I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.
I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.
Are Cheney and Palin not allowed to have personal lives? Should every conversation they have be public record? Should their personal emails be sent via government servers?
Sorry, but NO! There was no government business on her Yahoo account, so no law was broken. All the stuff I saw there WAS STUFF THAT DID NOT BELONG ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS! Prayers from friends and pictures of her kids have no place on government computers. If these WERE on her government account, then you'd have something, abuse of power or whatever. But they weren't, so there is nothing but what you make up. She was right to keep her personal crap on Yahoo!
Since no law was broken, why are you assuming that Palin feels she was above the law? I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for those with an (R) or (D) next to their name that they make stuff up to fit their preconceived notions and justify their irrational hatred.
If it's pure CO2 they are capturing and storing, why don't they just release it into the Amazon rain forest?
Storing CO2 is not a viable solution, but giving it to the trees, who live on it and will convert it into 02, is!
Great idea. The problem is this:
How do you keep the CO2 in the rain forest long enough to be converted? How do you keep it from blowing away? How do you transport it from Germany, in Europe, to the Amazon, in S. America?
On second thought, it's not such a great idea. Sorry.
The story here for people that are missing it: This is evidence of a private account to circumvent Alaska's record retention laws. This is exactly like what was done in the White House to hide evidence of political firings in the justice dept. This is something like her 8th well publicized crime/bending of the law/lie, amusingly enough, not the first one tied to misdeeds of the kind that got so many thrown out of congress just two short years ago. . No one will care anyway. There is a quiet and unspoken truth to Republican success. America is a-ok with being criminally complicit, as long as they see a profit. We are happily being run by the mafia. Have fun with President Palin.
The story that YOU seem to be missing is that nothing was found. There is no law that prevents government employees from having private email accounts and this break-in proves that it was not used for government business. The only close was emails from fellow state workers offering prayers of support or bitching about the media, the kind of thing that doesn't belong on tax-payer funded computer systems anyway!
It's sad that you don't see the irony of your own post. A group of thugs illegally hack into a private account in an attempt to "whack" a person's career, and you call Republicans the mafia?
Nothing "just happens." Or do you think that nearly a hundred thousand people dying doesn't really have a cause, it's just "what happens."
Sure there is a cause. If it "just happened", then it would not have been worth it.
So many wrongs happen in the world because someone decides that someone else's life is "worth it." What do you think those people would say if they could be asked? Isn't the person whose life it is the most entitled to say whether their life is worth giving up for something or not? Seriously - try and answer that question.
I've asked myself question. I wrestled with it for quite a while. I knew that I wouldn't be fighting for US security as the US was pretty secure at the time. I asked myself if I was willing to die for the freedom of someone I had never met, that had little or no effect on my family or loved ones, that wasn't even American. When I came to my answer, I joined the US Armed forces. Sure, I'd gladly fight for my freedom, as many others would as well. That wasn't the issue. What makes me so damn special that I would fight for ME, but not someone else? Is their right to live free no more important than my own? So, yeah, I was willing to die fighting for someone else. So is every other US Soldier.
It might upset your sense of post-action rationale, but the murder of Jewish people in Nazi controlled areas was not the motivating factor for either the UK or the USA to get involved in the war. The US didn't even know that there was systematic genocide going on until Allied forces started pushing their way into Germany. If you honestly believe that either that or the US occupation of Iraq is about protecting ethnic groups then you need to be reading some more factual history books.
I never asked if the rationale was worth it. I asked if the result was worth it. No one at Auschwitz refused liberation because we were there for another reason.
And yet, they're still dead. It's small consolation, isn't it? Whether we accidentally killed them trying to keep the peace or they were intentionally killed to keep the peace (Saddam) it matters little to the dead or their relatives. It might make you feel better about it, it doesn't make me (as an American citizen) sleep any easier.
You are correct. It is tragic and painful to anyone with a soul. Unfortunately, that's what happens. Many innocent people died in the US Revolutionary War. Many more died in the US Civil War. Were their lives worth it? I'm afraid I must say yes. Does the Jewish descendant of a holocaust survivor think that the millions that died fighting the Nazis were worth it? I believe they would say yes as well.
I know it sux, and I don't want to belittle human life at all, but sometimes, people have to die in order to achieve a better life for future generations. Ask the descendant of a slave if their freedom was worth the lives of the million or so men, women and children who died in order for them to be free.
Do you think we haven't killed women and children, that there are NO women and children in the 50,000 dead civilians the Pentagon insists have been killed(though most organisations put it ten times that)?
Really? Do you think that?
Really?
