You should ask her if she'd rather have live children held incommunicado in some prison based solely on the government's say-so...
Well, terrorism actually happens. If this starts to happen to US citizens who aren't terrorists, then that will be a grave concern and the use of this program will have to be balanced against the responsibility to protect Americans from terrorism. Since it doesn't happen in reality, it's not a real concern.
When they finally come for you, who will speak out?
In the distant future, when western civilization falls because people didn't want to get their hands dirty fighting to save it, who will speak out?
You seem to want other people to learn what you want from history.
What you might learn from history is what I pointed out: large successful terrorist attacks lead to things like the USA PATRIOT ACT being passed. If you're against that, then it's in your best interest that terrorists be prevented from succeeding.
We're sorry your children were killed in that terrorist attack. We could have prevented it with some non-injurious interrogation and by listening to terrorist's phone calls, but we didn't do that because we wanted to avoid criticism and abide by an abstract legal principle. I'm sure your dead children would be satisfied that we did the right thing.
We'd appreciate your vote in 2008.
Sincerely,
The Democrats.
---
That's what you're advocating. It's simply irresponsible. Pretend all you want about trade-offs on an Internet message board, but what are you going to tell Mrs. Smith?
1. Yes, though there's little reason not to do both. Terrorism is a national security problem. Crime is mostly a local problem. Local problems are best handled and funded locally.
2. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign terrorists and it doesn't apply to enemies in a war. And it shouldn't. The 4th Amendment is to make Americans secure from their government, not to empower foreign enemies to kill more Americans easier.
3. There is oversight. Congress is informed.
But I don't see anything in your post that will make Americans safer from terrorists. You seem to be more interested in making terrorists safer from Americans. I don't think you'll get very broad support for that agenda.
Usually, you're supposed to tell people your ideas so they can decide whether you're the right guy to vote for. It's a campaign, not a jigsaw puzzle.
I know that was John Kerry's campaign: "I have a plan. If I'm elected, I'll tell you what it is." I guess people just weren't curious enough to take the chance.
I would rather in a nuclear fireball as a free man...
That's a fantastic plan. I'm sure you'll get widespread support for that one.
I am not afraid
Are you responsible though? Leaders are responsible to protect the USA. Whether they're afraid to die in an attack or not doesn't change their responsibility to protect the people they govern. Fear is completely beside the point.
...Goddamn...fuck...fucking...fascist sack of shit...fucking ass...
Wow, what an eloquent message! You are quite the gifted writer and persuader. This is exactly the kind of message that persuades Americans to agree with you and vote for your guys. I wonder why you guys keep losing these elections?
see you October 5th.
Oh. Now I understand.
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
Or "ten years from now" America fails to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack on Washington D.C. The government is decapitated and martial law is declared. Will your civil liberties be safe when that happens?
What if it's a smaller attack where only hundreds die? Do you think you'll have more civil liberties after that attack succeeds? You think the USA PATRIOT ACT XTREME that gets passed as a response to that attack is the best thing for freedom?
At least you'll have something to continue to complain about.
I think you don't understand the discussion. It's not about reality. It's a big paranoid echo chamber, and Karl Rove is out to get you and listen in to your thoughts at night.
Then he's going to lock you up at Gitmo and waterboard you because he heard (from listening in to your private thoughts) that you briefly considered naming your cat Osama.
Don't believe it? Read all about the conspiracy here.
The police don't have to break any laws to arrest me for shooting someone.
And how about preventing you from shooting (or stabbing for you gun-control nuts) someone? Exactly how can the government do that without this so-called "breaking laws"?
It can't. That's why very few crimes are actually prevented by governments.
Terrorist attacks like the 9/11 attack need to be prevented. Sweeping up the remains of the terrorists after they kill 1000s of Americans and saying "We caught the bad guys!!" is not enough.
Catching terrorists after they succeed doesn't protect Americans. It's the government's duty to protect the USA from these attacks by preventing them. Some people don't want that though.
As of a year ago, Western Digital was the only one in the market. We need more competition for this so we can get cheap fast hard drives. SCSI is too expensive.
The Republicans tend to be comprised by people who view themselves as the moral elite.
