Nuclear bombers are only useful for a large-scale nuclear response
Uhhh. Nonsense. They might be part of the large scale response, but one bomber dropping one tactical nuke is not a "large scale response." It is also much easier to recall a bomber than a ballistic missile.
I'm sure one thing China would want to avoid is massive amounts of nuclear fallout raining down on their nation and radiation soaked refugees flooding their borders.
The Air Force currently has gravity bombs that either have or can be set to low yields: less than 20 kilotons. Such a bomb dropped in the center of Washington, D.C., wouldn't even directly affect Georgetown or Foggy Bottom.
A tactical nuke centered on the residence of Mr. Un would not cause massive amounts of anything.
We tried buying off NK with tons of stuff in exchange for ending a nuclear development program, but they kept developing nuke capabilities and that "Agreed Framework" ended. How much "shit" is "enough shit" to get them to keep their promises and stop developing nukes?
The problem with your idea is that the nuclear option is usually like amputating your leg for athlete's foot.
Any planned use of such weaponry would be for something significantly more serious than "athlete's foot". By the time that NK lands a device on US soil, we're well into gangrene -- a situation that amputation is often the solution.
But the prudent war gamer has a plan for destroying even friendly countries. But you sure as hell don't talk about it
Do you really imagine that every country doesn't know that every other nuclear-capable country has plans that include nuclear weapons? Are you trying to tell us that they are that ignorant or incompetent? Do you believe any politician who says we have no such plans? If so, why do you suddenly trust them when they are so obviously lying?
What do we lose by admitting what everyone already knows?
and the plans are highly classified.
And none of the classified plans has been compromised. You know what? Plans for use of conventional weapons are also classified -- and nobody could possibly be so ignorant that they don't know that classified weapons can and will be used in any military operation.
Do you actuallly think that use of nuvclear weapons spreading their side effects are just fine, and no one will care?
Do you think that we have abandoned planning that includes the use of a nuclear arsenal in defense or retaliation just because China might get pissy about it? Yes, that consideration will be included in planning, but it will not be a veto on US defense policy.
Your concept of a "measured response" means exactly that China, Japan, and South Korea will accept any and all destruction and any deaths caused by our "friendly nuclear devices.
It means no such thing. A measured response means that we don't dump the entire arsenal on one country at one time, which is what you say you would do. A measured response means that we do the least necessary to confine the problem, and it means that we consider other things -- instead of saying "everyone goes up in the fireball".
To put it another way, if France had a problem with Cornwall Ontario, and decided to nuc the place, that the USA would and should stand by and accept the destructive effects on New York State?
Cornwall, Ontario is a CITY within a PROVINCE within the COUNTRY of Canada. Are you seriously creating an analogy where one city in Canada becomes nuclear capable and launches a first strike against France? Really? Seriously? Cornwall will elect a megalomaniac mayor who puts together a working nuclear capability and CANADA itself would do nothing to stop him?
Now, if you ask about CANADA launching a first strike against France, for some reason, I expect that France will have plans that include dealing with Canada in some nuclear manner, and they may or may not veto the use of nukes based on any US concerns.
But since it is France being attacked, I expect that the only response will be unconditional surrender. And someone will mention "Maginot" at least twice.
And both were fiction you know.
This is a common response when an attempt at social engineering through mass media is discussed. "It's just a TV show" was what Candice Bergen, I believe it was, said when referring to the social agenda that her TV show was pushing. "It's just fiction", "it's just a movie." Well, social agendas are often promoted by use of popular media, and the claim "it's only fiction" is a pretty disingenuous defense. Everyone involved in mass media knows that they're making statements about existing social standards when they produce their programming, until they get called on it. Then it's "only a movie" or "it's only fiction".
If you did not get the anti-nuke message from Fail Safe, then you must have been asleep while it was being shown.
The original poster was describing a strike, not retaliation.
He used the word "strike" in the context of responding to them, not a unilateral first strike. And the article that this all started from deals with the return of the B52 fleet to hot-standby -- not a first strike status, a retaliatory posture.
You have to be the single most ignorant individual I've dealt with today...
Yep, when you fail to make a logical argument, resort to personal insult. Thanks for playing.
but it would hardly ever be mentioned outside of a SCIF. But Trump has threatend using them like waving around a big bomb cock.
So the real problem with Trump is that he openly said what everyone knows is being thought about in the dark hallways of the Pentagon and State Department.
Anyone who thinks that nuclear response isn't part of the planning is ignorant. It's a tool to be used when necessary. Some politicians are too weak and bend too much in the political winds to ever admit that. Trump isn't a politician.
It would be a last ditch option, and once I fired them, it would be all of them,
A measured response to a measured threat is off the table? The correct response to NK lobbing a nuke somewhere into CA or Guam would be to unload our entire arsenal onto the upper half of that peninsula? Cool.
Even the lefty communist pinkos trying to show how awful it was that the US had nukes didn't go that far. They stopped at the US destroying New York in exchange for the bomb that got through to Moscow in "Fail Safe". Maybe Henry Fonda pushed the screenwriter for a full-on Russian launch ending to the movie, but it didn't get filmed that way.
but there's no question that radical elements in US politics were greatly emboldened by how easy it was to eliminate a hostile regime in those places
Oh, yeah, that was such a piece of cake. We still aren't out of those places, despite a 9 year old promise to leave on "day one".
just as radical elements in the Iranian regime might think taking a nuclear pot-shot at Israel isn't such a bad idea.
