Populations are not innocent until they prove themselves to be innocent. Allowing your government to be hostile on your behalf does not make you innocent.
That's the exact same justification the 9-11 attackers used.
Violence can be defined as increasing the further away the assailant is from his/her target. School children in a fight is violent. A bully using a baseball bat (increasing his reach and distance) is more violent. A pilot of a plane dropping a bomb (an even further reach) is more violent still. Remote controlled military aircraft, AFAIK, is the farthest reach yet (save perhaps ICBMs), and therefore (according to this definition) the most violent yet.
War is violent by definition. The way to end war by winning it. The winner is one who is better at killing the other side. So in a way, this plane ends wars. The quicker you end a war, the fewer casualties are the result. This war machine is a life saver (especially our own!!)
Look, I know that this is a long string of logic, but long drawn out wars are the worst on both the armies fighting it and the innocent population bystanders. With precision weaponry fought by machines (at least on our side), we can minimize the civilian risk as well as our own.
I felt it would have been better had they used an actual flat-screen touch monitor. The shadows from the projector kinda killed it. Put a decent touch-screen monitor down there and we may have something.
Also, I don't think it would have taken much to add Beryl for that extra bling that MS can't offer.
You truly are a complete moron if you don't have any idea what your sig stands for.
I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and posting my sig in case you are misreading it:
New Moderator Guidelines: Bush Bad=Insightful Bush Good=Troll I know exactly what it means because I WROTE THE FUCKING THING! It means that if you defend a conservative, you are modded troll. If you bash the Prez, you are modded insightful. There are many examples, but one that stands out is a post that said nothing more than, "Bush. Worst President Ever!". It was modded insightful. I replied with several sources showing that the economy is setting records and other links showing the "misery index" of the Carter administration as well as problems with the Bush Sr. presidency. I was modded troll. THAT is the kind of thing my sig stands for. Only a complete moron would assume the author has no idea what his words stand for!
The prosecutor's (who did a less than adequate job, BTW) name was Patrick Fitzgerld, you stupid f**kwit!
And I stand correct, his name is Patrick, not Scott.
You have got to be VERY young or very ignorant of history. Read a non high school version of a US history book, you know, the ones where the civil war was about states rights not slavery little stuff like that.
I didn't mention the civil war. Where did you get that?
Other than you either responding to the wrong post or the "parent" button on your post took me to the wrong place, you are absolutely correct about the one of the causes for the civil war being states rights. For that matter, it's still an issue. I would never imply otherwise.
Listen, f**kwit, and I get royally tired of stating this -- quit slinging all that disinformation and misinformation bullsh*t
Uh, I copied and pasted from the indictment itself, which I linked to. If you think that the indictment of Scooter Libby is "neocon bullshit"... well let's just say you've got some serious issues. May I suggest that you take your complaint to Scott Fitzgerald. He was the prosecutor that charged and prosecuted Scooter Libby. He's the "neocon" (as you put it) that wrote the indictment.
Your sig says it all, clown, as that was the corporation fined for price-fixing in the '90s..... Uh, are you sure you're responding to the right post? There is no corporation in my sig... unless Troll is a corporation.
I guess we differ on our views of abuse of power. I figured that abuse would mean for something personal like, to get rich or to get more power or maybe even to get laid. But I've never figured all this stink would be over to do your job better. I mean, is that really abuse? Granted, it's not what the intended, and I will agree that it should be watched over closely, I don't know if I'd call it abuse. Earlier today at work, I was swapping out a monitor. I removed it from the desk and set it on the chair while I installed the new one. The chair was never intended to be used as a monitor stand. Was I abusing my office furniture granted power by setting a monitor on it? My computer in on my desk so I can receive and log tickets. If I use it to google a problem, is that abuse? Should I request a new CPU for research? Another for email and and fourth for IM?
Next, we are talking about data mining here. It is different from data retrieval. It's not like the FBI is spying on you. They are simply allowing software to see more data.
Finally, I'm not saying we should forget history. I pointed out that that FBI people I know are worried about catching criminals and terrorists. They don't have the time, money, or desire to spy on every single American. Trust me, neither of us so important that the FBI needs to know what we are doing all the time. If you think you are... unless you are a terrorist, trust me, you are not. Anyway, when I pointed that out, someone pointed out that they spied on MLK fifty years ago. Well, that was a different FBI and it was a different time entirely. When they start spying on politica leaders again, trust me, we'll know, just like we found out about it 11 years ago. Even then it wasn't the FBI abusing their power, it was the White House having the FBI do their dirty work, and they got caught because the checks and balances work.
Which simply means they disagree with your delusions and hence must be discounted. So all that disagree with you are invalid? Is that what you are saying? It seems to me you are close minded and refuse to consider any view that does not fit exactly with your own. That's a shame. You won't learn anything that way. It seems that you've had this condition for quite some time.
Right, al queda again. Keep drinking the kool aid. There are plenty of people who hate us being in their land murdering their people. Your complete failure to understand that Iraqis are people and act accordingly is symptomatic of sociopathic tendencies.
