No way am I going to trust my home power supply to Habib down at the corner store. I could see it now: "I saw you buy your gass at Exxon. NO POWER FOR YOU!"
As I explained earlier, a war based upon false pretenses is by definition unjust, regardless of the character (or lack therof) of the opponent. I've heard that WWI and WWII were based on false pretenses (The Lusitania, prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, Hitler's lack on interest in invading the US). Does that make these world wars unjustified? We didn't know about the Holocaust going in but that does not mean such atrocities should be ignored. The end does justify the means in many cases and this is one of them. Personally, I've known that Iraq had WMD's. I saw pictures of Kurds with chemical burns. Saddam Hussein admitted to using chemical weapons against them. However, I don't care if he had them in 2003 or not. Either way, he had to go. There are many countries in the world with chemical weapons, just like there are countries with evil dictators. IMHO, WMD's are no reason to go to war, it's the rest of the stuff I saw and heard about. (and Yes, I was in the Army 1992-1994 as a 19K. Spent 6 months in Kuwait on operations Iris Gold and Intrinsic Action, 3mo's each. We went over on Iris Gold as a PR stunt and train the Kuwait military how to drive tanks in a straight line. We also put on a gunnery show for the press. I still see SGT Otomora and SGT Pena on TV being interviewed by the Discovery Channel out there. Afterwards we came home on Dec 22. Around Jan 3rd, we were called to go back, with no warning. We were on the ground in Kuwait within 36 hrs of being notified. This was Intrinsic Action. We hit the ground, got in our tanks and hit the desert. About a day later, we stood down. Our return flight was delayed about a month because a 9mm was missing and had us locked down until it was found. My experience with the Kuwaitis came from trips to Kuwait City and talking with their military personel.)
When I mentioned getting modded down earlier, I wasn't kidding. This is the result. Because I've been modded down from my home machine so often, for discussions like this, that I'm now limited to one post a day from this machine. (The rest of my posts today were made from work, which explains my lack of thorough research:-) While it's not really censorship, it is frustrating to producing an honest thought provoking post, only to find ourself marked as troll or off-topic because you take an opinion that does not fit the slashdot group-think. It's funny when my post is modded off-topic, while the parent and offspring of my post are marked as insightful. It gets even better when one of those post is nothing more than "FOAD". Either way, after this post, I'll be silenced, which is what those that disagree with me want (and they call ME fascist. They'd burn my books if I'd write them).
We've both made our points and we agree 100% to disagree on everything else.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. Are you seriously maintaining that it is ethical for an administration to manipulate intelligence to justify their political agenda?
No, of course not. However, when you study all the intel and make up your mind about which way to go based on that intel, even if some of it is conflicting, you are only going to present to the public the data that supports your decision. Call it cherry picking, but I don't see you sighting sources that are contrary to your position. I did, earlier, and got ganked on it, which brings up the next point.
The links you cited were not 'conflicting intelligence reports'. They were all stories about one event: Putin saying that the U.S. was warned about Iraq after 9/11. Yes, three sources, all about Putin telling Bush that Iraq planned to attack the US. Two sources reported it as fact, one reporting it as bullshit. And no, I did not carefully read each article. I read enough to get the jist and to see that it was what I was looking for.
Remember, that manipulated intelligence was pivotal in persuading Congress and the American public into going to war...a war that has proven to be manifestly unjust, and which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Think real hard before you answer that. Sorry, but I've been to the mid-east as a soldier. I've talked with people there that were happy about what we did in Kuwait in the early '90's. I heard about attrocities that took place and even saw some scars (and by scars, I mean missing limbs, tongues and eyes, and bodies. Not just bodies and missing limbs on adult men, but women and children as well.) So when you say that this war is unjust, I ask you to take that question to a man that had his wife raped and the video sent to his kids. Take that question to any of the many mass graves filled with men, or better yet, to the mass graves filled with women, some still holding their children who were burried alive in their dead mother's arms. WMD's are not the only reason we went into Iraq. Unfortunately, it's the only one that was presented to the UN and the one the media latched onto. There are many ruthless dictators around the world, why Iraq? I say we have to start somewhere. When I joined the Army, I knew I would be fighting overseas for the liberties of others, and I was OK with that. What the Hell makes you and I so God Damn'd special that only we deserver liberty. What makes us so damn special that only only we deserve to have someone fight for our right to speak out without getting our tongues cut out, or to vote without losing limbs. Would you fight for your freedom? How about your neighbor's? Does that answer change when that neighbor has brown skin, speaks a different language or is of a different religion?
