You can't selectively enforce provisions of a contract. If Rack Space hadn't taken this stand on similar issues of speech and allowed it instead in the past, then there can be problems with enforcing this contract stipulation and the church could possible recover damages. Also, the church website hasn't really posted anything except that it's going to burn the book which I don't understand how that in and of itself is hate speech.
There are plenty of examples of hate speech similar to this supposed situation going around too. Some of which the article submission covers which makes the point. But there are others like the crucifix in a jar of piss back in the 1990's that was hiding under the guise of art. I guess we would have to find some legal definition somewhere claiming that note only is burning a religious book hate speech, but talking about doing so is too. I'm not sure that exists outside of some totalitarian middle eastern countries. Perhaps you know more about it and could provide a link.
And yes, in case you are missing the entire point, this is more about a contract issue. It's about selectively and subjectively interpreting the clauses in the contract to a point which is causes the contract to breach. It may be upon legal review that Rack Space may have been in breach and not the church in question.
But why? Seriously, why should a church be bound to respect the works of another religion or lose any legal advantages it may have had? It's not like the church is saying go kill Muslims or death to infidels or anything. They are burning a book that they purchased as their own property in order to speak about the events that lead to 9/11 and remember the people who gave their lives by only going about a normal person's life.
I could understand it if the people responsible for 9/11 didn't ever use their religion to justify their actions but they did. And we have a history of that happening right here in the US in which Thomas Jefferson ended up creating a standing Navy and The United States Marines in order to retaliate on Tripoli (ottoman empire) who said that their (Allah) god gave them the right to pirate US vessels and take hostages and slaves on the US Atlantic coastal waters.
So why should a church lose all legal advantages just because it doesn't respect another church's fiction? The same Amendment that gives churches the right to the legal advantages also contains the same language about free speech. How would you feel if all the low income families lost their earned income credit if they participate in a political rally? To me, it's all the same thing and I can't see how it would be right to punish one group for using their free speech and not the other.
I'm not sure how it is the same. Is saying I'm going to burn the bible the same thing as calling someone a kike or nigger? I mean in essence that's what you are doing, you are conflating the burning of something with the actual hate of someone. Trying to offend someone isn't necessarily hate speech.
So I guess we should really ask ourselves if this is typical behavior of Rack space. I mean they carried sites that ran stories about and promoting the crucifix in a jar of piss, burning of flags, and several other examples where someone attempted to be as offensive as hell in the name of art. If this is a one off ordeal then maybe we should question the motivations of RackSpace and make it known that their version of hate speech is only what they do not agree with.
So are you going to add anything that actually dispels what the site says or just crowd a bunch more innuendos into some one liners and attempt to deflect the actual comment? Seriously, is it true or false what the op or the link he posted said?
Here is the thing, the source of information doesn't automagicaly invalidate it, neither does anecdotal evidence. All it means is that the information needs a little closer examination. You felt the need to comment on his comment, so what is the result of your examination of the information he brought forward. And yes, that would require retort that amounts to more then "that web site?, I don't like it".
Remember Mr Discovery Building and what he said? There will be bloodshed coming very soon.
Mr Discovery building was right. Unfortunately he predictions were clear enough to tell him it would be his if he did something that stupid.
Whatever you are thinking, make sure it's something you are willing to die for as that will most likely be the cost if you are taking any cues from that leftwing nutjob.
When 97 out of 361 members of your party bail on you, you are neither as powerful nor influential as you think. It would appear that the AK party did not control those votes.
It still doesn't matter to the point I made to counter your nor the point you attempted to make. I'm not even sure where you are trying to take this now as you move into whatever direction you think might help your position yet fail to see that move actually kills it. Here is what we know to be true, a guy who became prime minister not 20 days after the vote as well as other government officials claimed he could make us using the border possible. Rumsfield positioned troops and supplies based around those assurances. And yes, the vote to allow this actually was in favor of doing so as it was a majority of people present to vote but their laws say it had to be a majority of all members and 18 members(presumable who would have voted in favor) were not there to vote one way or another so the vote actualyl failed even though more votes cast were for then against.
Yes, Turkey did end up permitting overflight, but Rumsfeld's plan to get more boots on the ground required overland permission as well.
Are you agreeing with me here? I mean you are stating that rumsfield did have a plan to have more boots on the ground. the problem is with your original statement which said he chose not to put more boots on the ground. Well, the simply truth of the matter is that it was impossible to relocate the troops already in Turkey so he was forced to go in with less.
That was Turkish public opinion, not American. While the CIA has no obligation to appease Turkish public opinion, it has a responsibility to report it to the proper authorities. And if it did report it, the Bush administration should have known what strain it was placing on the Turkish government, regardless of what Erdogan said. As for government officials caring about about public opinion, the Turkish MPs cared about it in 2003.
So you are saying that the government, while in direct talks with leaders of another country, should ignore what those leaders say and do only what the CIA says? As for the Turkish MP's, it appears that 264 of them didn't care as much as you pretend to think. And yes, that was 264 in favor of allowing US troops to use the border for a land invasion into Iraq -and only 251 again. Again, the problem came about when 18 members of parliament weren't present to vote.
He had some political pull, but do you believe he could have prevailed against such opposition? What he attempted would have tested Walpole, Bismarck, and FDR. It's not a matter of pull, it's a matter of realizing one's limitations.
It doesn't really matter for out point of discussion. He presented himself as being more powerful then he actually was by using the facts- not by making shit up. And yes, he only needed 11 of the 18 absent members of parliament to vote yes and it would have passed. You act as if this was someone that no one would ever think possible. The reality is that it was a lot closer then you are admitting.
The article also has a claim that Vice-President Cheney told the Turks that President Bush needed the authorization by Feb. 12. That would have given us more than a month to redeploy. Whether that claim is true or not, I don't know, but should the US have waited until six days before the start of hostilities for the vote? The mere fact that it took so long to get the vote might be an indication that it's not going to be a landslide.
