It's funny that you're picking on the video game issue. Censorship in the media is actually championed more broadly by conservatives then by liberals. For example, the conservative FCC has appointed itself the moral nanny of all broadcast material, a role it fills passionately but not impartially. Hillary Clinton is simply trying to gain political capital among conservatives by exploiting this desire for censorship. The Republicans invented the game, and a few Democrats are trying to play it.
Perhaps your confusion stems from the terminology "Big Government". Traditionally, conservatives have applied this term meaning "spends a lot". It does not usually mean "tries to control the minds of citizens". Democrats do the former and Republicans do both.
The Clinton Democrats laid the foundations for the current Republican abuses in the very well marketed War on Drugs.
Actually, that bright idea came from the first Bush administration. Clinton, a moderate, simply propagated it. Maybe it's time to elect a true liberal - we haven't had one of those in the white house for a long time.
On the other hand, can you imagine what the conservatives would do if someone were to suggest that we end the War on Drugs? (Think of a cross between the Civil War and the Crusades.) The real problem here is that a majority of the conservative population actually likes both the War on Drugs and the so-called War on Freedom.
When the next democratic president gets into office you can be SURE that if any precedant has been set by GW, the new president will defend those new rights even if they dumped on the prior administration while running for office.
Then why didn't Carter insist on as much executive authority as Nixon? Why didn't Clinton claim as much as Reagan did?
[But the armed forces] will be just as divided as the citizens are.
We're in a new era of propaganda. According to a poll taken early this year, 85% of the troops in Iraq believe that they're at war "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the Sept. 11 attacks." The military does not appear to be anywhere near as divided (or informed) as the citizens are.
The original poster is referring to the Red Scare, which is similar to the modern fascination with terrorism. McCarthy symbolizes the Red Scare by taking fearmongering to an extreme.
Imagine all the power the old chip doesn't use. Multiply this number by ten. This is the amount of power the new chip doesn't use. So you end up not using ten times as much power as you used to not use.
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help. That's all I was trying to say.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights.
Now you're saying that the state has the right to curtail our rights based on nothing but the *possibility* of danger sometime in the future. Name one moment in the history of our country when there was no possibility of danger.
What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair?
What about the Jews? They posed a perceived threat the the security of the Third Reich. Were the Nazis justified in detaining them? Obviously not, so there needs to be some way to distinguish real threats from imaginary threats. Hence my point about putting too much faith in the executive branch to decide these things for us.
There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo?
It's possible that Bush wasn't being entirely honest. Or maybe he just hasn't found a way to enact his plan yet. Why do you want me to defend Bush? I don't even agree with most of the things he says. Try asking him why uses divisive "with us or against us" rhetoric.
I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values.
Typical conservative. Too preoccupied with sending the right message to even begin to consider the real-world implications of what they're doing. What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past.
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process? Answer: You're going to let your big paternalistic government do it. Bush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
And it prevents ISPs from offering enhanced bandwidth services to third parties who want to pay more.
Not exactly. It prevents ISPs from refusing/crippling the use of competing services. AT&T/Yahoo wouldn't be able to decide that Yahoo services are going to get tremendous priority over Google, MSN, etc. What you're worried about is that AT&T wouldn't be able to offer better bandwidth to Apple for a premium. To correct this misconception, I refer you to TFA:
[The proposed amendment] said that any content provider must be awarded bandwidth "with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of any charge."
In other words, the amendment would only have prohibited charges for bandwidth equivalent to the provider's own. If AT&T/Yahoo gives priority to their own movie downloads then they must give priority to movie downloads from other sites as well. Apple is free to purchase bandwidth above and beyond what AT&T allocates for itself and its affiliates. It sounds like a fair system to me.
That's an interesting choice of words. Not "a website critical of US policy" or an "anti-Bush website". An "anti-us" website.
This is why conservatives don't trust American liberals (leftists).
You don't trust any American liberals, and all because of a choice of words? Not because of their actual positions on the issues, and not because of some action they've taken in the past? This is the same "logic" that makes it patriotic to brand your fellow citizens as traitors.
