WWII - *might* have been a war of defense.. We weren't exactly surprised by the attack on pearl harbor. *however* we need not argue about that because WWII was only an extension of an existing war, that was caused by Americas involvement in WWI, and our involvement in WWI was absolutely NOT defense. The US dictating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles is exactly what caused WWII.
No. You can't "improve" them either, government agencies are places where the corrupt excel and are promoted and the honest are forced to quit.
The BIG PROBLEM with the CIA is that they may perform some sort of secret operation for "the best of reasons". When the enemy retaliates for this CIA operation the public is lead to believe that it was just a "random attack without cause or justification".. the CIA's term for this is blowback. The CIA supporting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and the resulting blowback has already caused one war and perhaps another with Iran. (at least it is the source of contention with Iran.)
How many more wars are you going to have so you can feel safe? When are we going to learn where our boarders are?
I personally would fell MUCH MUCH safer *without* the CIA's clandestine goons out there fucking around with the world.. but maybe that's just me..
What's with the language of this.. are they actually serious? Fake click sounds are stupid.
Exactly what do they think a sound being made AFTER the phone has taken the picture will do? Who is protected from this?
This is a FEDERAL LAW too, now generally in most states a party only needs to be *informed* they are being filmed or recorded.. You don't need their *consent* In some States (TX) only one person needs to be aware.. So in TX, you can mount an array of hidden cameras to record anyone without their knowledge or permission.. but your phone needs to click, man that's smart.
I wish these idiot bureaucrats and politicians would just STOP thinking they know whats best for everyone.
Well, I'm against using force on *anyone* not just Microsoft, so my statement applies to all business and anti-trust laws.
Don't you think it's ironic that you believe force needs to be used against Microsoft to prevent them from using force on others? Seems to me, you would be just as bad as they are.. hehe
I don't like Microsoft. I don't use Microsoft products. I don't even work on Microsoft systems.
That being said, I don't think Microsoft needs special laws written to prevent them from competing any way they choose. If the EU is concerned about Microsofts monopoly, I would rather see them switch to a Linux platform than try to cripple Microsoft.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
The public can not accurately lead a nation without knowing whats going in. We do not *need* secrets, they lead to nothing but abuse and we are not at war with the world either. War benefits nation states, it does not benefit the people.. the only type of war America should ever be involved in is one that requires no secrets at all.. that is a war of defense.
Man has always ruled other men.. so men *must* rule other men, right? Great scholars such as yourself had made similar statements before. "Man has never flown.. so man will never fly.. right?" They way you think I'm surprised we do not have a king or tribal chieftain.
I can't try it. The state wont allow me to ignore it.. such as ignore my taxes.. or ignore their courts.. they will kill me if I don't bow to them. However.. there are those that are trying.. http://freestateproject.org/
If you believe it is an issue with complexity then why do you support a centrally controlled system? How can a leader or government more accurately gauge the needs and desires of a large number of people better than those people themselves operating independently? They can't.. it's not about complexity and any child should know bureaucracy only *adds* complexity.. it's about force, plain as day. Forcing people to do what you, or the majority, or the king believes is best. I am opposed to this system because I believe it's wrong to instigate force on others. Force is at the root of all of the wars, murder, death, theft and rape man has ever known.. and it's the only tool a government has to use upon you. You asked me to.. so try saying no to government and see how far you get.. they will beat you, steal your property, throw you in a cage, ruin your life, and eventually kill you if you continue to resist them.. go on.. tell a cop no next time one asks you to do something.. test it out..
You say it "Can not work, because it has never worked.".. but how many have actually tried it? With the hundred of thousands of tyrannical governments created in all of history.. there are less than a dozen that have been truly free. Various forms of tyranny and oppression are ancient but still a popular idea.. freedom is the new untested idea. Some nations have actually done better under anarchy then otherwise. http://www.mises.org/story/2066 but you know.. you believe in magic and expect me to present you with a perfect utopia.. and such a thing will never exist.
