Dinarhead

Huh?

I like your Idea!!!

Wow! Lighten up just a little man! Life is good so don't make the future bad! I will never lose faith in mankind or my higher power.

Our freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is one of our most basic constitutional rights. Yet the precise nature of what is protected by the First Amendment is often misunderstood. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of "speech." Close attention to these few important words reveals several issues demanding interpretation and clarification. The language is a prohibition on Congressional action. The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. The State could be either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many mistakenly think that any suppression of speech, including suppression by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it does not present a constitutional issue. Why it is that one might still object to these private suppressions of speech, even when the government is not involved. Are these ethical concerns? If so, what ethical principles are at stake? Should all citizens be urged on moral grounds to allow freedom of expression by all of their fellow citizens and not attempt to suppress that speech as private citizens? Would the First Amendment be improved if it prohibited abridgement of speech by anyone, not just Congress? Should every citizen have a right to say anything at all with no suppression by fellow citizens? Are there times when private citizens not only could but should suppress the speech of their fellow citizens? Controversies about speech protected by the First Amendment seem to arise because the speech at issue is unpopular or controversial or highly offensive for various reasons. Yet a hallmark of the Bill of Rights is protection of minority views. If the First Amendment only protected popular speech, supported by the majority of citizens, then the constitutional protection would not be needed. Instead we could simply have a referendum with the majority deciding which speech should be allowed. In a sense, of course, Congressional representation constitutes a majority referendum. If the majority of citizens is presumed to speak through Congress, and if a majority of Congress votes to ban certain speech, then the First Amendment intervenes to prohibit that http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html I do not know what the issue actually was with the Mods leaving/getting banned or whatever. But I do know that Bang titled his exit post "Freedom Of Speech". Then there were a few replies.................................. I apologize in advance to anyone who has read this before in a earlier post of mine. I felt that it was warranted, to post this again, because of recent events. I am not going anywhere as I feel at home here and I do not like to run from my problems. Learned behaviour I guess. I will TERRIBLY miss Riley and I hope she will come back someday. She is a "classy Texas lady" and I miss her already. RV ON!!!!! Dinarhead out!

A. Our freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is one of our most basic constitutional rights. Yet the precise nature of what is protected by the First Amendment is often misunderstood. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of "speech." Close attention to these few important words reveals several issues demanding interpretation and clarification. The language is a prohibition on Congressional action. The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. The State could be either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many mistakenly think that any suppression of speech, including suppression by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it does not present a constitutional issue. Why it is that one might still object to these private suppressions of speech, even when the government is not involved. Are these ethical concerns? If so, what ethical principles are at stake? Should all citizens be urged on moral grounds to allow freedom of expression by all of their fellow citizens and not attempt to suppress that speech as private citizens? Would the First Amendment be improved if it prohibited abridgement of speech by anyone, not just Congress? Should every citizen have a right to say anything at all with no suppression by fellow citizens? Are there times when private citizens not only could but should suppress the speech of their fellow citizens? Controversies about speech protected by the First Amendment seem to arise because the speech at issue is unpopular or controversial or highly offensive for various reasons. Yet a hallmark of the Bill of Rights is protection of minority views. If the First Amendment only protected popular speech, supported by the majority of citizens, then the constitutional protection would not be needed. Instead we could simply have a referendum with the majority deciding which speech should be allowed. In a sense, of course, Congressional representation constitutes a majority referendum. If the majority of citizens is presumed to speak through Congress, and if a majority of Congress votes to ban certain speech, then the First Amendment intervenes to prohibit that suppression by the majority. http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html RV ON!!!!! Dinarhead out!

somebody find dog53's 666th post and post it so we can see what is up with this stuff!

outstanding simple advice!.........I can do that!

very oxymoronic oxymoronic - 3 dictionary results ox·y·mo·ron   /ˌɒksɪˈmɔrɒn, -ˈmoʊr-/ Show Spelled [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA –noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra  /ɒkˌsɪmɔrˈə, -ˈmoʊrə/ show+spelled">Show Spelled [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] Show IPA , ox·y·mor·ons. Rhetoric . a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.” I wanted to say very "oxymoronical" but I could not because "oxymoronical" is not a word. But if it were a word it would be defined loosely as a very funny oxymoron. So I will say it anyway very oxymoronical.............not trying to bash just saying kind of comical I mean "oxymoronical" RV ON!!!! Dinarhead out!

