JUST SAY NO TO THE LIBERALS! NO LIBERAL!

JUST SAY NO TO HARPER ! NO HARPER !

@robdot & @shuac

In Canada and Greenland[1][14][17][20] the term Eskimo is widely held to be pejorative[20][11] and has fallen out of favour, largely supplanted by the term Inuit. However, while Inuit describes all of the Eskimo peoples in Canada and Greenland, that is not true in Alaska and Siberia. In Alaska the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat (who technically are Inuit). No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples.[1]

Since the 1970s in Canada and Greenland Eskimo has widely been considered offensive, as mentioned above. In 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all circumpolar native peoples, regardless of their local view on an appropriate term. As a result the Canadian government usage has replaced the (locally) defunct term Eskimo with Inuit (Inuk in singular). The preferred term in Canada's Central Arctic is Inuinnaq,[21] and in the eastern Canadian Arctic Inuit. The language is often called Inuktitut, though other local designations are also used.

While I agree that certain terms (Indian, Midget, etc) are stupid to take offense to, but when they actually have a conference and agree upon something they prefer to be called, I can respect that, and respect their wishes.

They did not just say "No, you can't say that anymore, that's our word" or "I find this term offensive" they made a name for their race as a whole.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan
The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.
To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.
As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.



No, not all failures are intentional---but thank you for not accusing and raging about it here (I take no offense to questioning.)

All failures have two members responsible--the ones who win and the ones who lose. All failures come with consequences to everyday mortals. It is important that the other side "tried" but it is also important that the loser never receive a trophy (In this case, being viewed in a manner that the effort was almost or equal to victory.) (Unimportant Exception in this particular matter; if the event specifically denotes they give trophies then the second and third runner up can get one (Olympics for ex.) In politics, they do not provide trophies to perceived losers (I.e. re-election.)

Remember, I am not blaming Obama for this insomuch as his effort of trying. Great for him and those who supported him. I am just not handing him anything but the moral high ground. And, sadly, for some of those in Gitmo, they could give a rat’s ass less about the moral high ground.

And no, I was not sarcastic. His and those supporting him are appreciated in this area.

All presidents will fail as you mentioned. And hell, a president isn't even the leader of the free world--nor the people or judges. It is really congress, but then even they are balanced a bit...

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...
I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…
I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...


I guess I would say that to start with you should read up a bit on what's been happening on this front:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Media/obama-plan-close-guantanamo-stuck-political-legal-limbo/story?id=10752684
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback
http://washingtonindependent.com/75832/civil-libertarians-reject-obamas-guantanamo-closure-plan

The key element in there was a bill Congress passed with a veto-proof majority that prevents funding going to "transfer, release, or incarcerate" Guantanamo detainees in the United States. That expires this year, but congress is still making it very difficult to just start moving detainees to the US and give them trials in federal court.

To the rest of your comments I would say there's a huge moral difference between someone who tries to stop an immoral act and fails, and someone who wholeheartedly endorses the immoral act. I guess your presumption is that all failure is intentional, because all Presidents always get what they want, no matter what...I think even the briefest glances at history would disabuse you of that notion.

As for Congressional Democrats, they definitely deserve a share of the blame for acquiescing so easily to Republican political posturing over terrorism, but I think it's a big stretch to say there's some sort of moral equivalence between the two parties, especially on the topic of Guantanamo. One party created it and is loudly and openly opposed to closing it, the other is trying to close it, if more cautiously than I think is warranted.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I'm also glad he's ending the war in Iraq. And reinstating Habeas Corpus. And not continuing the Bush Doctrine.
New party slogan: Democrats. The new Republican.

He the war in Iraq is ending. He's been trying to give Guantanamo detainees trials, but Congress has thrown up numerous, massive roadblocks in his way, led by Republicans and turncoat Dems that the Democratic base hate (e.g. Joe Lieberman). The Bush Doctrine is completely and utterly gone, over the loud objections of the Republicans, who clearly intend to reinstate it if they get power again.
What the fuck are you smoking?


So, not saying I know much about our government because I don't completely understand our silly nonsensical law structure that changes weekly anyways, but Obama is able to do so much---yet Republicans can just say no on the issue of Gitmo and boom! Obama stopped. Not to mention the issue of the constitution being on his side...

I get the filibuster, or other motions that shelve actions forever... but I understand also there is a way to get things done in office regardless of any roadblocks and their, uhem, "size." If not, well then that is your failure as a politician. It is your job to get shit done…

I am not saying Obama has not succeeded on issues important to Americans. I am saying failure cannot be acceptable because your opponent was smarter or stronger than you...

Just say no, kids.

Even good old marijuana is a lot more potent these days than it was back in the '60s and '70s. George Harrison compared smoking a joint to having a couple of beers, which was probably true back then, but certainly not now unless you're smoking ditchweed.