Sure, civilians have died. Of those that have died, many organizations that you get your numbers from include the numbers killed by things like market bombings done by terrorists, not US troops.
Either way, this is not a numbers game. The point is that civilians killed by US forces were accidental, and apologized for. Not since WWII has the US intentionally targeted civilians, and even then the targets were war related manufacturing facilities. The US military goes far out of its way to avoid civilian deaths to the point of putting themselves at risk.
Comparing accidental collateral damages with the intentional mass slaughter of civilians is sickening, and shows an extreme naivete of how the world operates.
I'm certainly claiming that everyone we've fought since the republican guard fell has been a civilian.
Do you think Saddam gassed those people because he was bored and wanted to see something cool? He did it to prevent massive sectarian conflict like we've been trying to police since the government in Iraq fell. He was worried that Iran was funding terrorist groups, and needed to use force to prevent those groups from getting a foothold.
Oh wait. He said exactly what WE said, and did exactly the same thing WE did. The bastard!
He was trying to quell a riot, so it's OK to gas women and children?
Are you honestly trying to compare that his targeting and using chemical weapons on civilians is the same thing the US and its allies did in Iraq?
The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.
Actually, WMD'sWEREFOUND IN IRAQ! Just not in large enough numbers for our media to deem newsworthy.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of preconceived notions and talking points.
You're the one confused, Bush was the governor of Texas not Clinton, and as governor Bush signed 152 death warrants.
You know, you really tend to lose credibility saying extraordinarily stupid shit like that. If you would have read the first line from the link I provided:
Ricky Ray Rector (January 12, 1950 â" January 24, 1992), was executed for the 1981 murder of police officer Robert Martin in Conway, Arkansas.
You would understand why Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, was the one who had him put to death, not Bush, the governor of Texas.
And fuck those who were innocent? I don't want to live in your world.
Who has been put to death by Bush or Clinton that was innocent? Of course, the victims of those who were put to death were innocent, but you don't seem so concerned with them.
Can you also point out where I said Bush was like Che? I don't recall ever saying anything about Che never mind Bush was like him... I searched slashdot for falcon che [slashdot.org] as well as googled slashdot for falcon che [google.com] and didn't find anything anywhere where I said like that. Can you point out where? Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?
Normally I wouldn't do this, but since you showed you were mentally deficient by that Bush was in Texas stuff, I'll help you out.
If you read my sig, you see it's a quote by Che. Someone changed Che to Bush, thinking they would be funny, I guess. I pointed out that comparing Che to Bush is extremely ignorant, especially considering the quotes I have provided. This is when you chimed in pointing out that Bush had signed 152 death warrants... and off we went. I assumed you were trying to draw a link between Bush and Che, since that was the discussion. But now that your intellectual level is clear, it appears I may have over estimated your ability. I apologize for any inconvenience.
You may now put your ear muffs back on and continue creating your macaroni art.
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
Falcon
I think you are confusing GWB with WJC (Bill Clinton): See Bill Rector
Rector seemed incapable of understanding his pending death sentence. For his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, telling the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber that he was saving it "for later".
Personally, I applaud both Clinton and Bush for upholding the law. If you are competent enough to do the crime, you are competent enough to see justice!
But the death penalty is not in question here. What is in question is the death penalty without a trial.
Yet immediately after the Santa Clara bribe and skirmish, Che ordered 27 Batista soldiers executed as "war criminals." Dr. Serafin Ruiz was a Castro operative in Santa Clara at the time, but apparently an essentially decent one. "But Comandante" he responded to Che's order. "Our revolution promises not to execute without trials, without proof. How can we just....?"
"Look Serafin" Che snorted back. "If your bourgeois prejudices won't allow you to carry out my orders, fine. Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning--but execute them NOW!"
Seriously though, if you want to keep saying that GWB is like Che, it really just shows your extreme ignorance. If he were, first, you'd be dead after being labeled a traitor (no trial necessary). Speaking of no trial, Guantanamo wouldn't be a prison, it would be a graveyard. Google "The Butcher of La Cabaña" for what Guantanamo would be like.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." George "Dubya" Bush
There, fixed that for ya.
Actually, you broke it by making it untrue. GWB has never ordered a firing squad. I love how people on your side see nothing wrong with lying in order to make those that you disagree with out to be liars. It's like having a violent protest for peace. It's actually kinda funny that you really don't see the irony in it.
But, sorry, in the REAL world, that "revolutionary" guy there on your red shirt in the beret actually said "Try them in the morning if you must, but we execute them tonight". So, next time you see someone in a Che shirt, calling GWB a war criminal, like you just did, be sure to remind them that they are supporting a true war criminal, while accusing an innocent man of committing the very same war crimes committed by the guy on your shirt! Again, you don't see the irony in it.
