People keep saying this, but how would imprisoning him discredit anything that wikileaks has published, or keep other sites from doing the very same thing?
Hillary doing her job properly?!? Our diplomats are not spies. Forcing them to do spies' work compromises their ability to do diplomatic work. There is a reason we have diplomats in the State Department and spies in separate agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
Now, given that you think that is a good idea, why would you find it "scary" and shudder-inducing that Hillary Clinton is doing what you see as a good job? Are you simply rabidly anti Hillary?
I hope so. But my country has a prideful streak, and a history of "not negotiating with terrorists." The powers that be may figure, as long as Julian is alive, this information could come out anyway. They may decide that this cat is already out of the bag. If they do think that, an obvious response would be aimed not at stopping wikileaks, but at sending a message to any others out there that are thinking of doing the same thing: publish leaks, end up dead.
Which Brazil leak, the one about a lack of US state department support quashing the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet deal, or the fact that you guys weren't so into our war on terror? Or is it something else? There are a lot of leaked documents...
Frame him or kill him, the keys to the encrypted insurance file will come out. Given that, I think they will opt for just killing him. They can't get this cat back in the bag by framing him, but they can sure scare the bejeezus out of any other potential leakers out there by killing him.
Perhaps, but would imprisoning Julian really send the right message to other would-be leakers? I think having him end up dead in a very suspicious way, and then having the investigation into his death make an obviously counter-factual conclusion would send a more forceful message to others. It would say to them, If you cross us, we will kill you in your sleep and we will get away with it.
Why would anybody be surprised that the USA bullies or manipulates other countries for its own benefit? Its what any top power has done, and what any aspiring power wants to do.
Considering the US is the richest, mightiest, most powerful and most influential country in the history of world, its more of a surprise it hasn't used more of its powers to control the world. The rest of the world should be glad the United States is such a benevolent power and overall force for good in the world.
"In the history of the world?" Uh, how are you measuring that? I can think of at least three other Empires that, by any reasonable standards, have exercised far more control over a far greater geographic area.
I think that most parts of Central and South America have a very different view of the US's benevolence than you do. We have a sixty plus year history down there of overthrowing democratically elected leaders that our corporate overlords don't like. We don't just meddle to spread democracy, we also meddle to protect our economic interests. At the barest whiff that some country in our sphere of influence might be thinking about nationalizing anything, we send in the CIA and military advisers at the very least.
They really started to put the heat on wikileaks when Julian threatened to release information about banks. When he was attacking the puppets, there was mild outrage. Now that he is going after the puppet masters, he's a dead man.
A society built on principles described in the Wealth Of Nations (no, you don't know that I haven't read it but I know that you haven't) would essentially have a laissez-faire capitalist free-market economy, a far cry from the mixed economy we have in the US.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You make an important point. Many arguments that state that landholders' interests must be aligned with the general public's interests do not take into account how easy it now is to simply pack up and move your ill-gotten gains away from the place you've just ruined.
No, he clarified that you could use a condom to prevent the spread of disease, with anyone. So, if you know that your wife has AIDS and you don't, you can also use a condom. Just not to prevent pregnancy. Thanks, Pope!
I'm coming to realize not all libertarians are idiots. And no matter how mad they idiots make me, I've got to stop acting out in my writing. It's not helping, except maybe to give myself and others that agree with me the kind of nasty hearted thrill that I have come to recognize as the seeds of evil.
I'm really, really trying to remain civil, and it's not easy for me, so if anyone sees me being an ass, please remind me that I said I don't want to do that. Shit is too fucking serious these days to play childish games that I know don't help.
What you say would be true if the Constitution were a static document not open to interpretation. In our system of government, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the wording of the constitution. They have determined that the religion clause of the first amendment creates a separation of church and state. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
Remember, your personal interpretation of the way our government should run is just that: your personal interpretation.
Why would television stations and product producers that use loud commercials go out of business? Television stations make their money off of advertising. If an ad campaign is not successful, how does the product producer know why it wasn't? He doesn't. He will simply go with another marketing firm who will produce another loud commercial and the TV stations will happily sell him more time. No one goes out of business. It's not as if people will suddenly stop buying a product altogether just because it, along with every other product is advertised loudly. You do understand that you are the product that television stations sell to advertisers, right? You don't get a say. Your opinion doesn't matter, because no one has to pay any attention to it.
Another point I would like to bring up is that evolution works over the time scale of millions of years. You are basically saying that it is okay for businesses to do annoying things for the millions of years it would take to evolve into something better. This form of natural selection does not work quickly. I and most other citizens don't want to wait that long, and fortunately, we have all agreed that we live in a democratic republic, and we can make things better without having to wait that long. We simply tell the television stations, "You need to turn down the volume on commercials, or cease using the public airwaves and public cable right of ways that we leased to you temporarily." If they don't want to be regulated, they don't have to use public resources. But seeing as they DO use public resources, we not only have a legal and constitutional right to regulate them, we have a moral right to do so as well.
