They rant and rave over Schivo - denying Schivo's choice,
Don't forget that they rant and rave over gay marriage because marriage is a sacred institution yada yada yada, yet when a situation arises that actually relies on that institution (Schaivo), they pull a complete 180. The hypocrisy of the current Republicans is unprecedented in my knowledge.
people treat it as some fundamental granted right, and it's far more complicated than that.
It's not granted at all. No rights are. They are inherent.
This does not mean I now have an absolute constitutional right to the front seat on every bus.
Of course not. Is somebody else already sitting there? Are those seats reserved for the elderly or handicapped? Well, then you do not have the right to take that seat away from somebody else who already has it. It really isn't complicated at all. Is what you are doing interfering with the rights of others? If not, then go ahead and more power to you. Any law that acts otherwise is unconstitutional. Anybody pushing such a law is the worst kind of traitor who seeks to profit from stripping away the rights of others.
Your passion on the subject is admirable, your choice of words much less so.
Well, thanks. I do get a little frothed up when people say things like if a right is not in the constitution explicitly then I don't have it. Had those people actually read the document that they are discussing then they would know that that very idea is completely contradictory to the point of it as explicitly stated in it.
Typically, in my experience, the only reason anybody makes ridiculous asseritons like that is either they seek to profit from removing that right from me, or they are too afraid to recognize the simple basic fact that freedom means people get to do things that they don't like. Being afraid is fine, but acting out of your fear is cowardice. I can't think of a single bad law we have that doesn't fit quite neatly into one of those categories. If you are aware of any, I'm all ears. P.S. sorry about the delayed reply. I've been sick:-(
but nowhere that I know of is there some magical Nth amendent "right to privacy."
Show me where in the constitution it explicitly says that you do not. Oh, that's right you can't.
Therefore you have it.
I will never understand cowardly idiots like yourself who are desperate to piss away their basic *human* rights just becasue they aren't specifically listed on a piece of hemp.
I really wouldn't care all that much how you fuck up your own life, but your ignorance, cowardice, and complacency affect me as well, so grow up, grow a pair, pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to fuck my freedoms.
The president is being a fucking pussy and is scared to piss of the religious right. I do not understand how he can have balls when it comes to Iraq, but not this issue.
There is really no dilemma there. He has no balls on any issue. In Iraq as in everything else he has done, he took the path of cowardice and deceit. Kicking a crippled child in the face takes more courage than Bush has.
Courage doesn't involve invading countries that did nothing to you while having photo ops with the brutal dictators who did actually fund the terrorist attacks against us.
That is cowardice, that is foolishness, and that is treason.
It's clear to anybody with a scrap of sense that anybody who would call themselves a Republican today after they have truly shown themselves for what they are is either a coward a traitor or a fool. If you doubt this, then let's hear your explanation for still supporting these traitors. I guarantee that it will fit into one or more of those categories.
Given the fact that we haven't seen any evidence, what makes you think he isn't?
He could well be. His argument was that the goivernment says he's guilty hence he is guilty. I seriously hope you aren't trying to justify that fallacious line of reasoning?
Why is it that you criticize him for blindly believing in Padilla's guilt while you blindly proclaim the government to be lying?
I'm not blindly proclaiming anything. This government is known for lying through their teeth on a wide variety of issues. Assuming that anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise is just basic common sense at this point.
Nevertheless, to not fear at all it wouldn't be courageous but rather foolhardy.
Certainly, but to piss away my rights and freedoms in the name of policies that do nothing to reduce the threat just because you're scared is far more so, and it is cowardice by definition.
Why then are his positions "cowardly" when they can be rationalized using the same basis you might use to oppose the war in Iraq?
His positions are cowardly by definition. He is supporting pissing away rights and freedoms due to his fear.
Further, my reasons for opposing the war don't have anything to do with that line of "reasoning". Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacks on us while ignoring or kissing up to those countries who did actually support the attack on us is dishonest, cowardly, and completely divorced from the stated purpose. Again, it's basic common sense.
So it's all the West's (and, more specifically, the US's) fault then? At what point are middle easterners responsible for their own actions and destiny?
All? No. Nothing is ever that simple. But if you actually look at the history of the region, most of the problems are directly related to western involvement. The US is partly responsible, but our involvement started a long time after Western Europe's. We are currently trying really hard to make up for lost time. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld sold Saddam the gas he used on the Kurds with US government approval.
How can a society ever achieve self-determination when it wallows in self-depreciation?
Or to actually be relevant to the situation, how can a society achieve self-determination when their public utilities are sold off to foreign companies and their democratically elected leaders are murdered or overthrown with the aid of foreign governments if they ever have the courage to stand up and fight for their people's self-determination?
That's how Saddam got into power. Khomeini(sp) got into power as a backlash against the same. Just look at Latin America for a host of examples of the same.
But to sit here and place blame solely on the United States is ridiculous.
Certainly, which is why I didn't do that, now did I?
Why is it that the United States--of all nations--is the largest financial supporter of Palestine?
Let's see..... maybe because we're the largest supporter of Israel and we have a nasty habit of funding both sides in conflicts because it's good for the profits of military contractors, plus it helps keep the middle east destabilized? Again, just look at the Iran Iraq conflict we promoted. Again, nothing is that black and white, but at least my explanation passes a basic sanity check rather than some supposed altruism on the part of politicians.
why is it that their muslim neighbors do not provide them amnesty?
