ct like the japanese Americans did in 1942 and calmly walk into a prison camp where I will spend the next 4 years of my life. They too were innocent of any crime, and if they had resisted arrest they would have had a trial and been freed
Nonsense - given the social atmosphere at the time, they would probably have been accused of treason and either shot or carted off anyway. They weren't just being herded up by a bunch of overzealous cops - they were arrested under the power of an executive order signed by the president. Not only that, but the supreme court looked at his order 2 years later, and decided it was constitutional. So basically, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
The lesson of history is that cooperation with cops sometimes leads to bad things... imprisonment or even death
Sure. The other lesson of history is that refusing to cooperate with cops leads to imprisonment or death FAR more often. It's idiotic to argue with the enforcers when your problem is with the system. Your actions have accomplished dick, except for making you feel like a brave man "Fightin' Da Powa!", and inconveniencing you - and them - for an hour or two.
I refused because they had no warrant. Had there been a judge there he could have issued a warrant on the spot, but he wasn't there, so instead the jack-booted thugs made me stand in the hot summer sun for an hour.
Awwww, muffin. I know most geeks hate coming out of the basement, but really, is getting a sun-tan such a huge disaster? Maybe if they'd asked you to use a Microsoft product, I could understand the complaining, but sunshine? Really?
In the future, try not being a contrarian. Sure, you have every right to refuse, but if your only reason is "because I want to".... don't expect any sympathy. Last time a cop asked to look in my trunk I popped it, he took a glance, and I was on my way 5 minutes later. Yeah I could have been a dick and started screaming about my rights but, other than making me feel like a counter-culture hero, what would be the point?
tl;dr, but from the first couple sentences you seem like a complete lunatic, and from the lack of capitalization and the poor punctuation it seems unlikely that you're capable of making an intelligent point. Sorry to have bothered you.
Who would want a government capable of solving all problems simultaneously and in the right sequence to satisfy every citizens priorities.
Apparently "god" does it in "heaven". Which is one of the reasons I don't accept such stories; I find it difficult to believe that even an omnipotent being would simultaneously be able to please a group of democrats and a group of republicans. Needless to say, I expect even less from a human government.
Are you aware that, for every copyright imprisonment, hundreds of dealers and smugglers are arrested? Are you aware that you're full of shit when it comes to the "equipment" of the cartels?
Ok, those were rhetorical questions: I'm sure that you are aware - you're just intentionally ignoring any facts which are inconvenient to the "OMG DA FEDS SUCK" "argument".
Tell you what, here in Canada, I'd rather have a dictator who looked out for my interests than have a democracy that bends towards everything the US asks.
Man, fuck you. I'd gladly give my life to keep idiots like you from turning our nation into another third-world tinpot dictatorship, as you seem determined to do. I guess I can take solace in the fact that people like you are usually too lazy to vote, and you happily gave up the right to bear arms.
The only reason why you think Wikileaks fucked up is that you don't like Mugabe, but you specifically state its not about Mugabe.
That's not at all what he wrote. What's even more ridiculous is that you actually quoted what he said, and then you claimed that he said something else.
Complete bullshit of course. The philanthropic efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates, and the excellent R&D work being done by companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX (not to mention Tesla Motors, and the new tech coming out of other American automakers) easily expose your lies for what they are. And it's almost not even worth commenting on the ridiculous notion that 9 years of tax cuts should lead to massive changes on a national scale. You're impatient, you're biased, and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
I think it's pretty hard to look at the US support of the dictator Pinochet over the democratically elected Allende as any kind of "supporting the less bad guy".
Citation needed? The record - AFAIK - shows that the US provided some support for Pinochet after he was already in power - I've never seen any indication that they supported the coup.
As for the larger point, I'm not sure that Pinochet was "less bad", but any alternative to a communist Chile was preferable at the time. Allende had almost no support from the Chilean congress, he was opposed by the Chilean supreme court, and he was in bed with the KGB. I hardly find it shocking that the US administration would have wanted him gone, or that they funded some of his opposition. Given the situation at the time, it was the only reasonable course of action.
