So perhaps you would have preferred if, for example, the US had stayed out of WWII and the extermination camps had continued ? Perhaps the Axis would have won and there would be no jews at all left in the world. This would have been acceptable to you?
You're assuming that leaving is a realistic possibility when, for many, it is not.
On top of that, being a refugee with no money, no belongings, no rights leads to such things as having to sell your daughter's body to be able to survive. Would you do that, rather than ask for foreign intervention to stop the use of chemical weapons where you live?
But why should you care about such things? After all, it isn't happening on your side of the street.
Two things that are extremely important to note about World War II:
First of all, actual acts of war happened upon America where military personnel serving in a combat situation died.... several thousand of them in fact. I will dare say that the existence of America was directly at stake. Certainly there were plans drawn up to conquer America, and actions which indicated that it would happen.
Furthermore, from an authority no less than the memoirs and writings of Franklin D. Roosevelt, there was very little change in war plans and in particular no consideration for even entering World War II due to "human rights abuses" by the Nazi government.
That's not the point. I didn't ask what FDR's reasoning was. I asked if you would prefer that the US had not gotten involved and that the extermination (without possibility of emigration for most people) of jews would have continued.
Frankly, even bringing this up in this context is totally out of line and unwarranted in terms of trying to justify a rationale for going to war in a minor country which poses no direct threat beyond the borders of Syria.
And again I'll point out that your arguments are all basically "I don't give a shit what happens to anyone outside my country because it makes no difference in my own life" which shows a lack of moral substance that, frankly, is abhorable.
The justification for war is that the government of Syria illegally, per international law, used chemical weapons against its own civilian population. My questions around WW2 are to try and get you to see that at times foreign intervention is necessary and justifiable.
I'll also note that the "international law" here is real murky... as noted by Parliament as well. That admittedly political body chose not to intervene for pretty much the same reasons I gave above.
"If the Syrian authorities have committed mass killings of its own population, they have committed crimes against humanity. In such situations, the obligation of states to take action is clear on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect, which has been approved by member states of the UN, without having firm legal provisions."
- Prof Sigrun Skogly, Head of department at Lancaster University Law School
Again, you seem to be mistaking the idea that international law is something like legislation passed by a parliamentary body. At best international law is more akin to a contract signed voluntarily between nations like a contract to buy or sell a house or car is between people. How you can assert that a country which didn't even sign most of these treaties you are claiming they are held under can be invaded militarily according to a provision that doesn't even exist in these treaties is beyond me.
Whatever.
What it comes down to is whether you care enough about what happens to other people to get involved or not.
I do.
You do not.
If you're happy with that then we have nothing more to discuss.
Also, as far as not wanting any other country to intervene in your countries affairs...I suggest that you have this opinion largely because your government isn't trying to kill you and your family.
Are you sure about that? Like I said, my ancestors faced that same threat (interestingly..... by the government I am currently living under) and they made the decision to get out of the way and start a new life elsewhere. Specific legislation was drafted that targeted my ancestors and the people they were with to be exterminated. Mass genocide was encouraged. By moving away, the situation was resolved even though others got to claim the farms, homes, businesses, and other property that rightfully belonged to my ancestors.
So perhaps you would have preferred if, for example, the US had stayed out of WWII and the extermination camps had continued ? Perhaps the Axis would have won and there would be no jews at all left in the world. This would have been acceptable to you?
You're assuming that leaving is a realistic possibility when, for many, it is not.
On top of that, being a refugee with no money, no belongings, no rights leads to such things as having to sell your daughter's body to be able to survive. Would you do that, rather than ask for foreign intervention to stop the use of chemical weapons where you live?
But why should you care about such things? After all, it isn't happening on your side of the street.
No, I sure as hell don't want another government interfering here and if you think I would you don't know a damn thing about either me or my neighbors. It sounds to me like you want to be subject to a foreign nation as a vassal and live in perpetual slavery to that distant foreign power with no real way to complain or even express your feelings about the conditions you live under. That sounds like a horrible way to live, and I really can't comprehend how you can enjoy such a lifestyle.
With regard to another government interfering, I think you've completely missed the point of what I was saying. I'll try again - try and understand this time.
Per international law (which does exist even if you are too ignorant to know it) states that use of chemical weapons against its own civilians by a sovereign country is justification for military intervention by other nations to stop such use of the chemical weapons.
