Eh, no. According to NSA whistleblowers, all domestic voice and data traffic was monitored as well.
And, again, no, it does not require House vote, Senate vote, and POTUS signature to take your rights away. For eight years of Bush, all it took was a decision by POTUS, and complicity of DOJ. DOJ says "waterboarding is not torture" and poof, it becomes so. DOJ says habeus corpus can be suspended and poof, it becomes so.
The real problem here is not that "The decider" made these things happen, it's that if his administration is not investigated, prosecuted, and sentenced, then there will be precedent for future presidents, including this one, to act outside the bounds of law (the Constitution), unilaterally, and effectively, dictatorially.
Aren't jet fuel fires hotter than that? I mean, cummon, if we can now make buildings that don't melt under those temps, we can certainly make something smaller to do the same, right?
I thought we already "won" once, back in 1953 after Operation Ajax. Didn't a CIA-backed coup depose the democratically-elected Mossadegh when he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh) so foolishly attempted to nationalize *our* oil industry! By "our" I mean U.S./U.K. corporation-owned. What arrogance! And then the Iranians had the audacity to oust *our* pro-Western, despotic Shah in 1979! These people need to seriously be put back in their place!
Well, the telcos and interested businesses have money that can be directed to lobbyists and re-election campaigns. The FCC has squat. Who is Congress more interested in helping out? The math is pretty simple.
>>They, more than likely, see it as a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Unlike, say...
>Or dropping billions and billions into a welfare state that demeans and destroys the human spirit. Or an education system that has gotten worse as >more Federal money has been dropped into it.
When you write "welfare state" you mean Iraq, right? And when you write "education system" you mean pseudo-federal, corporatized propaganda apparat, right?
Can someone explain to me how Klausner lost $660 million of profit from an *idea,* though legally patented, that he has not attempted to bring to market for 13 years? Is that figure just made up in an attempt to encourage the defendants to settle out of court for mere tens of millions instead?
Peachy. I guess corporate government of the future will fix patent trolling by declaring the trolls the equivalent of terrorists. Don't close Gitmo just yet!
How about comparing that to the terror campaign proposal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer--The Operation Northwoods proposal to Secretary of Defense Scott McNamara in 1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
"In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"--Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro. The proposals included: Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios. Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces. Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba--reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.) "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions." Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government." Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere. Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets: Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]"
Five years of his life gone. So you can feel protected here from "terrorists" 5000 miles away, with 3000 miles of water between us. Were the "wolverines" from Red Dawn terrorists? Last I heard, only nineteen mostly *Saudis* were convincted in absentia of 9/11.
Perhaps if we were better at propping up the Shah in the late 70s after we put him in power through the CIA-sponsored coup of the democratically elected govt in Iran, well maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now? And why do the Iranians hate us so much? I mean, really! Doesn't the rest of the world "get it" that when we act in our own self-interest that, in spite of the tyrants like the Shah, Saddam (somebody should ask Rumsfield if the man had a firm handshake--that's the sign of integrity, right?), and Mussharif that we are acting in the best interests of democracy and world peace?!
We were trying to *help* the Iranians in the 50s! Seriously! If they had stuck with a democracy instead of a US-backed dictator, where would their precious democracy be today?! The best that they could hope for would be what passes for democracy here! They should be thanking us and the CIA for bringing the Shah back!
I've taken that "world's shortest political quiz" and most seem to rate as Libertarians on it.
Libertarianism is about reason, isn't it? As a reasoned man/graphics guy, you must be aware that the way we pose a question affects how it will be answered. The way we pose a question often reflects our stance on an issue, as well. Reason, though, would not have us ask the question you phrase, but perhaps would have us ask "Is humanity contributing to this effect and would this (arguably) natural transition slow (to give humanity more time to prepare for it's consequences), stop, or reverse course if "we stopped emitting [sic] burning fossil fuels entirely."
Actually, their is (and I have seen and read) compelling evidence that a "weather balloon" is not what landed in a farmers land near Roswell, New Mexico. To have a Major declare that a UFO crashed and to hear one of his children recount evidence he brought to his home, only to later her him recant in the company of a general that it was a weather balloon...
I've recently researched the moon landing hoax conspiracy myself and have come to the conclusion that they did occur.
Here's some good sarcasm for you:
1. Your government wouldn't lie to you. 2. Airliners and jet fuel can cause millions of tons of concrete reinforced steel to turn to a fine powder because that's "just the way fire rolls." 3. Jesus Christ was born on Dec 25th. 3a. Just because "Christmas trees" are strictly forbidden by Jeremiah 10:2, doesn't mean that Christmas trees are pagan. 3b. Christ is not a form of the Greek word "Christos," meaning messiah, but actually the dude's last name. 3c. Jesus is a Hebrew name. 4. The Catholic church never sold the papacy. The pope is the man chosen by God to be his mouth on Earth. 4a. Kings rule by divine right. 4b. Jesus told George W. Bush to invade Iraq. 5. Convicted felon lists from Texas were not used to disenfranchise minorities in Florida prior to the 2000 presidential election. 5a. There is no link between Jeb Bush, the swing state of Florida, "#4", and George W. Bush. 6. There are more acts of "terror" commited against Americans in South America than the Middle East. 7. Iraq is connected to 9/11.