The battle is not a battle of force.. it's a battle of education and it's a battle of philosophy.. Some day, in some future age, I hope all men will look back on this age and see the barbaric ways we control others just as we today look back on former societies and their similar barbaric ways.
Now I have a philosophical question for you.
What would you say a state is? (As in "The State of California".)
It's a simple question.. but the answer is not so simple. Is it the ground? If "The State of California" is a geographic location, can you tell me where "The State of California" was located before September 9, 1850? Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves.. lets try looking at the "facts" they teach us in school. The "states" and the "United States of America" were somehow "created" by men and women and pieces of paper and ink called "constitutions.". Now being nothing more than paper and ink, "constitutions" are only obligatory on men and women as contracts, a form of agreement, this is called a "body corporate (or politic)" in legal language, however those people who formed such agreements are now dead. Hmm.. Going back to the basics just brings up more questions such as.. "If contracts are always voluntary.. how does this agreement formed by now dead men extend to you?" Well never mind that.. we want to focus on this question.
You see.. The truth is.. "The State of California" is not much more diffrent than "The Pepsi Corporation".. it's a figment of our imagination, a type of mass religion, it exists.. only because we believe it exists. It's a lot like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the only problem is there are a lot of people who believe in that Tooth Fairy and they will kick your head in you you don't follow what they believe to be the "rules" the Tooth Fairy decided on. If there is anything at all that is actually tangible for a state.. it is nothing other than a piece of paper lying in some file cabinet somewhere..
Are you one of those people who believe you can fix problems with laws? Perhaps you can pass a law against gravity them.. I would like that very much.. and snow.. please make snow illegal too.. I hate snow.
You see.. Government is an abstraction, it's man made and honestly only actually exists in the minds of people who believe in it. Sure there are lines on the map, government buildings, and people who really really believe the government exists.. but it's a fantasy. The error in your logic is that with government, unlike gravity, we can simply choose to ignore it.. and it goes away.
I'm talking about this. This is AFTER he won mind you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?
OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)
I'm going to break it here, because the questions is not about the Army. Obama is trying to spin this and he gets caught. The question is about the CIA, not the Army. Bush used this same excuse saying we are not preforming tourure because "the Army" was in accordance to the army field manual.. but it's not about the Army, It's about the CIA's "special program" where the CIA will take people to places like Egypt and have THEM do the interrogation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?
OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
This is pretty typical of Obama.. so I want to ask you. When people are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.. will you still be supporting Obama? Will you tell us that.. the war is necessary, just like those brainwashed neo-cons?
1) Why would he lie about all of the change he wants to bring about? What's in it for him to lie? He's wealthy. He has as much power as can be attained. He has a reputation to keep if he wants more money and power.
He may very well want to. Lets say the above quote of yours was not about Obama but about Mikhail Gorbachev instead. He only wants the best for the people of his nation.. why would he lie?
Has it ever dawned on you that he may be entirely honest and sincere in his motives but still do the wrong thing. The thing that scares me about Obama isn't that I distrust him.. It's the fact that I do trust him to do what he says. When he talks about "Civilian Security Forces" and "National Banks".. I think he's dead honest.. that's the problem.
2) Why wouldn't he want to fix the economy? He does have a re-election coming up in... 4 years. It's in his best interest to do whatever it takes to improve the economy.
The reason why? Because he's not *able* to. I'm sure Gorbachev tried very hard to fix the Soviet Economy.. why wasn't he able to..? is it because Russian's don't work as hard or something? Maybe Americans are just smarter or better?
No, it's because the economy and market forces are too complex for people to figure out..they don't actually know the right things to do. This is why centrally controlled economies (one we will soon have in America if we are not careful) ALWAYS fail.
3) Nobody wants an end to the war on terror. We just want it to be fought pragmatically... by first up actually fighting terrorists instead of invading secular despot nations. Fighting terror means using American power to reduce the number of terrorists and increase security. You might not kill as many terrorists but sometimes the cost of killing a terrorist far outweighs the benefits. Isreal is fighting a war right now that might kill a lot of terrorists but have long term devastating consequences to their security
I do. It's absurd, you can't have a war on a tactic.. the war will NEVER end, the only thing that will change is who we call a terrorists. You can't have a war on a tactic.
