Abe Lincoln nailed it for you in the Gettysburg Address. 4 Score and 7 years ago. Score is 10 Years. Must have gone to a Public School

Compromise now,

You may want to make sure your own education is complete before belittling anothers. A score is 20. The Lincoln speech you referenced was made in 1863, 87 years (four score and seven) after 1776.

No, a "score" is twenty years.

Four score and seven is 87 years. From Lincoln's address that would have meant back to the Revolutionary War period which was what he was getting at.

A score is 20 years, thus four score and seven years ago equals 20 X 4 = 80 + 7 = 87 years ago. The Gettysburg Address was delivered by Abraham Lincoln 87 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Hope this settles it and hey I even went to a public school and didn't graduate with the class! (GED 5 years later)

Compromise now

Abe Lincoln nailed it for you in the Gettysburg Address. 4 Score and 7 years ago. Score is 10 Years. Must have gone to a Public School

Your parents may have overpaid.

Isn't it terrible how we still use antiquated systems of measurement that people find so hard to understand? Score, fortnight, furlong, stone, etc. Who can fathom them? Blame it on the English! They still measure their weight in stones.

To clarify, a score is not 20 years. A score is 20, be it years, people or eggs, just as a dozen is 12.

AHHH people all over the world are WAKING UP FROM THE MATRIX!!!

WAKING PEOPLE UP 1 person at a time!

NSA records all correspondences on the Internet cell phones text for 2 years to use against you.

China is not strip searching air travelers the TSA is.

China signed UN treaty to limit internet access.

Obama has his own Internet kill treaty with the UN also.

Obama and Congress are turning more into China and Russia every day.

Next they will take away our guns ammo and beans to be even more like China and Russia

OK.. for the record, words like "dozen" and "score" are not antiquated. They're very much still in use to quantify units in the Imperial measurement system, as part of standard American and British English usage. Of course, you could argue that the whole system should be abandoned for the metric system, but that's another issue altogether.

CaliforniaFirst,

"They're very much still in use to quantify units in the Imperial measurement system, as part of standard American and British English usage."

Just because they are still used does not mean they are not antiquated. I never said the word "dozen" was antiquated, either. But the metric system does make a lot more sense. The only problem with it is that it takes some getting used to because it has never been commonly used in our culture. I have difficulty visualizing what a man who is 2 meters tall and weighs 100 kilograms would look like or estimating how fast I would be going at 80 kilometers per hour. I'm just not used to dealing with those units of measurement on a daily basis.

I wish the automotive industry would pick one or the other, having 2 sets of everything to a simple bolt tighting is expensive and nuts. Thank goodness metric screwdrivers are required.

WOW! A dozen (or more) posts about "a score of years"! This is about CHINA! Yes, they have a constitution, which the leaders don't follow. AND, they have laws which are, also, not being enforced. Both of which would guarantee he people more freedoms. You think that American conservatives are hypocrites. Just look at the Chinese rulers!!

Shallow

This is about the freedoms of people being restricted and allowed and enforced by the UN.

Your next your fait is my fait

these(chinese ruling class) are the same people that executed citizens in the streets if they smoked opium. yes gun and tanks will control them.

they don't have any way to defend themselves.

Sax1031, the point is, China can try and use tanks and guns to control their people, but it will send a signal to the rest of the world that China doesn't care about their people. There will not be another Tienanmen Square type of situation, because it won't bode well for China. Imagine if they actually pulled that crap again, Americans would go ape@!$%#, and the US government could even go as far as to begin sanctions. It doesn't matter how much money we owe them. That's without mentioning how the rest of the world would react. Tanks and guns will not control them anymore.

LeftLeaning,

I believe you are wrong in your assessment of China. The Chinese leadership is ruthless and does not care what the rest of the world thinks. They will employ what ever tactics are required to control their people. As for us while we might not approve of what they may or may not do, we will do nothing. China is not some militarily weak middle east country that we could engage successfully.

