Have you read your own link? In it is says she claimed that she would govern on the constitution not her personal beliefs. So she is anti abortion, anti- stem cell and anti-human cloning, most republicans are.
I didn't see where it said her political stance while running for office was against homosexual marriage but that too is something the right seems to agree with. Hell, I'm against gay marriage based only on the principle that it creates a special right or privilege not already allowed in an exception to rights already present. Everyone, gay, straight, dwarf, giant, red, blue, religious or not or whatever has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex once they reach a certain age. If you chose to act differently, don't tell me you have that as a right. Note, I didn't say being gay was a choice (it is, mostly unconsciously though so the choice is separated a bit), I said that acting a certain way that was different was a choice.
All in all, with one exception to voices in her head that I didn't see referenced anywhere, that she wanted to legislate christian morality- specifically when she said she would legislate according to the constitution and not her personal beliefs nor did I see where she is much different then other conservative candidates. It wasn't until after she won the primary that all the shit she did in the past started coming to light and scaring you.
The problem is, he didn't tell us anything, he released a shit load of classified documents. No one that I know of has supported the divine right of kings or that you could never question government either. You must live in a shaded world influences mostly from your imagination.
Three million people had access to this stuff. It was bound to happen and if there was anything that can endanger the country in there then whoever put it there is the guy you should be looking for to lynch.
Your right, 3 million people had access to this stuff and only one person broke the rules and attempted to put his government into jeopardy. and of course there are avenues for any one of those 3 million people to pursue that involves different branches of government if they ever discovered anything seriously wrong. I have my eyes set on the right asshat, Manning should be executed as soon as a speedy trial would allow.
If Tea Partiers are strongly libertarian, why do they try to elect social conservatives like O'Donnell who want to legislate christian morality?
What exactly has she said on the campaign trail or off while she was running to make you think that?
Here is a hint to why people supported them, because they were the only ones who stepped up to run against the established set of candidates. It's somewhat of an anybody but them attitude until they get to know some of the people.
or what makes anyone thing that anyone would know anything about a 1002 page bill times the 2-300 or more of them a year that gets passed on to the president to sign if they can't even get their information correct about the people they are voting for in the presidential election.
A lot more then just getting people to vote would be needed.
And here I thought you had something intelligent and insightful to say- until you said this "military-industrial complex". Now it just appears that you are another agenda driven self obsessed idiot looking to further your own delusions of grandeur.
Bradley Manning is a disgruntled idiot who should be facing the death penalty for his actions of retaliation for disciplinary actions that happened due to his own doing.
If you find him a hero, I would like to find out how much you think of the idiots who go into work shooting and killing their ex-coworkers the day after they got fired or laid off.
Why would it have been any different if the roles were reverses?
Seriously, the facts in the case as I understand it was that SAP or a company purchased by SAP was downloading Oracle's software and reselling it at a serious discount to Oracle's own offering without permission to copy, distribute, or alter the software updates to work with the cracked versions. Also as I understand it, SAP admitted to this in court.
I don't see anything being different giving a reversal of the roles in place. But hey, nice way to attack the ruling on the grounds outside of the case itself.
Actually, no it wouldn't matter. Germany is a signatory to the WCT which obligates it to honor US copyright and copyright decisions in US courts when the jurisdiction is there.
Yea, I thought he added value to that. It's not explicit value as in it explained anything, but value in showing absolutely how outrageous the claims were to begin with.
Only RIAA could assign that much worth to something so worthless. And of course, 7 or 8 songs if shared enough, might eventually equal a sum of damaged in lost profit close to the amount asked for, except for he added milli vanilli which made it perfectly impossible to add up enough value to be close enough to actual damages.
Secrecy is by design secret.. How can you think otherwise? and it doesn't matter what another country uses to attempt to defeat that secrecy, the fact they are trying is proof that it's there by design and they are in turn keeping it secret in the process in order to not lose the source of insight on the secrecy.
Lol.. So you are saying that when something is only obvious buy it's very own nature when it fails, that means it does work despite the entire design of secrecy being that you don't know when it's working.