Do you think they planned when the war was going to be years in advance and then decided to not change it or something? Of course there were contingency plans in the works but in all, it was only a couple of months in actual staging and preparedness primarily designed to whip Iraq into compliance
I never claimed that it was a conspiracy; Bush 43 couldn't conspire his way out of a paper bag. I merely tried to point out that his victory was hardly a product of his competence.
He won because of his competency. And yes, you are arguing, in the words that you use, that it was some massive conspiracy and not bush. You can't have it both way. If that's not the position you want to take, then rephrase your words to avoid it.
No one knew that Iraq had disarmed because the Bush administration didn't give the inspectors the time.
Bush didn't give them time? You mean Bush was in power back in 1990 when the inspectors originally got their mandate? Or do you mean he was in power back in 1995 when Saddam first threw them out after complaints that Iraq wasn't being cooperative? Or was it the entire 11 year period before Bush's second term in office that he didn't give the inspectors enough time?
Do you even think before posting? The inspectors were called off by the UN after the invasion into Iraq and the invasion was escalated because Iraq was pulling stunts designed to thwart the inspectors again.
Also, this doesn't give me confidence in Bush.
Please show me the quote by Bush or one of his aids that said Iraq was aiding terrorists responsible for 9/11. The case had been made that members of Al Qeada met with Iraq in 1996 (IIRC), and Iraq was opening offering pensions to the families of suicide attackers. But from paying attention to what has actually been said, the connection to 9/11 and Al Qeada was preventative as in "because this happened, we can't allow the threat of them collaborating happen".
But Bush was elected because of his competence? And I never said that the abortive attempt to rescue the hostages was his only error.
Yes, I hate to squash your geopolitical worldview but Yes, Bush gained a seat in office from his competence. And yes, singling out one instance as a failure in Carter's term as president is almost attempting to ignore the fact that his entire presidency was a failure.
But you are merely pushing their ignorance. They may have had Erdogan on board, but he was only a party leader, not Prime Minister. Did they check the Turkish Parliament?
Just as the president in the US isn't a king, the prime minister isn't either. Having the support of a party leader when that party controls parliament is almost the same as having the prime minister's support as it's the party politics that carry for the most part. You claim I am pushing their ignorance when the fact remains as stated in your own link that after "nearly a year of official discussions and intense negotiations between U.S. and Turkish officials both in Washington, D.C. and in Ankara," "Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi or AKP), who had assured the United States that he could deliver a positive vote in the Turkish Parliament." So in case this is escaping you, it means that after nearly a year of negotiations, we had commitments of representatives of the government, one of which was so powerful that not only did he orchestrate the vote to let US troops deploy, not more then 8 days after that vote, became a parliament member himself who not more then 15 days later became the prime minister of turkey himself.
Please, by all means, explain to me how dealing with someone with that kind of power and influence and accepting his commitment is ignorance? And sure, the vote was actually in favor of letting the US use the border and it lost only on a technicality because 18 or so members of parliament weren't there to vote. After all, the AK party controlled two third of the government which should have been enough voted to make it happen.
The author mentions that Powell (you know, an actual general who dealt with the Turks during Desert Storm) warned that while the Turks might have permitted overflight, asking to deploy ground troops would be too much.
Ok, so you end up quoting something that supports my position completely and totally refutes yours as the same as mine. I mean this was brought up because you said Rumsfield attempted to use too little troops and I countered with more was being planned to be used until Turkey backed us off. Yet you quote the article where it specifically says Rumsfield thought they could get turkey to let us use their border.
But of corse, I'm the one being ideological. Also, as the author mentions, public opinion was 90% against the war. Can the CIA read polls?
First of all, when has the CIA officially made policy? And yes, you are being ideological and you are attempting to jump from one point to another in some last ditch effort or something when you find my point valid and end up proving my point in your attempts to retort. Second, since when has the government actually cared what public opinion anywhere was outside of playing it lip service to serve it's own goals? Fuck, take Katrina and New Orleans for instance, it was all Bush mismanaging it and it was being shouted from the top of democrats lungs. But when they took over congress and even the administration, they have done nothing to change the policies or the delivery of the policies in New Orleans, they just shut their mouth a bit when the fallout can be redirected directly at them or their party. And here we are with people still displaced from the storm and flooding, people still wanting to go back, people still waiting on what was promised to them buy the government. But hey, lets close out eyes and pretend that only actions by certain people mean something and hold them to impossible standards while taking everything out of context. - That doesn't sound ideological to you?
Erdogan's parliamentary tactics were laughable, but again, the US knew (or could have known) that he was in
As far as Bush's competence goes, was he competent at smearing McCain in South Carolina in 2000, or designing Florida's ballot, or getting Ralph Nader to run, or getting the Swift Boat group to attack Kerry?
Ok, I see why you are spouting so much BS that isn't supported now. You believe Bush's presidency is nothing but an elaborate scheme or something right? You are so deep into conspiracies, the simple truth doesn't appeal to you any more.
Here are some facts, I don't know who was behind the smear in McCain in 2000 and I don't care as McCain wasn't electable in the first place. You can claim it should have been McCain against Gore all you want, but it simply wouldn't have happened as too many other states didn't like McCain in the primaries. As for getting Nader to run, do you seriously think Bush was able to get one of the most liberal persons to every run for president in the US to run or do you think he ran for his own reasons- because the people running for office weren't representing things he and his supporters thought were important? The Swift boat campaign was actually started and ran by people independent from Bush as this is all in the open. Your attempt to connect them is little more then sore loser politicking.
Here is a hint, Not everything that goes against your guy is some massive conspiracy designed by your guy's opponent.
However competent Bush was at getting elected or having Congress approve his proposals, does that say anything about how competent he was at running the war?
Please explain this a little more. I'm not sure if you are claiming that because he was competent enough to get elected, he should have been competent enough to do something else or if you are attempting to claim it was all one massive conspiracy where he cheated to get elected just to start the war.
