What Bush & Co have been doing is legal, at least according to the letter of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the President to suspend civil liberties (even habeas corpus) in cases of warfare, or for national defense.
Habeas corpus may be suspended - but only in times of rebellion or invasion. We've had neither.
Even though Congress hasn't officially declared war, the mantra in Washington is that we are at war.
Irrelevant. A war isn't a War until Congress has declared one, and it hasn't.
Anti-Apple fanboys? A little paranoid here aren't we?
Try a little excercise in basic math and reading comprehension. Read any story on apple.slashdot.org and count the number of actual Kool-Aid drinking Apple fanboys, and then compare that to the number of people who bitch about all these supposed fanboys. You know, the people that jump into any conversation where people are bitching about something Apple has done that they don't like, with the line "now if this were Microsoft, you'd all be up in arms..." Completely ignoring the fact that the people are already bitching about Apple and calling Jobs an asshole.
Just how thick are you? Where you asleep the first 5 times I said the cops did their jobs by checking them out? Are you also aware of the fact that it is possible to check out something suspicious without shutting down a major metropolitan area and threateningly draconian legal charges? NO OTHER CITY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THESE THINGS.
You must be new. All of the so-called "Patriot" Act was proposed (and fought for by) the Clinton administration although in separate smaller pieces.
Ah, the old "Clinton did it too" defense. Which is frequently just an attempt as misdirection, like when the right wing excused Bush's sacking of USA's midway into his second term by pointing at Clinton's releasing all the USA's at the start of his first term. So in other words: got links to back that up? From reputable sources? With context?
Birds of a feather flock together and the US Democrats and US Republicans are basically the same party. Same shit, different party. But really not so different.
Better to work to improve a party that is 50% rotten than 100% rotten.
According to this link, the majority leader has promised to bring the bill up for a vote regardless of Dodd's hold. Which is pathetic on so many fronts - the Republicans even whisper about obstructing a bill, and the Democratic majority buckles like a belt. But when another Democrat tries to stop a bill, he is ignored. Makes you wonder if Reid made a deal for something, and exactly what that deal is.
It is simply unfathomable to be why so many Democrats don't take a firm stand against NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, etc. If they are principled, they would block it. If they only care about their political skins, they would still block Mr. 25% approval rating to make political points. Instead they buy shares in his messes by voting for them.
Try Verizon. I have an LG and my sister has a Razr. They both have bluetooth, so I should be able to send her pictures or other files from my phone. Except you can't because you can only send contact information, and in the case of the Razr, the ability to transfer files is pretty much disabled. They want you to send it as a picture message instead, so they can get 50 cents out of the deal.
Not having been through police training, you don't know what counts as hysteria and what doesn't.
There's this thing called common sense, maybe they offer classes on it in your area. I no more need to go through police academy training to see that Boston's response was way over the top than I need to go to film school to say Biodome was a horrible movie.
Because no where in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does it say the federal government is authorized to "fund infrastructure".
Try reading the Preamble. And would you really want highway barons the way we used to have railroad barons? Would you enjoy paying hundreds of dollars in tolls to drive across the country? There are lots of banana republics out there if you really want to live in one.
By the way, the "Great Depression" was the result of the Federal Reserve
Yes, because the Fed held a gun to the heads of investors to buy on margin and forced everyone to try and withdraw money from their bank accounts at the same time.
World War II was a choice for the US, not a necessity, which we would've been better off if we had stayed out.
While it's possible the English and the Russians would have worn down Germany before the Nazis developed a nuclear bomb, it leaves the question as to who exactly was going to stand up to the Japanese.
That's not debunked at all. It's just more rationalizations... It's really simple : you have hundreds of millions of people getting killed by a mosquito, something that kills them, and you banned it
Completely debunked. The ban was for agricultural use of DDT, due to the environmental effects. Oh, and the fact that overuse just breeds resistance. Even in 1959. And an inconvenient fact ignored by the wingnuts is that even the 1972 ban in the U.S. had exemptions for health uses. So do modern treaties. Another wingnut urban legend goes down in flames.
