This is completely wrong. Other people would have the right to take away you specific medium for speech if they own that medium, such as a news paper not printing an article, or a TV station censoring a video. They do not have the right to stop you from finding another medium for your expression. Not that it even applies here since we are talking about federal government agencies attempting to infringe upon Manning's right to free speech (again, if Manning was even the one that revealed the information which has yet to be proven).
Really, so you have no objections to me putting a sign in your front yard saying you are a baby rapist and you live there? with a picture and an arrow pointing to your front door? If I move that sign to the public sidewalk and off you yard, do you still have no objections? The first amendment only stops government and government controlled entities from removing your free speech rights. It stops nothing else.
Are you speaking of the constitutionally protected right of state sovereignty so long as it does not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, that has been trampled upon for the last 50 or more years? Or are you talking about the US federal government's protection from law suits? Or do you think we live in a monarchy and that the president rules over the US as if he were a god? Not sure what any of that has to do with the right of the US government to maintain secrets from the citizens of the United States, but I'm sure you must have had a point there somewhere.
Obviously that is something new to you. I'm talking about the right of a nation to exist. It carries certain rights within it that do not need to be spelled out in a constitution or articles of confederation. You should learn about this as it's used brightly in some of the more controversial court rulings like the border searches and stuff and were completely in use at the time of the founding of this country by the founding fathers. With repsect to the border searches without warrant, the very first congress of the United States authorized them by law passed in the second session which was signed by President George Washington and up help by the US supreme court on the same grounds.
And those that support this type of violation of the Constitution should be held accountable for their crimes. I wouldn't say that has to go as far as to punish people that spout off about it on the internet, so you're probably safe, but the congressmen, presidents and other elected and appointed officials should be held accountable for their violations. And no the right of sovereignty does not protect those individuals from such legal recourse.
Yes, I agree. We should abandon social security, medicare, the NEA, DOE, federal protections to unions who have exemptions to the Sherman anti trust legislation, and several more things. We should hold the politicians trying to do this accountable. The problem is, when you look at it with a honest face, you find things that you like in there and ignore those violations. That's allows others to ignore their favorite violations. This allows you to become completely confused to what the US constitution actually says and does. The US government was never intended to be a government over the people of the US.. It was always intended to be a head of state for the collective states within the union with a few domestic duties outlined in the constitution. And in case you are confused with state being used twice there, head of state means foreign relations which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs not domestic (department of the interior)
And so do I. I hope that he gets a fair trial in which it is show that if he did reveal this information, that it is the right of the US citizenry to know the actions of their elected and appointed officials. Of course we would have to stop violating Manning's constit
I'm not going to argue semantics. You can say rebel instead of traitor, but that does change the actions taken.
Semantics is the very issue here. else you might as well just said they are all Blue or something if words aren't dictated by their definitions.
The more important part is that if it turns out it was Manning that revealed this information, he was acting in accordance with the US Constitution. All persons in the United States have a protected right to the freedom of speech and of the press.
Again, you are skipping over the details in order to paint a fucked picture. He has his own freedom of speech buy he does not have the right to take things from someone else and blab it. Especially when there is a law saying he can't do just that. Stop trying to be an idiot here.
All persons, not just citizens, and not just civilians
Whoever told you that? The constitution doesn't actually say everyone has freedom of speech, it says congress shall make no laws.
The only place it calls out a difference between civilians and military personnel is during times of war or public danger. We are not currently at war, and it has not been show that the revelation of this information has caused any public danger. Those that wish to deny Manning's, or who ever's, right to freedom of speech and the press are not traitors but are violating the the protected rights of persons of the United States. These are the true criminals who need to brought to trial.
First, we are at war. Whoever told you we weren't lied to you. Probably to fill your head with a bunch of nonsense so you would be a useful idiot. The courts already have stated that the actual word "war" does not need to be used in taking us to war. Congress approved us going to war.
Second, you seriously have no clue what the constitution actually says do you? It's perfectly valid for a citizen to take someone's free speech rights away. Slashdot could kick you off the server and your constitutional rights would not have been violated. Get a fucking clue.
On the other hand, the right of elected and appointed government personal to operate in secret without the consent of the citizens of the United States is not protected by the US Constitution. And those that attempt to protect the governments ability to operate in secret are the real betrayers of the citizens of the United States. Luckily for you and others betraying the Citizens, or even being a traitor, is not illegal./i>
Has you ever heard of a concept called the right of sovereignty? Or even sovereign immunity? I suggest you go back to I'm a dumb ass school before trolling with just blatant ignorance in the future.
I'm not even sure why you bring the US constitution up anyways. I doubt with your understanding of it that you are actually a citizen. But that's neither here nor there because the US constitution has not been followed for a long time. Starting with the civil war, and moving leaps forward with FDR as president up to and including the current president, the US government has picked and chose which parts of the constitution apply at any given time depending on their agenda at the time.
I hope Manning gets what he deserves. I think he deserves death by firing squad too. Being the traitor that he is, he is one step below al qeada attacking the pentagon and stealing the information and releasing it. At least with them, we know they are the enemy. Manning pretended to be loyal then betrayed that trust places with him. HE is the lowest form of low and you probably are too seeing how you want to stick up for him.
I'm confused, because you seem to be arguing for creationism, but you don't seem to actually understand the mindset of its proponents well at all. Most creationist proponents believe that anyone who disbelieves their teaching will suffer forever in some afterlife. It's their belief that anything which detracts from their teaching in any way is morally wrong.