Sorry, but no. I've taken the liberty of thumbing through your posting history, and I don't see any evidence of the 'fair and balanced' posting you're claiming as an explanation here. I wasn't trying to be 'fair and balanced'. I was trying to point out there were conflicting intelligence reports. Which one do you believe if you're in charge? Do you risk the populations of New York or LA or do you attack a country that has tried to assassinate a US president and continues to kill its own dissenting population?
My explanation of haste coupled with incompetence is still by far the most likely one You arguments stand on their own merit without having to insult me. You are doing just fine, son. Do you think that you are not smart enough to have a discussion without hurling insults? You disappoint me.
...the fact remains that Dubya & Company distorted the facts to justify the war. Your argument about 'world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you', even if it held water, is still entirely beside the point. Distorted the facts or presented the ones that supported their pre-determined conclusion? I feel it's the latter and it's not that uncommon or even unethical.
Now you sound like WidescreenFreak. The AC who replied to his post had it right on the money: "mods != censorship", and it is most certainly not 'trampling your liberty', for Chrissake. True, only governemnts can censor. However, according to SlashDot's moderator guidelines, You are not moderating to make your opinions heard, you are trying to help promote a rational discussion.
The irresponsible action in this context is to make snap decisions about important issues in light of incomplete information. There was no need to invade Iraq when we did, and the intelligence (such as it was) was being flagged as speculative by the agencies providing it. Any leader with an army at his command and a trigger finger that itchy really isn't fit for the job. How many times have you heard the phrase "Bin Laden determined to strike the US...". In was mentioned in a Presidential Daily Briefing. GWB got hammered relentlessly for it. It was seen as proof that GWB did nothing, knowing that Bin Laden was going to attack. It was seen as proof that GWB is completely incompetend and does not know when to act.
Now, imagine how many memos the Prez got saying that Saddam Hussein wanted to attack. Putin gave him one. The Mossad, others. Who knows how many the CIA or NSA provided. Do you expect the Prez to sit around and do nothing again? "Do me once, shame on you. Do me twice...."
2. When posting links to a story supporting your position, make sure you read what you're linking to, to be sure it actually supports you.
Looks like in your haste to shout down the Downing Street Memo point, you grabbed the first three Google matches to 'Putin warned Iraq'. Too bad that the third match effectively demolishes your argument...I've taken the liberty of posting the text here: My argument was that there are two (or more) sides to every story and I posted a couple different sides to one particular story. I should have been clearer. As to the prez, what do you do when you have the responsibility of a country dropped in your lap, 3000 of your civilians just died in a terrorist attack, you have world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you, and several people, both on your side and the other, that say there is nothing to worry about. What do you do?
BTW, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll for this. It's what you learn to expect from modders who are so worried about protecting their own liberty that they will gladly trample mine.
The only reason anyone thought there was actually WMDs in Iraq was because the Bush administration and Tony Blair lied about the intelligence. Yeah, all those dead Kurds with chemical burns had nothing to do with it.
Bush and Blair both knew that the intelligence was inaccurate, their very sources said so and said not to base any action on that intelligence. So who do you belive? The intelligence or the people that say the intelligence was wrong. Do you wait around to see who is right?
Not everyone knew how faulty the intelligence was. You mean that John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all had different intelligence than GWB? What about Putin? He sent a warning to GWB saying that Iraq was planning to attack the US? Do you discount his intelligence too? It's not like he wanted us to go into Iraq. Why would he lie? After 9/11, do you still sit around seeing if anything happens before acting on it? Don't you think that would be just a bit irresponsible?
