Err, to be consistent with that sob story of yours, don't you think you should at least pretend to care more about US attorneys being fired for reasons they refuse to share or even be responsible for but still have them replaced without the Senate's approval? Ah well, you dropped your "What about clinton" act rather fast, so we are indeed done here. You're right. I don't give a rat's ass about the attorneys that were fired. They'll do just fine with "Counsel to the President of the United States" on their resume.
What I do care about is blind partisanship and what it does to the country. Clinton's hands were tied when he was under impeachment. Some say that he could have killed Bin Laden if he wasn't so distracted trying to save his own ass. Was the country in danger because Clinton lied under oath about getting hummer? No. But it sure was harmed when Bin Laden was allowed to keep breathing. Assuming that Clinton would have been available to order the strike on Bin Laden back then had he not been busy with impeachment, that puts a huge amount of responsibility on Republicans concerning 9-11.
Now that the tables are turned and there is an R in the Whitehouse and D's in Congress, the D's are doing the exact same thing they were bitching about the R's doing back in the '90's. Is the country harmed because Bush let some attorney's go? No. Just as the country wasn't harmed when all the other presidents let attorneys go. The problem is that partisans smell blood in the water and want do as much harm to the other side as possible, no matter what damage it does to the country. It seems to me that Bush reached across the aisle when he left those attorneys on, and he drew back a bloody nub.
Bush was elected twice. Let him do is fucking job for the next 9 months and let him retire in peace. The R's were wrong in their witch hunts over Clinton and the D's are wrong now. Why is it I'm the only one to say that both are wrong and BOTH should knock it off? Why am I the only one to say that was OK for Clinton to fire his attorneys, just as it's OK for Bush to do the same?
Politically, I'm fairly conservative, but I'm an American first. When Obama is elected, I will support him in any way I can because he will be the President of the United States, not President of the Democratic Party. I may disagree with his policies, but I know that it will do much more damage to the country to have him frog-marched off to jail than he could possibly do finishing out his term(s).
If it's not obvious from the title and the small blurb included in the search results then it's probably not going to be blocked by whatever filter is being used anyway. Of course as someone in a different thread commented, what's the harm anyway? Whitehouse.com used to be a porn site. How am I supposed to know that WhiteHouse.com contains porn? How many teachers, with a classroom full of kids accidentally typed in whitehouse.com instead of whitehouse.gov? www.otbm.com is a porn site. As is Xmeup.com, pics4fun.com, funnyinside.com, ampland.com and the list goes on. There is nothing in these domain names that explicitly tell me that these are porn sites.
Honestly there's no way to prevent children from being exposed to sexual material at some point before they turn 18, short of locking them away till they turn 18, or possibly raising them in an Amish village (and that's not even guaranteed). You're right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Besides, this isn't about censorship, but about organization by categorization. I'd even be happy if it were 100% voluntary. At least then adult sites can show that they are trying to be responsible.
People just need to live with the fact that children will in fact learn what sex is at some point, and if they didn't make such a huge fuss over it it wouldn't be any big deal. Again, you are correct. But I want to have some say as to WHEN my kids are exposed to sex and how it is presented to them. I don't want my 5-yr old daughter learning about sex from a porn site no more than I want my wife learning about relationships from Oprah!
As parents, IT Admins, librarians, school teachers and other people that responsible for filtering content, these tools can only help us do our jobs so we can concentrate on other things.
eah? Well, my site has a page with that nice picture of a soldier and a coffee cup with the caption "Have a nice cup of shut the fuck up". It also has a cartoon of Bush in diapers somewhere.
It has lots of swearing, and guess what? Slashdot has lots of fucking badass words, too. You want your kids to see this fucking filth?
If I want to put goatse on my site are you going to stop me? If I want to post pictures of me and some crack whores who's going to stop me? Not my government; its central document, the one piece of paper that all its other laws are based on, say I can say anything I damned well please.
If I want to post porn I'll post porn. If you don't want your kids seeing goatse or hearing the word "fuck" or seeing a picture of someone getting their brains blown out then keep your kids off the goddamn internet.