Because they make a better political tool as poor refugees than they would as regular citizens? What do you expect when you encourage and aid extremists to get and maintain control?
Why doesn't anyone question the financial donations (or lack thereof) during humanitarian crises from wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia?
Well, I don't know about you, but I qestion this all the time. In fact it's a major reason I don't support this insane invasion of Iraq. Bush (and all other pre
The fact I'm not planning a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb perhaps?
Given that we haven't seen any evidence, how do you know he is. Oh, right, you blindly believe any lie the government tells you... or maybe just the lies Republican governments tell you, regardless.
I am not willing to take or be subjected to that risk.
Ah, so you are a coward. This country was built on courage and only has any hope of maintaining it's greatness with a lot more courage. You know.. that thing that you just proved that you are completely lacking.
I, and other good Americans say: "Give me liberty or give me death." The coward (you and those like you) say: "Take all the liberty you want from me as long as you tell me I'm safer regardless of the facts".
The Islamic extremists want to rebuild the Caliphate and eventually subjugate the whole world under Sharia law.
Sure, the extremists. Now go away and come back when you can intelligently discuss how extremists keep coming into power in these places. I'll give you a hint. Cowardice and ignorance on the part of members of the American public are not blameless.
We must draw a line in the sand.
We have. It involved them giving up everything they have to foreign investors, having their leaders chosen by foreign powers, and having their efforts for self- determination undermined whenever it would have a negative effect on certain Western Powers' bottom lines.
The response to this line in the sand is the terrorism you see.
Your complete inability to see anything outside of your tiny ignorant little world view where we are the good guys regardless of our actions is part of the problem.
"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality."
Which is exactly what the Bill of Rights guarantees. You have completely forgotten that the constitution doesn't grant any rights to anybody. It provides a few powers to the federal government and explicitly states that all human rights are reserved to the citizens, *even ones not mentioned in the document*.
"Civil rights are those rights developed by citizens over time and sometimes protected by governments...refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class"
Yes, things like anti-discrimination laws enforce civil rights.
It's really sad to see somebody, like you, with an entirely incorrect understanding of what your basic human rights are. You have a responsibility to your country and your fellow human beings to understand these things. Your government does not now, nor did it ever grant you any rights, because they were already yours.
Anecdotal sure, but I think it's fairly short-sighted to blame any and all anti-science sentiment (and anti-intellectual sentiment in general) on *just* the conservative right.
Seriously dude, your anecdotes don't address what you're saying they do. You could use them as examples that you can't completely blame the current *state* of science education on the conservative right since there are non conservatives who are apathetic.
But to say that you can't blame anti-intellectual and anti -science *sentiment* on the conservative right is completely insane.
Who else uses it as their primary campaign platform? Who else are the sworn enemies of the so called (by them) "intellectual elite"? Who else have made "educated" a dirty word?
Come up with all the anecdotes you want, but it won't change the fact that the conservative right has actively chosen to directly attack educated people on the grounds that they are educated in order to gain the power that they currently hold.
Sorry, but that angle on your argument is completely disintegrated by common sense and paying just a little bit of attention to current events.
The lunacy that pervades the extreme left is just as damaging as the extreme right. Turn on any media like TV, radio or newspapers and you'll see where the real damage occurs. Can you say 'Jerry Springers World'?
Ummm....dude...Jerry Springer is a showcase of the extreme right. Were you kidding with your comment, or truly that clueless?
Well, I don't think the reason that you got a hostile response has anything to do with differing viewpoints or you playing devil's advocate. It has to do with the fact that you are dead wrong and don't even understand the actual issue.
If you did, then you wouldn't keep on harping on about "free market" and Telus's rights to do what they will with their network. As was already pointed out to you before you typed this response, this has nothing at all to do with a free market. (nice idiotic jab about slashdotters being anti free market as well. Too bad you don't even know what one is though, right? Hot tip monopolies and corporate welfare are anethema to a free market)
They are a monopoly. Therefore to give them the rights you want to would utterly destroy the rioghts of everybody in their coverage area. These are simple concepts, so your attempt to look like you were actually trying to look after poor little Telus's rights when you don't even have the foggiest understanding of the subject just makes you look silly and sycophantic.
On the one hand you have a low level of constant annoyance (spam) and on the other hand you have someone's well-being (his DEATH). I think some priorities need to be examined.
Well, you do have a constant low level annoyance, however it is multiplied by hundreds of millions which makes it a far bigger problem. Add in the cost to the networks, and add in the fact that email has become practically useless to a great number of people. When you actually add it up, it is far far more than merely a low level annoyance.
Say for example that dealing with spam takes 1 second per day for each person who is forced to deal with this spammers inability to act like a decent member of society. Assuming that there are 300 Million people on the internet this is 9.5 years of human life that this person has destroyed *per day*
In a month, he has wasted well over one complete human lifetime.
Now, I am not arguing that it was "right" to kill this sociopathic shitbag, but you did suggest that priorities be examined and so I have done that.
There seems to be some sort of attitude that robbing one person is bad, but robbing everybody gets no attention. If I bounce a check, then that can be a pretty major offense even though there is only one single victim. Yet when members of congress bounced checks and that was the same crime multiplied 300 million times yet it's blown off completely.
