Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.
Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.
The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else chimed in that the pay was "not prohibited on its face." So what we have here is someone asking around whether something is an issue, someone else provides information that it isn't, and the issue is dropped.
If anything, that article reinforces the idea that this is a total tempest in a teapot: the IRS actually didn't do something, but Republicans are trying to sound like Grassley was investigated by the IRS. There wasn't even an investigation - there was an email discussion about whether something was appropriate or not.
So when you say "she targeted a senator", you're completely misrepresenting the article - she actually didn't target the senator. As a matter of fact, if she thought that paying for Grassley's wife would be inappropriate, it would have been illegal for her NOT to investigate the senator, just because he is a senator with an (R).
Again, you're really not helping your cause here, and are just making it sound like the birth certificate all over again.
And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.
On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons. The rest seems pretty standard IT ineptitude. Plus there's the reality that the difference between a political lobbying group and a charitable organization is something that's almost impossible to legally define. It's kinda like porn that way: you and I both know which one is which, but in a court of law, you'll never get to a satisfactory conclusion - partially because you and I won't be able to agree to agree on which one is which, even if we do have a good idea of it ourselves.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Feel free to show me where I did anything of that sort. What, you can't? Then STFU with your assumptions about how I think.
I have a bit more of a history with some of the posters on this site than you (courtesy of multiple IDs since the days that 3-digit UIDs were run of the mill). So I'm aware of their posting history, much more than you are aware of their or mine.
Furthermore, in your rage at perceived hypocrisy, you completely gloss over the fact that people apparently think that Obama personally calls up every PR flunky and checks in on how tight of a leash they keep on the press. That's ridiculous, serves nothing but to reinforce polarizing stereotypes, and has no place in a discussion about self-censorship of the press under the guise of "access". Because that's all that this is about. It doesn't even have anything to do with your pet-peeve, which seems to be that the current government is somehow unusual in its expansiveness, or that it is even the main problem that we're facing today.
No, systematic harrassment of political lobbying groups posing as charitable 501 c(3) organizations. They should have registered as c(4)s, and no one would have given a shit.
The point here is that you don't seems to bat an eye that the most popular news network in the US is essentially a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. But if one LA Times reporter checks his stories with a CIA PR flack, then it's a sign of.... dunno, some sort of impending doom.
Show me that Obama (or any President) ordered this kind of behavior from the press and the CIA, and we can talk. In the meantime, this is little more than the usual "Bad Stuff is Happening Under Obama! He Is Therefore The Evil!"
Is that before or after he's acting like a king with unrestricted power? Before or after engaging in unauthorized military strikes in countries across the world?
Just in the off-chance that you aren't a troll and are truly looking for a discussion: here's the first hit in Google. http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm I disregard thereligionofpeace links, as they are utter nonsense, and just quote mining the Koran. If we're going down that road, the Bible is full of similar nonsense.
As for a more personal answer: it's because muslims as a group aren't bloodthirsty morons, and quite a few have learned to read the Koran so as to better their lives - just like Christians. Regarding your last question: Egypt's populous, military and judiciary just kicked out Morsi because he had turned out to be a fundamentalist. Just because you don't hear of it on Fox News doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As far as I can tell, the Slashdot discussion styles always run about a year or two ahead of what happens in the more mainstream political areas. As a result, the political section being added was a symptom, not a cause.
Before 2004 it wasn't political? Seriously, that only means that you started watching politics around that time and are a republican. Slashdot had ALWAYS been political. In 2001, it was full of rah rah go US, US sucks and Bush sucks sentiments. Before that, political flamefests were less regular, but that's because the political scene in the US was less political.
I find it hilarious how much of a hard-on conservatives have for Putin. They just wish they could have a leaders as fearless and macho as Putin at the head of their country. Fortunately, for now, we still live in somewhat of a democracy. My suggestion is: if you love what Putin does, move to Russia. I'm sure he'd welcome you.
Verizon is choosing not to upgrade it's peering points with Level-3 because they are no longer evenly sharing traffic up/down as all free peering arrangements have ALWAYS required, yet Level-3 doesn't want to pay for the imbalance, and Netflix doesn't want to shift some of their Verizon traffic to a different transit provider than Level-3.
Considering the huge imbalance in download and upload speeds, how exactly is anybody supposed to peer with Verizon? Verizon knowingly set up a situation in which it is impossible for any peer to be on traffic parity with Verizon. Furthermore, traffic parity is almost impossible from a business perspective. Verizon and the last-mile providers have consumers and creators at one end, everyone else has pretty much only creators. The only way for corps like Level 3 to achieve traffic parity is to offer last-mile services, which is impossible, because Verizon frequently has a local monopoly.
