People overseas tend to forget that the United States fought a revolution to escape tyranny and that expansions of Governmental power are traditionally viewed with suspicion here. With regards to the specific issue of nationalizing the energy industry exactly what benefits do you think we would gain? Why should I support the nationalizing of an industry that I hold fairly profitable investments in when such nationalization will result in little to no change in the price that I pay for that product?
I agree with all of what you are saying and I've railed against single-issue voters in the past. I can't bring myself to get over this FISA vote though. Beyond telecom immunity this bill guts the FISA court and gives the Executive carte blanche to wiretap without warrants or judicial oversight. Do you talk to anyone overseas on the telephone? Your calls could be monitored at any time without a warrant thanks to this bill. You as an American citizen have effectively had your right against unreasonable search and seizure taken away from you just because you want to communicate with someone outside of our borders.
Obama swore an oath to defend the Constitution when elected to the Senate. He has now violated that oath. Why should I believe he will take the Presidential Oath seriously? Call me a sentimentalist but I believe that such oaths should be taken seriously. They remind all of us (from the person serving on a jury or testifying as a witness all the way up to the POTUS) that we are a nation of laws and that no one person is above those laws.
Ironically enough Obama's own statement on this issue explains my concerns far more eloquently then I can: "It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."
Indeed. Who knew that giving retroactive immunity for past violations of the law would weaken the deterrent effect of the law? His own statement provides ample justification for opposing this law -- yet he supported it anyway? WTF?
You know, I still don't get the huge deal with the telecom immunity. Yes the telecoms should be punished, at least as a preventative measure so that in the future companies think twice before following illegal government orders. And yet, the truly guilty party are the government officials who made those orders. Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
The lawsuits against the telco's weren't aimed at "lynching the stooges". They were aimed at discovering the extent of the illegal wiretapping that went on through the process of discovery. That's what the "huge deal" with telecom immunity was -- by passing immunity they have denied the American people their best chance at an honest accounting of what transpired.
Obama's response is that there will be an Inspectors General investigation of what happened and they will report to the American people through Congress. If he actually believes that will give us a full and honest accounting of what happened (recall how the parts of the 9/11 commission report on Saudi Arabia were classified and denied to the public) then at the very least he is hopelessly naive.
That's bad enough but you forgot "while reducing Federal income by slashing taxes" at the end.
They morphed into a me-too-but-more party.
Indeed. To quote a friend of mine: I'd rather be a tax and spend Liberal than a borrow and spend Republican. At least the Dems are pretending to have a way to pay for their proposals -- the Republicans just want to put it on the national credit card.
It's high time we the people just say no to the corrupt two party system. It's time we got off our lazy asses and learn about the alternatives available outside the corporate-approved "choice" spoon-fed to us by Big Media. Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.
Just three weeks ago I would have argued with you about this. Then Obama flip-flopped on FISA and voted for a bill containing telecom immunity. In so doing he lost my vote and my support. The only thing I would dispute is that the third parties really offer a better alternative. Consider:
Bob Barr: Witch-burning religious lunatic that led the impeachment of Bill Clinton and somehow gets to masquerade as a libertarian. Could they really do no better than this guy?
Ralph Nader: Left-wing crazy that thinks we should nationalize the energy industries (even I don't lean this far to the left) and expand the nanny state.
McKinney: Don't know a lot about her yet but the initial reading is not very promising. Seems to have a huge chip on her shoulder and is probably at least as far to the left as Nader is.
I won't be voting for Obama or McCain but I don't see how I can support any of these crazies either. I'll sign their petitions for ballot access if asked but I fear that my vote for POTUS may wind up being blank this year:( I'd love the chance to meet Bob Barr and ask him directly if he's changed his tune on wiccans/neo-pagans -- a satisfactory answer might get him my vote. The others don't stand a chance though.
and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
I despise the new version of IE. My favorite "feature" is how it starts up to that common splash screen (customize your settings or whatever it is) every time you start it and how that splash screen refuses to go away on start-up until you acknowledge it -- even if you don't want to change any of the settings. Drives me up the fucking wall every time I have to setup a new computer for someone. Can't not use IE -- need it for Windows/Office updates -- so I either have to acknowledge the stupid screen and "customize" software I'm never going to use again or deal with it opening up every single time IE is launched. What's worse is that they couldn't make it a local splash screen. Somehow customizing the settings in your web browser requires loading a page from Microsoft's servers. Makes it all the more enjoyable for dial-up/slow connection users.