So your justification for killing innocent people is that not doing so would put innocent people in danger? Want to take a minute to ponder that logic?
Wow.. Your serious? I ask you for your alternative and you attempt to ignore that by twisting my words around. How hard was it for you not to come up with an actual intelligent response? I mean did you have to start over several times or did you ignore the reality of your failed logic and just immediately jump to something else as if your knee jerked so hard, it gave you a black eye?
And no, my justification is not that not doing so would put innocent people in danger. It's that it puts less people in danger as well as limiting the amount of terrorist activities. You see, there is a difference and if you would actually think about it, perhaps even answer the question, you would see it.
This might sound a little extreme, but the other option is not to invade and occupy an ungovernable country. Fine, the U.S. wanted to destroy Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. That was accomplished by the end of 2001. What the fuck are large numbers of NATO troops still doing in Afghanistan nine years later?
Do you purposely limit your world view in order to keep your beliefs? The US wanted to remove the Taliban also because it was giving safe harbor. The US isn't attempting to occupy Afghanistan to any extent beyond allowing a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan to establish and to refuse safe harbor for al qeada and the Taliban. And no, that wasn't accomplished in 2001- it wasn't accomplished in 2010.
Perhaps if you would give full consideration of the entire story, your opinions might not be so WRONG.
Does the U.S. seriously think that "nation building" is either (a) possible, or (b) going to keep Al Qaeda out of the country?
Why would we need to think anything along those lines?
If so, I've got bad news: nation building is not possible (Afghanistan has never been a nation state and won't be one in the next 100 years, political power is divided among too many tribal, ethnic and religious groups), and nation building is not going to keep Al Qaeda out (Bin Laden is quite happy sheltering in Pakistan, which is, guess what, one of the most advanced nation states in the region).
Actually, it has. It was as recently as 1995 until 2001. Before that, it enjoyed a long time rule under the ottoman empire. In fact, the territory known as Afghanistan was only established after the fall of the ottoman empire.
As far as keeping Al Qaeda out, well, it's going to happen one way or another. If you are right and it's serisouly not possible for Afghanistan to organize for it's own protection, then the US is doing it a favor by taking steps to keep an oppressive occupation like that of the Taliban and Al Qaeda out.
The only sane solution is for the U.S. to go the fuck home and launch the occasional special forces raid against any Al Qaeda bases that might emerge... which does not require a permanent presence on the ground or widespread civilian casualties.
No, the only sane solution is to pursue terrorist and those that wish to support them to the ends of the world where they find it much harder to operate. If civilians get killed, that's a tragic mistake but allowing it to establish itself means more civilians will be dead. I would rather trade the lives of someone who supports terrorist directly or indirectly then suffer the loss of lives due to the actions of the terrorists. If you think different, I suggest that's a problem with your mental faculties not mine or the rest of the world's.
First of all, there really isn't a free market when it comes to oil. It's really that simple. There are about 5 major oil players in the US, of all, only 4 operate in any one state at a time, in which the smaller oil companies are tied to all of these in one way shape or another either by the pipelines to deliver and process the fuels, the refining of the fuels, the distribution, or even the envelopment authority to drill and collect oil leases as it's regulated to the point that only major players can get into it, and so on.
So knowing that there isn't a actual free market when it comes to oil- just a market that attempts to use free market principles, how can one justify harming others who are dependent on the structure of the existing market in order to strike at the source of control in the market?
In war, that's like bombing the entire city in order to take out a munitions dump ten miles outside it. It's like using a nuclear weapon for a hand to hand personal defense instrument. It's like buying a navy ship to go fishing in your local park's pond. It's like killing off all the low income people because gangs end up populating the areas or because some of them take advantage of the system of help and aid. It's like making all kinds of wild comparisons to illustrate a point that should already be obvious.
Don't forget that ending all those is generally started in secret too.
Just because it has been abused does not mean it's not valid nor does it mean it's bad. If that were the case, then you could extend it to anything, including the internet as it has been used to do many bad things- some of which you mentioned.
