I believe your assertions are wrong, and that The US government did not have bin Laden physically detained during the Clinton Administration. I could be wrong though, and have just not seen the information. Would you be kind enough to offer citations?
The big bad protector of the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul, proposes to limit through a Constitutional Amendment the reach of citizenry with a redefinition that denies that humans born with U.S. sovereign territory possess a native U.S. citizenship. This makes a mockery of The Founders' Original Intents, and is assuredly NOT a return to Strict Adherence to Constituional Law.
The U.S. Constitution Amendment 14; Section 1. states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Paul again is attempting to selectively nullify the Fourteenth Amendment, even as he uses it to greatly expand the reach of the government into the private acts of the citizenry by greatly expanding the definition of the term "person" to include fetuses at conception. Furthermore, this proposal's lawfulness should be challenged as being odious to the foundations of Western Civilization's jurisprudence, and antithetical to the Constitution because it is in reality a bill of attainder that works a corruption of blood upon some humans born within the United States' Sovereign Territory:
US Constitution Article 1; Section 9; clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
You claim that this would in some way expand liberty? Stealing the Natural rights of humans for your personal gain is not an expansion of liberty. Then you laughably tell me to focus on "The Bigger Picture"?
Move along citizens, nothing to see here; it's just another poseur politician engaging in bestiality with the Constitution.
Paul has proposed two federal Bills this year that would restrict abortion at the Federal Level, and take it away from the decision of individual states:
February 15, 2007 - H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
June 6, 2007 - H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Has anybody who supports Paul actually taken the time to read his proposed Bills in the House?
Not bitter, but using hyperbole in an effort to portray this along the same lines as "Welfare Mothers".
You have drifted wildly off of the mark here, in that I originally stated that Paul's election would not result in "reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties", but would instead have the opposite effect.
You attempt to steer this way off course in your adamant defense of Paul's policies.
Which was what this subthread was about, and if you would allow an abortion for the safety of the mother, then you obviously do not believe that a fetus is a human at conception and a person under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. If you do, then your are advocating first degree murder.
As to your assertion regarding Anencephaly; maybe you should take a peek at some images. These fetuses are born without a forebrain and a cerebrum. Arguably, not even human because of this, but once again, the argument was stated about why it would be insane to legally dictate that fetuses were human at conception.
But here's the rub then: if a fetus is not a human, then it does boil down to a question of personal morality. Politicians and Governments are the very last entities on the earth who should have the power to dictate personal morality. I am not "Pro-Abortion"; the use of it as a birth control procedure is indeed troubling, but I am realistic about the limitations that a legitimate state possesses over the acts of its citizens too. The decision rightfully belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her attending physician.
Whose Rights is not the proper question on this topic, as the right to expatriation, (old definition) is a natural Right Preexistent to the State, and therefore is possessed by all humans, as it was endowed to them at birth, by that which they perceive as the creative.
"This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another: are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize."
Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, "Talbot v. Janson", 1795
Still I will answer whose rights I am defending:
"I do esteem individual liberty above everything. What is a nation for, but to secure the maximum of liberty to every individual? What do you think a nation is?--a big business concern?"
D.H. Lawrence
Ron Paul says he desires to end all taxation: politicians lied, politicians lie, politicians will lie. Why should others be forced to bear a higher burden in the interim policies, even if Paul's rectitude of intent is pure? How does Paul propose to pay down this massive debt without income tax? Does he intend to simply default on The Nation's promissory notes? Be honest now; this cannot be done in our lifetimes, so any tax breaks that Paul gives now to his special groups is a privileged class. I did not elaborate, but his schooling tax breaks are odious for another primary reason: many will be eligible for these tax breaks because they send their offspring off to parochial schools which many others, who are forced to shoulder the breeders' true societal costs, would consider to be personally heretical. Congress shall make no law... this is how quickly privileged classes become perceived in society. No matter how you slice it; it is also a payoff for Paul's most avid supporters. Think I am wrong? Listen to Mr. Paul himself from a file hosted by his own YouTube Account. Now tell me again about Paul's intents?
It is hard to believe that so many understand so little about cause and effects that they would believe that giving a fetus American Citizenship would be a positive action. Please resolve these troubling implications for me then:
If a 12 year old girl conceived from being raped by her double-digit IQ Uncle, should she be forcedto carry the fetus to term? the answer would be yes the government coerces her, or they will charge her with murder.
Ectopic Pregnancy (from WebMD):In about 2% of pregnancies, however, the fertilized egg attaches to an area outside of the uterus, which results in an ectopic pregnancy (also known as a tubal pregnancy or an extrauterine pregnancy).
Nearly all ectopic pregnancies develop in a fallopian tube; the rest occur in an ovary, the cervix, or the abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy cannot support the life of a fetus for very long. If left untreated, a tubal ectopic pregnancy can cause fallopian tube damage and life-threatening blood loss. Therefore, unless the pregnancy is miscarrying on its own, medicine is used to stop the pregnancy from growing, or surgery is used to remove it.