Sociopathic Tendencies? Are you saying that Iraqis are sociopaths? I knew you were close minded, but I didn't realize that it went so far as racism. I guess so. Racism is a symptom of a closed mind. You mean the KoolAid from CNN? The story tells how the good people of Iraq saw the Iraqi security forces coming and fought with them, side by side and threw the insurgents out of their town. The group of insurgents called themselves al Qaeda. Strange! That can't be true. CNN must be part of the Bush conspiracy because CNN says that al Qaeda is in Iraq... and the Iraqi people fought against them... and they didn't act like sociopaths! Wow! Here is a story that proves you 100% wrong. I'll bet you'll call it bullshit or point to the other 1000 stories and news sites that only report the bad, anti Bush news.
The really sad part is that I had to search long and hard for that story. I heard about it and had a really difficult time confirming it. There it was. You see, no other media outlet is carrying that story as far as I can tell. Why? Well the only reason I can see not to carry it is because it supports what Bush and the military say. How many other stories get passed up like this every day? How can I trust a media that is so obviously biased? Which is what I'm trying to teach you to do. Don't trust everything you read. Go out, do some research, learn the facts and learn to think for yourself.
First, I'm not a pacifist. So you oppose the war because... what? You don't like brown people. We know you think Iraqis are sociopaths. It must really tear you up to know that white blood is spilled for brown people. You can take comfort in the fact that Hispanics and black people are in the Army too. You see, the Army doesn't see you in a color, except green. Maybe it's just that you hate Bush so much, that in your mind it is worth seeing the country fail, and millions of innocents die, as long as Bush looks bad. That's it, isn't it?
Second, I'm doing nothing to help those who perpetrated 9/11. We are not "fighting al queda in Iraq". Perhaps there are a few al queda fighters we brought there to b;low the fuck out of the Iraqis we're supposedly there to help, but you're still way overblowing the whole boogie man thing. Uh, then who are we fighting? Read the story I linked above... it says al Qaeda. What was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? A Free Mason? What does Wikipedia say about al Qaeda in Iraq?
Although AQI's top leaders are usually foreigners, it is estimated that Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI's 1,000 to several thousand fighters.
Hardly a few al queda fighters. That's one Hell of a boogieman! Then again, seeing as you can't spell any of Al-Qaeda's known spellings correctly, it's no surprise that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter.
So you can only find a few fringe "media" outlets giving honest assessments and then use that fact to conclude that the *major media players* weren't selling the war? PBS? Slate? Fringe? Hell, PBS is even government funded and they opposed the war. How about ABC or CNN? Are they fringe t
BS, they spied on Martin Luther King Jr. As director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover kept secret files on a lot of people from equal right activists to peace activitists.
Uh, right. That was before I was born. I'm talking about anti-terror stuff since 2001. I'm sure the FBI did some questionable stuff during WWI looking for Kaisers as well, but we should move beyond that.
I hope it, the PATRIOT Act, is gotten rid of. It's not needed. And I was against it to begin with as well as against renewing it. They already had all the power needed to reduce the risk of terrorist attackes. Yes, I said "reduce the risk", as the risk can't be eliminated even in a police state run by a military dictator.
I've met a couple people in the FBI and this is a paraphrase of what they've told me about 9-11.
We knew something was coming. We didn't know what, how, where or even when. We could tell because of an increase in chatter, which we couldn't listen to, and activities that we couldn't watch. For example, we would get a tip that there would be a meeting of a terrorist cell at this location at this time. That tip would not be enough for us to get a warrant or it would not give us enough time to conduct surveillance. It was so bad that if a known terrorist came into a restaurant where I was eating and sat at the table next to me, I would have to leave because I would not have a warrant to listen in. So yeah, we knew something was coming, but there was not a damn thing we could do about it. And that is what the PATRIOT Act is supposed to fix. According to those I spoke with, they did not have the resources they needed to conduct effective anti-terror operations.
Trust me, the FBI does not want to spy on you if you are not planning a terrorist act. It is a complete waste of resources that are stretched thin already. They want to concentrate their efforts on stopping the next 9-11 and let you be. Of course, I'm speaking of the anti-terror group. I don't know what the mail fraud department wants to do, but then again, the PATRIOT Act does not apply to them unless terrorist start communicating via USPS.
Here is the quote from the actual indictment:
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA; According to Russert:
i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the following occasions:... Now it seems to me that this indictment assumes that it was Scooter who leaked the name. We now know that it was Armitage, who was never charged.
Do the little guys get pardons too? It sure would be embittering to see Scooter Libby go free when salt of the earth NWO grunts got sent to prison.
Well, there is a big difference between what Scooter Libby did and what these guys are doing. Scooter was prosecuted for perjury. His "recollection" of a conversation was different than that of the guy he spoke with. No one was in danger over what Scooter did.
What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.
Wrong, Bucko. In a full statewide recount (which is really the only thing that should have even been attempted) Gore won. Bush won more of the various crappy recounts that Gore was going for, but in the full statewide recount, Gore won. That's a fact which you're welcome to look up. Alternatively you can keep spouting bullshit. Now, Gore never requested that because he was trying to pull a bullshit move as opposed to trying to ascertain the actual will of the people as represented by the ballots they cast, which is an example of a completely fucked up attitude and would form the basis of an argument. You didn't choose to do that. You chose to lie about basic publicly available facts instead. That says a lot about you and the position you're feebly trying to defend.
