I'm not making any claims of certainty, but isn't it possible that some state on the one list wouldn't be there if they were on the other list? Therefore, they may simply be keeping some states off the list for the reason being they are on the other list.
I mean it wouldn't make sense economically to label a supplier of something you need for your economy as a group that makes it impossible to get that need from them.
Really convenient, isn't it? Cocoons are so comfy.
I don't know, is it? I mean you are the one who isn't saying it's otherwise important to the topic.
Sorry, bud, you can either dismiss everything I say out of hand or you can ask me to summarize things for you, but you can't have it both ways.
So I'll take that as a no, it doesn't say anything specifically about torture. And no, I wasn't dismissing it out of hand, I was not looking further if it didn't say anything important. There is a difference.
As I already said, do your own research. Read articles by expert psychologists and psychiatrists from peer-reviewed publications -- the Web (and, in particular, Google Scholar) makes them easily accessible accessible nowadays, at the very least you get the summaries.
And what do they say? Our prison system that has been in place since the beginning of the country is now practicing torture when they do things we have always done? How is it all the sudden torture when it was punishment before? How is it all the sudden torture when it wasn't 20 or 30 years ago? I'll tell you why, because it's been redefined to meet political agendas. And that doesn't make it true or bad.
Or continue ignoring the evidence. I don't really care, it is not my job to educate you. I posted those links for those slashdotters that may be interested.
The evidence doesn't point to torture though. It points to reclassifying things as torture for political advantage. It point to rules we aren't even bound by that weren't followed, that's not torture. If you really had something valuable to say that pointed to actual torture, you wouldn't be sitting here saying go read all this crap, you would be pointing the specific out.
Now, what may be true is that the US needs to improve it's prison system and handling of human rights. But you showed nothing that indicates torture. And no, some so called human rights abuse is not torture. and that's what this thread is about- whether or not the US still practices torture. You have failed to show that they have.
You were "isolated from the rest of the prisoners" for a weekend . Manning has been in "maximum custody" solitary confinement for about seven months . If you are trying to draw a parallel between these two events then you, sir, are truly an idiot.
Do not misrepresent the situation. He has more visitors and interaction with people on a daily basis in Isolation then I did. How else do you think the article that says a hand full of people are allowed to see him was able to quote people who regularly visit him when speaking hyperbole about his treatment.
And no, I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the two situations. I'm saying it's not torture even though in my short term, my lawyer tried to make the same damn case in an effort to get the court to go light on me. The entire point of making that statement was about what the lawyer did. He inflated everything for a reason. That's what is happening in the article that was linked. They are saying Let's have a pity party for the gay kid who couldn't openly serve in the army who ended up stealing information and disseminating it to people who never should have had access to it because he is being treated poorly and that should be punishment enough.
The accusations come not only from Manning's lawyer but from Amnesty international and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.
The accusations come not only from Manning's lawyer but from Amnesty international and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.
I have seen those. They don't impress me. I saw nothing that indicates torture in there. On aside note, Amnesty international describe a modern college kids partying lifestyle as torture too. They did so in claiming certain things like listening to music is torture that's happening at club gitmo. The UN hit piece is funny too.. It cites that he should be allowed to talk to other prisoners, should be able to work, and the fact that he's on a watch list because he indicated he would hut himself was improper. But it didn't claim it was torture. Get real.
But, hey, why don't you do some reading on the subject yourself? For example, here's a statement by a psychiatrist and expert witness. Or, since we are all so big on peer review an citations, try asking Google Scholar.
And those say it's torture? I pretty much gave up on reading what you link to after the fallacy of the Amnesty international and UN links. But seriously, do that say it's torture or do they say it's not proper, constructive or against some rules somewhere instead?
Oh, just so you won't be under the impression that Manning is an isolated case, there are some 100,000 more like him.
Yea, that's what I thought. Standard practice is all the sudden being construed as torture. I guess I could change the definition of "up" and claim you never woke "up" a day in your life too or that in doing so, you participated in torture yourself.
Good enough for what? That a defense team is going to portray his client as a victim of the system or signal that he's been punished enough before trial so his punishment at trial should be light?