It is certainly not the fault of the fetus, where implantation occurred. if a fetus is an American citizen, it is mur
See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".
I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:
I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.
H.J.RES.46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
Constitutional Amendment - States that a person born to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any state solely by reason of U.S. birth.
Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.
H.R.193: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make higher education more affordable by providing a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans.
Make College Affordable Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers, their spouses, dependents, and grandchildren a tax deduction from gross income for certain higher education expenses and for interest on certain student loans. Includes as higher education expenses undergraduate tuition and fees and reasonable living expenses while attending an institution of higher education.
H.R.1056: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for tuition and related expenses for public and nonpublic elementary and secondary education.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007) per student per year for the cost of attendance at any educational institution (including any private, parochial, religious, or home school) organized to provide elementary or secondary education, or both.
H.R.1057: To amend th
It is absurd to make any claims about the power and goodness of privatisation and and profitability in the businesses you listed, because the vast majority of them are either given governmental grants of market exclusivity in their service area, or are protected from the vicissitudes of free-market competition by government acts which place almost insurmountable market-entry barriers to obstruct potential competitors through limiting the total number of business licenses and access to public utility right of ways.
Private? not exactly, as they are shielded by government actions from exposure to an open market-place, and far to often engage quid quo pro chicanery with politicians and public bureaucrats in dimly lit back-alleys.
Profitable? Without any doubt, but crony capitalism usually is for both the public and corporate actors who engage in it. It has nothing to do with a free-market though.
A bit tangential but lately in server logs I have access to I've noticed a proliferation of 'vertical search engine' bots, which do not claim to ever be planning to provide the data they acquire at the websites' bandwidth cost in any manner which could possibly be deemed as reciprocal. Even more troubling are a few sites that throw mad wget type bots at sites, with user strings claiming to be a common browser, without concern for bandwidth spikes by using decent time intervals between GET requests, and will use logic attacks to guess server file structure. One I am currently keeping a close eye on (no name YET, but DC suburb in Virginia based, and purported to have gov as well as DMCA related contracts) has even managed to get written up in 'white hat' tech news as a new modern defender of corporate properties. Not one of the sites whose logs I access have anything even remotely related to DMCA issues, but a couple could be construed as political, which still does not give them the right to attack servers, just cuz, and their being written up as a 'white hat' currently offends me. It's akin to the 'Jack Bauer wannabe' epidemic currently afflicting the asshats who are officials in the American Republic.
If you use evil to battle evil, then you are evil. If you rationalise your use of evil in an attempt to argue it is for good ends, then you are a coward, and a liar, as well as being evil; in short: scum of the earth.
I am probably an exception to the rule, but I just counted up the different individual news feeds in my NewsReader's (Default-RSS OWL Java OS) start-up OPML file, and there are 1074 unique feeds in it. Granted, there are a few major Mainstream News site feeds that I just recently updated the feed lists from their RSS pages, and haven't yet filtered out the many I consider to be irrelevant from them. Two I recently rescraped but haven't filtered are are McClatchy News and the NYTimes, but even after filtering, the number will still be around 1000.
There are many different reasons for using RSS Feeds. It's more than just keeping up on your favorite web pastime sites. I usually have anywhere from five to ten Google news feeds for specific current event topics I am interested in. For any who dislike the default number of 10 articles that the GoogleNews generated feeds provides as default, add a new parameter argument at the beginning of them (after the ? in the RSS feed URL):
num={varX}&
where {varX} is the number of different headlines desired. I haven't checked, but would not be surprised to find an upper limiter on the number, and 100 would be my first guess.
I keep an eye on the feeds provided for open source software packages I use, for notices of upgrades, bugfixes, security issues etc.
I keep an eye on the wonkage produced by many Tanks/Policy orgs via RSS Feeds. I scan tanks/org I generally agree/disagree with, as well as those I consider to be POV neutral.
There are a few very specific feeds to aid in my work and personal free-time collaboration projects.
I desire to acquire as much data input as my mind is capable of assimilating. The issue is avoiding buffer overflows. Any good feed filtering software available that I can use with a high degree of confidence in its results is appreciated, and I am always curious about untried packages.
Firstly: it seems you are unable to understand what I was driving at, and obviously did not check out what the clown was spewing at The Jeremiah Project; the link which I posted using the term Satanic Ecumenical Agenda, did you? How about a straight up Google search then? Try {satanic ecumenical}; that lovely word pair "returns about 73,500" records. Searching {pope 666} returns "about 913,000" records. So not sorry that my satire hit you in such a sensitive spot, you refused to look at reality, and instead chose to just insult gratuitously.
Secondly, am I to assume by this that you belong in the Papal Bull camp with their Diet of Worms, instead of being a rooted in Luther's 96 feces nailed to the church door kind of guy? If yes, are you, as the Vatican Representative cited in the Conservapedia Harry Potter article also one who grew up with "fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world"? I did not start down that cavernous opening for sexual innuendos now did I?
