wars of aggression You read too many bumper stickers. I there has yet to be a war of pacifism. Your rhetoric is cheap, but telling.
So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now. Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.
That would imply that the "War on Terror" is meant to have an end. I suggest to you that this is optimistic. The WOT is much like the Cold War. There will be abuses (Joseph McCarthy) and those that do so will be censored and their careers will be over (Joseph McCarthy).
There notably isn't anything about the KKK in the article you link. But, for the moment, assuming this is true... that's an even stronger argument for limits on presidential power and preservation of civil rights -- because it's not about if you trust this president, it's about if you trust everyone who might ever be president.
Excellent point! However, as long as there is an election every four years and a congress is not disbanded, I have faith. History has shown that those that abuse power in this country soon lose it.
How do we know if it is reasonable or not? Historically this was done via judicial review, but now we just assume anything Bush wants must be reasonable.
Here is what the Prez said, although I was not able to find an exact quote. This if from TFA: He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions
I would assume emergency conditions to be something like:
Return address is from Ted Kaczynski
The package is ticking
The envelope is leaking powder
The envelope is stained from within
A bomb sniffing dog took a dump after sniffing it
The letter carrier died after picking this letter up
It's labeled "Terrorist Plot"
I don't recall the Gov't seeking judicial review when an anthrax laced letter was sent to Tom Daschle or any of the letters that followed it that were leaking white powder. There are times when I feel the Gov't has authority to open mail. Granted, most of the time they don't, but there are those situations.
I'm sorry, I have a problem with much of you comment, specifically, this part: Republicans used to be the ones who were for... fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations.
Funny, it's Democrats who keep telling me I can't smoke in a restaurant... work... within 50 feet of a door... in a bar... soon to be in my car... on the sidewalk... and finally, in my own home. It's funny how when there is an anti-war protest, it's a contest to see who can be the most radical, but when there is a pro-life protest, it's a contest to see who can offend or violently prevent the protest from taking place. Why is it that the Democrats, champions of civil rights as they are, has elevated a former KKK leader to be third in line for the Presidency (here, last paragraph)?
Also, I'm not a large corporation, but I got a tax cut in 2001 because I have a job. If you didn't get your's, I suggest you stop posting here and start looking for work!
Back ON Topic: Limiting liberties during wartime is nothing new. See this page for a few examples. By the way, Roosevelt was a Democrat.
So, please, don't act like this is a Republican issue and don't be so ignorant as to assume that any of these limitations are going to be permanent. We got rights back after the Revolutionary war, the civil war, WWI, WWII, we'll get whatever is lost after this war as well.
I don't think the guy was tortured. As I said in the original post: Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?
I pointed out Abdullah al-Muhajir's guilt to dispute the original point that the US Gov't is arresting "innocent" citizens. The post I was responded to made it sound like the Gestapo was out arresting citizens at random on their way to work. Abdullah al-Muhajir does not qualify as innocent. However, I agree that he deserves a trial, and he will receive one. However, I understand the need not to have the trial made public. The gov't has good reason to hold this guy. He was arrested on his way back from Pakistan where he a senior Al Qaeda operations officer. As I mentioned in another post, this Al Qaeda officer turned him in.
I agree with you that torture is wrong, but we may have disagreements about what constitutes torture. Still, I don't think this guy was tortured by any definition. I think the guy is claiming to be tortured, as he was (allegedly) instructed to do. If this guy were tortured as he has claimed, wouldn't he have given up all the information he has already (true or not). Wouldn't the gov't be done with him at this point?
Finally, if the gov't was as evil as the original post claimed, wouldn't this guy have simply disappeared without a trace? It's not like every milk carton has a picture of a Bush political enemy on it. The fact that we know enough to even debate it proves that there is some level of openness and completely disproves the Gestapo theory that was originally forwarded.
Even though I disagree, I think you make some good points and you shoulda gotten modded up! Vietnam Went to war for economic interests of companies such as coke who were about to be thrown out of the country as it turned communist. The communists were comming to power as part of a backlash against US companies and there exploitative employment practices. Why were the French there for so many years before we got there? Were wine and cheese getting thrown out to?