Uh, Right, Bucko! I looked it up. Granted, there were sources that go either way, but I noticed that those that went to AlGore were all suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). HERE
Let us see how many falsehoods or mistakes are in this description of the Miami Herald study. To begin, the Herald did four tests, not three. Bush won three of them, including by 1,665 votes (his official margin in Florida was 537 votes) under the standard of counting pretty much every ballot that had even a partial punch, the standard Gore wanted (though he only wanted it to be applied in heavily Democratic counties such as Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia).
The only one of the four tests that Gore won was using a standard of only counting ballots in which the intent was indisputable, and here Gore wins by 3 votes. This is the test that Krugman claimed was unrealistic! The Herald cautioned that this particular test result of a 3 vote win of 6 million statewide was inconclusive, and the outcome might have resulted from the subjective interpretation of the undervote ballots by its panel from a national accounting firm. So with the full statewide manual recount of the undervote, the Herald said Bush won 3 times, and the 4th set of results was indeterminate. So Krugman gets the Miami Herald results completely WRONG!.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
No, that's not the case at all. The initial invasion was quite "successful" in the same way you'd be successful if you tried to kick a crippled kid in the face. Largely it is due to the deeply dishonest and downright treasonous manner in which he sold what was, is and will remain nothing but a hare brained scheme for world domination as laid out in the 2000 PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses". That document even included the idea of misusing an attack on America to mislead the American people into the attack. So, sorry, but you are dead fucking wrong about that. Some of us are actually informed and don't rely on the bullshit complicit US media. Nice job repeating idiotic wingnut talking points though. Do you get a gold star for that or something?
Uh, no, I'm dead fucking right. How many troops have we lost in Iraq? How many troops did we lose on D-Day? Better yet, how many did we lose TRAINING for D-Day? How many did we lose in Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the War of 1812? How long was the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WWII? When did we pull our troops out of those two countries? The problem in Iraq is that they (Al Qaeda) smell victory? Why? Not because they are winning battles, but because everything they do, win or lose, is reported as an American defeat in the media outlets. People like you are helping. For that matter, let me quote you something from the author of 1984 and Animal Farm. Y
OJ got away with murder so nobody else can ever be convicted of it. That's a great example of the stellar reasoning skills we've come to expect form you. Are you saying that it is right that OJ got away with it? OJ was charged with murder. The fact that he got away with it was a failure of the prosecutors, not a political agenda. Political agendas are what I'm saying is driving the attacks on the Prez. Pointing out that it was OK when others did proves that point. Try to keep up!
What color is the sky on your planet? Bush had the easiest time with the press of probably any president. It'd only after years of constant fuckups, corruption, and general sleazebaggery that they even started to pretend to ask hardball questions and we're still not getting an honest assessment of him in the press.
Do you have no sense of history? Did you not see the presidential limo being pelted with snowballs on the way Bush's first inauguration? Why? Because Al Gore tried to steal the election? Bush won every single count, recount, public recount, private recount and even won after the rules kept changing to favor Al Gore. Yet, Bush was called the "commander and thief"!??! It went downhill from there until Sept 2001. Of course, we know that Bush got favorable ratings for about a year after 9-11, but then it went back to where it was on 9-10 and has dropped ever since.
The Iraq war hasn't helped. Not because the war is going badly. The Iraq war has been one of the most successful operations in history. The Iraqi war is unpopular because of the media's reporting of it. Before the war, the chant was "Al Qaeda is not in Iraq". Now that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, the chant is, "We are in a civil war". Of course, the US body count is constantly displayed. Every attack has the number killed, but it never tells how many were civilians, insurgents, Iraqi forces or Al Qaeda members. Unless of course it was ONLY civilians killed. Then the report is "20 Civilians killed in Bagdad today when a..." Of those in the media that gave to political causes, 90% gave to Democrats. Do you think they are capable of being fair? Do you think they can put their personal political agendas aside and give this Prez a fair shake? Are you really that naive?
Clinton is remember for having a great economy. Not for firing attorneys, not for censoring his SG, not for a war with a country that didn't threaten us. Nope, Clinton is known for the economy. Have you heard that the economy is better now than it was under Clinton? It is! But you won't hear it because... and here is the important part... the media has an agenda and you have bought into it, hook, line, and sinker. Which brings me to you next point:
Groupthink is what you're engaging in right now. Go and spout that shit in some wingnut echo chamber and keep your ignorant groupthink to yourself. Or just kill yourself. You'd end up doing something positive that way and I don't see it happening any other way given that you've proven yourself to be a liar a fool or both with that asinine comment.
I'm trying to be civil, you should do the same. How can you accuse me of groupthink when I'm going against what everyone else here is saying. That's the complete opposite of "groupthink". (also, if you spout groupthink to yourself, it's not exactly groupthink, now is it?)