Now, Bill Clinton certainly did lie under oath. However, he lied under oath about what he was doing with his penis in private -- something a lot of douchebag conservatives would probably lie about, even under oath. OK... like I said in the grand-parent that you ignored, much like anything else that runs counter to your opinion. How about if I rape your wife/daughter/mother? It's my penis. I don't see how it's any of your business what I do with it. If I choose to lie about it, why do you care?
Now FOAD, you disengenous piece of shit. I've presented valid arguments with facts and logic. You sling insults.
There's clearly some compromizes on privacy that's needs to be made to track people who is dangerous to the country. The problem of allowing the governemnt to have such extensive spying capability are the potential for abuse.
I agree 100%. We need to find a happy medium between the tin-foil hat crowd who are spewing fear mongering about our gov'ts, and those that want to burn the Constitution spewing fear mongering about terrorism.
Personally, I'm under the attitude that it's not the spying or the information that is beneficial or dangerous, but what the gov't does with it.
Bush lied about WMDs which has resulted in thousands of dead US soldiers. Why isn't he impeached? Bush didn't lie, no matter how many times you say it. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had available. Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all also thought Iraq had WMD's (or did they lie? You have to say the same for them as you do Bush, it's only fair.) Only they didn't have the balls to do anything about it. They were perfectly content making money off the Oil for Food program and could not care less about the 1 million Iraqi children who died because of it (UNICEF's numbers, not mine).
Clinton lied about his personal affair with an intern, and he got impeached. Bill Clinton lied before a Grand Jury while he was a defendant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. While telling a lie is not illegal, it is when you do it under oath. He also encouraged others to lie before a Grand Jury, which is obstruction of justice. How about I harrass your wife or daughter and then lie about when you take me to court? As long as I am lying about sex, does that make it OK? "No sir, your Honor. I did not grab that guys daughter's ass as she walked by and raise her skirt to take a peek."
What's really worrisome is that they flat-out lied about their spying program. Well, it wouldn't be much a program if they told you about it, now would it?
How did Canada bust the seven suspected terrorists they have in custody? Here's a hint: They monitored electronic communications.
Where's the outrage? Where are the posts calling the Canadian gov't Fascists?
In other words, spying on its citizens is not a US "problem". Your only hope would be to go to a country with a gov't that can't afford the technology to spy on its citizens.
(BTW, it's = "it is"... its is the possessive form of it. Hate to be a G-Nazi, but it's a peeve of mine)
I remember playing LSL on my Apple//c many years ago. While it was not exactly a wholesome game I'd give to my kids, it is a stark contrast to modern day, Grand Theft Auto's Hot Coffee. LSL was almost a clean dirty.
Just so you know, I fully support abusing the moderation system to marginalize conservatives. That's the spirit. MOD down conservatives in the name of free speech and open discussion.
Have a decent user interface. That may not be important to you, but it is important to a couple of people. Those people bought iPods.
Oh no, a good interfaces is extremely important to me. A good buddy of mine has an iPod, I have a Lyra. The interface is not that much different between the two. Well, there is one difference. I can use my Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod.
Unless you are talking about the user interface on the CPU. On my Linux box, the Amarok interface blows away anything offered by Apple for Linux. On WinXP, MusicMatch Jukebox is much easier to use than the iTunes interfaces. Of course, I purchased Jukebox, but still saved over $100 over the cost I would have paid for the iPod.
So, again, can you give me a feature that the iPods offer that my Lyra does not?
Well, what does the Apple player do that my Lyra or iRiver MP3 players do not... other than come bundled with a nifty iTunes store that is pretty much the same thing I get from MusicMatch JukeBox?
Granted, I do get to spend twice as much money for an iPod that I do for my Lyra, but that's hardly reason to buy one.
The iPod is a lot like a Gucci purse. Any old K-Mart purse will carry stuff just as well, but it is not nearly as trendy.
How many of these systems simply would not be running the software that is being pirated at all. For example, if I were not able to pirate PhotoShop, I'd probably run GIMP or Picture Publisher or something that doesn't cost $500 a license. So saying that pirated software=money lost is not true.
Let's all wait until it's too late to change anything before we risk 'cheapening the horror of the Nazis'? No thanks.
You are correct. How about when we no longer have elections because Bush or whoever declares themsevles Suprememe Ruler for life or at least something more evasive than a database? But until then, we are not Nazi's.