And "IE is just as good these days?" Maybe from the narrow viewpoint of "out of the box" (though I would dispute even that). But AFAIK IE doesn't have near the amount of third-party add-ons available for it that Firefox does. Is there anything as useful as this available for IE?
Port-a-potty: check
Cot from Wally World: check
One.45 caliber automatic: check
Two boxes of ammunition: check
Four days' concentrated emergency rations: check
Antibiotics: check
Morphine: check
Vitamin pills: check
Pip pills: check
Sleeping pills: check
Tranquilizer pills: check
Miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible: check
$100 in rubles: check
$100 on gold: check
Nine packs of chewing gum: check
One issue of prophylactics: check
Three lipsticks: check
Three pairs of nylon stockings: check
Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
And just what alternative do you suggest that provides all of the listing of a normal classifieds section and the "value added" services of casual hookups and marijuana dealers?;)
If you have to put that asterisk next to your statement to make it true I hope you realize the absurdity of saying that we've "sunk further than Nazi Germany during WWII"
What they never do in war, in civilized countries that is, civilized such as for example in Nazi Germany, is to treat soldiers of war the way the US is treating captives of it's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
I think that you could have made your argument just fine without bringing up Nazi Germany. It's not usefully helpful towards a productive debate or conversation to do so.
Even Germany treated their captives (soldiers) with a reasonable amount of respect
Really? So you would have wanted to be a Soviet POW captured by the Germans on the Eastern Front?
We have now sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII.
I'm disgusted by our actions in the last seven years but by making a statement like this you cost yourself a lot of creditability. It's either pure hyperbole (in which case you should know better) or pure ignorance of history. Go read about German activities behind the lines in the Soviet Union, Poland or the Balkans and tell me if you really think sending Taliban and/or Al Quada fighters to Gitmo comes remotely close to the anti-partisan methods adopted by the Wehrmacht and SS. They would march into villages and execute every single man, woman and child in response to partisan activities. Do you really think the United States has done anything remotely close to that?
Please note that I'm not trying to defend our activities by bringing this up. Just trying to point out the absurdity of your statement that we've "sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII".
That is why our Repugnican leadership refuses to grant them the rights soldiers have
I'd agree but I don't think using the word "Repubnican" makes for a productive debate or respectful conversation.
And this is where you just ran into serious trouble. You see, when we broke the Geneva Convention, and we have done that, it no longer applies to our soldiers in the field. This means that the torture and beheading of our soldiers is justified by our actions. That is why you, as a civilized country always abide by the rules
Have you ever actually read the Geneva Conventions? How about the actions behind the lines during the Battle of the Bulge? We captured several English speaking German soldiers who had infiltrated behind the lines wearing American uniforms. They were summarily executed for this -- and it was all perfectly legal because the Germans lost the protections of the conventions by fighting in a false uniform.
Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?
And it's the duty of our soldiers to neutralize threats. Somebody walking around with an AK-47 and the mandate to kill as many American soldiers as possible is a threat under any reasonable definition of the word. I don't agree with or support torture but we are well within our rights to whisk him away to the strange island in no-mans-land for the duration of the conflict. What do you think happened to all the German, Italian and Japanese soldiers that we captured during WW2? They were brought to prison camps within the Allied countries and made to perform labor (typically agriculture) as proscribed by the Geneva Conventions. Some of them weren't repatriated until two or three years after the end of the conflict. Has the conflict in Afghanistan ended yet?