Iraq / Kuwait War (Volume 1) Went to war in order to prevent one country getting too much control of the worlds oil supplies. That was one reason, and a pretty good one. Except it wasn't just one country controlling the world's oil supplies, it was Iraq, under Saddam Hussein controlling the world's oil supplies that scared us. Oh, and that whole rape and pillage thing didn't go over to well either.
Afganistan Went to war as Taliban were unwilling to allow the US to build a huge oil pipeline across the country. New govt agreed as soon as they came to power. The pipeline is necessary to get oil from the black sea to the west. So I guess this is why the Bush admin faked 9-11?
José Padilla, a US citizen is one such victim. Of course, you said PLURAL, citezenS, and you mentioned torture. Still, we can play. When you say José Padilla, I assume you mean Abdullah al-Muhajir. That is what he prefers to be called. I guess it makes him sound more like a victim when you use his Catholic name. He converted it Islam, you know. Let's see what that conservative bastion, the BBC says about him:
He was arrested in Florida in 1991 over a road-rage shooting incident and spent a year in a Florida jail.
He completed his probation for aggravated assault and firing a weapon in August 1993.
Prior to that, Mr Padilla, a US citizen of Puerto Rican origin, had a number of gang-related encounters with police in Chicago -
Norma Leon, the Padilla family's former landlady, told the Chicago Sun-Times that Mr Padilla's mother was worried because her son had left the country and become a member of a cult.
"She was scared for him," Ms Leon told the newspaper.
In 2001, officials said, he made contact with Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaeda commander [Osama bin Laden's operations chief--me] who is in American custody and apparently co-operating with the FBI.
And of course, the US court system has backed up the Prez on this case:
A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.
Yeah, I don't think this guy is all that innocent. Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?
In the US, it's easier to smear and blacklist your political or economic enemies than it is to jail them. It's called "economic assassination." Domestic spying programs are used to make the blacklists.
You mean how the Prez uses the FBI to investigate his political enemies? Or how the IRS suddenly does an anal probe audit of those who have turned against you. I remember that, except it was the Clintons, no the Bushes doing it. I guess it's OK when it's not Republican abusing power. From here:
Shortly after Bill Clinton and his gang took over the White House, the FBI was coerced into conducting investigations that were anything but thorough. The quality of background investigations of White House personnel was downgraded dramatically due to the scheming of "Clinton's clan." That's not all. A few examples were the inappropriate criminal investigations of career White House employees because they might be in the way of an ambitious first "lady;" the turning over of more than 900 confidential FBI summary reports on former Reagan and Bush political appointees.
Bill Clinton used the FBI to compile dossiers on critics like Conservative Congressman Bob Barr and legal gadfly Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch
Of course, if Bush is using federal power to shut down his political adversaries, he's done a crappy job. It seems to me that everyone is being investigated in Washington from Tom Delay and Mark Foley to William Jefferson, but you only really hear about the Republican investigations. Can you tell me who William Jefferson is without looking it up? If the Prez can't dig up dirt on Barak
Don't be an idiot. The profit is for Halliburton and other companies "rebuilding" Iraq. It's being paid for partly by Iraqi oil, but mostly by the American taxpayer. The whole war was basically a big excuse to enrich Bush's corporate buddies.
Wouldn't it have been easier to take over the UAE or something? Do you really thing that Bushco is so brilliantly evil that he and DickC schemed up this whole thing years ago in a west Texas oil field for Bush to to enter politics, have his Dad get picked as Reagan's VP so he could be Prez so that W could get elected Governor of Texas and then move to the White House with the help of his brother, who they got elected in Florida so he could rig an election so W could start a war in Iraq so Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton could rebuild it? Wouldn't it be easier to simply have Halliburton rebuild New Orleans or clean up a former military base or something while the first Bush was Prez? Why go through all the trouble of a war?
Of course, you completely disregard the mass graves, the whole 500,000 children dying from preventable diseases before the war (according to UNICEF, not me), Russian intelligence telling Bush that Iraq was going to attack the US, or everyone including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Kofi Anon and Jacques Chiraq all saying that Iraq had WMD's... or were they all in on it too? That's one Hell of a conspiracy you've worked up there!
