Printed money is "backed up" by the value of the goods and services that it buys, which is actually much more useful than a hunk of shiny metal sitting in a vault somewhere.
Did you even watch the video? He visibly yanks the officers holding on to his arm several times. The last time he yanked so hard that he lost his balance and fell to the ground. He forcibly hits the female officer with his elbow while he is trying to break free and return to the microphone. Even after he was on the ground you can see him rolling around and pushing the officers away while they are trying to handcuff him. It wasn't until after they tased him that they were able to get the handcuffs on both hands and control the situation. I don't see how you could argue that the use of force was not justified. Before the use of force, suspect is unrestrained, disrupting a public event, and refusing to comply with police orders. After the use of force, suspect is restrained and escorted out of the room. It's as simple as that.
The only unfortunate thing about this situation is that this dweeb is getting exactly what he hoped for -- nationwide attention. He clearly wasn't trying to get John Kerry to answer his questions, otherwise he wouldn't have kept interrupting him every time Kerry tried to answer him.
If you "passively resist" in front of a charging horse, there is a good chance that you'll get kicked by a horse, just like if you "passively resist" in the middle of the street, there is a good chance you'll get hit by a car. The only person to blame in that situation is the moron who is lying down in the middle of the street, not the person driving the car or riding the horse. Don't want to get hit by a car? Don't lay down in the street. Simple huh? Take your "passive resistance" to your own driveway and I guarantee you won't get run over.
Heh. So when he violently swings his elbow and arms so that the female officer goes flying back off balance, he didn't hit her? I guess he was just playing patticake, right? And no matter what you seem to think, pushing and shoving is never an acceptable or legal reaction when the police grab you for whatever reason, even if somebody else is trying to answer your question.
No, he was on the ground, but he wasn't restrained. He was still rolling around and flailing, despite repeated warnings that he would be tased. He was not restrained in handcuffs and escorted out until after he was tased. The officers didn't have control over the situation until after force was used.
Peaceful? Did you watch the video? The guy is pushing, shoving, hitting, and screaming at police officers trying to get to the microphone. That isn't "peaceful" under even the most generous definition of the word. Not only that, a US Senator was only a few feet away from this maniac who clearly had no intentions of obeying police orders. He needed to be removed. Period.
Interesting how your perception of who is "insane" isn't the people who were laying down on the ground in front of charging horses and then complaining about being trampled.
He wasn't even totally acting outrageous when the mic was turned off
What part about pushing, hitting, pulling, yelling at, and resisting 3-4 uniformed officers in the middle of a crowded auditorium is not "totally acting outrageous"?
This guy isn't a victim. He is a criminal who broke the law in front of a half a dozen police officers.
A Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech is not a Constitutional guarantee to force our voice on people who don't want to listen.
While the taser is meant to be a non-lethal weapon, it has caused death before, and if you've ever been hit by one, you know how immensely painful it is.
Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too?
No, unfortunately I understood all to well the point you were attempting to make. It is clear that we will never all agree on which liberties are the most essential, but it is also clear that society as a whole is responsible for what tradeoffs between freedom and security are acceptable. Ben Franklin understood this tradeoff, which is why he included the very important qualifiers of essential liberty for temporary safety.
If the increase in safety cannot be gained without a decrease in essential liberty, then my choice would be to accept the increased risk, not trade away my freedom.
Ok, you will need to define what you consider "essential" liberty. (You will note that my original question was about any liberty, not essential liberty). Is driving on whatever side of the road at whatever speed you choose an "essential" liberty? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against traffic accidents? Is a lifestyle that uses as big a "carbon footprint" as you want an "essential" liberty"? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against climate change?
And especially in the case of "terrorism" there is NO valid reason to destroy any liberty in the name of safety, as the risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent.
I highly doubt that you really believe this. It would be exceedingly foolish if you did. Has the thought crossed your head the "risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent" because we have willingly given up some freedoms to protect us against it? I hate standing in the security line at the airport as much as the next guy, but I would much rather give up 15 minutes of my time and have to take my shoes off every once in a while than tear the metal detectors down and let anybody bring anything onto the planes because the risk is "virtually nonexistent". If we did that, the threat wouldn't be "virtually nonexistent" for much longer.
