Hmmm, my experience has been that I've worked several places where a competitors IP was available on-site. That isn't anti-business, that's a fact of life.
You don't see the contradiction in being a "Republican leaning Libertarian" but almost every thing you've supported is Republican and contrary to Libertarian beliefs? Where have I argued for helping nations? I think you'll find me arguing for other sovereign nations to take care of their own internals. I'm not saying that you don't take sides, but you don't occupy and wage war. You are arguging that we have a right to determine what others do, all the while saying that you shouldn't be told what you can do.
What am I doing? I'm holding closer to Libertarian values than you ever are. You've gone from arguments citing Gore and Kerry, neither of which I ever supported or expressed admiration for, to now talking about Russia and France as examples of countries against the war in Iraq. A lot more countries than that were against it. Plenty of Amercian corporations benefited from violating the UN food for oil plan too. You don't sound like a Libertarian at all, you sound like a dyed in the wool Repbulican, you sure are toting enough of their party line. You're moralizing for your personal gain, simple as that. Everything you write is opinion for your belief about occuyping Iraq. I supported defending ourselves in Afghanistan, no amount of bluster will ever justfiy Iraq. Iraq didn't attack us and not liking us isn't a justification for 'pre-emption'.
Why are people suffering? Resource contention. Tell me how to bring the rest of the world up to our standard of living with the finite resources we have?
I am not aruging for going over and deposing governments, I'm not talking about how we have to tell people what to do. I'm aruging for taking care of ourselves. Can you come up with that list I asked for? Of course you dont' have to but it would be a fun excercise for you I think. With your thinking we are going to have another fucking crusade on our hands. Gotta teach them evil people to think like us. You really believe it's that simple. That will always fail.
Lots of people are suffering in this world. Get off your ass, move to those countries and do something about it. I'm tired of the moral line, it is bullshit. We supported that asshole when it behoved us.
Frankly if a Christian really believes what they believe they are telling me that they can break bread with evil but because of their beliefs they'll be still saved in the end. It's an awfully convenient belief system. Saddam could convert and all the Christians agnst would be for not because he would be saved. Bush is Christian but I bet he can't accept that last half of that "Chrisitan" truth.
I don't give a fuck what Russia or France think, I care what I think. We've stretched our military thin fighting a war that wasn't needed. If anything we need more efforts towards Al Qaeda, securing our border comes to mind. Do you know how many OTMs get picked up in small border towns, brought before a judge, and are given a summons and released to never be seen again? The war in Iraq didn't stop Bali, Madrid, Besland or any other terror attack outside of Iraq and has led to more terror attacks inside Iraq(I bet as an American you were much safer 5 years ago traveling to Iraq than you are now, wanna dispute that?). You've traded on terror for another.
Your so fucking concerned with your own way of life but think you can go in somewhere and tell somebody else how to live. The point is that we have a right to self defense, not to disrupt other governments and to place one favorable to us in. Don't lie to yourself that this was for moral reasons and your moral outrage at prisons for children and political prisoners.
Why don't you go ahead, get the CIA fact book out and make a list of countries that need to liberated from their ways by us. You can order the list in any way you want but be very specific as to why they'd be better off to have us occupy them and install a temporary government. Don't compare WWII to today, it's apples to oranges and the Middle East isn't Japan or Germany.
How many Australian troops have died in major support operations? The dollar and human effort put forth by Australia is pithy compared to what the US is doing. The point is that this is an American effort disguised as a "coalition".
I'm not arguing for Kerry(or Gore since you brought him up) at any point. Have you realized that? I do see you sticking to one issue as your focal point for your vote.
My issue is the admiration and respect for the US is going down the tubes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, not one of our allies and many neutral countries had much of a problem with what we did in Afghanistan. Outside of England, no major ally has given aid or supported us with Iraq. Iraq was a bad idea and turned America from a country defending itself to an imperialist leaning nation.
I understand the right to bear arms, you won't see me touting gun control. The violence issues in our society don't have to do with the availability of weapons.
