Even that would depend upon the nature of the secrets. If, for example, you had the names and locations of a bunch of high placed spies, didn't get the information yourself, but tried to release it to the "enemy" (say the Soviets in the 80's) I'm sure you'd still be tried for treason.
Well, yeah. That's because you'd be a traitor. I really don't think that scenario was the one the grandparent meant. Something that I think a lot of people forget is that we don't just have 'rights' in this country, we also have responsibilities. Calling oneself free does not mean one is without obligation. It just means we have more choice about which ones we carry. However, actions have consequenses, and in the case of delivering info about our intelligence network to a competing world power, being tried for treason is one of them. Remember, people, just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be. Also, being free does not give you protection from the consequences of your actions.
Bush was elected by the electoral college. The popular vote is a smokescreen, always has been. Barbie didn't mean what she said, she's a public figure. They don't mean most of what they say. She thought gore would win. She really doesn't want to leave this country, because if she did she sure can afford to. She would not get her ass kissed nearly as much in another country. She doesn't care about you, why should you care about her? She can stay here, leave, or light herself on fire for all I care. Can't we make the words 'florida election' bad words? Haven't we heard enough about that debacle? Neither side wants to admit it acted poorly, though both sides did. However, it's over. It's done with. All you dumb fucks on both sides that still care about this dead issue need to remember that next year's another election year. Additionally, even if gore won 100% of the popular vote, he still would not be president if enough of the electoral college voted for Bush. Both sides tried to fuck the election. Neither side got a clear victory, as gore isn't president but Bush's credibility was mangled by the whole thing. The point is, the Florida vote doesn't matter, it *never* mattered, and if I ever actually hear anyone bring up the freaking florida election in RL, I'll be going to jail on assault charges. It's over, people. It played out the way it did. There's no point in beating this dead horse anymore. Just make glue out of it and move on.
Now, if you want to talk about the "illegal campaign contributions," perhaps you'd care to comment on the Republican fundraiser who was moonlighting as a Chinese double agent when she wasn't screwing the agents involved in campaign investigations into Democrats.
If *I* wanted to talk about illegal campaign contributions, I'd talk about a bunch of Buddhist monks each handing exactly the legal limit in cash to a smiling Al Gore. Now, I have to admit, it takes balls to give a bunch of money to a bunch of people who are not supposed to have it, and then have them turn right around and hand it back, in front of cameras, no less. Yeah...that takes balls. Of course, if they didn't want to get *caught* they should have been a little more careful. Perhaps they could have used Catholics, since the Catholic church isn't exactly poor. Please note, I'm against neither Buddhism nor Catholicism. I am, however, against stupidity in action. As far as China goes, what more proof do you need than Clinton lessening trade restricitions with China? What more proof do you need than China's Most Favored Nation status? Hell, if Iraq had given as much money to Clinton as China did, saddam would probably have Most Favored Nation status too. Also, you made a generalization about conservatives, and I'd just like to point out that *politicians* talk a lot, but rarely provide proof, even if they have it. It's good for business to sling mud, but VERY BAD for business to get other politicians arrested, or prove that they are doing illegal things (unless you are running directly against them). All politicans make a choice early in their career: will they stick to their principles, vote as their constituents want them to, keep their hands clean, and try to fix things, or will they get elected? Sad situation, yes, but we brought it on ourselves. Politician should not be a career. It should be a job that concerned people who actually care should do for a term or two, before going back to their own lives. There's too much power in politics nowadays, though. It's rare that someone with power voluntarily gives any part of it up. We're going to turn our country into just another country if our elected representatives don't start thinking about a little bit more than their standing in the polls or their face time.
And if the answer had been yes, the recount that the democrats were asking for WOULD HAVE MADE BUSH PRESIDENT.
I agree. The only problem is that those votes were and are simply the answer to a trivia question; they never became a part of our electoral process. The votes didn't make him president, the courts did. Well, the courts and Catherine Harris- who acted not as Secretary of the State of Florida, but as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.
If you agree that the votes, *had* they been a part of our electoral process, would have been in Mr. Bush's favor, then you also agree that he would be still be president today if everyone had just shut the fuck up, stopped whining about 'hanging chads' and 'confusing ballots' and just let the guy with the most votes win. Like Mr. Spock said, 'A difference which makes no difference *is* no difference.' I don't see how it could really be all that complicated. I saw the Florida ballots, and if you 'did not understand the ballot' or 'did not know who [you were] voting for', please stick your head in the oven, turn the gas on, and go to nice, quiet sleep. Also, although I am a Libertarian, I find it vastly amusing that the Democrats couldn't seem to understand the whole voting thing. It just makes me laugh. No, we don't need more choice in education in this country, people. Just let those great public schools keep up the good work. Maybe in 20 years we can have an electorate that votes by making monosyllabic grunts toward pictures of candidates. 'Ungar vote him! He have shiny smile!' Bah. A two party system is a sucker bet anyhow. If you don't fit into one of those two parties, might as well not even register to vote. (Yeah, yeah, activist types. Of course you should try to change whatever, turn around the system blah blah bullshit. I'm registered, I vote, I care, I do what I can, but I don't have any illusions that we'll see a third party president (or female, or gay, or minority, or any combination of the above) until more Americans start coming to their own conclusions, instead of listening to and following blindly what they say. My views may not be popular, but I've come to them through study, thought, and experience. They are not based on feelings. They are not based on half-remembered conversations. They are not based on what I was taught in school. I really don't care if someone agrees with me or not, as long as they know *why* they agree or disagree. I can't talk to people about anything that matters if they say 'uh, i dunno' or 'i just feel that way' when I ask why they believe something. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This country is built on differing opinions. Just be able to present a coherent rationale, to back up what you say with at least a logical argument. Also, on a slightly different note, I for one am very glad that it was Mr. Bush, not Gore, who did end up elected. I voted Libertarian, as I usually do (though not always), but I don't think Senor Brown would have handled 9/11 very well, and I'm positive Gore would not have. I don't like Mr. Bush as much as I have liked other Presidents in history, but would you really want Gore trying to get the Middle East to give up internal combustion engines instead of terrorism?
yeah, sadly I realized that about 30 sec after I posted, but I was hoping no one would notice.;)
hehehe....you thought *anything* would go unnoticed on/.? Don't you know that there are craploads of people (not me though, honestly!) who will do nothing but try to out-nitpick each other? You *have* read one or two threads on here before, haven't you?:) Hey, nitpickers: I left an intentional error in this post. (Although I make no claim that it's the only error!) Have fun!
Oh, so now you are not on the WMD high horse anymore? Is the US inspectors doing anything? Or are they stuck between nothingness and bureacratic propaganda? An irony I always find amusing is project of UN from the hawks. Are you for or against UN resolutions? If you are for it, explain why US voids UN resolution and conduct military operation without UN approval. If you are against it, then stop bitching about Saddam voilating resolutions. Hint: pick one side and stick to it. The way I see it, be it Bush or Saddam, "evil" has little intention of letting others get in their way I consider the adjective evil could be apply to someone who oppose landmine ban. Are you the supporter of evil now? Damn, Saddam is such a puppet, that he's implemented when he's needed, and now he's deposed when he's done? I wonder how much time Rumsfield spent washing his hands since he shake hands with Saddam. I would be quite happy to see a change of leadership in Iraq, but I in no way would agree a country could invade a country base distaste of leadership. Simply put, there is little moral highground(the only one I could think of is "we want to clean up our own mess"), no holy reason in this conflict. And since the conflict(there is still no formal declaration of war) is over, I guess we all have no choice but to seat and wait. However, should things go wrong, the Iraqis could care less your vote, and you couldn't carry any of their pain either. Isn't it nice to exercise your "responsibility" to determine other's fate? Mind you it's not a game where you can start over if things are screwed up.