The work of any government is done by the people with our blessing. When the people don't agree with the leadership they stop working.
Do you even know what your talking about.. Yes all governments are always soo wonderful.. they make the grass green and the sky blue...
You DO actually realize that Martin Luther King Jr. brought about that change by BREAKING THE LAW. He believed it was a persons duty to break unjust laws and so do I.. I hope when your a brainwashed nationalist and are wearing one of Obama's Brown Shirts in his civilian security force.. and I break the unjust laws he's created, that you wont kill me.. Now Obama people are cheerleaders for war.. how ironic. It's nothing more than collectivism, icon worship, and statesim.. the world will never learn.
"What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven." --Friedrich Holderlin
It's funny, a lot of people are being swept up in the moment.. Let me take you back to another moment in time.
These are some beautiful, touching words..
They are words I will never forget....and even today, they seem to have a fitting place.
We have found ourselves rich in goods, but ragged in spirit; reaching with magnificent precision for the moon, but falling into raucous discord on earth. We are caught in war, wanting peace. We are torn by division, wanting unity. We see around us empty lives, wanting fulfillment. We see tasks that need doing, waiting for hands to do them. To a crisis of the spirit, we need an answer of the spirit. To find that answer, we need only look within ourselves.
Do you agree?
They were spoken by Richard Nixon at his inaugural address... Don't you see you just can't trust these people, no matter what they say, especially Obama.. he has more power than anyone else.. Bush gave it to him!
Erm, welcome to democracy. We have elections, not revolutions. There will be gradual change, which hopefully will improve things, but we're not going to throw everything out and attempt to restart from scratch.
Difficult problems take a long time to solve. You can pretend that your pet political philosophy could be adopted overnight and solve all the world problems. Fine. But you're living in a fantasy world. The rest of us will go on trying our best to understand the grubby details of the real world and hammering out the ugly compromises we need to survive and make progress.
No, I don't want you or anyone else to adopt my political philosophy. The reason why is my political philosophy is voluntarism.
Aside from that.. Why do difficult problems take time to solve? One might say the Iraq war is a difficult problem.. or the Patriot act is a difficult problem.. or the fact that we have millions of non-violent marijuana drug offenders in prison. Obama is in charge now.. today. We can fix two of those 3 big problems today. The commander in chief could end the war tonight, and by lunch tomorrow he could pardon every non-violent, peaceful person that is sitting in a jail cell for smoking a plant. The Patriot act might take another day or so.. because it requires the fully democratic congress to repeal it.
Common, what's the problem, lets fix them?
The truth.. they don't *want* to fix them.. (like Iraq), or they don't know how to fix them.. (like the economy).
Anyone else get a kick out of the Obama Zealots out there? All this flowing worship over him.. kinda sickening and scary.
I fell like saying.. "Psst! He's a politician.. he is either lying, doesn't actually mean it, or he's incapable of doing it. Get over it."
I feel people are going to be seriously let down when Obama..
Doesn't fix the economy. Doesn't end the war on terror. Doesn't abolish the Department of Homeland Security...and doesn't hold the neo-con's responsible at all.
The problem is deeper than just one man or one office.. it's the problem man has always had with governments and I'm pretty sure people won't see it this time until it's too late.
It's not necessarily that bad.. but there could be reasons why you wouldn't want it.. such as maxim speed devoted to Firefox for a test..
There could be several other things that can cause this.. I haven't looked into the way the networks are setup it mind you.. but TCP receive window and MTU settings, or the default windows / aftermarket firewall could play a factor..
And since we are on the subject of XP's TCP stack, XP also limits the number of raw TCP sockets to 10.. that can be rather annoying at times.
I am a network engineer and.. Yes, it does have that crap on by default. (It reserves 20% for various things, probbly TCP ACK and DNS.. but I don't remember exactly what.)