It doesn't really matter as I already stated, no one knew for sure that the WMDs were there until after we went to war. Even Hans Blix who came out in contradiction to his UN inspection reports claiming Iraq had no WMDs had claimed that Iraq was likely hiding illegal weapon's programs and illegal munitions in his inspection reports leading up to the war. And when our policy went from waiting until we have people dead because of it to proactively stopping the spread of WMDs and interactions with terrorists, Iraq's continued attempts to conceal it's true capabilities made war inevitable. But there is no reason to think Bush was incompetent or hiding anything leading up to the war, as I mentioned earlier, simply do a search for all these democrats lied too or the position of Russia and France leading into the war. No one knew Iraq had disarmed, at most they made the argument that Iraq was contained or the information concerning WMDs didn't warrant war.
Carter was competent enough to get elected in 1976, but his everyone-gets-a-participation-trophy approach to rescuing our diplomatic personnel in Iran was disastrous.
Carter wasn't really elected because of his competency. He was elected because of the disgust of the previous administrations. All you pretty much had to do to get elected in 1976 was to not be part of the inside the beltway crowed and be somewhat associated with a large party. You are Also giving President Carter too much Credit if you think it's attempts at freeing the hostages was his only failure in office. His entire administration was a complete and utter failure. And yes, I was around during it and remember how it failed most clearly. There was even an adaptation of the Oscar Myer wiener song built around Carter's administration. It went something like this:
My peanut has a first name, it's jimmy My peanut has a second name, it's Carter. And if you ask me, I will say Jimmy Carter has a way of Fucking up the US of A.
As for NCLB, I'll blame/credit both parties, as it had bipartisan
There are tons of citations, why don't you google for it like I said in the post. Hell, I even gave you the words to use. I'm not going to spoon feed you when you clearly should be taking the initiative to find some knowledge about this yourself seeing how you choose to speak about it.
Bad analogy. It's more like blaming a police force for sending its entire SWAT division to take down a jaywalker.
As far as the Bush administration's being proactive against terrorism, being proactive doesn't require acting like a bull in a china shop. Indeed, its proactivity may have been an illegal war.
No, it doesn't need to be that way. However, what needs to be and what was is not the point of this. The point was that because of 9/11, we took dangers and threats to the US differently then before and that's the reason the actions were taken. And no, no one is honestly claiming that the war in Iraq was illegal except for the idiots with some agenda of their own. We not only had the right according to international law due to the UN resolutions, and as a result of failure of the armistice that halted the first gulf war, we had a right of national sovereignty to go to war in Iraq. Only if you ignore those points, can you make a claim of an illegal war.
Also, the Bush administration didn't know that Turkey would not grant passage of our troops. Gee, the Turks might have issues with our liberating the Iraqi Kurds, as it might give the Kurds in Turkey ideas that the Turks would prefer they didn't have. Or that Iran might sneak terrorists across its border with Iraq? These should not have been unknown unknowns.
Wow, just WoW,, Are you arguing with documented history? I mean besides the fact that the turks understood the kurds would gain sufficient ground to resolve their territorial issues in the reformation of Iraq, we had troops amassed on the Turkish border waiting to go in until protests of the Turkish population forced the government of Turkey to deny our passage. This isn't anything that some secret document on wikileaks revealed either, it was full blown front page news coverage in all the US and most international media outlets. To suggest that Bush or Rumsfield knew that Turkey would yank permission to use their border after they already gave it and allowed us to invest heavy resources and time in doing so by staging violent protests within it's own population that threatened the stability of the Turkish government is absolutely absurd. It's as if you are purposely refusing to admit the facts in order to retain your ideological stances that are little more then ideological beliefs. When is 2+2 actually 4 to you?
Perhaps it's a chicken and egg problem where he needs to build links in order to get the site noticed in order for others to actually link to it voiding his need to build links.
A site doesn't automagically get links just because it's good, it has to be noticed first.
You assert that the scandal distracted President Clinton from directing the efforts against terrorism, but can you provide evidence?
Actually, this is common knowledge as Clinton missed several opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden before 9/11. Now of course opportunities do not mean it would have succeeded but it does mean that it was possible and some distraction or whatever caused them not to be taken. I suggest that you do a simple google search for "Clinton could have killed bin laden" and "the path to 9/11" if you want evidence.
And even if it were the case, do the Republicans not share some of the blame for pushing the scandal to impeachment?
Yes, the person in the car accident who is screaming in excruciating pain deserves part of the blame for the unconscious guy dieing when the paramedics tend to the person with a broken arm instead of serious head trauma. Or lets put this in a better terminology that more closely relates, the person who stopped at the red light deserves part of the blame for the accident that ended up killing someone and breaking the arm of another person because they were following the law and stopped at a red light. Or lets extend this a little further, the cops share the blame too because they were chasing the bank robbers who rear ended the car that stopped at the red light.
I'm not sure if I need to use the sarcasm tags there or not. But the point is that there was nothing to blame anyone over with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was a person who abused his office of trust by not acting honestly. It's absurd to think that going after someone for lieing under oath is part of the problem that was created by the wrongful act in the first place.
How much time does the President need to direct anti-terrorist operations?
I'm not sure how that is even relevant? Could you please explain why you think it is?
FDR managed to stay atop WWII while engaging in numerous affairs. Even if you blame Clinton for 9/11, it is a stretch to connect that to the Iraq war, so the 4,000 lives and 700 billion dollars are still on Bush 43's tab.
I guess to FDR's benefit, it's a little easier to keep track of what you are doing when you aren't making sure ever aspect of your lie is covered. Anyways, no one is blaming Clinton for 9/11. What they are saying is that the way we addressed the issue of terrorism under Clinton doesn't work because it leads to the events of 9/11. It's a reactive strategy that insists on attacks against innocent civilians being carried out first then waits for law enforcement to punish people who are probably already dead. The change in strategy comes where we simply do not allow the terrorist organizations to operate freely and instead of waiting for them to attack us, we take the fight to them with highly skilled soldiers.