Thirdly, why not address the point I was making: that Andrew Schlafly is NOT promoting Conservatism in his wikipedia, but instead is pushing his personal version (perversion) of theocracy.
Fourthly, I admit to being one faithless SOB. I no more believe in the Pope's holiness, than I believe that Pat Robertson actually speaks with god up in his tower. Pure crap, although maybe they believe it, and if they do, it is because they never grew out of their childhood fantasies of "fairies, magic, and angels", and this evolved into a present-day psychosis which is manifest in their belief that they alone have the ability to speak with god and be his earthly representative. Still, your reply of vapid hauteur is a strong indication that you swing a corked cross. Tsk tsk mister supposed to judge me not. Really fine testament; pissant poseur.
For those who cannot understand the relevance, Jefferson was a Founder of America and Third President. This is a primary document regarding the original intent of patents. Original intent is considered to be the gold standard by many conservatives. In this letter, Jefferson even covers the concept of 'prior art', as well as makes an assertion that ideas are without the realm of private ownership.
In 2003, a Vatican representative said the books, "aren't serving as the banner for an anti-Christian theology.... I don't think there's anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world."
That has a rather Romish aura to it, which should come as no surprise since Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of notable Catholic Theocon Phyllis Schlafly.
This is well and fine, but since Conservapedia states at the beginning of its home page that it is:
A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free.
and has used it connections to be promoted as a 'conservative' answer to Wikipedia in many publications, it's not going to sit well with the Evangelical Right to be told that contrary to what they've been taught, The Pope is not the horned beast of Revelations, but instead is the final word on what is or is not Christian.
When I first received notice of reply to my previous post, I felt I needed to apologise for my sledge hammer rhetoric. After reading your reply, I see that my implement was instead too puny; that in fact your arrogance and pride will not allow you top pierce the transparency: that the enemy is not wahabbism, it is American Foreign Policy. If there has not been atavistic Arab monarchs with rebellious bastard spawn with whom the Reagan Administration could have used to further their designs to engage in Soviet bloodletting in Afghanistan, they would have created/empowered another dark force.
Furthermore, you description of the Libertarian Party provides further proof you naught but a poseuer boi greedhead attempting to grasp at any straw which would give you the power to manipulate market forces in a manner which causes you to reap inequitably monetary gain from the product of others' work. I have deep doubts regarding the present direction of The LP. I seem to be constantly engaged with battling the misconceptions, stupidities, and equivocations that plaque it currently; in local meetings, to a small degree within the National Organisation, and in varied places in the datastreams. Since you derisively tag The LP, then openly admit you exist within the political bipolarity, there is absolutely no value with taking the time to further elaborate upon this.
At the core of any libertarian philosophy, there must be as axiomatic, a belief that personal liberty is preeminent to the powers of a legitimate state up until expressions of personal liberty directly interfere with the personal liberties of another human. You seem to believe it is only a tool to be used to eliminate the minimum wage, and will not even own up to your being pwned, when the hypocrisy inherent within you bloodthirsty cry for destruction has been pointed out to you as being inconsistent with your stated faith in the valuation of personal liberty.
Let's see now:
distortion of reality with the intent to recieve personal financial reward
unwillingness to accept responsibility, and to admit error
ad hominem attacks upon competing philosophies
ditto-head repeat-a-con of limbaughish inanities
Survey says: Stealth Contemporary Conservative.
So please enlighten me; exactly what quantities of personal treasure and blood are you willing to sacrifice to attain your evil call? Oh wait, I forgot, you're a Contemporary Conservative; which means you support the children of others dying in immoral foreign wars that were funded with promissory notes from future government receipts. arse.
I challenge the rectitude of your stated libertarian intents on just this sig alone, for it implies that you beleive in foreign intervention, and are not willing to squarely face the reality of the enemies' visage which you view every morning in the mirror upon awakening.
It was The Reagancomics, who escalated straight in through the gates of hell, Brzezinski's bloodfeud in the name of his original motherland against the Soviet for the damage they had caused it, that gave the bastard sons issued from the congress between Saudi Princes and their concuibines their opportunity to become educated in the dark arts of insurgency.
The famed pitchman for a soap additive, Ronald Reagan, deceitfully provided an aura of mysticism around these 'freedom fighters', with his lies to the public:
Today Soviet troops inside Afghanistan number nearly 120,000. And in the face of this brutal onslaught, the Afghan people still refuse to surrender -- is surely a miracle. And in this holiday season of renewed faith in miracles, it is surely fitting for us to honor and pray for those brave men and women. These courageous people have shown the world that the Soviets can never achieve the outright subjugation of the Afghan mind and spirit that they seek. The Afghan people are too proud, too fiercely determined to fight on. The Soviets understand this. They know that, in a sense, the battle for Afghanistan has shifted from the mountains of Afghanistan itself to the wider field of world opinion. So it is that the Soviets are prolonging the war and blacking out news about the daily atrocities which they're committing. They're waiting for world attention to slip, for our outrage to wane. Then, they believe the support which the free world has been providing to the freedom fighters will dwindle. The Soviets at that point will have effectively cut off the freedom fighters' lifelines, and although the mujahidin may never surrender, the Soviets will have achieved indisputable control of the country. An entire nation will have been strangled.
