Yeah, we frakked up. Ha! http://videosift.com/talk/How-does-one-fix-an-accidental-dupeof-to-the-wrong-video to see if there is a way for us to fix it or if the administrators have to fix it.

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Ant, Please, I wish to explain about the dupeof fail.

I found the mis-evocation and sought to address it directly with Geo. I failed to referenced the video title and the profile reply function did not/does not evidently do so either. Geo, very concerned, profile replied to me asking for clarification as he was not wanting to screw anyone whatsoever. By the time I received the message, someone, uncharacteristically, efficiently acted upon the dupe with the faulty evocation. Geo discovered his error and was persecuting himself for it before the dupe processed. I am certain he feels even worse now.

I compounded his error with incomplete and confusing information and no doubt delayed any cogent preemption thereby.

I am sorry.

I lack the acumen to remedy.

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/Your-Opinion-is-Requested-on-a-Court-Case#comment-848241

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.
Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.

dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


Right to drive? Since when do we have that?

>> ^blankfist:
Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.
Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.

dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


Right to drive? Since when do we have that?

Speeding tickets are preemptive. If you agree with them, you should also agree with preemptive wars.

Speeding is reckless and potentially dangerous, but until a victim is created it's philosophically unreasonable to give him a ticket out of preemption.


dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"

What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?

And, I said N. Korea and Iran aren't a direct threat to us. I didn't say they are "no threat". Still, they're a sovereign country, and what right would we have to tell them they cannot protect themselves? I get it if they were doing something that would ruin our earth's atmosphere or destroy all life on the planet earth, but it's a bit arrogant to be a nation with superior nuclear power and tell a less powerful nation whether they can or cannot be trusted with nukes.

Kim Jong Il (Or as I like to call him, 'em dongs ill!) may be maniacal and willing to use nuclear force against the world, but so could Gordon Brown or Jalal Talabani or even our precious Obama. My point is who are we to tell N. Korea or Iran what they can and cannot do to protect themselves if it's not merely fear-based preemption?

That's like hobbling someone on the Sift because you suspect they may be capable of discarding their own videos. Lunacy.

^What if? What if? You seem to live in a world of prevention through preemption. If Moats didn't T-Bone anyone that doesn't matter to you, because he could've right? The fact is he didn't hurt anyone, and his mother was dying in the hospital. If that was your mother, mg, would you not do the same?

If the cop was right in this case, then maybe that's the problem. Maybe they have too much "right" and not enough wrong. Maybe they have too much authority.

And it most likely wouldn't make the news if he wasn't an NFL player, but that's part of the problem, right? If it happened to Joe-Blow it probably would not be deemed newsworthy. That's sad, because a lot of people think this is an atrocious abuse of power, and whether or not the officer was within his municipally defined rights is irrelevant, because this is the very definition of authoritarian tyranny. This is the opposite of what a free country should be about, mg.

^You are correct, Tymbrwulf. That's exactly like saying I've driven drunk plenty of times and I've never gotten into an accident. If you disagree with that, then I see you as a man who loves preemption.

just say "yes".

you already look like a clown, for not knowing "the bush doctrine" meant preemption.

not admitting your support for that policy, as well?
makes you a coward.

They can't cover EVERYTHING in the pre-interview prep sessions. I mean, just think... just a few months ago she had no idea what the VP does!?!

She has really been cramming, you can tell by the way she name-dropped Mikhail Saakashvili (not in this clip) and pronounced it better than I ever would have. That has got to count for something, right? So what if she didn't know about preemption, right... she learned to pronounce a hard name!

The sheer propaganda value one gains by being on defense vastly outweighs any small military advantage that might be obtained through preemption.

I need to add one giant qualifier to the closing statement of my original post, which is that it only applies if your enemy is resolved against genocide. It does not apply if the enemy could nearly wipe you out before you even have a chance to counterattack.

I hesitate to post this addendum because it promotes brinkmanship. It would be so much better if everyone believed the unqualified version wherein the actions that are best for the common good are rationalized as being also in one's own self-interest. Many wars begin as deluded attempts at preemption.