Is this because you are a bitter jackass or is it because I was right and you are trying to back peddle without admitting to it?
Oh well, I guess it's true that when people don't have any useful ideas or comments left, they try name calling as if it's a legitimate debating tactic. Good luck to you in your future.
If that puts civilians at risk, then the obvious solution is to not bomb.
Do you have any alternative to bombing other then letting the terrorist thrive to plot more attacks and put more innocent lives in danger? I mean seriously, what is the other options here? Going in and shootng them- well now there is bullets flying around that aren't limited to a small area?
The only reason putting civilians in the way is an effective strategy for some groups is because imperialists still proceed to drop bombs or otherwise open fire when there are civilians in the way!
And you line of think would probably change that to "because they know they won't be killed there. Which is more dangerous, having the terrorist know and understand that if they hide in civilian populations, that civilians will be killed, or having terrorist know that if they hide in civilian populations, they won't be killed? Terrorists already intended on killing innocent civilians-
Yep, that's something to start with. And after we have all the franchise owners who played absolutely no role in the oil spill outside of association, bankrupt, out of business, and all their employees looking for new jobs, we can pay extra for the even more limited selections of fueling stations around (even if it's just a BP station with another name on it).
Have you ever been to a town in which there is only one or two station brands? You can literally drive 20 minutes or so to a bigger town and get gas anywhere from 10-30 cents cheaper. Why it this possible you might ask? Well, it's because when the choice is limited, they can charge what they want for what you need and not too many people would be willing to drive 40 minutes round trip just to save 3 bucks on a fill up. But hey, if we take BP out of this mix, perhaps we will have that in more places.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done, but seriously think about what you are wanting to do. Hurting people that weren't involved in the incident probably isn't going to be the most effective way to get back at BP. Especially if they simply sell their gas under a different name (like Duke Oil or one of the hundreds of other subsidiaries they have swallowed over the years).
That much is true, and therefore releasing part of the truth invites the potentially negatively affected party to release the rest of it (or at least as much as they need to repair their image), which means more truth released overall. Which is a good thing.
That's if the negetively affested party is in the position to release more information. The lack of updates does not in any way ensure you have all the information or that all the information available even resembles the truth. You have to remember, there are reasons why it wasn't released in the first place.
Also true, but not really relevant to the usefulness of leaked information.
So your saying that releasing information before certain events like elections and so on when there isn't time to respond and out it into perspective isn't useful or relevant? I mean seriously, Obama won elections this way.
It might, but this is a fallacious argument in general, since it's exactly the one used by totalitarian regimes historically to justify any oppressive measures and crackdowns - "The enemies are out there! The dissidents are conspiring to destroy our society and kill us all! They must be silenced before their treacherous lies subvert our cause!".
Lol.. Just because totalitarian regimes use something as a tactic does not in any way make it fallacious. What it makes it is exploitable but not fallacious. There are very few situations or circumstances where someone doing bad is grounds to ignore the entire concept or theory. Pedophiles portrayed in movies always have hooded sweatshirts and panel vans, does that make the use of either for any other reason then to kidnap children and take their innocent invalid? I think not.
Overall, I'm not aware of any leak coming from WL where the cost/benefit ratio (in my subjective opinion, of course) was not advantageous for release.
I'm not really aware of any release that was worth the hype on exposure. Most all of it was typical shit you would find going on in any way being touted as some sort of damaging revelation. Even the video of the reporter getting shot down by the helicopter was overblown out of context.
I don't believe that WikiLeaks are the "good guys". They can knowingly be on al-Qaeda and DPRK payroll simultaneously for all I care. What matters is whether they deliver factual information. Similarly, any other party is also invited to deliver such information. If CIA wants to set up a WL-like front org to "leak" interesting stuff on China, Iran or Russia, they're more than welcome to do so as well. As a Russian citizen, I would of course be particularly interested in any stuff on my country (though there has already been plenty of "bombs" from elsewhere - but, alas, they do not have effect of the same magnitude in an authoritarian, sham-democracy society).