How radical is it for a theocracy (even if hidden behind "politics") that hates the existence of another religion to act to remove a scourge from land that they think belongs to them? Hmmm. The Crusades were radical, except the perpetrators didn't think so when they were doing it.
but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an entirely bad thing for Iran.
Given that having them is a prerequisite to using them, and using them would be a Really Bad Thing For Iran, and it keeps the attention of every other nuclear power on them, then perhaps you might rethink the values you put on certain things that leads you to think it isn't bad for Iran.
Contrary to the lies you've been told - there's never been a point where we could "deal with them directly".
But that's the question being asked. At what point do we stop believing we cannot deal with them directly and start dealing with them directly?
The point is - there's no need to strike North Korea, not unless you're a needledicked bully
Yeah, our nuclear response to a nuclear attack would be the sign of a "needledicked bully".
Detente and deterrence works,
To a point. And deterrence is exactly what putting the B52s on hot standby is. When you know that an armed response will be launched within a couple of minutes of detecting inbound weapons you might think twice about lobbing something towards US property.
It is the attitude that "we can't deal with them directly" and it would be bullying to respond that gives NK the idea that they could get away with it. That's the same kind of moral support that Saddam used prior to Iraq 2 -- broadcasting to his people that they had no hope of the US ever coming to save them because so many cities were passing resolutions opposing any action. The message he gave his people using state-controlled TV was "the American people are weak and have no will to fight". And then we showed up for real, and he hid in a root cellar fearing for his life.
Colin Kaepernick isn't kneeling but because of the backlash against the backlash against him, so many more are.
That's nice. Herd immunity?
Hypocrite. You do the same thing by characterizing the kneeling as disrespect of the flag.
I don't speak for them, I just say what their action means. I see when they choose to act, and I see what they do. Actions speaking. It used to be taught in school; now people don't care.
The difference is that I'm right.
Uhh, yeah.
The question is neither stupid nor homophobic.
It is both. It is basic stupidity to even imagine that the NFL management would order such a thing, and by using "gay sex" with such an obviously negative connotation you show a strong sense of homophobia. What's wrong with gay sex that makes it a threat to you?
It's just one that you don't like.
I'm sorry, why don't I like the question? It shows how far you have to go to support your disrespect. It proves the point. I think the question is a great one.
I chose that question because I suspect that most football players would find it distasteful in the extreme
So not only are you homophobic by referring to gay sex in such a negative way, you expect that "most football players" are just as homophobic as yourself. Are you defending them here or condemning?
After the tolerance NFL has shown for rape, murder and domestic violence,
I see. In for a penny, in for a pound.
they'd never prevail in court if they were to try to sanction kneeling under the theory that it violates any morals clause.
And this is why what's-his-name is currently employed.
"Speaker" can have multiple meanings, but the one that applies when talking about "freedom of speech" is not just the one uttering the syllables. It's the one writing the script and hiring the actor to utter the syllables for him. Trying to exclude paid political advertising from First Amendment coverage is stripping the "speaker" (in First Amendment terms) of his Constitutional right to freedom of speech. The fact that one person pays another to speak his words changes nothing. The First Amendment makes no distinction here.
No. The First Amendment is concerned with regulation of the act based upon the content of the message.
The First Amendment contains no mention of the content of the message. It uses the phrase "freedom of speech", which includes anonymous speech, and paying for speech to be published in some medium.
My original post stated that " Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure."
Well, that's a nice opinion, but it is irrelevant to what I replied to and thus what I've been discussing. I don't care whatever else you said, this is what I replied to: "In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you."
That is not true. When I hire a voice-over to produce a radio ad, for example, I am paying someone TO SAY MY WORDS EXACTLY AS I WROTE THEM. In other words, to express my ideas and thoughts using my words. He is not "speaking for me" because I have the ability to create my own speech. That's the specific statement you made that I replied to. and that's it. And that's why it doesn't matter if I've hired someone to say my words or I say them myself, they are still protected by the First Amendment.
Then you ran off into the wilderness with your "The speech come from the author, not the medium itself" nonsense.
In the sense of the First Amendment, that is quite true, because "speech" isn't "sounds uttered by a human" in this context. Calling this concept nonsense means you must believe that the radio in your car spontaneously creates "speech", since if the speech you are hearing out of it didn't come from the author, it must have come from the medium.
such as defamation law,
How cute. You're citing a law that deals with voluntary parroting of defamatory material and confusing it with paid publishing of otherwise legal political speech.
Paid advertising most certainly does not receive the same first amendment protections that other speech does.
Wrong differentiator. "Commercial speech" does not; personal speech, especially that of a political nature, does. The First Amendment makes no distinction between "words uttered without pay" and "paid advertising".
This bill doesn't limit speech in any way. It just requires disclosure of additional information about the source of the speech.
The word the Constitution uses is "infringe", not "limit". And yes, banning anonymous speech is infringing on the concept of free speech.
And how exactly is boycotting the NFL going to stop them from kneeling?
Well, what's-his-name the unemployed football player who started this broohaha is no longer kneeling at the start of an NFL football game, is he? That's the point of the boycott.
Whether the NFL management decides to avoid the appearance of actively supporting deliberate disrespect for the flag by keeping the players in the locker room prior to the anthem, or fires the people who are behaving in a way that tarnishes the brand, same result.
