If someone breaks into my home and even THINKS of harming my family....
The parent was on the phone near the walkway in the airport when he shot the instructor point blank in the head.
Those two situations aren't even remotely related. The first one presents an immediate threat to you and/or your family (if someone is willing to break in to your home, it's reasonable to assume they're willing to break other laws, too...though even then, you should exercise care and only actually kill the person if you're certain they present a real threat, if you can subdue them safely until the police arrive, so much the better). The parent who killed the guy at the airport was simply a vigilante: the person was already in custody and on the way to a trial, it's not appropriate to take the law into your own hands in a case like that.
How many black guys got lynched because some white girl got raped and people assumed it was some black guy who happened to be in the neighborhood?
How many more got lynched because someone just didn't like him, and got some white girl to say she was raped when she never was? All the more reason to have due process and innocent until proven guilty.
First, your username hints that you're not an objective observer, so it's hard to take anything you say on this seriously.
Second, if you honestly think that Clinton (either of them) are cut from a different cloth than Bush (either of them), you are incredibly naive. There are very few politicians in the world today who are honest and honorable people. Off hand, I can't think of a single one, certainly none who are famous. It takes a certain kind of person to be a successful politician, and regardless of what ideology they profess to believe, the only thing they're really after is power. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
All that said, there are some good ones out there. And when you see one, stand by them. They won't be by again anytime soon.
My bad, I didn't realize you were stating the title of a documentary ("the revolution will not be televised" is, of course, a famous quote from Andy Warhol, and I thought you were making a comment on the dearth of evidence for or against a given position). I've just read through the Wikipedia article on the documentary, I'll make a point to watch it (and "X-Ray of a Lie") when I have more time.
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[2] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[2][3]
The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination.
At least Rather had the good graces to admit he was wrong, why can't you?
The Revolution will not be televised. You can watch it on google video.
So, in other words, no? If you've got anything to back up your previous statement, please share it. I'll admit I haven't followed the events in Venezuela as closely as many others, but I'm trying to educate myself about it as much as possible. But there are only so many hours in a day, so if you have anything you can share that would be helpful, it would be greatly appreciated.
RCTV isn't even mentioned in that article, so I'm not sure what alleged actions of theirs would be considered a "pretty unambiguous abuse of the public trust." The two actions of private TV stations that would seem to support the coup that are listed are selectively edited footage from a demonstration (when the Chavez supporters were shooting at anti-Chavez demonstrators, some private TV stations made the statement that the anti-Chavez side were unarmed, while others disputed that), and showing Chavez in a split-screen during one of his speeches about how peaceful everything was with violent protests shown on the other half of the screen. If those two actions are enough to get a license yanked, then wouldn't you expect CBS, with their forged National Guard memos, to have had theirs yanked sometime in the last several years?
Oh I wish I had mod points. That is the most well written post I've seen on this subject. Thank you for injecting some much needed clarity to this discussion.
You're right, he only shut them down, confiscated their equipment, and some of his supporters have been filmed shooting at people protesting the station's shut down (see here).
But he's not blocking them, that would be something so monstrous only Bush would do it, right?
Am I the only one that's tired of having their life inconvenienced for everybody's else's children?
Have you ever stopped to think that when a politician says they're thinking "of the children", they're actually thinking of adults whom they view as children? Why do you think welfare states are referred to as "nanny states"? Because the government fulfills the role of parent to the childish adults who voted it into power. Those are the "children" these politicians are seeking to control/protect, not some five year old.
You are incorrect. If a US senator was walking downtown during the Saddam era, he would probably be invited to the palace since Saddam did not want to provoke the Americans.
You might be right before the invasion, but I'm definitely right about just after. That was a very dangerous time.
If so, why was he surrounded by American soldiers?
Photo-op. Duh.
If they really hated freedom, they would very likely turn to the Hindu countries and the majority of Asia that does not practice Islam.
What are you talking about, this has already happened, and continues to do so. The Mumbai train bombing, the Bali nightclub, there are dozens of murders a week in south Thailand. And did you forget about the Taliban blowing up the giant Buddha statues? Jihadis don't just want us out of their holy lands, they want to wipe out the Jews and kill or convert everyone who doesn't practice their form of Islam.