Oh, I got a bunch of them. i gotta stop before I wear myself out! Go back to sleep, though, there's nothing to see here.
If you think you can actually unentrench yourself from your "I would never be lied to" mentality, I'd be happy to provide copious information that will change the reasoning mind on many issues, including those sarcastic sarcastic comments above.
Repeat after me: Hydrocarbon fires do not bring down modern concrete-reinforced skyscrapers. Jet Fuel at 800 F does not raise steel to its 3000 F melting point. Repeat after me: Guys who can hardly fly Cessna's don't have the skill to hit skyscrapers anyway.
>If we put him Saddam in power, don't we have a duty and responsibility to remove him from power? To >correct our mistake, if you will?
I would say yes, but our government isn't interested in correcting mistakes. We supported Saddam, knowing he was a tyrant, because he opposed Iran, who had just overthrown the Shah, whom we put in power.
>People constantly criticize the US for supporting bad, violent, etc, leaders. Well, as soon as we remove >one, that we did at one time support, why are people still upset at the US? Shouldn't you people >congratulate us for finally recognizing at least ONE of our past mistakes and taking steps to correct it?
Congratulate us? Hardly! Basically, we only talk about "human rights abuse" when it suits us, and we fund regimes, like Saddam's, when they suit our purpose. So on one hand we see Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in the 80's (google for "Rumsfield Saddam") in spite of knowing he was a brutal tyrant and on the other hand we scold China for human rights abuses. It's total hipocrasy and it's also just the way governments work.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, no. According to NSA whistleblowers, all domestic voice and data traffic was monitored as well.
And, again, no, it does not require House vote, Senate vote, and POTUS signature to take your rights away. For eight years of Bush, all it took was a decision by POTUS, and complicity of DOJ. DOJ says "waterboarding is not torture" and poof, it becomes so. DOJ says habeus corpus can be suspended and poof, it becomes so.
The real problem here is not that "The decider" made these things happen, it's that if his administration is not investigated, prosecuted, and sentenced, then there will be precedent for future presidents, including this one, to act outside the bounds of law (the Constitution), unilaterally, and effectively, dictatorially.
Aren't jet fuel fires hotter than that? I mean, cummon, if we can now make buildings that don't melt under those temps, we can certainly make something smaller to do the same, right?
Um, hello? The sun doesn't melt itself, does it?
NASA will no doubt use the same materials that make up the sun to construct the probe! RTFA!
I thought we already "won" once, back in 1953 after Operation Ajax. Didn't a CIA-backed coup depose the democratically-elected Mossadegh when he (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh) so foolishly attempted to nationalize *our* oil industry! By "our" I mean U.S./U.K. corporation-owned. What arrogance! And then the Iranians had the audacity to oust *our* pro-Western, despotic Shah in 1979! These people need to seriously be put back in their place!
Well, the telcos and interested businesses have money that can be directed to lobbyists and re-election campaigns. The FCC has squat. Who is Congress more interested in helping out? The math is pretty simple.
>>They, more than likely, see it as a colossal waste of taxpayers money. Unlike, say...
>Or dropping billions and billions into a welfare state that demeans and destroys the human spirit. Or an education system that has gotten worse as >more Federal money has been dropped into it.
When you write "welfare state" you mean Iraq, right? And when you write "education system" you mean pseudo-federal, corporatized propaganda apparat, right?
I have to agree with you.
Can someone explain to me how Klausner lost $660 million of profit from an *idea,* though legally patented, that he has not attempted to bring to market for 13 years? Is that figure just made up in an attempt to encourage the defendants to settle out of court for mere tens of millions instead?
Peachy. I guess corporate government of the future will fix patent trolling by declaring the trolls the equivalent of terrorists. Don't close Gitmo just yet!
How about comparing that to the terror campaign proposal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer--The Operation Northwoods proposal to Secretary of Defense Scott McNamara in 1962:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
"In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"--Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.
The proposals included:
Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces.
Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba--reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]"
Did God say something about "I won't destroy Sodom if you can find 10 righteous people there."?
How many guys with stories like this would it take to make Gitmo "a bad idea?":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501227_pf.html
Five years of his life gone. So you can feel protected here from "terrorists" 5000 miles away, with 3000 miles of water between us. Were the "wolverines" from Red Dawn terrorists? Last I heard, only nineteen mostly *Saudis* were convincted in absentia of 9/11.
Peachy.
Yes, SETI is probably a waste of time and resources. Because evidence demonstrates that ETs are already in the neighborhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclosure_project
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6552475158249898710
You many now return your heads to the sand.
Perhaps if we were better at propping up the Shah in the late 70s after we put him in power through the CIA-sponsored coup of the democratically elected govt in Iran, well maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now?