Sorry, for the OT, but on occasion, I have to educate someone who obviously fell asleep in history class.
I think the right to be anonymous (if you choose) outweighs the "need to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals."
There are other ways to trace scammers...follow the money. In order to scam you, they must create a pathway for funds to travel from you to them.
Cheers,
With all the flame wars, scammers, spam, teenage girl suicides, threats and other forms of abuse, I'm beginning to think that anonymity everywhere is overrated.
It used to be great for posting porn anonymously, but even that is getting overrun with spammers, scammers and flamewars.
Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
No it isn't.
See what I did there? I debunked your well supported statement with an equally well supported statement of mine.
I'm sorry. I didn't think it was necessary to provide links to the pictures of the terrorists boarding the planes. Nor did I think it was necessary to provide links to the audio tapes from the cockpits of the planes as they were being hijacked. I also thought that it may be overkill to provide links to Osama Bin Laden admitting... no, BRAGGING about the attacks.
Sorry, Mr. AC. I thought you had some common sense and were literate.
Oh wait. I'm being insensitive. Are you in N. Korea, China, Cuba or some other place where you don't get news? Maybe not, since you made it to Slashdot. Why don't you use Google or something and educate yourself. You need to learn to fish and stop asking me to give you one. I'm not going to hold your hand and serve everything to you.
Yeah. The Twin Towers should have toppled over, but instead, they blew up like a building that was being imploded for demolition. Also, the melting point of the steel used in the Twin Towers is actually about 400 degrees HOTTER than the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
In Oakland CA, a tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed under an overpass crashed and burst into flames. (Everyone was OK) The heat from the gasoline caused the metal in the overpass to weaken and the whole thing collapsed.
This pretty much proves that burning fuel can cause metal to weaken and a structure to collapse. This is especially true when you consider that jet fuel burns hotter than gasoline.
The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Maybe so, but it happened. Other examples would be the one I listed (although not a building) and WTC7.
In other words, "Truthers" are full of shit. They've been debunked countless times and they keep coming back. Accept it, you are wrong. There is no government conspiracy. There was no demolition. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
Funny you said, "So, we shouldn't even try, then?" is what I say when people say we shouldn't drill for oil because prices will not immediately drop... but that's another discussion.
Since Bush's tax cuts in the early 2000's, government revenue has INCREASED. The problem is, as I said in an earlier thread, is that spending went up too. Now this was understandable coming off a surplus. It's hard to say there is no money when there is a surplus, but that excuse expired around 2003.
So, if you leave the tax cuts in place, or even give more selected tax cuts and simplification of tax code, then the government could continue to receive record receipts or possibly improve them (as the economy grows). Of course, all this is pretty much worthless without cutting spending drastically. This means no more BS programs like you'll find on any government pork page. No more "earmarks" inserted after a bill has been voted on. No more amendments for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.
However, if it were up to me, we'd have a national sales tax and do away with the IRS altogether. The rich pay more as they spend more. The poor pay less as they spend less. Life's little necessities, like food, clothing and school supplies would be tax free. But, that's just my opinion. It'll never fly as it would mean that the government would lose one of their most important tools for control. It's hard to give tax breaks when there is no tax to give breaks on.
Suppose "Grandma's retirement fund" is in a Roth IRA and Roth 401k? What do you say to that?
That is one form of retirement, sure. And it is taxed. However, the $3000/yr you are allowed to put into your IRA is not going to sustain you through retirement. You must have some other investments (I hope!). In 50 years, the most you could legally put into an IRA (or Roth) is $150,000 (in contributions). That will not provide enough income for your retirement years unless you are dead before you reach 70.
What's wrong with redirecting resources to, say NASA? Government waste? There's waste in a free market solution as well. It's called "profit".
I agree that the private sector will do a better job than NASA. That time, however, has not arrived yet. It won't until a method that is cheaper and safer than chemical rockets (explosives) of putting cargo into orbit or beyond. Until then government is best option. Besides, not everything needs to be privatized. There are somethings that government provides that could not be handled by the private sector. Military, police forces, and NASA are a few good examples.
Besides, an economic downturn, or more accurately, slow-down in growth, is not the best time to raise taxes.
Suuuure. That's the story now. When the economy was roaring, it was not the best time to raise taxes either - because we should give some of the 'windfall' 'back' to taxpayers.
I don't believe that raising taxes on the rich will have any seriously negative effects at any time - except maybe for a revolt of the rich.