Now you say stupid shit like that and call me a liar, fool or both (projecting, are we?). Dude! Learn to think for yourself... actually, just learn to think first, then concentrate of forming your own opinions that you can back up without resorting to personal attacks (and poor ones at that). When you say stupid shit like that, people will think you are retarded. Until then you need to dispose of your keyboard because you are dropping the accumulated intelligence of the Web by several points.
Got any examples of a president putting political pressure on the Surgeon General to advance liberal agends?
No, I'm afraid I don't. From what I can tell, these SG's didn't exactly need to be pressured to advance any liberal agendas. They seemed to be doing just fine on their own. Also keep in mind that the SG we are talking about here was a Clinton appointee. One of the many positions that Bush kept around. Another of the many that has returned the favor by stabbing Bush in the back.
Of course, I'm not saying that these presidents' policies were correct. I'm saying that this is nothing new and it does not make Bush any more or less evil than the past two two-termers. The politics of the issue are pretty much irrelevant to that point. However, I have to admit that the AIDS thing was pretty ignorant, but this was in the first days of the disease. As to the others, I don't think trying to limit sexual activity in children should be just a conservative issue. I see no reason why the SG needs to be a global warming conference. As for stem cells, the official administration policy was against embryonic stem cell research. The SG's job is advise and represent that administration, period! If the SG disagrees, they can swallow their disagreements and tow the admin's line or resign and go public. The second option is the one that shows integrity. The fact that the SG didn't do this shows a complete lack of it.
After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.
Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.
Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.
You know what? That's it. Messing with the Special Olympics? Screw you guys. I already thought that this administration was severely morally challenged, but I had no idea they could be so, abso-fucking-lutely small.
I found it odd that Dr. Carmona said such a thing. It doesn't really pass the smell test and seems to rank pretty high on my Bullshit meter. Here's why:
THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. Mrs. Shriver, and Special Olympics athletes; friends and family. Mr. President -- the President of Iceland has joined us -- proud you're here, President Grimsson. And First Lady of Panama, First Lady Torrijos is with us, as well. We've got members of the Congress and members of the Senate. Laura and I are glad you all are here. Welcome to this special occasion.
We're here to celebrate the Special Olympics, and to honor a woman who made them possible -- Eunice Kennedy Shriver. (Applause.) And we're here to celebrate her birthday. (Laughter.)
In a moment we'll hear from this woman who has made it her life's work to create opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. She founded the Special Olympics in 1968, to get people with intellectual disabilities the chance to develop physical fitness, to create friendships, and experience the joy of sports competition and achievement. Today the Special Olympics includes more than 2.25 million athletes in 150 countries. The games have become a source -- (applause.) The games have become a source of unity and excitement for its participants. They've helped raise awareness of the challenges facing those with intellectual disabilities.
America upholds the values of every person and the possibilities of every life. And the Special Olympics are an example of America at its best. We share with the entire world the spirit of joy and kindness that the Special Olympics brings.
If you ever had any doubt about how much good one person can do, look no further than this kind and gracious lady. On this special occasion, I ask you to join me in a toast to the Special Olympics, and to Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and to her contributions to our nation -- past, present, and future. God bless.
I notice that you very carefully leave off the real issues.
Like Guatanamo and the whole imprisonment without due process thing.
Or like illegally spying on US citizens.
Or...
You mention only the things that noone who's seriously talking impeachment would mention. I applaud you for attacking those that talk impeachment out of a knee-jerk political stance, however, you don't seem to realize that there's a relatively strong case for it.
Is it not a problem because everyone abuses the system?
.
Oh no. It's a problem. However, all who abuse the system should be treated the same. You can't let on Prez do it and then hammer the next, however, it seems to be a recurring theme with attorney firings, wars, bad intel and so on. Did you not see Reagan mentioned in my original post? I guess you only read what you want to believe.
Sorry, but this Prez has not gotten a fair shake since his inauguration. He can't take a shit without the press bitching that he soiled a toilet bowl. I know it's modern group-think to bash Bush, but I'm not a sheeple kinda guy. I tend to think for myself.
BTW, I thought Clinton's impeachment was bullshit and I'll think the same for Bush's.
The point is to show a double standard by everyone here and the media as a whole. Sorry, but you have to apply the same rules to everyone. I brought Reagan into it as well, so it's not just a party thing.
Did they impeach Clinton for pushing out Joycelyn Elders over her masturbation flap? How about when Clinton censored Dr. Carmona over his needle sharing plan? Maybe when Reagan told his SG not to speak out on AIDS?
Funny how everyone wants to impeach Bush for doing things that Clinton got away with: Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK! Lying to the country....CHECK! Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK! Censoring the SG....CHECK! Firing attorneys....CHECK!...
Slashdot Mirror
Populations are not innocent until they prove themselves to be innocent. Allowing your government to be hostile on your behalf does not make you innocent.
That's the exact same justification the 9-11 attackers used.