The Nazis didn't become Nazis only when they murdered the first Jew. You might want to look up the history of the NSDAP (short version: Nazis existed since 1920, came to power in 1933, gas chambers went up a few years after that). And also check the definition of a police state, while you're at it.
You are correct, Jew killin' is not what makes a Nazi a Nazi, otherwise the Arab world would be full of them. However, a DNA database would not make a country Nazi either. If the grand parent had said "police state" rather than Nazi, I would have left it alone. But I'm seriously tired of everyone making comparisons to the Nazi's for every decision that they don't like. I didn't like it when Bush compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler and I don't like when people compare a country to Nazi Germany. Even Stalin was not a Nazi. This type of hyperbole argument cheapens the debate in the same way that mud-slinging ruins a good election.
When we withheld due process from the VERY FIRST PERSON, we became EXACTLY as bad and evil as and Nazi. Bullshit! The Nazi's killed 6,000,000 Jews, men; women, and children. Of course, this does not include the atrocities in Russia, Poland and other conquered countries. Denying due process to one person, while incredibly wrong, puts at about... 6,000,000 murders short of being Nazi's.
The Nazi's did lots of things. They put people in jail for murder and rape. They paid their government employees. They celebrated holidays and drank beer. Just because we do something that a Nazi did at one point doesn't suddenly make us Nazi's.
Comparing keeping any sort of ID database, be it DNA or national ID cards does all of a sudden make us Nazi's. I don't like this idea neither, but I'm sick and tired of everytime the gov't does anything, people like you come out of the wood-work like roaches screaming "NAZI, NAZI NAZI!!!" It really cheapens the horror of what the Nazi's were and what they stood for. When we fire up the gas-chambers and build labor camps, you can come back and scream "NAZI" all you want. But until then, STFU and get back under the cubbards where you belong.
I'm not right-winger, I'm just tired of the Bullshit.
Some of the doom scenarios I've heard throughout my life, most in the past 10 years. We will run out of oil by 1990 We will run out of food by 1990 Nuclear Holocost SARS Bird Flu Ozone Depletion Global Warming
STOP IT! I'm sick and tired of doom scenarios that scare the shit out of everyone that turn out to be bull-shit. So while you are telling the grand-parent not to be an idiot, I'm telling you to go ahead and stock-pile food and oil into your bomb shelter, avoid human contact, wear your gas mask and your sun-block, and then ask yourself, whose being the idiot?
In the mean time, quit trying to make me feel guilty for using under arm deoderant and let me live my life free of fear and guilt.
The new media journal is not a conservative rag, it is an Islam-fear-spreading propaganda machine.
Here are the headlines from The New Media Journal:
Feds Hunt Hezbollah in New York Hezbollah may be planning to activate sleeper cells in New York & other cities to stage an attack as the nuclear showdown with Iran heats up.
Bin Laden: Moussaoui Wasn't 9/11 Conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui had no link to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, a voice purporting to be that of Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden said on an audiotape that surfaced on a Web site Tuesday.
Iran Closes Newspaper Over Cartoon Furor The government closed one of the country's top three newspapers Tuesday, detaining its editor and cartoonist for publishing a caricature that caused members of Iran's Azeri minority to riot in protest.
Expert: Iran Will Have Nukes Soon Iran will be able to produce two nuclear bombs a year by March of next year, a much different timetable than many have envisioned.
Palestinian Cops, Hamas Battle in Gaza Hamas militiamen and Palestinian police attacked each other in a chaotic firefight that killed an aide to the Jordanian ambassador.
Tips Lead Coalition Forces to IED Factory Coalition forces located and killed six terrorists, detained three and destroyed a safe house during a search for the 'Prince of IEDs.'
Annan: Sudan Prevents Aid from Reaching Darfur UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the Sudan government that its restrictions on vital supplies and relief workers distributing them in Darfur constituted a violation of international humanitarian law.
Tensions High in Liberia as Returnees Claim Homes The return of thousands of Liberians from camps across West Africa is fuelling tension over the ownership of land and homes in northern Nimba.