Sorry about the language but it was needed to make the point. You're right. You are free to put whatever you want on your site. That's what the first amendment is all about. However, that's not what TFA is about. A porn-peddler wants Google to stop linking to porn. OK! How about you, and your porn-peddlin buddies agree to a.xxx domain name? That way, when I want to find porn, I can set google to only show me.xxx domain names and all those stupid "breast cancer" and "BIG-BIG Chicken Breast" sites won't muck up my search.
Now as to YOUR site, you should still be allowed to put whatever you want on there, but if you charge for it, for example, or otherwise make money off it, you can be regulated. Someone mentioned.kids domain names. Great idea for children under 10, for example. These sites should be clear of porn, foul language, violence, and all that shit you're not supposed to see in a Disney film. Well, when my kid is 14, I don't expect him/her to live in a Disney world. Places like slashdot or even your site would be acceptable for them to view. I don't want them to be completely unprepared for the real world! Still, I don't want them viewing HC porn until I deem them ready. That is MY job as a parent and my responsibility. So what's wrong with making my job a bit easier? How would you, as a consumer, not a web admin, be hurt by a.kids or a.xxx domain name system?
Of course, if you make.xxx domain names mandatory for porn sites, it gets a bit sticky (pun not intended). What makes a site porn? What about all the current.com domain names? How do you enforce it? I can't answer these questions, but that doesn't mean that the idea should not be pursued.
I find your attempt to downsize the seriousness of this act a bit disgusting. And I find your attempt to make a big deal out of nothing equally disgusting. I guess we'll agree to disagree. This would be a boring place if we all agreed.
The problem with.xxx is that - no matter how many times people thoughtlessly suppose otherwise - it would not remove a single pussy or cock shot from the.com namespace. The owner of xxxample.com isn't going to drop that domain; he'll just fork over the cash for xxxample.xxx and operate both.
The only way.xxx would accomplish anything is if its use were required by law. Even if the U.S. legislature did that, and it passed Constitutional review, all that would do is send the porn sites to incorporate and operate overseas... so not only would it be ineffective, we'd be exporting yet another industry out of the U.S. Oh. Then we should do nothing at all then since there is no way to prevent problems 100% of the time. Why even bother? While we are at it, since there is no anti-virus or web security application that can make 100% of web sites 100% secure, we should simply turn the Internet off completely (using your logic, of course). While we are at it, nothing can stop 100% of drunk driving, speeding, gun crime, child molestation, unplanned pregnancies... and the list goes on. Fuck it. Let's just give it all up and only do the things that are 100% effective, 100% of the time.
That's stupid. If you must do something with domain names, then create '.kids' and make it kiddy safe. This makes much more sense, since then you can 'deny all; allow *.kids' on your censoring device of choice. So you're telling me I should block all content, including Linux.com, distowatch, slashdot, CNN.com, NYT.com, FoxNews.com and so on just so my 12-yr old doesn't accidentally stumble upon a porno site while researching the dangers of breast enlargement surgery? Why not just block the bad stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to stunt the intellectual development of kids just so you can still "accidentally" stumble upon porn. If you want to find porn, you should LOOK for porn! Using the.xxx domain also keeps those pesky breast enlargement danger sites off my porn search!
And, yeah, I think there should be a.kids domain as well. It would work great for small kids in the home. Unfortunately, there is a large range where they are too old for the.kids stuff, but not quite ready for hard core animal anal action yet.
.XXX domain names would help here. Sure, it won't prevent kids from accessing 100% of adult content, but it would certainly make it easier for sites like Google and applications like Net-Nanny filter the adult sites with that domain. It would also go a long way toward showing that adult site operators can be responsible and are putting forth an honest effort to limit "adult content" to adults only.
-SIGH-
So you stop spinning, and start providing facts for your claims that bush has fired/not fired them based on their "character" rather than politics. I never said they were not fired because of their politics. I said they were not fired because of their party affiliation, or more to the point, the party they worked for yesterday. Bush gave them a chance and, unfortunately, it didn't work out for some of them, but at least he gave them a chance. Noting pisses me off more when I am not considered for a job because of my last job. For example, at my last place of employment, I was not considered for an IT or sales engineer position because I worked in technical support. Never mind that I had a degree in IT, I wasn't considered because tech support people don't make good IT or sales engineers. They ended up hiring a guy who sold appliances at Fry's. Needless to say, I quit shortly after that. Still, back to the point, as far as I am concerned, an employer can fire an employee for anything at any time, provided it's not for something along the lines of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or whatever. This goes doubly so for attorneys. People have the right to legal counsel, even the President, and if that counsel does not meet the needs of the client, they should be replaced, period.