That depends on how you define "rich" and how you plan on taxing them. Maybe a tax on dividends? Then you are taxing grandma's retirement fund and you hamper investment (read: growth that produces jobs). Tax incomes? Sure, then the fat-cats you were planning on taxing get their "incomes" by different means (like a company provided million dollar home, fleet of cars, private jet and exorbitant "spending account"). Tax the big businesses directly? Then the businesses pass those taxes on to the consumers and EVERYONE pays them.
Sorry, but there is no way to simply "tax the rich" without catching a few working class in the net.
You haven't made any partisan attacks. The GGP did. Your points are pretty much dead on.
As for your idea of tax cuts... a cut in taxes do not mean a cut in revenue. (See Laffer Curve) Government tax receipts since Bush's tax cuts have been at an all time high. Unfortunately, government spending is at an all time... er... higher. I think that McCain looked at the numbers and said, "Well, what do you know! Tax cuts can mean more revenue." and changed his position. Besides, an economic downturn, or more accurately, slow-down in growth, is not the best time to raise taxes. Taxes need to be raised when the economy is growing out of control causing inflation.
As for Palin, yeah, she's not perfect. But her record is not bad. I would even say that she has one of the best records for any governor in the country. Alaska loves her and she does have a solid record of reform. She is not at all partisan and to truly want what is best, regardless of what party is behind the idea.
off topic First, I have a job so I don't get to listen to my talk-radio buddies.
Next, you are correct on some of it. She is a hockey-mom who went from small town mayor to big, rich state governor, she's young and pretty, anti-abortion, pro-big-military.
The rest is off base or plain opinion. She, like McCain is hammering the Republican party for letting spending get out of hand. She is very much against big government. The rest was just pure opinion and partisan attacks.
And the idea that criticizing any powerful group is usually going to result in being compared to something nefarious -- in some cases BROWNSHIRTS -- of course, people who were alive back then know that the BROWNSHIRTS were not criticizing the powers that be, THEY WERE THE POWERS THAT BE and did a lot more than just exercise their free speech. One more inconvenient truth that talk-radio seems to be able to ignore with ease.
Not true. The brown-shirts were used to help Hitler gain power and were disbanded after Hitler was in control. From HERE:
From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was known as the Frontbann to avoid the temporary ban on the Nazi party. The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called ZusammenstÃÃYe ('collisions').
and
"All opposition must be stamped into the ground"
Or simply shouted down as to not let opposing views be heard.
The shuttle was supposed to be retired in... what? 1988? The damned thing was built when freakin' Jimmy Carter was president! If we don't retire the damned things we won't HAVE to worry about retiring them,because they will blow up and take the crews with them. Hell,if we are that damned desperate and need something to fill the gaps why don't we whip off another couple of the old Apollo designs. Surely it shouldn't be hard with today's tech to whip off a 40 year old design,and those "tin can on a tube" would be a lot safer than trying to send up Jimmy Carter era junk that was supposed to be retired while Reagan was president. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
So let me get this straight: You want to retire equipment from the Carter era and replace it with equipment from the Kennedy-Johnson era?
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
You know, I keep hearing that Republicans make up the party of hatred, and then I see all the hate being spewed toward Bush, McCain, and now especially Palin. I think a look into the mirror is needed here.
On the other off-topic topic of free speech, no one seemed bothered that a bunch of "women" in pink tried to prevent McCain from using his free speech rights. I'm reminded of the Code Pink groups of the 1930's. Only instead of Pink, they wore BROWNSHIRTS.
I thought that was Iran that allowed Euros to buy oil. Also that was after Iraq was invaded.
Now don't go screwing his conspiracy theories up with facts. At best you'll just piss him off and he'll label you as part of the Illuminati or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law. Their actions seem to indicate they do.
I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for the law in positions that are in charge of it.
Are Cheney and Palin not allowed to have personal lives? Should every conversation they have be public record? Should their personal emails be sent via government servers?
Sorry, but NO! There was no government business on her Yahoo account, so no law was broken. All the stuff I saw there WAS STUFF THAT DID NOT BELONG ON GOVERNMENT SERVERS! Prayers from friends and pictures of her kids have no place on government computers. If these WERE on her government account, then you'd have something, abuse of power or whatever. But they weren't, so there is nothing but what you make up. She was right to keep her personal crap on Yahoo!
Since no law was broken, why are you assuming that Palin feels she was above the law? I have trouble understanding why we put people with such obvious contempt for those with an (R) or (D) next to their name that they make stuff up to fit their preconceived notions and justify their irrational hatred.
