It's not for me. It's for the good of the dead soldiers, and their families, which you continue to discount as a reason to avoid displaying them in a fashion they would have issue with.
So, just so I have it, you position is that it is ok to use photographs of dead soldiers, with no concern for the trauma it may cause their loved ones, in an effort to discredit a politician and his party, as long as you are screaming "freedm of the press!!". Oh, and just in case, you trot out "censorship" any time you don't get what you want, even if there is a good reason.
1) This country isn't quite ruled by a dictator, yet. We *are* ruled by a small group of people that do impose their will however they see fit. They've put into law various things that allow them to do as they please. The President can do basically whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
2) The Federal is legislating morality and attempting to use force to alter social issues. They are also meddling heavily in the economy.
3) The Federal can arbitrarily take your land and other property, imprison you, has the power to censor things, and tries quite regularly to do so. Most people believe that they are breaking a law by almost anything they do, and they aren't far from the truth.
4) The Federal does not care about other countries; it will do anything to benefit the US, at the expense of foreign countries, peoples, and freedoms. It has routinely tried and/or succeeded at overthrowing foreign governments. The populace is pro-US, anti-everyone else, so long as they benefit in some way. "Who cares about the Mid-East, as long as we get our oil; just bomb 'em and take the stuff." It is increasingly more "The USA v. everyone else".
You realize of course (being the seemingly intelligent politico that you are) that every single point you made has been true for the majority of the existence of the US, in some form or fashion.
The US government isn't fascist. Just knock this whole idiotic conversation off, or at least bother to learn what real fascism is.
"It says typified by ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL."
ANY law is an attempt by the state to impose control. Go ahead, try to suggest otherwise. Because then you'll get this, from wiki
"Law is the formal regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of a governing body and the society it rules over."
There you go. Now, you can try to qualify your statement after the fact, like you did when you said
"There have been MANY attempts over the past couple hundred years to pass repressive laws"
But it's not about REPRESSIVE laws. Your logic leaves only one possible conclusion, lawmaking and the attempts to uphold those laws are FASCISM. I didn't make the claim that fascism is an
"ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL"
YOU did. Laws are exactly that, according to your beloved internet resource.
So justify that Mr. Inconsistent. I'll be interested to see how you argue that two completely opposite assertions are both correct correct. Good luck with that.
It's not about acknowledging though. If that were the point, I'd have no problem with this.
The problem arises when lobbying entities use the images of soldiers, without their (or their families) permission, to promote a political agenda, that most likely the soldiers would have disagreed with.
If this were about respectfully honoring the dead, that would be one thing.
But when it is really about having another club to use on Bush, then what's the point? Don't the numbers say enough about the death toll without requiring photographs, whose sole purpose is to incite and inflame?
"* exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme."
WHICH party? As I see this country, there is a very serious divide. Id it good enough for your definition that less than half of the population even support one party over the other?
"* stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture."
Yeah, this is just wrong. Especially the single culture part. Because, you know, there are only white radio and TV stations, white papers, white internet sites, and white lobbying groups. Or replace white with your culture of choice. You'd still be wrong, as the increasing diversity of the workplace, schools, and government show. And that diversity is the result of the very same government you accuse of promoting "submission to a single culture". As wrong as wrong gets there.
Listen the government makes things bad for itself, but calling them fascist is just propagandist hyperbole.
"Just to clarify it for you: the dead men (and women) are inside the coffins - you can't actually see them."
And that matters how exactly?
"This is not about grieving families at all"
I'll be sure to tell all the grieving families that.
No, this is about partisan attacks, and political squabbling. The only thing showing these caskets does that TALKING doesn't is to shock them.
These men died (rightly or wrongly) in service to their country. It is incredibly disrespectful to use them as a public spectacle to promote an agenda of any kind.
"It is state censorship, and it is no less outrageous than what the Chinese Government is doing."
Thank you for the vitriolic hyperbole. Any chance of getting some reason thrown in there?
What purpose does such a display have that can't be accomplished in some other, less distasteful way?
Tell me again why you have the right to take photographs of dead men? Freedom of the press, which includes the right to make grieving families even more uncomfortable?
Sorry, but I see no need for taking pictures of dead soldiers. It's a pathetic attempt to use their sacrifice as a sounding board, and it's extremely distasteful.
"95% of the European, Canadian, Australian, etc., citizens saw it for the sham that it was, even if their respective governments did not (or chose not to)."