Violence can be defined as increasing the further away the assailant is from his/her target. School children in a fight is violent. A bully using a baseball bat (increasing his reach and distance) is more violent. A pilot of a plane dropping a bomb (an even further reach) is more violent still. Remote controlled military aircraft, AFAIK, is the farthest reach yet (save perhaps ICBMs), and therefore (according to this definition) the most violent yet.
War is violent by definition. The way to end war by winning it. The winner is one who is better at killing the other side. So in a way, this plane ends wars. The quicker you end a war, the fewer casualties are the result. This war machine is a life saver (especially our own!!)
Look, I know that this is a long string of logic, but long drawn out wars are the worst on both the armies fighting it and the innocent population bystanders. With precision weaponry fought by machines (at least on our side), we can minimize the civilian risk as well as our own.
A traditional touch-screen monitor can only read one touch at a time.
Then we should break from tradition.
I'm sure cash is a limiting factor at this point, however.
I felt it would have been better had they used an actual flat-screen touch monitor. The shadows from the projector kinda killed it. Put a decent touch-screen monitor down there and we may have something.
Also, I don't think it would have taken much to add Beryl for that extra bling that MS can't offer.
Louisiana corruption runs awful deep - especially among diaper-wearing legislators.
Of course, we can't forget William Jefferson from the district hit hardest by Katrina/broken levees. Oh, wait! He's a Democrat so it doesn't count.
I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and posting my sig in case you are misreading it: New Moderator Guidelines:
Bush Bad=Insightful
Bush Good=Troll I know exactly what it means because I WROTE THE FUCKING THING! It means that if you defend a conservative, you are modded troll. If you bash the Prez, you are modded insightful. There are many examples, but one that stands out is a post that said nothing more than, "Bush. Worst President Ever!". It was modded insightful. I replied with several sources showing that the economy is setting records and other links showing the "misery index" of the Carter administration as well as problems with the Bush Sr. presidency. I was modded troll. THAT is the kind of thing my sig stands for. Only a complete moron would assume the author has no idea what his words stand for!
The prosecutor's (who did a less than adequate job, BTW) name was Patrick Fitzgerld, you stupid f**kwit!
And I stand correct, his name is Patrick, not Scott.
You have got to be VERY young or very ignorant of history. Read a non high school version of a US history book, you know, the ones where the civil war was about states rights not slavery little stuff like that.
I didn't mention the civil war. Where did you get that?
Other than you either responding to the wrong post or the "parent" button on your post took me to the wrong place, you are absolutely correct about the one of the causes for the civil war being states rights. For that matter, it's still an issue. I would never imply otherwise.
Listen, f**kwit, and I get royally tired of stating this -- quit slinging all that disinformation and misinformation bullsh*t
Uh, I copied and pasted from the indictment itself, which I linked to. If you think that the indictment of Scooter Libby is "neocon bullshit"... well let's just say you've got some serious issues. May I suggest that you take your complaint to Scott Fitzgerald. He was the prosecutor that charged and prosecuted Scooter Libby. He's the "neocon" (as you put it) that wrote the indictment.
Your sig says it all, clown, as that was the corporation fined for price-fixing in the '90s.....
Uh, are you sure you're responding to the right post? There is no corporation in my sig... unless Troll is a corporation.
I guess we differ on our views of abuse of power. I figured that abuse would mean for something personal like, to get rich or to get more power or maybe even to get laid. But I've never figured all this stink would be over to do your job better. I mean, is that really abuse? Granted, it's not what the intended, and I will agree that it should be watched over closely, I don't know if I'd call it abuse. Earlier today at work, I was swapping out a monitor. I removed it from the desk and set it on the chair while I installed the new one. The chair was never intended to be used as a monitor stand. Was I abusing my office furniture granted power by setting a monitor on it? My computer in on my desk so I can receive and log tickets. If I use it to google a problem, is that abuse? Should I request a new CPU for research? Another for email and and fourth for IM?
Next, we are talking about data mining here. It is different from data retrieval. It's not like the FBI is spying on you. They are simply allowing software to see more data.
Finally, I'm not saying we should forget history. I pointed out that that FBI people I know are worried about catching criminals and terrorists. They don't have the time, money, or desire to spy on every single American. Trust me, neither of us so important that the FBI needs to know what we are doing all the time. If you think you are... unless you are a terrorist, trust me, you are not. Anyway, when I pointed that out, someone pointed out that they spied on MLK fifty years ago. Well, that was a different FBI and it was a different time entirely. When they start spying on politica leaders again, trust me, we'll know, just like we found out about it 11 years ago. Even then it wasn't the FBI abusing their power, it was the White House having the FBI do their dirty work, and they got caught because the checks and balances work.
So all that disagree with you are invalid? Is that what you are saying? It seems to me you are close minded and refuse to consider any view that does not fit exactly with your own. That's a shame. You won't learn anything that way. It seems that you've had this condition for quite some time.
Right, al queda again. Keep drinking the kool aid. There are plenty of people who hate us being in their land murdering their people. Your complete failure to understand that Iraqis are people and act accordingly is symptomatic of sociopathic tendencies.
Sociopathic Tendencies? Are you saying that Iraqis are sociopaths? I knew you were close minded, but I didn't realize that it went so far as racism. I guess so. Racism is a symptom of a closed mind.
