Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And when they do so, they will get benefits on their insurance and other things that they don't get now, but guess what? US unmarried straight people don't get them either. We live with people without being married and don't get the same advantages as married people. So where is the discrimination?
Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married. I have yet to see a marriage law that says anything about love or attraction. So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory. This is why this activist judge who decided to overturn the people will see his ruling dropped on appeal. In fact, he will probably end up being disciplined by his regulatory board because of how he ran to this like an activist judge with the runs looking for a bathroom.
You see, gay couples have the same rights as unmarried couples and those rights are exactly the same as far as any law is concerned. No law takes love, attraction, or anything else the marks someone as gay or straight into consideration in it's application. Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.
Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.
Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?
Not all evidence is always around. If I was wearing a rain coat with nothing on under it, walked up to you and flashed you, you would have incontrovertible physical evidence of me being naked under the rain coat. However, if I slipped some clothes on, you couldn't show that "incontrovertible physical evidence" to anyone else.
The point is, some things happen that can convince a logical person but is not available to show others.
Of course you can always blow a hole in the ground deep enough to live in. Then blow up some trees around the base to make lumber after they fall and board up the entrance.
Poof, problem solves, you now have a house again and this time, it's Eco-friendly.
There are more things then just that. Some of them have to do with public image and so on. If the public gets motivated enough and attempts to pass laws restricting it, the there might legal influences later or perhaps games that aren't marketable. It's not just about those who were in the war, it's also about those who lost someone in the wars or perhaps have to deal with a fucked up situation because of someone who survived the wars.
I personally think that about 20 years after the war is enough time to wait. In that amount of time, anyone who was born would be considered an adult and responsible for themselves. I think it would be enough time for anyone who lost someone to of moved on the best they can and make something of their lives without the lost. For the people dealing with fucked up situations like missing limbs or psychological problems, This should be enough time for them to be completely adjusted too.
For some, it could be more, for others, it could be less, but I think the amount of time generally needed to take someone who knows nothing like an infant and bring them to someone who is supposed to know enough to be an adult would be enough time to get by with it.
Wow, you are so batshit crazy that drinking the cool aid is a little lite of a slogan for you.
Moving on? You're seriously lost here. We created a dictator to oust a dictator who had policies we didn't like, and the dictator we created attempted genocide. Or put another way, the war in Iraq was necessary to remove a consultant that we hired, that we never should have hired, who we hired to secure profit for us and to prevent Iran from becoming the superpower it's looking to become today, and who has essentially commited genocide in our name since we put him into power to achieve our goals.
Reread you damn history. It happened nothing like that at all. The US did not put Saddam into power and didn't even support Saddam until after they went to war with Iran. And to that point, out support amounted to nothing more then a couple dozen military vehicles and removing them from the export restrictions lists and allowing them to purchase weapons from US manufacturers.
That in no way is the US putting someone in power in Iraq.
This is not something you simply "move on" from. Even if some people in this country have forgotten, the world has not. We have established ourselves as incompetent bullies.
It is when you got your facts straight. Go back and make sure you know your history before spewing out a reply. IT's hard to follow crackpots making crap up as the go to support their ideals.
Because we are not pleased with the deal, and intend to alter it? In any case, we ALREADY attacked Iran, by proxy, and we are still dealing with the resulting mess. This is my very point to begin with! We take actions for profit and they backfire, but do they? Perhaps the goal was to give us an excuse to invade down the road, anyway. It seems far more plausible than that we didn't know who Saddam was before we put him in power.
Perhaps if you knew your history you would know that it started with Iran taking actions for profit. Our actions have been retaliatory although perhaps somewhat excessive, from the start. Your entire problem seems to be a lack of knowledge or history. If you only knew, well, then you wouldn't be appearing like some sort of ignorant ass right now. We did not put Saddam into power. That happened entirely independent of the US you ignorant fuck. Saddam came to power by arresting and assassinating his opposition after he took control of the Arab Socialist Baath Party from Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr and basically owned the Revolutionary Command Council. This has absolutely nothing to do with the US.
A report was circulating before 9/11 that someone was going to attempt an attack just like that. Then we give known terrorists and genocidal fucks the Taliban a huge shitpile of money to "stop heroin production"... when they are the ones producing the heroin. Are we really this stupid? I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure the people making policy decisions at this level are not stupid, they know exactly what they are doing.
Repeat after me, The Taliban were not terrorist until after the US invaded Afghanistan and ejected them from power. They were genocidal fucks but not terrorists. And the shitpile of money was also aimed at reducing some of the human rights violations. It also came in the form of aid which wasn't money at all, but products like food and medicine that Afghanistan could use. Of course there is the 43 million that was a reward for the Taliban outlawing or banning Opium which thye did reduce the opium crops by about a half. but the effects of that was just to make the remaining opium more valuable which means more of it got distributed. but for you to insinuate that it's anything more then a gaff, is a bit ridiculous and also ignoring the plain and simple facts of history.
