And how to get a polar bear out from the artic waters through a hole in the ice.
I'm unsure of the bouyancy of a polar bear, but I'm pretty sure either he'd swim out and beat your ass, or if unconscious somehow sink like a rock or at least be carried by the current far under the ice cover.
Either way, this is clearly how a total idiot would hunt a polar bear, and everyone else would use a nice big gun.
I support financially the campaigns of candidates I like, and write my Senators and Representatives frequently to give them my opinion on issues which are important to me.
You I like. Won't hash out the fine points, I don't like the NSA reading my phone records cause I'm a very private person, I don't like the NSA bending the 4th, but you don't mind it. Fair enough.
I will argue that we don't know whether or not the information the NSA has gathered has been used or gathered illegally, because of all the secrecy involved and their refusal to allow any sort of oversight. That's why I don't like them having those privilges, we don't know if the laws been broke and we have no way of knowing. They stopped the investigation by refusing to give the DoJ investigators the security clearance to investigate. I don't like that at all.
I know all this now, it's why my political alignment got very solidly pushed to "progressive". I don't want the government intruding into anyone's private life. I want to own a gun, and I want that nice gay couple down the street to be able to get married, and I want grandmothers to be able to protest war without getting carted off to jail. That's the world I want. If I absolutely have to pay taxes, I want to be reasonably certain that the money is being used well.
I also want secularism in schools. I believe there should be a world religions class taught. I believe that should be the extent of it. No Intelligent Design, no Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. If students want to pray, if they want to form a religious club, I think they should be able to, but no group should be favored over another. I want to see a Christian after-school club, and a Wiccan after-school club, and a D&D after-school club, and a GLBT after-school club, and a Young Republicans after-school club, and I want them all to get the same level of support from their school, and I want them all to exist free of being protested by nosy parents who don't want their kids exposed to "something like that". That's what I want. I don't want Bibles banned in school any more then I want clothing with pentagrams on it banned from schools.
The problem is that so many people who say they want equality mean that they want everything for their group and to take the rights away from other groups.
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson
I believe NOTHING I see from your agendized groups, so I would suppose that makes us even. It's really very pointless to argue over whose set of numbers we are to use, when both of us are certain that the other's numbers are wrong.
If your chief goal is to protect US against THEM, what do you care about Saddam slaughtering his own people? You'd do the same, to protect yourself, because you see the world from an US vs THEM black and white mentality. I'm sure Saddam thought he was protecting HIS power and nice but crappily built mansions from THEM as would take it from him. That's the inherent flaw with looking at things from the US vs THEM perspective, in that sort of world everyone is out for themselves, and any number of atrocities and inhumanities can result.
Regardless, the main issue is this: is the US any safer without Saddam in power? He was bent on acquiring weapons, but there's a huge gulf between what he wanted to do and what he was capable of doing. I can be bent on acquiring a million dollars and a ranch in the countryside with OMGPONIES, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Funding terrorism? Looks like the terrorists have done remarkably well at hurting Americans without Saddam in power, largely because we have done the terrorists the huge favor of transporting thousands of Americans to their own backyard, so that they do not have to travel in order to bomb and kill us. Know what would be a great idea? Putting some money into HUMINT operations outside of the U.S., using our weight as a prosperous and sophisticated country for espionage and covert activity, and eventually being able to stop the terrorists by using the same local advantages that they have. We should be focusing on using less to accomplish more, not using a hammer to repair a broken plate.
I don't complain about all the civilian deaths from, say, the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, because it actually accomplished something. The war in Iraq has accomplished either nothing, or very little, and it sure as hell has not been worth the price in American dollars and American lives.
It's why I voted for Bush in 2000, and between 2000 and 2004 had to change my party affiliation and wound up voting for Kerry in '04. And hell, it isn't just the intrustion, it's the incompetence. They aren't even good at what they do. It's like taking your car into a mechanic for an oil change, watching him break the air conditioner, and having him then fix the air conditioner. Like Einstein said, the problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.
