The Bear's Key

That is precisely why, any of us can run for the office with dictatorship plans, and convince half the nation that it's folly to investigate us while in office (and the nation still on terror alert with a near-collapsed economy), so let's be prudent and wait until our term is over? (hint: until it's too late?) Any takers?

Arrg! I can't edit the first post. I'll just update like this. Hopefully a mod will copy and paste it into the first post Yes (if not the U.S., choose one from below).....2 Somalia......................................................1(?) Netherlands.................................................1(?) Finland.......................................................1 (Sisyphus, I'll allow you change from Somalia) No and no. I left it up to your personal opinion (what citizens' freedom means), which is the reason I asked you give a reason for your choice. I meant from the vantage point of the media. Are they completely free to report on their corporate parents, or government wrongdoing/abuse? Has Freedom of the Press been lived up to?

Its not. But please stop overlooking the evil Hamas perpetrates just because they often fail to acheive the destruction they desire. I'm not. But it seems Hamas got a chance to prove themselves in government, but couldn't, as immediately the Bush Administration and Israel demanded they renounce having gotten elected. They immediately put into motion steps for bleeding Hamas dry of funds so their government couldn't operate, which reulted in Palestinians suffering for their election choices. Who set the tone for conflict afterwards? If an industry official or White House high-ranker were caught vandalizing property/vehicles, dropping rocks from a bridge onto cars, lighting house steps on fire at night, and a gang leader were caught doing the same in the next town, who'd catch more national flak? (and/or possibly international?) Let's even say they were doing it in retribution to the gang leader (whose family is just collateral damage), the flak against them would remain the same. Yes, certain people or groups should know better. And certain of us won't accept for our government to be run by people who'd lower themselves to the level of the "bad guys". Our nation is like it is precisely because we don't resort to the same tactics. If you want a government like that: the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, etc. 1. Night vision. 2. Flour? Dry Ice? Streamed down from overhead. Flour Fight See, happy crowd. Not coughing up intestines. I'm fairly certain that coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin isn't worse than melted skin.

If your history is correct, then the Union were in the right and so were the Allies. Both the Confederacy and the Axis weren't. This seems to follow iNow's reasoning (1300 Gazans killed vs 13 Israelis). I'm sure that's not what you meant.

You can participate in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. It's just the right grade level for you, cameron. Or you may check out the next Intel Science Talent Search. Don't know when their next date for the contest is, but they'll probably soon update its entry rules for 2009 (they're still in 2008 mode).

On that we agree. Yes caution is necessary -- lots of it. But overly extreme caution would give free reign to politicians who'd use our fear of resulting consequenses against us.

...Still? If not, which nation is the freest on Earth today? I don't mean in respect to businesses having freedoms equal to those of citizens.....the U.S. Declaration of Independence says "pursuit of happiness" -- yet I'm fairly certain most here can agree that's a little broad for our purpose here, compared to if they had written "and the pursuit of riches/wealth/power". So we're going only by Freedom of the Press, and of citizens. The less the press is owned by conglomerates, the more journalists can really print the truth in the widest-reaching media (i.e. internet) -- even if it's ugly -- and so the more free the media is. Rules Choose one nation. Please include the reasons why in your post. Yes (if not the U.S., choose one from below).....0 France ......................................................0 Switzerland.................................................0 Germany....................................................0 Japan........................................................0 Australia....................................................0 Somalia......................................................1 Netherlands.................................................1 Finland.......................................................1 other (full list of nations) If the nation you'd like to choose isn't listed, request it below and I'll update the list to reflect your vote. That is all.

Sandbox right? I'll be testing how to run a poll

I'm not completely up to date on this entire Hamas/Israel conflict. But.....didn't it begin after Hamas legitimatety won the elections, and Bush/Israel refused to acknowledge Hamas in government -- and pledged to remove them from power? I didn't understand how getting elected was against international law.

I hope you see the irony of referencing that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventions_within_the_states_to_ratify_an_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution It happened one single time in the history of the U.S -- and to repeal an amendment that conservatives forced upon us. The mob of public opinion was given a tool to lower *one* special interest's power, and only because Congress feared the special interest wouldn't let them repeal Prohibition of Alcohol. From your link (below). So, the only reason Congress gave the mob of public opinion anything was to go behind that one special interest's back. Nice. And hardly a display of power if that happened once in 232 years. To summarize: a hardcore conservative interest altered our Constitution, we got it altered back only through a loophole, and only because Congress wanted to avoid confronting them directly -- and we're supposed to be impressed. Likely you missed the point. I said we (the mob of public opinion) don't have the ability to scale back the power of *all* special interests down to a level below ours.

