Was McCain's remark about his captors racially insensitive?

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]

Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.
"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL

[ASH JAN-31-08]
What is your point Joe? Its fair enough if you ask me, as long as he doesn't go starting a fight.

[JORDAN JAN-31-08]

"If Sen. McCain had been captured by Nigerians, could he call those people `niggers' and think he wasn't going to offend everyone who is black?" Akoi asked. "We can all feel for what he went through, but if that's his level of sensitivity, I'm very disappointed."

[ASH JAN-31-08]
Lets stick Akoi in a fucking prison and see how he reacts afterwards.

[JORDAN JAN-31-08]
So being tortured gives you Cart Blanche to be racist?

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]
So you are saying since he is so fucked up mentally from it that he gets a pass on his hatred towards those people? What happens when he starts negotiations with a country over there. "Hi Gooks, lets make a deal."

genius.

[ASH JAN-31-08]
Hey, like I said, as long as it doesn't affect his work, (which unfortunately his quote implies it would,) then yeah I think you can let it slide that once. He should realize from the reaction that it isn't something he should do in future, so no you don't get an indefinite free pass. More like an extra life

[M. BROWN JAN-31-08]
I don't think Joe actually read the article he linked.

As a senator, he was one of the leaders of the postwar effort to normalize U.S. relations with Vietnam.

So the arguement of "Hi Gooks, lets make a deal" is already null and void.

And when the Fuck did it become forbidden to hate with just cause? Or for that matter to hate period. The fact that he spent 5 years as a P.O.W. gives him the right to hate the people that tortured him.

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]
Unfortunately, gooks is not slang for "Guys who tortured me". It is slang for asians. This is not good PR for the USA. When our reputation for being ignorant is as bad as it is now, I do not think having a guy using the term gooks is going to help.

You have to realize that when we are trying to make a deal with a country that public opinion of the US really matters in that country. If the country hates McCain, public opinion will sway against us, and their gov't will react towards us in an unfavorable manner. This is especially important because the Chinese are going to be a major issue with us in the coming years.

[JORDAN JAN-31-08]
You're missing the point that he used a word that is offensive to many different cultures on different levels.
Like I said before: it wouldn't be cool if they were black and he called them niggers. He can hate them all he wants, but for someone who is running for president of the United States to be spouting racist remarks in public? What the fuck..

The word "gook" was first used in 1899 by American soldiers fighting Filipino insurgents. During the Korean War, the term was aimed at Koreans and Chinese. It was directed at the Vietnamese when Americans were fighting in Vietnam. It is now used as a slur toward any Asian or Pacific Islander.

[ASH JAN-31-08]
Problem is that article is 7 years old. He wasn't running for president then, (was he? If so, give up.)

I'm sure he wouldn't say anything like that in public now. And if he hadn't said it, the POW stuff would have still come up whenever talks happened with Korea. Public opinion there would be low of him anyway. He was an enemy prisoner.

[JORDAN JAN-31-08]
He was running against Mr. Bush then.

[M. BROWN JAN-31-08]
So if a racist comment made in his name is enough to remove him from the race then we are looking at only Romney and Huckabee for pres then?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

[JORDAN JAN-31-08]
Ron Paul never wrote those letters. Made in his name? McCain said it himself and was proud of saying it.

[M. BROWN JAN-31-08]
The issue is perception, Ron Pauls name is all over those newsletters and denying he wrote them doesn't change that. Newsletters that used a word "that is offensive to many different cultures on different levels."

As for McCain being proud of saying that, I'm sure he and his buddies stood around and gave high fives and did keg stands as he made that comment. But the fact that he freely admitted it and didn't deny it actually makes me respect him. How many politicians when confronted with something like that would lie and try to divert the topic.

All in all I'm actually amused that I am defending McCain, I'm not a terribly big supporter for any of the candidates.

But to me this isn't an issue of politics, but seem more a first amendment thing. People have the right to hate who and what they want.

[DUKE JAN-31-08]
If you want my opinion on it its like this. He said he was specifically talking about the guards in his prison. If he was calling shit eating rapists would that be better? You could say yes. But the guy has a serious level of hate towards those people and choses to use a word that is hateful to them. My opinion is you have to respect that.

Its kind of funny to me people complaining about minor infringements on our civil rights but when we have a guy running for President that brave enough to say no he's no going to apologize for what is his right to hate those men and express it how he wants they complain. I think he deserves even more respect.

Ash also brings up a good point that the article is over 7 years old. I don't remember many people caring about it then, could be because I'm not Asian but I doubt it. The only way something like this would affect foreign relations is people blowing it out of proportion and making a deal out of it.

Finally, nobody has brought this up in the year that he has been campaigning? This is just slander that people are looking for to make the strongest runner right now look bad. We'd be lucky to have a President that will be as straight with us as McCain looks to be. Especially after we've had to deal with what we have for the past 8 years.

