The people that wrote and brought this story to life are some employees of Pixar and Disney. Some other employees at Pixar and Disney are already are merchandising this for all that it is worth. I find it really funny that you can't separate the two.
The main character's directive is to compact trash, but for the most part the "message" is an incidental passive voice in the background of the movie. The last half of the movie is spent in outer-space (away from the planet), and a lot of the first half is setting up the romance between the two robots. This movie is way, way, way more than just "take care of the planet".
There's also social critique of how lazy humans are getting (fast food smoothies, etc). There are a lot of other smaller parts in the movie that are charming, as well (like Wall-E teaching the robot on the Axiom how to wave).
I find it really funny that you think the people who wrote this story and brought it to life are the same people who want to milk the franchise for all it's worth.
It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said.
I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote. I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. It's plain as day, right there.
Why don't you just let go of the straw man and own up to the fact that you said chemical warfare was not outlawed and you are wrong.
Oh, I know why. Because when you're so obviously wrong, it's easier to call me names twelve times in a single post and include an attack on my family for good measure.
Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. I bow before the power of the awful names you call me. *snicker*
Besides for ego-boosting, for what other reason would you throw around names so rampantly? Do you honestly believe that name calling gives your argument any sort of strength? Perhaps that's why you never get any positive moderation to your comments.
You can accuse me of lying all you want, but 100 does not equal 7. In fact, I would wager that your final paragraph is quite possibly an attempt to make me stop, because you can't of your own volition stop digging your own hole. Or maybe you want to pretend that you have some sort of power over me to once again boost your ego.
Note how you continue to ignore my point in favor of calling me a liar, over and over again. I guess you have no other defense.
The only add-ons that were successes were those that were made intentionally for only one specific game or a very small subset of specific games - DDR, Guitar Hero for example.
I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.
Check this reply if you still don't understand how you misrepresented my view in order to attack it.
Oh, by the way, check out this New York Times article. That Shultz guy I quoted before pops up again...of course, you're likely to just believe the deniers like Powell or Armitage.
It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.
On the contrary, it's quite pleasurable to watch you freak out and constantly ignore the entire point of my debate. I will repeat it again.
If you give someone a tool while you know what their intention for the tool is, you are partially responsible.
Further, if it is your desire for their intention to occur, then you share even more responsibility than above. In essence, you are getting someone else to do your job.
At the barest essence, that is my point. You still have yet to address it. You're unlikely to start now.
are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?
Yes, I am saying that because you call me names, your argument loses strength. It's a distraction and adds nothing to the discussion; it only takes away from any point you are trying to make. I can only hypothesize that you were raised in a family where disrespecting people was considered acceptable.
It wasn't until my fourth reply to you that I started to get cheeky, and only then because it was clear you are irrational, and I still never once called you any names (However, in reaction to your accusations of lying or stupidity, I did begin to call into question exactly how intelligent you may or may not be; and yet even still I did acknowledge your very lucid point that the Geneva Protocol doesn't ban storage or manufacture of chemical weapons [though moot, since it was a straw man])
I'd like you to note that, before I even replied to you, you were already attacking me (calling me stupid). I invite you to read over my replies again, and please cite for me any one time I called you a moron, a liar, an idiot, or any other name. For fun, keep track of how many different names you call me, and how many times you call me those names, just to compare the relative order of magnitude.
I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying.
Ah, is this one of those times when you call someone a liar because you're the one doing the lying? Do you know how much I enjoy watching you squirm, trying to avoid discussing my actual point and instead throwing names at me and baseless assertions of invalidity while falsely claiming that I'm lying?
I looked at some more of your other posts. All you do is go around, trying to rip on people so you can feel better about yourself. Honestly, a small part of me feels sad that you feel the need to boost your ego by throwing shit at strangers over the Internet.
Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?
I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. You're wrong, and you didn't want to admit it, so you pretended I was talking about manufacture or storage, and tried saying that's legal. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said (and, hence, it is a straw man).
Here, let me quote your comment for you, just in case you forgot what you said.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention
NO actually, it wasn't.
Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you.
You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong.
But I never once made any mention of manufacture or storage.