Which all comes back to the idea that joining the military is stupid, because even WWII w
That's funny, because I thought we were backing the Shah and that's why the subsequent theocratic regime hated us so much.
Actually, you are partly right. We only supported Iraq at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for protection from Iran. Kuwait, as well as many other countries in the area saw the Iranian theocratic revolution as a threat that would spread throughout the region much like the domino theory with communism. And contrary to what the GP thinks, we didn't support Iraq by much. Outside of a couple dozen trucks, the best we did was allow them to purchase weapons systems by taking them off the "evil list" (weapons ban). Iraq was originally on the evil list because they dealt mostly with and favored Russia.
However, I don't disagree with your premise. The GP is an idiot. Kuwait has been an ally of the US for longer then the US has been a country. In fact, our very first amphibious assault on foreign soil was staged from Kuwait which was part of the ottoman empire and our target was another territory in the ottoman empire called Tripoli which was the capitol of the ottoman empire at the time.
Lol.. Are you sure it's to cause your competition's bot to slip a few micro seconds? Or could it be someone who simply wants to avoid the lag of checking the prices before participating in a transaction so he simply sets the bots to always submit the preset buy / sell limits and if it's in range, the trade is accepted, if not, it's simply rejected.
That would shave more then a few microseconds from the competition compared to attempting to bog them down which could also bog their transaction down at the same time.
I can see why you posted as AC, I wouldn't want my name, or fake internet name associated with a stupid comment like this either.
yeah.... that's why we NEED wikileaks:)
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water, all you need is accurate reporting. Not some website in which sensitive information that can aid the enemy is posted because you don't believe Fox News.
Epic fail in matters of foreign policy, my dear
And that is his problem how? I mean the failure is not really on the US side either. Well, Unless you think that attacking another country because one of the leaders said your women were 10 dollar whores and hiding this attack under the presentation of fraudulent claims of slant drilling is ok. I mean that should be the first failure, then after giving up when that other country asked it's allies for help and agreeing to an armistice agreement that you don't intend to follow is the second epic failure. We can go on if you want, or do you just think that's all ok? Either way, it's not important because none of it is the op's fault.
Actually, it's probably better to say that the Emancipation Proclamation sealed the fate of slavery given the outcome of the civil war or began the end of slavery in all of America or something along the lines of the process in which Slavery was actually ended. But it is totally incorrect to claim it ended anything as it was just a policy statement that had no effect on existing law.
Local ISP's deliver content from out of state making them acting in interstate commerce by default.
They won't always be, but in the same essence as Interstate Commerce is being used as a means to grab a hold of power by the Federal Government today, if it hits it, it's all under their control. Look into minimum wage laws and how the federal law provides a minimum in most cases if you doubt me.
Net Neutrality wouldn't be a regulatory taking in it's head as much as it would be a consumer protection situation. You see, the ISP's sell subscriptions to the internet. If they block any portion of that internet, then it's more or less false advertising. If the ISP restricts or manipulated the packets or information crossing into their network to below what the consumer purchased, then it's bait and switch, failure to deliver contracts services, and possible unfair business practices depending on the state in question. And you have to remember, the end user isn't the only consumer here, Google leases their bandwidth, so does ATT and Verizon when it crosses other networks. These are generally called peering agreements but sometimes there is compensation involved too.
So as long as the consumer gets what they paid for without the ISP manipulating it to anything below what was represented when the service was purchased, then it's simply a matter of consumer protection and the feds gain jurisdiction when the communications cross state lines. So suppose you purchase a 10 gig backbone to run a data center and the website "the next big thing". When a user on another network requests your site or services, if the ISP limit's your data path to below what you paid for, or what I the user paid for, or manipulates the information in any way to make your service perform less they they should under those conditions combined, then we are both being ripped off by the ISP screwing with the traffic. And if either of us are in different states, or the ISP is in a different state, then it's federal jurisdiction.
Basically, if the ISP delivers what we pay for, then there can't be a comcast screwing up bit torrent traffic, there can't be an SBC/ATT threatening to slow google down to dial up speeds if it doesn't pay an extortion fee. There can't ba a Verizon blocking VoIP packets from Skype or other carriers in favor of their own obscure offerings. If we get what we paid for, both you the content provider and me as the end user, all that can happen for someone to pay to give either of us more.
Why did you call him a jackass for? What he said is true.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no legal effect outside of how the US directed policy. If you know about the US government and it's structure, you will know that a president cannot singularly declare something and have it be true or the law. Instead, the president stated as a matter of policy directive that shaped the the lead up of a constitutional amendment which in turn freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was never a law, just a presidential directive as chief executive.
And our right was to throw them out of power, kill most of them, and allow a new government who wouldn't act in that way be established.
