Incorrect. They were loyal to a government, namely the United States.
Um, we didn't have the Articles of Confederation at that point, much less the Constitution. So your point is Not Scottish.
So let's get real here: this bloviation about "illegal enemy combatants" is nothing more than finding an excuse to hate on Iraqis who are resisting our occupation of their land.
Muslims would have to take on a role fighting religious extremism, which, well, hahaha.
At first I thought you were of the subject of my proposed satire: a wingnut with no self-awareness in denial of history.
You play a Muslim commander who goes around and collects jizya from Christian, Hindu, and Jewish minorities. When they can't pay, you can humiliate them and rape their daughters and wives.
...but then I realized you were just a troglodyte asshole.
Nah, if you really want to test attitudes, have an alternate history were wealthy, powerful majority-Muslim countries spend a few decades overthrowing the governments of majority-Christian countries for economic reasons. The Christian countries then fall into religious fundamentalism and some of their citizens form groups that use terrorist tactics - including hijackings and suicide bombings - in response. Your objective in the game is to track down and kill these Christofascists.
There's a significant difference between a video game that's a part of history, and NY Times selling pictures of my body coming home. The first is called "history", and the second "profiteering"
They only get to publish pictures if your family approves, dumbass.
Few things are as hilarious as asking College Republicans how much they like the Iraq War, and then asking them when they plan on signing up for military service.
Invading armies waging illegal wars of choice don't get to then complain about "rules of war" when the civilian populace starts using guerrilla warfare to resist occupation.
Soldiers are in uniform, vehicles are marked, etc. Basically the soldiers aren't pretending to be part of the populace and launching attacks.
You mean like Minutemen during the Revolutionary War? Those damn terrorists, I mean patriots, I mean...
And then there's the fact that the U.S. has supported un-uniformed "illegal combatants" for decades, some of them quite nasty, as long as they were fighting socialists.
For homework, go reread the wankfest history books you were spoonfeed in school. Specifically the parts where the Brave And Clever American Patriots outfought superior British numbers by hiding behind rocks and trees instead of forming lines on open ground.
Ignoring hard facts and reality is why conservative crap gets perpetuated well past their useful lifetime.
Fixed that for you. If you're a business owner, opposing unions is in your interest because you might not be able to make 500 times as much as your average worker. But if you're not a business owner, opposing unions makes as much sense as an 18 year old being drafted into Vietnam WHILE wanting the voting age to stay at 21. It makes no damned sense whatsoever.
sure seems better than no compensation, 100% more vacation time, no pension and no healthcare at all as many are getting laid off because of these wages and benefits are set higher than market value. Other than being forced to by a union, why should I pay you $25 an hr when your unemployed neighbor would love to do the same job, as good or better, for $20 an hour.
Not having a union makes for more layoffs because then management pays no price for laying off your dumb ass.
Biden has a comfy senate job with all the perks which is reward enough. Compared to most Americans, this makes him RICH.
Hardly. Senators make $174,000 a year - if you had to maintain a residence in your home state AND in one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in AND pay to put your kids through private school (because DC public schools suck), how much money would you want to make?
The RIAA and his donors keep him in his comfy job, in exchange for which they get to buy legislation.
Biden's plenty popular in his home state, winning by around 60% each year - he in no way shape or form needs the RIAA.
The man is corrupt
Just because you are too lazy to actually demonstrate any hint of any actual corruption, doesn't mean you can call him such just because you have a policy disagreement.
Unions leach off the workers as much or more than any company they are suppose to protect the workers from, and produce nothing in return.
Yes, because for wingnuts, making do with 15% less compensation, less vacation time, no pension and crappy health care benefits is TOTALLY WORTH IT if it means you don't have to pay $1000 a year in union dues.
You know, moronic elitism that goes against your own interests, like the rest of your post.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama got $8,599,038 from the "TV/movies/music" industry.
Only if you follow the Republican fallacy that donations from employees of a company count as donations from that company.
Yes, if you include ALL of the candidates, Hollywood only gave the Dems about six times as much as they gave Reps. But even a six to one ratio suggests some slight bias in favour of one side or the other, don't you think?
Or you could look at the metric that actually matters: how politicians vote. And Republicans support copyright extensions every bit as much as Democrats do - remember the Sonny Bono (R-CA) copyright extension act?
