Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Suppose the news paper printed an article saying you were an unemployable idiot. You find this slanderous and request the new paper stop doing this, plus you want the name of the author of the article.
but the newspaper refuses to stop printing it and refuses to surrender the name of the person putting it into print. What do you do, you sue the newspaper for a vicarious liability and the people who are responsible for it showing up in print by generic name. The news paper then has to provide those names or admit it was them all along in their defense. The real people are sued and if the news paper didn't stop printing the crap, they are still liable for some damages.
Now substitute news paper with Fox News, Twitter, Face Book, slashdot or whatever. It's the same thing.
I dunno, I'm not an uber hacker or anything of the sorts, and I just used tools freely available on the internet to crack someone's wifi while talking to them in a meeting describing how Wifi is very difficult if not impossible to completely secure. Of course their IT guy was doubtful and denying how easy it was to crack into it until I printing it is easier then you think on the wireless hp right behind him.
I can tell also that I have seen crystal methane that was produced by a high-school drop out who knew enough about chemistry and the interweb to make it happen. I have seen all sorts of ingenuous ways idiots do what they want to do.
As for "the man" knowing, I'm not sure what they will gain from it outside of the cops who seem to be crooked in a lot of places attempting to use it against you somehow. "You weren't home at 8pm, you had no lights on in the house. Were where you really at?". But you have a point, it will only impact a small amount of people and then only really matter with those falsely accused. But they will all be guilty because they do not arrest innocent people.
Well, I guess you could if you were running to the sites of meteor showers while they were happening, elected to be the one to great the aliens when they land, or had pretty strong knowledge that judgment day is coming.
You see, even though these things will be in storage, there will be people who can be exposed to them if something happens. Those people will live in communities and will have families. So yeah, I guess you life insurance scenario fits welll here.
Dunno. It would depend on if the people working on this and their families are vaccinated or not within the next ten years.
Do you know for sure it won't happen? If it payment you are worried about, we will be stuck paying for it anyways because the US constitution says we can't take something of someone's without just compensation. The government is likely just telling them to hand over the crap that's dangerous.
And if it was the rare mars-dust-o-virus, I might agree with your sarcasm.
But here is something I'm not sure if you are considering. One, the virus didn't just magically appear. It came from somewhere, likely evolution or some animal born virus that crossed over to humans. But even if you go with the magical conclusion that it was create by GOD or a god or the devil or aliens, what is to stop that from happening again? Unlike the Mars-dust-o-notevenontheplanet-virus, this one is real and has been observed in the wild. Two, I don't think we have a complete time line concerning the existence of the small pox virues since recorded history. This could mean a number of things. The least interesting would be our records just suck, more interesting would be that it's somehow able to lay dormant then reappear when conditions are right. Either way, it's not something we shouldn't be concerned with at all
It might be a different strain, but it might also be easier to mutate a strain into it then to culture fresh sampled to be experimented on until a new vaccine is created assuming we don't forget how to make it for that specific problem.
One of the problems with collecting the virus when there is an epidemic is that your workers possess a serious risk of becoming infected too. So you need to set up some serious protections and pray for the best. It would go a lot quicker already having the strain in a workable culture that could be called up in a controlled environment as soon as the strain is identified. I think it just makes more sense to keep it.
From evolution if you buy into that sciency stuff. Yep, that's right Evolution created Small pox to begin with- bit God or the Devil in order to punish something.
Small pox rears it's head in different times of the historical record and I cannot find any timeline tracking it's movement from one part of the world to another to nothing because of the vaccine.
So something either causes something else to mutate, it can be carried by animals or insects and isn't actually non-existant, or something else that causes it to appear, disappear then reappear.
Well, think about what kind of useful information can be obtained here.
Let's say I monitor your home and notice that ever night, between a certain 15 minute segment, the some lights are turn off and others are turned on momentarily. Let's also say that on certain days, one of those lights is to the laundry room. So I show up and look through the window at that specific time and find you start a load of laundry just before going to bed on a certain night. I come back on the next scheduled time, break in and rob you blind while you sleep and the sound of the washer covers my efforts.
But let's go further. Suppose every three weeks, I notice the lights in your garage come on at a certain time and the flood light in your drive way. Oh, so the man of the house works the swing shift. Now I come over when your all alone either just before he gets home or just after he gets home.
Of course there are alarms which is likely to be present in an automated home. Out prison is full of criminals who didn't care about them too. And I'm sure there are some who got around that problem.
So let's be clear: It's unsatisfactory for the head of the Department of Health to personally vouch for the validity of the Certificate of Live Birth and the underlying records because the serial number was blacked out,
Do you mean it's not unsatisfactory evidence for Dick Cheney to say Iraq had WMDs to support Bush's claim we need to go to war with them? I mean after all, we are talking about a political appointment/entity making a statement of validity about the claims of another political entity. But hey, if you think we should believe everything the government or people in the government says at face value and never question it, I guess you got a point.
but on the long form the un-blacked out serial number is sufficient even though it's not directly verifiable, only inferentially valid because it seems to fall somewhere in the correct sequence?