No, they're pretending it's about disrespecting the flag because it's no longer socially acceptable for them to tell the truth about what's bothering them.
You are speaking nonsense on behalf of other people. Please stop. You have no clue what people who don't agree with you think.
Could the owners mandate that the players engage in gay sex while in uniform?
It is very hard not to tell you how absolutely stupid that question is, and how homophobic you have shown yourself to be.
There are limits to the control any employer has and in a case like this, those limits are determined by the contract.
Kneeling is the most respectful posture one can assume.
Not according to the standards of flag etiquette. Not in the US. We fought a war against a monarchy and kneeling is explicitly not a part of US diplomatic or other etiquette standards. One kneels before one's King, and in the US we have none. If you'd have had a proper civics course in our public schools, you'd have learned that.
People take a knee when they speak to their God's.
Some do, some do not, but the entity to which they are showing respect is different, so different standards apply.
It's not disrespectful of the flag or the military.
Yes, Lord, it is.
It's disruptive because it forces you to think about issues that you'd prefer to ignore.
No, I'm sorry, it does not. All it forces you to think about is that someone is actively disrespecting the flag and by extension the country for which is stands. It points out that people who live a pretty wonderful life making good, if not great in some cases, amounts of money playing a game, are behaving poorly. The excuse that it has something to do with whatever other peeve the kneeler has only comes out later. They tell us later why they disrespect the flag, and then try to claim they weren't actually kneeling at that specific moment to show that disrespect.
Oh, yes, Lord, they know what they are doing and chose the time to do it to make that very statement.
You have to put on the charade that it's disrespectful because you can't speak honestly about why it upsets you.
Yes, I've honestly told you why it upsets me. It's not a charade. Of course, I grew up during a time when we were taught common courtesy and etiquette, even for the flag.
Why not kneel at other times?
You just said they do. A better question is why the few who are pushing this agenda didn't simply use the power of the press that they have free access to to make their point by doing something productive and healing instead of being deliberately divisive? Do you imagine that if what's-his-name the now unemployed football player and several others called for a meeting with the press to announce some program they were creating that nobody would have paid any attention?
"The land of the free" is a lie. If we're not free from the threat of summary execution at the hands of government agents,
Oh, please. Hyperbole is such a tired technique.
The song glorifies the killing of black people.
Now who has to put on charades? There is no mention of black people, and no glory in killing them, in the National Anthem. That's just nonsense.
I think that kneeling does NOT show disrespect for the flag at all!
Then you are ignorant of the significance of the national anthem and the flag. A likely product of our modern educational system.
The respect for the flag remains unchanged.
This may be true. If you have disrespect for the flag to begin with, then kneeling simply demonstrates a continued disrespect.
These fans have absolutely no understanding of the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Now you believe this is a First Amendment issue, which only demonstrates an increased ignorance. There is no issue here; the President is allowed to express his opinion about the matter just as you and the players are. The owners are allowed to act as they see fit. And nobody has said that the players are prohibited from a public disrespect for the flag. Congress has created no law and government has made no demands.
They also do not have any understanding that the First Amendment also guarantees that no one should be forced to show obeisance to any symbol.
I have yet to see any complaint about NFL players simply standing while the anthem is played. In fact, that's their normal activity. Some sway in time to the music, some simply stand immersed in thought. Very very few ever actually execute the salute that flag etiquette calls for.
Nobody is forcing them into any action other than their employer, who says they should stand in a line. While true respect means performing certain actions, active disrespect also requires an action. Nobody is forced to do either.
Hello Anonymous Coward. I said that in reply to him.
The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker.
No. The "speaker" in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the person whose words are being "spoken", whether that is in print, audio, or any other medium. When you hire a voice-over artist to record your political ad, the "speaker" of the words, the person to whom the freedom of speech applies, is YOU. To assume your interpretation would result in the government being able to write laws preventing you from hiring a voice-over artist to convey your political or other message. Where is the "freedom of speech" for someone who is mute and wants to air a radio spot, if he can be prohibited from hiring a voice to speak his words for him? Does the First Amendment not apply to people who cannot speak, because they could never "speak the words" which the First Amendment would protect?
Where is the author of a pamphlet like Common Sense if he can be arrested and prohibited from passing his material to the publisher who would print and distribute it (your version of "speak")?
No, I'm sorry. The person who originates the content is the "speaker" when applying the First Amendment freedoms of speech. Note that copyright law would be unconstitutional on its face were your interpretation to be valid. The government would be prohibited from making any law abridging my right to take your words and reprint them as my own, because under your interpretation I would be the "speaker" of those words and the person to whom the freedom of speech would attach. You would have no protection because I would be the "person who spoke the words" (i.e. published the text), not you, even if you had previously "spoken" them in some other form. And, I might add, your freedom of speech is not abridged when I can steal your work and publish it as my own because I did not prevent you from speaking your own words, so you would have no First Amendment claims.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
Not in the sense of the first amendment, where it is the CONTENT and not the specific utterer of sounds that matters. The Communications Decency Act supports this when it makes it clear that the originator of the speech is the "information content provider" who is responsible for the speech, and not the provider of the interactive computer service. The computer service provider is the medium, not the message.
You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message.