There you have it, folks. Not only have the terms "liberal" and "conservative" been hijacked, but the terms "classical liberal" and "classical conservative" as well.
Strange...the Bush crew is often portrayed as bumblers who can't do anything right, then they are accused of being devious co-conspirators to rule the world. Which is it guys?
You tell me. Bush has been called a great leader who controls his own actions, but at the same time people say that he shouldn't be held responsible for the disasters he's overseen. Can any Bush supporters tell us once and for all which one it is?
Exactly! Whenever I hear of the "War on the Ground" I always find myself wondering why we're fighting dirt and rocks. Do they have ties to Al Qaeda? It should be the "portion of the war taking place on the ground and perhaps a little underground but certainly not more than a few yards above the ground." Calling it the "war on the ground" is a huge troll because anything that I misinterpret, no matter how foolishly, is an obvious attempt to spin the issue against me.
Granted, the news media are (and I generalize here) always going to show the most sensational, extreme sides of issues. But the voting booth is not the news media. As unbelievable as it is to you or me, real people have been endorsing the overt use of religion for political gain. I strongly suspect that the missionary nature of Christianity has attracted a whole lot of people who don't think the way you do - perhaps more than you realize.
Leave Sheehan alone; she's just pissed that her kid died. Sure, confronting Bush has never and will never do any good, but you have to admire her guts if nothing else. People who disagree with Bush have been branded traitors (or worse), so she was literally risking life and limb.
I personally would not be disappointed if the Democrats would take this outrage as a cue to finally show that they can rise above the corruption and actually change the culture. Both parties are in a state of change right now. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that the Democrats can be no better than the Republicans is sending the *wrong* message to both parties. It tells the Republicans that they can go ahead and do whatever they want because people don't have a choice anyway. It's telling the Democrats that you wouldn't vote for them no matter what, so why should they take a risk to gain your vote?
The problem is that the 1% of religious people that abuse their religion for an agenda constitute 99% of many people's exposure to religious people.
One percent? Hardly! Where were the supposed 99% when Bush used God as a political tool? Where were they during the Shiavo fiasco? How about during the political circus over Intelligent Design? During each of these events, there wasn't a hint of anger from religious people in general that their beliefs were being cynically exploited. If the religion card only works on 1% of all religious people, how is it played so often and with such success?
This is a phenomenon called "Republicans scared shitless during an election year". All of a sudden they've realized that the terrorist card has been overplayed just as many of their lobbying scandals are coming to light. They're probably hoping that this gesture will be enough to let them keep their jobs and resume business as usual next year.
Some of those new innovative features attributed to Morrowind actually have their roots in Daggerfall. In particular, vampirism and lycanthropy in Morrowind are based on nearly identical features in Daggerfall. Morrowind is the impressive engineering feat while Daggerfall is the inspirational work of creative genius. Hats off to Daggerfall!
In fact, the only reason any "reconciliation" needs to be done is because certain literalists have decided that there is in fact a schism where none exists.
I agree completely. The bible says that Jesus came back from the dead, but only a bone-headed literalist actually interprets it that way. (We all know that people don't come back from the dead.) What the bible really means is that his teachings are immortal and will outlast Caesar's empire, as they have. I'm glad there are Christians out there who recognize that the more outlandish claims in the bible should not be taken literally.
It's really simple. You vote against those on the extremes and everyone will become moderate. The last four presidents we've had include three hard-line Republicans and one moderate Democrat. In recent years, Republicans have come to dominate the government. The message being sent is that no one can get elected unless they subscribe to the paternalistic Republican "utopia". Mark my words, if we stop rewarding the Bush administration for its bad policies then we'll see real change. It has happened before and it could happen again.
On the other hand, we could all buy into the fearmongering and insist that our leaders take our rights away for our own good. Then we'll have what you describe: two parties that are convinced that doing the right thing is the fasted way to defeat.
Read that fragment again: "...unfounded notions of racial superiority..."
That's not political correctness. The author is taking a clear stance on the supposed superiority of races. You seem to have ignored the distinction between a well-adapted race and a morally superior race; 'superiority' in this context implies a moral judgment that obviously can't be summarized in genetic terms.
