Patrons paid to have works created for themselves, not for everyone. Your solution would make most, if not all, works out of the reach of common people.
So, what you are saying is that computer programmers is child's play which anyone can do and the pay for programmers should be accordingly small, say minimum wage, yes?
Yo, jackass, Try reading what the fuckhead I replied to posted, then spout your shit, ok? And, when quoting me, how about including all relevant information, such as the words "as written", m'kay, shithead?
First, I am stating that the Guardian's reporters and editors don't even use their own language properly as evidenced in the VERY FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE.
Second, dipshit LordLucless stated
Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.
which is a factual LIE. You do know what the word lie means right? Manning is a member of the U.S. Army. By stating that "his fellow service members", he is stating that members of the U.S. Army were "colluding in the organised rape of children", which is a LIE. Those that were allegedly "colluding in the organised rape of children" were employees of a private corporations which was hired by the Afghan government to train police. They were NOT members of any U.S. armed service. They may not even have been Americans, but rather employees of an international company based in the U.S.
As the contractors are not employed by the American government but rather for the Afghan government and are operating outside the United States, and did not travel to Afghanistan for the purpose of having sex with children but for business, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence the contractors had sex with the boys, is there any applicable U.S. law these people can be prosecuted under? As this occurred in Afghanistan, shouldn't the contractors be prosecuted under any applicable Afghan law?
FLOSS software prevents this for the average user. Understanding of the source code requires training in programming in whatever language it is written.
When one share's a book with another person, one does not have access to the book until it is returned. Please explain how "sharing" software will work. Explain how only one copy of the work will exist if you "share" it with, say, Stallman.
As for such complaints as "unable to adapt them to your needs" and "never sure what they are doing", tell you what you do: Either write it yourself or go pay someone to write it for you.
. A computer is a general purpose device, shouldn't a user/owner be able (within their technical bounds) to make it do what they want?
This is about the most foolish comment you could have made. If the user/owner technical bounds allow him to adapt programs to his needs, then the user/owner has the technical abilities to create his own software thus alleviating his need to use proprietary software. Put simply in deference to you and RMS, if one can actually make use of the freedoms of free software, one does not need to use proprietary software.
If you and stall man are going to rubbish proprietary software, at least make a rational argument on how it is better for Joe Average User with no programming and development skills or interests rather than bleating on about how much freedom it provides everyone when most everyone could not exercise said freedom. The point is very simple: FLOSS really doesn't provide anymore freedom to 90% of computer users than proprietary software and proprietary software provides a much more usable product. If you don't like proprietary software, don't use it, shut the fuck up and and stop whining that proprietary software still exists.
To be blunt, the only reason I can see for RMS and his acolytes to keep whining about the existence of proprietary software is that they KNOW that the proprietary software is more popular and useful than the FLOSS offerings and want to be able to use the proprietary software but can't because doing so goes against their principles. RMS and companies complaints are nothing more than sour grapes.
How about getting rid of redundant forms and regulations?
You speak of occupational safety, but have you ever worked in a real job? Many safety regulations are ignored by WORKERS because they just get in the way. OSHA regs strive for 100% safety, but that is an unobtainable goal. I have worked in positions where it was required to wear glove by OSHA, but wearing gloves made the job just about impossible. Construction workers are required to wear hard hats at all times, including when they are working in a position or space that prevents one from wearing a hard hat. Often OSHA regs run up against the Pareto principle where 90% of the cost is for the last 10% of the effect. That is where the problem lies. I say we make safety rules REASONABLE using input from WORKERS, not government bureaucrats.
You speak of environmental standards, but which ones? Federal, state, local? The most restrictive? And, environmental standards run up against the Pareto principle. Then, there are the environmental laws that are counter-productive.
This is really the problem with many of the occupational, business, and environmental laws in the U.S. They aim for 100% safety and end up spending 80% to 90% of their funds trying to get that last 10% with no flexibility in implementation.
