L Boom, I don't know where you get the idea that it's only the rich being bailed out.
Or have you missed all your communist cheques from Bush over the past 8 years?
don't even start on the debt, because nobody intends to pay it back. Our kids are going to pay it back, and we're going to accept thousands of dollars of kickbacks from politicians in the meantime.
Correction: his plan helped him to be taken seriously by a vast minority of the electorate.
Both winners of the primaries came pretty much out of nowhere. If you were reading the newspapers before the election, it was a race between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. If you read the newspapers before the election, Hillary Clinton was to be coronated. It probably could've been anyone's race. The difference? Obama said "change", McCain said "change", Clinton said "change, but Ron Paul said "Here's what I'll change".
But that's the problem, isn't it? Because he committed the crime of actually having a plan for the country, he's a nutjob. He's a nutjob to about 90% of the electorate who voted for someone else.
Imagine if Bush campaigned on what he wanted to do. Imagine if McCain and Obama actually campaigned on what they wanted to do. The political landscape would be changed, and it'd take one person saying "I'm going to change all the bad things about this country and make it great again" with no real plans, and both of them would lose.
The republicans are far left. They want to introduce amazingly massive reforms across the board, changing 200 year old traditions (Who finally killed the gold standard? Nixon. Who started the first war of aggression from the US in a century? Bush.) and leading "People's liberation armies" across Europe.
The only candidate to ever present a fully fleshed out plan for running the country is Ron Paul. Witness the damage that telling people what your plan is can cause.
If you think you can believe what McCain is saying, you're truly ignorant. Look at what he was saying just a few years ago, and you'll realise that he's being just as fake as Bush with his humble foreign policy and "no nation building" in 2000.
Unless you're saying something that the vast majority already agrees with ("I love america and I don't care WHO knows it!"), it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to introduce voters to a new way of thinking, or even a fully formed thought. If someone sees a fully formed thought, they could disagree with you on it, and that disagreement could cost thousands of votes.
What you're witnessing is a battle of marketing executives at work. The same action will be reviled or revered based on the way the politicians can frame the discussion. The politician with the stronger frame will win the discussion, regardless of the facts.
Seriously, there was only one guy worth putting into the office. Ron Paul didn't really look at "the issues", becuase "the issues" are all crap. Instead, he had a plan for the government as a whole.
Remember folks, even though we torture, and we use brutal military force slaughtering thousands to keep Iraqis in check, it's a GOOD thing we invaded Iraq, becuase Saddam Hussein tortured, and used brutal military force slaughtering thousands to keep Iraqis in check.
I mean, Saddam Hussein had a puppet republic set up to hide the fact that he was really ruling the country. That's terrible. Obviously he should have set up a puppet republic to hide the fact that he was really ruling the country, like we do.
Making Ethanol only destroys food if you're ignorant of the process.
The waste product from the creation of ethanol is a protein-rich mush that is sold to farmers as -- get this -- food for livestock.
Most people need to actually learn about processes before they start attacking them.
Oh yeah, and water turned to hydrogen and burned would turn into water vapour or condensate, which would re-enter the water table as fresh water. This would, unsurprisingly, have 0 net effect on the amount of water available.
You've got the dumbest interpetation of freedom of speech I've ever seen.
If certain speech isn't regulated, then how can one be punished for it? If it's not censored, then how come you're being charged? It's axiomatic. In order to punish someone for saying something, their free speech must be abridged, or no infraction took place. In order for free speech to be abridged, you must have punishment for violations, or no abridgement took place.
Only if you can prove damages, which would require the allegations to be true.
Another interesting thing about this is, someone can have a bad enough reputation that they're effectively 'libel-proof'.
This is the reason I'm not bothering to press charges against a stalker I've got who sent out a mass-email with completely fabricated allegations that I've got a criminal record. Everyone knows she's a liar, so nobody believes her. No damages for me.
You've just got to face the fact that it DOESN'T exist. When you walk down the street, you have no right to privacy. Everything that can be seen about you is wide open for public consumption.
Similarly, unless you put up a gate or something, anyone has the ability to pull into your driveway. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
We'd have plenty of planes if we didn't have bases in 130 countries that aren't the United States. We should pull our troops and equipment OUT of these bases, and use our armed forces, the best armed forces in the world and the most powerful, to defend our borders, as is their raison d'etre. The existence of a department of defense AND a department of homeland security is oxymoronic.
to answer your question:
Modern involvement in the middle east started with the Eisenhower doctrine in the late '50s singling out the middle east for military involvement. Everything since has been blowback from the policy of getting involved in middle eastern politics.
