Police-state Gestapo tacticts are way more dangerous to you than any terrorist.
I'm the last person to ever advocate a police state, so this is pretty funny. In another comment on this story, I question whether we even need driver's licenses.
You don't need a police state to control your borders. Keep track of people with visas. Boot them when they expire. Do actual background checks before granting visas in the first place.
Since we know who the nutbars are who are plotting the attacks, don't be afraid to apply extra scrutiny to those from those countries (if this bothers their innocent countrymen, then they'd better start lighting up the tip lines, and filling the translator jobs - Osama did more than anybody in history to get them "discriminated" against).
Some of this is being done, and it's working - if you think it's just the Islamofascists kindness that has prevented further attacks here, you're nuts. Still problems with the visas, though, as they are controlled by the State dept (who shares your outlook...).
How about this: Let's stop pissing people off so that they don't feel like it's worthwhile to blow our stuff up. Then, let's stop blowing up their stuff so that they won't have any reason to retaliate.
That's basically the Clinton doctrine, right there. Didn't work very well, did it?
Virginia government officials need to keep reading this until they get it:
THE 9/11 HIJACKERS HAD VALID DRIVERS LICENSES.
I agree; RFID licenses won't help.
That said, what do you (and the rest of the "I'm too cool to worry about terrorists" crowd) propose? The same people who are against measures like this are also generally against anything that would have prevented them from getting valid licenses.
I'm genuinely curious. I don't believe for a million years that the Kerry crowd is going to tighten up borders or anything substantive like that after they revoke Patriot Act stuff, so what exactly do they intend to do?
What is the purpose of these licenses? Do they ensure there are no bad drivers? Do they convey the physical (or mental) ability to drive? Do they reserve the roads to a select group of individuals? Exactly what purpose do these licenses serve in a free society?
I think I'm with you on this one. They sure don't seem to keep bad drivers off the road. This article relates a bit (OK, the terrorism comments are unfortunate, but still):
As I suspected... another* opportunity to feel all superior over an imaginary person. Good lord... can't/.ers find any real people to feel superior to?
Give me a break, the problem in a large number of situations is the follow-the-herd mentality, because we see it as the safe approach. There is comfort in numbers, and being the same as others, and the threat of rejection by being different.
Well said. And if you want to fit in with pop culture, and with Washington culture, and not be painted as a "Bible-thumper", then being pro-abortion like Kerry *is* following the herd, and going along to get along. It's the safe, easy choice, especially if you pretend to be "nuanced" or "anguished" but still nonetheless let those precious single women voters get their abortions.
It is easier to agree than to stand up for what you believe in.
Absolutely. But what do you agree with, and why? And who is really the brave rebel; the one who stands by age old truths however uncool or unpopular, or the one with the "complex", "nuanced" positions that allow them to conform to pop culture?
>If Israel wants to pull back to it's original > borders, as mandated by the UN and defined >at the time of its creation, close those >borders, nd build the biggest frickin wall >in history, NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN.
You can't really believe that. You really believe that Arafat, Hezbollah and the rest are just going to say, "well, OK then" and just become peaceful little lambs?
who is pro-choice. That is a very strong indicator that he is a man of his own mind and doesn't support a particular position just because his church says so. I find that very reassuring.
I always find this line of thought bizarre. It's actually much harder to hold yourself to an external standard, and requires much more thought and discipline. It's easy to just say you do ("why, I'm a practicing Catholic...") and then just adjust your actual actions and beliefs to whatever is comfortable or expedient.
Read what I was quoting though. He sounded like we need a defense for the very existence of P2P networks. My point is there is no reason we should have to justify creating and using such networks in advance.
I don't think the people that signed the above document considered it a logic problem, either - the government they fought against was illegitimate because it imposed on them without their consent, and so the government they instituted was one where the consent of the people was required to exist. Other messages on this thread indicate that we intend only to let such areas of Iraq vote in national elections as agree with us - that doesn't sound either like freedom from tyranny or "consent of the governed". It sounds more like tyranny - a better tyranny than Saddam provided, but tyranny nonetheless.
I don't think that the founding fathers would have tolerated violent enclaves of British sympathisers who continuously schemed and fought to return the entire country to foreign control, and to abolish the democratic republic which they had institited.
Where to begin? Had the British, Russians, or Chinese just liberated us from tyranny, we might not find somone who had worked closely with them objectionable.
And this isn't a logic puzzle, it's the real world. Agents of the free world do have more moral authority and legitimacy than lackies of a deposed tyrant. Moral equivalance is a fools game.
The one and only defense of P2P networks is that they are not "pirate to pirate" networks but rather a new tool for distributing independent, privately financed media and breaking the Hollywood deathgrip on media distribution.
The one and only defense?