I'm not arguing for creationism at all. I'm arguing against science disproving it when it hasn't or somehow taking a person's right to hold a belief away. And even if creationist believe others will go to hell or Deny's or whatever if they don't believe in their religion, it's irrelevant as science doesn't speak to religion and that belief doesn't speak to science making a claim within science. It's not until the claim is made outside of science where a conflict exists at all.
Creationists don't really want ID + Evolution taught.
Your right. They want evolution taught in a way that doesn't tell little Johny that their religion is bunk which happens way to much today.
They want evolution destroyed because it doesn't exactly match their scriptures.
I'm sure there are a few who believe this way, but they are in the extreme minority. Evolution does not disprove creation at all. IF you think it does, then science has become a religion for you.
But, they've been fighting this battle for 100 years and know they can't win in the classroom with creationism only.
I don't know anyone who wants creationism only. In fact, I know several religous schools that do teach the scriptures that also teach evolution. They just do so in the context of science and don't make absolute statements about religion with it.
So, they want to use ID as a way to pry into science curriculum. If every classroom in the nation were teaching evolution and ID, you can bet (I would) the next move would be to allow teachers the right to choose whether or not to include evolution in their class studies.
I think you should really think about your paranoid delusions. Now you basing your objections on what you fear might happen.
This is why creationism shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.
I'm confused, could you state why? We have genetically altered and species and showed that we can create new species so it's not like creation is a complete stretch.
But when I said you couldn't disprove anything, I mean things in science as well.
Any reputable theory (except maybe string theory) has experiments (even thought experiments) that can give results which would cast doubt/disprove a theory.
Sure, but I don't believe I was ever arguing that creation was a theory. I have always argued that the existence of a theory doesn't discredit creation, even if the theory seems to be true. I have argued that to supplant one belief with the other is the same mental process as involved with either belief in the first place. And doing that in schools ends up pushing a religious belief onto others which is just as bad as pushing religion in the schools.
So there was a time when it was believed that different breeds of dogs were so varied that they could not all be the same species. Then scientific investigation into the matter found that not only are they all part of the same species, they all descend from a common progenitor akin to wolves. An example of people absolutely believing one thing (as you imagine above) that was ultimately undone by sincere scientific inquiry, not leaps of faith and certainly not "semantics" either.
lol..NO. It's actually quite the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was attempting to say if we had no knowledge of them at all other then their fossils, we would classify them as different species based on their divergence of breeds alone. It's reality that allows us to know they are the same species because we interact with them daily.
Nice work in trying to press your science as superior though. That's the work of a true believer.
Utterly ridiculous. You're claiming that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence that evolution can be dismissed?
Not at all. I'm saying that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence, you have to use your imagination to connect the dots and make the claims evolution makes. In this regard, you are essentially asking religious people to replace their imagined scenario with your imagined scenarios because you think you are right even though they think they are too.
Scientists hypothesize based on available facts. They then work to see if those hypotheticals point to new discoveries, and if new discoveries are made that relate to the hypothesis, they test those notions against newly acquired facts. If the hypothesis holds up for long enough in the face of repeated testing it becomes a theory (still open to review and disproving).
Just because they test their imagination doesn't make it any less their imagination nor does it make it accurate. The entire principle of science is that it can be wrong and corrected- even after years of thinking it was right. IF you deny that, you would simply be wrong.
What doesn't happen is one bloke finding a fossil that appears to be of a fish-like creature going around trying to convince Christians that fish used to live in rocks since fossils are quite 'rock-like' in their consistency just because he's using his "imagination" to determine what he'd like to think is true.
I'm not sure you have a point here, but in case you do, what is it?
Creationists are being asked to do nothing more than be open to the notion that as new information and facts come to light that old beliefs may come crashing down.
Why? I mean religion isn't even scientific so why is science demanding religions to abandon their beliefs at all? Certainly there is no problem with someone holding religios beliefs and scientific beliefs at the same time and applying them when appropriate is there? Why is it that you seem to insist that any non-scientific entity has to shape it's beliefs to mold your reality?
Here is a hint, even if evolution is entirely possible and would be the explanation of how life evolved into the complexity it is today naturally, it still doesn't disprove anything about creation. It only makes a statement that it isn't needed or that it can be done a different way.
Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't try to suggest that the faithful are entitled to invalidate scientific inquiry because it doesn't have every possible shred of evidence on everything, when they do not require ANY shred of evidence to justify continuing to cling to their childish superstitions.
Actually, I was saying the entire opposite. Scientific discovery isn't able to invalidate religious theory based on evidence of something being a possibility. Hell, scientific discovery doesn't even do that to scientific theory based on something else being a possibility. So why are you insisting that is must be done with religion?
We're trying to get them to shut up and to stop pressing their backwards agenda via subversive legislation. We don't care if they make their own lives a pit of self inflicted ignorant misery but fuck all if we'll let them dilute laws and school books with anti-intellectual nonsense.
I repeat, I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with. I attempted to explain it, you must have gotten lost somewhere in between "it" and "is".
In order to maintain their internally consistent world view they don't respond to, or don't recognize any sort of legitimate science authority so you have no basis for an argument. At times, i feel the only tools we have are humiliation and belittling. Once, just once, I'd like to see a legislate stand up before congress or a state assembly and say "On behalf of all the free-thinking, brilliant souls of this country:/Fuck off/"
What in the hell are you rambling on about? I have never seen anyone who believes in creation think that way. Perhaps if you would keep your thinking in line with reality, you could see their issue more clearly and wouldn't be so frightened by it.