So what I'm saying with this is I disagree to a point with what I think you're getting at which is that one person receiving a spam is not anywhere the same league as receiving a blunt object to the back of the head resulting in your death. That fact I agree with, but when you look at the sheer volume then you are no longer comparing one to one. You have literally billions of minor annoyances to one death. While I am not arguing that that is necessarilly the "correct" translation factor to use, I will say that reasonably there is a correct factor.
If not, then really, I think you are conceding the future to sociopaths (not like they aren't the vast majority of political leaders anyhow, but that's another topic).
That attackers excuse? He was high and didn't realize what he was doing. I suppose his rights were infringed upon, however, by locking him up for assualt and drug charges.
That's his excuse which doesn't mean jack. Locking him up for assault sounds like a great idea in that situation. The drug issue is a red herring.
No matter how much you try to convince me, I'll not take your side
Yet you're the one calling me closed minded.
We have laws to protect the greater good of people in this country.
Some, certainly. Drug laws among many others do not fall anywhere near this though. They create the problems associated with the situation. As demonstrated by prohibition originally and to a much worse degree by the current drug laws.
Having a bunch of heroin addicts running around does not support the greater good, and that's not an arguable statement.
For the most part that statement is true, however it completely ignores all of the relevant facts. For that statement to be in any way relevant to the discussion, what you would have to demonstrate is that there are now no heroin addicts running around. Surprise! There are. More than ever. So obviously the existing laws are completely worthless and more laws even more so.
And even at that, you completely ignore the fact that people being addicted to heroin is not really a problem. One could argue that everybody is addicted to water, granted it's a little hokey, but it does encompass the problem. Everybody needs water every day. As long as it is accessible there is no problem. Think of how quickly our entire society would deteriorate if it were made as difficult to get as heroin.
So yet again, the best example that you could come up with is a clear demonstration of the fact that drug laws are the problem rather than the drugs themselves.
We could abolish all drug laws without affecting usage patterns much at all. Anybody who wants access has it now with the laws in place. So take 10% of what we put into the war on personal freedom and put it into treatment programs. You have totally eliminated drug related crime, and eliminated the actual problems associated with drugs outside the moronic legal system wrapped around it. At the same time you have freed up the other 90% of the money which is in the billions which serves no possible useful purpose.
Now, tell me again what exactly is good for you, me, or anybody other than the owner of Wackenhut with our current system?
Is anybody safer? Of course not. Are there less drugs around? Of course not. All that happens is that prices go up the more difficult drugs are to get which ensures that only the most ruthless will make a living at it.
Now I get it. Because your area had corruption, everywhere else does too.
Wow, how far outside any sort of context are you going to take that?!?
In the first place, I lived many places all over the US. If you think there isn't corruption wherever you live, then you are incredibly naive. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but that is human nature. Where there is power, there will be corruption. This is amplified by the simple obvious fact that those who are the most corrupt to start out with tend to be the ones who are desperate enough to attain that power. This sort of activity is self reinforcing.
For as many examples as you would like, look at the entirety of human history.
Again, insulting my fiance without having had the opportunity to even meet her discredits anything you say about her personality or reasons for being a police officer.
I note that you have again failed to come up with one other, even purely theoretically possible, alternative explanation. You're clearly taking this way too personally, and not in a good way. Of course, nothing is going to convince you that your fiance isn't the greatest girl in the world.
Try to come up with any other possible reasonable explanation why somebody would become and remain a cop.
I agree drug laws are too harsh. But look up the history of drugs and their laws. They tie back to the early 20th century and the rampant heroin problem in China and, eventually, the US.
Actually, if you look a little deeper you will see that it is tied much more closely with the arrival of patented processes to make paper out of wood pulp, and the rise of the pharmecutical industry. It's really pretty obvious. Like everything else in a fascist society, follow the money. Who are the major funders of these anti-personal freedom laws? What do you know, it's big Pharma, Bud, Coors and Miller. Oh, yeah, let's not forget the cops who get to rob people blind if they find a roach in a car and the prison industry which makes bank off of locking up people whose only crime was to exercise their basic human rights.
Here, we took a nicer approach.. made laws, and opened clinics. However, with each law comes someone who finds a way to exploit it, so a new law is made... rinse and repeat.
See above. If you honestly believe this has anything to do with how the process works then you are so far out of touch with reality that I am just stunned.
We made laws because they were paid for by a few major industries. This led to the rise of other industries, like prison, who make a *lot* of money by locking up their fellow citizens who have harmed nobody (and those that have, of course). Further, they pay a lot to make sure that harsher punishments and new laws keep coming out solely for the purpose of allowing themselves to lock up more of their fellow citizens for longer and longer periods.
Drug laws are not being exploited by dealers or users. They are being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry and by the alcohol industry. Think it through, who has the money and the power?
She has busted people solely for drugs... one in particular was on a middle school campus. Was that unpatriotic of her to remove that child, and the drugs, from a public learning environment? BTW, it was cocaine.... not crack, cocaine.
I still have to say that, yes it was unpatriotic. The fact is that drug laws are anti-personal freedom, they are designed to hurt the majority of the people to enrich a few. It was obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense what would happen when drug laws were created and likewise every single time they have been extended. In fact we proved beyond the shadow of a doubt what would happen with the original prohibition.
