I thought everyone knows about this. National Public Radio (NPR) is the source (amoung many), they even had one of the guys on the air that fixed the election in West Virgnia. He told how they fixed the election in Chicago (Mayor Daily is famous for this - "Vote early and vote often.") as well. They story seems to be offline now. Maybe if there is enough interest they will bring it back.
Even so, it has been generally accepted that Nixon won the election anyhow (very close election). He conceeded and let Kennedy have it without even going to court nor did he whine about it. Of course who knows what would have happened if Nixon got in instead of Kennedy. Well besides no Watergate (Nixon bad) and no Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson bad).
Uh oh, looks like Jobs is becoming the man. Disney owns a lot of stuff, TV stations, Radio and a whole host of other stuff. Not a bad takeover. This is like the dog that caught the car.
A team managed to manipulate the results of a mock election. Using the old systems - punch cards, voting machines with paper tape, all the old systems this same thing has been done for decades. In Maryland they have had the "late" returns, where the dead were voting to put behind Parris Glendenning over the top and steal the election from Saurbrey (she is now an ambassador). We also now know that Nixon won the election in 1960, not Kennedy. Lots of examples of this.
What they really need is a secure voting system. One that requires positive identification of the voters, cross checking to make sure they only vote once, a paper trail - with incremental checksums. They can do it with lottery tickets, why not with voting? Purple dye people's thumbs too.
The only real question is - is the Diebold system more secure than what we had, which was very insecure and subject to known corruption? I think we all know we are not there yet to a secure system. One that ensures that even the stupid can cast a vote.
They are claiming IP on this - they can't keep on going and going and going too! Only the Energizer bunny can do that. What happens if you put the bunnies batteries in backwards? He keeps on......
"disclose ownership of intellectual property to their shareholders."
This is business as usual and it should be obvious. McDonalds may be violating IP someplace, so could Mercedes or even Barney the TV show. Take the case of a car, how could one enumerate all the possible IP holders or possible violations? They probably mean the IP that the company knows about. This could be a real problem for companies that cross license portfolios like IBM and Lucent.
Any specific version in mind? There are many and most are very wrong. Just as I said in the 1970s when the left was telling us the same BS they are now. According to them, we would be out of most oil by 1983, in dire straits by 1986 (i.e. no gas/oil - gone forever (with emphasis on forever)). They even had commercials about it featuring a boy that was about 8 and he said that there would be none for him by the time he is 16. Here we are, over 20 years later and now the prediction (for most) is 2011. BTW about another 6 years... gee same as in the 1970s. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. In a few years I can replace my yellowing old 1970s t-shirt with a new one as here it comes again, if I live that long. Propaganda movies are already out there (i.e. the day after tomorrow), as before.
I do want to touch on the control issue that you mentioned. As I stated before, the US already had control over that oil through the UN program. Bush could have easily left that alone and things would have continued as they had for a decade. Security was provided by Saddam and he did an excellent job at it. Probably a better job than the MOB would do. Soon Iraq will be turned back over to the elected government and the US will be out of there. Clearly less control than before. The left hopes to fool people long enough to make gains in the 2006 elections. Even so, they have moved on for the most part to corruption and intelligence. Even though they may have to bag a few of their own on corruption like Harry Ried. Corruption questions dogged him this last weekend like a cheap suit.
You would be right if there really is a crises with oil and we really are running out. It would get very ugly if something isn't waiting to take its place. However that is another (and potentially a very heated) discussion.
Also, you realize the Justice Department is a Cabinet department, ie, it's part of the executive branch, not the judicial?
But of course. The department is composed of a lot of people that survive from administration to administration (they are called Civil Service, they were instituted over 100 years ago due to political whims in the Government for the very reason you cite (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servant )). Simply the management changes. As I said before, regardless of who is in Congress or the WH, they have a very good track record of being right. In fact if you notice, a lot of Supreme Court justices through the years have worked there at some point. Some alumni have become law makers in Congress - Jamie Gorelick is a good example of that.
I believe the Justice Department is wrong on this issue. We shall see.
Maybe. Depends on Congress. Sometimes they get rid of the issue by legislation. The Justice Department does have a good track record of being right, however.
Who are those non-citizens calling in this country then?
Other non-citizens usually. The question really is moot. You don't have a protected right to harm other people or do illegal things. Besides listening in is really not an issue anyhow. Standard police practice is knowing who is talking to whom. That tells you the real story.
Legal dudes, eh?
Yes, legal dudes. That is because this was a discussion that was not professional in manner. Therefore I don't want to mention who they are. Rest assured they are not legal wimps.
(aclu)...Oh please.
Live and read, then realize the truth. There are a lot of organizations that are old and doing whatever they can to make people think they are still relevent. The NAACP is another example (more white people donate to them than black people, according to them). Recently the AFL-CIO is in the news for this very issue as well. The ACLU is in that boat. So they look for pots of gold - the favorate 3G's - God, Gays and Girls are prime targets. That is why I say the intelligence thing is up their alley too, probably another civil rights case that they win even if they loose. As a bonus they get people to think they care about them instead of using them.