The rational for repealing 17th Amendment make no sense. A senator elected to his state after 17th Amendment will represent his state every bit as much as one appointed by the state legislature. If a senator doesn't serve the interests of his state, he'll be voted out of office.
Another reason the 17th Amendment was passed was the high amount of corruption involved in those state legislatures. Take the recent circus over Blagojevich's appointment of Obama's replacement and multiply it by a hundred political power plays.
Finally, there is the problem of gerrymandering. Both parties have done it throughout history, the difference now is that there are computerized tools to maximize the number of seats. In Texas, for example, the party that got 56% of the vote gerrymandered the districts so they'd get 76% of the seats. With gerrymandered state legislatures selecting senators, their picks could be wildly different from the state's electorate.
Someone has to be the one to burst your bubble about Obama, so I guess it will be me. Obama is a product of the Chicago machine politics of the type the brought you ACORN, Rod Blagojevich, Reverend Wright, and the sort of pay-to-play corruption that only lobbyists, rabble rousers, and crooked union bosses could love.
Yawn. I'd say [Citation needed], but it's not like right wing hacks like yourself are concerned with trivial things like facts or reality.
But Biden is not rich. Despite being in the Senate for a couple generations, he's "dead last" Senate in terms of income. So yes, you can complain that he's favoring draconian copyright laws to the detriment of the public, but you can't accuse him of corruption just because he's staked a position you disagree with.
Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.
Only if you follow the Republican sophistry that donations from employees of Freddie Mac == donations from Freddie Mac.
I always find it funny when Republicans bitch about Hollywood's support for Democrats, completely ignoring the fact that Hollywood is also big business. And the GOP has never seen a big business that it hasn't felicitated with gusto.
Canada and Europe manages just fine with gas two times as expensive or more. So we'd need more mass transit, less trucking and more rail, and of course those urban cowboys might have to give up their F-150's as commuter vehicles. Oh, darn.
and Defense Industry.
We've had one invasion to deal with in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. We have the world's largest oceans on either side of us and two large, friendly nations on the remaining two sides. Our actual defense needs are minuscule.
Seriously, when has BIG Oil and Defense sued thousands of kids on the basis of intellectual property (non-tangible resource)?
When has the RIAA or the MPAA led us into a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and our nation's moral standing?
We spend hours on slashdot yelling over the semantics of calling it "theft," and ultimately we're probably right.
Yes, minus the "probably" part.
You've taken something that wasn't being offered for free and you didn't pay for it; that's close enough to theft that they really don't care what the semantic argument is.
Says who? Just ask Mr. Smoe what would impact him more:
1) Someone breaks into his house and steals all his stuff. 2) Someone breaks into his house and makes a copy of his stuff so all his belongings are intact.
Now take out the trespassing, breaking & entering, and you have copyright infringement. Copyright infringement vs theft is as much a matter of "semantics" as the difference between mountains and molehills is a matter of "perspective".
Isn't there something illegal about using one's public office to favor special interest groups in exchange for future favors, monetary or otherwise?
No. Have a problem with that, push for 100% publicly financed elections, an independent ethics committee and paying our representatives a million dollars a year (to reduce incentive for graft to as near zero as possible).
We are currently in the early years of what will later be recognized as the pivotal fight of the entire Information Age, and not 3 months into his administration Obama has completely sold us out.
Bwhahaha. Two words for you buddy: NSA wiretapping. You're comparing a molehill (corporate copyright laws) to a mountain (shredding of the 4th amendment).
Note, for the record, that the government gave itself this power in FDR's administration, when it successfully prosecuted a farmer for growing feed for his own livestock.
Sure, sure. I wish the framers had stuck the word "directly" in the Constitution in a couple of places - like the parts on regulating interstate commerce and taking lands for public use. So we'd have none of this BS about home grown pot affecting interstate commerce and using eminent domain to clear residential areas to make room for shopping malls.
But that's beside the point, which is the gross hackery of selective strict constitutionalists. Scalia is one. Ron Paul is another. He voted against a (totally non-binding) resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant Congress the power to make such non-binding resolutions. Yet he has no problem sponsoring legislation that would define life as beginning at conception, nevermind that's not a defined power in Article I.