And no, it's not a stretch to connect 9/11 to Iraq. That is why you shouldn't be talking about this altogether- you do not understand the rumsfield quote so it's unlikely you are able to have an intellectually honest debate over this. Anyways, the connection to Iraq and 9/11 wasn't that Iraq was involved in 9/11, it's that we changed from a reactive policy to a proactive policy and Iraq gave enough indications to suggest that they were attempting to be a threat. In fact, Al Qeada's number two guy said when he was captured that they had no clue we would react that strongly to the 9/11 attacks as they based their information of our dealing with Saddam in which he openly denied his obligations of the 1990 armistice agreements. In short, a very well founded case can be made that if the US would have dealt with Iraq properly in 1995 when they kicked the inspectors out, 9/11 would never have happened as Al Qeada wouldn't have taken the risk.
But back on the point, we do know that Iraq and some terrorists were in contact, we do kn
So you know what the White House Correspondents dinner is?
If you did, I don't think you would have made that statement or thought it was a good part or anything. Unless you think people like Lewis Black is a die hard conservative or something, as the Bush administration had him there before Colbert.
Why are you attempting to argue with someone who is defending the art of personal attacks instead of attacking the points they deem invalid. I mean it's sort of sounds like they are simply going to ignore any logic of facts thrown in their face and just claim you are ugly or something as if it is some valid retort to your point outside of third grade playground debate.
Ahh, don't deflate his reality with the facts. The last thing we want is unhinged idiots who just realized their ideology is based mostly on a fabrication running lose.
Even if there were no purpose or agenda behind the mistake, that mistake cost 4,000 American lives and 700 billion dollars. That's 4,000 more lives and 700 billion more dollars than were lost while Clinton was receiving blow jobs.
Yawn... This is pointless as you seem to be embedded in your bigotry to the point that no amount of reason or logic will mean anything to you. The point you don't understand is that because of the scandal and time consumed by it, the redirection led up to the misunderstandings and ignorance that became the 700 billion dollars and 4000 dead. I'm sure you have seen the sites that claims if Bush lied, then so did all these democrats and then goes on to list democrats who have in part or in whole expressed the exact same sentiments Bush used to justify the war which has become known as the lies. The only difference is that Bush claimed after 9/11, it was important to take a proactive stance instead of continuing a reactive stance because waiting can cause 3000+ innocent civilians.
But hey, go ahead and play the party politics and do or say what ever is necessary to keep this a two sided issue and protect your side. I mean it's your team after all and nothing they do could be wrong or as bad as the other side right? The reality of the matter is that neither side works or operates within a vacuum and the actions of one directly lead to the actions of another.
And if 9/11 didn't happen for that reason? Indeed, Clinton spent far less time fooling than Bush 43 did on vacation. And the latter's "proactive" shift is just a cover for offensive war. Also, it would be easier to see the logic in the reasoning if there were logic in the reasoning. As for Rumsfeld's ramblings, those who would declare war have the burden of proof, and the Bush 43 Administration failed badly with it.
See above..
What do you mean by And if 9/11 didn't happen for that reason? I never stated a reason for why 9/11 happened. I stated a policy change after it happened that Bush applied. This has nothing to do with how much time someone spend on vacation.
Also, the logic in the reasoning is pretty solid if you actually possess the intelligence and wherewithal to see and understand it. The biggest failure of the Bush administration was failing to articulate his policy beyond the cheerleaders already on board. However, simply paying attention with an open mind and not entrenching yourself into partisan politicking would have made it easy to understand for anyone.
I can tell that wasn't the case with you and you have made absolutely no valid attempt to understand them as you seem to attribute Rumsfield's saying to "ramblings" of "his" when they are neither. The quote was originally in a military paper authored several years before Rumsfield was on the scene and it refers to the unknown aspects of conflict and how volatile planning can actually be. It's an adaptation from a/several economics quotes that has been around for a lot longer. This is why I said if you do not understand it, you are not qualified to discuss this information. You are doing nothing but half-whit uninformed politicking at this point and our discussion deserves a little more intellectual honesty then that.
You may think that is true but it's a different beast entirely.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that there was a purpose of agenda behind being ignorant. You can be well intentioned and informed and still be ignorant as the facts don't always paint the correct pictures.
As Rumsfield once said, As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.
And I will suggest that if you don't actually see the logic in the reasoning behind that, you shouldn't be discussing this topic as the known knowns and the unknown unknowns is what primarily guided Bush's policy in the proactive verses reactive shift after 9/11. Bush essentially said that 9/11 happened because previous administrations were too busy getting blow-jobs and protecting themselves in court then to address the real problems that allowed 9/11 to take place. How true that is or isn't is irrelevant as it implies that the alternative to any so called abuse due to ignorance would be worse giving a historical track record.
OK, I'll agree that Clinton gained more personally than Bush did from lying about WMDs. But the original poster was discussing an abuse of America, and the latter greatly overshadoes the former in that regard.
I think a punch in the face is a punch in the face regardless of who threw the punch or how hard they hit you. If one is allowed to lie, they are will think they can get away with it. Ever follow a cop who is speeding by about 10-15 MPH over the speed limit? Most people will go just as fast as the cop in front of them if they aren't responding to a call. It's not different here, others will do what some got away with and it isn't good for America at all.
Do you really believe that those claims about lies are unsubstantiated
Yes, Most of the claims about Bush lieing are unsubstantiated. There might be one of two there that has some merit and I haven't come across it but the majority are little more then the administration was incorrect about a certain belief or piece of information. Being wrong doesn't mean you have lied, it can mean you were ignorant or misled, or confused, or simply wrong. To be a lie, there has to be an intent to deceive or knowing that it is false and I don't believe anyone has shown that outside of third grade recess deductive reasoning designed to push their own agendas.
As for signicance, perhaps President Clinton owed those women compensation, but was the Lewinsky affair as significant as 4,000 dead Americans (and many more Iraqis), 700 billion dollars, and the loss of respect due to Gitmo and torture?
