>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Doesn't even pass the most basic test of logic. If 'torture & abuse' was the foundation of terrorist recruiting methods, then why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Or at Mogudishu? The Cole? Torture isn't the reason; it's just a convenient scapegoat.
This guy may believe in his position, but that doesn't mean he's accurate. He's selling books, and targeting the anti-war left as an audience. Whether because that's his own personal ideology or whether he's just a smart business guy doesn't matter. What matters is the veracity of his argument. His position is opinion based. For every Matthew Alexander, there is one who has the opposite opinion. Who you pick as 'right' entirely depends on your political persuasion.


Except that this guy isn't some average Joe off the street trying to sell a book who has an opinion.

He was the SENIOR military interrogator for the Air Force in charge of tracking down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who conducted/supervised over 1000 interrogations.

I think this guy has a bit more credibility and first-hand knowlege of the topic. Even more-so that Cheney.

Or you.

We have this policy in the US. That the responsibility for the actions of a minor belongs to the adult who is supposed to be supervising that minor. People forget that too easily.

So when you let a minor wander off on their own, you are failing your responsibility. When you create an environment with tempting dangers, you are failing your responsibility. When you create a history of allowing dangerous behavior, you are failing your responsibility.

There were multiple adults at the house, so true responsibility is shared among them. But the owner of the car increased the danger with her negligence.

I can see how she might think she is owed something, but that is only because she doesn't truly understand that a minor cannot negate the responsibility of the adults in the situation. A simple explanation of their shared guilt would have sufficed.

On the other hand, Judge Judy is a TV character. She's supposed to keep it entertaining and over the top.

organizations are not persons, and have no rights

Groups have freedom of speech, can own property, assemble, participate politically, apply for permits, et al... Those are rights.

2)501(3)(c) makes churches and the boy scouts quasi-public entities, they give up some privileges in order to not pay taxes, this does not apply to MAP. Throwing them in shows that you aren't really thinking it through.

It was plain from my quote that I was giving a laundry list of various possiblities. You're the one fixating on one example or another. Regardless, I deduce from your verbose parsing that you feel a 501c entity doesn't have the right to exclude exclude membership, but you think a non-501c should be able to be exclusionary. That's good. We're making some progress.

Prejean is MAPs employee, not just someone who showed up at their event, they have every right to fire her for making PSAs for NOM

I have no problem with MAP booting any contestant they want for any reason they want. Their contest their rules. But apply the rules FAIRLY. If the MAP fires Prejean for speaking out in favor of an 'external group' then they bloody better disqualify ALL contestants who do anything even remotely close to that. That includes speaking for pro-gay groups. The problem neo-libs encounter is that they want to selectively apply the rules so they can discriminate against things they hate, and give a free pass to things they like. I'm not a that big of a douche, so I apply all rules equally.

for hiding the existence of the photos before the pageant, and for not meeting her other contractual obligations as Miss CA.

Deceptive language. Everyone knew about the pics. You can't take those kinds of pics at a shoot with a 17 year old without MAJOR supervision. Saying they were 'hidden' is disingenous. The MAP knew all about them long ago. Not meeting her contractual obligations? Which ones? I heard there was a big group photo shoot she didn't show up for, but it was not one she was 'contractually obligated' to attend. It was an invitation.

To me it seems like you're parsing to the nth degree in an effort to avoid having to conceed your errors. There is nothing bad about being wrong sometimes. But don't rhetorically flail around when you make a mistake.

His IQ score must barely be above retardation levels and he certainly suffers from major antisocial personality disorder. I would feel sorry for him except that he has raped at least one person and intentionally hurt many other people.

He should be in jail or under 24 hour a day psychiatric supervision.

If anything this kind of poll just promotes simple-mindedness by dumping the blame on people who frankly were the least responsible.

I wouldn't blame the bankers. They were acting on behalf of executives who were obligated under law to maximise returns for their shareholders. Yes, they took massive gambles and yes obviously that had a highly pejorative effect on the world economy, but the failure was a lack of prudential supervision being extended to these investment banks. They should not be held personally liable for the outcomes these decisions had on the world economy but merely the effects on their own companies.

The fact of the matter is, the finance industry was and still is highly competitive, companies are constantly pushing for hostile takeovers on weaker performing banks. What do you think happened when shareholders of a finance company that is taking on moderate risk, shareholders who are frankly not as informed as the executives, are proposed with a takeover bid from an investment firm that is making greater returns on higher risk? This is one good reason why the big 4 banks in Australia emerged relatively unscathed by the credit meltdown. Australia law dictates that they cannot merge and presumably are restricted from merging with large offshore banks as well, thus allowing them the room for more sound decision making over rabid profit seeking.

No, it is the regulators and the legislators of the regulation that were to blame. Even looking at it from that point of view you can't blame Bush, or the Republicans entirely. Yes, in some cases they pushed for deregulation, but at the same time the Democrats were pushing to extend unsustainable sub-prime mortgages on to people who clearly had no chance of paying them off, particularly when house prices began to crumble. Generalities are probably misguided here too, I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it would have been a select section of the House/Congress pushing for these measures.