So - the technobabble refers to the fact that the technological discussion is largely irrelevant when it comes to Net Neutrality. Anyone trying to bring technological issues into the discussion is just trying to muddy the waters of what is a market power discussion.
You're right, Netflix will lose any lawsuit. That's exactly the problem, and why everyone is so up in arms about this. There is no legal recourse to force the last mile providers to actually provide what they're selling, there's no commercial recourse, and there's barely a technical workaround (VPN providers cannot sustain everyone using them for streaming Netflix).
You're completely missing the forest for the tree.
If Comcast can't deliver on the service they promised, that's not my problem.I would just switch to someone else. Unfortunately, I have no way of actually switching to an ISP which might cost more, but can deliver the service they promise. Which means that Comcast has exactly zero incentive to come to a compromise with Netflix. They can just play hardball all the way.
The technical aspects of what Comcast is and exactly isn't doing is purely that - technical pissing around. Net neutrality is concerned about what kind of business decisions drive the technical implementations. And that's where Comcast, ATT, and all the other last-mile providers really hope that no one calls them on their bullshit and their misdirection into technical nonsense.
You mean, like a Tesla? Range of about 250 miles, supercharger stations that will give you 80% of your range in 30 minutes.... If you're looking for a luxury sedan, the Tesla beats every other car out there, except if your make-or-break deal is that you be able to refill now every 2 miles or so.
As for reasonable price.... well, no one but you knows what that reasonable price is. So I guess you'll sleep forever.
Yes, I'm sure you read every source that anyone ever throws at you, for anything. What happens in the real world is that we make assessments on the probability of a source providing actual insight. Thereligionofpeace.com is a site that is identical in insight and accuracy as Stormfront is. I've read both sites a while back, and both are idiotic, wrong, and scary in very similar ways. As a result, I don't read them anymore, and I don't pay attention to people using them as sources.
If you want me to take you seriously, you'll provide references that won't waste my time.
Citing the site thereligionofpeace.com for anything about muslims is like citing Stormfront for anything about blacks, jews, and sundry non-whites. It makes you a bit of a loony.
Hilarious. You know little about how bills get to the senate floor for a vote, do you? Here, let me help you: http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/. The Senate majority leader has almost nothing to do with what bills get voted on in the Senate. So your anger is quite misplaced, and probably should be directed at all the people who have elected a democratic majority to the Senate. But that would mean that you would acknowledge that you are a minority in some areas, and can't just ram your ideology down other people's throats.
I find it also exceptionally hilarious that this attack is coming from the Tea Party, considering that they are nominally libertarian. Buffet, Gates, and Adelson ARE their masters of the universe - at least, they would be, if the Tea Party or the libertarians had any sort of consistency in their beliefs. Instead, this diatribe exposes them for what they really are: run of the mill politicians who are just more xenophobic and nativist than the other politicians. Economically, they are just like the unions that they hate: upset when someone with more money than them uses that money in a way that they dislike.
Close. I attack people because of the stupidity of their arguments, and the stupid source of their stupid arguments. In this case, some white, suburban, barely teenage boy read Atlas Shrugged and got a raging hardon imagining himself as John Galt. It's sad, really.
The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law.
Then explain how the Constitution came to be. And explain very carefully how it neither was put into place because the majority of the people in power at the time thought it was a good idea, and how it also wasn't the result of an autocratic group of people forcing their will onto others. Just a little tip: you should read the entire Constitution, how it used to look like, what it looks like now, and why it has been changed. It's kinda fascinating all the stuff that got put into there for no other reason than that it was popular and helped people get elected. Too bad the Constitution for you is some magic pixie dust.
Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.
No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.
But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.
Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.
Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the current one? I mean, outside of being fully staffed by libertarians, who all adhere to the same notions of government, property, and morality? Which, by the way, is the definition of sectarianism, which is hugely destabilizing to a society. Unless, of course, you further assume that everyone is a libertarian, but then we're right back to my main beef with libertarians: completely unrealistic expectations of how people work.
Somalia and Sudan both have central governments with overreaching power in the areas they control based on Islamic law that any libertarian would find abhorrent. Furthermore, there are a number of competing governments disputing territory within each country, also seeking to impose Islamic law (but, you know, the "true" Islamic law).