1. I was never on a 'high horse' about WMD, although I really don't think saddam would have just left 'em laying around. I think there are enough indications that whether they are there *now* or not, they *were* there. Either way, I'm happy as hell every time there *aren't* WMD somewhere. I'd prefer that they not be anywhere. 2. I am against the U.N. itself, since it's very obvious that not only does it have no real power, but it doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to back up its own words. 3. I still don't get how it's 'noble' to allow *any* despots *anywhere* at all. If it were up to me, which it isn't, I'd probably start a world war. It makes me physically ill, the things that 'leaders' do to those that are powerless in their own land. I would not be supporting the U.S. if Fidel Castro or Pol Pot were dictator of the U.S. When people say that it's not our business to clean up other countries, it just reminds me of domestic violence in this country. It wouldn't be nearly so prevalent if neighbors weren't afraid to get involved. Mistreatment of people on a large scale *is* everyone's business. Yes, America makes mistakes. Yes, some people in our government aren't good people. However, that's why we have more than 1 person in charge of our government. Few dictators ever put the needs of their people ahead of their own schemes for power. I fully agree that I couldn't carry the victims' pain, I agree, I've never been through anything as horrible as life under a maniacal dictator. However, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, whether I can fully understand what they are going through or not. Why is doing nothing when evil people do evil things on a very large scale the course so many countries seem to support? And why is that preferable? If America had not gone in, no one would have. How is that preferable? Please tell me. As far as 'exercising our responsibility,' well, the U.N. had over a decade to excersize its responsibility, and it did not do so. How many more decades were the Iraqi people supposed to suffer until the U.N. grew some balls? I'd sure like to see America clean up *all* the saddams of the world. And no, I'm not talking about annexing everyone. I'm talking about taking out homicidal tyrants who kill scores of people *every day* that all your diplomacy and kowtowing to maniacs will NEVER bring back. Why don't you tell their families why it's better for *them* (not you, not me, THEM) to suffer than let the big, bad, U.S. take out the cause of their suffering?
Yeah! Saddam needed to be deposed because he had thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons...what?...he didn't have any?...Saddam needed to be deposed because he oppressed his people...yeah...that's the one.
-B
and of course this matters...why? There was no support for ending saddam's regime, the UN inspectors weren't doing anything, and saddam had already broken many resolutions for over a decade. How many more decades were we supposed to 'let the inspectors work' which can be translated to 'do nothing'? I don't really care what you think of the U.S. However, are you trying to say that saddam did *not* need to be deposed? We can debate the methods used, we can debate the timing, but I will not engage in discussion at all with people who support saddam, as they are either not rational, or are themselves evil. Similarly, I would not engage in discussion with a rabid dog, though I have more respect for rabid animals than supporters of evil.
Basically, I don't see that it matters in the slightest *why* we deposed him. Whatever the reasons given, it needed to be done. In any case, it is done. I think the true test of whether we did it properly or not will not be answered for a few years. Let's see if America keeps its promise to let the Iraqis control their country, once it is rebuilt. If not, then I will do what I can with my vote and voice to protest. However, until we give some time to the new way, speculation will remain solely that. I believe Iraq, and the Iraqi citizens, will be far better off without saddam. I concede the possibility that I'm wrong, but I consider it neither proven, nor likely.
I can think of a way to spin it so we look good:
Would you rather do time in America, where you have the right to an attorney, and even if you can't afford a good one, you can have the U.S. taxpayer buy you a crappy one, get a trial whose decision can be appealed forever if you don't like it, and have 3 squares, library, tv, excerise, and education priveleges, or be imprisoned in a stanky Chinese concentration camp for no reason, with no trial nor representation?
Mind you, I'm not saying the above is how it is, just showing that you can spin almost anything.
....Uh, 'cause you're posting on Slashdot? What else would you be besides a fat, sheltered cracker?
One of the other 435464643543242 forms of lowlife that reads and posts on slashdot? I mean, yeah we're all useless, but we're not all fat, sheltered, or crackers. We do, however, all suck.
The major media hasn't had the slightest hint of a liberal leaning in some decades. To repeat your words, "Are you really that ignorant"?
You know, all you had to do was say that it wasn't as big of a deal as people want to make out of it. But to say that there isn't the slgihtest hint of bias is going a little far. Since the demise of equal time and the movement of the opinion section to the rest of the paper/news show, there have been MANY hints of MANY biases in major media. Not just liberal, mind you, and really I think anyone who gets their views solely from "news" sources in this country, or the hastily drawn conclusions of others, or anyone who could have their mind changed on anything of importance by a talking head, deserves to be a deluded automaton. However, if you don't think there's any bias in the major media, why not try actually looking at the major media for a few minutes? Also, something a lot of people seem to forget is that just because you *agree* with something, does not make it unbiased. You are a biased person. so is everyone else. Anyone who tells you they are completely free from bias is selling something, and lying too.
Wow. so much crap, so little time. I think this time I'll just pick out one line.
While Bush was scaremongering the world about Iraqs (seemingly theoretical) chemical weapons supply, he was simultaneously authorizing the use of tear gas by US forces.
First, evidence of WMD has been found. Not evidence of a current stockpile, but evidence of stocks, labs and things that have been hurridly cleaned up, to try and disguise their purpose. We found empty chemical delivery warheads, that saddam swore up and down he didn't have 10 years ago. Yeah, he never had any chemical weapons, or secret labs, or delivery systems...except when we find them, it's ignored. I know I wouldn't want to have drunk from the Euphrates during the weeks just prior to and during the start of the war. Second of all, which would you rather get a face full of: tear gas, or smallpox? tear gas, or nerve gas? I don't see the comparison at all. Tear gas is intended to temporarily subdue people. Chemical freaking weapons are intended to kill people. I know I'd rather my police officers use tear gas rather than, say, VX. Finally, if you feel less threatened by China than the U.S., where do you live? Because historically, China has taken the position that you are either Chinese, or you are not civilized and do not deserve to live. Do a little reading of Chinese history if you don't believe me.
I think he's referring to the fact that Halliburton, Cheney's old oil company, got something around 5 assloads (That's 5.5 metric fuckloads, or 2.9 cubic football fields) of money for a contract to clean up oil wells in Iraq. Granted, it may have just had the best contract availiable, but I don't think this was simply a case of best bidder.
I don't want to sound paranoid, but there's something amiss when Halliburton gets a huge contract.
Then don't sound paranoid. This is how it works, not only in the government, but everywhere. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Ever had a friend get you a job? Ever 'known somoene that knows someone' to get anything at all? Then you know how it works. Most people help out those they know, when they have the chance. Fact is, halliburton has experience, their price wasn't bad compared to the other (i think 2, iirc) bids wasn't bad, and I have no reason to believe they won't do a good job (especially now with all this extra attention on them) but welcome to Earth. It's not just the U.S., either. People under all sorts of governments use this system daily. Please note, I'm not supporting nor attacking this practice, I'm just pointing out that it's not just the government, it's not just the U.S., and it's not exactly a new thing. AFAIK, it's been going on ever since civilization began.
How ironic. Isn't nothing exactly what you wanted the U.S. to do? is/was saddam not evil? was he not flourishing? Why use that sig in that post? can you not even SEE the irony?
So, your saying that being a bully is a good thing? cant comprimise so you resort to violence? is *this* how things should be run?