You mean the KoolAid from CNN? The story tells how the good people of Iraq saw the Iraqi security forces coming and fought with them, side by side and threw the insurgents out of their town. The group of insurgents called themselves al Qaeda. Strange! That can't be true. CNN must be part of the Bush conspiracy because CNN says that al Qaeda is in Iraq... and the Iraqi people fought against them... and they didn't act like sociopaths! Wow! Here is a story that proves you 100% wrong. I'll bet you'll call it bullshit or point to the other 1000 stories and news sites that only report the bad, anti Bush news.
The really sad part is that I had to search long and hard for that story. I heard about it and had a really difficult time confirming it. There it was. You see, no other media outlet is carrying that story as far as I can tell. Why? Well the only reason I can see not to carry it is because it supports what Bush and the military say. How many other stories get passed up like this every day? How can I trust a media that is so obviously biased? Which is what I'm trying to teach you to do. Don't trust everything you read. Go out, do some research, learn the facts and learn to think for yourself.
First, I'm not a pacifist.
So you oppose the war because... what? You don't like brown people. We know you think Iraqis are sociopaths. It must really tear you up to know that white blood is spilled for brown people. You can take comfort in the fact that Hispanics and black people are in the Army too. You see, the Army doesn't see you in a color, except green.
Maybe it's just that you hate Bush so much, that in your mind it is worth seeing the country fail, and millions of innocents die, as long as Bush looks bad. That's it, isn't it?
Second, I'm doing nothing to help those who perpetrated 9/11. We are not "fighting al queda in Iraq". Perhaps there are a few al queda fighters we brought there to b;low the fuck out of the Iraqis we're supposedly there to help, but you're still way overblowing the whole boogie man thing.
Uh, then who are we fighting? Read the story I linked above... it says al Qaeda. What was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? A Free Mason? What does Wikipedia say about al Qaeda in Iraq?
Although AQI's top leaders are usually foreigners, it is estimated that Iraqis make up 90 percent of AQI's 1,000 to several thousand fighters.
Hardly a few al queda fighters. That's one Hell of a boogieman! Then again, seeing as you can't spell any of Al-Qaeda's known spellings correctly, it's no surprise that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter.
So you can only find a few fringe "media" outlets giving honest assessments and then use that fact to conclude that the *major media players* weren't selling the war?
PBS? Slate? Fringe? Hell, PBS is even government funded and they opposed the war. How about ABC or CNN? Are they fringe t
BS, they spied on Martin Luther King Jr. As director of the FBI, J Edgar Hoover kept secret files on a lot of people from equal right activists to peace activitists.
Uh, right. That was before I was born. I'm talking about anti-terror stuff since 2001. I'm sure the FBI did some questionable stuff during WWI looking for Kaisers as well, but we should move beyond that.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Take it with a grain of salt.
I've met a couple people in the FBI and this is a paraphrase of what they've told me about 9-11. We knew something was coming. We didn't know what, how, where or even when. We could tell because of an increase in chatter, which we couldn't listen to, and activities that we couldn't watch. For example, we would get a tip that there would be a meeting of a terrorist cell at this location at this time. That tip would not be enough for us to get a warrant or it would not give us enough time to conduct surveillance. It was so bad that if a known terrorist came into a restaurant where I was eating and sat at the table next to me, I would have to leave because I would not have a warrant to listen in.
So yeah, we knew something was coming, but there was not a damn thing we could do about it. And that is what the PATRIOT Act is supposed to fix. According to those I spoke with, they did not have the resources they needed to conduct effective anti-terror operations.
Trust me, the FBI does not want to spy on you if you are not planning a terrorist act. It is a complete waste of resources that are stretched thin already. They want to concentrate their efforts on stopping the next 9-11 and let you be. Of course, I'm speaking of the anti-terror group. I don't know what the mail fraud department wants to do, but then again, the PATRIOT Act does not apply to them unless terrorist start communicating via USPS.
i. Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA; According to Russert: i. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:... Now it seems to me that this indictment assumes that it was Scooter who leaked the name. We now know that it was Armitage, who was never charged.
Do the little guys get pardons too? It sure would be embittering to see Scooter Libby go free when salt of the earth NWO grunts got sent to prison.
Well, there is a big difference between what Scooter Libby did and what these guys are doing. Scooter was prosecuted for perjury. His "recollection" of a conversation was different than that of the guy he spoke with. No one was in danger over what Scooter did.
What these FBI guys are doing is unforgivable. They are literally endangering the lives of all of us. By abusing the PATRIOT Act, they are risking having it taken away from those agents who would use it legally to prevent some sort of terrorist attack from happening again.
That is inexcusable... or unpardonable.
In a full statewide recount (which is really the only thing that should have even been attempted) Gore won. Bush won more of the various crappy recounts that Gore was going for, but in the full statewide recount, Gore won. That's a fact which you're welcome to look up. Alternatively you can keep spouting bullshit. Now,
Gore never requested that because he was trying to pull a bullshit move as opposed to trying to ascertain the actual will of the people as represented by the ballots they cast, which is an example of a completely fucked up attitude and would form the basis of an argument. You didn't choose to do that. You chose to lie about basic publicly available facts instead. That says a lot about you and the position you're feebly trying to defend.