I remember getting locked up for a weekend for under aged alcohol consumption. My parents were out of town the weekend (which was why I thought I could get away with it) so I had to wait until they got back before I could be released. I was isolated from the rest of the prisoners and couldn't go into the normal holding cells. I didn't get the recreation period and had to eat meals separate at different times. The sheriff's department wasn't set up to house juveniles that weren't convicted at the time. They put me in a basic holding cell with a toilet, sink, and cot that had one blanket and no pillow. The only windows were in the door with a slide that was kept closed most of the time. Every so often a guard would open it and peek in but you couldn't see them because of the lighting. The lights were either one or off and it was at their discretion. There was some sort of humming noise (probably from an appliance or ballast in the lighting) but no other noises. You couldn't even hear anyone walking past the door.
My lawyer said the same things before I went to court. It was torture putting me in there, I should have been release to my grandparents who were supposed to be taking care of me, and so on. They wanted me to tell them who purchased my beer and wouldn't except the excuse that I had been swiping them from social events over the past couple months and storing them until I had a chance to drink without getting caught.
I don't buy accusations of torture that appear a lot like something I went through as a kid which was nothing special. It was more of a torture thinking about what my parents were going to do then sitting in jail for 2 days waiting on them to show. And I would have had that no matter where they put me.
So no. It's not good enough to make the case that the US still practices torture.
HOWEVER, the Tolkien estate is still LEGALLY REQUIRED to sue anyone they know who is using their mark without their permission. If it can be demonstrated that they knew of the button and didn't act, they LOSE the trademark. It's called "genericide" - look it up.
Whoever told you that needs to wear a legal disclaimer around his neck and junk to warn people and discourage reproduction.
They are not legally required to sue. They aren't even technically required to defend the trademark. It's in their interest to do so else it might suffer colloquialism. But defending a trademark does not always mean suing people. Often a license deal can be worked out or a simple warning can cause the issue in conflict to stop. The object to avoid a
Another thing, it's going to be very difficult claiming that a trade mark became a colloquialism when the name is a proper name distinguishing a certain author from other authors already. It's not like anyone else can create a tolkien and market it. It's not like a Xerox or maxi pad or anything.
Well, it pointless to start or maintain an argument because of this discover. what they are observing is the Death star beta production facility. It just took a long time for the light to eventually reach us. But then again, it all happened A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Designed to fail is somewhat mitigated by consumer reviews. After the failure, it will be known as the cheap product that doesn't last produce by the company that makes crap products. Their pricing levels will eventually reflect that so the 5 cents of engine paint savings might eventually end up costing them 50 or more dollars in what they can price their equipment at actually have it sell.
It then becomes a matter of consumer knowledge and choice- do you want to spend the extra 50-100 dollars and get something that will last longer or do you want the el cheapo and only get a few years of useful service from it. It's really a buyer beware at that point. Of course, you could always take the panel off and shoot paint on it yourself to get the extra time out of it.. but then you might lose the warranty benefits.
I don't know about the Xerox copier. You admit you're guessing to why it was that way in the first place and it does look somewhat suspicious. I imagine if you could prove it, you could probably refurbish a lot of them by changing out the bulb and defeat their efforts. But in the least, it's a little different as the bulb itself has a usable life. It's not going to be a software switch that tells the power supply not to function after so many hours with nothing else preventing it from functioning.
Perhaps the line is blurred a little further when some products need deal with power usage and pollution limits and requirements. If the law requires it to operate within certain limits, then I suppose making it fault outside the limit might be acceptable. but it's just not the same when it's something that wears out verses software that stops.
I am sorry, but I cannot discuss with that level of detachment from reality. I will address only one, in my opinion most important point of this post - justification for supporting dictatorships. After that, I will probably give up. "The US supports countries, rarely do they support the actual leaders of the countries" Phrase "US supports countries" is menanigless. I do not know what it is supposed to mean, but this seems to sound positive and good to you. Ergo: propaganda.