Facts require citations. You have consistently provided NO citations on any of your "facts" anywhere in this discussion. Who are you that we should take your statements at face value without some kind of evidence of their factuality? Here
Of course, the link is not official. The "official" tally had Bush winning... which is why he's President.
If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'enforcing the rules as written,' then yeah. No, I mean changing the rules to things like, "If it's got a dimple near Gore, it's a vote for Gore". "If it's a vote for Nader and Gore, it's a vote for Gore". "If it has a "hanging chad" near Gore, it's a vote for Gore", "if it's an overvote, it's a vote for Gore" "if it's an undervote, it's a vote for Gore"... and so on.
If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'puting hundreds of Black voters *back onto* the voting roles after they were purged for sharing a last name with a convicted felon,' then yeah. These people were allowed to vote. They were given a special ballot which was set aside to be counted later after things were worked out. As for them being put on the roles because they were black, how do you know what color someone is based on their name? This was all thoroughly investigated, along with reports of roads being blocked near polling places and crap like that. No wrongdoing was found.
Besides, Democrats didn't seem too interested in counting Florida's votes this primary season. Sure, Florida was allowed to vote, but those votes won't count. Same goes for Michigan.
I think you missed my point. Do I think it's OK for Presidents to fire attorneys when they take office. Yes. Is it fair? No. Is it OK for a President to fire his attorneys in the middle of the term? Just as before and for the same reasons, Yes. Is it fair? Depends on the reasons for the firings. The thing is, legally, what's the difference?
Fact is that the only difference between Bush firing his attorneys and Clinton (or Bush41 or Reagan or whoever) is WHEN they were fired. Bush bucked the trend and offered some of Clinton's attorneys a job. Many took that job. Bush ignored the D or R behind their names and gave them a chance. Lets face it, Clinton had a top notch legal team. Bush recognized that. He considered their qualifications to be more important than their party affiliation. That is something that no president in recent times has done, Democrat or Republican. So what happens to a president that judges men NOT by their party affiliation, but by the content of their character? He gets subpoenaed.
You can try to spin it any way you like. You can call it non-traditional, unheard of, unprecedented or whatever. Fact is that the presidents before Bush fired their attorneys for no other reason that politics and partisan bigotry. Just as they are allowed to fire their attorneys for whatever reason they like, fair or not, the current president has the same right to do so. Applying different rules to the current president than any president in the past for no other reason than his party affiliation is what I mean by "hyperpartisanship".
Um, in case you weren't paying attention, Bush stole the 2000 election using the Supreme Court, who had not authority to rule on how a state chooses its electors. Uh, no. Bush WON Florida because he got more votes. He used the Supreme Court to stop Al Gore from STEALING the election by constantly changing the rules and recounting until he found the magic combination that would declare him the winner.
Bush didn't steal the election. Bush stopped Al Gore from stealing the election.
(Given these facts, shouldn't you hate Al Gore as much as you hated George Bush before reading this? No? Then you are a partisan.)
I don't think overrated makes it to metamoderation. I metamoderate at least six times a week, and I've never seen it. I think that is why it is used. It is the moderator's way of saying, "WoW! That is an excellent point and a well formed argument. It is so good that, even though it goes against my biased viewpoints, I can not refute it. All I can do is mod it down. I have to use the overrated downmod because if I use anything else, a metamoderator will surely meta-mod it "unfair""
I don't have time to discredit all of the obvious Clinton lies you've spouted... I'm sorry, was Marc Rich NOT pardoned? Did Sandy Berger (Clinton's former chief of staff) not get charged for stealing documents concerning 9-11 during the 9-11 commission's investigation? It has nothing to do with time. These are facts that can not honestly be refuted.
Clinton Did not fire attorneys in the middle of their terms. Yes, all presidents fire attorneys when they begin... Not all of them. Bush didn't. He let the attorneys that worked for Clinton keep their jobs. Later, he realized that some of them were a mistake and let them go. Clinton didn't give Bush41's attorney's that chance. He fired them because they worked for an R and he had his own cronies to move in. Not that I'm saying that's wrong. A Prez should have whatever attorneys he wants in there. But don't try to make up some bullshit about how Bush is an asshole because he didn't fire his attorney's quickly enough.