Of course, there will always be tradeoffs, so there has to be a cost/reward analysis. Nobody is proposing that we "chain everybody up in their homes in straightjackets all day" because that cost is clearly to high. But here is the rub: you will never get everybody to agree on exactly what liberties they consider "essential" enough that they are unwilling to give it up in exchange for more security. George Bush thinks that we should be able to listen in on phone conversations with suspected terrorists overseas without a warrant to protect us from terrorists. Lots of people agree with that, and lots of people don't. Al gore thinks that we should give up the freedom to drive whatever kind of car we want to protect us from global warming. Lots of people agree with that, and lots of people don't. I would even be willing to be that most people would be willing to give up many more "essential" liberties if somebody jumps up on the bus they are riding to show a vest stuffed with explosives than that same person would be willing to give up while sitting in a cubicle at work.
So where exactly do you draw the line between "essential" and "non-essential" liberties, and why are you more correct than somebody else who may be willing to give up more than you?
The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.
Absolutely. While I may fundamentally disagree with Hillary Clinton (along with most of the other Democratic contenders), I do believe that she had good intentions and wants the best for the country. I don't think she would abuse it, just as I don't think that the Bush administration is abusing it.
Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)
I think you are seriously mis-characterizing the policies of the Bush administration. Nobody has given the Executive Branch "unchecked power", and the Bush administration hasn't asked for it. The so-called "warrantless wiretap program" came with the blessing of both Judiciary committees in the legislature, and is subject to regular review by those committees. Even the FISA court agreed to let the program continue. There is nothing "unchecked" about this, so not only would I be comfortable with future administrations conducting these kinds of searches, I sincerely hope that they do.
That's funny, because there have been plenty of studies concluding the exact opposite of what you are claiming too.
-A study at West Virginia University concluded that "the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and profitability of the small business sector in the United States"
-The Ludwig von Misis Institute concluded that Wal-Mart significantly contributes to the wealth of a community
-Mississippi State University concluded that there are "both positive and negative impacts" on the local stores when a Wal-Mart is built
-MIT concluded that Wal-Mart benefits the poorest segments of the population the most
-The University of Missouri concluded that a Wal-Mart does far more economic damage to neighboring towns that it didn't build in compared to the towns where they build a new store
From my recent experience driving through Hays Kansas, I tend to believe these reports more than those who claim that Wal-Mart destroys the community.
Really? Please name a specific town where the only place to shop or work is Wal-Mart.
While you are working on that, consider Hays, Kansas. I had the "privilege" not to long ago of driving through Hays on a road trip. It's a small, Kansas town in the middle of nowhere off I-70. Downtown was a couple of blocks long, and there is a large, Super Wal-Mart right off the freeway. Not too surprisingly, the area around the Wal-Mart was booming. There were strip malls packed with stores, new commercial developments under construction, and lots of cars and 18-wheelers stopped there to shop. See for your self. It seems as though, at least in Hays Kansas, that Wal-Mart was helping draw customers to these new stores rather than smash them to oblivion with their low prices.
How do you sanely react to a group of people who believe they will gain exaltation if they die in the act of killing as many of you as possible? Securing the cockpit door is a no brainer, but it doesn't make the problem go away. There will still be a group of people intent on killing as many of you as possible, and you will quickly find that there is no way you can sanely react to all of the ways they can possible kill you without addressing the problem at the source.
Instead we're spending trillions of dollars "fighting" a few thousand nutcases who can't do any more damage to the world than we do to ourselves, every year, in traffic accidents.
Guess what? We also spend enormous amounts of money and gladly relinquish freedoms to protect us from traffic accidents. Should we just give up on that, too? To come to think of it - we spend a lot of money and energy on Cancer research, and people get cancer. And we still spend a lot of money fighting poverty, and people are still poor. According to your logic, we shouldn't be wasting our time on that either.
A few hundred thousand innocent lives given up to terror attacks and car accidents is a small price to pay in order for us to "invest" in the human race, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Dell is offering a free Blu-ray player with a Sharp 46" 1080p LCD TV today ($1699 total). You can't really beat free.
Link
Printed money is "backed up" by the value of the goods and services that it buys, which is actually much more useful than a hunk of shiny metal sitting in a vault somewhere.