[TOM JAN-31-08]
I actually have to agree with Duke on this one. McCain said about a very specific group that he has every right to hate, not any Asian nations as a whole. As long as he's not actually a racist, then who gives a shit about one comment?

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]
We weren't arguing whether or not it should be your civil liberty, and hooray for him as a person not to lie about it.

But we are talking about PR for the USA. The guy is so dense as to not realize possible repercussions of what a president says. You have to be aware of that. It is like when Romney and Huckabee were mocking Islam and their belief about the virgins when you die. These are the kind of things that turn slightly unstable situations into very unstable situations.

[TOM JAN-31-08]
I agree. But he said the comment 7 years ago about his torturers and was clearly upset at a specific group and who he felt no remorse towards. As the President, he definitely has obligations towards the country over his own feelings. From what I know, he isn't a racist and if it doesn't affect anything now, then why the hell should it matter? He hasn't made the comment several times (or even once recently) and doesn't have a penchant for racism (like Strom Thurmond) so I don't see how it's relevant.

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]
I do not think he is a racist. I guess what I am trying to say is, when someone doesn't understand how sensitive and politically correct the rest of the world is, then it can be a problem.

[TOM JAN-31-08]
I definitely don't endorse McCain, but that's because I definitely don't agree with some of his ideals in regards to the Presidency. I just don't think this should be a relative reason to automatically assume he's racially insensitive, and there are more important things to worry about than a slur he made on a judgment lapse due to emotional burden 7 years ago.

[KUBIAK JAN-31-08]
I might have missed this, but why did he have emotional burden 7 years ago?

[TOM JAN-31-08]
...there are more important things to worry about than a slur he made on a judgment lapse, due to emotional burden, 7 years ago.

Threw some commas in there for ya.

Read Full Discussion ==>

What do you think of the Flat Tax, Fair Tax, or Value Added Tax ideas?

[JORDAN JAN-29-08]
Mitt Romney getting his humiliated on the radio by a Ron Paul supporter host:


[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]
The book rental stuff is actually a problem. Libraries generally never have new books. You will wait a year for a book to make it to a library, then when it finally gets there, there is a queue of like 50 people for popular books.

[ASH JAN-29-08]
Use the internets for books.

And does anyone know about the tax plan they were talking about in that clip? Is is feasible and are the other candidates adopting it?

[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]
No other candidates are adopting it, but I do not know if it is feasible. It would require massive cutting in spending and departments.

[ASH JAN-29-08]
So why slam him when everyone else isn't interested either?

[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]
Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. Ron Paul wants to do something similar. Getting rid of the income tax and many other taxes: death tax, inheritance tax, corporate tax. I am not sure about 1% on everything though.

Huckabee also wants to get rid of the income tax but have a 23% sales tax.

I am not sure if that radio guy was saying, only 1% tax on everything or 1% in addition to the sales tax. I guess he was arguing that a lot of big players ( industries with lobbyists ) are exempt from tax so a lot of money is lost. So maybe that would make up for it when there are no exemptions.

[ASH JAN-29-08]
Sounds like you are guessing a bit but it would end up being that we would have more money left in our paycheck but everything would be more expensive due to greater sales tax. Companies would also be paying more tax on the stuff they are buying because they are no longer exempt. Chances are they would pass that on to the consumer so things are even more expensive. Apparently that balances out the tax situation so the government gets about the same as before. But if you are the kind of person that buys things, (i.e. you are alive,) you will probably be wallet raped. Maybe it works out about the same for most people, but then why bother changing things?

Still not sure why he flipped out on the radio.

[TOM JAN-29-08]
Is that a 23% federal tax + whatever your state tax is? Meaning pretty much a 30% tax on purchases instead of losing 30%+ all at once on income tax?

[JORDAN JAN-29-08]
No, just 23% flat everywhere.

[RUDDER JAN-29-08]
The only benefit I can see with the government switching to getting their income from sales tax as opposed to income tax is that they'll be able to tax those with jobs that aren't accurately keeping track of income (ie. people getting paid "under the table", or illegal immigrants not in the IRS system). In a perfect world, if all individuals are taxed more fairly the government would have to take less from each person, but I doubt that would be the case.

[M. BROWN JAN-29-08]
I think the reason he flipped out had nothing to do with the tax plan, and more to do with Romney's outright dismissal of the radio hosts theories. People get so wrapped up in their ideas that they lash out whenever someone doesn't take them as seriously as they feel they deserve.

[ASH JAN-29-08]
OK Rudder's point makes sense that this way everyone is taxed as long as they are consuming. I think it would be kinda hard to work out if I would be better off either way though since it is entirely dependent on what you buy. You can estimate most stuff, but not everything. And it depends how much the value of goods goes up if companies are paying more tax, although if "corporate tax" is gone then I guess most things stay about the same. But I'm not a financial expert by any means.