So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to enrich his family and his cronies while plundering as much money as possible from the treasury and grabbing as much power as possible. There, spun that for you. If you think Bush is doing all that he is doing to protect the country, you are truly a deluded moron. Fixed that for you. You know, people only resort to personal attacks when they can't refute the facts. And as for your statement about plundering and power grabbing and all... if that were the case, they are doing a shitty job. Enron is gone. All of Bush's "cronies and family" are having to answer subpoena after subpoena after subpoena and still never found guilty of any real crimes. Take Scooter Libbey for example. He was charged with perjury for lying about a crime he didn't commit. The Republicans are in worse shape than they were in 2000. It seems that the Clintons are the ones making all the money.... Tell me how I'm the deluded one again?
I am on topic. I appreciate your willingness to muckrake through old Clinton administration email coverups while steadfastly denying yourself the benefit of context in the discussion at hand. Why did the whitehouse tell the court the emails had been lost? why is the court looking for the emails in the first place? Why were they not on a.gov server? What were they about. The answers to those questions are right before you, and they will explain why the limited fuss about this is justified, frankly, why a much larger fuss would have been justified. Uh, all that is in TFA. Why the emails?
1) Firing of WH attorneys. This is a witch hunt. No one minded that Clinton fired more attorneys when he was president. Now, those same silent people are all up in arms over Bush firing his attorneys. They use the excuse that Bush was out to press charges on Democrats and the attorneys that wouldn't cooperate got fired. However, if that were true, we'd see the fruits of the labors of the remaining attorneys now who would be making all kinds of legal trouble for Democrats. Instead, it seems that it is the other way around. 2) Weapons of Mass Destruction and lead up to the Iraq war. I have two words for this. Slam Dunk. The war happened. We are winning. Get over it already! 3) Leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press. I thought this was over. It was Armitage, not Libbey who leaked the name. Why are we all over this again.
Besides, Bush is out of office in less than a year. For the love of the country, stop beating this dead horse. You people hate Bush more than you love America. We got it. You've made your point clear. Seriously. Do you think America will be stronger if all leading Republicans are frog-marched? Or will it help these people on their little march to power and let them have the satisfaction of knowing that they took down the mighty Bush at the cost of the country.
It's over already. Hell, it's been over for over seven years. Be good loser, shake the other teams hands and say, "good game". Now go hang your Cuban-Che flags and campaign for Obama.
What Bush did: Today (from TFA)
The White House has contended that the e-mail requested by the group has been lost. What Clinton Did: August 23, 2000 (from GP's link)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Clinton administration official who oversees the troubled White House e-mail system testified Wednesday he never told President Clinton about the computer problem that prevented thousands of White House e-mails from being properly stored and archived. Also, it was not about Clinton getting his bishop buffed in the Oval Office. It was about the Clinton's ordering the FBI to hand over the files of political enemies. From same article
The group is suing the White House in a related matter concerning a batch of errant FBI files found inside the Clinton White House. So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to protect the country. The Clintons did what they did to blackmail political enemies using the FBI as their hired thugs.
I don't care WHO you are, there hasn't been a president like gwb in office for at least 100 years. They have literally wrecked the place. Do you really have that short of a memory or are just blinded by partisan colored glasses? Wait! Are you like under 12? Let's see here:
They just smashed the joint up. When the Clintons left office, their staff broke equipment before leaving and violated the rest. For example, they would leave pornographic images in the photocopier. Think of it as the previous management of SlashDot leaving Goatse as the new logo when they left. Of course, let's not forget about all the silverware and furniture that Hillary stole like it was cheap hotel towels.
They fired or forced to resign what amounts to hundreds to thousands of person-years of experience in government. Like the Clintons didn't fire anyone? They fired all the lawyers as soon as they took office, 100% of them. They didn't even give them a chance to prove their worth or even review their qualifications. "You worked for the last guy? You're fired."