You are lucky to live in a place where you are not in need of foreign intervention. If you were unlucky enough to live in another country and you were in need of foreign intervention then you would ask for it and unless you have actually lived in such circumstances, don't say that you wouldn't ask because you could not possibly know for sure. I'll note that a country like Isreal would not even exist at this point without serious foreign involvement not only to allocate the land but to provide such financial and militarily support as to keep the country going.
Again, why in the hell does America, Britain, France, or Russia need to be involved in this matter at all?
Because of the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population which, as I explained previously, is both legally and morally justified. Because we can and should step in to protect people who cannot protect themselves - just as you would want someone to step in and protect you and your family if you were walking down the street and were attacked.
Indeed I would say that the current fiasco that is happening in Syria is explicitly because of intervention that has already taken place by other governments, including all of those I mention earlier plus other independent sovereign entities as well.
You also have this strange notion that somehow all of the nations are under some sort of world government that passes laws which everybody must follow.
Again you show your ignorance. There is no 'world gover
Also, as far as not wanting any other country to intervene in your countries affairs...I suggest that you have this opinion largely because your government isn't trying to kill you and your family.
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
And I have a question for you:
How would you feel if you had family there?
Pissed. But does that mean I need to call in the military of a foreign government which inhabits a completely different continent?
I really fail to see your logic here. My choices, and the choices that my ancestors had in similar circumstances (they also were the target of massive persecution and mass genocide) were either to fight to change the system from within, and if that failed to get the hell out of harm's way by moving somewhere else. If it was a lone idiot who did something horrible like this, I would be demanding that law enforcement officers would step up and... enforce some laws.
Don't get me started on "international law". Countries are sovereign entities who are pretty much free to do anything they please except for internal to themselves laws that may seek to stop such thing. Sometimes other countries may gang up on a country being a real idiot... but usually that is somebody who is a real idiot to other nations and not to themselves or their own citizens/subjects. If this really was all about saving the lives of children or avenging their deaths, we would invade North Korea yesterday, not to mention other places around the world that have far worse stories than what is happening in Syria.
I sure as hell wouldn't want Russia, China, the UK, France, or any other damn country coming into the city where I currently live simply because I disagree with the political policies of my government. My reaction would be to join the government forces, kick out the foreigners, and then once that is settled figure a way to make a protest that sticks or do something to change the government from within. I expect that is precisely what will happen in Syria, where any invasion of that country by foreign governments only gives further legitimacy to Assad and his government. Not only is it not helpful, but it is counter-productive to picking sides in a civil war where the outcome is far from certain or even if the government that will replace the Assad regime will be any better.
We didn't go into North Korea, I think, largely because it is attached to China and China would not have allowed it. Not sure.
There is international law, put in place after Ruanda, that states that other countries can take military action if a government does something like use chemical weapons on its own citizenry - so it is actually not illegal to intervene in Syria at this point.
I do not believe that if you had family in Syria you would be so apathetic towards the civilians there.
You say that you would call the authorities if it were a lone person. There is no difference. It's a person and a government and they're breaking international law and, further, there is international law then allowing military intervention to stop the offense.
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
Luckily, we have an ally of each side of the war exercising Security Council veto powers, so the odds of having to get involved are less dire than they might otherwise be.
We will still get involved, regardless of UN backing. It hasn't stopped us before, and it won't stop us now.
we will be damned for isolationism and disregard for human suffering if we do not act
Yes, it is too bad we were ordained by God to police the world. It would be so much better if there was some sort of organization that could represent the collective will of the nations of the world in situations like this. Maybe we could set up something like that. New York City might be a good place.
Dante Alighieri - "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
I don't know about God but I am disgusted by people who are willing to stand by and do nothing while the weak are beaten, raped or killed.
With 10,000 Baby Boomers hitting retirement every day from now until 2030 and putting their hands out for social security while simultaneously ceasing to pay income tax the IT job market should be the least of the US's worries.
It gets better when you realize when Obama said he wanted to create more oversight and then put the entire oversight under the NSA's leadership.
What most people don't realize is Obama is as much a republican as Reagan, Nixon, and both Bushes. His policies are in direct line with theirs.
What we need are term limits for congress critters so they can't become as corrupted, and for Congress to start revoking executive powers back out of the executive branch.