Increased crime (not just counting the fact that so many people are magically criminals once you pass a law), increased violence of crime, gangs, etc, etc, etc.
I suppose living with one for 4 years, and hanging out with many of them for that period of time, discussing issues just like this one, eliminates me from having any knowledge then?
Absolutely. You know them as people, not as cops. They also know you, so your interactions with them are far from typical.
Have you watched them unseen while they're working? If not, then you do have no knowledge of the issue.
What are your qualifications?
I spent my childhood growing up on the streets for the most part. I have had the crap kicked out of me by cops on more than one occasion for the simple fact that they didn't like me. I have seen them handcuff a friend to a dumpster and beat him into the hospital for a month long stay becasue he showed his face on a street they told hime to keep off of. I have actually been in non-violent protests and spoken to many people who have been to far more, and the sickening abuse of power and the brutality inherent in cops by the very nature of the job and therefore also by the type of person attracted to that lifestyle would truly amaze most people if the media would ever give an accurate portrayal of those events. Unfortunately, the media like the cops is just another tool of the corporate elite.
My fiance has been a police officer now for 6 years, so I suppose she now either hates people or is just plain stupid. Is that what you know firsthand without having met her or any of her coworkers?
Not necessarily, but not too far off. Either:
She got into it for the wrong reasons eg she is on a power trip at which point, how long she has been there is irrelevant.
or
She got into it wanting to actually make a positive difference in her community. If this is the case, then don't you think that 6 years is enough time for any decent non-brain damaged human being to notice that that ain't what the job is about?
Close minded people like you, making such generalizations, are the ones giving intellectuals a bad name.
No, closed minded people like you who are afraid to actually open their eyes and take a look at the world around them once in a while are the real problem.
Here's another simple example. Has your fiance ever busted anybody solely for drug charges? If so, given well established fact that the vast majority of problems commonly associated with drugs are due solely to drug laws, how would it be possible to justify her actions and still maintain that she has a scrap of integrity or patriotism?
Do you think they're standing there just itching to whack someone with a baton?
A fairly high percentage of them? Absolutely positively beyond the shadow of a doubt. You obviously know fuck all about the mentality of people who choose as a career path to perform a job that is mostly centered around busting people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and robbing people to increase government revenues.
There are some small percentage of people who go into police work in the interests of serving their community, but after one two years tops these people have either left or given up their idealism when they realise that they aren't paid to help. The third possibility is that they are too stupid to even realise what they are doing.
I'm sorry, but as a cop the first time you are ordered to lock *peaceful* protesters in cages labeled "free speech zones" your number one most important responsibility is to refuse that order and do *anything it takes* to get the person who gave that order fired and put on trial for treason. This is a very simple cut and dried example.
The second time it happens, if you follow the order, then it is imperative that you be shot in the fucking head. That is patriotism. If your fiance doesn't recognize these things then her life is a liability to freedom and to this country.
Sorry if you don't like it, but freedom in my country is worth far more than the life of yet another traitor.
I have a Dell optiplex GX260. When I plug in a PCI video card, Linux immediately kernel panics. It's done it with 3 different video cards using SuSE, RedHat and Gentoo.
Wow, you can take parts of two unrelated sentences and construct something totally unrelated to what I said. Congratulations, Sparky! Way to miss the point and avoid actually addressing any real issues. You're a real tribute to your country.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with that. I have no prejudices about them. My feelings are based on facts which are demonstrated by their own words and actions.
They claim to be Christian while fighting tooth and nail against what Jesus said.
They claim to be Christian and vote for Bush who is about as diametrically opposed to Christian beiefs as it is possible to get.
They claim to hate big government and welfare while they are far and away the largest recipients of it. They can't even afford to pay for their own phones and basic utilities leaving me to pick up their tab.
They wave flags around without having a god damned clue about what that flag stasnds for. They even go as far as to piss in the face of everything it stands for with their insane support for hate based legislation.
Think it through Sparky. I have no prejudices in this respect. It is *all* based on their own blind hatred and hypocricy.
Of course by "them" I mean the majority, there are many nice people I've met and hung out with all over the country. People who can't even be bothered to read the fucking book they claim to put so much stake in (when a sentence or two in the whole fucking thing backs up their hatreds) are of a sick diseased mentality.
The simple unarguable fact is that it is 100% impossible to be either a Patriot or a Christian and support the current Republican party.
If it were, somebody would have been able to come up with anything besides a web of lies and ignorant hatred to back it up, dont' you think?
Slashdot Mirror
They rant and rave over Schivo - denying Schivo's choice,
Don't forget that they rant and rave over gay marriage because marriage is a sacred institution yada yada yada, yet when a situation arises that actually relies on that institution (Schaivo), they pull a complete 180.
The hypocrisy of the current Republicans is unprecedented in my knowledge.
people treat it as some fundamental granted right, and it's far more complicated than that.
:-(
It's not granted at all. No rights are. They are inherent.
This does not mean I now have an absolute constitutional right to the front seat on every bus.
Of course not. Is somebody else already sitting there? Are those seats reserved for the elderly or handicapped? Well, then you do not have the right to take that seat away from somebody else who already has it.