Of course, I don't think you realize that neither Bush nor Cheney owns any Halliburton stock. Well, they might, but no one knows but their investors. You see, when most public figures enter office, they put all of the $$$ in a blind trust. That means they pay an investor to take care of their money and keep how a secret to everyone, including themselves.
Please, stop with the whole Bush is an evil genius who is strangely enough, too stupid to speak in public bit. It's not cute anymore. Or do you really hate Bush so much that you need to make up shit like this to justify the hatred yourself?
You started out OK, but then you gave me whiplash with that sharp left.
The US has given up the Bill of Rights for it's own citizens, and cares even less about others. Funny. I can run down the street screaming "Bush sux" and "Down with America" on my way to firearm before going to church. I can leave my doors unlocked, secure that the feds will not search my house. I was the only person on my block with a Bush sign in my yard. Every other sign was for Kerry, or Gore before that. The Feds did nothing. For that matter, the only person on my street that got harassed was me! So tell me, who's taking away rights again? It's not the government, it's rabid liberals who try to silence the opposition by stealing signs and egging houses. Is that how the left protects free speech?
It is violating the private papers, homes and conversations of it's citizens. Really? Have you been arrested for what you are typing? Do you really think that there is a huge bank of NSA agents in a bunker somewhere reading every single email that you type? I presume a machine is, but does the Constitution protect against machines scanning for keywords? That's for the courts to decide before you claim that liberty is lost.
It has curtailed the right to bear arms. I'm afraid this is true, but don't blame Bush for this one!
It has launched religious based policies but thwarted legitimate religious expression. Well, which one is it? There are mosques, churches and synagogues built in this country every day.
It has censored the New York Times, created agencies to flood the news with disinformation and thereby shown itself an enemy of truth itself. I'd hardly call the NYT fair, or even true. When they give out state secrets and repeatedly endanger agents in the field, they should at least be investigated.
It has imprisoned and tortured it's own citizens, which shows the regard it really has. Uh, name one. Just one... actually, you said citizenS... so I guess you should name at least two. Oh and define torture while you are at it. Being forced to watch Cops in color in the prison rec room is torture, then I guess you are right. Fact is, those "innocent tortured souls" at Guantanamo eat better that I do!
Peace and security only comes through respect and justice. You are mostly correct here. But respect has to go both ways and you can't earn respect without the power and will to deal proper justice.
USA's #1 cultural contribution to the world: financially-fueled hatred. Seriously, people get killed over their beliefs, their appearance, their race, their family, their actions.. all over the world. Americans kill for profit. You don't need to pull the trigger to kill a man, robbing him of all values and morals is worse than death to some.
You mean no one ever gets mugged in Europe? I had no idea that Europe has licked crime!
As to Americans killing for profit... Where? While we did some killing in WWII, I don't think we "made a killing". I don't see the beaches of Normandy being a huge profit center for American corporations. Or are you talking about more recently? I still see reports of how much we are spending in Iraq. I have yet to see any profit reports come out. Wait, did we sell all that purple ink to the polling places? Are those women attending school in Afghanistan going to send us a check? Where is the profit?
If you think the presence or lack of armed soldiers at airports is an important indicator of a countries civil liberties you are misjudging the issues. Infringements on liberty are more insidious than that. Whether the shops in Toronto are similar to the shops in Chicago are also a pretty poor indicator.
I've lived in the US all of my life. I've traveled around the world and I have been asked for my papers, but never in the US. BTW, I didn't mind providing my papers. It's when "papers" means that I have to provide a bribe that I get a little upset. That's never happened in the US either (nor Canada for that matter). So you can talk about how "insidious" your rights are being violated here in the US, but I have to say that you are full of shit. Can you give an example of how your rights have been violated in the US?
I've declined three employer-funded trips to business meetings and conferences in the USA in the past couple of years. The thought of having some jackbooted stormtroo^H^H^Homeland Security officer with a German shepherd on a leash screaming at me to produce my "PAPERS! PAPERS!" just turns me off. The USA is a place I just don't want to visit any more.