My friends, in the name of human freedom, we cannot, we must not, allow that to happen. From the first, the United States has insisted on a settlement of the Afghan conflict that ensures the complete withdrawal of all Soviet troops. We're doing all that we can to see that a settlement comes about. Indeed, in my discussions with Mr. Gorbachev in Geneva, I made it clear that the presence of Soviet forces in Afghanistan represent an obstacle to the improvement of American-Soviet relations. As long as the Soviets insist upon a policy of aggression, they must face the fact that free men will oppose them. The Soviet Union has always presented itself as a champion of anticolonialism and national liberation; history presents a different picture. [. ..] My friends, I want to ask for your help to make sure that those who struggle in Afghanistan receive effective support from us. Indeed, such support is a compelling, moral responsibility of all free people. What takes place in that far-off land is of vital importance to our country and the world. Certainly the struggle in Afghanistan is of great strategic military importance. Yet the most important battle involves not guns, but the human spirit -- the longing to be free and the duty to help the oppressed. If the free world were to turn its back on Afghanistan, then, in a sense, the free world would become less free and less humane. But when we support the Afghan people, we become caught up in and ennobled by their struggle for freedom. Isn't that what America is always -- what it has always stood for and what we should stand for in 1986 and beyond?
Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, December 28, 1985
What Reagan failed to mention was the amount of weaponry, funding for training and intelligence data that had been directly funneled into this bloody wa
as Mr. Stevens is one of the reprehensible nine senators who in a manner wholly antithetical to the Dreamtime America voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the 2006 FY Military Appropriations Act on October 5, 2005.
For this reason alone, he should be taken down, without mercy, and his future headstone be appropriately utilised as a public urinal.
I am a reprobate American son, who stands and resists. There will be no negotiation, no bargaining on this. The acquiescence to a governmental imprimatur upon acts of torture, for any reason under heaven or hell, is an obscenity to human liberty. If we do not as a people renounce it, America is lost.
This is an offensive rationalisation, which cuts to the chase regarding the inherent evils of the two-party system. Sadly it also seems to indicate, that while a vote for the lesser of evils, should as a matter of principle, be generally be avoided, because it is, after all, an affirmative vote for evil; the reality of modern American politics makes a choice even more difficult, because it involves: The Lamer of Two Evils, and arguably, a lamer evil is a wiser choice. This is an argument, which upon application to contemporary politics, tends to work against the right-side of the political bipolarity.
Virginia Postrel, who as long-term editor of Reason, sought to take libertarianism into mainstream, down into the mud with the republicans and democrats, by equivocating about core issues of personal liberty, while she championed her vision of proper libertarian economic theory. An agent in the right-siding of American Libertarianism.
Warning to those who disagree: might want to explain this search result first.
is pervasive within their political leveraging of these topics. In both instances, sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officers were serving what they in good faith believed to be lawful warrants issued by a Federal Court of the United States Government, and came under deadly attack in the course of fulfilling their duty. On top of that, the facts indicate that in both instances, these persons had not reacted out of passion, but had conspired to to use deadly force, and were well-prepared with practise to do so.
The legitimacy of warrants can be rightfully contested in a court of law without violence, without attempting to murder other citizens who are only acting in what they believe to be in a manner consistent with upholding their honourably sworn duty.
Whether or not the warrants were issued wrongfully, aided by an overreaching prosecutor, is not the issue. What is the issue is that these individuals chose insurrection over an appeal to justice under American Constitutional Law.
As is far too often the case, the right does not believe that their stated public positions, in this instance support for law and order, are applicable to them. It is all just moral relativism's smoke and mirrors of wafting mendacity.
is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.
Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.
Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.
I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.
,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.
The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.
and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...
This behaviour will become increasingly more prevalent, because of this. Once the concept becomes familiar, it is a logical progression for a user to [click link]-->[new tab{does not affect viewport}] when they feel it may be worth a look later, while reading the current page. This saves a greater amount of effort expended in the future, which necessitates memory recall too. Although not accurate, it could be termed 'a will to sloth'. Even if a user is not capable of realising this by their lonesome, they will copy others after seeing how it works.
There is surely a codeable function capable of recording the active tab. If systems of web metrics measuring for marketing purposes do not include this presently, they will in the near future, either as a unique feature, or in an effort to keep up with the competition.
The RIAA should be harassed just for their use of evil analogy, and the hypocritical corporate use of frivolous nuisance suits as a tool to effectuate their will upon society. From the EFF amicus brief:
The RIAA itself has likened its campaign to drift net fishing, admitting that "[w]hen you go fishing with a net, you sometimes are going to catch a few dolphin." Dennis Roddy, The Song Remains the Same, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 14, 2003...