That is called a straw man. You pretend I made a point that I did not make ("chemical weapons are illegal to manufacture or store" - not something I ever said) and then you attack that point instead of what I really said (chemical warfare is illegal).
You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.
Actually, my argument is that if you give someone a weapon knowing what they're going to do with it, you are partially responsible. I don't need any source for this. You haven't given convincing evidence that this stance is flawed.
Nor did you refute my argument. First you said I didn't read my source, then I copied and pasted the appropriate paragraph, then you turn around and say that the source isn't credible...is that how you refute arguments these days?
YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan?
You are correct that there are legal uses for the chemicals, but you conveniently ignored my point regarding dual-use technology. The fact of the matter is that the Reagan administration sold dual-use technology to the Iraqis, knowing they were going to make chemical weapons to use on the Iranians. In fact, the administration wanted the Iraqis to take out the Iranians. Part of my argument as mentioned above is that if you not only know, but want someone to use a "tool" in a certain way, and they do, you are even more culpable than before.
How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?
The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like.
Like the part where warrants are no longer given out for targets, but for programs. An entirely new class of warrant unprecedented in American history...that's a good compromise alright.
Immunizing people who broke a law that was written specifically for them to follow after the intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s. Excellent compromise.
Like the exclusivity provision, that was already present in the previous FISA. Recall that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has said FISA is and always has been the exclusive means of conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.
Like the Inspector General report, which is an example of the Executive branch investigating the Executive branch. Besides for that, they lack subpoena power.
Like the Bingaman amendment that would have actually been a real compromise, except that it stood no chance of being attached.
Like Sen. Bond said, "I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get". Meanwhile, over 20,000 people assemble in about a week on Obama's own social networking site to protest his support, and my senator's voice mail box was full repeatedly (likely with complaints).
Oh, yes, this is the definition of compromise...one side gives up everything to the other side.
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
The legislature is supposed to write laws, and the executive is supposed to enforce them. For instance, if the Congress passes a law saying that President Bush cannot torture people (such as treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture), President Bush is required to enforce that law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996).
The Congress should not tell the President what to do, but rather what cannot be done. Reasonably, I think you would agree with this.
Further, I would imagine that if the administration said "so and so is a spy", a warrant would be given in short order, so I do not see a warrant as an excessive burden of proof, especially given the extensive intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
I agree with this entirely. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act removed the barrier between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, allowing evidence obtained from FISA warrants (or the lack thereof) to be used by the FBI. I think this sets a dangerous precedent whereby a future President could potentially have the FBI criminally prosecute someone for acts unrelated to terrorism that were uncovered co-incident with investigation into "terrorism".
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
You're exactly right, we don't need a warrant to listen in on communications between foreign entities. In fact, we never have. 50 USC Section 1802(a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.
We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to
Right, this is why John Ashcroft (when he was Attorney General), James Comey, and a significant amount of the top echelon of the DOJ were about to resign en masse during the Intensive Care Showdown on March 11, 2004.
What would make hardcore GWOT supporters threaten to resign over a program that was still not public at the time? One must wonder how horrific a violation of the law must be to motivate such dedicated followers to such extreme ends.
According to Dean, Bush's reason not to pardon everyone is that it might affect the 2008 election...
Small problem - January 19th is well after November 4th.
Bigger problem - first he flips on filibustering FISA...can you be so certain that he won't flop over criminal prosecutions? Remember that someone pulled Pelosi's strings..."Impeachment is off the table".
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
1) This started before 9/11 2) There is big $$$ in government contracts (so they acted in "good faith"...to their stockholders?) 3) They were caught doing this before, and had this specific law written as a result 4) Nixon tried saying that the President can do whatever the President wants. That didn't fly 5) "Just following orders" didn't fly at Nuremberg (in fact, Rachel Maddow came up with a great analogy - if you are the get-away driver, is it a legal defense to say that the robber told you it was legal to steal from the bank?) 6) According to the separation of powers, it is the Congress and not the President who gets to decide what is legal and what is not.
Judging by other posts you've made recently in other topics, I would venture to say that you have an anger problem. Regardless, it's still amusing to watch you squirm in fury, so I'll keep this thread going.
What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties.