You can have certain rights, other will have them too. When they clash, the decision has to be made, does exercising this right outweigh the alternatives. Are the consequences worth the trouble? Unfortunately, the Taliban thought it was, now they don't have that right any more because they effectively endorsed Al Qeada and we removed them from power.
You don't know anything about my ideology and nothing that I have said has relied on some political view to be supported. I said that the current administration's foreign policy is in all significant ways identical to what the previous administrations plans were.
You mean except for giving our enemies a time table for when they can operate unimpeded by US troops being present right? There is more, like the nuclear use agreement that Obama is attempting to move into play where we promise not to attack certain countries if they don't develop nukes instead of the old stead fast of simply not doing business with them unless they are considered an ally to the US. But hey, that's not significant right? There is more like the change in position on the anti missile defend sites and so on if you would get off the "blindly following some bullshit" kick.
and yes, it's pretty clear that your ideology is to know as little as possible about the facts while blinding supporting the person you favor.
You respond by telling me there's no difference between the current withdrawal plans and those of the Bush administration. What you're saying doesn't contradict my point at all. You also say that the conditions for withdrawal had been met. Are you now trying to imply that they have been 'unmet'?
You are an absolute idiot. The bush administration did not announce a time table to withdraw from Afghanistan, and your insinuation that my post supports your conclusion that Obama is BushII is complete hogwash. The point of my post was that Obama couldn't have changed anything on the Iraq withdraw besides the names of the support troops we are leaving there because it's already set in international agreement. Obama couldn't have changed anything without getting the Iraqi government to agree to opening negotiations on it.
In other words, This isn't obama acting differently. It's the process started under Bush coming to an end through legal agreement. It's like saying Clinton and Carter and Reagan had the same foreign relations strategy because the Geneva Conventions were still in force during their administrations. You need to look at what they do, not what they can't change (or at least can't change without a bunch of issues).
Not in the US until FDR came about. And since then, it's been abused to trap the poor into dependency for political gain, it responsible for much of the inner city blight, and has cause the loss of domestic jobs by businesses going over seas.
And yes, The state controlling resources and distributing them is part of the socialism definition. When the government took over GM, it was full blown socialism as they ignored the law and gave the plant to the unions instead of the bond holders which is legally first in line for distributions.
Now, if you want to argue that none of that is socialism, then you need to take the Political science 101 again because you lost your way.
I most certainly am ignoring that, because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand--namely that Obamacare is not socialism. I believe this is called a red herring.
I don't see how you can ignore that when you just premissed paying taxes and government services as proof and that everyone should be ok with ObamaCare based on that.
Oh well, I guess if you have to ignore what you said to keep your point, the be it.
Well then, the United States has been a socialist society for a long time if you believe that to be true. In fact, every great western economy now qualifies as a socialist one, given your wide adaptation of the meaning.
Yes, it has and people are attempting to limit the impact of that. but it hasn't been socialist until the mid 1930's when FDR went against his own knowledge and attempted to enact the new deal. And yes, FDR knew the new deal was unconstitutional as he mentioned it in a speech concerning the Volstead act not two years before he became president.
Is it your job to tell everyone else how many kids they can/should have? It's a free country. Our tax code allows for tax breaks for those who bring children into the world--deal with it.
Lol.. You act like I have no say in how much money is taken from me or what it is used for. No it's not my job to tell anyone how many kids they can have, but it's also not my job to support them and that is exactly what is happening when my taxes go up and they get portions of it just for having more kids then they can afford. If you think living beyond your means is ok here, how about wall street and how they totally fucked up and almost went bankrupt, do you suppose that too?
That's called welfare. You can't keep stigmatizing that which with you don't agree by calling it a bad name (socialism). For what it's worth, I don't disagree with much of your disdain for some of our welfare programs. It's definitely not socialism though, because there would be no need for welfare if we had socialism (the entire economic system would be one big welfare program). The fact that we DO have welfare proves we aren't socialists.
welfare is socialism. It's not entirely socialism, but it's along the same damn lines so quit acting like it isn't. It's the state allocating your resources to others which is part of socialism.
And the announcement about the Bush administration pulling troops out of Iraq was because the conditions set forth for the withdraw had been met (mostly due to the surge and the confidence the people of Iraq gained) and Iraq was considered a sovereign country in it's own right. Because of that, we had to enter a Status of Foreign Soldiers Agreement with Iraq which is the same agreement Obama is working from except the remaining troops will be called something different. John Stewart did a sketch on obama's withdrawal plans for Iraq and made fun of the fact that the only difference was the name of the support troops left behind.
I'm sorry the facts get in the way of your ideology, but if you were to pay more attention to them, maybe your ideology would change.
First off, he has announced a withdrawal date for Iraq, not Afghanistan. So your entire point is off.
Are ou simply not paying attention or did you legitimately not know what you were talking about?
