Come on now, what could possible be wrong with hugs? Humans need physical contact, and too many people don't get any at all (not an innuendo for sex, just no physical contact. Barely a handshake).
I read the article, saw no actual reason to restrict it. And I can't think of one. Other than a deadly, infectious disease, but then they shouldn't be at school in the first place. In fact, for almost everything else, it's good for them to spread some bacteria and build up their immune systems.
Buy or build them new homes if you have to. If these people are found innocent, yet the countries that they were taken from won't take them back (or it's not safe to send them back there, because of the claims of them being terrorists that the US made taking them prisoners in the first place), then the US government is responsible for their well being. Especially all that have been put through abuse and unlawful imprisonment (which I guess is the majority).
Treat them well, and own up to your mistakes. Make them realize you realize your mistakes, especially your crimes, and they'll be no threat.
Then prosecute the actual criminals instead, the torturers and what not.
All I saw was reuse and yet another way of recording something. If you've already had legal access to a TV series or whatever, you've already seen it, or at least have already paid for it in some way.
I was considering my own statement for a few seconds. Between war, disease, natural disasters, failing crops and poverty, I still say war is the worst. Not only for its effects, but also because it's something we actively engage in and are responsible for. As well as that war can lead to more of the other "bad things" mentioned, than can happen the other way around.
A quick estimate says once every 50 years. We're almost two decades overdue by now, though.
But I was more aiming towards the overall purpose of the military, and what they will actually be involved with in a real situation. Despite our government avoiding involvement with the worst conflict areas, Norwegian soldiers (as a part of NATO) are being killed, kill, and have to deal with those who have suffered wars. Beyond that, we are allies of the USA and do share intelligence, exchange or trade equipment, etc. It's not only about where our own soldiers put their feet.
Pretending that it's all fun and games, doesn't do us any good. And it doesn't do those who suffer any justice.
In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.
One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.
Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.
Actually, 51% was just a reference to how that is all it takes for a presidential candidate to "win" an entire state, for example. Say one candidate gets 51% each in two states, 49% in a third. And the other candidate gets 49, 49, 51. All the states have the same number of electors. After those 3 states, he has 66.67% of the electors somehow, instead of 50.33% which is what it would be.
I.e. popular vote should be all that matters.
The 2 party system was a point I forgot about. A 2 party system isn't all that much better than a 1 party system. If those 2 parties are secretly working together, you're screwed. And otherwise, you just don't have many options when you're at the voting booth. The world isn't black and white, and that should be reflected when you're choosing who's going to represent you in the democracy.
Sure, you don't get a single party with majority that often in multi-party systems. And that's good, it means that the parties have to work together to get things done, and it's not just the tyranny of the limited majority that runs things.
A dictator would get things done, but you rarely get a good-at-heart dictator that cares about anyone but himself, or maybe himself and his family.
I'm not sure about Germany's Internet censorship, I assume it at least has something to do with censoring nazism. But Norway, AFAIK, only censors child pornography. I can see the "no censorship whatsoever" argument, but I also don't see that it could ever be wrong to censor child porn.
It's not an opinion, an expression or an artform we disagree we or don't like. It's just wrong, in any way that you look at it. Though, worst case, they classify something that isn't child porn as child porn, and it goes under the filter. As long as the filter does what it says, that's one of the few types of censorship I don't mind.
You think a party representing 4% of a nation's people should have the last say in who becomes Prime Minister? Do you think that's fair?
Certainly, when their vote is just the one that tips the scale to the one side.
You can't just have the biggest party make all the decisions. The smaller parties will have less power, so they're forced to cooperate with eachother to get their cases through. That way you have the democracy at work throughout the years, until the next election, and the voters again pick the party they think represent themselves the best.
Though there is a lower limit on how small a party can be, simply because there is a limited number of representatives in the parliament (and no 1/3rd of a person that can represent your party).
I could be better informed on the Moldova case, but slightly off-topic; I never understood the concept of Democracy vs. Communism. Shouldn't it be Capitalism vs. Communism only, and then Democracy vs. Theocracy vs. Dictatorship etc.?
I didn't think Marx said anything about how many political parties a state could have, or that Communism and Democracy couldn't coexist.
Yeah, athletes and actors can take a big hit in salary and still be well paid for what they're doing (either they take a big hit, or we stop using the stupidly expensive actors for movies that could've been made a lot cheaper and a lot more profitable without them). I don't see how their roles in society are more important than that of a farmer, that actually gives us something we need to live. Or a doctor, that straight up saves lives.
Same goes for the CEOs and really anyone that's worth more than 10 million dollars. No one needs more than 10 million dollars to spend on themselves, and no one needs anything near that per year. That money can buy a big house, a big car or other transportation, and the best medical treatment (though if you need expensive medical care, you're more often than not, not in a position to pay for it).
Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).
They do the stripping for the money. If you're saying that they should be treated the same, as those who are with someone only for money, I agree. Tax them all.
Ridiculous how? I really don't see it. They have an income, they pay taxes, like everyone else.
Now for some actually ridiculous taxes; I'm surprised I didn't see this story on Slashdot today; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7746094.stm Taxing virtual currency. Though maybe it was already here, think I've heard about it somewhere before.
Slashdot Mirror
to get karma from quoting Futurama?
Come on now, what could possible be wrong with hugs? Humans need physical contact, and too many people don't get any at all (not an innuendo for sex, just no physical contact. Barely a handshake).
I read the article, saw no actual reason to restrict it. And I can't think of one. Other than a deadly, infectious disease, but then they shouldn't be at school in the first place. In fact, for almost everything else, it's good for them to spread some bacteria and build up their immune systems.