I know how the Air Force plans bombing runs. The Law of Armed Conflict requires that commanders balance military necessity against unnecessary civilian suffering. Some suffering is considered to be unavoidable, and the commander has to determine whether the suffering that will or may be caused is worth the military value of destroying the target. Now, it's good that we actually worry about that. I'm very happy that we try to balance civilian suffering with military necessity. That's a great thing. Sets us apart from the monsters in the world. It's how I'm able to sleep at night. But there are times when a commander says "Well, we'll probably kill some innocent civilians in the process, but in the end the military value justifies their loss." and that's a fact. When you're like me and you consider the Iraq war to have been unnecessary, you consider all the civilian suffering (and for that matter, the military suffering because getting shredded by an IED is no picnic) to be unnecessary and a tragedy caused by short-sighted selfish fanatical people. On both sides of the conflict.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.ht m/ In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured.
That's a whole lot of whoops. Like "Whoops, I blew your house and kids up. But hey, enjoy the sweet taste of freedom. By yourself."
I find it terrifying when a politician uses God in a political speech. Because I'm a pagan.
I'm gonna be fighting my ass off within the Democrat party to keep us from having to choose between a Clinton and a Bush. I'd rather have to choose between Dean (or Clark) and McCain. McCain has lost all my respect by becoming a beaten whipped dog for the presidency, selling all the integrity and greatness he once had in return for table scraps from Bush, but at least he isn't a Bush.
My political principles, if this were the 90s, would be a mix of Democrat and Republican and I would feel fairly comfortable labelling myself a liberterian and not sweating it. However, the things I liked about the Republicans, like fiscal responsibility, a strong military, and fierce protection of privacy, have all been thrown to the winds. Believe me, funneling billions of dollars into fat cat contractors and wearing down our servicemembers in conflict after conflict does not make a strong military. Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, saying "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Eisenhower said a lot of smart stuff, check it out: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwight _d_eisenhower.html/ "Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." "When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." "Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose." "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." "Only Americans can hurt America." And a personal favorite, "Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Since I'm a progressive myself, no, I'm not taking a shot at progressives. A lot of the progressives I know, myself included, consider Hillary and Joementum both to be DINOs. I want honest politicians who are devoted to upholding the constitution and the bill of rights. At present, that's more the Democrats then the Republicans, but I'm very cynical and don't really trust the Democrats at all to actually do this, especially given Tipper Gore, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and so many others. The issue of censorship is a big divisive issue right now in the Democratic Party. It's not a divise issue for the Republicans, they're all about moral censorship because their fundy base loves it.
Is every person we've killed an enemy? Have we never accidentally killed an innocent? Which nation have we declared war against? Whose rules do we play by? Do we adjust the rules we do and don't follow to make the rules conform to how we want to do business?
I do see a moral difference. America and Al Qaeda are not 100% morally equivalent. The Bush Administration is not as bad as Al Qaeda.
Good job. Golf clap. The day when I'm dancing in the goddamn streets with happiness and joy because my government is not run by a ruthless terrorist organization and is not as bad as a ruthless terrorist organization will be the day Satan goes ice skating in hell.
Our country has a whole lot of innocent blood on our hands, and trying to cover your eyes and your ears and pretend we don't tells me there's no hope for you either. We aren't the worst, but we damn straight aren't the best. We aren't black evil, but we sure aren't saints. The evil in our government is a more insidious and hard to recognize evil, one that covers up death and atrocity with fancy doubletalk and nationalistic fervor. It's about time we trade up for something better.
Yeah, I'm glad we aren't China, and I'm glad we aren't Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or the DPRK. If I had to pick a guy to be stranded on a desert island with, I'd pick George Bush over Osama any day. But I don't hold my country to the lowest standards, I hold it to the highest ones. I want America to be the best country in the world, not "hey, at least it's not one of the countries where people don't get their heads cut off for worshipping the wrong invisible being." If you ask me, that's patriotism. Being honest about what's right and what's wrong about my country, and trying to fix it instead of settling.
The Navy uses Tomahawks. The Air Force uses precision laser-guided and GPS-guided munitions to hit targets with +/- 3 meters of accuracy. However, there must obviously be an effective way to avoid both Air Force and Navy, because otherwise Osama, Al-Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi would all be smoking craters.
I'm not a republican or a conservative... I just hate these 2 people, and want to see real American's elected to office. The kind that stand up for free speech, expression and have the fucking courage to tell Americans "NO" like the big babies we are. We need someone to remind us all of what AMERICA is about...
A whole LOT of Democrats and progressives agree with you.
I think you are missing the point. Our enemies are beheading innocents, and you say nothing. I see protests against the war, protests against the NSA, protests against Bush, protests against secure borders, but I have seen no protests against beheadings or even protests promoting women's rights in the Islamic world.