[JORDAN JAN-29-08]
It seems like the middle and below class get fucked by it since they pay the same taxes as millionaires

[TOM JAN-29-08]
I agree with Mark on that one. And I'm curious as to how that "flat tax" is going to work out since each state garners quite a bit of money from their sales tax and I doubt they are going to settle for getting less than they already do. Also, Rudder, a lot of CEOs and big business types earn a standard income but earn a shit ton of their money from investments and stocks which don't count towards nearly as much come federal tax time. I forget who it was, but a famous big business compared the amount he pays in gross taxes with his secretary and realized she was taxed at about 30% while he sat at about 10%.

It was Warren Buffett: Source: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

[DUKE JAN-29-08]
My questions are. With a flat tax where people don't pay income taxes does nobody see a possible outcome where charities will get a significant decrease in the amount of money donated to them because wealthy people won't be able to deduct donations anymore? Also, someone stated earlier that the flat tax thing made it seem like it was screwing the middle class more. I think I kind of agree. How much money do wealthy people really spend on possessions compared to their income. I'm sure they definitely put a ton of money into savings and putting their kids through expensive schools. Those things wouldn't be part of that tax though. Also they tend to be able to buy higher quality products that don't break as much as middle class people. I'd like to know some information on spending from the upper class. By the way I'm not sure which is which, fair tax or flat tax. Whichever is the one on sales tax is the one I meant the whole time.

[TOM JAN-29-08]
Oh and Duke, rich people are the reason there is an alcoholic beverage with 24K gold flakes in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldschl%C3%A4ger

[DUKE JAN-29-08]
You mean to tell me there would be a 23% tax on alcohol as well? I thought the tax wasn't for consumables?

[JORDAN JAN-29-08]
The 1% tax thingy that guy was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

[DUKE JAN-29-08]
I'm saying that it sounds like this type of tax could be possible but shouldn't everyone ask for all the information before hand? The people that get screwed more often than not with taxes are the lower classes. So if we are going to do some sort of reform instead of just jumping blindly at something new it would be nice to have information that its a change for the better.

[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]

With a flat tax where people don't pay income taxes does nobody see a possible outcome where charities will get a significant decrease in the amount of money donated to them because wealthy people won't be able to deduct donations anymore?

This is actually a good point. I am not sure, but if Warren Buffett is even close to accurate of saying the richest only get taxed 10%, if the deductions from donating were that significant. Maybe I do not understand how donating and deductions work, but I'll try and break it down the way it makes sense to me:

( Based on tax of 30% )
So I make 1,000,000 a year. I get taxed 300,000.

So I donate 100,000. So now really I can deduct that and say I only made 900,000. This makes my tax 270,000.

So basically I was able to donate 100,000. But it only cost me 70,000 because I saved 30,000 from taxes. So with donating, I have 630,000 instead of the 700,000 I would have if I did not donate.

( Based on 0% tax )
So I make 1,000,000 a year w/o donating I end up with 1,000,000.

If I donate 100,000 I have 900,000 left.

Is there other tricks about deductions that I do not understand, or would they still be able to donate and have more money?

Also, someone stated earlier that the flat tax thing made it seem like it was screwing the middle class more. I think I kind of agree. How much money do wealthy people really spend on possessions compared to their income.

Yeah, I have no idea on this one, but if Warren Buffett is accurate in saying how exempt that he is and all the other exemptions big business get, then there is a lot of lost income right that the income tax does not provide.

Also, Fair Tax and Flat Tax have a key difference. I cannot remember what it was, but you should wikipedia both of them.

[RUDDER JAN-29-08]
Isn't the point Warren Buffet was making more due to the fact that he has alternate sources of income (stock options, for example) which aren't taxed the same as a salary would be?

So if you excluded his alternate income, his tax percentage would be closer to that of his employees but not identical, due to how tax brackets work.

[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]
I think the point is still valid though that deductions from charity are not so huge that it would negatively affect if the deductions did not exist because you would have more money anyways.

[DUKE JAN-29-08]
That's just one of the questions asked so far. I'm looking for more info on how charitable donations affect taxes. It seems to me like there is more incentive than that but I don't know.

[KUBIAK JAN-29-08]
I'd really like to know more too. There has to be some more incentive. I want to find out other ways that exemptions help out and maybe we can put together our own research to see if the Fair Tax Plan and the Plan of Cut Income Tax / Cut Spending are actually feasible and would or would not hurt small guy ( duke ).

Read Full Discussion ==>

What do you think of Ron Paul's stance on drug legalization?

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
I cannot believe a show like this ever existed. I don't know if you guys can even tolerate to watch this:

Clip from Morton Downey Jr. Show.