Your the one that has been mislead (deluded) if you think I'm wrong. Apparently you read what I wrote, I did have some fun with some of it. Injecting Laurel and Hardy with Ghandi and the others... Hope you laughed. I thought you would say something about that.
If it was about oil then how come we aren't taking it? Why was it turned over to Iraq again and very quickly? We purchase oil from there before and after the war and in roughly the same amounts. Face it, your believing a lie. Do you deny the French were taking money from the OIL for food program? Take a look here - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocus ID=97&Body=Oil-for-Food&Body1=inquiry . Maybe you haven't heard of Bosnia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1469896.st m . It was a UN action in the 1990s and the US participated. The justification was mainly genocide. Maybe you are in denial about Saddam? Here, get to know him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein . Here is a short list of resolutions that he has violated - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect 2.html . Every one of them you can look up for yourself at the UN site if you don't believe it. Perhaps it is that you don't believe the world has been at war for many millenia - that would be ignorance of history that is inexcuseable.
More like it, you think you know more than you really do and by the way I'm probably old enough to be at least your father if not your grandfather. I keep telling young people about stuff like this, they don't believe me and then they make the mistake I told them about. Happens over and over again. Amusing when they admit I was right when caught. The truly stupid (stupid as in a stupor, not as in dumb) continue to deny that I'm right, especially in the face of facts like I have shown you above. Up to now I wouldn't say that you're stupid or even dumb, you're learning. The choice is yours now that I have shown you the undeniable facts. You can't even say I'm deluded because I used sources that can't even be disputed. some people call this "those stubborn facts again."
Even today Hilary Clinton won't say it was a mistake for her to vote to go to war. It took a lot to get Sen. Kerry to say it was, he voted to go to war too. Both know it was the right thing to do and yes - had nothing to do with oil or even bad intelligence. Kerry simply thought he could get elected by being anti-war so he went for the propaganda. He had nothing else to offer (don't believe that? What else was he about then? Without looking or googling). I remember people like you when Carter and then Clinton came to power. They said we would never be at war with them in power and both took military action. I can remember Kennedy too, however that is another discussion. Take the red pill and read what I sent you or take the blue pill and continue to be ignorant. Hopefully you will take the red pill and wake up.
We are hugely off topic here. Sorry/. Please forgive us.
I'll leave you with this thought. Regardless of if you think I'm right, deluded, whatever, please keep your mind open and consider both sides. Both sides tell you the truth sometimes and both sides tell yo
I'm sure you won't mind if I personally listen in on all your conversations to make sure you're not a terrorist. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right?
You act as if this hasn't been going on for about 60 years. Truman put it in place - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon . Reports of threats to Freedom are greatly exagerated. Listen in on my conversations? I hope you have some strong coffee and don't operate heavy machinery.
No, we're concerned that the government sees clear to ignore laws that it feels are inconvenient.
No, this issue has been reviewed many times by the Justice Department for compliance with the laws. They believe it is in compliance. The only reason this is an issue is because the NY Times didn't want to publish the story about the stunning elections and record low violence in Iraq on the front page where it belonged that Friday. The spy story was on ice for over a year while the reporter wrote a book on the subject making his source (i.e. the criminal that leaked the information) livid. It was political propaganda.
I don't care if whoever it is is calling Osama bin Laden directly on his Friends and Family line. They need to get a goddamned warrant, or stop pretending that this is a nation of laws.
They need warrants as it pertains to law in this country. Stop pretending that the Constitution applies to non citizens outside of the country. We the people, not we the world. Besides, I have been told by many legal dudes that when it comes to national security it will be found to be legal.
..."The ACLU needs to be disolved"... You need your head examined.
The ACLU is simply an arm of the Democratic party to shove their agenda through that they can't get through via legislature. Most of their cases are simply fund raisers for them exploiting the 1973 law on civil rights cases. Win, loose or draw they make money. If they were disolved tomorrow it is very unlikely you (or nearly everyone in the country) would ever miss them. Your tax bill would likely go down, however.
Get into an elevator then press all the buttons anyhow and say "ha ha". Maybe if you hit a floor that the elevator isn't supposed to go to, it beeps or shocks the user. Now if only we can get the slow idiots out of the left lane on the highway.
Hey, that is funny! OLD cliche' though. Thank you Mr. Woodward (Washington Post reporter, broke Watergate.. in case your not old enough to know about him)... Not him? Could have fooled a lot of us. They said Afghanistan was about OIL as well in the beginning. Today nobody in their right mind would think that. In fact I don't think anyone not in their right mind thinks that either. It was a big lie that didn't take off. My guess is you missed that part. Most people today know Iraq isn't over oil. If it were we aught to be a lot more upset, gas prices are much higher. This is obvious for many reasons, which I'm sure you haven't thought out yet. Don't worry, they depend on people not thinking things through in politics. If you did follow the money, it would lead to France and implicate Mr. Annon's son (executive summary). Billions imbezzled and yet I don't see people going to jail. It is OK I guess because it was those towards the left doing it. I take it you don't see that as a motive to oppose invading Iraq. Wars have been fought for far less.