If it's pure CO2 they are capturing and storing, why don't they just release it into the Amazon rain forest?
Storing CO2 is not a viable solution, but giving it to the trees, who live on it and will convert it into 02, is!
Great idea. The problem is this:
How do you keep the CO2 in the rain forest long enough to be converted? How do you keep it from blowing away? How do you transport it from Germany, in Europe, to the Amazon, in S. America?
On second thought, it's not such a great idea. Sorry.
I work at a Kwiki-Mart you insensitive clod!
Have you considered applying to be an Indian Astronaut? I'm sure they are looking for "managers" to man their moon-base.
says Ekman, who has studied people's facial expressions and how they relate to what they are thinking for over 40 years
I wonder what he would make of this.
Regardless of the name of the site (lohanfacial), it is SFW, and well worth it!
The story here for people that are missing it:
This is evidence of a private account to circumvent Alaska's record retention laws.
This is exactly like what was done in the White House to hide evidence of political firings in the justice dept.
This is something like her 8th well publicized crime/bending of the law/lie, amusingly enough, not the first one tied to misdeeds of the kind that got so many thrown out of congress just two short years ago. .
No one will care anyway.
There is a quiet and unspoken truth to Republican success. America is a-ok with being criminally complicit, as long as they see a profit. We are happily being run by the mafia.
Have fun with President Palin.
The story that YOU seem to be missing is that nothing was found. There is no law that prevents government employees from having private email accounts and this break-in proves that it was not used for government business. The only close was emails from fellow state workers offering prayers of support or bitching about the media, the kind of thing that doesn't belong on tax-payer funded computer systems anyway!
It's sad that you don't see the irony of your own post. A group of thugs illegally hack into a private account in an attempt to "whack" a person's career, and you call Republicans the mafia?
I love how FACTS get modded troll.
Nothing "just happens." Or do you think that nearly a hundred thousand people dying doesn't really have a cause, it's just "what happens."
Sure there is a cause. If it "just happened", then it would not have been worth it.
So many wrongs happen in the world because someone decides that someone else's life is "worth it." What do you think those people would say if they could be asked? Isn't the person whose life it is the most entitled to say whether their life is worth giving up for something or not? Seriously - try and answer that question.
I've asked myself question. I wrestled with it for quite a while. I knew that I wouldn't be fighting for US security as the US was pretty secure at the time. I asked myself if I was willing to die for the freedom of someone I had never met, that had little or no effect on my family or loved ones, that wasn't even American. When I came to my answer, I joined the US Armed forces. Sure, I'd gladly fight for my freedom, as many others would as well. That wasn't the issue. What makes me so damn special that I would fight for ME, but not someone else? Is their right to live free no more important than my own? So, yeah, I was willing to die fighting for someone else. So is every other US Soldier.
It might upset your sense of post-action rationale, but the murder of Jewish people in Nazi controlled areas was not the motivating factor for either the UK or the USA to get involved in the war. The US didn't even know that there was systematic genocide going on until Allied forces started pushing their way into Germany. If you honestly believe that either that or the US occupation of Iraq is about protecting ethnic groups then you need to be reading some more factual history books.
I never asked if the rationale was worth it. I asked if the result was worth it. No one at Auschwitz refused liberation because we were there for another reason.
And yet, they're still dead. It's small consolation, isn't it? Whether we accidentally killed them trying to keep the peace or they were intentionally killed to keep the peace (Saddam) it matters little to the dead or their relatives. It might make you feel better about it, it doesn't make me (as an American citizen) sleep any easier.
You are correct. It is tragic and painful to anyone with a soul. Unfortunately, that's what happens. Many innocent people died in the US Revolutionary War. Many more died in the US Civil War. Were their lives worth it? I'm afraid I must say yes. Does the Jewish descendant of a holocaust survivor think that the millions that died fighting the Nazis were worth it? I believe they would say yes as well.
I know it sux, and I don't want to belittle human life at all, but sometimes, people have to die in order to achieve a better life for future generations. Ask the descendant of a slave if their freedom was worth the lives of the million or so men, women and children who died in order for them to be free.
Do you think we haven't killed women and children, that there are NO women and children in the 50,000 dead civilians the Pentagon insists have been killed(though most organisations put it ten times that)?
Really? Do you think that?
Really?
Sure, civilians have died. Of those that have died, many organizations that you get your numbers from include the numbers killed by things like market bombings done by terrorists, not US troops.
Either way, this is not a numbers game. The point is that civilians killed by US forces were accidental, and apologized for. Not since WWII has the US intentionally targeted civilians, and even then the targets were war related manufacturing facilities. The US military goes far out of its way to avoid civilian deaths to the point of putting themselves at risk.
