all you have to do is look back a year or so before he got into office and see that Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Berger, Pelosi and more were pounding those drums as well
What's the difference between someone convicted of threatening a president on Facebook and Lee Harvey Oswald?
There was evidence found in Iraq to support WMD claims - just not the ones that were made at that time, or the ones the public perceived as having been made.
No, there wasn't any evidence. The only thing ever found were old chemical weapons, but chemical weapons degrade over time. If the worst that old mustard gas warhead can do is give you a skin rash, it's not a weapon of mass destruction any more.
That's when I knew this "liberal media" was not true.
That zombie was already shot in the head during the 2000 election, when the media spent months inventing Al Gore "exaggerations" but gave Bush a pass for taking credit for an HMO bill of rights that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas. In a presidential debate, no less.
He went to war because every intelligence agency in the West (not just the US, but France, Germany, the UK, even Israel, et al) believed Saddam's lie about having WMDs.
That's just another Zombie Lie. "Every intelligence agency in the West" had more than enough information that Saddam had no WMD's, but it was ignored by Bush and Blair.
That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil.
It's that kind of garbage that had the NY Times covering up warrantless wiretapping for the 2004 election.
As is usually the case, this "for the good of the country" crap has, in reality, only harmed us.
But Obama has done one thing Bush could never do: not just take the worst of the Bush Imperial Presidency and make it the "New Normal", but (save for torture) expand it. In that respect, Obama could do more long-term damage to both the U.S. and the world than his predecessor ever did.
So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*. You're a big fan of "peace" and "social justice" then? Maybe it's best that you don't have a say.
It's called accountability, Slick. The first president to be held accountable for his actions (and not some contrived blue dress witch hunt) will make it far less likely that future presidents would skate the law so brazenly. Letting Nixon get away with his crimes encouraged Reagan to engage in criminal actions, which encouraged the Bushes, Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton. Just like letting the banks get away with massive financial fraud in 2008 encouraged more fraud through 2012, and today.
In light of what could have been avoided, maybe future presidents should take a lesson, and not always "look forward, not backward".
Pretty much. The "Ford healed the country by pardoning Nixon" storyline gets more and more pathetic as Bush and now Obama leave more and more of the Constitution on the floor.
If Nixon had been prosecuted, there's no way in hell that Reagan, the Bushes, Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton would have pulled a tenth the shit they've gotten away with.
Peace talks. LBJ escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops by early 1968. And Johnson wants to blame someone else for sabotaging peace talks. Go sell the Brooklyn Bridge to someone else.
Except: both those things can be true. LBJ escalated Vietnam from a proxy war into a major conflict that killed 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese....AND Nixon could have could have sabotaged peace talks to win an election.
There is no dichotomy.
It's like having to tell the Obots who want to credit Obama with ending the Iraq war that the withdrawal actually went according to the SOFA negotiated by Bush. Bush started the Iraq war based on lies, but he also ended the main occupation. Both of those things can be true.
What fantasy world do you live in where Iran is a peaceful loving nation?
Reality. Feel free to visit it any time.
The United States has: overthrown Iran's democratically elected government, backed a torture loving dictator in the Shah, shot down an Iranian passenger jet, backed Iraq when it attacked Iran, committed an act of war with Stuxnet, has either assassinated Iran's nuclear scientists or aided our client state Israel in doing so, and has spent years violating international lawover the nuclear weapons program we admit they don't have.
What Iran hasn't done:
Overthrown socialisticy democracies in favor of capitalistic dictators, launched two illegal wars of choice, set up a world-wide torture regime, set up a world-wide system of gulags, shredded it's own Constitution to deal with a "threat" less severe than a slip in a bathtub, and engaged in illegal covert wars across the world with drones.
Stick that in your jingoistic, American-exceptionalist ass and smoke it.
for the safety of the middle eastern region (and global security) is definitely worthwhile.
So when are you going to invade Israel to dispossess them of their ~200 nuclear weapons?
U.S. and Israeli bitching about Iran is like Biff Tannen bitching that Stephen Hawking has made a retaliatory threat to run over Biff's toes with a wheelchair if Biff attacks him first.
Why don't we start with honest reviews that focus on the DRM that the game will use as a playability issue just as they would framerates or any other issue? If all of the major review sites started reviewing games with a DRM section saying:
That's a good list, but gaming review sites would have to do this en mass, otherwise they'd find themselves cut off from free and advance copies of games. If you're thinking about buying say, the next Starcraft release on opening night, you probably want to read a review first. Well, who's going to have an advance review? Gaming mags that play ball with EA and UbiSoft.
If you feel they're giving you the short stick, don't buy their product. There are plenty of games and devs out there who do not enforce this kind of stupid crap, and the quality of indy games coming out these days is huge.
