We may be a member of the UN but that in no way allows the UN to dictate legal precedent to us.
Nah, but when congress rattifies an international treaty, the USA is bound to that treaty according to its own constitution.
With regards to the declaration of human rights, that was rattified by congress and is binding.
US law is based on the constitution of the united states and nothing else.
Despite popular belief in the USA it seems, noone is forcing laws onto your country. WHat happened is your country becomming a participant in a treaty and then rattifying that treaty, making it legally binding according to that same constitution you are so fond of.
Interestingly, people in the USA seem to feel strongly about this and respond quickly whenever they have even the slightest suspicion that someone might be trying to enforce some rule or law on them, yet, they have no problem whatsoever forcing any rules or laws on someone else, even rules that they just made up for the specific occation.
To the US? I doubt Hitler would have tried to use an atom bomb against the US
I don't know htat, but I do know he wanted to hit the USA hard.
- revenge for their participation in bombing German cities and industry - he quite realized that the industrial power of the USA made it impossible for im to win in the long run. Getting them out of the war was extremely desirable for him as a result.
Who were these millions the British slaughtered? Dresden was bombed heavily in response to the bombing of Coventry (although neither was destroyed nor was everyone inside killed).
Just to put things a bit into perspective..
In Hamburg and Dresden more people died as a result of areal bombardment and the resulting firestorm then died in the UK as a result of areal bombardment (and its after effects) during the entire war.
While Hamburg was a harbor and a military target of importance, Dresden was not.
You are right that there were some buldings that survived, but if you ever go visit the city you will find out that for all practical purposes, it was destroyed virtually completely.
Revenge for bombing Coventry? sure. There isn't an order of magnitude of difference in scale of the bombing at all.
Certainly the "libertaing" (ie invading) Soviets did some pretty appalling things. There isn't an excuse for that, although the USSR had taken huge casulties and suffered a lot from the German invastion. If you consider revenge spite, then here you have a point.
Deporting over 10 milion Germans of which about 1/3 returned kinda qualifies for pretty appalling indeed..
The mistake you make twice is excusing allied crimes of war by saying that the other side was as bad. All this does is help the extreme right in Germany finding an audience.
Lots of software is, but it is not very important how many threads a piece of software creates, but how many runnable threads there are at any given time (ie, how the work is distributed over those threads)
At any rate, remembering a name correctly (the name of some foreign politician, remember I am not even American.. just for comparison, do you know the name of any Dutch politician?) has little to do with the ability to read or judge a situation, and all with the extreme lack of impression that the person carrying that name made.
But hey, if you don't like the message, attack the format, shoot the messenger etc, but never ever try to argue the content...
You're fucking full of it. The VOTES were never verified.
Seems more like you are full of anger then me being full of anything. I suggest you head your own advice and go do something about it other then posting on some silly weblog.
If however you decide to post here again, I suggest you first learn to read and while at it, learn to make some kind of argument.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
And that is how democracy really got lost.. repeatedly.
With the risk of invoking Godwin's law here, I'll quote Adolf Hitler on this since he was quite good at it:
I love how this excuse along with the "It could be worse" are all you get from the neo-con backers.
Its not an excuse, it is him not giving the idea he had a clue where he was going.
I am not a neo conservative, and I am not even American.
I'd rather have liked seeing a much more liberal president of the USA.
I made the statement because it is what many of my American friends have told me as their motivation to vote Bush. This does not mean I believe it to be a good reason, but I can see why it was the best they could come up with when trying to find arguments as to why they'd vote for either candidate.
I have yet to hear a semi-logical / well thought out reason to support him.
Same here. Sad eh, ending up with someone as president without there being a good reason to support him. That was the point I was trying to make also.
One suggestion however, stop jumping to conclusions and try to see the problem people are trying to point out. The fact that he did win despite the lack of any good reason does mean that the democrats failed making clear to the public that there was a good reason to support them instead.
You have been at war since the involvement in Korea, and that one did not end.
Ah, this undeclared war against a non state enemy you mean? this war on drugs? or oh wait, it was terrorism, or what? copyright violators?