Your confusing politics with real leadership. Do you think money had something to do with say Mr. Winston Churchill? Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt? (Indian Leader) Mr. Mahatma Ghandi? How about Dr. Martin Luther King? Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy? Some things are a lot more important to mankind than money, as hard as that may be for you to believe. Your Constitutional Right to say what you want for example (if you live in the US). No matter how terrible it may be. As always I'll simply add that nobody should confuse that right with a "right" to harm others. Some people think that planning to harm people should be protected too. Unless they are the ones being harmed of course.
By the way, I have a very strong grasp on politics. If your assumption is that most/.ers don't have a clue about politics, you would be very right. It is also true that most people have no clue as well.
The pretext was set up by Saddam himself. Study the man and get to know him and you will see why. Here is a hint: Hitler is one of Saddam's mentors. He sponsored terrorism by his own admission. He comitted genocide and everything we saw in Bosnia - and more (where is the demand to get out of Bosnia BTW, shows how hypocritical the anti-war movement is; yes we are STILL in Bosnia). The UN had a duty to do something about it regardless of OIL or even WMDs. It is part of their charter.
It is also true that war often presents opportunities to make money. War is a fact of life. Don't think I'm right? Look at history. We are always fighting each other and long before America was around. You can try to stop it and I'll wish you the best of luck if you choose to do that. Don't take it too personally if people don't listen to you or think you're a nut. The more successful you are the more they will likely hate you. Right now your on the easy side - complain about it and think you know a lot more than you really do. I know this may seem like a slap in the face to you, it isn't. Most people have no idea what is really going on, nor should they. We would be in a lot more wars if they did.
I promise you that Washington's invasion of Iraq had nothing at all to do with liberating anyone and everything to do with gaining control of significant oil supplies in order to forestall an imminent and rapid worsening of the ongoing energy crisis.
The US already owned the fields in Iraq before the war through the UN oil for food program - which the French (amoung others) were skimming off of. Security was by provided by Saddam and he did a very good job at it. If you think it was about oil, then you have fallen prey to propaganda. It was all about the 30+ UN resolutions over 20+ years, the last one of which drew a line threatening military action and was unanimously approved (yes, unanimously, even France voted for it). Bush simply said that if you threaten action then you had better follow through if they don't comply. Otherwise the organization means nothing (and he said so at the time). They didn't so he invaded based on the broken cease fire agreement of 1991 making it a legal invasion. Truth be known, even France was going to invade with the US. It is just that they wanted to give Iraq more time. Turns out they probably waited too long as it was. Opposition to the war probably had more to do with OIL, however.
Turning off GPS is also funny. So many things in the world depend on it. To turn it off would be a lot like cutting ones right leg off. Yea you could do it, it wouldn't be in your best interest to do that however. Galileo simply adds more un-needed radio crap to what we already have. As if we have un-used bandwidth out there.
...Does that sound like a 500+ year solution to you?
It was an idiotic Carter administration decision to not recycle spent nuke rods. Their rationale at the time was that if the US didn't recycle the rods, nobody else in the world would do it. This is why I call it an idiotic decision. Other countries saw the economy of recycling the rods and therefore don't have the waste problem that we do. Bush could do the country a lot of good and get rid of that policy.
I fully expect cars to drive themselves before I become senile enough to have the keys taken away from me.
Yea right... Did they do something to get rid of all the lawyers? They have been retarding society and progress for decades. Yes, I know some lawsuits are totally justified. However so many aren't and then there are patent and copyright laws (Ford decides that they "own" the copyright to the steering wheel, brake pedal and dash ala SCO lawsuit... maybe I shouldn't joke about this even though I really do think you can't copyright those things). Maybe it could happen if you are real young.
Of course that is provided that we get that old. The lawyers are busy at work putting all the drug companies and other companies with deep pockets out of business.
Another thing I don't get about why people don't like dirigibles is the Hindenburg disaster.
Caught as one of the first disasters on film, it is indelable. However I think most people know it was Hydrogen that caused that and therefore is not a concern today. Dirigibles are still magical. From time to time I run across Navy dirigibles while flying my 1947 Cessna. Makes me feel like I'm back in the 1930s or 40s. While the cool factor is up there, they are not that practicle. Moving freight is far more efficient by truck and is far more reliable. Same with moving people and say a bus. To move them quicker, you can't beat a jet. You can buy a 1971 747-200 for a cool 1.2 million right now. A 1980 737-200ADV-17 is a mear 1.5 million. How many do you want? The only thing I can think of that it has an advantage is what the Navy is using them for. In place of a helicopter for hovering over something. Other than that, they are a hole in the sky in which to put your money. Sort of like a boat - a hole in the water in which to put your money.
more energy in the Carribean to help power hurricanes etc.
Except for the fact it the hurricanes have nothing to do with GW. It is a cycle that has been going on for hundreds of years. If it were due to GW, how come the number and intensity of hurricanes in the Pacific and Indian oceans are decreasing? Because the relationship between GW and Hurricanes is propaganda.
Dudes, how come you used no2 and paraphin? They did have peroxide back then and they could have used kerosene, or perhaps whale oil. Please don't test fire this in your lab again. NASA does it in an open range for a reason. A chamber failure could have been a disaster.
