would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?
To prevent a terrorist attack on the US? Yes. Got any more really puzzling questions?
The fact that you even ask means you "want the terrorists to win" rather than Republicans. I'll take Democrats and the weaker, poorer, more hateful America they'd create over America getting hit like we did on 9/11.
(Of course, the more likely outcome is that a weaker America would lead to terrorists being successful, but that wasn't the assumption of your question.)
...just because saying 'Fush Buck' should not be cause enough to be sent to prison...
Yeah, the prisons for this are getting so full that we've had to start housing the offenders in college dormatories, downtown apartments, and fashionable townhouses. The work camps are starting to resemble law offices and newsrooms at daily newspapers. And these poor souls are often punished by being forced to write their shameful slogans on huge banners that they must carry down public streets, loudly calling out their disrepute to all.
And North Korea is, or was, going to attack the US?
Or they'll attack one of our allies in the region, or they'll sell missles or nuclear arms to Iran to attack our allies or to supply terrorists. Yes.
Also, NK's internal situation is more than cause enough for someone to invade them. NK is the worst regime since the Khmer Rouge. China ought to be ashamed for protecting these monsters.
Is being defended (not invulnerably, mind you) against nuclear attack a good substitute for being morally right?
It's a better alternative. It's not similar enough to really be a substitue.
The original poster claimed that the US wasn't "morally right" to deny countries nuclear weapons. I disagree. But I wasn't pointing out that he was wrong, I was pointing out that his views on the subject are impractial, irresponsible, unreasonable, and not in keeping with any kind of objective foreign-policy reality. Wrong is just a bonus.
Why should the US alter our behavior to fit some randomly-selected set of morals anyway? I challenge you to come up with a foreign-policy that's "morally right" according to all moral codes (past, present, and future) and based on ideas that have historically proven successful.
Unlike you, I'm not making the question rhetorical. I can see how people would choose one side or the other. Really, though, have you thought about it? Is being safe the most important thing to you?
Being responsible is the most important thing. It's simply not responsible to allow our citizens to be attacked in order to uphold some kind of moral consistency.
Is the behaviour of the US likely to increase or decrease the number of nukes held by the "axis of evil"?
decrease. The number of countries in the axis of evil is at 2, down from 3.
Would you be more likely or less likely to launch nukes at america if you were deemed to be an "axis of evil"?
Axis of evil countries are in that group because of their behavior. They don't behave that way because they're in that group.
Are you trying to tell us that North Korea's government isn't evil? Or are you trying to tell us that they weren't evil until George Bush made them evil by being mean?
And Iran is the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism. Are you saying that's not evil?
We have high fructose corn syrup because of the tarrifs on foreign cane sugar imports going back about a hundred years. The tarrifs are to protect (artificially enrich) US farmers. So sugar is expensive and corn sweeteners are cheaper.
On the other hand, your plan to ban high fructose corn syrup is, of course, stupid totalitarian nanny-state nonsense. People should be allowed to choose what they eat, not be forced to eat what you think is "the good food".
Why are so many slashdrones so terribly hostile toward diabetics?
It's not about you. It's about them. They're better than you -- that's their point. They're "the good people". How would you know how much better they are if they didn't tell you how bad you are in comparison? More importantly, how would they know?
Similar people drive a Prius, only buy organic food, support smoking bans in taverns, and "only watch PBS on TV".
I'm not against the transportation of hazmat; the only point is that it's clearly more dangerous to transport such material than to process it on site.
That doesn't sound "extremely" risky to me.
A nuclear waste spill would be a big problem. Perhaps even a tragic one. It would not be catastrophic. The worst case scenario is sad, but not particularly alarming.
It's not as bad as some recent coal-mining accidents.
...not worry about whether the kids are going to burn themselves...
I think your liberal imperialist environmental communists are more likely to have a dog. But the solar panels violate the dog's animal rights to use the backyard for a toilet, so solar is out.
The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation.
Not one-sided at all.
Doomsday theories about peak-oil aren't a lot more interesting than any other kind of doomsday theories. They tend not to come true and are counterindicated by the lack of doomsdays that have occured in the past.
Oil is like any other economic commodity. As it starts to become scarce, the price will increase. Furthermore, the future scarcity of oil is, to a large extent, built into the current price of oil. Why would someone sell you his oil for $50 today when he could get $300 in 2 years? Because oil-company leaders are complete idiots?
As the price increases, demand will level-out. Just like any other item.
As the price increases, other sources of oil (tar sands, coal gassification, deep-water drilling, drilling in "environmentally sensitive areas", etc) will become economically viable to exploit, adding to the available supply.
As the price increases, substitute fuels like ethanol will become real economic alternatives rather than government "special" projects.
Oil will always be available at a market price.
Any analysis of the future of oil that doesn't take economic principles into account can never be correct.
Slashdot Mirror
would you want Hillary Clinton to declare anyone an enemy combatant and detain them indefinately?
To prevent a terrorist attack on the US? Yes. Got any more really puzzling questions?
The fact that you even ask means you "want the terrorists to win" rather than Republicans. I'll take Democrats and the weaker, poorer, more hateful America they'd create over America getting hit like we did on 9/11.
(Of course, the more likely outcome is that a weaker America would lead to terrorists being successful, but that wasn't the assumption of your question.)
Damn you Sony. Can't you get your act together and release something on time?
Oh, wait... nm
...just because saying 'Fush Buck' should not be cause enough to be sent to prison...
