A lot of my friends seem to be concerned about the government
interfering and watching over our daily lives, but what was surprising
to me was to find out (through a new documentary) that major news
organizations are also playing a part, though much less publicized
(because ironically they run the media!)

Case in point: Al Franken. Here’s a gentleman who was looking to have
his book published called “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”. The
book basically exposes many unknown truths about the lies and dark
sides of major news organizations. Once Fox News heard about this book,
they went to court and tried (unsuccessfully) to stop its publication.
To me, that’s pretty scary. I feel that Americans have the right to
know what’s going on. If the government doesn’t tell us the whole
truth, and now we’re learning that the people that run the news that we
watch each night are doing the same to us, what can we do?

The film is called “The First Amendment Project”, and I first saw it
about a month ago at the Hamptons Film Festival. I know it won’t get as
much publicity as Michael Moore’s recent documentary, but in my
opinion, this movie is even more important because it exposes the
people that are bring us the news in the first place. I’m sure you can
google the name of the movie for more info, or if you want to catch it
on Court TV next Tuesday night at 10pm. I’m going to tape it for a
couple friends since no major networks would air it, and not everyone
has cable.

Bob

we have more rights than almost all nations, stop trying to find things to complain about...

Canada has a "not withstanding" clause in their constitution, meaning the government can take away all their rights for any reason they want, they have similiar acts very close to the patriot act.

England has a gun-ban, and has more tools to spy on it's citizens than any other country.

The media isn't taking away your rights either...

Well first off I know this may sound rather treasonous however I have all the "rights" I'll ever need and I'm not worried about them ever being taken away because I don't see any entity on the planet that has the authority to do so.

Your rights are in your heart, I have the right to do whatever I want whenever I want, the only thing that the government controls is the possible consequence or responsibility of my action. If you think the government has the capability to take away your rights than you're already not free, because nothing can give or take away your rights outside of yourself.


That said I'll look into the book however since sit is coming from Franken I'd take it with a grain of salt, there's a feud between him and Fox, so anything between the two is anything but cut and dry.


man you're sure loving that "not withstanding" clause you just learned about aren't you? I personally find it rather amusing, don't think for a second that our constitution can't be changed just because we don't have a "not withstanding" clause.

oh yes... oh yes...
they've really shut up about the "American Government is taking away your rights, Canada is more free" stuff they pull. I did a lot of research on that clause, very interesting:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...ubs/bp194-e.htm

Their government can get ride of all the basic fundamental rights for no real reason. They are so worried about the Patriot Act, but no one ever rose an alarm towards this. Kinda ironic, isn't it?

Technically, we could try to pass a constitutional amendment getting rid of free speech, but the Supreme Court would stop it. In Canada, if the law passes, it is law based on that.

Well that depends. I'd never heard of it either so it's just amusing to see so much of it now lol. I see where you're coming form definately but I honestly don't think we're really any better off.

I mean we don't even need to pass a law to rip up the Bill of Rights, we can just declare a national emergency, much easier to do if you think about it.

There's so many ways around our Constitution it isn't funny, but then this in my opinion shows that you're only as free as you allow yourself to be, which I think Ukraine is a good example of, right now they're not having whatever the hell they're trying to do, and while I'm no expert in that region or thier politics, it looks from an outsiders view that just the mere fact that the people aren't standing for it seems to be pushing along the change, you can't force everyone, the military won't shoot every last civilian, so as long as the people demand freedom and stand up for it I think they'll always be free.

i see your point, but the difference is checks and balances. We have them, Canada doesn't (after all, it's in their constitution that they are given this power). Sure, we could declare martial law and limit people's rights, but if we do it for no reason, the supreme court can over rule that. The supreme court has made several rulings against the patriot act, so they are doing their job. They make rulings over a lot of bills, and they often change many of them.

They disagreed with the book because the subtitle was "A Fair and Balanced Look At The Right"; "Fair And Balanced" is a trademark of Fox News I believe (still a pretty lame case).

This is so true, especially in canada where the army doesn't have enough bullets to shoot us all One major fact overriding the use of the notwithstanding clause is the fact that politicians in canada are career politicians (no term limits) so it is highly unlikely anything that would threaten their jobs come next election would ever be pushed through.

But checks and balances are only as good as the people in power assigned to administer them.

In reality our government is alot more fragile than it seems, and don't forget the Supreme Court has no Navy or Army to speak of so they really couldn't enforce thier rulings if they came in direct conflict of the President, while the military is under the Presidents control.

Well, they could push a bill through to stop voting, that would help out their re-election. If people put full trust in their government not to take away rights, democrac wouldn't exist, and why even have a constitution?


The Army and Navy would not remain loyal to the President if he told them to kill it's own people, there are many cases in history of this (Tiananmen Square for example).

Well you need the right situation. Granted if one day the President just woke up and said he was the Emporer, well that wouldn't fly over too well, but I really do believe that if Bush had wen't Orwellian after 9/11 that most would have followed.