In addition, the RIAA is attempting to expand the scope of its copyright protections beyond what the statutes provide. This copyright "grab" stems from the plaintiffs' erroneous theories of secondary liability in copyright law. These theories, which the RIAA knows are wrong, attempt to put parents, employers, teachers, and other internet account holders on the hook for third-party computer activities-even when the defendant has no knowledge or ability to supervise the actual alleged infringers...
The difficulties facing "the dolphins" are compounded by the challenges that individuals face when attempting to litigate in federal court. When the RIAA threatens suit against an individual, it makes sure to offer her a carefully chosen sum that is substantially smaller than the legal fees required to fight the accusations, even for defendants that are completely innocent noninfringers...
Thus, at the heart of Defendant's counterclaims and Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is the question of consequences - namely, what consequences should attach to plaintiffs who carelessly net "dolphins" in their mass litigation campaign and then walk away from these cases when a dolphin acts affirmatively to protect itself? Defendant has alleged that Plaintiff's case here has no merit, has been brought to harass him, and that he has not infringed any of its legal rights.
I don't believe Turkey was implicated in any of the suspected CIA flights of detainees to be rendered, detainees headed to secret Prisons as many EU nations have been, or accused of being one of the nations that allowed the Secret American Prisons within their sovereign territory. As I recall, Turkey's parliament voted against the US using its country as a base from which to launch their attack on Iraq, with the stated objection being that it was illegal without UN Security Council agreement.
The Ankara based tank; International Strategic Research Organisation (ISRO), published their European Union Perception Survey 3 (129k PDF), November 6, 2006.
The survey's first qestion and the results were:
Do you support Turkey's European Union (EU) membership?
Yes % 50
No % 45
I have no idea % 5
What I surmise is that many Turks would prefer to be in the EU, if all things were equal in their minds, but they consider the current price of entry too high.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe your assertions are wrong, and that The US government did not have bin Laden physically detained during the Clinton Administration. I could be wrong though, and have just not seen the information. Would you be kind enough to offer citations?
You're twisting in the wind, again.
The big bad protector of the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul, proposes to limit through a Constitutional Amendment the reach of citizenry with a redefinition that denies that humans born with U.S. sovereign territory possess a native U.S. citizenship. This makes a mockery of The Founders' Original Intents, and is assuredly NOT a return to Strict Adherence to Constituional Law.
The U.S. Constitution Amendment 14; Section 1. states:
Paul again is attempting to selectively nullify the Fourteenth Amendment, even as he uses it to greatly expand the reach of the government into the private acts of the citizenry by greatly expanding the definition of the term "person" to include fetuses at conception. Furthermore, this proposal's lawfulness should be challenged as being odious to the foundations of Western Civilization's jurisprudence, and antithetical to the Constitution because it is in reality a bill of attainder that works a corruption of blood upon some humans born within the United States' Sovereign Territory:
You claim that this would in some way expand liberty? Stealing the Natural rights of humans for your personal gain is not an expansion of liberty. Then you laughably tell me to focus on "The Bigger Picture"?
Move along citizens, nothing to see here; it's just another poseur politician engaging in bestiality with the Constitution.
Paul has proposed two federal Bills this year that would restrict abortion at the Federal Level, and take it away from the decision of individual states:
Has anybody who supports Paul actually taken the time to read his proposed Bills in the House?
Not bitter, but using hyperbole in an effort to portray this along the same lines as "Welfare Mothers".
You have drifted wildly off of the mark here, in that I originally stated that Paul's election would not result in "reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties", but would instead have the opposite effect.
You attempt to steer this way off course in your adamant defense of Paul's policies.
Which was what this subthread was about, and if you would allow an abortion for the safety of the mother, then you obviously do not believe that a fetus is a human at conception and a person under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. If you do, then your are advocating first degree murder.
As to your assertion regarding Anencephaly; maybe you should take a peek at some images. These fetuses are born without a forebrain and a cerebrum. Arguably, not even human because of this, but once again, the argument was stated about why it would be insane to legally dictate that fetuses were human at conception.
But here's the rub then: if a fetus is not a human, then it does boil down to a question of personal morality. Politicians and Governments are the very last entities on the earth who should have the power to dictate personal morality. I am not "Pro-Abortion"; the use of it as a birth control procedure is indeed troubling, but I am realistic about the limitations that a legitimate state possesses over the acts of its citizens too. The decision rightfully belongs in the hands of the pregnant woman and her attending physician.
Whose Rights is not the proper question on this topic, as the right to expatriation, (old definition) is a natural Right Preexistent to the State, and therefore is possessed by all humans, as it was endowed to them at birth, by that which they perceive as the creative.