No, the problem is that retards like you equate creationism to a scientific theory. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT. It doesn't provide testable hypotheses, and therefore does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom.
Perhaps you should open your eyes and read the damn shit in front of you. I have never said religion or creation is a scientific theory. In fact, what I said here was that science shouldn't be making claims about creation or a religion in the first place. And yes, that is because of the same damn reasons you have mentioned above.
Talk about it in Philosophy or Religion classes, talk about it at church. Fine. But pushing creationism as an "alternative" theory is right up there with teaching kids that leprechauns are responsible for making all the gold in the world.
I have never pushed creationism as an alternative theory to evolution. I have said evolution doesn't disprove creationism but I think you already know that. More specifically, what I said in the post you are replying to is that science cannot teach a subject at a place where the population is compelled to attend, in a way that says their religion is false. When that is done, no one will care about science holding a different opinion then someone else as long as people know the facts of the opinion when dealing with the subject at hand.
Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.
What in the world makes you think it would be ill educated people? Religions play a large role in the interactions and behaviors of people and if you don't know how that effects some, you are the one who is ill educated. I never said indoctrinate them into the religion.
Why teach something that is wrong?
Because you do not know it is wrong. IF you think you do, then you are acting in the same way the religious are and are wrong yourself. Even if evolution as we know it now is completely on the mark in how a single cell entity can divide and create this complex diversity we see in nature today, it still does not mean creation is wrong. It just means it isn't needed.
Children don't have enough real facts to learn that we have to make shit up to teach them
"We" didn't make anything up. Someone a long time ago might have, but we will likely never know if it was made up or not and you certainly do not know. Religion is a fundamental human right. Denying someone that right is simply wrong. Trying to make them think only as you do is even more wrong.
I'm not sure, could you ever disprove anything other then trying it and it not working or witnessing the supposed act and noting or recording the differences?
I'm not saying by any means that creationism is science, I'm saying that it isn't disproved by science nor could it. But that doesn't mean it never happened or that it never could happen. At best, science has found a way that didn't need it to happen.
Following your argument through to its logical conclusion means that if any claim by any religious sect contradicts the school curriculum we could no longer teach that topic. It is not just creationism, by the time you add in the beliefs of the raelians, scientologists and every other cult out there, you'd not be able to teach anything at all. Should we not teach Native American history because the mormons tell us they are a lost tribe of Israel and therefore teaching their real history is now prohibited by seperation of church and state? What a ludicrous concept.
Nonsense. They have been doing it for years without any problem. You see, you teach it within the scope it is in and not as an absolute that trumps any religious beliefs. The reason why roman and Greek mythology isn't infringing is because it is taught in a way that says this is what these people believe or believed. You can teach evolution within the realm of science and not make any statements about any other beliefs or religions held.
Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.
Well, if evolution was instructed as how you just claimed, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem creationist see from a government forced propaganda machine that is the school is that science and evolution is being taught in class in ways that leave the student believing there is no other way. That's where the issue comes in and why the vast majority of ID or creation intrusions seem to be centered around the entire concept of something else could be true too. And that really is the problem people are having with ID, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia, allowing other things to remain possible instead of shoving evolution as the only way.
You comment is really interesting because it shows how ignorant of the problem you actually are.
You can have a decent life because you don't need to know how a hybrid electric automobile works, this is fair comment, so should schools be allowed to teach that small fairies and leprechauns sprinkle each motor with magic dust and that's what makes it work?
If that was a belief held and circulated for thousands of years and thought to have something to do with your existence after death, then yes, they should be able to teach it or in the least, allow it to stand. However, seeing how that's not the case, your analogy simply fails.
Allowing children to remain ignorant of the theory of evolution is one thing, actively teaching them that creationism is just as valid as evolution is quite the other.
The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.
Your analogies are ridiculous and they fail spectacularly. They fail because we're not only talking about ignorance of subject matter, but also actively teaching an alternative "theory" (it's not a real theory because it can't be tested) which is based on hand-waving, supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Not all children will grow up to specialise in fields that require them to know about the theory of evolution, just as most won't need to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine, but why fuck them up before they begin?
Most children are capable of using X with Y and T with S. I do not see a problem with any child knowing of both as long as they know where it belongs. And do not think for a minute that it's too complicated for them as they do it right now when changing controllers to play the same or similar games on different gaming devices or computers. IF the children know of creation or ID or the flying spaghetti monster, it will not fuck them up any more then Pluto not being a planet now has fucked up almost 50 years of students.
It's not just about some petty squabble between two different ideologies. People are railing against a culture of willful ignorance and an inability to think critically that could have extremely serious implications in the future. If you can look further than the end of your own nose, you should be worried.
Nonsense. Anyone who is going to be in the position to impact the future will have went to college and the topic is covered there quite well. Your grasping for straws here. No one graduating high school will ever invent the newest drug or cure any disease that a high school level of biology or science will give them. They will have taken college or they will find someone who was in college to further anything they might come close to finding. Furthermore, the kids who would want to go into a field where this knowledge might remotely be deemed important, are the same kids who already know the knowledge. Knowing about creation, religion, or anything contrary to science does not stop kids from critically thinking.
I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with.
First, let me ask, what exactly are you trying to persuade the creationist into doing?
We have species that look alike presently. We had canines for instance, that if we knew nothing about them other then their fossils, we would probably call different animals. So evolution as in one species becoming another and splitting and become yet another in the fossil record is a little of semantics to begin with. But more importantly, it's largely is not completely an inference from what we can see. Without the complete chain, it's literally someone's imagination building off the available evidence to come to a conclusion.