Well, lets look at this scientifically. If the number is completely out of whack, we know right off the bat that it's fake. If it's inline, then we can look at the serial numbers before and after or even wait for someone to say hey, that's the same number I got. But there is a code with the serial numbers that breaks down the year it was created so a mathematical formula could be applied to test the validity of the time and date in the least..
Since we have no actual access to the bank of long form certificates, how do you know that the serial number doesn't belong to someone else?
But we do have access to it. Birth records are publicly available in all states. It's one of the longest standing functions of government. Unfortunately in this case, the governor of Hawaii blocked inquiries to Obama's birth records to avoid a flood of requests that would have overwhelmed their services.
Could be that it does suck. Anyways, I looked at a few pages and they all seem to link to a video that shows some interesting claims. are you saying those claims are wrong? And if so, what makes them wrong?
And they all seems to be pointing to one person saying it's a forgery. I don't think that's much more then repeating a story just like it wasn't a mass media conspiracy when they repeated Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs. Most of the pages I browsed through didn't have any comments and others seemed to have the same comments in different order as if it's a set up of some sort.
If you were really grounded by facts and empirical evidence, you would have been satisfied with the Certificate of Live Birth released in 2008.
I never said I wasn't satisfied with it. I have said in the past that Obama purposely chose to keep this alive for whatever purpose he had because he held within his power to derail it from the start and refused to do so for 4 years. Also, His long form birth certificate is the first document that has been released to the public that has not been obfuscated in some way Everything else has have serial numbers or seals blackened out making the fact checking on their validity impossible.
That's the paperwork Obama received when he approached the Hawaii Department of Health and said "give me my birth certificate"--as would anyone asking for their birth certificate in Hawaii.
He could have simply released that without removing the serial numbers then it could have been validated. IT would have been no biggie. But they way it was played out was like someone claiming what goes up, must come down, then having a guy throw a ball down off the roof of a house as proof. Sure the ball went down, but there was always the question of did gravity cause it or the guy throwing it.
For those of us actually grounded by facts and empirical evidence, that was sufficient to prove he was born in Hawaii, especially in conjunction with the birth announcements placed in the newspapers by the hospital when he was born, and the (unusual) public statement by the person in charge of the department of health that he had personally verified that the original long form certificate existed and was in good order. That certificate of live birth is sufficient proof of citizenship that the State Department accepts it as proof and will issue a passport based on it.
You mean just a couple years after the CBS fake Bush military discipline records, you think it's logical to trust a political entity or even a news agency reporting those facts when they only way you can verify it was removed from the record? Come on, are you sure you weren't filled with hope and change instead of facts?
After that, anyone left still demanding to see the long form was demonstrably irrational or mendacious
Nope. Probably a little overly skeptical but definitely not irrational. Something you either didn't pay attention to, or just didn't care about, is the problem with not being able to verify it because the document purposely had the only means to do so obscured.
Everyone who actually cared about the facts was satisfied--such as the Clinton campaign.
You mean the person who saw a drop in the polling numbers when they brought it up claiming to be satisfied is proof to you? And this is real evidence given that politicians quite often tell the people one thing then do another, especially when it's in support of their party? My, you must have some sort of disconnect with reality.
Everyone else demanded to see the long form, and, surprise surprise, was not satisfied by it--they're now busily spinning conspiracy theories about how it was forged. Again, demonstrably irrational.
Everyone, Really? You know this for certain or is this just in your head? I know people you would call birthers and they are satisfied now. I've spoken with some birthers online and while they don't like the answer, they are satisfied now.
You know why they are satisfied that he's a natural born citizen? It's because this document, like the first one he released, had the serial numbers in tact and while his Birth records were sealed, you can look at others born around the same time and make the connection that the serial number should have been in use around the stated time frame.
The DMCA is nothing more then the protections implemented from the WIPO Treaties, WCT And the WPPT and codified into law. The punshments for those new crimes is left to the country making the laws, but it has to be strict enough to show compliance with the treaties.
The European Union as a legislative body, signed onto the WPPT on Dec 20 1996, ratified it Dec 14 2009 and are obligated to enforce it by March 14 2010. The US signed onto the WPPT April 12, 1997, ratified it, September 14 1999 and were obligated to enforce it by may 20 2002.
The EU again was before the US with the WTC. The EU signed the treaty Dec 20 1996, ratified it December 14 2009, and were to enforce it's provisions by March 14 2010. The US didn't sign on until April 12 1997, ratified it September 14 1999, and were obligated to enforce it March 6 2002.
Note, the ratification and entry into force dates for the EU was later, but they clearly signed the agreement stating their intentions to take care of it before the US did. The US ratified and entered into force faster so it gives the appearance of being pushed by the US when in reality that is only an illusions. We followed Europe once again on this. The main difference is we were quicker to the punch then they were so people noticed and incorrectly assumed we were pushing our laws. The real story is we signed onto it following Europe and complained that they haven't did what they said they would do. I suspect strong opposition after seeing the US laws purposed and taking effect to why it's taken so long and why some countries still haven't implements it yet even though they are obligated to follow the treaties.
Now it should also be noted that this isn't making any statements to anything about media companies or RIAA or whatever being behind it. If they are/were, then they convinced the governments of Europe before the US.
You do realize that while the US is fighting to get compliance with copyright laws, almost all of them have been pushed by Europe first.
