try to understand why his position is what it is - you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.
Yeah, except the problem is that his position is based on theology, not intelligence or thought. It's one thing to be opposed to scientific research because of potential complications, and working to address those very real issues -- it's another to outright ban entire realms of research because you think they go against what God intends.
it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general. It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.
But he IS actively working to thwart scientific progress in our country. He believes it makes us closer to what God wishes, but the EU, Canada, Cuba, China, Japan, etc will all continue researching these topics and will be the source of all major medical breakthroughs for the next 50 years because of it. We're spending the better part of a decade having research inhibited, and researchers refused entry to the country, and it is our nation that will suffer the social, medical and economic consequences of those actions. His motivation may be wonderful, but the end result is a giant shit sandwich for our country to munch on.
They have a strong tendency toward attacking Christianity, while defending other religions. This is simply undeniable.
It's very deniable that they "attack" Christianity. They attack government measures attempting to impose it on people, but that is quite different from attacking the religion itself or opposing its free practice by anyone in this country. They defend it when it is under attack and there are not other organizations better suited to fighting a particular case (let's face it, it's the majority religion and there are few "attacks" on it, and plenty of well-financed groups willing to defend it when necessary). They also defer to the Anti-Defamation league on many cases involving Judaism, and let the extremely well-financed and politically powerful NRA handle second amendment issues.
When the ACL defends the KKK, they are defending Christians on religious grounds (most racist organizations in this country, including the KKK, are are based on Biblical interpretation). Most Christian organizations aren't interested in fighting that particular battle, so the ACLU is left alone to defend the Protestant Christian principle of personal Biblical understanding.
The only thing this has to do with time or money is how they choose to allocate it. I heard this much from talking to an ACLU lawyer. Of course, that's how all groups work. They step in to defend any religious group if necessary, it just is rarely necessary for Christianity because of the rare infringements and the wealth of existing organizations.
Your argument that the ACLU should be protecting every American's right to wear whatever they want wherever they are in order to protect us from being forced into or prohibited from wearing certain religious symbols is just silly (in fact, I may even go as far as to call it a non sequitur;-). It is not even the ACLU's argument.
It's not my argument, either. I don't know how you possibly came to think that it was. Women are allowed to legally wear an item of clothing. Men are not, and the only reason is because "we don't want guys wearing dresses". The sexes are treated differently, even though there is no practical or biological reason for the difference in treatment. Under the US Constitution, it is illegal to treat women and men differently unless you can show a reason why it is absolutely necessary. A guy wearing a dress might be silly to you or me, but I can't think of any reason why he should be legally prohibited from doing so, if women are allowed to wear dresses. As I said, this is a trivial argument, and thankfully so -- then there will be legal precedents to point to that will cut short future arguments if more serious infringements take place.
Look beyond the catchphrases at who he was and what he supported. Though he was a liberal in the traditional sense, keep in mind that the liberal philosophy used to be one of capitalism and natural rights, not half-baked ideas about anonymity in every facet of life or removing Christian symbols from every public and private institution.
I'm quite familiar with Jefferson's beliefs, writings and teachings. Having lived in Virginia right next to a 15-story tall copy of his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedoms (the model for our own First Amendment, the United Nations Statute on Religious Freedoms and many other nations' laws) and reading his many, many published works, I can't conceive of how he would be anything but thoroughly bemused at the state of Christianity in this country, that so many portray it as being under attack by some mysterious force while simultaneously being the faith that 85%+ of Americans believe in. He certainly was Liberal in that he believed as many liberties should be reserved by the people and as few given to the government as necessary.
The right to wear a skirt in school is a constitutional freedom inasmuch as both male and female students are legally equal in the eyes of the state. There is no inherent biological difference between the sexes that requires men to wear pants while women may be allowed to wear skirts. I'd rather the years of twisting and turning through the courts happen when only a trivial offense is at issue, but if you'd prefer the ACLU not address it until some school district requires females to wear burkhas, that's your perogative. As the old saying goes, easy cases make lousy laws. Waiting for women in schools to be restricted in some more offensive way could easily lead to overreaction by the courts or legislature.