[DUKE JAN-28-08]
That show is retarded. You can barely understand anything that's being said. I love Ron Paul. That if it isn't going well give up mentality is what we need in a leader.

Also, the pro-drug thing not helping his case with me.

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
What did he say that made you think that is his mentality?

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
Some shit like the war on drugs isn't going well because they were failed from the beginning. Billions of tax payer's money wasted only to increase drug dealer's profits (legal and illegal). Millions of Americans incarcerated in over-populated prisons for a victimless crime: growing a plant. Ron Paul's stance on the government not having any authority about what you do with your life, how you live it or what you do with your own body is the embodiment of freedom.

2x cents

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
I completely agree. Everyone should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want because what you do with your body is completely up to you and that's your freedom. I can't wait til the government wakes up and we start going that direction. Meanwhile I'm going to follow one of my dreams and become a pilot for a major airline because I want to exercise my freedom to get completely wasted a fly a jumbo jet full of people. Luckily I'm pretty good at drinking and driving so I'm sure flying a plane won't be hard.

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
Haha, what the hell? Drinking is legal. I just hope you forgot your sarcasm tags. I can't tell anymore.

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
Right by why should it be? "Ron Paul's stance on the government not having any authority about what you do with your life, how you live it or what you do with your own body is the embodiment of freedom". How is saying we can't drink and drive any different? That is the government interfering with my life and what I do with my body. I deserve the right to do it in a car or on a plane or while at work.

[TOM JAN-28-08]
Duke, the only reason most illegal drugs became illegal is because of economic circumstances, not their danger to the public.

The reason Marijuana is illegal: hemp production threatened traditional paper companies. The plant Marijuana comes from (not the industrial hemp plant) is the best suited plant for the production of a cheap paper because the plant grows quickly and it is easier to harvest then trees. Paper magnates at the time (it used to be a lucrative business in the 30's) opposed this because it would pretty much destroy their livelihoods.

Opium products (heroin, cocaine) were outlawed in the 1880's because we hated China and they're expanding wealth, and Opium poppy seeds were our main import from them at the time.

I'm not a fan of drugs, but if we're going to ban them because they're harmful, then why not ban alcohol and tobacco? Oh wait the US tried, but people kept buying it anyway just with no taxes. If they legalized the drug trade and just taxed and handled them as they do tobacco and alcohol, I don't see the problem with it. No one is saying driving/flying/working under the influence of any sort should be legal.

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
I am well aware of all that. I also know that nobody is saying that drinking and driving is what you guys are saying should be allowed. I'm saying the argument that Jordan used is ridiculous because it leaves the opening for that. You can't say it one way but then say wait but no for that, that's different. On drugs. So what if the reasons for why they are banned isn't so great? Drugs should be illegal and I say that without any doubt. I understand the argument on why not ban tobacco and alcohol and although my lifestyle doesn't show it I think they wouldn't be such bad choices. I'd probably flip out and end up in an mental institution but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't say they were wrong to do it.
But I will say this

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

- Benjamin Franklin.

Look it up, that's a real quote.

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
Ron Paul says you draw the line when you start infringing on someone else's rights. In this case, crashing said plane.

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
You can say the same thing about Marijuana.
It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Drugs should be illegal based on bogus reasons?

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
All I wanted to say was that Ron Paul lost a lot of what little I liked him because of that. My body can't take the rage I'm experiencing because of the garbage I'm reading right now. I don't care if drugs are illegal for bogus reasons. They should be illegal. People that say that drugs are should be someone's right because its their body obviously have no idea the affect they can have on the people around them.

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
I choose not to do cocaine. Not because it is illegal, but because it would damage my body and I do not want to be addicted to anything. The idea that when legalization happens everyone runs out to buy heroin, is odd to me.

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
Not some fictional possibility of what could happen. Fact. Kids lose parents, family members, and friends because of drugs. People get high on coke and stab people over something so small as a pack of cigarettes. You want to tell me that if drugs were legal that wouldn't happen? It doesn't matter if only 10 more people would do them it has the same goddamn result.

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
You just made my point. Coke is illegal and they do it anyways. I am saying if it were legal, they would still have made the same choice.

[DUKE JAN-28-08]
So screw trying to stop it its inevitable? Yep let's stop trying to fight it and just give in cause its not easy to stop it.

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
I am not sure why we would want to stop it in the first place if it causes no change, except to put drug dealers out of business. We would have a lot more money too.

[ASH JAN-28-08]
I think the problem is if it were legal it suddenly becomes MUCH easier to get drugs so people really are much more likely to do them. That makes events like the ones Due is talking about potentially more common by sheer volume of users. I don't want to do coke or anything, hell I don't even smoke, but thats not to say I wouldn't be interested in trying on one day in the future. As someone that doesn't do drugs, or really know much about them at all, I have no idea what to do right now if I decided I wanted to try coke. Who the hell do I ask about that? But if they were on the shelves in Walgreens, (or even if they refuse and its only in specialist stores,) then there is much more chance of running into them and thinking, "Why not?"