They politicized every office they could get their hands on. Filegate ring any bells? That's where they ordered the FBI to retrieve the records of political enemies and hand them over to the Clintons. I wonder. Was it for Blackmail or Extortion? I hope is extortion because the X makes it sound cooler. Also, remember Sandy Berger stealing top secret files from the national archives to protect his old boss? I mean, it was just like the whole blow job thing, except it dealt with 9-11, national security and boring stuff like that. Nothing to see here. Move along. Bush is evil.
they enriched cronies in brazen fashion. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who had pardoned a a bunch of FALN terrorists to help his wife's political chances in NY? Why yes, yes it was. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who pardoned Mark Rich in exchange for donations to the Clinton library. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who rented out the Lincoln bedroom for political donations? Wasn't it Bill Clinton who worked to find an under qualified intern cush jobs?
They used a national fucking tragedy to secure political control of congress. Bush didn't do this. We had free elections and the people chose Congress. Not Bush.
They pushed a TRIPLE FUCKING AMPUTEE who was a Vietnam veteran out of office because he had the temerity to stand up to their bullshit. Bush didn't push shit out. They campaigned against him and the people of Cleland's state pushed him out. Did you cry when Bill Clinton pushed Bob Dole out? No? Then STFU! Besides, I'll see you Max Cleland and raise you one John McCain, a Zel Miller and a Bob Dole. Does serving make your words carry more weight? I'm a veteran. I served in the mid East. Does that make what I say better than what you say? And if you voted for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole (like all Democrats did), don't give me any shit about Cleland's war record. It's either important all the time or it's not. You can't just wheel out the crippled vet whenever it's convenient and drive over him the rest of the time.
I better stop there. It's funny when people don't see their own hyperpartisanship. When their guy does it, it's completely understandable and doesn't matter because times are good. But when the guy has a different letter after his name, he's the most evil bastard in history and the world has gone to shit.
Now I'm not here to defend anything Bush has done or is doing, but don't sit there and say, there hasn't been a president like gwb in office for at least 100 years. because that's simply not true. The new boss is the same as the old boss and if you don't recognize it, your partisanship has you blinded to reality.
Or, as Reagan would have said, "I do not recall." I believe he said that over and over again when being questioned about his role in the Iran/Contra affair. He had Alzheimer's you insensitive clod!
Why don't you make fun of Roosevelt for not jogging on the Whitehouse lawn?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/ And that makes it OK in your mind? No, but it proves that the Democrats are just on a partisan based witch-hunt. How can a Democrat sit there with a straight face and try to prosecute this President after they blindly supported the last president? This is nothing more that a grab for power and revenge. They are mad because they don't have all the power they want so they are trying to take down the guy with the power, the guy that plays for the "other team"... all at the expense of the country. This is just a bunch of cry-babies that could not gain power by winning elections, so they are trying to do it through the courts because their lust for power is greater than their respect for the will of the people.
Oh, and the Republicans were not much better in the '90's, but at least they didn't follow through with it. Otherwise, NY would have a different Senator and Bill would be in a blue collar prison somewhere provided that he wasn't pardoned, of course.
Neither is eating, sleeping, or playing music. The Constitution was based on a legal system where powers are explicitly granted to the State and rights are reserved to the People. This is made explicit in the 10th Amendment. If flying is not mentioned, it is a Right. By that logic, drinking and driving is a right. So is wife beating and murder. Of course, let's not forget speeding, driving down the wrong side of the road and child molestation. We could do this for hours.
What really sucks is that if you live in China you could complain to your government that the big old sky eye was watching you and they might decide to shoot it down. In America about all you can do is stay indoors all the time, or maybe erect a big tent over your property, What a great idea. Since we are not free in America, let's move to a free and open society like China where we will be free to complain to our government officials.
Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
Yeah! Because the Chinese are such a free people living in a completely open society. America, on the other hand is an evil, oppressive empire with a dictator who shoots people in the face for fun if he can't hit any quail.
Well, at least that's what I gather from reading posts around here.