The ACLU was nowhere to be found.
So are you complaining that they get involved in too many cases or not enough? They don't have an infinite supply of money or time -- there are literally hundreds of constitutionally fascinating cases that get ignored every month by the ACLU and legal organizations on the right AND the left. Often they are trying a similar case elsewhere in the country, and much as it sucks for that individual who is ignored, it makes more sense for the ACLU to fight many different battles with their resources than fighting 20 versions of the same religious freedoms case in different jurisdictions if they'll all end up in a handful of US Circuit courts or all together in the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure if you thought I was using it in the mathematical sense or what, but non-sequitur is a completely appropriate description of your sig. If you actually think ACLU meetings have frequent flag-burnings I can see how you wouldn't see the absurdity, but then you'd be aligned with the "those other guys are teh evil!!!" mentality of wignuts on all extremes. Congratulations on your spelling prowess, my local newspaper printed the Non-Sequitur comic strip for years under the misspelling, which has forever scarred me.
Liberalism is like bed-wetting, most people are lucky enough to grow out of it.
Yes, well fortunately guys like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson were immature enough to fight for civil liberties (and even write a few down!) before they grew out of that silly phase. "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" What kind of hippie shit was that? Didn't he know there was a war on? What a bunch of pinkos.
The ACLU always has been, and always will be, a group that argues for the maximum amount of liberty possible for individuals based on the constitution. I fail to see how the particular cases they fight really matter -- it is the legal precedents they're arguing for. Nobody wants Nazis marching down their street, but people who are intelligent enough to put 2+2 together know that anyone stopping Nazis could also stop a more worthwhile political cause. You can bitch and moan about guys wearing skirts, but when public schools tell students they can't wear a star of david or a cross on a necklace, it's nice to have the issues sussed out in court ahead of time. Just because you have the benefit of hindsight on the eventual outcome of issues they fought 50 years ago doesn't mean the first steps of issues they're fighting today are less important.
That said, I doubt many intelligent people find your sig objectionable, they just assume you're an 18-year old who doesn't know enough about the world to actually think about issues, and advertises the fact by throwing together some non-sequiter about a group he doesn't like. If you had an actual, sensible statement in there you might properly have something to object to.
Wow, you are a marketer's dream customer. You like to believe you exert conscious control over every thought and action in your life. There are entire advertising agencies built around catering to that specific self-delusion!
If Pavlov's dog just had enough WILLPOWER he'd avoid salivating when Pavlov rings the bell!
I have this huge suspicion that no actual fact would dissuade you from the belief that the brain is a "computer."
Considering "computer" used to be a job title, before we invented transistors and integrated circuits, I'd be pretty interested to hear arguments that claim the human brain is not a computer. I'm expecting a lot of hand-waving and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
please read the 1st amendment and then try to figure out how that provides for a citizen's right to have an abortion.
Umm, it doesn't. The first amendment is about freedom of speech, religion and assembly (though it does imply certain aspects of privacy in thoughts and action). The right to privacy is not explicitly listed anywhere in the constitution, though certain aspects of it are enumerated in several of the amendments. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights we have, rather an enumeration of those considered most likely to be infringed upon by the new government.
There is nothing in the constitution that "provides" for a citizen to do anything. The constitution is a list of things we allow the government to do on our behalf, not vice-versa. It's amazing how quickly the Republican party forgot this basic fact once they came to power.
Indeed, that may be the motivation behind the tribes lowering their contributions (Abramoff's own emails notwithstanding). But the motivation to STOP giving money to a politician is hardly evidence of corruption, and corruption is what the poster claimed to be showing.
Whether the Democrats were uninvolved in this particular corruption scandal because of their lack of power or their moral virtue is a moot point -- they aren't involved, no matter how the Republicans try to spin it as "we're all corrupt" (which is a heck of a defense no matter how you look at it!).
