"Democrats and their media shills (like the New York Times, LA Times, CNN) commit open acts of treason outing effective, classified anti-terror programs and expect immunity."
Yeah, exposing all of the government's massive illegal operations being conducted with our money behind our backs sure sounds treasonous to me.
Please explain how NYT, LAT, CNN are trying to overthrow the government with these stories. Because that is the definition of treason, in case you didn't know (and it seems you don't)
Treason: noun the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
When the government is doing illegal things, only the treasonous can be heroes...
"As per the DOD: Terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.""
Sounds an awful lot like the US is doing in Iraq right now. And sounds exaclty like Ann Coulter's game plan for foreign countires she doesn't approve of (which is all of them)
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Ann "Born with a Penis" Coulter
And now you may have the chance when the NSA show up at your door...Not too sure about gorilla combat, but how are you with dog combat? And what is the best defense for when an ugly chick laughs and points at your genitals while taking pictures?? These are the skills that will help you during your extended stay at Gitmo...
But it does get politicians votes. And it gives conservatives the chance to claim their liberal opponents are "soft on drugs" when in reality it is more like "realistic about drugs". They are clearing out room in prisons for non-violent drug offenders by paroling rapists and other violent criminals.... WTF? Why don't they send chronic alcoholics to prison??? Oh, wait, the alcohol industry lobbyist money, right...I forgot....
Prohibition in the US basically created the start of "organized crime" in this country...
Sigh..Fine call me a troll for pointing out a $100 laptop may not be great... But for $50 more, this desktop seems a much better option. And it has video ports that will hook up to a standard television...
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71222-0.htm l?tw=rss.index
So just set up across the street, where you are out of range of their cameras, and use a cantenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantenna to extend your range if needed.
How/why is that even relevant? All I stated was not everyone who shops for groceries online is "lazy". As a matter of fact, people who are not "lazy" value their time greatly. If you can save some time by shopping online, you free up time for more valuable things. So really, only the truly "lazy" waste their time by going to the brick-and-mortar grocery stores. So there!
"Take a look at Ubuntu's latest release and tell me with a straight face that XP/2000 is really soooooo much better for business or personal use (other than heavy gaming.) It's easier to install than XP, and more stuff "just works" out of the box than on XP! (at least it does on all 5 of my machines)"
None of that really matters to the consumer market. Until Ubuntu has the advertising budget that MS does, the flocks of sheep will continue to use Windows. Just like voting - people often vote for the candidate who they recognize the name of, not the best candidate.
"Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop"
So that's what they did with those warehouses full of old Speak N Spells...
Seriuosly, would you even want to use a $100 laptop??? Does it have the "Designed for Windows for Workgroups" sticker on the case??
Because if you pay by check, the store doesn't need to pay the credit card companies their fees and percentages for accepting credit cards. You didn't think that credit card compaines let stores accept credit cards free, did you?
Hey, that asshole chose to be a meter maid. If he didn't realize there may be a negative perception of his job duties, he has no business in law enforcement. All they do is issue fines, not help people like real cops (occasionally) do.
I know a semi-disabled person that gets groceries delivered to their house. Not all people who use the service are "lazy" - you should think a little beyond your own realm before posting comments like that...
"Interesting that you are so outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis that has real consequences for 1/3rd of the U.S. population yet you are quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus."
Those are your words, not mine. I am not "outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis". I am outraged at the ignoramus attitutde that fast food is the cause of the problem, and the blame lies solely on them.
Could you care to point out to me where I stated I was "quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus" - because I don't recall ever stating anything even close to that. You are the one using false dichotmies, not me. I have never, ever even come close to implying I am confortable with government powers expanding. So please do us both a favor and stop trying to put wordw in my mouth. To put it simply, one issue has no bearing on the other. Realistically, I could condone or oppose govenment spying (I oppose) and also think that Americans getting fat is the fault of dumb American eating habits, and not fast food restaurants. Fast food is one of the symptoms of the problem, you think it is the root.