Just like you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV, don't believe all the BS you read here on/. Bush is not Hitler and the US is not Nazi Germany. If you blind folded me, dropped me off in downtown Toronto and asked me where I was, I'd guess Chicago, Minneapolis or some other place with similar climate. I travel to and from Mexico regularly and I'm asked where I've been, where I am going and if I'm a citizen. I've never been asked for my papers... except for when I went INTO Canada, but not on the way back.
The only time I've seen armed soldiers in an airport was right after 9-11 in the US, and every time I've been in an airport over seas. I'm sorry, but you've got life in the US all wrong. The US you speak of doesn't exist and never will, no matter how many times it is repeated by people like you. All you really do is remove any doubt concerning the level of your ignorance. (Note, I said ignorance, not stupidity. There is still hope.)
Good question. The best way to find out is to keep lowering taxes until the US Gov't starts making less off tax receipts. Then you know you are to the left of the curve.
I don't have my heart set on a number--I just want the current generation to pay for their own government, own wars, etc.
Agreed! The Gov't seriously needs to reduce spending. The problem is the surplus we had a few years back. How can you justify saying no to a spending bill when the Gov't is in a surplus? Unfortunately, Bush has been a rubber stamp for the congress, not the other way around as many have said. Bush has yet to veto anything, passing every single bill that has crossed his desk. Each congress member is trying to bring home the bacon to assure re-election.
So the problem is spending, not taxes. Raising taxes will actually lower the government's budget, and under a Dem controlled congress, expect spending to increase especially if (when) taxes go up, as they will expect more $$$. Of course, as we know from the Laffer Curve and recent increases in Gov't receipts, this is not going to be the case.
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
We have socialized health care? When did that happen? Why am I still paying for health insurance? If I have my own insurance, can I still smoke in public places and eat transfats?
Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent.
Jefferson was wrong. Unfortunately, he did not consider the victim to be innocent. You let a guilty person go and he kills or harms two more victims, two innocents suffer. One innocent goes to jail, only one suffers. It is unfortunate either way, but letting 10 guilty go free will certainly create more than one innocent victim and probably do more harm to those victims than the innocent would have receive in prison.
The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent. It's "Crime and Punishment", not "Crime and Deterrent"
In a nutshell: If taxes get too high, the economy tanks and tax receipts go down. If taxes get too low, tax receipts go down. Since Bush cut taxes, and tax receipts went up, that tells me we were on the right side of the curve. So raising taxes will actually cause the US Gov't to receive LESS money than with lower taxes.
Wow! I had no idea I was so rich. I got a tax cut. I make just under $50K a year! So if only the top 1% got a tax break, and I got a tax break, I must be in the top 1%. I had no idea I was so rich. If you will excuse me, I must be off to the yacht club!
(Oh, BTW, the US Gov't pulled in more cash after those tax cuts than before them. See Laffer Curve. The problem is that spending also went through the roof. This happens whenever there is a surplus, congress can't say no the next budget go-'round. "What do you mean we can't afford it. We have a surplus." Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped yet. Unfortunately, the new guys in power want to raise taxes and cut gov't spending. This is how you wreck an economy 100% of the time. You should take an economic course and get a job. I know you don't have a job because you think that only the rich got a tax cut!)
I brought up the same comment when discussing stem cells. The argument I got back was that stem cells were originally produced in labs that worked mostly with mice, so there is a probability that the genetic material was contaminated with genetic material from mice. So evidently, it's OK to eat cloned material, but not do research with.
I wonder if they cloned cattle in labs that worked with pigs. Could we then get true HAM-burgers?
Like cows who inherited genes that make them store energy in the form of saturated fat?
You mean like every single cow that has ever lived on earth? Go ahead and throw in pigs, goats, peanuts, coconuts, palm and even humans that also naturally produce saturated fat, cloned or not.
Now if we could find a cow that would store energy in hydrogenated fat... then we'd be on to something!
Hooray for making large portions of the population immune to virii with this protein. Nothing like guiding evolution/adaptation ever closer towards pandemic.
You're right! We should ban all medicines that fight diseases that kill millions because they might cause the disease to mutate into a disease that kills millions.
WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?
"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."