The Chines government/dictatorship does not care how the rest of the world will react.

Control the media control the minds of the people.

Only 6 people own all of our mainstream media...our media is very filtered, controlled, censored, sequestered, hidden, or just ignored until they have to report on it.

MEDIA IS MIND CONTROL TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION FOR ONLY 6 PEOPLE in control of the media.

media is government propaganda and the mainstream media takes millions from gov interest to spread gov propaganda.

America is no different than China control the media control the minds

Sandy Hook Videos of a number of camouflaged people being pulled out of the woods by Newtown police.

Adam Lanza did not use a rifle.

multiple reports of multiple shooters by teachers and Principal.

Won't release video surv. from Sandy Hook. Where are the video surv. to verify government reports?

What drugs was Adam Lanza was on? Who was his Doctor?

Do these drugs cause suicidal or homicidal thoughts?

We had our own uprising here in the 60s and 70s. I don't see where it did us a lot of good. We are still involving ourselves in wars we have no business being in, and backing dictators that oppress their own people.

LeftLeaning

Any country in the world that is struggling for freedom and democracy is now pretty much on their own. What used to be the Leader Of The Free World is now leading from behind and over the next four years will be brought pretty much to complete impotence by it's Democratic non-leadership. You libs asked for, you got it.

LeftLeaning - i seriously don't think you get it. sanctioning china is sanctioning americans. any kind of "economic" war with china is going to hurt us more than them.

Doesn't China own a big portion of the USA's debt? How the hell could we sanction them?

We have the 2nd Amendment that will allow us to protect us from our Government

Really. Tell me how well you, your long gun and the 2nd amendment do against an Abrams.

Better than rocks and fists.

Ron obama has all but alienated the US Military. If they had to choose between disobeying his orders or firring on the American People-well I will put it this way. Their oath is to the United States Constitution FIRST then the pres. obama is against the United States Constitution-that has become common knowledge. Read it for your self. BTW let's see how obama's oath goes for the inauguration....I am curious. He broke it the first time and has pretty much vowed to replace it. I am curious if he even bothers to take it this time...so which way are the tanks going to be pointing?

Bob.....a lot of people think this but you are wrong. The military and police always go with the power in place. This has been proven throughout history whether it was Germany, Venezuela, No. Korea or wherever. And it will be that way in the U.S. Just look at the generals that have already lied and protected der leader.

Well said VeteranAF. I have had an opportunity to go overseas, and you don't really realize how great our freedoms are until you experience a place that doesn't have them. I am always glad to come home, even if I have to land in Texas.

Article [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.

Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article [III.]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.

Article [IV.]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Article [V.]

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.

Article [VI.]

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.

Article [VII.]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

[Article XI.]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to
any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.

That sounds more like North Korea to me...

And by now everyone of us here would have been hunted down as traitors, executed, and put in a mass grave. Well perhaps not, our comments might have simply been censored and not posted, kind of like Reuters does when you mention something anti-obama. I will give MSNBC credit there-so far.

Lol. How are you protesting? Not taking your medications?

The country is broken because corporate power has purchased our political process and our media. Those with the gold, make the rules. The new Golden Rule.

How is it one-sided banter if it is either supportive or opposing on the same concept?

The News today is more like

MIND CONTROL

Sway public opinion in a way in whinch that benefits the few at the cost of the many.

American Propaganda

putting law obeying gun owners name in news papers is what a Chinese news paper would do to vilifies legal citizens.

Why were their name published along with their addresses? Propaganda to sway public opinion against our 2nd Amendment to make them seem like dangerous people in your neighborhood and should know.

Propaganda. Gannet is a Global Media corp. they have and serve a global agenda.

After unspecified threat the newpaper hired ARMED POLICE FOR PROTECTION. But your not allowed just like in china only the officials and elite can have guns.

Not the people soon you will have to use chop sticks because spoons cause fatness...