Hey, moron, if being a bully is so bad, why do you object to saddam being gone? HE would not respond to diplomacy. HE broke his agreements, did not abide by UN decisions...we gave him a decade. How much longer should a despot be given, when he obviously had no intention of cleaning up his act? Will someone please tell me how it's perfectly ok for saddam to kill/torture/opress his own people, for DECADES, steal all his people's money to spend on himself and his son's pr0n collection, create the largest oil spill in world history ON PURPOSE, openly support terrorism, and when the U.S. finally steps in, without support from a large part of the world (props to UK, Spain, Australia) and says 'hey now it's time to get rid of the bully' we're suddenly evil. Even though the UN sanctions are history. Even though people aren't systematically tortured anymore. Even though state-sponsored terrorism has to find its home outside Iraq, even though a giant homicidal maniac has been taken out of power, suddenly we're the bad guys. The freaking UN wouldn't even back up its own resolution. What kind of good does it do to pass a resolution threatening a tyrant if you aren't going to follow through on it? Just because the rest of the world lacked the stones to stand up to saddam... well, i suppose you must justify your cowardice and complete lack of concern for the dead and tortured in Iraq somehow. Might as well make it *appear* to be a moral stand.
Charity is important and essential. But just because a program is charitable doesn't make it immune from being a waste.
Very true. It should go double for government programs. Unfortunately we (the American people) do not require the same level of efficiency for our government as we do for the charitable organizations we donate to. The key, I think, is to find people that are truly committed to helping others, not just trust that a government employee is going to automatically be a good social program administrator.
If I knew who you were - I'd come rape your mom, then you; you piece of american shit....
- In case you didn't know, US lags behind all other countries in terms of FOREIGN POLICY -
Hi, trollie. Guess we lag behind in Troll Technology(tm) as well. Yep, you anti-US people sure can troll... if only you had the sources to back up what you said up there, maybe we could discuss it like rational beings. Oh wait, who wants to do that? Nevermind, perhaps I'll push for an increase in funds for trolling research, to keep up with you aliens.
If you actually don't believe there is any sort of God, why do you care if other people do?
The same reason Jews cared about the Spanish Inquisition, and Christians cared about Muslim invaders. The ruling class will attempt to force its religion on all its subjects. The severity of the ruling class's reaction to refusal to believe is completely unpredictable, and in the case of the USA, becoming more severe every day. Our ATTORNEY GENERAL is so goddamn puritan that he couldn't stand to be pictured with a fucking STATUE of a woman with a naked breast. Yes, he's an idiot, but he could roll out the FBI and get all atheists arrested and systematically destroyed if he wanted.
THAT is why we care about other people believing in God - because they care about us NOT believing in it.
If you truly believe that all atheists could be rounded up and imprisoned, you're insane. That could no more happen than could a federal roundup of lutherans. If that happens, then people in this country will have much larger problems, as martial law + some sort of SS would be required. Also, although I hear so much about evangelists being annoying and trying to force their beliefs on others, I've found that in my personal experience, it's far easier to get religious people to stop bugging me than it is to get atheists to go away. All I do is say 'I'm not interested, thank you.' I am agnostic, and no religion is going to change that, but neither is any athiest. I've been attacked far more, personally, by atheists than by religious people for what I believe. I've NEVER heard of any type of formalized government persecution of atheists. There's no Bureau of Religious Conformity. Maybe our attorney general is a puritan, but last I checked, that's his right. It would equally be his right to be Muslim, Hindu, Lutheran, atheist, agnostic, or undeclared. It's also his right to want others to convert to his cause. It's yours too. It's when you go from *wanting* others to convert into *forcing* people to convert that you've exceeded your rights. After all, isn't declaring someone an idiot because they don't share your beliefs what you are opposed to? Or is that only when others do it to you? (If you were basing his idiot-ness on something else, I apologize, but I'm going by the context of your post, where it seems that his religious views are what got him branded idiot.)
They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists.
Not quite true - they are referred to as illegal combatants because they were soldiers in an army that represented a country not recognised by the US,i.e. many of them are just Taliban soldiers, including some teenage boys (i.e. 13, 14 years old).
They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often.
As I understand it, during war it is a soldier's duty to attempt escape, even if it means (gasp) threatening military personel. Once the war is ended the soldiers must be repatriated.
Okay, explain to me again where illegal combatant (as would be all members of an *irregular* army, unless they carry arms publicly, wear a recognizable sigil or emblem, and conduct their operations in accord with the laws and customs or war) = uniformed soldier of a country in a delcared action? Geneva Convention: Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. -- snip --
The people in camp x-ray fail to fulfill the sections required by part 2 a-d of article 4. Not only did they not operate openly, carrying arms openly with a recognizable sigil or emblem, but they're not part of any regular army, they did NOT conduct their actions in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which specifically prohibit terrorist actions. They operated outside of the Geneva Convention, some even acting under cover as civilians, and therefore ARE NOT prisoners of war, and ARE NOT required to be repatriated, nor treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention
Yeah, show me the jails filled with political prisoners in America.
Camp X-Ray. Oh wait - that's not actually in America is it, which allows you to circumvent your own rules.
Were you born stupid, or have you just worked towards it all your life?
"Oh...those poor violent terrorist murderers in camp x-ray! they don't get cable tv or weapons! we're so mean to them!"
They were housed in conditions that beat a lot of prisons all over the world. They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often. I suppose you'd like to see them freed, so they can attempt more terrorist actions against the U.S. There has been no torture, as even the BBC reported. They are given food, water, clothing, and shelter. They are given the same level of medical treatment as U.S. military personnel. (If you're in the U.S. military, insert joke here) Yes, the temporary cells were very hot. They were also temporary, and offered at least *some* shade. No prisoners have died. They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists. *They* do not abide by the Geneva Convention, and they do not deserve its protection. They are allowed the koran and given the chance to pray at the proper times, and given a sign indicating the direction toward Mecca. Do you honestly believe that they are being treated worse than American prisoners would be in a similar camp in prewar Iraq? If so...I advise you to get arrested in America, and then go get arrested in the Middle East, and let us know which is worse. I don't know about you, but I'd go to camp x-ray long before I went to the Gulag in Russia or a chinese 'detention camp.' But of course, as in everything, the U.S. must be evil, while the rest of the world is a snowy, virginal white. Nice dream world you're living in.
As long as you don't disagree with the Government too much
Yes. This is a problem. Usually it's what people say in a very public forum that is watched, though. We aren't to the point that SS agents go from bar to bar listening for seditious talk to punish, but I'm not saying that can't possibly happen here. After all, people said it couldn't happen in Germany, and it did.
Freedom to assemble
Unless you're a protester
Actually, most protests I've ever seen go down fairly smoothly. Even when there's only like 4 people they get news coverage. I've seen several protests in large cities (Philly, new york city) where people were illegaly disrupting traffic by laying in the streets, and the cops weren't doing anything to them for fear of being vilified. It's really annoying not to be able to run over the dumbass who's laying in front of your car, keeping you from doing things you need to do, and while I know it's meant to change people's views, all it does is make people very mad. I saw people with 'no war in iraq' bumper stickers screaming at the stupid protestors. OTOH, I also saw a group of anti-war protestors attacking a group of pro-war protestors. I thought it was nicely ironic. "Violence is wrong, so I'm going to kick your ass for peace!"
freedom to live where you want
Provided you're the right color
You missed the correct response. It's no longer nearly as much about what color you are as about how much money you have. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I'm just saying that greed usually superceeds it.
have as many kids as you want
As long as you're not poor
Actually, people below the poverty line have a lot of kids. Also, people of certian religions have more kids than average, whatever their financial status is. Rich people tend to have smaller families. There are always exceptions, of course, but based on my own experience, a large number of the 'rich kids' that I envied in school were only children, while most of my friends, who were at or below the poverty line, as my family was, had several children in their family. Of course, my experience is biased by regional factors, and there are a lot of variables, but if I wasn't so lazy I could probably find data to support my case. Since I am, I'll just rely on my personal experience, since I trust it more than the Internet.
worship who you want?
