Licenses can contain contracts within them (GPL for example). However, your negotiation with the bank is basically a predicate on doing business with them. In other words, you don't directly negotiate with them, you chose which bank you use based on your needs and what they offer. If they don't have favorable enough terms, they will need to change them or risk having no business.
Another important distinction here is that the law restricts your ability to use certain copyrighted works without a license. This license can be offered as a contract or simply as a license as in a good. Take a car rental verses software license for instance. The law on cars is simply that you can't drive it unless you get permission from the owner. In rental agreements, there are a few other laws to boot, but those mostly limit liability of the owner and empower them with tool and options to regain possession of the vehicle. You would sign a contract in order to get the car. In contrast with software, it's covered by copyright law which requires you to either own the copyright or obtain a valid "license" for the use. Now as a copyright owner, I could simply give the copyright license to you or I could set requirements for your possession of the license. The requirements would then need to be considered by you, if you find them acceptable, then you can fulfill them and have the license (like the GPL's contract within a license).
That's because gorillas are a different species. I mean seriously, this is apples and oranges here. they may bother be fruit, they may both be sweet, they may both be tasty, but they aren't the same.
Imposing your view as the norm doesn't necessarily cause others to act a certain way which is what PETA wants. Take the Gay rights lobbying groups for instance, imposing gay marriage does nothing to restrict or limit your actions. Of course you may be in disagreement with the concept on several levels but they aren't forcing you to marry a gay person, they aren't forcing you to become gay, they aren't forcing you to do anything that isn't already illegal to some degree (stopping discrimination or assaulting gays).
That was just an example, others might be the legalize/decriminalize drugs lobby and so on. Of course there are some that do attempt to restrict you, MADD is one of them. The bigger picture is if you or anyone else can see the ration or logic in the quest or not. In the MADD case, alcohol causes people to lose control of their body be delaying reaction times so regardless of if you can drive after drinking or not, there becomes a legitimate point where it is simply not a good idea. On the other hand, when is eating meat a bad idea (assuming it isn't tainted).
The brilliant part isn't getting scientists to work on the problem, it's getting the government's to work together to solve the problems instead of focusing on taxing the populace directly or indirectly and wishing a solution eventually comes around after they have wrestled more control and money away from the citizens.
I mean seriously, would you look at your kid, see that he is sick, and then force your neighbor to find some way or someone who can eventually find a way to save him, or are you going to take the problem into your own hands and take the kid to the doctors yourself? After all, this is effectively what cap and trade is, it's a penalty for not discovering something they do not see a solution for, then hoping someone will find an answer to the problems. Meanwhile jobs are lost because consumption goes down because of the costs increases because answers are not being found or are costing much more then what is in play already.
Number one is a fail from the get go. The entire cap is the prescribed goal. It's not even a free market principle unless you think fantasy football is the real deal.
Number two causes one to fail because of the implied forcing. Using force will never apply to free market principles and it simply makes it some make believe market that is designed to fool the ignorant.
Number three is something that exists in your head as I never said anything about a wealth divide. Furthermore, the entire context of wealth in my post was how a country deals with it's citizens, it impoverishes them when a fake system is created to address a made up need. As I said before, it's about revenue and control of the people. If the politicians didn't see it as some advantage, another solution, a more effective solution would be in play. And if Global Warming is such a threat, then banding countries together to attack the problem would be no different then what already exists with NATO and other aliances to address problems as a group.
I'm not saying the particular methods in any particular bill are right or wrong. this is top-view of the concept discussion only and your arguments don't make any sense.
I think you can't make sense of them because you are confused somewhere down the line. Cap and trade will increase prices of goods and services by either forcing less efficient or more costly power sources or materials dealing with such or by the same except with penalties for not using the more costly crap.
This becomes a major problem when all of your trade partners do not have the same system or the same goals or the same restrictions. It will create the exact same situation where you job will be outsourced to China or India or some other less developed country because they do not have the restrictions or do not follow them. Currently, China and India are getting a crap load of economic investment from Europe because they can't meet their GHG limits without outsourcing manufacturing.
Like I said, if it's something of a real concern, then addressing it directly by investing in the science and development of clean energy or cleaner processes for existing energy sources would be the way to go instead of purposing some system that doesn't even guarantee a result other then increased costs to the consumer and more lost jobs.
Did we survive? I mean everyone is bitching about mega corps to big to fail, the US government now makes cars and such because the little guy, unless they are backed by a foreign country with labor and tax benefits, doesn't exist any more.
Anyways, the scale of So2 regulations is nowhere near the size of this cap and trade for Co2. Do you really think they are comparable? I mean sure, if you ignore most of reality, they might parallel each others. But that is often the difference between working on paper and working in practice. Both of which don't always line up.
There is too much coincidence with the disappearing movement aimed at forgiving the third world debt and the creation of cap and trade in Kyoto to believe the intent was a failed coop of the US. If the cap and trade wasn't targeted at aiding third world countries with industry investments that we are railing about in the industrialized worlds, I could agree with you. But seriously, when it walks like a duck...