No, the immediate issue at hand is that MoveOn took legal action to prevent condemnation of itself.
A baseless assertion.
Oh, look at you go.... doing the same discrediting tactics that you are so bitter about being handed to the likes of Kerry and Cleland. Please, spare me your righteousness. It's such a fraud.
The fraud was in the propaganda campaign. Which was: these war critics from the liberal Brookings Institute who were no friends of the administration were seeing progress in Iraq. One small problem: the men in question were hawks who supported the war from the start and supported the surge. It is pure dishonesty to then hold them up as examples of "critics" who are now seeing "progress". If they had ethics, they would have disclosed those facts when they came out with their editorial. But then they wouldn't be any different than Bill Kristol, and Kristol saying we've made great progress in Iraq wouldn't get much press nor have as much credibility.
Look at you splitting hairs to lie. What's a "personal weapon" to you. The fact of the matter is, the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party banned semi-automatic weapons, and would do so again. The only reason that they don't, is because they lost Ohio twice for doing so, and they don't want to blow that again.
Ah, I suppose you're one of the wingnuts who said in 2004 that he was voting against Kerry because he couldn't support anyone that supports gun control, and voted for Bush. Completely ignoring the fact that Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would resign the assault weapons ban. Speaking of elections, I sure haven't heard a peep out of the NRA when it comes to the presidential candidacy of "America's Mayor." But then they might excommunicate you guys from the church of IOKIYAR hypocrisy.
No, you could always choose to cut government spending.
And finish turning the U.S. into a banana republic. Brilliant! Slight problem: you have more money in your pocket with responsible government spending than without it.
So, I suppose you want to fix that by replacing that with a system where a pair of doctors have to live check to check and can't afford an apartment in Germany.
You mean like the ones that earn $200,000+ a year and live in million dollar homes?
Everyone who comes to the USA and has insurance remarks that you do not have to wait in line to get health care.
Bald-faced lie. We have lines in the U.S. health care system. Lots and lots of lines. Especially if you need to see a specialist. And if you don't have insurance, you are going to be waiting for the rest of your life.
No, not at all irrelevant. The claim is made that MoveOn is pro-American, and I ask you to name me one Pro-American thing that they do. Show me one thing where MoveOn advocates this country doing anything to gain relative to the world.
Completely irrelevant. As I said, you might as well bitch at the American Cancer Society for not coming up with planes to fight forest fires. Or how about asking the NRA just what their planes are to deal with hurricanes.
We have them. The Iraqi people themselves.. fighting AQ, which has been the plan all along.
I agree in principle, but unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
How is funding infrastructure unconstitutional.
The FCC is nothing more than remnants of FDR's failed socialistic quagmire.
Yes, the failed socialistic quagmire that pulled us out of the Great Depression, won WWII and made the U.S. the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Bad FDR, no donut.
Whitewater was a criminal conspiracy that resulted in many people being convicted.
Yeah? Why don't you look up the lengths of the prison terms served by Bill and Hillary over it, and then get back to us.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Absolutely none of which applies to saying "their work was exceptionally poor" or pointing out their partisan ties or their their flawed methods.
You are really not very good at making arguments are you?
Nah, you're just not very good at life. If you don't know about the Republican hard-on for deregulation and "small government" there's not much we can do for you.
Oh, sure, that's what were talking about here....
It's what the press was talking about, yes. Your point?
Fat people have billions more cells than you -- are they more worth having around?
Okay, draw up a list of differences between a fetus the size of a grape and an adult human. Then draw up a list of differences between an average adult, and an average adult suffering from obesity, and see if you still think your point is so clever.
Practically speaking, the only difference I see between very immature fetuses and the rest of us walking folks is the ability to self-sustain, and considering how unable regular babies are to do so, its hardly a valid comparison for the deserving of life status.
Which comes back to the canard of where do you draw the line between a blob of cells and a human being. The easy answer is: you don't draw one line. You draw two: when it's just a blob, obviously not, in the third trimester, it obviously is.