As long as you're not an Atheist or a Muslim
This one's just silly. What law is there that forces you to go to church? What law forces you to worship anything? From what I've seen, it's not the fact that people are Muslim that is getting htem harrassed by idiots right now. It's because they appear middle eastern to bubba the drunk redneck. I've seen numerous accounts of Ganesh trying to explain on the news that when people were calling him a 'towelhead muslim' or whatever, that he's from egypt and isn't religious. Not to say that idiots messing with people because of their physical features isn't completely stupid, but to make it sound like there are laws in place to punish Muslims and force atheist people to worship whatever is also completely stupid. Sure, if we had *total* religious freedom, we'd let Rastas smoke weed and voodoo priests make zombies and whatever, but there aren't any laws in place to force you to believe or not believe in anything supernatural. There's no Church of America, and there never will be. Also, if you're an atheist, you don't worship anything supernatural. That's what atheist means. Atheism *is* a religion, sorta, only instead of being based on a shared belief, like every other religion out there, it's based on a shared *disbelief* which to me is amazing. I mean, I don't believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean I organize my life around not believing in ghosts, or attacking/trying to convert those who do. I just don't care about ghosts. I don't call my self an 'aghostist' and have meetings about not believing in ghosts. If you
Yeah that's the one....yeah battlegroundz spelled their name all 1337 with the 'z'. I was an admin....there was someone that moved from Wisconsin because we were dating, but we didn't get married. good to know BT is still remembered.
Outside help of any kind is not permitted. This means: no assistance of any kind from any other person; also no books, calculators, computers, or tools other than items explicitly permitted. You are allowed to use writing implements, erasers, paper, and any items explicitly required to solve a specific problem. (All such items are listed on the Hints and Tips page.) How is this enforceable if it's free-for-all over the web?
Well, it might not be enforceable for this preliminary test, but if you cheat your way onto the team, you have only huge embarassment waiting for you. I don't think it would be worth it to cheat in this instance. It would come out when you got to the contest and couldn't perform.
(BTW. It was hard to find a single coherent thought in your little rant.)
Of course it was, for you. If you'd like help with the big words, the metaphors, or the sarcasm, or help parsing sentences with lots of commas, I'd be happy to assist.
As far as the US messing with other countries, well, we tried to be isolationist. You other countries had to get us out of that by failing to stop the Axis. After that, everyone started crying to us whenever they had a problem. Is it our fault that when any other nation needs free money, or free food, or humanitarian relief, they turn to the United States? Sure, we're not perfect on foreign policy. Find me another country that gives away as much aid as the US does, anywhere else in the world. We 'loan' money to countries that we know will never pay us back. We give so much, and yet in return we are vilified and badmouthed around the world. What you cannot duplicate, you denigrate. I could understand if Italy, Germany, and Japan hated us. We stopped them from imposing their empire on the rest of the world. Yet even after those countries tried to take over the entire world we still helped them. Perhaps we are lazy and ignorant. You're merely hypocritical and ungrateful. I assume you're from a country we've helped, because you still have not given your country. (if you are the same AC I corrected before) Though you've chosen to keep that secret still, it would be difficult indeed to find a country the US has *not* helped. The fact that you have access to Slashdot would indicate that you have benefited from the United States, as well. (Because it would be hard to connect to Slashdot without a computer, which is an American invention.)
Now to your 'point'. I suppose then that you subscribe to the 'two wrongs make a right' theory or the 'end justifies the means' theory. In either case, you are very wrong. Killing thousands of innocent people because you are pissed, for *whatever* reason, is wrong. I do not care how you attempt to justify it. It will always be wrong. If you support terrorism, no matter the cause, you are wrong. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Do you mean Bad Trip? I used to have a mud called Bad Trip that I started with Coby/Akinyele and Velveeta. Coby/Akin has been running it solo for a long time. It's a great mud, easily findable on mudconnector. www.mudconnector.com
It's interesting to note that I am not a native english speaker and know so much more about your stupid language than most americans, and also unlike them, I have read and *understood* The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
Where to start on this one? Lessee.... You've read and understood the complete works of Shakespeare, huh? I'd like a 1,000 (1.000 for you foreigners) word essay on the significance of the tent in Coriolanus, or if you prefer, discuss the importance of the following passage:
"That's likewise part of my intelligence; but, I fear, the angle that plucks our son thither. Thou shalt accompany us to the place; where we will, not appearing what we are, have some question with the shepherd; from whose simplicity I think it not uneasy to get the cause of my son's resort thither. Prithee, be my present partner in this business, and lay aside the thoughts of Sicilia."
That passage, of course, was spoken by Polixenes, but you already knew that, being a super-intellect far superior to us poor, ignorant Americans. Can you tell me who Polixenes is, what play I got this quote from, and do it without looking anything up? I doubt it.
I mean, heck. We don't do anything for the world. No one anywhere else in the world relies on America for anything. We're just a big, lazy country full of worthless imperialist dogs that provide nothing to the world at large, right? It always amuses me when dipshit foreigners put America down. While they do it, they're wearing American clothes, listening to American music, watching American movies, smoking American cigarettes, driving American cars, spending American foreign aid money, and/or trying to emigrate from wherever the hell they are. They're using plenty of American inventions. I would imagine they have some light bulbs somewhere, and perhaps a telephone. Maybe a television set, an assembly line produced automobile, they probably use traffic lights (I know they do in Canada and Mexico), they probably cart perishables around in refrigerated trucks, they use computers (unless they're reading Slashdot psychically)...but America doesn't contribute anything. I don't see people lining up around the world to buy the newest French car or the latest supercomputer from Britain. If you're going to put America down, don't buy Levis and don't watch American movies or TV, don't listen to our music, don't come here to visit, and shut your fucking trap. No one asked you to critique some guy's use of wherefore, if you think he's such an idiot, why not try googling on the phrase and see how many people from all over the world have misused that phrase. Language changes. Wherefore is not a popular word any longer. It is also no longer common to use thee and thou (outside the Society of Friends), even though they're still defined in most dictionaries. I notice you never posted what inferior country you are from. What has your country given to the world? I'm sure every country has contributed *something* or other, but for a country with as short a history as America, we sure have made life easier for a lot of you asshole foreigners that then just turn around and piss all over us out of some kind of jealousy. On a side note, I find it very amusing that even though Americans in general care less about soccer than last season's cancelled sitcoms, *we* were asked to hold the Women's World Cup, because of the FUD about SARS in China. Even though there are *many* countries out there that just loooooooooove that stupid game, *America* is hosting the Women's World Cup now. Why? Because 'America is the only place in the world that can pull this large of a tournament together this quickly.' Hahahahah! Yeah, your country is so much better. Right. I am not attacking any contry in particular. That is because the poster did not state his country. If you aren't from America, I'm sorry. You missed out on being a big, fat, lazy, worthless, imperialist, ignorant, arrogant, capitalist running dog. Maybe someday your country's middle class can average as much income as our impoverished.
Slashdot Mirror
Even that would depend upon the nature of the secrets. If, for example, you had the names and locations of a bunch of high placed spies, didn't get the information yourself, but tried to release it to the "enemy" (say the Soviets in the 80's) I'm sure you'd still be tried for treason.