I thought it was that we are free people who are innocent until proven guilty, and should be free to connect our computers together without having to prove that we have a "legitimate" reason first. But that's just me...
People just don't care enough about politics and social entrepeneurship. They want to sit at home and drug their brains with TV. That's all they want out of life. House, two SUVs, a jetski, and 2.75 kids.
Read Senator Kerry's testimony to the Senate from 1971. Read it all. Comprehend. Then form an opinion and speak.
That testimony has largely been discredited. A shocking number of the people he was quoting weren't who they said they were, and had not been where they said that they had been.
Kerry wants you to forget that testimony anyway, because he doesn't want to be asked about his (claimed) personal involvement in war crimes. His pose of personal knowledge would, if true, mean culpability as well. If false, egregious lies. Either way, not too good for the Kerry-ster.
Yea, they're working great. By the way, I've got a crystal that prevents me from getting hit by lightning. So far it's working pretty well, I recomend one for everybody. I could probably come up with some extras if you want to buy one.
Is it your crystal that gives you the belief that simply doing nothing would prevent Islamic terrorists from acting in the US again? Or something more concrete?
... we must give them great respect, and curry their favor.
Er, unless they actually help us in Iraq (UK, Australia, etc), or are trying at great personal risk to rebuild a country and hold elections (Allawi). Then we sneer at them and call them Bush puppets.
Who's doing exactly the wrong thing for political purposes, again?
Slashdot Mirror
don't knock the office weirdo ... we have an important role to play in office dynamics.
You mean like making the rest of us glad that we can get attention for our good qualities? ;)
Police-state Gestapo tacticts are way more dangerous to you than any terrorist.
I'm the last person to ever advocate a police state, so this is pretty funny. In another comment on this story, I question whether we even need driver's licenses.
You don't need a police state to control your borders. Keep track of people with visas. Boot them when they expire. Do actual background checks before granting visas in the first place.
Since we know who the nutbars are who are plotting the attacks, don't be afraid to apply extra scrutiny to those from those countries (if this bothers their innocent countrymen, then they'd better start lighting up the tip lines, and filling the translator jobs - Osama did more than anybody in history to get them "discriminated" against).
Some of this is being done, and it's working - if you think it's just the Islamofascists kindness that has prevented further attacks here, you're nuts. Still problems with the visas, though, as they are controlled by the State dept (who shares your outlook ...).
How about this: Let's stop pissing people off so that they don't feel like it's worthwhile to blow our stuff up. Then, let's stop blowing up their stuff so that they won't have any reason to retaliate.
That's basically the Clinton doctrine, right there. Didn't work very well, did it?
So, equating religious belief with belief in "2 inch high, pink flying elephants" isn't trolling, but providing links to the Bible is. Hmmm ...
Virginia government officials need to keep reading this until they get it:
THE 9/11 HIJACKERS HAD VALID DRIVERS LICENSES.
I agree; RFID licenses won't help.
That said, what do you (and the rest of the "I'm too cool to worry about terrorists" crowd) propose? The same people who are against measures like this are also generally against anything that would have prevented them from getting valid licenses.
I'm genuinely curious. I don't believe for a million years that the Kerry crowd is going to tighten up borders or anything substantive like that after they revoke Patriot Act stuff, so what exactly do they intend to do?
What is the purpose of these licenses? Do they ensure there are no bad drivers? Do they convey the physical (or mental) ability to drive? Do they reserve the roads to a select group of individuals? Exactly what purpose do these licenses serve in a free society?
I think I'm with you on this one. They sure don't seem to keep bad drivers off the road. This article relates a bit (OK, the terrorism comments are unfortunate, but still):
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1d.htm
no, that's not a religion. I dont believe 2 inch high, pink flying elephants exist. and that's not a religion either.
Seems no topic is immune from /. athiests ...
Since you brought it up, I'll just link to those who spoke with Him, or walked with Him when He was made flesh:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&passage=genesis&version=NIV
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=NIV&passage=matthew&x=0&y= 0
Nothing personal ;) Just finally had to
figure out what the deal was.
I finally had to go look this up, as I've never heard an actual person, no matter how technologically impaired, use this term
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=int arweb
As I suspected ... another* opportunity to feel all superior over an imaginary person. Good lord ... can't /.ers find any real people to feel superior to?
* ala Saturday Night Live versions of Bush, etc.
There is no scientific basis for ideas of race whatsoever - we are all homo sapiens.
Nor any basis in Christianity (note the "one blood" part):
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language= english&version=KJV&passage=acts+17%3A26&x=0&y =0
Give me a break, the problem in a large number of situations is the follow-the-herd mentality, because we see it as the safe approach. There is comfort in numbers, and being the same as others, and the threat of rejection by being different.
