"-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;"
vastly stripped down surveillance. BTW, that's their job.
Where do you get the idea it was vastly stripped down? Snowden waited to do his leaking because he was hopeful Obama would change things. It was when Obama changed nothing
Snowden said he thought about disclosing the program sooner but was hopeful the election of President Barack Obama would change things. But "[Obama] continued with the policies of his predecessor," Snowden said.
"-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;"
wanting to be ab; to execute legal warrants is no making surveillance inescapable.
Really, after everything we've learned in the last year about how utterly ignored the 4th amendment is, you think this about warrants?
"-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration"
there wasn't enough troops to deal with the war. What would you have him do? All this shows ois the the previous administration underestimated needed capacity.
He could also have just left. NOTHING is going to fix that region EVER.
"-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)"
I not you skipped the due process free execution thing, but anyway,with respect to the 4th Amendment: see STASI: http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/0...
Also, why do you hate the Constitution? It makes you seem very unAmerican when you publicly crap on the 4th Amendment.
"-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries."
which is far fewer if they used none drone weaponry. Civilian deaths is tragic, but historically it's a lot less now then any other war.
This is your defense of the Nobel Peace Prize winner causing thousands of deaths?? "well, he could have caused even more." Serial Killer Defense attorneys should take note -- "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it was only 52 victims he hacked up, imagine what he could have done if he was President!"
"-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval."
He has congressional approval. More specifically, the office of the presidency has authorization. YOU might want to ask yourself why the pubs scream about this, but don't actually talk about removing the power congress gave him?
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama â" armed with dubious legal opinions â" is refusing to stop Americaâ(TM)s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.
"-- let every single bankster off the hook."
fasle. several are in jail, and most DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAW. Why is that hard to understand?
Citation please. Until then, recall that over 1000 Banksters did jail time in the S&L Bailout and that was something like 1/40th the size of the recent one. I think we'd see some news on a 1000 banksters doing time -- we don't because they aren't. Till then, consider William K. Black (he helped prosecute S&Lers including the Keating Five): Zero Prosecutions of Elite Banksters Is Too Many Prosecutions for the Wall Street Journal
"-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out."
So you don't remember what Obama originally wanted? What we have in a compromise. Do try to remember history.
What I remember is the news reports that Obama sold out to corp interests and continued to PRETEND he supported a public option:
NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option
"-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs."
Sigh. Did you just go to a web site and copy and paste? How about you find out why things are done, then be specific?
Why don't you tell me why Obama loves cluster bombs which tend to leave unexploded bombletes all over the place and then some random day, sometime years in the future, maim or kill various random people. Whatever the reason, it's a fact he opposed the treaty: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/1...
If you want to convince me Obama is secret liberal, good fucking luck. He's basically Nixon with a tan.
As counterpoint, there is nothing liberal about an administration that:
-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;
-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;
-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration
-- redefined "imminent" to mean "maybe possible far in the future" and then used that as an excuse to deprive Americans of their life without due process of law.
-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)
-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries.
-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval.
-- let every single bankster off the hook.
-- enacted Nixon's health care plan with the liberal parts stripped out.
-- opposed an international treaty on banning cluster bombs.
Democrats: The New GOP.
The water will still be there, but it will be used to benefit people and the organisms we value. There is a finite volume (*) of life the earth can support -- what we're down to is how it ought to be divided and the choice we are making is that the only organisms worth anything, are people, cows, pigs, chickens, and corn. Our population problem is an extremely unpopular topic, but by ignoring it, we will eventually destroy all the interesting biodiversity we have in the world in exchange for a monocrop of people, along with the very few organisms people tend to value, and the diseases and parasites associated with those.
(*) by weight if you will(**), not individual count.
(**) differences in body composition make "weight" not exactly accurate as some things have greater density due to the use of different minerals (hard shells or bones as a percent of body mass for example). What can be said is that there is a finite amount of stuff on the earth that can be mixed up in different ways into a finite total amount of life. The question we should ask is, what is a smart or wise percentage of that total, that we humans and the plants/animals we value, should comprise.