[KUBIAK JAN-28-08]
I would like to see some statistics on the 1800s and drug use.

[ASH JAN-28-08]
We're talking about modern life with iPods and kids that talk back. Assholes that they are.
Fine, make marijuana paper legal, but I'm not convinced about drug use. I see the points for the pro-legalization side and its a tough call but I don't think its worth it. No I'm not going to give up my beer, but yes it probably should be banned too, along with tobacco.

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
We're talking about modern life with iPods and kids that talk back. Assholes that they are.
Fine, make marijuana paper legal, but I'm not convinced about drug use. I see the points for the pro-legalization side and its a tough call but I don't think its worth it. No I'm not going to give up my beer, but yes it probably should be banned too, along with tobacco.

[ASH JAN-28-08]
I'm not sure the thinking is people want it legalized and sold in stores, but only decriminalized. It's sort of like that now in California with medical marijuana except the federal government does not recognize it for medicinal use. You can get it legally from a doctor's prescription but the FBI will arrest you for it.

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
I guess what I'm thinking of is prescription drugs that are illegal without a prescription like oxycontin, but not criminalized.
So I guess it's still commercialized but not available over the counter.

[ASH JAN-28-08]
Questions I would want answers to: Is there a medicinal use for heroin and cocaine etc? If not, what category are drugs like that going to be in? How much abuse do prescription drugs get compared to illegal drugs? How much medicine makes it onto the streets already?

[TOM JAN-28-08]
I think the harder substances Duke was talking about were left out of public domain. I agree opiates users are too dangerous to surrounding people. My main point was that I don't see any reason for pot to be illegal though because it's no worse than tobacco or alcohol.

Also, Jordan's prescription idea isn't a bad one. Opiates are extremely effective painkillers, the UK even allows heroin use under extremely strict and controlled prescriptions, similar to morphine.

[JORDAN JAN-28-08]
Not that I'm condoning the use of cocaine, but these were interesting:

Cocaine is still used medicinally as a local anesthetic and vasoconstrictor in Europe. In the United States cocaine was once used to treat sinusitis, hay fever, depression, chronic fatigue and for appetite suppression. It has not been used as medicine in the U.S. since 1914.

Heroin was commercially developed by Bayer Pharmaceutical and was marketed by Bayer and other companies (c. 1900) for several medicinal uses including cough suppression.

[ASH JAN-28-08]
Seems to me like medicinal use is a different question. If it is tightly controlled and only used in hospitals, (which is what it sounds like, apart from pot,) then it is no worse than any other medicine. But legalization and commercialization are totally different in my eyes.

[TOM JAN-28-08]
It's hard believing old school medical journals and prescriptions. Back then they also used leeches to clean wounds and tapeworms as a type of liposuction. Fish oil also used to be a wonder-drug cure-all at one point.

The main point I don't like right now is that addicts are being treated more like criminals then people with an illness. I think something has to be done to make society think of drug use as an illness more so than a rebellious act. The ones that are profiting right now from current drug laws are dealers and no one else. Even Ash just admitted passing interest if they were legal just because of the image that has been given to it.

[CURT JAN-28-08]
i don't know if anyone noticed or not but u can go to the store right now and buy a fuck ton of spray paint and get fucked up on that? so y don't we make aerosol cans illegal? or magic markers? i don't know if anyone has seen anything about the 60's but people took ALOT of shit back then, and now they are the ones running everything it seemed to work out OK for them, so y not us?

[ASH JAN-28-08]
I don't know about the states but you are often required to be 18 to buy spray paint here. And spray paint has a much more mainstream utilitarian function.

[CURT JAN-28-08]
but people have it in there homes and kids could get into it so y take the risk?? same with cigarettes and alcohol they are all the same thing. there is no reason y some are illegal and some aren't.

Read Full Discussion ==>

Do Any of the Current Candidates Have a Good Solution For Immigration?

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
Have any of you guys been paying attention to what the candidates propose to do about immigration? Who's illegal immigration idea do you think makes the most sense?

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
I guess I'm with Obama. I'm not fully sure how I feel about illegals. First thing that comes to mind is deport 'em all. Get in line like the rest of the people who like to follow the law.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
I guess I'll have to look at what Obama said. I really haven't paid much attention to the Dems so far cause I really don't want one in office. He says to just deport them all? Cause a lot of people are saying that type of thing. Romney definitely is. And I think Huckabee is too. I'm just kind of curious to know how anyone thinks that is feasible?