Works for a while then they hire 100 Chinese (or 25 Indian) programmers to rewrite your whole application. They also put in features you never thought of. As a bonus they might even through in flight simulator with a hotkey.
We are getting waaay off topic. However I think you are being unfair to the US. Let me explain a bit.
Thanks to the US governement, we have now world-wide terrorism.
The world had it long before the US Government did anything. We have Yasser Arafat to thank for all of this, he started it in Munich in 1972 when he killed a bunch of Israeli athletes. Then continued for decades derailing peace deal after peace deal. He made too much money making trouble. In 1982 they bombed the Marine Baracks in Beirut and Regan withdrew, what Bin Laden said gave him his foolish idea that he could do what he wanted with impunity. In the 1990s Clinton didn't lift a finger to go after terrorists, even when the WTC was bombed the first time and ending with doing nothing about the USS Cole. Clinton even released known convicted terrorists from jail. No sir, don't thank the US for world wide terrorism. We can't claim that one. That honor is either middle eastern or European (Europe loves to lay claim to lots of things that are not theirs, why not this one).
There is no terrorism in France. Get informed. There is small riots. Remember the big riots in L.A.? Did you call them terrorism?
I am informed. That is probably the trouble, the news media won't tell you as it is. Riots die down after a few days, this continues and has spilled into other countries. It also isn't a "small riot", thousands of cars have been torched along with many other things. It isn't a civil rights thing, France has bent over backwards for them. They don't want to be assimilated. They knew they couldn't beat Europe in a war so they are doing it from within. I know you probably think I'm wrong, wait a few years and see if you think that. Keep in mind that you are likely an infidel, even if you are Muslim and they want to kill you. It is part of their religion and when pressed about the issue they admit it.
Do you really think Syria could hide them for long?
They didn't, that is my point. It isn't as if Saddam didn't do this in the past, he did it in the first gulf war as well. Sent his stuff to Syria and Iran, even admitted it. Syria isn't threatening anyone with them, the government is fairly stable. There isn't a real pressing reason to do something about it. Besides, those in denial will say just because Syria has WMD's, that doesn't mean they came from Iraq. Even if they have Saddam's finger prints all over them. They couldn't take the political hit. I'm wondering if this will come out just before the next election. The US Democrats seems to be leader challenged.
Additonaly, if the WMD are not in Irak, why to invade this country?
The US had an Army assembled to do the job. It was too little too late and there was no way to know if he really did send them out or sent empty trucks. The UN had been working with him for over a decade and drew many lines in the sand. Bush simply said that the last ultimatum (which was a strong one) you made you must make good on. Otherwise the UN is useless, or as Bush put it "not relevent". Nothing happens if you don't honor the resolutions, even one that they say that they really mean it. As it is now, Saddam got his ass kicked and perhaps soon will be executed. Never make a threat you don't intend on carrying out. The UN security council really should have known better.
This is really a pity but the USA is the only country that started war in the 21st century (so far). No excuse.
What excuse? The US had a reason, 30+ UN resolutions, over a decade of negotiations and 3 US administrations and at least 2 UN administrations, inspections that went on for years and DID find stuff - up until the war began if you were keeping track. What more do you want? The vote to go to war was a landslide with bipartisan support in both of the US houses. Over 50 other countries participated as well. The media was lothe to report that when Baghdad fell, we captured a LOT of internationally known and wanted terrorists. This is probably the most famous on
You have to be able to know what is in the container.
Yea, I know. That is the trouble. They could even be empty. I thought it was hogwash until I saw how Bush strongarmed the Syrian President into removing his forces from Lebanon. He un-necessarily pushed him, even the sleeping press noticed. I'm hoping someone out there has cool pictures or something. Oh, yea the pictures were shown on the defense's web site back in 2003. Not sure when they aged off. I'm sure someone has them.
Doing a google search I found a couple of interesting web pages. Take a gander - here and here . At least something to think about. A bit closer.
Maybe Saddam had them, the US helped Saddam build them in the 1980s. The UN has pictures of them. I suppose you also think Bill Clinton lied about them too? Hilary voted to invade, clearly she would know if there was something wrong from her husband. Unless maybe you believe that Bush went back in time to manipulate that intellegence too. There are satellite pictures showing truck traffic from the WMD sites to Syria just before the war. Unfortunately the US instead of invading right away sent Saddam an engraved letter of their intentions so he moved them. Check it out here. They had actual satellite photos showing this on a government site, however they seem to be offline now. The ones I saw showed container trucks.
Also, do you think Saddam had a thing for nuclear and biological scientists? Recruited them just for fun? The real reason is Bush cut off the oil for food embezzlement that France, Germany and Russia was enjoying. That is what all the anti-war stuff is about. Supporting terrorism. Terrorism that is biting France right now, in flames. Some think that France will fall soon. We'll see. Maybe they will ask Germany or Britain to help them.
By the way, it isn't funny the military gets more money than science. Being a scientist I know all about that. If we just had some nice young skirts to send down to Congress to woo them, we could get a lot more money. Geeks don't get funded as well as the macho soldier boys. The unfortunate part is even if we make new advances, the military often takes those advances and uses them to kill people. They even use non-lethal weapons to drive people out to where they can shoot them.