I use it meaning that I buy the parts I want and put them in the configuration I want. I do not let some engineer under pressure from marketing make those decisions for me. I use "roll my own" in the same way that I would roll my own cigarettes. I don't grow the "tobacco" and pulp wood for my own paper. I buy it all in a store in separate components and put it all together myself.
Slashdot Mirror
wars of aggression
You read too many bumper stickers. I there has yet to be a war of pacifism. Your rhetoric is cheap, but telling.
So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.
That would imply that the "War on Terror" is meant to have an end. I suggest to you that this is optimistic.
The WOT is much like the Cold War. There will be abuses (Joseph McCarthy) and those that do so will be censored and their careers will be over (Joseph McCarthy).
There notably isn't anything about the KKK in the article you link. But, for the moment, assuming this is true... that's an even stronger argument for limits on presidential power and preservation of civil rights -- because it's not about if you trust this president, it's about if you trust everyone who might ever be president.
Excellent point! However, as long as there is an election every four years and a congress is not disbanded, I have faith. History has shown that those that abuse power in this country soon lose it.
Here is what the Prez said, although I was not able to find an exact quote. This if from TFA:
He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions
I would assume emergency conditions to be something like:
I don't recall the Gov't seeking judicial review when an anthrax laced letter was sent to Tom Daschle or any of the letters that followed it that were leaking white powder. There are times when I feel the Gov't has authority to open mail. Granted, most of the time they don't, but there are those situations.
I'm sorry, I have a problem with much of you comment, specifically, this part:
Republicans used to be the ones who were for... fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations.
Funny, it's Democrats who keep telling me I can't smoke in a restaurant... work... within 50 feet of a door... in a bar... soon to be in my car... on the sidewalk... and finally, in my own home. It's funny how when there is an anti-war protest, it's a contest to see who can be the most radical, but when there is a pro-life protest, it's a contest to see who can offend or violently prevent the protest from taking place. Why is it that the Democrats, champions of civil rights as they are, has elevated a former KKK leader to be third in line for the Presidency (here, last paragraph)?
Also, I'm not a large corporation, but I got a tax cut in 2001 because I have a job. If you didn't get your's, I suggest you stop posting here and start looking for work!
Back ON Topic:
Limiting liberties during wartime is nothing new. See this page for a few examples. By the way, Roosevelt was a Democrat.
So, please, don't act like this is a Republican issue and don't be so ignorant as to assume that any of these limitations are going to be permanent. We got rights back after the Revolutionary war, the civil war, WWI, WWII, we'll get whatever is lost after this war as well.
The right of the people to be secure in their papers against ... unreasonable ... searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...
There, fixed that emphasis for you.
I don't think the guy was tortured. As I said in the original post:
Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?
I pointed out Abdullah al-Muhajir's guilt to dispute the original point that the US Gov't is arresting "innocent" citizens. The post I was responded to made it sound like the Gestapo was out arresting citizens at random on their way to work. Abdullah al-Muhajir does not qualify as innocent. However, I agree that he deserves a trial, and he will receive one. However, I understand the need not to have the trial made public. The gov't has good reason to hold this guy. He was arrested on his way back from Pakistan where he a senior Al Qaeda operations officer. As I mentioned in another post, this Al Qaeda officer turned him in.
I agree with you that torture is wrong, but we may have disagreements about what constitutes torture. Still, I don't think this guy was tortured by any definition. I think the guy is claiming to be tortured, as he was (allegedly) instructed to do. If this guy were tortured as he has claimed, wouldn't he have given up all the information he has already (true or not). Wouldn't the gov't be done with him at this point?
Finally, if the gov't was as evil as the original post claimed, wouldn't this guy have simply disappeared without a trace? It's not like every milk carton has a picture of a Bush political enemy on it. The fact that we know enough to even debate it proves that there is some level of openness and completely disproves the Gestapo theory that was originally forwarded.
Even though I disagree, I think you make some good points and you shoulda gotten modded up!
Vietnam
Went to war for economic interests of companies such as coke who were about to be thrown out of the country as it turned communist. The communists were comming to power as part of a backlash against US companies and there exploitative employment practices.