Beyond that there are certain requirements mandated by the Geneva Conventions, such as wearing uniforms, being under the command of officers and carrying your weapons openly -- how many of the Taliban fighters really meet any those requirements? I don't condone torture but we'd be well within our legal rights to just not take prisoners at all if we were so inclined. The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country
What country? I'd totally agree with your arguments if you were talking about insurgents in Iraq but Afghanistan? The Taliban was only recognized by two or three other nations as I recall (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and one other). They never controlled the entire country -- even at their darkest hour the Northern Alliance (the recognized Government according to the UN and most Western countries) still controlled 10-15% of that nation. I don't think working with the NATO forces that are working with the successor to that Government makes you a traitor or a collaborator.
Would a member of the French resistance who was working with the Americans or British during WW2 be a traitor as well because he was going against the Vichy Government?
I just find it extremely dangerous when we start trying to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment. It undercuts our arguments against Republican encroachments on the 4th and 5th amendments. I am of the opinion that the Bill of Rights should be interpreted as broadly as possible and in the case of the 2nd amendment that means an individual right to keep and bear arms with a minimum of Government hassle.
Beyond any disagreements that you and I may have on the 2nd amendment the bottom line is that gun control is completely pointless anyway. Since when has the Government telling people they can't have something actually stopped them from obtaining it? Did it work with prohibition? The war on drugs? Would it work if file sharing was outlawed?
Gun control does very little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms. And why should we do that? How does my possession of a firearm threaten you?
As he's a pseudo-Libertarian I'm sure he's against FISA.
He's also against neo-pagans and wiccans too. Just thought you'd like to know that if you didn't already.
Yesterday's discussion was about one of the two corporate parties' candidates, Obama, voting for FISA
FWIW sm, I've joined your ranks of complete disgust and disillusionment with both major parties. There's no way in hell I can bring myself to vote for Bob Barr but I'm not going to be voting for Obama (or McCain) either.
Relax, I live in New York State so my vote doesn't really mean anything anyway. Well, yes it does. I'm not really that cynical. But realistically short of Senator Obama naming Osama Bin Ladin as his running mate I don't see McCain winning our 31 votes in the electoral college.
I suppose I should never say never but as it stands right now he has lost my trust. He reversed himself on a fairly explicit pledge for no obvious reason (it was going to pass anyway) and on an issue that I consider to be one of the most important of all. If he is willing to "compromise" on FISA is he also willing to compromise on universal health care? The education reforms he's talked about? The tax cuts he's promised? Network neutrality? Why should I believe a word he has to say?
I've written the campaign and requested a refund of monies I've donated (almost $500). If they actually give it to me I'm going to donate all of that money to the EFF and ACLU. Regardless of which lever I wind up pulling in November, Obama has lost me as a contributor and volunteer.
I suppose if he wins in November we'll have four years to find out where his actual intentions lie. I can't help but remember that Bush ran as a "uniter" on the platform of a humble non-nation-building foreign policy.
When that printing press is capable of making near-perfect reproductions of currency, and easily accessible information on how to defeat or mimic many of the security features is found on the Internet, then yes, it is too much to leave around.
That argument doesn't hold water as a defense of the watermarking technology that I was talking to. My complaint is with the practice of forcing printers to leave a serial number behind that law enforcement can track.
That "technique" does not survive a rational examination. That watermarking technology might catch the dumbass teenager that tries to pass a photoshopped $20 bill off on one of the drones at Wally World. But it's not going to catch professional counterfeiters. You really think that they are going to buy printers in such a way that can be traced back to them? The last time I checked it wasn't illegal to buy things with cash in this country and even if it were there are all sorts of ways to obtain things through "unofficial" channels (buying people off at Xerox comes to mind).
Given that, I don't really see how you can defend this practice. It doesn't do much of anything to deter counterfeiting. Yet it makes it that much easier for the Government to trace political communications that it might not agree with. Don't think it's happened before? Think again.
It's a damn shame that the Libertarian Party had to go and nominate some closed minded jackass as their standard bearer. I disagreed with Ron Paul on many important issues (abortion) but I never got the impression that he was a bigot or a religious zealot. Bob Barr strikes me as both of those things.