I do know there are those that say the WMDs were not moved to Syria. Those same people are at a loss to explain why there is truck tracks from those suspected sites to Syria. No tracks show up for years before that, then all of a sudden? Seems like only a fool would believe they weren't moved, unless they can show they moved something else. How about it, do any slashdotters know of why those truck tracks from obviously heavy trucks showed up from December to just before the invasion? Truck track fairy maybe? There are pictures of places that show up at the same time in Syria where it is obvious something was burried.
Not trying to be flame bait here. So don't flame. If you know of something that definitively shows they were moved, respond. Same thing if you have something that shows definitively they were not moved respond as well. Note - Newspaper articles don't count as definitive proof. I don't want propaganda either way. Just the facts (play Dragnet tune).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought everyone knows about this. National Public Radio (NPR) is the source (amoung many), they even had one of the guys on the air that fixed the election in West Virgnia. He told how they fixed the election in Chicago (Mayor Daily is famous for this - "Vote early and vote often.") as well. They story seems to be offline now. Maybe if there is enough interest they will bring it back.
Even so, it has been generally accepted that Nixon won the election anyhow (very close election). He conceeded and let Kennedy have it without even going to court nor did he whine about it. Of course who knows what would have happened if Nixon got in instead of Kennedy. Well besides no Watergate (Nixon bad) and no Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson bad).
Uh oh, looks like Jobs is becoming the man. Disney owns a lot of stuff, TV stations, Radio and a whole host of other stuff. Not a bad takeover. This is like the dog that caught the car.
What they really need is a secure voting system. One that requires positive identification of the voters, cross checking to make sure they only vote once, a paper trail - with incremental checksums. They can do it with lottery tickets, why not with voting? Purple dye people's thumbs too.
The only real question is - is the Diebold system more secure than what we had, which was very insecure and subject to known corruption? I think we all know we are not there yet to a secure system. One that ensures that even the stupid can cast a vote.
They are claiming IP on this - they can't keep on going and going and going too! Only the Energizer bunny can do that. What happens if you put the bunnies batteries in backwards? He keeps on ......
This is business as usual and it should be obvious. McDonalds may be violating IP someplace, so could Mercedes or even Barney the TV show. Take the case of a car, how could one enumerate all the possible IP holders or possible violations? They probably mean the IP that the company knows about. This could be a real problem for companies that cross license portfolios like IBM and Lucent.
Any specific version in mind? There are many and most are very wrong. Just as I said in the 1970s when the left was telling us the same BS they are now. According to them, we would be out of most oil by 1983, in dire straits by 1986 (i.e. no gas/oil - gone forever (with emphasis on forever)). They even had commercials about it featuring a boy that was about 8 and he said that there would be none for him by the time he is 16. Here we are, over 20 years later and now the prediction (for most) is 2011. BTW about another 6 years... gee same as in the 1970s. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. In a few years I can replace my yellowing old 1970s t-shirt with a new one as here it comes again, if I live that long. Propaganda movies are already out there (i.e. the day after tomorrow), as before.
I do want to touch on the control issue that you mentioned. As I stated before, the US already had control over that oil through the UN program. Bush could have easily left that alone and things would have continued as they had for a decade. Security was provided by Saddam and he did an excellent job at it. Probably a better job than the MOB would do. Soon Iraq will be turned back over to the elected government and the US will be out of there. Clearly less control than before. The left hopes to fool people long enough to make gains in the 2006 elections. Even so, they have moved on for the most part to corruption and intelligence. Even though they may have to bag a few of their own on corruption like Harry Ried. Corruption questions dogged him this last weekend like a cheap suit.
You would be right if there really is a crises with oil and we really are running out. It would get very ugly if something isn't waiting to take its place. However that is another (and potentially a very heated) discussion.
But of course. The department is composed of a lot of people that survive from administration to administration (they are called Civil Service, they were instituted over 100 years ago due to political whims in the Government for the very reason you cite (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servant )). Simply the management changes. As I said before, regardless of who is in Congress or the WH, they have a very good track record of being right. In fact if you notice, a lot of Supreme Court justices through the years have worked there at some point. Some alumni have become law makers in Congress - Jamie Gorelick is a good example of that.
Maybe. Depends on Congress. Sometimes they get rid of the issue by legislation. The Justice Department does have a good track record of being right, however.
Who are those non-citizens calling in this country then?
Other non-citizens usually. The question really is moot. You don't have a protected right to harm other people or do illegal things. Besides listening in is really not an issue anyhow. Standard police practice is knowing who is talking to whom. That tells you the real story.
Legal dudes, eh?
Yes, legal dudes. That is because this was a discussion that was not professional in manner. Therefore I don't want to mention who they are. Rest assured they are not legal wimps.
(aclu)...Oh please.
Live and read, then realize the truth. There are a lot of organizations that are old and doing whatever they can to make people think they are still relevent. The NAACP is another example (more white people donate to them than black people, according to them). Recently the AFL-CIO is in the news for this very issue as well. The ACLU is in that boat. So they look for pots of gold - the favorate 3G's - God, Gays and Girls are prime targets. That is why I say the intelligence thing is up their alley too, probably another civil rights case that they win even if they loose. As a bonus they get people to think they care about them instead of using them.
