You're really this intellectually lazy? Hand waving and 7 word tautologies do not an argument make.
were not simply "peaceful protesters", they were also squatters.
Nonsense. What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency? See also, the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
More problems:
In NYC, there were a few incidents where cops used disproportionate force.
Mass use of tear gas, pepper spray, mounted police, and mass arrests are also disproportionate force. And of course there was far more than just NYC - like the vet who got shot in the head with a tear gas canister - funny how you left that part out or your storyline. Or the student sitting down that got sprayed in the face at UC Davis.
How about your own couch. There's a guy on your own couch. He refuses to leave.
How about...you try to come up with an analogy that doesn't insult the listener as well as your own intelligence. I suppose you thought some wingers really "got" Martin Sheen, an advocate for the homeless, when they drove a bus full of homeless people to his house and demanded that he take them all in. As if a couch in your house is a remotely relevant comparison to public parks and squares.
However the numbers are clear that terrorist attacks went very down afterwards.
1. Correlation != causation. 2. Attacking those who have stolen and occupied your land are not "terrorist attacks".
You really want to talk about terrorism in the area, you have to first and foremost talk about the IDF. Like bombing Gaza into the stone age when your own military admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets before Israel broke the cease fire, or how the IDF ordered civilians to take shelter inside a school, and then promptly bombed the school.
You think distinguishing between shelling cities and listening to phone calls is "overly literal"?
No, I think that's exactly the sort of quibbling I was talking about. Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities, so I'm not sure just why you're stuck on that point. Yes, we really are aware there are no communists in Afghanistan, thank you.
I want to win the argument against US malfeasance, not to defend the US government.
Then I'd suggest getting less hung up on 1:1 comparisons that people aren't actually making. It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square. That doesn't mean we're accusing Homeland Security of using rape as a weapon the way Mubarak's intelligence services did.
You've got willful denialism. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrested, police brutality, cracked skulls, mounted police (both motorcycles and horses), mass use of tear gas and pepper spray....
It's all there man, whether or not you choose to ignore it.
I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies.
Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.
In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or communist army to deal with and little time talking about spending blood and treasure to prop up an unpopular, extremely corrupt government with no clear mission or way out of the occupation.
And yeah, having people kidnapped and tortured or assasinated by executive fiat are exactly the sort of activities that corrupt dictatorships like Syria engage in. We should know - the victim in the above "kidnapped and torture" link was flown to.....Syria to be tortured.
Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, or killed:
The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.
Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said after the announcement that he âoefeels proud as a Canadianâ
Or subjecting alleged whistleblowers to psychological torture while letting actual torturers skate.
Or singling out a documentary filmmaker for dozens of searches and seizures. A filmmaker accused of no crime, which means the harassment is purely political intimidation.
How can you possibly compare the scale of violence that occurred in Tahrir Square to the removal of protestors in any of the Occupy camps?
Easily. Cracked skulls, bleeding heads, mass arrests, use of mounted police, tear gas, macing peaceful protesters (even ones sitting down) in the face with pepper spray....
Everything the parent AC listed has actually happened. So stop blabbering on about hyperbole and start catching up on your Greenwald:
Practices once denounced by the U.S. as the hallmark of tyranny are now so normalized they barely register notice
Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).
In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The "principal human rights problems" of the tyrannical Chinese government include "a lack of due process in judicial proceedings" and "the use of administrative detention." Indeed, "arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges." Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?
*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now
See: claims from denialst hack who's training was in meteorology, not climate science, who is also willing to ignore science in favor of faith with his promotion of Intelligence Design.
Only if you ignore what he just said about fetus viability. Most abortions are performed before 20 weeks where the fetus is little more than a blob of cells. As one guy linked to upthread, an 8 week old fetus (half of abortions are performed before this) is less than an inch in size. Nobody has an abortion in the third trimester for shits and giggles.
Who everyone knows is an odd duck for any party. There is no other national politician that comes close to Paul's weird package of beliefs.
And he's retiring.
Gary Johnson
Who currently holds no office and is currently running as a Libertarian.
William F Buckley
Never held any office of any kind.
The only prominent Democrat to take a half-hearted jab at the prison-industrial complex was Jim Webb. The only Republican is Ron Paul, but he's as far out from today's GOP as Dennis Kucinich is from the Democrats.
Here's the thing that bothers me most about climate change, the proposed solutions are horrible.
That's making shit up - horribly. We already have the technology to mitigate AGW, most of it has been around for decades, and none of it requires moving into caves or grass huts. It's not a question of a way. It's a question of will, and being willing to look at the problem honestly.