And if the media isn't free due to conglomerate ownership, then public opinion will be likely be anything the media "informs" us of. Thus, power lies within the best convincer -- in lies or honesty. Please explain how. The mob of public opinion can never pass an amendment that reduces the power of special interests to become less than citizens'. And that's just one example.....lots more abound.

Of course not. But it can't be ignored. Just something to consider as a variable. If Amnesty had said "Bush policy is tarnishing the image of a great land whose priority for human rights always seems to outrank its government's policies. Bush is OK with the sale of white phosphorous to Israel even after its current government's policies -- or lack thereof -- allowed their use on civilians. An investigation into possible war crimes is merited before the U.S. continues these sales, as the free/benevolent nations lead by example, and shouldn't resort to tactics of repressive nations" it'd have been really difficult to make Amnesty seem wrong-headed. If the sale occured after January '09, they can even say, rightfully, "Obama (continuing of Bush) policy is..." That would put the relevant leaders on the defensive rather than on the offensive. Wrong approach is the main possible reason. See above. My quote (below) has answered this question. Amnesty might need to really work on their PR in communications, but it doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.

From what I can see in your link and its references, these accusations mostly come from the Bush administration. Plus I've only heard right-wing media speak ill of Amnesty International. As Bush's gang supported Middle-East interference, naturally they'd gain from discrediting the Amnesty organization. It seems, from your link, that Amenesty's focus is on singling out nations who *aught to know better* or proudly advertise themselves as a bastion of human rights. Amnesty is simply ensuring that a nation won't "forget" its human rights standards while operating beyond its borders. Another variable: reliable information's not as easily obtained from the "bad spots" of the world, either. Now, I'm not going to defend Amnesty or whatever nations are involved. But I will say Amnesty is mistaken to blame the U.S. or Israel -- and not the policies of the leader in place. For example, they should never have said, "the U.S. did this, or the U.S did that (abuse)". Why? The right-wingers use/need such fuel. The bait is left out for Amnesty/protestors.....who usually bite -- thus igniting the right-winger propoganda furnace. To others here. This is a lesson for any of us protestors too. Let's not blame our nation for what a tiny group of scoundrels perpetrate. They'll use it against us. "See, these wackos are unpatriotic. Liberals who blame the U.S. for everything and still want to live within her safe borders. They're lucky to even be in a nation where they're able to speak freely like that. blah blah *strategic outrage* blah blah *mock surprise* blah. Etc". Don't let them frame the debate. It's their utmost goal for you to say "American Imperialism" rather than saying...."Neocon Imperialism". For a moment, let's really think about it -- which of those phrases is far more difficult to attack, or make seem unpatriotic? Which is more difficult for them to build resentment against you (or protesters)? For if I were the neocons, I'd go around planting the seeds: disguised as protestor, and blaming the larger group -- so that real protestors who follow my lead will not only have a false view of the root cause, but they'll face obstacles much larger in size than I would've been. And soon, many other protestors will repeat this simple error, unwittingly helping me fuel up the propoganda machine.

Read post #46. In there I explain how Obama can investigate and not be viewed as political revenge, by doing what Mr Skeptic proposed. But to make it even more nonpartisan, Obama can announce that he'll give Republicans an equal chance to fully investigate possible wrongdoing by his own team (but Dems likewise set the punishment if any crimes are discovered). The message? He's got nothing to hide, and no president should. Hopefully it'll set a precedence, and make headway towards open government.

Expanding on what I just said above... Obama can even go one further and give Republicans the same investigatory powers into his administration in 2012. After all, Obama wants to open government more, and that's one good way.

Brilliant! At first I was going to suggest Democrats investigate, make open all details to the public, then let Republicans handle it from there. However, it'd be much better to have an independent team investigate, the assignment process made completely transparent, equip the investigators with a high-ranking investigatory powers so no one can hinder them, and open all details/revelations of criminal activities to the public.....then let Republicans handle the assignment of consequences. Or lack thereof. I fully support it. Obama can do this and hardly be accused of political revenge -- if he asked that only Republicans in Congress were given sole authority of how justice shall be dealt...if at all. (ParanoiA, I didn't forget about responding to you post)

ParanoiA, I'll answer your points. No time right now. But I want to pipe in quick into the general conversation. I've never cared if the administration were punished for their actions, I just wanted all their scheming to be totally exposed, for the public would be rattled to the core on what these guys really did, and the sad reality is now without any light shed they are free to repeat it again -- except next time it'll likely be much worse. Justice isn't what I seek -- rather, complete and utter exposure. They didn't just lie about the war or do torture and illegal wiretapping. That stuff is peanuts compared to the more grave stuff being glossed over. And it seems they're framing the debate, as the nation's focused on what I think is the least of their crimes (and most defendable by the propoganda networks).