I see you can't fucking read or are a complete and incompetent liar. The question is which one are you? From your own link [emphasis added]:
A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan...The episode helped to fuel Afghan demands that contractors and private security companies be brought under much tighter government control...Atmar himself warned about public anger towards contractors...In a meeting between Atmar and the assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli, the US diplomat said he was deeply upset by the incident and that the embassy was considering Afghan demands that the US military should beginning overseeing the DynCrop operations
Looks like you are a fucking liar. This incident DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS, you worthless, lying piece of shit. What about this part of the article you linked to:
There is a long tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men in Afghanistan, an activity that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping boys as possessions.
It seems your "organised rape of children" is being done by the Afghans and it has a long history of such. But wait, there is more!
Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested as part of investigations into a crime described by Atmar as "purchasing a service from a child", which the cable said was against both sharia law and the civil code.
So, it looks like no contractors have been arrested for anything, but Afghans have been. That seems to argue that the contractors didn't commit any child rape or any other crime.
The evidence indicates you are a lying waste of skin asshole the better part of whom ran down his mother's leg. The world would be a better place if your mother would have just swallowed that night.
And, just to show the quality of the Guardian's reporting and editing, the very first sentence of the article you linked:
A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and "quash" the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.
as written, indicates it was the Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for the young dancing boys, not the contractors. In fact, as written, it was the contractors who trained the police to take drugs and hire dancing boys. If it were differently punctuated, it would read as you, pig spittle, have read it.
So, puss for brains, are you lying, dog-fucking asshole or are you an ignorant, monkey cum eating, piece of shit? Which is it?
Does one have a right to "be forgotten" off-line? Can one go to a newspaper and demand that a letter to the editor one wrote be removed from all copies it was printed in? Can one demand that every book one has written be destroyed? Can one go to every person one knows and every institution one has done business with and demand every letter one has written to same be destroyed?
No, one can not. And, that is the answer to the question: No, one should not have a "right to be forgotten" online.
People do not "voluntarily file taxes". Such a statement shows a lack of knowledge about the tax laws and how income taxes (which is what you appear to be talking about) work, at least in the U.S. One is required by law to pay taxes AND to file an income tax return form to reconciling the amount one paid in taxes and the amount of taxes owed. Failure to do so is punishable by law. Saying one "voluntarily file taxes" is like saying one "voluntarily does not steal".
As for generating "a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree", part of it is due to using tax law to modify people's behavior, part is a chance to correct any errors, and part is because they know they don't have all the numbers and that the numbers they have may be incorrect. Some of this is offset by the use of withholding at the payroll level. The IRS knows about what your taxes should be for a set of generic circumstances and allows people to automatically pay the tax directly from their employer. Legally, you do not have to pay any taxes until your file your tax return, but if you earn a taxable income of US$50,000.00, you will have to write a check for US$12,500.00 when you file your taxes.
One can often earn money without the government knowing. Imagine someone who has, say, a lawn mowing service. He has a truck, a trailer, a lawn mower, edger, trimmer, gas, and maintenance. He is going to charge his clients less than $100 a week, and will often get cash. His deposits will most-likely be less than $5,000.00 a week and often less than $1,000.00 per deposit. His clients will not be filing any forms to record the transaction. The bank will not be filing any forms to record the transactions. The biggest concern will be if the bank ends up filing a 1099INT. If he forgoes bank account all together and works strictly on a cash basis, there does not have to be a record of any transactions. This is why prostitutes don't pay taxes on their earnings. Prostitution is almost always paid for with cash and even if the prostitute opens a bank account, the deposits are often so small that there is no worry about bank notification laws.
The United States of American is federal constitutional republic, which uses democratically elected representatives and whose power is defined and limited by the laws embodied in the Constitution of the United States.
We are not a Democracy, which is a form of direct government by the people. It is essentially majority rule.
We are, however a democracy. The people of the United States elect representatives under a free electoral system.
You may not like it, but the Utah legislature is essentially correct.
