Why not? I belive terrorists are worse than cowards, does that mean we can't have a reasonable dialog on terrorism? I belive murderers are worse than cowards, does that mean we can't have a reasonable dialog on murder?
Would you say the same thing if it plunged the U.S. into a civil war?
If that's what it takes to get our country back, I'm ready to fight today.
Think for a moment what it would look like to scared conservatives if the new, black, "Muslim", president suddenly hauled the old president off to jail for the crime of "defending American".
It couldn't look any worse than what I've seen happen to this country over the past 30 years.
You believe the rule of law is of paramount importance, some people believe that the president's job is ensure peace and prosperity
The rule of law is a prerequisite for peace and prosperity. You cannot have either when the people in power can flaunt the law without repercussions.
You would do well to recognize that other people have different priorities from you, and that those values don't make them cowards just because they don't agree with you.
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those who would sacrifice the rule of law are worse than cowards.
Everyone he can prove knew or should have known that it was occuring.
What would be the consequences for the U.S. is Bush and Cheney were arrested for suspicion of ordering war crimes and torture?
Reinstatement of the rule of law. Undoubtedly a good thing.
What would Fox News claim was happening? What would the idiots who believe that Fox News is actually "Fair and Balanced" do?
Are you really willing to abandon the rule of law because of Fox News? Chickenshit.
Is there more important work that needs to be done than punishing Bush and Cheney?
Is there anything more important than the rule of law? The very foundation of our civilized society? There is nothing more important than punishing the crimes of the powerful.
Who does he prosecute at AIG or Goldman Sachs? For what crime exactly?
Lloyd Blankfein. For racketeering. This is why we have RICO.
I suspect, unlike Bush, history will judge him more kindly than Americans do right now.
The judgement of history will not deter future criminal acts by future presidents. A hard 20 years in Leavenworth would.
Ooh, a letter. Let's see him introduce legistlation censuring the President, or even initiate impeachment proceedings. That is what you do when you actually believe the President has broken the law.
Obama is in charge of the justice department. He could have prosecuted torture without any cooperation from Congress. He could have prosecuted exectutives from AIG, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs under RICO without any cooperation from Congress. He could have vetoed the warrantless wiretapping amnesty bill, and had his justice department prosecute those who violated FISA.
Yeah, Congress is an obstacle. So look at what Obama has done in where he has the authority to act without Congress. I don't see anything good. Obama is yet another in a long line of Presidents who don't care about anything except increasing executive power and protecting the well connected.
Obama and the Republicans are on the same side. What you see on the news is a dog and pony show.
What republicans complained? The only person willing to actually do anything about the President's criminal war was Dennis Kucinich. He actually introduced a bill calling for the President to obey the War Powers Act. Republicans killed the bill when it appeared it might pass. Republicans wanted the war as much as they want every other war, they just don't want to support Obama publicly.
That's a long list of mostly disingenuous accomplishments.
He's even listed "Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture". And yet Guantanamo is still open, and no torturer was held accountable for his crimes.
You're really going to give Obama credit for prohibiting torture, when it was already illegal under the law? How exactly is failing to prosecute people prohibiting torture?
The list is too long to dismantle one by one, but they're pretty much all like that. CHIP was good, I'll give you that though.
What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man?
What part of heading off to foreign countries to kill people you've never met because a guy in a suit told you to counts as "human decency and respect for your fellow man"?
Who gives a crap what the GOP says? The GOP wasn't elected president. And if they complain, explain the whole constitution thing to them again, publicly.
Don't you get it? D and R are playing you. It's good cop, bad cop, nothing less. Neither of them serve anyone but the top 1%. Making excuses for Obama only serves to protect the oligarchy.
The good news is that if it's legal to plant devices on peoples cars without warrants, then we can track the police and politicians just as easily as they can track us. Keep an eye out for Clarance Thomas's RV in a Walmart parking lot near you. Anyone know what Scalia drives?
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
Generally people are stupid, and well meaning. I'll take my chances with stupid and well meaning over devious and self-serving any day.
Direct, 100% democracy also leads to huge problems for minorities.
There's nothing about representation that protects minorities. That's constitutional limitations, which we need to get back to respecting.
Representation can actually make things worse for minorities. For example, if you have a racist party and a moderate party, and then a third party representing a minority arises, they can split the vote and elect the racist party with even less than a simple majority.
It wouldn't be the first time the technically superior alternative failed. I'm not saying that that is the case here. I'm just saying that success and technical quality don't always coincide.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? I belive terrorists are worse than cowards, does that mean we can't have a reasonable dialog on terrorism? I belive murderers are worse than cowards, does that mean we can't have a reasonable dialog on murder?
Would you say the same thing if it plunged the U.S. into a civil war?
If that's what it takes to get our country back, I'm ready to fight today.
Think for a moment what it would look like to scared conservatives if the new, black, "Muslim", president suddenly hauled the old president off to jail for the crime of "defending American".
It couldn't look any worse than what I've seen happen to this country over the past 30 years.