That is to say, the US only changed it's copyright laws to match those or Europe and treaties entered into. In fact, the DMCA clause comes right out of a WIPO treaty that the EU took action on before the US even ratified it into law.
If you must create a scenario, it should be more like, we all agreed to this, why aren't you implementing it. And yes, you can go look at the WIPO treaties and see this for itself. Even the mickeymouse copyright extension act was passed after a treaty was developed in which the EU passed the same legislation called a directive on harmonizing copyright terms. I can cite timelines if you really need them. But I've tossed enough information out there that your google finger should end up painting a pretty clear picture.
Here's how I define irrationality: Taking a belief (Obama isn't an American) based on no evidence whatsoever,
Boy are you willfully ignorant. There was plenty of evidence to cause validity in the question. If he would have been born just 2-3 three years earlier in the same place his birth certificate says, he would not be a natural born citizen. People have constructed timelines from dates given in Obama's books and books about him that put his birth earlier then it was or even on a different continent. Obviously, these dates were wrong either in the interpretations or the mentioning in the books. But to say there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever at all is a little like closing your eyes and saying I don't exist.
and in fact contrary to the facts that his opponents never brought a lawsuit to strip his name from any ballots (something they'd certainly do if he wasn't an American, after all, it would guarantee a win if you run virtually unopposed)
While this might be evidence to you, it certainly isn't weighted evidence at all. His opponent who brought this up originally was Hillary Clinton who ended up seeing a drop in polling numbers after bringing it up, always did have a "for the party" over the "for the people" mentality. This was evident even when her husband was president. McCain not running with it from there is just another sign of why McCain lost the election. He's an idiot and chose to stay away from it so he wouldn't see the same drop in polling numbers Hillary did.
he was inaugurated successfully (thus met the legal requirements to be President).
This is completely meaningless. They do not check your qualifications to inagurate you. Someone has to challenge that and it needs to go through the courts. Someone did try to challenge that, and he was shot down for not having standing- not because anyone found Obama to be a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the fact that his mother was a natural born citizen, thus any children she had were legally American citizens.
Wrong. The law at the time of Obama's birth stated a time limit you could be away from the US and required an intent to return to make you a naturally born citizen. Again, there was a record according to Obama's own books that seemed to suggest this might be a problem for him. But simply being a citizen isn't enough to be the US president. You have to be naturally born into citizenship. This is defined by law and it wasn't at all clear with the law at the time of his birth if he would have been considered natural born or not. No one was ever claiming he wasn't a citizen, the claim has always been that he didn't meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, the fact he was born in Hawaii, a territory of the United States, thus he was a natural born citizen.
Not according to the laws at the time. Fuck dude, do you understand that the laws change and what is legally binding today might have been different 50 years ago? You should forget your ignorance and actually pay attention to the arguments that were put forth. So far, there is only one thing you have presented that is remotely accurate and that's open to interpretation on it's value.
This evidence was of course, ignored by the birthersBelieving something that is contrary to all evidence is against logic, is irrational..
Despite that evidence having about as much weight as it's true it's in the bible, it appears you are the pot calling the kettle black.
How do your reconcile the fact that the birthers wanted to see the birth certificate from the start, after years of stonewalling, it was finally revealed. something that could have been done years ago and put this all to rest. It's like getting pulled over for speeding an
The entire foreigner thing, I don't care if he's a Muslim, stems froma constitutional requirement of the elected office. Think of it as something like a foreigner moves into your neighborhood, stays there long enough to become known, then runs for and becomes elected to the highest political office in your land.
Going past the concept of requiring a natural born citizen being in the constitution to avoid presidents with loyalties to a mother country, the biggest problem is all the laws that will be signed into law if he turned out to not meet the constitutional requirements and the courts threw out his entire presidency. Can you imagine all the work that would need to be redone, all the laws that would need to be combed through, all the people who violate those laws claiming immunity from prosecution because they weren't constitutionally passed. There will be commitments and negotiations with foreign nations that would be negated and need to be redone else they would have an out from treaties and so on.
So while this may appear like just a racist issue or a form of idiocy, that is only because you are judging a book by it's cover and nothing to do with the content. Being an outsider, I can understand you getting the cliff notes version from the loudest complainers. But we have citizens that simple refuse to look at the real issues here. This is something that simply needs to be taken seriously, he should have released the document years ago when Hillary Clinton's campaign brought it up.
It makes a difference, because birthers are by definition irrational people, and irrational people aren't the most reliable sources of information. If somebody refuses to accept reasonable information provided to them time and time again, why should anybody trust them on any other matter?
Where is the definition that declares them to be irrational? I mean seriously, they asked for a birth certificate, It was withheld for almost 4 years, someone crudely laid out a time line from books authored by or about Obama and it showed a possible conflict with the reported fact. By scientific terms, it would be inconclusive which sort of makes them more rational then the people who took him at his word for it. In fact, in real life right now, the exact opposite of what you said seems to be true with the conflicts between the religious age of the earth and the scientific view. Yet you seem to be taking the stand of the religious and simply saying because you were told to and somehow without the birth certificate, all non believers are irrational.
Seriously think about that, let your dogma go and think about that before replying.
It did indeed serve Obama's purposes to not go to extraordinary lengths to prove something every rational person already knew, because it highlights their irrationality.