Deciding you are at war comes with many consequences. If you argue that the USA is at war, that implicitly also means your enemy is a party you can be at war with. This means you cannot deny the rules and treaties that govern war to them. Come back when the people in the US government understand this instead of calling things 'war' whenever it comes in handy, without taking the consequences.
The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.
While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
Yeah, unofficially we have been economically dependent on war since WWII, but most of our military involvements have been fairly quiet, and we rarely officially declare war.
Hmm.. reminds me of a certain country in Europe during the 30s and 40s of the previous century.
That is, untill they decided to not declare war but wage a full-scale one anyway.
Just for the record, the USA is still at war with North Korea strictly spoken. That there is a truce does not change that, the war was never ended officially, and no final settlement has been reached.
Slashdot Mirror
We may be a member of the UN but that in no way allows the UN to dictate legal precedent to us.
Nah, but when congress rattifies an international treaty, the USA is bound to that treaty according to its own constitution.
With regards to the declaration of human rights, that was rattified by congress and is binding.
US law is based on the constitution of the united states and nothing else.
Despite popular belief in the USA it seems, noone is forcing laws onto your country. WHat happened is your country becomming a participant in a treaty and then rattifying that treaty, making it legally binding according to that same constitution you are so fond of.
Interestingly, people in the USA seem to feel strongly about this and respond quickly whenever they have even the slightest suspicion that someone might be trying to enforce some rule or law on them, yet, they have no problem whatsoever forcing any rules or laws on someone else, even rules that they just made up for the specific occation.
Wow, what a well reasoned statement..
To the US? I doubt Hitler would have tried to use an atom bomb against the US
I don't know htat, but I do know he wanted to hit the USA hard.
- revenge for their participation in bombing German cities and industry
- he quite realized that the industrial power of the USA made it impossible for im to win in the long run. Getting them out of the war was extremely desirable for him as a result.
And germany would of been in no state to do it, that and we kept sabotage and bombing any plants to do with it.
They were in no state to design and build the worlds most advanced jetfighter and rockets either, yet they did.
Who were these millions the British slaughtered? Dresden was bombed heavily in response to the bombing of Coventry (although neither was destroyed nor was everyone inside killed).
Just to put things a bit into perspective..
In Hamburg and Dresden more people died as a result of areal bombardment and the resulting firestorm then died in the UK as a result of areal bombardment (and its after effects) during the entire war.
While Hamburg was a harbor and a military target of importance, Dresden was not.
You are right that there were some buldings that survived, but if you ever go visit the city you will find out that for all practical purposes, it was destroyed virtually completely.
Revenge for bombing Coventry? sure. There isn't an order of magnitude of difference in scale of the bombing at all.
Certainly the "libertaing" (ie invading) Soviets did some pretty appalling things. There isn't an excuse for that, although the USSR had taken huge casulties and suffered a lot from the German invastion. If you consider revenge spite, then here you have a point.
Deporting over 10 milion Germans of which about 1/3 returned kinda qualifies for pretty appalling indeed..
The mistake you make twice is excusing allied crimes of war by saying that the other side was as bad. All this does is help the extreme right in Germany finding an audience.
Heh, he actually survived such an attack during the first world war.. indeed unlikely that he wanted to go there again.
There weren't that many buildings left standing in Germany by the end of the war...
software nowadays is generally multithreaded.
Lots of software is, but it is not very important how many threads a piece of software creates, but how many runnable threads there are at any given time (ie, how the work is distributed over those threads)
Seems the original is a nice standards complient audio cd, so I see no problem.. that is, I do see a problem... for Sony. It will never work.
meanwhile intel is trying to replace kitchen appliances like ovens, and toasters, with insanely hot processors.
Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is what they are doing, it finally starts making sense now.
I can just picture it, 5 years from now..
Buy the new and improved Intel toaster with the new P8 CPU. The most powerfull CPU you'll find in a toaster for the fastest and best toasting..
and thus it failing to be passed by every firewall that has any credibility whatsoever
Hmm... a firewall having any credibility AND relying on IANA port assignments?