Uh, Right, Bucko! I looked it up. Granted, there were sources that go either way, but I noticed that those that went to AlGore were all suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
HERE
Let us see how many falsehoods or mistakes are in this description of the Miami Herald study. To begin, the Herald did four tests, not three. Bush won three of them, including by 1,665 votes (his official margin in Florida was 537 votes) under the standard of counting pretty much every ballot that had even a partial punch, the standard Gore wanted (though he only wanted it to be applied in heavily Democratic counties such as Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia).
The only one of the four tests that Gore won was using a standard of only counting ballots in which the intent was indisputable, and here Gore wins by 3 votes. This is the test that Krugman claimed was unrealistic! The Herald cautioned that this particular test result of a 3 vote win of 6 million statewide was inconclusive, and the outcome might have resulted from the subjective interpretation of the undervote ballots by its panel from a national accounting firm. So with the full statewide manual recount of the undervote, the Herald said Bush won 3 times, and the 4th set of results was indeterminate.
So Krugman gets the Miami Herald results completely WRONG!.
Here's one from CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
No, that's not the case at all. The initial invasion was quite "successful" in the same way you'd be successful if you tried to kick a crippled kid in the face. Largely it is due to the deeply dishonest and downright treasonous manner in which he sold what was, is and will remain nothing but a hare brained scheme for world domination as laid out in the 2000 PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses". That document even included the idea of misusing an attack on America to mislead the American people into the attack.
So, sorry, but you are dead fucking wrong about that. Some of us are actually informed and don't rely on the bullshit complicit US media. Nice job repeating idiotic wingnut talking points though. Do you get a gold star for that or something?
Uh, no, I'm dead fucking right. How many troops have we lost in Iraq? How many troops did we lose on D-Day? Better yet, how many did we lose TRAINING for D-Day? How many did we lose in Vietnam, Korea, WWI, the War of 1812? How long was the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WWII? When did we pull our troops out of those two countries?
The problem in Iraq is that they (Al Qaeda) smell victory? Why? Not because they are winning battles, but because everything they do, win or lose, is reported as an American defeat in the media outlets. People like you are helping. For that matter, let me quote you something from the author of 1984 and Animal Farm. Y
OJ got away with murder so nobody else can ever be convicted of it. That's a great example of the stellar reasoning skills we've come to expect form you.
Are you saying that it is right that OJ got away with it? OJ was charged with murder. The fact that he got away with it was a failure of the prosecutors, not a political agenda. Political agendas are what I'm saying is driving the attacks on the Prez. Pointing out that it was OK when others did proves that point. Try to keep up!
What color is the sky on your planet?
Bush had the easiest time with the press of probably any president. It'd only after years of constant fuckups, corruption, and general sleazebaggery that they even started to pretend to ask hardball questions and we're still not getting an honest assessment of him in the press.
Do you have no sense of history? Did you not see the presidential limo being pelted with snowballs on the way Bush's first inauguration? Why? Because Al Gore tried to steal the election? Bush won every single count, recount, public recount, private recount and even won after the rules kept changing to favor Al Gore. Yet, Bush was called the "commander and thief"!??! It went downhill from there until Sept 2001. Of course, we know that Bush got favorable ratings for about a year after 9-11, but then it went back to where it was on 9-10 and has dropped ever since.
The Iraq war hasn't helped. Not because the war is going badly. The Iraq war has been one of the most successful operations in history. The Iraqi war is unpopular because of the media's reporting of it. Before the war, the chant was "Al Qaeda is not in Iraq". Now that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, the chant is, "We are in a civil war". Of course, the US body count is constantly displayed. Every attack has the number killed, but it never tells how many were civilians, insurgents, Iraqi forces or Al Qaeda members. Unless of course it was ONLY civilians killed. Then the report is "20 Civilians killed in Bagdad today when a..." Of those in the media that gave to political causes, 90% gave to Democrats. Do you think they are capable of being fair? Do you think they can put their personal political agendas aside and give this Prez a fair shake? Are you really that naive?
Clinton is remember for having a great economy. Not for firing attorneys, not for censoring his SG, not for a war with a country that didn't threaten us. Nope, Clinton is known for the economy. Have you heard that the economy is better now than it was under Clinton? It is! But you won't hear it because... and here is the important part... the media has an agenda and you have bought into it, hook, line, and sinker. Which brings me to you next point:
Groupthink is what you're engaging in right now. Go and spout that shit in some wingnut echo chamber and keep your ignorant groupthink to yourself.
Or just kill yourself. You'd end up doing something positive that way and I don't see it happening any other way given that you've proven yourself to be a liar a fool or both with that asinine comment.
I'm trying to be civil, you should do the same.
How can you accuse me of groupthink when I'm going against what everyone else here is saying. That's the complete opposite of "groupthink". (also, if you spout groupthink to yourself, it's not exactly groupthink, now is it?)