Yes, because it serves no purpose for religious nutters to prove what they already know- the earth is 6000 years old and people were created. I'm also not sure producing a birth certificate to ensure a person meets the qualifications of a job is what I would consider extraordinary. I needed to produce one to get a drivers license when I originally received one. I know they changed that in some states now. But I don't think it's extraordinary by any means. Hell, I just got a copy of mine and it cost a whopping $14. Are you sure you didn't take a class on using adjectives to make things seem ridiculous or something?
It makes them look stupid. Releasing it now serves his purposes because it makes birthers look really stupid at a time when some birthers are trying to run for president against him.
I'm sure it does to a true believer like you. However, for those of us grounded by facts and empirical evidence, it doesn't seem out of place to ask someone to provide proof of their claims. I definitely wouldn't call it making them look stupid. They may feel stupid after all these years thinking there might have been something wrong because the release of a simple document was being blocked in an attempt to goad them into furthering that skepticism. But I see it as no different then someone claiming theory water is wet and then waiting 5 years to produce any experiments or documentation backing it up only to do so then turn around and claim everyone else is an idiot for not taking their word for it.
In other words, I think you have a lot more problems then the birthers do. And no, I'm not one of them. I did however point out that Obama thought he saw some sort of advantage to keeping the conspiracy alive which is why he didn't release the birth certificate in the first place.
What sort of brainwashing are you talking about? I have never seen any references to this you speak of until now. Can you provide any links or at least explain it a bit?
What makes the difference if he was a birther or not? I mean seriously, the question had been put out there and Obama pulled a Saddam and purposely obfuscated it to make it appear like something was wrong while saying it was legit all a long.
You can't discredit someone when the information to negate their concerns has been withheld for 3 years. No matter how you look at it, you cannot deny that Obama wanted the conspiracy to be there and for it to last as long as it did, else he would have released the birth certificate a long time ago, before he was even elected president when Hillary's campaign brought it up. Birthers are nothing more then a creation of Obama's own unwillingness to clear up the question of his naturalization.
I doubt we could build a fancy hut like that in the USA and have it certified as residential or habitable. From the looks of it, it's a small crackerbox house, with apartments in the rear that we would typically call a storage shed,. ( I rent two storage spaces to store useless junk with sentimental value in that appear to be bigger then each room in the outbuilding.)
Well, unless you mean costing that much to grease the hands of the building and code enforcement and zoning commission or something. Then possibly, yes, you could put a slum like that up somewhere where there is a population higher then 30.
Then get all the exemptions out there with science too. Tell them that the theory of evolution as currently state might not be accurate and it's subject to change whenever something new and convincing is found. Tell them right off the bat, that even evidence of creation (panspermia or simple aliens) is possible to change the theory of evolution into a creation theory. Tell them that it may be that the so called previous species could actually be the same species and it's largely a set of semantics defining what a species it in the first place.
I mean if you seriously insist on all these disclaimers that something might not be true, then let by all means have them instead of pretending that science is the one true faith.
BTW, I used the word faith there competently. If you are thinking about saying non of that can happen, you obviously have taken science outside the real of science. A theory, no matter how supported it may be, has to retain the ability to be falsifiable in order to remain scientific. If you don't believe anything could ever change the theory of evolution from what it is today, you have entered the same realm of faith that religious nutters are using to demand their version is correct. How likely something is to change it or not is irrelevant because as soon as you say can't, it's not science either.
The problem is that it isn't being taught as the theory is or even in a scientific way. It's being taught as the truth and nothing else could be truer.
This sends little johney and sally home telling mom and dad that the bible is wrong not because they figured it out once the material was tossed at them, but because MR Johnson, the English and literature teacher by skill and degree, told them so in his biology class that he was forced to teach in order to keep a job.
In short, it's a matter of under-qualified people on the subject making incorrect or inaccurate claims which brings this crap to the attention of the religious who want equal time to prevent it.
What, your strawman doesn't make sense? Unpossible!
You better look up the meaning of strawman and perhaps it would be better if you used real worlds.
You say it's to do with rules and laws, and are right. But do you think laws just uphold themselves? There are countries full of people who are already re-evaluating the worth of treaties with the USA, especially given how self-serving and dishonest they've appeared lately. If those rules were applied to someone who appeared to be a real criminal, Kadaffi say, there'd be little question of other countries helping, but when applied to someone who merely exposed the lies of criminals, no.
All treaties are self serving. It doesn't make sense to give up something without gaining something in return. And what you fail to understand here is that Australia will uphold their end of the treaty willingly as they have in the past for lesser crimes.
You pretend that the US is the only country to benefit from such a treaty, you are completely wrong. The treaties other countries enter into is because they saw a benefit and value in entering into them. If they withdraw from those treaties, we will discuss the rules then. As of now, you even bringing that up is saying little more then in your imaginary world you are right and then proclaiming that makes you right in reality. This is a complete fallacy. We are discussing the way things are, not how you want them to be.
Unless you plan to go to war with the New Zealand they're going to be asking themselves what's in it for them to sit back and let you take Assange because not only have you recently fucked them over with copyright treaties but as the 'little guys' they have far more to gain than lose from Wikileaks' revelations.