We didn't need the cabinets before World War II Why don't we eliminate them?
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
Let me get this straight. You're saying that corrupt executive branch persons should reduce / restrict their own power ?
However, the problem I have with a lot of Obama critics is not that the content of their criticism is actually wrong, but rather feels disingenuous. Had Mitt won the presidency, I feel like a lot of these guys bitching about Obama would be standing right in line behind Mitt, who I believe would be doing basically the exact same thing as Obama*, charging that anyone who dared criticize that "great patriot Mitt Romney" was a terrorist-sympathizing traitor who should be rounded up and executed. I don't see Mitt having a fundamentally different stance on NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act, or drone strikes (and I bet Benghazi would still have happened under his watch, too).
For those of you (us) who have managed to remain consistent with our criticisms of both parties, bravo.
I voted for Obama. I am not sure that I regret it, exactly, as I don't think there was a (realistic) better alternative.
That being said, I do not approve of Obama's actions and inactions since he's been in office. I am, to say the least, highly disappointed.
How about we impeach brain dead idiots like yourself? I'm not a fan of Obama at this point, but this isn't all on him. Your boyscout Bush, and both major political parties have deep rooted ties to all of this shit.
Got to start somewhere.
Threat of impeachment / looking like an ass in history books in the future might be a motivating factor in getting someone to behave better.
I also agree with mcgrew that Congress and the Senate are complicit and need to be scrapped.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening due to the general complacency and ignorance of the American people at this point.
Did you read the decision? It sounds like you based your comment on a quick read of the summary. The decision focused on a very specific issue:
The ruling focused on a program under which the N.S.A. has been searching domestic Internet links for communications â" where at least one side is overseas â" in which there are âoestrong selectorsâ indicating insider knowledge of someone who has been targeted for foreign-intelligence collection. One example would be mentioning a personâ(TM)s private e-mail address in the body of an e-mail.
Most of the time, the system brings up single communications, like an e-mail or text message. But sometimes many messages are packaged and travel in a bundle that the N.S.A. calls âoemulti-communication transactions.â A senior intelligence official gave one example: a Web page for a private e-mail in-box that displays subject lines for dozens of different messages â" each of which is considered a separate communication, and only one of which may discuss the person who has been targeted for intelligence collection.
While Judge Bates ruled that it was acceptable for the N.S.A. to collect and store such bundled communications, he said the agency was not doing enough to minimize the purely domestic and unrelated messages to protect Americansâ(TM) privacy. In response, the N.S.A. agreed to filter out such communications and store them apart, with greater protections, and to delete them after two years instead of the usual five.
In short, the court was okay with most of the spying program and the intelligence architecture. The court was not that happy about specific details. That's kind of scary, isn't it, that a court thinks this program is mostly okay?
It's a secret court put in place by the executive branch. What else would you expect?
The power of the court itself comes from the intelligence / secrecy aspects of the government. It is not in their best interests to reduce their own power.
Critics claim that Germany is paying six times as much for power, to finance all the renewables. (Per that article, 18 billion Euros paid on power that has a market value of 3 billion Euros) See also the Wikipedia article on Renewable energy in Germany.
Presumably though this is an investment and the renewables will keep providing power once their costs have been paid fully. I'm wondering if, over the operational lifetime of the solar and wind power equipment, they will wind up producing enough power that they will have actually been a good investment?
IMHO it would make more sense for them to keep the nuclear power plants and try to shut down coal plants, but that's not their plan.
It's also possible that Germany taxes energy use deliberately in an attempt to decrease consumption.
Perhaps I should RTFA, but looking at the Wikipedia page on Energy_in_Germany, that looks to be about 10% of monthly electricity consumption, (generously, given that it's summer), and less than 2% of total energy consumption.
Are you comparing the monthly value of 5.1 TWh or the yearly value of 38.14 TWh against the wiki value for consumption ?
I ran a camera at some of their city council meetings back when I did live video work, and they were about the most boring things I've ever sat through in my life.
I believe that as I had trouble just reading your summary of the meetings without losing focus.
Seized or destroyed makes little difference when your livelihood depends on it. You need replacement equipment now. Not in a week. Not in a month. Today. Or you can't make money. And with so many professions needing a computer... whether it's seized or destroyed you're still at the computer shop the next day buying a new one. And when you get your old one back... it's useless.