You clearly think it was a valid need and that it justified all of the expected civilian casualties. You are wrong.
It doesn't matter is it was a valid need or not, we went in and after the fact it was justified to expect civilian casualties.
Eat your words because those are not mine. My insistence is that saying the US has the high moral ground because we do not deliberately target civilians is facetious ass covering. We kill civilians and we do it with plenty of foreknowledge. You want to disclaim the foreknowledge because we don't know the exact specifics and that's psychotic.
Jesus christ- are you dense. Having innocent civilians as casualties does not mean they were targeted. Knowing they will be harmed or that there is a good chance of it does not make it a target. Targeting innocent civilians would mean that we didn't target the enemy and targeted the civilians. That's simply false no matter how fucked up you want to spin it. Now on the contrast, the insurgents as well as terrorist have and do target innocent civilians without any expectation of the enemy being there at all. That's not something the US does and you know it.
Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need. Now you can dispute the need all you want but that has absolutely no effect on the needs created after the fact. Even if the need was legitimately bullshit, it still doesn't address the fact that we broke a bunch of eggs, scrambled them and now need to do something with them.
what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent which has the same effect as allowing the enemies and bad guys to operate with impunity if they use civilians as shields. Tell a cop that he can't fire his weapon on someone else firing their and killing people, because someone else in the crowed my get hit. So according to you, the cop would have to sit there until either the entire crowd has left so no innocent civilians would be casualties, or the guy empties all his ammunition and leaves for another area where the cop can subdue him without risk to innocents. Well, it's worse to allow the guy to continue to kill then it is to accidentally kill someone trying to stop them. And nothing abrogates this like the cop letting the guy into the crowed space with a gun in the first place.
You are crazy and you need to check your beliefs with reality.
However, the parent's point 2 is a fallacy in the making. The rich have more to lose then the poor, it's the rich with all the waterfront property that is supposed to be under water, it's the poor who lives inland who will inherit the new waterfront property.
And believe it or not, the rich are dependent on the poor so they won't let the poor get fucked over unless someone is going to bring up the fact that they are poor as the sole reason for being fucked. Of course that is ridiculous.
That formula is only relevant within controlled conditions which proves nothing outside such controlled conditions like the entire planet. No one is arguing that Co2 doesn't increase the earth temperature, they are arguing the point about man made Co2 being the underlying cause and if it's a bad thing. The formula proves non of that, it proves nothing about natural sequestering, and nothing about external forces that pose a much greater impact on climate then Co2 does. In fact, those other forces, even if they are feed backs, pose such a great impact on our climate, the Fourier formula can't even predict future or former climates alone. All it does is show there is an impact, not that AVG is real or a threat.
In other words, quit acting like it's some silver bullet and everyone who says show me is a werewolf.
It's because the impact is more secondary then primary. The entire cap and trade situation which is more or less the exact same as the carbon tax which would be the same as Stronger anti-smog legislation with the exception of efficiency, is little more then a revenue and control stream.
Cap and Trade was designed by political hacks who wanted to use Global warming to resolve the issue of the third world debt incurred with the oil crisis in the 1970's (which was a major issue in the 80's and 90's until Kyoto came about with the cap and trade system). A carbon tax is little more then the same except it gets to pick winners and losers so there is more control over who benefits and who does not. Cutting through the BS, is simply applying stricter regulations and fines in excess of profits made by ignoring the regulation. Both of the previous systems will eventual result in this except the penalties can be applied before the technology is available. This way they do not have to wait to extract revenue from businesses who will simply pass it down to the consumer which means you and me.
If anyone was serious about reducing pollution, then something way more simple would be in place. This is how you know that global warming- the political aspect of it anyways, it more about revenue and control then the environment. You see, if they were serious about Co2 being a problem, then treaties like Kyoto would take all those scientists sent to convince the world they needed to tax and impoverish their populations through IPCC reports, and put them in a room with the purpose of finding practical sources of clean energy or ways to make existing sources cleaner. Then they would patent all this and offer the tech discovered to any country or business operating within the country and possible make it a requirement of implementation on new facilities for admission or continues membership into international trade unions the WTO.
In fact, almost all of the so called problems could be solved by a system like that in which clean tech is shared with the users and all countries. Instead, they want systems where either the government of a country impoverishes it's population by tax or caps that do little more then make things cost more, or by building up impoverished nations like Kyoto accords specify. And just to put it bluntly but brightly so people can understand, the Kyoto treaty has something like 137 countries sign onto it with the US being about the only one not doing so. Of those 137 countries, only 38 or so had Co2 limits imposed and an effective way around those limits is to move your pollution to the third world countries which is why you see Europe relying a lot more in manufacturing from China and India which are now some of the leading polluters.
No I do not abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. I separate the two situations from what happened and what needs to happen now.