This is more of a media image than anything that represents reality. Some (too many) Republicans do have this failing, but the actual results of it are so minor as to be negligible. Look at the recent laws. Republicans have been in the majority in government for quite a while now. Have the laws gotten more morally strict, more permissive, or have they stayed about the same?
On the other hand, the Democrats tend to be comprised of people who view themselves as the intellectual elite. They want to control how we think.
And they really, really want your money because they're the intellectual elite and they know how to spend it better than you do.
What the hell happened to freedom...
At least by passing tax cuts, the Republicans let you to keep your own money. It's the most pro-freedom position by either party that actually gets enacted.
Example: There was a recent effort to alter a war memorial in San Diego to eliminate religious symbols. Despite an extraordniary effort, the anti-Christian forces were unsuccessful that time.
It's not an emotional response. Hatred and subjugation of religion, especially Christian religion, is the governing philosophy of a large number of people. These people are not a majority, but neither are they a tiny fringe. They're a core Democrat constituency, and an influential one in party thinking. They have very powerful legal, communications, education, and policy arms.
I like to point it out because most people don't like being associated with hate groups and bigotry. But they support these groups anyway, not knowing or denying the reality of what these groups think and wht they want to do.
How far has Slashdot fallen when Slashdot readers fall for anything someone puts in a press realease and refuse to consider any other information or alternate point of view on a subject?
And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.
The new version is: "You're with the Lord? We hate you. You are now a second-class citizen."
Slashdot Mirror
You should ask her if she'd rather have live children held incommunicado in some prison based solely on the government's say-so...
Well, terrorism actually happens. If this starts to happen to US citizens who aren't terrorists, then that will be a grave concern and the use of this program will have to be balanced against the responsibility to protect Americans from terrorism. Since it doesn't happen in reality, it's not a real concern.
When they finally come for you, who will speak out?
In the distant future, when western civilization falls because people didn't want to get their hands dirty fighting to save it, who will speak out?
Freedom is a matter of degree. Dead is dead.
I doubt she'd rather have dead children than live children who can't make private phone calls to terrorists.
Fear is not a factor. It's a responsibility question.
You would choose to fail Mrs. Smith and have her children die as a result. I would not. Period.
You seem to want other people to learn what you want from history.
What you might learn from history is what I pointed out: large successful terrorist attacks lead to things like the USA PATRIOT ACT being passed. If you're against that, then it's in your best interest that terrorists be prevented from succeeding.
...get rid of political ads on TV...
Yeah, that's the key to protecting civil liberties: restrict free speech.
No contradiction there at all.
That's reprehensible.
So you'd be willing to write a letter like this:
---
Dear Mrs. Smith,
We're sorry your children were killed in that terrorist attack. We could have prevented it with some non-injurious interrogation and by listening to terrorist's phone calls, but we didn't do that because we wanted to avoid criticism and abide by an abstract legal principle. I'm sure your dead children would be satisfied that we did the right thing.
We'd appreciate your vote in 2008.
Sincerely,
The Democrats.
---
That's what you're advocating. It's simply irresponsible. Pretend all you want about trade-offs on an Internet message board, but what are you going to tell Mrs. Smith?
So nevermind learning any lessons from history then.
1. Yes, though there's little reason not to do both. Terrorism is a national security problem. Crime is mostly a local problem. Local problems are best handled and funded locally.
2. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign terrorists and it doesn't apply to enemies in a war. And it shouldn't. The 4th Amendment is to make Americans secure from their government, not to empower foreign enemies to kill more Americans easier.
3. There is oversight. Congress is informed.
But I don't see anything in your post that will make Americans safer from terrorists. You seem to be more interested in making terrorists safer from Americans. I don't think you'll get very broad support for that agenda.
If you want my ideas, elect me.
Usually, you're supposed to tell people your ideas so they can decide whether you're the right guy to vote for. It's a campaign, not a jigsaw puzzle.
I know that was John Kerry's campaign: "I have a plan. If I'm elected, I'll tell you what it is." I guess people just weren't curious enough to take the chance.
I would rather in a nuclear fireball as a free man...