Oh shut the fuck up. Here are his words directly from the link in the post:
““I would definitely draw parallels at the moment between the wave of political unrest which is sweeping through the Middle East in a very exciting and rather extraordinary fashion and also the WikiLeaks phenomenon, Really, what ties these two events together, and of course a number of other events, is the diffusion of power, away from the states and the empowerment of individuals, and small groups of individuals, by technology.”
He is drawing parallels. He is comparing the revolutions in the Middle East and Wikileaks, He is NOT saying Wikileaks caused the revolutions. Go take a fucking reading comprehension course, you fucking asshole.
You did not give me any evidence. You gave me an anonymous blog post. That is evidence of nothing. Quit making excuses and admit you are trying to give credit where it is not due solely to build up Wikileaks.You are a bunch of assholes, just like that traitor Manning. You should be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, if you want to steal credit so much, you should suffer the same fate, you should be doused with fuel and set on fire to burn to death, along with Manning, Assange, and the whole Wikileaks staff.
Stop being an asshole. Stop trying to give credit to wikileaks where it is not due.
A blog post by an anonymous person quoted by a biased "news" site is not reliable. Tunisia's government cut off huge swaths of the internet. And, Qaddafi has claimed the protester's in his own country are drug-addled supporters of Al Qaeda. Your sources of information are questionable at best.
It is funny who you say "I'm not saying that the leaks caused the revolution" when the comment that I originally responded to states
his disclosures to wikileaks are arguably responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia
. I can only assume that you are lying piece of shit scumbag. You are trying to change the argument and I won't let you. You stepped up to defend that statement and I am not going to let you back away. Either the Wikileak provided by that traitor Manning is responsible for triggering the revolution or it isn't. You can have no half measures. Either prove that Wikileaks is "responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia" or admit it is not. Otherwise, STFU.
The fact that the leaks happened soon before the revolution, and people were talking about it at the time is all the evidence you're going to get.
That is no evidence at all.
If you are looking for more evidence than that, what are you looking for? If you can't think of anything, that means a lack of evidence (in your eyes) was a foregone conclusion.
All the evidence I need is a statement by those involved in the revolution that the leaks caused it. That you would give credit to Wikileaks with no evidence that it had anything to do with it shows YOU have made a foregone conclusion to give credit where none is do and deny credit where it is due.
if they hadn't been discussed and shared among protestors in the time leading up to and during the revolution,
Show me where the protesters say they read, shared, and discussed the leaks or admit you are a liar.
I'd concede that they probably weren't a factor.
Yet you continue to insist that they should get credit for all while ignoring the true causes.
But as it is, there's no good reason to say they did not contribute.
Actually, the fact that they have not been mentioned by the protesters is reason enough. And, moreover, there is no good reason to say they contribute.
You and your ilk continue to try to give credit where none is due and in doing so dishonor the true causes. You should be treated like the worthless glory mongers you are; beaten bloody, tarred, and feathers.
I guess because the moon landings happened before the revolutions, the moon landings caused the resolutions, right? Just because a "causal link" can exist, it does not follow that one does exist.
Your argument is that because one thing happened before a different thing, the first thing caused the second thing even though there is no evidence linking the two. That is called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is that kind of thinking created the biggest lie of all, religion.
It is an unreasonable assertion because there is absolutely zero evidence for it and if you are going to make an assertion you need to be able to back it up. There is no discussion. It is you and your ilk trying to claim credit on behalf Wikileaks and that worthless traitor Manning for the Tunisian uprising and me pointing out to you that you are bunch of worthless lying assholes who are trying to steal credit from many people, but most especially the man who ended his life because he could not provide for his family due to the corruption in the government.
He was not a student. The fact that you say that shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, you arrogant son of a donkey-fucking bitch. He was a 26 year old, the sole earner for his family of six, who made his money operating an unlicensed fruit cart. The "fuel" was the long term governmental corruption, something the people of Tunisia have known about for years.