It really isn't complicated at all. Is what you are doing interfering with the rights of others? If not, then go ahead and more power to you. Any law that acts otherwise is unconstitutional. Anybody pushing such a law is the worst kind of traitor who seeks to profit from stripping away the rights of others.
Your passion on the subject is admirable, your choice of words much less so.
Well, thanks. I do get a little frothed up when people say things like if a right is not in the constitution explicitly then I don't have it. Had those people actually read the document that they are discussing then they would know that that very idea is completely contradictory to the point of it as explicitly stated in it.
Typically, in my experience, the only reason anybody makes ridiculous asseritons like that is either they seek to profit from removing that right from me, or they are too afraid to recognize the simple basic fact that freedom means people get to do things that they don't like. Being afraid is fine, but acting out of your fear is cowardice. I can't think of a single bad law we have that doesn't fit quite neatly into one of those categories. If you are aware of any, I'm all ears.
P.S. sorry about the delayed reply. I've been sick
but nowhere that I know of is there some magical Nth amendent "right to privacy."
Show me where in the constitution it explicitly says that you do not.
Oh, that's right you can't.
Therefore you have it.
I will never understand cowardly idiots like yourself who are desperate to piss away their basic *human* rights just becasue they aren't specifically listed on a piece of hemp.
I really wouldn't care all that much how you fuck up your own life, but your ignorance, cowardice, and complacency affect me as well, so grow up, grow a pair, pull your head out of your ass and stop trying to fuck my freedoms.
The president is being a fucking pussy and is scared to piss of the religious right. I do not understand how he can have balls when it comes to Iraq, but not this issue.
There is really no dilemma there. He has no balls on any issue.
In Iraq as in everything else he has done, he took the path of cowardice and deceit.
Kicking a crippled child in the face takes more courage than Bush has.
Courage doesn't involve invading countries that did nothing to you while having photo ops with the brutal dictators who did actually fund the terrorist attacks against us.
That is cowardice, that is foolishness, and that is treason.
It's clear to anybody with a scrap of sense that anybody who would call themselves a Republican today after they have truly shown themselves for what they are is either a coward a traitor or a fool.
If you doubt this, then let's hear your explanation for still supporting these traitors. I guarantee that it will fit into one or more of those categories.
Given the fact that we haven't seen any evidence, what makes you think he isn't?
He could well be. His argument was that the goivernment says he's guilty hence he is guilty. I seriously hope you aren't trying to justify that fallacious line of reasoning?
Why is it that you criticize him for blindly believing in Padilla's guilt while you blindly proclaim the government to be lying?
I'm not blindly proclaiming anything. This government is known for lying through their teeth on a wide variety of issues. Assuming that anything they say is a lie until proven otherwise is just basic common sense at this point.
Nevertheless, to not fear at all it wouldn't be courageous but rather foolhardy.
Certainly, but to piss away my rights and freedoms in the name of policies that do nothing to reduce the threat just because you're scared is far more so, and it is cowardice by definition.
Why then are his positions "cowardly" when they can be rationalized using the same basis you might use to oppose the war in Iraq?
His positions are cowardly by definition. He is supporting pissing away rights and freedoms due to his fear.
Further, my reasons for opposing the war don't have anything to do with that line of "reasoning". Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacks on us while ignoring or kissing up to those countries who did actually support the attack on us is dishonest, cowardly, and completely divorced from the stated purpose. Again, it's basic common sense.
So it's all the West's (and, more specifically, the US's) fault then? At what point are middle easterners responsible for their own actions and destiny?
All? No. Nothing is ever that simple. But if you actually look at the history of the region, most of the problems are directly related to western involvement. The US is partly responsible, but our involvement started a long time after Western Europe's. We are currently trying really hard to make up for lost time. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld sold Saddam the gas he used on the Kurds with US government approval.
How can a society ever achieve self-determination when it wallows in self-depreciation?
Or to actually be relevant to the situation, how can a society achieve self-determination when their public utilities are sold off to foreign companies and their democratically elected leaders are murdered or overthrown with the aid of foreign governments if they ever have the courage to stand up and fight for their people's self-determination?
That's how Saddam got into power. Khomeini(sp) got into power as a backlash against the same. Just look at Latin America for a host of examples of the same.
But to sit here and place blame solely on the United States is ridiculous.
Certainly, which is why I didn't do that, now did I?
Why is it that the United States--of all nations--is the largest financial supporter of Palestine?
Let's see..... maybe because we're the largest supporter of Israel and we have a nasty habit of funding both sides in conflicts because it's good for the profits of military contractors, plus it helps keep the middle east destabilized? Again, just look at the Iran Iraq conflict we promoted.
Again, nothing is that black and white, but at least my explanation passes a basic sanity check rather than some supposed altruism on the part of politicians.
why is it that their muslim neighbors do not provide them amnesty?
Because they make a better political tool as poor refugees than they would as regular citizens? What do you expect when you encourage and aid extremists to get and maintain control?
Why doesn't anyone question the financial donations (or lack thereof) during humanitarian crises from wealthy Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia?
Well, I don't know about you, but I qestion this all the time. In fact it's a major reason I don't support this insane invasion of Iraq. Bush (and all other pre
The fact I'm not planning a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb perhaps?
Given that we haven't seen any evidence, how do you know he is. Oh, right, you blindly believe any lie the government tells you... or maybe just the lies Republican governments tell you, regardless.