Here is a test for you if you do not understand this concept. Suppose both of us were walking down a path in the woods and found a sign that said "no trespassing". We ignore that sign for whatever reason and come apon another sign that says "danger! falling rock". Ok, for whatever bullshit reason we had, we ignored the no trespassing sign and the danger falling rocks sign and continue. All the sudden, a rock slide happens and you are semi crushed between two rocks, pinned, unable to move away, and I'm not injured or constricted at all. Now, do I ignore your injury and flee on my own because we shouldn't be there in the first place. Or should I stay and render as much assistance as possible, even if that means getting others to help. Now should the others helping and everyone else who trespasses to assist you be in a criminal position because we had bullshit reasons for ignoring the signs and trespassing in a dangerous area?
Of course the answer is that what we did was separate from what was done afterward. We scrambled the eggs, they did something with them, even if we are part of they. Of course no one would have been there if we didn't use bullshit excuses to trespass in a dangerous area, but that fact is irrelevant to the attempts to save you. Iraq is no different and your attempts to make is some connection outside what it is in reality to future events is nothing more then pathetic.
Yep, it sure is in the union regulations. I have the regulation manual right here and on page 29 titled section 219- paragraph A- subsection S, it says that in order for a child apprentice to become a legitimate terrorist, it has to take the diaper off their ass and put it on their head. When the diaper is full of shit again, it gets called a turban and they are bona fide terrorists subject to wages of scale until they die.
Lol.. You're funny. And no, being wrong about something does not make your fictional reality any more real. The US did not intentionally kill innocent civilians in Iraq, not even by your messed up logic.
Those guys using humans shields in Iraq were mostly blowing up the civilians- not military forces. Yes, you heard that right, the majority of collateral damage in Iraq after the invasion wave was in response to people who were beheading and killing innocent civilians in attempts to manipulate the support for their cause through fear. It doesn't matter why or how we got there, what matters is that we were there and something needed to be done. The most common and appropriate analogy I have heard is "we already scrambled the eggs, now we have to do something with them or they will simply and become stinky rotten eggs".
I'm not agreeing with you. And rebutting your comment doesn't mean I have to take an opposite view to something that wasn't explicitly expressed. Have you heard of the term "a necessary evil"?
I'm saying that sometimes you have to be in the wrong in order to be safe. It's like you shouldn't strike anyone but when a kid is reaching for a hot stove or a loaded gun or a knife sitting on the table, it's perfectly fine to smack their hands and warn them away from the danger. Surely your smack would not cause the suffering that a burn, gun shot wound, or a cut from a knife could. It doesn't make hitting someone right, but it stops the danger they could have been in no matter how stupid the circumstances involved that allowed them to get to that position.
There are times when something must be done for the greater good that are not in the right and you should feel bad about it. If you do not, then those times tend to be more and more and eventually inappropriately applied. You can't let terrorist or people trying to kill you operate with impunity simply because you might hurt someone that could be innocent. You can try your best to keep the innocent safe, but in the end, you need to do something about the bad guys- even if it means being less bad but still bad in the process.
The standard Christian Nationalist argument is that the Founding Fathers were Christians and thus they must have used Christian principals in creating the government and thus it is imperative that we return the US to its Christian roots by adopting Christian principals in current laws (and that their God has a special Christian plan for America and that non-Christians are not really citizens).
While undoubtedly some of the Founding Fathers were Christians, the validity of the above stops there. The writings of the Founding Fathers make it clear to anyone who bothers to read them: They did not want any religious influence to inform government policy. They specifically warned against the dangers of such.
I think you are confusing Christian principles with Christian governing or government. There is a major difference as on related to how you treat others while the other relates to imposing views. Now you can argue that something like Gay marriage is both how you treat others and imposing a view, but that's not in the realm of the federal government so it doesn't really apply. Here is a better way of looking at it. Imagine the Christian faith said something like treat others as you would have them treat you. Now, when making policy and policy decisions, you would have to look at the policy and determine if it's something you would want to be subject to as well as how it would cause others to relate to you. It's about turning the other cheek, not backing down from what you stand for, and while speaking softly, use the big stick you are carrying is necessary. It's like the hand up instead of hand out approach to poverty where instead of giving a man his daily bread, you give him skills and tools to find the opportunity to create his own bread that he can choose to share or not. But by all means, it doesn't mean imposing a religious point of view. That would be christian governing which is more like the papacy then governing by principles.
It is worth noting that prior to the formation of the USA, many of the colonies had official religions. While the new Federal government did not prohibit this until 1868, all states had disetablished religion long before that. The last being Massachusetts in 1833.
I don't find this inconsistent with the above. Even more recently then that, Virginia relinquished it's oath of office requirement that made people swear they believed in god. But the main point is that even with the state religions and such, you were still free to exercise your own religion or refrain from it at all as far as the states were concerned. Now that may have been a different story within the community, but that wasn't state supported actions (at least officially).