You believe the rule of law is of paramount importance, some people believe that the president's job is ensure peace and prosperity
The rule of law is a prerequisite for peace and prosperity. You cannot have either when the people in power can flaunt the law without repercussions.
You would do well to recognize that other people have different priorities from you, and that those values don't make them cowards just because they don't agree with you.
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those who would sacrifice the rule of law are worse than cowards.
Unstable refers to the repository; it's always changing. The system itself is rock solid.
Who does he start prosecuting for torture?
Everyone he can prove knew or should have known that it was occuring.
What would be the consequences for the U.S. is Bush and Cheney were arrested for suspicion of ordering war crimes and torture?
Reinstatement of the rule of law. Undoubtedly a good thing.
What would Fox News claim was happening? What would the idiots who believe that Fox News is actually "Fair and Balanced" do?
Are you really willing to abandon the rule of law because of Fox News? Chickenshit.
Is there more important work that needs to be done than punishing Bush and Cheney?
Is there anything more important than the rule of law? The very foundation of our civilized society? There is nothing more important than punishing the crimes of the powerful.
Who does he prosecute at AIG or Goldman Sachs? For what crime exactly?
Lloyd Blankfein. For racketeering. This is why we have RICO.
I suspect, unlike Bush, history will judge him more kindly than Americans do right now.
The judgement of history will not deter future criminal acts by future presidents. A hard 20 years in Leavenworth would.
Ooh, a letter. Let's see him introduce legistlation censuring the President, or even initiate impeachment proceedings. That is what you do when you actually believe the President has broken the law.
Obama is in charge of the justice department. He could have prosecuted torture without any cooperation from Congress. He could have prosecuted exectutives from AIG, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs under RICO without any cooperation from Congress. He could have vetoed the warrantless wiretapping amnesty bill, and had his justice department prosecute those who violated FISA.
Yeah, Congress is an obstacle. So look at what Obama has done in where he has the authority to act without Congress. I don't see anything good. Obama is yet another in a long line of Presidents who don't care about anything except increasing executive power and protecting the well connected.
Obama and the Republicans are on the same side. What you see on the news is a dog and pony show.
What republicans complained? The only person willing to actually do anything about the President's criminal war was Dennis Kucinich. He actually introduced a bill calling for the President to obey the War Powers Act. Republicans killed the bill when it appeared it might pass. Republicans wanted the war as much as they want every other war, they just don't want to support Obama publicly.
That's a long list of mostly disingenuous accomplishments.
He's even listed "Ordered the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and a review of our detention and interrogation policy, and prohibited the use of torture". And yet Guantanamo is still open, and no torturer was held accountable for his crimes.
You're really going to give Obama credit for prohibiting torture, when it was already illegal under the law? How exactly is failing to prosecute people prohibiting torture?
The list is too long to dismantle one by one, but they're pretty much all like that. CHIP was good, I'll give you that though.
I agree. But it's nothing to celebrate. Having more hired killers in the country is not a good thing.
What ever happened to human decency and respect for your fellow man?
What part of heading off to foreign countries to kill people you've never met because a guy in a suit told you to counts as "human decency and respect for your fellow man"?
Obama's Office of Legal Council disagreed.
You can assign windows to virtual desktops and swap between layouts with hotkeys. Never have to leave the keyboard if you don't want to.
Obama violated the war powers act going into Libya. He should be impeached for it.
So Obama made it easier for a very small fraction of the population to fight and die for corporate profits. BFD.
I'm impressed. The first time in 3 years I've been impressed, so the bar is pretty low. But good going Obama.
Then use a tiling window manager and launch everything with the CLI.
If you don't think the entire Supreme Court is staffed with politicians you haven't been paying attention. The SCOTUS is entirely partisan.
Who gives a crap what the GOP says? The GOP wasn't elected president. And if they complain, explain the whole constitution thing to them again, publicly.
Don't you get it? D and R are playing you. It's good cop, bad cop, nothing less. Neither of them serve anyone but the top 1%. Making excuses for Obama only serves to protect the oligarchy.
The good news is that if it's legal to plant devices on peoples cars without warrants, then we can track the police and politicians just as easily as they can track us. Keep an eye out for Clarance Thomas's RV in a Walmart parking lot near you. Anyone know what Scalia drives?
Really? How awful for you.
If you want current software, run unstable.
FreeBSD ports just aren't as comprehensive as Debian's repository.
Of course, he comes out in favor of this tax now, when he's already in the process of giving away his billions.
The main reason being that people in general are stupid.
Generally people are stupid, and well meaning. I'll take my chances with stupid and well meaning over devious and self-serving any day.
Direct, 100% democracy also leads to huge problems for minorities.
There's nothing about representation that protects minorities. That's constitutional limitations, which we need to get back to respecting.
Representation can actually make things worse for minorities. For example, if you have a racist party and a moderate party, and then a third party representing a minority arises, they can split the vote and elect the racist party with even less than a simple majority.
It wouldn't be the first time the technically superior alternative failed. I'm not saying that that is the case here. I'm just saying that success and technical quality don't always coincide.