That's a fantastic plan. I'm sure you'll get widespread support for that one.
I am not afraid
Are you responsible though? Leaders are responsible to protect the USA. Whether they're afraid to die in an attack or not doesn't change their responsibility to protect the people they govern. Fear is completely beside the point.
That's quite a rant. Got any ideas?
Wow, what an eloquent message! You are quite the gifted writer and persuader. This is exactly the kind of message that persuades Americans to agree with you and vote for your guys. I wonder why you guys keep losing these elections?
see you October 5th.
Oh. Now I understand.
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
Ten years from now...
Or "ten years from now" America fails to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack on Washington D.C. The government is decapitated and martial law is declared. Will your civil liberties be safe when that happens?
What if it's a smaller attack where only hundreds die? Do you think you'll have more civil liberties after that attack succeeds? You think the USA PATRIOT ACT XTREME that gets passed as a response to that attack is the best thing for freedom?
At least you'll have something to continue to complain about.
I think you don't understand the discussion. It's not about reality. It's a big paranoid echo chamber, and Karl Rove is out to get you and listen in to your thoughts at night.
Then he's going to lock you up at Gitmo and waterboard you because he heard (from listening in to your private thoughts) that you briefly considered naming your cat Osama.
Don't believe it? Read all about the conspiracy here.
And how about preventing you from shooting (or stabbing for you gun-control nuts) someone? Exactly how can the government do that without this so-called "breaking laws"?
It can't. That's why very few crimes are actually prevented by governments.
Terrorist attacks like the 9/11 attack need to be prevented. Sweeping up the remains of the terrorists after they kill 1000s of Americans and saying "We caught the bad guys!!" is not enough.
Catching terrorists after they succeed doesn't protect Americans. It's the government's duty to protect the USA from these attacks by preventing them. Some people don't want that though.
Where are the 10K RPM SATA hard drives?
As of a year ago, Western Digital was the only one in the market. We need more competition for this so we can get cheap fast hard drives. SCSI is too expensive.
The Republicans tend to be comprised by people who view themselves as the moral elite.
This is more of a media image than anything that represents reality. Some (too many) Republicans do have this failing, but the actual results of it are so minor as to be negligible. Look at the recent laws. Republicans have been in the majority in government for quite a while now. Have the laws gotten more morally strict, more permissive, or have they stayed about the same?
On the other hand, the Democrats tend to be comprised of people who view themselves as the intellectual elite. They want to control how we think.
And they really, really want your money because they're the intellectual elite and they know how to spend it better than you do.
What the hell happened to freedom...
At least by passing tax cuts, the Republicans let you to keep your own money. It's the most pro-freedom position by either party that actually gets enacted.
That's your argument? It's OK to make Christians into second-class citizens as long as being second-class isn't too nasty?
What exactly passes for subjugation these days?
Example: There was a recent effort to alter a war memorial in San Diego to eliminate religious symbols. Despite an extraordniary effort, the anti-Christian forces were unsuccessful that time.
If you want more examples, I'll link to them.
An emotional response like that...
It's not an emotional response. Hatred and subjugation of religion, especially Christian religion, is the governing philosophy of a large number of people. These people are not a majority, but neither are they a tiny fringe. They're a core Democrat constituency, and an influential one in party thinking. They have very powerful legal, communications, education, and policy arms.
I like to point it out because most people don't like being associated with hate groups and bigotry. But they support these groups anyway, not knowing or denying the reality of what these groups think and wht they want to do.
How far has Slashdot fallen when Slashdot readers fall for anything someone puts in a press realease and refuse to consider any other information or alternate point of view on a subject?
And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.
The new version is: "You're with the Lord? We hate you. You are now a second-class citizen."
When waters rise, lands dry up...
That's what I love about global warming doomsday predictions: the consistency.
Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations.
Just admit it. Democrats have objectives and choose a belief system to justify and achieve those objectives.
This seems like an attempt to promote "politically correct" science.
Using science to promote socialism and bash the USA == SCIENCE.
Criticizing that and asking for actual scientific skepticism == POLITICS.
1100 laptops is a large number
I don't think the census bureau can really be expected to handle that many of anything.