By your "logic" (*giggle*), all of journalism is suspect. I figured something that was printed in a physical newspaper as reputable as the Washington Post would satisfy you, but it appears nothing short of a video or audio tape can meet your burden of proof.
I guess, then, the CIA never really had black site prisons, that the US does not torture, that we're not monitoring international communications without warrants, that Hans Reiser really didn't do it, that Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman...
As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.
Given the context, CW means chemical weapons. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure that out, despite your abundance of ad-homs.
"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "
You use them to do a job
A job...like killing people you don't like.
If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.
That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible.
By your reasoning, then, why do we have laws restricting the sale of dual-use technology?
I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.
Consider that you said making weapons available does not amount to using them. Disregard the fact that this is complete bullshit (try making a gun available to someone in a mental institution and see if you can escape accountability).
My argument is that if you are aware of intended purpose of the tool you're selling at the time of sale, then you share accountability for that use. Further, if you sell a tool to someone so that they may do something that you would like to see done, you are even more accountable than in the example above.
Ignoring for a moment whether or not this actually happened, do you seriously disagree with the general principle of the preceding paragraph?
The reason I am not using a straw man argument against you is because the chemical-weapons-sold-to-Iraq thing (regardless of "citations" or "proof") essentially boils down to the argument above.
Let me rephrase it just in case your anger-clouded thought processes didn't quite get it. I'm not saying that you believe the Reagan administration knew what those chemicals would be used for. I believe that they did regardless of whether you did or not, so you can't say that I'm attributing that viewpoint to you.
However, prior knowledge of the intended purpose makes them an accomplice, in this case to a conspiracy to commit war crimes. Your "defense" is just a clever way to game the system and avoid accountability or any legal repercussions.
I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?
Ah, a sliver of intelligence amid otherwise incoherent ranting. Pay close attention here, though, because I'm going to show you what a straw man argument really is, and with any hope you will actually learn something truthful today.
If you look back to my original reply to you, I said the Geneva Protocol outlawed chemical warfare. I didn't say anything about manufacture or storage.
Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.
This is from the 15th paragraph.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians.
You can't deny the truth. We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked.
I'm sure if you would actually do your own research, you could find further supporting evidence, but I doubt you're actually interested in the truth. Like the Washington Post describing how the CIA provided information on how to use mustard gas to the Iraqis. Or how the US was the sole veto at the UN Security Council in 1986, preventing a statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.
Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.
You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". What non-military purpose can a chemical weapon serve?
No it isn't, save your stupid fucking straw men for someone who'll let you get away with them. If you're going to lie about my positions, then there's no reason for me to refrain from telling you to fuck off.
I'm not making any straw men or putting any words in your mouth. It is a simple fact that we knew Iraq was using chemical weapons on the Iranians. It is a simple fact that chemical weapons are weapons and their sole purpose is to kill people. It is a simple fact that the US wanted Iran to lose.
By defending the US distribution of chemical weapons to Iraq, you are defending the Reagan Administration's idea that you can sell chemical weapons to people so they can kill your enemies for you. If you do not like the moral position that your opinion puts you in, perhaps you should change your opinion. Being upset that your opinion makes you look bad doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention
NO actually, it wasn't. Do you intend to lie at every opportunity in order to support your already disproven point?
First, my point hasn't been disproven. You only say it's been disproven, but you provide no proof. I can agree with the argument that a manufacturer of bullets is not responsible for what those bullets are used for, but that is not a proper analogy for the Iraq-Iran war.
Second, what planet are you from? The proper term for the Geneva Protocol is "the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare". Look it up on wikipedia, for heaven's sake. I'm not lying here - chemical weapons have been illegal for decades. You're simply wrong on this point, and there's nothing else to it.
Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.
...did you even read what you wrote?
Anyway, if you read this reprint of an article from the Washington Post (the original is only available in the physical paper, not online), you will note that George Schultz (Reagan's Secretary of State in 1983) knew that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on Iranians almost daily.
No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.
Do not try to pass off your logic as true logic. While I would contend that chemical weapons are not tools, you forget that we knew what they were going to do with those weapons.