OK, we aren't going to see eye to eye. Kerry repealing anything from the bill of rights was about as likely as Bush taking away the right of consenting adults to do as they wish. You want to talk about statist? Let's talk DMCA and USAPATRIOT act. Whip the people up in a frenzy about terrrorist to pass your laws and use them for uses other than what you claimed they were intended for. Are you really libertarian leaning? You seem polarized on one issue and too willing ot ignore other freedoms taken from you.
So basically your argument is that Bush supports your gun rights so he is smart? Knowing how to easily placate or manipluate the masses isn't a "damned sight smarter" than anybody.
I think a president that claims to pray for his answers is a threat. You can't go wrong if you claim your god gave you the answer now can you? The ironic thing is that you don't find mention of god in the text of the Articles of Confederation or The Constitution. "Nature's God" is mentioned once along with the "Creator" in the Decleration of Independence. That people want to believe this country was founded on Christian beliefs or morals is dead wrong.
Everybody that voted for Kerry was educated? I bet there are plenty of people on gubmint assistance that couldn't pass a GED test that voted for Kerry. The majority of the human population doesn't critically analyze events that affect them. Bush was, like almost every other canidate before him, was voted in on appealing to peoples emotions.
That's pretty stupid reasoning. It actually has to do with him needing to be the selection on more than two thirds of those ballots, which is not too plausible given the rest of the vote in Ohio. Nevertheless, if he did come out on top in Ohio he would be president. A concession speech is just a formality, not legally binding.
I'm wondering, do you respect Bush's intelligence? It seems odd to vote for him on this issue. You say you are a libertarian leaning republican right? If the government really wants to try to keep you from gun ownership that will be a direct violation of the constitution and an act of tyranny and you will fight that right? I'd say you would already have the guns(technically illegal in this scenario) and use them to fight the obviously gone mad government.
I think the damage Bush has done to us in the diplomatic arena was a lot worse than somebody that has a belief that they can't really enforce(no changes to any gun law would've made it through congress even if Kerry were elected.)
Hmmm given that he had roughly 54 million vote against him... I guess you could make other arguments too. He didn't get a mandate, he doesn't have a near lock on the hearts and minds of his subjects^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d I mean constiuents. You wonder why this country is polarized? Somebody get's less than half the first time and just slighly over half the second time and he acts like he has some broad support, which he in fact doesn't have. He doesn't have to appeal to anybody but that 51% though because he has a majority in both legislative houses to work with too. So much for checks and balances.
I'd best be described as a moderate republican or conservative democrat, i.e. I'm middle of the road, but I'm really in disbelief that people think that Bush Jr is a good leader. He has less than a 50% approval rating, was soundly spanked in the debates and yet he got 51% of the vote. It really doesn't add up. Of course I wanted McCain to win in 2000.
Hmmm, Gore won the popular vote. The Florida Secretary of State(head of the Bush campaign in Florida, talk about a fucking conflict of interest that makes me lose faith in our system) made some seriously questionable moves with regards to the election and I'm pretty convinced that some serious shenanigans put Bush in office. Personally I wish McCain had one the nomination, I would've voted for him. The fact that the Republican party can't admit that Bush is an asshole that should be replaced places even more doubt in the future of politics in this country imho.
Yeah, I don't see the value in it but I guess I'm not their target demographic with it. You sir, have some good ideas and I think they should listen to them.
Yet, because it comes from George Jr's mouth you see it as truth? We are all mortal men, so what is the significance of that statement? Tell me, what do you mean by subjective, you've yet to define yourself. The quote from Goerhing is one of my favorites, it shows how the "sheep" are led. You yourself talked about the "sheep". We weren't attacked by Iraq or Saddam himself, the case for war was exagerated. We were attacked by Al Qaeda. We've destabalized Iraq so badly that terror attacks are now a common thing everyday there. You haven't made one argument that's made sense. Ever argument you've tried to use to brush aside any criticism applies equally as well to Bush. Tell me, Was the fledgling US attacked(Ben Franklin was a member of that country)? Did the Romans ever face invasion(Julius Caesar did face threats to the roman hegemony)? Was Germany involved in war? In each of those cases people were attacked and lost lives. Of course it is irrelevant, you just seem to be waving your arms as justification for actions.