Yeah, it's an insult alright - an insult that our tax dollars prop up the blatantly leftist NPR.
Well, conservatives believe that *all* media is liberal, with the possible exceptions of Fox News and certain talk radio programs. This fact adds nothing to our understanding of NPR. Note that most people who have actually listened to NPR approve of it. Hence, it is doing its job.
The notion that government should promote conservative values and stifle everything else is arrogant, ignorant, and in the end inadequate for a pluralist society.
I said this in the previous article and I'll say it again: The prospect that Yahoo banned the use of "Allah" in fear of being blown up is utterly absurd. Not even Yahoo is that stupid.
According to your theory, recent events have led Yahoo to believe that muslim extremists aren't really that violent after all. Gee, I would think that the cartoon riots would give the opposite impression.
I'll restate something I said in response to the previous article: If Yahoo were to ban "Jesus" the christians would throw a fit. They would find it intolerable that their figure of worship was being banned. So explain to me again how refusing to ban "Jesus" is giving in to terrorism; it sounds like a simple matter of pleasing the customers to me.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny that you're picking on the video game issue. Censorship in the media is actually championed more broadly by conservatives then by liberals. For example, the conservative FCC has appointed itself the moral nanny of all broadcast material, a role it fills passionately but not impartially. Hillary Clinton is simply trying to gain political capital among conservatives by exploiting this desire for censorship. The Republicans invented the game, and a few Democrats are trying to play it.
Perhaps your confusion stems from the terminology "Big Government". Traditionally, conservatives have applied this term meaning "spends a lot". It does not usually mean "tries to control the minds of citizens". Democrats do the former and Republicans do both.
The Clinton Democrats laid the foundations for the current Republican abuses in the very well marketed War on Drugs.
Actually, that bright idea came from the first Bush administration. Clinton, a moderate, simply propagated it. Maybe it's time to elect a true liberal - we haven't had one of those in the white house for a long time.
On the other hand, can you imagine what the conservatives would do if someone were to suggest that we end the War on Drugs? (Think of a cross between the Civil War and the Crusades.) The real problem here is that a majority of the conservative population actually likes both the War on Drugs and the so-called War on Freedom.
When the next democratic president gets into office you can be SURE that if any precedant has been set by GW, the new president will defend those new rights even if they dumped on the prior administration while running for office.
Then why didn't Carter insist on as much executive authority as Nixon? Why didn't Clinton claim as much as Reagan did?
[But the armed forces] will be just as divided as the citizens are.
We're in a new era of propaganda. According to a poll taken early this year, 85% of the troops in Iraq believe that they're at war "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the Sept. 11 attacks." The military does not appear to be anywhere near as divided (or informed) as the citizens are.
The original poster is referring to the Red Scare, which is similar to the modern fascination with terrorism. McCarthy symbolizes the Red Scare by taking fearmongering to an extreme.
Four buzzwords and a float if you count "Web 2.0"
That's no float; it's fixed!
Imagine all the power the old chip doesn't use. Multiply this number by ten. This is the amount of power the new chip doesn't use. So you end up not using ten times as much power as you used to not use.
And we need to cut back on the emissions from Volcanoes.
Not a chance. That would hurt their economy way too much.
What makes you think their embracing of peace is dependent upon our actions?
So you admit that "sending the right message" to Islamists doesn't do a damn thing to help. That's all I was trying to say.
The argument (and it's not realy my argument, for the record), is that this isn't peacetime.
Needless to say, I'm not convinced. Neither this country nor its allies are in any appreciable danger of being invaded or taken over. The ongoing occupation of Iraq doesn't come close to justifying wartime restrictions.
If nuclear war were a realistic possibility, then yes, the state would be completely legitimate in infringing upon individual rights.
Now you're saying that the state has the right to curtail our rights based on nothing but the *possibility* of danger sometime in the future. Name one moment in the history of our country when there was no possibility of danger.
What about suspected Nazi sympathizers? They were detained and deported without trial. Was that fair?
What about the Jews? They posed a perceived threat the the security of the Third Reich. Were the Nazis justified in detaining them? Obviously not, so there needs to be some way to distinguish real threats from imaginary threats. Hence my point about putting too much faith in the executive branch to decide these things for us.
