Remember that picture of Trumps fist in the air and blood on his face?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: chr0naut

You believe the father's gun is the reason Crooks is dead? Seriously?

It is one of the major causal links.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

So, essentially you are saying that Brawndo is what plants crave - it's got electrolytes!

This is how you see our rights.

We know.

Yes, we see your rights that aren't, and your freedom that isn't, as a joke.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I ain't playing that game with you Z. You made the accusation on a public forum calling a woman a HO so it's up to you to provide your ''proof''. Otherwise you are just a name caller spewing in the wind.

Kamala Harris is a Money Grubbing Knee Pad Wearing Ho . PROVE Me Wrong Monkey Boy . And If you happen to Try and Pull my Tail yet Again Over this , well this Time I am Finally gonna Catch You and Bite Yer Arse ! .....*)

a reply to: EyeoftheHurricane

Dems think they can buy the election with 200 mil "


Not Happening , that's Just Trump Change . It will take Over a Billion Nowadays to Grease that Many Palms........

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

So, essentially you are saying that Brawndo is what plants crave - it's got electrolytes!

This is how you see our rights.

We know.

Yes, we see your rights that aren't, and your freedom that isn't, as a joke.

Which is why your opinion is not carried in any regard.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ya just pissed we have more rights than you do. I cant say what I really want to say but know it involves new zealanders on their knees.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Agreed, I was generalizing for brevity. That is the great majority of what I see here and around myself personally, is that most people will hate Trump and in the same breathe support Biden but ever have anything they actually like about him other than he is not Trump.

I suppose some people may say they support Biden just to mess with the Trump supporters.

Which, to me, is a very odd thing to do when usually all that accomplishes is nothing short of asinine behavior on both sides.

That is what I personally saw and heard n 202 is that people were voting for the "Better of 2 evils" and that is just a piss poor way of voting for anything.

That is a big problem with US (and some other countries) politics, the lack of choice.

I don't disagree. Most of the time here, the independent is a more logical choice but most people grew up learning to only vote Red or Blue so it screws with people seeing a third option that most were never even taught about. Specifically the younger generations.

I do not claim that any country or it's people are stupid or blind to what is going on here in the US. It is sad to hear that the variety of media shared outside of the US is better than what we share inside. I don't wish it the exact opposite but at least for the MSM here at home be as good as what you get in your country.

Our media is not all good, but is varied, and variation in opinions and biases makes it easier for the population to make their own mind about things.

That's usually where I say the US media lacks. It's either left or right, no in between. They are either for or against something, never indifferent in the eyes of the media.

All in all, for the most part, the hate that I see for Trump has almost no merit. It is almost always a blind hatred for someone they know little to nothing about and a blind support for the same.

I suppose the same applies to all famous people. Politicians have the added bonus of politics.

Information is everyone's best friend and the more research that people do the better people can prepare themselves to deny the ignorance that surrounds them come Nov 2024.

Exactly, information is very important, that's why some use it as a weapon, trying to control what information people can get, some by trying to hide it, some by creating their own version of the real information and spreading it.

Returning to the topic, Time magazine's cover, either with Kamala Harris or Donald Trump is also information, but information that is only hinting at something, to make people create the rest of the information.

Jsut more of the devisive rhetoric that is meant to pin people against each other in a race of "Who is the biggest loser".

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: Station27
That photo is really powerful. I wonder if the photographer who took it just handed it over to the public or if he has ''rights'' to it's patent. I"m sure there are parties that would pay big bucks for that copyright.

Is your avatar also a creation of yours? It is succinct and the symmetry of it is simple yet demonstrative.

Here's my take on your first question. Being a professional photographer myself, I know how extremely hard it is to get my rights protected for a photograph of mine that has been "appropiated." In one instance I experienced, I had a big company steal one of my images of a roll of film, to sell that same film on their website and they even used it on eBay to sell said film. I couldn't get eBay to stop them from doing this, because it is theft and it's against the law. But, eBay obviously didn't care about enforcing their rules when it would mean them going above and beyond duty to go to the trouble of physically doing anything that might cost them money. I think the person who took this image of Trump already came to that same conclusion. It's almost impossible to get courts to actually enforce your rights.

As to whether or not some company would like to buy the copyright for that image? I'll bet they realize the same as me that they would go broke trying to get their rights enforced. And it just wouldn't be worth it.

As a side note, and on topic, if you'll watch the footage of the assassination attempt - right when the Secret Service has Trump surrounded and are at the corner of the stage, ready to descend down to the ground - you'll notice Trump fist pumping again. If you look to the right, at the crowd on the ground, you'll see two photographers holding their cameras up in the air, high above themselves. The camera of the one on the left is lower in height than the one on the right, who's is further up in the air. I firmly believe the image we're talking about was taken by one of those two people. And I'm basing this on the angle the picture was taken from and at the two photographers' relative position to Trump.