Is this not news? Tell me again, which part is the Islam-fear-spreading propaganda machine. Now, I can't speak for their editorials, but Google doesn't have to link them. However, I don't see them blocking NYT because of their editorial pages.
Slashdot Mirror
No way am I going to trust my home power supply to Habib down at the corner store.
I could see it now:
"I saw you buy your gass at Exxon. NO POWER FOR YOU!"
As I explained earlier, a war based upon false pretenses is by definition unjust, regardless of the character (or lack therof) of the opponent.
:-) While it's not really censorship, it is frustrating to producing an honest thought provoking post, only to find ourself marked as troll or off-topic because you take an opinion that does not fit the slashdot group-think. It's funny when my post is modded off-topic, while the parent and offspring of my post are marked as insightful. It gets even better when one of those post is nothing more than "FOAD". Either way, after this post, I'll be silenced, which is what those that disagree with me want (and they call ME fascist. They'd burn my books if I'd write them).
I've heard that WWI and WWII were based on false pretenses (The Lusitania, prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, Hitler's lack on interest in invading the US). Does that make these world wars unjustified? We didn't know about the Holocaust going in but that does not mean such atrocities should be ignored. The end does justify the means in many cases and this is one of them.
Personally, I've known that Iraq had WMD's. I saw pictures of Kurds with chemical burns. Saddam Hussein admitted to using chemical weapons against them. However, I don't care if he had them in 2003 or not. Either way, he had to go. There are many countries in the world with chemical weapons, just like there are countries with evil dictators. IMHO, WMD's are no reason to go to war, it's the rest of the stuff I saw and heard about. (and Yes, I was in the Army 1992-1994 as a 19K. Spent 6 months in Kuwait on operations Iris Gold and Intrinsic Action, 3mo's each. We went over on Iris Gold as a PR stunt and train the Kuwait military how to drive tanks in a straight line. We also put on a gunnery show for the press. I still see SGT Otomora and SGT Pena on TV being interviewed by the Discovery Channel out there. Afterwards we came home on Dec 22. Around Jan 3rd, we were called to go back, with no warning. We were on the ground in Kuwait within 36 hrs of being notified. This was Intrinsic Action. We hit the ground, got in our tanks and hit the desert. About a day later, we stood down. Our return flight was delayed about a month because a 9mm was missing and had us locked down until it was found. My experience with the Kuwaitis came from trips to Kuwait City and talking with their military personel.)
When I mentioned getting modded down earlier, I wasn't kidding. This is the result. Because I've been modded down from my home machine so often, for discussions like this, that I'm now limited to one post a day from this machine. (The rest of my posts today were made from work, which explains my lack of thorough research
We've both made our points and we agree 100% to disagree on everything else.
It's honestly been nice discussing/debating you.
Thanx
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. Are you seriously maintaining that it is ethical for an administration to manipulate intelligence to justify their political agenda?
No, of course not. However, when you study all the intel and make up your mind about which way to go based on that intel, even if some of it is conflicting, you are only going to present to the public the data that supports your decision. Call it cherry picking, but I don't see you sighting sources that are contrary to your position. I did, earlier, and got ganked on it, which brings up the next point.
The links you cited were not 'conflicting intelligence reports'. They were all stories about one event: Putin saying that the U.S. was warned about Iraq after 9/11.
Yes, three sources, all about Putin telling Bush that Iraq planned to attack the US. Two sources reported it as fact, one reporting it as bullshit. And no, I did not carefully read each article. I read enough to get the jist and to see that it was what I was looking for.
Remember, that manipulated intelligence was pivotal in persuading Congress and the American public into going to war...a war that has proven to be manifestly unjust, and which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Think real hard before you answer that.