Do you speak for New Zealand? It doesn't really matyter because he is not there right now, he is in the custody of countries who aren't afraid to hand him over. And even if they returned him to his homeland, as I already pointed out, Australia will extradite lesser people for less of a crime. And that is where he would be deported to.
Again, all this rethink bullshit you are bringing up is nothing but what you want to be real. until it is, do not pretend it is real.
Sure, for something the rest of the world doesn't consider ludicrous. Or self-serving for the USA to be trying to extradite someone for.
Most people have an anti-crime bias, but crime as they see it - harm to good people. They'll bend the rules to punish those criminals, but not people who break laws standing up to bullies.
And none the less, it happened. Your objection to it as being ludicrous or something does not change that fact. Your objection is little more then an acknowledgment that you don't like it. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop pretending it has some sort of weight that isn't faithfully considered in reality.
You were never here, in the sense of actually reading. Your proof isn't as convincing as you want it to be because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. You're stuck on showing that there are treaties. The point is that treaties need to be mutual or enforced and treaties with the USA are rarely mutual and your ability to enforce them decreases rapidly.
You have showed absolutely nothing but speculation in your own mind that any of the treaties will not be honored or that they aren't mutual. I have showed that not only have they been honored in the past, that they were mutual as it didn't take an invasion to get these people, they were arrested and extradited by that country's police force and government. So stop acting like what exists only in your mind is somehow connected to the reality we live in. It isn't. Either stick with reality or kiss off and go play know it all with your gullible friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Suppose the news paper printed an article saying you were an unemployable idiot. You find this slanderous and request the new paper stop doing this, plus you want the name of the author of the article.
but the newspaper refuses to stop printing it and refuses to surrender the name of the person putting it into print. What do you do, you sue the newspaper for a vicarious liability and the people who are responsible for it showing up in print by generic name. The news paper then has to provide those names or admit it was them all along in their defense. The real people are sued and if the news paper didn't stop printing the crap, they are still liable for some damages.
Now substitute news paper with Fox News, Twitter, Face Book, slashdot or whatever. It's the same thing.
I dunno, I'm not an uber hacker or anything of the sorts, and I just used tools freely available on the internet to crack someone's wifi while talking to them in a meeting describing how Wifi is very difficult if not impossible to completely secure. Of course their IT guy was doubtful and denying how easy it was to crack into it until I printing it is easier then you think on the wireless hp right behind him.
I can tell also that I have seen crystal methane that was produced by a high-school drop out who knew enough about chemistry and the interweb to make it happen. I have seen all sorts of ingenuous ways idiots do what they want to do.
As for "the man" knowing, I'm not sure what they will gain from it outside of the cops who seem to be crooked in a lot of places attempting to use it against you somehow. "You weren't home at 8pm, you had no lights on in the house. Were where you really at?". But you have a point, it will only impact a small amount of people and then only really matter with those falsely accused. But they will all be guilty because they do not arrest innocent people.
Well, I guess you could if you were running to the sites of meteor showers while they were happening, elected to be the one to great the aliens when they land, or had pretty strong knowledge that judgment day is coming.
You see, even though these things will be in storage, there will be people who can be exposed to them if something happens. Those people will live in communities and will have families. So yeah, I guess you life insurance scenario fits welll here.
Dunno. It would depend on if the people working on this and their families are vaccinated or not within the next ten years.
Do you know for sure it won't happen? If it payment you are worried about, we will be stuck paying for it anyways because the US constitution says we can't take something of someone's without just compensation. The government is likely just telling them to hand over the crap that's dangerous.
And if it was the rare mars-dust-o-virus, I might agree with your sarcasm.
But here is something I'm not sure if you are considering. One, the virus didn't just magically appear. It came from somewhere, likely evolution or some animal born virus that crossed over to humans. But even if you go with the magical conclusion that it was create by GOD or a god or the devil or aliens, what is to stop that from happening again? Unlike the Mars-dust-o-notevenontheplanet-virus, this one is real and has been observed in the wild. Two, I don't think we have a complete time line concerning the existence of the small pox virues since recorded history. This could mean a number of things. The least interesting would be our records just suck, more interesting would be that it's somehow able to lay dormant then reappear when conditions are right. Either way, it's not something we shouldn't be concerned with at all
It might be a different strain, but it might also be easier to mutate a strain into it then to culture fresh sampled to be experimented on until a new vaccine is created assuming we don't forget how to make it for that specific problem.
One of the problems with collecting the virus when there is an epidemic is that your workers possess a serious risk of becoming infected too. So you need to set up some serious protections and pray for the best. It would go a lot quicker already having the strain in a workable culture that could be called up in a controlled environment as soon as the strain is identified. I think it just makes more sense to keep it.
From evolution if you buy into that sciency stuff. Yep, that's right Evolution created Small pox to begin with- bit God or the Devil in order to punish something.
Small pox rears it's head in different times of the historical record and I cannot find any timeline tracking it's movement from one part of the world to another to nothing because of the vaccine.
So something either causes something else to mutate, it can be carried by animals or insects and isn't actually non-existant, or something else that causes it to appear, disappear then reappear.
To protect the workers who will have to create and distribute more doses of the vaccine should an outbreak happen.