I am not willing to take or be subjected to that risk.
Ah, so you are a coward. This country was built on courage and only has any hope of maintaining it's greatness with a lot more courage. You know.. that thing that you just proved that you are completely lacking.
I, and other good Americans say: "Give me liberty or give me death."
The coward (you and those like you) say: "Take all the liberty you want from me as long as you tell me I'm safer regardless of the facts".
The Islamic extremists want to rebuild the Caliphate and eventually subjugate the whole world under Sharia law.
Sure, the extremists.
Now go away and come back when you can intelligently discuss how extremists keep coming into power in these places. I'll give you a hint. Cowardice and ignorance on the part of members of the American public are not blameless.
We must draw a line in the sand.
We have. It involved them giving up everything they have to foreign investors, having their leaders chosen by foreign powers, and having their efforts for self- determination undermined whenever it would have a negative effect on certain Western Powers' bottom lines.
The response to this line in the sand is the terrorism you see.
Your complete inability to see anything outside of your tiny ignorant little world view where we are the good guys regardless of our actions is part of the problem.
"Human rights refers to the concept of human beings as having universal rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction, and likewise other localizing factors, such as ethnicity and nationality."
Which is exactly what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
You have completely forgotten that the constitution doesn't grant any rights to anybody. It provides a few powers to the federal government and explicitly states that all human rights are reserved to the citizens, *even ones not mentioned in the document*.
"Civil rights are those rights developed by citizens over time and sometimes protected by governments...refer to the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, sex, or other class"
Yes, things like anti-discrimination laws enforce civil rights.
It's really sad to see somebody, like you, with an entirely incorrect understanding of what your basic human rights are. You have a responsibility to your country and your fellow human beings to understand these things. Your government does not now, nor did it ever grant you any rights, because they were already yours.
Anecdotal sure, but I think it's fairly short-sighted to blame any and all anti-science sentiment (and anti-intellectual sentiment in general) on *just* the conservative right.
Seriously dude, your anecdotes don't address what you're saying they do.
You could use them as examples that you can't completely blame the current *state* of science education on the conservative right since there are non conservatives who are apathetic.
But to say that you can't blame anti-intellectual and anti -science *sentiment* on the conservative right is completely insane.
Who else uses it as their primary campaign platform?
Who else are the sworn enemies of the so called (by them) "intellectual elite"?
Who else have made "educated" a dirty word?
Come up with all the anecdotes you want, but it won't change the fact that the conservative right has actively chosen to directly attack educated people on the grounds that they are educated in order to gain the power that they currently hold.
Sorry, but that angle on your argument is completely disintegrated by common sense and paying just a little bit of attention to current events.
The lunacy that pervades the extreme left is just as damaging as the extreme right. Turn on any media like TV, radio or newspapers and you'll see where the real damage occurs. Can you say 'Jerry Springers World'?
Ummm....dude...Jerry Springer is a showcase of the extreme right. Were you kidding with your comment, or truly that clueless?
Well, I don't think the reason that you got a hostile response has anything to do with differing viewpoints or you playing devil's advocate. It has to do with the fact that you are dead wrong and don't even understand the actual issue.
If you did, then you wouldn't keep on harping on about "free market" and Telus's rights to do what they will with their network.
As was already pointed out to you before you typed this response, this has nothing at all to do with a free market. (nice idiotic jab about slashdotters being anti free market as well. Too bad you don't even know what one is though, right? Hot tip monopolies and corporate welfare are anethema to a free market)
They are a monopoly. Therefore to give them the rights you want to would utterly destroy the rioghts of everybody in their coverage area.
These are simple concepts, so your attempt to look like you were actually trying to look after poor little Telus's rights when you don't even have the foggiest understanding of the subject just makes you look silly and sycophantic.
On the one hand you have a low level of constant annoyance (spam) and on the other hand you have someone's well-being (his DEATH). I think some priorities need to be examined.
Well, you do have a constant low level annoyance, however it is multiplied by hundreds of millions which makes it a far bigger problem. Add in the cost to the networks, and add in the fact that email has become practically useless to a great number of people. When you actually add it up, it is far far more than merely a low level annoyance.
Say for example that dealing with spam takes 1 second per day for each person who is forced to deal with this spammers inability to act like a decent member of society.
Assuming that there are 300 Million people on the internet this is 9.5 years of human life that this person has destroyed *per day*
In a month, he has wasted well over one complete human lifetime.
Now, I am not arguing that it was "right" to kill this sociopathic shitbag, but you did suggest that priorities be examined and so I have done that.
There seems to be some sort of attitude that robbing one person is bad, but robbing everybody gets no attention. If I bounce a check, then that can be a pretty major offense even though there is only one single victim. Yet when members of congress bounced checks and that was the same crime multiplied 300 million times yet it's blown off completely.
So what I'm saying with this is I disagree to a point with what I think you're getting at which is that one person receiving a spam is not anywhere the same league as receiving a blunt object to the back of the head resulting in your death. That fact I agree with, but when you look at the sheer volume then you are no longer comparing one to one. You have literally billions of minor annoyances to one death. While I am not arguing that that is necessarilly the "correct" translation factor to use, I will say that reasonably there is a correct factor.