1. What makes you think protesting the beheadings here in America would do a lick of good? We already know it's bad. 2. As for promoting women's rights in the Islamic world, I don't bother protesting for that... I donate a great deal of money to the Global Fund For Women, providing financial support to the world-wide struggle for equal rights for women. Check out their website, http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/.
The fact is, we have to make sacrifices to secure our lives and our liberty. I joined the Army, for example, had no freedoms there and was willing to give my life. You can't even let the NSA know what numbers you've called? They are not listening, mind you, just looking to see who called who, and I assume they are looking to see who Mohammed Atta called, for example, on September 10'th. Under your rules, that would not be an option. We have to rely on our mad claravoyance skillz, hide our heads in the sand and hope that no other attacks are coming.
I've been in the Air Force for 6 years, no freedoms here, been to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Korea, and have been willing to give my life. So don't try to beat me in a "wrap myself in the flag" contest. I don't want the NSA to see who I'm calling because it's none of their business, and if you don't think they're listening to whoever the hell they want to listen to, you're woefully naive. Under my rules, when the NSA suspects someone of being a terrorist, they start tapping their phone calls. Within 72 hours they get a warrant to continue doing so from the Top Secret FISA court. This process involves asking a judge for a warrant, and having him give it to you. Oh my, what a horrible isolationist rule that is actually the current Law of the land. You swore an oath when you joined, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. You put your life on the line to defend that. But now you're willing to scrap it cause you're scared?
What are you willing to sacrifice for your life and liberty? How 'bout the life and liberty of your kids? How about the life and liberty of families you've never met? I know that it's in vogue to bash the government and say that we are becoming Nazi's, but from the looks of things, we still have more freedoms than nearly every other country on Earth. Don't believe me? How many countries can you visit a mosque, a Christian church, a church of Scientology and a synagogue all in the same day? It may not be against the law to do so, in say Pakistan or Syria, but you think you could do it and live to tell about it? Is our level of freedom and security not worth sacrificing anything to you?
6 years of my life, the majority of it spent overseas, and a lot of it spent in happy places where they give you extra money because people are trying to kill you there. Strange as it may seem however, I am not willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty, in order to gain... freedom and liberty? As for countries with religious freedom, um, South Korea, Japan, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, probably Russia but I don't know if they have scientologists there, in fact, most of the civilized world has religious freedom. China doesn't, a lot of the Muslim nations don't, and I'm willing to work to try to change that. Having somebody in Washington see how many calls I made to my mom or to Dominos does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. Holding and torturing potentially innocent people (and if they aren't innocent we should probably stop releasing so many of them) in Gitmo does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. Giving up our privacy, our freedoms, and our civil rights in order to have a bunch of people who have fucked up everything they've touched tell us that we're somehow safer does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. HUA?
Is "killing people" the only standard we're using? We've killed plenty of people. We tend to do it with a bomb dropped from around 10,000 feet and justify it by calling any innocents killed "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses", but if the only standard we're using is "killing people", then we're doing the same thing the enemy is. I imagine if we're judging it by sheer numbers, we've got more noncombatant kills to our name then they do.
Now, if I have to choose, I'd rather take the high altitude bombings over the beheadings any day, but don't ever try to pretend we have moral high ground simply because they're killing people and we aren't; we sure as fuck are.
I wonder what sort of food terrorists get delivered when they're up all night planning an attack...
And in other news today, Han Song Yi Chinese delivery restaurants in New York are under investigation after it was learned Abdullah Akmed ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan on no less then 4 separate occasions while planning an attack on the Empire State building. Authorities are concerned as to whether or not there may be a Chinese government contact working at Han Song Yi restaurants, and patriotic citizens are advised not to eat there. And the terror alert level is still at Red.
Smart, peace-loving people can believe in God too. If you think that there's any scientific evidence that can disprove the existence of a meta-physical concept like God, then maybe you should remove your head from your own pretentious ass for a moment and look up what Science is--or, more importantly, what it isn't.
The madness is in thinking that an unproven meta-physical concept can disprove proven scientific concepts. It's not whether or not science proves or disproves God, it's that so many religious crazies think that their holy book disproves science. That's madness. There may or may not be a God, but there is hard reality. Claiming that the proven is invalid because it does not disprove the unprovable is madness. Just the sort of madness we have in the White House right now.