The difference between the two is pretty minor. This is also why you, like me and many others, should keep multiple off-site backups, not in banks, not at a friend's house, but buried under a tree in a public park or something... so you can always quickly recover.
Because whether it's the government that steals your shit, or a burglar... you're just as fucked.
And if there are compromising personal pictures / videos / letters / etc then the government has what they want - a lever to use against the reporter who is the actual target.
Put it out there, let some people get outed and killed, they are collaborator scum anyway. Sure it sounds harsh and it is, but until the security apparatus suffers some major political damage and loses some people they think of as friends they will never appreciate the harm all there secrets are doing. They have proven this over and over again.
That would be hugely irresponsible.
There are those who deserve to be punished, and there are those who do not.
By dumping the information without redaction you risk hurting those who do not deserve to be punished.
Not everyone who works for the governments / agencies involved is a bad person and not all the things done by the governments / agency agencies involved are unnecessary or undesirable.
Not really hate speech. Obama has use drone strikes against individuals, so really all the tweet was doing is drawing attention to our president indiscriminately murdering individuals without a warrant or like means. The Internet would be a much better place if we had sarcasm tags. I think that was the reporters intent.
"I think that was the reporters intent."
Based on what, exactly? The asshole not only posted his opinion but defended it until he got so lambasted that he started posting retractions. Did you even read TFA (or anything else about Grunwald for that matter), or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? (obviously the latter I'm just giving you the chance to respond).
Not only was it really and truly hate speech..it was supporting what amounts to murder and the strong support of 'the reporter' in the defense of said murder.
Because it couldn't be that parents with bad habits (ie giving their kids crap soda to drink) wouldn't teach their kids other bad habits (like breaking stuff).
Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.
The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.
This is a social democracy.
The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.
People have to take responsibility as well.
Do I dislike the way the USA is headed? Yes.
Do I blame a large percentage of the US population for not paying attention and allowing themselves to become and then remain willfully ignorant? Yes.
The USA is not yet at the point where the USSR was, and it's not yet too late for change...but if it doesn't happen soon it may never happen at all.
Wake up America, or lose everything you care about.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who is funding any project that the US government does not like should know better than to use Paypal at this point.
Paypal is a tool of the US government, for whatever reason(s). and this is hardly the first time they use Paypal as an attack vector.
So perhaps you would have preferred if, for example, the US had stayed out of WWII and the extermination camps had continued ? Perhaps the Axis would have won and there would be no jews at all left in the world. This would have been acceptable to you?
You're assuming that leaving is a realistic possibility when, for many, it is not.
On top of that, being a refugee with no money, no belongings, no rights leads to such things as having to sell your daughter's body to be able to survive. Would you do that, rather than ask for foreign intervention to stop the use of chemical weapons where you live?
But why should you care about such things? After all, it isn't happening on your side of the street.
Two things that are extremely important to note about World War II:
First of all, actual acts of war happened upon America where military personnel serving in a combat situation died.... several thousand of them in fact. I will dare say that the existence of America was directly at stake. Certainly there were plans drawn up to conquer America, and actions which indicated that it would happen.
Furthermore, from an authority no less than the memoirs and writings of Franklin D. Roosevelt, there was very little change in war plans and in particular no consideration for even entering World War II due to "human rights abuses" by the Nazi government.
That's not the point. I didn't ask what FDR's reasoning was. I asked if you would prefer that the US had not gotten involved and that the extermination (without possibility of emigration for most people) of jews would have continued.
Frankly, even bringing this up in this context is totally out of line and unwarranted in terms of trying to justify a rationale for going to war in a minor country which poses no direct threat beyond the borders of Syria.
And again I'll point out that your arguments are all basically "I don't give a shit what happens to anyone outside my country because it makes no difference in my own life" which shows a lack of moral substance that, frankly, is abhorable.
The justification for war is that the government of Syria illegally, per international law, used chemical weapons against its own civilian population. My questions around WW2 are to try and get you to see that at times foreign intervention is necessary and justifiable.
I'll also note that the "international law" here is real murky... as noted by Parliament as well. That admittedly political body chose not to intervene for pretty much the same reasons I gave above.
Admittedly political indeed.