And for the record, I am not - conservative, right wing, liberal, or even libritarian. I sir, am a Libertine.
Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's own actions?? You can't just blow it off with some quasi-bullshit rhetoric. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS that Americans are fat. Haven't you heard of the basic pricinple of supply and demand?? If there is a demand for something, then someone will supply it. Cutting of the supplier doesn't work (see prohibition or the "War on Drugs" for proof)- cutting out the demand will. And please don't suggest class action lawsuits against all companies you think are "murdering" American citizens. Lawsuits are never the answer - they are playing the ultimate "pass the buck" blame game (and do nothing to stop the problem). As long as you keep trying to blame fast food suppliers as the root of the problem, you are attacking the wrong enemy. You were more on track when you were talking about education and not trying to point fingers. Who cares what trying to assign fault to the problem, let's concentrate on fixing it. If people knew more about nutrition, the McDonalds and Burger Kings will fall to the wayside naturally...
And China invading the US?? (and because we are fat???) That would shoot them in the foot so bad economically that we wouldn't need to use any military force to beat them. Where do you think 80% of their exports are sold?? (Besides, the Walton family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart would never allow that to happen...) The US and China economies are so dependent on each other's to keep going that neither could realisticlly invade the other. See here http://www.itulip.com/economicMAD.htm for a better explanation of this...
Another hint: The people that "bad eating habbits" (not Ronald) killed knew about nutrition and made their choice. There was free will (or lack therof) involved. Can you say the same about Osama? Did all the people he killed choose to die? That where the false dichotomy comment comes in, and is on target...
I'm not saying that America doesn't need to wise up and get agressive on nutrition, but lets put the blame where the blame belongs. McDonalds didn't make America fat, poor education about nutrition did. The fact that 5 days of the week parents choose to bring home food from [fill in the fast food place] instead of preparing a balance meal themselves is what makes America fat. And also your attitude that [X] is responsible instead of ourselves is one of the biggest problems. It is much easier to blame something else than accept responsibility for our actions.
You could close McDonalds tomorow and do you really think America would miraculously get health? Guess what - America would just start going to Burger King, Chipolte, and KFC more...
"Well, lets not look at the fact that most of the people that are at Gitmo are NOT us citizens and therefor do not have all of the rights that a US citizen has. If there are US citizens being held down there, that would be "utter baloney"."
I'm not saying these are my personal points of view, or that I endorse anything, just pointing out the current law. Ideals are great, but they don't keep you from being arrested. There is a big legal distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested". Witnesses to crime are often "detained" by police, they have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Any detentions you have had are also not on your criminal record where any arrests would be. It is not a "mind control trick" - just legal terms. There is also a big distinction between being arrested of a crime, and being convicted of a crime. The former means you were suspected of committing a crime, the later means it was proved you committed a crime.
And for the record, slavery was not necessarily accepted by a majority - there were always people that did NOT believe in slavery. You may have heard of a little thing called the American Civil War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_W ar -where the South tried to secede from the US because they wanted slavery and the rest of the country didn't...
And guess how many of the "wrongful arrest" suits ever amount to the court finding in favor of the arrestee?? I can't find any specific recent sources, but I remeber reading an article a few years ago that stated about 95% of the time the court finds in favor of the cops. (You basically have to prove they intentionally wrongfully arrested you, or they give the cops the benefit of doubt.) Plus even if you win, every cop in the city is going to know your name and have it out for you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Democrats and their media shills (like the New York Times, LA Times, CNN) commit open acts of treason outing effective, classified anti-terror programs and expect immunity."
Yeah, exposing all of the government's massive illegal operations being conducted with our money behind our backs sure sounds treasonous to me.
Please explain how NYT, LAT, CNN are trying to overthrow the government with these stories. Because that is the definition of treason, in case you didn't know (and it seems you don't)
Treason: noun the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
When the government is doing illegal things, only the treasonous can be heroes...