Oh, and as another side note relevant to the OP.... If you'll notice that on any and every version of the original image that's floating around on the internet, you will clearly see that my image shows more space above Trump's fist, and only the top right edge of the flag is showing in the original. What I did to give more space above there and to allow the word "TIME" to be added so that it would fit in that space correctly, just as TIME magazine places it, was to digitally clone more space above there. I'll bet nobody even noticed that little detail. I do this so that it won't seem like I, too, stole somebody else's image. I've kind of altered it into becoming partly my own work, too. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

As to your second question.... Yes, my avatar is my own photograph. While the original photograph was a rectangle, in the portrait dimension, the only thing showing where it's placed in the ATS panel is the oval part of my image - which is all I wanted to be seen. It makes it stand out much better. I matched the color that ATS uses for that panel to fill in around my oval so that only the oval itself would show and rest of the blank white background that was in my original photo would now be colored the same as the surrounding ATS color for that panel. That allowed for all the "dead space" around my original avatar picture to fade into the rest of the ATS background and be "hidden."

Thank you for the kind words about my avatar!

Hahahah, found the racist. Simple minded liberals talk like you do. Got any facts to support your claim? a reply to: Boomer1947

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Ya just pissed we have more rights than you do. I cant say what I really want to say but know it involves new zealanders on their knees.

My country is covered under the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and has additional civil rights under its own national Constitution, statutory laws, and caselaw precedent.

There are three rights in the US Bill of Rights that are not specifically covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. - The right to bear arms
   
2. - Freedom from housing troops
   
3. - The right to a jury trial
   

(*There are also many historical instances in the US where these three rights have been infringed, and caselaw precedent has been established contrary to those rights, and which nullifies those rights in some circumstances).

There are twelve rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are not specifically covered in the US Bill of Rights:

1. - The right to remedy
   
2. - The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
   
3. - The right to freedom of movement
   
4. - The right to asylum
   
5. - The right to a nationality
   
6. - The right to family
   
7. - The right to social security
   
8. - The right to desirable work and trade unions
   
9. - The right to rest
   
10. - The right to an adequate living standard (health, housing, and food)
    
11. - The right to education
    
12. - The right to culture
    

Many of the things missing from the various bills of rights are covered in legal statute and caselaw precedent in the various countries, but citizens of the United States still have fewer rights than just about any other country in the world.

As an example, the absence of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the USA is denoted by the Miranda rights which imply that any subsequent data gathered prior to conviction may be evidence of guilt (even if that evidence may be false, circumstantial, or misleading) - a situation of presumption of guilt (by allegation) prior to judgement.

New Zealand is consistently judged to be one of ten the most free nations in the world. Its current status is that it is the second most free country in the world. The United States has not even been in the top 10 for more than a decade.

The USA has had numerous and ongoing internal armed uprisings, wars, and rebellions, supported slavery for a significant period of its existence, still has significant organized racist organizations with political voice, has race riots every few years, incarcerates more population than any other country, and is considered a flawed democracy. It is a fallacy that the USA is really an exemplar of 'freedom' by any measure.

Freedom Index by Country 2024

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

a reply to: chr0naut

Im sorry but we have Un named rights as well in the COTUS so we still got more than 12. Also EFF the UN and its rigthts they ALLOW you to have,and not automatically have from God. In reality most of yours are combined under the COTUS and as such breaking them down seperately is a sneaky way to claim yall have more. Ya dont.

Right to remedy is covered by the 1st amendment,

The phrase “presumption of innocence” is not in the Constitution. However, the Fifth Amendment has the due process clause. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states. Means we have a trial by our peers and are presumed innocent by law until found guilty.

If you are accused of a criminal act, you have the right to be presumed innocent. This vital principle protects you by shifting the burden of proof to the prosecutor. In addition, the Constitution also gives different protections to the defendant. These include:

The right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment)
The right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment)
Protection against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment)
Right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment)
The right to a jury trial does not apply to all criminal charges. Some petty offenses do not come with the right to a trial by jury.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

Im sorry but we have Un named rights as well in the COTUS so we still got more than 12. Also EFF the UN and its rigthts they ALLOW you to have,and not automatically have from God. In reality most of yours are combined under the COTUS and as such breaking them down seperately is a sneaky way to claim yall have more. Ya dont.

Right to remedy is covered by the 1st amendment,

The phrase “presumption of innocence” is not in the Constitution. However, the Fifth Amendment has the due process clause. The Fourteenth Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states. Means we have a trial by our peers and are presumed innocent by law until found guilty.