Obama signed the same treaty that China signed last month with the UN it allows countries like China and Russia to restrict and limit Internet in their countries.

UN TREATY ALLOWS IT AND FOR OBAMA ALSO

good eat your own cake... keep shopping at walmart

rand

Are you really so dependant on your technology that you can see no survival with out it? That is VERY sad. And if what you say is true then China will NOT go down before us because about 60% of China does very well without modern technology to speak of. In fact I would go as far as to say that if your survival is based and dependant on technology and money you are already dead and do not know it yet. Over all quality of life and relationships actually improves with out both...from experience.

a........that is a total crock. The Americans, Japanese and Europeans could still do without the Chinese.

We generally don't toss people in prison for reporting stuff, though, to our credit.

NO?

They will just ruin their carriers and censor them, worst than prison.

To California First: So you think, but if it's been censored how would you know?

CF unfortunately we stopped, at some point, throwing people in jail for reporting lies. Not to mention campaigning and governing with them...and being backed by people reporting for them. The truth IS the biggest casualty of the modern media blitz. The truth just does not "sell newspapers" any longer. Perhaps most people prefer to be lied to-it is more dramatic than real life.

Cal first......tell that to a Calif film maker that made a film about Mohammad last year that the Obamao did not like.

LMAO

In the middle of the night at a U.N. conference in Dubai, the presiding chairman of the International Telecommunication Union conference surveyed the assembled countries to see whether there was interest in having greater involvement in the U.N. governing the Internet. A majority of countries gave their approval.

With a sufficient majority supporting the U.N. becoming more active in controlling the Internet, the chairman put forth a resolution. The chairman, though, insisted the survey "was not a vote."

The resolution was supported by Cuba, Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia; the United States opposed it.

The proposed resolution resolves that the secretary general of the U.N. "continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet," according to a draft of the text.

"While it is our understanding that the resolutions made at the WCIT are non-binding, the Secretary-General might treat them as binding, which effectively creates a dangerous mandate for the ITU to continue to hold discussions about internet policy into the future," accessnow.org writes, responding to this proposed text.

Related Stories

• U.N. to Seek Control of the Internet
• U.N. Ambassador on Russia, China Veto of Syria Vote: ...
• Happy Hour Links
• A New Kind of Responsibility
• U.S. Will Not Sign U.N. Treaty to Control Internet

More by Daniel Halper

• ChuckHagel.com
• Mississippi Senator Opposes Hagel
• Krugman Passes on Treasury Secretary Job; Wasn't ...
• NBC: 'As Many as 10 Democratic Senators Could Vote ...
• Dem Senator Cardin: Serious 'Questions' Need to Be ...

The pro-digital freedom blog writes, "Further, although minor in scale compared to the impact that defining internet in the ITRs and giving control of it to member states, as Russia proposed, this resolution problematically opens the door to further debate over internet policymaking within ITU fora, and away from multi-stakeholder bodies. As Access has made clear, the ITU is government-centric, lacks transparency, excludes key stakeholders including civil society, and fails to promote a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance that was embraced by the world's governments at the 2005 World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). And in a similar vain as this resolution’s recognition of the WSIS Outcome Documents and Tunis Agenda before it, future ITU documents will undoubtedly cite to this resolution as approving the ITU as a forum for discussing internet governance and justifying a further expansion of its role."

The preliminary draft resolution also states, "To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet ... that, as stated in the WSIS outcomes, all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the existing Internet and its future development and of the future internet, and that the need for development of public policy by governments I consultation with all stakeholders is also recognized."

Accessnow.org explains the concern with this article:

it gives governments primacy in the development of internet-related public policy, which is contrary to Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda – a provision cited twice in this resolution. Provision e’s wording could also be read to give preference to discussing internet policy in UN fora, because these are the only institutions that explicitly give “all governments... an equal role and responsibility...”