This is not meant to be a "Just Say NO!" comment. Shit, I would love marijuana to be legal. I just mention it because what might have enhanced musical creativity at one time I doubt would have that same effect these days. You smoke some sinsemilla nowadays and you don't feeling like getting out of the fucking chair. But people are different, so YMMV.

>> ^griefer_queafer:

"which one would you prefer?"
"the one who waited."
[a knowing smile] "so would your husband."
lies


no, I'm pretty sure that a guy who has never kissed a girl before getting married will in fact also prefer a guy who has never kissed a girl too.

>> ^alizarin:

This girl is going to be a total slut after the divorce


She is, I've had her. But I didn't kiss her, she said the Lord didn't want me to.

The issue with privatising things , espesualy in a culture of make all the profit you can regardless of how it affects the people , is you end up with situatoins like you have with the amercan helth care service.

the fact is if the amercan helth care service was more goverment controled and paid for with taxes it would be a better service for the vast majorty of the populatoin.

there would still be waistage but at least it would be in a positoin where if it was bad it could then be changed easily,

if things are controled by super ritch multicoperate entities which is basicly what would happen in a full libatarian socity you would end up with a socity of super ritch and super poor.

if annything america is alredy to far down the "libitareain" road , and needs to work on bieng more socalist and democratic.

There are manny laces where goverment should not get involved , but there are manny places where goverment is benoficail to a socity.

from reeding all the pionts on theat website it seems that libatarinisum in a large part just says no to goverment for the sake of it without actualy evlauating in each case if goverment could be good , it just asumes that goverment is always bad with no thought.

I just say, 'no', to comment pics too.

>> ^ponceleon:
So, what's the deal? If you are asked about something and it is wrong, wouldn't you just say "no actually, we don't believe in that."

That's easy--the real answer would make them seem silly. This indignant response is carefully crafted PR management.


Scientology is no different than any other religion.

It's a tough question. Every religion has some self-defense mechanisms against detractors. Every religion has some rituals that seem crafted to trick weak-minded people into belief. I would call Scientology a religion that has had an artifically long life through its focus on self-defense mechanisms and legal protections. Without its legal successes, its silly beliefs and malicious practices of punishment, exclusion, and coercion would have been public knowledge years ago.

So, what's the deal? If you are asked about something and it is wrong, wouldn't you just say "no actually, we don't believe in that."


The problem is the scam requires that fully brainwashed recruits believe the xenu story, so it can't be publicly denied. Neither can it be publicly admitted though, or else nobody would sign up in the first place. As a result, the cult's best response is to act indignant and refuse to answer.

And yes, Xenu is part of Scientology's doctrine as one of the tools they use to attack anyone talking about Xenu is that the copyright to the papers belong to the 'church' and distributing it without their approval is a violation of copyright. Many websites have been required to remove references to the documents as a result. It's notably the only time that Slashdot.org has ever successfully been forced to take down anything because of a legal suit.

I'm really fascinated by this reaction. I mean, Christians don't get up and walk out of the room when you ask them about the benevolent zombie which they practice cannibalism and vampirism in order to resurrect every Sunday...

... All jokes aside, my characterization of the Christian story is an example of how you can take a religious belief and make it hyperbole by stating it in a non-traditional way. So if we take that as a model for a reason why this Scientology representative might be offended by the mis-characterization of the Church's deepest beliefs, it would still beg the question as to why he storms off instead of just correcting the reporter's way of putting things.

Are they embarrassed by their own belief? Hard to say...

Let's take it at face-value for a moment. Let's say that the scientologists only "get to know" this stuff after they've been through the previous "levels" or whatever because it is designed to make them understand fundamentals before revealing something which is hard to believe without proof. They show you all this other stuff, which potentially makes your life better and "works" and then, only then, do they tell you about the deep secret which involves something other-worldly...

I still just don't get why they would get offended if asked about it. Look at the Raelians, who follow a total nutjob who is absolutely convinced of a lot of silly stuff just as kooky as the allegations of what the scientologist believe and they have no problems chatting about it. Neither do Mormons, or Christians, or whatever.

So, what's the deal? If you are asked about something and it is wrong, wouldn't you just say "no actually, we don't believe in that." It kind of reminds me of asking someone if they are a virgin and them getting all pissed off and storming off; chances are they probably are a virgin. I'm just surprised that they haven't found a better reaction to this yet. You'd think with all the money, legal advisers, and resources someone in their organization would have come up with a more efficient way to deal with these questions.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, Scientology is no different than any other religion. Some guy came up with some story about how the universe was formed and now they want people's money and attention. Does scientology hurt people? I'm sure it hurts some... so did Christianity during the inquisition. Jehova's witnesses prevent blood transfusions and Christian Scientists forego medical attention altogether... are they hurting people?

Finally, I'll say that Scientology will likely catch on that this type of reaction is not good press and come up with a more effective way of dealing with these problematic aspects of their "faith." We need to take a step back and realize that they are the perfect metaphor for religion in general. If you have a problem with scientology, you need to realize that you have a problem with ALL religion.