It is the First Amendment that is focused on the content and not the specific utterer of words, and thus I focus on the same thing in a discussion of the First Amendment. Consider "Piss Christ". It did not say words, it had no utterances. It was a static piece of, well, some called it "art". And yet it was protected under the First Amendment freedom of "speech". Clearly, "speech" does not refer just to the physical act of speaking, so it must apply to much, much more. And even your example of the CDA makes it clear that the law does not consider the provider of the medium to be the "speaker" since it relieves him of responsibility for that speech.
The point is only relevant if you are trying to differentiate paid speech from non-paid speech, and that differentiation is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the voice-over artist is paid to say the words the content originator wrote for her, or the content originator says them himself. The First Amendment protects that speech either way. To assume anything else means that every bit of speech that is published by a publisher and not the author himself is not
No. The broadcaster is the medium; the author is the speaker of the message. And no, we're not talking about the actual person who speaks the words, we're talking about the content of the message.
In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you.
No, he's not. The speech come from the author, not the medium itself. When you pay $501 for an ad, it is your speech that appears, not the speech of the person you paid for the advertising space.
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
Paid advertising is speech. Banning something means there is a penalty for doing it based on a law that makes it a crime.
Sounds like criminalizing political speech to me. Kind of like the laws that make it a crime for foreign parties to advertise in the US on behalf of candidates.
Is it one that explicitly mentions a political party or person/ candidate or one that espouses a position on a political topic ( for or against), what off it is a topic that is a cornerstone of a party's or candidates platform?
For a very long time PACs and other groups have resorted it "issue-oriented ads" when they reach the deadline for airing direct political by-name advertising. Those issues are almost always cornerstone, so it is trivial to identify who is being attacked or supported even if the name is never said. E.g., if one candidate has been openly pro-gun, then the opponent or his representatives will run anti-gun ads and never mention that they're targeting the first guy.
Here's a novel idea I just thought of. It will make watching TV or listening to the radio much more pleasant. Any medium that accepts political ads at any time during a normal campaign season is prohibited from running ANY ads for the 30 days prior to the election. That means they have to charge enough for the political ads to offset the revenue lost during the 30 day silent period, which is a win. And we don't get bombarded with any ads, another win. Or that medium refuses to carry political ads, yet another win for us.
and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so.
Why not? When you kneel during the anthem to disrespect the US flag or for whatever reason, you are using someone else's soapbox to make your statement. You do not have a right to use someone else's soapbox.
Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold.
Are you referring to doxing by Anonymous here, too?
If you want laws that restrict political speech in the United States, you need a constitutional amendment.
No, actually, all we need are "Republicans" like McCain. Everyone can coo about how this is "bipartisan" because Democrats and McCain sponsored it, but McCain is the same McCain whose name is on McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that also violates the 1st Amendment.
The fact that we keep skipping that step and rely on "judicial deference" to allow unconstitutional laws to be enforced is a really big problem.
Yep. And I put some blame on McCain for pretending to make this a bipartisan issue so it will more easily pass muster. Well, if both sides can agree on this, it must be ok, right?
there is a valid contract in place that governs what the owners can and can't do to the players about kneeling.
You can bet there is a clause regarding player behavior that impacts that value of the brand (e.g. "morals clause"), and actively disrespecting the flag that results in lowering viewership would meet that criterion.
"But they're not..." Yes, they actually are, no matter what other reason they give for doing it. It's passe to teach kids in school proper behavior and respect for the flag, but lots of people still remember and know what they are deliberately choosing to do. If they aren't choosing to disrespect the flag in order to get publicity about their cause, then why not kneel some other time?
There was a looser chain of causality that I was following. Which is:
Which is not law.
"Users (logically) expect that the Airplane Mode button will do the needful in order to comply with the law regarding the use of portable electronic devices.
The law regarding PED say that the CELL PHONE functions must be off while in flight, and that unless authorized the device as a whole must be off. When you claim that the law requires "airplane mode" to disable GPS, you miss the major points as well as make an incorrect claim.
Since at least one carrier prohibits the use of GPS
Actually, since the web page of the one carrier you bothered to investigate is contradictory, we don't have a really good idea of whether GPS is prohibited or not. I have heard (but not asked for myself) that if you question the flight crew, they will tell you that GPS is ok. In any case, the prohibition you claim exists is from a blanket statement that is demonstrably false. United does not prohibit all radio receivers and transmitters. In fact, they tell you explicitly at the door that WiFi is approved on many of their aircraft. The web page is, at best, out of date, and more likely just patently wrong.
A phone whose Airplane Mode button did not comply with the law would be unwittingly placing the users in legal jeopardy
The users would be in legal jeopardy because they assumed that a UI meant something that it did not, and they will be the ones who face liability were it to become an issue. If "airplane mode" does disable the appropriate things, then the users can always follow the other part of the instruction that United makes during the preflight safety briefing: "turn off".
By the way, there is an icon on every Android device that shows when the GPS is functioning. This notifies the user that the airplane mode button did not do what they thought it would.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear bombers are only useful for a large-scale nuclear response
Uhhh. Nonsense. They might be part of the large scale response, but one bomber dropping one tactical nuke is not a "large scale response." It is also much easier to recall a bomber than a ballistic missile.
I'm sure one thing China would want to avoid is massive amounts of nuclear fallout raining down on their nation and radiation soaked refugees flooding their borders.
Three words: tactical nuclear weapons. From here:
The Air Force currently has gravity bombs that either have or can be set to low yields: less than 20 kilotons. Such a bomb dropped in the center of Washington, D.C., wouldn't even directly affect Georgetown or Foggy Bottom.