The list of "pretty serious fuckups" is so long you either have to conclude they were intentional, or maybe the US is so inept it should stay out of the business of killing folks or supporting the killing of folks as much as possible
I'd say that about every country. Unfortunately, "as much as possible" isn't exactly an accurate quantifier, and as long as some nations are willing to resort to violence, then all nations must be ready to resort to violence. I have no desire to get in a fight with anyone, but if you try to harm me - whether by attacking me, or stealing my property, or infringing on my rights - I reserve the right to end you, and I reserve the right to take preemptive action, where reasonable, to prevent you from harming me. I don't see how you can expect nations to act any differently.
The point of that, and my question to you, is that we did not oust him because he is a "bad guy." We fucking well LOVE bad guys if they are on the side of our businessmen and bankers, and will kill some leftists for us.
You know, I just got finished telling a bunch of uber-conservative nitwits that only half-literate idiots use terms like "leftist".
We support "bad guys" when they're the least bad option. Historically this has led to some pretty serious fuckups, but to suggest that all we care about is "businessmen and bankers" is just asinine. I think you're looking at the push towards globalization and seeing it as cronyism; if so, you're missing the big picture.
Adapting your analogy...
It wasn't an analogy, and you're still missing the point. If you're so far gone that you can't even say "hey, yeah, removing Saddam was a good thing, good job America!", I don't see how you can hope to have a rational discussion on the subject.
What in the world does that have to do with what I asked?
Do you need me to rephrase the question?
You know, I had some friends when I was younger who thought being a drug dealer was a good way to make a living. I never really liked that lifestyle, but there wasn't much I could do about it. So, of course, when they decided to stop selling drugs, my immediate response was "FUCK YOU YOU HYPOCRITES, YOU BETTER NOT STOP NOW!".
Perfectly rational, right? I mean, why would I want to try and encourage them to keep doing the right thing when, instead, I could keep pointing out what horrible pieces of shit they were, while criticizing every decision they ever make?
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.
What part of "it's all about the oil" did you miss?
The part where a rational person presented a reasoned argument supported by data which demonstrated that the claim has some validity. Unfortunately for you, we DIDN'T miss the hordes of idiots screaming "OMG NO BLOODZ FOR OIL CHIMPY MCHITLER!!!", so you might understand why we're laughing at you.
Well, if that's your attitude, don't be surprised when I decide to leave, and take my money with me. Meanwhile the rest of you can stand around holding hands and yes-we-can yourselves into anarchy and poverty. Ayn Rand may have been a bit of a nutbag, but she got one thing right: if you keep increasing the burden on the most capable members of your society, eventually you'll end up with a society of incompetents.
100% of income tax is paid by people making between $0 and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. You've made the range large enough that it's completely fucking meaningless.
As for Exxon, you're flat-out lying. Exxon paid $30 BILLION in taxes in 2007 alone. You're a dishonest jackass, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you until you apologize for your behavior.
The word "better" is subjective, I'm not taking anything to an extreme, and you obviously don't understand what a "logical fallacy" is. So basically you are a troll.
The TSA isn't breaking any laws - that was the entire point I was trying to get across to you, and you're still failing to understand. If you'd stop and think for a minute, you'd realize that your expanded definition of "groping" would criminalize all sorts of things, from ballet and cheer-leading to doctors and gynecologists. Initially I called you an idiot because I figured you were being intentionally oblivious - now that it's become obvious that you're actually too stupid to understand what you're saying, I'm left feeling like a bit of a dick for mocking you. Let me know if you need me to explain this in any more detail, 'k?
It's a false dichotomy, and a stupid question. Labor has always existed, as long as there have been human beings. The difference in wealth and success between societies arises from how they organize that labor.
Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?
Bullshit. In order for it to make any sense, you have to accept that workers can't be capitalists, and capitalists can't do work. Two assumptions for which no justification is provided. If you think what he said makes sense, you're either misreading it or you're as clueless as he is.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, if you mean without the approval of the UN or a coalition of governments that answer is rather recent.
So ... Panama? Or were you thinking of something else?
ct like the japanese Americans did in 1942 and calmly walk into a prison camp where I will spend the next 4 years of my life. They too were innocent of any crime, and if they had resisted arrest they would have had a trial and been freed
Nonsense - given the social atmosphere at the time, they would probably have been accused of treason and either shot or carted off anyway. They weren't just being herded up by a bunch of overzealous cops - they were arrested under the power of an executive order signed by the president. Not only that, but the supreme court looked at his order 2 years later, and decided it was constitutional. So basically, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
The lesson of history is that cooperation with cops sometimes leads to bad things... imprisonment or even death
Sure. The other lesson of history is that refusing to cooperate with cops leads to imprisonment or death FAR more often. It's idiotic to argue with the enforcers when your problem is with the system. Your actions have accomplished dick, except for making you feel like a brave man "Fightin' Da Powa!", and inconveniencing you - and them - for an hour or two.