It's pretty simply. In this world, you have countries. These countries want things from other countries. If those other countries submit and are peaceful to you, you support them. IF they don't and are peaceful, you ignore them. If they don't and are hostile to your country, you treat them as an enemy. Egypt, as a country has for more then 200 years, been a country that the US wanted stuff from and friendly to the US with a slight exception in the 1960.
The US, or almost any other country, will not break off relations with a country because it's people democratically elected someone. We gave aid to Egypt, participated in joint military training and share data on terrorist with Egypt. Just because the leader was an ass to his own people, doesn't mean he was ever an ass to the US. Furthermore,The US called for Mubarak to step down when the people appeared to be rejecting him. So if you are not going to allow the difference between the support for an allied country to be separate from support for the leader of that allied country, then you can't say we supported Mubarak because we didn't when it mattered.
It's not a feel good anything. It's just a fact. We needed the country "Egypt" for various reasons and they needed us for their own reasons.
"except when the alternative is worse." I know very well boogeyman of islam radicalism as justification for supporting dictatorships by one of biggest democracies (if perpeptual two-party duopoly could be called that, but I digress again) in world. Still disguisting hipocrisy.
Islamic radicalism or the boogerman have nothing to do with it. It's because we needed the country Egypt, not the leader. Would we stop the violent overthrow if Mubarak? Probably because the peacfull overthrow is what is needed. I'm not even sure why you injected that at all.
the people would have been against us, against our ideals and concepts of human rights, freedom, and democracy, and the people of Egypt probably would have never done anything to break away from the dictators." Some notes: 1. Funny that you talk only about Egypt, what with rest, especially Saudi Ariabia? Do you want to pretend that Egypt was only one dictatorship supported by USA?
What in the world ever gave you that idea? The concept is completely lacking and existing only in your mind. Get this into your head so you understand. We have co-dependencies on different countries. We need to be friendly and support those countries in order to satisfy those needs. It doesn't matter if Mary fucking Poppins is leading it, some ruthless dictator, or Peter Pan. We support our need with the country, not the people who are leading it. Unless their replacement is going to take away our access. It's really that simple. Being friendly with a country does not mean supporting it's leaders. Being friendly with a complete jackass racist does not mean you support the concepts and ideals that jackass racist spouts.
3. By supporting dictatorships and retarded interventions USA have done for growth of fanatical islam terrorists more than they themself could dream ever. Direct religious reasons for USA hate are in miniority - but other reasons, like hiportitical policy of USA and consequences of it, are good in recruiting for radical islam. Thus, USA policy is suicidally stupid, flourishing and spreading things that you were supposed to prevent.
Well, again, that was in the past. Bush is no longer president and a massive uproar happened when the torture situation first broke out. I would be highly surprised to find that the US is even contemplating torture since then.
If half-drowning a man repeatedly doesn't qualify as torture, well then I don't have point to make. If it qualifies as torture and we have an open and public confession from the one who authorized it, why is the man still at large?/blockquote>BTW, they don't half drown a man when they water-board. They create a situation where it appears to the victim that they are drowning but never. It's more psychological then physical and the victim is generally never in danger of drowning.
As for why Bush isn't locked up? Probably because for one, while he was the commander in chief, he likely didn't order the water boarding and therefore while technically responsible, it likely not behind it even though he supported the actions after it happened. He has admitted to telling people to use any means necessary, but as far as I know, he hasn't actually said "torture this person". You typically lock up the person who did the wrong, not the supervisor in charge of them. an example of this, you have a 16 year old kid who gets his drivers license. You are in charge of that kid, some people taunt and bully him, he runs them over with your car. Do you go to prison and get locked up because you said he could take the car to the library? No.. well generally no unless you knew what he was going to do and aided him in the process. Another example, you are in charge of a work crew of about 10 people. You tell me that I need to make sure the project is finished on time. I then take a couple of live grenades and tape them to the chairs of the other developers in a way so that if they get up, they are killed. They stay until the project is finished. Do you need to be locked up for holding those people hostage until the work was finished? No, but I sure as hell would deserve it. This is because even though you were in charge of me and gave me orders to do something, I chose to do something illegal outside of your orders.
There is proof, from the mentioned open confession of Mr. Bush, photographs and videos of Abu Ghraib and the leaked cables which indicate that torture continued to be systematically used in Iraq years after the investigation of the incidents at Abu Ghraib.