Could the Libertarian Party really do no better than him or are his previous outlandish statements just not that well known and/or remembered?
On the other hand, I desperately want to keep John McCain's paws off of the supreme court over the next 4-8 years. There are a lot of old liberals barely hanging onto the bench by their wrinkled, scrawny, arthritic claws that should not be replaced by a Republican nominee.
I'm not convinced that the Liberal wing of SCOTUS really deserves to be saved. It was the Liberal wing of the court that decided Kelo v. New London, which basically gave municipal/state governments the right to use eminent domain to seize property for private development.
I'm also not entirely convinced that more conservative justices == automatic end of Roe v. Wade. Roberts has seemed willing to defer to established case law and has shown a reluctance to take on high profile and divisive cases.
In any case if abortion rights teeter one vote away from elimination then I could make the argument that gun rights are also one vote away from elimination. The current balance of the court actually seems to be about right to me -- though I realize that the Liberal justices are the next to go and on that basis I probably should be rooting for Obama -- but I'm not overly eager to see a shift to the far-left in the court either.
Bet you can print 'em up in GIMP. Don't let the Government find out about that though, bad things might #$*&(*@&*(*!)(*)!*)(#*)@CARRIER LOST
Actually, in all seriousness I'm not advocating the forgery of banknotes. Just pointing out the rather obvious fact that open source software isn't going to come crippled for my "protection". Wonder how long hardware will remain the same? Was this crippling of the notebooks done in software or hardware?
Either way, why are people still giving Dell money?
Ah. Yes, the British Actions during the Boer War were quite offensive and disgusting. Sometimes I tend to forget just how nasty the Brits have been throughout history. I still find a great deal to admire about them -- they gave us the common law, the magna carta and the inspiration for our system of government -- but there's a good deal not to admire as well.
Let us not forget the orders to shoot soldiers who would not knock off the impromptu Christmas Truce with the Germans.
Oh, that's not even the worst thing that the Allies did in WW1 to their own troops. Have you ever read about the assaults that were ordered by the American, British and French commanders after the armistice was signed? Many of the officers in the Allied Armies regarded war as a game or sport to improve their skills on -- they sent thousands of Allied Troops to their deaths assaulting the German lines right up until the actual hour (11am) that the armistice was going to become effective.
He made some stupid decisions and had some rather strange obsessions (like the "soft underbelly" of Europe that he wanted to invade..... that would have been a bloodbath) but his rhetoric and charisma were probably the only things that kept the British in the war during the darkest hours of WW2.
Can you honestly say that the World would have turned out for the better if the UK had been forced to sue for peace with Hitler before the United States or the Soviet Union got involved? Hitler would have had a one-front war with Stalin that he might have been able to win and FDR would have been powerless to overcome the isolationist sentiment in the United States to try and stop him. A Nazi Germany that successfully absorbs the resources of all of Eurasia is a pretty intimidating prospect to ponder.
As it was the only reason that FDR was able to get us into the war with Germany as early as he did was because Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. I'm not so sure that he would have made that same mistake if the UK had been forced out of the war and the United States Navy wasn't busy attacking U-boats trying to interdict British trade.
May I ask what it is about Churchill that you dislike?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does get called crazy in America.
People overseas tend to forget that the United States fought a revolution to escape tyranny and that expansions of Governmental power are traditionally viewed with suspicion here. With regards to the specific issue of nationalizing the energy industry exactly what benefits do you think we would gain? Why should I support the nationalizing of an industry that I hold fairly profitable investments in when such nationalization will result in little to no change in the price that I pay for that product?
That must explain why the national deficit has skyrocketed under GWB.
I agree with all of what you are saying and I've railed against single-issue voters in the past. I can't bring myself to get over this FISA vote though. Beyond telecom immunity this bill guts the FISA court and gives the Executive carte blanche to wiretap without warrants or judicial oversight. Do you talk to anyone overseas on the telephone? Your calls could be monitored at any time without a warrant thanks to this bill. You as an American citizen have effectively had your right against unreasonable search and seizure taken away from you just because you want to communicate with someone outside of our borders.