Sorry, but I've been to the mid-east as a soldier. I've talked with people there that were happy about what we did in Kuwait in the early '90's. I heard about attrocities that took place and even saw some scars (and by scars, I mean missing limbs, tongues and eyes, and bodies. Not just bodies and missing limbs on adult men, but women and children as well.) So when you say that this war is unjust, I ask you to take that question to a man that had his wife raped and the video sent to his kids. Take that question to any of the many mass graves filled with men, or better yet, to the mass graves filled with women, some still holding their children who were burried alive in their dead mother's arms. WMD's are not the only reason we went into Iraq. Unfortunately, it's the only one that was presented to the UN and the one the media latched onto. There are many ruthless dictators around the world, why Iraq? I say we have to start somewhere. When I joined the Army, I knew I would be fighting overseas for the liberties of others, and I was OK with that. What the Hell makes you and I so God Damn'd special that only we deserver liberty. What makes us so damn special that only only we deserve to have someone fight for our right to speak out without getting our tongues cut out, or to vote without losing limbs. Would you fight for your freedom? How about your neighbor's? Does that answer change when that neighbor has brown skin, speaks a different language or is of a different religion?
Unjust? How many mass graves make a war just?
Sorry, but no. I've taken the liberty of thumbing through your posting history, and I don't see any evidence of the 'fair and balanced' posting you're claiming as an explanation here.
...the fact remains that Dubya & Company distorted the facts to justify the war. Your argument about 'world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you', even if it held water, is still entirely beside the point.
I wasn't trying to be 'fair and balanced'. I was trying to point out there were conflicting intelligence reports. Which one do you believe if you're in charge? Do you risk the populations of New York or LA or do you attack a country that has tried to assassinate a US president and continues to kill its own dissenting population?
My explanation of haste coupled with incompetence is still by far the most likely one
You arguments stand on their own merit without having to insult me. You are doing just fine, son. Do you think that you are not smart enough to have a discussion without hurling insults? You disappoint me.
Distorted the facts or presented the ones that supported their pre-determined conclusion? I feel it's the latter and it's not that uncommon or even unethical.
Now you sound like WidescreenFreak. The AC who replied to his post had it right on the money: "mods != censorship", and it is most certainly not 'trampling your liberty', for Chrissake.
True, only governemnts can censor. However, according to SlashDot's moderator guidelines, You are not moderating to make your opinions heard, you are trying to help promote a rational discussion.
The irresponsible action in this context is to make snap decisions about important issues in light of incomplete information. There was no need to invade Iraq when we did, and the intelligence (such as it was) was being flagged as speculative by the agencies providing it. Any leader with an army at his command and a trigger finger that itchy really isn't fit for the job.
How many times have you heard the phrase "Bin Laden determined to strike the US...". In was mentioned in a Presidential Daily Briefing. GWB got hammered relentlessly for it. It was seen as proof that GWB did nothing, knowing that Bin Laden was going to attack. It was seen as proof that GWB is completely incompetend and does not know when to act.
Now, imagine how many memos the Prez got saying that Saddam Hussein wanted to attack. Putin gave him one. The Mossad, others. Who knows how many the CIA or NSA provided. Do you expect the Prez to sit around and do nothing again? "Do me once, shame on you. Do me twice...."
2. When posting links to a story supporting your position, make sure you read what you're linking to, to be sure it actually supports you.
Looks like in your haste to shout down the Downing Street Memo point, you grabbed the first three Google matches to 'Putin warned Iraq'. Too bad that the third match effectively demolishes your argument...I've taken the liberty of posting the text here:
My argument was that there are two (or more) sides to every story and I posted a couple different sides to one particular story. I should have been clearer.
As to the prez, what do you do when you have the responsibility of a country dropped in your lap, 3000 of your civilians just died in a terrorist attack, you have world leaders feeding you information that another country wants to attack you, and several people, both on your side and the other, that say there is nothing to worry about. What do you do?
BTW, I'm sure I'll be modded a troll for this. It's what you learn to expect from modders who are so worried about protecting their own liberty that they will gladly trample mine.
Sounds like someone needs to educate themselves.
I have read the downing street memo. Have your read any of these?
here
here
and here
The only reason anyone thought there was actually WMDs in Iraq was because the Bush administration and Tony Blair lied about the intelligence.
Yeah, all those dead Kurds with chemical burns had nothing to do with it.
Bush and Blair both knew that the intelligence was inaccurate, their very sources said so and said not to base any action on that intelligence.
So who do you belive? The intelligence or the people that say the intelligence was wrong. Do you wait around to see who is right?
Not everyone knew how faulty the intelligence was.