Secondly, announcing a withdrawal date for Afghanistan is the only way it can be done. Unless you're advocating a permanent occupation, then a withdrawal must happen.
Wrong, dates lead to attacks after the fact. It's like crooks who want to burglarize your home, if they know when you will be gone, they will pick that time to avoid resistance. What works is conditioned based withdraws that rely on the ability of the area to maintain it's own protection so the transition is basically lateral. This will not require our troops to be there for a permanent occupation either. Your narrow minded comments on this seems lacking of any genuine thought. Combine with your first Gaff, I'm not sure we can trust most of anything you say.
When a withdrawal is going to happen, the "enemy" will certainly know a month in advance whether you announce it or not. You don't suddenly pull out an occupying army without making arrangements with the local security forces (amongst a lot of other giveaways) so that means people will know. All you'd accomplish by trying to withdraw suddenly and secretly is either looking stupid or, if by some miracle yo managed it, creating a power vacuum that no-one had been prepared for resulting in destructive chaos.
Unless of course it's a condition based withdraw in which the replacements are equally skilled and able. Then what will happen is basically a lateral move and a transition of control. OF course you haven't seemed to think about that at all have you? I'm sure glad you are not in the military, cut and running is not the only option.
I'm going to cut through all the media spin and tell this to you straight: The US is losing in Afghanistan. They've been unable to bring down the Taliban. They control a tiny handful of the total number of strategic areas they would need to in order to actually say they controlled Afghanistan. The government there is a brutal regime in waiting. What exactly are you advocating? Permament occupation?
Of course they are loosing, that was the entire point of posting. We are loosing because we cannot guarantee the safety of the people and we can't even keep secrete documents that have the potential of identifying Afghan citizens aiding our efforts out the the enemy's hands. We didn't prevail in Iraq until we were able to ensure the people that we wouldn't just abandoning them to the enemy, we have announced a time table in Afghanistan and ensured the people of Afghanistan that we will leave them to suffer the Taliban. They have no incentive to stand up to the violence of the Taliban and help us, they have no incentive to point out where the Taliban is hiding, they have nothing but our guarantee to cut and run. I mean hell, when the time was right for a surge, we waited six months while our leaders played golf and talked it over sipping their mint juleps from a sterling silver cups and then they committed only about half of the requested support. But I guess that's something else you are conveniently missing.
What am I advocating? a conditioned based withdrawal that ensures the citizens of Afghanistan will be safe or as safe as they are now with the Afghan people running their own security and possibly advisers aiding but eventually removed too. For too long Afghanistan was neglected because of the war in Iraq, but cutting and running now that Iraq is winding down isn't the answer. What we will end up with is the exact same problem we had that caused us to go to war in the first place. A country that harbors terrorists who can recruit, train, and operate freely within it's borders. A count
Sure didn't. Still doesn't make Obamacare socialized. It might make it expensive, or unpopular, but socialized it is not. It may be paid for by taxes. That's not socialism, unless you can start pointing out those government doctors that will be performing the services.
Why should I need to do that when obama care is doing the work of insurance companies? I mean it isn't just doctors or nurses here. Oh well, I guess when you are selective in your criteria, you can afford to be blind to everything else that's real.
I don't believe I said any such thing. I merely said that Obamacare is not socialism, then some other under-informed person defined socialism as the government taking money from us to use for services. This already happens. It's called progressive taxes, not socialism. Texas doesn't have a State income tax, and I like that, if you'd like some insight to my opinions about taxes (which, btw, have nothing to do with the definition of socialism).
Actually, you said
"Unless, of course, you view our current progressive tax scheme as socialism. But then if you do, then there's no harm in Obamacare, if we're already socialist because we use taxes to pay for government services, right?"
To which I replied that people are already bitching about paying taxes and you seem to be ignoring that. I then suggested that if you do no think you are paying enough, you can pay more, just don't force it on the rest of us. And yes, progressive taxes are a form of socialism in which in practice, you end up taking from those that have and giving to those who do not have. As it stands currently, people in the low to medium income scale get back far more taxes then they paid in as well as a slue of government services they do not pay for at all. For instance, my next door neighbors made about 28k last year and because they are a baby factory and do not know what birth control is, they got back roughly 32% more then they paid in taxes for the year (state and federal). That's a pretty nice investment scheme there isn't it? This is not to mention that the government fixed their blown engine in a car that should have been retired 10 years ago so the father could get to and from work, the government put tires on the other car so the mom could get to and from work, the government pays the majority of their childcare expenses, and I'm pretty sure they get food stamps or whatever the modern day equivalent is because they keep asking if they can do my grocery shopping for me (use their food stamps to buy the food and pocket the cash I would have gave them to buy it).
If that is not socialism, then I do not know what is, and it's wrong.
How about telling our enemies when we are going to be leaving Afghanistan by setting a time table instead of a set of conditions that need to be met. As soon as the majority of our troops are out of Afghanistan, they will attack and overwhelm us.