Well, first of all, Gitmo and Torture wasn't part of the supposed lies, although the torture was specific defined as something else so it wouldn't have been a classic definition of torture (splitting hairs I guess). and yes, I would say that Clinton was more significant then Iraq as the only other president before who appeared to have been lieing had to resign in shame (Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's- a known medical condition effecting the memory and "didn't recall"). So when the top law enforcement officer of the land, the guy who is above the Attorney General himself, lies in court, it sets the stage for other presidents to do the same. In this case, if bush actually did lie, he probably thought it would just be some BS accusations made about it that went no further then supporters rallying around him as what happened with Clinton. If Nixon was the shining recent example and not Clinton, Bush would have been forced out of office.
So yes, it's back to the people following the cop who is speeding for no apparent reason. Clinton was the cop, Bush was the one that followed. If he lied, it was because it was enabled and accepted.
I personally don't care one way or the other. You could put a strip club inside the mosque for all I care and set it right next to the Twin Towers former location. I was simply stating that Ground Zero isn't specifically limited to a street address because of how big the carnage was and it didn't engross all of Manhattan Island.
The mosque doesn't bother me if that is where you were going. I was simply pointing out why ground zero is being considered as larger then the property the WTC Twin Towers sat on.
However, I would say that there is a definite difference between the act of a country who's inhabitants tend to follow a certain religion and an act of members of a religion using the religion to justify it's actions- even when both sets of actions amount to an attack on a country. I would also say that tensions have dropped a little once you beat someone in war to the point that you gain an unconditional surrender. Perhaps these other idiots wouldn't mind the Mosque if we stopped out radical Islam first?
What safety standards have diminished exactly? I can believe they might have retarded the implementation of newer or more strict standards but not removed any of them. Please tell me where this is so I can lobby my congress critter to put the life saving measures back into play.
That manufacturer and the retailer can be the same here even though they are different. Otherwise, I can build a car, claim it will get 200 MPG and make your electric meter spin backwards, and you will be irresistibly attractive to the women if you have the "magic addon package" installed, then escape any consumer safety laws by having the dealership or some garage who doesn't make the same claims, install it.
Obviously this doesn't happen and is illegal in most jurisdictions. If you make a claim designed to further sales and are connected with the product in any ways, the law will apply to you as long as your behind the claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Yes and NO.
You can't selectively enforce provisions of a contract. If Rack Space hadn't taken this stand on similar issues of speech and allowed it instead in the past, then there can be problems with enforcing this contract stipulation and the church could possible recover damages. Also, the church website hasn't really posted anything except that it's going to burn the book which I don't understand how that in and of itself is hate speech.
There are plenty of examples of hate speech similar to this supposed situation going around too. Some of which the article submission covers which makes the point. But there are others like the crucifix in a jar of piss back in the 1990's that was hiding under the guise of art. I guess we would have to find some legal definition somewhere claiming that note only is burning a religious book hate speech, but talking about doing so is too. I'm not sure that exists outside of some totalitarian middle eastern countries. Perhaps you know more about it and could provide a link.
And yes, in case you are missing the entire point, this is more about a contract issue. It's about selectively and subjectively interpreting the clauses in the contract to a point which is causes the contract to breach. It may be upon legal review that Rack Space may have been in breach and not the church in question.
But why? Seriously, why should a church be bound to respect the works of another religion or lose any legal advantages it may have had? It's not like the church is saying go kill Muslims or death to infidels or anything. They are burning a book that they purchased as their own property in order to speak about the events that lead to 9/11 and remember the people who gave their lives by only going about a normal person's life.
I could understand it if the people responsible for 9/11 didn't ever use their religion to justify their actions but they did. And we have a history of that happening right here in the US in which Thomas Jefferson ended up creating a standing Navy and The United States Marines in order to retaliate on Tripoli (ottoman empire) who said that their (Allah) god gave them the right to pirate US vessels and take hostages and slaves on the US Atlantic coastal waters.
So why should a church lose all legal advantages just because it doesn't respect another church's fiction? The same Amendment that gives churches the right to the legal advantages also contains the same language about free speech. How would you feel if all the low income families lost their earned income credit if they participate in a political rally? To me, it's all the same thing and I can't see how it would be right to punish one group for using their free speech and not the other.
I'm not sure how it is the same. Is saying I'm going to burn the bible the same thing as calling someone a kike or nigger? I mean in essence that's what you are doing, you are conflating the burning of something with the actual hate of someone. Trying to offend someone isn't necessarily hate speech.
So I guess we should really ask ourselves if this is typical behavior of Rack space. I mean they carried sites that ran stories about and promoting the crucifix in a jar of piss, burning of flags, and several other examples where someone attempted to be as offensive as hell in the name of art. If this is a one off ordeal then maybe we should question the motivations of RackSpace and make it known that their version of hate speech is only what they do not agree with.
So are you going to add anything that actually dispels what the site says or just crowd a bunch more innuendos into some one liners and attempt to deflect the actual comment? Seriously, is it true or false what the op or the link he posted said?
Here is the thing, the source of information doesn't automagicaly invalidate it, neither does anecdotal evidence. All it means is that the information needs a little closer examination. You felt the need to comment on his comment, so what is the result of your examination of the information he brought forward. And yes, that would require retort that amounts to more then "that web site?, I don't like it".
Is a nokia N70 a plain jane cell phone?
Mr Discovery building was right. Unfortunately he predictions were clear enough to tell him it would be his if he did something that stupid.
Whatever you are thinking, make sure it's something you are willing to die for as that will most likely be the cost if you are taking any cues from that leftwing nutjob.
It still doesn't matter to the point I made to counter your nor the point you attempted to make. I'm not even sure where you are trying to take this now as you move into whatever direction you think might help your position yet fail to see that move actually kills it. Here is what we know to be true, a guy who became prime minister not 20 days after the vote as well as other government officials claimed he could make us using the border possible. Rumsfield positioned troops and supplies based around those assurances. And yes, the vote to allow this actually was in favor of doing so as it was a majority of people present to vote but their laws say it had to be a majority of all members and 18 members(presumable who would have voted in favor) were not there to vote one way or another so the vote actualyl failed even though more votes cast were for then against.