You want me to tone down? Stop trying to steal credit away from the people of Tunsia and Bouazizi and giving it to Wikileaks for something Wikileaks had nothing to do with. Stop being a fucking piece of shit asshole and accept the fact that you are ignorant about the whole situation and then go learn what really happened. Other than that, there is nothing to say because YOU ARE WRONG!
You may know him better by "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", of the Indian and Oregonian cult with the orange pajamas.
The pledge says "under God", singular, implying a singular god. The wording of the pledge is set by law, a law that was created and passed by Congress. As, for "if you don't believe then don't say it", perhaps you should take that up with the various government entities that have ejected people for not saying the pledge as defined by the law of the United States of America.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word god, because "god" can not be anything. Your 12-stepper definition doesn't work in the real world.
Here is the short of it. The wording of the pledge is set in law. If one does not say "under god" then one is not saying the pledge. Therefore, in order for one to say the pledge, one must state that there is one god, regardless of whether on believes in no, one, or many gods. It is a law respecting the monotheistic religions over those who believe in polytheistic religions and those who do not believe at all.
Now, I am going to say what I truly believe about you. You are an idiot. You believe in a bronze age myth because it is written in book even though the book contradicts itself and all available science. You most likely do not know, let alone follow, what is actually written in the book. But, you believe, therefore you see no problem with violating the Constitution and the rights of others because it supports your delusion that there is some sort of supreme being you must cow-tow too. You need to grow up and look at your death cult of a religion like you would any extraordinary claim.
More serious than you are. There is absolutely ZERO evidence wikileaks had anything to do with the Tunisian Uprising, yet arrogant, piece of shit assholes like you are trying to claim it was because of wikileaks. I swear, the lot of you should be chained together, doused in kerosene, and set afire.
If you don't care, why didn't you post your information? Oh, that's right, you do care. And, you didn't bother to show any connection between Manning's leaks and the Tunisian revolt. Congratulations, you have proven yourself a liar and a fraud. Go die in a fire, you loser piece of shit.
I think it is reasonable to say that none of the documents Manning released had anything to do with the Tunisian revolution. Please explain in detail how "all kinds of military and government corruption" in the U.S. caused the Tunisian revolt. Please tell everyone what was in those documents that caused the revolt and how the Tunisians found out about them. Do you think that Tunisia is part of the U.S. and that they rose up against the U.S. government?
Just because you want something to be so, it does not follow that said thing is so. Just because you think that Manning is some sort of hero for breaking the law by betraying his oath and his country, he is not one. He is a traitor to his country. Tell you what, you tell me exactly where in U.S. law it says there will be full disclosure of what our diplomats and operatives think of the diplomats and rulers of other countries. Is it in the best interests of the country that candid individual opinions have been made public? If you had a negative opinion of your in-laws, would you want them broadcast to them? If you had a negative opinion of your co-workers, would you want an email expressing that opinion in insulting terms to be distributed to everyone? Do you think it might have a negative effect on your relationships? If so, then why do you think it is a good think to release the same things when it involves the U.S. government?
If you think that truth, transparentness, and full disclosure are so wonderful, why don't you do it? Post your full name; address; phone number; SSN; driver's license number; make, model, and tag number of any and all vehicles you own; physical description; credit card numbers; bank names and account numbers; family members names; pet names; sexual orientation; boss's name along with your unvarnished opinion; your unvarnished opinion of your family members, in-laws, girlfriend and/or wife and her family, etc. If you support full disclosure, surely you believe you should practice it, right?
It violates the Constitution because Amendment one states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
By adding by law the phrase "One God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion in general, and, by inference, christianity specifically.
Greek and Roman mythology are taught as just that, mythology. Would your feel the same if they were taught as religions? How about if your religion was taught as mythology? The big difference is that Greek and Roman mythology are taught as "What Greeks and Romans believed" as a part of history and not as a part of the current world view, a competitor to current religions, or as a viable alternative to current scientific knowledge.
The course you are describing that you say your daughter took is called a comparative religion course. It does not teach or support one religion over another, nor does it teach any religion's beliefs as scientific fact.