Did you even watch the video? He visibly yanks the officers holding on to his arm several times. The last time he yanked so hard that he lost his balance and fell to the ground. He forcibly hits the female officer with his elbow while he is trying to break free and return to the microphone. Even after he was on the ground you can see him rolling around and pushing the officers away while they are trying to handcuff him. It wasn't until after they tased him that they were able to get the handcuffs on both hands and control the situation. I don't see how you could argue that the use of force was not justified. Before the use of force, suspect is unrestrained, disrupting a public event, and refusing to comply with police orders. After the use of force, suspect is restrained and escorted out of the room. It's as simple as that.
The only unfortunate thing about this situation is that this dweeb is getting exactly what he hoped for -- nationwide attention. He clearly wasn't trying to get John Kerry to answer his questions, otherwise he wouldn't have kept interrupting him every time Kerry tried to answer him.
If you "passively resist" in front of a charging horse, there is a good chance that you'll get kicked by a horse, just like if you "passively resist" in the middle of the street, there is a good chance you'll get hit by a car. The only person to blame in that situation is the moron who is lying down in the middle of the street, not the person driving the car or riding the horse. Don't want to get hit by a car? Don't lay down in the street. Simple huh? Take your "passive resistance" to your own driveway and I guarantee you won't get run over.
Heh. So when he violently swings his elbow and arms so that the female officer goes flying back off balance, he didn't hit her? I guess he was just playing patticake, right? And no matter what you seem to think, pushing and shoving is never an acceptable or legal reaction when the police grab you for whatever reason, even if somebody else is trying to answer your question.
No, he was on the ground, but he wasn't restrained. He was still rolling around and flailing, despite repeated warnings that he would be tased. He was not restrained in handcuffs and escorted out until after he was tased. The officers didn't have control over the situation until after force was used.
Peaceful? Did you watch the video? The guy is pushing, shoving, hitting, and screaming at police officers trying to get to the microphone. That isn't "peaceful" under even the most generous definition of the word. Not only that, a US Senator was only a few feet away from this maniac who clearly had no intentions of obeying police orders. He needed to be removed. Period.
Interesting how your perception of who is "insane" isn't the people who were laying down on the ground in front of charging horses and then complaining about being trampled.
What part about pushing, hitting, pulling, yelling at, and resisting 3-4 uniformed officers in the middle of a crowded auditorium is not "totally acting outrageous"?
This guy isn't a victim. He is a criminal who broke the law in front of a half a dozen police officers.
A Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech is not a Constitutional guarantee to force our voice on people who don't want to listen.
Tear gas, nightsticks, and rubber bullets have caused death before. In fact, people have even died after just being handcuffed. I guess we should get rid of those, too?
No, unfortunately I understood all to well the point you were attempting to make. It is clear that we will never all agree on which liberties are the most essential, but it is also clear that society as a whole is responsible for what tradeoffs between freedom and security are acceptable. Ben Franklin understood this tradeoff, which is why he included the very important qualifiers of essential liberty for temporary safety.
Something tells me that when Benjamin Franklin said that quote, his definition of "essential liberties" was not "liberties that I personally use".
But that is very noble of you to so willingly give up freedoms that you have never exercised yourself.
Ok, you will need to define what you consider "essential" liberty. (You will note that my original question was about any liberty, not essential liberty). Is driving on whatever side of the road at whatever speed you choose an "essential" liberty? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against traffic accidents? Is a lifestyle that uses as big a "carbon footprint" as you want an "essential" liberty"? Or are you willing to trade that freedom away for more safety against climate change?
I highly doubt that you really believe this. It would be exceedingly foolish if you did. Has the thought crossed your head the "risk of injury or death from terrorism is so slight as to be virtually nonexistent" because we have willingly given up some freedoms to protect us against it? I hate standing in the security line at the airport as much as the next guy, but I would much rather give up 15 minutes of my time and have to take my shoes off every once in a while than tear the metal detectors down and let anybody bring anything onto the planes because the risk is "virtually nonexistent". If we did that, the threat wouldn't be "virtually nonexistent" for much longer.