Are you agreeing with me here? I mean you are stating that rumsfield did have a plan to have more boots on the ground. the problem is with your original statement which said he chose not to put more boots on the ground. Well, the simply truth of the matter is that it was impossible to relocate the troops already in Turkey so he was forced to go in with less.
So you are saying that the government, while in direct talks with leaders of another country, should ignore what those leaders say and do only what the CIA says? As for the Turkish MP's, it appears that 264 of them didn't care as much as you pretend to think. And yes, that was 264 in favor of allowing US troops to use the border for a land invasion into Iraq -and only 251 again. Again, the problem came about when 18 members of parliament weren't present to vote.
It doesn't really matter for out point of discussion. He presented himself as being more powerful then he actually was by using the facts- not by making shit up. And yes, he only needed 11 of the 18 absent members of parliament to vote yes and it would have passed. You act as if this was someone that no one would ever think possible. The reality is that it was a lot closer then you are admitting.
Do you think they planned when the war was going to be years in advance and then decided to not change it or something? Of course there were contingency plans in the works but in all, it was only a couple of months in actual staging and preparedness primarily designed to whip Iraq into compliance
He won because of his competency. And yes, you are arguing, in the words that you use, that it was some massive conspiracy and not bush. You can't have it both way. If that's not the position you want to take, then rephrase your words to avoid it.
Bush didn't give them time? You mean Bush was in power back in 1990 when the inspectors originally got their mandate? Or do you mean he was in power back in 1995 when Saddam first threw them out after complaints that Iraq wasn't being cooperative? Or was it the entire 11 year period before Bush's second term in office that he didn't give the inspectors enough time?
Do you even think before posting? The inspectors were called off by the UN after the invasion into Iraq and the invasion was escalated because Iraq was pulling stunts designed to thwart the inspectors again.
Please show me the quote by Bush or one of his aids that said Iraq was aiding terrorists responsible for 9/11. The case had been made that members of Al Qeada met with Iraq in 1996 (IIRC), and Iraq was opening offering pensions to the families of suicide attackers. But from paying attention to what has actually been said, the connection to 9/11 and Al Qeada was preventative as in "because this happened, we can't allow the threat of them collaborating happen".
Yes, I hate to squash your geopolitical worldview but Yes, Bush gained a seat in office from his competence. And yes, singling out one instance as a failure in Carter's term as president is almost attempting to ignore the fact that his entire presidency was a failure.
No you didn't, you still owe me $20 you need to pay before you can actually say you bought it.
Just as the president in the US isn't a king, the prime minister isn't either. Having the support of a party leader when that party controls parliament is almost the same as having the prime minister's support as it's the party politics that carry for the most part. You claim I am pushing their ignorance when the fact remains as stated in your own link that after "nearly a year of official discussions and intense negotiations between U.S. and Turkish officials both in Washington, D.C. and in Ankara," "Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the leader of Turkey's Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi or AKP), who had assured the United States that he could deliver a positive vote in the Turkish Parliament." So in case this is escaping you, it means that after nearly a year of negotiations, we had commitments of representatives of the government, one of which was so powerful that not only did he orchestrate the vote to let US troops deploy, not more then 8 days after that vote, became a parliament member himself who not more then 15 days later became the prime minister of turkey himself.
Please, by all means, explain to me how dealing with someone with that kind of power and influence and accepting his commitment is ignorance? And sure, the vote was actually in favor of letting the US use the border and it lost only on a technicality because 18 or so members of parliament weren't there to vote. After all, the AK party controlled two third of the government which should have been enough voted to make it happen.
Ok, so you end up quoting something that supports my position completely and totally refutes yours as the same as mine. I mean this was brought up because you said Rumsfield attempted to use too little troops and I countered with more was being planned to be used until Turkey backed us off. Yet you quote the article where it specifically says Rumsfield thought they could get turkey to let us use their border.
First of all, when has the CIA officially made policy? And yes, you are being ideological and you are attempting to jump from one point to another in some last ditch effort or something when you find my point valid and end up proving my point in your attempts to retort. Second, since when has the government actually cared what public opinion anywhere was outside of playing it lip service to serve it's own goals? Fuck, take Katrina and New Orleans for instance, it was all Bush mismanaging it and it was being shouted from the top of democrats lungs. But when they took over congress and even the administration, they have done nothing to change the policies or the delivery of the policies in New Orleans, they just shut their mouth a bit when the fallout can be redirected directly at them or their party. And here we are with people still displaced from the storm and flooding, people still wanting to go back, people still waiting on what was promised to them buy the government. But hey, lets close out eyes and pretend that only actions by certain people mean something and hold them to impossible standards while taking everything out of context. - That doesn't sound ideological to you?
Ok, I see why you are spouting so much BS that isn't supported now. You believe Bush's presidency is nothing but an elaborate scheme or something right? You are so deep into conspiracies, the simple truth doesn't appeal to you any more.
Here are some facts, I don't know who was behind the smear in McCain in 2000 and I don't care as McCain wasn't electable in the first place. You can claim it should have been McCain against Gore all you want, but it simply wouldn't have happened as too many other states didn't like McCain in the primaries. As for getting Nader to run, do you seriously think Bush was able to get one of the most liberal persons to every run for president in the US to run or do you think he ran for his own reasons- because the people running for office weren't representing things he and his supporters thought were important? The Swift boat campaign was actually started and ran by people independent from Bush as this is all in the open. Your attempt to connect them is little more then sore loser politicking.
Here is a hint, Not everything that goes against your guy is some massive conspiracy designed by your guy's opponent.
Please explain this a little more. I'm not sure if you are claiming that because he was competent enough to get elected, he should have been competent enough to do something else or if you are attempting to claim it was all one massive conspiracy where he cheated to get elected just to start the war.