For another example, there's our own resident dumb fat fuck, Pudge. He rails against the unconstitutionality of Social Security. I point out that supporting the General Welfare is in the Constitution. Twice. He responds that Article I, Section 8 is a strict definition of Congressional powers. I point out that by that logic, a strict interpretation of Section 8 would apply just as much to Common Defense as General Welfare, as they are in the same sentence of Article I and both are detailed in Section 8. So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so is the Air Force, the CIA, NORAD, and all our spy satellites as Congress only has the power to fund an army and a navy. To which his rationalization is that all those things are A-OK under expansive court readings of the Forgoing Powers Doctrine. A selectively strict constitutionalist, because obviously Social Security is perfectly constitutional under equally expansive interpretations of General Welfare and the Commerce Clause.
But that's the problem with wingnut arguments: consistently inconsistent logic, so they implode if given the slightest scruitiny.
Besides Thomas, Scalia also took part in the decision while a close relative had a substantial interest in the outcome. Scalia's son Eugene is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush's case before the Supreme Court.
Scalia refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore, although the lead lawyer for the plaintiff was, in effect, his son's boss. He took the same position in the various legal proceedings that accompanied the impeachment of Bill Clinton, beginning with the Supreme Court's decision to permit Paula Jones to proceed with her lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment, in which Olson provided legal assistance.
and
WASHINGTON - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused on Thursday to remove himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, even though their recent duck-hunting trip raised questions about his impartiality.
But then, hackery has never been much of a problem
But Scalia's liberal critics have a point: His moral views have a habit of grafting themselves onto his constitutional philosophy. No one expects him to be a libertarian; he has stressed that his opposition to expanded federal power applies only to instances in which it is explicitly limited by the Constitution. But you might at least expect him to be oppose federal intervention within the parameters of his originalist vision. Or rather, you might have expected that until Gonzales v. Raich, this year's medical marijuana case.
Scalia voted to uphold the federal government's prerogative to go after medical consumers of homegrown pot, on the grounds that this activity supposedly affects interstate commerce. This ruling prompted Thomas to note in a caustic dissent, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.
Anyone with more sense than a frog would have told you that such high approval ratings could never last.
Anyone who didn't have his head up his ass could tell you why they didn't last: Bush started using 911 for partisan gain and to launch a bogus invasion of Iraq.
Re-read that Slate article.
You re-read the article. Gore would have won with a statewide recount. Deal with it.
This area is prone to dangerous wildlife, wildcats and coyotes being the predominant species. These are aggressive animals than can and will chase you down and seriously harm or kill you
Suuuuuure you do. Coyote attacks on humans are even more rare than wolf attacks - as in practically never. You are in far more danger of being attacked and killed by your neighbor's dog than a coyote.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. They were loyal to a government, namely the United States.
Um, we didn't have the Articles of Confederation at that point, much less the Constitution. So your point is Not Scottish.
So let's get real here: this bloviation about "illegal enemy combatants" is nothing more than finding an excuse to hate on Iraqis who are resisting our occupation of their land.
Muslims would have to take on a role fighting religious extremism, which, well, hahaha.
At first I thought you were of the subject of my proposed satire: a wingnut with no self-awareness in denial of history.
You play a Muslim commander who goes around and collects jizya from Christian, Hindu, and Jewish minorities. When they can't pay, you can humiliate them and rape their daughters and wives.
...but then I realized you were just a troglodyte asshole.
Nah, if you really want to test attitudes, have an alternate history were wealthy, powerful majority-Muslim countries spend a few decades overthrowing the governments of majority-Christian countries for economic reasons. The Christian countries then fall into religious fundamentalism and some of their citizens form groups that use terrorist tactics - including hijackings and suicide bombings - in response. Your objective in the game is to track down and kill these Christofascists.
There's a significant difference between a video game that's a part of history, and NY Times selling pictures of my body coming home. The first is called "history", and the second "profiteering"
They only get to publish pictures if your family approves, dumbass.
My right wing agenda
Fixed that for you.
Fixed.
Few things are as hilarious as asking College Republicans how much they like the Iraq War, and then asking them when they plan on signing up for military service.
Invading armies waging illegal wars of choice don't get to then complain about "rules of war" when the civilian populace starts using guerrilla warfare to resist occupation.
Soldiers are in uniform, vehicles are marked, etc. Basically the soldiers aren't pretending to be part of the populace and launching attacks.
You mean like Minutemen during the Revolutionary War? Those damn terrorists, I mean patriots, I mean...
And then there's the fact that the U.S. has supported un-uniformed "illegal combatants" for decades, some of them quite nasty, as long as they were fighting socialists.