And why do the Iranians hate us so much? I mean, really! Doesn't the rest of the world "get it" that when we act in our own self-interest that, in spite of the tyrants like the Shah, Saddam (somebody should ask Rumsfield if the man had a firm handshake--that's the sign of integrity, right?), and Mussharif that we are acting in the best interests of democracy and world peace?!
We were trying to *help* the Iranians in the 50s! Seriously! If they had stuck with a democracy instead of a US-backed dictator, where would their precious democracy be today?! The best that they could hope for would be what passes for democracy here! They should be thanking us and the CIA for bringing the Shah back!
Just a comment on your sig: Google for "9/11 hijackers las vegas" to discover how devout and faithful the 9/11 hijackers were.
I've taken that "world's shortest political quiz" and most seem to rate as Libertarians on it.
_ 400kyr-2.png
Libertarianism is about reason, isn't it? As a reasoned man/graphics guy, you must be aware that the way we pose a question affects how it will be answered. The way we pose a question often reflects our stance on an issue, as well. Reason, though, would not have us ask the question you phrase, but perhaps would have us ask "Is humanity contributing to this effect and would this (arguably) natural transition slow (to give humanity more time to prepare for it's consequences), stop, or reverse course if "we stopped emitting [sic] burning fossil fuels entirely."
It's my understanding that humanity has contributed significantly to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
I think a better question than your suggested is also, "Are we contributing to global warming and do we want to continue to do so?"
oops, in "5a" I meant to associate "5" with 5a, not #4.
Actually, their is (and I have seen and read) compelling evidence that a "weather balloon" is not what landed in a farmers land near Roswell, New Mexico. To have a Major declare that a UFO crashed and to hear one of his children recount evidence he brought to his home, only to later her him recant in the company of a general that it was a weather balloon...
I've recently researched the moon landing hoax conspiracy myself and have come to the conclusion that they did occur.
Here's some good sarcasm for you:
1. Your government wouldn't lie to you.
2. Airliners and jet fuel can cause millions of tons of concrete reinforced steel to turn to a fine powder because that's "just the way fire rolls."
3. Jesus Christ was born on Dec 25th.
3a. Just because "Christmas trees" are strictly forbidden by Jeremiah 10:2, doesn't mean that Christmas trees are pagan.
3b. Christ is not a form of the Greek word "Christos," meaning messiah, but actually the dude's last name.
3c. Jesus is a Hebrew name.
4. The Catholic church never sold the papacy. The pope is the man chosen by God to be his mouth on Earth.
4a. Kings rule by divine right.
4b. Jesus told George W. Bush to invade Iraq.
5. Convicted felon lists from Texas were not used to disenfranchise minorities in Florida prior to the 2000 presidential election.
5a. There is no link between Jeb Bush, the swing state of Florida, "#4", and George W. Bush.
6. There are more acts of "terror" commited against Americans in South America than the Middle East.
7. Iraq is connected to 9/11.
Oh, I got a bunch of them. i gotta stop before I wear myself out! Go back to sleep, though, there's nothing to see here.
If you think you can actually unentrench yourself from your "I would never be lied to" mentality, I'd be happy to provide copious information that will change the reasoning mind on many issues, including those sarcastic sarcastic comments above.
You may be interested, if you haven't already seen them, a BBC series called "The Power of Nightmares."
Repeat after me: Hydrocarbon fires do not bring down modern concrete-reinforced skyscrapers. Jet Fuel at 800 F does not raise steel to its 3000 F melting point.
Repeat after me: Guys who can hardly fly Cessna's don't have the skill to hit skyscrapers anyway.
somebody please mod the parent up!
>All sex is paid for.
Exactly. There is no free milk.
Actually, I believe the Bill O'Reilly-sanctioned term is "the loony left." You should always refer to the "far-left" as "godless commies."
Are you one of the righteous right who has a "My SUV loves Iraqi oil" on your Chevy Tahoe? Or is it a Ford Explorer?
>If we put him Saddam in power, don't we have a duty and responsibility to remove him from power? To >correct our mistake, if you will?
I would say yes, but our government isn't interested in correcting mistakes. We supported Saddam, knowing he was a tyrant, because he opposed Iran, who had just overthrown the Shah, whom we put in power.
>People constantly criticize the US for supporting bad, violent, etc, leaders. Well, as soon as we remove >one, that we did at one time support, why are people still upset at the US? Shouldn't you people >congratulate us for finally recognizing at least ONE of our past mistakes and taking steps to correct it?
Congratulate us? Hardly! Basically, we only talk about "human rights abuse" when it suits us, and we fund regimes, like Saddam's, when they suit our purpose. So on one hand we see Rummy shaking Saddam's hand in the 80's (google for "Rumsfield Saddam") in spite of knowing he was a brutal tyrant and on the other hand we scold China for human rights abuses. It's total hipocrasy and it's also just the way governments work.
What titles do you need to see? I thought the only big gap was GIS software...