If you are accused of a criminal act, you have the right to be presumed innocent. This vital principle protects you by shifting the burden of proof to the prosecutor. In addition, the Constitution also gives different protections to the defendant. These include:

The right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment)
The right to an attorney (Sixth Amendment)
Protection against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment)
Right to a jury trial (Sixth Amendment)
The right to a jury trial does not apply to all criminal charges. Some petty offenses do not come with the right to a trial by jury.

The 5th is not general but specifically applies only to capital or infamous crime and the 5th can be overridden by a grand jury. Not only that, but a confession under duress is someone bearing witness against themselves and yet that happens frequently in US law, despite it being disallowed by the 5th:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When the courts seize the assets of a criminal fraudster, say, someone caught running a Ponzi scheme, and impose fines and legal fees, wouldn't that be private property taken for public use without just compensation to the convicted?

The 6th clearly covers all criminal trials, even petty ones:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

US citizens do not have the rights that they think they have, at least not under their Bill of Rights, and in practice the Bill of Rights is frequently and systematically infringed.

For example, slavery and involuntary servitude is still legal under the 13th amendment due to the exception written into the 1st clause:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

All they have to do is charge the enslaved with a crime, any crime, and they can be enslaved.

In the USA, there are numerous rights organizations and individuals that have tried to ensure citizen rights are upheld, but their efforts are hamstrung by a poorly conceived and widely interpreted Constitution.

a reply to: chr0naut

The 5th Amendment does not wholly and exclusively only apply to capital and infamous crime and is actually quite general. You'll notice in the text that you provided of the 5th Amendment that the semicolon is present several times. This is critical because it allows us to understand that the 5th Amendment should be read and understood as a list of independent statements.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Do you think that the 5th Amendment allows us to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process if it's not a capital crime or something? Do you think those protections only exist if you've been indicted by a grand jury?

Confession under duress is a violation of the 5th amendment. Why do you think confessions get thrown out?

What rights do you think we think we have that we don't? Because it seems to me that you're attempting to argue our bill of rights without understanding the full context and meaning behind the amendments.

You're right about slavery and involuntary servitude. There's a reason that it specifically clarifies 'except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted'. Incarceration for being convicted of a crime is a form of slavery and involuntary servitude. Without the clarification provided in the 13th Amendment, we would be legally incapable of punishing anyone for a crime beyond a fine or death. And no, they cannot just 'enslave' someone purely by charging them with a crime. Did the word "Convicted" stop having a meaning?

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

The 5th Amendment does not wholly and exclusively only apply to capital and infamous crime and is actually quite general.

The text of the 5th clearly and explicitly says it applies to capital and infamous crime. Extension of that into unstated areas is outside the remit of the clause.

You'll notice in the text that you provided of the 5th Amendment that the semicolon is present several times. This is critical because it allows us to understand that the 5th Amendment should be read and understood as a list of independent statements.

The semicolon indeed does signify a list, but not of separate statements. The semicolon binds together statements in a list in commonality of theme. The 5th is a list of statements dependent upon each other. The statements do not stand alone. A period (full stop) would signify separate independent statements. Each semicolon delimited statement is inclusively connected to the preface statement. They are conditions of the other listed statements within the sentence, and specifically to the prefacing (first) one.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Do you think that the 5th Amendment allows us to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process if it's not a capital crime or something? Do you think those protections only exist if you've been indicted by a grand jury?

Confession under duress is a violation of the 5th amendment. Why do you think confessions get thrown out?

In British common law, someone being interviewed by the police must be told the truth and a misrepresentation on behalf of the police is grounds for abandoning the trial on ground of coercion. The same is not true within the US law enforcement and judicial system where police may freely misrepresent their having evidence that they don't have, or other untrue coercive practices, to secure a confession and confessions that are coerced are still entered into evidence.

What rights do you think we think we have that we don't? Because it seems to me that you're attempting to argue our bill of rights without understanding the full context and meaning behind the amendments.

I previously listed 12 rights that are not explicitly included in the US Bill of Rights:

- The right to remedy
- The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
- The right to freedom of movement
- The right to asylum
- The right to a nationality
- The right to family
- The right to social security
- The right to desirable work and trade unions
- The right to rest
- The right to an adequate living standard (health, housing, and food)
- The right to education
- The right to culture

You're right about slavery and involuntary servitude. There's a reason that it specifically clarifies 'except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted'. Incarceration for being convicted of a crime is a form of slavery and involuntary servitude. Without the clarification provided in the 13th Amendment, we would be legally incapable of punishing anyone for a crime beyond a fine or death. And no, they cannot just 'enslave' someone purely by charging them with a crime. Did the word "Convicted" stop having a meaning?