It's somewhat hard to do this or get people to do it, when they will become ill and not able to get the job done in a week or so.
Well, think about what kind of useful information can be obtained here.
Let's say I monitor your home and notice that ever night, between a certain 15 minute segment, the some lights are turn off and others are turned on momentarily. Let's also say that on certain days, one of those lights is to the laundry room. So I show up and look through the window at that specific time and find you start a load of laundry just before going to bed on a certain night. I come back on the next scheduled time, break in and rob you blind while you sleep and the sound of the washer covers my efforts.
But let's go further. Suppose every three weeks, I notice the lights in your garage come on at a certain time and the flood light in your drive way. Oh, so the man of the house works the swing shift. Now I come over when your all alone either just before he gets home or just after he gets home.
Of course there are alarms which is likely to be present in an automated home. Out prison is full of criminals who didn't care about them too. And I'm sure there are some who got around that problem.
Isn't there a historical lighting exemption too?
I think all the ban is doing is allowing the light bulb manufacturers charge more for the same product dressed up as the same different things.
Maybe they just don't want their light bulbs exposed to the interweb.
-so a would be attacker couldn't turn your lights out with his google app before entering your home and attacking.
Do you mean it's not unsatisfactory evidence for Dick Cheney to say Iraq had WMDs to support Bush's claim we need to go to war with them? I mean after all, we are talking about a political appointment/entity making a statement of validity about the claims of another political entity. But hey, if you think we should believe everything the government or people in the government says at face value and never question it, I guess you got a point.
Well, lets look at this scientifically. If the number is completely out of whack, we know right off the bat that it's fake. If it's inline, then we can look at the serial numbers before and after or even wait for someone to say hey, that's the same number I got. But there is a code with the serial numbers that breaks down the year it was created so a mathematical formula could be applied to test the validity of the time and date in the least..
But we do have access to it. Birth records are publicly available in all states. It's one of the longest standing functions of government. Unfortunately in this case, the governor of Hawaii blocked inquiries to Obama's birth records to avoid a flood of requests that would have overwhelmed their services.
Could be that it does suck. Anyways, I looked at a few pages and they all seem to link to a video that shows some interesting claims. are you saying those claims are wrong? And if so, what makes them wrong?
And they all seems to be pointing to one person saying it's a forgery. I don't think that's much more then repeating a story just like it wasn't a mass media conspiracy when they repeated Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs. Most of the pages I browsed through didn't have any comments and others seemed to have the same comments in different order as if it's a set up of some sort.
I never said I wasn't satisfied with it. I have said in the past that Obama purposely chose to keep this alive for whatever purpose he had because he held within his power to derail it from the start and refused to do so for 4 years. Also, His long form birth certificate is the first document that has been released to the public that has not been obfuscated in some way Everything else has have serial numbers or seals blackened out making the fact checking on their validity impossible.
He could have simply released that without removing the serial numbers then it could have been validated. IT would have been no biggie. But they way it was played out was like someone claiming what goes up, must come down, then having a guy throw a ball down off the roof of a house as proof. Sure the ball went down, but there was always the question of did gravity cause it or the guy throwing it.
You mean just a couple years after the CBS fake Bush military discipline records, you think it's logical to trust a political entity or even a news agency reporting those facts when they only way you can verify it was removed from the record? Come on, are you sure you weren't filled with hope and change instead of facts?
Nope. Probably a little overly skeptical but definitely not irrational. Something you either didn't pay attention to, or just didn't care about, is the problem with not being able to verify it because the document purposely had the only means to do so obscured.
You mean the person who saw a drop in the polling numbers when they brought it up claiming to be satisfied is proof to you? And this is real evidence given that politicians quite often tell the people one thing then do another, especially when it's in support of their party? My, you must have some sort of disconnect with reality.
Everyone, Really? You know this for certain or is this just in your head? I know people you would call birthers and they are satisfied now. I've spoken with some birthers online and while they don't like the answer, they are satisfied now.
You know why they are satisfied that he's a natural born citizen? It's because this document, like the first one he released, had the serial numbers in tact and while his Birth records were sealed, you can look at others born around the same time and make the connection that the serial number should have been in use around the stated time frame.
SO I don't know who you are claiming is saying
The DMCA is nothing more then the protections implemented from the WIPO Treaties, WCT And the WPPT and codified into law. The punshments for those new crimes is left to the country making the laws, but it has to be strict enough to show compliance with the treaties.
The European Union as a legislative body, signed onto the WPPT on Dec 20 1996, ratified it Dec 14 2009 and are obligated to enforce it by March 14 2010. The US signed onto the WPPT April 12, 1997, ratified it, September 14 1999 and were obligated to enforce it by may 20 2002.
The EU again was before the US with the WTC. The EU signed the treaty Dec 20 1996, ratified it December 14 2009, and were to enforce it's provisions by March 14 2010. The US didn't sign on until April 12 1997, ratified it September 14 1999, and were obligated to enforce it March 6 2002.