If it was about oil then how come we aren't taking it? Why was it turned over to Iraq again and very quickly? We purchase oil from there before and after the war and in roughly the same amounts. Face it, your believing a lie. Do you deny the French were taking money from the OIL for food program? Take a look here - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocus ID=97&Body=Oil-for-Food&Body1=inquiry . Maybe you haven't heard of Bosnia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1469896.st m . It was a UN action in the 1990s and the US participated. The justification was mainly genocide. Maybe you are in denial about Saddam? Here, get to know him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein . Here is a short list of resolutions that he has violated - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect 2.html . Every one of them you can look up for yourself at the UN site if you don't believe it. Perhaps it is that you don't believe the world has been at war for many millenia - that would be ignorance of history that is inexcuseable.
More like it, you think you know more than you really do and by the way I'm probably old enough to be at least your father if not your grandfather. I keep telling young people about stuff like this, they don't believe me and then they make the mistake I told them about. Happens over and over again. Amusing when they admit I was right when caught. The truly stupid (stupid as in a stupor, not as in dumb) continue to deny that I'm right, especially in the face of facts like I have shown you above. Up to now I wouldn't say that you're stupid or even dumb, you're learning. The choice is yours now that I have shown you the undeniable facts. You can't even say I'm deluded because I used sources that can't even be disputed. some people call this "those stubborn facts again."
Maybe it would also help to mention that Iraq was a haven for terrorists. Dozens of them were arrested right after we captured Baghdad including this guy wanted for over a decade - http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq .abbas.arrested/ . Here is yet another article on others - http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F
Even today Hilary Clinton won't say it was a mistake for her to vote to go to war. It took a lot to get Sen. Kerry to say it was, he voted to go to war too. Both know it was the right thing to do and yes - had nothing to do with oil or even bad intelligence. Kerry simply thought he could get elected by being anti-war so he went for the propaganda. He had nothing else to offer (don't believe that? What else was he about then? Without looking or googling). I remember people like you when Carter and then Clinton came to power. They said we would never be at war with them in power and both took military action. I can remember Kennedy too, however that is another discussion. Take the red pill and read what I sent you or take the blue pill and continue to be ignorant. Hopefully you will take the red pill and wake up.
We are hugely off topic here. Sorry /. Please forgive us.
I'll leave you with this thought. Regardless of if you think I'm right, deluded, whatever, please keep your mind open and consider both sides. Both sides tell you the truth sometimes and both sides tell yo
You act as if this hasn't been going on for about 60 years. Truman put it in place - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon . Reports of threats to Freedom are greatly exagerated. Listen in on my conversations? I hope you have some strong coffee and don't operate heavy machinery.
No, we're concerned that the government sees clear to ignore laws that it feels are inconvenient.
No, this issue has been reviewed many times by the Justice Department for compliance with the laws. They believe it is in compliance. The only reason this is an issue is because the NY Times didn't want to publish the story about the stunning elections and record low violence in Iraq on the front page where it belonged that Friday. The spy story was on ice for over a year while the reporter wrote a book on the subject making his source (i.e. the criminal that leaked the information) livid. It was political propaganda.
I don't care if whoever it is is calling Osama bin Laden directly on his Friends and Family line. They need to get a goddamned warrant, or stop pretending that this is a nation of laws.
They need warrants as it pertains to law in this country. Stop pretending that the Constitution applies to non citizens outside of the country. We the people, not we the world. Besides, I have been told by many legal dudes that when it comes to national security it will be found to be legal.
The ACLU is simply an arm of the Democratic party to shove their agenda through that they can't get through via legislature. Most of their cases are simply fund raisers for them exploiting the 1973 law on civil rights cases. Win, loose or draw they make money. If they were disolved tomorrow it is very unlikely you (or nearly everyone in the country) would ever miss them. Your tax bill would likely go down, however.
Get into an elevator then press all the buttons anyhow and say "ha ha". Maybe if you hit a floor that the elevator isn't supposed to go to, it beeps or shocks the user. Now if only we can get the slow idiots out of the left lane on the highway.
Hey, that is funny! OLD cliche' though. Thank you Mr. Woodward (Washington Post reporter, broke Watergate.. in case your not old enough to know about him)... Not him? Could have fooled a lot of us. They said Afghanistan was about OIL as well in the beginning. Today nobody in their right mind would think that. In fact I don't think anyone not in their right mind thinks that either. It was a big lie that didn't take off. My guess is you missed that part. Most people today know Iraq isn't over oil. If it were we aught to be a lot more upset, gas prices are much higher. This is obvious for many reasons, which I'm sure you haven't thought out yet. Don't worry, they depend on people not thinking things through in politics. If you did follow the money, it would lead to France and implicate Mr. Annon's son (executive summary). Billions imbezzled and yet I don't see people going to jail. It is OK I guess because it was those towards the left doing it. I take it you don't see that as a motive to oppose invading Iraq. Wars have been fought for far less.