Comparing accidental collateral damages with the intentional mass slaughter of civilians is sickening, and shows an extreme naivete of how the world operates.
I'm certainly claiming that everyone we've fought since the republican guard fell has been a civilian.
Do you think Saddam gassed those people because he was bored and wanted to see something cool? He did it to prevent massive sectarian conflict like we've been trying to police since the government in Iraq fell. He was worried that Iran was funding terrorist groups, and needed to use force to prevent those groups from getting a foothold.
Oh wait. He said exactly what WE said, and did exactly the same thing WE did. The bastard!
He was trying to quell a riot, so it's OK to gas women and children?
Are you honestly trying to compare that his targeting and using chemical weapons on civilians is the same thing the US and its allies did in Iraq?
Really?
The problem seems to be that in this particular case, the mass-killer *didn't* lie. But Bush didn't get his information directly from Saddam, did he ? He can't just make a phonecall or something. Instead, he had to rely on the CIA, who also doesn't ask Saddam directly, but instead (as it seems to be now) is pushed by Cheney's office to produce damning evidence.
Actually, WMD's WERE FOUND IN IRAQ! Just not in large enough numbers for our media to deem newsworthy.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of preconceived notions and talking points.
I think you are confusing GWB with WJC
You're the one confused, Bush was the governor of Texas not Clinton, and as governor Bush signed 152 death warrants.
You know, you really tend to lose credibility saying extraordinarily stupid shit like that. If you would have read the first line from the link I provided:
Ricky Ray Rector (January 12, 1950 â" January 24, 1992), was executed for the 1981 murder of police officer Robert Martin in Conway, Arkansas.
You would understand why Clinton, the governor of Arkansas, was the one who had him put to death, not Bush, the governor of Texas.
And fuck those who were innocent? I don't want to live in your world.
Who has been put to death by Bush or Clinton that was innocent? Of course, the victims of those who were put to death were innocent, but you don't seem so concerned with them.
Can you also point out where I said Bush was like Che? I don't recall ever saying anything about Che never mind Bush was like him... I searched slashdot for falcon che [slashdot.org] as well as googled slashdot for falcon che [google.com] and didn't find anything anywhere where I said like that. Can you point out where? Or are you blowing smoke out of your ass?
Normally I wouldn't do this, but since you showed you were mentally deficient by that Bush was in Texas stuff, I'll help you out.
If you read my sig, you see it's a quote by Che. Someone changed Che to Bush, thinking they would be funny, I guess. I pointed out that comparing Che to Bush is extremely ignorant, especially considering the quotes I have provided. This is when you chimed in pointing out that Bush had signed 152 death warrants... and off we went. I assumed you were trying to draw a link between Bush and Che, since that was the discussion. But now that your intellectual level is clear, it appears I may have over estimated your ability. I apologize for any inconvenience.
You may now put your ear muffs back on and continue creating your macaroni art.
Texas uses lethal injection not the firing squad. And as governor of Texas Bush signed 152 death warrants, he even signed one for a mentally retarded person.
Falcon
I think you are confusing GWB with WJC (Bill Clinton):
See Bill Rector
Rector seemed incapable of understanding his pending death sentence. For his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, telling the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber that he was saving it "for later".
Personally, I applaud both Clinton and Bush for upholding the law. If you are competent enough to do the crime, you are competent enough to see justice!
But the death penalty is not in question here. What is in question is the death penalty without a trial.
Yet immediately after the Santa Clara bribe and skirmish, Che ordered 27 Batista soldiers executed as "war criminals." Dr. Serafin Ruiz was a Castro operative in Santa Clara at the time, but apparently an essentially decent one. "But Comandante" he responded to Che's order. "Our revolution promises not to execute without trials, without proof. How can we just....?"
"Look Serafin" Che snorted back. "If your bourgeois prejudices won't allow you to carry out my orders, fine. Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning--but execute them NOW!"
Seriously though, if you want to keep saying that GWB is like Che, it really just shows your extreme ignorance. If he were, first, you'd be dead after being labeled a traitor (no trial necessary). Speaking of no trial, Guantanamo wouldn't be a prison, it would be a graveyard. Google "The Butcher of La Cabaña" for what Guantanamo would be like.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." George "Dubya" Bush
There, fixed that for ya.
Actually, you broke it by making it untrue. GWB has never ordered a firing squad. I love how people on your side see nothing wrong with lying in order to make those that you disagree with out to be liars. It's like having a violent protest for peace. It's actually kinda funny that you really don't see the irony in it.