You don't tell the enemy to essentially take it easy until after a certain date when we will be gone. What do you think the people of Afghanistan think about that? Are they going to side with the US and their new government or with the fucking Taliban? If you need a hint, the Taliban won't just give up and leave, the US will, they will have to deal with the Taliban long after we have tucked out tails and ran.
Socialism is more taking money by taxes and spending on nonessential services that are duplicated in the private sector and not needed by the government or to support it. It's like welfare, people used to rely on other people's charity which also meant job offerings. Now, it's a government hand out which actually makes your life worse if you don't land a job making more then the mean area income. Take health care, what many people wanting public health refuse to admit even though it's plainly obvious and part of history, is that health care was not all that expensive until the federal government got involved in the 60's. and yes, the same same senators wanting to push Obama Care as the Fix, are the same fuckwads that screwed it up in the first place (KEnnedy).
Did you miss the part where most people don't like the government taking out money and spending it?
We agree that there are essential services that need central authority. However, 80 percent or more of the government's spending can be eliminated and the tax money saved in in our pockets where it belongs. And if you don't think you are paying enough taxes, then simply check the box at the bottom of the return and donate some more to the federal government. Most state's have that box too, so go all out.
No, there currently simply isn't the demand for them to justify mass production on a scale that would actually result in prices dropping substantially.
What I was getting at is that they are being produced in a mass production environment already. Most of the savings you would expect in moving from hand or single order production to a mass production line is already realized. The only things that would be left might be the components could become a tad bit cheaper and the costs of retooling the assembly line might also. As far as labor and putting the things together which is the biggest chunk of change to find savings on, it's already being done- at least on the most labor intensive part that is. I simply do not believe that there would be a substantial price drop given demand or not.
And, as I was saying, that demand won't be there until EV's satisfy what consumers actually _want_, irrespective of what they may actually be able to get away with, as you said, it's more about what people want than what they might need.
Slashdot Mirror
Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And when they do so, they will get benefits on their insurance and other things that they don't get now, but guess what? US unmarried straight people don't get them either. We live with people without being married and don't get the same advantages as married people. So where is the discrimination?
Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married. I have yet to see a marriage law that says anything about love or attraction. So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory. This is why this activist judge who decided to overturn the people will see his ruling dropped on appeal. In fact, he will probably end up being disciplined by his regulatory board because of how he ran to this like an activist judge with the runs looking for a bathroom.
You see, gay couples have the same rights as unmarried couples and those rights are exactly the same as far as any law is concerned. No law takes love, attraction, or anything else the marks someone as gay or straight into consideration in it's application. Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.
Wow.. You are defaming him with guilt by association. You have room to talk too, you are using the favorite tools of child molesters just to make that post (online message boards). See how that shit works, if it's ok to make someone guilting because of an association to others, you must be one sick pervert then. Seriously, grow up.
Come on, lets get original, is there something he has done or are you grasping at straws and just trolling here?
Not all evidence is always around. If I was wearing a rain coat with nothing on under it, walked up to you and flashed you, you would have incontrovertible physical evidence of me being naked under the rain coat. However, if I slipped some clothes on, you couldn't show that "incontrovertible physical evidence" to anyone else.
The point is, some things happen that can convince a logical person but is not available to show others.
Of course you can always blow a hole in the ground deep enough to live in. Then blow up some trees around the base to make lumber after they fall and board up the entrance.
Poof, problem solves, you now have a house again and this time, it's Eco-friendly.
There are more things then just that. Some of them have to do with public image and so on. If the public gets motivated enough and attempts to pass laws restricting it, the there might legal influences later or perhaps games that aren't marketable. It's not just about those who were in the war, it's also about those who lost someone in the wars or perhaps have to deal with a fucked up situation because of someone who survived the wars.
I personally think that about 20 years after the war is enough time to wait. In that amount of time, anyone who was born would be considered an adult and responsible for themselves. I think it would be enough time for anyone who lost someone to of moved on the best they can and make something of their lives without the lost. For the people dealing with fucked up situations like missing limbs or psychological problems, This should be enough time for them to be completely adjusted too.
For some, it could be more, for others, it could be less, but I think the amount of time generally needed to take someone who knows nothing like an infant and bring them to someone who is supposed to know enough to be an adult would be enough time to get by with it.
Wow, you are so batshit crazy that drinking the cool aid is a little lite of a slogan for you.
Reread you damn history. It happened nothing like that at all. The US did not put Saddam into power and didn't even support Saddam until after they went to war with Iran. And to that point, out support amounted to nothing more then a couple dozen military vehicles and removing them from the export restrictions lists and allowing them to purchase weapons from US manufacturers.
That in no way is the US putting someone in power in Iraq.