The entire torture information became available years after the invasion of Iraq. Abu Ghraib happened before but wasn't publicly known until well after the Mission Accomplished screw up and I believe it was near of just after his reelection. Again, all your really saying is that it happened in the past. A lot of outcry came of that, a lot of politicians losing their seats came of that. Bush isn't even in the government right now. And as far as I can tell, all Bush really admitted was that it happened and he thinks it saved lives.
So, we have proof of it happening quite recently, do you have proof that it stopped happening?
I'm not sure there is proof of it happening quite recently. As far as I can tell, it's still just proof that it had happened in the past. Bush wrote about, and gave interviews concerning the things that happened in the past. As for proof that it stopped happening, tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?
I have reason to believe through congressional action, outcry from the public, including massive shifts in government that was closely related to the torture, that it stopped a couple of years ago completely.
The warranty covers material defects and workmanship. It generally lasts as long as the weakest part needed to keep the engine running will last within the normal use cycle that wouldn't void the warranty.
In the case of your engine dieing at 103000 miles, it would be a mechanical fault from wear and tear or perhaps some other failure due explicitly to the normal operation of the engine. If the car company programmed a the car's computer to stop running after 103000 miles, then it would be a malicious act and likely a criminal act against you.
The difference is that one is a byproduct of normal use, the other is the intentional disabling of something otherwise capable of functioning. While the motivation to do it might seem similar, and the source of the problem seems to be the same, legally speaking, you have to accept damages resulting from your usage of a product (unless otherwise warranted) and you don't have to accept damages from the manufacturer or seller or the neighbor or the gas station, or the kids down the street. Therefore, it's reasonable for a manufacturer or seller to put something until the product that is so cheaply made it will wear out shortly after the warranty expired. But it is not reasonable for that same manufacturer or seller to purposely render an otherwise working product, unable to or incapable of operating normally.
No, but insisting on the strict applications or the rules of writing, even across cultural boundaries, when the parent clearly was poking fun of (or should it be have) the entire situation is a pretty good sign of it.
And yes, I'm poking fun at yous too. Critique my writing.
There is no "according to your logic" here. I never said that anyone torturing people should get away with it. I said I wanted a source that it is happening, I got stories about it happening in the past and unsubstantiated claims of it happening in "Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo and perhaps other places we don't know about;" even though you also think "it stopped in Guatemala".
Now the happening in the past seems to be the past because of public outrage. Show me where it's happening in the present or admit you are just guessing that it might be. And yes, you guessing that it might be, or pointing to someone else who is guessing it is, is completely different then it actually happening.
You do realize that does and did are separate things right? some things happened, the op said they are still happening. Citing things in the past that have stopped because of much public outrage is not "US does torture a few in Guatamala." At best, it's "US did torture a few in Guatamala." and that's a completely different statement.
I don't think you understand what was happening when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
even though Southern Rhodesia declared independence shortening it's name to Rhodesia in '65 or so, the entire world still recognized English colonial rule over it until 1980 or so when England finally release claim on it. England maintained it wouldn't release it's claim to it (and all their colonies) until they were governed under a majority rule. Anyways, in 78-79 a biracial party was formed to govern and the Lancaster house agreement placed it back under British colonial control.
Carter didn't have to invade. All he had to do is support the democratically elected leaders of the country instead of imposing his own desires on it by blocking UN action and supporting Mugabe knowing he was wanting to create a single party communist state.
The Carter Administration played a lead role in why Mugabe was not removed from power, why the rightful people elected wasn't allowed to stay in power, and why the world recognized Mugabe as the leader..In fact, People from Carter's administration, was toasting Mugabe as late as 2001 when they were attacking whites for their land.
"The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible," Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the United Nations
The piddly little things like light bulbs was really a token gesture to appease a squeaky cog making a lot of noise at the time. It's quite the same as the war on drugs as it attempts to appease a vocal minority of people under the guise of "helping" or benefiting the majority.
I don't think they can be separated. While they are entirely different concepts, the mechanism in which drives them seem to be exactly the same.
