Yeah, well, in the United States "rural sticks" can mean anything from what you described all the way to a single house on a dirt road whose nearest neighbors are miles away. So maybe you shouldn't try applying your Eurocentric perspective to the United States?
BTW, you still haven't explained to me what's so bad about a leach field.
Granted, I can't find a city with bad tap water right now (or neccessarily at all).
So you admit that you were talking out of your ass. Glad to see we can make progress so quickly.
Leach fields don't seem to be that unusual in the States. I seem to remember that my brother's house in Indianapolis has something similar.
What's wrong with a leach field? A properly designed septic system with leach field is every bit as environmentally friendly as a full fledged sewer system with wastewater treatment. Running a sewer line out into the rural sticks is not always a cost effective or environmentally friendly option.
wouldn't it be only fair ("all men are equal...") to give citizens of the colonies (= world - China) a vote in the US presidential election?
Sure. As soon as you adopt the United States Constitution as the supreme law of your land. That includes the parts of it that you might not necessarily approve of. Personally I'd love to see the 2nd amendment applied to the European countries that have disarmed their populations and infringed on their citizens basic right of self-defense.
Unless you count the economic blackmail (threats of trade restrictions) of countries around the world to force them to adopt equivalent laws to US laws on topics such as drug enforcement, copyright, rights of unfettered operation of US companies etc.
I hate to break it to you but at least one item on your list (drug enforcement) was done through the UN and the international treaty system. Ever heard of the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics? I know it's politically popular at the current moment in time to bash the United States but you might actually learn something about these subjects before you open your mouth.
has so ludicrously bad tap water that it's not neccessarily potable and still thinks that sewers are optional
WTF are you talking about? I've never been in an American city where the tap water wasn't potable. I have been in a European city where it was "highly recommended" not to drink the water (Florence). Mind telling me what American city lacks potable tap water and where in the United States sewers are "optional"?
Until they bring in brain scanners (or people who read body language) that can tell when you're lying.
In the UK that might actually fly too. I heard that they've neutered the right to keep silent. Why would brain scans pose a problem to your civil liberties if you have nothing to hide, citizen?
Disregard the rules completely, and you have a war that no one wants.
If we disregard all the rules of war then I should think that the West could crush radial Islam in the time it takes for POTUS to pick up a phone and read some launch codes.
This is because everything and anything the republicans get their hands on will be taken to the newspapers in the worst light possible, because they're against them not being in power.
Cry me a fucking river. The Democrats did the exact same thing when they were in the minority. It's called politics and this is how it works.
I have no problem with humane treatment. Even if they are unlawful combatants (as opposed to POWs) they are still entitled to humane treatment. Torture is a black mark on our country that will take generations to erase.
That still doesn't mean they are entitled to POW status or access to our civilian justice system though.
Yes. He has the right to be held by us until the end of hostilities. He has the right to receive food and medical care. He has the right to be treated in a respectful manner and not to be used for propaganda purposes or exposed to the media/curious onlookers. He does not have the right to use our civilian justice system to challenge his detention.
The notion that enemy combatants are entitled to access to the civilian justice system is absurd. Imagine the German POWs we captured in WW2 filing writs of habeas corpus. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
They are enemy combatants. Even if they were POWs they would still be considered enemy combatants. We didn't give the POWs we captured in WW2 access to our civilian justice system. We held them until the end of hostilities. The reason that the people in Gitmo didn't get POW status is because they refuse to follow the accepted laws of war. This really isn't that complicated to understand.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
No, they aren't civilians. You lose your status as a civilian when you pick up a rifle and start shooting at our people. You might want to read about what happened to the German troops during the Battle of the Bulge that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms. By violating the laws of war they forfeited their right to POW status and were subject to summary execution upon capture. Perhaps we should have just done that to these Al Quada types and made the whole point of holding them moot. I would happily volunteer to put a bullet in KSM's head. I suspect many other Americans would do the same.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?
Who was talking about torture? I'm talking about holding them. I find torture to be abhorrent but that doesn't mean we can't hold them until the end of hostilities and try them for whatever violations of the laws of war that they may have committed.
Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing?
As long as was required for them to collapse under their own weight. Nuclear weapons kind of made the whole notion of invading and conquering the United States obsolete. I didn't suggest that we gut our entire military -- I suggested that it chop it down to size and rely on the US Navy (it seems doubtful that Canada and Mexico are going to attack us, doesn't it?) and our nuclear deterrent to keep our country safe.
Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.
Again, nuclear deterrent. The Soviets lacked the logistical ability to directly attack the United States. They could have bombed us but doing so would be suicidal when we could easily return the favor. In fact, one could almost argue that nearly every penny we put into tanks/ships/aircraft/rifles/etc was wasted. Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War from going hot. Everything else was just icing on the cake.
The desire to have no standing army (and even opposition to a full time police force) contributed largely to support of the 2nd amendment, this is no longer relevant.
Why is that no longer relevant? Why does the United States, which is bordered by two extremely friendly countries and thousands of mile of ocean, need a large standing military? Particularly in the nuclear age. We ought to keep a small professional army with the primary mission of training the militia. Combine that with the US Navy plus our nuclear deterrent and it seems extremely unlikely to me that anybody is going to invade mainland USA.
The only reason we need a large standing military is if we intend to be interventionists and impose our will on the rest of the world. That isn't financially or politically sustainable over the long run -- as we are currently finding out. Don't take the Founding Fathers word for it though -- Dwight Eisenhower said almost the same thing just 50 years ago.
BTW, the 2nd amendment wasn't "largely" supported because of the common defense. That's one reason that it was written. The main reason that it was written was to serve as a final check and balance against a tyrannical government. I see no reason why that's any less relevant today than it was 200 years ago. In fact, I would argue that it's more relevant today. The 20th century was filled with genocides of unarmed people, genocides that might not have happened if the victims had been armed and able to resist.
Concepts such as, social security, workers rights, a standing army, a full time police force, universal education, an agency to control use of highways, etc, were all unneeded back in the 18th century but clearly need government involvement in the 21st.
None of those things that you mentioned with the exception of the standing army (which I've already discussed) require the involvement of the Federal government. It would be far better for our Republic if as many of those things as possible were handled at the state and local level.
That's exactly right. The Democrats like to pretend that this type of interference in the free market won't have any consequences but the consequences are real and will be with us long after GM becomes viable or fails for real. They also screwed over parts of their own base with that move. Tens of millions of ordinary non-rich Americans have 401(k)s that held GM bonds. Those secured creditors should have been repaid in full before the unsecured creditors saw a penny.
At this point I don't think it's a question of "if" the Democrats will get their asses handed to them, it's a question of how hard they will their asses handed to them. Personally I'm hoping that the GOP takes back the House and secures enough seats in the Senate to reliably filibuster the more extreme parts of Obama's agenda. And before you start complaining that his agenda isn't "extreme" you might ask yourself why he can't even convince his own party to go along with it. Health care (just to name one issue) isn't being held up because of the GOP -- it's being held up because of moderate Democrats.
At this point the GOP taking over Congress would be the best thing that could happen to Obama's presidency. Divided Government balanced the budget, produced a nice fat surplus and got out of the way of the economy back in the 90s. Seems to me that we should go back to that model, though we can probably live without the false moral outrage, blowjobs and lying under oath.
I didn't claim that you called me un-american. I just pointed out that you are behaving in the exact same manner as those that you despise so much. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Regarding Doug Hoffman, why don't you take a look at what the "Republican" candidate actually stood for? I'm no fan of a litmus test but take a look at her actual position on the issues. Then ask yourself what chance a pro-life/anti-union/pro-business/anti-gay-marriage candidate would have running under the banner of the Democrats in a heavily Democratic (think NYC or San Francisco) district. It's fine and dandy to disagree with your party on a handful of issues. She disagreed with her party on most of the issues. The only one I can think of that she actually agreed with the GOP on was gun rights -- of course that's a virtual necessity in that district -- even the Democrat had an A rating from the NRA.