Why were the French there for so many years before we got there? Were wine and cheese getting thrown out to?
Iraq / Kuwait War (Volume 1)
Went to war in order to prevent one country getting too much control of the worlds oil supplies.
That was one reason, and a pretty good one. Except it wasn't just one country controlling the world's oil supplies, it was Iraq, under Saddam Hussein controlling the world's oil supplies that scared us. Oh, and that whole rape and pillage thing didn't go over to well either.
Afganistan
Went to war as Taliban were unwilling to allow the US to build a huge oil pipeline across the country. New govt agreed as soon as they came to power. The pipeline is necessary to get oil from the black sea to the west.
So I guess this is why the Bush admin faked 9-11?
Read my other comment in this thread concerning Padilla, or should I use the name he choses, Abdullah al-Muhajir.
Of course, you said PLURAL, citezenS, and you mentioned torture. Still, we can play.
When you say José Padilla, I assume you mean Abdullah al-Muhajir. That is what he prefers to be called. I guess it makes him sound more like a victim when you use his Catholic name. He converted it Islam, you know. Let's see what that conservative bastion, the BBC says about him:
And of course, the US court system has backed up the Prez on this case:
Yeah, I don't think this guy is all that innocent. Besides, I don't see any evidence of torture, except for Abdullah al-Muhajir's claims. However, it's hard to take that seriously when claiming torture is literally taken directly from the Al Qaeda handbook. Does it not bother you that you are playing into the hands of the enemies of the US just because you hate Bush so much?
In the US, it's easier to smear and blacklist your political or economic enemies than it is to jail them. It's called "economic assassination." Domestic spying programs are used to make the blacklists.
You mean how the Prez uses the FBI to investigate his political enemies? Or how the IRS suddenly does an anal probe audit of those who have turned against you. I remember that, except it was the Clintons, no the Bushes doing it. I guess it's OK when it's not Republican abusing power.
From here:
and here
Of course, if Bush is using federal power to shut down his political adversaries, he's done a crappy job. It seems to me that everyone is being investigated in Washington from Tom Delay and Mark Foley to William Jefferson, but you only really hear about the Republican investigations. Can you tell me who William Jefferson is without looking it up? If the Prez can't dig up dirt on Barak
Don't be an idiot. The profit is for Halliburton and other companies "rebuilding" Iraq. It's being paid for partly by Iraqi oil, but mostly by the American taxpayer. The whole war was basically a big excuse to enrich Bush's corporate buddies.
Wouldn't it have been easier to take over the UAE or something? Do you really thing that Bushco is so brilliantly evil that he and DickC schemed up this whole thing years ago in a west Texas oil field for Bush to to enter politics, have his Dad get picked as Reagan's VP so he could be Prez so that W could get elected Governor of Texas and then move to the White House with the help of his brother, who they got elected in Florida so he could rig an election so W could start a war in Iraq so Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton could rebuild it? Wouldn't it be easier to simply have Halliburton rebuild New Orleans or clean up a former military base or something while the first Bush was Prez? Why go through all the trouble of a war?
Of course, you completely disregard the mass graves, the whole 500,000 children dying from preventable diseases before the war (according to UNICEF, not me), Russian intelligence telling Bush that Iraq was going to attack the US, or everyone including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Kofi Anon and Jacques Chiraq all saying that Iraq had WMD's... or were they all in on it too? That's one Hell of a conspiracy you've worked up there!
Of course, I don't think you realize that neither Bush nor Cheney owns any Halliburton stock. Well, they might, but no one knows but their investors. You see, when most public figures enter office, they put all of the $$$ in a blind trust. That means they pay an investor to take care of their money and keep how a secret to everyone, including themselves.
Please, stop with the whole Bush is an evil genius who is strangely enough, too stupid to speak in public bit. It's not cute anymore. Or do you really hate Bush so much that you need to make up shit like this to justify the hatred yourself?
You started out OK, but then you gave me whiplash with that sharp left.
The US has given up the Bill of Rights for it's own citizens, and cares even less about others.