Actually, these are well documented as Masonic principals, which is not surprising as many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons.
Not really, a lot of the symbols were picked up after the founding of the country in an effort of the masons to remain pertinent. George Washington claimed he had only been to a mason hall once in his 30 years as a member when someone asked him to help them get inside it.
The entire mason connection is overstated as well as the symbols by at least as much as the christian principles argument. I'm not really advocating one of the other, I seriously do not see how both if not more could be at play. And I do not see where they are in conflict with each other.
The common Christian mistake is to assume that any mention of a God or Creator means the Christian God. It can just as easily be attributed the Deist beliefs, which were common at the time (and widely held by Freemasons).
I'm not sure what the significant point here is unless you are questioning the entire Christian argument because "Christ" is involved. That may be a valid point, but if you read the writing by the founding fathers and th
I think he is missing the point because I do not think anyone is making that argument.
The idea of the nation being a christian nation is not that religion rules government, it's that the so called christian values were prescribed to be the government's guide in rule. It's the, even the government has to answer to a higher power shtick and so on. It's not that reason is tossed out the window, it's that reason is tempered with what they saw as the good in the christian religion.
Reason would be, killing 10 to save 50 people. Tempering that might be attempting to save all of them while ensuring that the 50 are safe. It's about making laws that do not punish the children or families of criminals directly when didn't participate in the crime, it's the entire all men are created equal and have been endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator as the declaration of independence states.
You must be a right wing nutjob.. Anything less then Jefferson being a slave holder who raped his slaves just isn't unbiased education.
I jest, but seriously, Jefferson was responsible with creating the marines and our first battles with Islamic terrorists known as Pirates. As the story goes, Jefferson, while in France asked the diplomat from Tripoli what gave them the right to attack and enslave American ships and crews along our Atlantic border and the reply was "Alah gave them the right". This caused Jefferson to create a standing navy, the marines, and wage our first foreign war off the continental shelf which is memorialized in the marine's anthem, From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
BTW, Kuwait was the kingdom/port that gave us safe harbor to stage the attack on the ottoman empire and defeat the notion that they could pirate our ships with impunity. And yes, Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire at this time.
So even if we do concentrate on Jefferson, there is enough there to embellish both sides of the political isle. But I bet that version of history won't be included in the California revisionism. I agree not only with what you said, but think the entire hubbub about the situation is mostly because it will effectively undo some of the left's coating on American history that they already had in place.
If that was done before Michigan became a Member or territory of the United States of America, then all would be fine. Texas was never a US territory before it became an independent country or a State belonging to the United States of America.
And this tripe is all dealt with without needing to get into the entire invitation from Mexico to settle Texas being behind the reason Americans settled in Texas in the first place.
I didn't say anyone was right, I said I (they) could operate with impunity because it's tabo for you to fire on enemies hiding within civilians.
You have effectively tied your hands and now you are attempting to avoid the answer to the most basic question of is collateral damage acceptable when it involves innocent civilians around the bad guy. I know two wrong don't make a right, but sometimes you have to do wrong in order for the bigger picture to prevail. People make these calls all the time, sometimes they are speeding to get someone to a place they can get medical attention, sometimes they are people jaywalking in order to snack a wondering child out of traffic, sometimes it's killing the guy who just killed 5 other people and stopped to reload.
Hm... Let me see, IF I was the bad guy, I could just hang around the civilians and operate with impunity in your world right? I mean sure, you would be mad and try to stop me, but I don't have to worry about you shooting a missile up my ass or starting agun fight when civilians are around. Hey, I have a question, if I and my bad men army dress and act like civilians, are we still protected?
Or are you going to say that humans shields (using civilians to protect against fire) are not valid and become regrettable collateral damage?
No, it isn't really too late. Here is the thing, unless you tell the family or friend the RFID number, then it's really no different then just taking a name. I mean if they do not know the RFID, then all they have to go with is Jane Doe or John Doe passed by point A. Now in my city, there is at least 3 people with the same first and last name as mine, at least 10 people with the same first and last name as my brother and father (who share the same name). And that's just the small city I live in- wait until you get out of that small of a confine and look at a regional part of the state if not the entire state itself. Sure, middle names or initials can narrow that down a bit if they were used when registering the RFID, but then again, how many people do you know that you also know their middle names and can recall it in the instant you're thinking of it. My guess is not many.
Now, if you embed the names and ID in the RFID, then you open the entire big brother tracking ordeal and the entire religious mark of the beast bullshit.
Here is were the real help would be. Once someone reaches a relief station or aid tent, they are often moved around to other facilities depending on if they need medical attention, food, shelter, the abilities of the station and so on. This is where many friends and families get separated who have already found each other. In Katrina, there was reports of people going to a red cross station and being split up and not being able to contact each other for months. But with a bracelet or card that is RFID enabled, then it's simply a matter of retracing the steps and finding little sally's mother or your best friend BO. And later when it's found that Escaped criminal "baby rapist" is claiming to be the mother/father of BO or Little sally, we will know that they were sent somewhere together.
