It would be interesting to know if the changes are a result from sheer pressure, a pay off, or legal grounds. The problem is changes forced by the government that violate the Constitution. Thanks for bringing the subject up learning the boundaries of slander and what is considered spreading messages of hate. I don’t know if the latter of the two does have any Constitutional limitations, but I will research.
Bush decided to give his speech at the same time as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Since everyone seems to be a google master here, and very much in touch
|
I've thought the same thing in the past. Long drawn out debates looking through google to find points to support what I'm saying, and then thinking why am I doing this? These are obviously educated people that are in the very least; engaged. I'm sure they have had the option of looking at the very same material I am so am I trying to change somone's view here when I should know better. Do I like to argue? Do I need to feel the need to be acknowledged that I'm right? Or am I trying to learn something? I cant really say anyone is complacent around here, so reading the different views is entertaining. Not that I have some sort of mental block because I enjoy learning. But when it comes to politics, I think it actually is a place to vent and be heard out of sheer frustration over the worlds situation.
I'm fortunate enough to live across from a public library, but how would posts quoting sources without links go around here?