I can create a central government in my house that has overreaching power in areas that... well, pick whatever you want. My government doesn't matter though, because the US government has far more power to impose its notions on mine, if it ever finds out that they clash and decides to do something about it. My powers are completely at the mercy of the US government's powers. In other words, it's no power at all. Now, what if I could repel the US government's force? Well, that's completely implausible, but it would mean I could create my own government. And I'd have to, because well, that's what a collection of rules and people enforcing those rules are.
The reason that Somalia and Sudan are important is because they show what happens when a central government is unable to enforce its laws. As you pointed out, another type of government replaces it - automatically. Maybe not in the same territory, but as you said, it always starts somewhere in the territory of the old government, because the old government doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to care, or can't enforce the fact that it cares. In the case of Somalia and Sudan, it's a combination of all three.
There are two reasons that this process matters. One, it shows how a new type of government can come about very quickly. Two, it shows empirically that the new governments always take a very different approach to ruling. More islamist, less authoritarian - whatever you want, but it's going to generally be the antithesis. And that's to be expected, since being prepared to die for the new style of government requires very strong opinions about how much different things should be. There's also the possibility that someone just decided that they'd rather be the ruler, but I'm assuming that's not what libertarians are all about.
This means that there are two reasons why failed states like Sudan and Somalia - or heck, Mexico is skirting really fucking close to that - put the lie to libertarian claims of perfect government. If libertarians would be really so keen to cast off the shackles of the old government, those places are great to start from scratch. I mean, resource wise it stinks, but at least there's so much chaos that you can quickly create your own state according to your own rules, and you'll be much more likely to be able to enforce your own ideals than anywhere else. Yet no libertarian w
Slashdot Mirror
Why does one deed excuse the other? It's not like anyone complaining about the chinese annexation of the Spratley's was alive to condone the annexation of Hawai'i by the US.
Both were and are bullshit. Extending national boundaries through force is something we were supposed to leave behind after WW2. Apparently, some people think that the lessons from WW2 don't apply to them.
The dailycaller and youtube are shitty sources. I don't waste time on those. The Sharyl Attkisson site is far less damning than you seem to believe: "“Looks like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife,” Lerner said. “Perhaps we should refer to Exam?”" Someone asks a question about whether something needs further attention. Do you think the IRS has a magical way of divining everything without any investigation? Furthermore, there was no investigation, as someone else chimed in that the pay was "not prohibited on its face." So what we have here is someone asking around whether something is an issue, someone else provides information that it isn't, and the issue is dropped.
If anything, that article reinforces the idea that this is a total tempest in a teapot: the IRS actually didn't do something, but Republicans are trying to sound like Grassley was investigated by the IRS. There wasn't even an investigation - there was an email discussion about whether something was appropriate or not.
So when you say "she targeted a senator", you're completely misrepresenting the article - she actually didn't target the senator. As a matter of fact, if she thought that paying for Grassley's wife would be inappropriate, it would have been illegal for her NOT to investigate the senator, just because he is a senator with an (R).
Again, you're really not helping your cause here, and are just making it sound like the birth certificate all over again.
As I understand "original intent"
And, like everyone is explaining to you, you don't understand the original intent of the executive branch, and the various agencies under its umbrella.
On the second thought...I'll just reply instead of moderating: the CDC isn't legislating anything. If you have a problem with the science the CDC is putting out, take it up with the scientists at the CDC. If you have a problem with the legislation based on the research from the CDC (or lack of being based on that), take it up with your Congress critter.
As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons. The rest seems pretty standard IT ineptitude. Plus there's the reality that the difference between a political lobbying group and a charitable organization is something that's almost impossible to legally define. It's kinda like porn that way: you and I both know which one is which, but in a court of law, you'll never get to a satisfactory conclusion - partially because you and I won't be able to agree to agree on which one is which, even if we do have a good idea of it ourselves.
If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.
If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.
Feel free to show me where I did anything of that sort. What, you can't? Then STFU with your assumptions about how I think.
I have a bit more of a history with some of the posters on this site than you (courtesy of multiple IDs since the days that 3-digit UIDs were run of the mill). So I'm aware of their posting history, much more than you are aware of their or mine.
Furthermore, in your rage at perceived hypocrisy, you completely gloss over the fact that people apparently think that Obama personally calls up every PR flunky and checks in on how tight of a leash they keep on the press. That's ridiculous, serves nothing but to reinforce polarizing stereotypes, and has no place in a discussion about self-censorship of the press under the guise of "access". Because that's all that this is about. It doesn't even have anything to do with your pet-peeve, which seems to be that the current government is somehow unusual in its expansiveness, or that it is even the main problem that we're facing today.