For homework, go reread the wankfest history books you were spoonfeed in school. Specifically the parts where the Brave And Clever American Patriots outfought superior British numbers by hiding behind rocks and trees instead of forming lines on open ground.
Ignoring hard facts and reality is why conservative crap gets perpetuated well past their useful lifetime.
Fixed that for you. If you're a business owner, opposing unions is in your interest because you might not be able to make 500 times as much as your average worker. But if you're not a business owner, opposing unions makes as much sense as an 18 year old being drafted into Vietnam WHILE wanting the voting age to stay at 21. It makes no damned sense whatsoever.
sure seems better than no compensation, 100% more vacation time, no pension and no healthcare at all as many are getting laid off because of these wages and benefits are set higher than market value. Other than being forced to by a union, why should I pay you $25 an hr when your unemployed neighbor would love to do the same job, as good or better, for $20 an hour.
Not having a union makes for more layoffs because then management pays no price for laying off your dumb ass.
Biden has a comfy senate job with all the perks which is reward enough. Compared to most Americans, this makes him RICH.
Hardly. Senators make $174,000 a year - if you had to maintain a residence in your home state AND in one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in AND pay to put your kids through private school (because DC public schools suck), how much money would you want to make?
The RIAA and his donors keep him in his comfy job, in exchange for which they get to buy legislation.
Biden's plenty popular in his home state, winning by around 60% each year - he in no way shape or form needs the RIAA.
The man is corrupt
Just because you are too lazy to actually demonstrate any hint of any actual corruption, doesn't mean you can call him such just because you have a policy disagreement.
Unions leach off the workers as much or more than any company they are suppose to protect the workers from, and produce nothing in return.
Yes, because for wingnuts, making do with 15% less compensation, less vacation time, no pension and crappy health care benefits is TOTALLY WORTH IT if it means you don't have to pay $1000 a year in union dues.
You know, moronic elitism that goes against your own interests, like the rest of your post.
According to OpenSecrets.org, Obama got $8,599,038 from the "TV/movies/music" industry.
Only if you follow the Republican fallacy that donations from employees of a company count as donations from that company.
Yes, if you include ALL of the candidates, Hollywood only gave the Dems about six times as much as they gave Reps. But even a six to one ratio suggests some slight bias in favour of one side or the other, don't you think?
Or you could look at the metric that actually matters: how politicians vote. And Republicans support copyright extensions every bit as much as Democrats do - remember the Sonny Bono (R-CA) copyright extension act?
The rational for repealing 17th Amendment make no sense. A senator elected to his state after 17th Amendment will represent his state every bit as much as one appointed by the state legislature. If a senator doesn't serve the interests of his state, he'll be voted out of office.
Another reason the 17th Amendment was passed was the high amount of corruption involved in those state legislatures. Take the recent circus over Blagojevich's appointment of Obama's replacement and multiply it by a hundred political power plays.
Finally, there is the problem of gerrymandering. Both parties have done it throughout history, the difference now is that there are computerized tools to maximize the number of seats. In Texas, for example, the party that got 56% of the vote gerrymandered the districts so they'd get 76% of the seats. With gerrymandered state legislatures selecting senators, their picks could be wildly different from the state's electorate.
You're forgetting that Hollywood is also Big Business, and the GOP loves sucking the cock of Big Business.
Democrats=leaching business (Hollywood, unions, education, art, entertainment, government social programs etc).
Your idea of leaching is divorced from reality.
Someone has to be the one to burst your bubble about Obama, so I guess it will be me. Obama is a product of the Chicago machine politics of the type the brought you ACORN, Rod Blagojevich, Reverend Wright, and the sort of pay-to-play corruption that only lobbyists, rabble rousers, and crooked union bosses could love.
Yawn. I'd say [Citation needed], but it's not like right wing hacks like yourself are concerned with trivial things like facts or reality.
But Biden is not rich. Despite being in the Senate for a couple generations, he's "dead last" Senate in terms of income. So yes, you can complain that he's favoring draconian copyright laws to the detriment of the public, but you can't accuse him of corruption just because he's staked a position you disagree with.
Not anyone else you can vote for. Obama's campaign made a big deal about how he was funded by small donors, but 2/3rds of his income was from corporate interests.
Only if you follow the Republican sophistry that donations from employees of Freddie Mac == donations from Freddie Mac.
I always find it funny when Republicans bitch about Hollywood's support for Democrats, completely ignoring the fact that Hollywood is also big business. And the GOP has never seen a big business that it hasn't felicitated with gusto.
