What the hell are you babbling about? Asking for visas means that the peopl are no longer in control? I don't feel any less free than I did 10 years ago. Believe it or not, Bush is doing exactly what the majority of people in this country want him to do regarding foreign policy.
Lefty liberals crying "Nazi" notwithstanding, he will be elected for a second term next year, he will prosecute the war against the Islamists, and the majority of the American people will be behind him.
Actually, our government was willing to let Hicks go back to Australia, provided he would stand trial for the charges there. The Australian government declined.
And how, exactly, would impeaching our president and changing our foreign policy deter Islamists from wanting to destroy "The Great Satan"? They have been at war with us for more than 30 years, we're only now coming to fully realize it.
So how many innocent people have been held? I suspect that they are only picking up people that they have pretty damning evidence against.
There is a big difference between holding someone suspected of treason in a time of war, and, say, holding someone indefinitely for music-sharing.
Now I don't trust the government much, and I agree that this method is a bit unnerving, but when fighting terrorists, one more day of freedom for them can mean 3000+ more people dead.
The Islamists have said on more than one occasion that they were going to infiltrate Western society and use our own liberal (liberal as in the original definition of written law, as opposed to law dictated by those in power) and open system of law against us in doing so. We need a way to fight this. Sometimes pragmatism is ugly, especially when fighting opponents like this.
As long as there is a Congress and a Supreme Court, I'm not that worried about it.
The electoral college elected him president, just like any other president. Running out the clock on a recount of a popular vote is not electing, it's a moot point.
I don't believe you have to agree with the president to be a patriot. But I do believe that calling the president a dictator and therefore implying that the whole checks-and-balances system of this constitutional republic is somehow horribly broken, and that jack-booted thugs will be dragging dissenters off to the Gulag any day now, disqualifies you as a patriot. It reflects a complete disregard for the facts (and for the integrity and reputation of our Constitution) in favor of partisan name-calling.
I think any well-informed person is entitled to an opinion on the oppression of Iran. There is reliable information all over the internet and the news. I don't think that oppression is OK just because it's a "cultural difference", do you?
Then when you've visited all these hellish metropolises, do yourself a favor and visit the real America. The mountains of the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennesee, Colorado, Montana... the redwood forests of northern California. The lakes of Minnesota, and the nearby Great Lakes (go in the summer). Go see some rodeos in Texas, eat some TexMex and see real honkeytonk bands in real honkeytonks in the Dallas area. Go laugh at all the hippies in Seattle (just don't trust them to watch your backpack or anything).
Let's see... Florida / Southern Texas / Arizona / or Southern California in the winter. Southern California is gorgeous, the climate is incredible... it really is too bad about the people that live there, heheh.
The biker rally in Sturgis, South Dakota is a blast, you're sure to be popular with your Aussie accent if you're not too uncomfortable around rough and rowdy (but basically decent) men.
The Grand Canyon and the Colorado Springs / Denver area are beautiful natural wonderlands.
I would also recommend just going where the Americans go on vacation (Yellowstone, Florida Keys), or go for fun (concerts, festivals, rallys).
You're right, I was being hasty in rebutting a point. That is, in fact, why I no longer consider myself a "Republican".
sigh I almost wish it was the eighties again... We could use another Gipper in office.
Re:In defense of "conservatives"...
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
...given that he's against gun control, is hardly a pacifist (he supported Gulf War I and interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo), etc. etc. etc. I don't see him as being a liberal at all (neither in the modern "leftist" sense nor in the older Jeffersonian sense)...
Umm. Dub-ya is the President of the United States, not a dictator, you barking moonbat.
Why don't you move Iran for a few years and subject yourself to the iron fist of the mullahs, then come back and tell us how oppressed we all are? And no, I'm not some brainwashed sheep like all you wingnuts like to label us unashamedly patriotic and capitalist Americans. I used to be just like you, a closed-minded, deluded, paranoid rebel-without-a-clue; warped by leftist propaganda.
I think you misapprehend the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution revolutionized humanity by granting unto it freedom from rule by the State (that has plagued us since Mesopotamia). It is like the GPL, which is sort of an anti-copyright by using copyright laws to guarantee it shall remain free to copy; it limits government to being of and for the people rather than over the people. It delimits what the government may and may not do, while according people the right to do or be anything that the government is not expressly permitted to regulate. The Constitution is the reason people flock here from all over the world, whether they know it or not, because it guarantees our God-given rights.
It, and not the State, are what our representatives and military swear allegiance to. It is constant and unchanging, cannot be tempted by wealth and power, and is thus the only safe master a Free society can swear allegiance to.