"No, enforcing moral behavior (as in a "nanny state")"
Yeah, that's wrong. A nanny state has nothing to do with "moral behavior." A nanny state is one that provides for the needs of it's citizens from cradle to grave, sometimes overzealously.
"Trying desperately to get media attention before it was too late. As your ignorance demonstrates, it was a failure."...by screaming like babies about how Bush rigged the election. Which just demonstrates that YOU WEREN'T READING MY POST. It was about the integrity of the election, not one candidate.
If these people actually cared about the ELECTORAL PROCESS, they wouldn't have been bringing up Bush every ten seconds, and avoid being labeled kooks. MY point was about the machines and equipment.
"Because humans have no ability to see software variables without a trusted computer and debugger"
Which they knew about before the election. Yet they STILL ALLOWED IT TO BE USED. That was my point. "Watching" doesn't automatically mean physically using ones eyes to monitor the process. They let the machines be used. WHY? And spare me your "Republican controlled...blahblahblah whiny crybaby loser making excuses crap". There was no vote rigging, because there's NO evidence.
Now of course, this is where you scream "NO PAPER TRAIL!!! CAN'T DO AN AUDIT!!!" And yet, there's also not a SINGLE person who can verify any of the claims of rigging. Is that because they're all shills for the Republicans, or because there WAS NO rigging. Next you'll tell me they hide aliens at area 51. Ridiculous.
I remember quite clearly the uproar over 2000, yet 4 YEARS later, these same idiots failed to make any changes, or prove any conspiracy, and failed to prove any organized attempts at vote rigging. The only thing you and any of your kook friends have is statistical analysis and speculation about supposition.
Every time one of you wackjobs tries to appear credible, you stick you foot in your mouth, so give up on trying to prove something that never happened. It makes you look really stupid.
"If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions."
No, you'd actually go to jail just the same. Both crank (which is what he meant) and crack are Schedule 1, which means they're (nearly) impossible to use in any kind of scientific experiment. No accepted use at all, so no accepted reason to use them in experiments. Doing so without jumping through the myriad hoops the DEA has, (which again is nearly impossible) would get you sent to jail, possibly for a very long time.
Now, it CAN be done. I recall hearing of an experiment with 8 subjects testing crank. That took around ten years to set up.
"by making them spend their own money"
Who said anything about "their own money"?
Corporation A gives individual A the maximum allowable contribution as a "bonus". Individual A then uses the contribution to further the company's political interest.
Wash, rinse repeat ad nauseum.
In one stroke I have dismantled you plan.
"why should we allow them to double that voice by treating their corporate entity as though it should have something to do with our political process?"
Because whether you like it or not, the businesses whose influence you are trying to stifle are integral to the US economic system. Imagine
"What I can't buy votes anymore? I'll go to Guatemala, where it's not only possible, it's considered best practice" If that's cool for you, ok, but don't complain about the fallout, which would be considerable.
Also, the corporations have a stake in government. If the governmenmt is going to make laws affecting them, then the corporations should be allowed to exert influence.
Not that I'm saying the system isn't broken, but your solution won't help much.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you."
Ok, first this is a stupid corruption of a stupid slashdot in joke. My sense of humor may be different than yours, so maybe it's funny to you, but insightful?
Second, and this is the concept you conspiracy theorists don't get, do you have any idea the kind of shit storm that would go down if they were really tampering with votes?
Think about how pissed you are that votes MAY have been tampered with, and how really pissed you are that the machines are insecure. Now combine that with REAL evidence of Diebold influencing the election (which according to conspiracy nutjobs...er...theorists Diebold is somehow smart enough to hide) and you'd have anarchy. I would personally start hunting those involved. I doubt I'd be alone.
Afterward, think about what would happen. Diebold, out of business. Republicans, shamed, humiliated, and ruined as a party. All for election.
The risk isn't worth it, it doesn't MAKE SENSE.
Now, here's the last point. You conspiracy freaks KNEW the 2000 election was...ahem...contested.
Where the hell were you idiots BEFORE the 2004 election? If it really happened the way you claim, WHY WEREN'T YOU WATCHING?
Oh, right, because you made all that stuff up, just like sore losers always do. Look for excuses when things don't go your way.
PS I voted third party, and am unaffiliated, so spare the partisan attacks, and my karma's excellent, so mod me down if you want, it won't matter.
"When somebody is turned off the television when he speaks his mind live on air?"