So if you are asking a creationist to supplant the concept of a god of their imagination that created everything with a concept of your imagination that this became that, and these two separate creatures were the offspring of the same parent species, you are probably going to have to show them without any gaps. Otherwise, you are essentially saying trust me, I got all this evidence which sort of seems like all the different breeds of dogs, cattle, or sheep or whatever, but it's actually not because we don't know much about them other then what we can imagine from their bones.
We can boil it down even further to the least complex scenario. You are essentially asking creationist to trust your imagination over their own because you said so and lots of others agree despite the fact that some other book said so also and a lot of others agree. If you want to persuade them, then offer them more then they already have with their existing beliefs. Right now, it's just different, not more when you look at the core of it.
If you are a US citizen then you would not have a country to call home if it where not for these "bad" people in history. The founding fathers of this country were traitors.
Not quite. The founding fathers were rebels. They didn't pretend to hold the kings country dear then work to destroy it. Instead, they rebelled. There is a huge difference there.
Traitors are now and have always been necessary for countering governmental corruption. We would be a much better country, and world for that matter, if more people had the courage to be traitors.
You obviously do no know what a traitor is and do not know what you are talking about. The soviets got Nukes because of traitors that think like you. Was the cold war and military buildup something that made this country better?
Most people who have been labeled hero's in history were also traitors.
Look up the definition of traitor then name a few. I bet they do not fit that definition.
So your statement that "a traitor is simply bad all the way around" does not seem to hold true over the course of time.
It certainly does when you have a dictionary at your disposal. The key defining word there would be betray.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/betray â"verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country. 2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust. 3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends. 4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret. 5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity. 6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern. 7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly. 8. to seduce and desert.
A revolutionist, rebel, or separatist does not betray. They abandon maybe but not betray.
If Manning is the person that revealed this information, then he has already be responsible for more democratic change than any US official in history (with the possible exception of the founding fathers).
He also deserves the punishment to the fullest extent of the law. You see, unlike the heros you pretend he is akin to, Manning did still pretend to be loyal to the country he rebelled from. There are plenty of legal ways to create change without being a traitor. That's one of the key foundations of a democracy and the separation of powers.
Oh noes.. I offended the trolls with mod points and they wasted it all on all of my recent posts. What will I ever do but post again so someone see is and wonders what I'm talking about then clicks the parent button.
I bet those people are they same ones yelling free speech and all that crap too. This is hilarious.
NO.. Stop confusing accounting "terms" with other accounting "principals". It all gets accounted for and generally budgeted but definitely and paid for. The term on budget and off budget only means whether it's negotiated with the rest of the budget or not. All sorts of things are dealt with off budget like disaster aid.
The difference is that the budget as you are thinking is not the entire balance sheet or budget for the US. It's handled or should be handled off budget just like any temporary emergency spending should be. OR do you think we should budget 900 billion dollars for disaster relief in every budget because if a disaster strikes, we have to pay for it out of our money which is the budget and no other way to spend it?
You have to remember, some people think the government is entitled to all the money, they just allow you to keep some of what you earn. With this mentality, giving someone a tax break is spending the money in a way other then they think it should be. And God forbid you have more money then they do, else you are evil and need more of it taken.
To them, tax breaks is spending money on things other then what they want to spend it on.
The funding for the wars do not belong on the budget. It's stupid to even think about putting them. Wars are supposed to be temporary things and should be off budget so congress has to debate refunding them and examine their course every so often. Putting them on budget does nothing but make the spending permanent as congress has never voted to spend less then they already were, just less then what they wanted to increase it too.
Now do not confuse cuts in certain programs as spending less. It is less for that program but it's not less on the whole of spending. With the wars on budget, congress will simply spend the money somewhere else once the wars are over or don't need as much money. With the wars off budget, congress has to go through an entire process to get the ability to spend the money for anything other then the wars and when the need for the money isn't there, the funding simply disappears.
Also, the budget does not equate to spending. As you have already pointed out, the spending happens anyways. The ass load of money Obama is blamed on increasing the debt with, is counting the on budget as well as off budget items. So signaling the difference between Bush and Obama's primary budget gets us no where buy in a discussion about how utterly stupid it is to have not one, but two very expensive wars in it. You would be better served pointing to the stimulus bail outs and blaming Bush for pushing the expense to Obama's calculator.
i'd say he would have a better idea than most of the keyboard warriors on here considering he has seen the full list and (i'm assuming) you and i haven't.
That's good if I would have said we knew better. I did not however. But there are people in that position and they get paid to make those calls. If manning seriously thought they were doing the job wrong, he could have went to his superiors, their superiors, the justice department, the US congress armed services comity (and they even have the classifications to view it too) or even the president himself and lodged a complaint. He didn't and here we are.
If he was careless, in what way could that have been improved and not had the same impact? easy to say "he was careless" but he really didn't have another option to do the right thing.
See above. Then look at it again.
also, who says that the lives that are put in danger from the release are worth any more than the lives that are lost and covered by not releasing?
Well, I am to say. You don't win wars or keep friends by letting them and your side get hurt while protecting your enemies. Worth is a relative term anyways, worth what to whom? Well, seeing how it's the government's data, you have to judge the worth from that perspective. Needless to say, all of it could have been avoided if he would have simply stayed within proper channels available to him.
obviously he is still a traitor to the American government, this makes him as bad (in my books) as a traitor to the Chinese government.