I'm sad for you that you don't realize and appreciate this, but be aware that our officials and military are sworn to protect it and are your enemy if you seek to do away with it, and I would suggest moving to a different country. I don't care if you hate Republicans or Democrats or even all politicians, but if you have a gripe with the Constitution you need to check yourself.
That is exactly why they pose a threat to the rest of the world. Because they end up starving their people with their insane social experiment.
Communism killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century. It's time to admit that free markets feed and Socialism kills. People do remarkably well for themselves and for their neighbors when they are not State-ridden.
Re:In defense of "conservatives"...
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
If you think Jefferson (or any of the Founding Fathers or classical liberals) were pacifists who believed in gun control, you are sadly misinformed.
It is generally the Democrats in Congress that push for more spending, thus higher taxes, thus more of your money. Defense spending is tiny in comparison to our GDP.
I know that when my family made less than 30K a year we didn't end up paying any taxes at all after our refund. It's kind of illogical to conclude that tax cuts for everyone are unfair to the poor since they aren't paying any taxes.
Tax cuts and smaller government just make sense. More money for productive citizens, less for the bureaucrats whose very nature is to prolong the problems they are supposed to be solving so as to hang on to their cushy jobs and pensions.
An old dumb terminal (or not-so-dumb terminal) attached to the serial port is my favorite method. Much less hassle than another whole computer sitting there...
Oh, Americans are easy to manipulate now? Manipulate this. You are ever so much smarter than the average American? Fuck off. Can't even fucking spell psychology right...
pacifism
n 1: the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable [syn: passivism] 2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
Hmmm, according to Princeton's WordNet the primary definition applies to all violence, not just between nations, so you'll excuse my misapprehension of your post.
Of course, I still think you're kidding yourself as the other reply to your previous post points out. Gandhi's passive resistance to the occupying British was brilliant because, well, they were British. Do you think that would have worked with the Russians? No, the Russians could slaughter millions of their own people without batting an eye. It doesn't seem to be working against the Chinese in Tibet, because the Chinese would kill them all if they had to.
All of those monsters were created in an attempt to thwart the spread of Communism (have we created any since the collapse of the USSR?) Seemed like a good idea at the time, Russia was our top priority, and I must admit that the Pentagon often has its collective head up its collective ass. Since Communism has managed to kill far more innocent people than all of the fascist dictators of the 20th century combined, maybe it wasn't the worst move, but probably not the best either.
We believe we have the right to defend ourselves and we also believe we have the right to liberate oppressed people. You may not have read our Constitution lately, but we believe that humanity was endowed by its Creator with certain inalienable rights. Oppressors are criminals, pure and simple. It matters not a whit to us that some moral relativists think otherwise. Whether we helped create them in a more desperate time doesn't change the fact that they have to be dealt with now. They were tools, and like a campfire that gets out of control, we have no compunction in stomping out a tool that becomes dangerous. And yes, I know that some of us had slaves at one time, that was wrong, and we killed each other to solve that particular problem.
We have often had mandatory service during wartime in our history. We prefer to leave it to the volunteers unless it's absolutely necessary. A volunteer army is usually much better trained (because they want to be) and much more effective.
The trickle-down theory was just a new explanation of a well understood phenomenon. I'm not sure what you mean by a hereditary aristocracy. You mean people getting to keep their money and leave it to their families after they die?
You're a pacifist, so if a gang of thugs broke into your house with the intention of raping and killing you and your family, you'd just let them do it? Or would you expect the Police to do it for you? (they are under no obligation to do so, and it would take them at least 5 minutes to show up). If so, isn't it hypocritical to expect someone to risk their life to save yours, for a crappy 30K salary? If not, aren't you displaying a remarkable contempt for the value of human life and dignity, even if it is your own? Aren't you, essentially, committing suicide to avoid hurting some scumbags?
We can't really afford to get them all at once, a state of the art volunteer military is fucking expensive to run. We take them as they come. Plus, some of them like Kim Il Sung (that's N. Korea, BTW) have a billion screaming Chinamen on their side, so we'd rather just let their pathetic Socialist economies burn themselves out than potentially start WWIII. President Sung's people are warriors, they will eventually just eat him alive and merge with S. Korea. Some cultures are just self-repairing;-)
This may come as a shock to you, but this is still the same war as the first Gulf War. We had a ceasefire agreement predicated on the ability of the U.N. weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam had no more WMDs. We gave him plenty of time. He never fully complied, so we finally called him out.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you babbling about? Asking for visas means that the peopl are no longer in control? I don't feel any less free than I did 10 years ago. Believe it or not, Bush is doing exactly what the majority of people in this country want him to do regarding foreign policy.