But I'm not going to be implanted with any identifying device. If people elect to do that, then they can on their own. Outside of that, if it's not 100% optional, it simply will not work.
I wonder if someone could use the data port to turn the car alarm off.
I can see it now, Nice dressed crack head with a cheap ass stolen laptop under his arm, walks up to a car, breaks the window out, gets in, connects the laptop to the diagnostic port and turns the alarm off, starts the car, everyone on time square thinks he owns the car or something and ignores him more then they usually would while he steals everything possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Licenses can contain contracts within them (GPL for example). However, your negotiation with the bank is basically a predicate on doing business with them. In other words, you don't directly negotiate with them, you chose which bank you use based on your needs and what they offer. If they don't have favorable enough terms, they will need to change them or risk having no business.
Another important distinction here is that the law restricts your ability to use certain copyrighted works without a license. This license can be offered as a contract or simply as a license as in a good. Take a car rental verses software license for instance. The law on cars is simply that you can't drive it unless you get permission from the owner. In rental agreements, there are a few other laws to boot, but those mostly limit liability of the owner and empower them with tool and options to regain possession of the vehicle. You would sign a contract in order to get the car. In contrast with software, it's covered by copyright law which requires you to either own the copyright or obtain a valid "license" for the use. Now as a copyright owner, I could simply give the copyright license to you or I could set requirements for your possession of the license. The requirements would then need to be considered by you, if you find them acceptable, then you can fulfill them and have the license (like the GPL's contract within a license).
There is a time and place for everything- it's called college.
That's because gorillas are a different species. I mean seriously, this is apples and oranges here. they may bother be fruit, they may both be sweet, they may both be tasty, but they aren't the same.
Imposing your view as the norm doesn't necessarily cause others to act a certain way which is what PETA wants. Take the Gay rights lobbying groups for instance, imposing gay marriage does nothing to restrict or limit your actions. Of course you may be in disagreement with the concept on several levels but they aren't forcing you to marry a gay person, they aren't forcing you to become gay, they aren't forcing you to do anything that isn't already illegal to some degree (stopping discrimination or assaulting gays).
That was just an example, others might be the legalize/decriminalize drugs lobby and so on. Of course there are some that do attempt to restrict you, MADD is one of them. The bigger picture is if you or anyone else can see the ration or logic in the quest or not. In the MADD case, alcohol causes people to lose control of their body be delaying reaction times so regardless of if you can drive after drinking or not, there becomes a legitimate point where it is simply not a good idea. On the other hand, when is eating meat a bad idea (assuming it isn't tainted).
The brilliant part isn't getting scientists to work on the problem, it's getting the government's to work together to solve the problems instead of focusing on taxing the populace directly or indirectly and wishing a solution eventually comes around after they have wrestled more control and money away from the citizens.
I mean seriously, would you look at your kid, see that he is sick, and then force your neighbor to find some way or someone who can eventually find a way to save him, or are you going to take the problem into your own hands and take the kid to the doctors yourself? After all, this is effectively what cap and trade is, it's a penalty for not discovering something they do not see a solution for, then hoping someone will find an answer to the problems. Meanwhile jobs are lost because consumption goes down because of the costs increases because answers are not being found or are costing much more then what is in play already.
Number one is a fail from the get go. The entire cap is the prescribed goal. It's not even a free market principle unless you think fantasy football is the real deal.
Number two causes one to fail because of the implied forcing. Using force will never apply to free market principles and it simply makes it some make believe market that is designed to fool the ignorant.
Number three is something that exists in your head as I never said anything about a wealth divide. Furthermore, the entire context of wealth in my post was how a country deals with it's citizens, it impoverishes them when a fake system is created to address a made up need. As I said before, it's about revenue and control of the people. If the politicians didn't see it as some advantage, another solution, a more effective solution would be in play. And if Global Warming is such a threat, then banding countries together to attack the problem would be no different then what already exists with NATO and other aliances to address problems as a group.
I think you can't make sense of them because you are confused somewhere down the line. Cap and trade will increase prices of goods and services by either forcing less efficient or more costly power sources or materials dealing with such or by the same except with penalties for not using the more costly crap.
This becomes a major problem when all of your trade partners do not have the same system or the same goals or the same restrictions. It will create the exact same situation where you job will be outsourced to China or India or some other less developed country because they do not have the restrictions or do not follow them. Currently, China and India are getting a crap load of economic investment from Europe because they can't meet their GHG limits without outsourcing manufacturing.
Like I said, if it's something of a real concern, then addressing it directly by investing in the science and development of clean energy or cleaner processes for existing energy sources would be the way to go instead of purposing some system that doesn't even guarantee a result other then increased costs to the consumer and more lost jobs.
Did we survive? I mean everyone is bitching about mega corps to big to fail, the US government now makes cars and such because the little guy, unless they are backed by a foreign country with labor and tax benefits, doesn't exist any more.