A tactical nuke centered on the residence of Mr. Un would not cause massive amounts of anything.
If we bought enough shit for NK
We tried buying off NK with tons of stuff in exchange for ending a nuclear development program, but they kept developing nuke capabilities and that "Agreed Framework" ended. How much "shit" is "enough shit" to get them to keep their promises and stop developing nukes?
The problem with your idea is that the nuclear option is usually like amputating your leg for athlete's foot.
Any planned use of such weaponry would be for something significantly more serious than "athlete's foot". By the time that NK lands a device on US soil, we're well into gangrene -- a situation that amputation is often the solution.
But the prudent war gamer has a plan for destroying even friendly countries. But you sure as hell don't talk about it
Do you really imagine that every country doesn't know that every other nuclear-capable country has plans that include nuclear weapons? Are you trying to tell us that they are that ignorant or incompetent? Do you believe any politician who says we have no such plans? If so, why do you suddenly trust them when they are so obviously lying?
What do we lose by admitting what everyone already knows?
and the plans are highly classified.
And none of the classified plans has been compromised. You know what? Plans for use of conventional weapons are also classified -- and nobody could possibly be so ignorant that they don't know that classified weapons can and will be used in any military operation.
Do you actuallly think that use of nuvclear weapons spreading their side effects are just fine, and no one will care?
Do you think that we have abandoned planning that includes the use of a nuclear arsenal in defense or retaliation just because China might get pissy about it? Yes, that consideration will be included in planning, but it will not be a veto on US defense policy.
Your concept of a "measured response" means exactly that China, Japan, and South Korea will accept any and all destruction and any deaths caused by our "friendly nuclear devices.
It means no such thing. A measured response means that we don't dump the entire arsenal on one country at one time, which is what you say you would do. A measured response means that we do the least necessary to confine the problem, and it means that we consider other things -- instead of saying "everyone goes up in the fireball".
To put it another way, if France had a problem with Cornwall Ontario, and decided to nuc the place, that the USA would and should stand by and accept the destructive effects on New York State?
Cornwall, Ontario is a CITY within a PROVINCE within the COUNTRY of Canada. Are you seriously creating an analogy where one city in Canada becomes nuclear capable and launches a first strike against France? Really? Seriously? Cornwall will elect a megalomaniac mayor who puts together a working nuclear capability and CANADA itself would do nothing to stop him?
Now, if you ask about CANADA launching a first strike against France, for some reason, I expect that France will have plans that include dealing with Canada in some nuclear manner, and they may or may not veto the use of nukes based on any US concerns.
But since it is France being attacked, I expect that the only response will be unconditional surrender. And someone will mention "Maginot" at least twice.
And both were fiction you know.
This is a common response when an attempt at social engineering through mass media is discussed. "It's just a TV show" was what Candice Bergen, I believe it was, said when referring to the social agenda that her TV show was pushing. "It's just fiction", "it's just a movie." Well, social agendas are often promoted by use of popular media, and the claim "it's only fiction" is a pretty disingenuous defense. Everyone involved in mass media knows that they're making statements about existing social standards when they produce their programming, until they get called on it. Then it's "only a movie" or "it's only fiction".
If you did not get the anti-nuke message from Fail Safe, then you must have been asleep while it was being shown.
The original poster was describing a strike, not retaliation.
He used the word "strike" in the context of responding to them, not a unilateral first strike. And the article that this all started from deals with the return of the B52 fleet to hot-standby -- not a first strike status, a retaliatory posture.
You have to be the single most ignorant individual I've dealt with today...
Yep, when you fail to make a logical argument, resort to personal insult. Thanks for playing.
but it would hardly ever be mentioned outside of a SCIF. But Trump has threatend using them like waving around a big bomb cock.
So the real problem with Trump is that he openly said what everyone knows is being thought about in the dark hallways of the Pentagon and State Department. Anyone who thinks that nuclear response isn't part of the planning is ignorant. It's a tool to be used when necessary. Some politicians are too weak and bend too much in the political winds to ever admit that. Trump isn't a politician.
It would be a last ditch option, and once I fired them, it would be all of them,
A measured response to a measured threat is off the table? The correct response to NK lobbing a nuke somewhere into CA or Guam would be to unload our entire arsenal onto the upper half of that peninsula? Cool.
Even the lefty communist pinkos trying to show how awful it was that the US had nukes didn't go that far. They stopped at the US destroying New York in exchange for the bomb that got through to Moscow in "Fail Safe". Maybe Henry Fonda pushed the screenwriter for a full-on Russian launch ending to the movie, but it didn't get filmed that way.
but there's no question that radical elements in US politics were greatly emboldened by how easy it was to eliminate a hostile regime in those places
Oh, yeah, that was such a piece of cake. We still aren't out of those places, despite a 9 year old promise to leave on "day one".
just as radical elements in the Iranian regime might think taking a nuclear pot-shot at Israel isn't such a bad idea.
How radical is it for a theocracy (even if hidden behind "politics") that hates the existence of another religion to act to remove a scourge from land that they think belongs to them? Hmmm. The Crusades were radical, except the perpetrators didn't think so when they were doing it.
but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an entirely bad thing for Iran.
Given that having them is a prerequisite to using them, and using them would be a Really Bad Thing For Iran, and it keeps the attention of every other nuclear power on them, then perhaps you might rethink the values you put on certain things that leads you to think it isn't bad for Iran.
