tkhayes

and furthermore it says: So even governments cannot really concur or agree on what secrets ought to be kept secret and it changes with the political tides. imagine that, different perspectives.....! Wow, what a cool country we live in! Wow, even the Congress though it was important to LIMIT secrets...... again Bravo! pointless, I will just end up quoting the whole damn thing eventually. But thanks for helping to make my other points even more valid.

the document you provided is a legal framework and interpretation of the constitutionality of secrets and information. So the president has some powers and the Congress can 'adjust them'. I am OK with that. We just disagree with where the 'line is drawn' Maybe Wikileaks will help Congress improve transparency instead of driving the govt further into secrecy......

you have no idea what Assange knew or did not know about his document release. i am surprised that you would claim that somehow you do. I make no such claim. And yes, in 20 years, we will know whether or not any damage was done. But for now, my statement stands true. no damage has been done. MLK was a traitor in his time. Today he is a hero. Assange? Who knows. He stands for what I believe in and that's OK by me. Obviously it is not for you - again you are welcome to your opinion, even if you are wrong.....

I have stated the 'difference' as I see it. MANY times: No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

I did not say that the 2nd amendment does not apply to everyone - currently it does. What I said was the country has a gun problem, And I also said, if there were no guns, there could be no gun crime - that is an ideology (and a fact). But not a suggestion for a change to the constitution. And I am not required to answer your questions, so ask away. nice try again...... BTW, the voting system is broken, the 9 judges appear to be doing a pretty good job, and 'bang' whatever, should be a last resort. Neither of those stops the government from keeping secrets and being corrupt, at least not for a minimum of 4 years.....looks good on paper, and then there is the real world..... No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

I thought I did answer your question, perhaps you have trouble understanding the way I put it. I will attempt to clarify. If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posted my PERSONAL information on a website, i would consider that an invasion of my privacy and it would be wrong. If Julian Assange or ANYONE else posts government stuff on a website, I am OK with that. I believe the differences are clear - personal protections under the constitution and supported by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, versus secret and corrupt government, which is/was meant to be transparent and open to scrutiny by the PEOPLE. No one has yet named a single incident of someone, something being put in danger nor a life that has been jeopardized, nor a foreign relationship that has been damaged by what Wikileaks has done.

I would be hypocritical if I disagreed with an amendment and then agreed with it moments later. I stand by my post. I can disagree with and lobby for, changes to any and or all of the Constitution, the laws or whatever - we all do it every day at some facet of our lives. you stand by your post (apparently) that is your right.

YES, that is what the framers of the Constitution drafted i believe. open government that answers to the people and protections for the individual people. Or did I miss something? So if you published all my personal info, then yes, I believe you would be in violation of the laws of the country by violating my personal privacy/rights/whatever. Pretty saure that has been upheld in the Supreme Court. There is no such provision in the Constitution that allows the government to commit crimes, keep secrets, or for that matter decide what is secret and what is not.

who said I had money? I am barely middle class, and I hire a lot of people and employ a lot of people, WITHOUT having a lot of money....

we don't have rich tax cheats in the USA. They lobby the government and change the laws so they can do it legally..... and we continue to let the laws change and keep the rich getting richer, under some delusion that this will create jobs....

and its your right to say that and even think that. I see him as a champion of people who want open and transparent government. A lot of the greatest people in the world have been dismissed with similar comments as yours, especially prior to the 'being the greatest people' etc

this issue is not whether to not we post OUR personal information in case you lost the point of the thread. The thread is about open government and the benefits of it. jeeezzz. Constitutionally - you appear to not be too up on the issue

bravo, yet another useless point....

I'll save you the trouble, I'm a commie pinko left wing liberal ex-Canadian fucking traitor socialist who deserves a mallet to the head whatever......

we attempted a 4 way mr bill years ago with me wearing a tandem rig and 3 people hanging on. We got hurt.....that's all I'm sayin'

Hey is the US government was coming after you, I expect you would be willing to accept donations for your legal fees. I sent Julian some of my money. He can have it - he's a fucking hero in my books and I will do what I can to support any legal battles he is into.

your argument holds no water - I am actually allowed to disagree with portions of anything and accept other portions of it, especially when it comes to law. Or the Constitution. I have no idea what your point it, but sadly, you have the 'right' to try and make that point.....

