Yeah... because Armitage is some "made up guy". And he's in the pocket of the this vast evil conspiracy, right? And Novak has this huge documented history of lying, right? I'm sure it's just an oversight of yours to forget to include citations, right?
The reason there were no convictions was that Scooter took the fall for obstruction and perjury. Bush commuted his sentence before he spilled his guts.
And this was coordinated by the Skull and Bones wing of the Free Masons working in conjunction with the Bavarian Illuminati. They receive their funding from the Rothchilds, you know.
Of course, your claims are only valid if Novak and everyone he cited is lying. But why let that stop you...
I always wondered why it wasn't a crime to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent on active duty. If it IS a crime, why wasn't Libby or anyone else ever charged with that offense?
Simple. According to Novak, there was noone who really LEAKED the information to him. No leak, no crime.
But that wont stop people from perpetuating this meme...
It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him: two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.
All the convictions were a la Martha Stewart (giving false information during an investigation). Not for some "crime" that was never established...
I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one. During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue. At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.
That was per Novak -- the guy who noted Plame was CIA... So who leaked her ID again?
So tell me, what censorship "tools" are we talking about then? I've yet to see a citation or have been provided an example of when this was called for.
Usually, I've seen people cry "censorship" at any attempt to limit them from saying exactly what they want to say, when they want to say it and who they want to say it to. Thats why I requested an example. I don't think there is one that REMOTELY links to this youtube case.
I would argue they are not. As the produces are allowed present almost anything in anyway (with some notable exceptions).
I think we can agree that to complete supression of speech is a civil evil. I just have no problem adding classifications to certain types of published/broadcasted/viewed media to allow parents to make an informed decision about what materials to allow their children to view.
A 12 year old *CAN* see an R rated movie... Just not alone. I believe this is a civil good, not a civil evil.
There is an old proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child".
If your mind is boggling, I suggest it is because it is inadequate.
I suggest that it might be your mind that is inadequate -- or at least not paying attention. I listed examples of limites on "Free speech" in an effort to display there are acceptable exceptions. I again requested an example of how this particular case is like anything else in censorship was called for.
I've yet to be provided an example. Instead, I get your snide remark about my mind being "inadequate" when I fail to see how the GP jump to his conclusion based on my request. Perhaps if you followed the thread better you might actually understand the discussion?
The argument is that the tools put in place for the latter purpose can also be used for the former.
I'm sorry, but that is a weak argument. If the argument is that a given tool might be misused or used in a way that it wasn't intended is reason enough to remove that tool from use, then wouldn't ALL tools fall under that catagory?
Wouldn't we need to remove hammers? Because someone may bash someone in the head with it?
So you are saying you don't know of anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children from porn and swear words and terrorists?
(boggles)
I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.
Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.
Where are all the people clambering for censorship when the internet is used for something good?
Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?
Got you beat. I picked up a two 256k type-I sram cards (with battery backup) for my tiny palmtop back in the early 90's. I was in the lap of luxury when I found a 2 MB sram selling for $80. Picked up two and ran stacker on them.
Ah... the days of portable dos computing...
That said, I also had an 8 MB flash drive. Handy as hell for swapping files between PCs. And no "click of death" to worry about.
Yes it is. Score one for you! Imagine that... my keyboard dropped a "t" while typing and I didn't notice. Thank you so much for noticing and bringing to my attention with such compassion and concern.
So any time someone injures themselves in public, their right to privacy means no one can take and share pictures of it?
I'm unsure how you got that from what I said. My words: "The parents arguably have a case". What you seem to have heard: "The parent's rights were violated -- end of story"
I will grant that you seem to be an expert on "misrepresenting" things, but I believe you are wrong when you suggest I'm misrepresenting the constitution.
So the Darwin Awards has go to go by your reasoning.
No. But I would strongly suggest you attend a 100 level class in logic. It might help you identify and prevent future fallacious reasoning. Or perhaps it's your style to put words in peoples mouths and then argue against what you CLAIM they said?
I don't need reality sanitised for me by censorship.