I would expect you to understand the difference between the right to SPEAK and the right to be HEARD.
No one is given any assurance of people actually listening, or of being allowed to use a medium that is owned by someone else.
The fact that so many people are like you, and don't understand or appreciate the difference, and worst of all, don't bother to actually TRY to understand but instead shout down those you disagree with saddens me.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to have a real political conversation without being forced to explain things like this? Just once, I'd like someone like you to acknowledge that perhaps you'd misunderstood the situation.
For issues like this, remaining ignorant as you have is irresponsible. If you plan to discuss these issues, then do your homework, and be willing to listen.
As long as politicians have ANY power, it can be corrupted.
So either you're advocating doing away with politicians (which would be fun, but impractical) or you're saying we should keep them but not let them do anything.
"you however do not seem to care because you are an "anything that makes a democrat mad is good" kind of republican."
And you seem to be one of those "facts be damned" trolls, party affiliation not withstanding.
"Campaigns should only be able to be financed by individuals and non-profit groups"
The CEO of a corporation is an individual. As are the shareholders. They will use their personal fortunes in such a system to influence, to the betterment of their company. How does rearranging where the money comes from solve that problem?
"Now, get rid of the 5 cent law but restrict me to only cutting enough turkey to give out equally. If I give Johnny too much, I get booted. So why would Johnny bother trying to bribe me?"
Because then Johnny could have you give him more turkey when no one was looking.
Why do you think that people who break finance laws would magically adhere to restrictions on their power? Just because the law says so?
You have what could quite possibly be the most naive, ridiculous, ignorant view on politics I've ever heard.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not for me. It's for the good of the dead soldiers, and their families, which you continue to discount as a reason to avoid displaying them in a fashion they would have issue with.
So, just so I have it, you position is that it is ok to use photographs of dead soldiers, with no concern for the trauma it may cause their loved ones, in an effort to discredit a politician and his party, as long as you are screaming "freedm of the press!!". Oh, and just in case, you trot out "censorship" any time you don't get what you want, even if there is a good reason.
Makes perfect sense to me.
1) This country isn't quite ruled by a dictator, yet. We *are* ruled by a small group of people that do impose their will however they see fit. They've put into law various things that allow them to do as they please. The President can do basically whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
2) The Federal is legislating morality and attempting to use force to alter social issues. They are also meddling heavily in the economy.
3) The Federal can arbitrarily take your land and other property, imprison you, has the power to censor things, and tries quite regularly to do so. Most people believe that they are breaking a law by almost anything they do, and they aren't far from the truth.
4) The Federal does not care about other countries; it will do anything to benefit the US, at the expense of foreign countries, peoples, and freedoms. It has routinely tried and/or succeeded at overthrowing foreign governments. The populace is pro-US, anti-everyone else, so long as they benefit in some way. "Who cares about the Mid-East, as long as we get our oil; just bomb 'em and take the stuff." It is increasingly more "The USA v. everyone else".
You realize of course (being the seemingly intelligent politico that you are) that every single point you made has been true for the majority of the existence of the US, in some form or fashion.
The US government isn't fascist. Just knock this whole idiotic conversation off, or at least bother to learn what real fascism is.
"It says typified by ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL."
ANY law is an attempt by the state to impose control. Go ahead, try to suggest otherwise. Because then you'll get this, from wiki
"Law is the formal regime that orders human activities and relations through systematic application of the force of a governing body and the society it rules over."
There you go. Now, you can try to qualify your statement after the fact, like you did when you said
"There have been MANY attempts over the past couple hundred years to pass repressive laws"
But it's not about REPRESSIVE laws. Your logic leaves only one possible conclusion, lawmaking and the attempts to uphold those laws are FASCISM. I didn't make the claim that fascism is an
"ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL"
YOU did. Laws are exactly that, according to your beloved internet resource.
So justify that Mr. Inconsistent. I'll be interested to see how you argue that two completely opposite assertions are both correct correct. Good luck with that.
It's not about acknowledging though. If that were the point, I'd have no problem with this.
The problem arises when lobbying entities use the images of soldiers, without their (or their families) permission, to promote a political agenda, that most likely the soldiers would have disagreed with.
If this were about respectfully honoring the dead, that would be one thing.
But when it is really about having another club to use on Bush, then what's the point? Don't the numbers say enough about the death toll without requiring photographs, whose sole purpose is to incite and inflame?
Ok, what the hell, I'll bite
"* exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme."