It doesn't really matter as I already stated, no one knew for sure that the WMDs were there until after we went to war. Even Hans Blix who came out in contradiction to his UN inspection reports claiming Iraq had no WMDs had claimed that Iraq was likely hiding illegal weapon's programs and illegal munitions in his inspection reports leading up to the war. And when our policy went from waiting until we have people dead because of it to proactively stopping the spread of WMDs and interactions with terrorists, Iraq's continued attempts to conceal it's true capabilities made war inevitable. But there is no reason to think Bush was incompetent or hiding anything leading up to the war, as I mentioned earlier, simply do a search for all these democrats lied too or the position of Russia and France leading into the war. No one knew Iraq had disarmed, at most they made the argument that Iraq was contained or the information concerning WMDs didn't warrant war.
Carter wasn't really elected because of his competency. He was elected because of the disgust of the previous administrations. All you pretty much had to do to get elected in 1976 was to not be part of the inside the beltway crowed and be somewhat associated with a large party. You are Also giving President Carter too much Credit if you think it's attempts at freeing the hostages was his only failure in office. His entire administration was a complete and utter failure. And yes, I was around during it and remember how it failed most clearly. There was even an adaptation of the Oscar Myer wiener song built around Carter's administration. It went something like this:
My peanut has a first name, it's jimmy
My peanut has a second name, it's Carter.
And if you ask me, I will say
Jimmy Carter has a way
of Fucking up the US of A.
There are tons of citations, why don't you google for it like I said in the post. Hell, I even gave you the words to use. I'm not going to spoon feed you when you clearly should be taking the initiative to find some knowledge about this yourself seeing how you choose to speak about it.
As far as the Bush administration's being proactive against terrorism, being proactive doesn't require acting like a bull in a china shop. Indeed, its proactivity may have been an illegal war.
No, it doesn't need to be that way. However, what needs to be and what was is not the point of this. The point was that because of 9/11, we took dangers and threats to the US differently then before and that's the reason the actions were taken. And no, no one is honestly claiming that the war in Iraq was illegal except for the idiots with some agenda of their own. We not only had the right according to international law due to the UN resolutions, and as a result of failure of the armistice that halted the first gulf war, we had a right of national sovereignty to go to war in Iraq. Only if you ignore those points, can you make a claim of an illegal war.
Wow, just WoW,, Are you arguing with documented history? I mean besides the fact that the turks understood the kurds would gain sufficient ground to resolve their territorial issues in the reformation of Iraq, we had troops amassed on the Turkish border waiting to go in until protests of the Turkish population forced the government of Turkey to deny our passage. This isn't anything that some secret document on wikileaks revealed either, it was full blown front page news coverage in all the US and most international media outlets. To suggest that Bush or Rumsfield knew that Turkey would yank permission to use their border after they already gave it and allowed us to invest heavy resources and time in doing so by staging violent protests within it's own population that threatened the stability of the Turkish government is absolutely absurd. It's as if you are purposely refusing to admit the facts in order to retain your ideological stances that are little more then ideological beliefs. When is 2+2 actually 4 to you?
Perhaps it's a chicken and egg problem where he needs to build links in order to get the site noticed in order for others to actually link to it voiding his need to build links.
A site doesn't automagically get links just because it's good, it has to be noticed first.
Actually, this is common knowledge as Clinton missed several opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden before 9/11. Now of course opportunities do not mean it would have succeeded but it does mean that it was possible and some distraction or whatever caused them not to be taken. I suggest that you do a simple google search for "Clinton could have killed bin laden" and "the path to 9/11" if you want evidence.
Yes, the person in the car accident who is screaming in excruciating pain deserves part of the blame for the unconscious guy dieing when the paramedics tend to the person with a broken arm instead of serious head trauma. Or lets put this in a better terminology that more closely relates, the person who stopped at the red light deserves part of the blame for the accident that ended up killing someone and breaking the arm of another person because they were following the law and stopped at a red light. Or lets extend this a little further, the cops share the blame too because they were chasing the bank robbers who rear ended the car that stopped at the red light.
I'm not sure if I need to use the sarcasm tags there or not. But the point is that there was nothing to blame anyone over with the impeachment of Bill Clinton, he was a person who abused his office of trust by not acting honestly. It's absurd to think that going after someone for lieing under oath is part of the problem that was created by the wrongful act in the first place.
I'm not sure how that is even relevant? Could you please explain why you think it is?
I guess to FDR's benefit, it's a little easier to keep track of what you are doing when you aren't making sure ever aspect of your lie is covered. Anyways, no one is blaming Clinton for 9/11. What they are saying is that the way we addressed the issue of terrorism under Clinton doesn't work because it leads to the events of 9/11. It's a reactive strategy that insists on attacks against innocent civilians being carried out first then waits for law enforcement to punish people who are probably already dead. The change in strategy comes where we simply do not allow the terrorist organizations to operate freely and instead of waiting for them to attack us, we take the fight to them with highly skilled soldiers.
And no, it's not a stretch to connect 9/11 to Iraq. That is why you shouldn't be talking about this altogether- you do not understand the rumsfield quote so it's unlikely you are able to have an intellectually honest debate over this. Anyways, the connection to Iraq and 9/11 wasn't that Iraq was involved in 9/11, it's that we changed from a reactive policy to a proactive policy and Iraq gave enough indications to suggest that they were attempting to be a threat. In fact, Al Qeada's number two guy said when he was captured that they had no clue we would react that strongly to the 9/11 attacks as they based their information of our dealing with Saddam in which he openly denied his obligations of the 1990 armistice agreements. In short, a very well founded case can be made that if the US would have dealt with Iraq properly in 1995 when they kicked the inspectors out, 9/11 would never have happened as Al Qeada wouldn't have taken the risk.
But back on the point, we do know that Iraq and some terrorists were in contact, we do kn
So you know what the White House Correspondents dinner is?
If you did, I don't think you would have made that statement or thought it was a good part or anything. Unless you think people like Lewis Black is a die hard conservative or something, as the Bush administration had him there before Colbert.
Why are you attempting to argue with someone who is defending the art of personal attacks instead of attacking the points they deem invalid. I mean it's sort of sounds like they are simply going to ignore any logic of facts thrown in their face and just claim you are ugly or something as if it is some valid retort to your point outside of third grade playground debate.
Ahh, don't deflate his reality with the facts. The last thing we want is unhinged idiots who just realized their ideology is based mostly on a fabrication running lose.