Provision a of the resolution further invites Member States to discuss internet policy issues in other ITU fora. While this provision is caveated to only refer to internet-related issues that are within the ITU’s mandate, which lessens the impact somewhat, Access does not believe that the ITU is an appropriate institution to discuss internet policy.

Given the shady nature of the middle-of-the-night introduction of the resolution, it's unclear how ITU conference will proceed.

Nevertheless, they are expected to meet again early Thursday morning (local time), and will need to have the resolution finalized, if they decide to go further, before the conference concludes on Friday.

Here's the full text of the proposed resolution:

PRELIMINARY DRAFT NEW RESOLUTION
To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet

Hong Kong (CNN) -- Draconian laws, brutal attacks against bloggers and politically motivated surveillance are among the biggest threats to Internet freedom emerging in the last two years, according to a new report from free speech advocates, Freedom House.

"Freedom on the Net 2012: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media," looked at barriers to access, limits on content, and violations of user rights in 47 countries across the globe. Estonia was rated as having the greatest degree of Internet freedom, while Iran, Cuba and China were viewed as the most restrictive.

While social media was key in the uprising in Egypt, censorship there continues apace, says Freedom House, a U.S.-based independent watchdog organization.

Although online activism is increasing, the report said authoritarian regimes were employing a wider and increasingly sophisticated arsenal of countermeasures.

Read more: The full report

According to Freedom House, China has the world's largest population of Internet users, yet the authorities operate the most sophisticated system of censorship. Its "great firewall" has become notorious for literally shutting down Internet "chatter" it views as sensitive. Earlier this year, censors blocked related search terms to prevent the public from obtaining news on prominent human rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who caused a diplomatic storm when he escaped house arrest to seek refuge in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

China censors Anderson Cooper

Fighting the great firewall

China blocks media coverage of activist

Fear surrounds web censorship in Russia

Read more: News on blind activist's escape

Major web portals and social networking sites, though not state-owned, have had to comply with strict government censorship rules -- or risk being shut down. After launching a campaign to clean up "rampant online rumors," Chinese authorities in March ordered the country's leading micro-blogging sites -- including Sina Weibo -- to disable their comment function for three days. In China, bloggers are also required to register their real names -- though it's not clear how many have complied with the rules.

"It's a typical response by officials and quite a successful strategy in making it extremely difficult to spread information beyond some small circles of activists," Jeremy Goldkorn, a leading commentator on China's social media, told CNN at the time.

Freedom House claims Beijing's influence as an "incubator for sophisticated restrictions" has not gone unnoticed, with governments such as Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Iran using China as a model for their own Internet controls.

NAY sayers are too lazy to look things up!!!

Be forever vigilant, one person’s vision another person’s hallucination, and don’t forget that salt.

Evolution as is education are slow and messy processes. Patience

OK????

What does that have to do with the price of gold in China?

Media trick to sway public opinion?

OK enough talking points...what about the midnight meeting with Authoritarian govs demanding UN take control of Internet?

Do you have a point or you just being childish?

Sheepled, No need to be hostile, individuals as well as cultures/philosophies have their individual and/or collective perspective of reality or (what is of value) and how to defend it.

Thus, what sets the value/price of gold in China (so to speak).

It’s all about what gives “us” (you, me and others) security and/or potency. It will take some time, if ever; the majority of the populace gets on the same page. That change always appears to be violent/difficult pending on one’s perspective. The development of the internet and its ubiquity (and language apps) provides me with “some” optimism. Education cannot be stopped, slowed down, but not stopped.

My little bit of salt for today.

Evolution, as is education, are slow and messy processes. Patience

Forbes-the (UN ITU) leaked internal document makes crystal clear that the agency fundamentally misunderstands the resistance of Internet users to an enhanced UN role in Internet governance, and to proposals that would give repressive governments increased political cover to slow or silence the free flow of information under the guise of implementing a UN treaty.

I'm optimistic!

PIERS