Of course, there will always be tradeoffs, so there has to be a cost/reward analysis. Nobody is proposing that we "chain everybody up in their homes in straightjackets all day" because that cost is clearly to high. But here is the rub: you will never get everybody to agree on exactly what liberties they consider "essential" enough that they are unwilling to give it up in exchange for more security. George Bush thinks that we should be able to listen in on phone conversations with suspected terrorists overseas without a warrant to protect us from terrorists. Lots of people agree with that, and lots of people don't. Al gore thinks that we should give up the freedom to drive whatever kind of car we want to protect us from global warming. Lots of people agree with that, and lots of people don't. I would even be willing to be that most people would be willing to give up many more "essential" liberties if somebody jumps up on the bus they are riding to show a vest stuffed with explosives than that same person would be willing to give up while sitting in a cubicle at work.
So where exactly do you draw the line between "essential" and "non-essential" liberties, and why are you more correct than somebody else who may be willing to give up more than you?
Does this mean that you unwilling to give up any liberty in exchange for safety?
Those who would give up non-essential liberty to purchase permanent safety will have both essential liberty and safety.
--Workindev
Absolutely. While I may fundamentally disagree with Hillary Clinton (along with most of the other Democratic contenders), I do believe that she had good intentions and wants the best for the country. I don't think she would abuse it, just as I don't think that the Bush administration is abusing it.
I think you are seriously mis-characterizing the policies of the Bush administration. Nobody has given the Executive Branch "unchecked power", and the Bush administration hasn't asked for it. The so-called "warrantless wiretap program" came with the blessing of both Judiciary committees in the legislature, and is subject to regular review by those committees. Even the FISA court agreed to let the program continue. There is nothing "unchecked" about this, so not only would I be comfortable with future administrations conducting these kinds of searches, I sincerely hope that they do.
Simple. It was the Baathists who overthrew and exiled Arif in 1968 who put Saddam into power.
-A study at West Virginia University concluded that "the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has had no statistically significant long-run impact on the overall size and profitability of the small business sector in the United States"
-The Ludwig von Misis Institute concluded that Wal-Mart significantly contributes to the wealth of a community
-Mississippi State University concluded that there are "both positive and negative impacts" on the local stores when a Wal-Mart is built
-MIT concluded that Wal-Mart benefits the poorest segments of the population the most
-The University of Missouri concluded that a Wal-Mart does far more economic damage to neighboring towns that it didn't build in compared to the towns where they build a new store
From my recent experience driving through Hays Kansas, I tend to believe these reports more than those who claim that Wal-Mart destroys the community.
Really? Please name a specific town where the only place to shop or work is Wal-Mart.
While you are working on that, consider Hays, Kansas. I had the "privilege" not to long ago of driving through Hays on a road trip. It's a small, Kansas town in the middle of nowhere off I-70. Downtown was a couple of blocks long, and there is a large, Super Wal-Mart right off the freeway. Not too surprisingly, the area around the Wal-Mart was booming. There were strip malls packed with stores, new commercial developments under construction, and lots of cars and 18-wheelers stopped there to shop. See for your self. It seems as though, at least in Hays Kansas, that Wal-Mart was helping draw customers to these new stores rather than smash them to oblivion with their low prices.
Of course I'm attacking what was said. Isn't that the whole point of debate?
How do you sanely react to a group of people who believe they will gain exaltation if they die in the act of killing as many of you as possible? Securing the cockpit door is a no brainer, but it doesn't make the problem go away. There will still be a group of people intent on killing as many of you as possible, and you will quickly find that there is no way you can sanely react to all of the ways they can possible kill you without addressing the problem at the source.
No. Not at all the same argument I'm using in this thread. Any other questions?
Guess what? We also spend enormous amounts of money and gladly relinquish freedoms to protect us from traffic accidents. Should we just give up on that, too? To come to think of it - we spend a lot of money and energy on Cancer research, and people get cancer. And we still spend a lot of money fighting poverty, and people are still poor. According to your logic, we shouldn't be wasting our time on that either.
A few hundred thousand innocent lives given up to terror attacks and car accidents is a small price to pay in order for us to "invest" in the human race, right?
Ah, yes. The familiar "If you don't agree with me you must be a moron" argument. Well done, AC, well done.