It is when you got your facts straight. Go back and make sure you know your history before spewing out a reply. IT's hard to follow crackpots making crap up as the go to support their ideals.
Perhaps if you knew your history you would know that it started with Iran taking actions for profit. Our actions have been retaliatory although perhaps somewhat excessive, from the start. Your entire problem seems to be a lack of knowledge or history. If you only knew, well, then you wouldn't be appearing like some sort of ignorant ass right now. We did not put Saddam into power. That happened entirely independent of the US you ignorant fuck. Saddam came to power by arresting and assassinating his opposition after he took control of the Arab Socialist Baath Party from Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr and basically owned the Revolutionary Command Council. This has absolutely nothing to do with the US.
Repeat after me, The Taliban were not terrorist until after the US invaded Afghanistan and ejected them from power. They were genocidal fucks but not terrorists. And the shitpile of money was also aimed at reducing some of the human rights violations. It also came in the form of aid which wasn't money at all, but products like food and medicine that Afghanistan could use. Of course there is the 43 million that was a reward for the Taliban outlawing or banning Opium which thye did reduce the opium crops by about a half. but the effects of that was just to make the remaining opium more valuable which means more of it got distributed. but for you to insinuate that it's anything more then a gaff, is a bit ridiculous and also ignoring the plain and simple facts of history.
Actually, you are partly right. We only supported Iraq at the request of Kuwait who was paying Iraq for protection from Iran. Kuwait, as well as many other countries in the area saw the Iranian theocratic revolution as a threat that would spread throughout the region much like the domino theory with communism. And contrary to what the GP thinks, we didn't support Iraq by much. Outside of a couple dozen trucks, the best we did was allow them to purchase weapons systems by taking them off the "evil list" (weapons ban). Iraq was originally on the evil list because they dealt mostly with and favored Russia.
However, I don't disagree with your premise. The GP is an idiot. Kuwait has been an ally of the US for longer then the US has been a country. In fact, our very first amphibious assault on foreign soil was staged from Kuwait which was part of the ottoman empire and our target was another territory in the ottoman empire called Tripoli which was the capitol of the ottoman empire at the time.
Lol.. Are you sure it's to cause your competition's bot to slip a few micro seconds? Or could it be someone who simply wants to avoid the lag of checking the prices before participating in a transaction so he simply sets the bots to always submit the preset buy / sell limits and if it's in range, the trade is accepted, if not, it's simply rejected.
That would shave more then a few microseconds from the competition compared to attempting to bog them down which could also bog their transaction down at the same time.
I can see why you posted as AC, I wouldn't want my name, or fake internet name associated with a stupid comment like this either.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water, all you need is accurate reporting. Not some website in which sensitive information that can aid the enemy is posted because you don't believe Fox News.
And that is his problem how? I mean the failure is not really on the US side either. Well, Unless you think that attacking another country because one of the leaders said your women were 10 dollar whores and hiding this attack under the presentation of fraudulent claims of slant drilling is ok. I mean that should be the first failure, then after giving up when that other country asked it's allies for help and agreeing to an armistice agreement that you don't intend to follow is the second epic failure. We can go on if you want, or do you just think that's all ok? Either way, it's not important because none of it is the op's fault.
Actually, it's probably better to say that the Emancipation Proclamation sealed the fate of slavery given the outcome of the civil war or began the end of slavery in all of America or something along the lines of the process in which Slavery was actually ended. But it is totally incorrect to claim it ended anything as it was just a policy statement that had no effect on existing law.
Local ISP's deliver content from out of state making them acting in interstate commerce by default.
They won't always be, but in the same essence as Interstate Commerce is being used as a means to grab a hold of power by the Federal Government today, if it hits it, it's all under their control. Look into minimum wage laws and how the federal law provides a minimum in most cases if you doubt me.
Net Neutrality wouldn't be a regulatory taking in it's head as much as it would be a consumer protection situation. You see, the ISP's sell subscriptions to the internet. If they block any portion of that internet, then it's more or less false advertising. If the ISP restricts or manipulated the packets or information crossing into their network to below what the consumer purchased, then it's bait and switch, failure to deliver contracts services, and possible unfair business practices depending on the state in question. And you have to remember, the end user isn't the only consumer here, Google leases their bandwidth, so does ATT and Verizon when it crosses other networks. These are generally called peering agreements but sometimes there is compensation involved too.
So as long as the consumer gets what they paid for without the ISP manipulating it to anything below what was represented when the service was purchased, then it's simply a matter of consumer protection and the feds gain jurisdiction when the communications cross state lines. So suppose you purchase a 10 gig backbone to run a data center and the website "the next big thing". When a user on another network requests your site or services, if the ISP limit's your data path to below what you paid for, or what I the user paid for, or manipulates the information in any way to make your service perform less they they should under those conditions combined, then we are both being ripped off by the ISP screwing with the traffic. And if either of us are in different states, or the ISP is in a different state, then it's federal jurisdiction.