Flying is not a right. You are free to take the bus, train or drive. You're kidding, right? So, flying is not a right, but other forms of transport are? Please quote the relevant laws, if you would. There are no laws to quote. Flying is not mentioned in the Constitution. The only laws to quote would be the ones that mention airport security and those laws do no apply to you taking your car and driving wherever. For that matter, you can charter your own plane or hire a pilot to fly you wherever you want to go, no security to pass through, no questions about who packed you luggage, no free fondle by that uniformed guy named Hank. Hell, take a gun with you if you like. I've done it. We even had a layover in a public airport where I got to walk through an airport terminal with two firearms. (I was in the Army at the time. My unit was sent via chartered flight to the Mid East and we had a layover at an airport in Britain somewhere)
Do you suggest that we dump airport security less we become a police state? Should anyone just be able to walk right up to the plane, pay whatever price is charged for a seat and hop on board? (again, this can already be done, provided you charter your own plane, but then again, those aren't filled with other passengers who only share the same destination in common) Airport security is not just there to protect you, but everyone else. And again, all countries have airport security. Are the all obstinately refusing to see what was happening right in front of them, that enabled the Nazis to develop their power unchecked. Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day, either.
Still trying to make this into a all-or-nothing argument, aren't you? I'm not trying to make it all or nothing. You stated, Welcome to the Police State, I assume because of call monitoring. I mentioned that the US is not a police state. I've seen them, and this ain't it. Maybe we are headed that way. If that's the case, you should have said "Welcome to what may become the Police State someday if things continue to get worse" instead.
As to Godwin's law, not all police states are Fascist. Neither are we. When you see train-loads of a particular group getting carted off to the gas chambers, bring it back up. Until then, you really insult those who lived through that horror by claiming that the terrors of Nazi Germany are equal to what you see happening today in the US. Sorry, but tapping phones != holocaust.
Slashdot Mirror
What I do care about is blind partisanship and what it does to the country. Clinton's hands were tied when he was under impeachment. Some say that he could have killed Bin Laden if he wasn't so distracted trying to save his own ass. Was the country in danger because Clinton lied under oath about getting hummer? No. But it sure was harmed when Bin Laden was allowed to keep breathing. Assuming that Clinton would have been available to order the strike on Bin Laden back then had he not been busy with impeachment, that puts a huge amount of responsibility on Republicans concerning 9-11.
Now that the tables are turned and there is an R in the Whitehouse and D's in Congress, the D's are doing the exact same thing they were bitching about the R's doing back in the '90's. Is the country harmed because Bush let some attorney's go? No. Just as the country wasn't harmed when all the other presidents let attorneys go. The problem is that partisans smell blood in the water and want do as much harm to the other side as possible, no matter what damage it does to the country. It seems to me that Bush reached across the aisle when he left those attorneys on, and he drew back a bloody nub.
Bush was elected twice. Let him do is fucking job for the next 9 months and let him retire in peace. The R's were wrong in their witch hunts over Clinton and the D's are wrong now. Why is it I'm the only one to say that both are wrong and BOTH should knock it off? Why am I the only one to say that was OK for Clinton to fire his attorneys, just as it's OK for Bush to do the same?
Politically, I'm fairly conservative, but I'm an American first. When Obama is elected, I will support him in any way I can because he will be the President of the United States, not President of the Democratic Party. I may disagree with his policies, but I know that it will do much more damage to the country to have him frog-marched off to jail than he could possibly do finishing out his term(s).
As parents, IT Admins, librarians, school teachers and other people that responsible for filtering content, these tools can only help us do our jobs so we can concentrate on other things.
It has lots of swearing, and guess what? Slashdot has lots of fucking badass words, too. You want your kids to see this fucking filth?
If I want to put goatse on my site are you going to stop me? If I want to post pictures of me and some crack whores who's going to stop me? Not my government; its central document, the one piece of paper that all its other laws are based on, say I can say anything I damned well please.
If I want to post porn I'll post porn. If you don't want your kids seeing goatse or hearing the word "fuck" or seeing a picture of someone getting their brains blown out then keep your kids off the goddamn internet.
Sorry about the language but it was needed to make the point. You're right. You are free to put whatever you want on your site. That's what the first amendment is all about. However, that's not what TFA is about. A porn-peddler wants Google to stop linking to porn. OK! How about you, and your porn-peddlin buddies agree to a
Now as to YOUR site, you should still be allowed to put whatever you want on there, but if you charge for it, for example, or otherwise make money off it, you can be regulated. Someone mentioned
Of course, if you make
The only way
And, yeah, I think there should be a
.XXX domain names would help here. Sure, it won't prevent kids from accessing 100% of adult content, but it would certainly make it easier for sites like Google and applications like Net-Nanny filter the adult sites with that domain. It would also go a long way toward showing that adult site operators can be responsible and are putting forth an honest effort to limit "adult content" to adults only.