The "we don't know when it's a human so lets protect the fetus from the moment of conception" is just as valid as "well, it's two minutes until birth, so we can abort before it's a real baby." Just as valid, just as asinine.
Scalability is not in Apple's vocab. My library consists of 8000+ songs. Itunes on average uses in excess of 100 mb or ram. The music player beats out Outlook, Word, and Excel combined. Bloat anyone? Not to mention that it does not clean up it's temporary XML library files resulting in GB of litter after a year of usage.
As for ram, I'm not really full of crap as you have had a similar experience.
I wouldn't call using 28% less memory and 4% or less as much disk space for 190% more songs "similar."
Well at this point I can't even use iTunes as it does not install on Vista 64
Have you considered upgrading to XP 64?:)
It's not actually a "rip off". My point seemed to have gotten lost in overly strong wording. It is basically this: Apple has of late had a few partners defecting over pricing issues. Apple would have us believe it is becuase they do not want to price out @ 99 cents.
Well, given the well known greed of the record industry, and their rhetoric last year about "flexible" (higher) pricing last year, I'm not going to assign them a whole lot of credibility on this issue.
I'm not willing to put this one on Sony and BMG because as the retailer of music it is Apple's duty to compete on price
That's another reason why you should be suspicious: Apple came up with the iTMS primarily as a way to sell more of their cash cow, the iPod. So how are other stores supposed to make money and compete with the iTMS, which IIRC Apple has said they treat like a loss leader, without special deals from the record industry?
Making it easy for law enforcement to tap phones with a warrant is an entirely different kettle of fish than mass warrantless wiretapping. And what planet do you live on where hypothetical abuses from intelligence agencies during the Clinton years is worse than massive abuses under the Bush Administration that we know for a fact have occurred.
I'm pretty sure 911 hang ups are defined to be probable cause already
Probable suspicion, sure. Probable cause, probably not. Some quick Googling turned up a DOJ document that says a 911 hangup is probably not sufficient grounds for probable cause by itself, but my search didn't come up with any case law on the subject.
That's one of those glib factoids that people come up with after the fact. Be honest: do you have the background to look at a box that might contain explosives and estimate how much damage it would actually do?
No, I personally do not. There are professionals, however, that do. Cities, especially large cities, hire several of them to lend their expertise in situations where there might be a bomb. I even hear they're organized into groups, called squads or something.
This isn't even a 9-11 thing. Police and security people have been trained to react this way for a long time.
Not having been through a police academy myself, I didn't know hysteria was taught over reasoned, logical responses to events.
Security and police are supposed to be paranoid.
Paranoid in preparation. Not paranoid in response.
At the 1996 Atlantic Olympics, security people got suspicious about an abandoned backpack and started clearing people away from it.
That wasn't paranoia, that due diligence. Just as the cops in Boston who checked out a suspicous device were doing their jobs. Not when they kept freaking out when each and every one turned out to be Lite-Brites hooked up to D-batteries.
I don't know why cops in other cities didn't react as strongly. Maybe they're all ATHF fans.
Or they weren't hysterical idiots. Remember that Boston city officials didn't just freak out over the Lite-Brights, they were talking about brining serious charges against the guys who put up the signs and suing the parent company for millions of dollars rather than admit they shit their pants over nothing.
The thing was, they took my refusal to allow a search as probable cause and searched it anyway.
I hope you sued the shit out of them then. Refusal to be searched cannot be probable cause or else the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is meaningless. Refuse to be searched - probable cause, now they can search you. Consent to the search - well, you consented, so you can't complain later.
Slashdot Mirror
What Bush & Co have been doing is legal, at least according to the letter of the Constitution. The Constitution allows the President to suspend civil liberties (even habeas corpus) in cases of warfare, or for national defense.
Habeas corpus may be suspended - but only in times of rebellion or invasion. We've had neither.