Basically, if the ISP delivers what we pay for, then there can't be a comcast screwing up bit torrent traffic, there can't be an SBC/ATT threatening to slow google down to dial up speeds if it doesn't pay an extortion fee. There can't ba a Verizon blocking VoIP packets from Skype or other carriers in favor of their own obscure offerings. If we get what we paid for, both you the content provider and me as the end user, all that can happen for someone to pay to give either of us more.
Why did you call him a jackass for? What he said is true.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no legal effect outside of how the US directed policy. If you know about the US government and it's structure, you will know that a president cannot singularly declare something and have it be true or the law. Instead, the president stated as a matter of policy directive that shaped the the lead up of a constitutional amendment which in turn freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was never a law, just a presidential directive as chief executive.
Your right, because in Apple, it's a feature right? Well, at least a feature that allows it's customers to do what they want.
Oh hell, I never should have taken the bait.
And our right was to throw them out of power, kill most of them, and allow a new government who wouldn't act in that way be established.
You can have certain rights, other will have them too. When they clash, the decision has to be made, does exercising this right outweigh the alternatives. Are the consequences worth the trouble? Unfortunately, the Taliban thought it was, now they don't have that right any more because they effectively endorsed Al Qeada and we removed them from power.
You mean except for giving our enemies a time table for when they can operate unimpeded by US troops being present right? There is more, like the nuclear use agreement that Obama is attempting to move into play where we promise not to attack certain countries if they don't develop nukes instead of the old stead fast of simply not doing business with them unless they are considered an ally to the US. But hey, that's not significant right? There is more like the change in position on the anti missile defend sites and so on if you would get off the "blindly following some bullshit" kick.
and yes, it's pretty clear that your ideology is to know as little as possible about the facts while blinding supporting the person you favor.
You are an absolute idiot. The bush administration did not announce a time table to withdraw from Afghanistan, and your insinuation that my post supports your conclusion that Obama is BushII is complete hogwash. The point of my post was that Obama couldn't have changed anything on the Iraq withdraw besides the names of the support troops we are leaving there because it's already set in international agreement. Obama couldn't have changed anything without getting the Iraqi government to agree to opening negotiations on it.
In other words, This isn't obama acting differently. It's the process started under Bush coming to an end through legal agreement. It's like saying Clinton and Carter and Reagan had the same foreign relations strategy because the Geneva Conventions were still in force during their administrations. You need to look at what they do, not what they can't change (or at least can't change without a bunch of issues).
Not in the US until FDR came about. And since then, it's been abused to trap the poor into dependency for political gain, it responsible for much of the inner city blight, and has cause the loss of domestic jobs by businesses going over seas.
And yes, The state controlling resources and distributing them is part of the socialism definition. When the government took over GM, it was full blown socialism as they ignored the law and gave the plant to the unions instead of the bond holders which is legally first in line for distributions.
Now, if you want to argue that none of that is socialism, then you need to take the Political science 101 again because you lost your way.
I don't see how you can ignore that when you just premissed paying taxes and government services as proof and that everyone should be ok with ObamaCare based on that.
Oh well, I guess if you have to ignore what you said to keep your point, the be it.
Yes, it has and people are attempting to limit the impact of that. but it hasn't been socialist until the mid 1930's when FDR went against his own knowledge and attempted to enact the new deal. And yes, FDR knew the new deal was unconstitutional as he mentioned it in a speech concerning the Volstead act not two years before he became president.
Lol.. You act like I have no say in how much money is taken from me or what it is used for. No it's not my job to tell anyone how many kids they can have, but it's also not my job to support them and that is exactly what is happening when my taxes go up and they get portions of it just for having more kids then they can afford. If you think living beyond your means is ok here, how about wall street and how they totally fucked up and almost went bankrupt, do you suppose that too?
welfare is socialism. It's not entirely socialism, but it's along the same damn lines so quit acting like it isn't. It's the state allocating your resources to others which is part of socialism.
Bullshit plain and simple.
And the announcement about the Bush administration pulling troops out of Iraq was because the conditions set forth for the withdraw had been met (mostly due to the surge and the confidence the people of Iraq gained) and Iraq was considered a sovereign country in it's own right. Because of that, we had to enter a Status of Foreign Soldiers Agreement with Iraq which is the same agreement Obama is working from except the remaining troops will be called something different. John Stewart did a sketch on obama's withdrawal plans for Iraq and made fun of the fact that the only difference was the name of the support troops left behind.
I'm sorry the facts get in the way of your ideology, but if you were to pay more attention to them, maybe your ideology would change.
Are ou simply not paying attention or did you legitimately not know what you were talking about?