You mean that John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all had different intelligence than GWB? What about Putin? He sent a warning to GWB saying that Iraq was planning to attack the US? Do you discount his intelligence too? It's not like he wanted us to go into Iraq. Why would he lie? After 9/11, do you still sit around seeing if anything happens before acting on it? Don't you think that would be just a bit irresponsible?
Now, Bill Clinton certainly did lie under oath. However, he lied under oath about what he was doing with his penis in private -- something a lot of douchebag conservatives would probably lie about, even under oath.
OK... like I said in the grand-parent that you ignored, much like anything else that runs counter to your opinion. How about if I rape your wife/daughter/mother? It's my penis. I don't see how it's any of your business what I do with it. If I choose to lie about it, why do you care?
Now FOAD, you disengenous piece of shit.
I've presented valid arguments with facts and logic. You sling insults.
There's clearly some compromizes on privacy that's needs to be made to track people who is dangerous to the country. The problem of allowing the governemnt to have such extensive spying capability are the potential for abuse.
I agree 100%. We need to find a happy medium between the tin-foil hat crowd who are spewing fear mongering about our gov'ts, and those that want to burn the Constitution spewing fear mongering about terrorism.
Personally, I'm under the attitude that it's not the spying or the information that is beneficial or dangerous, but what the gov't does with it.
Bush lied about WMDs which has resulted in thousands of dead US soldiers. Why isn't he impeached?
Bush didn't lie, no matter how many times you say it. Bush acted on the best intelligence he had available. Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton and Al Gore all also thought Iraq had WMD's (or did they lie? You have to say the same for them as you do Bush, it's only fair.) Only they didn't have the balls to do anything about it. They were perfectly content making money off the Oil for Food program and could not care less about the 1 million Iraqi children who died because of it (UNICEF's numbers, not mine).
Clinton lied about his personal affair with an intern, and he got impeached.
Bill Clinton lied before a Grand Jury while he was a defendant in a sexual harrassment lawsuit. While telling a lie is not illegal, it is when you do it under oath. He also encouraged others to lie before a Grand Jury, which is obstruction of justice. How about I harrass your wife or daughter and then lie about when you take me to court? As long as I am lying about sex, does that make it OK? "No sir, your Honor. I did not grab that guys daughter's ass as she walked by and raise her skirt to take a peek."
What's really worrisome is that they flat-out lied about their spying program.
Well, it wouldn't be much a program if they told you about it, now would it?
How did Canada bust the seven suspected terrorists they have in custody? Here's a hint: They monitored electronic communications.
Where's the outrage? Where are the posts calling the Canadian gov't Fascists?
In other words, spying on its citizens is not a US "problem". Your only hope would be to go to a country with a gov't that can't afford the technology to spy on its citizens.
(BTW, it's = "it is"... its is the possessive form of it. Hate to be a G-Nazi, but it's a peeve of mine)
I remember playing LSL on my Apple//c many years ago. While it was not exactly a wholesome game I'd give to my kids, it is a stark contrast to modern day, Grand Theft Auto's Hot Coffee. LSL was almost a clean dirty.
Just so you know, I fully support abusing the moderation system to marginalize conservatives.
That's the spirit. MOD down conservatives in the name of free speech and open discussion.
Could the US simply refuse visas to anybody who will not provide them that information?
Which is why I carry American Express.
Also, Amarok blows,
/media/usbdrive" ir a gui equivelant. I don't think this is possible with an iPod.
Well, you could transfer files using "cp *.mp3
Still, Amarok is blows away the iTunes interface for Linux.
Have a decent user interface. That may not be important to you, but it is important to a couple of people. Those people bought iPods.
Oh no, a good interfaces is extremely important to me.
A good buddy of mine has an iPod, I have a Lyra. The interface is not that much different between the two. Well, there is one difference. I can use my Lyra as a standard, portable USB hard drive. That's not an option on his iPod.
Unless you are talking about the user interface on the CPU. On my Linux box, the Amarok interface blows away anything offered by Apple for Linux. On WinXP, MusicMatch Jukebox is much easier to use than the iTunes interfaces. Of course, I purchased Jukebox, but still saved over $100 over the cost I would have paid for the iPod.
