hell will break loose.