It's not "censorship". To call it this is silly. The parents arguably have a case about their consitutional right to privacy being violated. You cannot have "privacy" without this thing that you and the GP are calling "censorship".
You do not have a right to say, or do what ever you want and then cry "censorship" when someone tries to stop you.
I had the pleasure of seeing one of his lectures. This was before the breathing tube and voice synth. Honestly couldn't understand a word he was saying. One of his undergrads would translate for him. Went something like this:
SomeGuy: "And we should see a large burst of gamma radiation."
I had a less than elegant friend with me who leaned over to me and whispered: "Wouldn't it be funny if the guy in the wheel chair was just some retarded kid and the other guy was a genius who didn't want noterity?"
And society has to support the weaker ones, lest they fall into tyranny or chaos.
Agreed. But when "supporting the weaker" turns in to "rewarding irresponsible behavior", I call shenanigans.
I'm all for supporting the guy who is born blind, or the girl who is paralyzed from an accident... I'm not for supporting the new "lifestyle" of unwed mothers and their children. Sometimes bad things happen and mistakes are made... I get it and we, as a society, should provide a safety net. But not a "reward", which is essentially what a lot of these programs provide. Reward irresponsible behavior at the expense of those who sacrificed years of their life...
You are wrong. The primary cause of our deficits is not "skyrocketing health care costs", but most local, state and federal budgets that completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and spend accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they have to raise taxes or cut spending. Continuing to "raise taxes" through these cycles can only last so long.
Further, often the citizens of a given locality or state will exacerbate the problem. Example, in California which was already suffering from massive deficit spending, the voters passed a bill to fund stem cell research. $2billion dollars out of tax payers pockets and not going to keep roads repaired. That's on top of the now $40+ billion hole we're already in.
My "McMansion" is (by California standards) a modest, below average sized home (~1700 sq ft, on 7000 sq ft of land), below the median price. My "hummer" is a 1989 toyota pickup. My "greed" was a desire to own a modest home, in a modest neighborhood and keep as much of the money I earned by my own sweat and sacrifice as is reasonable.
When I get my trash fees in LA raised 4 times in the last 5 years to pay for the same 1000 police officers which are never hired, this is unreasonable. When as a home-owner, I'm responsible for public sidewalk repair adjacent to my property BEFORE I can sell my house -- regardless that taxes have already been collected to cover the cost, this is unreasonable. When I'm called "greedy" for balking at my hard-earned wages being taken from me to pay for support and aid to a 17 year old single mother -- when both my wife and myself made the choice to wait for the benefit of our future family, this is unreasonable.
My wife and I already pay 50%+ of our income in taxes. More than half my money being taken away is unreasonable. Particularly when it's spent as irresponsibly as local, state and federal governments have spent it.
Too bad you posted AC. You made some decent points.
"Now, that's a generalization, but you can't tell me the majority of those below the poverty line are seriously working just as hard as most those above."
Honestly, if they are working, it's fair to say they are working just as hard (harder sometimes).
"If you want to earn more, then you're going to have to step it up instead of relying on everybody else to bail you out all the time."
You're close... The bulk of the problem is about choices. And people's willingness to sacrifice. People who give up a large chunk of their life to go to school. Become doctors, engineers, etc. Vs. people who decide to have fun or have kids. The "selfish greedy bastards" who gave up 4, 8 years or more of their life to train end end up paying for high school dropouts who decide they want to play house at age 17. That's fair? Think not.
Have kids? Were you one? Ever read "The Little Red Hen"?
According to the new paradigm, the Little Red Hen is greedy and selfish. All I can say is "WTF"?
Your choice of words ("supposed overtaxation (sic)") and choice of analogy ("white conservatives" learning what it's like to be "whining by blacks and other minorities") says a lot about your perception.
Even if it is, it's too late. Vista is already perceived as the new Windows ME. With Windows 7 coming up soon, I doubt there will be much sales increase for MS.
you can't even argue that giving 100% of our states votes to party Y makes the least bit of sense.
Yes you can -- if you understand why it was designed to do what it does.