Contrary to the lies you've been told - there's never been a point where we could "deal with them directly".
But that's the question being asked. At what point do we stop believing we cannot deal with them directly and start dealing with them directly?
The point is - there's no need to strike North Korea, not unless you're a needledicked bully
Yeah, our nuclear response to a nuclear attack would be the sign of a "needledicked bully".
Detente and deterrence works,
To a point. And deterrence is exactly what putting the B52s on hot standby is. When you know that an armed response will be launched within a couple of minutes of detecting inbound weapons you might think twice about lobbing something towards US property.
It is the attitude that "we can't deal with them directly" and it would be bullying to respond that gives NK the idea that they could get away with it. That's the same kind of moral support that Saddam used prior to Iraq 2 -- broadcasting to his people that they had no hope of the US ever coming to save them because so many cities were passing resolutions opposing any action. The message he gave his people using state-controlled TV was "the American people are weak and have no will to fight". And then we showed up for real, and he hid in a root cellar fearing for his life.
Colin Kaepernick isn't kneeling but because of the backlash against the backlash against him, so many more are.
That's nice. Herd immunity?
Hypocrite. You do the same thing by characterizing the kneeling as disrespect of the flag.
I don't speak for them, I just say what their action means. I see when they choose to act, and I see what they do. Actions speaking. It used to be taught in school; now people don't care.
The difference is that I'm right.
Uhh, yeah.
The question is neither stupid nor homophobic.
It is both. It is basic stupidity to even imagine that the NFL management would order such a thing, and by using "gay sex" with such an obviously negative connotation you show a strong sense of homophobia. What's wrong with gay sex that makes it a threat to you?
It's just one that you don't like.
I'm sorry, why don't I like the question? It shows how far you have to go to support your disrespect. It proves the point. I think the question is a great one.
I chose that question because I suspect that most football players would find it distasteful in the extreme
So not only are you homophobic by referring to gay sex in such a negative way, you expect that "most football players" are just as homophobic as yourself. Are you defending them here or condemning?
After the tolerance NFL has shown for rape, murder and domestic violence,
I see. In for a penny, in for a pound.
they'd never prevail in court if they were to try to sanction kneeling under the theory that it violates any morals clause.
And this is why what's-his-name is currently employed.
There can be two speakers,
"Speaker" can have multiple meanings, but the one that applies when talking about "freedom of speech" is not just the one uttering the syllables. It's the one writing the script and hiring the actor to utter the syllables for him. Trying to exclude paid political advertising from First Amendment coverage is stripping the "speaker" (in First Amendment terms) of his Constitutional right to freedom of speech. The fact that one person pays another to speak his words changes nothing. The First Amendment makes no distinction here.
No. The First Amendment is concerned with regulation of the act based upon the content of the message.
The First Amendment contains no mention of the content of the message. It uses the phrase "freedom of speech", which includes anonymous speech, and paying for speech to be published in some medium.
My original post stated that " Both practices are forms of deception that cannot be prohibited, but can be subject to mandatory disclosure."
Well, that's a nice opinion, but it is irrelevant to what I replied to and thus what I've been discussing. I don't care whatever else you said, this is what I replied to: "In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you."
That is not true. When I hire a voice-over to produce a radio ad, for example, I am paying someone TO SAY MY WORDS EXACTLY AS I WROTE THEM. In other words, to express my ideas and thoughts using my words. He is not "speaking for me" because I have the ability to create my own speech. That's the specific statement you made that I replied to. and that's it. And that's why it doesn't matter if I've hired someone to say my words or I say them myself, they are still protected by the First Amendment.
Then you ran off into the wilderness with your "The speech come from the author, not the medium itself" nonsense.
In the sense of the First Amendment, that is quite true, because "speech" isn't "sounds uttered by a human" in this context. Calling this concept nonsense means you must believe that the radio in your car spontaneously creates "speech", since if the speech you are hearing out of it didn't come from the author, it must have come from the medium.
such as defamation law,
How cute. You're citing a law that deals with voluntary parroting of defamatory material and confusing it with paid publishing of otherwise legal political speech.
Sources. Use them.
And understand them.
Paid advertising most certainly does not receive the same first amendment protections that other speech does.
Wrong differentiator. "Commercial speech" does not; personal speech, especially that of a political nature, does. The First Amendment makes no distinction between "words uttered without pay" and "paid advertising".
This bill doesn't limit speech in any way. It just requires disclosure of additional information about the source of the speech.
The word the Constitution uses is "infringe", not "limit". And yes, banning anonymous speech is infringing on the concept of free speech.
And how exactly is boycotting the NFL going to stop them from kneeling?
Well, what's-his-name the unemployed football player who started this broohaha is no longer kneeling at the start of an NFL football game, is he? That's the point of the boycott.
Whether the NFL management decides to avoid the appearance of actively supporting deliberate disrespect for the flag by keeping the players in the locker room prior to the anthem, or fires the people who are behaving in a way that tarnishes the brand, same result.
No, they're pretending it's about disrespecting the flag because it's no longer socially acceptable for them to tell the truth about what's bothering them.
You are speaking nonsense on behalf of other people. Please stop. You have no clue what people who don't agree with you think.
Could the owners mandate that the players engage in gay sex while in uniform?
It is very hard not to tell you how absolutely stupid that question is, and how homophobic you have shown yourself to be.