BTW One of my friends did make a fire call not too long ago.. It wasn't a house fire or anything just a small fire on her property.
The Fire Department and the police showed up. The fire department immediately starting putting out the fire. The police.. the first thing the police said to her is "Who could have done this to you?" - my friend was taken aback by that and said.. what do you mean? You see... the police were trying to put someone in jail for arson before they even got to the fire.. the fire was put out, (The fire department said it was from a natural cause, electrical battery problem) they cleaned up we thanked them and they left, but the police stayed around "investigating". We thought that was odd so we went over and talked to them.. and they were still trying to prove it was an arson asking us all kinds of strange questions about things like the nature of our relationship, ("none of your business") My friend kept telling them, "Didn't you talk to the fire department? This is an accident, there is no crime here." Eventually she had to ask them to leave saying something like "I think your done here, we are trying to go to sleep and we never even called you in the first place, we called the fire department.." As they were leaving she asked them for *their* ID and they got all huffy and upset..:: roll eyes::
Lesson? Don't call the police. Don't even talk to them. Nothing good can come of it. Get a gun and protect yourself, don't rely on these a-holes.
Good point! Why should I pay for schools? I have no children.
But you did to school at one time correct?
I went to private, public, and home school. My times in the public schools were some of the worst in my life. I would NEVER send a kid to one of them.
You wouldn't pay for telephone service if you did not own a telephone, right? I think it is perfectly fair for someone to opt-out of a government "service" they do not use. It is fair to pay for what you use. It is not fair to pay for something you will never use.
I guess you will never use emergency services either then so there is no point in you paying for it.
That depends on the service they are offering. Police? no.. I would not pay for them, I don't call them either.. they usually just make situations worse. I would pay for "peace officers", but not the current batch of thugs fresh out of Iraq. They might arrest me for a disorderly lawn. (like this 70 year old grandma! http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1444771 what ever happened to the police who helped people?) Ambulance service already is private and the Fire service is partly volunteer anyhow. Emergency services are something people want and it's not unrealistic for people to pay for them, I would absolutely pay a monthly fee for security, fire and other emergency services just like I pay for insurance against damage and theft. Nothing is "free" and my cost paying directly would surely be less overall.
Somehow I think you disagree.. now before you start spouting off about "society" and other collectivist terms like the last guy, ask yourself this:
If garbage service *was* optional in your area and provided by the city, but also by a private contractor that you preferred and used, would you voluntarily help your well off neighbor pay for his city garbage collection service? If you would, how much would you voluntarily pay him, what level of burden would you take on? If you wouldn't voluntarily do it, then why do you think it is it ok to make it law and force someone to?
I think I would rather spend money on the public transportation then some war that was only started for oil and is draining more tax dollars then the public transportation system would in 100 years
Ok then, maybe your starting to see my point. YOU can pay for public transportation YOU want, that's perfectly fair. What's not fair is making ME pay for something YOU want. I also absolutely support your decision to stop paying for a war you do not support. I do not think you should pay. Perhaps if there were more people out there that stood up to the government and did not pay.. it would end a lot sooner. Unfortunately few people do and since it's so few, they are typically deemed "radical" and are usually either jailed or killed by the feds..
Slashdot Mirror
WWII - *might* have been a war of defense.. We weren't exactly surprised by the attack on pearl harbor. *however* we need not argue about that because WWII was only an extension of an existing war, that was caused by Americas involvement in WWI, and our involvement in WWI was absolutely NOT defense. The US dictating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles is exactly what caused WWII.
No. You can't "improve" them either, government agencies are places where the corrupt excel and are promoted and the honest are forced to quit.
The BIG PROBLEM with the CIA is that they may perform some sort of secret operation for "the best of reasons". When the enemy retaliates for this CIA operation the public is lead to believe that it was just a "random attack without cause or justification" .. the CIA's term for this is blowback. The CIA supporting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and the resulting blowback has already caused one war and perhaps another with Iran. (at least it is the source of contention with Iran.)