[CURT JAN-10-08]
once again i like Ron Paul's stance. he said that building a fence is a stupid idea because it wont stop anyone. also he said that its pointless to look for people that are here illegally when the police could spend there time on better things. he did say that they SHOULD NOT be allowed to get jobs or welfare or anything that requires a person to be a citizen. and that if they are caught they should be deported but the best way to combat this is to be friends with Mexico and help them build there economy so people wouldn't have to come to the USA for jobs.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
Okay. But that doesn't address the problem of one of the major reasons we need to get a hold of our illegal immigration problem is not just because of people coming here and taking jobs and sucking on the government's money. The more dire problem is the threat to national securtity of having it so easy for illegals to get here. Which means that a terrorists (possibly someone who could care less about Mexico's economy) can easily get in our country unnoticed. Two more things. If you leave the ones that are here illegally but don't allow them to have jobs how is that any different than the way things are now? I imagine that you would have to form some sort of punishment to employers and citizens who hire illegals. What would the impact of that be if were big enough to deter those people from doing that? How many small businesses or farms and such rely on that cheap labor. Secondly if the people were deterred from doing that wouldn't the result be a ton of out of work and homeless illegals in our country? A good portion of these people would want to be here even feel obligated to because of family situations in just one case. Illegals that have children in schools or in the military would want to stay. Without them able to get jobs or welfare what would they do to survive and how would that impact us?

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
Obama on immigration

Obama doesn't say to deport them, I did.

The Ron Paul idea sounds kinda shitty to me. We can't even insure our own economy will be fine. The dollar keeps getting lower and lower and there's no stop to it. Helping out another country with their econimic problems certainly won't help us.

We keep writing checks that we know will bounce, taking on more loans from China..

Now Hilary is talking about national healthcare.. which we can't even fucking afford so we'll all go further into debt.

When all the baby boomers collect their Social Security checks, it'l all be gone, and all of us are fucked for retirement unless we start our own funds now to be able to survive when we retire. Of course senior citizens don't give a fuck, they got their money and they'll vote for another neo-con that'l keep on waging wars "protecting our freedoms" while destroying ourselves from the inside.

/rant

[ASH JAN-10-08]
You are better off keeping them illegal and not doing much about it. If some get caught commiting crimes, deport them to a Mexican jail. The "good" ones that work for peanuts help you guys out and can't claim benefits so they don't bleed you dry. As for taking your jobs, well if you can't get a job as a fucking fruit picker and that is as high as you aspirations take you then you have bigger problems.

We have a bigger problem of the influx of people we let in legally.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
I agree with you on what you say about Ron Paul. Our economy is shit right now so how are we going to build another economy. Also, I don't know much about Ron Paul still, but am I wrong when I say that the bulk of Paul's platform is that our foreign policy sucks and that we shouldn't be going over to other countries imposing how we think they should run things? But then he says that's pretty much what we should do with Mexico to fix illegals? I honestly may be interpretting something wrong here so if I am please explain. But that sounds pretty contradictory to me.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
first we wouldn't just give Mexico money we would make deals with them like making migratory working legal again. so Mexicans can come here to work then go back to Mexico when the season is over also he wants to make it so our money is backed by gold and silver so that would stop all the crazy inflation. he wants to make it so its just like Canada where people can come and go as they please. also the whole thing about a terrorist coming here to kill us all is just stupid. there is no way ever that you can lock down the borders so well that no one like that will be able to get in. also most of the people that were part of 9/11 had no criminal record so they would have been stopped anyways.

[KUBIAK JAN-10-08]
Weren't most of the 9/11 guys legally here too?

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16048

In the aftermath of 9/11, we learned that five of the 19 hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. In other words, they were illegal aliens. Amazingly, in the months before the attack, four of those five terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding. All four could have been arrested—if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens...

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
I don't believe anyone assumed that they would build an impenetrable way for nobody to come illegally. That's just stupid to assume or even believe possible. The point is to make it so that its as close to impossible as we can. On the no criminal records for the 9/11 guys, our presence and intelligence in areas where terrorism is prominent can allow us to flag potential terrorists and if they try and enter the country we can potentially stop them with improved border security.

I don't understand exactly how we can just swap to our money being backed by gold and silver. If inflattion is based off the debts we owe other countries and more than just gold and silver how can we just go back to less without saying fuck the guys we owe money to? I'm not attacking I'm just trying to get a full understanding of how it would work cause from what I understand so far it doesn't sound feasible.

Ash if funny with fruit picker thing. I like that. But fruit picking isn't the only thing. Construction can be a very high paying job and illegals that aren't trained or certified can steal those jobs from people who have invested to get the training and certs needed to do that. And they end up not getting a decent paying job that they are trained for but working in a gas station. Things are even worse in areas really different from California and Florida.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
We need to stop spending so much money on shit like "wars" in places we should never have gone.