"Ark Encounter developers seek to recover under state tourism development laws up to 25 percent of the project's cost by recouping sales tax revenue paid to the state on tickets, lodging and other goods."
No, Best Buy did not do any of that. Our credit card company did. Best Buy gave us the complete run around, and hung up on my wife multiple times.
Managers and corporate officers are individuals, yes. And some managers and corporate officers tell their employees to do illegal things, or lose their jobs. So certain higher level manager types can render the moral decisions of their workers irrelevant by firing all the ones who refuse to behave immorally.
I don't remember signing twice. I don't remember being told about this at all. I believe that, based on all the other underhanded things Best Buy has been caught doing, they will flat out lie to make a buck.
Oh, I'm sure they snuck in an agreement somehow. Doesn't make it any less underhanded. Caveat Emptor and all that, so I'm telling others, so they can be more careful than I was. Or, choose to never shop at Best Buy again, which is what I'm doing.
I can't believe I'm defending these cretins, but I don't think they are getting government money. I believe they are getting tax breaks under a tourism promotion program. I hate to say it, but I think this is legal.
Please, when you claim to know what Adam Smith would or wouldn't like, back it up with a quote from him, okay? Otherwise, you are just making shit up. You are flat out WRONG about him, and I KNOW you have not read Wealth of Nations. If you had, and you had understood and remembered any of it, you wouldn't be making the claims you are.
Let me pass on some choice quotes for your edification.
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. -Book I, Chapter VI, pg.60
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. -Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.80
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. -Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.94
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people. -Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workman,its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters. -Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168
With the greater part of rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves. -Book I, Chapter XI, Part II, pg.202
Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. -Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770
The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons. -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article I, pg.786
The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more then that of people of some rank and fortune. -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.845
For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education. -Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article II, p.847
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.892
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master. -Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.927
Wow. Looks like the real Adam Smith disagrees with your imaginary Adam Smith in a great many particulars.
Slashdot Mirror
People keep saying this, but how would imprisoning him discredit anything that wikileaks has published, or keep other sites from doing the very same thing?
Hillary doing her job properly?!? Our diplomats are not spies. Forcing them to do spies' work compromises their ability to do diplomatic work. There is a reason we have diplomats in the State Department and spies in separate agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
Now, given that you think that is a good idea, why would you find it "scary" and shudder-inducing that Hillary Clinton is doing what you see as a good job? Are you simply rabidly anti Hillary?
I hope so. But my country has a prideful streak, and a history of "not negotiating with terrorists." The powers that be may figure, as long as Julian is alive, this information could come out anyway. They may decide that this cat is already out of the bag. If they do think that, an obvious response would be aimed not at stopping wikileaks, but at sending a message to any others out there that are thinking of doing the same thing: publish leaks, end up dead.
Which Brazil leak, the one about a lack of US state department support quashing the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet deal, or the fact that you guys weren't so into our war on terror? Or is it something else? There are a lot of leaked documents...
Frame him or kill him, the keys to the encrypted insurance file will come out. Given that, I think they will opt for just killing him. They can't get this cat back in the bag by framing him, but they can sure scare the bejeezus out of any other potential leakers out there by killing him.
Perhaps, but would imprisoning Julian really send the right message to other would-be leakers? I think having him end up dead in a very suspicious way, and then having the investigation into his death make an obviously counter-factual conclusion would send a more forceful message to others. It would say to them, If you cross us, we will kill you in your sleep and we will get away with it.
Why would anybody be surprised that the USA bullies or manipulates other countries for its own benefit? Its what any top power has done, and what any aspiring power wants to do.
Considering the US is the richest, mightiest, most powerful and most influential country in the history of world, its more of a surprise it hasn't used more of its powers to control the world. The rest of the world should be glad the United States is such a benevolent power and overall force for good in the world.
"In the history of the world?" Uh, how are you measuring that? I can think of at least three other Empires that, by any reasonable standards, have exercised far more control over a far greater geographic area.
I think that most parts of Central and South America have a very different view of the US's benevolence than you do. We have a sixty plus year history down there of overthrowing democratically elected leaders that our corporate overlords don't like. We don't just meddle to spread democracy, we also meddle to protect our economic interests. At the barest whiff that some country in our sphere of influence might be thinking about nationalizing anything, we send in the CIA and military advisers at the very least.
They really started to put the heat on wikileaks when Julian threatened to release information about banks. When he was attacking the puppets, there was mild outrage. Now that he is going after the puppet masters, he's a dead man.
I'm waiting to read the news "Julian Assange has been arrested"
I think it is more likely we will hear about his tragic fatal auto accident, or suicide by 41 self administered hammer-blows to the head.