As for paying for it, the United States currently spends at least $1.2 trillion a year on it's war machine. Chop the war budget down to a still-wildly-excessive $200 billion a year and use the savings for green energy. A trillion a year will pay for a shitload of wind farms, solar panels on roofs, and mass transit to replace congested highways.
And the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of not mitigating it. And finally....
Energy costs money. Saving energy means saving money.
Even if you insist on being a self-centered tool and using your Hummer as a single passenger vehicle in a metro area with busing and subways, less overall gas consumption means cheaper gas for you.
It's perfectly reasonable to question the work of ANY scientist.
Slight of hand. There's questioning results as a natural part of establishing an accepted scientific theory, and questioning science because the "scientist" in question has a track record of putting his faith first.
Big difference. You'd probably question opinions coming from a geologist that believes in spontaneous generation, no?
Some people (not necessarily you) take these surveys and draw the conclusion that if we don't act, New York will be covered with water or the equator will be on fire or something.
Which people - climate scientists? Sounds more like argumentum absurdum.
A neat conservative disinformation tactic, if you fall for it. Take an issue and politicize it (like AGW, or evolution, or birth control) for a few years until people complain about how the issue has been politicized (without blaming the ones who politicized it in the first place). Brilliant!
Do you have a link to the actual temperatures measured at specific stations over a long period of time?
Contrary to conservative talking points, research data is available, feel free to look it up.
Also how do explain the downward trends? Surely if we are constantly increasing the amount of CO2 we should see a steady upward trend as the greenhouse effect does its work. I would think you'd have to have some explanation as to why the most convincing graph includes such long cooling trends.
What "long cooling trends", exactly. The last few decades have been ones of increasing temperatures, not decreasing.
You mean you're sorry that someone called you out on your concern trolling.
There's also the problem that some rabid GW proponents address any criticism, of any kind, with accusations of ignorance, industry conflict or worse. You've nicely demonstrated that unsavoury trait. Of course, all those tactics are also used by the other side
Hmm, which will win out: your projection or your lack of self-awareness! There can be only one!
There is a complete industry now that exists by the grace of the belief that GW is man-made and we can do something about it.
Which industry is that, exactly? Does the entire history of this unnamed "industry" match up to one quarter of profits from Exxon?
However try taking the position that GW is not entirely man-made, or that GW will not be as damaging as to justify billions of investments. You will get attacked almost in the way blasphemists were attacked in the middle ages.
If you are denying it for the sake of denying it, the way your ancestors no doubt denied the very suggestion that the Earth is a round object?
It isn't global warming science that many object to, it's that almost every 'solution' proposed seems to be a call for more redistribution and for people to scale back their lifestyles.
Energy costs money. Saving energy means saving money.
Even if you are a self-centered tool who insists on using an F-150 as a single passenger vehicle in a metro area with busing and subways, you would still want the populace as a whole to reduce it's energy consumption.
It's the fact that there is a perception that certain ideologies have seized upon GW as a free ticket to further their agendas of limiting economic and public activity and increasing the interference and power of government within our lives.
Beckian drivel. You're not only insulting our intelligence with that crap, you're insulting yourself.
Politically, specifically in America, there's a reason progressives embrace GW and conservatives do not. It provides a cover for some of their longest desired goals. Further centralization of government, extreme enviromentalism, and anti-capitalism.
That would sound so much more convincing with some Vicks Vapor Rub smeared in your eyes for dramatic effect...now get back under your bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
You're really this intellectually lazy? Hand waving and 7 word tautologies do not an argument make.
Nonsense. What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency? See also, the First Amendment:
More problems:
Mass use of tear gas, pepper spray, mounted police, and mass arrests are also disproportionate force. And of course there was far more than just NYC - like the vet who got shot in the head with a tear gas canister - funny how you left that part out or your storyline. Or the student sitting down that got sprayed in the face at UC Davis.
How about...you try to come up with an analogy that doesn't insult the listener as well as your own intelligence. I suppose you thought some wingers really "got" Martin Sheen, an advocate for the homeless, when they drove a bus full of homeless people to his house and demanded that he take them all in. As if a couch in your house is a remotely relevant comparison to public parks and squares.
1. Correlation != causation.
2. Attacking those who have stolen and occupied your land are not "terrorist attacks".
You really want to talk about terrorism in the area, you have to first and foremost talk about the IDF. Like bombing Gaza into the stone age when your own military admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets before Israel broke the cease fire, or how the IDF ordered civilians to take shelter inside a school, and then promptly bombed the school.
No, I think that's exactly the sort of quibbling I was talking about. Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities, so I'm not sure just why you're stuck on that point. Yes, we really are aware there are no communists in Afghanistan, thank you.
Then I'd suggest getting less hung up on 1:1 comparisons that people aren't actually making. It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square. That doesn't mean we're accusing Homeland Security of using rape as a weapon the way Mubarak's intelligence services did.