Regardless the blame game is meaningless. The fact of that matter is, analaysts, investors, politicians and financial media outlets alike were suckered into the assumption that this bubble would continue growing. The real cause here was the group-think collective.



>> ^quantumushroom:
Americans were "stupid" when Bush was elected. Now that there's that many more illegal alien invaders, entitlement creeps and dead people voting thanks to ACORN, suddenly everyone's a genius again.

Btw, just for your information, the term illegal 'aliens' is a distinctly American phrase that everyone else in the developed world sees as the blatant form of dehumanising foreigners propaganda ploy that it is.

related video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Supervising-Women-in-the-Workplace

I love hearing people's justification for their own decisions. It's the convenience! Coz nothing's more convenient that going to the shop to buy water to drink.

We mistrust the Government, but we happily place our trust in companies we know are trying to screw us, and that are supervised by... the Government!

Rottenseed-


Well if I told them "look, we promise nobody will eat any meat whatsoever" and they got there and everybody was eating meat, that's one thing. However, if they came over, and I had vegan meals prepared as an option for vegans, but the other guests could eat their choice of meat products, why would the vegan get offended?
Nobody forced them to pray, nor did the words of the prayer hurt anybody. It's just complaints from bleeding heart pussies. "But you didn't think about the people who had neck injuries and couldn't bow their heads during the moment of silence or the people with tourettes that can't control how silent they are or aren't." It's all just babies acting like babies. You can't please all the people all of the time, so maybe people need to stop having such precious, delicate feelings.


OK, it's really more like they were well known, quite vocal vegans and were invited to dinner and were told there would be no animals or animal products served, then they got there and found that most everyone WAS eating meat, and they had a big slab of roast beef slapped in their face. True, no one forced them to eat animal, but it would be intentionally and obviously insulting, just like this was.
These people would be enraged if Penn (or another person of intellect) went to a church during service and interrupted with a sermon about the non-existence of invisible friends and the dangers of being stupid enough to believe in them. (this BTW is the best way to stop Jehovah's Witnesses from bothering you... go to their temple during service and interrupt them to tell them the good news about the non-existence of God/Jebus and the foolishness and dangerousness of religion).
Where is your church Rottenseed? I wish to attend and see how much of a baby you are when anti/non- religion is repeatedly brought to your religious event (just as these people forced their religion onto a non-religious event honoring well known, vocal, anti religious people) making it impossible for you to hold any religious event without hearing about how idiotic your beliefs are. That goes for ALL of those who believe it's OK to spout your belief system at others when it's not requested, wanted, or appropriate. If you really believe what you've said, you'll invite me and all other atheists to your church to have our say every sermon. If there's no invite forthcoming, I'll have to assume that you, like most "religious" people, don't really believe what you say and rarely if ever do what you preach.
Non-theists have NO public place of refuge from the teeming religious masses, it's time the religinuts get back some of what they've been throwing.
Christians are the biggest babies, that's why then need an invisible friend to hold their hand their entire life and threaten them with eternal horrors if they don't follow the "rules" (because they can't just be good for goodness sake, they require constant supervision and a threat of punishment for not being good or they can't bring themselves to do it, indeed they can't do it even with the threat of never-ending punishment, just like a 2 year old).

More good fun from the Libertarian-Debunk-Generator above:

Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

# The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.

Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy for the services they provide and obey the rules that they create. You have an equal vote with the other residents on the budget and the rules. If you don't like the budget or rules that are enacted, you can vote with your feet or persuade everyone to change them.

There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow changes by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water, phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most they need to notify you in advance when they change their rates. Insurance companies raise their rates, and your only input is either pay the new rates or "vote with your feet". (The exception is when rates are supervised by government regulatory agencies.)

# Other misc. claims denying the social contract.

One commonly cited Spooner argument is that the social contract is like no other, and thus not a contract. That's a nonsequitur. A unique feature or combination of features doesn't disqualify something from being a contract.

Some complain that the social contract is fundamentally unjust because it doesn't treat people equally, that people are taxed unequally or receive services unequally. So? Like insurance, rates can vary from individual to individual, and services received may be more or less than premiums paid.

Some complain "Any contract where the enforcing agency is one of the contractors is hardly fair." But the U.S. Constitution is a contract between SEVERAL parties: the three branches of the government, the states, and citizens. It's a multilateral contract where every party is subject to enforcement by one or more of the other parties, and every party is involved in enforcement for at least one other. This pattern of checks and balances was specifically designed to deal with precisely this fairness issue.

You are trespassed from the park. Since when can you use an intransitive verb as a transitive verb?

A security guard at a "non-supervised" park? He calls himself an "officer?" No, he's an over-privileged civilian with a power trip problem.

The cop couldn't even come up with a viable charge, other than "he says you're kicked out, and I don't understand what a skate park is, so I guess what he says goes." She just didn't want to be wrong and have her visit be a wasted one.