Anyways, the scale of So2 regulations is nowhere near the size of this cap and trade for Co2. Do you really think they are comparable? I mean sure, if you ignore most of reality, they might parallel each others. But that is often the difference between working on paper and working in practice. Both of which don't always line up.
There is too much coincidence with the disappearing movement aimed at forgiving the third world debt and the creation of cap and trade in Kyoto to believe the intent was a failed coop of the US. If the cap and trade wasn't targeted at aiding third world countries with industry investments that we are railing about in the industrialized worlds, I could agree with you. But seriously, when it walks like a duck...
It doesn't matter is it was a valid need or not, we went in and after the fact it was justified to expect civilian casualties.
Jesus christ- are you dense. Having innocent civilians as casualties does not mean they were targeted. Knowing they will be harmed or that there is a good chance of it does not make it a target. Targeting innocent civilians would mean that we didn't target the enemy and targeted the civilians. That's simply false no matter how fucked up you want to spin it. Now on the contrast, the insurgents as well as terrorist have and do target innocent civilians without any expectation of the enemy being there at all. That's not something the US does and you know it.
Listen, we went into Iraq because there was a need. Now you can dispute the need all you want but that has absolutely no effect on the needs created after the fact. Even if the need was legitimately bullshit, it still doesn't address the fact that we broke a bunch of eggs, scrambled them and now need to do something with them.
what is psychotic is your insistence that we never do anything that may harm someone who's innocent which has the same effect as allowing the enemies and bad guys to operate with impunity if they use civilians as shields. Tell a cop that he can't fire his weapon on someone else firing their and killing people, because someone else in the crowed my get hit. So according to you, the cop would have to sit there until either the entire crowd has left so no innocent civilians would be casualties, or the guy empties all his ammunition and leaves for another area where the cop can subdue him without risk to innocents. Well, it's worse to allow the guy to continue to kill then it is to accidentally kill someone trying to stop them. And nothing abrogates this like the cop letting the guy into the crowed space with a gun in the first place.
You are crazy and you need to check your beliefs with reality.
weeds become much easier to grow too.
However, the parent's point 2 is a fallacy in the making. The rich have more to lose then the poor, it's the rich with all the waterfront property that is supposed to be under water, it's the poor who lives inland who will inherit the new waterfront property.
And believe it or not, the rich are dependent on the poor so they won't let the poor get fucked over unless someone is going to bring up the fact that they are poor as the sole reason for being fucked. Of course that is ridiculous.
Still harping on that tripe?
That formula is only relevant within controlled conditions which proves nothing outside such controlled conditions like the entire planet. No one is arguing that Co2 doesn't increase the earth temperature, they are arguing the point about man made Co2 being the underlying cause and if it's a bad thing. The formula proves non of that, it proves nothing about natural sequestering, and nothing about external forces that pose a much greater impact on climate then Co2 does. In fact, those other forces, even if they are feed backs, pose such a great impact on our climate, the Fourier formula can't even predict future or former climates alone. All it does is show there is an impact, not that AVG is real or a threat.
In other words, quit acting like it's some silver bullet and everyone who says show me is a werewolf.
It's because the impact is more secondary then primary. The entire cap and trade situation which is more or less the exact same as the carbon tax which would be the same as Stronger anti-smog legislation with the exception of efficiency, is little more then a revenue and control stream.
Cap and Trade was designed by political hacks who wanted to use Global warming to resolve the issue of the third world debt incurred with the oil crisis in the 1970's (which was a major issue in the 80's and 90's until Kyoto came about with the cap and trade system). A carbon tax is little more then the same except it gets to pick winners and losers so there is more control over who benefits and who does not. Cutting through the BS, is simply applying stricter regulations and fines in excess of profits made by ignoring the regulation. Both of the previous systems will eventual result in this except the penalties can be applied before the technology is available. This way they do not have to wait to extract revenue from businesses who will simply pass it down to the consumer which means you and me.
If anyone was serious about reducing pollution, then something way more simple would be in place. This is how you know that global warming- the political aspect of it anyways, it more about revenue and control then the environment. You see, if they were serious about Co2 being a problem, then treaties like Kyoto would take all those scientists sent to convince the world they needed to tax and impoverish their populations through IPCC reports, and put them in a room with the purpose of finding practical sources of clean energy or ways to make existing sources cleaner. Then they would patent all this and offer the tech discovered to any country or business operating within the country and possible make it a requirement of implementation on new facilities for admission or continues membership into international trade unions the WTO.
In fact, almost all of the so called problems could be solved by a system like that in which clean tech is shared with the users and all countries. Instead, they want systems where either the government of a country impoverishes it's population by tax or caps that do little more then make things cost more, or by building up impoverished nations like Kyoto accords specify. And just to put it bluntly but brightly so people can understand, the Kyoto treaty has something like 137 countries sign onto it with the US being about the only one not doing so. Of those 137 countries, only 38 or so had Co2 limits imposed and an effective way around those limits is to move your pollution to the third world countries which is why you see Europe relying a lot more in manufacturing from China and India which are now some of the leading polluters.