Well, yeah. That's because you'd be a traitor. I really don't think that scenario was the one the grandparent meant. Something that I think a lot of people forget is that we don't just have 'rights' in this country, we also have responsibilities. Calling oneself free does not mean one is without obligation. It just means we have more choice about which ones we carry. However, actions have consequenses, and in the case of delivering info about our intelligence network to a competing world power, being tried for treason is one of them. Remember, people, just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be. Also, being free does not give you protection from the consequences of your actions.
Bush was elected by the electoral college. The popular vote is a smokescreen, always has been. Barbie didn't mean what she said, she's a public figure. They don't mean most of what they say. She thought gore would win. She really doesn't want to leave this country, because if she did she sure can afford to. She would not get her ass kissed nearly as much in another country. She doesn't care about you, why should you care about her? She can stay here, leave, or light herself on fire for all I care.
Can't we make the words 'florida election' bad words? Haven't we heard enough about that debacle? Neither side wants to admit it acted poorly, though both sides did. However, it's over. It's done with. All you dumb fucks on both sides that still care about this dead issue need to remember that next year's another election year. Additionally, even if gore won 100% of the popular vote, he still would not be president if enough of the electoral college voted for Bush. Both sides tried to fuck the election. Neither side got a clear victory, as gore isn't president but Bush's credibility was mangled by the whole thing. The point is, the Florida vote doesn't matter, it *never* mattered, and if I ever actually hear anyone bring up the freaking florida election in RL, I'll be going to jail on assault charges. It's over, people. It played out the way it did. There's no point in beating this dead horse anymore. Just make glue out of it and move on.
Now, if you want to talk about the "illegal campaign contributions," perhaps you'd care to comment on the Republican fundraiser who was moonlighting as a Chinese double agent when she wasn't screwing the agents involved in campaign investigations into Democrats.
If *I* wanted to talk about illegal campaign contributions, I'd talk about a bunch of Buddhist monks each handing exactly the legal limit in cash to a smiling Al Gore. Now, I have to admit, it takes balls to give a bunch of money to a bunch of people who are not supposed to have it, and then have them turn right around and hand it back, in front of cameras, no less. Yeah...that takes balls. Of course, if they didn't want to get *caught* they should have been a little more careful. Perhaps they could have used Catholics, since the Catholic church isn't exactly poor. Please note, I'm against neither Buddhism nor Catholicism. I am, however, against stupidity in action.
As far as China goes, what more proof do you need than Clinton lessening trade restricitions with China? What more proof do you need than China's Most Favored Nation status? Hell, if Iraq had given as much money to Clinton as China did, saddam would probably have Most Favored Nation status too.
Also, you made a generalization about conservatives, and I'd just like to point out that *politicians* talk a lot, but rarely provide proof, even if they have it. It's good for business to sling mud, but VERY BAD for business to get other politicians arrested, or prove that they are doing illegal things (unless you are running directly against them). All politicans make a choice early in their career: will they stick to their principles, vote as their constituents want them to, keep their hands clean, and try to fix things, or will they get elected? Sad situation, yes, but we brought it on ourselves. Politician should not be a career. It should be a job that concerned people who actually care should do for a term or two, before going back to their own lives. There's too much power in politics nowadays, though. It's rare that someone with power voluntarily gives any part of it up. We're going to turn our country into just another country if our elected representatives don't start thinking about a little bit more than their standing in the polls or their face time.
And if the answer had been yes, the recount that the democrats were asking for WOULD HAVE MADE BUSH PRESIDENT.
I agree. The only problem is that those votes were and are simply the answer to a trivia question; they never became a part of our electoral process. The votes didn't make him president, the courts did. Well, the courts and Catherine Harris- who acted not as Secretary of the State of Florida, but as co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.
If you agree that the votes, *had* they been a part of our electoral process, would have been in Mr. Bush's favor, then you also agree that he would be still be president today if everyone had just shut the fuck up, stopped whining about 'hanging chads' and 'confusing ballots' and just let the guy with the most votes win. Like Mr. Spock said, 'A difference which makes no difference *is* no difference.' I don't see how it could really be all that complicated. I saw the Florida ballots, and if you 'did not understand the ballot' or 'did not know who [you were] voting for', please stick your head in the oven, turn the gas on, and go to nice, quiet sleep. Also, although I am a Libertarian, I find it vastly amusing that the Democrats couldn't seem to understand the whole voting thing. It just makes me laugh. No, we don't need more choice in education in this country, people. Just let those great public schools keep up the good work. Maybe in 20 years we can have an electorate that votes by making monosyllabic grunts toward pictures of candidates. 'Ungar vote him! He have shiny smile!' Bah. A two party system is a sucker bet anyhow. If you don't fit into one of those two parties, might as well not even register to vote. (Yeah, yeah, activist types. Of course you should try to change whatever, turn around the system blah blah bullshit. I'm registered, I vote, I care, I do what I can, but I don't have any illusions that we'll see a third party president (or female, or gay, or minority, or any combination of the above) until more Americans start coming to their own conclusions, instead of listening to and following blindly what they say. My views may not be popular, but I've come to them through study, thought, and experience. They are not based on feelings. They are not based on half-remembered conversations. They are not based on what I was taught in school. I really don't care if someone agrees with me or not, as long as they know *why* they agree or disagree. I can't talk to people about anything that matters if they say 'uh, i dunno' or 'i just feel that way' when I ask why they believe something. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This country is built on differing opinions. Just be able to present a coherent rationale, to back up what you say with at least a logical argument.
Also, on a slightly different note, I for one am very glad that it was Mr. Bush, not Gore, who did end up elected. I voted Libertarian, as I usually do (though not always), but I don't think Senor Brown would have handled 9/11 very well, and I'm positive Gore would not have. I don't like Mr. Bush as much as I have liked other Presidents in history, but would you really want Gore trying to get the Middle East to give up internal combustion engines instead of terrorism?
yeah, sadly I realized that about 30 sec after I posted, but I was hoping no one would notice. ;)
/.? Don't you know that there are craploads of people (not me though, honestly!) who will do nothing but try to out-nitpick each other? You *have* read one or two threads on here before, haven't you? :)
hehehe....you thought *anything* would go unnoticed on
Hey, nitpickers: I left an intentional error in this post. (Although I make no claim that it's the only error!)
Have fun!
Oh, so now you are not on the WMD high horse anymore? Is the US inspectors doing anything? Or are they stuck between nothingness and bureacratic propaganda? An irony I always find amusing is project of UN from the hawks. Are you for or against UN resolutions? If you are for it, explain why US voids UN resolution and conduct military operation without UN approval. If you are against it, then stop bitching about Saddam voilating resolutions. Hint: pick one side and stick to it. The way I see it, be it Bush or Saddam, "evil" has little intention of letting others get in their way I consider the adjective evil could be apply to someone who oppose landmine ban. Are you the supporter of evil now? Damn, Saddam is such a puppet, that he's implemented when he's needed, and now he's deposed when he's done? I wonder how much time Rumsfield spent washing his hands since he shake hands with Saddam. I would be quite happy to see a change of leadership in Iraq, but I in no way would agree a country could invade a country base distaste of leadership. Simply put, there is little moral highground(the only one I could think of is "we want to clean up our own mess"), no holy reason in this conflict. And since the conflict(there is still no formal declaration of war) is over, I guess we all have no choice but to seat and wait. However, should things go wrong, the Iraqis could care less your vote, and you couldn't carry any of their pain either. Isn't it nice to exercise your "responsibility" to determine other's fate? Mind you it's not a game where you can start over if things are screwed up.
