Actually banning the user for his views would be wrong, but holding up his views and proclaiming them and your disagreement should be wholly appropriate. PopeRatzo is simply announcing them in the marketplace of ideas. People are free to agree with Ratzo or his opponent - there is no censorship here.

Sadly, I AM a born again Christian, and have almost the same attitude as you about many of my brothers and sisters. People telling me I'm going to "smart" myself out of the Kingdom and BS like that. I just stopped talking to anyone who believes in Young Earth Creationism at all. I do not understand how people can think that God is the most amazing and intelligent and powerful being in the univers, but is simultaneously afraid of unbiased science.

Almost all the newer Netgear N models have this - my WNDR2000 and WNDR3700 (WNDR37AV) both have it. Even if you don't, how many of us have a B or G stuck in a box in the garage that we could use to add another zone?

Overreact much? What GP is implying (I think) is that this is a systemic problem - killing one company, Foxconn, over this only hurts their current employees without really changing the overall status quo. In fact, the recent inspection by a worker's rights group said that Foxconn was pretty progressive in worker treatment - for China. None of this will change unless China passes and/or enforces OSHA-like worker protection laws or consumers demand "worker-fair" products and pay for them.

I affect an object, I effect change. GP's grammar is correct.

Why not use the dummy DNS servers to redirect users still attached to them to an informational website that tells them how to unfuck themselves? Make it a clearly labelled site with a very simple, obviously .gov URL so people trust it? If my ISP can pop up a frame telling me I'm approaching the bandwidth cap, why can't the FBI?

No, what I believe he means is that the "inflate and deflate" that the trader can do is worthless to society. It adds no real property or value to society, it only transfers value from one person to another. That's the leach part, the part that derivative traders maximized to harm the housing market (I won't say crash because that implies that mortgoage brokers and customers were free of fault, which they certainly were not.)

I doubt it. The vehicle owner's quote seems to indicate he was (legitimately) pissed at the potential danger to his family. Just a little while before, they had been in the vehicle.

I keep telling my Christian friends that if God is who we believe Him to be, He has absolutely nothing to fear from honest application to science and discovery.

The anonymous coward is calling the person who logged in to disagree with him a sock puppet.

Funny though, in my two decades plus in uniform, Democrats always gave me better pay raises.

I've been in the US military and I find the coverup horrendous. Don't pain us all with the same brush.

You're both wrong. Bradley Manning is, like all humans, a complex mixture of a half a dozeon or more motivations, some altruistic, some self-serving, some fearful. His motives included retribution because he was getting kicked out under an unjust law (don't ask, don't tell) and patriotism because he felt that something should be done about a wartime atrocity and apparently out of some sense of admiration for anarchy.

He's a fool who committed a possibly traitorous act partly for revenge and partly for patriotism. I'm glad he's getting his day in court, and and I wish it had been a lot sooner. I hope all of his motivations are laid bare in court for a judge to decide what's to be done.

I am a retired military officer, and yes, within the confines of the information available to them, even the lowest ranking military member needs to make legal judgments. In most cases they should listen to those appointed above them, but they are always responsible to avoid criminal activity.

And had he leaked that and only that, or that and only specific other examples of crimes, he would still be in jail, but he'd be there for a just act and would be worthy of people's praise. Instead he dumped a lot of stuff with no relevance to that crime that endangered other innocent people. So, in order to achieve justice for the death of innocents, he put other innocents in danger?