Why should I heed a lecture by slaves with no freedom of speech, who can be executed without trial and are barred from having more than one kid in their homeland about freedom?

Lucky for them, their American kollij professor is likely a communist who spews the exact same rubbish.

I mean, have you ever considered that some people may LIKE living under a murderous dictatorship? (It's true, the dictators sure are happy)! What an easy "A".

I guess Maangchi had a meetup in your homeland! I believe this was mid-October 2011 in Copenhagen. http://videosift.com/video/Maangchi-Spicy-Radish-and-Beef-Soup

One final word on this. Everybody downloads. Everybody.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/everybody-pirates-riaa-homeland-security-caught-downloading-torrents/65670?tag=nl.e539

1) I'm not going to contest that. I am not knowledgeable in the Vietnam war. It's also 8 million years ago, so it doesn't really apply anymore.
2) Yes and no. You have some 20~30k troops in europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe) They shouldn't be there. As for your socialism remark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita the socialistic states of europe, scandinavia, are the highest gdp per capita. How do you figure that? Magic?
3) You're not free to leave if for whatever reason the department of homeland security deems you a threat, which means they can abduct you and torture you and even have you assassinated, EVEN THOUGH you're an american citizen. In the last 10 years it seems to me that the US have given up more freedoms that most countries have. As a freedom loving american, don't you hate the patriot act? I mean, really? I can't understand why americans who are otherwise so proud of their freedoms would willingly, some even lovingly, give up their freedom for a perceived sense of security.
>> ^quantumushroom:

1) The left-wing textbook on the Vietnam War always ends right before the communist genocides.
2) Europe should be paying for its own defense, except thanks to socialism it can't even pay to keep the lights on.
3) America is evil? Here you're free to leave, which in itself is more than one can say for red china, which will promptly gobble up the rest of the world as America's military mistakenly retreats under President Paul.


>> ^gwiz665:
America is a force for evil in this world.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
The Mayor called her personally to apologize.
She forgave him--so can we.

The Mayor didn't do anything wrong. The COP should be stepping up to the plate because he's a fucking moron.


Agreed.
I should have worded that better. I just wanted to point out that she has forgiveness in her heart.

The mayor did order the occupiers cleared out (under orders from Homeland Security?).

Thanks!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@TheJehosephat
The Wonkette has a story that quotes Rick Ellis of the Minneapolis edition of Examiner.com.
From the Examiner:

@TheJehosephat
The Wonkette has a story that quotes Rick Ellis of the Minneapolis edition of Examiner.com.

From the Examiner:

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

@marbles

Radar requires line of sight (with slight deviation due to atmospheric refraction) so, yes, you would be able to determine the coverage of each station with rather high accuracy just by knowing its location and the surrounding topography.

I also think it was a waste of time for the hijackers to change the transponder codes. I can only guess it was paranoia that drove them to do this. I think you're getting ahead of yourself when you say "somehow the hijackers knew where the gaps were". If they had, then why did only 2 of 4 planes change transponder codes while they were in dead zones? It's quite possible that this was pure coincidence. It's not like these planes even changed course to fly into dead zones. Their regularly scheduled courses brought all of them into dead zones.

I'd like to point out that, were the planes under remote control as is being alleged, it still wouldn't make any more sense for the transponders to be reprogrammed mid-flight.

I said he was either dishonest or ignorant and the one issue we've discussed is not the only reason I came to that conclusion. The entire video; indeed the entire truther movement, from what I've seen; is based on the flawed premise that all explanations that can be imagined are to be treated equally. I fully expect there are truthers out there who believe that aliens teleported onto the four planes and locked them on their course before teleporting back to the safety of the mothership. No doubt this was done to bankrupt the US, halting our space program before we could threaten their civilization. And we'd all be expected to treat this theory with the same credibility as "terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings because they were pissed off about us occupying their homelands."

Ultimately there were two reasons I did not want to participate in a discussion on this topic and I will say I seem to have been entirely wrong about one of them. That was my expectation that you could not keep this civil. Kudos to you on that.

The other reason is that there's just nothing of any interest or note coming from the truthers. It's all wild speculation backed up by claims that said speculation hasn't been investigated and/or disproven. You get to have your ideas heard by participating in these discussions, but what do I get out of it?

Homeland Security moves forward with 'pre-crime' detection

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.

It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.

And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.

Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.

I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...

And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Colbert Report, Colbert, Afganistan, Homeland Security' to 'Colbert Report, Colbert, Afganistan, Homeland Security, DisneyPlace' - edited by calvados

if you use an estimate for 2010 by the centrist to liberal Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, which pegs the share of all federal taxes for the top 1 percent at 22.7 percent.

One percent pays roughly one-fifth of taxes? Is that fair?

America was founded on principles by John Locke. Those principles were that land should not only be owned by the rich. According to wikipedia Locke implies "He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem"

It's quite the problem, as government can't capriciously deprive anyone of rights or private property without due process.

But actually I agree with you. If I tax the rich, they will buy fewer megayachts, (which would create jobs if U.S. regulation hadn't gutted the yacht-building industry here) and the government will just piss that tax money away on bombing Libya, or maybe homeland security irradiating pregnant women secret surface scan x-rays.

It's never explained by the left what this magic millionaire money will do that the spending addicts haven't already done. As for libyan/x-rays, the left wanted an all-powerful federal leviathan unable to be reigned in by the states...why act surprised when it does things you don't like?