No I do not abdicate all responsibility for scrambling the eggs. I separate the two situations from what happened and what needs to happen now.
Here is a test for you if you do not understand this concept. Suppose both of us were walking down a path in the woods and found a sign that said "no trespassing". We ignore that sign for whatever reason and come apon another sign that says "danger! falling rock". Ok, for whatever bullshit reason we had, we ignored the no trespassing sign and the danger falling rocks sign and continue. All the sudden, a rock slide happens and you are semi crushed between two rocks, pinned, unable to move away, and I'm not injured or constricted at all. Now, do I ignore your injury and flee on my own because we shouldn't be there in the first place. Or should I stay and render as much assistance as possible, even if that means getting others to help. Now should the others helping and everyone else who trespasses to assist you be in a criminal position because we had bullshit reasons for ignoring the signs and trespassing in a dangerous area?
Of course the answer is that what we did was separate from what was done afterward. We scrambled the eggs, they did something with them, even if we are part of they. Of course no one would have been there if we didn't use bullshit excuses to trespass in a dangerous area, but that fact is irrelevant to the attempts to save you. Iraq is no different and your attempts to make is some connection outside what it is in reality to future events is nothing more then pathetic.
Yep, it sure is in the union regulations. I have the regulation manual right here and on page 29 titled section 219- paragraph A- subsection S, it says that in order for a child apprentice to become a legitimate terrorist, it has to take the diaper off their ass and put it on their head. When the diaper is full of shit again, it gets called a turban and they are bona fide terrorists subject to wages of scale until they die.
Lol.. You're funny. And no, being wrong about something does not make your fictional reality any more real. The US did not intentionally kill innocent civilians in Iraq, not even by your messed up logic.
Those guys using humans shields in Iraq were mostly blowing up the civilians- not military forces. Yes, you heard that right, the majority of collateral damage in Iraq after the invasion wave was in response to people who were beheading and killing innocent civilians in attempts to manipulate the support for their cause through fear. It doesn't matter why or how we got there, what matters is that we were there and something needed to be done. The most common and appropriate analogy I have heard is "we already scrambled the eggs, now we have to do something with them or they will simply and become stinky rotten eggs".
I'm not agreeing with you. And rebutting your comment doesn't mean I have to take an opposite view to something that wasn't explicitly expressed. Have you heard of the term "a necessary evil"?
I'm saying that sometimes you have to be in the wrong in order to be safe. It's like you shouldn't strike anyone but when a kid is reaching for a hot stove or a loaded gun or a knife sitting on the table, it's perfectly fine to smack their hands and warn them away from the danger. Surely your smack would not cause the suffering that a burn, gun shot wound, or a cut from a knife could. It doesn't make hitting someone right, but it stops the danger they could have been in no matter how stupid the circumstances involved that allowed them to get to that position.
There are times when something must be done for the greater good that are not in the right and you should feel bad about it. If you do not, then those times tend to be more and more and eventually inappropriately applied. You can't let terrorist or people trying to kill you operate with impunity simply because you might hurt someone that could be innocent. You can try your best to keep the innocent safe, but in the end, you need to do something about the bad guys- even if it means being less bad but still bad in the process.
I think you are confusing Christian principles with Christian governing or government. There is a major difference as on related to how you treat others while the other relates to imposing views. Now you can argue that something like Gay marriage is both how you treat others and imposing a view, but that's not in the realm of the federal government so it doesn't really apply. Here is a better way of looking at it. Imagine the Christian faith said something like treat others as you would have them treat you. Now, when making policy and policy decisions, you would have to look at the policy and determine if it's something you would want to be subject to as well as how it would cause others to relate to you. It's about turning the other cheek, not backing down from what you stand for, and while speaking softly, use the big stick you are carrying is necessary. It's like the hand up instead of hand out approach to poverty where instead of giving a man his daily bread, you give him skills and tools to find the opportunity to create his own bread that he can choose to share or not. But by all means, it doesn't mean imposing a religious point of view. That would be christian governing which is more like the papacy then governing by principles.
I don't find this inconsistent with the above. Even more recently then that, Virginia relinquished it's oath of office requirement that made people swear they believed in god. But the main point is that even with the state religions and such, you were still free to exercise your own religion or refrain from it at all as far as the states were concerned. Now that may have been a different story within the community, but that wasn't state supported actions (at least officially).
Not really, a lot of the symbols were picked up after the founding of the country in an effort of the masons to remain pertinent. George Washington claimed he had only been to a mason hall once in his 30 years as a member when someone asked him to help them get inside it.
The entire mason connection is overstated as well as the symbols by at least as much as the christian principles argument. I'm not really advocating one of the other, I seriously do not see how both if not more could be at play. And I do not see where they are in conflict with each other.