Lefty liberals crying "Nazi" notwithstanding, he will be elected for a second term next year, he will prosecute the war against the Islamists, and the majority of the American people will be behind him.
Fine. Treason then. Hea should be hanged.
The US doesn't torture prisoners. Period.
Actually, our government was willing to let Hicks go back to Australia, provided he would stand trial for the charges there. The Australian government declined.
And how, exactly, would impeaching our president and changing our foreign policy deter Islamists from wanting to destroy "The Great Satan"? They have been at war with us for more than 30 years, we're only now coming to fully realize it.
So how many innocent people have been held? I suspect that they are only picking up people that they have pretty damning evidence against.
There is a big difference between holding someone suspected of treason in a time of war, and, say, holding someone indefinitely for music-sharing.
Now I don't trust the government much, and I agree that this method is a bit unnerving, but when fighting terrorists, one more day of freedom for them can mean 3000+ more people dead.
The Islamists have said on more than one occasion that they were going to infiltrate Western society and use our own liberal (liberal as in the original definition of written law, as opposed to law dictated by those in power) and open system of law against us in doing so. We need a way to fight this. Sometimes pragmatism is ugly, especially when fighting opponents like this.
As long as there is a Congress and a Supreme Court, I'm not that worried about it.
The electoral college elected him president, just like any other president. Running out the clock on a recount of a popular vote is not electing, it's a moot point.
I don't believe you have to agree with the president to be a patriot. But I do believe that calling the president a dictator and therefore implying that the whole checks-and-balances system of this constitutional republic is somehow horribly broken, and that jack-booted thugs will be dragging dissenters off to the Gulag any day now, disqualifies you as a patriot. It reflects a complete disregard for the facts (and for the integrity and reputation of our Constitution) in favor of partisan name-calling.
I think any well-informed person is entitled to an opinion on the oppression of Iran. There is reliable information all over the internet and the news. I don't think that oppression is OK just because it's a "cultural difference", do you?
The scientists conducting the experiment neglected to mention that spending the same amount of time rehearsing improved their skills by 25%.
Washington D.C.
New York City
Los Angeles
Then when you've visited all these hellish metropolises, do yourself a favor and visit the real America. The mountains of the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennesee, Colorado, Montana... the redwood forests of northern California. The lakes of Minnesota, and the nearby Great Lakes (go in the summer). Go see some rodeos in Texas, eat some TexMex and see real honkeytonk bands in real honkeytonks in the Dallas area. Go laugh at all the hippies in Seattle (just don't trust them to watch your backpack or anything).
Let's see... Florida / Southern Texas / Arizona / or Southern California in the winter. Southern California is gorgeous, the climate is incredible... it really is too bad about the people that live there, heheh.
The biker rally in Sturgis, South Dakota is a blast, you're sure to be popular with your Aussie accent if you're not too uncomfortable around rough and rowdy (but basically decent) men.
The Grand Canyon and the Colorado Springs / Denver area are beautiful natural wonderlands.
I would also recommend just going where the Americans go on vacation (Yellowstone, Florida Keys), or go for fun (concerts, festivals, rallys).
You're right, I was being hasty in rebutting a point. That is, in fact, why I no longer consider myself a "Republican".
sigh I almost wish it was the eighties again... We could use another Gipper in office.
Umm. Dub-ya is the President of the United States, not a dictator, you barking moonbat.
Why don't you move Iran for a few years and subject yourself to the iron fist of the mullahs, then come back and tell us how oppressed we all are? And no, I'm not some brainwashed sheep like all you wingnuts like to label us unashamedly patriotic and capitalist Americans. I used to be just like you, a closed-minded, deluded, paranoid rebel-without-a-clue; warped by leftist propaganda.
I think you misapprehend the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution revolutionized humanity by granting unto it freedom from rule by the State (that has plagued us since Mesopotamia). It is like the GPL, which is sort of an anti-copyright by using copyright laws to guarantee it shall remain free to copy; it limits government to being of and for the people rather than over the people. It delimits what the government may and may not do, while according people the right to do or be anything that the government is not expressly permitted to regulate. The Constitution is the reason people flock here from all over the world, whether they know it or not, because it guarantees our God-given rights.
It, and not the State, are what our representatives and military swear allegiance to. It is constant and unchanging, cannot be tempted by wealth and power, and is thus the only safe master a Free society can swear allegiance to.
I'm sad for you that you don't realize and appreciate this, but be aware that our officials and military are sworn to protect it and are your enemy if you seek to do away with it, and I would suggest moving to a different country. I don't care if you hate Republicans or Democrats or even all politicians, but if you have a gripe with the Constitution you need to check yourself.