Obama swore an oath to defend the Constitution when elected to the Senate. He has now violated that oath. Why should I believe he will take the Presidential Oath seriously? Call me a sentimentalist but I believe that such oaths should be taken seriously. They remind all of us (from the person serving on a jury or testifying as a witness all the way up to the POTUS) that we are a nation of laws and that no one person is above those laws.
Ironically enough Obama's own statement on this issue explains my concerns far more eloquently then I can: "It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."
Indeed. Who knew that giving retroactive immunity for past violations of the law would weaken the deterrent effect of the law? His own statement provides ample justification for opposing this law -- yet he supported it anyway? WTF?
McCain in 08, baby! ;D
Yes, because flushing half a trillion dollars away in Iraq isn't nearly enough.......
Didn't Bush run against nation-building eight years ago?
You know, I still don't get the huge deal with the telecom immunity. Yes the telecoms should be punished, at least as a preventative measure so that in the future companies think twice before following illegal government orders. And yet, the truly guilty party are the government officials who made those orders. Why are we so intend to lynch their stooges when the masterminds are getting away scot-free?
The lawsuits against the telco's weren't aimed at "lynching the stooges". They were aimed at discovering the extent of the illegal wiretapping that went on through the process of discovery. That's what the "huge deal" with telecom immunity was -- by passing immunity they have denied the American people their best chance at an honest accounting of what transpired.
Obama's response is that there will be an Inspectors General investigation of what happened and they will report to the American people through Congress. If he actually believes that will give us a full and honest accounting of what happened (recall how the parts of the 9/11 commission report on Saudi Arabia were classified and denied to the public) then at the very least he is hopelessly naive.
Vast increase in federal spending!
That's bad enough but you forgot "while reducing Federal income by slashing taxes" at the end.
They morphed into a me-too-but-more party.
Indeed. To quote a friend of mine: I'd rather be a tax and spend Liberal than a borrow and spend Republican. At least the Dems are pretending to have a way to pay for their proposals -- the Republicans just want to put it on the national credit card.
... I could have been one of the idiots that voted for the guy I wanted to have a beer with. Twice. How'd that work out again?
It's high time we the people just say no to the corrupt two party system. It's time we got off our lazy asses and learn about the alternatives available outside the corporate-approved "choice" spoon-fed to us by Big Media. Oh sure, probably we'll get either McCain or Obama this time, but if enough people vote outside the box it will encourage others to do the same.
Just three weeks ago I would have argued with you about this. Then Obama flip-flopped on FISA and voted for a bill containing telecom immunity. In so doing he lost my vote and my support. The only thing I would dispute is that the third parties really offer a better alternative. Consider:
Bob Barr: Witch-burning religious lunatic that led the impeachment of Bill Clinton and somehow gets to masquerade as a libertarian. Could they really do no better than this guy?
Ralph Nader: Left-wing crazy that thinks we should nationalize the energy industries (even I don't lean this far to the left) and expand the nanny state.
McKinney: Don't know a lot about her yet but the initial reading is not very promising. Seems to have a huge chip on her shoulder and is probably at least as far to the left as Nader is.
I won't be voting for Obama or McCain but I don't see how I can support any of these crazies either. I'll sign their petitions for ballot access if asked but I fear that my vote for POTUS may wind up being blank this year :( I'd love the chance to meet Bob Barr and ask him directly if he's changed his tune on wiccans/neo-pagans -- a satisfactory answer might get him my vote. The others don't stand a chance though.
and that as far as features for the end-user are concerned, IE is just as good these days.
I despise the new version of IE. My favorite "feature" is how it starts up to that common splash screen (customize your settings or whatever it is) every time you start it and how that splash screen refuses to go away on start-up until you acknowledge it -- even if you don't want to change any of the settings. Drives me up the fucking wall every time I have to setup a new computer for someone. Can't not use IE -- need it for Windows/Office updates -- so I either have to acknowledge the stupid screen and "customize" software I'm never going to use again or deal with it opening up every single time IE is launched. What's worse is that they couldn't make it a local splash screen. Somehow customizing the settings in your web browser requires loading a page from Microsoft's servers. Makes it all the more enjoyable for dial-up/slow connection users.