Information being in the open for the sake of it being in the open is not alwasy a good idea. I mean you keep your banking accounts and record secret, probably your credit cards too. I mean as long as it's accurate and released, it wouldn't matter who got a hold of it right?
True, but it appeared that his claim was that they fought and dies so we would know what the government was doing. I took that suggested point from his line about not being able to vote for what you don't know.
The freedom of the republic does not mean all out open access to everything the government does. It never has.
Look, I wasn't ignoring "anything I don't want to hear", I was letting someone know that stepping in with some serious accusations against Wikileaks, without evidence, as an Anonymous Coward, can get someone on the pay-no-mind list.
That's the thing though, it wasn't with no evidence, it was with the evidence provided in the links he put in his post. He link to at least 5 other resources that supposedly made his point for him. whether that does or not is another topic but it wasn't an unsupported claim.
ansgressive opinion is my middle name. I love hearing things I don't want to hear. In fact, my expertise in critical theory makes me a trained professional in "hearing things I don't want to hear".
Well, it doesn't appear that way from the outside looking in. Perhaps I'll just take your word for it and ignore what you have done to challenge your own assertion.
And the links the AC posted were to other people making the exact same charges, also without evidence. That's the hallmark of someone spreading FUD.
Two of the links looked like eye witness accounts. I would suggest that was what they call evidence.
It's not what you sounded like you said. In fact, here is the quote "we can't vote on what we don't know. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans have died to prevent that from happening."
If your point was about freedom and democracy, then your right, it doesn't change that point. If you point was about knowing every little detail about our government, it changes a lot. Perhaps you could clarify a little better.
You do understand, sumdumass, that "confirmation bias" is an evolutionary adaptation, and a very important one.
Are you trying to claim that if we repeat a lie long enough, it becomes true? I mean seriously, I doubt you actually didn't know what I was talking about.
Or maybe you dropped that community college philosophy class before the professor actually explained the value of "confirmation bias".
No, I was in it long enough to know the value of it. And I can say with a fairly straight face that if you only look for your confirmation bias, you will only know part of the story. It may be ok for you to form opinions and ignore others simply because it's what you want to be true, but for the more intelligent of the species, we find it highly offensive when people like you wish to remain purposefully ignorant.
You've used this little bit of theater before when you don't have sufficient energy to actually disagree with someone. It's a punk move.
You think? You actually think it's a punk move to call you out when you are basically saying I'm ignoring anything that I don't want to hear? Ok, it's a punk move alright, a punk move that got the best of you BTW.
Please remember, I was replying to an Anonymous Coward who was spreading anonymous FUD and making specific charges against the wikileaks community that were unsubstantiated. Excuse me, where does "actual evidence" fit into your understanding of "confirmation bias".
Yes, you were replying to an AC who posted links to back up what he said. The proper thing to do is to explore the citations and then go from there. But hey, I guess you think the best thing is to ignore him and his citations and believe some other anonymous idiots. I guess that's what separates us, I'll look into the claim before dismissing it. You simply stick to your favorite side and ignore anything the points to something other then what you want to believe in. You are worse then those religious zealots.
They have dies to preserve freedom and democracy, not to ensure that every citizen knows all about their government and government's actions. Every war we have been involved with needed certain elements of secrecy and it's long been a standing tradition in the US that we wait some 50 years before most classified secrets are no longer classified.
It's simply a fallacy to think that our soldiers dies to make sure we knew every little detail of government.
The scientific or medical concsensus at the time was that certain races weren't completely human. The 3/5th more then likely was a condition on that as it refers to taxing the people, not representation or census counting.
Well, to be fair, the scientific consensus at the time was that blacks were no fully fledged men. I believe in the declaration of independence is lists them as 3/5ths men and Indians simply were not counted (most likely due to treaty status and sovereignty).
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read your own link? In it is says she claimed that she would govern on the constitution not her personal beliefs. So she is anti abortion, anti- stem cell and anti-human cloning, most republicans are.