Still I will answer whose rights I am defending:
Ron Paul says he desires to end all taxation: politicians lied, politicians lie, politicians will lie. Why should others be forced to bear a higher burden in the interim policies, even if Paul's rectitude of intent is pure? How does Paul propose to pay down this massive debt without income tax? Does he intend to simply default on The Nation's promissory notes? Be honest now; this cannot be done in our lifetimes, so any tax breaks that Paul gives now to his special groups is a privileged class. I did not elaborate, but his schooling tax breaks are odious for another primary reason: many will be eligible for these tax breaks because they send their offspring off to parochial schools which many others, who are forced to shoulder the breeders' true societal costs, would consider to be personally heretical. Congress shall make no law... this is how quickly privileged classes become perceived in society. No matter how you slice it; it is also a payoff for Paul's most avid supporters. Think I am wrong? Listen to Mr. Paul himself from a file hosted by his own YouTube Account. Now tell me again about Paul's intents?
It is hard to believe that so many understand so little about cause and effects that they would believe that giving a fetus American Citizenship would be a positive action. Please resolve these troubling implications for me then:
Nearly all ectopic pregnancies develop in a fallopian tube; the rest occur in an ovary, the cervix, or the abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy cannot support the life of a fetus for very long. If left untreated, a tubal ectopic pregnancy can cause fallopian tube damage and life-threatening blood loss. Therefore, unless the pregnancy is miscarrying on its own, medicine is used to stop the pregnancy from growing, or surgery is used to remove it.
It is certainly not the fault of the fetus, where implantation occurred. if a fetus is an American citizen, it is mur
See. here's the deal, sport; I am a long time registered libertarian, and have at times in the past been very active within the LP Party. I am one of the few who can honestly state that I voted for Paul to be President in 1988. I have also researched Paul, and have discovered that he is no longer a REAL Libertarian, nor would his policies lead "to reducing the government regulations and protecting personal liberties".
I feel that defining Paul as a "libertarian" almost reaches to the level of being personally defamatory. His campaign statements are oppositional to at least four of the Libertarian Party's Platform Planks:
I will expound upon this as I offer up evidence of Paul's less than unyielding defense of both liberty and The US Constitution by analysing a few of his proposed Bills and Resolutions in Congress this year.
Paul's whole anti-immigrant posturing is both anti-libertarian, and counter to the original Intents of This Nation's founding. If you are opposed to non-American born residents in the U.S., that is one thing, but DO NOT attempt to foist off this belief as "protecting personal liberties", as it hinders the personal liberty of many, who are just looking for a better life. It is facially opposed to The LPs Immigration plank too. This proposed Constitutional Amendment would go even farther, and would withhold citizenship from even humans born within The Nation's Border.
It is absurd to make any claims about the power and goodness of privatisation and and profitability in the businesses you listed, because the vast majority of them are either given governmental grants of market exclusivity in their service area, or are protected from the vicissitudes of free-market competition by government acts which place almost insurmountable market-entry barriers to obstruct potential competitors through limiting the total number of business licenses and access to public utility right of ways.
Private? not exactly, as they are shielded by government actions from exposure to an open market-place, and far to often engage quid quo pro chicanery with politicians and public bureaucrats in dimly lit back-alleys.
Profitable? Without any doubt, but crony capitalism usually is for both the public and corporate actors who engage in it. It has nothing to do with a free-market though.
A bit tangential but lately in server logs I have access to I've noticed a proliferation of 'vertical search engine' bots, which do not claim to ever be planning to provide the data they acquire at the websites' bandwidth cost in any manner which could possibly be deemed as reciprocal. Even more troubling are a few sites that throw mad wget type bots at sites, with user strings claiming to be a common browser, without concern for bandwidth spikes by using decent time intervals between GET requests, and will use logic attacks to guess server file structure. One I am currently keeping a close eye on (no name YET, but DC suburb in Virginia based, and purported to have gov as well as DMCA related contracts) has even managed to get written up in 'white hat' tech news as a new modern defender of corporate properties. Not one of the sites whose logs I access have anything even remotely related to DMCA issues, but a couple could be construed as political, which still does not give them the right to attack servers, just cuz, and their being written up as a 'white hat' currently offends me. It's akin to the 'Jack Bauer wannabe' epidemic currently afflicting the asshats who are officials in the American Republic.
If you use evil to battle evil, then you are evil. If you rationalise your use of evil in an attempt to argue it is for good ends, then you are a coward, and a liar, as well as being evil; in short: scum of the earth.
I am probably an exception to the rule, but I just counted up the different individual news feeds in my NewsReader's (Default-RSS OWL Java OS) start-up OPML file, and there are 1074 unique feeds in it. Granted, there are a few major Mainstream News site feeds that I just recently updated the feed lists from their RSS pages, and haven't yet filtered out the many I consider to be irrelevant from them. Two I recently rescraped but haven't filtered are are McClatchy News and the NYTimes, but even after filtering, the number will still be around 1000.
There are many different reasons for using RSS Feeds. It's more than just keeping up on your favorite web pastime sites. I usually have anywhere from five to ten Google news feeds for specific current event topics I am interested in. For any who dislike the default number of 10 articles that the GoogleNews generated feeds provides as default, add a new parameter argument at the beginning of them (after the ? in the RSS feed URL):
where {varX} is the number of different headlines desired. I haven't checked, but would not be surprised to find an upper limiter on the number, and 100 would be my first guess.