Funny. I can run down the street screaming "Bush sux" and "Down with America" on my way to firearm before going to church. I can leave my doors unlocked, secure that the feds will not search my house. I was the only person on my block with a Bush sign in my yard. Every other sign was for Kerry, or Gore before that. The Feds did nothing. For that matter, the only person on my street that got harassed was me! So tell me, who's taking away rights again? It's not the government, it's rabid liberals who try to silence the opposition by stealing signs and egging houses. Is that how the left protects free speech?
It is violating the private papers, homes and conversations of it's citizens.
Really? Have you been arrested for what you are typing? Do you really think that there is a huge bank of NSA agents in a bunker somewhere reading every single email that you type? I presume a machine is, but does the Constitution protect against machines scanning for keywords? That's for the courts to decide before you claim that liberty is lost.
It has curtailed the right to bear arms.
I'm afraid this is true, but don't blame Bush for this one!
It has launched religious based policies but thwarted legitimate religious expression.
Well, which one is it? There are mosques, churches and synagogues built in this country every day.
It has censored the New York Times, created agencies to flood the news with disinformation and thereby shown itself an enemy of truth itself.
I'd hardly call the NYT fair, or even true. When they give out state secrets and repeatedly endanger agents in the field, they should at least be investigated.
It has imprisoned and tortured it's own citizens, which shows the regard it really has.
Uh, name one. Just one... actually, you said citizenS... so I guess you should name at least two. Oh and define torture while you are at it. Being forced to watch Cops in color in the prison rec room is torture, then I guess you are right. Fact is, those "innocent tortured souls" at Guantanamo eat better that I do!
Peace and security only comes through respect and justice.
You are mostly correct here. But respect has to go both ways and you can't earn respect without the power and will to deal proper justice.
USA's #1 cultural contribution to the world: financially-fueled hatred. Seriously, people get killed over their beliefs, their appearance, their race, their family, their actions.. all over the world. Americans kill for profit. You don't need to pull the trigger to kill a man, robbing him of all values and morals is worse than death to some.
You mean no one ever gets mugged in Europe? I had no idea that Europe has licked crime!
As to Americans killing for profit... Where? While we did some killing in WWII, I don't think we "made a killing". I don't see the beaches of Normandy being a huge profit center for American corporations.
Or are you talking about more recently? I still see reports of how much we are spending in Iraq. I have yet to see any profit reports come out. Wait, did we sell all that purple ink to the polling places? Are those women attending school in Afghanistan going to send us a check? Where is the profit?
WOW! Well said. You said it much better than I tried to!
If you think the presence or lack of armed soldiers at airports is an important indicator of a countries civil liberties you are misjudging the issues. Infringements on liberty are more insidious than that. Whether the shops in Toronto are similar to the shops in Chicago are also a pretty poor indicator.
I've lived in the US all of my life. I've traveled around the world and I have been asked for my papers, but never in the US. BTW, I didn't mind providing my papers. It's when "papers" means that I have to provide a bribe that I get a little upset. That's never happened in the US either (nor Canada for that matter). So you can talk about how "insidious" your rights are being violated here in the US, but I have to say that you are full of shit. Can you give an example of how your rights have been violated in the US?
I didn't think so.
I've declined three employer-funded trips to business meetings and conferences in the USA in the past couple of years. The thought of having some jackbooted stormtroo^H^H^Homeland Security officer with a German shepherd on a leash screaming at me to produce my "PAPERS! PAPERS!" just turns me off. The USA is a place I just don't want to visit any more.
/. Bush is not Hitler and the US is not Nazi Germany. If you blind folded me, dropped me off in downtown Toronto and asked me where I was, I'd guess Chicago, Minneapolis or some other place with similar climate. I travel to and from Mexico regularly and I'm asked where I've been, where I am going and if I'm a citizen. I've never been asked for my papers... except for when I went INTO Canada, but not on the way back.
Just like you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV, don't believe all the BS you read here on
The only time I've seen armed soldiers in an airport was right after 9-11 in the US, and every time I've been in an airport over seas. I'm sorry, but you've got life in the US all wrong. The US you speak of doesn't exist and never will, no matter how many times it is repeated by people like you. All you really do is remove any doubt concerning the level of your ignorance. (Note, I said ignorance, not stupidity. There is still hope.)
