Without having at least one critical mind on the panel, you have nothing that stops people from going way off into left field and making all sorts of assertions that aren't supported by facts, just by your fellow panelists.
So you think that these people lose their intellectual integrity when an adversary isn't around?
The whole question of Manning and torture is another red herring that would have been stopped pretty quickly. He isn't an expert in the field, there is no way for him to know exactly what is and what is not torture as per the Geneva convention, US law, and the law of the countries involved.
Does it take an attorney to know that solitary confinement alone is torture?
Manning didn't obey the law, as the law doesn't require any individual to bypass the entire legal and military law system to investigate (stop fighting the war, quick, investigate now or you are breaking the law!).
Are you an expert in the field? How do you know exactly what is and is not his duty? Didn't you just state that you needed to be an attorney or an expert in the field to have an opinion on these sorts of matters?
His duty is to report his findings to his superiors, and that is where it ends.
I guess since you're not an attorney, you didn't know that it's perfectly legal for military personnel to leak information and documents to members of Congress.
Ethically, of course, documents and information should be sent to where they'd do the most good, in the eyes of the whistle-blower.
Manning, if he did leak those documents, is the definition of a whistle-blower. (And who better to know the definition of a whistle-blower than Daniel freaking Ellsberg?)
Again, not having any critical people on the panel means that sputum like this can be put in public unchallenged, which is pretty much how these rumors and opinions get turned into "quasi-facts".
Again, it's unlikely that these people lose their intellectual integrity when an adversary isn't around.
It seems like he really thinks that people are being fooled into purchasing counterfeit products, but that's just not the case. Since the purchasers know that they're fake, they're competitors, and A'Daddrio would do better to treat them that way.
Jim, if those products said Joe's Strings instead of A'Daddrio, would you want court action again them? Or you would just consider them a competitor and work harder to keep your place in the market? And would the idea of working harder (or differently) be so offensive then?
If you and I give money to Mike Masnick to run for office... would we be hoping to influence him into doing what we want...
Yes, or why would we support him?
...or would we be recognizing that his opinions already align with ours, and by giving him campaign cash we help him succeed in his bid for election?
Either way, the amount of money we could give him is limited by both law and reality. This is not the case with companies. If Microsoft the company were limited in the same way that the CEO of Microsoft were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
What about private contributions? What about private contributions from CEOs of the extremely rich corporations that you just banned from donating cash directly? There's no real line you can draw that does what you want, except to ban donations from anybody and everybody.
Again, the amount of money that Microsoft's CEO could give him is limited by law. If Microsoft the company were limited in the same way that the CEO of Microsoft were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
But then, only rich people (such as the aforementioned CEOs) can run for office in the first place.
Again, if we had fair election rules in place, then anyone, even Mike Masnick, could run for office, resulting in better governance.
The amounts listed here aren't even large. They are actually quite tiny.
Companies, plural, not Comcast, specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Anyway, our reps take large amount of money from different companies, in return for... Nothing? Really? I don't think anyone believes that. Shareholders certainly don't.
Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't ever take money from any company, in any amount, ever?
Yes. It either buys influence (whether the rep thinks so or not), or gives the appearance of influence. The former is worse, but the latter is pretty crappy, also.
Then they shouldn't run for office or take jobs requiring extreme amounts of publicity. I mean, that seems like a pretty easy answer to me. Like this:
Q. Don't want to be famous?
A. Then don't take a job that will make you famous. Or get caught having sex with a goat.
Heck, even if I published my secret sex fantasies, no one would care, because I'm not in the spotlight for any reason. In fact, I'd probably be TMI'd, depending on where I published the information.
The fact is that ANYTHING can be taken as 'evidence of corruption' today or 'appearance of corruption'.
Yes, just as any interaction between co-stars can make them appear to be sleeping together. However, believable media outlets aren't going to start saying that they might be sleeping together until they start kissing in public.
That alone does not harm representative government in the slightest...
In your opinion. Many of us disagree.
We need to stop focusing on the APPEARANCE of corruption, and more on ACTUAL PROVEN CORRUPTION!
Focusing on the former will help alleviate the latter, so I don't see why you're so upset about it.
I had no problem understand the title or the post. I don't understand how someone could read both, and be confused. It seems like the people whom are confused didn't fully read the post, or... Well, just aren't very smart.
No, it was titled "What Corruption Looks Like", which suggests pretty clearly that what you are seeing is corruption.
That's funny, because I was just in a store that featured candles that 'looked like' baked goods, which suggests pretty clearly that they're baked goods... if you're an idiot.
Yes, it would be almost impossible to avoid even the tiniest appearance of corruption from idiots spouting easily refutable statistics, but it's oddly easy to avoid taking large amounts of money from companies and then voting in ways that favor them.
