Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 922
I guess all his tweets had to be removed from the Internet because they were so horrible that just reading them would make you want to go outside and start killing people.
I guess all his tweets had to be removed from the Internet because they were so horrible that just reading them would make you want to go outside and start killing people.
From a European point of view, I can see the right, but the left? What you have is far right and moderate right politics to choose from.
I think a more accurate description of American politics is two corporate parties with minor differences on social issues. Neither party does a very good job of representing the interests of the general public. Trying to place the two parties along a single left/right axis is just a game played by the media to give the public the illusion that they have a choice, and that one of those choices matches their interests.
Our current president hasn't invaded anyone that I know of.
Maybe you didn't hear of Yemen? He also stepped up military operations in Pakistan, and increased CIA involvement in Somalia
Libya we did help but it was more with logistics.
From wikipedia
The United States has deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney. Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-2 stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18 electronic warfare aircraft, and both F-15 and F-16 fighters have been involved in action over Libya. U-2 reconnaissance aircraft are stationed on Cyprus. On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as additional tanker aircraft. On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicates an increase of ground attacks. An undisclosed number of CIA operatives are said to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with rebels. The US also began using MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya on 23 April.
A bit more than just logistics.
The last president did invade a country with no reason (Iraq) but he was promptly removed from office
You do remember that we invaded Iraq before Bush's second term right?
It's not a case of being right or wrong, it a case of being flat out lied to by people who want to go to war.
Which people would that be; Clinton or Bush?
Both of them, of course.
So, when Anonymous hacked Vatican's site, they were against religion, but now they say they are not?
Who are "they"? How do you know it's the same person/people? Do you know some of the members of anonymous personally? If so, please contact the FBI immediately for processing.
Check out the girl on the main page... Sign me up!
And compare her with the unshaved, tattooed man. I guess they're trying to promote the (educated) bad boy gets the girl stereotype.
So you would rather have no job than take a pay cut? I agree that $20 per hour is not great, but why not take the lower paying job until you can find something better?
LulzSec is to Anon as Westboro' Baptist is to Christianity; Similar ideas, taken too far.
LulzSec is to Anon as Westboro' Baptist is to Christianity; A bunch of trolls that don't believe their own message.
I thought the message of LulzSec was "We're in it for the Lulz". I don't see any reason to doubt that they believe their own message.
He abused his position, broke his oath
There is also a case that could be made that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law (to which the US is subject), to expose the crimes he saw.
There is a larger debate that should be had about how much of that information really should be secret, and if so from who, and then for how long.
I think this question is already answered that most, if not all, of the information leaked by Manning should not have been secret. From what I've seen the information falls into basically two categories, either it's innocuous, or it reveals immoral and often criminal behaviour. Neither of these should have been kept secret.
Even if we assume that Manning was doing 'the right thing by [caring] about freedom of information, exposing war crimes, and holding the powerful responsible for their atrocities , his acts are those of a vigilante. Thus, his methods subvert his cause.
Calling him a vigilante is quite a stretch since he didn't really punish anyone other than exposing what they were doing.
If he did what he did and blindly uploaded to wikileaks... well then that's the end of it. He's a naive fool who thought his cause of the week was worth the risk. Maybe he still feels that way?
I would hope that preventing war crimes and exposing government wrongdoing is more than just his "cause of the week". Maybe you believe the things he exposed were just not that serious? In my opinion killing civilians should be taken very seriously, and it should be punished appropriately instead of covered up.
And then businesses will be carefully pricing every item in order to fuck you out of as much of that $0.10 as they possibly can. All those factions of $0.10 will quickly add up to be multiple $ when purchases involving multiple items are made.
I don't really buy this argument. Yes, many businesses will round up the prices, so you might be paying up to 9 cents more than before for certain items. A few businesses might actually round down to compete, since the different between $1 at one store and $.9 dollars at another store is noticeable to the average customer. Obviously this will not have significant effect on big ticket items, a $500 TV is still $500 with or without the pennies. The place it could have more effect is on small items, for the average consumer, the best example is probably groceries. So let's say you buy 50 grocery items per week, and the price increased an average of 5 cents per item, that's $2.50 extra in your grocery bill. I would argue that's not that significant for most people. Taken over 1 year you pay about $130 than the previous year on groceries. The bottom line is that stores that try to jack up the price because of a change like this would likely be noticed by the customers. If you are suddenly paying 10-20% more for common items, you start to notice, and you might shop elsewhere.
The other side you have to look at are the advanatges. So one less digit means less change you have to carry in your pocket, less change in the cash register, less cost for the government to make the pennies and nickels, etc. So, IMO, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Redesigning the penny and nickel to be cheaper to product seems like a complicated solution to a simple problem. Just eliminate both pennies and nickels and drop the last digit of prices.
You are right, that changes 1 and 2 were pretty much all the extra security we needed after 9/11. All the extra TSA theatre is not about making us any more security, it's about making money for various corporations and for the politicians they own.
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.