My thought was, "this is news?" I guess that follows the why closely. I really think that with a dupe, posted the same day no less, and then the fact that somebody considered this news, means that somebody is imbiding at the submission desk today.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security"
---Benjamin Franklin
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged.
"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a
war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to
his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want
war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is
the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the
people have some say in the matter through their elected
representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
---Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases
observe it.
Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be
true.
Iraq used WMD's during that War, I can bring up what I want. Don't want to assert your logic about attacks? Tell me how Iran was more of a threat than Iraq then? Provide a cogent argument that puts the US in a moral position to support the dictator that used WMDs in warfare. We didn't position one enemy against another, I'm starting to think you get your information from the ether. The War between them wasn't precipated by us, it had to do with Saddam thinking he could make Iraq a grand state again with him as the Great Caliph.
We had a successful attack on the US on 9/11 didn't we? Who was president then? When you learn to write logically, which means understanding the failure of your statement about no attacks since 9/11, get back to me. I guess what you are really claiming is that anybody that says that Bush said something he claims to not have said is a liar? As for you allie comment, we allied with Iraq, when Saddam was in power. Yes look at Spain, look at Russia, look at Bali, Iraq stopped none of that and could be considered a big reason for the escalation of terrorism.
LOL, it's pretty fucking conclusive. The little money they siphoned from under the table deals wouldn't allow for the Weapons programs that didn't exist. The yellowcake claims were lies. The aluminum tubes weren't suitable for missles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Both of those facts were proven before the war but ignored.
I'm not backing Kerry on North Korea. We'd have a much stronger position in the world if we didn't invade Iraq. Iran is enriching Uranium right now. How man US troops have died for claims that were false? What did George W have for breakfast? I'm guessing you know, you reek of partisan party line politics. I'm what people would call a conservative, but I'm a registered independent, and I'm not buying any of this crap from this administration. Imagine my dismay at what the only viable alternative is. McCain should've won the Republican nomination in 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, my experience has been that I've worked several places where a competitors IP was available on-site. That isn't anti-business, that's a fact of life.
You don't see the contradiction in being a "Republican leaning Libertarian" but almost every thing you've supported is Republican and contrary to Libertarian beliefs? Where have I argued for helping nations? I think you'll find me arguing for other sovereign nations to take care of their own internals. I'm not saying that you don't take sides, but you don't occupy and wage war. You are arguging that we have a right to determine what others do, all the while saying that you shouldn't be told what you can do.
What am I doing? I'm holding closer to Libertarian values than you ever are. You've gone from arguments citing Gore and Kerry, neither of which I ever supported or expressed admiration for, to now talking about Russia and France as examples of countries against the war in Iraq. A lot more countries than that were against it. Plenty of Amercian corporations benefited from violating the UN food for oil plan too. You don't sound like a Libertarian at all, you sound like a dyed in the wool Repbulican, you sure are toting enough of their party line. You're moralizing for your personal gain, simple as that. Everything you write is opinion for your belief about occuyping Iraq. I supported defending ourselves in Afghanistan, no amount of bluster will ever justfiy Iraq. Iraq didn't attack us and not liking us isn't a justification for 'pre-emption'. Why are people suffering? Resource contention. Tell me how to bring the rest of the world up to our standard of living with the finite resources we have? I am not aruging for going over and deposing governments, I'm not talking about how we have to tell people what to do. I'm aruging for taking care of ourselves. Can you come up with that list I asked for? Of course you dont' have to but it would be a fun excercise for you I think. With your thinking we are going to have another fucking crusade on our hands. Gotta teach them evil people to think like us. You really believe it's that simple. That will always fail.
Lots of people are suffering in this world. Get off your ass, move to those countries and do something about it. I'm tired of the moral line, it is bullshit. We supported that asshole when it behoved us.
Frankly if a Christian really believes what they believe they are telling me that they can break bread with evil but because of their beliefs they'll be still saved in the end. It's an awfully convenient belief system. Saddam could convert and all the Christians agnst would be for not because he would be saved. Bush is Christian but I bet he can't accept that last half of that "Chrisitan" truth.