But, sorry, in the REAL world, that "revolutionary" guy there on your red shirt in the beret actually said "Try them in the morning if you must, but we execute them tonight". So, next time you see someone in a Che shirt, calling GWB a war criminal, like you just did, be sure to remind them that they are supporting a true war criminal, while accusing an innocent man of committing the very same war crimes committed by the guy on your shirt! Again, you don't see the irony in it.
Sorry, for the OT, but on occasion, I have to educate someone who obviously fell asleep in history class.
I think the right to be anonymous (if you choose) outweighs the "need to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals."
There are other ways to trace scammers...follow the money. In order to scam you, they must create a pathway for funds to travel from you to them.
Cheers,
With all the flame wars, scammers, spam, teenage girl suicides, threats and other forms of abuse, I'm beginning to think that anonymity everywhere is overrated.
It used to be great for posting porn anonymously, but even that is getting overrun with spammers, scammers and flamewars.
Wait until you actually watch the video - stupid, unfunny, lame, pointless.
While I agree that it was stupid, lame, and VERY pointless, I did find it funny.
Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
No it isn't.
See what I did there? I debunked your well supported statement with an equally well supported statement of mine.
I'm sorry. I didn't think it was necessary to provide links to the pictures of the terrorists boarding the planes. Nor did I think it was necessary to provide links to the audio tapes from the cockpits of the planes as they were being hijacked. I also thought that it may be overkill to provide links to Osama Bin Laden admitting... no, BRAGGING about the attacks.
Sorry, Mr. AC. I thought you had some common sense and were literate.
Oh wait. I'm being insensitive. Are you in N. Korea, China, Cuba or some other place where you don't get news? Maybe not, since you made it to Slashdot. Why don't you use Google or something and educate yourself. You need to learn to fish and stop asking me to give you one. I'm not going to hold your hand and serve everything to you.
Yeah. The Twin Towers should have toppled over, but instead, they blew up like a building that was being imploded for demolition. Also, the melting point of the steel used in the Twin Towers is actually about 400 degrees HOTTER than the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
In Oakland CA, a tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed under an overpass crashed and burst into flames. (Everyone was OK) The heat from the gasoline caused the metal in the overpass to weaken and the whole thing collapsed.
This pretty much proves that burning fuel can cause metal to weaken and a structure to collapse. This is especially true when you consider that jet fuel burns hotter than gasoline.
The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Maybe so, but it happened. Other examples would be the one I listed (although not a building) and WTC7.
In other words, "Truthers" are full of shit. They've been debunked countless times and they keep coming back. Accept it, you are wrong. There is no government conspiracy. There was no demolition. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
OK, in the spirit of friendly debate...
Funny you said, "So, we shouldn't even try, then?" is what I say when people say we shouldn't drill for oil because prices will not immediately drop... but that's another discussion.
Since Bush's tax cuts in the early 2000's, government revenue has INCREASED. The problem is, as I said in an earlier thread, is that spending went up too. Now this was understandable coming off a surplus. It's hard to say there is no money when there is a surplus, but that excuse expired around 2003.
So, if you leave the tax cuts in place, or even give more selected tax cuts and simplification of tax code, then the government could continue to receive record receipts or possibly improve them (as the economy grows). Of course, all this is pretty much worthless without cutting spending drastically. This means no more BS programs like you'll find on any government pork page. No more "earmarks" inserted after a bill has been voted on. No more amendments for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself.
However, if it were up to me, we'd have a national sales tax and do away with the IRS altogether. The rich pay more as they spend more. The poor pay less as they spend less. Life's little necessities, like food, clothing and school supplies would be tax free. But, that's just my opinion. It'll never fly as it would mean that the government would lose one of their most important tools for control. It's hard to give tax breaks when there is no tax to give breaks on.
Suppose "Grandma's retirement fund" is in a Roth IRA and Roth 401k? What do you say to that?
That is one form of retirement, sure. And it is taxed. However, the $3000/yr you are allowed to put into your IRA is not going to sustain you through retirement. You must have some other investments (I hope!). In 50 years, the most you could legally put into an IRA (or Roth) is $150,000 (in contributions). That will not provide enough income for your retirement years unless you are dead before you reach 70.
What's wrong with redirecting resources to, say NASA? Government waste? There's waste in a free market solution as well. It's called "profit".
I agree that the private sector will do a better job than NASA. That time, however, has not arrived yet. It won't until a method that is cheaper and safer than chemical rockets (explosives) of putting cargo into orbit or beyond. Until then government is best option. Besides, not everything needs to be privatized. There are somethings that government provides that could not be handled by the private sector. Military, police forces, and NASA are a few good examples.