Even though Congress hasn't officially declared war, the mantra in Washington is that we are at war.
Irrelevant. A war isn't a War until Congress has declared one, and it hasn't.
Anti-Apple fanboys? A little paranoid here aren't we?
Try a little excercise in basic math and reading comprehension. Read any story on apple.slashdot.org and count the number of actual Kool-Aid drinking Apple fanboys, and then compare that to the number of people who bitch about all these supposed fanboys. You know, the people that jump into any conversation where people are bitching about something Apple has done that they don't like, with the line "now if this were Microsoft, you'd all be up in arms..." Completely ignoring the fact that the people are already bitching about Apple and calling Jobs an asshole.
Just how thick are you? Where you asleep the first 5 times I said the cops did their jobs by checking them out? Are you also aware of the fact that it is possible to check out something suspicious without shutting down a major metropolitan area and threateningly draconian legal charges? NO OTHER CITY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THESE THINGS.
You must be new. All of the so-called "Patriot" Act was proposed (and fought for by) the Clinton administration although in separate smaller pieces.
Ah, the old "Clinton did it too" defense. Which is frequently just an attempt as misdirection, like when the right wing excused Bush's sacking of USA's midway into his second term by pointing at Clinton's releasing all the USA's at the start of his first term. So in other words: got links to back that up? From reputable sources? With context?
Birds of a feather flock together and the US Democrats and US Republicans are basically the same party. Same shit, different party. But really not so different.
Better to work to improve a party that is 50% rotten than 100% rotten.
Number one what? That's what I want to know.
It's not unconstitutional because the vote that DC would have isn't counted.
The hold is quite likely to stick because Dodd is also backed by Arlen Specter and Leahey.
Unfortunatly it it's not likely to stick because it doesn't look like he has Harry Reid.
According to this link, the majority leader has promised to bring the bill up for a vote regardless of Dodd's hold. Which is pathetic on so many fronts - the Republicans even whisper about obstructing a bill, and the Democratic majority buckles like a belt. But when another Democrat tries to stop a bill, he is ignored. Makes you wonder if Reid made a deal for something, and exactly what that deal is.
It is simply unfathomable to be why so many Democrats don't take a firm stand against NSA wiretapping, the Iraq war, etc. If they are principled, they would block it. If they only care about their political skins, they would still block Mr. 25% approval rating to make political points. Instead they buy shares in his messes by voting for them.
Try Verizon. I have an LG and my sister has a Razr. They both have bluetooth, so I should be able to send her pictures or other files from my phone. Except you can't because you can only send contact information, and in the case of the Razr, the ability to transfer files is pretty much disabled. They want you to send it as a picture message instead, so they can get 50 cents out of the deal.
I think Apple is 95% there with their subscriptions and unobtrusive DRM. They just need high def and NBC needs to get their greed under control.
I know many PD's like to hand out DWB tickets, but some cops are indiscriminate and get their jollies tasering handcuffed white women.
Not having been through police training, you don't know what counts as hysteria and what doesn't.
There's this thing called common sense, maybe they offer classes on it in your area. I no more need to go through police academy training to see that Boston's response was way over the top than I need to go to film school to say Biodome was a horrible movie.
Not from Apple, but now those ten or twelve people can be happy.
Because no where in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does it say the federal government is authorized to "fund infrastructure".
Try reading the Preamble. And would you really want highway barons the way we used to have railroad barons? Would you enjoy paying hundreds of dollars in tolls to drive across the country? There are lots of banana republics out there if you really want to live in one.
By the way, the "Great Depression" was the result of the Federal Reserve
Yes, because the Fed held a gun to the heads of investors to buy on margin and forced everyone to try and withdraw money from their bank accounts at the same time.
World War II was a choice for the US, not a necessity, which we would've been better off if we had stayed out.
While it's possible the English and the Russians would have worn down Germany before the Nazis developed a nuclear bomb, it leaves the question as to who exactly was going to stand up to the Japanese.
