lukertin

I have never once stated that I doubt the ability of stem cells to help humans. I stated that RIGHT NOW with our UNDERSTANDING AND MEDICAL CAPABILITY we do not have CONSISTENT, RELIABLE methods which are known and accepted by the medical community to be SAFE AND EFFECTIVE towards TREATING THE VARIOUS DISEASES AND CONDITIONS which could benefit from them. Jesus f***ing Christ You don't understand biology at all' date=' do you? You are welcome to your opinion, how you express it is an option, yelling and profanity, get your ticket punched. As these are the actions of a troll. Buddah

The one at dictionary.com The speech being suppressed is not being considered 'objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people'. It is considered illegal and harmful to a property owner. The determination is not being made by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. The initial inquisition is made by the DoJ, and it must be granted or denied by a Federal judge after the owner of the speech is allowed a chance to defend his interests. This definition has been rebutted. Words, images, and ideas are not being suppressed because they are offensive. If preventing people from obtaining certain goods in a certain way is censorship, then laws against stealing are also censorship. The words, images, and ideas that may be suppressed will continue to be available elsewhere. Another failed definition. Again, the speech or communicative material is not deleted on grounds of being objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient, since those materials being blocked will continue to be available elsewhere. The speech in question is only deleted after the speaker has the chance to prove he is not breaking criminal laws which do even not implicate First Amendment concerns. You aren't a 10 year old child, where if the school library removes Judi Blum's "Hi God, It's me, Margaret" you will be unlikely to obtain access to the book from other means due to your limited mobility and lack of monetary funds. If you can get on the Internet you can drive to f***ing Wal-Mart and you can use Amazon.com. Censorship? What is being censored, exactly? It's a discrete question, your continued inability to answer that only shows your entire argument is moot.

It hasn't changed. Unemployed means someone who is looking for a job, and unable to find one. It has always meant that. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports are not subject to federal court review, whereas the actions of the Dep't of Justice are subject to immediate review. The Court system is not a part of the rest of the government, it has no partisan agenda apart from whatever bias might be part of the judge hearing the case. This bill was recently passed by the House and the President signed it, as I'm sure you're all aware. FYI that section has been retitled "Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists". While titles are not part of the law, they do suggest and aid interpretation. US Citizens aren't foreigners, the entire part you're worried about has an extremely low chance of affecting US citizens or legally residing aliens.

Experimental and theoretical applications. I believe I asked first and foremost for an article from a medical journal. You know, results where doctors and researchers do experiments on live people in an attempt to save their lives, rather than the results of a bunch of grad students and post-docs dicking around in a lab. Edit: I did further research, and apparently the Cedric Seldon mentioned in the NatGeo article is today alive and kicking and doing well. My points regarding reliability, reproducibility, and long-term feasibility of such treatments still stand. One success is not a 'proof'. Maybe in other disciplines but people are very different from DNA to DNA. The long term effects of stem cell treatments aren't even properly understood--your Cedric Seldon was injected with stem cells from a female, so now his blood will be female while the rest of his body has Y chromosomes. Pretty cool right? I can't imagine anything weird happening out of that.

I don't know where you get this idea that if a cop smells pot smoke emerging from your car, that he lacks sufficient grounds to search your car. He most definitely can search your car. Any college student knows what marijuana smells like and can pinpoint with at least 75% accuracy when a person in a small enclosed space has been smoking weed.

Who defines 'belligerent'? Try the dictionary, that's what the Federal Courts in the United States do when they have to figure something like that out. Oh, Merriam-Webster defines it as "waging war". I guess that settles it, then. Case closed!