So, again, can you give me a feature that the iPods offer that my Lyra does not?
Well, what does the Apple player do that my Lyra or iRiver MP3 players do not... other than come bundled with a nifty iTunes store that is pretty much the same thing I get from MusicMatch JukeBox?
Granted, I do get to spend twice as much money for an iPod that I do for my Lyra, but that's hardly reason to buy one.
The iPod is a lot like a Gucci purse. Any old K-Mart purse will carry stuff just as well, but it is not nearly as trendy.
(not that I carry a purse, but you get the idea)
The iPod is popular because it looks cute and has an eye-catching marketing campaign of silouetted beautiful people dancing.
Nothing more.
So why don't you?
Well, actually, I do use GIMP as photoshop is not available on Linux. I was speaking hypothetically.
If I can't emerge it, I don't run it.
How many of these systems simply would not be running the software that is being pirated at all. For example, if I were not able to pirate PhotoShop, I'd probably run GIMP or Picture Publisher or something that doesn't cost $500 a license. So saying that pirated software=money lost is not true.
Let's all wait until it's too late to change anything before we risk 'cheapening the horror of the Nazis'? No thanks.
You are correct. How about when we no longer have elections because Bush or whoever declares themsevles Suprememe Ruler for life or at least something more evasive than a database? But until then, we are not Nazi's.
The Nazis didn't become Nazis only when they murdered the first Jew. You might want to look up the history of the NSDAP (short version: Nazis existed since 1920, came to power in 1933, gas chambers went up a few years after that). And also check the definition of a police state, while you're at it.
You are correct, Jew killin' is not what makes a Nazi a Nazi, otherwise the Arab world would be full of them. However, a DNA database would not make a country Nazi either. If the grand parent had said "police state" rather than Nazi, I would have left it alone. But I'm seriously tired of everyone making comparisons to the Nazi's for every decision that they don't like. I didn't like it when Bush compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler and I don't like when people compare a country to Nazi Germany. Even Stalin was not a Nazi. This type of hyperbole argument cheapens the debate in the same way that mud-slinging ruins a good election.
When we withheld due process from the VERY FIRST PERSON, we became EXACTLY as bad and evil as and Nazi.
Bullshit! The Nazi's killed 6,000,000 Jews, men; women, and children. Of course, this does not include the atrocities in Russia, Poland and other conquered countries. Denying due process to one person, while incredibly wrong, puts at about... 6,000,000 murders short of being Nazi's.
The Nazi's did lots of things. They put people in jail for murder and rape. They paid their government employees. They celebrated holidays and drank beer. Just because we do something that a Nazi did at one point doesn't suddenly make us Nazi's.
Comparing keeping any sort of ID database, be it DNA or national ID cards does all of a sudden make us Nazi's. I don't like this idea neither, but I'm sick and tired of everytime the gov't does anything, people like you come out of the wood-work like roaches screaming "NAZI, NAZI NAZI!!!" It really cheapens the horror of what the Nazi's were and what they stood for. When we fire up the gas-chambers and build labor camps, you can come back and scream "NAZI" all you want. But until then, STFU and get back under the cubbards where you belong.
I'm not right-winger, I'm just tired of the Bullshit.
Some of the doom scenarios I've heard throughout my life, most in the past 10 years.
We will run out of oil by 1990
We will run out of food by 1990
Nuclear Holocost
SARS
Bird Flu
Ozone Depletion
Global Warming
STOP IT! I'm sick and tired of doom scenarios that scare the shit out of everyone that turn out to be bull-shit. So while you are telling the grand-parent not to be an idiot, I'm telling you to go ahead and stock-pile food and oil into your bomb shelter, avoid human contact, wear your gas mask and your sun-block, and then ask yourself, whose being the idiot?
In the mean time, quit trying to make me feel guilty for using under arm deoderant and let me live my life free of fear and guilt.
Here are the headlines from The New Media Journal:
Is this not news? Tell me again, which part is the Islam-fear-spreading propaganda machine. Now, I can't speak for their editorials, but Google doesn't have to link them. However, I don't see them blocking NYT because of their editorial pages.