Oh boy, the time-honored argument, "We aren't as bad as we could possibly be so we're good". What a convincing argument. We aren't lopping heads off in the streets, that must mean we're a perfect country with an excellent government. Let's ignore all the other problems, at least we aren't beheading.
The examples are out there, but me spending an hour or two of net research to dig them up and post them would be futile, as it wouldn't change anybody's mind on either side of the argument, and I have other things I'd rather spend the hour or two on. Yay for apathy.
that in my post just down-thread, which I wrote before seeing yours, I had New Zealand listed as an example of a "good" country.
Believe me, if it wasn't for friends and family in the States, I'd be relocating. I could live in Middle Earth! Still might retire there. You guys need an electrician/generator mechanic with military experience? My wife's a nurse, if that helps.
The metric shouldn't be whether or not the current administration/government officials/law enforcement officials (etc) are abusing power and invading privacy, but rather whether or not any given power can be abused and what oversight exists to protect the rights of the innocent (or the accused) in the case that such abuse happens.
Absolutely. Even if someone is a die-hard Republican who trusts the party religiously and believes that no wrongdoing has ever been done by the administration, they need to consider the possibility that the tools and powers established over the last 6 years may someday be in the hand of a Democrat president. For all the conservatives out there, picture Hillary Clinton with unlimited wiretapping and information access.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.
The complete and total lack of oversight, and additionally the strident opposition to any kind of oversight of control, is very troubling. Take the FISA warrants issue. There is one judge who approves FISA warrants. He's had this job for years. He has a security clearance higher then God. He barely ever turns down a warrant request, somthing like over 90 percent are approved. This judge is on call 24/7, and has signed warrant requests in his pajamas. If the government doesn't want to wait for a warrant, they can go ahead and wiretap on a target, if they think it's really really urgent, and they have 3 fucking days to go and get the warrant after the fact. They have the ability to essentially get the warrant to search the house after they've searched it. How much easier could it be? It's not like the administration never used or obtained FISA warrants either, they used it lots, so it's not like they were opposed to the program as a whole or somehow unaware of it.
What that means is one of two things. Either the people doing the wiretapping were lazy, and didn't want to get a warrant, or they were doing something blatantly illegal and a blatant abuse of power, like spying on completely innocent people for political reasons during an election campaign or something similar, and didn't want anyone to know about it. Even if it's just laziness, I'm not happy about it, I don't want the defenders of the country to be too lazy to do their job right.
that was longer than expected, but a rant felt necessary
Good, not terribly good, and worst. New Zealand probably qualifies as good, I'm sure there's a number of other countries that do as well. America right now is not terribly good. China, Iran, DPRK, those are worst. Just because I don't like not terribly good doesn't mean I want worst, it means I'd rather have good. It also doesn't mean I'd rather turn not terribly good into good.
Comparing something against the worst thing it could be, and saying "Hey! At least I'm not that!", is really very stupid. You shouldn't be happy that you're not the worst, you should be trying to be better. That's like saying "Hey, I may be 50 pounds overweight, but at least I'm not 100 pounds overweight, that would be bad! No, I'm pretty happy just being 50 pounds overweight, that's clearly the better option."
In related news, the National Security Agency has closed down an inquiry into the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," a separate program from this one, by refusing to grant security clearance to the lawyers in the Department of Justice. The NSA and the DoJ are both established under the executive.
In effect, the fox prosecutor shut down the investigation into whether or not the foxes committed a crime when they broke into the henhouse, saying that the fox prosecutor was not allowed to enter the fox den to look for feathers or chicken bits. But of course, no crimes were committed, the chickens probably just flew off. Honestly.
And on a side note, it appears that Qworst has finally FINALLY done something that doesn't piss me the hell off.
For everyone who doesn't see a problem with this, remember that you're only safe if every person working for the NSA with access to this information is a perfect person with no chance of ever using their information for illegal purposes. Wonder how long it will be before NSA sells its list to a marketing company. Or someone at the NSA sells the list to a marketing company.
Slashdot Mirror
And how to get a polar bear out from the artic waters through a hole in the ice.
I'm unsure of the bouyancy of a polar bear, but I'm pretty sure either he'd swim out and beat your ass, or if unconscious somehow sink like a rock or at least be carried by the current far under the ice cover.
Either way, this is clearly how a total idiot would hunt a polar bear, and everyone else would use a nice big gun.