A traitor to anyone's own government is bad anyways. So yes, he is just as bad as a traitor to Iraq's government and just as bad as a traitor to the UK's government, to Germany's government, to France's government to what ever government.
I'm not sure what you were trying to get at there. But yes, a traitor is simply bad all the way around.
Perhaps, and if the crime was espionage, they might have a case. But anything short of that would come up empty. Wikileaks is not based in the United States, and most of its membership is non-American. Assange in particular could not be charged with any crime short of espionage, as he is not a US national and his alleged acts occurred on European soil.
IT doesn't matter if they are not in the US or any country for that matter. When you conspire with someone to violate the laws within a nation, you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the laws of that nation.This is an established long arm concept that is used all over the world. It's generally supported by almost all countries when the violation wasn't something that is somehow considered an international right.
For instance, if I conspired over the internet with your neighbor to collect your credit card information and defraud you from bumfuckistan where the laws are so primitive they don't legally recognize a credit card let alone identity theft, I am not protected from my part in that crime. Your country can seek my extradition, arrest, and prosecution for the laws in your country. Whether they get it or not is another story entirely but if doesn't magically make what I did legal.
So yeah, this Justice Department witch hunt feels a lot like a case of shooting the messenger. Unless, that is, you honestly believe that what Assange did could somehow be construed as spying for a foreign power....
No, the Justice department which hunt is an investigation to determine if a fucking law has been broken in which case they will either attempt to prosecute or drop it altogether. You see, even in your own country, the normal process is that an investigation happens. At the end of this investigation, it's the prosecutors who go before a magistrate or grand jury (depending on where you are I guess), and tries to convince them that there is enough evidence to prosecute. If that happens and they decide there is enough evidence that both, a crime happened, and that someone in particular was in violation of the law in that regard, then they are prosecuted.
The only thing happening different here is that you want to assume the role of the grand jury and do away with the investigation because of your own personal prejudices. Well, if he is so innocent of anything, then let it play out and he will be legally vindicated in the process. But by all means, you and your third rate legal degree are not the arbitrators of whether a law has been broken or not. As I said before, we do not know if a law has been broken or not and that's what an investigation is for.
Wikileaks might have committed a crime. If they conspired with Manning in any way in order to encourage or enable or further manings crime, they have committed a conspiracy to commit the same crime regardless of where they are located at. We do not yet know whether wikileaks committed a crime or not. That's what an investigation is for.
I'm not even sure if your inhumane treatment is close to accurate either.
Nah.. Manning was never in a position to know what is needed to be released or not or how it could effect ongoing relations. In short, he acted carelessly without regard to ongoing US intelligence and diplomatic operations when he broke the law. How you see the information that was leaked is irrelevant as you are not in that position either. Manning should be held as the self serving traitor he is and nothing more.
The differences are that we agreed through treaty that we would forgot certain rights to the area as long as we are in good standing with them and it's not used for a military build up.
That's a distinct difference because if China started shipping tanks to their US embassy in some sort of military buildup, the US would not be creating an act of war by kicking them out. They would only be severing diplomatic relations which were implied severed with the buildup of the military arsenal.
It wasn't just the Church inscriptions. The root of most words in use at the time was derived from old greek or latin words. Especially when it came to science or medicine and things of importance as it was already somewhat of a translated language at a time when dictionaries were either not heard of or very rare.
At one time, if you knew greek and latin, you could pretty much understand the meaning or the intended use of almost any other word by exploring it's roots. This did have some exceptions of course, but it would usually get you close.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, so you have no objections to me putting a sign in your front yard saying you are a baby rapist and you live there? with a picture and an arrow pointing to your front door? If I move that sign to the public sidewalk and off you yard, do you still have no objections? The first amendment only stops government and government controlled entities from removing your free speech rights. It stops nothing else.
Obviously that is something new to you. I'm talking about the right of a nation to exist. It carries certain rights within it that do not need to be spelled out in a constitution or articles of confederation. You should learn about this as it's used brightly in some of the more controversial court rulings like the border searches and stuff and were completely in use at the time of the founding of this country by the founding fathers. With repsect to the border searches without warrant, the very first congress of the United States authorized them by law passed in the second session which was signed by President George Washington and up help by the US supreme court on the same grounds.
Yes, I agree. We should abandon social security, medicare, the NEA, DOE, federal protections to unions who have exemptions to the Sherman anti trust legislation, and several more things. We should hold the politicians trying to do this accountable. The problem is, when you look at it with a honest face, you find things that you like in there and ignore those violations. That's allows others to ignore their favorite violations. This allows you to become completely confused to what the US constitution actually says and does. The US government was never intended to be a government over the people of the US.. It was always intended to be a head of state for the collective states within the union with a few domestic duties outlined in the constitution. And in case you are confused with state being used twice there, head of state means foreign relations which is why the state department deals with foreign affairs not domestic (department of the interior)
Semantics is the very issue here. else you might as well just said they are all Blue or something if words aren't dictated by their definitions.
Again, you are skipping over the details in order to paint a fucked picture. He has his own freedom of speech buy he does not have the right to take things from someone else and blab it. Especially when there is a law saying he can't do just that. Stop trying to be an idiot here.
Whoever told you that? The constitution doesn't actually say everyone has freedom of speech, it says congress shall make no laws.
First, we are at war. Whoever told you we weren't lied to you. Probably to fill your head with a bunch of nonsense so you would be a useful idiot. The courts already have stated that the actual word "war" does not need to be used in taking us to war. Congress approved us going to war.