There was nothing partisan in the original post. It is accurate that the tribes were giving money to democrats even before Abramoff was involved in any way. Once he became involved, their contributions to democrats went down dramatically, and contributions to republicans went up dramatically. That's not spin, it's a simple stating of the facts. You can look at Tribal money received now and say "a third went to democrats" but that doesn't say anything about Abramoff's involvement with that money. Any objective person looking at those facts would conclude that Abromoff's involvement encouraged sending money to republicans and discouraged sending it to democrats.
Of course, you don't even have to BE objective or make any inferences. Just read the Abramoff emails that have been made public during the investigation, where he complains about the stupid tribes who keep giving money to Democrats. I don't know how much clearer his intentions or involvement could be.
You could also just look at court dockets, subpoenas, warrants and plea bargains. For all the claims that the RNC and DNC are equally involved, the only people under criminal investigation or indictment are Republicans. Considering their party controls both the Executive and Legislative branch, I find it hard to believe they've instructed the FBI to be nice to the Democrats.
If you read the thread, you'll see that the link was eaten on my first post, I replied immediately with information about the gay prostitute at the white house. If you just put in "Jeff Gannon" in google, you'll find the many stories that were in every major newspaper and news network when this ridiculous situation came to light.
That particular link is rife with speculation (overnight stays that could be simply bad record-keeping, and sexual activities in the white house), but there's no question that a gay male prostitute was invited to the white house over a hundred times and was given incredible access to white house staffers.
You should probably read a newspaper every few years, you'll be amazed at the interesting things that happen in the world!
Considering the very quote you're responding to ends with "has nothing to do with the Patriot Act", I'm confused as to why you seem to think I'm claiming the Patriot Act is involved?
As for speaking out against the government, it happens everyday. I don't see people being locked away for it.
You are aware that at both national political conventions for the 2004 presidential elections, protesters were literally locked inside cages. Protesting outside of such "free speech zones" was a crime, and UnAmerican, because of course Good Americans don't protest against the government.
You're right of course, the unabashedly unconstitutional abuse of Executive power by simply declaring people "unlawful combatants" and thus magically transporting them outside of both military and civil authority has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. If he ripped the CDs, whether or not the CDs themselves survive is a moot point. But of course, pressed CDs don't become corrupt and disintegrate, anyways -- if he was BURNING CDs, then it might be something to worry about. I have many pressed CDs over 20 years old, and they're all in a box now being kept perfectly safe since, like the original poster, I've ripped them all to FLAC and don't anticipate ever using the CDs again unless I have to rerip one for some reason.
If this were a criminal case, you'd be right, it's foolish to risk defending yourself. As is, there's really not a lot for the lady to lose at this point. She's already broke, so it doesn't matter if she loses horriblly and is responsible for $8 billion in damages, there's no way she'll be able to pay it. If she wins, she'll be able to write a book or movie and at least get back some of the money she's spent on this case already.
That's the pickle the RIAA has gotten themselves into -- you should never start a fight with someone who has nothing to lose.
Again, i don't know how many times we have to say it in this thread, we're talking about using a telephone as a BUG, NOT tapping into phone conversations. tapping in to a phone conversation has been and will continue to be a piece of cake. using a telephone as a bug (so you can listen to the room the telephone is in, even when nobody is on the phone!) used to be quite simple, now it's unrealistic.
The next person who says something about tapping the phone line will get "-1, Can't Read"
No, you're talking about tapping a phone, which is not what the original post was about. The message you're replying to was talking about using a phone as a bug -- something that used to be quite simple, and now is pretty much impossible. The difference is pretty significant, since most criminals realize someone could be listening when they're talking on the phone -- but most of them didn't realize someone could be listening after they hung up!
Slashdot Mirror
try to understand why his position is what it is - you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.
Yeah, except the problem is that his position is based on theology, not intelligence or thought. It's one thing to be opposed to scientific research because of potential complications, and working to address those very real issues -- it's another to outright ban entire realms of research because you think they go against what God intends.
it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general. It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.