States are supposed to pic a executive. The select an executive to represent the STATE. They send electors (the number of which is weighted by population) to vote for that executive. How can a state pick 51% of an executive? And 49% of another? They pick a SINGLE executive, not two, three or more.
By removing this system, you effectivly remove any executive representation to small states. Preseidents will be elected by large cities (Los Angeles, New York City, etc) of a handfull of states. Executive decisions will be based on the needs of those few zones rather than the country as a whole.
Sort of. It's not what they had in mind for the election of an executive. The executive was to be elected by the individual states (with electoral votes weighted by state population). This would prevent the larger, more populus states effectivly removing any executive representation from the smaller states.
Similarly, Senators were to be appointed by states, not by popular vote -- so they represented the whole states intererst, with 6 years in office without worry that a single vote or three could effectivly remove them from office next "election", and essentially avoid populist influence on a Senator. Until the passage of the 17th ammendment, there were some states that elected senators similar to how we do it today (the constitution allowed for that)...
Personally, I think democracy (as it's being practiced in the US) is going to cause our country to flounder. We need to remember that the US is a republic (founded on democratic principles) for a reason. It's a shame that so few people actually have read not only the constitution, but the Federalist papers -- or Madison's account of the constitutional convention. If they had, we'd see a lot less of those "that's what our founders had in mind" statements (not that yours is totally off base).
A good laymans book on the Constitution is Constitutional Journal by Jeff St. John. Basically, it's an account of Constitutional Convention in 1787, as written by a daily newspaper journalist of the period. Entertaining and enlightening.
we value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status.
The problem is all too often we mistakely expect (and often demand) equal results regardless of "socio-economic status". Sadly, that's just not possible. Here's an example -- Kids do better in two parent households. Statistically, they end up making more money (read bringing in tax dollars) than those from single parent homes. Want to get equal results? Stop rewarding bad behavior with money. Single parent unemployeed or on welfare? Have another kid and you get no extra money. Offer tax incentives to married/domestic partners. Offer tax rebates for volenteer hours spent at your own child's public school.
Two parent households and involved parents. That will buy you more per dollar spent than tossing money at the "problem". Lets focus on that, why don't we?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... because Armitage is some "made up guy". And he's in the pocket of the this vast evil conspiracy, right? And Novak has this huge documented history of lying, right? I'm sure it's just an oversight of yours to forget to include citations, right?
And this was coordinated by the Skull and Bones wing of the Free Masons working in conjunction with the Bavarian Illuminati. They receive their funding from the Rothchilds, you know.
Of course, your claims are only valid if Novak and everyone he cited is lying. But why let that stop you...
Simple. According to Novak, there was noone who really LEAKED the information to him. No leak, no crime.
But that wont stop people from perpetuating this meme...
Did you bother reading your citation?
All the convictions were a la Martha Stewart (giving false information during an investigation). Not for some "crime" that was never established...
That was per Novak -- the guy who noted Plame was CIA... So who leaked her ID again?
So tell me, what censorship "tools" are we talking about then? I've yet to see a citation or have been provided an example of when this was called for.
Usually, I've seen people cry "censorship" at any attempt to limit them from saying exactly what they want to say, when they want to say it and who they want to say it to. Thats why I requested an example. I don't think there is one that REMOTELY links to this youtube case.
Question: Are movie ratings censorship?
I would argue they are not. As the produces are allowed present almost anything in anyway (with some notable exceptions).
I think we can agree that to complete supression of speech is a civil evil. I just have no problem adding classifications to certain types of published/broadcasted/viewed media to allow parents to make an informed decision about what materials to allow their children to view.
A 12 year old *CAN* see an R rated movie... Just not alone. I believe this is a civil good, not a civil evil.
There is an old proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child".
It certainly does.
I suggest that it might be your mind that is inadequate -- or at least not paying attention. I listed examples of limites on "Free speech" in an effort to display there are acceptable exceptions. I again requested an example of how this particular case is like anything else in censorship was called for.
I've yet to be provided an example. Instead, I get your snide remark about my mind being "inadequate" when I fail to see how the GP jump to his conclusion based on my request. Perhaps if you followed the thread better you might actually understand the discussion?
