Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1, Troll
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave. [...] Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
The thing about single sentence philosophy is that it's simple, easy to understand -- and wrong.
I could list endless examples where people put up with inconvenience for relative safety, but let me give example that's more relevent: World War II. We gave up HUGE civil liberties during the war, because it was necessary to win the war. From travel restrictions to food restrictions to speech restrictions. And then guess what? The war ended, and civil liberties came back.
Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of overreacting when it comes to airport restrictions. But on the other hand, let's not overreact when people want to take extra precautions. We are at war. Hopefully it will be a short war, but I think it's time to cut the government a little slack.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Like lawyers, stockbrokers, drug dealers, rapists, etc.
If you compare lawyers and stock brokers to drug dealers and rapists, you are a bigot, no better than the vilest KKK member. The clan meeting is down the road, take it there, please.
Next thing you know, you'll be standing up for the terrorists
I don't seem to recall a lot of problems with lawyers or stock brokers flying plains into buildings because of their "lawyer beliefs" or "stock broker beliefs".
Islamic Fundamentalists are welcome to believe that I am a member of the Great Satan. More power to them. But when they start acting on those beliefs and perpetrating acts of war, then it's a whole different ball game.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
You're fooling yourself if you really believe Californians have risen above it. Bigotry lives everywhere.
OK, you win, I have to admit there is a LOT of Mexican bigotry down here. I probably should have phrased my comment as, "you might want to attend the next KKK clan meeting... I hear they have a lot of bigotry there".:)
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Er, got news for you, the terrorists don't give a crap about our civil liberties. Assuming they are middle east terrorists, it probably has something to do with Israel.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 0
I said, "a lot of bigots", not "everyone is a bigot". Having known some people from the South, I assure you, bigotry still lives there. I had one friend, heck of a nice guy, from North Carolina who moved here to California. I knew him for years, and one day somehow black people came into the conversion, and he broke out with "Yeah, those niggers such-and-so" (I don't remember the exact quote). Just matter-of-factly, like it was no big deal. I was incredibly shocked. In talking to him and other people, it was pretty apparent that the attitudes are a bit different down there.
Not to mention that the only whites-only clubs left are pretty much in the South. Not to say its not getting better, but let's not fool ourselves that it isn't still a problem.
Re:Superman Gets Fired
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
I don't know why, exactly, but that story doesn't make me laugh, it makes me profoundly sad. Perhaps its because the whole myth of Superman protecting the world is at the core of childhood. Things like this rip away any childish hope and expose only the bare reality that there really is evil in the world.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
...you would surely choose the middle of a bunch of rich yuppie stockbrokers and bankers.
Uh, no... but then, I'm not jealous and envious of people who have more money than I do.
If you don't live in the South, you might want to move there. I hear they have a lot of bigots down there also. Why didn't you just post, "This won't be a popular opinion, but admit, if you had to crash an aircraft anywhere you would surely choose the middle of a bunch of niggers."
It's exactly the same thing. But, hey, I bet you've always thought of yourself as not one of "them". Welcome to their club.
I am concerned about terrorism everywhere. But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil, because when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it. If it's a totally different country, there's nothing I can do about it.
I'm not sure who said it, but I think the quote is apt: "Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise."
The US is not responsible for lack of opportunity in other countries. If they want to be prosperous, then they should change their government, not envy ours.
Read what I said. I asked a question: What responsibility do the citizens have when their government is determined to do great evil?
Does a german soldier working at Auschwitz have any responsibility, even if he just "follows orders"? Most would say he does. What about citizens who live in the area who give aid and comfort to that soldier? What about other citizens who know what's going on?
I would say the responsibility goes down as you get farther away, but none of them are "innocent".
Depends on how you define "innocent". Have me made mistakes? Yes. Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.
The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?
The thing is, the US can't win. If we don't act, then we are accused of "not caring about anything that doesn't happen in the US". If we do act, then we are accused of imperialism.
but i would appreciate if you make sure you don't take the life of innocent civilians while doing so. I don't believe the civilians in the middle east (or where ever the guilty are found) deserve to die any more than the civilians in USA.
I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are. They know they have a radical government. They know they have one of the worst terrorists living in their country. What responsibility do the citizens have to overthrow a government of that sort?
Now, I don't think we are going to go out of our way to hit civilian targets. But I don't think it's correct to call them "innocents", either. The cancer must be removed, however.
You know, I have to speak up about something: I am sickened by the cowardice I saw yesterday on Slashdot. There were many that were calling for appeasing the terrorists. Many called for just "moving on", and not making a response. Still more said that we shouldn't "make them mad" by striking back, which would invite more terrorism. Many even said that we should try and "understand" the terrorists.