But he IS actively working to thwart scientific progress in our country. He believes it makes us closer to what God wishes, but the EU, Canada, Cuba, China, Japan, etc will all continue researching these topics and will be the source of all major medical breakthroughs for the next 50 years because of it. We're spending the better part of a decade having research inhibited, and researchers refused entry to the country, and it is our nation that will suffer the social, medical and economic consequences of those actions. His motivation may be wonderful, but the end result is a giant shit sandwich for our country to munch on.
They have a strong tendency toward attacking Christianity, while defending other religions. This is simply undeniable.
;-). It is not even the ACLU's argument.
It's very deniable that they "attack" Christianity. They attack government measures attempting to impose it on people, but that is quite different from attacking the religion itself or opposing its free practice by anyone in this country. They defend it when it is under attack and there are not other organizations better suited to fighting a particular case (let's face it, it's the majority religion and there are few "attacks" on it, and plenty of well-financed groups willing to defend it when necessary). They also defer to the Anti-Defamation league on many cases involving Judaism, and let the extremely well-financed and politically powerful NRA handle second amendment issues.
When the ACL defends the KKK, they are defending Christians on religious grounds (most racist organizations in this country, including the KKK, are are based on Biblical interpretation). Most Christian organizations aren't interested in fighting that particular battle, so the ACLU is left alone to defend the Protestant Christian principle of personal Biblical understanding.
The only thing this has to do with time or money is how they choose to allocate it. I heard this much from talking to an ACLU lawyer. Of course, that's how all groups work. They step in to defend any religious group if necessary, it just is rarely necessary for Christianity because of the rare infringements and the wealth of existing organizations.
Your argument that the ACLU should be protecting every American's right to wear whatever they want wherever they are in order to protect us from being forced into or prohibited from wearing certain religious symbols is just silly (in fact, I may even go as far as to call it a non sequitur
It's not my argument, either. I don't know how you possibly came to think that it was. Women are allowed to legally wear an item of clothing. Men are not, and the only reason is because "we don't want guys wearing dresses". The sexes are treated differently, even though there is no practical or biological reason for the difference in treatment. Under the US Constitution, it is illegal to treat women and men differently unless you can show a reason why it is absolutely necessary. A guy wearing a dress might be silly to you or me, but I can't think of any reason why he should be legally prohibited from doing so, if women are allowed to wear dresses. As I said, this is a trivial argument, and thankfully so -- then there will be legal precedents to point to that will cut short future arguments if more serious infringements take place.
Look beyond the catchphrases at who he was and what he supported. Though he was a liberal in the traditional sense, keep in mind that the liberal philosophy used to be one of capitalism and natural rights, not half-baked ideas about anonymity in every facet of life or removing Christian symbols from every public and private institution.
I'm quite familiar with Jefferson's beliefs, writings and teachings. Having lived in Virginia right next to a 15-story tall copy of his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedoms (the model for our own First Amendment, the United Nations Statute on Religious Freedoms and many other nations' laws) and reading his many, many published works, I can't conceive of how he would be anything but thoroughly bemused at the state of Christianity in this country, that so many portray it as being under attack by some mysterious force while simultaneously being the faith that 85%+ of Americans believe in. He certainly was Liberal in that he believed as many liberties should be reserved by the people and as few given to the government as necessary.
The right to wear a skirt in school is a constitutional freedom inasmuch as both male and female students are legally equal in the eyes of the state. There is no inherent biological difference between the sexes that requires men to wear pants while women may be allowed to wear skirts. I'd rather the years of twisting and turning through the courts happen when only a trivial offense is at issue, but if you'd prefer the ACLU not address it until some school district requires females to wear burkhas, that's your perogative. As the old saying goes, easy cases make lousy laws. Waiting for women in schools to be restricted in some more offensive way could easily lead to overreaction by the courts or legislature.
The ACLU was nowhere to be found.