I'm sorry, but that is a weak argument. If the argument is that a given tool might be misused or used in a way that it wasn't intended is reason enough to remove that tool from use, then wouldn't ALL tools fall under that catagory?
Wouldn't we need to remove hammers? Because someone may bash someone in the head with it?
(boggles)
I'm speechless. How can you get the above from what I requested? You make some totally weird logical leap from "Can you list an example" of how this case is like another in which "censorship" is called for.
Perhaps *YOU* can tell me how this case is like your "anyone that wants the internet censored to protect their children"?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you suggesting there should not be ANY limits on "free speech"? Should we do away with libel? Calumny? Slander? Allow people to yell "FIRE" in a theater? Because these limits on speech are NOT censorship.
Um. Can you list an example of how this case is like another? In which the "censorship" (although, I think you and others are misusing that word) was demanded?
Got you beat. I picked up a two 256k type-I sram cards (with battery backup) for my tiny palmtop back in the early 90's. I was in the lap of luxury when I found a 2 MB sram selling for $80. Picked up two and ran stacker on them.
Ah... the days of portable dos computing...
That said, I also had an 8 MB flash drive. Handy as hell for swapping files between PCs. And no "click of death" to worry about.
Yes it is. Score one for you! Imagine that... my keyboard dropped a "t" while typing and I didn't notice. Thank you so much for noticing and bringing to my attention with such compassion and concern.
I'm unsure how you got that from what I said. My words: "The parents arguably have a case". What you seem to have heard: "The parent's rights were violated -- end of story"
I will grant that you seem to be an expert on "misrepresenting" things, but I believe you are wrong when you suggest I'm misrepresenting the constitution.
No. But I would strongly suggest you attend a 100 level class in logic. It might help you identify and prevent future fallacious reasoning. Or perhaps it's your style to put words in peoples mouths and then argue against what you CLAIM they said?
It's not "censorship". To call it this is silly. The parents arguably have a case about their consitutional right to privacy being violated. You cannot have "privacy" without this thing that you and the GP are calling "censorship".
You do not have a right to say, or do what ever you want and then cry "censorship" when someone tries to stop you.
Happy? Your English teacher must have been the Soup Nazi.
I had the pleasure of seeing one of his lectures. This was before the breathing tube and voice synth. Honestly couldn't understand a word he was saying. One of his undergrads would translate for him. Went something like this:
Hawking: "hmm um mumb bllum blbl lun udn ummm mummb lum mum".
SomeGuy: "And we should see a large burst of gamma radiation."
I had a less than elegant friend with me who leaned over to me and whispered: "Wouldn't it be funny if the guy in the wheel chair was just some retarded kid and the other guy was a genius who didn't want noterity?"
Agreed. But when "supporting the weaker" turns in to "rewarding irresponsible behavior", I call shenanigans.
I'm all for supporting the guy who is born blind, or the girl who is paralyzed from an accident... I'm not for supporting the new "lifestyle" of unwed mothers and their children. Sometimes bad things happen and mistakes are made... I get it and we, as a society, should provide a safety net. But not a "reward", which is essentially what a lot of these programs provide. Reward irresponsible behavior at the expense of those who sacrificed years of their life...
You are wrong. The primary cause of our deficits is not "skyrocketing health care costs", but most local, state and federal budgets that completely ignore the fact that tax dollars will rise and fall based on the economy. They project unrealistic income based on "good times" tax-revenue and spend accordingly. Then when revenue falls short (as it ALWAYS does), they have to raise taxes or cut spending. Continuing to "raise taxes" through these cycles can only last so long.
Further, often the citizens of a given locality or state will exacerbate the problem. Example, in California which was already suffering from massive deficit spending, the voters passed a bill to fund stem cell research. $2billion dollars out of tax payers pockets and not going to keep roads repaired. That's on top of the now $40+ billion hole we're already in.
My "McMansion" is (by California standards) a modest, below average sized home (~1700 sq ft, on 7000 sq ft of land), below the median price. My "hummer" is a 1989 toyota pickup. My "greed" was a desire to own a modest home, in a modest neighborhood and keep as much of the money I earned by my own sweat and sacrifice as is reasonable.