WHICH party? As I see this country, there is a very serious divide. Id it good enough for your definition that less than half of the population even support one party over the other?
"* stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture."
Yeah, this is just wrong. Especially the single culture part. Because, you know, there are only white radio and TV stations, white papers, white internet sites, and white lobbying groups. Or replace white with your culture of choice. You'd still be wrong, as the increasing diversity of the workplace, schools, and government show. And that diversity is the result of the very same government you accuse of promoting "submission to a single culture". As wrong as wrong gets there.
Listen the government makes things bad for itself, but calling them fascist is just propagandist hyperbole.
"Just to clarify it for you: the dead men (and women) are inside the coffins - you can't actually see them."
And that matters how exactly?
"This is not about grieving families at all"
I'll be sure to tell all the grieving families that.
No, this is about partisan attacks, and political squabbling. The only thing showing these caskets does that TALKING doesn't is to shock them.
These men died (rightly or wrongly) in service to their country. It is incredibly disrespectful to use them as a public spectacle to promote an agenda of any kind.
"It is state censorship, and it is no less outrageous than what the Chinese Government is doing."
Thank you for the vitriolic hyperbole. Any chance of getting some reason thrown in there?
What purpose does such a display have that can't be accomplished in some other, less distasteful way?
"Do you think maybes are good enough an excuse to cause the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians?"
You're talking about the ones Saddam is responsible for killing, right? Because that was way more than tens of thousands...
This is such a stupid argument.
Tell me again why you have the right to take photographs of dead men? Freedom of the press, which includes the right to make grieving families even more uncomfortable?
Sorry, but I see no need for taking pictures of dead soldiers. It's a pathetic attempt to use their sacrifice as a sounding board, and it's extremely distasteful.
Actually, I'd laugh at how ridiculous his ideas about politics were, then proceed to use logic and reason to dismantle his entire philosophy.
Then I'd laugh some more.
"95% of the European, Canadian, Australian, etc., citizens saw it for the sham that it was, even if their respective governments did not (or chose not to)."
95%? REALLY?
No, not really, so why lie?
"Would you risk diving in an area with escaped dolphins on the loose?" Yes
see above
"No, enforcing moral behavior (as in a "nanny state")"
Yeah, that's wrong. A nanny state has nothing to do with "moral behavior." A nanny state is one that provides for the needs of it's citizens from cradle to grave, sometimes overzealously.
Prions aren't alive.
Betrays this guy's real thoughts.
"Some songs should be $0.99 and some songs should be more."
If he was REALLY interested in letting market forces decide prices, they could be less then $.99 as well.
But you know that's not in the plans.
"Trying desperately to get media attention before it was too late. As your ignorance demonstrates, it was a failure." ...by screaming like babies about how Bush rigged the election. Which just demonstrates that YOU WEREN'T READING MY POST. It was about the integrity of the election, not one candidate.
If these people actually cared about the ELECTORAL PROCESS, they wouldn't have been bringing up Bush every ten seconds, and avoid being labeled kooks. MY point was about the machines and equipment.
"Because humans have no ability to see software variables without a trusted computer and debugger"
Which they knew about before the election. Yet they STILL ALLOWED IT TO BE USED. That was my point. "Watching" doesn't automatically mean physically using ones eyes to monitor the process. They let the machines be used. WHY? And spare me your "Republican controlled...blahblahblah whiny crybaby loser making excuses crap". There was no vote rigging, because there's NO evidence.
Now of course, this is where you scream "NO PAPER TRAIL!!! CAN'T DO AN AUDIT!!!" And yet, there's also not a SINGLE person who can verify any of the claims of rigging. Is that because they're all shills for the Republicans, or because there WAS NO rigging. Next you'll tell me they hide aliens at area 51. Ridiculous.
I remember quite clearly the uproar over 2000, yet 4 YEARS later, these same idiots failed to make any changes, or prove any conspiracy, and failed to prove any organized attempts at vote rigging. The only thing you and any of your kook friends have is statistical analysis and speculation about supposition.
Every time one of you wackjobs tries to appear credible, you stick you foot in your mouth, so give up on trying to prove something that never happened. It makes you look really stupid.
"Nice try. People *were* watching before the 2004 election."
Read the link. Just more conspiracy nutjobs.
As always, the lack of ANY credible evidence in light of such a massive so called "conspiracy" demonstrates how ridiculous these people are.
Why are you so gullible that you fall for this crap?