I didn't see where it said her political stance while running for office was against homosexual marriage but that too is something the right seems to agree with. Hell, I'm against gay marriage based only on the principle that it creates a special right or privilege not already allowed in an exception to rights already present. Everyone, gay, straight, dwarf, giant, red, blue, religious or not or whatever has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex once they reach a certain age. If you chose to act differently, don't tell me you have that as a right. Note, I didn't say being gay was a choice (it is, mostly unconsciously though so the choice is separated a bit), I said that acting a certain way that was different was a choice.
All in all, with one exception to voices in her head that I didn't see referenced anywhere, that she wanted to legislate christian morality- specifically when she said she would legislate according to the constitution and not her personal beliefs nor did I see where she is much different then other conservative candidates. It wasn't until after she won the primary that all the shit she did in the past started coming to light and scaring you.
The problem is, he didn't tell us anything, he released a shit load of classified documents. No one that I know of has supported the divine right of kings or that you could never question government either. You must live in a shaded world influences mostly from your imagination.
Your right, 3 million people had access to this stuff and only one person broke the rules and attempted to put his government into jeopardy. and of course there are avenues for any one of those 3 million people to pursue that involves different branches of government if they ever discovered anything seriously wrong. I have my eyes set on the right asshat, Manning should be executed as soon as a speedy trial would allow.
What exactly has she said on the campaign trail or off while she was running to make you think that?
Here is a hint to why people supported them, because they were the only ones who stepped up to run against the established set of candidates. It's somewhat of an anybody but them attitude until they get to know some of the people.
or what makes anyone thing that anyone would know anything about a 1002 page bill times the 2-300 or more of them a year that gets passed on to the president to sign if they can't even get their information correct about the people they are voting for in the presidential election.
A lot more then just getting people to vote would be needed.
And here I thought you had something intelligent and insightful to say- until you said this "military-industrial complex". Now it just appears that you are another agenda driven self obsessed idiot looking to further your own delusions of grandeur.
You surprise me quit a lot, but not this time.
Bradley Manning is a disgruntled idiot who should be facing the death penalty for his actions of retaliation for disciplinary actions that happened due to his own doing.
If you find him a hero, I would like to find out how much you think of the idiots who go into work shooting and killing their ex-coworkers the day after they got fired or laid off.
Why would it have been any different if the roles were reverses?
Seriously, the facts in the case as I understand it was that SAP or a company purchased by SAP was downloading Oracle's software and reselling it at a serious discount to Oracle's own offering without permission to copy, distribute, or alter the software updates to work with the cracked versions. Also as I understand it, SAP admitted to this in court.
I don't see anything being different giving a reversal of the roles in place. But hey, nice way to attack the ruling on the grounds outside of the case itself.
Actually, no it wouldn't matter. Germany is a signatory to the WCT which obligates it to honor US copyright and copyright decisions in US courts when the jurisdiction is there.
It's as some would say "international law".
Yea, I thought he added value to that. It's not explicit value as in it explained anything, but value in showing absolutely how outrageous the claims were to begin with.
Only RIAA could assign that much worth to something so worthless. And of course, 7 or 8 songs if shared enough, might eventually equal a sum of damaged in lost profit close to the amount asked for, except for he added milli vanilli which made it perfectly impossible to add up enough value to be close enough to actual damages.
Secrecy is by design secret.. How can you think otherwise? and it doesn't matter what another country uses to attempt to defeat that secrecy, the fact they are trying is proof that it's there by design and they are in turn keeping it secret in the process in order to not lose the source of insight on the secrecy.
Lol.. So you are saying that when something is only obvious buy it's very own nature when it fails, that means it does work despite the entire design of secrecy being that you don't know when it's working.
Yea, that's the way it works...
Wow.. Your serious? I ask you for your alternative and you attempt to ignore that by twisting my words around. How hard was it for you not to come up with an actual intelligent response? I mean did you have to start over several times or did you ignore the reality of your failed logic and just immediately jump to something else as if your knee jerked so hard, it gave you a black eye?
And no, my justification is not that not doing so would put innocent people in danger. It's that it puts less people in danger as well as limiting the amount of terrorist activities. You see, there is a difference and if you would actually think about it, perhaps even answer the question, you would see it.