However I think the fact that Bush never did that, never took control, that all of thier evil deeds were open like before(it's not like they hid the Patriot Act), is proof that Bush is not trying to overstep his boundaries, become Emporer, or whatever.

And my history may be rusty but didn't alot of those students die at Tiananmen Square, I think you're using that as a bad example.

But in reality the only true check and balance to the government lies in us all, not on some piece of paper, or some branch of government.

can any government be created to be void of this? i think America is as close as we are going to get.

Well the thing is I think Canada is just as close as us. I guess my true aversion or argument is the whole "America is more free than most countries", "America is as close as it gets to perfection" and related statements. Don't get me wrong I love my country but to say that we're the bee's knees, that no better can be accomplished, that man has reached it's pinnacle of government is really just taking it too far and will do nothing but lead to our stagnation and downfall. I don't think we're any better or worse because it all depends on you and I, not just who we vote into office, although we're lucky we haven't had a joker in office yet who really did have bad intentions because than we'd all know just how truly fragile our government is, we've had a rather blessed short life in terms of representation.

But no I don't think any government can ever be completely perfect, especially as long as thier's different religion, culture, , race, language, etc, and even once we get rid of all those material differences there will still be those good 'ole human traits like greed to screw us over.

Wrong, you only have as many rights and freedoms as you're wants you to believe you have.



Which has only been used twice and by the provinces and not the federal government. It is a form of protection.



Why should they when you happily vote them away yourselves.

One thing you have to realize is that many Americans mistakenly believe that their Constitution and Bill of Rights were handed down from the mountain by their god just like the 10 commandments were suppositely to Moses and that even if the US were taken over by another country that they HAVE to respect those rights and freedoms or god will punish them.

you dont have freedom in the first place to lose it, so dont worry.

Um where did you hear that load of crap?

Like someone said before, we have more freedoms than most other countries. I was thinking about how "free" our country is in comparison to others. I really think they just call us "The Land of the Free" just because we have more freedoms than some other countries.

Yeah, Ok. Take your tinfoilhat and go home, please.

woa, it's actually been used? I feel sorry for you guys, your government can and has taken away your individual rights. You accuse me of being blind saying the Patriot Act is for protection and that I am comfortable with it, and you government takes away your INDIVIDUAL rights, and you say, "it is a form of protection." Well, the patriot act doesn't come close to the notwithstanding clause, so who is the "blind" one now?

From Americans in the way they mistakenly believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are an absolute. You're doing it now.




What happens to mods, and others on here in authority, who abuse their positions? Ad homs right off the bat and I didn't do anything to you.



Gee, you have a very short attention span since that has already been mentioned.



Apples and oranges.

It's been used twice and never renewed (notwithstanding clauses expire after 5 years which is long enough to guarantee an election in the meanwhile).

In one case (Quebec: French language law), a legal workaround was found suggesting that the notwithstanding clause was never needed in the first place.

In the other case (Alberta: marriage is between a man and a woman)... well you'd probably approve of it anyway.

Lol you're a riot you know that?

I mean I don't think anyone here would say anything like you just have to me. I mean if you would have even taken the time to read my posts in this very thread you'd see pretty easily just how weak and unimportant I think a piece of paper under some glass is. Yet just because I disagreed with you because you said most Americans think it is paramount to the 10 Commandments and would be upheld even if we lost an invasion, which is the most absolute biggest load of crap I've seen you post to date, you classify me with the very people I think differently than.

You're genious. I'm going to do something I haven't done since I was 10 and that's pray. I pray that you never reproduce and that your insane line of thinking stops with you.

Anyways you're reply to me was also just as stupid as your first post. In your first post you said most Americans think they(BoR and Constitution) are absolute and can in no way be infringed and I disagreed. That means I don't think they're absolute if you're not following me, but anyways then you go on to say that by my disagreeing with your crap that I'm proving your point, which is absolutely worng because me thinking it's not absolute and saying I don't think it's absolute in no way is me saying I think they are absolute.

But anyways what the heck where you even trying to prove or say?

hahahahahahah LMFAO... i'm gonna join you in praying

Really. All I had said was that most Americans believed that. Did I say it was you?



Ad hom.



Ad hom.



Something that is apparently beyond you. You're such an eager beaver..




Its the least thing you can do, really the least thing.

Praying is better than nothing. I'd rather shoot myself in the face with a rusty aids infected nail gun than have your stupidity continued and brought upon your children. You contribute nothing to this forum... you just waste webspace and **** everyone off.

Just by having a government you have restricted your rights. Freedom can be viewed as a fantasy, perhaps an ideal. In reality people seem to use it in a relative sense: "our people are have more freedoms than your people". If you think you are so free, test it. You will find you are not. Governments and companies figured out long ago just how much they have to give the individual so that they feel they will loose too much if they revolt, and thus "stay in line". Everybody defending how free they are in their country are the least free of all.