How many more wars are you going to have so you can feel safe? When are we going to learn where our boarders are?
I personally would fell MUCH MUCH safer *without* the CIA's clandestine goons out there fucking around with the world.. but maybe that's just me..
What's with the language of this.. are they actually serious? Fake click sounds are stupid.
Exactly what do they think a sound being made AFTER the phone has taken the picture will do? Who is protected from this?
This is a FEDERAL LAW too, now generally in most states a party only needs to be *informed* they are being filmed or recorded.. You don't need their *consent* In some States (TX) only one person needs to be aware.. So in TX, you can mount an array of hidden cameras to record anyone without their knowledge or permission.. but your phone needs to click, man that's smart.
I wish these idiot bureaucrats and politicians would just STOP thinking they know whats best for everyone.
Well, I'm against using force on *anyone* not just Microsoft, so my statement applies to all business and anti-trust laws.
Don't you think it's ironic that you believe force needs to be used against Microsoft to prevent them from using force on others? Seems to me, you would be just as bad as they are.. hehe
I don't like Microsoft. I don't use Microsoft products. I don't even work on Microsoft systems.
That being said, I don't think Microsoft needs special laws written to prevent them from competing any way they choose. If the EU is concerned about Microsofts monopoly, I would rather see them switch to a Linux platform than try to cripple Microsoft.
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
The public can not accurately lead a nation without knowing whats going in. We do not *need* secrets, they lead to nothing but abuse and we are not at war with the world either. War benefits nation states, it does not benefit the people.. the only type of war America should ever be involved in is one that requires no secrets at all.. that is a war of defense.
It's time to shut down the CIA and DHS.
Ever heard of the term "empty gesture"?
Exactly..
He froze it on the first day? How often do they *get* raises around there.. lol
Yeah, except it's basically the same thing Bush did in 2007.
Why do we need state secrets again?
Ahh I see.. such logic.
Man has always ruled other men.. so men *must* rule other men, right? Great scholars such as yourself had made similar statements before. "Man has never flown.. so man will never fly.. right?" They way you think I'm surprised we do not have a king or tribal chieftain.
I can't try it. The state wont allow me to ignore it.. such as ignore my taxes.. or ignore their courts.. they will kill me if I don't bow to them. However.. there are those that are trying.. http://freestateproject.org/
If you believe it is an issue with complexity then why do you support a centrally controlled system? How can a leader or government more accurately gauge the needs and desires of a large number of people better than those people themselves operating independently? They can't.. it's not about complexity and any child should know bureaucracy only *adds* complexity.. it's about force, plain as day. Forcing people to do what you, or the majority, or the king believes is best. I am opposed to this system because I believe it's wrong to instigate force on others. Force is at the root of all of the wars, murder, death, theft and rape man has ever known.. and it's the only tool a government has to use upon you. You asked me to.. so try saying no to government and see how far you get.. they will beat you, steal your property, throw you in a cage, ruin your life, and eventually kill you if you continue to resist them.. go on.. tell a cop no next time one asks you to do something.. test it out..
You say it "Can not work, because it has never worked.".. but how many have actually tried it? With the hundred of thousands of tyrannical governments created in all of history.. there are less than a dozen that have been truly free. Various forms of tyranny and oppression are ancient but still a popular idea.. freedom is the new untested idea. Some nations have actually done better under anarchy then otherwise. http://www.mises.org/story/2066 but you know.. you believe in magic and expect me to present you with a perfect utopia.. and such a thing will never exist.
The battle is not a battle of force.. it's a battle of education and it's a battle of philosophy.. Some day, in some future age, I hope all men will look back on this age and see the barbaric ways we control others just as we today look back on former societies and their similar barbaric ways.
Now I have a philosophical question for you.
What would you say a state is? (As in "The State of California".)