"As per the DOD: Terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.""
Sounds an awful lot like the US is doing in Iraq right now. And sounds exaclty like Ann Coulter's game plan for foreign countires she doesn't approve of (which is all of them)
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Ann "Born with a Penis" Coulter
And now you may have the chance when the NSA show up at your door...Not too sure about gorilla combat, but how are you with dog combat? And what is the best defense for when an ugly chick laughs and points at your genitals while taking pictures?? These are the skills that will help you during your extended stay at Gitmo...
P.S. Libertarian is for pussies. Become a Libertine! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine
But it does get politicians votes. And it gives conservatives the chance to claim their liberal opponents are "soft on drugs" when in reality it is more like "realistic about drugs". They are clearing out room in prisons for non-violent drug offenders by paroling rapists and other violent criminals.... WTF? Why don't they send chronic alcoholics to prison??? Oh, wait, the alcohol industry lobbyist money, right...I forgot....
Prohibition in the US basically created the start of "organized crime" in this country...
Sigh..Fine call me a troll for pointing out a $100 laptop may not be great... But for $50 more, this desktop seems a much better option. And it has video ports that will hook up to a standard television... http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71222-0.htm l?tw=rss.index
Yes, but Castro never claimed he was the leader of a democracy. The illusion of free will was not as strong in Cuba as it is in the US.
So just set up across the street, where you are out of range of their cameras, and use a cantenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantenna to extend your range if needed.
"In Socialist England, porn finds you!"
The bottleneck is now the iMac. The fast connection is overwhelming the poor little guys...
Firefox 1.5.0.4 - works just fine after restarting...
How/why is that even relevant? All I stated was not everyone who shops for groceries online is "lazy". As a matter of fact, people who are not "lazy" value their time greatly. If you can save some time by shopping online, you free up time for more valuable things. So really, only the truly "lazy" waste their time by going to the brick-and-mortar grocery stores. So there!
The real question is - does the ammuntition run Linux??
Defending a meter maid?? Are you serious?? How old are you - eight?
"Take a look at Ubuntu's latest release and tell me with a straight face that XP/2000 is really soooooo much better for business or personal use (other than heavy gaming.) It's easier to install than XP, and more stuff "just works" out of the box than on XP! (at least it does on all 5 of my machines)"
None of that really matters to the consumer market. Until Ubuntu has the advertising budget that MS does, the flocks of sheep will continue to use Windows. Just like voting - people often vote for the candidate who they recognize the name of, not the best candidate.
"Take a look at MIT's Nicholas Negroponte and his $100 Laptop"
So that's what they did with those warehouses full of old Speak N Spells...
Seriuosly, would you even want to use a $100 laptop??? Does it have the "Designed for Windows for Workgroups" sticker on the case??
Because if you pay by check, the store doesn't need to pay the credit card companies their fees and percentages for accepting credit cards. You didn't think that credit card compaines let stores accept credit cards free, did you?
Hey, that asshole chose to be a meter maid. If he didn't realize there may be a negative perception of his job duties, he has no business in law enforcement. All they do is issue fines, not help people like real cops (occasionally) do.
I know a semi-disabled person that gets groceries delivered to their house. Not all people who use the service are "lazy" - you should think a little beyond your own realm before posting comments like that...
I'm pretty sure just doing Step #1 would about do it.
"Interesting that you are so outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis that has real consequences for 1/3rd of the U.S. population yet you are quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus."
Those are your words, not mine. I am not "outraged about the idea of the nanny state doing anything about a serious health crisis". I am outraged at the ignoramus attitutde that fast food is the cause of the problem, and the blame lies solely on them.