That's not debunked at all. It's just more rationalizations... It's really simple : you have hundreds of millions of people getting killed by a mosquito, something that kills them, and you banned it
Completely debunked. The ban was for agricultural use of DDT, due to the environmental effects. Oh, and the fact that overuse just breeds resistance. Even in 1959. And an inconvenient fact ignored by the wingnuts is that even the 1972 ban in the U.S. had exemptions for health uses. So do modern treaties. Another wingnut urban legend goes down in flames.
No, the immediate issue at hand is that MoveOn took legal action to prevent condemnation of itself.
A baseless assertion.
Oh, look at you go.... doing the same discrediting tactics that you are so bitter about being handed to the likes of Kerry and Cleland. Please, spare me your righteousness. It's such a fraud.
The fraud was in the propaganda campaign. Which was: these war critics from the liberal Brookings Institute who were no friends of the administration were seeing progress in Iraq. One small problem: the men in question were hawks who supported the war from the start and supported the surge. It is pure dishonesty to then hold them up as examples of "critics" who are now seeing "progress". If they had ethics, they would have disclosed those facts when they came out with their editorial. But then they wouldn't be any different than Bill Kristol, and Kristol saying we've made great progress in Iraq wouldn't get much press nor have as much credibility.
Look at you splitting hairs to lie. What's a "personal weapon" to you. The fact of the matter is, the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party banned semi-automatic weapons, and would do so again. The only reason that they don't, is because they lost Ohio twice for doing so, and they don't want to blow that again.
Ah, I suppose you're one of the wingnuts who said in 2004 that he was voting against Kerry because he couldn't support anyone that supports gun control, and voted for Bush. Completely ignoring the fact that Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would resign the assault weapons ban. Speaking of elections, I sure haven't heard a peep out of the NRA when it comes to the presidential candidacy of "America's Mayor." But then they might excommunicate you guys from the church of IOKIYAR hypocrisy.
No, you could always choose to cut government spending.
And finish turning the U.S. into a banana republic. Brilliant! Slight problem: you have more money in your pocket with responsible government spending than without it.
So, I suppose you want to fix that by replacing that with a system where a pair of doctors have to live check to check and can't afford an apartment in Germany.
You mean like the ones that earn $200,000+ a year and live in million dollar homes?
Everyone who comes to the USA and has insurance remarks that you do not have to wait in line to get health care.
Bald-faced lie. We have lines in the U.S. health care system. Lots and lots of lines. Especially if you need to see a specialist. And if you don't have insurance, you are going to be waiting for the rest of your life.
No, not at all irrelevant. The claim is made that MoveOn is pro-American, and I ask you to name me one Pro-American thing that they do. Show me one thing where MoveOn advocates this country doing anything to gain relative to the world.
Completely irrelevant. As I said, you might as well bitch at the American Cancer Society for not coming up with planes to fight forest fires. Or how about asking the NRA just what their planes are to deal with hurricanes.
We have them. The Iraqi people themselves.. fighting AQ, which has been the plan all along.
We don't have 1
I agree in principle, but unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
How is funding infrastructure unconstitutional.
The FCC is nothing more than remnants of FDR's failed socialistic quagmire.
Yes, the failed socialistic quagmire that pulled us out of the Great Depression, won WWII and made the U.S. the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Bad FDR, no donut.
I really don't see how that is related.
Well, you are pretty stupid.
Whitewater was a criminal conspiracy that resulted in many people being convicted.
Yeah? Why don't you look up the lengths of the prison terms served by Bill and Hillary over it, and then get back to us.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Absolutely none of which applies to saying "their work was exceptionally poor" or pointing out their partisan ties or their their flawed methods.
You are really not very good at making arguments are you?
Nah, you're just not very good at life. If you don't know about the Republican hard-on for deregulation and "small government" there's not much we can do for you.
Oh, sure, that's what were talking about here....
It's what the press was talking about, yes. Your point?
Those came as a result of the time and nutrition that I mentioned. Any distinction you make between yourself and an embryo is arbitrary.
