I'm honestly having trouble following what you're saying. The CIA's job is to protect the national interest, not act in response to crimes. If Iran is building up forces on the Iraqi border, there is no crime committed. Are you saying the CIA should therefore not care about this? Similarly, if wikileaks created a problem, you're saying the CIA should not even look at the issue if a crime was committed?
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
And that's why he should be presumed innocent until he's convicted. But by that logic as well, you can't just assume the US is driving this simply because you think they have motive.
"People seem to hate Apple nowadays the way they used to hate Microsoft"
Come on, every anti-Apple story has a legion of screeching fanboys coming on to defend the company (though not directly, it's usually couched in phrases like "ohh, you're just hating out of hatred"). There's faulty thinking on both sides.
I think you'll find in life that if you develop the ability to speak precisely, it will benefit you by also pushing you to think precisely. If you can't be bothered to pick your words carefully, don't be surprised if you don't get your meaning across.
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need.
Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?
Wait a minute, you basically told your customers where they could get better prices than your store? And you imply it was unfair of your manager to criticize you for that? If I were him I would have fired you immediately. He sounds pretty nice for not doing that.
Uhhh...how does that solve the problem of lack of money? You need money to fund the trust in the first place. That's like saying the solution to being poor is to get a bank account.
Plus remember when everyone here said how they would be willing to pay money to buy native linux games? And Loki believed them? Then Loki found out it wasn't true and went out of business?
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . .
I'm sure Ron Paul knows this. It is therefore hard to think of any reason he would vote against this except that he has some bias against gays and lesbians.
If she had broken into the place, shredded documents, forged payroll records, changed some locks and damaged others so doors wouldn't open you think she would get less than half the jail time?
Not in the states I've lived in; lawyers are frequently excluded by the lawyers representing the parties but as far as I know that doesn't stop them from being called.
Slashdot Mirror
You can talk to the Pope.
I'm honestly having trouble following what you're saying. The CIA's job is to protect the national interest, not act in response to crimes. If Iran is building up forces on the Iraqi border, there is no crime committed. Are you saying the CIA should therefore not care about this? Similarly, if wikileaks created a problem, you're saying the CIA should not even look at the issue if a crime was committed?
I've always wondered what the point in learning Klingon is. I mean, for that effort you can learn a real world language.
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Yes I did. Well, a get off my server moment.
WHOA the ftp.sunet.se server is still around? I haven't seen that in years...
And that's why he should be presumed innocent until he's convicted. But by that logic as well, you can't just assume the US is driving this simply because you think they have motive.
Evidence. Not conjecture, "everyone knows" watercooler discourse, or speculation. Evidence.
"People seem to hate Apple nowadays the way they used to hate Microsoft"
Come on, every anti-Apple story has a legion of screeching fanboys coming on to defend the company (though not directly, it's usually couched in phrases like "ohh, you're just hating out of hatred"). There's faulty thinking on both sides.
All of that fails to focus on that this was pushed by the US gov't
Do you have proof of this?
I think you'll find in life that if you develop the ability to speak precisely, it will benefit you by also pushing you to think precisely. If you can't be bothered to pick your words carefully, don't be surprised if you don't get your meaning across.
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need.
Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?
Good.
Sock it to 'em, Bobby.
Wait a minute, you basically told your customers where they could get better prices than your store? And you imply it was unfair of your manager to criticize you for that? If I were him I would have fired you immediately. He sounds pretty nice for not doing that.
J&R is awesome.
Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?
Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.
Uhhh...how does that solve the problem of lack of money? You need money to fund the trust in the first place. That's like saying the solution to being poor is to get a bank account.
Plus remember when everyone here said how they would be willing to pay money to buy native linux games? And Loki believed them? Then Loki found out it wasn't true and went out of business?
71 year olds can't compose music?
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . . I'm sure Ron Paul knows this. It is therefore hard to think of any reason he would vote against this except that he has some bias against gays and lesbians.
Also more likely to get hit with federal charges, though I will say if I were her I'd rather do my time in federal prison than Florida state prison.
If she had broken into the place, shredded documents, forged payroll records, changed some locks and damaged others so doors wouldn't open you think she would get less than half the jail time?
Not in the states I've lived in; lawyers are frequently excluded by the lawyers representing the parties but as far as I know that doesn't stop them from being called.
Yep, registered to vote, drive, and a member of 2 state bars and 3 federal ones--the courts have my name. Just never contact me for some reason.