You mean to say that parents can't undo whatever it is you think the schools are doing to indoctrinate children.
I'd like to point out that parents generally have three to four hours with their kids, during which they're cooking, eating, bathing, doing homework and housework, and so on. Schools have eight hours with their kids. That's a pretty significant imbalance there.
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re:
So you think that these people lose their intellectual integrity when an adversary isn't around?
The whole question of Manning and torture is another red herring that would have been stopped pretty quickly. He isn't an expert in the field, there is no way for him to know exactly what is and what is not torture as per the Geneva convention, US law, and the law of the countries involved.
Does it take an attorney to know that solitary confinement alone is torture?
Manning didn't obey the law, as the law doesn't require any individual to bypass the entire legal and military law system to investigate (stop fighting the war, quick, investigate now or you are breaking the law!).
Are you an expert in the field? How do you know exactly what is and is not his duty? Didn't you just state that you needed to be an attorney or an expert in the field to have an opinion on these sorts of matters?
His duty is to report his findings to his superiors, and that is where it ends.
I guess since you're not an attorney, you didn't know that it's perfectly legal for military personnel to leak information and documents to members of Congress.
Ethically, of course, documents and information should be sent to where they'd do the most good, in the eyes of the whistle-blower.
Manning, if he did leak those documents, is the definition of a whistle-blower. (And who better to know the definition of a whistle-blower than Daniel freaking Ellsberg?)
Again, not having any critical people on the panel means that sputum like this can be put in public unchallenged, which is pretty much how these rumors and opinions get turned into "quasi-facts".
Again, it's unlikely that these people lose their intellectual integrity when an adversary isn't around.
On the post: Jim D'Addario Defends His Support Of COICA & Domain Seizures
Jim, if those products said Joe's Strings instead of A'Daddrio, would you want court action again them? Or you would just consider them a competitor and work harder to keep your place in the market? And would the idea of working harder (or differently) be so offensive then?
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Daniel Ellsberg And Others Discuss The Serious Implications Of Wikileaks
So...
On the post: Universal Music Donates Master Recordings To Library Of Congress... But Keeps The Copyright
Wow.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Yes, or why would we support him?
...or would we be recognizing that his opinions already align with ours, and by giving him campaign cash we help him succeed in his bid for election?
Either way, the amount of money we could give him is limited by both law and reality. This is not the case with companies. If Microsoft the company were limited in the same way that the CEO of Microsoft were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
What about private contributions? What about private contributions from CEOs of the extremely rich corporations that you just banned from donating cash directly? There's no real line you can draw that does what you want, except to ban donations from anybody and everybody.
Again, the amount of money that Microsoft's CEO could give him is limited by law. If Microsoft the company were limited in the same way that the CEO of Microsoft were, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
But then, only rich people (such as the aforementioned CEOs) can run for office in the first place.
Again, if we had fair election rules in place, then anyone, even Mike Masnick, could run for office, resulting in better governance.
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder Ball
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder Ball
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Companies, plural, not Comcast, specifically. Sorry, I should have been clearer. Anyway, our reps take large amount of money from different companies, in return for... Nothing? Really? I don't think anyone believes that. Shareholders certainly don't.
Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't ever take money from any company, in any amount, ever?
Yes. It either buys influence (whether the rep thinks so or not), or gives the appearance of influence. The former is worse, but the latter is pretty crappy, also.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Q. Don't want to be famous?
A. Then don't take a job that will make you famous. Or get caught having sex with a goat.
Heck, even if I published my secret sex fantasies, no one would care, because I'm not in the spotlight for any reason. In fact, I'd probably be TMI'd, depending on where I published the information.
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: Wonder Ball
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re:
Yes, just as any interaction between co-stars can make them appear to be sleeping together. However, believable media outlets aren't going to start saying that they might be sleeping together until they start kissing in public.
That alone does not harm representative government in the slightest...
In your opinion. Many of us disagree.
We need to stop focusing on the APPEARANCE of corruption, and more on ACTUAL PROVEN CORRUPTION!
Focusing on the former will help alleviate the latter, so I don't see why you're so upset about it.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Wow. Really?
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re:
That's actually the standard way to quote someone, which makes you... A jackwagon?
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re:
That's funny, because I was just in a store that featured candles that 'looked like' baked goods, which suggests pretty clearly that they're baked goods... if you're an idiot.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Funny, that.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
Really? You wouldn't want to know if a Presidential had secret sex fantasies about children? That doesn't seem newsworthy to you?
It sure as hell seems newsworthy to me. :P
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Wonder Ball
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Not The Only Example
I'd like to point out that parents generally have three to four hours with their kids, during which they're cooking, eating, bathing, doing homework and housework, and so on. Schools have eight hours with their kids. That's a pretty significant imbalance there.
Next >>