Buy or build them new homes if you have to. If these people are found innocent, yet the countries that they were taken from won't take them back (or it's not safe to send them back there, because of the claims of them being terrorists that the US made taking them prisoners in the first place), then the US government is responsible for their well being. Especially all that have been put through abuse and unlawful imprisonment (which I guess is the majority).
Treat them well, and own up to your mistakes. Make them realize you realize your mistakes, especially your crimes, and they'll be no threat.
Then prosecute the actual criminals instead, the torturers and what not.
What else is new?
All I saw was reuse and yet another way of recording something. If you've already had legal access to a TV series or whatever, you've already seen it, or at least have already paid for it in some way.
My bad for not previewing. "injured or killed by paintballs"
Just reading the headline, I thought the case was that someone had been seriously injured or killed. That would've at least made some sense.
This doesn't.
I was considering my own statement for a few seconds. Between war, disease, natural disasters, failing crops and poverty, I still say war is the worst. Not only for its effects, but also because it's something we actively engage in and are responsible for. As well as that war can lead to more of the other "bad things" mentioned, than can happen the other way around.
A quick estimate says once every 50 years. We're almost two decades overdue by now, though.
But I was more aiming towards the overall purpose of the military, and what they will actually be involved with in a real situation. Despite our government avoiding involvement with the worst conflict areas, Norwegian soldiers (as a part of NATO) are being killed, kill, and have to deal with those who have suffered wars. Beyond that, we are allies of the USA and do share intelligence, exchange or trade equipment, etc. It's not only about where our own soldiers put their feet.
Pretending that it's all fun and games, doesn't do us any good. And it doesn't do those who suffer any justice.
In Norway we have semi-obligatory military service for males (basically a 1 year training program to be prepared in the event of an invasion. After that it's possible to join the army full time. Semi-obligatory because it's not that hard to get out of. So the following could be considered a recruitment event). All males of around 18 years old (and I think they've made attending this obligatory for females too now, just not obligatory for them to serve) are called in for a "Sesjon" (Session?) to determine physical and mental abilities, as well as a minor health checkup.
One of the first things they did was show us a movie, to spark our interest, I suppose. But all it was were kids driving around in tanks, climbing stuff and being out in nature. Not a single image of what war actually is. Not even a drop of blood.
Truth in advertising should be much more prevalent and mandatory when we're dealing with the worst of all things, war.
Actually, 51% was just a reference to how that is all it takes for a presidential candidate to "win" an entire state, for example. Say one candidate gets 51% each in two states, 49% in a third. And the other candidate gets 49, 49, 51. All the states have the same number of electors. After those 3 states, he has 66.67% of the electors somehow, instead of 50.33% which is what it would be.
I.e. popular vote should be all that matters.
The 2 party system was a point I forgot about. A 2 party system isn't all that much better than a 1 party system. If those 2 parties are secretly working together, you're screwed. And otherwise, you just don't have many options when you're at the voting booth. The world isn't black and white, and that should be reflected when you're choosing who's going to represent you in the democracy.
Sure, you don't get a single party with majority that often in multi-party systems. And that's good, it means that the parties have to work together to get things done, and it's not just the tyranny of the limited majority that runs things.
A dictator would get things done, but you rarely get a good-at-heart dictator that cares about anyone but himself, or maybe himself and his family.
I'm not sure about Germany's Internet censorship, I assume it at least has something to do with censoring nazism. But Norway, AFAIK, only censors child pornography. I can see the "no censorship whatsoever" argument, but I also don't see that it could ever be wrong to censor child porn.
It's not an opinion, an expression or an artform we disagree we or don't like. It's just wrong, in any way that you look at it. Though, worst case, they classify something that isn't child porn as child porn, and it goes under the filter. As long as the filter does what it says, that's one of the few types of censorship I don't mind.
You think a party representing 4% of a nation's people should have the last say in who becomes Prime Minister? Do you think that's fair?
Certainly, when their vote is just the one that tips the scale to the one side.
You can't just have the biggest party make all the decisions. The smaller parties will have less power, so they're forced to cooperate with eachother to get their cases through. That way you have the democracy at work throughout the years, until the next election, and the voters again pick the party they think represent themselves the best.
Though there is a lower limit on how small a party can be, simply because there is a limited number of representatives in the parliament (and no 1/3rd of a person that can represent your party).
I could be better informed on the Moldova case, but slightly off-topic; I never understood the concept of Democracy vs. Communism. Shouldn't it be Capitalism vs. Communism only, and then Democracy vs. Theocracy vs. Dictatorship etc.?
I didn't think Marx said anything about how many political parties a state could have, or that Communism and Democracy couldn't coexist.
Yeah, athletes and actors can take a big hit in salary and still be well paid for what they're doing (either they take a big hit, or we stop using the stupidly expensive actors for movies that could've been made a lot cheaper and a lot more profitable without them). I don't see how their roles in society are more important than that of a farmer, that actually gives us something we need to live. Or a doctor, that straight up saves lives. Same goes for the CEOs and really anyone that's worth more than 10 million dollars. No one needs more than 10 million dollars to spend on themselves, and no one needs anything near that per year. That money can buy a big house, a big car or other transportation, and the best medical treatment (though if you need expensive medical care, you're more often than not, not in a position to pay for it).
Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).
They do the stripping for the money. If you're saying that they should be treated the same, as those who are with someone only for money, I agree. Tax them all.
Ridiculous how? I really don't see it. They have an income, they pay taxes, like everyone else. Now for some actually ridiculous taxes; I'm surprised I didn't see this story on Slashdot today; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7746094.stm Taxing virtual currency. Though maybe it was already here, think I've heard about it somewhere before.