When I get my trash fees in LA raised 4 times in the last 5 years to pay for the same 1000 police officers which are never hired, this is unreasonable. When as a home-owner, I'm responsible for public sidewalk repair adjacent to my property BEFORE I can sell my house -- regardless that taxes have already been collected to cover the cost, this is unreasonable. When I'm called "greedy" for balking at my hard-earned wages being taken from me to pay for support and aid to a 17 year old single mother -- when both my wife and myself made the choice to wait for the benefit of our future family, this is unreasonable.
My wife and I already pay 50%+ of our income in taxes. More than half my money being taken away is unreasonable. Particularly when it's spent as irresponsibly as local, state and federal governments have spent it.
Too bad you posted AC. You made some decent points.
Honestly, if they are working, it's fair to say they are working just as hard (harder sometimes).
You're close... The bulk of the problem is about choices. And people's willingness to sacrifice. People who give up a large chunk of their life to go to school. Become doctors, engineers, etc. Vs. people who decide to have fun or have kids. The "selfish greedy bastards" who gave up 4, 8 years or more of their life to train end end up paying for high school dropouts who decide they want to play house at age 17. That's fair? Think not.
Have kids? Were you one? Ever read "The Little Red Hen"?
According to the new paradigm, the Little Red Hen is greedy and selfish. All I can say is "WTF"?
Your choice of words ("supposed overtaxation (sic)") and choice of analogy ("white conservatives" learning what it's like to be "whining by blacks and other minorities") says a lot about your perception.
Even if it is, it's too late. Vista is already perceived as the new Windows ME. With Windows 7 coming up soon, I doubt there will be much sales increase for MS.
Yes you can -- if you understand why it was designed to do what it does.
States are supposed to pic a executive. The select an executive to represent the STATE. They send electors (the number of which is weighted by population) to vote for that executive. How can a state pick 51% of an executive? And 49% of another? They pick a SINGLE executive, not two, three or more.
By removing this system, you effectivly remove any executive representation to small states. Preseidents will be elected by large cities (Los Angeles, New York City, etc) of a handfull of states. Executive decisions will be based on the needs of those few zones rather than the country as a whole.
Sort of. It's not what they had in mind for the election of an executive. The executive was to be elected by the individual states (with electoral votes weighted by state population). This would prevent the larger, more populus states effectivly removing any executive representation from the smaller states.
Similarly, Senators were to be appointed by states, not by popular vote -- so they represented the whole states intererst, with 6 years in office without worry that a single vote or three could effectivly remove them from office next "election", and essentially avoid populist influence on a Senator. Until the passage of the 17th ammendment, there were some states that elected senators similar to how we do it today (the constitution allowed for that)...
Personally, I think democracy (as it's being practiced in the US) is going to cause our country to flounder. We need to remember that the US is a republic (founded on democratic principles) for a reason. It's a shame that so few people actually have read not only the constitution, but the Federalist papers -- or Madison's account of the constitutional convention. If they had, we'd see a lot less of those "that's what our founders had in mind" statements (not that yours is totally off base).
A good laymans book on the Constitution is Constitutional Journal by Jeff St. John. Basically, it's an account of Constitutional Convention in 1787, as written by a daily newspaper journalist of the period. Entertaining and enlightening.
The problem is all too often we mistakely expect (and often demand) equal results regardless of "socio-economic status". Sadly, that's just not possible. Here's an example -- Kids do better in two parent households. Statistically, they end up making more money (read bringing in tax dollars) than those from single parent homes. Want to get equal results? Stop rewarding bad behavior with money. Single parent unemployeed or on welfare? Have another kid and you get no extra money. Offer tax incentives to married/domestic partners. Offer tax rebates for volenteer hours spent at your own child's public school.
Two parent households and involved parents. That will buy you more per dollar spent than tossing money at the "problem". Lets focus on that, why don't we?
This crap is modd'ed insightful? WTF?
Obviously mod points dont go out to people who actually read the news -- or perhaps they just go out to those with selective memory.