It's almost as if biology has been replaced with ideology. Ideology can be significantly compared to religious beliefs as several studies have shown that people favor ideology over reality in general.
But I don't know why you are surprised. I predicted/foresaw this ever since the politics section was added.
Huh? I didn't mention global warming at all in my post.
I know. but your post was in an article about global warming. anyways, I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying it would be easy to construe it that way.
However the human population explosion IS the cause of all of our problems. In the future we will reach a point where there simply are not enough resources (call it water, oxygen, copper, whatever) per unit (be it nation, city, family, individual) to maintain the function of that unit, at which point it will collapse just like the bacteria in the Petri dish. It is our destiny because this world is a closed system.
Maybe so. But unlike bacteria in a petri dish, when can make portions of the we earth uninhabitable and them move to another. And unlike the petri dish, when we leave that old area alone for enough time, it started becoming more inhabitable over time because of natural processes. Don't like at this as a lab experiment unless you are going to consider all the differences in the lab too.
On the other hand a small human population could pollute as much as it likes and would never have an impact on the global ecosystem. Therefore our current drive towards "green" behavior is a function of our population size and nothing more. This doesn't mean that "green" laws try to limit human growth - as far as I know NOTHING (from contraceptives, to one child per family laws, to disease, to religion) limits human growth effectively.
Well, lets not rule out forces of nature. IT seems as our population expands, more of us move into more hostile areas and hurricanes, floods, earth quakes, fire and so on seem to effectively limit the population to some degree. Also, something that's probably been a fact of life since mankind organized into societies, is war and famine. I say famine separately from war and other natural disasters because they can cause each other and effectively limit the population. That has been a reality longer then we have written records for.
Wait a minute. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a wild conspiracy jump, so bear with me.
Are you saying the problem is really humans multiplying and because cities do not control their expansion or limit humans breading, then the global warming is a way to control that by limiting what's available to those people, towns and cities?
Of course you are not (at least I don't think you are). But I wanted to show how someone could construe it that way. And I'm sure there might be people who think that way too. It's really no different then the war on drugs concept. People do bad things when on drugs. Not all of them, not enough of them enough times to make everyone shy away from drugs. So we make laws that attempt to limit drugs by making them illegal under the guise that some people do some bad things while under the influence of some drugs.
The vast majority of water used to irrigation and drinking is ground water. And despite the deceivingly sounding name, ground water does come from underground.
I think you might be suffering from one of those in my little world problems where you don't know or understand much outside your own little world.
Perhaps you should investigate the hydrological cycle and how society uses it to it's advantage. Most Municipal water supplies are bringing water out of the ground that was there since the last glacier.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not making any claims of certainty, but isn't it possible that some state on the one list wouldn't be there if they were on the other list? Therefore, they may simply be keeping some states off the list for the reason being they are on the other list.
I mean it wouldn't make sense economically to label a supplier of something you need for your economy as a group that makes it impossible to get that need from them.
Nah.. Clinton lives in New york now so his wife wouldn't be a carpet bagger.
Because it's easier to attack the messenger and not the message.
Now don't bother us with details, he's guilty, just look at the way he's dressed.
I don't know, is it? I mean you are the one who isn't saying it's otherwise important to the topic.
So I'll take that as a no, it doesn't say anything specifically about torture. And no, I wasn't dismissing it out of hand, I was not looking further if it didn't say anything important. There is a difference.
And what do they say? Our prison system that has been in place since the beginning of the country is now practicing torture when they do things we have always done? How is it all the sudden torture when it was punishment before? How is it all the sudden torture when it wasn't 20 or 30 years ago? I'll tell you why, because it's been redefined to meet political agendas. And that doesn't make it true or bad.
The evidence doesn't point to torture though. It points to reclassifying things as torture for political advantage. It point to rules we aren't even bound by that weren't followed, that's not torture. If you really had something valuable to say that pointed to actual torture, you wouldn't be sitting here saying go read all this crap, you would be pointing the specific out.
Now, what may be true is that the US needs to improve it's prison system and handling of human rights. But you showed nothing that indicates torture. And no, some so called human rights abuse is not torture. and that's what this thread is about- whether or not the US still practices torture. You have failed to show that they have.