So are you complaining that they get involved in too many cases or not enough? They don't have an infinite supply of money or time -- there are literally hundreds of constitutionally fascinating cases that get ignored every month by the ACLU and legal organizations on the right AND the left. Often they are trying a similar case elsewhere in the country, and much as it sucks for that individual who is ignored, it makes more sense for the ACLU to fight many different battles with their resources than fighting 20 versions of the same religious freedoms case in different jurisdictions if they'll all end up in a handful of US Circuit courts or all together in the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure if you thought I was using it in the mathematical sense or what, but non-sequitur is a completely appropriate description of your sig. If you actually think ACLU meetings have frequent flag-burnings I can see how you wouldn't see the absurdity, but then you'd be aligned with the "those other guys are teh evil!!!" mentality of wignuts on all extremes. Congratulations on your spelling prowess, my local newspaper printed the Non-Sequitur comic strip for years under the misspelling, which has forever scarred me.
Liberalism is like bed-wetting, most people are lucky enough to grow out of it.
Yes, well fortunately guys like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson were immature enough to fight for civil liberties (and even write a few down!) before they grew out of that silly phase. "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" What kind of hippie shit was that? Didn't he know there was a war on? What a bunch of pinkos.
The ACLU always has been, and always will be, a group that argues for the maximum amount of liberty possible for individuals based on the constitution. I fail to see how the particular cases they fight really matter -- it is the legal precedents they're arguing for. Nobody wants Nazis marching down their street, but people who are intelligent enough to put 2+2 together know that anyone stopping Nazis could also stop a more worthwhile political cause. You can bitch and moan about guys wearing skirts, but when public schools tell students they can't wear a star of david or a cross on a necklace, it's nice to have the issues sussed out in court ahead of time. Just because you have the benefit of hindsight on the eventual outcome of issues they fought 50 years ago doesn't mean the first steps of issues they're fighting today are less important.
That said, I doubt many intelligent people find your sig objectionable, they just assume you're an 18-year old who doesn't know enough about the world to actually think about issues, and advertises the fact by throwing together some non-sequiter about a group he doesn't like. If you had an actual, sensible statement in there you might properly have something to object to.
Had you spent the 1400 hours chasing chicks, what do you think you might have had to show for it?
At the very least, stronger ab muscles, and probably some really nice photos and videos.
Wow, you are a marketer's dream customer. You like to believe you exert conscious control over every thought and action in your life. There are entire advertising agencies built around catering to that specific self-delusion!
If Pavlov's dog just had enough WILLPOWER he'd avoid salivating when Pavlov rings the bell!
I have this huge suspicion that no actual fact would dissuade you from the belief that the brain is a "computer."
Considering "computer" used to be a job title, before we invented transistors and integrated circuits, I'd be pretty interested to hear arguments that claim the human brain is not a computer. I'm expecting a lot of hand-waving and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo, but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.
please read the 1st amendment and then try to figure out how that provides for a citizen's right to have an abortion.
Umm, it doesn't. The first amendment is about freedom of speech, religion and assembly (though it does imply certain aspects of privacy in thoughts and action). The right to privacy is not explicitly listed anywhere in the constitution, though certain aspects of it are enumerated in several of the amendments. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights we have, rather an enumeration of those considered most likely to be infringed upon by the new government.
There is nothing in the constitution that "provides" for a citizen to do anything. The constitution is a list of things we allow the government to do on our behalf, not vice-versa. It's amazing how quickly the Republican party forgot this basic fact once they came to power.
Indeed, that may be the motivation behind the tribes lowering their contributions (Abramoff's own emails notwithstanding). But the motivation to STOP giving money to a politician is hardly evidence of corruption, and corruption is what the poster claimed to be showing.
Whether the Democrats were uninvolved in this particular corruption scandal because of their lack of power or their moral virtue is a moot point -- they aren't involved, no matter how the Republicans try to spin it as "we're all corrupt" (which is a heck of a defense no matter how you look at it!).
Try again, and try to be less partisan.
There was nothing partisan in the original post. It is accurate that the tribes were giving money to democrats even before Abramoff was involved in any way. Once he became involved, their contributions to democrats went down dramatically, and contributions to republicans went up dramatically. That's not spin, it's a simple stating of the facts. You can look at Tribal money received now and say "a third went to democrats" but that doesn't say anything about Abramoff's involvement with that money. Any objective person looking at those facts would conclude that Abromoff's involvement encouraged sending money to republicans and discouraged sending it to democrats.