1. I was never on a 'high horse' about WMD, although I really don't think saddam would have just left 'em laying around. I think there are enough indications that whether they are there *now* or not, they *were* there. Either way, I'm happy as hell every time there *aren't* WMD somewhere. I'd prefer that they not be anywhere.
2. I am against the U.N. itself, since it's very obvious that not only does it have no real power, but it doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to back up its own words.
3. I still don't get how it's 'noble' to allow *any* despots *anywhere* at all. If it were up to me, which it isn't, I'd probably start a world war. It makes me physically ill, the things that 'leaders' do to those that are powerless in their own land. I would not be supporting the U.S. if Fidel Castro or Pol Pot were dictator of the U.S.
When people say that it's not our business to clean up other countries, it just reminds me of domestic violence in this country. It wouldn't be nearly so prevalent if neighbors weren't afraid to get involved. Mistreatment of people on a large scale *is* everyone's business. Yes, America makes mistakes. Yes, some people in our government aren't good people. However, that's why we have more than 1 person in charge of our government.
Few dictators ever put the needs of their people ahead of their own schemes for power. I fully agree that I couldn't carry the victims' pain, I agree, I've never been through anything as horrible as life under a maniacal dictator. However, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, whether I can fully understand what they are going through or not. Why is doing nothing when evil people do evil things on a very large scale the course so many countries seem to support? And why is that preferable? If America had not gone in, no one would have. How is that preferable? Please tell me. As far as 'exercising our responsibility,' well, the U.N. had over a decade to excersize its responsibility, and it did not do so. How many more decades were the Iraqi people supposed to suffer until the U.N. grew some balls? I'd sure like to see America clean up *all* the saddams of the world. And no, I'm not talking about annexing everyone. I'm talking about taking out homicidal tyrants who kill scores of people *every day* that all your diplomacy and kowtowing to maniacs will NEVER bring back. Why don't you tell their families why it's better for *them* (not you, not me, THEM) to suffer than let the big, bad, U.S. take out the cause of their suffering?
Yeah! Saddam needed to be deposed because he had thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons...what?...he didn't have any?...Saddam needed to be deposed because he oppressed his people...yeah...that's the one.
-B
and of course this matters...why?
There was no support for ending saddam's regime, the UN inspectors weren't doing anything, and saddam had already broken many resolutions for over a decade. How many more decades were we supposed to 'let the inspectors work' which can be translated to 'do nothing'?
I don't really care what you think of the U.S.
However, are you trying to say that saddam did *not* need to be deposed? We can debate the methods used, we can debate the timing, but I will not engage in discussion at all with people who support saddam, as they are either not rational, or are themselves evil. Similarly, I would not engage in discussion with a rabid dog, though I have more respect for rabid animals than supporters of evil.
Basically, I don't see that it matters in the slightest *why* we deposed him. Whatever the reasons given, it needed to be done. In any case, it is done. I think the true test of whether we did it properly or not will not be answered for a few years. Let's see if America keeps its promise to let the Iraqis control their country, once it is rebuilt. If not, then I will do what I can with my vote and voice to protest. However, until we give some time to the new way, speculation will remain solely that. I believe Iraq, and the Iraqi citizens, will be far better off without saddam. I concede the possibility that I'm wrong, but I consider it neither proven, nor likely.
I can think of a way to spin it so we look good: Would you rather do time in America, where you have the right to an attorney, and even if you can't afford a good one, you can have the U.S. taxpayer buy you a crappy one, get a trial whose decision can be appealed forever if you don't like it, and have 3 squares, library, tv, excerise, and education priveleges, or be imprisoned in a stanky Chinese concentration camp for no reason, with no trial nor representation? Mind you, I'm not saying the above is how it is, just showing that you can spin almost anything.
....Uh, 'cause you're posting on Slashdot? What else would you be besides a fat, sheltered cracker?
One of the other 435464643543242 forms of lowlife that reads and posts on slashdot?
I mean, yeah we're all useless, but we're not all fat, sheltered, or crackers. We do, however, all suck.
The major media hasn't had the slightest hint of a liberal leaning in some decades.
To repeat your words, "Are you really that ignorant"?
You know, all you had to do was say that it wasn't as big of a deal as people want to make out of it. But to say that there isn't the slgihtest hint of bias is going a little far. Since the demise of equal time and the movement of the opinion section to the rest of the paper/news show, there have been MANY hints of MANY biases in major media. Not just liberal, mind you, and really I think anyone who gets their views solely from "news" sources in this country, or the hastily drawn conclusions of others, or anyone who could have their mind changed on anything of importance by a talking head, deserves to be a deluded automaton. However, if you don't think there's any bias in the major media, why not try actually looking at the major media for a few minutes? Also, something a lot of people seem to forget is that just because you *agree* with something, does not make it unbiased. You are a biased person. so is everyone else. Anyone who tells you they are completely free from bias is selling something, and lying too.
Wow. so much crap, so little time.
I think this time I'll just pick out one line.
While Bush was scaremongering the world about Iraqs (seemingly theoretical) chemical weapons supply, he was simultaneously authorizing the use of tear gas by US forces.
First, evidence of WMD has been found. Not evidence of a current stockpile, but evidence of stocks, labs and things that have been hurridly cleaned up, to try and disguise their purpose. We found empty chemical delivery warheads, that saddam swore up and down he didn't have 10 years ago. Yeah, he never had any chemical weapons, or secret labs, or delivery systems...except when we find them, it's ignored. I know I wouldn't want to have drunk from the Euphrates during the weeks just prior to and during the start of the war. Second of all, which would you rather get a face full of: tear gas, or smallpox? tear gas, or nerve gas? I don't see the comparison at all. Tear gas is intended to temporarily subdue people. Chemical freaking weapons are intended to kill people. I know I'd rather my police officers use tear gas rather than, say, VX.
Finally, if you feel less threatened by China than the U.S., where do you live? Because historically, China has taken the position that you are either Chinese, or you are not civilized and do not deserve to live. Do a little reading of Chinese history if you don't believe me.
I think he's referring to the fact that Halliburton, Cheney's old oil company, got something around 5 assloads (That's 5.5 metric fuckloads, or 2.9 cubic football fields) of money for a contract to clean up oil wells in Iraq. Granted, it may have just had the best contract availiable, but I don't think this was simply a case of best bidder.
I don't want to sound paranoid, but there's something amiss when Halliburton gets a huge contract.
Then don't sound paranoid. This is how it works, not only in the government, but everywhere. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Ever had a friend get you a job? Ever 'known somoene that knows someone' to get anything at all? Then you know how it works. Most people help out those they know, when they have the chance. Fact is, halliburton has experience, their price wasn't bad compared to the other (i think 2, iirc) bids wasn't bad, and I have no reason to believe they won't do a good job (especially now with all this extra attention on them) but welcome to Earth. It's not just the U.S., either. People under all sorts of governments use this system daily. Please note, I'm not supporting nor attacking this practice, I'm just pointing out that it's not just the government, it's not just the U.S., and it's not exactly a new thing. AFAIK, it's been going on ever since civilization began.
"Evil Flourishes when good men do nothing"
How ironic. Isn't nothing exactly what you wanted the U.S. to do? is/was saddam not evil? was he not flourishing? Why use that sig in that post? can you not even SEE the irony?
So, your saying that being a bully is a good thing? cant comprimise so you resort to violence? is *this* how things should be run?