Or by, um, taking it off.
I for one don't consider wearing a shirt necessary to masturbation.
I support financially the campaigns of candidates I like, and write my Senators and Representatives frequently to give them my opinion on issues which are important to me.
Whether they listen or not is another matter.
You I like. Won't hash out the fine points, I don't like the NSA reading my phone records cause I'm a very private person, I don't like the NSA bending the 4th, but you don't mind it. Fair enough.
I will argue that we don't know whether or not the information the NSA has gathered has been used or gathered illegally, because of all the secrecy involved and their refusal to allow any sort of oversight. That's why I don't like them having those privilges, we don't know if the laws been broke and we have no way of knowing. They stopped the investigation by refusing to give the DoJ investigators the security clearance to investigate. I don't like that at all.
I know all this now, it's why my political alignment got very solidly pushed to "progressive". I don't want the government intruding into anyone's private life. I want to own a gun, and I want that nice gay couple down the street to be able to get married, and I want grandmothers to be able to protest war without getting carted off to jail. That's the world I want. If I absolutely have to pay taxes, I want to be reasonably certain that the money is being used well.
I also want secularism in schools. I believe there should be a world religions class taught. I believe that should be the extent of it. No Intelligent Design, no Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. If students want to pray, if they want to form a religious club, I think they should be able to, but no group should be favored over another. I want to see a Christian after-school club, and a Wiccan after-school club, and a D&D after-school club, and a GLBT after-school club, and a Young Republicans after-school club, and I want them all to get the same level of support from their school, and I want them all to exist free of being protested by nosy parents who don't want their kids exposed to "something like that". That's what I want. I don't want Bibles banned in school any more then I want clothing with pentagrams on it banned from schools.
The problem is that so many people who say they want equality mean that they want everything for their group and to take the rights away from other groups.
Or Syria, Iran, North Korea, and... hmm... whichever else is a "bad" country.
Should be:
Yay, go USA! We're Not Yet As Bad As The Worst Countries In The World (TM)!
Which has always struck me as being like saying "Yay Lyme Disease! At Least It's Not AIDS!
America, where's there no point improving if you haven't hit rock bottom yet.
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson
I believe NOTHING I see from your agendized groups, so I would suppose that makes us even. It's really very pointless to argue over whose set of numbers we are to use, when both of us are certain that the other's numbers are wrong.
If your chief goal is to protect US against THEM, what do you care about Saddam slaughtering his own people? You'd do the same, to protect yourself, because you see the world from an US vs THEM black and white mentality. I'm sure Saddam thought he was protecting HIS power and nice but crappily built mansions from THEM as would take it from him. That's the inherent flaw with looking at things from the US vs THEM perspective, in that sort of world everyone is out for themselves, and any number of atrocities and inhumanities can result.
Regardless, the main issue is this: is the US any safer without Saddam in power? He was bent on acquiring weapons, but there's a huge gulf between what he wanted to do and what he was capable of doing. I can be bent on acquiring a million dollars and a ranch in the countryside with OMGPONIES, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Funding terrorism? Looks like the terrorists have done remarkably well at hurting Americans without Saddam in power, largely because we have done the terrorists the huge favor of transporting thousands of Americans to their own backyard, so that they do not have to travel in order to bomb and kill us. Know what would be a great idea? Putting some money into HUMINT operations outside of the U.S., using our weight as a prosperous and sophisticated country for espionage and covert activity, and eventually being able to stop the terrorists by using the same local advantages that they have. We should be focusing on using less to accomplish more, not using a hammer to repair a broken plate.
I don't complain about all the civilian deaths from, say, the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, because it actually accomplished something. The war in Iraq has accomplished either nothing, or very little, and it sure as hell has not been worth the price in American dollars and American lives.