Yawn... This is pointless as you seem to be embedded in your bigotry to the point that no amount of reason or logic will mean anything to you. The point you don't understand is that because of the scandal and time consumed by it, the redirection led up to the misunderstandings and ignorance that became the 700 billion dollars and 4000 dead. I'm sure you have seen the sites that claims if Bush lied, then so did all these democrats and then goes on to list democrats who have in part or in whole expressed the exact same sentiments Bush used to justify the war which has become known as the lies. The only difference is that Bush claimed after 9/11, it was important to take a proactive stance instead of continuing a reactive stance because waiting can cause 3000+ innocent civilians.
But hey, go ahead and play the party politics and do or say what ever is necessary to keep this a two sided issue and protect your side. I mean it's your team after all and nothing they do could be wrong or as bad as the other side right? The reality of the matter is that neither side works or operates within a vacuum and the actions of one directly lead to the actions of another.
See above..
What do you mean by And if 9/11 didn't happen for that reason? I never stated a reason for why 9/11 happened. I stated a policy change after it happened that Bush applied. This has nothing to do with how much time someone spend on vacation.
Also, the logic in the reasoning is pretty solid if you actually possess the intelligence and wherewithal to see and understand it. The biggest failure of the Bush administration was failing to articulate his policy beyond the cheerleaders already on board. However, simply paying attention with an open mind and not entrenching yourself into partisan politicking would have made it easy to understand for anyone.
I can tell that wasn't the case with you and you have made absolutely no valid attempt to understand them as you seem to attribute Rumsfield's saying to "ramblings" of "his" when they are neither. The quote was originally in a military paper authored several years before Rumsfield was on the scene and it refers to the unknown aspects of conflict and how volatile planning can actually be. It's an adaptation from a/several economics quotes that has been around for a lot longer. This is why I said if you do not understand it, you are not qualified to discuss this information. You are doing nothing but half-whit uninformed politicking at this point and our discussion deserves a little more intellectual honesty then that.
You may think that is true but it's a different beast entirely.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that there was a purpose of agenda behind being ignorant. You can be well intentioned and informed and still be ignorant as the facts don't always paint the correct pictures.
As Rumsfield once said,
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
And I will suggest that if you don't actually see the logic in the reasoning behind that, you shouldn't be discussing this topic as the known knowns and the unknown unknowns is what primarily guided Bush's policy in the proactive verses reactive shift after 9/11. Bush essentially said that 9/11 happened because previous administrations were too busy getting blow-jobs and protecting themselves in court then to address the real problems that allowed 9/11 to take place. How true that is or isn't is irrelevant as it implies that the alternative to any so called abuse due to ignorance would be worse giving a historical track record.
I think a punch in the face is a punch in the face regardless of who threw the punch or how hard they hit you. If one is allowed to lie, they are will think they can get away with it. Ever follow a cop who is speeding by about 10-15 MPH over the speed limit? Most people will go just as fast as the cop in front of them if they aren't responding to a call. It's not different here, others will do what some got away with and it isn't good for America at all.
Yes, Most of the claims about Bush lieing are unsubstantiated. There might be one of two there that has some merit and I haven't come across it but the majority are little more then the administration was incorrect about a certain belief or piece of information. Being wrong doesn't mean you have lied, it can mean you were ignorant or misled, or confused, or simply wrong. To be a lie, there has to be an intent to deceive or knowing that it is false and I don't believe anyone has shown that outside of third grade recess deductive reasoning designed to push their own agendas.
Well, first of all, Gitmo and Torture wasn't part of the supposed lies, although the torture was specific defined as something else so it wouldn't have been a classic definition of torture (splitting hairs I guess). and yes, I would say that Clinton was more significant then Iraq as the only other president before who appeared to have been lieing had to resign in shame (Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's- a known medical condition effecting the memory and "didn't recall"). So when the top law enforcement officer of the land, the guy who is above the Attorney General himself, lies in court, it sets the stage for other presidents to do the same. In this case, if bush actually did lie, he probably thought it would just be some BS accusations made about it that went no further then supporters rallying around him as what happened with Clinton. If Nixon was the shining recent example and not Clinton, Bush would have been forced out of office.
So yes, it's back to the people following the cop who is speeding for no apparent reason. Clinton was the cop, Bush was the one that followed. If he lied, it was because it was enabled and accepted.
I personally don't care one way or the other. You could put a strip club inside the mosque for all I care and set it right next to the Twin Towers former location. I was simply stating that Ground Zero isn't specifically limited to a street address because of how big the carnage was and it didn't engross all of Manhattan Island.
Wouldn't bother me to find it out either.
The mosque doesn't bother me if that is where you were going. I was simply pointing out why ground zero is being considered as larger then the property the WTC Twin Towers sat on.
However, I would say that there is a definite difference between the act of a country who's inhabitants tend to follow a certain religion and an act of members of a religion using the religion to justify it's actions- even when both sets of actions amount to an attack on a country. I would also say that tensions have dropped a little once you beat someone in war to the point that you gain an unconditional surrender. Perhaps these other idiots wouldn't mind the Mosque if we stopped out radical Islam first?
What safety standards have diminished exactly? I can believe they might have retarded the implementation of newer or more strict standards but not removed any of them. Please tell me where this is so I can lobby my congress critter to put the life saving measures back into play.
But along that circle is can be points of reference much like how a clock is numbered so you know when the day starts and stops.
Time will have a beginning and end as points of reference. Especially, when we are attempting to pin specific events to it.
We are not talking across points here,
That manufacturer and the retailer can be the same here even though they are different. Otherwise, I can build a car, claim it will get 200 MPG and make your electric meter spin backwards, and you will be irresistibly attractive to the women if you have the "magic addon package" installed, then escape any consumer safety laws by having the dealership or some garage who doesn't make the same claims, install it.
Obviously this doesn't happen and is illegal in most jurisdictions. If you make a claim designed to further sales and are connected with the product in any ways, the law will apply to you as long as your behind the claim.