Hey, moron, if being a bully is so bad, why do you object to saddam being gone? HE would not respond to diplomacy. HE broke his agreements, did not abide by UN decisions...we gave him a decade. How much longer should a despot be given, when he obviously had no intention of cleaning up his act? Will someone please tell me how it's perfectly ok for saddam to kill/torture/opress his own people, for DECADES, steal all his people's money to spend on himself and his son's pr0n collection, create the largest oil spill in world history ON PURPOSE, openly support terrorism, and when the U.S. finally steps in, without support from a large part of the world (props to UK, Spain, Australia) and says 'hey now it's time to get rid of the bully' we're suddenly evil. Even though the UN sanctions are history. Even though people aren't systematically tortured anymore. Even though state-sponsored terrorism has to find its home outside Iraq, even though a giant homicidal maniac has been taken out of power, suddenly we're the bad guys. The freaking UN wouldn't even back up its own resolution. What kind of good does it do to pass a resolution threatening a tyrant if you aren't going to follow through on it? Just because the rest of the world lacked the stones to stand up to saddam... well, i suppose you must justify your cowardice and complete lack of concern for the dead and tortured in Iraq somehow. Might as well make it *appear* to be a moral stand.
Charity is important and essential. But just because a program is charitable doesn't make it immune from being a waste.
Very true. It should go double for government programs. Unfortunately we (the American people) do not require the same level of efficiency for our government as we do for the charitable organizations we donate to. The key, I think, is to find people that are truly committed to helping others, not just trust that a government employee is going to automatically be a good social program administrator.
If I knew who you were - I'd come rape your mom, then you; you piece of american shit....
- In case you didn't know, US lags behind all other countries in terms of FOREIGN POLICY -
Hi, trollie. Guess we lag behind in Troll Technology(tm) as well. Yep, you anti-US people sure can troll... if only you had the sources to back up what you said up there, maybe we could discuss it like rational beings. Oh wait, who wants to do that? Nevermind, perhaps I'll push for an increase in funds for trolling research, to keep up with you aliens.
If you actually don't believe there is any sort of God, why do you care if other people do?
The same reason Jews cared about the Spanish Inquisition, and Christians cared about Muslim invaders. The ruling class will attempt to force its religion on all its subjects. The severity of the ruling class's reaction to refusal to believe is completely unpredictable, and in the case of the USA, becoming more severe every day. Our ATTORNEY GENERAL is so goddamn puritan that he couldn't stand to be pictured with a fucking STATUE of a woman with a naked breast. Yes, he's an idiot, but he could roll out the FBI and get all atheists arrested and systematically destroyed if he wanted.
THAT is why we care about other people believing in God - because they care about us NOT believing in it.
If you truly believe that all atheists could be rounded up and imprisoned, you're insane. That could no more happen than could a federal roundup of lutherans. If that happens, then people in this country will have much larger problems, as martial law + some sort of SS would be required.
Also, although I hear so much about evangelists being annoying and trying to force their beliefs on others, I've found that in my personal experience, it's far easier to get religious people to stop bugging me than it is to get atheists to go away. All I do is say 'I'm not interested, thank you.' I am agnostic, and no religion is going to change that, but neither is any athiest. I've been attacked far more, personally, by atheists than by religious people for what I believe. I've NEVER heard of any type of formalized government persecution of atheists. There's no Bureau of Religious Conformity. Maybe our attorney general is a puritan, but last I checked, that's his right. It would equally be his right to be Muslim, Hindu, Lutheran, atheist, agnostic, or undeclared. It's also his right to want others to convert to his cause. It's yours too. It's when you go from *wanting* others to convert into *forcing* people to convert that you've exceeded your rights. After all, isn't declaring someone an idiot because they don't share your beliefs what you are opposed to? Or is that only when others do it to you? (If you were basing his idiot-ness on something else, I apologize, but I'm going by the context of your post, where it seems that his religious views are what got him branded idiot.)
They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists.
Not quite true - they are referred to as illegal combatants because they were soldiers in an army that represented a country not recognised by the US,i.e. many of them are just Taliban soldiers, including some teenage boys (i.e. 13, 14 years old).
They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often.
As I understand it, during war it is a soldier's duty to attempt escape, even if it means (gasp) threatening military personel. Once the war is ended the soldiers must be repatriated.
Okay, explain to me again where illegal combatant (as would be all members of an *irregular* army, unless they carry arms publicly, wear a recognizable sigil or emblem, and conduct their operations in accord with the laws and customs or war) = uniformed soldier of a country in a delcared action?
Geneva Convention:
Article 4:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
-- snip --
The people in camp x-ray fail to fulfill the sections required by part 2 a-d of article 4.
Not only did they not operate openly, carrying arms openly with a recognizable sigil or emblem, but they're not part of any regular army, they did NOT conduct their actions in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which specifically prohibit terrorist actions. They operated outside of the Geneva Convention, some even acting under cover as civilians, and therefore ARE NOT prisoners of war, and ARE NOT required to be repatriated, nor treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention
Yeah, show me the jails filled with political prisoners in America.
Camp X-Ray. Oh wait - that's not actually in America is it, which allows you to circumvent your own rules.
Were you born stupid, or have you just worked towards it all your life?
"Oh...those poor violent terrorist murderers in camp x-ray! they don't get cable tv or weapons! we're so mean to them!"
They were housed in conditions that beat a lot of prisons all over the world. They are NOT political prisoners, they are violent terrorists who have threatened guards on several occasions and attempted escape often. I suppose you'd like to see them freed, so they can attempt more terrorist actions against the U.S. There has been no torture, as even the BBC reported. They are given food, water, clothing, and shelter. They are given the same level of medical treatment as U.S. military personnel. (If you're in the U.S. military, insert joke here) Yes, the temporary cells were very hot. They were also temporary, and offered at least *some* shade. No prisoners have died. They are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists. *They* do not abide by the Geneva Convention, and they do not deserve its protection. They are allowed the koran and given the chance to pray at the proper times, and given a sign indicating the direction toward Mecca. Do you honestly believe that they are being treated worse than American prisoners would be in a similar camp in prewar Iraq? If so...I advise you to get arrested in America, and then go get arrested in the Middle East, and let us know which is worse. I don't know about you, but I'd go to camp x-ray long before I went to the Gulag in Russia or a chinese 'detention camp.'
But of course, as in everything, the U.S. must be evil, while the rest of the world is a snowy, virginal white. Nice dream world you're living in.
Gosh, free speech?
As long as you don't disagree with the Government too much
Yes. This is a problem. Usually it's what people say in a very public forum that is watched, though. We aren't to the point that SS agents go from bar to bar listening for seditious talk to punish, but I'm not saying that can't possibly happen here. After all, people said it couldn't happen in Germany, and it did.
Freedom to assemble
Unless you're a protester
Actually, most protests I've ever seen go down fairly smoothly. Even when there's only like 4 people they get news coverage. I've seen several protests in large cities (Philly, new york city) where people were illegaly disrupting traffic by laying in the streets, and the cops weren't doing anything to them for fear of being vilified. It's really annoying not to be able to run over the dumbass who's laying in front of your car, keeping you from doing things you need to do, and while I know it's meant to change people's views, all it does is make people very mad. I saw people with 'no war in iraq' bumper stickers screaming at the stupid protestors. OTOH, I also saw a group of anti-war protestors attacking a group of pro-war protestors. I thought it was nicely ironic. "Violence is wrong, so I'm going to kick your ass for peace!"
freedom to live where you want
Provided you're the right color
You missed the correct response. It's no longer nearly as much about what color you are as about how much money you have. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist. I'm just saying that greed usually superceeds it.
have as many kids as you want
As long as you're not poor
Actually, people below the poverty line have a lot of kids. Also, people of certian religions have more kids than average, whatever their financial status is. Rich people tend to have smaller families. There are always exceptions, of course, but based on my own experience, a large number of the 'rich kids' that I envied in school were only children, while most of my friends, who were at or below the poverty line, as my family was, had several children in their family. Of course, my experience is biased by regional factors, and there are a lot of variables, but if I wasn't so lazy I could probably find data to support my case. Since I am, I'll just rely on my personal experience, since I trust it more than the Internet.
worship who you want?