Note, the ratification and entry into force dates for the EU was later, but they clearly signed the agreement stating their intentions to take care of it before the US did. The US ratified and entered into force faster so it gives the appearance of being pushed by the US when in reality that is only an illusions. We followed Europe once again on this. The main difference is we were quicker to the punch then they were so people noticed and incorrectly assumed we were pushing our laws. The real story is we signed onto it following Europe and complained that they haven't did what they said they would do. I suspect strong opposition after seeing the US laws purposed and taking effect to why it's taken so long and why some countries still haven't implements it yet even though they are obligated to follow the treaties.
Now it should also be noted that this isn't making any statements to anything about media companies or RIAA or whatever being behind it. If they are/were, then they convinced the governments of Europe before the US.
You do realize that while the US is fighting to get compliance with copyright laws, almost all of them have been pushed by Europe first.
That is to say, the US only changed it's copyright laws to match those or Europe and treaties entered into. In fact, the DMCA clause comes right out of a WIPO treaty that the EU took action on before the US even ratified it into law.
If you must create a scenario, it should be more like, we all agreed to this, why aren't you implementing it. And yes, you can go look at the WIPO treaties and see this for itself. Even the mickeymouse copyright extension act was passed after a treaty was developed in which the EU passed the same legislation called a directive on harmonizing copyright terms. I can cite timelines if you really need them. But I've tossed enough information out there that your google finger should end up painting a pretty clear picture.
Boy are you willfully ignorant. There was plenty of evidence to cause validity in the question. If he would have been born just 2-3 three years earlier in the same place his birth certificate says, he would not be a natural born citizen. People have constructed timelines from dates given in Obama's books and books about him that put his birth earlier then it was or even on a different continent. Obviously, these dates were wrong either in the interpretations or the mentioning in the books. But to say there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever at all is a little like closing your eyes and saying I don't exist.
While this might be evidence to you, it certainly isn't weighted evidence at all. His opponent who brought this up originally was Hillary Clinton who ended up seeing a drop in polling numbers after bringing it up, always did have a "for the party" over the "for the people" mentality. This was evident even when her husband was president. McCain not running with it from there is just another sign of why McCain lost the election. He's an idiot and chose to stay away from it so he wouldn't see the same drop in polling numbers Hillary did.
This is completely meaningless. They do not check your qualifications to inagurate you. Someone has to challenge that and it needs to go through the courts. Someone did try to challenge that, and he was shot down for not having standing- not because anyone found Obama to be a natural born citizen.
Wrong. The law at the time of Obama's birth stated a time limit you could be away from the US and required an intent to return to make you a naturally born citizen. Again, there was a record according to Obama's own books that seemed to suggest this might be a problem for him. But simply being a citizen isn't enough to be the US president. You have to be naturally born into citizenship. This is defined by law and it wasn't at all clear with the law at the time of his birth if he would have been considered natural born or not. No one was ever claiming he wasn't a citizen, the claim has always been that he didn't meet the constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen.
Not according to the laws at the time. Fuck dude, do you understand that the laws change and what is legally binding today might have been different 50 years ago? You should forget your ignorance and actually pay attention to the arguments that were put forth. So far, there is only one thing you have presented that is remotely accurate and that's open to interpretation on it's value.
Despite that evidence having about as much weight as it's true it's in the bible, it appears you are the pot calling the kettle black.
How do your reconcile the fact that the birthers wanted to see the birth certificate from the start, after years of stonewalling, it was finally revealed. something that could have been done years ago and put this all to rest. It's like getting pulled over for speeding an
The entire foreigner thing, I don't care if he's a Muslim, stems froma constitutional requirement of the elected office. Think of it as something like a foreigner moves into your neighborhood, stays there long enough to become known, then runs for and becomes elected to the highest political office in your land.
Going past the concept of requiring a natural born citizen being in the constitution to avoid presidents with loyalties to a mother country, the biggest problem is all the laws that will be signed into law if he turned out to not meet the constitutional requirements and the courts threw out his entire presidency. Can you imagine all the work that would need to be redone, all the laws that would need to be combed through, all the people who violate those laws claiming immunity from prosecution because they weren't constitutionally passed. There will be commitments and negotiations with foreign nations that would be negated and need to be redone else they would have an out from treaties and so on.
So while this may appear like just a racist issue or a form of idiocy, that is only because you are judging a book by it's cover and nothing to do with the content. Being an outsider, I can understand you getting the cliff notes version from the loudest complainers. But we have citizens that simple refuse to look at the real issues here. This is something that simply needs to be taken seriously, he should have released the document years ago when Hillary Clinton's campaign brought it up.
Where is the definition that declares them to be irrational? I mean seriously, they asked for a birth certificate, It was withheld for almost 4 years, someone crudely laid out a time line from books authored by or about Obama and it showed a possible conflict with the reported fact. By scientific terms, it would be inconclusive which sort of makes them more rational then the people who took him at his word for it. In fact, in real life right now, the exact opposite of what you said seems to be true with the conflicts between the religious age of the earth and the scientific view. Yet you seem to be taking the stand of the religious and simply saying because you were told to and somehow without the birth certificate, all non believers are irrational.
Seriously think about that, let your dogma go and think about that before replying.
Yes, because it serves no purpose for religious nutters to prove what they already know- the earth is 6000 years old and people were created. I'm also not sure producing a birth certificate to ensure a person meets the qualifications of a job is what I would consider extraordinary. I needed to produce one to get a drivers license when I originally received one. I know they changed that in some states now. But I don't think it's extraordinary by any means. Hell, I just got a copy of mine and it cost a whopping $14. Are you sure you didn't take a class on using adjectives to make things seem ridiculous or something?