Could you care to point out to me where I stated I was "quite comfortable with the government become a huge authoritarian spying apparatus" - because I don't recall ever stating anything even close to that. You are the one using false dichotmies, not me. I have never, ever even come close to implying I am confortable with government powers expanding. So please do us both a favor and stop trying to put wordw in my mouth. To put it simply, one issue has no bearing on the other. Realistically, I could condone or oppose govenment spying (I oppose) and also think that Americans getting fat is the fault of dumb American eating habits, and not fast food restaurants. Fast food is one of the symptoms of the problem, you think it is the root.
And for the record, I am not - conservative, right wing, liberal, or even libritarian. I sir, am a Libertine.
Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for one's own actions?? You can't just blow it off with some quasi-bullshit rhetoric. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS that Americans are fat. Haven't you heard of the basic pricinple of supply and demand?? If there is a demand for something, then someone will supply it. Cutting of the supplier doesn't work (see prohibition or the "War on Drugs" for proof)- cutting out the demand will.
And please don't suggest class action lawsuits against all companies you think are "murdering" American citizens. Lawsuits are never the answer - they are playing the ultimate "pass the buck" blame game (and do nothing to stop the problem). As long as you keep trying to blame fast food suppliers as the root of the problem, you are attacking the wrong enemy. You were more on track when you were talking about education and not trying to point fingers. Who cares what trying to assign fault to the problem, let's concentrate on fixing it. If people knew more about nutrition, the McDonalds and Burger Kings will fall to the wayside naturally...
And China invading the US?? (and because we are fat???) That would shoot them in the foot so bad economically that we wouldn't need to use any military force to beat them. Where do you think 80% of their exports are sold?? (Besides, the Walton family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart would never allow that to happen...) The US and China economies are so dependent on each other's to keep going that neither could realisticlly invade the other. See here http://www.itulip.com/economicMAD.htm for a better explanation of this...
Another hint: The people that "bad eating habbits" (not Ronald) killed knew about nutrition and made their choice. There was free will (or lack therof) involved. Can you say the same about Osama? Did all the people he killed choose to die? That where the false dichotomy comment comes in, and is on target...
I'm not saying that America doesn't need to wise up and get agressive on nutrition, but lets put the blame where the blame belongs. McDonalds didn't make America fat, poor education about nutrition did. The fact that 5 days of the week parents choose to bring home food from [fill in the fast food place] instead of preparing a balance meal themselves is what makes America fat. And also your attitude that [X] is responsible instead of ourselves is one of the biggest problems. It is much easier to blame something else than accept responsibility for our actions.
You could close McDonalds tomorow and do you really think America would miraculously get health? Guess what - America would just start going to Burger King, Chipolte, and KFC more...
"Well, lets not look at the fact that most of the people that are at Gitmo are NOT us citizens and therefor do not have all of the rights that a US citizen has. If there are US citizens being held down there, that would be "utter baloney"."
Nope, they do other things - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla - to American citizens they detain without arresting...
I'm not saying these are my personal points of view, or that I endorse anything, just pointing out the current law. Ideals are great, but they don't keep you from being arrested. There is a big legal distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested". Witnesses to crime are often "detained" by police, they have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Any detentions you have had are also not on your criminal record where any arrests would be. It is not a "mind control trick" - just legal terms.
W ar -where the South tried to secede from the US because they wanted slavery and the rest of the country didn't ...
There is also a big distinction between being arrested of a crime, and being convicted of a crime. The former means you were suspected of committing a crime, the later means it was proved you committed a crime.
And for the record, slavery was not necessarily accepted by a majority - there were always people that did NOT believe in slavery. You may have heard of a little thing called the American Civil War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_
And guess how many of the "wrongful arrest" suits ever amount to the court finding in favor of the arrestee?? I can't find any specific recent sources, but I remeber reading an article a few years ago that stated about 95% of the time the court finds in favor of the cops. (You basically have to prove they intentionally wrongfully arrested you, or they give the cops the benefit of doubt.) Plus even if you win, every cop in the city is going to know your name and have it out for you.
Just Sue Them! - it should be America's motto...