Exactly. Don't forget the war on toiletries in baggage. Or how something is OK when the US Federal Govt does it, for example, the way waterboarding is called torture only when done by other governments.
So, not long ago, America's major newspapers basically decided that waterboarding was somehow okay. American waterboarding, that is! In the same time frame, the same newspapers made it clear that if any other country practiced waterboarding, it was torture.
This sort of "Laugh at China" story is designed to make the US look smart, and the rest of the world stupid and to help people miss how stupid our own government is being. But if you look around, you'll find some great ways to spend those student loans:
"Purdue University Graduate Certificate Program in Veterinary Homeland Security"
try and work will millimeters in engineering and you soon find out that thousands of an inch are the only way to measure small tolerances
What's wrong with thousands of a mm? Here in Europe, engineers, machinists and the like have happily worked with metric for ages.
In the introductory class on law I took ages ago, they already told us that "one can be led astray by relying on the generic or commonly understood definition of a particular word.", and advised to always examine the meaning of words like "accused", "summons", etc, as they have a specific legal definition that often differs from the commonly understood meaning. Now I know why...
Ebola is (according to the summary) completely contained in Nigeria and Senegal. This 2014 outbreak is all over West Africa, and according to TFA (I know, I know) the patient had just returned from Liberia, a West African country where the current outbreak has (obviously) not been contained.
Someone bringing this virus back is not so surprising. The big deal will be when we have our first case of endemic transmission -- when someone *catches* the virus here.
Looking at the Wikipedia page, the two EOL'd environments that stand out are:
- Android browser on Gingerbread (and older) - hopefully this'll be solved soon, Gingerbread is finally disappearing but it's taken a while.
- Internet Explorer on Windows XP.
Everything else seems to be the kind of environment where if you're still using a browser that cannot support SNI then you're probably running into all kinds of problems anyway.
(I would like to think that Windows XP users are using Firefox these days, but...)
Question: aren't there privacy issues associated with SNI? http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc... shows no attempt to munge the server name. So even though a third party might not be able to determine what content you're trying to access, they probably can intercept - albeit with the victim experiencing an interuption in service - the hostname and determine whose content you're trying to view.
Penalizing violent or coercive actions is not within the scope of what constitutes a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes" any more than "free speech" means you can slander someone or incite a panic.
It has nothing to do with "me deciding" anything. If my statement is true, it still does not, in any way, contradict the historical definition of what constitutes a free market.
You're using the definition of "free" as "anything goes." The actual definition of a free market pertains to government intervention regarding pricing and wages, not coercive or violent actions.
That's never been the definition of a "free market," though assuming that is the definition is probably why many people oppose the concept.
A free market is one where the government does not intervene by setting artificial prices or by creating legal barriers to entry. It has never included a principle preventing the State from policing coercive activities such as rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, etc.
Oh, god. Mel Gibson's 1990 Hamlet was awful. It was the most asinine thing I've ever seen. Shakespeare for people who really *are* dummies. Reportedly it was director Franco Zeffirelli's attempt to make Shakespeare "less cerebral" and more accessible to the masses. What a choice to try that with! The whole point of Hamlet is that he's so damned smart the only person who can really stand in his way is him.
My point was that you've got to find an actor who can give a knowledgeable performance. Not some meat-head action star stunt cast miles out of his depth. I'd rather watch Arnold Schwarzenegger Hamlet.
I think the best film adaptation of Hamlet I've seen was Kenneth Branaugh's 1996 version, although it is long, long, long at 242 minutes (to Gibsons' 134 minutes). Olivier's 1948 Hamlet is generally highly regarded, but it's too sentimental for my taste. Haven't seen Derek Jacobi's 1980 BBC performance, but I've heard good things about it. I've seen snippets of the David Tennant Hamlet, and it looks promising, although it's hard to shake the impression that it's Dr. Who playing Hamlet.