The problem with trying to teach all religions is multifold.
First, all religions would have to be taught as equally valid, which is sure to offend many if not all the religions.
Second, any and all religions would have to be taught not just the Abrahamic religions. This means Wiccan, Paganism, Satanism, Pastafarianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Voodoo, etc. including any cult that wanted to be taught. How well will the approximately 500 active religions be taught?
Third, if one teaches about a religion, one must teach about the religion's beliefs and rituals. Do you want to your child being taught about the animal sacrifices of some? How about the burnt offerings of early Judaism and Christianity? How about the sexual beliefs and rituals of some religions and cults? You know, free sex and love? Or, maybe Taoist sexual practices? How many teenagers would want to become followers of Osho or Taoism?
Slashdot Mirror
Patrons paid to have works created for themselves, not for everyone. Your solution would make most, if not all, works out of the reach of common people.
So, what you are saying is that computer programmers is child's play which anyone can do and the pay for programmers should be accordingly small, say minimum wage, yes?
First, I am stating that the Guardian's reporters and editors don't even use their own language properly as evidenced in the VERY FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE.
Second, dipshit LordLucless stated
which is a factual LIE. You do know what the word lie means right? Manning is a member of the U.S. Army. By stating that "his fellow service members", he is stating that members of the U.S. Army were "colluding in the organised rape of children", which is a LIE. Those that were allegedly "colluding in the organised rape of children" were employees of a private corporations which was hired by the Afghan government to train police. They were NOT members of any U.S. armed service. They may not even have been Americans, but rather employees of an international company based in the U.S.
As the contractors are not employed by the American government but rather for the Afghan government and are operating outside the United States, and did not travel to Afghanistan for the purpose of having sex with children but for business, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence the contractors had sex with the boys, is there any applicable U.S. law these people can be prosecuted under? As this occurred in Afghanistan, shouldn't the contractors be prosecuted under any applicable Afghan law?
FLOSS software prevents this for the average user. Understanding of the source code requires training in programming in whatever language it is written.
As for such complaints as "unable to adapt them to your needs" and "never sure what they are doing", tell you what you do: Either write it yourself or go pay someone to write it for you.
This is about the most foolish comment you could have made. If the user/owner technical bounds allow him to adapt programs to his needs, then the user/owner has the technical abilities to create his own software thus alleviating his need to use proprietary software. Put simply in deference to you and RMS, if one can actually make use of the freedoms of free software, one does not need to use proprietary software.
If you and stall man are going to rubbish proprietary software, at least make a rational argument on how it is better for Joe Average User with no programming and development skills or interests rather than bleating on about how much freedom it provides everyone when most everyone could not exercise said freedom. The point is very simple: FLOSS really doesn't provide anymore freedom to 90% of computer users than proprietary software and proprietary software provides a much more usable product. If you don't like proprietary software, don't use it, shut the fuck up and and stop whining that proprietary software still exists.
To be blunt, the only reason I can see for RMS and his acolytes to keep whining about the existence of proprietary software is that they KNOW that the proprietary software is more popular and useful than the FLOSS offerings and want to be able to use the proprietary software but can't because doing so goes against their principles. RMS and companies complaints are nothing more than sour grapes.
How about getting rid of redundant forms and regulations?
You speak of occupational safety, but have you ever worked in a real job? Many safety regulations are ignored by WORKERS because they just get in the way. OSHA regs strive for 100% safety, but that is an unobtainable goal. I have worked in positions where it was required to wear glove by OSHA, but wearing gloves made the job just about impossible. Construction workers are required to wear hard hats at all times, including when they are working in a position or space that prevents one from wearing a hard hat. Often OSHA regs run up against the Pareto principle where 90% of the cost is for the last 10% of the effect. That is where the problem lies. I say we make safety rules REASONABLE using input from WORKERS, not government bureaucrats.
You speak of environmental standards, but which ones? Federal, state, local? The most restrictive? And, environmental standards run up against the Pareto principle. Then, there are the environmental laws that are counter-productive.