It's a simple question.. but the answer is not so simple. Is it the ground? If "The State of California" is a geographic location, can you tell me where "The State of California" was located before September 9, 1850? Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves.. lets try looking at the "facts" they teach us in school. The "states" and the "United States of America" were somehow "created" by men and women and pieces of paper and ink called "constitutions.". Now being nothing more than paper and ink, "constitutions" are only obligatory on men and women as contracts, a form of agreement, this is called a "body corporate (or politic)" in legal language, however those people who formed such agreements are now dead. Hmm.. Going back to the basics just brings up more questions such as.. "If contracts are always voluntary.. how does this agreement formed by now dead men extend to you?" Well never mind that.. we want to focus on this question.
You see.. The truth is.. "The State of California" is not much more diffrent than "The Pepsi Corporation" .. it's a figment of our imagination, a type of mass religion, it exists.. only because we believe it exists. It's a lot like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, the only problem is there are a lot of people who believe in that Tooth Fairy and they will kick your head in you you don't follow what they believe to be the "rules" the Tooth Fairy decided on. If there is anything at all that is actually tangible for a state.. it is nothing other than a piece of paper lying in some file cabinet somewhere..
Are you one of those people who believe you can fix problems with laws? Perhaps you can pass a law against gravity them.. I would like that very much.. and snow.. please make snow illegal too.. I hate snow.
You see.. Government is an abstraction, it's man made and honestly only actually exists in the minds of people who believe in it. Sure there are lines on the map, government buildings, and people who really really believe the government exists.. but it's a fantasy. The error in your logic is that with government, unlike gravity, we can simply choose to ignore it.. and it goes away.
The endless argument between anarchy and libertarianism.. it's like man's struggle between true freedom and bondage.
I may believe and pine for anarchy.. but I can tolerate minimal and will support those ends.
Nice post.
Really?
I'm talking about this. This is AFTER he won mind you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?
OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)
I'm going to break it here, because the questions is not about the Army. Obama is trying to spin this and he gets caught. The question is about the CIA, not the Army. Bush used this same excuse saying we are not preforming tourure because "the Army" was in accordance to the army field manual.. but it's not about the Army, It's about the CIA's "special program" where the CIA will take people to places like Egypt and have THEM do the interrogation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?
OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Dick Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
This is pretty typical of Obama.. so I want to ask you. When people are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.. will you still be supporting Obama? Will you tell us that.. the war is necessary, just like those brainwashed neo-cons?
How about no government instead of "open source" government. This is just a new spin on tyranny of the majority, direct democracy idea.
By the way.. just as collectivism and state worship has never been stronger in America.. AMC is re-running "the Prisoner" on it's website.
http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner-1960s-series/
"Just accept life in the Village, Number 6.. go along with the program.. it's for your own good.."
1) Why would he lie about all of the change he wants to bring about? What's in it for him to lie? He's wealthy. He has as much power as can be attained. He has a reputation to keep if he wants more money and power.
He may very well want to. Lets say the above quote of yours was not about Obama but about Mikhail Gorbachev instead. He only wants the best for the people of his nation.. why would he lie?
Has it ever dawned on you that he may be entirely honest and sincere in his motives but still do the wrong thing. The thing that scares me about Obama isn't that I distrust him.. It's the fact that I do trust him to do what he says. When he talks about "Civilian Security Forces" and "National Banks" .. I think he's dead honest.. that's the problem.
2) Why wouldn't he want to fix the economy? He does have a re-election coming up in ... 4 years. It's in his best interest to do whatever it takes to improve the economy.
The reason why? Because he's not *able* to. I'm sure Gorbachev tried very hard to fix the Soviet Economy.. why wasn't he able to..? is it because Russian's don't work as hard or something? Maybe Americans are just smarter or better?
No, it's because the economy and market forces are too complex for people to figure out..they don't actually know the right things to do. This is why centrally controlled economies (one we will soon have in America if we are not careful) ALWAYS fail.