I hope the person shooting the video contacted Georgia's attorney general and these peoples' respective bosses. This is either a lawsuit, or both the cop and the wannabe cop need to lose their jobs.

That said, I probably would have just left right away and came back 20-30 minutes later and gone back to skating. Meh.

I don't trust the federal government directly to regulate monetary policy. While I'm sure that policy makers and politicans would have learnt from past mistakes, history shows that until an independant federal reserve system came into effect, inflation was regular, in double digits and vastly uncontrollable in most developed countries. Do a search for it, there are graphs of inflation levels against time for various countries that clearly demonstrate this.

That's not to say that low interest rates have not contributed to ballooning out the money supply, but I would argue this is an error of judgement rather a systematic error of policy. If anything though it is the fact that investment banks, specifically those not subject to scrupulous levels of prudential supervion and have been allowed to leverage as high as 50-1 that has expanded the money supply. Had sufficient regulations and supervision been in place, other industries besides the financial sector might have collapsed and rightly so for their near-sighted gambling, but the financial sector itself would have remained in tact and not taken such a massive toll on credit availability across the world.

In addition to that it's not that I don't have qualms about the potential, and seemingly inevtiable relinquishing of US debt by China as faith in their ability to pay back their loans plummets, acting as a self-fulfilling prophecy and depreciating the US currency massively. I'm quite certain though this at least won't happen in the near future, or while China and much of the rest of the world is dependant on the US as the consumption engine of the global trade network to keep its industries and economy afloat.


>> ^Flood:
I'm sure there are some that don't agree that the Fed should be closed. So I'm curious, what reasons can you come up with for why it shouldn't be closed?

"The basic Dragon Skin vest for torso protection costs about $2,000 and the entire getup, which includes a protective collar, optional lightweight SAPI plates, an optional weight bearing rig, backpack plates, and an armored, take-it-with-you anywhere protective blanket, can run an individual more than $5,000. The basic Interceptor body armor issued to American troops costs about $1,100, although the wearer receives far less protection, ballistics information provided by both the manufacturers and the U.S. Army showed. According to the statistics provided by Pinnacle, in Army-supervised ballistics tests Dragon Skin's protective qualities "far exceeded" anything available anywhere else, Chessum said."

I need to get one of those, not to pricey really. The army already uses them in certain situations. The hold up is more bureaucratic than anything else. You have to evaluate a new weapon system and find a way to properly begin switching from older platforms ect ect.

>> ^spoco2:
I was trying to work out on what friggen basis it was matching those on. Coffee, PERHAPS because he says cup of urine, and the thing is stupid enough to take any 'cup of' answer... but pornography and soda? Is there a drink that has a name that has some portion of pornography in it?
Pretty bloody terrible!


This was back when Coca-Cola was testing all those new flavors. They briefly tried Coca-Cola Pornography but Pepsi Jizz outsold them. Taste tests were supervised by Larry Flynt.

Furthermore, how in the blue hell can you put forth an argument against the legalisation of pot based on law enforcement redundancy? It's exactly the same as if we'd continued capital punishment because ridding ourselves of it would put hangmen out of business, not to mention all the large ceremonial axes that would suddenly go unsold. Then whetstones to sharpen them, gallows and rope sales would go down rapidly, gallows builders would have to retrain and possibly go on unemployment, our jails would get fuller, it's all a terrible terrible idea.

You need to have your head examined pal. There are SO many reasons for legalisation of cannibis, and i've yet to hear one against it other than "i don't like it" which often equates to "i don't know anything about it".

All this talk about addiction is fine, but what about alcohol addiction? What about tobacco addiction? You really, really need to think about that in detail and just exactly what the differences between tobacco and pot are. Pot is actually better for your long term health than tobacco, less easily habit forming, and there are no real solid proofs anywhere of mental health issues that i've come across to date. So it's better for you than tobacco, but it makes you giggle and/or trip out a little.

So does salvia, and THAT'S FUCKING LEGAL, WHERE IS THE FUCKING SENSE?

The next argument against pot we'll see is the "strong strains such as skunk are blah blah blah" well you can shove that right up your arse too. I've never tried skunk, never tried any kind of "super strong" strain of it. I've smoked some basic run of the mill weed which i could grow for myself, and i had an absolutely fantastic time doing it. I also alleviated a migraine with it. Never hurt anyone, never hurt myself, never woke up feeling like a sack of vomit and diareah unlike some legal social drugs, never stole anything in my life, never considered harder drugs (other than i'd love to try LSD in a controlled environment with supervision), and i'm pretty damn intelligent to boot.

Spare us all the bullshit and get right down to the truth - you're scared of something you don't understand and have never experienced, and why are you scared? Because that's how you've been brought up, indoctrinated, call it what you will.

^Doc_M
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography

Richard Dawkins has a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford (the wiki is very badly worded), and a Masters in Zoology.

"Dawkins attended Oundle School from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[13] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice.[17] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision making.[18]"