Now you say stupid shit like that and call me a liar, fool or both (projecting, are we?). Dude! Learn to think for yourself... actually, just learn to think first, then concentrate of forming your own opinions that you can back up without resorting to personal attacks (and poor ones at that). When you say stupid shit like that, people will think you are retarded. Until then you need to dispose of your keyboard because you are dropping the accumulated intelligence of the Web by several points.
Got any examples of a president putting political pressure on the Surgeon General to advance liberal agends?
No, I'm afraid I don't. From what I can tell, these SG's didn't exactly need to be pressured to advance any liberal agendas. They seemed to be doing just fine on their own. Also keep in mind that the SG we are talking about here was a Clinton appointee. One of the many positions that Bush kept around. Another of the many that has returned the favor by stabbing Bush in the back.
Of course, I'm not saying that these presidents' policies were correct. I'm saying that this is nothing new and it does not make Bush any more or less evil than the past two two-termers. The politics of the issue are pretty much irrelevant to that point. However, I have to admit that the AIDS thing was pretty ignorant, but this was in the first days of the disease. As to the others, I don't think trying to limit sexual activity in children should be just a conservative issue. I see no reason why the SG needs to be a global warming conference. As for stem cells, the official administration policy was against embryonic stem cell research. The SG's job is advise and represent that administration, period! If the SG disagrees, they can swallow their disagreements and tow the admin's line or resign and go public. The second option is the one that shows integrity. The fact that the SG didn't do this shows a complete lack of it.
After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.
Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.
Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.
I found it odd that Dr. Carmona said such a thing. It doesn't really pass the smell test and seems to rank pretty high on my Bullshit meter. Here's why: THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. Mrs. Shriver, and Special Olympics athletes; friends and family. Mr. President -- the President of Iceland has joined us -- proud you're here, President Grimsson. And First Lady of Panama, First Lady Torrijos is with us, as well. We've got members of the Congress and members of the Senate. Laura and I are glad you all are here. Welcome to this special occasion.
We're here to celebrate the Special Olympics, and to honor a woman who made them possible -- Eunice Kennedy Shriver. (Applause.) And we're here to celebrate her birthday. (Laughter.)
In a moment we'll hear from this woman who has made it her life's work to create opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. She founded the Special Olympics in 1968, to get people with intellectual disabilities the chance to develop physical fitness, to create friendships, and experience the joy of sports competition and achievement. Today the Special Olympics includes more than 2.25 million athletes in 150 countries. The games have become a source -- (applause.) The games have become a source of unity and excitement for its participants. They've helped raise awareness of the challenges facing those with intellectual disabilities.
America upholds the values of every person and the possibilities of every life. And the Special Olympics are an example of America at its best. We share with the entire world the spirit of joy and kindness that the Special Olympics brings.
If you ever had any doubt about how much good one person can do, look no further than this kind and gracious lady. On this special occasion, I ask you to join me in a toast to the Special Olympics, and to Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and to her contributions to our nation -- past, present, and future. God bless.
I notice that you very carefully leave off the real issues.
Like Guatanamo and the whole imprisonment without due process thing.
Or like illegally spying on US citizens.
Or...
You mention only the things that noone who's seriously talking impeachment would mention. I applaud you for attacking those that talk impeachment out of a knee-jerk political stance, however, you don't seem to realize that there's a relatively strong case for it.
You're right, but that would involve me going back to using the FBI to investigate political opponents, Vince Foster, Jane Doe Number Five" and other Clinton Scandals, but I thought I'd keep it brief.
Besides, we could trade scandals like this all day and get nowhere!
Is it not a problem because everyone abuses the system?
.
Oh no. It's a problem. However, all who abuse the system should be treated the same. You can't let on Prez do it and then hammer the next, however, it seems to be a recurring theme with attorney firings, wars, bad intel and so on. Did you not see Reagan mentioned in my original post? I guess you only read what you want to believe.
Sorry, but this Prez has not gotten a fair shake since his inauguration. He can't take a shit without the press bitching that he soiled a toilet bowl. I know it's modern group-think to bash Bush, but I'm not a sheeple kinda guy. I tend to think for myself.
BTW, I thought Clinton's impeachment was bullshit and I'll think the same for Bush's.
Don't even bring Clinton into this.
The point is to show a double standard by everyone here and the media as a whole. Sorry, but you have to apply the same rules to everyone. I brought Reagan into it as well, so it's not just a party thing.
Did they impeach Clinton for pushing out Joycelyn Elders over her masturbation flap? How about when Clinton censored Dr. Carmona over his needle sharing plan? Maybe when Reagan told his SG not to speak out on AIDS?
...
Funny how everyone wants to impeach Bush for doing things that Clinton got away with:
Going to war with a country that was not a threat....CHECK!
Lying to the country....CHECK!
Claiming Iraq had WMDs....CHECK!
Censoring the SG....CHECK!
Firing attorneys....CHECK!
Wow! And the Clinton administration would let Dr. Carmona speak out of needle sharing programs for drug users. Remember Joycelyn Elders?
This is nothing new. It just serves as another reason to hate Bush (as if the media needed any).