Your confusing politics with real leadership. Do you think money had something to do with say Mr. Winston Churchill? Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt? (Indian Leader) Mr. Mahatma Ghandi? How about Dr. Martin Luther King? Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy? Some things are a lot more important to mankind than money, as hard as that may be for you to believe. Your Constitutional Right to say what you want for example (if you live in the US). No matter how terrible it may be. As always I'll simply add that nobody should confuse that right with a "right" to harm others. Some people think that planning to harm people should be protected too. Unless they are the ones being harmed of course.
By the way, I have a very strong grasp on politics. If your assumption is that most /.ers don't have a clue about politics, you would be very right. It is also true that most people have no clue as well.
The pretext was set up by Saddam himself. Study the man and get to know him and you will see why. Here is a hint: Hitler is one of Saddam's mentors. He sponsored terrorism by his own admission. He comitted genocide and everything we saw in Bosnia - and more (where is the demand to get out of Bosnia BTW, shows how hypocritical the anti-war movement is; yes we are STILL in Bosnia). The UN had a duty to do something about it regardless of OIL or even WMDs. It is part of their charter.
It is also true that war often presents opportunities to make money. War is a fact of life. Don't think I'm right? Look at history. We are always fighting each other and long before America was around. You can try to stop it and I'll wish you the best of luck if you choose to do that. Don't take it too personally if people don't listen to you or think you're a nut. The more successful you are the more they will likely hate you. Right now your on the easy side - complain about it and think you know a lot more than you really do. I know this may seem like a slap in the face to you, it isn't. Most people have no idea what is really going on, nor should they. We would be in a lot more wars if they did.
The US already owned the fields in Iraq before the war through the UN oil for food program - which the French (amoung others) were skimming off of. Security was by provided by Saddam and he did a very good job at it. If you think it was about oil, then you have fallen prey to propaganda. It was all about the 30+ UN resolutions over 20+ years, the last one of which drew a line threatening military action and was unanimously approved (yes, unanimously, even France voted for it). Bush simply said that if you threaten action then you had better follow through if they don't comply. Otherwise the organization means nothing (and he said so at the time). They didn't so he invaded based on the broken cease fire agreement of 1991 making it a legal invasion. Truth be known, even France was going to invade with the US. It is just that they wanted to give Iraq more time. Turns out they probably waited too long as it was. Opposition to the war probably had more to do with OIL, however.
Turning off GPS is also funny. So many things in the world depend on it. To turn it off would be a lot like cutting ones right leg off. Yea you could do it, it wouldn't be in your best interest to do that however. Galileo simply adds more un-needed radio crap to what we already have. As if we have un-used bandwidth out there.
It was an idiotic Carter administration decision to not recycle spent nuke rods. Their rationale at the time was that if the US didn't recycle the rods, nobody else in the world would do it. This is why I call it an idiotic decision. Other countries saw the economy of recycling the rods and therefore don't have the waste problem that we do. Bush could do the country a lot of good and get rid of that policy.
Yea right... Did they do something to get rid of all the lawyers? They have been retarding society and progress for decades. Yes, I know some lawsuits are totally justified. However so many aren't and then there are patent and copyright laws (Ford decides that they "own" the copyright to the steering wheel, brake pedal and dash ala SCO lawsuit... maybe I shouldn't joke about this even though I really do think you can't copyright those things). Maybe it could happen if you are real young.
Of course that is provided that we get that old. The lawyers are busy at work putting all the drug companies and other companies with deep pockets out of business.
Caught as one of the first disasters on film, it is indelable. However I think most people know it was Hydrogen that caused that and therefore is not a concern today. Dirigibles are still magical. From time to time I run across Navy dirigibles while flying my 1947 Cessna. Makes me feel like I'm back in the 1930s or 40s. While the cool factor is up there, they are not that practicle. Moving freight is far more efficient by truck and is far more reliable. Same with moving people and say a bus. To move them quicker, you can't beat a jet. You can buy a 1971 747-200 for a cool 1.2 million right now. A 1980 737-200ADV-17 is a mear 1.5 million. How many do you want? The only thing I can think of that it has an advantage is what the Navy is using them for. In place of a helicopter for hovering over something. Other than that, they are a hole in the sky in which to put your money. Sort of like a boat - a hole in the water in which to put your money.
They should have let an elementary school kid wear the clothes for a day. I have seen them destroy a new pair of pants in one day.
Except for the fact it the hurricanes have nothing to do with GW. It is a cycle that has been going on for hundreds of years. If it were due to GW, how come the number and intensity of hurricanes in the Pacific and Indian oceans are decreasing? Because the relationship between GW and Hurricanes is propaganda.
Dudes, how come you used no2 and paraphin? They did have peroxide back then and they could have used kerosene, or perhaps whale oil. Please don't test fire this in your lab again. NASA does it in an open range for a reason. A chamber failure could have been a disaster.
Works for a while then they hire 100 Chinese (or 25 Indian) programmers to rewrite your whole application. They also put in features you never thought of. As a bonus they might even through in flight simulator with a hotkey.
Oh, At first I thought this might be another Geico commercial.
Thanks to the US governement, we have now world-wide terrorism.