The law is not murky - except when deliberately made so by politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect
"If the Syrian authorities have committed mass killings of its own population, they have committed crimes against humanity. In such situations, the obligation of states to take action is clear on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect, which has been approved by member states of the UN, without having firm legal provisions."
- Prof Sigrun Skogly, Head of department at Lancaster University Law School
Again, you seem to be mistaking the idea that international law is something like legislation passed by a parliamentary body. At best international law is more akin to a contract signed voluntarily between nations like a contract to buy or sell a house or car is between people. How you can assert that a country which didn't even sign most of these treaties you are claiming they are held under can be invaded militarily according to a provision that doesn't even exist in these treaties is beyond me.
Whatever.
What it comes down to is whether you care enough about what happens to other people to get involved or not.
I do.
You do not.
If you're happy with that then we have nothing more to discuss.
Also, as far as not wanting any other country to intervene in your countries affairs...I suggest that you have this opinion largely because your government isn't trying to kill you and your family.
Are you sure about that? Like I said, my ancestors faced that same threat (interestingly..... by the government I am currently living under) and they made the decision to get out of the way and start a new life elsewhere. Specific legislation was drafted that targeted my ancestors and the people they were with to be exterminated. Mass genocide was encouraged. By moving away, the situation was resolved even though others got to claim the farms, homes, businesses, and other property that rightfully belonged to my ancestors.
So perhaps you would have preferred if, for example, the US had stayed out of WWII and the extermination camps had continued ? Perhaps the Axis would have won and there would be no jews at all left in the world. This would have been acceptable to you?
You're assuming that leaving is a realistic possibility when, for many, it is not.
On top of that, being a refugee with no money, no belongings, no rights leads to such things as having to sell your daughter's body to be able to survive. Would you do that, rather than ask for foreign intervention to stop the use of chemical weapons where you live?
But why should you care about such things? After all, it isn't happening on your side of the street.
No, I sure as hell don't want another government interfering here and if you think I would you don't know a damn thing about either me or my neighbors. It sounds to me like you want to be subject to a foreign nation as a vassal and live in perpetual slavery to that distant foreign power with no real way to complain or even express your feelings about the conditions you live under. That sounds like a horrible way to live, and I really can't comprehend how you can enjoy such a lifestyle.
With regard to another government interfering, I think you've completely missed the point of what I was saying. I'll try again - try and understand this time.
Per international law (which does exist even if you are too ignorant to know it) states that use of chemical weapons against its own civilians by a sovereign country is justification for military intervention by other nations to stop such use of the chemical weapons.
You are lucky to live in a place where you are not in need of foreign intervention. If you were unlucky enough to live in another country and you were in need of foreign intervention then you would ask for it and unless you have actually lived in such circumstances, don't say that you wouldn't ask because you could not possibly know for sure. I'll note that a country like Isreal would not even exist at this point without serious foreign involvement not only to allocate the land but to provide such financial and militarily support as to keep the country going.
Again, why in the hell does America, Britain, France, or Russia need to be involved in this matter at all?
Because of the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population which, as I explained previously, is both legally and morally justified. Because we can and should step in to protect people who cannot protect themselves - just as you would want someone to step in and protect you and your family if you were walking down the street and were attacked.
Indeed I would say that the current fiasco that is happening in Syria is explicitly because of intervention that has already taken place by other governments, including all of those I mention earlier plus other independent sovereign entities as well.
You also have this strange notion that somehow all of the nations are under some sort of world government that passes laws which everybody must follow.
Again you show your ignorance. There is no 'world gover
Anyone understand how this violates the 'code of practice' and if such a violation is just frowned upon or is actually illegal ?
Also, as far as not wanting any other country to intervene in your countries affairs...I suggest that you have this opinion largely because your government isn't trying to kill you and your family.
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
And I have a question for you:
How would you feel if you had family there?
Pissed. But does that mean I need to call in the military of a foreign government which inhabits a completely different continent?
I really fail to see your logic here. My choices, and the choices that my ancestors had in similar circumstances (they also were the target of massive persecution and mass genocide) were either to fight to change the system from within, and if that failed to get the hell out of harm's way by moving somewhere else. If it was a lone idiot who did something horrible like this, I would be demanding that law enforcement officers would step up and... enforce some laws.