You've got willful denialism. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrested, police brutality, cracked skulls, mounted police (both motorcycles and horses), mass use of tear gas and pepper spray....
It's all there man, whether or not you choose to ignore it.
Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.
In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or communist army to deal with and little time talking about spending blood and treasure to prop up an unpopular, extremely corrupt government with no clear mission or way out of the occupation.
And yeah, having people kidnapped and tortured or assasinated by executive fiat are exactly the sort of activities that corrupt dictatorships like Syria engage in. We should know - the victim in the above "kidnapped and torture" link was flown to.....Syria to be tortured.
Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, or killed:
Or subjecting alleged whistleblowers to psychological torture while letting actual torturers skate.
Or singling out a documentary filmmaker for dozens of searches and seizures. A filmmaker accused of no crime, which means the harassment is purely political intimidation.
Easily. Cracked skulls, bleeding heads, mass arrests, use of mounted police, tear gas, macing peaceful protesters (even ones sitting down) in the face with pepper spray....
So, on what world do you get your news?
Everything the parent AC listed has actually happened. So stop blabbering on about hyperbole and start catching up on your Greenwald:
*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now
FTFY. Now, what about him?
What demonizaiton? Forget to leave that part out of your cut & paste talking points?
All of which result in prison terms. So how much prison time again for those who have miscarriages again?
Your projection is noted.
Only if you ignore what he just said about fetus viability. Most abortions are performed before 20 weeks where the fetus is little more than a blob of cells. As one guy linked to upthread, an 8 week old fetus (half of abortions are performed before this) is less than an inch in size. Nobody has an abortion in the third trimester for shits and giggles.
Who everyone knows is an odd duck for any party. There is no other national politician that comes close to Paul's weird package of beliefs.
And he's retiring.
Who currently holds no office and is currently running as a Libertarian.
Never held any office of any kind.
The only prominent Democrat to take a half-hearted jab at the prison-industrial complex was Jim Webb. The only Republican is Ron Paul, but he's as far out from today's GOP as Dennis Kucinich is from the Democrats.
I'm amazed how you manged to ignore much of his post. So here's some of it a second time, so you can take a second attempt to address it:
Moranic comparison. Amoebas are cells and obviously alive, but you don't see bible thumpers demanding federal laws to protect them.
That's making shit up - horribly. We already have the technology to mitigate AGW, most of it has been around for decades, and none of it requires moving into caves or grass huts. It's not a question of a way. It's a question of will, and being willing to look at the problem honestly.
As for paying for it, the United States currently spends at least $1.2 trillion a year on it's war machine. Chop the war budget down to a still-wildly-excessive $200 billion a year and use the savings for green energy. A trillion a year will pay for a shitload of wind farms, solar panels on roofs, and mass transit to replace congested highways.
And the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of not mitigating it. And finally....
Energy costs money. Saving energy means saving money.
Even if you insist on being a self-centered tool and using your Hummer as a single passenger vehicle in a metro area with busing and subways, less overall gas consumption means cheaper gas for you.
Slight of hand. There's questioning results as a natural part of establishing an accepted scientific theory, and questioning science because the "scientist" in question has a track record of putting his faith first.
Big difference. You'd probably question opinions coming from a geologist that believes in spontaneous generation, no?
Which people - climate scientists? Sounds more like argumentum absurdum.
A neat conservative disinformation tactic, if you fall for it. Take an issue and politicize it (like AGW, or evolution, or birth control) for a few years until people complain about how the issue has been politicized (without blaming the ones who politicized it in the first place). Brilliant!
Contrary to conservative talking points, research data is available, feel free to look it up.
What "long cooling trends", exactly. The last few decades have been ones of increasing temperatures, not decreasing.
You mean you're sorry that someone called you out on your concern trolling.
Hmm, which will win out: your projection or your lack of self-awareness! There can be only one!
Which industry is that, exactly? Does the entire history of this unnamed "industry" match up to one quarter of profits from Exxon?
If you are denying it for the sake of denying it, the way your ancestors no doubt denied the very suggestion that the Earth is a round object?
Energy costs money. Saving energy means saving money.
Even if you are a self-centered tool who insists on using an F-150 as a single passenger vehicle in a metro area with busing and subways, you would still want the populace as a whole to reduce it's energy consumption.
Because the price of gas would fall.
Beckian drivel. You're not only insulting our intelligence with that crap, you're insulting yourself.
That would sound so much more convincing with some Vicks Vapor Rub smeared in your eyes for dramatic effect...now get back under your bridge.
Greenland aint that big.
That's just stupid.
Not when you leave out the fact that much of that pollution is powering offshored factories producing crap for American consumers, you don't.