A society built on principles described in the Wealth Of Nations (no, you don't know that I haven't read it but I know that you haven't) would essentially have a laissez-faire capitalist free-market economy, a far cry from the mixed economy we have in the US.
What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You make an important point. Many arguments that state that landholders' interests must be aligned with the general public's interests do not take into account how easy it now is to simply pack up and move your ill-gotten gains away from the place you've just ruined.
No, he clarified that you could use a condom to prevent the spread of disease, with anyone. So, if you know that your wife has AIDS and you don't, you can also use a condom. Just not to prevent pregnancy. Thanks, Pope!
I'm coming to realize not all libertarians are idiots. And no matter how mad they idiots make me, I've got to stop acting out in my writing. It's not helping, except maybe to give myself and others that agree with me the kind of nasty hearted thrill that I have come to recognize as the seeds of evil.
I'm really, really trying to remain civil, and it's not easy for me, so if anyone sees me being an ass, please remind me that I said I don't want to do that. Shit is too fucking serious these days to play childish games that I know don't help.
What you say would be true if the Constitution were a static document not open to interpretation. In our system of government, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the wording of the constitution. They have determined that the religion clause of the first amendment creates a separation of church and state. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
Remember, your personal interpretation of the way our government should run is just that: your personal interpretation.
Why would television stations and product producers that use loud commercials go out of business? Television stations make their money off of advertising. If an ad campaign is not successful, how does the product producer know why it wasn't? He doesn't. He will simply go with another marketing firm who will produce another loud commercial and the TV stations will happily sell him more time. No one goes out of business. It's not as if people will suddenly stop buying a product altogether just because it, along with every other product is advertised loudly. You do understand that you are the product that television stations sell to advertisers, right? You don't get a say. Your opinion doesn't matter, because no one has to pay any attention to it.
Another point I would like to bring up is that evolution works over the time scale of millions of years. You are basically saying that it is okay for businesses to do annoying things for the millions of years it would take to evolve into something better. This form of natural selection does not work quickly. I and most other citizens don't want to wait that long, and fortunately, we have all agreed that we live in a democratic republic, and we can make things better without having to wait that long. We simply tell the television stations, "You need to turn down the volume on commercials, or cease using the public airwaves and public cable right of ways that we leased to you temporarily." If they don't want to be regulated, they don't have to use public resources. But seeing as they DO use public resources, we not only have a legal and constitutional right to regulate them, we have a moral right to do so as well.
"Ark Encounter developers seek to recover under state tourism development laws up to 25 percent of the project's cost by recouping sales tax revenue paid to the state on tickets, lodging and other goods."
Thank you for confirming my point.
No, Best Buy did not do any of that. Our credit card company did. Best Buy gave us the complete run around, and hung up on my wife multiple times.
Managers and corporate officers are individuals, yes. And some managers and corporate officers tell their employees to do illegal things, or lose their jobs. So certain higher level manager types can render the moral decisions of their workers irrelevant by firing all the ones who refuse to behave immorally.
I don't remember signing twice. I don't remember being told about this at all. I believe that, based on all the other underhanded things Best Buy has been caught doing, they will flat out lie to make a buck.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/00854/best-buy-watchdogs.html
Sorry if you are an employee there, maybe you should consider workingfor a more ethical employer.
Oh, I'm sure they snuck in an agreement somehow. Doesn't make it any less underhanded. Caveat Emptor and all that, so I'm telling others, so they can be more careful than I was. Or, choose to never shop at Best Buy again, which is what I'm doing.
Yes, but we were talking about legal perspective, not an economic perspective. Big difference.
I can't believe I'm defending these cretins, but I don't think they are getting government money. I believe they are getting tax breaks under a tourism promotion program. I hate to say it, but I think this is legal.
Thanks, I will do that.
Thank you for helping me make my point. We are apes, and also derived from apes. Amazing how that works.
Your title doesn't follow from your body text.
Please, when you claim to know what Adam Smith would or wouldn't like, back it up with a quote from him, okay? Otherwise, you are just making shit up. You are flat out WRONG about him, and I KNOW you have not read Wealth of Nations. If you had, and you had understood and remembered any of it, you wouldn't be making the claims you are.
Let me pass on some choice quotes for your edification.
As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
-Book I, Chapter VI, pg.60
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.
-Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.80
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
-Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.94
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
-Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workman,its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters.
-Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168
With the greater part of rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves.
-Book I, Chapter XI, Part II, pg.202
Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770
The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article I, pg.786
The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more then that of people of some rank and fortune.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.845
For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.
-Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article II, p.847
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.892
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master.
-Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.927
Wow. Looks like the real Adam Smith disagrees with your imaginary Adam Smith in a great many particulars.
Which is Why you never EVER buy a computer from best buy with a credit card or debit card.
This should be a fricken' Public Service Announcement.
The More You Know!