Don't get me started on "international law". Countries are sovereign entities who are pretty much free to do anything they please except for internal to themselves laws that may seek to stop such thing. Sometimes other countries may gang up on a country being a real idiot... but usually that is somebody who is a real idiot to other nations and not to themselves or their own citizens/subjects. If this really was all about saving the lives of children or avenging their deaths, we would invade North Korea yesterday, not to mention other places around the world that have far worse stories than what is happening in Syria.
I sure as hell wouldn't want Russia, China, the UK, France, or any other damn country coming into the city where I currently live simply because I disagree with the political policies of my government. My reaction would be to join the government forces, kick out the foreigners, and then once that is settled figure a way to make a protest that sticks or do something to change the government from within. I expect that is precisely what will happen in Syria, where any invasion of that country by foreign governments only gives further legitimacy to Assad and his government. Not only is it not helpful, but it is counter-productive to picking sides in a civil war where the outcome is far from certain or even if the government that will replace the Assad regime will be any better.
We didn't go into North Korea, I think, largely because it is attached to China and China would not have allowed it. Not sure.
There is international law, put in place after Ruanda, that states that other countries can take military action if a government does something like use chemical weapons on its own citizenry - so it is actually not illegal to intervene in Syria at this point.
I do not believe that if you had family in Syria you would be so apathetic towards the civilians there.
You say that you would call the authorities if it were a lone person. There is no difference. It's a person and a government and they're breaking international law and, further, there is international law then allowing military intervention to stop the offense.
Joe Six-Pack
Funny the two completely opposite and conflicting images that brought to mind when I read it.
I certainly don't see any reason for America or anybody else for that matter to go to war over this mess. There certainly is no reason to even seek UN approval for going there either, of course why does anybody need "UN approval" for going to war in the first place?
And I have a question for you:
How would you feel if you had family there?
Luckily, we have an ally of each side of the war exercising Security Council veto powers, so the odds of having to get involved are less dire than they might otherwise be.
We will still get involved, regardless of UN backing. It hasn't stopped us before, and it won't stop us now.
we will be damned for isolationism and disregard for human suffering if we do not act
Yes, it is too bad we were ordained by God to police the world. It would be so much better if there was some sort of organization that could represent the collective will of the nations of the world in situations like this. Maybe we could set up something like that. New York City might be a good place.
Dante Alighieri - "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
I don't know about God but I am disgusted by people who are willing to stand by and do nothing while the weak are beaten, raped or killed.
With 10,000 Baby Boomers hitting retirement every day from now until 2030 and putting their hands out for social security while simultaneously ceasing to pay income tax the IT job market should be the least of the US's worries.
Just clarifying in support of your statement
It gets better when you realize when Obama said he wanted to create more oversight and then put the entire oversight under the NSA's leadership.
What most people don't realize is Obama is as much a republican as Reagan, Nixon, and both Bushes. His policies are in direct line with theirs.
What we need are term limits for congress critters so they can't become as corrupted, and for Congress to start revoking executive powers back out of the executive branch.
We didn't need the cabinets before World War II Why don't we eliminate them?
The last scary thought I shall leave with. What if J Edgar Hoover had the NSA's ability to spy on people?
Let me get this straight. You're saying that corrupt executive branch persons should reduce / restrict their own power ?
Yeah, that's going to happen.
Agreed.
However, the problem I have with a lot of Obama critics is not that the content of their criticism is actually wrong, but rather feels disingenuous. Had Mitt won the presidency, I feel like a lot of these guys bitching about Obama would be standing right in line behind Mitt, who I believe would be doing basically the exact same thing as Obama*, charging that anyone who dared criticize that "great patriot Mitt Romney" was a terrorist-sympathizing traitor who should be rounded up and executed. I don't see Mitt having a fundamentally different stance on NSA wiretapping, the Patriot Act, or drone strikes (and I bet Benghazi would still have happened under his watch, too).
For those of you (us) who have managed to remain consistent with our criticisms of both parties, bravo.
I voted for Obama. I am not sure that I regret it, exactly, as I don't think there was a (realistic) better alternative.
That being said, I do not approve of Obama's actions and inactions since he's been in office. I am, to say the least, highly disappointed.
How about we impeach brain dead idiots like yourself? I'm not a fan of Obama at this point, but this isn't all on him. Your boyscout Bush, and both major political parties have deep rooted ties to all of this shit.
Got to start somewhere.