Your duty as a citizen is to be a dick to the cops?
Uhuh. Go on, light up another joint.
I refused because they had no warrant. Had there been a judge there he could have issued a warrant on the spot, but he wasn't there, so instead the jack-booted thugs made me stand in the hot summer sun for an hour.
Awwww, muffin. I know most geeks hate coming out of the basement, but really, is getting a sun-tan such a huge disaster? Maybe if they'd asked you to use a Microsoft product, I could understand the complaining, but sunshine? Really?
In the future, try not being a contrarian. Sure, you have every right to refuse, but if your only reason is "because I want to" .... don't expect any sympathy. Last time a cop asked to look in my trunk I popped it, he took a glance, and I was on my way 5 minutes later. Yeah I could have been a dick and started screaming about my rights but, other than making me feel like a counter-culture hero, what would be the point?
tl;dr, but from the first couple sentences you seem like a complete lunatic, and from the lack of capitalization and the poor punctuation it seems unlikely that you're capable of making an intelligent point. Sorry to have bothered you.
Who would want a government capable of solving all problems simultaneously and in the right sequence to satisfy every citizens priorities.
Apparently "god" does it in "heaven". Which is one of the reasons I don't accept such stories; I find it difficult to believe that even an omnipotent being would simultaneously be able to please a group of democrats and a group of republicans. Needless to say, I expect even less from a human government.
Are you aware that, for every copyright imprisonment, hundreds of dealers and smugglers are arrested? Are you aware that you're full of shit when it comes to the "equipment" of the cartels?
Ok, those were rhetorical questions: I'm sure that you are aware - you're just intentionally ignoring any facts which are inconvenient to the "OMG DA FEDS SUCK" "argument".
Tell you what, here in Canada, I'd rather have a dictator who looked out for my interests than have a democracy that bends towards everything the US asks.
Man, fuck you. I'd gladly give my life to keep idiots like you from turning our nation into another third-world tinpot dictatorship, as you seem determined to do. I guess I can take solace in the fact that people like you are usually too lazy to vote, and you happily gave up the right to bear arms.
The only reason why you think Wikileaks fucked up is that you don't like Mugabe, but you specifically state its not about Mugabe.
That's not at all what he wrote. What's even more ridiculous is that you actually quoted what he said, and then you claimed that he said something else.
Complete bullshit of course. The philanthropic efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates, and the excellent R&D work being done by companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX (not to mention Tesla Motors, and the new tech coming out of other American automakers) easily expose your lies for what they are. And it's almost not even worth commenting on the ridiculous notion that 9 years of tax cuts should lead to massive changes on a national scale. You're impatient, you're biased, and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
I think it's pretty hard to look at the US support of the dictator Pinochet over the democratically elected Allende as any kind of "supporting the less bad guy".
Citation needed? The record - AFAIK - shows that the US provided some support for Pinochet after he was already in power - I've never seen any indication that they supported the coup.
As for the larger point, I'm not sure that Pinochet was "less bad", but any alternative to a communist Chile was preferable at the time. Allende had almost no support from the Chilean congress, he was opposed by the Chilean supreme court, and he was in bed with the KGB. I hardly find it shocking that the US administration would have wanted him gone, or that they funded some of his opposition. Given the situation at the time, it was the only reasonable course of action.
The list of "pretty serious fuckups" is so long you either have to conclude they were intentional, or maybe the US is so inept it should stay out of the business of killing folks or supporting the killing of folks as much as possible
I'd say that about every country. Unfortunately, "as much as possible" isn't exactly an accurate quantifier, and as long as some nations are willing to resort to violence, then all nations must be ready to resort to violence. I have no desire to get in a fight with anyone, but if you try to harm me - whether by attacking me, or stealing my property, or infringing on my rights - I reserve the right to end you, and I reserve the right to take preemptive action, where reasonable, to prevent you from harming me. I don't see how you can expect nations to act any differently.
The point of that, and my question to you, is that we did not oust him because he is a "bad guy." We fucking well LOVE bad guys if they are on the side of our businessmen and bankers, and will kill some leftists for us.