This is really the problem with many of the occupational, business, and environmental laws in the U.S. They aim for 100% safety and end up spending 80% to 90% of their funds trying to get that last 10% with no flexibility in implementation.
Looks like you are a fucking liar. This incident DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS, you worthless, lying piece of shit. What about this part of the article you linked to:
It seems your "organised rape of children" is being done by the Afghans and it has a long history of such. But wait, there is more!
So, it looks like no contractors have been arrested for anything, but Afghans have been. That seems to argue that the contractors didn't commit any child rape or any other crime.
The evidence indicates you are a lying waste of skin asshole the better part of whom ran down his mother's leg. The world would be a better place if your mother would have just swallowed that night.
And, just to show the quality of the Guardian's reporting and editing, the very first sentence of the article you linked:
as written, indicates it was the Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for the young dancing boys, not the contractors. In fact, as written, it was the contractors who trained the police to take drugs and hire dancing boys. If it were differently punctuated, it would read as you, pig spittle, have read it.
So, puss for brains, are you lying, dog-fucking asshole or are you an ignorant, monkey cum eating, piece of shit? Which is it?
Does one have a right to "be forgotten" off-line?
Can one go to a newspaper and demand that a letter to the editor one wrote be removed from all copies it was printed in?
Can one demand that every book one has written be destroyed?
Can one go to every person one knows and every institution one has done business with and demand every letter one has written to same be destroyed?
No, one can not. And, that is the answer to the question: No, one should not have a "right to be forgotten" online.
What photo of me with my Gadget?
I am not being oppressed, therefore your argument is invalid.
People do not "voluntarily file taxes". Such a statement shows a lack of knowledge about the tax laws and how income taxes (which is what you appear to be talking about) work, at least in the U.S. One is required by law to pay taxes AND to file an income tax return form to reconciling the amount one paid in taxes and the amount of taxes owed. Failure to do so is punishable by law. Saying one "voluntarily file taxes" is like saying one "voluntarily does not steal".
As for generating "a bill or refund based on the numbers they have and then let us file an appeal if we disagree", part of it is due to using tax law to modify people's behavior, part is a chance to correct any errors, and part is because they know they don't have all the numbers and that the numbers they have may be incorrect. Some of this is offset by the use of withholding at the payroll level. The IRS knows about what your taxes should be for a set of generic circumstances and allows people to automatically pay the tax directly from their employer. Legally, you do not have to pay any taxes until your file your tax return, but if you earn a taxable income of US$50,000.00, you will have to write a check for US$12,500.00 when you file your taxes.
One can often earn money without the government knowing. Imagine someone who has, say, a lawn mowing service. He has a truck, a trailer, a lawn mower, edger, trimmer, gas, and maintenance. He is going to charge his clients less than $100 a week, and will often get cash. His deposits will most-likely be less than $5,000.00 a week and often less than $1,000.00 per deposit. His clients will not be filing any forms to record the transaction. The bank will not be filing any forms to record the transactions. The biggest concern will be if the bank ends up filing a 1099INT. If he forgoes bank account all together and works strictly on a cash basis, there does not have to be a record of any transactions. This is why prostitutes don't pay taxes on their earnings. Prostitution is almost always paid for with cash and even if the prostitute opens a bank account, the deposits are often so small that there is no worry about bank notification laws.
You do understand that if you live with integrity then what you have outlined in your post will not be an issue, right?
The United States of American is federal constitutional republic, which uses democratically elected representatives and whose power is defined and limited by the laws embodied in the Constitution of the United States.
We are not a Democracy, which is a form of direct government by the people. It is essentially majority rule.
We are, however a democracy. The people of the United States elect representatives under a free electoral system.
You may not like it, but the Utah legislature is essentially correct.
He is drawing parallels. He is comparing the revolutions in the Middle East and Wikileaks, He is NOT saying Wikileaks caused the revolutions. Go take a fucking reading comprehension course, you fucking asshole.