No, systematic harrassment of political lobbying groups posing as charitable 501 c(3) organizations. They should have registered as c(4)s, and no one would have given a shit.
The point here is that you don't seems to bat an eye that the most popular news network in the US is essentially a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. But if one LA Times reporter checks his stories with a CIA PR flack, then it's a sign of.... dunno, some sort of impending doom.
Show me that Obama (or any President) ordered this kind of behavior from the press and the CIA, and we can talk. In the meantime, this is little more than the usual "Bad Stuff is Happening Under Obama! He Is Therefore The Evil!"
Is that before or after he's acting like a king with unrestricted power? Before or after engaging in unauthorized military strikes in countries across the world?
Make up your mind already.
Just in the off-chance that you aren't a troll and are truly looking for a discussion: here's the first hit in Google. http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm I disregard thereligionofpeace links, as they are utter nonsense, and just quote mining the Koran. If we're going down that road, the Bible is full of similar nonsense.
As for a more personal answer: it's because muslims as a group aren't bloodthirsty morons, and quite a few have learned to read the Koran so as to better their lives - just like Christians. Regarding your last question: Egypt's populous, military and judiciary just kicked out Morsi because he had turned out to be a fundamentalist. Just because you don't hear of it on Fox News doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As far as I can tell, the Slashdot discussion styles always run about a year or two ahead of what happens in the more mainstream political areas. As a result, the political section being added was a symptom, not a cause.
Before 2004 it wasn't political? Seriously, that only means that you started watching politics around that time and are a republican. Slashdot had ALWAYS been political. In 2001, it was full of rah rah go US, US sucks and Bush sucks sentiments. Before that, political flamefests were less regular, but that's because the political scene in the US was less political.
I find it hilarious how much of a hard-on conservatives have for Putin. They just wish they could have a leaders as fearless and macho as Putin at the head of their country. Fortunately, for now, we still live in somewhat of a democracy. My suggestion is: if you love what Putin does, move to Russia. I'm sure he'd welcome you.
Verizon is choosing not to upgrade it's peering points with Level-3 because they are no longer evenly sharing traffic up/down as all free peering arrangements have ALWAYS required, yet Level-3 doesn't want to pay for the imbalance, and Netflix doesn't want to shift some of their Verizon traffic to a different transit provider than Level-3.
Considering the huge imbalance in download and upload speeds, how exactly is anybody supposed to peer with Verizon? Verizon knowingly set up a situation in which it is impossible for any peer to be on traffic parity with Verizon. Furthermore, traffic parity is almost impossible from a business perspective. Verizon and the last-mile providers have consumers and creators at one end, everyone else has pretty much only creators. The only way for corps like Level 3 to achieve traffic parity is to offer last-mile services, which is impossible, because Verizon frequently has a local monopoly.
So - the technobabble refers to the fact that the technological discussion is largely irrelevant when it comes to Net Neutrality. Anyone trying to bring technological issues into the discussion is just trying to muddy the waters of what is a market power discussion.
You're right, Netflix will lose any lawsuit. That's exactly the problem, and why everyone is so up in arms about this. There is no legal recourse to force the last mile providers to actually provide what they're selling, there's no commercial recourse, and there's barely a technical workaround (VPN providers cannot sustain everyone using them for streaming Netflix).
You're completely missing the forest for the tree.
If Comcast can't deliver on the service they promised, that's not my problem.I would just switch to someone else. Unfortunately, I have no way of actually switching to an ISP which might cost more, but can deliver the service they promise. Which means that Comcast has exactly zero incentive to come to a compromise with Netflix. They can just play hardball all the way.
The technical aspects of what Comcast is and exactly isn't doing is purely that - technical pissing around. Net neutrality is concerned about what kind of business decisions drive the technical implementations. And that's where Comcast, ATT, and all the other last-mile providers really hope that no one calls them on their bullshit and their misdirection into technical nonsense.
You mean, like a Tesla? Range of about 250 miles, supercharger stations that will give you 80% of your range in 30 minutes.... If you're looking for a luxury sedan, the Tesla beats every other car out there, except if your make-or-break deal is that you be able to refill now every 2 miles or so.
As for reasonable price.... well, no one but you knows what that reasonable price is. So I guess you'll sleep forever.
Apparently, your self-worth as a man requires women groveling at your feet. That's pretty sad and pathetic.