We need the Oil
Canada and Europe manages just fine with gas two times as expensive or more. So we'd need more mass transit, less trucking and more rail, and of course those urban cowboys might have to give up their F-150's as commuter vehicles. Oh, darn.
and Defense Industry.
We've had one invasion to deal with in our country's history, and that was nearly 200 years ago. We have the world's largest oceans on either side of us and two large, friendly nations on the remaining two sides. Our actual defense needs are minuscule.
Seriously, when has BIG Oil and Defense sued thousands of kids on the basis of intellectual property (non-tangible resource)?
When has the RIAA or the MPAA led us into a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and our nation's moral standing?
We spend hours on slashdot yelling over the semantics of calling it "theft," and ultimately we're probably right.
Yes, minus the "probably" part.
You've taken something that wasn't being offered for free and you didn't pay for it; that's close enough to theft that they really don't care what the semantic argument is.
Says who? Just ask Mr. Smoe what would impact him more:
1) Someone breaks into his house and steals all his stuff.
2) Someone breaks into his house and makes a copy of his stuff so all his belongings are intact.
Now take out the trespassing, breaking & entering, and you have copyright infringement. Copyright infringement vs theft is as much a matter of "semantics" as the difference between mountains and molehills is a matter of "perspective".
Isn't there something illegal about using one's public office to favor special interest groups in exchange for future favors, monetary or otherwise?
No. Have a problem with that, push for 100% publicly financed elections, an independent ethics committee and paying our representatives a million dollars a year (to reduce incentive for graft to as near zero as possible).
We are currently in the early years of what will later be recognized as the pivotal fight of the entire Information Age, and not 3 months into his administration Obama has completely sold us out.
Bwhahaha. Two words for you buddy: NSA wiretapping. You're comparing a molehill (corporate copyright laws) to a mountain (shredding of the 4th amendment).
Note, for the record, that the government gave itself this power in FDR's administration, when it successfully prosecuted a farmer for growing feed for his own livestock.
Sure, sure. I wish the framers had stuck the word "directly" in the Constitution in a couple of places - like the parts on regulating interstate commerce and taking lands for public use. So we'd have none of this BS about home grown pot affecting interstate commerce and using eminent domain to clear residential areas to make room for shopping malls.
But that's beside the point, which is the gross hackery of selective strict constitutionalists. Scalia is one. Ron Paul is another. He voted against a (totally non-binding) resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur, because the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant Congress the power to make such non-binding resolutions. Yet he has no problem sponsoring legislation that would define life as beginning at conception, nevermind that's not a defined power in Article I.
For another example, there's our own resident dumb fat fuck, Pudge. He rails against the unconstitutionality of Social Security. I point out that supporting the General Welfare is in the Constitution. Twice. He responds that Article I, Section 8 is a strict definition of Congressional powers. I point out that by that logic, a strict interpretation of Section 8 would apply just as much to Common Defense as General Welfare, as they are in the same sentence of Article I and both are detailed in Section 8. So if Social Security is unconstitutional, so is the Air Force, the CIA, NORAD, and all our spy satellites as Congress only has the power to fund an army and a navy. To which his rationalization is that all those things are A-OK under expansive court readings of the Forgoing Powers Doctrine. A selectively strict constitutionalist, because obviously Social Security is perfectly constitutional under equally expansive interpretations of General Welfare and the Commerce Clause.
But that's the problem with wingnut arguments: consistently inconsistent logic, so they implode if given the slightest scruitiny.
it doesn't mean they have the same rabid bias of an apple fanboy of /.
Name one, or you're firing a cannon in a glass house.
Maybe he's friends with Anton Scalia:
and
But then, hackery has never been much of a problem
Thank you.
Anyone with more sense than a frog would have told you that such high approval ratings could never last.
Anyone who didn't have his head up his ass could tell you why they didn't last: Bush started using 911 for partisan gain and to launch a bogus invasion of Iraq.
Re-read that Slate article.
You re-read the article. Gore would have won with a statewide recount. Deal with it.
This area is prone to dangerous wildlife, wildcats and coyotes being the predominant species. These are aggressive animals than can and will chase you down and seriously harm or kill you
Suuuuuure you do. Coyote attacks on humans are even more rare than wolf attacks - as in practically never. You are in far more danger of being attacked and killed by your neighbor's dog than a coyote.