We use Kodak Gallery for years now as a convenient place to store DZ pictures and make galleries. It is pretty easy to use. But we wanted to creat a slideshow or gallery that we could imbed into our website, and Kodak does nto appear to have the ability to do that. So the question is.... Any opinions on Flickr or Google Picasa? Or other sites? It would seem that the ability is there on all of them, but I do not have a preference.

whether or not there is an arrest warrant, to me, is almost moot. The amount of attention being paid to it demonstrates clearly that there is 'higher influence' I expect that anyone else in Sweden who was accused of the exact same crimes would NOT have Interpol issue Red Alerts, would NOT have been held in solitary confinement in the UK, etc Hell even here in Pasco County, FL, I bet someone accused of 'rape' would get a hearing and make bail in a few hours or a day at the most. The reality is that people in powerful positions want Assange and he is NOT receiving 'fair' treatment when compared to any other alleged offender in similar circumstances. And his Australian government actually has a right, even an obligation to assist him, he is their citizen afterall. The US is intervening in regards to American 'hikers' crossing into Iran illegally. If your arguement holds true, then the US should simply leave them to the means and ways of the laws of Iran - that ain't gonna happen to any American, that's fer sure. Whether or not his charges are even true is moot to what he does with information. Bush approved and ordered the torture of human beings against all 'rules of war'. He admits it and justifies it, and no on is going after him. I do not see Interpol issuing warrants for his extradition. Yet the crimes were aided by many European countries who allowed the renditions to happen on their soil with their full knowledge. Except for Italy who prosecuted several CIA agents in their absence. rape? C'mon....... powerful influences trying to fuck that guy any way they can? Now that is believable.

he not charged with rape, he is wanted for questioning for 'sexual misconduct' whatever the fuck that is. Rape is a nice powerful word that the right likes to use to discredit him. Even the Swedish news reports things like consensual sex and broken condoms as the basis for the case.....really? If this was someone higher up in the USA, like a Congressman, it would barely make the headlines. stinks of political pressure to try and extradite him to the USA. Bully for them for trying all their tactics, but I believe that the UK and Sweden also have human rights, similar to the USA. I doubt any of this shit will stick to him.

there is not a warrant, there is/was a threat of a warrant.... An activist group in Switzerland wanted to file a formal criminal complaint against Bush that may have resulted in a warrant. probably a smart move on Bush's part - at least it will cut into his $100K speaking tour payments....

yes, but the fact that there have been that many amendments also proves my point. It ain't perfect. Citizenship by birth needs to be changed....hence the immigration issue someone else pointed out as a bigger problem. But I also cannot comprehend all the fallout from such a change. Most Caribbean nations do not honour citizenship by birth. You have some rights, but you have to earn the rest of them. The writers left out the part where we are 'supposedly a Christian nation' - imagine that. They were a pretty fucking smart bunch of guys for sure..... But they most of all allowed free speech. And I am pretty sure they wanted the government to be held accountable to the people and not some secret shit behind closed doors. Back to Julian Assange.......bravo! Even if he is not an 'American'

Not a tea party thing at all, but words spoken by a few people I met a couple years ago around here. They have a right to say it, but I have a problem with it and it is also basically wrong. BUT they have the right to say it....

actually no, its not like saying any of those things.... not sure where that came from, but it is a free country and you can say what you want right? Or perhaps, everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion.

I do support the second amendment, but i also recognize that the country has a GUN PROBLEM. There is a difference - too bad you cannot see that. I also support the first amendment, but I have a problem with people that spout off rhetoric and call for the assassination of the President just because he is black..... is there something wrong with that? It is actually OK to point out things that are wrong with the Constitution as well BTW. It is far from the perfect doctrine - given that it has been amended so many times.... Probably time for a few updates