It's why I voted for Bush in 2000, and between 2000 and 2004 had to change my party affiliation and wound up voting for Kerry in '04. And hell, it isn't just the intrustion, it's the incompetence. They aren't even good at what they do. It's like taking your car into a mechanic for an oil change, watching him break the air conditioner, and having him then fix the air conditioner. Like Einstein said, the problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ = a whole lot of accidents.
t m/
I know how the Air Force plans bombing runs. The Law of Armed Conflict requires that commanders balance military necessity against unnecessary civilian suffering. Some suffering is considered to be unavoidable, and the commander has to determine whether the suffering that will or may be caused is worth the military value of destroying the target. Now, it's good that we actually worry about that. I'm very happy that we try to balance civilian suffering with military necessity. That's a great thing. Sets us apart from the monsters in the world. It's how I'm able to sleep at night. But there are times when a commander says "Well, we'll probably kill some innocent civilians in the process, but in the end the military value justifies their loss." and that's a fact. When you're like me and you consider the Iraq war to have been unnecessary, you consider all the civilian suffering (and for that matter, the military suffering because getting shredded by an IED is no picnic) to be unnecessary and a tragedy caused by short-sighted selfish fanatical people. On both sides of the conflict.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.h
In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured.
That's a whole lot of whoops. Like "Whoops, I blew your house and kids up. But hey, enjoy the sweet taste of freedom. By yourself."
I find it terrifying when a politician uses God in a political speech. Because I'm a pagan.
I'm gonna be fighting my ass off within the Democrat party to keep us from having to choose between a Clinton and a Bush. I'd rather have to choose between Dean (or Clark) and McCain. McCain has lost all my respect by becoming a beaten whipped dog for the presidency, selling all the integrity and greatness he once had in return for table scraps from Bush, but at least he isn't a Bush.
...you're not the only one. Take a look: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12729893/
t _d_eisenhower.html/
My political principles, if this were the 90s, would be a mix of Democrat and Republican and I would feel fairly comfortable labelling myself a liberterian and not sweating it. However, the things I liked about the Republicans, like fiscal responsibility, a strong military, and fierce protection of privacy, have all been thrown to the winds. Believe me, funneling billions of dollars into fat cat contractors and wearing down our servicemembers in conflict after conflict does not make a strong military. Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, saying "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Eisenhower said a lot of smart stuff, check it out: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwigh
"Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America."
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."
"Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
"Only Americans can hurt America."
And a personal favorite,
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Wish I'd been around for him.
Since I'm a progressive myself, no, I'm not taking a shot at progressives. A lot of the progressives I know, myself included, consider Hillary and Joementum both to be DINOs. I want honest politicians who are devoted to upholding the constitution and the bill of rights. At present, that's more the Democrats then the Republicans, but I'm very cynical and don't really trust the Democrats at all to actually do this, especially given Tipper Gore, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and so many others. The issue of censorship is a big divisive issue right now in the Democratic Party. It's not a divise issue for the Republicans, they're all about moral censorship because their fundy base loves it.
Is every person we've killed an enemy? Have we never accidentally killed an innocent? Which nation have we declared war against? Whose rules do we play by? Do we adjust the rules we do and don't follow to make the rules conform to how we want to do business?
I do see a moral difference. America and Al Qaeda are not 100% morally equivalent. The Bush Administration is not as bad as Al Qaeda.
Good job. Golf clap. The day when I'm dancing in the goddamn streets with happiness and joy because my government is not run by a ruthless terrorist organization and is not as bad as a ruthless terrorist organization will be the day Satan goes ice skating in hell.
Our country has a whole lot of innocent blood on our hands, and trying to cover your eyes and your ears and pretend we don't tells me there's no hope for you either. We aren't the worst, but we damn straight aren't the best. We aren't black evil, but we sure aren't saints. The evil in our government is a more insidious and hard to recognize evil, one that covers up death and atrocity with fancy doubletalk and nationalistic fervor. It's about time we trade up for something better.
Yeah, I'm glad we aren't China, and I'm glad we aren't Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or the DPRK. If I had to pick a guy to be stranded on a desert island with, I'd pick George Bush over Osama any day. But I don't hold my country to the lowest standards, I hold it to the highest ones. I want America to be the best country in the world, not "hey, at least it's not one of the countries where people don't get their heads cut off for worshipping the wrong invisible being." If you ask me, that's patriotism. Being honest about what's right and what's wrong about my country, and trying to fix it instead of settling.
The Navy uses Tomahawks. The Air Force uses precision laser-guided and GPS-guided munitions to hit targets with +/- 3 meters of accuracy. However, there must obviously be an effective way to avoid both Air Force and Navy, because otherwise Osama, Al-Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi would all be smoking craters.
I'm not a republican or a conservative... I just hate these 2 people, and want to see real American's elected to office. The kind that stand up for free speech, expression and have the fucking courage to tell Americans "NO" like the big babies we are. We need someone to remind us all of what AMERICA is about...