You know, I just got finished telling a bunch of uber-conservative nitwits that only half-literate idiots use terms like "leftist".
We support "bad guys" when they're the least bad option. Historically this has led to some pretty serious fuckups, but to suggest that all we care about is "businessmen and bankers" is just asinine. I think you're looking at the push towards globalization and seeing it as cronyism; if so, you're missing the big picture.
Adapting your analogy ...
It wasn't an analogy, and you're still missing the point. If you're so far gone that you can't even say "hey, yeah, removing Saddam was a good thing, good job America!", I don't see how you can hope to have a rational discussion on the subject.
Laugh all you want: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Thanks, I will: http://en.allexperts.com/q/UFOs-Aliens-2138/IRAQ-WAR.htm
It was about oil. It's still about oil. It's going to be exiting, about oil.
It was about sugar plums and unicorn farts. And sand supplies for Big Glass. It's going to be exiting, about sand.
What in the world does that have to do with what I asked?
Do you need me to rephrase the question?
You know, I had some friends when I was younger who thought being a drug dealer was a good way to make a living. I never really liked that lifestyle, but there wasn't much I could do about it. So, of course, when they decided to stop selling drugs, my immediate response was "FUCK YOU YOU HYPOCRITES, YOU BETTER NOT STOP NOW!".
Perfectly rational, right? I mean, why would I want to try and encourage them to keep doing the right thing when, instead, I could keep pointing out what horrible pieces of shit they were, while criticizing every decision they ever make?
However, worse crimes are done by US Officials and the judicial system does nearly nothing about it. I wonder which state is actually more democratic right now.
This is the kind of mind-blowing stupidity that make me lose all hope for humanity.
What part of "it's all about the oil" did you miss?
The part where a rational person presented a reasoned argument supported by data which demonstrated that the claim has some validity. Unfortunately for you, we DIDN'T miss the hordes of idiots screaming "OMG NO BLOODZ FOR OIL CHIMPY MCHITLER!!!", so you might understand why we're laughing at you.
We caught hell for that because we put Saddam in power and supported him for decades.
Even if that were true, what would be the more rational response:
1. "Alright, you guys finally got smart and decided to remove the bastard! Good job!" .... well?
2. "LEAVE THAT EVIL DICTATOR ALONE!!!"
We are one of the worst offenders in that regard.
Well duh. Larger, more powerful nations nations have more influence around the world - Film at 11!
Well, if that's your attitude, don't be surprised when I decide to leave, and take my money with me. Meanwhile the rest of you can stand around holding hands and yes-we-can yourselves into anarchy and poverty. Ayn Rand may have been a bit of a nutbag, but she got one thing right: if you keep increasing the burden on the most capable members of your society, eventually you'll end up with a society of incompetents.
100% of income tax is paid by people making between $0 and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. You've made the range large enough that it's completely fucking meaningless.
As for Exxon, you're flat-out lying. Exxon paid $30 BILLION in taxes in 2007 alone. You're a dishonest jackass, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you until you apologize for your behavior.
The word "better" is subjective, I'm not taking anything to an extreme, and you obviously don't understand what a "logical fallacy" is. So basically you are a troll.
A typo is a typo, and yours was not.
The TSA isn't breaking any laws - that was the entire point I was trying to get across to you, and you're still failing to understand. If you'd stop and think for a minute, you'd realize that your expanded definition of "groping" would criminalize all sorts of things, from ballet and cheer-leading to doctors and gynecologists. Initially I called you an idiot because I figured you were being intentionally oblivious - now that it's become obvious that you're actually too stupid to understand what you're saying, I'm left feeling like a bit of a dick for mocking you. Let me know if you need me to explain this in any more detail, 'k?
I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something
What?
And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?
In order to address your false dichotomy.
Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?
It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway.
Sure, I can tell the difference: one is something that you're opposed to, while the other is not.
Oh, and it's spelled "then", you fucking idiot.
It's a false dichotomy, and a stupid question. Labor has always existed, as long as there have been human beings. The difference in wealth and success between societies arises from how they organize that labor.
This is exactly why you'll never be rich.
Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?
Bullshit. In order for it to make any sense, you have to accept that workers can't be capitalists, and capitalists can't do work. Two assumptions for which no justification is provided. If you think what he said makes sense, you're either misreading it or you're as clueless as he is.