Your "logic" (i.e. opinion) is that you can sell an illegal weapon to someone knowing full well that they will use that weapon to kill people, and that you can claim plausible deniability in order to avoid accountability.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention, almost 60 years before we sold chemical weapons to Iraq. Why would we sell illegal weapons to a dictator who has been using them almost daily?
Because it was more important for us to make sure Iran lost. That's like giving your wife's ex-husband (who has a history of spousal abuse) a loaded gun and dropping him off at your house before you went to get a cup of coffee, and then saying it's not your fault when he uses that gun to shoot her even though it was public knowledge that you wanted to get rid of her. No logic can justify that.
But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive.
And we're smart enough to realize that if you sell someone a knife knowing full well that they're going to skin a child alive, you are responsible in part for that attack.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you would be upset if anyone provided Iran with nuclear technology (that doesn't violate the NPT), though by your logic the party who gave them the nukes shouldn't be responsible for how they're used.
Thank you for writing it. Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.
Funny enough, we had him hanged for using the chemical weapons we gave him.
So, the blue light strongly activates the blue cones, and not much else. The yellow light activates the rods, green cones, and red cones, while not activating blue cones very much.
The background activates only one cone, and the text activates two other cones and a rod. Seems like a good recipe for nice, high contrast.
While quite insightful, I think that would only apply if the monitor was the primary source of ambient light. In a properly lit room, the pupil size should only be very loosely correlated with screen brightness.
since most users don't websurf 20 different sites at the same time AND read those pages at the same time
No, but users visit web pages with images from a variety of hosts (such as advertising banners, etc).
Just because you're reading one web page at a time doesn't mean your PC isn't communicating with several IP addresses in order to gather the data necessary to render the web page.
I think you misunderstand. In my post, I did not begrudge capitalism, but greedy Americans.
I know exactly what I owe to the Public. And in comparison to someone who makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, I only make several tens of thousands. And I am happy with my wage because it makes living very easy. I have no complaints against the taxes I have to pay to enable this style of life, even with my meager salary.
No, what I hate is the person who cries bloody murder because you want to take away some small percentage of their millions. It's not like their life is a struggle, and most of them aren't even really using it anyway. No, they demand loopholes in the tax code and government subsidies so that they can avoid paying their dues, further concentrating money in their own hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Recall the place where the robots were taken for diagnostics and fixing. Wall-E used his laser as a weapon to bust out of that place.
The people that wrote and brought this story to life are some employees of Pixar and Disney.
Some other employees at Pixar and Disney are already are merchandising this for all that it is worth.
I find it really funny that you can't separate the two.
There, fixed it for ya.
The main character's directive is to compact trash, but for the most part the "message" is an incidental passive voice in the background of the movie. The last half of the movie is spent in outer-space (away from the planet), and a lot of the first half is setting up the romance between the two robots. This movie is way, way, way more than just "take care of the planet".
There's also social critique of how lazy humans are getting (fast food smoothies, etc). There are a lot of other smaller parts in the movie that are charming, as well (like Wall-E teaching the robot on the Axiom how to wave).
I find it really funny that you think the people who wrote this story and brought it to life are the same people who want to milk the franchise for all it's worth.
The comparison ends at the shape of Wall-E's head and the treads for feet.
There's a frickin' laser beam on his head! Johnny 5 had a laser beam in the first Short Circuit, too.
Oh, and the end of the movie reminds me somewhat of the end of Short Circuit 2.
It proves that you are too stupid to know the difference between "The Geneva convention outlawed" which is what that quote was regarding and "Chemical weapons ARE NOT illegal" which is something I never said.
I can only assume that you didn't even read the quote. I said chemical warfare was outlawed by Geneva, and you said no it wasn't. It's plain as day, right there.
Why don't you just let go of the straw man and own up to the fact that you said chemical warfare was not outlawed and you are wrong.
Oh, I know why. Because when you're so obviously wrong, it's easier to call me names twelve times in a single post and include an attack on my family for good measure.
Look at you, so big and strong and superior to me. I bow before the power of the awful names you call me. *snicker*
Besides for ego-boosting, for what other reason would you throw around names so rampantly? Do you honestly believe that name calling gives your argument any sort of strength? Perhaps that's why you never get any positive moderation to your comments.