3) Nobody wants an end to the war on terror. We just want it to be fought pragmatically... by first up actually fighting terrorists instead of invading secular despot nations. Fighting terror means using American power to reduce the number of terrorists and increase security. You might not kill as many terrorists but sometimes the cost of killing a terrorist far outweighs the benefits. Isreal is fighting a war right now that might kill a lot of terrorists but have long term devastating consequences to their security
I do. It's absurd, you can't have a war on a tactic.. the war will NEVER end, the only thing that will change is who we call a terrorists. You can't have a war on a tactic.
The work of any government is done by the people with our blessing. When the people don't agree with the leadership they stop working.
Do you even know what your talking about.. Yes all governments are always soo wonderful.. they make the grass green and the sky blue. ..
You DO actually realize that Martin Luther King Jr. brought about that change by BREAKING THE LAW. He believed it was a persons duty to break unjust laws and so do I.. I hope when your a brainwashed nationalist and are wearing one of Obama's Brown Shirts in his civilian security force.. and I break the unjust laws he's created, that you wont kill me.. Now Obama people are cheerleaders for war.. how ironic. It's nothing more than collectivism, icon worship, and statesim.. the world will never learn.
"What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven."
--Friedrich Holderlin
I won't hold my breath..
You see the Stephanopoulos interview a week ago or so where Obama wouldn't condemn the CIA's torture program? ....yyeeahh....
It's funny, a lot of people are being swept up in the moment.. Let me take you back to another moment in time.
These are some beautiful, touching words..
They are words I will never forget.. ..and even today, they seem to have a fitting place.
We have found ourselves rich in goods, but ragged in spirit;
reaching with magnificent precision for the moon,
but falling into raucous discord on earth.
We are caught in war, wanting peace.
We are torn by division, wanting unity.
We see around us empty lives, wanting fulfillment.
We see tasks that need doing, waiting for hands to do them.
To a crisis of the spirit, we need an answer of the spirit.
To find that answer, we need only look within ourselves.
Do you agree?
They were spoken by Richard Nixon at his inaugural address... Don't you see you just can't trust these people, no matter what they say, especially Obama.. he has more power than anyone else.. Bush gave it to him!
The last president ruined the economy, started the war on terror, and founded the DHS. I have a feeling that Obama will improve on that record.
Do you mean he will slow down the tyranny.. or stop it?
I believe Bush stole our social freedoms.
I believe Obama will steal our economic freedoms.
More so.. I believe the previous two presidents did the very same thing. How is this "an improvement"?
Erm, welcome to democracy. We have elections, not revolutions. There will be gradual change, which hopefully will improve things, but we're not going to throw everything out and attempt to restart from scratch.
Difficult problems take a long time to solve. You can pretend that your pet political philosophy could be adopted overnight and solve all the world problems. Fine. But you're living in a fantasy world. The rest of us will go on trying our best to understand the grubby details of the real world and hammering out the ugly compromises we need to survive and make progress.
No, I don't want you or anyone else to adopt my political philosophy. The reason why is my political philosophy is voluntarism.
Aside from that.. Why do difficult problems take time to solve? One might say the Iraq war is a difficult problem.. or the Patriot act is a difficult problem.. or the fact that we have millions of non-violent marijuana drug offenders in prison. Obama is in charge now.. today. We can fix two of those 3 big problems today. The commander in chief could end the war tonight, and by lunch tomorrow he could pardon every non-violent, peaceful person that is sitting in a jail cell for smoking a plant. The Patriot act might take another day or so.. because it requires the fully democratic congress to repeal it.
Common, what's the problem, lets fix them?
The truth.. they don't *want* to fix them.. (like Iraq), or they don't know how to fix them.. (like the economy).
Anyone else get a kick out of the Obama Zealots out there? All this flowing worship over him.. kinda sickening and scary.
I fell like saying.. "Psst! He's a politician.. he is either lying, doesn't actually mean it, or he's incapable of doing it. Get over it."
I feel people are going to be seriously let down when Obama..
Doesn't fix the economy. ..and doesn't hold the neo-con's responsible at all.
Doesn't end the war on terror.
Doesn't abolish the Department of Homeland Security.