First of all, I did not say anything about what he said.
That's why I asked if you knew about it.
I only commented that he would probably cause another upset (WHICH HE DID).
No, he won't, because the people who are likely to vote for a Republican won't pay any attention to him.
You should always take everything with a grain of NaCL when watching FOX
I don't watch Fox News, and you shouldn't make blanket assumptions about people.
I would enjoy debating liberals more if you people had the intelligence of my dog.
You (sic) right to do as you wish with your property ends where that conflicts with my rights.
No shit, this is one of those things that should be so obvious, it is not required to be said. ALL of your rights end where they prevent me from enjoying mine. (Though it also has to be said that balancing those conflicting rights is a very complicated thing to do, and it is usually much easier, and safer, to default to the rights of the property owner over someone who does not have any interests in that property.)
So tell me, what "right" of yours is impeded by an ISP attempting to charge both ends of a data transaction? The short answer is: not a damn one.
Does anyone remember when he paraded down the streets of Iraq, protected by a whole infantry of U.S. soldiers
What exactly is an "infantry" of soldiers? How many soldiers are in one infantry?...and then claim that it is a very safe and a lot better than a few years ago?
Well, strictly speaking, it was much safer for a U.S. Senator to be in Baghdad than just before or after the invasion. So in that sense, he was right, at least.
Every time I hear that "them hating us for our freedom"
I agree that that does gloss over a lot of things, but in some ways it is accurate: the jihadis in the world hate anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Islam. If by "our freedom" they mean "our way of life" and "our values", then, yes, the jihadis do hate us for those things. But like I said, this glosses over a more complex truth which wouldn't fit as nicely into a sound bite.
It will be interesting to see what Ron Paul will do to the upcoming republican debates.
Not a damn thing, the guy is a loon. Have you heard his latest theory on 9/11? Total crackpot, not even worth debating.
No joke, especially when Google starts giving free advertising to competitors. Think about it, customer Charlie is using AT&T to surf the web. AT&T tries to charge Google for some premium so that when Charlie visits YouTube, his connection isn't slowed down. Google says "No", and instead puts up an ad for Hometown Internet whenever Charlie (and other AT&T customers in Charlie's area) visit YouTube. "Tired of waiting 20 minutes for your video to load, come to Hometown Internet, where we never throttle your connection to Google!"
I guarantee that will happen the first time some big ISP tries to pull this shit on a regular basis. Well, maybe not the first time, but it'll happen at some point. And then the whole net neutrality debate ends over night, with a nice and tidy market solution and no government trampling of anyone's rights.
(As if it's such a huge problem that I got my whole house painted for $500. Oh noes! They are *illegal*, they didn't fill out a bunch of forms before they painted my house! The horror!)
So I guess it's only evil when a corporation exploits poor people?
The "problem" is that the government recognizes a corporation as an individual. Please show me where Libertarians list a core tenant being "large, conglomerated corporations should be fully protected under the law as an individual."
Please see my reply to the OP to understand why I think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Government exists to protect the rights of The People, not business masquerading as an individual via Incorporation.
One of those rights is the right to own property, and to do with it what you want. And since corporations are owned by people, and corporations own property, by extension the owners/share holders of the corporation own that property. So when you start regulating what a business can do, you're trying to regulate what people can do with their own property.
If you can't understand that, you'll never understand liberal thinking from the 18th century to the mid-20th (when the definition changed), and you're not anything close to being a libertarian. This goes to the "libertarian" who replied to you, too.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone breaks into my home and even THINKS of harming my family....
The parent was on the phone near the walkway in the airport when he shot the instructor point blank in the head.
Those two situations aren't even remotely related. The first one presents an immediate threat to you and/or your family (if someone is willing to break in to your home, it's reasonable to assume they're willing to break other laws, too...though even then, you should exercise care and only actually kill the person if you're certain they present a real threat, if you can subdue them safely until the police arrive, so much the better). The parent who killed the guy at the airport was simply a vigilante: the person was already in custody and on the way to a trial, it's not appropriate to take the law into your own hands in a case like that.
How many black guys got lynched because some white girl got raped and people assumed it was some black guy who happened to be in the neighborhood?
How many more got lynched because someone just didn't like him, and got some white girl to say she was raped when she never was? All the more reason to have due process and innocent until proven guilty.