You can accuse me of lying all you want, but 100 does not equal 7. In fact, I would wager that your final paragraph is quite possibly an attempt to make me stop, because you can't of your own volition stop digging your own hole. Or maybe you want to pretend that you have some sort of power over me to once again boost your ego.
Note how you continue to ignore my point in favor of calling me a liar, over and over again. I guess you have no other defense.
The only add-ons that were successes were those that were made intentionally for only one specific game or a very small subset of specific games - DDR, Guitar Hero for example.
Nunchuck.
Classic controller.
I didn't use any straw men, you attempted to prove I did but instead proved you have no idea what the fuck a straw man is, but will lie about it anyway.
Check this reply if you still don't understand how you misrepresented my view in order to attack it.
Oh, by the way, check out this New York Times article. That Shultz guy I quoted before pops up again...of course, you're likely to just believe the deniers like Powell or Armitage.
It's painful to watch you try so hard to find SOMETHING to attack me over since everything you've tried has been refuted and you look like an idiot as a result.
On the contrary, it's quite pleasurable to watch you freak out and constantly ignore the entire point of my debate. I will repeat it again.
If you give someone a tool while you know what their intention for the tool is, you are partially responsible.
Further, if it is your desire for their intention to occur, then you share even more responsibility than above. In essence, you are getting someone else to do your job.
At the barest essence, that is my point. You still have yet to address it. You're unlikely to start now.
are you saying because I call names you can dismiss me? YOUR IDIOT ASS DID TOO, so are you just stupid, a hypocrite, or both?
Yes, I am saying that because you call me names, your argument loses strength. It's a distraction and adds nothing to the discussion; it only takes away from any point you are trying to make. I can only hypothesize that you were raised in a family where disrespecting people was considered acceptable.
It wasn't until my fourth reply to you that I started to get cheeky, and only then because it was clear you are irrational, and I still never once called you any names (However, in reaction to your accusations of lying or stupidity, I did begin to call into question exactly how intelligent you may or may not be; and yet even still I did acknowledge your very lucid point that the Geneva Protocol doesn't ban storage or manufacture of chemical weapons [though moot, since it was a straw man])
I'd like you to note that, before I even replied to you, you were already attacking me (calling me stupid). I invite you to read over my replies again, and please cite for me any one time I called you a moron, a liar, an idiot, or any other name. For fun, keep track of how many different names you call me, and how many times you call me those names, just to compare the relative order of magnitude.
I own you and you know it, which is why you keep lying.
Ah, is this one of those times when you call someone a liar because you're the one doing the lying? Do you know how much I enjoy watching you squirm, trying to avoid discussing my actual point and instead throwing names at me and baseless assertions of invalidity while falsely claiming that I'm lying?
I looked at some more of your other posts. All you do is go around, trying to rip on people so you can feel better about yourself. Honestly, a small part of me feels sad that you feel the need to boost your ego by throwing shit at strangers over the Internet.
Are you seriously going to contend that your statement does not make the implicit assumption that I said anything about manufacture or storage?
I said chemical warfare was illegal. You said no it wasn't. You're wrong, and you didn't want to admit it, so you pretended I was talking about manufacture or storage, and tried saying that's legal. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said (and, hence, it is a straw man).
Here, let me quote your comment for you, just in case you forgot what you said.
Not that I expect any kind of proof (even a link to your own comment) to satisfy you.
How about this example?
Above, I said chemical warfare is illegal.
You said that I said the manufacture or storage of chemical weapons is illegal, and called me wrong.
But I never once made any mention of manufacture or storage.
That is called a straw man. You pretend I made a point that I did not make ("chemical weapons are illegal to manufacture or store" - not something I ever said) and then you attack that point instead of what I really said (chemical warfare is illegal).
No, I did not [use a strawman on you].
*sigh*. I guess you weren't paying attention.
You have also demonstrated that despite being told why you are wrong, your response is to continue to misunderstand your own sources and continue the same flawed argument that has already been refuted.
Actually, my argument is that if you give someone a weapon knowing what they're going to do with it, you are partially responsible. I don't need any source for this. You haven't given convincing evidence that this stance is flawed.