You just gotta be clever about doing it. For instance, he/she might declare a clean-up of all antiquated laws that can no longer be enforced. That way no particular law is being singled out. As for why it's a good idea to remove such laws, there's always the posibility of "antiquated" laws making the switch to "reality" if the sentiment for it became popular. Think how much easier it's to revive an existing unconstitutional law than it is to pass a new unconstitutional law into existence. A few of those antiquated laws resemble "sleeper cells" patiently waiting until they can spring to action. Best place for them is in history books, not within actual law.

You've misunderstood. I didn't say "Well, Bush did it first so it's OK". My point was that Obama very likely wouldn't have started the policy himself. But I'll add that Bush's policies might have lots of other things entangled within, or be interconnected to other policies, and Obama might have to separate or review the entire thing first. He might not bother and simply continue the policy untouched, but only time will tell. And I'll be upset if he doesn't kill the policy. However, Obama's tone and lack of swaggering rhetoric is far different then Bush's. So I have a little more faith in his actions than in Bush's. And I'm pretty fair. See my my 6th thread, mentioning Bush. My views haven't changed much since. Do you really wonder how so many people came to be angry on "The Bush Years" situation? It's not politics, trust me. The first sentences in my very 1st post will shed a clue. Now, here's an interesting bit for waitforufo to chew on. The next two quotes have a connecting element. Find it? Yes, Bush didn't trust checks and balances, his administration kept it secret until discovered -- like almost everything they did. For a last glimpse into my points of how Bush differs so highly from Obama, and why the Bush team's seemingly good deeds are smokes and mirrors, view the last sentences in my 3rd thread. If I believed what those media idiots spew about liberals, well then I'd suspect it's just politics, and want to move on. No, it enabled him to act with speed to crush opposition against unconstitutional policies. Because the checks and balances were few between, and only when they got caught red-handed. Nice excuse the White House gave. Let's try a different angle. Freedom is supposed to be...dangerous. That's why adults face more real-world dangers than kids at home. Maybe it's time to examine exactly why it's a bad idea to temporarily diminish rights for safety. I'll begin with a question. How did the administration ensure us that if the wrong leader got in, they couldn't wield the newfound powers against their political enemies -- or not just them, but us? Hitler would've loved to use these arguments of necessary illegal surveilance. "We can't rely on the slow process of court warrants to protect against enemies of freedom. So tell ya what -- you let us do our things in secret, and we promise to inform you about it later" I'll end with a question. How are we assured such things have been accounted for? What chacks and balances did they institute? Oh yeah, none. Still think it's about politics? Benjamin Franklin had something for us to remember: They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. Patrick Henry did too: "Give me liberty or give me death." I'd be embarrased to show them our nation's reaction after 9/11. Yet I can be proud, that the U.S. areas most likely to be attacked -- New York, California, Washington DC, voted firmly against Bush even with all his party's rhetoric that electing Dems is a surrender to terrorists. Smoking bans....unprofitable. Homosexual unions....unprofitable. Environmentalism....unprofitable. Anti-war advocates....unprofitable. Or at least compared to..... Oil...billions War...billions Banks...trillions? Welfare checks to industry (aka subsidies)...billions Classified military budget (aka secret -- not even congress knows)...billions Polluting industries...billions Pharmaceuticals...billions Let's see.....who's more likely to be criminal or have alterior motives? There's more. But I'll leave you one thought. Dems' ideologies aren't opposed to business or defense -- only its abuse or unaccountable secrecy in the affairs of people and governments.

Hell no, I'm not a Democrat. But they're not controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution (religious elements) or profits highly from ongoing war (entrepreneurial contractors). I only see one party moving towards opening of government. The other party is constantly moving against it. An openly viewable government means a chance for us to pinpoint what's bad, and even real progress towards small government -- by focusing a light on the special interests. I agree both parties are bad -- that system is flawed. If it weren't Republicans, it'd be Democrats. And will be...because those who are corrupt flock towards power. First, I'm just as upset if Obama would continue this. But a good question is, would Obama have ever started this if Bush hadn't? Remember, we didn't find out about secret torture because Bush "told us" about it. The abuse I referred to was on the level of outfitting a TV network for lies and propoganda, flooding various levels of government with a dangerous amount of unqualified but loyal people to facilitate their schemes, paying journalists with taxpayer funds to secretly promote laws, exposing a CIA agent in revenge, distributing memos of talking points and firing or pressuring those who didn't comply, etc. They rely primarily on cognitive dissonance. For example, Republicans accuse Democrats of overdoing Fillibusters (45 of them). But then Republicans overdid the filibuster (120 of them). It's in the first one and a half minutes of the video. Don't make me start a thread where I ask the community to supply evidence of which party most accused the other of doing something, where in reality the accuser is the one doing it most. Again, cognitive dissonance. Or doublethink.