The problem is deeper than just one man or one office.. it's the problem man has always had with governments and I'm pretty sure people won't see it this time until it's too late.
To amend that:
It's not necessarily that bad.. but there could be reasons why you wouldn't want it.. such as maxim speed devoted to Firefox for a test..
There could be several other things that can cause this.. I haven't looked into the way the networks are setup it mind you.. but TCP receive window and MTU settings, or the default windows / aftermarket firewall could play a factor..
And since we are on the subject of XP's TCP stack, XP also limits the number of raw TCP sockets to 10.. that can be rather annoying at times.
I am a network engineer and.. Yes, it does have that crap on by default. (It reserves 20% for various things, probbly TCP ACK and DNS.. but I don't remember exactly what.)
Man you almost had it. Insightful +5, then you went and mentioned Windows Mobile.. ugg..
BTW One of my friends did make a fire call not too long ago.. It wasn't a house fire or anything just a small fire on her property.
The Fire Department and the police showed up. The fire department immediately starting putting out the fire. The police.. the first thing the police said to her is "Who could have done this to you?" - my friend was taken aback by that and said.. what do you mean? You see ... the police were trying to put someone in jail for arson before they even got to the fire.. the fire was put out, (The fire department said it was from a natural cause, electrical battery problem) they cleaned up we thanked them and they left, but the police stayed around "investigating". We thought that was odd so we went over and talked to them.. and they were still trying to prove it was an arson asking us all kinds of strange questions about things like the nature of our relationship, ("none of your business") My friend kept telling them, "Didn't you talk to the fire department? This is an accident, there is no crime here." Eventually she had to ask them to leave saying something like "I think your done here, we are trying to go to sleep and we never even called you in the first place, we called the fire department.." As they were leaving she asked them for *their* ID and they got all huffy and upset.. :: roll eyes ::
Lesson? Don't call the police. Don't even talk to them. Nothing good can come of it. Get a gun and protect yourself, don't rely on these a-holes.
Good point! Why should I pay for schools? I have no children.
But you did to school at one time correct?
I went to private, public, and home school. My times in the public schools were some of the worst in my life. I would NEVER send a kid to one of them.
You wouldn't pay for telephone service if you did not own a telephone, right? I think it is perfectly fair for someone to opt-out of a government "service" they do not use. It is fair to pay for what you use. It is not fair to pay for something you will never use.
I guess you will never use emergency services either then so there is no point in you paying for it.
That depends on the service they are offering. Police? no.. I would not pay for them, I don't call them either.. they usually just make situations worse. I would pay for "peace officers", but not the current batch of thugs fresh out of Iraq. They might arrest me for a disorderly lawn. (like this 70 year old grandma! http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1444771 what ever happened to the police who helped people?) Ambulance service already is private and the Fire service is partly volunteer anyhow. Emergency services are something people want and it's not unrealistic for people to pay for them, I would absolutely pay a monthly fee for security, fire and other emergency services just like I pay for insurance against damage and theft. Nothing is "free" and my cost paying directly would surely be less overall.
Somehow I think you disagree.. now before you start spouting off about "society" and other collectivist terms like the last guy, ask yourself this:
If garbage service *was* optional in your area and provided by the city, but also by a private contractor that you preferred and used, would you voluntarily help your well off neighbor pay for his city garbage collection service? If you would, how much would you voluntarily pay him, what level of burden would you take on? If you wouldn't voluntarily do it, then why do you think it is it ok to make it law and force someone to?
I think I would rather spend money on the public transportation then some war that was only started for oil and is draining more tax dollars then the public transportation system would in 100 years
Ok then, maybe your starting to see my point. YOU can pay for public transportation YOU want, that's perfectly fair. What's not fair is making ME pay for something YOU want. I also absolutely support your decision to stop paying for a war you do not support. I do not think you should pay. Perhaps if there were more people out there that stood up to the government and did not pay.. it would end a lot sooner. Unfortunately few people do and since it's so few, they are typically deemed "radical" and are usually either jailed or killed by the feds..