There are PLENTY of people who disagree with President Bush's policies. The last poll I saw was a 60% disapproval rating. If what you're saying is true, why aren't all these people in Guantanamo?
It's possible that Bush wasn't being entirely honest. Or maybe he just hasn't found a way to enact his plan yet. Why do you want me to defend Bush? I don't even agree with most of the things he says. Try asking him why uses divisive "with us or against us" rhetoric.
I believe that Guantanamo is used as a symbol to Islamists that the United States is ready and willing to do everything that is necessary to win, even if that means bending (or reinterpreting) some of our more cherished values.
Typical conservative. Too preoccupied with sending the right message to even begin to consider the real-world implications of what they're doing. What makes you think that brutal prisoner treatment is going to help convince Islamists to embrace peace?
As extreme as that may sound to the modern reader, note that it's really not that much of a departure from wartimes of the past.
So the modern peacetime is as restrictive as wartimes of the past. That doesn't help your argument.
Now the real question is (and this is one where I feel that reasonable people can disagree): Does the threat of terrorism constitute a danger to our survival as a nation to the point where such sacrifices in personal liberties are necessary?
Why stop there? What about the threat of nuclear war? What about the threat of alien invasion? What about the threat of Republicans losing their grip on power? Under the current system, who gets to decide what constitutes a real threat? Answer that question and you'll begin to discover why liberals think that Guantanamo is a very bad idea.
I think that Guantanamo should be reserved for terrorists and terrorist supporters only.
The whole point is that people in Guantanamo have never been convicted of any crime, let alone terrorism or "terrorism supporting" whatever that means. How are you going to tell which ones don't deserve due process? Answer: You're going to let your big paternalistic government do it. Bush has declared that everyone who disagrees with his policies is an enemy of the state. Is this really the kind of nation you want to live in?
And it prevents ISPs from offering enhanced bandwidth services to third parties who want to pay more.
Not exactly. It prevents ISPs from refusing/crippling the use of competing services. AT&T/Yahoo wouldn't be able to decide that Yahoo services are going to get tremendous priority over Google, MSN, etc. What you're worried about is that AT&T wouldn't be able to offer better bandwidth to Apple for a premium. To correct this misconception, I refer you to TFA:
[The proposed amendment] said that any content provider must be awarded bandwidth "with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of any charge."
In other words, the amendment would only have prohibited charges for bandwidth equivalent to the provider's own. If AT&T/Yahoo gives priority to their own movie downloads then they must give priority to movie downloads from other sites as well. Apple is free to purchase bandwidth above and beyond what AT&T allocates for itself and its affiliates. It sounds like a fair system to me.
That's an interesting choice of words. Not "a website critical of US policy" or an "anti-Bush website". An "anti-us" website.
This is why conservatives don't trust American liberals (leftists).
You don't trust any American liberals, and all because of a choice of words? Not because of their actual positions on the issues, and not because of some action they've taken in the past? This is the same "logic" that makes it patriotic to brand your fellow citizens as traitors.
There you have it, folks. Not only have the terms "liberal" and "conservative" been hijacked, but the terms "classical liberal" and "classical conservative" as well.
Strange...the Bush crew is often portrayed as bumblers who can't do anything right, then they are accused of being devious co-conspirators to rule the world. Which is it guys?
You tell me. Bush has been called a great leader who controls his own actions, but at the same time people say that he shouldn't be held responsible for the disasters he's overseen. Can any Bush supporters tell us once and for all which one it is?
Exactly! Whenever I hear of the "War on the Ground" I always find myself wondering why we're fighting dirt and rocks. Do they have ties to Al Qaeda? It should be the "portion of the war taking place on the ground and perhaps a little underground but certainly not more than a few yards above the ground." Calling it the "war on the ground" is a huge troll because anything that I misinterpret, no matter how foolishly, is an obvious attempt to spin the issue against me.
Granted, the news media are (and I generalize here) always going to show the most sensational, extreme sides of issues. But the voting booth is not the news media. As unbelievable as it is to you or me, real people have been endorsing the overt use of religion for political gain. I strongly suspect that the missionary nature of Christianity has attracted a whole lot of people who don't think the way you do - perhaps more than you realize.