-We helped assassinate the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50s -We helped install the regime that would eventually lead to Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq. -We sent soldiers into Lebanon to kill people in the 50s -We funded and armed Saddam Hussein and backed him in his war against Iran despite knowing what he was -We gave Saddam Hussein weapons of terror and mass destruction -We trained, funded and armed the Taliban in Afganistan -We assisted in the war against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait -We trained operatives who ignited a car bomb in Lebanon in 1985 -We intevened in Lebanon's civil war in the '70s -We've got military bases across the middle east -We're sponsoring dissident groups in Iran -We're making threats towards Syria and Iran
These things might seem like they don't matter, but every conflict we're in is a conflict where we're killing people, and every person killed by an american bomb or bullet is a person whose remaining friends and family will remember was killed by Westerners. Imagine 9/11 again. Imagine you DIDN'T live in the country with the most powerful armed forces on the planet. What would you do if you knew your government couldn't retaliate? Most Americans, I believe, would head over there and get some vengence.
This is in addition to the problems with our involvement with Israel. Israel hasn't spent the past 50 years just sitting there taking the rocket attacks, they've been fighting back. They invaded Lebanon in the '80s, they constantly attack Palestine, and I'm not about to make a value judgement there. The thing I WILL say is, if we're supporting them and helping to arm them, then it's only natural that we're going to experience blowback.
I don't think there are too many attacks on Sweden or Switzerland.
ununiformed unorgainzed militia fighter whom is known for killing unarmed civilians, you are caught with a mosque full of land mines and AK-47's, or your name is Kalid Sheik Mohammad, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Either way though, in the case of secret prisons in cuba or europe, how would you ever know? This guy could've been abducted, imprisoned, and tortured for information, possibly faking a confession in a parallel to the salem witch trials. At that point, since there's no due process right, nor habeas corpus, he'll be put to death for a crime he's innocent for.
I love being one of the good guys. It lets us torture people until they sign their own death warrants and feel like we're really doing something GOOD and JUST for the world.
Slashdot Mirror
L Boom, I don't know where you get the idea that it's only the rich being bailed out.
Or have you missed all your communist cheques from Bush over the past 8 years?
don't even start on the debt, because nobody intends to pay it back. Our kids are going to pay it back, and we're going to accept thousands of dollars of kickbacks from politicians in the meantime.
I didn't feel like modding you down until I saw your bitchy little remark at the end.
Correction: his plan helped him to be taken seriously by a vast minority of the electorate.
Both winners of the primaries came pretty much out of nowhere. If you were reading the newspapers before the election, it was a race between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. If you read the newspapers before the election, Hillary Clinton was to be coronated. It probably could've been anyone's race. The difference? Obama said "change", McCain said "change", Clinton said "change, but Ron Paul said "Here's what I'll change".
But that's the problem, isn't it? Because he committed the crime of actually having a plan for the country, he's a nutjob. He's a nutjob to about 90% of the electorate who voted for someone else.
Imagine if Bush campaigned on what he wanted to do. Imagine if McCain and Obama actually campaigned on what they wanted to do. The political landscape would be changed, and it'd take one person saying "I'm going to change all the bad things about this country and make it great again" with no real plans, and both of them would lose.
I disagree.
The republicans are far left. They want to introduce amazingly massive reforms across the board, changing 200 year old traditions (Who finally killed the gold standard? Nixon. Who started the first war of aggression from the US in a century? Bush.) and leading "People's liberation armies" across Europe.
"Both Parties"?
In Canada?
The only candidate to ever present a fully fleshed out plan for running the country is Ron Paul. Witness the damage that telling people what your plan is can cause.
If you think you can believe what McCain is saying, you're truly ignorant. Look at what he was saying just a few years ago, and you'll realise that he's being just as fake as Bush with his humble foreign policy and "no nation building" in 2000.
Those smelly hippies have a balanced budget and universal healthcare.
So your options are, learn chinese and don't get sick, or move to Canada.
Don't blame him, blame the electorate.
Unless you're saying something that the vast majority already agrees with ("I love america and I don't care WHO knows it!"), it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to introduce voters to a new way of thinking, or even a fully formed thought. If someone sees a fully formed thought, they could disagree with you on it, and that disagreement could cost thousands of votes.
What you're witnessing is a battle of marketing executives at work. The same action will be reviled or revered based on the way the politicians can frame the discussion. The politician with the stronger frame will win the discussion, regardless of the facts.
Seriously, there was only one guy worth putting into the office. Ron Paul didn't really look at "the issues", becuase "the issues" are all crap. Instead, he had a plan for the government as a whole.
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular.
Ron Paul lost. Badly.
Remember folks, even though we torture, and we use brutal military force slaughtering thousands to keep Iraqis in check, it's a GOOD thing we invaded Iraq, becuase Saddam Hussein tortured, and used brutal military force slaughtering thousands to keep Iraqis in check.
I mean, Saddam Hussein had a puppet republic set up to hide the fact that he was really ruling the country. That's terrible. Obviously he should have set up a puppet republic to hide the fact that he was really ruling the country, like we do.
Because we want to rape and pillage Iran just as we have to Iraq.
Iraq was unjustified after you take away the rhetoric and lies, why should Iran get special treatment?
Making Ethanol only destroys food if you're ignorant of the process.