Nor did you refute my argument. First you said I didn't read my source, then I copied and pasted the appropriate paragraph, then you turn around and say that the source isn't credible...is that how you refute arguments these days?
YOU asked for a use for the TOOLS that chemicals are, and when given one, you try to pretend it's a plot by Reagan?
You are correct that there are legal uses for the chemicals, but you conveniently ignored my point regarding dual-use technology. The fact of the matter is that the Reagan administration sold dual-use technology to the Iraqis, knowing they were going to make chemical weapons to use on the Iranians. In fact, the administration wanted the Iraqis to take out the Iranians. Part of my argument as mentioned above is that if you not only know, but want someone to use a "tool" in a certain way, and they do, you are even more culpable than before.
How does it feel to know you're wrong and not be able to me down because I've proved it?
The only thing you proved is that you use capital letters, poor grammar, ad-homs, and straw men when someone makes a point you don't like.
I did read some of the bill...
Like the part where warrants are no longer given out for targets, but for programs. An entirely new class of warrant unprecedented in American history...that's a good compromise alright.
Immunizing people who broke a law that was written specifically for them to follow after the intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s. Excellent compromise.
Like the exclusivity provision, that was already present in the previous FISA. Recall that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has said FISA is and always has been the exclusive means of conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.
Like the Inspector General report, which is an example of the Executive branch investigating the Executive branch. Besides for that, they lack subpoena power.
Like the Bingaman amendment that would have actually been a real compromise, except that it stood no chance of being attached.
Like Sen. Bond said, "I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get". Meanwhile, over 20,000 people assemble in about a week on Obama's own social networking site to protest his support, and my senator's voice mail box was full repeatedly (likely with complaints).
Oh, yes, this is the definition of compromise...one side gives up everything to the other side.
1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.
The legislature is supposed to write laws, and the executive is supposed to enforce them. For instance, if the Congress passes a law saying that President Bush cannot torture people (such as treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture), President Bush is required to enforce that law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996).
The Congress should not tell the President what to do, but rather what cannot be done. Reasonably, I think you would agree with this.
Further, I would imagine that if the administration said "so and so is a spy", a warrant would be given in short order, so I do not see a warrant as an excessive burden of proof, especially given the extensive intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s.
2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.
I agree with this entirely. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act removed the barrier between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, allowing evidence obtained from FISA warrants (or the lack thereof) to be used by the FBI. I think this sets a dangerous precedent whereby a future President could potentially have the FBI criminally prosecute someone for acts unrelated to terrorism that were uncovered co-incident with investigation into "terrorism".
3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.
You're exactly right, we don't need a warrant to listen in on communications between foreign entities. In fact, we never have. 50 USC Section 1802(a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.
We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to
Right, this is why John Ashcroft (when he was Attorney General), James Comey, and a significant amount of the top echelon of the DOJ were about to resign en masse during the Intensive Care Showdown on March 11, 2004.
What would make hardcore GWOT supporters threaten to resign over a program that was still not public at the time? One must wonder how horrific a violation of the law must be to motivate such dedicated followers to such extreme ends.
Congress has single-digit approval ratings right now, actually. Rasmussen indicates 9% of Americans think Congress did excellent or good.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance
According to Dean, Bush's reason not to pardon everyone is that it might affect the 2008 election...
Small problem - January 19th is well after November 4th.
Bigger problem - first he flips on filibustering FISA...can you be so certain that he won't flop over criminal prosecutions? Remember that someone pulled Pelosi's strings..."Impeachment is off the table".
I happen to believe that companies acting in good faith to help after 9/11, and who were given assurances that they would be immune from legal sanction, should in fact be immune from legal sanction.
1) This started before 9/11
2) There is big $$$ in government contracts (so they acted in "good faith"...to their stockholders?)
3) They were caught doing this before, and had this specific law written as a result
4) Nixon tried saying that the President can do whatever the President wants. That didn't fly
5) "Just following orders" didn't fly at Nuremberg (in fact, Rachel Maddow came up with a great analogy - if you are the get-away driver, is it a legal defense to say that the robber told you it was legal to steal from the bank?)
6) According to the separation of powers, it is the Congress and not the President who gets to decide what is legal and what is not.