If I were an idiot with no sense of proportion I suppose I could see it that way.
Fat people have billions more cells than you -- are they more worth having around?
Okay, draw up a list of differences between a fetus the size of a grape and an adult human. Then draw up a list of differences between an average adult, and an average adult suffering from obesity, and see if you still think your point is so clever.
Practically speaking, the only difference I see between very immature fetuses and the rest of us walking folks is the ability to self-sustain, and considering how unable regular babies are to do so, its hardly a valid comparison for the deserving of life status.
Which comes back to the canard of where do you draw the line between a blob of cells and a human being. The easy answer is: you don't draw one line. You draw two: when it's just a blob, obviously not, in the third trimester, it obviously is.
The "we don't know when it's a human so lets protect the fetus from the moment of conception" is just as valid as "well, it's two minutes until birth, so we can abort before it's a real baby." Just as valid, just as asinine.
I wouldn't call using 28% less memory and 4% or less as much disk space for 190% more songs "similar."
Well at this point I can't even use iTunes as it does not install on Vista 64
Have you considered upgrading to XP 64?
It's not actually a "rip off". My point seemed to have gotten lost in overly strong wording. It is basically this: Apple has of late had a few partners defecting over pricing issues. Apple would have us believe it is becuase they do not want to price out @ 99 cents.
Well, given the well known greed of the record industry, and their rhetoric last year about "flexible" (higher) pricing last year, I'm not going to assign them a whole lot of credibility on this issue.
I'm not willing to put this one on Sony and BMG because as the retailer of music it is Apple's duty to compete on price
That's another reason why you should be suspicious: Apple came up with the iTMS primarily as a way to sell more of their cash cow, the iPod. So how are other stores supposed to make money and compete with the iTMS, which IIRC Apple has said they treat like a loss leader, without special deals from the record industry?
Making it easy for law enforcement to tap phones with a warrant is an entirely different kettle of fish than mass warrantless wiretapping. And what planet do you live on where hypothetical abuses from intelligence agencies during the Clinton years is worse than massive abuses under the Bush Administration that we know for a fact have occurred.
I'm pretty sure 911 hang ups are defined to be probable cause already
Probable suspicion, sure. Probable cause, probably not. Some quick Googling turned up a DOJ document that says a 911 hangup is probably not sufficient grounds for probable cause by itself, but my search didn't come up with any case law on the subject.
That's one of those glib factoids that people come up with after the fact. Be honest: do you have the background to look at a box that might contain explosives and estimate how much damage it would actually do?
No, I personally do not. There are professionals, however, that do. Cities, especially large cities, hire several of them to lend their expertise in situations where there might be a bomb. I even hear they're organized into groups, called squads or something.
This isn't even a 9-11 thing. Police and security people have been trained to react this way for a long time.
Not having been through a police academy myself, I didn't know hysteria was taught over reasoned, logical responses to events.
Security and police are supposed to be paranoid.
Paranoid in preparation. Not paranoid in response.
At the 1996 Atlantic Olympics, security people got suspicious about an abandoned backpack and started clearing people away from it.
That wasn't paranoia, that due diligence. Just as the cops in Boston who checked out a suspicous device were doing their jobs. Not when they kept freaking out when each and every one turned out to be Lite-Brites hooked up to D-batteries.
I don't know why cops in other cities didn't react as strongly. Maybe they're all ATHF fans.
Or they weren't hysterical idiots. Remember that Boston city officials didn't just freak out over the Lite-Brights, they were talking about brining serious charges against the guys who put up the signs and suing the parent company for millions of dollars rather than admit they shit their pants over nothing.
Yup. Even if a heavy response is not necessary, I would also want the SWAT team there in case it turned out to be necessary.
The thing was, they took my refusal to allow a search as probable cause and searched it anyway.
I hope you sued the shit out of them then. Refusal to be searched cannot be probable cause or else the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is meaningless. Refuse to be searched - probable cause, now they can search you. Consent to the search - well, you consented, so you can't complain later.