Do not misrepresent the situation. He has more visitors and interaction with people on a daily basis in Isolation then I did. How else do you think the article that says a hand full of people are allowed to see him was able to quote people who regularly visit him when speaking hyperbole about his treatment.
And no, I'm not trying to draw a parallel between the two situations. I'm saying it's not torture even though in my short term, my lawyer tried to make the same damn case in an effort to get the court to go light on me. The entire point of making that statement was about what the lawyer did. He inflated everything for a reason. That's what is happening in the article that was linked. They are saying Let's have a pity party for the gay kid who couldn't openly serve in the army who ended up stealing information and disseminating it to people who never should have had access to it because he is being treated poorly and that should be punishment enough.
Good enough for what? That a defense team is going to portray his client as a victim of the system or signal that he's been punished enough before trial so his punishment at trial should be light?
I remember getting locked up for a weekend for under aged alcohol consumption. My parents were out of town the weekend (which was why I thought I could get away with it) so I had to wait until they got back before I could be released. I was isolated from the rest of the prisoners and couldn't go into the normal holding cells. I didn't get the recreation period and had to eat meals separate at different times. The sheriff's department wasn't set up to house juveniles that weren't convicted at the time. They put me in a basic holding cell with a toilet, sink, and cot that had one blanket and no pillow. The only windows were in the door with a slide that was kept closed most of the time. Every so often a guard would open it and peek in but you couldn't see them because of the lighting. The lights were either one or off and it was at their discretion. There was some sort of humming noise (probably from an appliance or ballast in the lighting) but no other noises. You couldn't even hear anyone walking past the door.
My lawyer said the same things before I went to court. It was torture putting me in there, I should have been release to my grandparents who were supposed to be taking care of me, and so on. They wanted me to tell them who purchased my beer and wouldn't except the excuse that I had been swiping them from social events over the past couple months and storing them until I had a chance to drink without getting caught.
I don't buy accusations of torture that appear a lot like something I went through as a kid which was nothing special. It was more of a torture thinking about what my parents were going to do then sitting in jail for 2 days waiting on them to show. And I would have had that no matter where they put me.
So no. It's not good enough to make the case that the US still practices torture.
Isn't Christopher Tolkien a Tolkien already? It's not like anyone else can create a Tolkien and market it.
Perhaps I should have said it's not like anyone other then a Tolkien could create a Tolkien and market it.
Whoever told you that needs to wear a legal disclaimer around his neck and junk to warn people and discourage reproduction.
They are not legally required to sue. They aren't even technically required to defend the trademark. It's in their interest to do so else it might suffer colloquialism. But defending a trademark does not always mean suing people. Often a license deal can be worked out or a simple warning can cause the issue in conflict to stop. The object to avoid a
Another thing, it's going to be very difficult claiming that a trade mark became a colloquialism when the name is a proper name distinguishing a certain author from other authors already. It's not like anyone else can create a tolkien and market it. It's not like a Xerox or maxi pad or anything.
Well, it pointless to start or maintain an argument because of this discover. what they are observing is the Death star beta production facility. It just took a long time for the light to eventually reach us. But then again, it all happened A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Designed to fail is somewhat mitigated by consumer reviews. After the failure, it will be known as the cheap product that doesn't last produce by the company that makes crap products. Their pricing levels will eventually reflect that so the 5 cents of engine paint savings might eventually end up costing them 50 or more dollars in what they can price their equipment at actually have it sell.
It then becomes a matter of consumer knowledge and choice- do you want to spend the extra 50-100 dollars and get something that will last longer or do you want the el cheapo and only get a few years of useful service from it. It's really a buyer beware at that point. Of course, you could always take the panel off and shoot paint on it yourself to get the extra time out of it.. but then you might lose the warranty benefits.
I don't know about the Xerox copier. You admit you're guessing to why it was that way in the first place and it does look somewhat suspicious. I imagine if you could prove it, you could probably refurbish a lot of them by changing out the bulb and defeat their efforts. But in the least, it's a little different as the bulb itself has a usable life. It's not going to be a software switch that tells the power supply not to function after so many hours with nothing else preventing it from functioning.