Second, you seriously have no clue what the constitution actually says do you? It's perfectly valid for a citizen to take someone's free speech rights away. Slashdot could kick you off the server and your constitutional rights would not have been violated. Get a fucking clue.
Has you ever heard of a concept called the right of sovereignty? Or even sovereign immunity? I suggest you go back to I'm a dumb ass school before trolling with just blatant ignorance in the future.
I'm not even sure why you bring the US constitution up anyways. I doubt with your understanding of it that you are actually a citizen. But that's neither here nor there because the US constitution has not been followed for a long time. Starting with the civil war, and moving leaps forward with FDR as president up to and including the current president, the US government has picked and chose which parts of the constitution apply at any given time depending on their agenda at the time.
I hope Manning gets what he deserves. I think he deserves death by firing squad too. Being the traitor that he is, he is one step below al qeada attacking the pentagon and stealing the information and releasing it. At least with them, we know they are the enemy. Manning pretended to be loyal then betrayed that trust places with him. HE is the lowest form of low and you probably are too seeing how you want to stick up for him.
I don't think you are paying attention. Just look around here where people claim evolution is a fact that disproves creationism.
Sadly, its you who doesn't understand anything.
I'm not arguing for creationism at all. I'm arguing against science disproving it when it hasn't or somehow taking a person's right to hold a belief away. And even if creationist believe others will go to hell or Deny's or whatever if they don't believe in their religion, it's irrelevant as science doesn't speak to religion and that belief doesn't speak to science making a claim within science. It's not until the claim is made outside of science where a conflict exists at all.
Your right. They want evolution taught in a way that doesn't tell little Johny that their religion is bunk which happens way to much today.
I'm sure there are a few who believe this way, but they are in the extreme minority. Evolution does not disprove creation at all. IF you think it does, then science has become a religion for you.
I don't know anyone who wants creationism only. In fact, I know several religous schools that do teach the scriptures that also teach evolution. They just do so in the context of science and don't make absolute statements about religion with it.
I think you should really think about your paranoid delusions. Now you basing your objections on what you fear might happen.
I'm confused, could you state why? We have genetically altered and species and showed that we can create new species so it's not like creation is a complete stretch.
But when I said you couldn't disprove anything, I mean things in science as well.
Sure, but I don't believe I was ever arguing that creation was a theory. I have always argued that the existence of a theory doesn't discredit creation, even if the theory seems to be true. I have argued that to supplant one belief with the other is the same mental process as involved with either belief in the first place. And doing that in schools ends up pushing a religious belief onto others which is just as bad as pushing religion in the schools.
lol..NO. It's actually quite the opposite. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was attempting to say if we had no knowledge of them at all other then their fossils, we would classify them as different species based on their divergence of breeds alone. It's reality that allows us to know they are the same species because we interact with them daily.
Nice work in trying to press your science as superior though. That's the work of a true believer.
Not at all. I'm saying that without an absolutely exhaustive display of every conceivable piece of evidence, you have to use your imagination to connect the dots and make the claims evolution makes. In this regard, you are essentially asking religious people to replace their imagined scenario with your imagined scenarios because you think you are right even though they think they are too.
Just because they test their imagination doesn't make it any less their imagination nor does it make it accurate. The entire principle of science is that it can be wrong and corrected- even after years of thinking it was right. IF you deny that, you would simply be wrong.
I'm not sure you have a point here, but in case you do, what is it?
Why? I mean religion isn't even scientific so why is science demanding religions to abandon their beliefs at all? Certainly there is no problem with someone holding religios beliefs and scientific beliefs at the same time and applying them when appropriate is there? Why is it that you seem to insist that any non-scientific entity has to shape it's beliefs to mold your reality?
Here is a hint, even if evolution is entirely possible and would be the explanation of how life evolved into the complexity it is today naturally, it still doesn't disprove anything about creation. It only makes a statement that it isn't needed or that it can be done a different way.
Actually, I was saying the entire opposite. Scientific discovery isn't able to invalidate religious theory based on evidence of something being a possibility. Hell, scientific discovery doesn't even do that to scientific theory based on something else being a possibility. So why are you insisting that is must be done with religion?
I repeat, I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with. I attempted to explain it, you must have gotten lost somewhere in between "it" and "is".
What in the hell are you rambling on about? I have never seen anyone who believes in creation think that way. Perhaps if you would keep your thinking in line with reality, you could see their issue more clearly and wouldn't be so frightened by it.
Perhaps you should open your eyes and read the damn shit in front of you. I have never said religion or creation is a scientific theory. In fact, what I said here was that science shouldn't be making claims about creation or a religion in the first place. And yes, that is because of the same damn reasons you have mentioned above.
I have never pushed creationism as an alternative theory to evolution. I have said evolution doesn't disprove creationism but I think you already know that. More specifically, what I said in the post you are replying to is that science cannot teach a subject at a place where the population is compelled to attend, in a way that says their religion is false. When that is done, no one will care about science holding a different opinion then someone else as long as people know the facts of the opinion when dealing with the subject at hand.
What in the world makes you think it would be ill educated people? Religions play a large role in the interactions and behaviors of people and if you don't know how that effects some, you are the one who is ill educated. I never said indoctrinate them into the religion.
Because you do not know it is wrong. IF you think you do, then you are acting in the same way the religious are and are wrong yourself. Even if evolution as we know it now is completely on the mark in how a single cell entity can divide and create this complex diversity we see in nature today, it still does not mean creation is wrong. It just means it isn't needed.