That race was a reflection on the fucked up political system in New York. Had they held an actual primary she never would have been the candidate. Instead she was selected in a backroom deal by the county chairs. I should think that you would be opposed to such maneuverings. If we conducted elections like that on the national level then Obama would still be a Senator with no power and Hillary Clinton would be President.
BTW, I'm not a libertarian, though I do agree with them on many issues. I honestly don't know what I am. I was a Democrat until I realized that Obama was just another empty suit willing to say anything that it took to get elected. Now I'm just another pissed off voter that hates the kool-aid being served by both parties but whom will probably vote GOP anyway just to put some checks and balances back into Washington. One party rule is never a good thing.
Yes, that's exactly how it works. I believe I was quite clear in expressing my opinion. A flat tax is fair. A "progressive" tax is not. It's the tyranny of the majority. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, you can take your "If you don't like it, leave" attitude and shove it up your ass. Those on the left rightfully called bullshit when Republicans were pulling that crap but are now doing the exact same thing. What's next, gonna call me unamerican because I disagree with your political views? Fucking hypocrites.
Keep the change asshole. Your day of reckoning isn't that far away.
He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"
They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.
I regard any taxation system that isn't a flat tax as a form of socialism. It's utter bullshit to take a higher percentage of someone's income just because you think they can afford it.
I'm also sick of hearing "tax the rich" as though "the rich" represent a bottomless pit of free money. 5% of the population pays 60% of the income taxes in this country. The bottom 40-50% pays zero dollars in income tax. Personally I regard that as one of the greatest injustices of our time. It also makes for bad politics -- 50% of this country has no motivation to care about how much money the government spends because they know it isn't going to directly impact their own bottom line.
In fact, if the US set some CO2 goals, the entire international pressure would be on china, forcing them to act.
Yeah, because the Chinese always respond to international pressure. That's why they didn't arrest dissents before the Olympics, why they shut down the great firewall and why they recently loosened the leash on Tibet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well, in the United States "rural sticks" can mean anything from what you described all the way to a single house on a dirt road whose nearest neighbors are miles away. So maybe you shouldn't try applying your Eurocentric perspective to the United States?
BTW, you still haven't explained to me what's so bad about a leach field.
Granted, I can't find a city with bad tap water right now (or neccessarily at all).
So you admit that you were talking out of your ass. Glad to see we can make progress so quickly.
Leach fields don't seem to be that unusual in the States. I seem to remember that my brother's house in Indianapolis has something similar.
What's wrong with a leach field? A properly designed septic system with leach field is every bit as environmentally friendly as a full fledged sewer system with wastewater treatment. Running a sewer line out into the rural sticks is not always a cost effective or environmentally friendly option.
wouldn't it be only fair ("all men are equal...") to give citizens of the colonies (= world - China) a vote in the US presidential election?
Sure. As soon as you adopt the United States Constitution as the supreme law of your land. That includes the parts of it that you might not necessarily approve of. Personally I'd love to see the 2nd amendment applied to the European countries that have disarmed their populations and infringed on their citizens basic right of self-defense.
Unless you count the economic blackmail (threats of trade restrictions) of countries around the world to force them to adopt equivalent laws to US laws on topics such as drug enforcement, copyright, rights of unfettered operation of US companies etc.
I hate to break it to you but at least one item on your list (drug enforcement) was done through the UN and the international treaty system. Ever heard of the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics? I know it's politically popular at the current moment in time to bash the United States but you might actually learn something about these subjects before you open your mouth.
has so ludicrously bad tap water that it's not neccessarily potable and still thinks that sewers are optional
WTF are you talking about? I've never been in an American city where the tap water wasn't potable. I have been in a European city where it was "highly recommended" not to drink the water (Florence). Mind telling me what American city lacks potable tap water and where in the United States sewers are "optional"?
With such a tiny size I might guess the beam would quickly cut a hole straight through you.
Aren't there cheaper ways to achieve that? ;)
Until they bring in brain scanners (or people who read body language) that can tell when you're lying.
In the UK that might actually fly too. I heard that they've neutered the right to keep silent. Why would brain scans pose a problem to your civil liberties if you have nothing to hide, citizen?
Jesus dude, you make some really great points, but haven't you ever heard of the <p> tag?