I've provided a dictionary definition and responded to another person's dictionary definition which does not address what censorship is. I'm picking nits because you're massacring the English language for sensationalist purposes. Denial of access is not censorship. If I said "You can't drive cars in New York City, but you are welcome to use the bus, subway system, and your legs, a bike, or any other method of transportation that is not powered by a combustion engine to get around" I have denied access, but I have not censored anything. I haven't even restricted your freedom of movement. According to you, if a radio station has a channel broadcast on the FM and AM, and 99% of all radios can receive both FM and AM, and both channels broadcast the exact same thing, and listeners are aware of, or could easily learn that both stations exist, it would be censorship if the FCC shut down the FM channel. Your definition of censorship is perhaps one of the stupidest, most idiotic things I have ever read. I actually feel stupider for having to argue with you on this issue. I award you no points. Your argument is incredibly faulty, fails even the most basic, rudimentary, lax standards of what censorship is. You have repeated attempted to define censorship and you have repeatedly failed to explain how SOPA censors anything. Come back when you've properly defined censorship--when you do this I will be glad to continue this discussion.

The Judicial branch of government is not a governing body of the Federal system of government. Governing body implies the executive branch of government, since it's the actual part of the government responsible for enforcing laws. I.e., it's the governing body. Do you understand this? And SOPA doesn't do anything more than what you have no issue with. So why do you have an issue? 1. Chanel can simply put in a request form, and add NEW sites to the list of ones ruled against in the original case, rather than a new case being started. This is circumvention of due process, and SOPA would allow this regularly. Actually, no. Simply because one judge failed to understand the grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction, and failed to understand basic in rem jurisdiction principles any first-year law student is familiar with, does not mean SOPA would "allow this regularly" SOPA cannot overrule Title 28 of the US Code, Supreme Court regulations on Civil Procedure, or the Bill of the Rights. See above. Since SOPA wasn't implicated in this failure of the judicial system what does it have to do with anything? It isn't like there aren't safeguards against improper injunctions--you realize Chanel probably had to front a substantial bond to the court in case it was wrong. Like, millions of dollars in bonds. So the wronged defendants can counter-sue for damages. Assuming they were making generic versions, I concede you that point. Assuming.

@ Harbinge the second draft is the one I am using. The meaning of what a requirement is appears to be ambiguous given the language of section 1032(a)(1), but requirement within the meaning of 1032(a)(1) is later defined in 1032(b)(1) and (b)(2). Requirement is not a 'legalism' its meaning is the normal dictionary definition of the word, i.e., a condition which must be satisfied.

You fail because an government official does not examine websites for the purpose of determining their suitability, nor does a governing body change access to websites under SOPA. A judge is not a government official whose job is to examine websites, nor is he a member of a governing body. Try again. Again, censoring is uniformly agreed upon as the suppression of material considered unsuitable or objectionable. Enjoining a person from selling material which is available from other means cannot be censorship. The exact same item is available elsewhere. Explain to me how preventing download of DVD rips is censorship by blocking access to thepiratebay, when you could go to the store and buy the same DVD? Assuming thepiratebay has no other function other than to allow you to download illegal copies of DVDs.

I have a narrow idea of the word? I'm sorry if I don't think censorship is applicable AT ALL in a commercial setting. LOL stopping people from illegally making money is censorship!! Especially when the subject matter being sold is not expression of ideas that are not available anywhere else! LOL!! Get off my nuts. I know what censorship is.

Stop and frisk is analyzed under a different legal standard than a car search broseph

So if a convenience store is selling cocaine and the police cordon off the store and prevent people from entering, then go around blacking out the entry of the store from the yellow pages, that is censorship? You have a f***ed up definition of words Yea man when you kill a person you stop his ideas and thoughts from being expressed, that's censorship dude. THE MAN is trying to keep us down, censorship by murrrrderrrr

That's not censorship. That's a form of government backed monopoly.

No it isn't. A judge has no obligation to permit an alien to enter another country so it can be used as a test subject in a potentially dangerous experiment. And where exactly does it say that? Burden of proof's on you right now, I'm afraid. The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. You're trying to convince a judge to let you do it, which means you couldn't do it in the first place. Meaning you need permission.