Well said. And if you want to fit in with pop culture, and with Washington culture, and not be painted as a "Bible-thumper", then being pro-abortion like Kerry *is* following the herd, and going along to get along. It's the safe, easy choice, especially if you pretend to be "nuanced" or "anguished" but still nonetheless let those precious single women voters get their abortions.
It is easier to agree than to stand up for what you believe in.
Absolutely. But what do you agree with, and why? And who is really the brave rebel; the one who stands by age old truths however uncool or unpopular, or the one with the "complex", "nuanced" positions that allow them to conform to pop culture?
>If Israel wants to pull back to it's original
> borders, as mandated by the UN and defined
>at the time of its creation, close those
>borders, nd build the biggest frickin wall
>in history, NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN.
You can't really believe that. You really
believe that Arafat, Hezbollah and the rest
are just going to say, "well, OK then" and just
become peaceful little lambs?
Kerry is a practicing Catholic...
... practicing what, cognitive dissonance?
who is pro-choice. That is a very strong indicator that he is a man of his own mind and doesn't support a particular position just because his church says so. I find that very reassuring.
I always find this line of thought bizarre. It's actually much harder to hold yourself to an external standard, and requires much more thought and discipline. It's easy to just say you do ("why, I'm a practicing Catholic ...") and then just adjust your actual actions and beliefs to whatever is comfortable or expedient.
Read what I was quoting though. He sounded like we need a defense for the very existence of P2P networks. My point is there is no reason we should have to justify creating and using such networks in advance.
I don't think the people that signed the above document considered it a logic problem, either - the government they fought against was illegitimate because it imposed on them without their consent, and so the government they instituted was one where the consent of the people was required to exist. Other messages on this thread indicate that we intend only to let such areas of Iraq vote in national elections as agree with us - that doesn't sound either like freedom from tyranny or "consent of the governed". It sounds more like tyranny - a better tyranny than Saddam provided, but tyranny nonetheless.
I don't think that the founding fathers would have tolerated violent enclaves of British sympathisers who continuously schemed and fought to return the entire country to foreign control, and to abolish the democratic republic which they had institited.
Where to begin? Had the British, Russians, or Chinese just liberated us from tyranny, we might not find somone who had worked closely with them objectionable.
And this isn't a logic puzzle, it's the real world. Agents of the free world do have more moral authority and legitimacy than lackies of a deposed tyrant. Moral equivalance is a fools game.
The one and only defense of P2P networks is that they are not "pirate to pirate" networks but rather a new tool for distributing independent, privately financed media and breaking the Hollywood deathgrip on media distribution.
The one and only defense?
I thought it was that we are free people who are innocent until proven guilty, and should be free to connect our computers together without having to prove that we have a "legitimate" reason first. But that's just me ...
People just don't care enough about politics and social entrepeneurship. They want to sit at home and drug their brains with TV. That's all they want out of life. House, two SUVs, a jetski, and 2.75 kids.
Well, not all people ...
http://www.gospelcom.net/
Read Senator Kerry's testimony to the Senate from 1971. Read it all. Comprehend. Then form an opinion and speak.
That testimony has largely been discredited. A shocking number of the people he was quoting weren't who they said they were, and had not been where they said that they had been.
Kerry wants you to forget that testimony anyway, because he doesn't want to be asked about his (claimed) personal involvement in war crimes. His pose of personal knowledge would, if true, mean culpability as well. If false, egregious lies. Either way, not too good for the Kerry-ster.
Yea, they're working great. By the way, I've got a crystal that prevents me from getting hit by lightning. So far it's working pretty well, I recomend one for everybody. I could probably come up with some extras if you want to buy one.
Is it your crystal that gives you the belief that simply doing nothing would prevent Islamic terrorists from acting in the US again? Or something more concrete?
... we must give them great respect, and curry their favor.
Er, unless they actually help us in Iraq (UK, Australia, etc), or are trying at great personal risk to rebuild a country and hold elections (Allawi). Then we sneer at them and call them Bush puppets.
Who's doing exactly the wrong thing for political purposes, again?
All of these hurricanes, tornadoes earthquakes, floods, and now volcano eruptions...when do the plagues and locusts start happening?
We got lotsa fleas around here ... I think I'd prefer locusts ...
Yes, I think I heard something about that on the news.
Judging from many of the comments here, I had to wonder.
Funny how we havn't heard anything more about it.
Not about additional domestic occurences, anyway - must be all those unnecessary, tyranical anti-terrorism measures.
I just want politicians to really understand the bills they sign and talk to people who these laws ultimately affect.
You just can't grasp that he might genuinely disagree with you, can you?
A big step in maturity is realizing that everyone who disagrees with you isn't stupid.
While I personally don't believe that lasers shined at commercial airplanes are a real threat, after reading some of the comments I have to ask:
Just checking ... I know it's "cool" to be all snarky about terrorism, but it's getting a bit old and tired.