Hogwash.
Tens of thousands of people have died. These are not freedom fighters, these are mentally disturbed people with great resources. Should we have tried to understand Kaczinsky when he sent mail bombs? Or do we remove him from society?
The perpetrators must be punished, and the countries that give safe harbor to these countries must be punished. As an American, I believe the response must be overwhelming force. Terrorism on American soil? This must not be tolerated.
You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards. That is how the terrorists want you to feel! The want you to feel fear, to give in to whatever demands they make. We must NEVER do that. Once they find out that we will do nothing to their attacks, particularly on this scale, it will invite every crazy to cause more damage.
It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass. The cowards who wring their hands over what needs to be done make me sick. Go hide under your bed, and allow the grown-ups to do what needs to be done.
I'll agree though, I also hate rapists. Just not enough to kill them. Actually, I don't hate anyone enough to kill them. Thinking like that would keep me up at night.:-/
You're insane! The rapist is walking toward your daughter. You have a gun in your hand. The guy is 6' 6", 300 pounds. There is no way you are going to physically stop him.
If you would just watch him rape your daughter rather than shoot him, you are a monster. Yes, I would be perfectly, righteously justified in shooting the hell out of him. Curiously, his background or mental health is a nonconsideration when he is in my house threatening my family (or anybody else, for that matter).
I assure you that the people who planned this are still alive. Funny how the "masterminds" never do the suicide runs.
But to sort-of answer your question, yes, if you harbor the criminals that raped and killed my family, I have no sympathy for you if you get shot while getting to them.
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be so in favor of appeasing these criminals. If you walked into your house and watched your wife being raped, and your daughter was apparently next, would you consider it "childish and immature" to retaliate against them to keep them from further damaging your loved ones?
Or would you walk up to them and try to "negotiate" with them? Plead with them to just leave you alone?
Here's a gun. Would you just watch them as they began on your daughter?
I think we all recognize that Bush isn't studied in world politics. Gore is. Bush is running his administration from 'gut instincts' making CEO-type decisions. This is exactly the kind of complicated world-issue that calls for a statesman of a leader,
Almost no president, with the exception of Bush, Sr, has significant foreign policy experience (particularly Clinton). I think being a world leader requires character, resolve and, yes, intelligence, not necessarily "study". Bush has the pointy heads around him to give the history, if it's relevent. But this particular "world issue" requires someone with guts. This is about defending the United States of America from an act of war.
Like I said, I think GWB is going to surprise a lot of people.
Yeah, you're right... public speaking ability is the best measure of someone's intelligence. We should eliminate elections, and just have a panel of judges score their speechmaking style.
I think that the US people have learned, and will soon have the lesson reinforced, what happens when you elect a president with WEAK foreign experience. I'm all for rallying around the flag, but I refuse to support this charlatan of a leader.
And Gore would have been better??? Please. It was a stroke of divine luck that we don't have that mamby-pamby fool in office.
I think GWB is going to surprise a lot of people during this crisis, and during his term.
I will say this: even if it was Clinton still in office right now (whom I abolutely despise with all my heart and is the very definition of a "charlatan of a leader"), I would support him during this time of crisis.
And how many lives did it save by ending the war? Remember that the alternative was invading Japan. There would have been a horrendous loss of life, far greater than what the nukes caused.
Also don't forget that we warned Japan before we dropped them.
We strike back, they strike back, we strike back again and they reciprocate. Seems like a good idea?
"Hitler strikes, we strike back, Hitler strikes again, why can't we all just get along?"
Yes, it seems like a great idea. There are way more of us than there are of them. This was a declaration of war. War is the only appropriate, and necessary response.
You are SO wrong. Appeasement NEVER works. We tried to appease Hitler, and didn't work. Do you really think that we could have "pleaded" with Hitler for peace? Or "pleaded" with Japan when the bombed Pearl Harbor?
On the other hand, when we bombed Khadafi in the 80s, terrorists didn't screw with us for YEARS.
This requires a huge, huge response. The aggressors set the rules. At the very least, invasion of the country that either sponsored, or allowed to happen, this terrorism must be made.
This "day of infamy" must not be allowed to stand.
Slashdot Mirror
No amount of 'inconveniencing' will give me the safety I crave. [...] Repeat it over and over as a mantra until you achieve enlightenment.
The thing about single sentence philosophy is that it's simple, easy to understand -- and wrong.
I could list endless examples where people put up with inconvenience for relative safety, but let me give example that's more relevent: World War II. We gave up HUGE civil liberties during the war, because it was necessary to win the war. From travel restrictions to food restrictions to speech restrictions. And then guess what? The war ended, and civil liberties came back.
Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of overreacting when it comes to airport restrictions. But on the other hand, let's not overreact when people want to take extra precautions. We are at war. Hopefully it will be a short war, but I think it's time to cut the government a little slack.
Like lawyers, stockbrokers, drug dealers, rapists, etc.
If you compare lawyers and stock brokers to drug dealers and rapists, you are a bigot, no better than the vilest KKK member. The clan meeting is down the road, take it there, please.
Next thing you know, you'll be standing up for the terrorists
I don't seem to recall a lot of problems with lawyers or stock brokers flying plains into buildings because of their "lawyer beliefs" or "stock broker beliefs".
Islamic Fundamentalists are welcome to believe that I am a member of the Great Satan. More power to them. But when they start acting on those beliefs and perpetrating acts of war, then it's a whole different ball game.
You're fooling yourself if you really believe Californians have risen above it. Bigotry lives everywhere.
OK, you win, I have to admit there is a LOT of Mexican bigotry down here. I probably should have phrased my comment as, "you might want to attend the next KKK clan meeting... I hear they have a lot of bigotry there". :)
Er, got news for you, the terrorists don't give a crap about our civil liberties. Assuming they are middle east terrorists, it probably has something to do with Israel.
I said, "a lot of bigots", not "everyone is a bigot". Having known some people from the South, I assure you, bigotry still lives there. I had one friend, heck of a nice guy, from North Carolina who moved here to California. I knew him for years, and one day somehow black people came into the conversion, and he broke out with "Yeah, those niggers such-and-so" (I don't remember the exact quote). Just matter-of-factly, like it was no big deal. I was incredibly shocked. In talking to him and other people, it was pretty apparent that the attitudes are a bit different down there.
Not to mention that the only whites-only clubs left are pretty much in the South. Not to say its not getting better, but let's not fool ourselves that it isn't still a problem.
I don't know why, exactly, but that story doesn't make me laugh, it makes me profoundly sad. Perhaps its because the whole myth of Superman protecting the world is at the core of childhood. Things like this rip away any childish hope and expose only the bare reality that there really is evil in the world.
Uh, no... but then, I'm not jealous and envious of people who have more money than I do.
If you don't live in the South, you might want to move there. I hear they have a lot of bigots down there also. Why didn't you just post, "This won't be a popular opinion, but admit, if you had to crash an aircraft anywhere you would surely choose the middle of a bunch of niggers."
It's exactly the same thing. But, hey, I bet you've always thought of yourself as not one of "them". Welcome to their club.
I am concerned about terrorism everywhere. But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil, because when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it. If it's a totally different country, there's nothing I can do about it.
I'm not sure who said it, but I think the quote is apt: "Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise."
The US is not responsible for lack of opportunity in other countries. If they want to be prosperous, then they should change their government, not envy ours.
What are you willing to do about terrorism that is not on American soil? Is terrorism okay if it happens somewhere else?
As an American, I will not tolerate terrorism on American soil. What you do on your soil is your business.
Or, if you are a non-American, are you actually advocating that we should be the world's policemen?
The proper Kaczinsky analogy is not "should we not have locked him up??" but "should we have bombed his home town?"
If Kaczinsky was being harbored in a particular house, compound, etc, then yes, they would be as guilty as he. It's called "conspiracy".
Read what I said. I asked a question: What responsibility do the citizens have when their government is determined to do great evil?
Does a german soldier working at Auschwitz have any responsibility, even if he just "follows orders"? Most would say he does. What about citizens who live in the area who give aid and comfort to that soldier? What about other citizens who know what's going on?
I would say the responsibility goes down as you get farther away, but none of them are "innocent".
Depends on how you define "innocent". Have me made mistakes? Yes. Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.
The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?
The thing is, the US can't win. If we don't act, then we are accused of "not caring about anything that doesn't happen in the US". If we do act, then we are accused of imperialism.
Damn it, YES, on balance we are innocent.
but i would appreciate if you make sure you don't take the life of innocent civilians while doing so. I don't believe the civilians in the middle east (or where ever the guilty are found) deserve to die any more than the civilians in USA.
I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are. They know they have a radical government. They know they have one of the worst terrorists living in their country. What responsibility do the citizens have to overthrow a government of that sort?
Now, I don't think we are going to go out of our way to hit civilian targets. But I don't think it's correct to call them "innocents", either. The cancer must be removed, however.