And "IE is just as good these days?" Maybe from the narrow viewpoint of "out of the box" (though I would dispute even that). But AFAIK IE doesn't have near the amount of third-party add-ons available for it that Firefox does. Is there anything as useful as this available for IE?
Port-a-potty: check .45 caliber automatic: check
Cot from Wally World: check
One
Two boxes of ammunition: check
Four days' concentrated emergency rations: check
Antibiotics: check
Morphine: check
Vitamin pills: check
Pip pills: check
Sleeping pills: check
Tranquilizer pills: check
Miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible: check
$100 in rubles: check
$100 on gold: check
Nine packs of chewing gum: check
One issue of prophylactics: check
Three lipsticks: check
Three pairs of nylon stockings: check
Shoot, a fella' could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.
Craigslist's business model is ridiculous
And just what alternative do you suggest that provides all of the listing of a normal classifieds section and the "value added" services of casual hookups and marijuana dealers? ;)
Should have specified allied soldiers.
If you have to put that asterisk next to your statement to make it true I hope you realize the absurdity of saying that we've "sunk further than Nazi Germany during WWII"
What they never do in war, in civilized countries that is, civilized such as for example in Nazi Germany, is to treat soldiers of war the way the US is treating captives of it's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
I think that you could have made your argument just fine without bringing up Nazi Germany. It's not usefully helpful towards a productive debate or conversation to do so.
Even Germany treated their captives (soldiers) with a reasonable amount of respect
Really? So you would have wanted to be a Soviet POW captured by the Germans on the Eastern Front?
We have now sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII.
I'm disgusted by our actions in the last seven years but by making a statement like this you cost yourself a lot of creditability. It's either pure hyperbole (in which case you should know better) or pure ignorance of history. Go read about German activities behind the lines in the Soviet Union, Poland or the Balkans and tell me if you really think sending Taliban and/or Al Quada fighters to Gitmo comes remotely close to the anti-partisan methods adopted by the Wehrmacht and SS. They would march into villages and execute every single man, woman and child in response to partisan activities. Do you really think the United States has done anything remotely close to that?
Please note that I'm not trying to defend our activities by bringing this up. Just trying to point out the absurdity of your statement that we've "sunk far lower than the Germans of WWII".
That is why our Repugnican leadership refuses to grant them the rights soldiers have
I'd agree but I don't think using the word "Repubnican" makes for a productive debate or respectful conversation.
And this is where you just ran into serious trouble. You see, when we broke the Geneva Convention, and we have done that, it no longer applies to our soldiers in the field. This means that the torture and beheading of our soldiers is justified by our actions. That is why you, as a civilized country always abide by the rules
Have you ever actually read the Geneva Conventions? How about the actions behind the lines during the Battle of the Bulge? We captured several English speaking German soldiers who had infiltrated behind the lines wearing American uniforms. They were summarily executed for this -- and it was all perfectly legal because the Germans lost the protections of the conventions by fighting in a false uniform.
Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?
And it's the duty of our soldiers to neutralize threats. Somebody walking around with an AK-47 and the mandate to kill as many American soldiers as possible is a threat under any reasonable definition of the word. I don't agree with or support torture but we are well within our rights to whisk him away to the strange island in no-mans-land for the duration of the conflict. What do you think happened to all the German, Italian and Japanese soldiers that we captured during WW2? They were brought to prison camps within the Allied countries and made to perform labor (typically agriculture) as proscribed by the Geneva Conventions. Some of them weren't repatriated until two or three years after the end of the conflict. Has the conflict in Afghanistan ended yet?