Leave Sheehan alone; she's just pissed that her kid died. Sure, confronting Bush has never and will never do any good, but you have to admire her guts if nothing else. People who disagree with Bush have been branded traitors (or worse), so she was literally risking life and limb.
I personally would not be disappointed if the Democrats would take this outrage as a cue to finally show that they can rise above the corruption and actually change the culture. Both parties are in a state of change right now. Shrugging your shoulders and saying that the Democrats can be no better than the Republicans is sending the *wrong* message to both parties. It tells the Republicans that they can go ahead and do whatever they want because people don't have a choice anyway. It's telling the Democrats that you wouldn't vote for them no matter what, so why should they take a risk to gain your vote?
The problem is that the 1% of religious people that abuse their religion for an agenda constitute 99% of many people's exposure to religious people.
One percent? Hardly! Where were the supposed 99% when Bush used God as a political tool? Where were they during the Shiavo fiasco? How about during the political circus over Intelligent Design? During each of these events, there wasn't a hint of anger from religious people in general that their beliefs were being cynically exploited. If the religion card only works on 1% of all religious people, how is it played so often and with such success?
This is a phenomenon called "Republicans scared shitless during an election year". All of a sudden they've realized that the terrorist card has been overplayed just as many of their lobbying scandals are coming to light. They're probably hoping that this gesture will be enough to let them keep their jobs and resume business as usual next year.
Some of those new innovative features attributed to Morrowind actually have their roots in Daggerfall. In particular, vampirism and lycanthropy in Morrowind are based on nearly identical features in Daggerfall. Morrowind is the impressive engineering feat while Daggerfall is the inspirational work of creative genius. Hats off to Daggerfall!
In fact, the only reason any "reconciliation" needs to be done is because certain literalists have decided that there is in fact a schism where none exists.
I agree completely. The bible says that Jesus came back from the dead, but only a bone-headed literalist actually interprets it that way. (We all know that people don't come back from the dead.) What the bible really means is that his teachings are immortal and will outlast Caesar's empire, as they have. I'm glad there are Christians out there who recognize that the more outlandish claims in the bible should not be taken literally.
It's really simple. You vote against those on the extremes and everyone will become moderate. The last four presidents we've had include three hard-line Republicans and one moderate Democrat. In recent years, Republicans have come to dominate the government. The message being sent is that no one can get elected unless they subscribe to the paternalistic Republican "utopia". Mark my words, if we stop rewarding the Bush administration for its bad policies then we'll see real change. It has happened before and it could happen again.
On the other hand, we could all buy into the fearmongering and insist that our leaders take our rights away for our own good. Then we'll have what you describe: two parties that are convinced that doing the right thing is the fasted way to defeat.
Read that fragment again: "...unfounded notions of racial superiority..."
That's not political correctness. The author is taking a clear stance on the supposed superiority of races. You seem to have ignored the distinction between a well-adapted race and a morally superior race; 'superiority' in this context implies a moral judgment that obviously can't be summarized in genetic terms.
Yeah, it's an insult alright - an insult that our tax dollars prop up the blatantly leftist NPR.
Well, conservatives believe that *all* media is liberal, with the possible exceptions of Fox News and certain talk radio programs. This fact adds nothing to our understanding of NPR. Note that most people who have actually listened to NPR approve of it. Hence, it is doing its job.
The notion that government should promote conservative values and stifle everything else is arrogant, ignorant, and in the end inadequate for a pluralist society.
I said this in the previous article and I'll say it again: The prospect that Yahoo banned the use of "Allah" in fear of being blown up is utterly absurd. Not even Yahoo is that stupid.
According to your theory, recent events have led Yahoo to believe that muslim extremists aren't really that violent after all. Gee, I would think that the cartoon riots would give the opposite impression.
I'll restate something I said in response to the previous article: If Yahoo were to ban "Jesus" the christians would throw a fit. They would find it intolerable that their figure of worship was being banned. So explain to me again how refusing to ban "Jesus" is giving in to terrorism; it sounds like a simple matter of pleasing the customers to me.