"We" didn't make anything up. Someone a long time ago might have, but we will likely never know if it was made up or not and you certainly do not know. Religion is a fundamental human right. Denying someone that right is simply wrong. Trying to make them think only as you do is even more wrong.
I'm not sure, could you ever disprove anything other then trying it and it not working or witnessing the supposed act and noting or recording the differences?
I'm not saying by any means that creationism is science, I'm saying that it isn't disproved by science nor could it. But that doesn't mean it never happened or that it never could happen. At best, science has found a way that didn't need it to happen.
Nonsense. They have been doing it for years without any problem. You see, you teach it within the scope it is in and not as an absolute that trumps any religious beliefs. The reason why roman and Greek mythology isn't infringing is because it is taught in a way that says this is what these people believe or believed. You can teach evolution within the realm of science and not make any statements about any other beliefs or religions held.
Evolution is the best scientific description we have of the diversity of life we see on the planet and that is why we teach it in science class. Whatever your other views on creationism, it is a wholly religious idea and has no place in the science classroom.
Well, if evolution was instructed as how you just claimed, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem creationist see from a government forced propaganda machine that is the school is that science and evolution is being taught in class in ways that leave the student believing there is no other way. That's where the issue comes in and why the vast majority of ID or creation intrusions seem to be centered around the entire concept of something else could be true too. And that really is the problem people are having with ID, Kansas, Texas, and Georgia, allowing other things to remain possible instead of shoving evolution as the only way.
You comment is really interesting because it shows how ignorant of the problem you actually are.
If that was a belief held and circulated for thousands of years and thought to have something to do with your existence after death, then yes, they should be able to teach it or in the least, allow it to stand. However, seeing how that's not the case, your analogy simply fails.
The problem arises with the separation of church and state. Claiming one is true over the other is the same as saying the other is false. And since the government cannot force religious views on you, it simple cannot force the opinion that they are false or one is more right on you either. And that is not even touching the fact that evolution does not disprove creationism whatsoever at all. Nowhere in science does it say that seeing something happen one way means it's the only way possible.
Most children are capable of using X with Y and T with S. I do not see a problem with any child knowing of both as long as they know where it belongs. And do not think for a minute that it's too complicated for them as they do it right now when changing controllers to play the same or similar games on different gaming devices or computers. IF the children know of creation or ID or the flying spaghetti monster, it will not fuck them up any more then Pluto not being a planet now has fucked up almost 50 years of students.
Nonsense. Anyone who is going to be in the position to impact the future will have went to college and the topic is covered there quite well. Your grasping for straws here. No one graduating high school will ever invent the newest drug or cure any disease that a high school level of biology or science will give them. They will have taken college or they will find someone who was in college to further anything they might come close to finding. Furthermore, the kids who would want to go into a field where this knowledge might remotely be deemed important, are the same kids who already know the knowledge. Knowing about creation, religion, or anything contrary to science does not stop kids from critically thinking.
I guess the problem is that you do not understand their argument to begin with.
First, let me ask, what exactly are you trying to persuade the creationist into doing?
We have species that look alike presently. We had canines for instance, that if we knew nothing about them other then their fossils, we would probably call different animals. So evolution as in one species becoming another and splitting and become yet another in the fossil record is a little of semantics to begin with. But more importantly, it's largely is not completely an inference from what we can see. Without the complete chain, it's literally someone's imagination building off the available evidence to come to a conclusion.
So if you are asking a creationist to supplant the concept of a god of their imagination that created everything with a concept of your imagination that this became that, and these two separate creatures were the offspring of the same parent species, you are probably going to have to show them without any gaps. Otherwise, you are essentially saying trust me, I got all this evidence which sort of seems like all the different breeds of dogs, cattle, or sheep or whatever, but it's actually not because we don't know much about them other then what we can imagine from their bones.
We can boil it down even further to the least complex scenario. You are essentially asking creationist to trust your imagination over their own because you said so and lots of others agree despite the fact that some other book said so also and a lot of others agree. If you want to persuade them, then offer them more then they already have with their existing beliefs. Right now, it's just different, not more when you look at the core of it.
Dude, it said in the title the link was missing. Where were we supposed to click?
Not quite. The founding fathers were rebels. They didn't pretend to hold the kings country dear then work to destroy it. Instead, they rebelled. There is a huge difference there.
You obviously do no know what a traitor is and do not know what you are talking about. The soviets got Nukes because of traitors that think like you. Was the cold war and military buildup something that made this country better?
Look up the definition of traitor then name a few. I bet they do not fit that definition.
It certainly does when you have a dictionary at your disposal. The key defining word there would be betray.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/betray
â"verb (used with object)
1.
to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2.
to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3.
to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4.
to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5.
to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6.
to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7.
to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8.
to seduce and desert.
A revolutionist, rebel, or separatist does not betray. They abandon maybe but not betray.
He also deserves the punishment to the fullest extent of the law. You see, unlike the heros you pretend he is akin to, Manning did still pretend to be loyal to the country he rebelled from. There are plenty of legal ways to create change without being a traitor. That's one of the key foundations of a democracy and the separation of powers.
Oh noes.. I offended the trolls with mod points and they wasted it all on all of my recent posts. What will I ever do but post again so someone see is and wonders what I'm talking about then clicks the parent button.
I bet those people are they same ones yelling free speech and all that crap too. This is hilarious.
NO.. Stop confusing accounting "terms" with other accounting "principals". It all gets accounted for and generally budgeted but definitely and paid for. The term on budget and off budget only means whether it's negotiated with the rest of the budget or not. All sorts of things are dealt with off budget like disaster aid.