I don't give a fuck what Russia or France think, I care what I think. We've stretched our military thin fighting a war that wasn't needed. If anything we need more efforts towards Al Qaeda, securing our border comes to mind. Do you know how many OTMs get picked up in small border towns, brought before a judge, and are given a summons and released to never be seen again? The war in Iraq didn't stop Bali, Madrid, Besland or any other terror attack outside of Iraq and has led to more terror attacks inside Iraq(I bet as an American you were much safer 5 years ago traveling to Iraq than you are now, wanna dispute that?). You've traded on terror for another.
Your so fucking concerned with your own way of life but think you can go in somewhere and tell somebody else how to live. The point is that we have a right to self defense, not to disrupt other governments and to place one favorable to us in. Don't lie to yourself that this was for moral reasons and your moral outrage at prisons for children and political prisoners.
Why don't you go ahead, get the CIA fact book out and make a list of countries that need to liberated from their ways by us. You can order the list in any way you want but be very specific as to why they'd be better off to have us occupy them and install a temporary government. Don't compare WWII to today, it's apples to oranges and the Middle East isn't Japan or Germany.
How many Australian troops have died in major support operations? The dollar and human effort put forth by Australia is pithy compared to what the US is doing. The point is that this is an American effort disguised as a "coalition".
I'm not arguing for Kerry(or Gore since you brought him up) at any point. Have you realized that? I do see you sticking to one issue as your focal point for your vote. My issue is the admiration and respect for the US is going down the tubes. I've said it before and I'll say it again, not one of our allies and many neutral countries had much of a problem with what we did in Afghanistan. Outside of England, no major ally has given aid or supported us with Iraq. Iraq was a bad idea and turned America from a country defending itself to an imperialist leaning nation. I understand the right to bear arms, you won't see me touting gun control. The violence issues in our society don't have to do with the availability of weapons.
OK, we aren't going to see eye to eye. Kerry repealing anything from the bill of rights was about as likely as Bush taking away the right of consenting adults to do as they wish. You want to talk about statist? Let's talk DMCA and USAPATRIOT act. Whip the people up in a frenzy about terrrorist to pass your laws and use them for uses other than what you claimed they were intended for. Are you really libertarian leaning? You seem polarized on one issue and too willing ot ignore other freedoms taken from you.
So basically your argument is that Bush supports your gun rights so he is smart? Knowing how to easily placate or manipluate the masses isn't a "damned sight smarter" than anybody.
I think a president that claims to pray for his answers is a threat. You can't go wrong if you claim your god gave you the answer now can you? The ironic thing is that you don't find mention of god in the text of the Articles of Confederation or The Constitution. "Nature's God" is mentioned once along with the "Creator" in the Decleration of Independence. That people want to believe this country was founded on Christian beliefs or morals is dead wrong.
Everybody that voted for Kerry was educated? I bet there are plenty of people on gubmint assistance that couldn't pass a GED test that voted for Kerry. The majority of the human population doesn't critically analyze events that affect them. Bush was, like almost every other canidate before him, was voted in on appealing to peoples emotions.
That's pretty stupid reasoning. It actually has to do with him needing to be the selection on more than two thirds of those ballots, which is not too plausible given the rest of the vote in Ohio. Nevertheless, if he did come out on top in Ohio he would be president. A concession speech is just a formality, not legally binding.
I'm wondering, do you respect Bush's intelligence? It seems odd to vote for him on this issue. You say you are a libertarian leaning republican right? If the government really wants to try to keep you from gun ownership that will be a direct violation of the constitution and an act of tyranny and you will fight that right? I'd say you would already have the guns(technically illegal in this scenario) and use them to fight the obviously gone mad government. I think the damage Bush has done to us in the diplomatic arena was a lot worse than somebody that has a belief that they can't really enforce(no changes to any gun law would've made it through congress even if Kerry were elected.)