In the US, there are numerous pundits that try and define the US Constitution well beyond the scope of what it actually states. This leads to generalized inspecifity, where even experts disagree on the 'meanings' of Constitutional clauses, and where the clauses are applied in ways and situations clearly beyond the unambiguous original intent of the law.

In the case of the 13th, US citizens can, and historically have been, imprisoned merely for possession of own-use amounts of controlled substances:

Drug Possession Penalties and Sentencing.

I would argue that service of a prison sentence subsequent to due process should not be equated with slavery, as the 13th seems to imply. They are quite different things and the exception within the statute weakens the anti-slavery status of the 13th.

a reply to: chr0naut

You know not of what you speak. Now stay out of americas business.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: chr0naut

You know not of what you speak. Now stay out of americas business.

I don't see why I should. Americans are all over everyone else's business, with no concern for the sovereignty and legal systems of other nations. Everyone has the right of freedom of expression, it's not just an American thing.

a reply to: chr0naut

Unless they express themselves in a manner that you disagree with.

Then the gov't should silence them and lock them up. Either with your support or with your direction.

But you'll never get your hands dirty.........

Ever the fascist authoritarian Chro, and you just can't help yourself.

While people fight over who's country is better/freer/whateverer, TPTB rub their hands because their plan to keep people busy against each other is working.

Does it matter to anyone outside the US that people in the US has a ambiguous right "to keep and bear Arms"? Not really.

Does it matter to anyone in the US that people in other countries have rights that US people have? Not really.

Does it matter that politicians in power all over the world discuss things among them to fulfil their private or party agendas while ignoring the needs/wants of the people? Yes!

This thread turned into a good example of how people, programmed by all things around them, can turn any discussion into a "my side is better than yours" discussion.
Yes, the topic has a clear political bias, but directed to Time magazine and their choice of cover photo (which is their right, they could even have chosen a photo of a flying pig and make some story about it), not directed to ATS members with a different opinion and much less to people from other countries that live under completely different governments, elected by different systems.

Is the image in the opening post a good cover? Yes.
Would the Trump photo be a good photo for the cover? Yes.
Has Time Magazine the right to choose whatever they want for their cover? Yes.
Am I tired of political discussions (that I try to avoid, although I was caught in this one)? Yes.

My conclusion: I should have known better and keep away from politics related discussions. I'll see myself out of this one.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

Unless they express themselves in a manner that you disagree with.

Then the gov't should silence them and lock them up. Either with your support or with your direction.

But you'll never get your hands dirty.........

Ever the fascist authoritarian Chro, and you just can't help yourself.

You seem to believe that, but it isn't true.

Your country had lockdowns and vaccine mandates, and they were implemented under the Trump administration. So don't pick on our country who did the same thing. Also, the lockdowns and mandates were lifted in New Zealand as soon as the situation was resolved, and much sooner than in your country.

And don't you think it hypocritical of you to demand that I should not express myself, when you claim freedom of speech as a right for yourself, but yet you try and quash opposing views?

Tell me, do you think that the American government had any right compliant with its Constitution to try and prosecute Julian Assange, a non American national, for publishing news in another country, that revealed malfeasance by US Government officials? Where is the wrongdoing and tyranny in that situation?

Or how about the 'renditions' that imprisoned people taken from other countries, without adequate trial, and held them in prisons, and tortured them, outside of US borders?

The US Government spies on its entire population via the NSA, and every four years, the President ratifies the continuation of that unconstitutional FISA process surveillance. Trump did that as did several other Presidents since Bush.

And those brave US soldiers that go and fight and die in in Afghanistan or any of 100 other countries, do you think they are defending America? Nonsense, they are invariably foreign invaders trying to maintain control over drugs or oil. They aren't doing so patriotically, they are belligerent criminals.

You wave your flag and attend all the rallies but the US government is doing evil, breaking even its own rules and oppressing its own citizens.

The massive incarceration rate in the USA, but with only an average crime rate compared to other countries, reveals that the US government is and always has been, a tyranny.

LOL.

a reply to: chr0naut

non americans as long as they are not tortured in the US are fair game. WHy? because all other nations do it as well.

Only criminals go to jail in the US. We have a higher incarceration rate due to not being limp wristed with our criminals.

Your intel agencies spy on you as well.

The US didnt arrest people while under lockdown liek New zealand did.(very rare compared to your nation)

And our soldiers are not criminals,the nations they go to effect the US in minor ways,same as out elections effect the rest of the UN nations. Because lets be honest without the US paying the upkeep of the UN it would be dead already.