"If you were using the resulting chemical for non-biological scientific experiments (not sure what you'd do with crack, but hey) you probably would not be liable for criminal actions." No, you'd actually go to jail just the same. Both crank (which is what he meant) and crack are Schedule 1, which means they're (nearly) impossible to use in any kind of scientific experiment. No accepted use at all, so no accepted reason to use them in experiments. Doing so without jumping through the myriad hoops the DEA has, (which again is nearly impossible) would get you sent to jail, possibly for a very long time. Now, it CAN be done. I recall hearing of an experiment with 8 subjects testing crank. That took around ten years to set up.
"by making them spend their own money" Who said anything about "their own money"? Corporation A gives individual A the maximum allowable contribution as a "bonus". Individual A then uses the contribution to further the company's political interest. Wash, rinse repeat ad nauseum. In one stroke I have dismantled you plan. "why should we allow them to double that voice by treating their corporate entity as though it should have something to do with our political process?" Because whether you like it or not, the businesses whose influence you are trying to stifle are integral to the US economic system. Imagine "What I can't buy votes anymore? I'll go to Guatemala, where it's not only possible, it's considered best practice" If that's cool for you, ok, but don't complain about the fallout, which would be considerable. Also, the corporations have a stake in government. If the governmenmt is going to make laws affecting them, then the corporations should be allowed to exert influence. Not that I'm saying the system isn't broken, but your solution won't help much.
"I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you."
Ok, first this is a stupid corruption of a stupid slashdot in joke. My sense of humor may be different than yours, so maybe it's funny to you, but insightful?
Second, and this is the concept you conspiracy theorists don't get, do you have any idea the kind of shit storm that would go down if they were really tampering with votes?
Think about how pissed you are that votes MAY have been tampered with, and how really pissed you are that the machines are insecure. Now combine that with REAL evidence of Diebold influencing the election (which according to conspiracy nutjobs...er...theorists Diebold is somehow smart enough to hide) and you'd have anarchy. I would personally start hunting those involved. I doubt I'd be alone.
Afterward, think about what would happen. Diebold, out of business. Republicans, shamed, humiliated, and ruined as a party. All for election.
The risk isn't worth it, it doesn't MAKE SENSE.
Now, here's the last point. You conspiracy freaks KNEW the 2000 election was...ahem...contested.
Where the hell were you idiots BEFORE the 2004 election? If it really happened the way you claim, WHY WEREN'T YOU WATCHING?
Oh, right, because you made all that stuff up, just like sore losers always do. Look for excuses when things don't go your way.
PS I voted third party, and am unaffiliated, so spare the partisan attacks, and my karma's excellent, so mod me down if you want, it won't matter.
"When somebody is turned off the television when he speaks his mind live on air?"
I would expect you to understand the difference between the right to SPEAK and the right to be HEARD.
No one is given any assurance of people actually listening, or of being allowed to use a medium that is owned by someone else.
The fact that so many people are like you, and don't understand or appreciate the difference, and worst of all, don't bother to actually TRY to understand but instead shout down those you disagree with saddens me.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to have a real political conversation without being forced to explain things like this? Just once, I'd like someone like you to acknowledge that perhaps you'd misunderstood the situation.
For issues like this, remaining ignorant as you have is irresponsible. If you plan to discuss these issues, then do your homework, and be willing to listen.
I was right, you're an imbecile.
As long as politicians have ANY power, it can be corrupted.
So either you're advocating doing away with politicians (which would be fun, but impractical) or you're saying we should keep them but not let them do anything.
Genius, pure genius.
"you however do not seem to care because you are an "anything that makes a democrat mad is good" kind of republican." And you seem to be one of those "facts be damned" trolls, party affiliation not withstanding.
"Campaigns should only be able to be financed by individuals and non-profit groups"
The CEO of a corporation is an individual. As are the shareholders. They will use their personal fortunes in such a system to influence, to the betterment of their company. How does rearranging where the money comes from solve that problem?
"Now, get rid of the 5 cent law but restrict me to only cutting enough turkey to give out equally. If I give Johnny too much, I get booted. So why would Johnny bother trying to bribe me?"
Because then Johnny could have you give him more turkey when no one was looking.
Why do you think that people who break finance laws would magically adhere to restrictions on their power? Just because the law says so?
You have what could quite possibly be the most naive, ridiculous, ignorant view on politics I've ever heard.
And I'm an American, so that's saying something.