Do you purposely limit your world view in order to keep your beliefs? The US wanted to remove the Taliban also because it was giving safe harbor. The US isn't attempting to occupy Afghanistan to any extent beyond allowing a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan to establish and to refuse safe harbor for al qeada and the Taliban. And no, that wasn't accomplished in 2001- it wasn't accomplished in 2010.
Perhaps if you would give full consideration of the entire story, your opinions might not be so WRONG.
Why would we need to think anything along those lines?
Actually, it has. It was as recently as 1995 until 2001. Before that, it enjoyed a long time rule under the ottoman empire. In fact, the territory known as Afghanistan was only established after the fall of the ottoman empire.
As far as keeping Al Qaeda out, well, it's going to happen one way or another. If you are right and it's serisouly not possible for Afghanistan to organize for it's own protection, then the US is doing it a favor by taking steps to keep an oppressive occupation like that of the Taliban and Al Qaeda out.
No, the only sane solution is to pursue terrorist and those that wish to support them to the ends of the world where they find it much harder to operate. If civilians get killed, that's a tragic mistake but allowing it to establish itself means more civilians will be dead. I would rather trade the lives of someone who supports terrorist directly or indirectly then suffer the loss of lives due to the actions of the terrorists. If you think different, I suggest that's a problem with your mental faculties not mine or the rest of the world's.
First of all, there really isn't a free market when it comes to oil. It's really that simple. There are about 5 major oil players in the US, of all, only 4 operate in any one state at a time, in which the smaller oil companies are tied to all of these in one way shape or another either by the pipelines to deliver and process the fuels, the refining of the fuels, the distribution, or even the envelopment authority to drill and collect oil leases as it's regulated to the point that only major players can get into it, and so on.
So knowing that there isn't a actual free market when it comes to oil- just a market that attempts to use free market principles, how can one justify harming others who are dependent on the structure of the existing market in order to strike at the source of control in the market?
In war, that's like bombing the entire city in order to take out a munitions dump ten miles outside it. It's like using a nuclear weapon for a hand to hand personal defense instrument. It's like buying a navy ship to go fishing in your local park's pond. It's like killing off all the low income people because gangs end up populating the areas or because some of them take advantage of the system of help and aid. It's like making all kinds of wild comparisons to illustrate a point that should already be obvious.
Don't forget that ending all those is generally started in secret too.
Just because it has been abused does not mean it's not valid nor does it mean it's bad. If that were the case, then you could extend it to anything, including the internet as it has been used to do many bad things- some of which you mentioned.
So I see you are not going to clarify it any.
Is this because you are a bitter jackass or is it because I was right and you are trying to back peddle without admitting to it?
Oh well, I guess it's true that when people don't have any useful ideas or comments left, they try name calling as if it's a legitimate debating tactic. Good luck to you in your future.
Do you have any alternative to bombing other then letting the terrorist thrive to plot more attacks and put more innocent lives in danger? I mean seriously, what is the other options here? Going in and shootng them- well now there is bullets flying around that aren't limited to a small area?
And you line of think would probably change that to "because they know they won't be killed there. Which is more dangerous, having the terrorist know and understand that if they hide in civilian populations, that civilians will be killed, or having terrorist know that if they hide in civilian populations, they won't be killed? Terrorists already intended on killing innocent civilians-
Yep, that's something to start with. And after we have all the franchise owners who played absolutely no role in the oil spill outside of association, bankrupt, out of business, and all their employees looking for new jobs, we can pay extra for the even more limited selections of fueling stations around (even if it's just a BP station with another name on it).
Have you ever been to a town in which there is only one or two station brands? You can literally drive 20 minutes or so to a bigger town and get gas anywhere from 10-30 cents cheaper. Why it this possible you might ask? Well, it's because when the choice is limited, they can charge what they want for what you need and not too many people would be willing to drive 40 minutes round trip just to save 3 bucks on a fill up. But hey, if we take BP out of this mix, perhaps we will have that in more places.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done, but seriously think about what you are wanting to do. Hurting people that weren't involved in the incident probably isn't going to be the most effective way to get back at BP. Especially if they simply sell their gas under a different name (like Duke Oil or one of the hundreds of other subsidiaries they have swallowed over the years).