As long as you're not an Atheist or a Muslim
This one's just silly. What law is there that forces you to go to church? What law forces you to worship anything? From what I've seen, it's not the fact that people are Muslim that is getting htem harrassed by idiots right now. It's because they appear middle eastern to bubba the drunk redneck. I've seen numerous accounts of Ganesh trying to explain on the news that when people were calling him a 'towelhead muslim' or whatever, that he's from egypt and isn't religious. Not to say that idiots messing with people because of their physical features isn't completely stupid, but to make it sound like there are laws in place to punish Muslims and force atheist people to worship whatever is also completely stupid. Sure, if we had *total* religious freedom, we'd let Rastas smoke weed and voodoo priests make zombies and whatever, but there aren't any laws in place to force you to believe or not believe in anything supernatural. There's no Church of America, and there never will be. Also, if you're an atheist, you don't worship anything supernatural. That's what atheist means. Atheism *is* a religion, sorta, only instead of being based on a shared belief, like every other religion out there, it's based on a shared *disbelief* which to me is amazing. I mean, I don't believe in ghosts, but that doesn't mean I organize my life around not believing in ghosts, or attacking/trying to convert those who do. I just don't care about ghosts. I don't call my self an 'aghostist' and have meetings about not believing in ghosts. If you
Yeah that's the one....yeah battlegroundz spelled their name all 1337 with the 'z'. I was an admin....there was someone that moved from Wisconsin because we were dating, but we didn't get married. good to know BT is still remembered.
Outside help of any kind is not permitted. This means: no assistance of any kind from any other person; also no books, calculators, computers, or tools other than items explicitly permitted. You are allowed to use writing implements, erasers, paper, and any items explicitly required to solve a specific problem. (All such items are listed on the Hints and Tips page.)
How is this enforceable if it's free-for-all over the web?
Well, it might not be enforceable for this preliminary test, but if you cheat your way onto the team, you have only huge embarassment waiting for you. I don't think it would be worth it to cheat in this instance. It would come out when you got to the contest and couldn't perform.
(BTW. It was hard to find a single coherent thought in your little rant.)
Of course it was, for you. If you'd like help with the big words, the metaphors, or the sarcasm, or help parsing sentences with lots of commas, I'd be happy to assist.
As far as the US messing with other countries, well, we tried to be isolationist. You other countries had to get us out of that by failing to stop the Axis. After that, everyone started crying to us whenever they had a problem. Is it our fault that when any other nation needs free money, or free food, or humanitarian relief, they turn to the United States? Sure, we're not perfect on foreign policy. Find me another country that gives away as much aid as the US does, anywhere else in the world. We 'loan' money to countries that we know will never pay us back. We give so much, and yet in return we are vilified and badmouthed around the world. What you cannot duplicate, you denigrate. I could understand if Italy, Germany, and Japan hated us. We stopped them from imposing their empire on the rest of the world. Yet even after those countries tried to take over the entire world we still helped them. Perhaps we are lazy and ignorant. You're merely hypocritical and ungrateful. I assume you're from a country we've helped, because you still have not given your country. (if you are the same AC I corrected before)
Though you've chosen to keep that secret still, it would be difficult indeed to find a country the US has *not* helped. The fact that you have access to Slashdot would indicate that you have benefited from the United States, as well. (Because it would be hard to connect to Slashdot without a computer, which is an American invention.)
Now to your 'point'. I suppose then that you subscribe to the 'two wrongs make a right' theory or the 'end justifies the means' theory. In either case, you are very wrong. Killing thousands of innocent people because you are pissed, for *whatever* reason, is wrong. I do not care how you attempt to justify it. It will always be wrong. If you support terrorism, no matter the cause, you are wrong. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
There's a reason it's not called 'wrong-wing'
For the record, I used to play on Bad Trips
Do you mean Bad Trip? I used to have a mud called Bad Trip that I started with Coby/Akinyele and Velveeta. Coby/Akin has been running it solo for a long time. It's a great mud, easily findable on mudconnector.
www.mudconnector.com
It's interesting to note that I am not a native english speaker and know so much more about your stupid language than most americans, and also unlike them, I have read and *understood* The Complete Works of William Shakespeare.
Where to start on this one? Lessee....
You've read and understood the complete works of Shakespeare, huh? I'd like a 1,000 (1.000 for you foreigners) word essay on the significance of the tent in Coriolanus, or if you prefer, discuss the importance of the following passage:
"That's likewise part of my intelligence; but, I
fear, the angle that plucks our son thither. Thou
shalt accompany us to the place; where we will, not
appearing what we are, have some question with the
shepherd; from whose simplicity I think it not
uneasy to get the cause of my son's resort thither.
Prithee, be my present partner in this business, and
lay aside the thoughts of Sicilia."
That passage, of course, was spoken by Polixenes, but you already knew that, being a super-intellect far superior to us poor, ignorant Americans. Can you tell me who Polixenes is, what play I got this quote from, and do it without looking anything up? I doubt it.
I mean, heck. We don't do anything for the world. No one anywhere else in the world relies on America for anything. We're just a big, lazy country full of worthless imperialist dogs that provide nothing to the world at large, right?
It always amuses me when dipshit foreigners put America down. While they do it, they're wearing American clothes, listening to American music, watching American movies, smoking American cigarettes, driving American cars, spending American foreign aid money, and/or trying to emigrate from wherever the hell they are. They're using plenty of American inventions. I would imagine they have some light bulbs somewhere, and perhaps a telephone. Maybe a television set, an assembly line produced automobile, they probably use traffic lights (I know they do in Canada and Mexico), they probably cart perishables around in refrigerated trucks, they use computers (unless they're reading Slashdot psychically)...but America doesn't contribute anything. I don't see people lining up around the world to buy the newest French car or the latest supercomputer from Britain. If you're going to put America down, don't buy Levis and don't watch American movies or TV, don't listen to our music, don't come here to visit, and shut your fucking trap. No one asked you to critique some guy's use of wherefore, if you think he's such an idiot, why not try googling on the phrase and see how many people from all over the world have misused that phrase. Language changes. Wherefore is not a popular word any longer. It is also no longer common to use thee and thou (outside the Society of Friends), even though they're still defined in most dictionaries. I notice you never posted what inferior country you are from. What has your country given to the world? I'm sure every country has contributed *something* or other, but for a country with as short a history as America, we sure have made life easier for a lot of you asshole foreigners that then just turn around and piss all over us out of some kind of jealousy.
On a side note, I find it very amusing that even though Americans in general care less about soccer than last season's cancelled sitcoms, *we* were asked to hold the Women's World Cup, because of the FUD about SARS in China. Even though there are *many* countries out there that just loooooooooove that stupid game, *America* is hosting the Women's World Cup now. Why? Because 'America is the only place in the world that can pull this large of a tournament together this quickly.' Hahahahah! Yeah, your country is so much better. Right.
I am not attacking any contry in particular. That is because the poster did not state his country.
If you aren't from America, I'm sorry. You missed out on being a big, fat, lazy, worthless, imperialist, ignorant, arrogant, capitalist running dog. Maybe someday your country's middle class can average as much income as our impoverished.