The waste product from the creation of ethanol is a protein-rich mush that is sold to farmers as -- get this -- food for livestock.
Most people need to actually learn about processes before they start attacking them.
Oh yeah, and water turned to hydrogen and burned would turn into water vapour or condensate, which would re-enter the water table as fresh water. This would, unsurprisingly, have 0 net effect on the amount of water available.
You're mistaken that using hydrogen cell vehicles will substantially reduce the amount of water in the world.
Behold:
Step 1.
Turn water into hydrogen
Step 2.
Burn hydrogen, producing water vapour or condensate which re-enters the water table as fresh water
I'd predict the only problem with hydrogen cars is there'd be a lot more rainfall.
Nuclear weapons are the greatest force of world peace in the world.
Universal proliferation of such dread weapons of destruction is the best way to make sure there's no war.
And look! The only countries anyone is at war with are tiny ones without nuclear weapons!
I know we're Canadians and all, but not even WE can be taxed at 120%.
You've got the dumbest interpetation of freedom of speech I've ever seen.
If certain speech isn't regulated, then how can one be punished for it? If it's not censored, then how come you're being charged? It's axiomatic. In order to punish someone for saying something, their free speech must be abridged, or no infraction took place. In order for free speech to be abridged, you must have punishment for violations, or no abridgement took place.
Only if you can prove damages, which would require the allegations to be true.
Another interesting thing about this is, someone can have a bad enough reputation that they're effectively 'libel-proof'.
This is the reason I'm not bothering to press charges against a stalker I've got who sent out a mass-email with completely fabricated allegations that I've got a criminal record. Everyone knows she's a liar, so nobody believes her. No damages for me.
"Complete privacy doesn't exist" != "Privacy doesn't exist"
You've just got to face the fact that it DOESN'T exist. When you walk down the street, you have no right to privacy. Everything that can be seen about you is wide open for public consumption.
Similarly, unless you put up a gate or something, anyone has the ability to pull into your driveway. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think it'd work both ways. I definitely wouldn't want someone who sues internet trolls working for me.
Doing something like that is a sure sign you're taking yourself too seriously.
It is pretty serious.
While I'm not certainly not supporting or encouraging hateful speech online[...]
I think the writer wrote this because they're a covetous Jew and they don't want anyone stealing their Jew gold.
We'd have plenty of planes if we didn't have bases in 130 countries that aren't the United States. We should pull our troops and equipment OUT of these bases, and use our armed forces, the best armed forces in the world and the most powerful, to defend our borders, as is their raison d'etre. The existence of a department of defense AND a department of homeland security is oxymoronic.
to answer your question:
Modern involvement in the middle east started with the Eisenhower doctrine in the late '50s singling out the middle east for military involvement. Everything since has been blowback from the policy of getting involved in middle eastern politics.
-We helped assassinate the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50s
-We helped install the regime that would eventually lead to Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq.
-We sent soldiers into Lebanon to kill people in the 50s
-We funded and armed Saddam Hussein and backed him in his war against Iran despite knowing what he was
-We gave Saddam Hussein weapons of terror and mass destruction
-We trained, funded and armed the Taliban in Afganistan
-We assisted in the war against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait
-We trained operatives who ignited a car bomb in Lebanon in 1985
-We intevened in Lebanon's civil war in the '70s
-We've got military bases across the middle east
-We're sponsoring dissident groups in Iran
-We're making threats towards Syria and Iran
These things might seem like they don't matter, but every conflict we're in is a conflict where we're killing people, and every person killed by an american bomb or bullet is a person whose remaining friends and family will remember was killed by Westerners. Imagine 9/11 again. Imagine you DIDN'T live in the country with the most powerful armed forces on the planet. What would you do if you knew your government couldn't retaliate? Most Americans, I believe, would head over there and get some vengence.
This is in addition to the problems with our involvement with Israel. Israel hasn't spent the past 50 years just sitting there taking the rocket attacks, they've been fighting back. They invaded Lebanon in the '80s, they constantly attack Palestine, and I'm not about to make a value judgement there. The thing I WILL say is, if we're supporting them and helping to arm them, then it's only natural that we're going to experience blowback.
I don't think there are too many attacks on Sweden or Switzerland.
ununiformed unorgainzed militia fighter whom is known for killing unarmed civilians, you are caught with a mosque full of land mines and AK-47's, or your name is Kalid Sheik Mohammad, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
That's becuase you're ignorant. New unconstitutional powers are already being abused.
Either way though, in the case of secret prisons in cuba or europe, how would you ever know? This guy could've been abducted, imprisoned, and tortured for information, possibly faking a confession in a parallel to the salem witch trials. At that point, since there's no due process right, nor habeas corpus, he'll be put to death for a crime he's innocent for.
I love being one of the good guys. It lets us torture people until they sign their own death warrants and feel like we're really doing something GOOD and JUST for the world.
Just because you can enforce it doesn't mean it will be enforced.