Perhaps the line is blurred a little further when some products need deal with power usage and pollution limits and requirements. If the law requires it to operate within certain limits, then I suppose making it fault outside the limit might be acceptable. but it's just not the same when it's something that wears out verses software that stops.
It's pretty simply. In this world, you have countries. These countries want things from other countries. If those other countries submit and are peaceful to you, you support them. IF they don't and are peaceful, you ignore them. If they don't and are hostile to your country, you treat them as an enemy. Egypt, as a country has for more then 200 years, been a country that the US wanted stuff from and friendly to the US with a slight exception in the 1960.
The US, or almost any other country, will not break off relations with a country because it's people democratically elected someone. We gave aid to Egypt, participated in joint military training and share data on terrorist with Egypt. Just because the leader was an ass to his own people, doesn't mean he was ever an ass to the US. Furthermore,The US called for Mubarak to step down when the people appeared to be rejecting him. So if you are not going to allow the difference between the support for an allied country to be separate from support for the leader of that allied country, then you can't say we supported Mubarak because we didn't when it mattered.
It's not a feel good anything. It's just a fact. We needed the country "Egypt" for various reasons and they needed us for their own reasons.
Islamic radicalism or the boogerman have nothing to do with it. It's because we needed the country Egypt, not the leader. Would we stop the violent overthrow if Mubarak? Probably because the peacfull overthrow is what is needed. I'm not even sure why you injected that at all.
What in the world ever gave you that idea? The concept is completely lacking and existing only in your mind. Get this into your head so you understand. We have co-dependencies on different countries. We need to be friendly and support those countries in order to satisfy those needs. It doesn't matter if Mary fucking Poppins is leading it, some ruthless dictator, or Peter Pan. We support our need with the country, not the people who are leading it. Unless their replacement is going to take away our access. It's really that simple. Being friendly with a country does not mean supporting it's leaders. Being friendly with a complete jackass racist does not mean you support the concepts and ideals that jackass racist spouts.
Well, again, that was in the past. Bush is no longer president and a massive uproar happened when the torture situation first broke out. I would be highly surprised to find that the US is even contemplating torture since then.
I think you are confusing the Klondike bar with a york peppermint patty.
Oh I couldn't find the one about the top of a mountain I think you were referring to.but I think this is close.
Not really.
The warranty covers material defects and workmanship. It generally lasts as long as the weakest part needed to keep the engine running will last within the normal use cycle that wouldn't void the warranty.
In the case of your engine dieing at 103000 miles, it would be a mechanical fault from wear and tear or perhaps some other failure due explicitly to the normal operation of the engine. If the car company programmed a the car's computer to stop running after 103000 miles, then it would be a malicious act and likely a criminal act against you.
The difference is that one is a byproduct of normal use, the other is the intentional disabling of something otherwise capable of functioning. While the motivation to do it might seem similar, and the source of the problem seems to be the same, legally speaking, you have to accept damages resulting from your usage of a product (unless otherwise warranted) and you don't have to accept damages from the manufacturer or seller or the neighbor or the gas station, or the kids down the street. Therefore, it's reasonable for a manufacturer or seller to put something until the product that is so cheaply made it will wear out shortly after the warranty expired. But it is not reasonable for that same manufacturer or seller to purposely render an otherwise working product, unable to or incapable of operating normally.
No, but insisting on the strict applications or the rules of writing, even across cultural boundaries, when the parent clearly was poking fun of (or should it be have) the entire situation is a pretty good sign of it.
And yes, I'm poking fun at yous too. Critique my writing.
There is no "according to your logic" here. I never said that anyone torturing people should get away with it. I said I wanted a source that it is happening, I got stories about it happening in the past and unsubstantiated claims of it happening in "Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo and perhaps other places we don't know about;" even though you also think "it stopped in Guatemala".
Now the happening in the past seems to be the past because of public outrage. Show me where it's happening in the present or admit you are just guessing that it might be. And yes, you guessing that it might be, or pointing to someone else who is guessing it is, is completely different then it actually happening.