A whole LOT of Democrats and progressives agree with you.
I think you are missing the point. Our enemies are beheading innocents, and you say nothing. I see protests against the war, protests against the NSA, protests against Bush, protests against secure borders, but I have seen no protests against beheadings or even protests promoting women's rights in the Islamic world.
1. What makes you think protesting the beheadings here in America would do a lick of good? We already know it's bad.
2. As for promoting women's rights in the Islamic world, I don't bother protesting for that... I donate a great deal of money to the Global Fund For Women, providing financial support to the world-wide struggle for equal rights for women. Check out their website, http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/.
The fact is, we have to make sacrifices to secure our lives and our liberty. I joined the Army, for example, had no freedoms there and was willing to give my life. You can't even let the NSA know what numbers you've called? They are not listening, mind you, just looking to see who called who, and I assume they are looking to see who Mohammed Atta called, for example, on September 10'th. Under your rules, that would not be an option. We have to rely on our mad claravoyance skillz, hide our heads in the sand and hope that no other attacks are coming.
I've been in the Air Force for 6 years, no freedoms here, been to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Korea, and have been willing to give my life. So don't try to beat me in a "wrap myself in the flag" contest. I don't want the NSA to see who I'm calling because it's none of their business, and if you don't think they're listening to whoever the hell they want to listen to, you're woefully naive. Under my rules, when the NSA suspects someone of being a terrorist, they start tapping their phone calls. Within 72 hours they get a warrant to continue doing so from the Top Secret FISA court. This process involves asking a judge for a warrant, and having him give it to you. Oh my, what a horrible isolationist rule that is actually the current Law of the land. You swore an oath when you joined, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. You put your life on the line to defend that. But now you're willing to scrap it cause you're scared?
What are you willing to sacrifice for your life and liberty? How 'bout the life and liberty of your kids? How about the life and liberty of families you've never met? I know that it's in vogue to bash the government and say that we are becoming Nazi's, but from the looks of things, we still have more freedoms than nearly every other country on Earth. Don't believe me? How many countries can you visit a mosque, a Christian church, a church of Scientology and a synagogue all in the same day? It may not be against the law to do so, in say Pakistan or Syria, but you think you could do it and live to tell about it? Is our level of freedom and security not worth sacrificing anything to you?
6 years of my life, the majority of it spent overseas, and a lot of it spent in happy places where they give you extra money because people are trying to kill you there. Strange as it may seem however, I am not willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty, in order to gain... freedom and liberty? As for countries with religious freedom, um, South Korea, Japan, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, probably Russia but I don't know if they have scientologists there, in fact, most of the civilized world has religious freedom. China doesn't, a lot of the Muslim nations don't, and I'm willing to work to try to change that. Having somebody in Washington see how many calls I made to my mom or to Dominos does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. Holding and torturing potentially innocent people (and if they aren't innocent we should probably stop releasing so many of them) in Gitmo does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. Giving up our privacy, our freedoms, and our civil rights in order to have a bunch of people who have fucked up everything they've touched tell us that we're somehow safer does not advance the cause of freedom in the world. HUA?
Is "killing people" the only standard we're using? We've killed plenty of people. We tend to do it with a bomb dropped from around 10,000 feet and justify it by calling any innocents killed "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses", but if the only standard we're using is "killing people", then we're doing the same thing the enemy is. I imagine if we're judging it by sheer numbers, we've got more noncombatant kills to our name then they do.
Now, if I have to choose, I'd rather take the high altitude bombings over the beheadings any day, but don't ever try to pretend we have moral high ground simply because they're killing people and we aren't; we sure as fuck are.
I wonder what sort of food terrorists get delivered when they're up all night planning an attack...
And in other news today, Han Song Yi Chinese delivery restaurants in New York are under investigation after it was learned Abdullah Akmed ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan on no less then 4 separate occasions while planning an attack on the Empire State building. Authorities are concerned as to whether or not there may be a Chinese government contact working at Han Song Yi restaurants, and patriotic citizens are advised not to eat there. And the terror alert level is still at Red.
Smart, peace-loving people can believe in God too. If you think that there's any scientific evidence that can disprove the existence of a meta-physical concept like God, then maybe you should remove your head from your own pretentious ass for a moment and look up what Science is--or, more importantly, what it isn't.