Threat of impeachment / looking like an ass in history books in the future might be a motivating factor in getting someone to behave better.
I also agree with mcgrew that Congress and the Senate are complicit and need to be scrapped.
Unfortunately I don't see this happening due to the general complacency and ignorance of the American people at this point.
Did you read the decision? It sounds like you based your comment on a quick read of the summary. The decision focused on a very specific issue:
It's a secret court put in place by the executive branch. What else would you expect?
The power of the court itself comes from the intelligence / secrecy aspects of the government. It is not in their best interests to reduce their own power.
If that's what you want, then sign the petition!
SIGNATURES NEEDED BY SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000: 99,957
TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION: 43
Have to wonder just how many people are afraid to sign?
Critics claim that Germany is paying six times as much for power, to finance all the renewables. (Per that article, 18 billion Euros paid on power that has a market value of 3 billion Euros) See also the Wikipedia article on Renewable energy in Germany.
Presumably though this is an investment and the renewables will keep providing power once their costs have been paid fully. I'm wondering if, over the operational lifetime of the solar and wind power equipment, they will wind up producing enough power that they will have actually been a good investment?
IMHO it would make more sense for them to keep the nuclear power plants and try to shut down coal plants, but that's not their plan.
It's also possible that Germany taxes energy use deliberately in an attempt to decrease consumption.
Perhaps I should RTFA, but looking at the Wikipedia page on Energy_in_Germany, that looks to be about 10% of monthly electricity consumption, (generously, given that it's summer), and less than 2% of total energy consumption.
Are you comparing the monthly value of 5.1 TWh or the yearly value of 38.14 TWh against the wiki value for consumption ?
I ran a camera at some of their city council meetings back when I did live video work, and they were about the most boring things I've ever sat through in my life.
I believe that as I had trouble just reading your summary of the meetings without losing focus.
Seized or destroyed makes little difference when your livelihood depends on it. You need replacement equipment now. Not in a week. Not in a month. Today. Or you can't make money. And with so many professions needing a computer... whether it's seized or destroyed you're still at the computer shop the next day buying a new one. And when you get your old one back... it's useless.
The difference between the two is pretty minor. This is also why you, like me and many others, should keep multiple off-site backups, not in banks, not at a friend's house, but buried under a tree in a public park or something... so you can always quickly recover.
Because whether it's the government that steals your shit, or a burglar... you're just as fucked.
And if there are compromising personal pictures / videos / letters / etc then the government has what they want - a lever to use against the reporter who is the actual target.
Put it out there, let some people get outed and killed, they are collaborator scum anyway. Sure it sounds harsh and it is, but until the security apparatus suffers some major political damage and loses some people they think of as friends they will never appreciate the harm all there secrets are doing. They have proven this over and over again.
That would be hugely irresponsible.
There are those who deserve to be punished, and there are those who do not.
By dumping the information without redaction you risk hurting those who do not deserve to be punished.
Not everyone who works for the governments / agencies involved is a bad person and not all the things done by the governments / agency agencies involved are unnecessary or undesirable.
Not really hate speech. Obama has use drone strikes against individuals, so really all the tweet was doing is drawing attention to our president indiscriminately murdering individuals without a warrant or like means. The Internet would be a much better place if we had sarcasm tags. I think that was the reporters intent.
"I think that was the reporters intent."
Based on what, exactly? The asshole not only posted his opinion but defended it until he got so lambasted that he started posting retractions. Did you even read TFA (or anything else about Grunwald for that matter), or are you just blowing smoke out your ass? (obviously the latter I'm just giving you the chance to respond).
Not only was it really and truly hate speech..it was supporting what amounts to murder and the strong support of 'the reporter' in the defense of said murder.
Because it couldn't be that parents with bad habits (ie giving their kids crap soda to drink) wouldn't teach their kids other bad habits (like breaking stuff).
Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.
Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.
The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.
This is a social democracy.
The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.
People have to take responsibility as well.
Do I dislike the way the USA is headed? Yes.
Do I blame a large percentage of the US population for not paying attention and allowing themselves to become and then remain willfully ignorant? Yes.
The USA is not yet at the point where the USSR was, and it's not yet too late for change...but if it doesn't happen soon it may never happen at all.
Wake up America, or lose everything you care about.
With "...more than 75% probable" rounding up to 100% of course...