Right, just like black people were free to vote with their wallets in the 50's and eat at restaurants that would serve them. No, that's not comparing always-on DRM to Jim Crow. It's saying the "vote with your wallet" is a nonsense response to greedy, unethical business behavior.
Human beings aren't a hive mind, so expecting people to move en mass like it's World War Z or something is a bit of a red herring. But frequently, that's kind of the point...
The idea of a Bill of Rights for gamers seems to me ridiculous (and also very US-centric). How about a Bill of Rights to clean laundry?
How about a relevant analogy? Are there a handful of laundry companies, with two players dominating the market with crappy service and high prices? The term "Bill of Rights" is obviously used because it's obvious to understand. It's like "Jobs Bill" vs "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act". No explanation needed with the first.
Texas passed an "HMO patients Bill of Rights" (that Bush took credit for passing, though he vetoed it - and people bitched at Kerry for flip flopping). There's been talk of a "cell phone users Bill of Rights" that would require the advertized price to match the out-the-door price - no more fees jacking up your bill by 20%.
Getting butt hurt over the framing is your choice, but it's also your problem.
Isn't disarming hundreds of weapons on a consistent basis by both Russia and the U.S. an ongoing approach to total disarmament that is already in the works? How can you argue they're in breach of the NPT? That doesn't make any sense.
Reduction != disarmament. Refitting old nukes as bunker-busters isn't disarmament.
They've been threatening their neighbors, threatening the U.S. and threatening general peace in the middle east.
Zombie lies. Iran's threats have been retaliatory in nature - "if you attack us, we will respond in kind" - which pretty much falls under "no shit, Sherlock". And threatening peace in the Middle East, who are you kidding? The United States, not Iran, has invaded two countries and launched a torture regime, and sold huge amounts of weapons to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain.
they've explicitly announced is to wipe out Israel and Israel's allies
Explicitly, that's another Zombie Lie, probably the biggest. Repeating Zombie Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger liar.
Look at North Korea
No, lets not look at your red herring. Lets look at the fact that the two most hostile, belligerent powers on the planet - U.S. and Israel - are playing a game of pots calling the kettle black when it comes to Iran.
We've surrounded Iran with dozens of military bases, crashed their economy and currency with sanctions, illegally threatened them with military force, and committed multiple acts of war on a country over the....nuclear weapons program both the CIA and Israelis admit they don't have.
So when does Iran get to threaten the United States for being in "material breach" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament for countries already in possession of nuclear weapons?
How is a private company different that a government who pulls the same dirty tricks to raise revenue?
The profit motive. Your government bureaucrat in charge of your state or city roads doesn't personally benefit on the number of tickets handed out by state cops. As opposed to the board of your privately owned ticket-collecting company, which does personally benefit.
As an oil company, or any business for that matter, you don't invest in the infrastructure and expect to take a net loss because some dickhead
Less profit is not a loss. Dickhead.
And as a Texan living in Houston, fuck CITGO for flying the American flag half-mast in his (Chavez) honor. I refused to pump gas at one of those places, now I'm going a step further and recommending that no one else pump there too. It's anti-American to support CITGO!
Did you vote for McCain/Palin in 2008? Cuz you do know that Palin increased oil royalties for people living in Alaska, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but there still wasn't popular, majority support for the war until after it was already underway.
What's the difference between someone convicted of threatening a president on Facebook and Lee Harvey Oswald?
No, there wasn't any evidence. The only thing ever found were old chemical weapons, but chemical weapons degrade over time. If the worst that old mustard gas warhead can do is give you a skin rash, it's not a weapon of mass destruction any more.
That zombie was already shot in the head during the 2000 election, when the media spent months inventing Al Gore "exaggerations" but gave Bush a pass for taking credit for an HMO bill of rights that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas. In a presidential debate, no less.
That's just another Zombie Lie. "Every intelligence agency in the West" had more than enough information that Saddam had no WMD's, but it was ignored by Bush and Blair.
It's that kind of garbage that had the NY Times covering up warrantless wiretapping for the 2004 election.
As is usually the case, this "for the good of the country" crap has, in reality, only harmed us.
But Obama has done one thing Bush could never do: not just take the worst of the Bush Imperial Presidency and make it the "New Normal", but (save for torture) expand it. In that respect, Obama could do more long-term damage to both the U.S. and the world than his predecessor ever did.
It's called accountability, Slick. The first president to be held accountable for his actions (and not some contrived blue dress witch hunt) will make it far less likely that future presidents would skate the law so brazenly. Letting Nixon get away with his crimes encouraged Reagan to engage in criminal actions, which encouraged the Bushes, Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton. Just like letting the banks get away with massive financial fraud in 2008 encouraged more fraud through 2012, and today.
So why do you hate the rule of law, fjord?
If you're -1, Moran.
Saying politicians should be held accountable for their actions doesn't mean you think they will be any time soon.
Any reason you tried to get away with dodging the quantitative part of his point?