Right, and from a politicians point of view that's the same thing as rolling in a pile of money ;)
Disregard the rules completely, and you have a war that no one wants.
If we disregard all the rules of war then I should think that the West could crush radial Islam in the time it takes for POTUS to pick up a phone and read some launch codes.
Yes, an "assault weapon" is a fully automatic rifle. It's not the semi-automatic civilian version that gets the gun-grabbers all hot and bothered.
This is because everything and anything the republicans get their hands on will be taken to the newspapers in the worst light possible, because they're against them not being in power.
Cry me a fucking river. The Democrats did the exact same thing when they were in the minority. It's called politics and this is how it works.
I have no problem with humane treatment. Even if they are unlawful combatants (as opposed to POWs) they are still entitled to humane treatment. Torture is a black mark on our country that will take generations to erase.
That still doesn't mean they are entitled to POW status or access to our civilian justice system though.
Either way, he still has rights.
Yes. He has the right to be held by us until the end of hostilities. He has the right to receive food and medical care. He has the right to be treated in a respectful manner and not to be used for propaganda purposes or exposed to the media/curious onlookers. He does not have the right to use our civilian justice system to challenge his detention.
The notion that enemy combatants are entitled to access to the civilian justice system is absurd. Imagine the German POWs we captured in WW2 filing writs of habeas corpus. Seems pretty silly, doesn't it?
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
They are enemy combatants. Even if they were POWs they would still be considered enemy combatants. We didn't give the POWs we captured in WW2 access to our civilian justice system. We held them until the end of hostilities. The reason that the people in Gitmo didn't get POW status is because they refuse to follow the accepted laws of war. This really isn't that complicated to understand.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
No, they aren't civilians. You lose your status as a civilian when you pick up a rifle and start shooting at our people. You might want to read about what happened to the German troops during the Battle of the Bulge that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms. By violating the laws of war they forfeited their right to POW status and were subject to summary execution upon capture. Perhaps we should have just done that to these Al Quada types and made the whole point of holding them moot. I would happily volunteer to put a bullet in KSM's head. I suspect many other Americans would do the same.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?
Who was talking about torture? I'm talking about holding them. I find torture to be abhorrent but that doesn't mean we can't hold them until the end of hostilities and try them for whatever violations of the laws of war that they may have committed.
Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing?
As long as was required for them to collapse under their own weight. Nuclear weapons kind of made the whole notion of invading and conquering the United States obsolete. I didn't suggest that we gut our entire military -- I suggested that it chop it down to size and rely on the US Navy (it seems doubtful that Canada and Mexico are going to attack us, doesn't it?) and our nuclear deterrent to keep our country safe.
Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.
Again, nuclear deterrent. The Soviets lacked the logistical ability to directly attack the United States. They could have bombed us but doing so would be suicidal when we could easily return the favor. In fact, one could almost argue that nearly every penny we put into tanks/ships/aircraft/rifles/etc was wasted. Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War from going hot. Everything else was just icing on the cake.
The desire to have no standing army (and even opposition to a full time police force) contributed largely to support of the 2nd amendment, this is no longer relevant.
Why is that no longer relevant? Why does the United States, which is bordered by two extremely friendly countries and thousands of mile of ocean, need a large standing military? Particularly in the nuclear age. We ought to keep a small professional army with the primary mission of training the militia. Combine that with the US Navy plus our nuclear deterrent and it seems extremely unlikely to me that anybody is going to invade mainland USA.
The only reason we need a large standing military is if we intend to be interventionists and impose our will on the rest of the world. That isn't financially or politically sustainable over the long run -- as we are currently finding out. Don't take the Founding Fathers word for it though -- Dwight Eisenhower said almost the same thing just 50 years ago.
BTW, the 2nd amendment wasn't "largely" supported because of the common defense. That's one reason that it was written. The main reason that it was written was to serve as a final check and balance against a tyrannical government. I see no reason why that's any less relevant today than it was 200 years ago. In fact, I would argue that it's more relevant today. The 20th century was filled with genocides of unarmed people, genocides that might not have happened if the victims had been armed and able to resist.