The difference is that the budget as you are thinking is not the entire balance sheet or budget for the US. It's handled or should be handled off budget just like any temporary emergency spending should be. OR do you think we should budget 900 billion dollars for disaster relief in every budget because if a disaster strikes, we have to pay for it out of our money which is the budget and no other way to spend it?
You have to remember, some people think the government is entitled to all the money, they just allow you to keep some of what you earn. With this mentality, giving someone a tax break is spending the money in a way other then they think it should be. And God forbid you have more money then they do, else you are evil and need more of it taken.
To them, tax breaks is spending money on things other then what they want to spend it on.
The funding for the wars do not belong on the budget. It's stupid to even think about putting them. Wars are supposed to be temporary things and should be off budget so congress has to debate refunding them and examine their course every so often. Putting them on budget does nothing but make the spending permanent as congress has never voted to spend less then they already were, just less then what they wanted to increase it too.
Now do not confuse cuts in certain programs as spending less. It is less for that program but it's not less on the whole of spending. With the wars on budget, congress will simply spend the money somewhere else once the wars are over or don't need as much money. With the wars off budget, congress has to go through an entire process to get the ability to spend the money for anything other then the wars and when the need for the money isn't there, the funding simply disappears.
Also, the budget does not equate to spending. As you have already pointed out, the spending happens anyways. The ass load of money Obama is blamed on increasing the debt with, is counting the on budget as well as off budget items. So signaling the difference between Bush and Obama's primary budget gets us no where buy in a discussion about how utterly stupid it is to have not one, but two very expensive wars in it. You would be better served pointing to the stimulus bail outs and blaming Bush for pushing the expense to Obama's calculator.
That's good if I would have said we knew better. I did not however. But there are people in that position and they get paid to make those calls. If manning seriously thought they were doing the job wrong, he could have went to his superiors, their superiors, the justice department, the US congress armed services comity (and they even have the classifications to view it too) or even the president himself and lodged a complaint. He didn't and here we are.
See above. Then look at it again.
Well, I am to say. You don't win wars or keep friends by letting them and your side get hurt while protecting your enemies. Worth is a relative term anyways, worth what to whom? Well, seeing how it's the government's data, you have to judge the worth from that perspective. Needless to say, all of it could have been avoided if he would have simply stayed within proper channels available to him.
A traitor to anyone's own government is bad anyways. So yes, he is just as bad as a traitor to Iraq's government and just as bad as a traitor to the UK's government, to Germany's government, to France's government to what ever government.
I'm not sure what you were trying to get at there. But yes, a traitor is simply bad all the way around.
IT doesn't matter if they are not in the US or any country for that matter. When you conspire with someone to violate the laws within a nation, you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the laws of that nation.This is an established long arm concept that is used all over the world. It's generally supported by almost all countries when the violation wasn't something that is somehow considered an international right.
For instance, if I conspired over the internet with your neighbor to collect your credit card information and defraud you from bumfuckistan where the laws are so primitive they don't legally recognize a credit card let alone identity theft, I am not protected from my part in that crime. Your country can seek my extradition, arrest, and prosecution for the laws in your country. Whether they get it or not is another story entirely but if doesn't magically make what I did legal.
No, the Justice department which hunt is an investigation to determine if a fucking law has been broken in which case they will either attempt to prosecute or drop it altogether. You see, even in your own country, the normal process is that an investigation happens. At the end of this investigation, it's the prosecutors who go before a magistrate or grand jury (depending on where you are I guess), and tries to convince them that there is enough evidence to prosecute. If that happens and they decide there is enough evidence that both, a crime happened, and that someone in particular was in violation of the law in that regard, then they are prosecuted.
The only thing happening different here is that you want to assume the role of the grand jury and do away with the investigation because of your own personal prejudices. Well, if he is so innocent of anything, then let it play out and he will be legally vindicated in the process. But by all means, you and your third rate legal degree are not the arbitrators of whether a law has been broken or not. As I said before, we do not know if a law has been broken or not and that's what an investigation is for.
Wikileaks might have committed a crime. If they conspired with Manning in any way in order to encourage or enable or further manings crime, they have committed a conspiracy to commit the same crime regardless of where they are located at. We do not yet know whether wikileaks committed a crime or not. That's what an investigation is for.
I'm not even sure if your inhumane treatment is close to accurate either.
Nah.. Manning was never in a position to know what is needed to be released or not or how it could effect ongoing relations. In short, he acted carelessly without regard to ongoing US intelligence and diplomatic operations when he broke the law. How you see the information that was leaked is irrelevant as you are not in that position either. Manning should be held as the self serving traitor he is and nothing more.
It's still US soil. Embasies are still US soil.
The differences are that we agreed through treaty that we would forgot certain rights to the area as long as we are in good standing with them and it's not used for a military build up.
That's a distinct difference because if China started shipping tanks to their US embassy in some sort of military buildup, the US would not be creating an act of war by kicking them out. They would only be severing diplomatic relations which were implied severed with the buildup of the military arsenal.
It wasn't just the Church inscriptions. The root of most words in use at the time was derived from old greek or latin words. Especially when it came to science or medicine and things of importance as it was already somewhat of a translated language at a time when dictionaries were either not heard of or very rare.
At one time, if you knew greek and latin, you could pretty much understand the meaning or the intended use of almost any other word by exploring it's roots. This did have some exceptions of course, but it would usually get you close.