Beyond that there are certain requirements mandated by the Geneva Conventions, such as wearing uniforms, being under the command of officers and carrying your weapons openly -- how many of the Taliban fighters really meet any those requirements? I don't condone torture but we'd be well within our legal rights to just not take prisoners at all if we were so inclined. The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country
What country? I'd totally agree with your arguments if you were talking about insurgents in Iraq but Afghanistan? The Taliban was only recognized by two or three other nations as I recall (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and one other). They never controlled the entire country -- even at their darkest hour the Northern Alliance (the recognized Government according to the UN and most Western countries) still controlled 10-15% of that nation. I don't think working with the NATO forces that are working with the successor to that Government makes you a traitor or a collaborator.
Would a member of the French resistance who was working with the Americans or British during WW2 be a traitor as well because he was going against the Vichy Government?
I just find it extremely dangerous when we start trying to limit the scope of the 2nd amendment. It undercuts our arguments against Republican encroachments on the 4th and 5th amendments. I am of the opinion that the Bill of Rights should be interpreted as broadly as possible and in the case of the 2nd amendment that means an individual right to keep and bear arms with a minimum of Government hassle.
Beyond any disagreements that you and I may have on the 2nd amendment the bottom line is that gun control is completely pointless anyway. Since when has the Government telling people they can't have something actually stopped them from obtaining it? Did it work with prohibition? The war on drugs? Would it work if file sharing was outlawed?
Gun control does very little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. All it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms. And why should we do that? How does my possession of a firearm threaten you?
Naw I only got a +3 out of it ;)
If I linked it to a "In Soviet Russia..." joke I probably could have attained a +5.
As he's a pseudo-Libertarian I'm sure he's against FISA.
He's also against neo-pagans and wiccans too. Just thought you'd like to know that if you didn't already.
Yesterday's discussion was about one of the two corporate parties' candidates, Obama, voting for FISA
FWIW sm, I've joined your ranks of complete disgust and disillusionment with both major parties. There's no way in hell I can bring myself to vote for Bob Barr but I'm not going to be voting for Obama (or McCain) either.
Relax, I live in New York State so my vote doesn't really mean anything anyway. Well, yes it does. I'm not really that cynical. But realistically short of Senator Obama naming Osama Bin Ladin as his running mate I don't see McCain winning our 31 votes in the electoral college.
I suppose I should never say never but as it stands right now he has lost my trust. He reversed himself on a fairly explicit pledge for no obvious reason (it was going to pass anyway) and on an issue that I consider to be one of the most important of all. If he is willing to "compromise" on FISA is he also willing to compromise on universal health care? The education reforms he's talked about? The tax cuts he's promised? Network neutrality? Why should I believe a word he has to say?
I've written the campaign and requested a refund of monies I've donated (almost $500). If they actually give it to me I'm going to donate all of that money to the EFF and ACLU. Regardless of which lever I wind up pulling in November, Obama has lost me as a contributor and volunteer.
I suppose if he wins in November we'll have four years to find out where his actual intentions lie. I can't help but remember that Bush ran as a "uniter" on the platform of a humble non-nation-building foreign policy.
When that printing press is capable of making near-perfect reproductions of currency, and easily accessible information on how to defeat or mimic many of the security features is found on the Internet, then yes, it is too much to leave around.
That argument doesn't hold water as a defense of the watermarking technology that I was talking to. My complaint is with the practice of forcing printers to leave a serial number behind that law enforcement can track.
That "technique" does not survive a rational examination. That watermarking technology might catch the dumbass teenager that tries to pass a photoshopped $20 bill off on one of the drones at Wally World. But it's not going to catch professional counterfeiters. You really think that they are going to buy printers in such a way that can be traced back to them? The last time I checked it wasn't illegal to buy things with cash in this country and even if it were there are all sorts of ways to obtain things through "unofficial" channels (buying people off at Xerox comes to mind).
Given that, I don't really see how you can defend this practice. It doesn't do much of anything to deter counterfeiting. Yet it makes it that much easier for the Government to trace political communications that it might not agree with. Don't think it's happened before? Think again.
It's a damn shame that the Libertarian Party had to go and nominate some closed minded jackass as their standard bearer. I disagreed with Ron Paul on many important issues (abortion) but I never got the impression that he was a bigot or a religious zealot. Bob Barr strikes me as both of those things.