Pretty much. The "Ford healed the country by pardoning Nixon" storyline gets more and more pathetic as Bush and now Obama leave more and more of the Constitution on the floor.
If Nixon had been prosecuted, there's no way in hell that Reagan, the Bushes, Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton would have pulled a tenth the shit they've gotten away with.
Except: both those things can be true. LBJ escalated Vietnam from a proxy war into a major conflict that killed 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese....AND Nixon could have could have sabotaged peace talks to win an election.
There is no dichotomy.
It's like having to tell the Obots who want to credit Obama with ending the Iraq war that the withdrawal actually went according to the SOFA negotiated by Bush. Bush started the Iraq war based on lies, but he also ended the main occupation. Both of those things can be true.
Even the U.S. and Israel admit Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Link 1. Link 2.
Reality. Feel free to visit it any time.
The United States has: overthrown Iran's democratically elected government, backed a torture loving dictator in the Shah, shot down an Iranian passenger jet, backed Iraq when it attacked Iran, committed an act of war with Stuxnet, has either assassinated Iran's nuclear scientists or aided our client state Israel in doing so, and has spent years violating international law over the nuclear weapons program we admit they don't have.
What Iran hasn't done:
Overthrown socialisticy democracies in favor of capitalistic dictators, launched two illegal wars of choice, set up a world-wide torture regime, set up a world-wide system of gulags, shredded it's own Constitution to deal with a "threat" less severe than a slip in a bathtub, and engaged in illegal covert wars across the world with drones.
Stick that in your jingoistic, American-exceptionalist ass and smoke it.
Okay. You're a hypocrite.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
So when are you going to invade Israel to dispossess them of their ~200 nuclear weapons?
U.S. and Israeli bitching about Iran is like Biff Tannen bitching that Stephen Hawking has made a retaliatory threat to run over Biff's toes with a wheelchair if Biff attacks him first.
The Chechen war was in, you know, Chechnya. Not against the United States, and Stuxnet wasn't released upon Russia - so no one is excused.
There goes your logic.
Iran hasn't invaded any countries in an aggressive war of choice in 200 years. As opposed to you-know-who.
That's a good list, but gaming review sites would have to do this en mass, otherwise they'd find themselves cut off from free and advance copies of games. If you're thinking about buying say, the next Starcraft release on opening night, you probably want to read a review first. Well, who's going to have an advance review? Gaming mags that play ball with EA and UbiSoft.
Feigned outrage is feigned.
Right, just like black people were free to vote with their wallets in the 50's and eat at restaurants that would serve them. No, that's not comparing always-on DRM to Jim Crow. It's saying the "vote with your wallet" is a nonsense response to greedy, unethical business behavior.
Human beings aren't a hive mind, so expecting people to move en mass like it's World War Z or something is a bit of a red herring. But frequently, that's kind of the point...
How about a relevant analogy? Are there a handful of laundry companies, with two players dominating the market with crappy service and high prices? The term "Bill of Rights" is obviously used because it's obvious to understand. It's like "Jobs Bill" vs "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act". No explanation needed with the first.
Texas passed an "HMO patients Bill of Rights" (that Bush took credit for passing, though he vetoed it - and people bitched at Kerry for flip flopping). There's been talk of a "cell phone users Bill of Rights" that would require the advertized price to match the out-the-door price - no more fees jacking up your bill by 20%.
Getting butt hurt over the framing is your choice, but it's also your problem.
Reduction != disarmament. Refitting old nukes as bunker-busters isn't disarmament.
Zombie lies. Iran's threats have been retaliatory in nature - "if you attack us, we will respond in kind" - which pretty much falls under "no shit, Sherlock". And threatening peace in the Middle East, who are you kidding? The United States, not Iran, has invaded two countries and launched a torture regime, and sold huge amounts of weapons to brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain.
Explicitly, that's another Zombie Lie, probably the biggest. Repeating Zombie Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger liar.
No, lets not look at your red herring. Lets look at the fact that the two most hostile, belligerent powers on the planet - U.S. and Israel - are playing a game of pots calling the kettle black when it comes to Iran.
We've surrounded Iran with dozens of military bases, crashed their economy and currency with sanctions, illegally threatened them with military force, and committed multiple acts of war on a country over the....nuclear weapons program both the CIA and Israelis admit they don't have.
So when does Iran get to threaten the United States for being in "material breach" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament for countries already in possession of nuclear weapons?
So....you want Iran to START pursuing nuclear weapons? First time for everything, I guess.
The profit motive. Your government bureaucrat in charge of your state or city roads doesn't personally benefit on the number of tickets handed out by state cops. As opposed to the board of your privately owned ticket-collecting company, which does personally benefit.
Should be fairly obvious.
Less profit is not a loss. Dickhead.
Did you vote for McCain/Palin in 2008? Cuz you do know that Palin increased oil royalties for people living in Alaska, right?