Judging by other posts you've made recently in other topics, I would venture to say that you have an anger problem. Regardless, it's still amusing to watch you squirm in fury, so I'll keep this thread going.
What YOU have is a piece by a third party discussing the secret meetings of two OTHER parties.
By your "logic" (*giggle*), all of journalism is suspect. I figured something that was printed in a physical newspaper as reputable as the Washington Post would satisfy you, but it appears nothing short of a video or audio tape can meet your burden of proof.
I guess, then, the CIA never really had black site prisons, that the US does not torture, that we're not monitoring international communications without warrants, that Hans Reiser really didn't do it, that Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman...
As to "CW", do you know what qualifies as "CW"? If you DID, you wouldn't be dumb enough to forward that as proof.
Given the context, CW means chemical weapons. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to figure that out, despite your abundance of ad-homs.
"You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". "
You use them to do a job
A job...like killing people you don't like.
If you want a SPECIFIC example, DEFOLIANT YOU FUCKING MORON.
That is convenient, isn't it? I'm sure the Reagan administration thought this all through carefully so as to keep their hands as clean as possible.
By your reasoning, then, why do we have laws restricting the sale of dual-use technology?
I'm doing NONE OF THE ABOVE, and THAT is a perfect example of the straw men you're lying about not using.
Consider that you said making weapons available does not amount to using them. Disregard the fact that this is complete bullshit (try making a gun available to someone in a mental institution and see if you can escape accountability).
My argument is that if you are aware of intended purpose of the tool you're selling at the time of sale, then you share accountability for that use. Further, if you sell a tool to someone so that they may do something that you would like to see done, you are even more accountable than in the example above.
Ignoring for a moment whether or not this actually happened, do you seriously disagree with the general principle of the preceding paragraph?
The reason I am not using a straw man argument against you is because the chemical-weapons-sold-to-Iraq thing (regardless of "citations" or "proof") essentially boils down to the argument above.
Let me rephrase it just in case your anger-clouded thought processes didn't quite get it. I'm not saying that you believe the Reagan administration knew what those chemicals would be used for. I believe that they did regardless of whether you did or not, so you can't say that I'm attributing that viewpoint to you.
However, prior knowledge of the intended purpose makes them an accomplice, in this case to a conspiracy to commit war crimes. Your "defense" is just a clever way to game the system and avoid accountability or any legal repercussions.
I don't have to asshole, I'm familiar with it, your post makes it clear you're not. It certainly DOES NOT say what you claim it does, for instance, it doesn't outlaw manufacture or storage of chemical weapons, and when signed, many of the member states did so only after having their reservations accepted (which is allowed within the framework). Or did you not know that?
Ah, a sliver of intelligence amid otherwise incoherent ranting. Pay close attention here, though, because I'm going to show you what a straw man argument really is, and with any hope you will actually learn something truthful today.
If you look back to my original reply to you, I said the Geneva Protocol outlawed chemical warfare. I didn't say anything about manufacture or storage.
Try actually reading the te
Read you own link genius, it's not what you claim it is, and it definitely doesn't say what you claim it does.
This is from the 15th paragraph.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians.
You can't deny the truth. We knew they were using chemical weapons on the Iranians before we sold them the weapons. And it is in the "proof" that I linked.
I'm sure if you would actually do your own research, you could find further supporting evidence, but I doubt you're actually interested in the truth. Like the Washington Post describing how the CIA provided information on how to use mustard gas to the Iraqis. Or how the US was the sole veto at the UN Security Council in 1986, preventing a statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons.
Contending does not make it so, and in this case, you are wrong.
You tell me that I'm wrong, and yet you provide no examples of how chemical weapons are "tools". What non-military purpose can a chemical weapon serve?
No it isn't, save your stupid fucking straw men for someone who'll let you get away with them. If you're going to lie about my positions, then there's no reason for me to refrain from telling you to fuck off.
I'm not making any straw men or putting any words in your mouth. It is a simple fact that we knew Iraq was using chemical weapons on the Iranians. It is a simple fact that chemical weapons are weapons and their sole purpose is to kill people. It is a simple fact that the US wanted Iran to lose.