I am sitting in Iraq right now working and living with the U.S. Army and I can tell you that the soldiers here, where I am, are not in posession of any so called "vouchers". RV ON! Dinarhead out!

1 word........inspirational Very refreshing! Thank you! God bless you! "Certain brief sentences are peerless in their ability to give one the feeling that nothing remains to be said." Rostand, Jean 1894 -1997, French Biologist and Moralist

My question is how do we determine whether the source made it up.......and where did the actual source get thier information.........and maybe easyrider is the source........a source of a source of a source of course! "I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. " Shaw, George Bernard 1856 - 1950, Irish Comic Dramatist, Literary Critic

[ "One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well." Alcott, Amos Bronson 1799 -1888, American Teacher, Writer, and Philosopher

Bambino, bambino - 3 dictionary results bam·bi·no   /bæmˈbinoʊ, bɑm-; It. bɑmˈbinɔ/ Show Spelled [bam-bee-noh, bahm-; It. bahm-bee-naw] Show IPA –noun, plural -nos, Italian , -ni  /-ni/ show+spelled">Show Spelled [-nee] Show IPA . 1. a small child or baby Very encouraging! Nice job!................RV ON! BABY!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a start for you...........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Embassy,_Baghdad.................The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq is the largest and the most expensive U.S. Embassy in the world. Here is your homework assignment. How many different facilities will the United States of America have in Iraq operated by the U.S. Department of State after all the U.S. troops are withdrawn? Here is a little tid bit to get you started!.........http://grendelreport.posterous.com/state-department-building-own-military-in-ira .......RV ON!!!! Dinarheadout!

talking about the numbers or statistics regarding rumors, on this site, have you noticed that the numbers are up in the DV chat room. There might be something there for you. RV ON!!!! Dinarhead out!

ok nice observation............I like statistical data also.............literally speaking what, do you think, is the difference between a speculative comment and a rumor. Look up the definition of "speculate" and "rumor" and then make a determination what is the difference in those two words. Then let's look at the fact that an investment in the dinar is a speculative investment.......... World English Dictionary rumour or ( US ) rumor (ˈruːmə) — n 1. a. information, often a mixture of truth and untruth, passed around verbally World English Dictionary speculate (ˈspɛkjʊˌleɪt) — vb 1. ( when tr, takes a clause as object ) to conjecture without knowing the complete facts ........................with that I think we have to look at the word "conjecture" World English Dictionary conjecture (kənˈdʒɛktʃə) — n 1. the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence; guess I think what I am trying to say is that to talk about speculation is the same as spreading a rumor. Therefore if the numbers are up in the rumors section then what does that say about speculation on the dinar........Just asking! Utilizing the process of deduction we can find the answer you are looking for. "I think" RV ON!!!!!! Dinarhead out!

Hey now! Don't hate the playa just hate the game! Hey Solarcloud I didn't know that you liked to roller blade!

Alrighty then! Good job on getting the car paid off........so are you going to keep it after the RV?..........Just tyring to tie this into the dinar bizarro thing here..............and I might be reaching a little...... ......RV ON!!!!!! Dinarhead out!

Redeploy?........ ..... ..... ..... ..... .....

I like how you refer to our investment as the "dinar bizzaro"...............I like to refer to it as the "dinar orama".........Nice post. RV ON!!! Dinarhead out!

Thanks Letitbe. I always get that one mixed up whether it should be a or an. There is probably a rule of thumb, regarding this, to remember. Yes my grammer and punctuation needs some work for sure. I look forward to working on it. Like I said "I like to write". RV ON!!!!! Dinarhead out!

Hey redsand, That video clip you have got going on there is FUNEEEE!!!!!!!!!!..........It had me cracking up. ...............

Well stated without one misspelled word................RV ON!!!!!!