Of course, the link is not official. The "official" tally had Bush winning... which is why he's President.
Also, Here, Here, Here, and Here (registration required)
Did you ask everyone else for their sources as well?
Besides, Democrats didn't seem too interested in counting Florida's votes this primary season. Sure, Florida was allowed to vote, but those votes won't count. Same goes for Michigan.
I think you missed my point. Do I think it's OK for Presidents to fire attorneys when they take office. Yes. Is it fair? No. Is it OK for a President to fire his attorneys in the middle of the term? Just as before and for the same reasons, Yes. Is it fair? Depends on the reasons for the firings. The thing is, legally, what's the difference?
Fact is that the only difference between Bush firing his attorneys and Clinton (or Bush41 or Reagan or whoever) is WHEN they were fired. Bush bucked the trend and offered some of Clinton's attorneys a job. Many took that job. Bush ignored the D or R behind their names and gave them a chance. Lets face it, Clinton had a top notch legal team. Bush recognized that. He considered their qualifications to be more important than their party affiliation. That is something that no president in recent times has done, Democrat or Republican. So what happens to a president that judges men NOT by their party affiliation, but by the content of their character? He gets subpoenaed.
You can try to spin it any way you like. You can call it non-traditional, unheard of, unprecedented or whatever. Fact is that the presidents before Bush fired their attorneys for no other reason that politics and partisan bigotry. Just as they are allowed to fire their attorneys for whatever reason they like, fair or not, the current president has the same right to do so. Applying different rules to the current president than any president in the past for no other reason than his party affiliation is what I mean by "hyperpartisanship".
Bush didn't steal the election. Bush stopped Al Gore from stealing the election.
(Given these facts, shouldn't you hate Al Gore as much as you hated George Bush before reading this? No? Then you are a partisan.)
I don't think overrated makes it to metamoderation. I metamoderate at least six times a week, and I've never seen it. I think that is why it is used. It is the moderator's way of saying, "WoW! That is an excellent point and a well formed argument. It is so good that, even though it goes against my biased viewpoints, I can not refute it. All I can do is mod it down. I have to use the overrated downmod because if I use anything else, a metamoderator will surely meta-mod it "unfair""
1) Firing of WH attorneys. This is a witch hunt. No one minded that Clinton fired more attorneys when he was president. Now, those same silent people are all up in arms over Bush firing his attorneys. They use the excuse that Bush was out to press charges on Democrats and the attorneys that wouldn't cooperate got fired. However, if that were true, we'd see the fruits of the labors of the remaining attorneys now who would be making all kinds of legal trouble for Democrats. Instead, it seems that it is the other way around.
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction and lead up to the Iraq war. I have two words for this. Slam Dunk. The war happened. We are winning. Get over it already!
3) Leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the press. I thought this was over. It was Armitage, not Libbey who leaked the name. Why are we all over this again.
Besides, Bush is out of office in less than a year. For the love of the country, stop beating this dead horse. You people hate Bush more than you love America. We got it. You've made your point clear. Seriously. Do you think America will be stronger if all leading Republicans are frog-marched? Or will it help these people on their little march to power and let them have the satisfaction of knowing that they took down the mighty Bush at the cost of the country.
It's over already. Hell, it's been over for over seven years. Be good loser, shake the other teams hands and say, "good game". Now go hang your Cuban-Che flags and campaign for Obama.
What Bush did:
Today (from TFA) The White House has contended that the e-mail requested by the group has been lost. What Clinton Did:
August 23, 2000 (from GP's link) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Clinton administration official who oversees the troubled White House e-mail system testified Wednesday he never told President Clinton about the computer problem that prevented thousands of White House e-mails from being properly stored and archived. Also, it was not about Clinton getting his bishop buffed in the Oval Office. It was about the Clinton's ordering the FBI to hand over the files of political enemies. From same article The group is suing the White House in a related matter concerning a batch of errant FBI files found inside the Clinton White House. So, even if Bush is as bad as you say he is, he's doing it to protect the country. The Clintons did what they did to blackmail political enemies using the FBI as their hired thugs.
