Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (363136)	12/17/2007 12:35:26 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586447

"A dodge. There's no denying many liberals are so opposed." No dodge. There is no push to get ROTC or the Corp out of A&M. If there was, I would say something. There isn't, so I haven't. I don't glean through the right wing blogs to see if someone has written a letter to the editor wanting to shut down ROTC at Bob's School of Hair Design. So, I am unaware of any current push to do that. "But if he were implementing American policy, why would he have any problem?" Nobody but you has claimed that was US policy. Paying a bounty, however is or at least was. "Do you agree they shouldn't be given POW status?" I never claimed they should be. "I posted information on that. " That you did. I am dubious about it, but ok. He talked about a quarter of the suspects. Now, assuming it is ok to keep them in detention indefinitely, something we have no legal precedent for doing, what about the other 75%? And, yeah, I have a lot of problems with holding someone with no charges or convictions for years on the off chance they may tell us something. "Who has been declared enemy combatants who doesn't meet that description?" Who knows? We do know they have secret prisons. And their occupants are, well, secret. We do know of a couple of cases where people were picked up in secret and transported somewhere else for interrogations for extended periods of time. "He was not alone in the intelligence world in thinking that." And there were many in intelligence who thought the idea was way off base. In the rush to war, those were ignored. "Iraq had tried to develop nukes before." Right. But there was little evidence he had continued. "Had some enriched uranium and stockpiles of yellowcake." And we knew where that was. He did not have weapons grade uranium. The enriched uranium he has was the initial stages, about 2-3%. Getting beyond that isn't easy. Especially since he wasn't going to be able to easily get the needed centrifuges. "he used chemical and bio weapons for example." Link for the bioweapons. Yes, he did use some chemical weapons. "There you go again, sneakily trying to depict them as rebels against the church. " Nothing sneaky about it. "If they were rebels against the "church" they wouldn't have taken such a friendly stance toward open calls for religious fidelity." Oh, I get it. You do realize there is a difference between the power structure represented by the churches of the time and religion? From the wikipedia The term can more narrowly refer to the intellectual movement of The Enlightenment, which advocated reason as the primary basis of authority. Developed in France, Britain and Germany, it influenced the whole of Europe including Russia and Scandinavia. The era is marked politically by governmental consolidation, nation creation, greater rights for the common people, and a decline in the influence of authoritarian institutions such as the nobility and Church. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were also influenced by Enlightenment-era ideas, particularly in the religious sphere (deism) and, in parallel with liberalism (which had a major influence on its Bill of Rights, in parallel with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen), socialism and anarchism in the political sphere. John Calvin, for example, challenged the authority of the churches. He felt that every individual was responsible for his or her own salvation. They should study the Bible and reach their own accommodation with God. So, he was against the churches, but not against religion. It was a similar approach that drove the FF's to oppose religion in the public sphere. Most of them had already experienced government sanctioned religion. And knew what happens when government and religion join up. If for no other reason, the church is used to validate those in power and it suppresses change. Because if the leadership is chosen by God, then wanting to change things puts you in opposition to God. "Wanting to ban public displays of religion by any government official." Ah. That explains a lot. well, I suppose you must love Europe. It is pretty common for you to register with a church and then the government takes a percentage of you paycheck and gives it to them. "Christians also consider God the creator." But, they only rarely refer to him as the "Creator". Nor do they talk about "natural rights". While it might seem the rights thing is the same as ones given by God, if you read TJ et al, you realize they are talking about something else.