None of which explains why Japan's suicide rate is higher than the US's.
there should be a federal statute 100% sanctioning a civilian legal right to film police conduct
I thought we had something like that already? Isn't it called the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Obviously, if his name offends you, you can safely ignore anything he says no matter if it's true or not.
Who said it offended me? I was just pointing out he wasn't a disinterested observer, and can't be trusted to be objective.
Obviously, if you just claim that two people are both "cut from the same cloth", you can ignore their actual actions and consequences.
You can have a jacket and pants that are cut from the same cloth, but you can't wear a jacket over your legs.
It wasn't the only, nor even a particularly important, piece of corroborating evidence for the story.
It was the only physical evidence, and it was completely discredited. Everything else was nothing but hearsay, and couldn't be corroborated.
First, your username hints that you're not an objective observer, so it's hard to take anything you say on this seriously.
Second, if you honestly think that Clinton (either of them) are cut from a different cloth than Bush (either of them), you are incredibly naive. There are very few politicians in the world today who are honest and honorable people. Off hand, I can't think of a single one, certainly none who are famous. It takes a certain kind of person to be a successful politician, and regardless of what ideology they profess to believe, the only thing they're really after is power. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
All that said, there are some good ones out there. And when you see one, stand by them. They won't be by again anytime soon.
Are you suggesting that politicians would manipulate science to their advantage?
Nah, couldn't happen.
My bad, I didn't realize you were stating the title of a documentary ("the revolution will not be televised" is, of course, a famous quote from Andy Warhol, and I thought you were making a comment on the dearth of evidence for or against a given position). I've just read through the Wikipedia article on the documentary, I'll make a point to watch it (and "X-Ray of a Lie") when I have more time.
So please, quit repeating that bullshit story. It's crap and you damn well know it.
From the Wikipedia article on it:
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the document for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from independent and rival news organizations and independent analysis of other copies of the documents obtained by USA Today raised questions about the documents' validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,"[2] and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."[2][3]
The documents have subsequently never been authenticated, and no originals have been produced for examination.
At least Rather had the good graces to admit he was wrong, why can't you?
The Revolution will not be televised. You can watch it on google video.
So, in other words, no? If you've got anything to back up your previous statement, please share it. I'll admit I haven't followed the events in Venezuela as closely as many others, but I'm trying to educate myself about it as much as possible. But there are only so many hours in a day, so if you have anything you can share that would be helpful, it would be greatly appreciated.
the coup in 2002 being started by the crazier in the opposition shooting at the opposition to say Chavistas did it
That's a pretty bold statement, got anything to back it up?
This TV station supported a military coup against the democratically elected government.
i n_Venezuela#Events_leading_up_to_the_coup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Attempted_coup_
RCTV isn't even mentioned in that article, so I'm not sure what alleged actions of theirs would be considered a "pretty unambiguous abuse of the public trust." The two actions of private TV stations that would seem to support the coup that are listed are selectively edited footage from a demonstration (when the Chavez supporters were shooting at anti-Chavez demonstrators, some private TV stations made the statement that the anti-Chavez side were unarmed, while others disputed that), and showing Chavez in a split-screen during one of his speeches about how peaceful everything was with violent protests shown on the other half of the screen. If those two actions are enough to get a license yanked, then wouldn't you expect CBS, with their forged National Guard memos, to have had theirs yanked sometime in the last several years?
Oh I wish I had mod points. That is the most well written post I've seen on this subject. Thank you for injecting some much needed clarity to this discussion.
He isn't blocking RCTV
You're right, he only shut them down, confiscated their equipment, and some of his supporters have been filmed shooting at people protesting the station's shut down (see here).
But he's not blocking them, that would be something so monstrous only Bush would do it, right?
Am I the only one that's tired of having their life inconvenienced for everybody's else's children?
Have you ever stopped to think that when a politician says they're thinking "of the children", they're actually thinking of adults whom they view as children? Why do you think welfare states are referred to as "nanny states"? Because the government fulfills the role of parent to the childish adults who voted it into power. Those are the "children" these politicians are seeking to control/protect, not some five year old.
You are incorrect. If a US senator was walking downtown during the Saddam era, he would probably be invited to the palace since Saddam did not want to provoke the Americans.