The world had it long before the US Government did anything. We have Yasser Arafat to thank for all of this, he started it in Munich in 1972 when he killed a bunch of Israeli athletes. Then continued for decades derailing peace deal after peace deal. He made too much money making trouble. In 1982 they bombed the Marine Baracks in Beirut and Regan withdrew, what Bin Laden said gave him his foolish idea that he could do what he wanted with impunity. In the 1990s Clinton didn't lift a finger to go after terrorists, even when the WTC was bombed the first time and ending with doing nothing about the USS Cole. Clinton even released known convicted terrorists from jail. No sir, don't thank the US for world wide terrorism. We can't claim that one. That honor is either middle eastern or European (Europe loves to lay claim to lots of things that are not theirs, why not this one).
There is no terrorism in France. Get informed. There is small riots. Remember the big riots in L.A.? Did you call them terrorism?
I am informed. That is probably the trouble, the news media won't tell you as it is. Riots die down after a few days, this continues and has spilled into other countries. It also isn't a "small riot", thousands of cars have been torched along with many other things. It isn't a civil rights thing, France has bent over backwards for them. They don't want to be assimilated. They knew they couldn't beat Europe in a war so they are doing it from within. I know you probably think I'm wrong, wait a few years and see if you think that. Keep in mind that you are likely an infidel, even if you are Muslim and they want to kill you. It is part of their religion and when pressed about the issue they admit it.
Do you really think Syria could hide them for long?
They didn't, that is my point. It isn't as if Saddam didn't do this in the past, he did it in the first gulf war as well. Sent his stuff to Syria and Iran, even admitted it. Syria isn't threatening anyone with them, the government is fairly stable. There isn't a real pressing reason to do something about it. Besides, those in denial will say just because Syria has WMD's, that doesn't mean they came from Iraq. Even if they have Saddam's finger prints all over them. They couldn't take the political hit. I'm wondering if this will come out just before the next election. The US Democrats seems to be leader challenged.
Additonaly, if the WMD are not in Irak, why to invade this country?
The US had an Army assembled to do the job. It was too little too late and there was no way to know if he really did send them out or sent empty trucks. The UN had been working with him for over a decade and drew many lines in the sand. Bush simply said that the last ultimatum (which was a strong one) you made you must make good on. Otherwise the UN is useless, or as Bush put it "not relevent". Nothing happens if you don't honor the resolutions, even one that they say that they really mean it. As it is now, Saddam got his ass kicked and perhaps soon will be executed. Never make a threat you don't intend on carrying out. The UN security council really should have known better.
This is really a pity but the USA is the only country that started war in the 21st century (so far). No excuse.
What excuse? The US had a reason, 30+ UN resolutions, over a decade of negotiations and 3 US administrations and at least 2 UN administrations, inspections that went on for years and DID find stuff - up until the war began if you were keeping track. What more do you want? The vote to go to war was a landslide with bipartisan support in both of the US houses. Over 50 other countries participated as well. The media was lothe to report that when Baghdad fell, we captured a LOT of internationally known and wanted terrorists. This is probably the most famous on
Yea, I know. That is the trouble. They could even be empty. I thought it was hogwash until I saw how Bush strongarmed the Syrian President into removing his forces from Lebanon. He un-necessarily pushed him, even the sleeping press noticed. I'm hoping someone out there has cool pictures or something. Oh, yea the pictures were shown on the defense's web site back in 2003. Not sure when they aged off. I'm sure someone has them.
Doing a google search I found a couple of interesting web pages. Take a gander - here and here . At least something to think about. A bit closer.
Also, do you think Saddam had a thing for nuclear and biological scientists? Recruited them just for fun? The real reason is Bush cut off the oil for food embezzlement that France, Germany and Russia was enjoying. That is what all the anti-war stuff is about. Supporting terrorism. Terrorism that is biting France right now, in flames. Some think that France will fall soon. We'll see. Maybe they will ask Germany or Britain to help them.
By the way, it isn't funny the military gets more money than science. Being a scientist I know all about that. If we just had some nice young skirts to send down to Congress to woo them, we could get a lot more money. Geeks don't get funded as well as the macho soldier boys. The unfortunate part is even if we make new advances, the military often takes those advances and uses them to kill people. They even use non-lethal weapons to drive people out to where they can shoot them.
I do know there are those that say the WMDs were not moved to Syria. Those same people are at a loss to explain why there is truck tracks from those suspected sites to Syria. No tracks show up for years before that, then all of a sudden? Seems like only a fool would believe they weren't moved, unless they can show they moved something else. How about it, do any slashdotters know of why those truck tracks from obviously heavy trucks showed up from December to just before the invasion? Truck track fairy maybe? There are pictures of places that show up at the same time in Syria where it is obvious something was burried.
Not trying to be flame bait here. So don't flame. If you know of something that definitively shows they were moved, respond. Same thing if you have something that shows definitively they were not moved respond as well. Note - Newspaper articles don't count as definitive proof. I don't want propaganda either way. Just the facts (play Dragnet tune).
Call it stupidnet. Yea, I know but shot-in-the-foot-net is a bit long winded.