You say you think it is inappropriate, yet you do it just the same. That says it all.
You did not give me any evidence. You gave me an anonymous blog post. That is evidence of nothing. Quit making excuses and admit you are trying to give credit where it is not due solely to build up Wikileaks.You are a bunch of assholes, just like that traitor Manning. You should be ashamed of yourselves. In fact, if you want to steal credit so much, you should suffer the same fate, you should be doused with fuel and set on fire to burn to death, along with Manning, Assange, and the whole Wikileaks staff.
Stop being an asshole. Stop trying to give credit to wikileaks where it is not due.
It is funny who you say "I'm not saying that the leaks caused the revolution" when the comment that I originally responded to states
. I can only assume that you are lying piece of shit scumbag. You are trying to change the argument and I won't let you. You stepped up to defend that statement and I am not going to let you back away. Either the Wikileak provided by that traitor Manning is responsible for triggering the revolution or it isn't. You can have no half measures. Either prove that Wikileaks is "responsible for triggering the revolution in Tunisia" or admit it is not. Otherwise, STFU.
The fact that the leaks happened soon before the revolution, and people were talking about it at the time is all the evidence you're going to get.
That is no evidence at all.
If you are looking for more evidence than that, what are you looking for? If you can't think of anything, that means a lack of evidence (in your eyes) was a foregone conclusion.
All the evidence I need is a statement by those involved in the revolution that the leaks caused it. That you would give credit to Wikileaks with no evidence that it had anything to do with it shows YOU have made a foregone conclusion to give credit where none is do and deny credit where it is due.
if they hadn't been discussed and shared among protestors in the time leading up to and during the revolution,
Show me where the protesters say they read, shared, and discussed the leaks or admit you are a liar.
I'd concede that they probably weren't a factor.
Yet you continue to insist that they should get credit for all while ignoring the true causes.
But as it is, there's no good reason to say they did not contribute.
Actually, the fact that they have not been mentioned by the protesters is reason enough. And, moreover, there is no good reason to say they contribute.
You and your ilk continue to try to give credit where none is due and in doing so dishonor the true causes. You should be treated like the worthless glory mongers you are; beaten bloody, tarred, and feathers.
I guess because the moon landings happened before the revolutions, the moon landings caused the resolutions, right? Just because a "causal link" can exist, it does not follow that one does exist.
Your argument is that because one thing happened before a different thing, the first thing caused the second thing even though there is no evidence linking the two. That is called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is that kind of thinking created the biggest lie of all, religion.
Now shut the fuck up, shithead.
It is an unreasonable assertion because there is absolutely zero evidence for it and if you are going to make an assertion you need to be able to back it up. There is no discussion. It is you and your ilk trying to claim credit on behalf Wikileaks and that worthless traitor Manning for the Tunisian uprising and me pointing out to you that you are bunch of worthless lying assholes who are trying to steal credit from many people, but most especially the man who ended his life because he could not provide for his family due to the corruption in the government.
He was not a student. The fact that you say that shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, you arrogant son of a donkey-fucking bitch. He was a 26 year old, the sole earner for his family of six, who made his money operating an unlicensed fruit cart. The "fuel" was the long term governmental corruption, something the people of Tunisia have known about for years.
You want me to tone down? Stop trying to steal credit away from the people of Tunsia and Bouazizi and giving it to Wikileaks for something Wikileaks had nothing to do with. Stop being a fucking piece of shit asshole and accept the fact that you are ignorant about the whole situation and then go learn what really happened. Other than that, there is nothing to say because YOU ARE WRONG!
You may know him better by "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh", of the Indian and Oregonian cult with the orange pajamas.
The pledge says "under God", singular, implying a singular god. The wording of the pledge is set by law, a law that was created and passed by Congress. As, for "if you don't believe then don't say it", perhaps you should take that up with the various government entities that have ejected people for not saying the pledge as defined by the law of the United States of America.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word god, because "god" can not be anything. Your 12-stepper definition doesn't work in the real world.