That is exactly why they pose a threat to the rest of the world. Because they end up starving their people with their insane social experiment.
Communism killed more than 100 million people in the 20th century. It's time to admit that free markets feed and Socialism kills. People do remarkably well for themselves and for their neighbors when they are not State-ridden.
If you think Jefferson (or any of the Founding Fathers or classical liberals) were pacifists who believed in gun control, you are sadly misinformed.
Stop being so rational and non-partisan, you're going upset someone's delicate world-view.
It is generally the Democrats in Congress that push for more spending, thus higher taxes, thus more of your money. Defense spending is tiny in comparison to our GDP.
I know that when my family made less than 30K a year we didn't end up paying any taxes at all after our refund. It's kind of illogical to conclude that tax cuts for everyone are unfair to the poor since they aren't paying any taxes.
Tax cuts and smaller government just make sense. More money for productive citizens, less for the bureaucrats whose very nature is to prolong the problems they are supposed to be solving so as to hang on to their cushy jobs and pensions.
An old dumb terminal (or not-so-dumb terminal) attached to the serial port is my favorite method. Much less hassle than another whole computer sitting there...
Heh. This post gets modded as flamebait? I guess some Leftist thug didn't agree with me. Typical.
Oh, Americans are easy to manipulate now? Manipulate this. You are ever so much smarter than the average American? Fuck off. Can't even fucking spell psychology right...
pacifism
n 1: the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable [syn: passivism] 2: the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
Hmmm, according to Princeton's WordNet the primary definition applies to all violence, not just between nations, so you'll excuse my misapprehension of your post.
Of course, I still think you're kidding yourself as the other reply to your previous post points out. Gandhi's passive resistance to the occupying British was brilliant because, well, they were British. Do you think that would have worked with the Russians? No, the Russians could slaughter millions of their own people without batting an eye. It doesn't seem to be working against the Chinese in Tibet, because the Chinese would kill them all if they had to.
All of those monsters were created in an attempt to thwart the spread of Communism (have we created any since the collapse of the USSR?) Seemed like a good idea at the time, Russia was our top priority, and I must admit that the Pentagon often has its collective head up its collective ass. Since Communism has managed to kill far more innocent people than all of the fascist dictators of the 20th century combined, maybe it wasn't the worst move, but probably not the best either.
We believe we have the right to defend ourselves and we also believe we have the right to liberate oppressed people. You may not have read our Constitution lately, but we believe that humanity was endowed by its Creator with certain inalienable rights. Oppressors are criminals, pure and simple. It matters not a whit to us that some moral relativists think otherwise. Whether we helped create them in a more desperate time doesn't change the fact that they have to be dealt with now. They were tools, and like a campfire that gets out of control, we have no compunction in stomping out a tool that becomes dangerous. And yes, I know that some of us had slaves at one time, that was wrong, and we killed each other to solve that particular problem.
We have often had mandatory service during wartime in our history. We prefer to leave it to the volunteers unless it's absolutely necessary. A volunteer army is usually much better trained (because they want to be) and much more effective.
Why was Saddam blocking inspectors if he had nothing? I guess he just liked those sanctions...
The trickle-down theory was just a new explanation of a well understood phenomenon. I'm not sure what you mean by a hereditary aristocracy. You mean people getting to keep their money and leave it to their families after they die?
You're a pacifist, so if a gang of thugs broke into your house with the intention of raping and killing you and your family, you'd just let them do it? Or would you expect the Police to do it for you? (they are under no obligation to do so, and it would take them at least 5 minutes to show up). If so, isn't it hypocritical to expect someone to risk their life to save yours, for a crappy 30K salary? If not, aren't you displaying a remarkable contempt for the value of human life and dignity, even if it is your own? Aren't you, essentially, committing suicide to avoid hurting some scumbags?
Gee, ya think?
;-)
We can't really afford to get them all at once, a state of the art volunteer military is fucking expensive to run. We take them as they come. Plus, some of them like Kim Il Sung (that's N. Korea, BTW) have a billion screaming Chinamen on their side, so we'd rather just let their pathetic Socialist economies burn themselves out than potentially start WWIII. President Sung's people are warriors, they will eventually just eat him alive and merge with S. Korea. Some cultures are just self-repairing ;-)
This may come as a shock to you, but this is still the same war as the first Gulf War. We had a ceasefire agreement predicated on the ability of the U.N. weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam had no more WMDs. We gave him plenty of time. He never fully complied, so we finally called him out.