Also, remember Sandy Berger stealing top secret files from the national archives to protect his old boss? I mean, it was just like the whole blow job thing, except it dealt with 9-11, national security and boring stuff like that. Nothing to see here. Move along. Bush is evil. they enriched cronies in brazen fashion. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who had pardoned a a bunch of FALN terrorists to help his wife's political chances in NY? Why yes, yes it was.
Wasn't it Bill Clinton who pardoned Mark Rich in exchange for donations to the Clinton library. Wasn't it Bill Clinton who rented out the Lincoln bedroom for political donations? Wasn't it Bill Clinton who worked to find an under qualified intern cush jobs? They used a national fucking tragedy to secure political control of congress. Bush didn't do this. We had free elections and the people chose Congress. Not Bush. They pushed a TRIPLE FUCKING AMPUTEE who was a Vietnam veteran out of office because he had the temerity to stand up to their bullshit. Bush didn't push shit out. They campaigned against him and the people of Cleland's state pushed him out. Did you cry when Bill Clinton pushed Bob Dole out? No? Then STFU!
Besides, I'll see you Max Cleland and raise you one John McCain, a Zel Miller and a Bob Dole. Does serving make your words carry more weight? I'm a veteran. I served in the mid East. Does that make what I say better than what you say? And if you voted for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole (like all Democrats did), don't give me any shit about Cleland's war record. It's either important all the time or it's not. You can't just wheel out the crippled vet whenever it's convenient and drive over him the rest of the time.
I better stop there. It's funny when people don't see their own hyperpartisanship. When their guy does it, it's completely understandable and doesn't matter because times are good. But when the guy has a different letter after his name, he's the most evil bastard in history and the world has gone to shit.
Now I'm not here to defend anything Bush has done or is doing, but don't sit there and say, there hasn't been a president like gwb in office for at least 100 years. because that's simply not true. The new boss is the same as the old boss and if you don't recognize it, your partisanship has you blinded to reality.
Why don't you make fun of Roosevelt for not jogging on the Whitehouse lawn?
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/23/wh.email/ And that makes it OK in your mind? No, but it proves that the Democrats are just on a partisan based witch-hunt. How can a Democrat sit there with a straight face and try to prosecute this President after they blindly supported the last president? This is nothing more that a grab for power and revenge. They are mad because they don't have all the power they want so they are trying to take down the guy with the power, the guy that plays for the "other team"... all at the expense of the country. This is just a bunch of cry-babies that could not gain power by winning elections, so they are trying to do it through the courts because their lust for power is greater than their respect for the will of the people.
Oh, and the Republicans were not much better in the '90's, but at least they didn't follow through with it. Otherwise, NY would have a different Senator and Bill would be in a blue collar prison somewhere provided that he wasn't pardoned, of course.
Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
Yeah! Because the Chinese are such a free people living in a completely open society. America, on the other hand is an evil, oppressive empire with a dictator who shoots people in the face for fun if he can't hit any quail.
Well, at least that's what I gather from reading posts around here.
Is anyone here surprised...I mean, anybody ???
I am! I am shocked that our law enfocement needs to get a judge to issue a warrant before they can visit http://maps.google.com/.
I feel that any tool that is available to private citizens should also be available to law enforcement.
Do you suggest that we dump airport security less we become a police state? Should anyone just be able to walk right up to the plane, pay whatever price is charged for a seat and hop on board? (again, this can already be done, provided you charter your own plane, but then again, those aren't filled with other passengers who only share the same destination in common) Airport security is not just there to protect you, but everyone else. And again, all countries have airport security. Are the all obstinately refusing to see what was happening right in front of them, that enabled the Nazis to develop their power unchecked. Nazi Germany wasn't built in a day, either. Still trying to make this into a all-or-nothing argument, aren't you? I'm not trying to make it all or nothing. You stated, Welcome to the Police State, I assume because of call monitoring. I mentioned that the US is not a police state. I've seen them, and this ain't it. Maybe we are headed that way. If that's the case, you should have said "Welcome to what may become the Police State someday if things continue to get worse" instead.
As to Godwin's law, not all police states are Fascist. Neither are we. When you see train-loads of a particular group getting carted off to the gas chambers, bring it back up. Until then, you really insult those who lived through that horror by claiming that the terrors of Nazi Germany are equal to what you see happening today in the US. Sorry, but tapping phones != holocaust.