Here is the short of it. The wording of the pledge is set in law. If one does not say "under god" then one is not saying the pledge. Therefore, in order for one to say the pledge, one must state that there is one god, regardless of whether on believes in no, one, or many gods. It is a law respecting the monotheistic religions over those who believe in polytheistic religions and those who do not believe at all.
Now, I am going to say what I truly believe about you. You are an idiot. You believe in a bronze age myth because it is written in book even though the book contradicts itself and all available science. You most likely do not know, let alone follow, what is actually written in the book. But, you believe, therefore you see no problem with violating the Constitution and the rights of others because it supports your delusion that there is some sort of supreme being you must cow-tow too. You need to grow up and look at your death cult of a religion like you would any extraordinary claim.
More serious than you are. There is absolutely ZERO evidence wikileaks had anything to do with the Tunisian Uprising, yet arrogant, piece of shit assholes like you are trying to claim it was because of wikileaks. I swear, the lot of you should be chained together, doused in kerosene, and set afire.
If you don't care, why didn't you post your information? Oh, that's right, you do care. And, you didn't bother to show any connection between Manning's leaks and the Tunisian revolt. Congratulations, you have proven yourself a liar and a fraud. Go die in a fire, you loser piece of shit.
I think it is reasonable to say that none of the documents Manning released had anything to do with the Tunisian revolution. Please explain in detail how "all kinds of military and government corruption" in the U.S. caused the Tunisian revolt. Please tell everyone what was in those documents that caused the revolt and how the Tunisians found out about them. Do you think that Tunisia is part of the U.S. and that they rose up against the U.S. government?
Just because you want something to be so, it does not follow that said thing is so. Just because you think that Manning is some sort of hero for breaking the law by betraying his oath and his country, he is not one. He is a traitor to his country. Tell you what, you tell me exactly where in U.S. law it says there will be full disclosure of what our diplomats and operatives think of the diplomats and rulers of other countries. Is it in the best interests of the country that candid individual opinions have been made public? If you had a negative opinion of your in-laws, would you want them broadcast to them? If you had a negative opinion of your co-workers, would you want an email expressing that opinion in insulting terms to be distributed to everyone? Do you think it might have a negative effect on your relationships? If so, then why do you think it is a good think to release the same things when it involves the U.S. government?
If you think that truth, transparentness, and full disclosure are so wonderful, why don't you do it? Post your full name; address; phone number; SSN; driver's license number; make, model, and tag number of any and all vehicles you own; physical description; credit card numbers; bank names and account numbers; family members names; pet names; sexual orientation; boss's name along with your unvarnished opinion; your unvarnished opinion of your family members, in-laws, girlfriend and/or wife and her family, etc. If you support full disclosure, surely you believe you should practice it, right?
By adding by law the phrase "One God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion in general, and, by inference, christianity specifically.
Greek and Roman mythology are taught as just that, mythology. Would your feel the same if they were taught as religions? How about if your religion was taught as mythology? The big difference is that Greek and Roman mythology are taught as "What Greeks and Romans believed" as a part of history and not as a part of the current world view, a competitor to current religions, or as a viable alternative to current scientific knowledge.
The course you are describing that you say your daughter took is called a comparative religion course. It does not teach or support one religion over another, nor does it teach any religion's beliefs as scientific fact.
The problem with trying to teach all religions is multifold.
First, all religions would have to be taught as equally valid, which is sure to offend many if not all the religions.
Second, any and all religions would have to be taught not just the Abrahamic religions. This means Wiccan, Paganism, Satanism, Pastafarianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Voodoo, etc. including any cult that wanted to be taught. How well will the approximately 500 active religions be taught?
Third, if one teaches about a religion, one must teach about the religion's beliefs and rituals. Do you want to your child being taught about the animal sacrifices of some? How about the burnt offerings of early Judaism and Christianity? How about the sexual beliefs and rituals of some religions and cults? You know, free sex and love? Or, maybe Taoist sexual practices? How many teenagers would want to become followers of Osho or Taoism?