That's if the negetively affested party is in the position to release more information. The lack of updates does not in any way ensure you have all the information or that all the information available even resembles the truth. You have to remember, there are reasons why it wasn't released in the first place.
So your saying that releasing information before certain events like elections and so on when there isn't time to respond and out it into perspective isn't useful or relevant? I mean seriously, Obama won elections this way.
Lol.. Just because totalitarian regimes use something as a tactic does not in any way make it fallacious. What it makes it is exploitable but not fallacious. There are very few situations or circumstances where someone doing bad is grounds to ignore the entire concept or theory. Pedophiles portrayed in movies always have hooded sweatshirts and panel vans, does that make the use of either for any other reason then to kidnap children and take their innocent invalid? I think not.
I'm not really aware of any release that was worth the hype on exposure. Most all of it was typical shit you would find going on in any way being touted as some sort of damaging revelation. Even the video of the reporter getting shot down by the helicopter was overblown out of context.
Information being in the open for the sake of it being in the open is not alwasy a good idea. I mean you keep your banking accounts and record secret, probably your credit cards too. I mean as long as it's accurate and released, it wouldn't matter who got a hold of it right?
True, but it appeared that his claim was that they fought and dies so we would know what the government was doing. I took that suggested point from his line about not being able to vote for what you don't know.
The freedom of the republic does not mean all out open access to everything the government does. It never has.
That's the thing though, it wasn't with no evidence, it was with the evidence provided in the links he put in his post. He link to at least 5 other resources that supposedly made his point for him. whether that does or not is another topic but it wasn't an unsupported claim.
Well, it doesn't appear that way from the outside looking in. Perhaps I'll just take your word for it and ignore what you have done to challenge your own assertion.
Two of the links looked like eye witness accounts. I would suggest that was what they call evidence.
It's not what you sounded like you said. In fact, here is the quote "we can't vote on what we don't know. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans have died to prevent that from happening."
If your point was about freedom and democracy, then your right, it doesn't change that point. If you point was about knowing every little detail about our government, it changes a lot. Perhaps you could clarify a little better.
Are you trying to claim that if we repeat a lie long enough, it becomes true? I mean seriously, I doubt you actually didn't know what I was talking about.
No, I was in it long enough to know the value of it. And I can say with a fairly straight face that if you only look for your confirmation bias, you will only know part of the story. It may be ok for you to form opinions and ignore others simply because it's what you want to be true, but for the more intelligent of the species, we find it highly offensive when people like you wish to remain purposefully ignorant.
You think? You actually think it's a punk move to call you out when you are basically saying I'm ignoring anything that I don't want to hear? Ok, it's a punk move alright, a punk move that got the best of you BTW.
Yes, you were replying to an AC who posted links to back up what he said. The proper thing to do is to explore the citations and then go from there. But hey, I guess you think the best thing is to ignore him and his citations and believe some other anonymous idiots. I guess that's what separates us, I'll look into the claim before dismissing it. You simply stick to your favorite side and ignore anything the points to something other then what you want to believe in. You are worse then those religious zealots.
They have dies to preserve freedom and democracy, not to ensure that every citizen knows all about their government and government's actions. Every war we have been involved with needed certain elements of secrecy and it's long been a standing tradition in the US that we wait some 50 years before most classified secrets are no longer classified.
It's simply a fallacy to think that our soldiers dies to make sure we knew every little detail of government.
Have you ever heard of a concept of Eugenics?
The scientific or medical concsensus at the time was that certain races weren't completely human. The 3/5th more then likely was a condition on that as it refers to taxing the people, not representation or census counting.
Well, to be fair, the scientific consensus at the time was that blacks were no fully fledged men. I believe in the declaration of independence is lists them as 3/5ths men and Indians simply were not counted (most likely due to treaty status and sovereignty).