Wrong, dates lead to attacks after the fact. It's like crooks who want to burglarize your home, if they know when you will be gone, they will pick that time to avoid resistance. What works is conditioned based withdraws that rely on the ability of the area to maintain it's own protection so the transition is basically lateral. This will not require our troops to be there for a permanent occupation either. Your narrow minded comments on this seems lacking of any genuine thought. Combine with your first Gaff, I'm not sure we can trust most of anything you say.
Unless of course it's a condition based withdraw in which the replacements are equally skilled and able. Then what will happen is basically a lateral move and a transition of control. OF course you haven't seemed to think about that at all have you? I'm sure glad you are not in the military, cut and running is not the only option.
Of course they are loosing, that was the entire point of posting. We are loosing because we cannot guarantee the safety of the people and we can't even keep secrete documents that have the potential of identifying Afghan citizens aiding our efforts out the the enemy's hands. We didn't prevail in Iraq until we were able to ensure the people that we wouldn't just abandoning them to the enemy, we have announced a time table in Afghanistan and ensured the people of Afghanistan that we will leave them to suffer the Taliban. They have no incentive to stand up to the violence of the Taliban and help us, they have no incentive to point out where the Taliban is hiding, they have nothing but our guarantee to cut and run. I mean hell, when the time was right for a surge, we waited six months while our leaders played golf and talked it over sipping their mint juleps from a sterling silver cups and then they committed only about half of the requested support. But I guess that's something else you are conveniently missing.
What am I advocating? a conditioned based withdrawal that ensures the citizens of Afghanistan will be safe or as safe as they are now with the Afghan people running their own security and possibly advisers aiding but eventually removed too. For too long Afghanistan was neglected because of the war in Iraq, but cutting and running now that Iraq is winding down isn't the answer. What we will end up with is the exact same problem we had that caused us to go to war in the first place. A country that harbors terrorists who can recruit, train, and operate freely within it's borders. A count
Why should I need to do that when obama care is doing the work of insurance companies? I mean it isn't just doctors or nurses here. Oh well, I guess when you are selective in your criteria, you can afford to be blind to everything else that's real.
Actually, you said
To which I replied that people are already bitching about paying taxes and you seem to be ignoring that. I then suggested that if you do no think you are paying enough, you can pay more, just don't force it on the rest of us. And yes, progressive taxes are a form of socialism in which in practice, you end up taking from those that have and giving to those who do not have. As it stands currently, people in the low to medium income scale get back far more taxes then they paid in as well as a slue of government services they do not pay for at all. For instance, my next door neighbors made about 28k last year and because they are a baby factory and do not know what birth control is, they got back roughly 32% more then they paid in taxes for the year (state and federal). That's a pretty nice investment scheme there isn't it? This is not to mention that the government fixed their blown engine in a car that should have been retired 10 years ago so the father could get to and from work, the government put tires on the other car so the mom could get to and from work, the government pays the majority of their childcare expenses, and I'm pretty sure they get food stamps or whatever the modern day equivalent is because they keep asking if they can do my grocery shopping for me (use their food stamps to buy the food and pocket the cash I would have gave them to buy it).
If that is not socialism, then I do not know what is, and it's wrong.
How about telling our enemies when we are going to be leaving Afghanistan by setting a time table instead of a set of conditions that need to be met. As soon as the majority of our troops are out of Afghanistan, they will attack and overwhelm us.
You don't tell the enemy to essentially take it easy until after a certain date when we will be gone. What do you think the people of Afghanistan think about that? Are they going to side with the US and their new government or with the fucking Taliban? If you need a hint, the Taliban won't just give up and leave, the US will, they will have to deal with the Taliban long after we have tucked out tails and ran.
Socialism is more taking money by taxes and spending on nonessential services that are duplicated in the private sector and not needed by the government or to support it. It's like welfare, people used to rely on other people's charity which also meant job offerings. Now, it's a government hand out which actually makes your life worse if you don't land a job making more then the mean area income. Take health care, what many people wanting public health refuse to admit even though it's plainly obvious and part of history, is that health care was not all that expensive until the federal government got involved in the 60's. and yes, the same same senators wanting to push Obama Care as the Fix, are the same fuckwads that screwed it up in the first place (KEnnedy).
Did you miss the part where most people don't like the government taking out money and spending it?
We agree that there are essential services that need central authority. However, 80 percent or more of the government's spending can be eliminated and the tax money saved in in our pockets where it belongs. And if you don't think you are paying enough taxes, then simply check the box at the bottom of the return and donate some more to the federal government. Most state's have that box too, so go all out.
What I was getting at is that they are being produced in a mass production environment already. Most of the savings you would expect in moving from hand or single order production to a mass production line is already realized. The only things that would be left might be the components could become a tad bit cheaper and the costs of retooling the assembly line might also. As far as labor and putting the things together which is the biggest chunk of change to find savings on, it's already being done- at least on the most labor intensive part that is. I simply do not believe that there would be a substantial price drop given demand or not.
Exactly. Nuff said.