You know, I have to speak up about something: I am sickened by the cowardice I saw yesterday on Slashdot. There were many that were calling for appeasing the terrorists. Many called for just "moving on", and not making a response. Still more said that we shouldn't "make them mad" by striking back, which would invite more terrorism. Many even said that we should try and "understand" the terrorists.
Hogwash.
Tens of thousands of people have died. These are not freedom fighters, these are mentally disturbed people with great resources. Should we have tried to understand Kaczinsky when he sent mail bombs? Or do we remove him from society?
The perpetrators must be punished, and the countries that give safe harbor to these countries must be punished. As an American, I believe the response must be overwhelming force. Terrorism on American soil? This must not be tolerated.
You people who think that we are inviting more terrorism have it exactly backwards. That is how the terrorists want you to feel! The want you to feel fear, to give in to whatever demands they make. We must NEVER do that. Once they find out that we will do nothing to their attacks, particularly on this scale, it will invite every crazy to cause more damage.
It's time for Sheriff Uncle Same to ride into town, and kick some bad-guy ass. The cowards who wring their hands over what needs to be done make me sick. Go hide under your bed, and allow the grown-ups to do what needs to be done.
I'll agree though, I also hate rapists. Just not enough to kill them. Actually, I don't hate anyone enough to kill them. Thinking like that would keep me up at night. :-/
You're insane! The rapist is walking toward your daughter. You have a gun in your hand. The guy is 6' 6", 300 pounds. There is no way you are going to physically stop him.
If you would just watch him rape your daughter rather than shoot him, you are a monster. Yes, I would be perfectly, righteously justified in shooting the hell out of him. Curiously, his background or mental health is a nonconsideration when he is in my house threatening my family (or anybody else, for that matter).
I assure you that the people who planned this are still alive. Funny how the "masterminds" never do the suicide runs.
But to sort-of answer your question, yes, if you harbor the criminals that raped and killed my family, I have no sympathy for you if you get shot while getting to them.
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be so in favor of appeasing these criminals. If you walked into your house and watched your wife being raped, and your daughter was apparently next, would you consider it "childish and immature" to retaliate against them to keep them from further damaging your loved ones?
Or would you walk up to them and try to "negotiate" with them? Plead with them to just leave you alone?
Here's a gun. Would you just watch them as they began on your daughter?
I think we all recognize that Bush isn't studied in world politics. Gore is. Bush is running his administration from 'gut instincts' making CEO-type decisions. This is exactly the kind of complicated world-issue that calls for a statesman of a leader,
Almost no president, with the exception of Bush, Sr, has significant foreign policy experience (particularly Clinton). I think being a world leader requires character, resolve and, yes, intelligence, not necessarily "study". Bush has the pointy heads around him to give the history, if it's relevent. But this particular "world issue" requires someone with guts. This is about defending the United States of America from an act of war.
Like I said, I think GWB is going to surprise a lot of people.
Yeah, you're right... public speaking ability is the best measure of someone's intelligence. We should eliminate elections, and just have a panel of judges score their speechmaking style.
I think that the US people have learned, and will soon have the lesson reinforced, what happens when you elect a president with WEAK foreign experience. I'm all for rallying around the flag, but I refuse to support this charlatan of a leader.
And Gore would have been better??? Please. It was a stroke of divine luck that we don't have that mamby-pamby fool in office.
I think GWB is going to surprise a lot of people during this crisis, and during his term.
I will say this: even if it was Clinton still in office right now (whom I abolutely despise with all my heart and is the very definition of a "charlatan of a leader"), I would support him during this time of crisis.
You didn't phrase it as a bet, but I'll take the bet anyway.
It's not going to happen. My question is whether people like you will learn anything when it doesn't.
And how many lives did it save by ending the war? Remember that the alternative was invading Japan. There would have been a horrendous loss of life, far greater than what the nukes caused.
Also don't forget that we warned Japan before we dropped them.
We strike back, they strike back, we strike back again and they reciprocate. Seems like a good idea?
"Hitler strikes, we strike back, Hitler strikes again, why can't we all just get along?"
Yes, it seems like a great idea. There are way more of us than there are of them. This was a declaration of war. War is the only appropriate, and necessary response.
You are SO wrong. Appeasement NEVER works. We tried to appease Hitler, and didn't work. Do you really think that we could have "pleaded" with Hitler for peace? Or "pleaded" with Japan when the bombed Pearl Harbor?
On the other hand, when we bombed Khadafi in the 80s, terrorists didn't screw with us for YEARS.
This requires a huge, huge response. The aggressors set the rules. At the very least, invasion of the country that either sponsored, or allowed to happen, this terrorism must be made.
This "day of infamy" must not be allowed to stand.
Go W!