Does not compute.
Funny you should say that.. Mr. KELLY
Funny how you have to use both bold and capitals.
At any rate, remembering a name correctly (the name of some foreign politician, remember I am not even American.. just for comparison, do you know the name of any Dutch politician?) has little to do with the ability to read or judge a situation, and all with the extreme lack of impression that the person carrying that name made.
But hey, if you don't like the message, attack the format, shoot the messenger etc, but never ever try to argue the content...
You're fucking full of it. The VOTES were never verified.
Seems more like you are full of anger then me being full of anything. I suggest you head your own advice and go do something about it other then posting on some silly weblog.
If however you decide to post here again, I suggest you first learn to read and while at it, learn to make some kind of argument.
Fact: it was impossible for anyone other than the authors of the Patriot Act to read it. There was no time. It was rammed through Congress at a time when questioning the content, even if there was time to read it, would have been considered unamerican. Perhaps you'd like to forget that little detail.
And that is how democracy really got lost.. repeatedly.
With the risk of invoking Godwin's law here, I'll quote Adolf Hitler on this since he was quite good at it:
'Make people feel so they do not think'.
See, the guy left such an impression that I couldn't remember his name correctly !!
Ah well, its not that bad, I just messed up there.
As anyone from eastern Asia can tell you, the sounds are very close. Of course you are right and I messed up.
That said, maybe you can try reading the argument and ignore the spelling mistake.
I made the statement because it is what many of my American friends have told me as their motivation to vote Bush. This does not mean I believe it to be a good reason, but I can see why it was the best they could come up with when trying to find arguments as to why they'd vote for either candidate.
I have yet to hear a semi-logical / well thought out reason to support him.
Same here. Sad eh, ending up with someone as president without there being a good reason to support him. That was the point I was trying to make also.
One suggestion however, stop jumping to conclusions and try to see the problem people are trying to point out. The fact that he did win despite the lack of any good reason does mean that the democrats failed making clear to the public that there was a good reason to support them instead.
Yes, but you knew what you got was pretty fucking bad, and for Kerry to be much worse would be quite an astounding feat.
Don't underestimate the ability of humans to mess things up.
You have been at war since the involvement in Korea, and that one did not end.
Ah, this undeclared war against a non state enemy you mean? this war on drugs? or oh wait, it was terrorism, or what? copyright violators?
Deciding you are at war comes with many consequences. If you argue that the USA is at war, that implicitly also means your enemy is a party you can be at war with. This means you cannot deny the rules and treaties that govern war to them. Come back when the people in the US government understand this instead of calling things 'war' whenever it comes in handy, without taking the consequences.
> How did we re-elect this fuck?
Because the alternative was even worse?
With Bush you at least know what you'll get, the only thing you knew about Kelly is that he didn't have a clue what you'd get, and neither did you.
The most important thing is to make sure that with any additional powers granted there is enough oversight from a disinterested third party to insure said powers are used only within their intended scope for their intended purpose.
While I agree with the importsance of this, I'd like to point at the importance of questioning if a power is needed at all, and not granting it if such a need cannot be proven. Checks and balances can only work when they are not bogged down in burocracy and procedure to be effective. Too much power with a too big counterweight (oversight by 'uninterested' 3rd parties) easily results in a substational amount of burocracy.
I bet that this is why Yoda says in ROTJ that there is another one besides Luke whom could be trained?
If there was no heritage involved, how could he know that Leia could be teained? and why would she be basicly the only alternative?
Heh.. if people only realized the truth of what you are saying..
Yeah, unofficially we have been economically dependent on war since WWII, but most of our military involvements have been fairly quiet, and we rarely officially declare war.
Hmm.. reminds me of a certain country in Europe during the 30s and 40s of the previous century.
That is, untill they decided to not declare war but wage a full-scale one anyway.
Just for the record, the USA is still at war with North Korea strictly spoken. That there is a truce does not change that, the war was never ended officially, and no final settlement has been reached.
There was something with attacking the format of a message when not having a valid argument to attack the content..