The madness is in thinking that an unproven meta-physical concept can disprove proven scientific concepts. It's not whether or not science proves or disproves God, it's that so many religious crazies think that their holy book disproves science. That's madness. There may or may not be a God, but there is hard reality. Claiming that the proven is invalid because it does not disprove the unprovable is madness. Just the sort of madness we have in the White House right now.
"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."
(It's not known for sure if Stalin actually said this or not. Still a good point.)
Oh boy, the time-honored argument, "We aren't as bad as we could possibly be so we're good". What a convincing argument. We aren't lopping heads off in the streets, that must mean we're a perfect country with an excellent government. Let's ignore all the other problems, at least we aren't beheading.
The examples are out there, but me spending an hour or two of net research to dig them up and post them would be futile, as it wouldn't change anybody's mind on either side of the argument, and I have other things I'd rather spend the hour or two on. Yay for apathy.
that in my post just down-thread, which I wrote before seeing yours, I had New Zealand listed as an example of a "good" country.
Believe me, if it wasn't for friends and family in the States, I'd be relocating. I could live in Middle Earth! Still might retire there. You guys need an electrician/generator mechanic with military experience? My wife's a nurse, if that helps.
The metric shouldn't be whether or not the current administration/government officials/law enforcement officials (etc) are abusing power and invading privacy, but rather whether or not any given power can be abused and what oversight exists to protect the rights of the innocent (or the accused) in the case that such abuse happens.
Absolutely. Even if someone is a die-hard Republican who trusts the party religiously and believes that no wrongdoing has ever been done by the administration, they need to consider the possibility that the tools and powers established over the last 6 years may someday be in the hand of a Democrat president. For all the conservatives out there, picture Hillary Clinton with unlimited wiretapping and information access.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.
The complete and total lack of oversight, and additionally the strident opposition to any kind of oversight of control, is very troubling. Take the FISA warrants issue. There is one judge who approves FISA warrants. He's had this job for years. He has a security clearance higher then God. He barely ever turns down a warrant request, somthing like over 90 percent are approved. This judge is on call 24/7, and has signed warrant requests in his pajamas. If the government doesn't want to wait for a warrant, they can go ahead and wiretap on a target, if they think it's really really urgent, and they have 3 fucking days to go and get the warrant after the fact. They have the ability to essentially get the warrant to search the house after they've searched it. How much easier could it be? It's not like the administration never used or obtained FISA warrants either, they used it lots, so it's not like they were opposed to the program as a whole or somehow unaware of it.
What that means is one of two things. Either the people doing the wiretapping were lazy, and didn't want to get a warrant, or they were doing something blatantly illegal and a blatant abuse of power, like spying on completely innocent people for political reasons during an election campaign or something similar, and didn't want anyone to know about it. Even if it's just laziness, I'm not happy about it, I don't want the defenders of the country to be too lazy to do their job right.
that was longer than expected, but a rant felt necessary
Good, not terribly good, and worst. New Zealand probably qualifies as good, I'm sure there's a number of other countries that do as well. America right now is not terribly good. China, Iran, DPRK, those are worst. Just because I don't like not terribly good doesn't mean I want worst, it means I'd rather have good. It also doesn't mean I'd rather turn not terribly good into good.
Comparing something against the worst thing it could be, and saying "Hey! At least I'm not that!", is really very stupid. You shouldn't be happy that you're not the worst, you should be trying to be better. That's like saying "Hey, I may be 50 pounds overweight, but at least I'm not 100 pounds overweight, that would be bad! No, I'm pretty happy just being 50 pounds overweight, that's clearly the better option."
In related news, the National Security Agency has closed down an inquiry into the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," a separate program from this one, by refusing to grant security clearance to the lawyers in the Department of Justice. The NSA and the DoJ are both established under the executive.
In effect, the fox prosecutor shut down the investigation into whether or not the foxes committed a crime when they broke into the henhouse, saying that the fox prosecutor was not allowed to enter the fox den to look for feathers or chicken bits. But of course, no crimes were committed, the chickens probably just flew off. Honestly.
And on a side note, it appears that Qworst has finally FINALLY done something that doesn't piss me the hell off.
For everyone who doesn't see a problem with this, remember that you're only safe if every person working for the NSA with access to this information is a perfect person with no chance of ever using their information for illegal purposes. Wonder how long it will be before NSA sells its list to a marketing company. Or someone at the NSA sells the list to a marketing company.