How could bascule or anyone's concerns be political revenge when you examine the mountains of abuses from the very start of 2000 by the top levels of the incredibly secretive Bush Administration gang. Treason is not politics. And we see them getting away with murder. You didn't hear us jump angrily about the witchunt over Clinton's relatively victimless blowjob (mostly bad for Hillary), instead many of us thought it silly and cracked jokes, and even the supposedly liberal media splashed it over the news for months on end, but -- every revealed misdeed by the Bush gang (countless), resulted in angry backlash and denial by his supporters. It was disheartening to witness Bush supporters going "Nyah, nyah" and treating the second election like a competition, where the losers are just sour grapes, when in reality most people voting against Bush were trying to salvage the constitution, not playing a stupid game. Never do we call anyone who doesn't support Obama "unpatriotic". I'm willing to bet those comments about "revenge" originate from Limbaugh, O'Reilley, or some other commentator's mouth. How on earth would not getting your choice of President even be a cause for vengeance? Well, for neocons it is, as evidenced by their actions. But not for us.

By law. My bad, I didn't make a clear distinction. You surely aren't hellbent religious, I certainly didn't mean you or the rest of normal pro-lifers. Heck, even if you were religious I still didn't mean you. My point is that the hellbent religious are the ones making this a huge controversy, when the situation is better of with level-headed minds -- like you. Even if we disagree, you obviously make points in a civilized tone. So no offense meant. I really just desire that more people like you (who are in the majority of pro-lifers) took charge and kicked the fanatics off the stage. Note...how only/mostly in third world countries, abortion isn't legal. We can go into other things where only/mostly third world countries and the U.S. agree (due to the hellbent you-know-who), and the rest of the civilized world doesn't, but I'll leave it for another thread.

It's simply a loaded question. But I'm going to answer it. Life begins when no more pro-lifers vote for war It begins when no more pro-lifers vote for capital punishment It begins when enough God-fearing pro-lifers realize they're a product in high demand for being misled by sheep-dressed criminals who preach nice things but do the complete opposite It begins when religion leaves government to its purpose and instead helps society without attempting to convert people by trickery and cunning It begins when the prison system no longer releases "victimless crimes" inmates back into society more hardened than previously (due to the religious fetish of extra punishment for the *wicked* that magnifies into a breeding cesspool of dehumanization to infect society with) It begins when the God-fearing pro-lifers actually listen to the biblical words: "Love thy enemy" It begins when pro-life conservatives realize that everything is interconnected and neglecting people or the environment has consequences for all etc. OK, I'll answer how you really wanted. Life begins out the vagina or woman's body. Period. (no pun intended ) More than noble, perhaps. I would never authorize or encourage an abortion. I'm willing to bet a lot of pro-choicers here wouldn't either (unless perhaps their spouse's life were endangered). You see the difference is, we don't push our beliefs into what should be a personal matter. And heck, it doesn't mean we couldn't attempt to *talk* someone out of going through with an abortion. But force is an entirely opposite -- and unacceptable -- approach. Sisyphus offered a great rule of thumb: abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. iNow made an observant remark as well, that most people aren't really pro-abortion, but know when a gray area's bound to cause more harm than good, and so leave it up to the woman as she's not only directly affected, but she'll be potentially living with this decision for the rest of her life. I say.....if God's against it, she will have to face God when the time arrives. If you want to do more, don't rely on law for everything -- become a counselor for pregnant women, or help out support groups. Yeah, a girl from high school once had a friend punch her in the gut a few times in order to make her become "unpregnant". She fell gasping and clutching her stomach, wind knocked out forcefully, and a couple days later, not pregnant. We pro-choicers see the religious hellbent's folly: they attempt to outlaw issues that half of society would fight against -- therefore igniting an endless struggle: war on intoxicants, war on carnal pleasures, always war, war, war.

Well, let's not do things half-assed. Each time a woman loses the fetus. A criminal investigation should be launched. Death row the woman if she aborted it. Plan a funeral. Or maybe, the best solution would be to leave men out of it and let women alone decide once and for all the issue of pro-choice vs fetal development. A special vote where only the affected sex can participate. Else if you outlaw abortion, then a failed *war on drugs* will have to include the morning-after pills (and other newer, efficient technologies). And how can you ever tell if a women is early-pregnant unless she tells anyone?

Bill O' Reilley Rush Limbaugh hmmmm, lemme see...Karl Rove There are either no sources as magnificent, trustworthy, and reliable, or I'm drawing a blank -- sorry. (Why not ask your co-worker about the source?)