I'm sure it does to a true believer like you. However, for those of us grounded by facts and empirical evidence, it doesn't seem out of place to ask someone to provide proof of their claims. I definitely wouldn't call it making them look stupid. They may feel stupid after all these years thinking there might have been something wrong because the release of a simple document was being blocked in an attempt to goad them into furthering that skepticism. But I see it as no different then someone claiming theory water is wet and then waiting 5 years to produce any experiments or documentation backing it up only to do so then turn around and claim everyone else is an idiot for not taking their word for it.
In other words, I think you have a lot more problems then the birthers do. And no, I'm not one of them. I did however point out that Obama thought he saw some sort of advantage to keeping the conspiracy alive which is why he didn't release the birth certificate in the first place.
What sort of brainwashing are you talking about? I have never seen any references to this you speak of until now. Can you provide any links or at least explain it a bit?
Dude, are you sure you are not confusing the word Keynesian with Keynan? word is, that Obama is a Keynesian, but people have no clue what that means.
What makes the difference if he was a birther or not? I mean seriously, the question had been put out there and Obama pulled a Saddam and purposely obfuscated it to make it appear like something was wrong while saying it was legit all a long.
You can't discredit someone when the information to negate their concerns has been withheld for 3 years. No matter how you look at it, you cannot deny that Obama wanted the conspiracy to be there and for it to last as long as it did, else he would have released the birth certificate a long time ago, before he was even elected president when Hillary's campaign brought it up. Birthers are nothing more then a creation of Obama's own unwillingness to clear up the question of his naturalization.
I doubt we could build a fancy hut like that in the USA and have it certified as residential or habitable. From the looks of it, it's a small crackerbox house, with apartments in the rear that we would typically call a storage shed,. ( I rent two storage spaces to store useless junk with sentimental value in that appear to be bigger then each room in the outbuilding.)
Well, unless you mean costing that much to grease the hands of the building and code enforcement and zoning commission or something. Then possibly, yes, you could put a slum like that up somewhere where there is a population higher then 30.
Then get all the exemptions out there with science too. Tell them that the theory of evolution as currently state might not be accurate and it's subject to change whenever something new and convincing is found. Tell them right off the bat, that even evidence of creation (panspermia or simple aliens) is possible to change the theory of evolution into a creation theory. Tell them that it may be that the so called previous species could actually be the same species and it's largely a set of semantics defining what a species it in the first place.
I mean if you seriously insist on all these disclaimers that something might not be true, then let by all means have them instead of pretending that science is the one true faith.
BTW, I used the word faith there competently. If you are thinking about saying non of that can happen, you obviously have taken science outside the real of science. A theory, no matter how supported it may be, has to retain the ability to be falsifiable in order to remain scientific. If you don't believe anything could ever change the theory of evolution from what it is today, you have entered the same realm of faith that religious nutters are using to demand their version is correct. How likely something is to change it or not is irrelevant because as soon as you say can't, it's not science either.
The problem is that it isn't being taught as the theory is or even in a scientific way. It's being taught as the truth and nothing else could be truer.
This sends little johney and sally home telling mom and dad that the bible is wrong not because they figured it out once the material was tossed at them, but because MR Johnson, the English and literature teacher by skill and degree, told them so in his biology class that he was forced to teach in order to keep a job.
In short, it's a matter of under-qualified people on the subject making incorrect or inaccurate claims which brings this crap to the attention of the religious who want equal time to prevent it.
You better look up the meaning of strawman and perhaps it would be better if you used real worlds.
All treaties are self serving. It doesn't make sense to give up something without gaining something in return. And what you fail to understand here is that Australia will uphold their end of the treaty willingly as they have in the past for lesser crimes.
You pretend that the US is the only country to benefit from such a treaty, you are completely wrong. The treaties other countries enter into is because they saw a benefit and value in entering into them. If they withdraw from those treaties, we will discuss the rules then. As of now, you even bringing that up is saying little more then in your imaginary world you are right and then proclaiming that makes you right in reality. This is a complete fallacy. We are discussing the way things are, not how you want them to be.
Do you speak for New Zealand? It doesn't really matyter because he is not there right now, he is in the custody of countries who aren't afraid to hand him over. And even if they returned him to his homeland, as I already pointed out, Australia will extradite lesser people for less of a crime. And that is where he would be deported to.
Again, all this rethink bullshit you are bringing up is nothing but what you want to be real. until it is, do not pretend it is real.
And none the less, it happened. Your objection to it as being ludicrous or something does not change that fact. Your objection is little more then an acknowledgment that you don't like it. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop pretending it has some sort of weight that isn't faithfully considered in reality.
You have showed absolutely nothing but speculation in your own mind that any of the treaties will not be honored or that they aren't mutual. I have showed that not only have they been honored in the past, that they were mutual as it didn't take an invasion to get these people, they were arrested and extradited by that country's police force and government.
So stop acting like what exists only in your mind is somehow connected to the reality we live in. It isn't. Either stick with reality or kiss off and go play know it all with your gullible friends.