I'm not sure what the significant point here is unless you are questioning the entire Christian argument because "Christ" is involved. That may be a valid point, but if you read the writing by the founding fathers and th
I think he is missing the point because I do not think anyone is making that argument.
The idea of the nation being a christian nation is not that religion rules government, it's that the so called christian values were prescribed to be the government's guide in rule. It's the, even the government has to answer to a higher power shtick and so on. It's not that reason is tossed out the window, it's that reason is tempered with what they saw as the good in the christian religion.
Reason would be, killing 10 to save 50 people. Tempering that might be attempting to save all of them while ensuring that the 50 are safe. It's about making laws that do not punish the children or families of criminals directly when didn't participate in the crime, it's the entire all men are created equal and have been endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator as the declaration of independence states.
You must be a right wing nutjob.. Anything less then Jefferson being a slave holder who raped his slaves just isn't unbiased education.
I jest, but seriously, Jefferson was responsible with creating the marines and our first battles with Islamic terrorists known as Pirates. As the story goes, Jefferson, while in France asked the diplomat from Tripoli what gave them the right to attack and enslave American ships and crews along our Atlantic border and the reply was "Alah gave them the right". This caused Jefferson to create a standing navy, the marines, and wage our first foreign war off the continental shelf which is memorialized in the marine's anthem, From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
BTW, Kuwait was the kingdom/port that gave us safe harbor to stage the attack on the ottoman empire and defeat the notion that they could pirate our ships with impunity. And yes, Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire at this time.
So even if we do concentrate on Jefferson, there is enough there to embellish both sides of the political isle. But I bet that version of history won't be included in the California revisionism. I agree not only with what you said, but think the entire hubbub about the situation is mostly because it will effectively undo some of the left's coating on American history that they already had in place.
If that was done before Michigan became a Member or territory of the United States of America, then all would be fine. Texas was never a US territory before it became an independent country or a State belonging to the United States of America.
And this tripe is all dealt with without needing to get into the entire invitation from Mexico to settle Texas being behind the reason Americans settled in Texas in the first place.
I didn't say anyone was right, I said I (they) could operate with impunity because it's tabo for you to fire on enemies hiding within civilians.
You have effectively tied your hands and now you are attempting to avoid the answer to the most basic question of is collateral damage acceptable when it involves innocent civilians around the bad guy. I know two wrong don't make a right, but sometimes you have to do wrong in order for the bigger picture to prevail. People make these calls all the time, sometimes they are speeding to get someone to a place they can get medical attention, sometimes they are people jaywalking in order to snack a wondering child out of traffic, sometimes it's killing the guy who just killed 5 other people and stopped to reload.
Hm... Let me see, IF I was the bad guy, I could just hang around the civilians and operate with impunity in your world right? I mean sure, you would be mad and try to stop me, but I don't have to worry about you shooting a missile up my ass or starting agun fight when civilians are around. Hey, I have a question, if I and my bad men army dress and act like civilians, are we still protected?
Or are you going to say that humans shields (using civilians to protect against fire) are not valid and become regrettable collateral damage?
No, it isn't really too late. Here is the thing, unless you tell the family or friend the RFID number, then it's really no different then just taking a name. I mean if they do not know the RFID, then all they have to go with is Jane Doe or John Doe passed by point A. Now in my city, there is at least 3 people with the same first and last name as mine, at least 10 people with the same first and last name as my brother and father (who share the same name). And that's just the small city I live in- wait until you get out of that small of a confine and look at a regional part of the state if not the entire state itself. Sure, middle names or initials can narrow that down a bit if they were used when registering the RFID, but then again, how many people do you know that you also know their middle names and can recall it in the instant you're thinking of it. My guess is not many.
Now, if you embed the names and ID in the RFID, then you open the entire big brother tracking ordeal and the entire religious mark of the beast bullshit.
Here is were the real help would be. Once someone reaches a relief station or aid tent, they are often moved around to other facilities depending on if they need medical attention, food, shelter, the abilities of the station and so on. This is where many friends and families get separated who have already found each other. In Katrina, there was reports of people going to a red cross station and being split up and not being able to contact each other for months. But with a bracelet or card that is RFID enabled, then it's simply a matter of retracing the steps and finding little sally's mother or your best friend BO. And later when it's found that Escaped criminal "baby rapist" is claiming to be the mother/father of BO or Little sally, we will know that they were sent somewhere together.
But I'm not going to be implanted with any identifying device. If people elect to do that, then they can on their own. Outside of that, if it's not 100% optional, it simply will not work.
I wonder if someone could use the data port to turn the car alarm off.
I can see it now, Nice dressed crack head with a cheap ass stolen laptop under his arm, walks up to a car, breaks the window out, gets in, connects the laptop to the diagnostic port and turns the alarm off, starts the car, everyone on time square thinks he owns the car or something and ignores him more then they usually would while he steals everything possible.