Could the Libertarian Party really do no better than him or are his previous outlandish statements just not that well known and/or remembered?
On the other hand, I desperately want to keep John McCain's paws off of the supreme court over the next 4-8 years. There are a lot of old liberals barely hanging onto the bench by their wrinkled, scrawny, arthritic claws that should not be replaced by a Republican nominee.
I'm not convinced that the Liberal wing of SCOTUS really deserves to be saved. It was the Liberal wing of the court that decided Kelo v. New London, which basically gave municipal/state governments the right to use eminent domain to seize property for private development.
I'm also not entirely convinced that more conservative justices == automatic end of Roe v. Wade. Roberts has seemed willing to defer to established case law and has shown a reluctance to take on high profile and divisive cases.
In any case if abortion rights teeter one vote away from elimination then I could make the argument that gun rights are also one vote away from elimination. The current balance of the court actually seems to be about right to me -- though I realize that the Liberal justices are the next to go and on that basis I probably should be rooting for Obama -- but I'm not overly eager to see a shift to the far-left in the court either.
You must be new here. When did we ever see CARRIER LOST? It was always NO CARRIER.
Really? Wow, I suck. Guess I should stick to what I know best -- underpants gnomes, federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and Soviet Russia ;)
And don't even get me started on the immediate follow-up with "... in all seriousness". :-)
Well I was actually trying to make a serious point of sorts.... what does all of this crippling actually accomplish?
I seriously doubt Photoshop would stop you, but that's just me. It seems a little pointless to have photo-editing software try to do that.
Are you sure about that?
There is also the "invisible" yellow dot tracking that so many printers do today (you can Google it, or I know it's been discussed here years ago).
I'm well aware of it. I guess the anonymous "printing press" was just too much for the Government to contemplate leaving around.
You can't print bank notes from Photoshop
Bet you can print 'em up in GIMP. Don't let the Government find out about that though, bad things might #$*&(*@&*(*!)(*)!*)(#*)@CARRIER LOST
Actually, in all seriousness I'm not advocating the forgery of banknotes. Just pointing out the rather obvious fact that open source software isn't going to come crippled for my "protection". Wonder how long hardware will remain the same? Was this crippling of the notebooks done in software or hardware?
Either way, why are people still giving Dell money?
Ah. Yes, the British Actions during the Boer War were quite offensive and disgusting. Sometimes I tend to forget just how nasty the Brits have been throughout history. I still find a great deal to admire about them -- they gave us the common law, the magna carta and the inspiration for our system of government -- but there's a good deal not to admire as well.
Let us not forget the orders to shoot soldiers who would not knock off the impromptu Christmas Truce with the Germans.
Oh, that's not even the worst thing that the Allies did in WW1 to their own troops. Have you ever read about the assaults that were ordered by the American, British and French commanders after the armistice was signed? Many of the officers in the Allied Armies regarded war as a game or sport to improve their skills on -- they sent thousands of Allied Troops to their deaths assaulting the German lines right up until the actual hour (11am) that the armistice was going to become effective.
Really? Churchill?
He made some stupid decisions and had some rather strange obsessions (like the "soft underbelly" of Europe that he wanted to invade..... that would have been a bloodbath) but his rhetoric and charisma were probably the only things that kept the British in the war during the darkest hours of WW2.
Can you honestly say that the World would have turned out for the better if the UK had been forced to sue for peace with Hitler before the United States or the Soviet Union got involved? Hitler would have had a one-front war with Stalin that he might have been able to win and FDR would have been powerless to overcome the isolationist sentiment in the United States to try and stop him. A Nazi Germany that successfully absorbs the resources of all of Eurasia is a pretty intimidating prospect to ponder.
As it was the only reason that FDR was able to get us into the war with Germany as early as he did was because Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. I'm not so sure that he would have made that same mistake if the UK had been forced out of the war and the United States Navy wasn't busy attacking U-boats trying to interdict British trade.
May I ask what it is about Churchill that you dislike?