You do realize that does and did are separate things right? some things happened, the op said they are still happening. Citing things in the past that have stopped because of much public outrage is not "US does torture a few in Guatamala." At best, it's "US did torture a few in Guatamala." and that's a completely different statement.
Wasn't is past tense. Does is present tense. Do you understand the difference between that?
And here I thought I was going to find out something new. Turns out it's just the old stuff regurgitated.
I don't think you understand what was happening when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.
even though Southern Rhodesia declared independence shortening it's name to Rhodesia in '65 or so, the entire world still recognized English colonial rule over it until 1980 or so when England finally release claim on it. England maintained it wouldn't release it's claim to it (and all their colonies) until they were governed under a majority rule. Anyways, in 78-79 a biracial party was formed to govern and the Lancaster house agreement placed it back under British colonial control.
An election was held, someone other then Mugabe was elected (Abel Muzorewa), And now enters the Carter administration.
Carter didn't have to invade. All he had to do is support the democratically elected leaders of the country instead of imposing his own desires on it by blocking UN action and supporting Mugabe knowing he was wanting to create a single party communist state.
The Carter Administration played a lead role in why Mugabe was not removed from power, why the rightful people elected wasn't allowed to stay in power, and why the world recognized Mugabe as the leader..In fact, People from Carter's administration, was toasting Mugabe as late as 2001 when they were attacking whites for their land.
"The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible," Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the United Nations
They do? Ok Citation, source, you know, the stuff that shows us this isn't just in your head.
The piddly little things like light bulbs was really a token gesture to appease a squeaky cog making a lot of noise at the time. It's quite the same as the war on drugs as it attempts to appease a vocal minority of people under the guise of "helping" or benefiting the majority.
I don't think they can be separated. While they are entirely different concepts, the mechanism in which drives them seem to be exactly the same.
It's almost as if biology has been replaced with ideology. Ideology can be significantly compared to religious beliefs as several studies have shown that people favor ideology over reality in general.
But I don't know why you are surprised. I predicted/foresaw this ever since the politics section was added.
I know. but your post was in an article about global warming. anyways, I wasn't saying you said that, I was saying it would be easy to construe it that way.
Maybe so. But unlike bacteria in a petri dish, when can make portions of the we earth uninhabitable and them move to another. And unlike the petri dish, when we leave that old area alone for enough time, it started becoming more inhabitable over time because of natural processes. Don't like at this as a lab experiment unless you are going to consider all the differences in the lab too.
On the other hand a small human population could pollute as much as it likes and would never have an impact on the global ecosystem. Therefore our current drive towards "green" behavior is a function of our population size and nothing more. This doesn't mean that "green" laws try to limit human growth - as far as I know NOTHING (from contraceptives, to one child per family laws, to disease, to religion) limits human growth effectively.
Well, lets not rule out forces of nature. IT seems as our population expands, more of us move into more hostile areas and hurricanes, floods, earth quakes, fire and so on seem to effectively limit the population to some degree. Also, something that's probably been a fact of life since mankind organized into societies, is war and famine. I say famine separately from war and other natural disasters because they can cause each other and effectively limit the population. That has been a reality longer then we have written records for.
Wait a minute. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a wild conspiracy jump, so bear with me.
Are you saying the problem is really humans multiplying and because cities do not control their expansion or limit humans breading, then the global warming is a way to control that by limiting what's available to those people, towns and cities?
Of course you are not (at least I don't think you are). But I wanted to show how someone could construe it that way. And I'm sure there might be people who think that way too. It's really no different then the war on drugs concept. People do bad things when on drugs. Not all of them, not enough of them enough times to make everyone shy away from drugs. So we make laws that attempt to limit drugs by making them illegal under the guise that some people do some bad things while under the influence of some drugs.
The vast majority of water used to irrigation and drinking is ground water. And despite the deceivingly sounding name, ground water does come from underground.
I think you might be suffering from one of those in my little world problems where you don't know or understand much outside your own little world.
Perhaps you should investigate the hydrological cycle and how society uses it to it's advantage. Most Municipal water supplies are bringing water out of the ground that was there since the last glacier.