[KUBIAK JAN-10-08]

"In the aftermath of 9/11, we learned that five of the 19 hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. In other words, they were illegal aliens. Amazingly, in the months before the attack, four of those five terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding. All four could have been arrested—if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens... "

Yeah I know that they became illegal because they overstayed visas. A fence would not stop this. Unless it had a giant tesla coil that people with overstayed visas.

We need to stop spending so much money on shit like "wars" in places we should never have gone.

I agree.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
I personally like a combination of McCain and Guiliani's ideas of how we should handle immigration. We should work primarily to get rid of the 2 million illegals who are criminals. Because it is impossible to get rid of the other 10 million(?) without sending the national guard to every home in the country to inspect for illegals. That's the only way I see of being able to feasibly get rid of all of them but I don't think many people would go for it. So they say to set up a program where they stay here but have to pay taxes on being here, they have to learn english and they have requirements the have to meet which eventually can gain them citizenship. I would say go a step further and if they serve in the military for 8 years they are granted citizenship. Charging 10 million people extra taxes because they are here illegally sounds good to me. The border states need to invest more in controlling their borders. More patrols, better surveillence. A fence won't stop illegals. Securing the borders is an incredibly hard task and is going to take tons of money. But I think if you listen to what those two say a combination of what they think is the best idea going around so far of a place to start.

[M. BROWN JAN-10-08]
While not as eloquent as Jordan, I think the problem with taxing illegals is rather obvious. If they are here illegally there is no record of their residence, location, etc. How do you propose forcing them to pay the tax. If they refuse to you end up having to deport them, which we haven't been able to do anyway. How is making a law that says they have to pay money going to actually make them pay money. We already have laws saying they shouldn't be here.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
Mark has a very good point. It's as simple as: Ironically, criminals don't obey the law.

[ASH JAN-10-08]
Mark said what I was going to say.

However, it is a way of protecting businesses that hire illegals by basically making it legal for them to work. That gives incentive for the business to do things properly and make sure the taxes are paid.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
anyways we already deport people all the time. they just wait a day or two and then come back. because Mexico sucks that much. but if we worked to improve our relationship with them and and deals that would allow them to come work for a decent wage that would be the most beneficial. also we should give back New Mexico. what has it really giving us?

[ASH JAN-10-08]
Land? A nice round number of states?

[M. BROWN JAN-10-08]
The Petrified Forest, Route 66.

[KUBIAK JAN-10-08]
Mexicans do pay taxes because they get fake social security cards and end up paying income taxes etc.

"Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act."

"Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties."

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
I believe the way it would be possible for illegals to be taxed would work because there would be systems and programs in place that are not there now that would make it so that they would be allowed to eventually become citizens. Illegals would be able to get their own identification cards and have rights almost like a regular citizen and eventually be able to potentially become citizens. Its an idea that would be attractive to them I think. Being able to have licenses, maybe enstate a minimum wage for illegals that would be different. I think we could take that idea and make it work unlike the systems that are currently in place.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
Then what is the incentive to actually come into the country Legally, if they can just hop over and eventually become a citizen?

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
The other part of the plan is to as effectively as possible secure our borders so that as few as possible illegals can come to our country. The purpose to be here legally would be to be able to get better jobs and to have the full rights of a citizen. Such as social security (if it ever gets fixed) and lower taxes.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
once again the only solution to this problem is to make it so they don't want to leave Mexico in the first place.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
If we just make it so that they don't want to leave Mexico what do we do about the ones that are here?

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
We shouldn't have to fix other countries' problems.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
once again we don't have to fix there entire country just the part that effects us. aka allowing people to come here to work and then go back to Mexico. y not allow anyone to work in the USA but they must be paid at least minimum wage. and if they are not they are allowed to sue the US employer. also they are not allowed to collect SS benefits but they must pay into the system, and they must pay income taxes as well. unless Ron Paul gets elected then we wont have one :)

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
That sounds awesome. Cause I imagine it only take about five minutes to fix Mexico's economy. So no worries there. But just in case we want to think about more than the happy side of things someone want to help me imagine what would happen if it took longer than that? I'll start a list of things that would happen if that was the way we went about it and anyone can add on.

A huge influx of Mexicans now able to come and go from America and legally have jobs. Americans could easily go to Mexico to do work at lower minimum wages and lower quality work environments and job quality. Basically allowing a never ending stream of people to come in and take even more of our jobs legally with us only having lower quality conditions to work and live in.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
but y hire illegals when u can just hire US citizens? there is now no benefit y doesn't every American work in Canada now that there money is worth more than ours?? they get paid more??? also they aren't allowed to live here only work. so they would live on the border and commute to work every day.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
You could hire mexicans to do the work 2x as hard for a lot more hours, with no benefits/raises/pto.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
also all labor laws apply.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
Doesn't mean you have to give them more money than minimum wage, or vacation, or even sick leave.

