Student Expelled for Tweet

[BlackCat]

No, I would say that most of Zimbabwe's troubles are firmly in the lap of it's government.

Sure, and it was done by assraping (and a couple of other sexual activities of utter perversion) the Zimbabwean constitution.

[regexcellent]

This is a joke, rigth ? Please, say yes, not a good one, but yes, it's a joke.

No. Zimbabwe was once a wealthy country until the government destroyed it.

[regexcellent]

Sure, and it was done by assraping (and a couple of other sexual activities of utter perversion) the Zimbabwean constitution.

You mean getting rid of white minority rule?

[Proteus_MST]

I'm not nearly as worried about private companies of any kind as I am about the government.

Microsoft does not have more power over me than the Monroe County Sheriff, let alone the Federal Government.

With a high unemployment rate Microsoft could have people apply for jobs which don´t even barely cover their basic needs (that is, have people work for them and, despite working 50 hours/week still be forced to use a soup kitchen in order to get enough food to survive).
That´s where basic rights (for example the right to be paid a certain minimum wage) come in handy ...
I wouldn´t trust large corporations even a little bit that (without regulations) they wouldn´t try to screw me, if the situation (as the high unemplyoment rate in my example) allows it

[BlackCat]

You mean getting rid of white minority rule?

No, I mean what Mugabe did after that was done.

[regexcellent]

Yes, getting rid of the Lancaster House Agreement was bad but it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that he would do it as soon as he had purged the military of the white Rhodesian officers. It baffles me why the British made the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian government allow him to stand for election in 1980.

In any case, the changes to the constitution that Mugabe made were under the justification of giving rights to black workers and employees of white farmers. The particular activity which destroyed the country, land reform, had the same justification.

Also his primary MO wasn't constitution change so much as rigging every election he was ever in with violence and intimidation.

[BlackCat]

Proteus, I agree fully with this

[notyoueither]

With a high unemployment rate Microsoft could have people apply for jobs which don´t even barely cover their basic needs (that is, have people work for them and, despite working 50 hours/week still be forced to use a soup kitchen in order to get enough food to survive).
That´s where basic rights (for example the right to be paid a certain minimum wage) come in handy ...
I wouldn´t trust large corporations even a little bit that (without regulations) they wouldn´t try to screw me, if the situation (as the high unemplyoment rate in my example) allows it

Many things are better left to statute which can be abolished or amended relatively easily, and can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as local needs may warrant.

Having a federally set minimum wage for the private sector wouldn't be a very good idea in large, diverse countries.

[Hauldren Collider]

Translation: "It's ok for the constitution to force government to do things I like, but not ok for the constitution to force government to do things I don't like"

You are ****ing stupid. That's not at all what he said.

[The Mad Monk]

Sure, and it was done by assraping (and a couple of other sexual activities of utter perversion) the Zimbabwean constitution.

I'm glad you agree that we shouldn't assrape our constitution.

[Aeson]

That's not at all what he said.

It's the clear motivator for and hypocrisy of his statements. First he was arguing that "government do" shouldn't be in the Constitution. When presented with examples of "government do" in the Constitution he narrowed his claim to the Amendments. When presented with a "government do" in the Amendments he then claimed it was ok in that case because he supports that specific "do this". Moving goalposts and partisan hypocrisy. That's all his argument is.

It is very clear that he does not actually believe in an ideal that "government do" should not be in the Amendments as he was claiming. He just means there shouldn't be any "government do" that he disagrees with in the Amendments.

You are too partisan to be able to see it, that's all.

[BlackCat]

I'm glad you agree that we shouldn't assrape our constitution.

But why then are you so busy doing exactly that

[The Mad Monk]

You will have to be more specific.

[BlackCat]

You will have to be more specific.

Educate me - what is not specific in this :

warrentless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, state sponsored torture and of course the NDAA allowing the detaining of US citizens without charge.

[regexcellent]

If indeed the NDAA does allow the detaining of our citizens without charge (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't) and the federal government actually does that, the courts will stop it. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

Everything else only applies overseas, not domestically. The NSA observes foreign signals. That doesn't bother me nor should it bother any other American.

Whatever "torture" is happening at Guantanamo bay, what we know is that it's quite mild, it's been very effective at getting information, and it is used on illegal enemy combatants. Again, not something anyone should be worried about.

"Extraordinary rendition" sends people to other countries. Any torture that happens there is really out of our hands, and again, we don't do it to our citizens unless it's because they've committed a crime in another country, in which case it's called extradition. Not something to be worried about.