So how low should taxes go?
Good question. The best way to find out is to keep lowering taxes until the US Gov't starts making less off tax receipts. Then you know you are to the left of the curve.
I don't have my heart set on a number--I just want the current generation to pay for their own government, own wars, etc.
Agreed! The Gov't seriously needs to reduce spending. The problem is the surplus we had a few years back. How can you justify saying no to a spending bill when the Gov't is in a surplus? Unfortunately, Bush has been a rubber stamp for the congress, not the other way around as many have said. Bush has yet to veto anything, passing every single bill that has crossed his desk. Each congress member is trying to bring home the bacon to assure re-election.
So the problem is spending, not taxes. Raising taxes will actually lower the government's budget, and under a Dem controlled congress, expect spending to increase especially if (when) taxes go up, as they will expect more $$$. Of course, as we know from the Laffer Curve and recent increases in Gov't receipts, this is not going to be the case.
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state, typically the elderly and infirm who are receiving expensive treatments for the effects of trans-fats and smoking, these bans seem to be a justified cost-saving measure to me.
We have socialized health care? When did that happen? Why am I still paying for health insurance? If I have my own insurance, can I still smoke in public places and eat transfats?
Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent.
Jefferson was wrong. Unfortunately, he did not consider the victim to be innocent. You let a guilty person go and he kills or harms two more victims, two innocents suffer. One innocent goes to jail, only one suffers. It is unfortunate either way, but letting 10 guilty go free will certainly create more than one innocent victim and probably do more harm to those victims than the innocent would have receive in prison.
The death penalty is a punishment, not a deterrent. It's "Crime and Punishment", not "Crime and Deterrent"
But if you want big government, that means big taxes.
See Laffer Curve
In a nutshell: If taxes get too high, the economy tanks and tax receipts go down. If taxes get too low, tax receipts go down. Since Bush cut taxes, and tax receipts went up, that tells me we were on the right side of the curve. So raising taxes will actually cause the US Gov't to receive LESS money than with lower taxes.
Wow! I had no idea I was so rich. I got a tax cut. I make just under $50K a year! So if only the top 1% got a tax break, and I got a tax break, I must be in the top 1%. I had no idea I was so rich. If you will excuse me, I must be off to the yacht club!
(Oh, BTW, the US Gov't pulled in more cash after those tax cuts than before them. See Laffer Curve. The problem is that spending also went through the roof. This happens whenever there is a surplus, congress can't say no the next budget go-'round. "What do you mean we can't afford it. We have a surplus." Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped yet. Unfortunately, the new guys in power want to raise taxes and cut gov't spending. This is how you wreck an economy 100% of the time. You should take an economic course and get a job. I know you don't have a job because you think that only the rich got a tax cut!)
Sorry. I missed the /sarc tag even though it was pretty damn obvious for the less that stellar moron. I guess that makes me stellar!
I brought up the same comment when discussing stem cells. The argument I got back was that stem cells were originally produced in labs that worked mostly with mice, so there is a probability that the genetic material was contaminated with genetic material from mice. So evidently, it's OK to eat cloned material, but not do research with.
I wonder if they cloned cattle in labs that worked with pigs. Could we then get true HAM-burgers?
Like cows who inherited genes that make them store energy in the form of saturated fat?
You mean like every single cow that has ever lived on earth? Go ahead and throw in pigs, goats, peanuts, coconuts, palm and even humans that also naturally produce saturated fat, cloned or not.
Now if we could find a cow that would store energy in hydrogenated fat... then we'd be on to something!
Hooray for making large portions of the population immune to virii with this protein. Nothing like guiding evolution/adaptation ever closer towards pandemic.
You're right! We should ban all medicines that fight diseases that kill millions because they might cause the disease to mutate into a disease that kills millions.
WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?
"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."
I use it meaning that I buy the parts I want and put them in the configuration I want. I do not let some engineer under pressure from marketing make those decisions for me. I use "roll my own" in the same way that I would roll my own cigarettes. I don't grow the "tobacco" and pulp wood for my own paper. I buy it all in a store in separate components and put it all together myself.