Yeah, the prisons for this are getting so full that we've had to start housing the offenders in college dormatories, downtown apartments, and fashionable townhouses. The work camps are starting to resemble law offices and newsrooms at daily newspapers. And these poor souls are often punished by being forced to write their shameful slogans on huge banners that they must carry down public streets, loudly calling out their disrepute to all.
This just in: Journalists complain about the USA.
Thanks for the news. I'll be looking forward to your stories about the sun coming up and water running down hill asa the morning progresses.
No he's just another hater. He hates America. (Also, he's a liar-for-profit.) How about you? If not America, then who? And who pays you?
Are you Ward Churchill?
It's an extremely lame song.
Just stop singing it.
And North Korea is, or was, going to attack the US?
Or they'll attack one of our allies in the region, or they'll sell missles or nuclear arms to Iran to attack our allies or to supply terrorists. Yes.
Also, NK's internal situation is more than cause enough for someone to invade them. NK is the worst regime since the Khmer Rouge. China ought to be ashamed for protecting these monsters.
So in World War 2 the US should have remained neutral? And that's a moral stance?
Is being defended (not invulnerably, mind you) against nuclear attack a good substitute for being morally right?
It's a better alternative. It's not similar enough to really be a substitue.
The original poster claimed that the US wasn't "morally right" to deny countries nuclear weapons. I disagree. But I wasn't pointing out that he was wrong, I was pointing out that his views on the subject are impractial, irresponsible, unreasonable, and not in keeping with any kind of objective foreign-policy reality. Wrong is just a bonus.
Why should the US alter our behavior to fit some randomly-selected set of morals anyway? I challenge you to come up with a foreign-policy that's "morally right" according to all moral codes (past, present, and future) and based on ideas that have historically proven successful.
Unlike you, I'm not making the question rhetorical. I can see how people would choose one side or the other. Really, though, have you thought about it? Is being safe the most important thing to you?
Being responsible is the most important thing. It's simply not responsible to allow our citizens to be attacked in order to uphold some kind of moral consistency.
Is the behaviour of the US likely to increase or decrease the number of nukes held by the "axis of evil"?
decrease. The number of countries in the axis of evil is at 2, down from 3.
Would you be more likely or less likely to launch nukes at america if you were deemed to be an "axis of evil"?
Axis of evil countries are in that group because of their behavior. They don't behave that way because they're in that group.
Are you trying to tell us that North Korea's government isn't evil? Or are you trying to tell us that they weren't evil until George Bush made them evil by being mean?
And Iran is the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism. Are you saying that's not evil?
As it was said, the best way to win the game "thermonuclear war", is to not play it
And denying the your enemies nuclear weapons accomplishes that. FTW.
Not if your "moral failing" is that you're denying your enemies nuclear weapons.
You can enforce that sort of mindset through force, but it doesn't make it morally right...
Is being "morally right" a good defense against nuclear attack?
If you don't allow your government to have power over youe everyday life, then their "education" level is a non-factor.
You only need to educate your government if you want it to rule people on your behalf. People who want that are called "tyrants". They're bad.
What's wrong with "take a pill" if the pills work?
How about if you do what works for you and other people do what works for them?
(You can still think you're better than everyone else. No one can take that away from you.)
We have high fructose corn syrup because of the tarrifs on foreign cane sugar imports going back about a hundred years. The tarrifs are to protect (artificially enrich) US farmers. So sugar is expensive and corn sweeteners are cheaper.
On the other hand, your plan to ban high fructose corn syrup is, of course, stupid totalitarian nanny-state nonsense. People should be allowed to choose what they eat, not be forced to eat what you think is "the good food".
Why are so many slashdrones so terribly hostile toward diabetics?
It's not about you. It's about them. They're better than you -- that's their point. They're "the good people". How would you know how much better they are if they didn't tell you how bad you are in comparison? More importantly, how would they know?
Similar people drive a Prius, only buy organic food, support smoking bans in taverns, and "only watch PBS on TV".
You also have to do a little dance and say a prayer to Ralph Nader.
I'm not against the transportation of hazmat; the only point is that it's clearly more dangerous to transport such material than to process it on site.
That doesn't sound "extremely" risky to me.
A nuclear waste spill would be a big problem. Perhaps even a tragic one. It would not be catastrophic. The worst case scenario is sad, but not particularly alarming.
It's not as bad as some recent coal-mining accidents.
Don't you know? Meat is murder!!!!!!!
I think your liberal imperialist environmental communists are more likely to have a dog. But the solar panels violate the dog's animal rights to use the backyard for a toilet, so solar is out.
And transporting radioactive waste to an from a processing facility is extremely risky...
And your evidence for this statement is?
Come on, you must have evidence of at least some risk to suggest it's "extremely" risky.
Also, if you disagree with someone on politics, facts don't matter.
The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation.
Not one-sided at all.
Doomsday theories about peak-oil aren't a lot more interesting than any other kind of doomsday theories. They tend not to come true and are counterindicated by the lack of doomsdays that have occured in the past.
Oil is like any other economic commodity. As it starts to become scarce, the price will increase. Furthermore, the future scarcity of oil is, to a large extent, built into the current price of oil. Why would someone sell you his oil for $50 today when he could get $300 in 2 years? Because oil-company leaders are complete idiots?
As the price increases, demand will level-out. Just like any other item.
As the price increases, other sources of oil (tar sands, coal gassification, deep-water drilling, drilling in "environmentally sensitive areas", etc) will become economically viable to exploit, adding to the available supply.
As the price increases, substitute fuels like ethanol will become real economic alternatives rather than government "special" projects.
Oil will always be available at a market price.
Any analysis of the future of oil that doesn't take economic principles into account can never be correct.
Fresno State University is swimming in oil. You didn't know that?