If not, then really, I think you are conceding the future to sociopaths (not like they aren't the vast majority of political leaders anyhow, but that's another topic).
That attackers excuse? He was high and didn't realize what he was doing. I suppose his rights were infringed upon, however, by locking him up for assualt and drug charges.
That's his excuse which doesn't mean jack. Locking him up for assault sounds like a great idea in that situation. The drug issue is a red herring.
No matter how much you try to convince me, I'll not take your side
Yet you're the one calling me closed minded.
We have laws to protect the greater good of people in this country.
Some, certainly. Drug laws among many others do not fall anywhere near this though. They create the problems associated with the situation. As demonstrated by prohibition originally and to a much worse degree by the current drug laws.
Having a bunch of heroin addicts running around does not support the greater good, and that's not an arguable statement.
For the most part that statement is true, however it completely ignores all of the relevant facts.
For that statement to be in any way relevant to the discussion, what you would have to demonstrate is that there are now no heroin addicts running around.
Surprise! There are. More than ever. So obviously the existing laws are completely worthless and more laws even more so.
And even at that, you completely ignore the fact that people being addicted to heroin is not really a problem. One could argue that everybody is addicted to water, granted it's a little hokey, but it does encompass the problem.
Everybody needs water every day. As long as it is accessible there is no problem. Think of how quickly our entire society would deteriorate if it were made as difficult to get as heroin.
So yet again, the best example that you could come up with is a clear demonstration of the fact that drug laws are the problem rather than the drugs themselves.
We could abolish all drug laws without affecting usage patterns much at all. Anybody who wants access has it now with the laws in place. So take 10% of what we put into the war on personal freedom and put it into treatment programs. You have totally eliminated drug related crime, and eliminated the actual problems associated with drugs outside the moronic legal system wrapped around it. At the same time you have freed up the other 90% of the money which is in the billions which serves no possible useful purpose.
Now, tell me again what exactly is good for you, me, or anybody other than the owner of Wackenhut with our current system?
Is anybody safer? Of course not.
Are there less drugs around? Of course not.
All that happens is that prices go up the more difficult drugs are to get which ensures that only the most ruthless will make a living at it.
Now I get it. Because your area had corruption, everywhere else does too.
Wow, how far outside any sort of context are you going to take that?!?
In the first place, I lived many places all over the US. If you think there isn't corruption wherever you live, then you are incredibly naive. Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but that is human nature. Where there is power, there will be corruption.
This is amplified by the simple obvious fact that those who are the most corrupt to start out with tend to be the ones who are desperate enough to attain that power. This sort of activity is self reinforcing.
For as many examples as you would like, look at the entirety of human history.
Again, insulting my fiance without having had the opportunity to even meet her discredits anything you say about her personality or reasons for being a police officer.
I note that you have again failed to come up with one other, even purely theoretically possible, alternative explanation. You're clearly taking this way too personally, and not in a good way. Of course, nothing is going to convince you that your fiance isn't the greatest girl in the world.
Try to come up with any other possible reasonable explanation why somebody would become and remain a cop.
I agree drug laws are too harsh. But look up the history of drugs and their laws. They tie back to the early 20th century and the rampant heroin problem in China and, eventually, the US.
Actually, if you look a little deeper you will see that it is tied much more closely with the arrival of patented processes to make paper out of wood pulp, and the rise of the pharmecutical industry. It's really pretty obvious. Like everything else in a fascist society, follow the money. Who are the major funders of these anti-personal freedom laws? What do you know, it's big Pharma, Bud, Coors and Miller. Oh, yeah, let's not forget the cops who get to rob people blind if they find a roach in a car and the prison industry which makes bank off of locking up people whose only crime was to exercise their basic human rights.
Here, we took a nicer approach.. made laws, and opened clinics. However, with each law comes someone who finds a way to exploit it, so a new law is made... rinse and repeat.
See above. If you honestly believe this has anything to do with how the process works then you are so far out of touch with reality that I am just stunned.
We made laws because they were paid for by a few major industries. This led to the rise of other industries, like prison, who make a *lot* of money by locking up their fellow citizens who have harmed nobody (and those that have, of course). Further, they pay a lot to make sure that harsher punishments and new laws keep coming out solely for the purpose of allowing themselves to lock up more of their fellow citizens for longer and longer periods.
Drug laws are not being exploited by dealers or users. They are being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry and by the alcohol industry.
Think it through, who has the money and the power?
She has busted people solely for drugs... one in particular was on a middle school campus. Was that unpatriotic of her to remove that child, and the drugs, from a public learning environment? BTW, it was cocaine.... not crack, cocaine.
I still have to say that, yes it was unpatriotic.
The fact is that drug laws are anti-personal freedom, they are designed to hurt the majority of the people to enrich a few.
It was obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense what would happen when drug laws were created and likewise every single time they have been extended.
In fact we proved beyond the shadow of a doubt what would happen with the original prohibition.
Increased crime (not just counting the fact that so many people are magically criminals once you pass a law), increased violence of crime, gangs, etc, etc, etc.
So given that
I suppose living with one for 4 years, and hanging out with many of them for that period of time, discussing issues just like this one, eliminates me from having any knowledge then?
Absolutely. You know them as people, not as cops. They also know you, so your interactions with them are far from typical.