By defending the US distribution of chemical weapons to Iraq, you are defending the Reagan Administration's idea that you can sell chemical weapons to people so they can kill your enemies for you. If you do not like the moral position that your opinion puts you in, perhaps you should change your opinion. Being upset that your opinion makes you look bad doesn't mean I'm wrong.
NO actually, it wasn't. Do you intend to lie at every opportunity in order to support your already disproven point?
First, my point hasn't been disproven. You only say it's been disproven, but you provide no proof. I can agree with the argument that a manufacturer of bullets is not responsible for what those bullets are used for, but that is not a proper analogy for the Iraq-Iran war.
Second, what planet are you from? The proper term for the Geneva Protocol is "the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare". Look it up on wikipedia, for heaven's sake. I'm not lying here - chemical weapons have been illegal for decades. You're simply wrong on this point, and there's nothing else to it.
Please provide a citation proving your assumption in order to further an already disproven argument is anything other than an assumption made to further an already disproven point.
...did you even read what you wrote?
Anyway, if you read this reprint of an article from the Washington Post (the original is only available in the physical paper, not online), you will note that George Schultz (Reagan's Secretary of State in 1983) knew that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons on Iranians almost daily.
No, not MY logic, JUST LOGIC. Giving someone a tool doesn't make you responsible for someone else using it.
Do not try to pass off your logic as true logic. While I would contend that chemical weapons are not tools, you forget that we knew what they were going to do with those weapons.
Your "logic" (i.e. opinion) is that you can sell an illegal weapon to someone knowing full well that they will use that weapon to kill people, and that you can claim plausible deniability in order to avoid accountability.
Chemical warfare was outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention, almost 60 years before we sold chemical weapons to Iraq. Why would we sell illegal weapons to a dictator who has been using them almost daily?
Because it was more important for us to make sure Iran lost. That's like giving your wife's ex-husband (who has a history of spousal abuse) a loaded gun and dropping him off at your house before you went to get a cup of coffee, and then saying it's not your fault when he uses that gun to shoot her even though it was public knowledge that you wanted to get rid of her. No logic can justify that.
But I'm smart enough to know the difference between someone who sells a knife and someone who uses it to skin a child alive.
And we're smart enough to realize that if you sell someone a knife knowing full well that they're going to skin a child alive, you are responsible in part for that attack.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that you would be upset if anyone provided Iran with nuclear technology (that doesn't violate the NPT), though by your logic the party who gave them the nukes shouldn't be responsible for how they're used.
I was going to write that exact comment.
Thank you for writing it. Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.
Funny enough, we had him hanged for using the chemical weapons we gave him.
Aren't you proud to be an American?
This makes sense. If you look at this random website with a graph of spectral sensitivity of the eye's cones and rods vs. wavelength you can see that blue sensitivity is broad, while red and green sensitivity are more narrow. Red and green are also much closer to each other, and far away from blue sensitivity, with rods somewhere between blue and green but closer to green.
So, the blue light strongly activates the blue cones, and not much else. The yellow light activates the rods, green cones, and red cones, while not activating blue cones very much.
The background activates only one cone, and the text activates two other cones and a rod. Seems like a good recipe for nice, high contrast.
While quite insightful, I think that would only apply if the monitor was the primary source of ambient light. In a properly lit room, the pupil size should only be very loosely correlated with screen brightness.
since most users don't websurf 20 different sites at the same time AND read those pages at the same time
No, but users visit web pages with images from a variety of hosts (such as advertising banners, etc).
Just because you're reading one web page at a time doesn't mean your PC isn't communicating with several IP addresses in order to gather the data necessary to render the web page.
I think you misunderstand. In my post, I did not begrudge capitalism, but greedy Americans.
I know exactly what I owe to the Public. And in comparison to someone who makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year, I only make several tens of thousands. And I am happy with my wage because it makes living very easy. I have no complaints against the taxes I have to pay to enable this style of life, even with my meager salary.
No, what I hate is the person who cries bloody murder because you want to take away some small percentage of their millions. It's not like their life is a struggle, and most of them aren't even really using it anyway. No, they demand loopholes in the tax code and government subsidies so that they can avoid paying their dues, further concentrating money in their own hands.