I keep an eye on the feeds provided for open source software packages I use, for notices of upgrades, bugfixes, security issues etc.
I keep an eye on the wonkage produced by many Tanks/Policy orgs via RSS Feeds. I scan tanks/org I generally agree/disagree with, as well as those I consider to be POV neutral.
There are a few very specific feeds to aid in my work and personal free-time collaboration projects.
I desire to acquire as much data input as my mind is capable of assimilating. The issue is avoiding buffer overflows. Any good feed filtering software available that I can use with a high degree of confidence in its results is appreciated, and I am always curious about untried packages.
Firstly: it seems you are unable to understand what I was driving at, and obviously did not check out what the clown was spewing at The Jeremiah Project; the link which I posted using the term Satanic Ecumenical Agenda, did you? How about a straight up Google search then? Try {satanic ecumenical}; that lovely word pair "returns about 73,500" records. Searching {pope 666} returns "about 913,000" records. So not sorry that my satire hit you in such a sensitive spot, you refused to look at reality, and instead chose to just insult gratuitously.
Secondly, am I to assume by this that you belong in the Papal Bull camp with their Diet of Worms, instead of being a rooted in Luther's 96 feces nailed to the church door kind of guy? If yes, are you, as the Vatican Representative cited in the Conservapedia Harry Potter article also one who grew up with "fairies, magic, and angels in their imaginary world"? I did not start down that cavernous opening for sexual innuendos now did I?
Thirdly, why not address the point I was making: that Andrew Schlafly is NOT promoting Conservatism in his wikipedia, but instead is pushing his personal version (perversion) of theocracy.
Fourthly, I admit to being one faithless SOB. I no more believe in the Pope's holiness, than I believe that Pat Robertson actually speaks with god up in his tower. Pure crap, although maybe they believe it, and if they do, it is because they never grew out of their childhood fantasies of "fairies, magic, and angels", and this evolved into a present-day psychosis which is manifest in their belief that they alone have the ability to speak with god and be his earthly representative. Still, your reply of vapid hauteur is a strong indication that you swing a corked cross. Tsk tsk mister supposed to judge me not. Really fine testament; pissant poseur.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
Here's a link to the complete transcript of the letter. The University of Chicago only published about 1/7 of it.
For those who cannot understand the relevance, Jefferson was a Founder of America and Third President. This is a primary document regarding the original intent of patents. Original intent is considered to be the gold standard by many conservatives. In this letter, Jefferson even covers the concept of 'prior art', as well as makes an assertion that ideas are without the realm of private ownership.
Their Harry Potter0 entry mentions that some have attempted to get the books banned because they present the occult in a positive light, and are not appropriate for Christian children. Not to worry says Conservatpedia, the Vatican says its A-OK:
That has a rather Romish aura to it, which should come as no surprise since Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schlafly, son of notable Catholic Theocon Phyllis Schlafly.
This is well and fine, but since Conservapedia states at the beginning of its home page that it is:
and has used it connections to be promoted as a 'conservative' answer to Wikipedia in many publications, it's not going to sit well with the Evangelical Right to be told that contrary to what they've been taught, The Pope is not the horned beast of Revelations, but instead is the final word on what is or is not Christian.
Aside from their Satanic Ecumenicalist Agenda, Conservatpedia's content is so error laden, slanted, and generally so full of crap, many first time visitors think it is well crafted satire, and for good reasons.
When I first received notice of reply to my previous post, I felt I needed to apologise for my sledge hammer rhetoric. After reading your reply, I see that my implement was instead too puny; that in fact your arrogance and pride will not allow you top pierce the transparency: that the enemy is not wahabbism, it is American Foreign Policy. If there has not been atavistic Arab monarchs with rebellious bastard spawn with whom the Reagan Administration could have used to further their designs to engage in Soviet bloodletting in Afghanistan, they would have created/empowered another dark force.
Furthermore, you description of the Libertarian Party provides further proof you naught but a poseuer boi greedhead attempting to grasp at any straw which would give you the power to manipulate market forces in a manner which causes you to reap inequitably monetary gain from the product of others' work. I have deep doubts regarding the present direction of The LP. I seem to be constantly engaged with battling the misconceptions, stupidities, and equivocations that plaque it currently; in local meetings, to a small degree within the National Organisation, and in varied places in the datastreams. Since you derisively tag The LP, then openly admit you exist within the political bipolarity, there is absolutely no value with taking the time to further elaborate upon this.
At the core of any libertarian philosophy, there must be as axiomatic, a belief that personal liberty is preeminent to the powers of a legitimate state up until expressions of personal liberty directly interfere with the personal liberties of another human. You seem to believe it is only a tool to be used to eliminate the minimum wage, and will not even own up to your being pwned, when the hypocrisy inherent within you bloodthirsty cry for destruction has been pointed out to you as being inconsistent with your stated faith in the valuation of personal liberty.