Have you watched them unseen while they're working?
If not, then you do have no knowledge of the issue.
What are your qualifications?
I spent my childhood growing up on the streets for the most part. I have had the crap kicked out of me by cops on more than one occasion for the simple fact that they didn't like me. I have seen them handcuff a friend to a dumpster and beat him into the hospital for a month long stay becasue he showed his face on a street they told hime to keep off of. I have actually been in non-violent protests and spoken to many people who have been to far more, and the sickening abuse of power and the brutality inherent in cops by the very nature of the job and therefore also by the type of person attracted to that lifestyle would truly amaze most people if the media would ever give an accurate portrayal of those events. Unfortunately, the media like the cops is just another tool of the corporate elite.
My fiance has been a police officer now for 6 years, so I suppose she now either hates people or is just plain stupid. Is that what you know firsthand without having met her or any of her coworkers?
Not necessarily, but not too far off.
Either:
She got into it for the wrong reasons eg she is on a power trip at which point, how long she has been there is irrelevant.
or
She got into it wanting to actually make a positive difference in her community. If this is the case, then don't you think that 6 years is enough time for any decent non-brain damaged human being to notice that that ain't what the job is about?
Close minded people like you, making such generalizations, are the ones giving intellectuals a bad name.
No, closed minded people like you who are afraid to actually open their eyes and take a look at the world around them once in a while are the real problem.
Here's another simple example. Has your fiance ever busted anybody solely for drug charges? If so, given well established fact that the vast majority of problems commonly associated with drugs are due solely to drug laws, how would it be possible to justify her actions and still maintain that she has a scrap of integrity or patriotism?
Do you think they're standing there just itching to whack someone with a baton?
A fairly high percentage of them? Absolutely positively beyond the shadow of a doubt. You obviously know fuck all about the mentality of people who choose as a career path to perform a job that is mostly centered around busting people for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and robbing people to increase government revenues.
There are some small percentage of people who go into police work in the interests of serving their community, but after one two years tops these people have either left or given up their idealism when they realise that they aren't paid to help.
The third possibility is that they are too stupid to even realise what they are doing.
I'm sorry, but as a cop the first time you are ordered to lock *peaceful* protesters in cages labeled "free speech zones" your number one most important responsibility is to refuse that order and do *anything it takes* to get the person who gave that order fired and put on trial for treason. This is a very simple cut and dried example.
The second time it happens, if you follow the order, then it is imperative that you be shot in the fucking head. That is patriotism. If your fiance doesn't recognize these things then her life is a liability to freedom and to this country.
Sorry if you don't like it, but freedom in my country is worth far more than the life of yet another traitor.
Hey, while we're having free tech support day ;-)
I have a Dell optiplex GX260. When I plug in a PCI video card, Linux immediately kernel panics. It's done it with 3 different video cards using SuSE, RedHat and Gentoo.
Any ideas?
Damn dude.
That's why you shouldn't hack your AIBO to be a firewall.
Why did it take me 2 hours to configure xorg.conf to get my laptop working in 1400x1050 properly when Knoppix did it in 30 seconds?
Because you didn't think to just copy the config over?
I almost always enjoy my commute home.
Yeah, me too. Kick it on the train with some friends drinking a beer watching the trees go by.
It's like happy hour.
I was talking about superstore ;-). Not that I've ever been there or anything. Just joking around about what you said.
Sounds like you're having a good time out there.
First job for me when I was 15 back in Saskatchewan. I'm 35 now and living in New Zealand.
Jebus Christ, Man! Could you have gone any farther while remaining on the planet?!?
That place must suck more ass than Michael Bolton at an ass sucking contest.
Do a fresh install of XP Home.
Run your spyware finders.
Claria is already installed out of the box.
So, yes they did and still do.
Wow, you can take parts of two unrelated sentences and construct something totally unrelated to what I said.
Congratulations, Sparky! Way to miss the point and avoid actually addressing any real issues.
You're a real tribute to your country.
Not at all, what a ridiculous thing to say.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with that.
I have no prejudices about them. My feelings are based on facts which are demonstrated by their own words and actions.
They claim to be Christian while fighting tooth and nail against what Jesus said.
They claim to be Christian and vote for Bush who is about as diametrically opposed to Christian beiefs as it is possible to get.
They claim to hate big government and welfare while they are far and away the largest recipients of it. They can't even afford to pay for their own phones and basic utilities leaving me to pick up their tab.
They wave flags around without having a god damned clue about what that flag stasnds for. They even go as far as to piss in the face of everything it stands for with their insane support for hate based legislation.
Think it through Sparky.
I have no prejudices in this respect. It is *all* based on their own blind hatred and hypocricy.
Of course by "them" I mean the majority, there are many nice people I've met and hung out with all over the country. People who can't even be bothered to read the fucking book they claim to put so much stake in (when a sentence or two in the whole fucking thing backs up their hatreds) are of a sick diseased mentality.
The simple unarguable fact is that it is 100% impossible to be either a Patriot or a Christian and support the current Republican party.
If it were, somebody would have been able to come up with anything besides a web of lies and ignorant hatred to back it up, dont' you think?
Ironically, I would bet that you like to claim that you are "tolerant" of other cultures.
There is a world of difference between tolerance and ignoring people who are actively pushing to destroy everything that made this country great.