There are limits to the control any employer has and in a case like this, those limits are determined by the contract.
Yes. And the morals clauses would apply here.
Kneeling is the most respectful posture one can assume.
Not according to the standards of flag etiquette. Not in the US. We fought a war against a monarchy and kneeling is explicitly not a part of US diplomatic or other etiquette standards. One kneels before one's King, and in the US we have none. If you'd have had a proper civics course in our public schools, you'd have learned that.
People take a knee when they speak to their God's.
Some do, some do not, but the entity to which they are showing respect is different, so different standards apply.
It's not disrespectful of the flag or the military.
Yes, Lord, it is.
It's disruptive because it forces you to think about issues that you'd prefer to ignore.
No, I'm sorry, it does not. All it forces you to think about is that someone is actively disrespecting the flag and by extension the country for which is stands. It points out that people who live a pretty wonderful life making good, if not great in some cases, amounts of money playing a game, are behaving poorly. The excuse that it has something to do with whatever other peeve the kneeler has only comes out later. They tell us later why they disrespect the flag, and then try to claim they weren't actually kneeling at that specific moment to show that disrespect.
Oh, yes, Lord, they know what they are doing and chose the time to do it to make that very statement.
You have to put on the charade that it's disrespectful because you can't speak honestly about why it upsets you.
Yes, I've honestly told you why it upsets me. It's not a charade. Of course, I grew up during a time when we were taught common courtesy and etiquette, even for the flag.
Why not kneel at other times?
You just said they do. A better question is why the few who are pushing this agenda didn't simply use the power of the press that they have free access to to make their point by doing something productive and healing instead of being deliberately divisive? Do you imagine that if what's-his-name the now unemployed football player and several others called for a meeting with the press to announce some program they were creating that nobody would have paid any attention?
"The land of the free" is a lie. If we're not free from the threat of summary execution at the hands of government agents,
Oh, please. Hyperbole is such a tired technique.
The song glorifies the killing of black people.
Now who has to put on charades? There is no mention of black people, and no glory in killing them, in the National Anthem. That's just nonsense.
I think that kneeling does NOT show disrespect for the flag at all!
Then you are ignorant of the significance of the national anthem and the flag. A likely product of our modern educational system.
The respect for the flag remains unchanged.
This may be true. If you have disrespect for the flag to begin with, then kneeling simply demonstrates a continued disrespect.
These fans have absolutely no understanding of the true meaning of the First Amendment.
Now you believe this is a First Amendment issue, which only demonstrates an increased ignorance. There is no issue here; the President is allowed to express his opinion about the matter just as you and the players are. The owners are allowed to act as they see fit. And nobody has said that the players are prohibited from a public disrespect for the flag. Congress has created no law and government has made no demands.
They also do not have any understanding that the First Amendment also guarantees that no one should be forced to show obeisance to any symbol.
I have yet to see any complaint about NFL players simply standing while the anthem is played. In fact, that's their normal activity. Some sway in time to the music, some simply stand immersed in thought. Very very few ever actually execute the salute that flag etiquette calls for.
Nobody is forcing them into any action other than their employer, who says they should stand in a line. While true respect means performing certain actions, active disrespect also requires an action. Nobody is forced to do either.
Don't tell me what I'm talking about.
Hello Anonymous Coward. I said that in reply to him.
The actual person who speaks the words is the speaker.
No. The "speaker" in the sense of "freedom of speech" is the person whose words are being "spoken", whether that is in print, audio, or any other medium. When you hire a voice-over artist to record your political ad, the "speaker" of the words, the person to whom the freedom of speech applies, is YOU. To assume your interpretation would result in the government being able to write laws preventing you from hiring a voice-over artist to convey your political or other message. Where is the "freedom of speech" for someone who is mute and wants to air a radio spot, if he can be prohibited from hiring a voice to speak his words for him? Does the First Amendment not apply to people who cannot speak, because they could never "speak the words" which the First Amendment would protect?
Where is the author of a pamphlet like Common Sense if he can be arrested and prohibited from passing his material to the publisher who would print and distribute it (your version of "speak")?
No, I'm sorry. The person who originates the content is the "speaker" when applying the First Amendment freedoms of speech. Note that copyright law would be unconstitutional on its face were your interpretation to be valid. The government would be prohibited from making any law abridging my right to take your words and reprint them as my own, because under your interpretation I would be the "speaker" of those words and the person to whom the freedom of speech would attach. You would have no protection because I would be the "person who spoke the words" (i.e. published the text), not you, even if you had previously "spoken" them in some other form. And, I might add, your freedom of speech is not abridged when I can steal your work and publish it as my own because I did not prevent you from speaking your own words, so you would have no First Amendment claims.
The Communications Decency Act had to provide a specific immunity stating that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" precisely because everywhere else in the law, the publisher is a speaker.
Not in the sense of the first amendment, where it is the CONTENT and not the specific utterer of sounds that matters. The Communications Decency Act supports this when it makes it clear that the originator of the speech is the "information content provider" who is responsible for the speech, and not the provider of the interactive computer service. The computer service provider is the medium, not the message.
You're the one wrongly focused on the content of the message.
It is the First Amendment that is focused on the content and not the specific utterer of words, and thus I focus on the same thing in a discussion of the First Amendment. Consider "Piss Christ". It did not say words, it had no utterances. It was a static piece of, well, some called it "art". And yet it was protected under the First Amendment freedom of "speech". Clearly, "speech" does not refer just to the physical act of speaking, so it must apply to much, much more. And even your example of the CDA makes it clear that the law does not consider the provider of the medium to be the "speaker" since it relieves him of responsibility for that speech.