Hmmm given that he had roughly 54 million vote against him... I guess you could make other arguments too. He didn't get a mandate, he doesn't have a near lock on the hearts and minds of his subjects^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d I mean constiuents. You wonder why this country is polarized? Somebody get's less than half the first time and just slighly over half the second time and he acts like he has some broad support, which he in fact doesn't have. He doesn't have to appeal to anybody but that 51% though because he has a majority in both legislative houses to work with too. So much for checks and balances. I'd best be described as a moderate republican or conservative democrat, i.e. I'm middle of the road, but I'm really in disbelief that people think that Bush Jr is a good leader. He has less than a 50% approval rating, was soundly spanked in the debates and yet he got 51% of the vote. It really doesn't add up. Of course I wanted McCain to win in 2000.
Hmmm, Gore won the popular vote. The Florida Secretary of State(head of the Bush campaign in Florida, talk about a fucking conflict of interest that makes me lose faith in our system) made some seriously questionable moves with regards to the election and I'm pretty convinced that some serious shenanigans put Bush in office. Personally I wish McCain had one the nomination, I would've voted for him. The fact that the Republican party can't admit that Bush is an asshole that should be replaced places even more doubt in the future of politics in this country imho.
As the great grandparent said, "Do they only help out commercial outfits?" I answered that.
I guess you haven't heard of SELinux?
Yeah, I don't see the value in it but I guess I'm not their target demographic with it. You sir, have some good ideas and I think they should listen to them.
Yet, because it comes from George Jr's mouth you see it as truth? We are all mortal men, so what is the significance of that statement? Tell me, what do you mean by subjective, you've yet to define yourself. The quote from Goerhing is one of my favorites, it shows how the "sheep" are led. You yourself talked about the "sheep". We weren't attacked by Iraq or Saddam himself, the case for war was exagerated. We were attacked by Al Qaeda. We've destabalized Iraq so badly that terror attacks are now a common thing everyday there. You haven't made one argument that's made sense. Ever argument you've tried to use to brush aside any criticism applies equally as well to Bush. Tell me, Was the fledgling US attacked(Ben Franklin was a member of that country)? Did the Romans ever face invasion(Julius Caesar did face threats to the roman hegemony)? Was Germany involved in war? In each of those cases people were attacked and lost lives. Of course it is irrelevant, you just seem to be waving your arms as justification for actions.
My thought was, "this is news?" I guess that follows the why closely. I really think that with a dupe, posted the same day no less, and then the fact that somebody considered this news, means that somebody is imbiding at the submission desk today.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
---Benjamin Franklin
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
---Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it.
Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.
---Julius Caesar
Iraq used WMD's during that War, I can bring up what I want. Don't want to assert your logic about attacks? Tell me how Iran was more of a threat than Iraq then? Provide a cogent argument that puts the US in a moral position to support the dictator that used WMDs in warfare. We didn't position one enemy against another, I'm starting to think you get your information from the ether. The War between them wasn't precipated by us, it had to do with Saddam thinking he could make Iraq a grand state again with him as the Great Caliph.
Yet you don't have the courage to just use your name here and make comments about being "Anon"?
We had a successful attack on the US on 9/11 didn't we? Who was president then? When you learn to write logically, which means understanding the failure of your statement about no attacks since 9/11, get back to me. I guess what you are really claiming is that anybody that says that Bush said something he claims to not have said is a liar? As for you allie comment, we allied with Iraq, when Saddam was in power. Yes look at Spain, look at Russia, look at Bali, Iraq stopped none of that and could be considered a big reason for the escalation of terrorism.
I don't see your real name in your nick. Making comments about being "Anon" is pretty hypocritcal.
LOL, it's pretty fucking conclusive. The little money they siphoned from under the table deals wouldn't allow for the Weapons programs that didn't exist. The yellowcake claims were lies. The aluminum tubes weren't suitable for missles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. Both of those facts were proven before the war but ignored. I'm not backing Kerry on North Korea. We'd have a much stronger position in the world if we didn't invade Iraq. Iran is enriching Uranium right now. How man US troops have died for claims that were false? What did George W have for breakfast? I'm guessing you know, you reek of partisan party line politics. I'm what people would call a conservative, but I'm a registered independent, and I'm not buying any of this crap from this administration. Imagine my dismay at what the only viable alternative is. McCain should've won the Republican nomination in 2000.