An oxymoron is something that disproves itself, just like Evolution does. If Evolution could have worked we wouldn't still be having this debate.

What is your answer to self-referential proofs of the existence of God? (The set of all positive attributes necessarily includes the attribute of "existence" [rather than non-existance], so therefore it exists, We call that set God.)

Do you have some dogma from the Theory of Types in your anti-God catechism to throw back at us deists?

While on the topic, note the new book by Michael Lucas:
http://www.michaelwlucas.com/nonfiction/ssh-mastery

Richard Aborn is such a wimp. The answer is staring him in the face and he just doesn't get it. Point is, there is one and only one source of all known criminals, and that's the only people that need to have their DNA collected. Duh! Get those samples right away and problem solved. The one and only source of all known criminals is all the non-criminals. Known criminals we can keep an eye on, but all those others, they are the ones who are scary, because you never know....

We can start with Aborn, with the only hiccup we probably face, as I read his character, is that he already is a criminal and so we better first check if he is already on file, so as not to waste taxpayer's money.

What Ravi did was a mean prank. Sharing it as he did was even worse. But worse and sicker than anything he did is the kind of revenge that the US legal system is prepared to inflict However if the sentence is reasonable, given the circumstances, then the result will be justice done fair and square. We are a bit over hyped by focusing on the maximum possible sentence, before sentence is given. Patience everyone!

I noticed over the years that in a number of cases in the US, the politicians
who were most publicly anti-gay, turned out to be gay themselves, but
because of other beliefs, felt so guilty about it they figured they could
deal with their own contradictions by pushing an anti-gay agenda in the
government. Each time the truth came out it was a mind blower.

Say Mr. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, is there anything bothering your conscience? Can we have a complete browsing history on you since the Internet began? I hope you get a clean bill on all your browsing habits, so we can at least consider your outrageous comments on their merits.

Using what is supposed to be a kind of utility, a cloud service, does not qualify as "trying to hide behind", or else that applies to everyone else who uses it, nor does it mean that Amazon was involved in the mess any more than a phone company is, when they carry whatever communications, nor does it mean that it puts any of Amazon's customers at risk. An army of straw men will not make a point more valid. On the contrary, it is an implied threat against any of Amazon's customers, that if they are not politically popular the same fate may befall them too. It was an act of political censorship, pure and simple, and serves notice that anyone else that does not toe the establishment line will have their toes stepped upon. What gutless wonders are these Amazon folks, in a world where people are dying every day to protest censorship.

"Amazon is a personification of the spirit of the Internet, which is one of true democracy"

Isn't Amazon one of those nasty companies that banned Wikileaks from their servers? Qaddafi could explain democracy this way, but who else would be so innocent?

I don't see much news on charging anti-Wikileaks DDoS'ers.

How about Obama making a cameo appearance with Julian Assange at a Wikileaks press conference once Julian is sprung? The old Mythbusters is getting repetitive. The new reality show version of myth busting is more exciting and has more real drama. Julian can introduce Obama in case people have forgotten who Obama is. :-)

Clearly the purpose of the order is so that the data trail remains clean. If the info is not endlessly duplicated throughout military computers everywhere, then places where it does show up may be signs of the path it took. They want to finish the forensics before everyone downloads it. Obviously the technicality of it not being officially declassified is a red herring. The absurdity of it is not the problem in itself. It is the clue to the real reason. The clue that you were looking for!

Absurd not to blame Adrian. If he was afraid of the relationship all he had to do was to break off the chat as soon as it headed towards things he didn't want to be part of. Looks like he is working for the "man". He is probably blackmailed by threats of further prosecutions for his original transgressions or further ones that they know about, and promised to hold off if he produced results for them. Possibly they got hold of his initial chats with Manning, and gave him an ultimatum. Could be he will still be charged for some transgression somewhere. All he cares about now is saving his own skin. Quite a yellow streak in the boy.

This legislation is primarily focused at killing Wikileaks. The rest is just a smokescreen.