The point is only relevant if you are trying to differentiate paid speech from non-paid speech, and that differentiation is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if the voice-over artist is paid to say the words the content originator wrote for her, or the content originator says them himself. The First Amendment protects that speech either way. To assume anything else means that every bit of speech that is published by a publisher and not the author himself is not
The speaker is the broadcaster.
No. The broadcaster is the medium; the author is the speaker of the message. And no, we're not talking about the actual person who speaks the words, we're talking about the content of the message.
In the first, you're paying someone else to speak for you.
No, he's not. The speech come from the author, not the medium itself. When you pay $501 for an ad, it is your speech that appears, not the speech of the person you paid for the advertising space.
One comment and an entire forum would go up like a tinder box.
You mean like any story on /. when someone comments about Republicans, Democrats, Trump, Clinton, Comcast, or God? Is everyone here a Russian?
Free Speech != Anonymous Speech
As soon as you prohibit anonymous speech then speech is no longer free. That's called a tautology.
Ask Thomas Paine if the founders considered anonymous speech to be protected. I think it is Common Sense that it would be.
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
Paid advertising is speech. Banning something means there is a penalty for doing it based on a law that makes it a crime.
Sounds like criminalizing political speech to me. Kind of like the laws that make it a crime for foreign parties to advertise in the US on behalf of candidates.
Is it one that explicitly mentions a political party or person/ candidate or one that espouses a position on a political topic ( for or against), what off it is a topic that is a cornerstone of a party's or candidates platform?
For a very long time PACs and other groups have resorted it "issue-oriented ads" when they reach the deadline for airing direct political by-name advertising. Those issues are almost always cornerstone, so it is trivial to identify who is being attacked or supported even if the name is never said. E.g., if one candidate has been openly pro-gun, then the opponent or his representatives will run anti-gun ads and never mention that they're targeting the first guy.
Here's a novel idea I just thought of. It will make watching TV or listening to the radio much more pleasant. Any medium that accepts political ads at any time during a normal campaign season is prohibited from running ANY ads for the 30 days prior to the election. That means they have to charge enough for the political ads to offset the revenue lost during the 30 day silent period, which is a win. And we don't get bombarded with any ads, another win. Or that medium refuses to carry political ads, yet another win for us.
You are free to kneel during the anthem,
Absolutely.
and I think it appropriate that the employer should not be able to fire them for doing so.
Why not? When you kneel during the anthem to disrespect the US flag or for whatever reason, you are using someone else's soapbox to make your statement. You do not have a right to use someone else's soapbox.
Expressing an opinion is a far different thing than attempting to destroy the proponent of a view that you do not hold.
Are you referring to doxing by Anonymous here, too?
If you want laws that restrict political speech in the United States, you need a constitutional amendment.
No, actually, all we need are "Republicans" like McCain. Everyone can coo about how this is "bipartisan" because Democrats and McCain sponsored it, but McCain is the same McCain whose name is on McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that also violates the 1st Amendment.
The fact that we keep skipping that step and rely on "judicial deference" to allow unconstitutional laws to be enforced is a really big problem.
Yep. And I put some blame on McCain for pretending to make this a bipartisan issue so it will more easily pass muster. Well, if both sides can agree on this, it must be ok, right?
there is a valid contract in place that governs what the owners can and can't do to the players about kneeling.
You can bet there is a clause regarding player behavior that impacts that value of the brand (e.g. "morals clause"), and actively disrespecting the flag that results in lowering viewership would meet that criterion.
"But they're not ..." Yes, they actually are, no matter what other reason they give for doing it. It's passe to teach kids in school proper behavior and respect for the flag, but lots of people still remember and know what they are deliberately choosing to do. If they aren't choosing to disrespect the flag in order to get publicity about their cause, then why not kneel some other time?
There was a looser chain of causality that I was following. Which is:
Which is not law.
"Users (logically) expect that the Airplane Mode button will do the needful in order to comply with the law regarding the use of portable electronic devices.
The law regarding PED say that the CELL PHONE functions must be off while in flight, and that unless authorized the device as a whole must be off. When you claim that the law requires "airplane mode" to disable GPS, you miss the major points as well as make an incorrect claim.
Since at least one carrier prohibits the use of GPS
Actually, since the web page of the one carrier you bothered to investigate is contradictory, we don't have a really good idea of whether GPS is prohibited or not. I have heard (but not asked for myself) that if you question the flight crew, they will tell you that GPS is ok. In any case, the prohibition you claim exists is from a blanket statement that is demonstrably false. United does not prohibit all radio receivers and transmitters. In fact, they tell you explicitly at the door that WiFi is approved on many of their aircraft. The web page is, at best, out of date, and more likely just patently wrong.
A phone whose Airplane Mode button did not comply with the law would be unwittingly placing the users in legal jeopardy
The users would be in legal jeopardy because they assumed that a UI meant something that it did not, and they will be the ones who face liability were it to become an issue. If "airplane mode" does disable the appropriate things, then the users can always follow the other part of the instruction that United makes during the preflight safety briefing: "turn off".
By the way, there is an icon on every Android device that shows when the GPS is functioning. This notifies the user that the airplane mode button did not do what they thought it would.