Of course, you don't even have to BE objective or make any inferences. Just read the Abramoff emails that have been made public during the investigation, where he complains about the stupid tribes who keep giving money to Democrats. I don't know how much clearer his intentions or involvement could be.
You could also just look at court dockets, subpoenas, warrants and plea bargains. For all the claims that the RNC and DNC are equally involved, the only people under criminal investigation or indictment are Republicans. Considering their party controls both the Executive and Legislative branch, I find it hard to believe they've instructed the FBI to be nice to the Democrats.
If you read the thread, you'll see that the link was eaten on my first post, I replied immediately with information about the gay prostitute at the white house. If you just put in "Jeff Gannon" in google, you'll find the many stories that were in every major newspaper and news network when this ridiculous situation came to light.
wtf, slashdot ate the link with all the sordid details about the gay male prostitute hanging out at the white house!
That particular link is rife with speculation (overnight stays that could be simply bad record-keeping, and sexual activities in the white house), but there's no question that a gay male prostitute was invited to the white house over a hundred times and was given incredible access to white house staffers.
You should probably read a newspaper every few years, you'll be amazed at the interesting things that happen in the world!
Oral sex is a perverted sex act? You need to get out more :P
These guys weren't idiots: they were the Louisiana state champions
Can't they be both?!
Considering the very quote you're responding to ends with "has nothing to do with the Patriot Act", I'm confused as to why you seem to think I'm claiming the Patriot Act is involved?
Ooh, I wonder how many people will actually get that reference. Greatly appreciated :D
Web 2.0 is like Web 1.0, but with a lot more database errors onscreen.
As for speaking out against the government, it happens everyday. I don't see people being locked away for it.
You are aware that at both national political conventions for the 2004 presidential elections, protesters were literally locked inside cages. Protesting outside of such "free speech zones" was a crime, and UnAmerican, because of course Good Americans don't protest against the government.
You're right of course, the unabashedly unconstitutional abuse of Executive power by simply declaring people "unlawful combatants" and thus magically transporting them outside of both military and civil authority has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. If he ripped the CDs, whether or not the CDs themselves survive is a moot point. But of course, pressed CDs don't become corrupt and disintegrate, anyways -- if he was BURNING CDs, then it might be something to worry about. I have many pressed CDs over 20 years old, and they're all in a box now being kept perfectly safe since, like the original poster, I've ripped them all to FLAC and don't anticipate ever using the CDs again unless I have to rerip one for some reason.
Oh wow, the Speedstar. Nostalgia overload!
These people literally have their boot on Sony's throat.
Really? Are you sure you aren't using the word literally to mean "figuratively, but very emphatically"?
If this were a criminal case, you'd be right, it's foolish to risk defending yourself. As is, there's really not a lot for the lady to lose at this point. She's already broke, so it doesn't matter if she loses horriblly and is responsible for $8 billion in damages, there's no way she'll be able to pay it. If she wins, she'll be able to write a book or movie and at least get back some of the money she's spent on this case already.
That's the pickle the RIAA has gotten themselves into -- you should never start a fight with someone who has nothing to lose.
Again, i don't know how many times we have to say it in this thread, we're talking about using a telephone as a BUG, NOT tapping into phone conversations. tapping in to a phone conversation has been and will continue to be a piece of cake. using a telephone as a bug (so you can listen to the room the telephone is in, even when nobody is on the phone!) used to be quite simple, now it's unrealistic.
The next person who says something about tapping the phone line will get "-1, Can't Read"
No, you're talking about tapping a phone, which is not what the original post was about. The message you're replying to was talking about using a phone as a bug -- something that used to be quite simple, and now is pretty much impossible. The difference is pretty significant, since most criminals realize someone could be listening when they're talking on the phone -- but most of them didn't realize someone could be listening after they hung up!