Let's see now:
Survey says: Stealth Contemporary Conservative.
So please enlighten me; exactly what quantities of personal treasure and blood are you willing to sacrifice to attain your evil call? Oh wait, I forgot, you're a Contemporary Conservative; which means you support the children of others dying in immoral foreign wars that were funded with promissory notes from future government receipts. arse.
More likely the Penis of the President Past
I challenge the rectitude of your stated libertarian intents on just this sig alone, for it implies that you beleive in foreign intervention, and are not willing to squarely face the reality of the enemies' visage which you view every morning in the mirror upon awakening.
It was The Reagancomics, who escalated straight in through the gates of hell, Brzezinski's bloodfeud in the name of his original motherland against the Soviet for the damage they had caused it, that gave the bastard sons issued from the congress between Saudi Princes and their concuibines their opportunity to become educated in the dark arts of insurgency.
The famed pitchman for a soap additive, Ronald Reagan, deceitfully provided an aura of mysticism around these 'freedom fighters', with his lies to the public:
What Reagan failed to mention was the amount of weaponry, funding for training and intelligence data that had been directly funneled into this bloody wa
as Mr. Stevens is one of the reprehensible nine senators who in a manner wholly antithetical to the Dreamtime America voted against the McCain anti-torture amendment to the 2006 FY Military Appropriations Act on October 5, 2005.
For this reason alone, he should be taken down, without mercy, and his future headstone be appropriately utilised as a public urinal.
I am a reprobate American son, who stands and resists. There will be no negotiation, no bargaining on this. The acquiescence to a governmental imprimatur upon acts of torture, for any reason under heaven or hell, is an obscenity to human liberty. If we do not as a people renounce it, America is lost.
This is an offensive rationalisation, which cuts to the chase regarding the inherent evils of the two-party system. Sadly it also seems to indicate, that while a vote for the lesser of evils, should as a matter of principle, be generally be avoided, because it is, after all, an affirmative vote for evil; the reality of modern American politics makes a choice even more difficult, because it involves:
The Lamer of Two Evils,
and arguably, a lamer evil is a wiser choice. This is an argument, which upon application to contemporary politics, tends to work against the right-side of the political bipolarity.
Virginia Postrel, who as long-term editor of Reason, sought to take libertarianism into mainstream, down into the mud with the republicans and democrats, by equivocating about core issues of personal liberty, while she championed her vision of proper libertarian economic theory. An agent in the right-siding of American Libertarianism.
Warning to those who disagree: might want to explain this search result first.
is pervasive within their political leveraging of these topics. In both instances, sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officers were serving what they in good faith believed to be lawful warrants issued by a Federal Court of the United States Government, and came under deadly attack in the course of fulfilling their duty. On top of that, the facts indicate that in both instances, these persons had not reacted out of passion, but had conspired to to use deadly force, and were well-prepared with practise to do so.
The legitimacy of warrants can be rightfully contested in a court of law without violence, without attempting to murder other citizens who are only acting in what they believe to be in a manner consistent with upholding their honourably sworn duty.
Whether or not the warrants were issued wrongfully, aided by an overreaching prosecutor, is not the issue. What is the issue is that these individuals chose insurrection over an appeal to justice under American Constitutional Law.
As is far too often the case, the right does not believe that their stated public positions, in this instance support for law and order, are applicable to them. It is all just moral relativism's smoke and mirrors of wafting mendacity.
is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.
Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.
Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.
I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.
,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.
The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.
and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...
This behaviour will become increasingly more prevalent, because of this. Once the concept becomes familiar, it is a logical progression for a user to
[click link]-->[new tab{does not affect viewport}]
when they feel it may be worth a look later, while reading the current page. This saves a greater amount of effort expended in the future, which necessitates memory recall too. Although not accurate, it could be termed 'a will to sloth'. Even if a user is not capable of realising this by their lonesome, they will copy others after seeing how it works.
There is surely a codeable function capable of recording the active tab. If systems of web metrics measuring for marketing purposes do not include this presently, they will in the near future, either as a unique feature, or in an effort to keep up with the competition.
The RIAA should be harassed just for their use of evil analogy, and the hypocritical corporate use of frivolous nuisance suits as a tool to effectuate their will upon society. From the EFF amicus brief:
I don't believe Turkey was implicated in any of the suspected CIA flights of detainees to be rendered, detainees headed to secret Prisons as many EU nations have been, or accused of being one of the nations that allowed the Secret American Prisons within their sovereign territory. As I recall, Turkey's parliament voted against the US using its country as a base from which to launch their attack on Iraq, with the stated objection being that it was illegal without UN Security Council agreement.
Oh yeah, those civilized Euros.
The Ankara based tank; International Strategic Research Organisation (ISRO), published their European Union Perception Survey 3 (129k PDF), November 6, 2006.
The survey's first qestion and the results were:
What I surmise is that many Turks would prefer to be in the EU, if all things were equal in their minds, but they consider the current price of entry too high.