Concepts such as, social security, workers rights, a standing army, a full time police force, universal education, an agency to control use of highways, etc, were all unneeded back in the 18th century but clearly need government involvement in the 21st.
None of those things that you mentioned with the exception of the standing army (which I've already discussed) require the involvement of the Federal government. It would be far better for our Republic if as many of those things as possible were handled at the state and local level.
That's exactly right. The Democrats like to pretend that this type of interference in the free market won't have any consequences but the consequences are real and will be with us long after GM becomes viable or fails for real. They also screwed over parts of their own base with that move. Tens of millions of ordinary non-rich Americans have 401(k)s that held GM bonds. Those secured creditors should have been repaid in full before the unsecured creditors saw a penny.
At this point I don't think it's a question of "if" the Democrats will get their asses handed to them, it's a question of how hard they will their asses handed to them. Personally I'm hoping that the GOP takes back the House and secures enough seats in the Senate to reliably filibuster the more extreme parts of Obama's agenda. And before you start complaining that his agenda isn't "extreme" you might ask yourself why he can't even convince his own party to go along with it. Health care (just to name one issue) isn't being held up because of the GOP -- it's being held up because of moderate Democrats.
At this point the GOP taking over Congress would be the best thing that could happen to Obama's presidency. Divided Government balanced the budget, produced a nice fat surplus and got out of the way of the economy back in the 90s. Seems to me that we should go back to that model, though we can probably live without the false moral outrage, blowjobs and lying under oath.
I didn't claim that you called me un-american. I just pointed out that you are behaving in the exact same manner as those that you despise so much. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Regarding Doug Hoffman, why don't you take a look at what the "Republican" candidate actually stood for? I'm no fan of a litmus test but take a look at her actual position on the issues. Then ask yourself what chance a pro-life/anti-union/pro-business/anti-gay-marriage candidate would have running under the banner of the Democrats in a heavily Democratic (think NYC or San Francisco) district. It's fine and dandy to disagree with your party on a handful of issues. She disagreed with her party on most of the issues. The only one I can think of that she actually agreed with the GOP on was gun rights -- of course that's a virtual necessity in that district -- even the Democrat had an A rating from the NRA.
That race was a reflection on the fucked up political system in New York. Had they held an actual primary she never would have been the candidate. Instead she was selected in a backroom deal by the county chairs. I should think that you would be opposed to such maneuverings. If we conducted elections like that on the national level then Obama would still be a Senator with no power and Hillary Clinton would be President.
BTW, I'm not a libertarian, though I do agree with them on many issues. I honestly don't know what I am. I was a Democrat until I realized that Obama was just another empty suit willing to say anything that it took to get elected. Now I'm just another pissed off voter that hates the kool-aid being served by both parties but whom will probably vote GOP anyway just to put some checks and balances back into Washington. One party rule is never a good thing.
Yes, that's exactly how it works. I believe I was quite clear in expressing my opinion. A flat tax is fair. A "progressive" tax is not. It's the tyranny of the majority. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, you can take your "If you don't like it, leave" attitude and shove it up your ass. Those on the left rightfully called bullshit when Republicans were pulling that crap but are now doing the exact same thing. What's next, gonna call me unamerican because I disagree with your political views? Fucking hypocrites.
Keep the change asshole. Your day of reckoning isn't that far away.
He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"
They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.
I regard any taxation system that isn't a flat tax as a form of socialism. It's utter bullshit to take a higher percentage of someone's income just because you think they can afford it.
I'm also sick of hearing "tax the rich" as though "the rich" represent a bottomless pit of free money. 5% of the population pays 60% of the income taxes in this country. The bottom 40-50% pays zero dollars in income tax. Personally I regard that as one of the greatest injustices of our time. It also makes for bad politics -- 50% of this country has no motivation to care about how much money the government spends because they know it isn't going to directly impact their own bottom line.
In fact, if the US set some CO2 goals, the entire international pressure would be on china, forcing them to act.
Yeah, because the Chinese always respond to international pressure. That's why they didn't arrest dissents before the Olympics, why they shut down the great firewall and why they recently loosened the leash on Tibet.