You might be right before the invasion, but I'm definitely right about just after. That was a very dangerous time.
If so, why was he surrounded by American soldiers?
Photo-op. Duh.
If they really hated freedom, they would very likely turn to the Hindu countries and the majority of Asia that does not practice Islam.
What are you talking about, this has already happened, and continues to do so. The Mumbai train bombing, the Bali nightclub, there are dozens of murders a week in south Thailand. And did you forget about the Taliban blowing up the giant Buddha statues? Jihadis don't just want us out of their holy lands, they want to wipe out the Jews and kill or convert everyone who doesn't practice their form of Islam.
First of all, I did not say anything about what he said.
That's why I asked if you knew about it.
I only commented that he would probably cause another upset (WHICH HE DID).
No, he won't, because the people who are likely to vote for a Republican won't pay any attention to him.
You should always take everything with a grain of NaCL when watching FOX
I don't watch Fox News, and you shouldn't make blanket assumptions about people.
I would enjoy debating liberals more if you people had the intelligence of my dog.
You (sic) right to do as you wish with your property ends where that conflicts with my rights.
No shit, this is one of those things that should be so obvious, it is not required to be said. ALL of your rights end where they prevent me from enjoying mine. (Though it also has to be said that balancing those conflicting rights is a very complicated thing to do, and it is usually much easier, and safer, to default to the rights of the property owner over someone who does not have any interests in that property.)
So tell me, what "right" of yours is impeded by an ISP attempting to charge both ends of a data transaction? The short answer is: not a damn one.
Does anyone remember when he paraded down the streets of Iraq, protected by a whole infantry of U.S. soldiers
...and then claim that it is a very safe and a lot better than a few years ago?
What exactly is an "infantry" of soldiers? How many soldiers are in one infantry?
Well, strictly speaking, it was much safer for a U.S. Senator to be in Baghdad than just before or after the invasion. So in that sense, he was right, at least.
Every time I hear that "them hating us for our freedom"
I agree that that does gloss over a lot of things, but in some ways it is accurate: the jihadis in the world hate anyone who doesn't follow their brand of Islam. If by "our freedom" they mean "our way of life" and "our values", then, yes, the jihadis do hate us for those things. But like I said, this glosses over a more complex truth which wouldn't fit as nicely into a sound bite.
It will be interesting to see what Ron Paul will do to the upcoming republican debates.
Not a damn thing, the guy is a loon. Have you heard his latest theory on 9/11? Total crackpot, not even worth debating.
No joke, especially when Google starts giving free advertising to competitors. Think about it, customer Charlie is using AT&T to surf the web. AT&T tries to charge Google for some premium so that when Charlie visits YouTube, his connection isn't slowed down. Google says "No", and instead puts up an ad for Hometown Internet whenever Charlie (and other AT&T customers in Charlie's area) visit YouTube. "Tired of waiting 20 minutes for your video to load, come to Hometown Internet, where we never throttle your connection to Google!"
I guarantee that will happen the first time some big ISP tries to pull this shit on a regular basis. Well, maybe not the first time, but it'll happen at some point. And then the whole net neutrality debate ends over night, with a nice and tidy market solution and no government trampling of anyone's rights.
(As if it's such a huge problem that I got my whole house painted for $500. Oh noes! They are *illegal*, they didn't fill out a bunch of forms before they painted my house! The horror!)
So I guess it's only evil when a corporation exploits poor people?
The "problem" is that the government recognizes a corporation as an individual. Please show me where Libertarians list a core tenant being "large, conglomerated corporations should be fully protected under the law as an individual."
Please see my reply to the OP to understand why I think you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Government exists to protect the rights of The People, not business masquerading as an individual via Incorporation.
One of those rights is the right to own property, and to do with it what you want. And since corporations are owned by people, and corporations own property, by extension the owners/share holders of the corporation own that property. So when you start regulating what a business can do, you're trying to regulate what people can do with their own property.
If you can't understand that, you'll never understand liberal thinking from the 18th century to the mid-20th (when the definition changed), and you're not anything close to being a libertarian. This goes to the "libertarian" who replied to you, too.
Canada has a navy?
Congratulations! You're officially a Federalist now.