Yes, I'm sure you read every source that anyone ever throws at you, for anything. What happens in the real world is that we make assessments on the probability of a source providing actual insight. Thereligionofpeace.com is a site that is identical in insight and accuracy as Stormfront is. I've read both sites a while back, and both are idiotic, wrong, and scary in very similar ways. As a result, I don't read them anymore, and I don't pay attention to people using them as sources.
If you want me to take you seriously, you'll provide references that won't waste my time.
I.e., Mincome
Citing the site thereligionofpeace.com for anything about muslims is like citing Stormfront for anything about blacks, jews, and sundry non-whites. It makes you a bit of a loony.
Hilarious. You know little about how bills get to the senate floor for a vote, do you? Here, let me help you: http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/. The Senate majority leader has almost nothing to do with what bills get voted on in the Senate. So your anger is quite misplaced, and probably should be directed at all the people who have elected a democratic majority to the Senate. But that would mean that you would acknowledge that you are a minority in some areas, and can't just ram your ideology down other people's throats.
I find it also exceptionally hilarious that this attack is coming from the Tea Party, considering that they are nominally libertarian. Buffet, Gates, and Adelson ARE their masters of the universe - at least, they would be, if the Tea Party or the libertarians had any sort of consistency in their beliefs. Instead, this diatribe exposes them for what they really are: run of the mill politicians who are just more xenophobic and nativist than the other politicians. Economically, they are just like the unions that they hate: upset when someone with more money than them uses that money in a way that they dislike.
Sessions can go fuck himself with a chainsaw.
Close. I attack people because of the stupidity of their arguments, and the stupid source of their stupid arguments. In this case, some white, suburban, barely teenage boy read Atlas Shrugged and got a raging hardon imagining himself as John Galt. It's sad, really.
The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law.
Then explain how the Constitution came to be. And explain very carefully how it neither was put into place because the majority of the people in power at the time thought it was a good idea, and how it also wasn't the result of an autocratic group of people forcing their will onto others. Just a little tip: you should read the entire Constitution, how it used to look like, what it looks like now, and why it has been changed. It's kinda fascinating all the stuff that got put into there for no other reason than that it was popular and helped people get elected. Too bad the Constitution for you is some magic pixie dust.
Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.
No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.
But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.
Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.
Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the current one? I mean, outside of being fully staffed by libertarians, who all adhere to the same notions of government, property, and morality? Which, by the way, is the definition of sectarianism, which is hugely destabilizing to a society. Unless, of course, you further assume that everyone is a libertarian, but then we're right back to my main beef with libertarians: completely unrealistic expectations of how people work.
Somalia and Sudan both have central governments with overreaching power in the areas they control based on Islamic law that any libertarian would find abhorrent. Furthermore, there are a number of competing governments disputing territory within each country, also seeking to impose Islamic law (but, you know, the "true" Islamic law).
I can create a central government in my house that has overreaching power in areas that... well, pick whatever you want. My government doesn't matter though, because the US government has far more power to impose its notions on mine, if it ever finds out that they clash and decides to do something about it. My powers are completely at the mercy of the US government's powers. In other words, it's no power at all. Now, what if I could repel the US government's force? Well, that's completely implausible, but it would mean I could create my own government. And I'd have to, because well, that's what a collection of rules and people enforcing those rules are.
The reason that Somalia and Sudan are important is because they show what happens when a central government is unable to enforce its laws. As you pointed out, another type of government replaces it - automatically. Maybe not in the same territory, but as you said, it always starts somewhere in the territory of the old government, because the old government doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to care, or can't enforce the fact that it cares. In the case of Somalia and Sudan, it's a combination of all three.
There are two reasons that this process matters. One, it shows how a new type of government can come about very quickly. Two, it shows empirically that the new governments always take a very different approach to ruling. More islamist, less authoritarian - whatever you want, but it's going to generally be the antithesis. And that's to be expected, since being prepared to die for the new style of government requires very strong opinions about how much different things should be. There's also the possibility that someone just decided that they'd rather be the ruler, but I'm assuming that's not what libertarians are all about.
This means that there are two reasons why failed states like Sudan and Somalia - or heck, Mexico is skirting really fucking close to that - put the lie to libertarian claims of perfect government. If libertarians would be really so keen to cast off the shackles of the old government, those places are great to start from scratch. I mean, resource wise it stinks, but at least there's so much chaos that you can quickly create your own state according to your own rules, and you'll be much more likely to be able to enforce your own ideals than anywhere else. Yet no libertarian w