Suuuure. That's the story now. When the economy was roaring, it was not the best time to raise taxes either - because we should give some of the 'windfall' 'back' to taxpayers.
I don't believe that raising taxes on the rich will have any seriously negative effects at any time - except maybe for a revolt of the rich.
That depends on how you define "rich" and how you plan on taxing them. Maybe a tax on dividends? Then you are taxing grandma's retirement fund and you hamper investment (read: growth that produces jobs). Tax incomes? Sure, then the fat-cats you were planning on taxing get their "incomes" by different means (like a company provided million dollar home, fleet of cars, private jet and exorbitant "spending account"). Tax the big businesses directly? Then the businesses pass those taxes on to the consumers and EVERYONE pays them.
Sorry, but there is no way to simply "tax the rich" without catching a few working class in the net.
You haven't made any partisan attacks. The GGP did. Your points are pretty much dead on.
As for your idea of tax cuts... a cut in taxes do not mean a cut in revenue. (See Laffer Curve) Government tax receipts since Bush's tax cuts have been at an all time high. Unfortunately, government spending is at an all time... er... higher. I think that McCain looked at the numbers and said, "Well, what do you know! Tax cuts can mean more revenue." and changed his position. Besides, an economic downturn, or more accurately, slow-down in growth, is not the best time to raise taxes. Taxes need to be raised when the economy is growing out of control causing inflation.
As for Palin, yeah, she's not perfect. But her record is not bad. I would even say that she has one of the best records for any governor in the country. Alaska loves her and she does have a solid record of reform. She is not at all partisan and to truly want what is best, regardless of what party is behind the idea.
forgive me for using your tags:
off topic
First, I have a job so I don't get to listen to my talk-radio buddies.
Next, you are correct on some of it. She is a hockey-mom who went from small town mayor to big, rich state governor, she's young and pretty, anti-abortion, pro-big-military.
The rest is off base or plain opinion. She, like McCain is hammering the Republican party for letting spending get out of hand. She is very much against big government. The rest was just pure opinion and partisan attacks.
And the idea that criticizing any powerful group is usually going to result in being compared to something nefarious -- in some cases BROWNSHIRTS -- of course, people who were alive back then know that the BROWNSHIRTS were not criticizing the powers that be, THEY WERE THE POWERS THAT BE and did a lot more than just exercise their free speech. One more inconvenient truth that talk-radio seems to be able to ignore with ease.
Not true. The brown-shirts were used to help Hitler gain power and were disbanded after Hitler was in control. From HERE:
From April 1924 until late February 1925 the SA was known as the Frontbann to avoid the temporary ban on the Nazi party. The SA carried out numerous acts of violence against socialist groups throughout the 1920s, typically in minor street-fights called ZusammenstÃÃYe ('collisions').
and
"All opposition must be stamped into the ground"
Or simply shouted down as to not let opposing views be heard.
The shuttle was supposed to be retired in... what? 1988? The damned thing was built when freakin' Jimmy Carter was president! If we don't retire the damned things we won't HAVE to worry about retiring them,because they will blow up and take the crews with them. Hell,if we are that damned desperate and need something to fill the gaps why don't we whip off another couple of the old Apollo designs. Surely it shouldn't be hard with today's tech to whip off a 40 year old design,and those "tin can on a tube" would be a lot safer than trying to send up Jimmy Carter era junk that was supposed to be retired while Reagan was president. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV
So let me get this straight:
You want to retire equipment from the Carter era and replace it with equipment from the Kennedy-Johnson era?
No. And honestly, it's a LOT harder for me to say that than it is for me to stick up for neo nazis or other hate groups. That's because, unlike neo nazis, the Republicans are actually successful with their hate speech. Seriously, they actually have people convinced they are a party of small government. (biggest lie ever)
You know, I keep hearing that Republicans make up the party of hatred, and then I see all the hate being spewed toward Bush, McCain, and now especially Palin. I think a look into the mirror is needed here.
On the other off-topic topic of free speech, no one seemed bothered that a bunch of "women" in pink tried to prevent McCain from using his free speech rights. I'm reminded of the Code Pink groups of the 1930's. Only instead of Pink, they wore BROWNSHIRTS.
Forgive the OT-ness.
I thought that was Iran that allowed Euros to buy oil. Also that was after Iraq was invaded.
Now don't go screwing his conspiracy theories up with facts. At best you'll just piss him off and he'll label you as part of the Illuminati or something.