There was plenty of warning. But we don't like to heed those.

>> ^Doc_M:
Pearl Harbor resulted in ~2,200 deaths in one day with no warning. Iraq has resulted in 100,000-600,000 deaths over the last 7 years, depending on who you ask. Pearl Harbor led to the involvement of the USA, and the most terrifying weapon in history in single most horrible war in history and to its consequent victory. The Nuke won the war and though it caused a huge number of deaths, it essentially ended the worst war in history and destroyed the most horrible enemy the world has ever known.
Preempting Pearl Harbor would have been a stupid mistake, but that was obvious at the time. Iraq was not so, and was not such an obvious mistake. I oppose preemption in general. I see it as, as you said, counter-productive and unattractive. I wish we would have waited for Saddam to do something outrageous so we could be more justified in our decision (as we are doing with North Korea), but there was in fact a great deal of justification for what the Gov't decided to do. It was not an ill-informed decision. It was a thought-out choice based in evaluation of evidence. Saddam deceived us; we fell for it and attacked. That is from his own mouth.
Still, you're right, preemption is not a good approach to anything military in nature.

The thing with preemption is, how far do you preempt things? Some say that Russia is rebuilding itself right now and engaging in new cold war, the same is said of China. Could preemption of either of this nations benefit the US? Especially with China the case could be built as it's a communist nation...

I think culturally the Japanese people were different because of the acts of the Emperor of Japan to lull the nation into accepting occupational forces. I don't think the same would have happened with a preempted attack.

The whole attack on Pearl Harbor was not a success entirely, while alot of ships were destroyed the aircraft carriers were not, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto the mastermind of Pearl Harbor, is believed to have said "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled it with terrible resolve".

Pearl Harbor resulted in ~2,200 deaths in one day with no warning. Iraq has resulted in 100,000-600,000 deaths over the last 7 years, depending on who you ask. Pearl Harbor led to the involvement of the USA, and the most terrifying weapon in history in single most horrible war in history and to its consequent victory. The Nuke won the war and though it caused a huge number of deaths, it essentially ended the worst war in history and destroyed the most horrible enemy the world has ever known.

Preempting Pearl Harbor would have been a stupid mistake, but that was obvious at the time. Iraq was not so, and was not such an obvious mistake. I oppose preemption in general. I see it as, as you said, counter-productive and unattractive. I wish we would have waited for Saddam to do something outrageous so we could be more justified in our decision (as we are doing with North Korea), but there was in fact a great deal of justification for what the Gov't decided to do. It was not an ill-informed decision. It was a thought-out choice based in evaluation of evidence. Saddam deceived us; we fell for it and attacked. That is from his own mouth.

Still, you're right, preemption is not a good approach to anything military in nature.

Something about this smacks of self-linking, though I don't think it can be proven. Either way it's fear-based propaganda, which I cannot stand. It's aptly placed inside the Fear channel, I'll say that much. I think being grossly intoxicated and driving is wrong, and should be considered criminal if you kill or hurt someone while drinking and driving, but the truth is DWI laws are preemptive tactics that are used to generate income in a community more than preventing deaths. The BAC limits are too low, and people who have a glass of wine with dinner can be arrested for DWI. This sort of scaremongering propaganda further fuels this lame civil-liberty destroying preemption. Laws are supposed to be written with reason, not passion. I will happily downvote.

Your two arguments are, and I'll paraphrase here, A) without vaccines the economy could be affected by disease outbreaks and B) in your opinion those who choose not to inoculate themselves could be allowing viruses to mutate. Sounds like a preemptive strategy to me, MycroftHolmz, and a fear borne one at that.

It's fine to rally behind the notion that vaccines could be good for you, but to create absolutes in an area where there are not any, (because science is a work-in-progress always) is simply wrong. We shouldn't be basing our laws on fear, and preemption is a stepchild of fear. Laws should come from reason, and being that we still have our personal liberties in this country, you cannot (or at the very least should not) force people to put anything into their bodies they do not want UNLESS our public safety absolutely relied on it. And, it does not.