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
Right.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
y would they get more money than minimum wage, isn't that y its called minimum?

[DUKE JAN-10-08]
He said they wouldn't be required to get more than minimum wage. Whereas a citizen who lived here would want more than minimum wage eventually. But instead of increasing wages for employees that have worked there they have a country of people willing to work for the minimum wage.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
Yes, that's why I said they wouldn't get more.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
so there is no reason for a US citizen to get a raise either, but they do.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
We get raises so that good workers will stay with the company. Why would a good worker still work at a place that pays less than somewhere else for the same quality of work? Because they're an illegal mexican.

[CURT JAN-10-08]
i don't see a problem with that. that just means there service will be cheaper to the customer in the end. also i would think that if they are now making money, a lot for a person in Mexico they would build/buy houses on the border and property values would go up and so would the quality of living.

[JORDAN JAN-10-08]
8 year olds that make Nike shoes in Malaysia also make it cheaper for the customer in the end :P

Read Full Discussion ==>

Should we Sacrifice Civil Liberties to Fight Terrorism?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]

The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".

Political Consequences of the Fire

The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Which part of it do you want commentary on? The conspiracy thing about the fire or Hitler's decree suspending civil liberties to ban anti-Nazi publications?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
civil liberties

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Are you trying to associate Nazi's banning and burning books with our government observing some people closely?

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
Not just observing closely but what about illegal searches and seizures, loss of habeas corpus, the ability to be labeled an 'enemy combatant', having all of your assets seized for being an opposition to the war efforts?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
Yes. The comparison was highlighting how we sacrifice civil liberties in the name of protecting us against terrorism.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
I looked for something on a protester having their assets frozen just for protesting and couldn't find any cases of that happening. I'd love to hear some constructive alternatives to how to stop prevent and catch terrorists. I guess we could just get rid of these rules that are only used as responsibly as possible and just wait til a couple of guys start blowing up schools. I guess that's the best way to fight terrorism is just let it happen, whoever dies dies, and we might get the chance to catch the bad guys afterward. Guess you could just apply that to everything. I'm going to go jump in my hover car so I can fly somewhere to transform into the hulk to just run around crushing things so I can work up a good sweat for nailing Courtney Cox and Jenny McCarthy at the same time on a bed made of thousand dollar bills. I mean I guess if we don't realize we have to do some proactive things to stop evil people for killing innocent adults and children we must be convinced that we live in some imaginary super happy world.

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
How to stop terrorists: Stop fucking with their countries.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Right. And what do we do about the ones that are already out there?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
Judges are supposed to grant warrants to "Watch people closely". Thats how we fought terrorism since 1776.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Weren't you the one that said that the guys that did 9/11 had pretty much completely clean records? That being the case how would you suspect them?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
The conclusion of the 9/11 commission was that the CIA and the FBI had the necessary information to know about 9/11. So I find the expansion of their powers, and shrinkage of our freedom does not seem like the correct course of action. Providing even more information to the government, when it failed to do anything with the information it had does not make sense.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Obviously something was missing if 9/11 still happened.

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
What was missing?

I didn't actually think it was up for debate that we didn't have enough information to stop 9/11. So you think illegal wiretaps would have prevented 9/11?

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
It seems to me that if they would be flagged as terrorist, how the fuck are they buying plane tickets in the first place?
Wouldn't they automatically be on the no-fly list?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
No fly list didn't exist until 9/11. Or are you not talking about 911?

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
I guess the question is did we know they were terrorists prior to 9u1ian1?

[CURT JAN-21-08]
i think if we just ignore them they will go away on their own.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
If we had all the info there must be a reason why we didn't stop it that I am unclear on. I think I might also be unclear on all the surveillance stuff. From what I read they still have to get a warrant to do it. Its a different type of warrant though. I could be wrong. I don't know what would have prevented 9/11.

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
The reason is the government is controlling the CIA and FBI and are therefore inefficient.

[CURT JAN-21-08]
there is nothing anyone can do to stop all terrorism, its the same reason you cant stop some crazy ass guy off the streets from walking into a mall and shooting a bunch of people. that is always a risk of a free society short of monitoring every persons moves and running it through a giant supercomputer somewhere to tell if your going to harm someone its just something that will happen from time to time and there isn't shit anyone can do about it.

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
I agree with Curt. I'd rather have my freedoms than some hysteria about magical terrorists.

"You can't win a war on terrorism. It's like having a war on jealousy." -David Cross

[CURT JAN-21-08]
we just need to wait until we can mass produce antimatter and then we will have an unlimited supply of energy.

*note - It is estimated that an ideal antimatter factory could operate at a cost of $25 billion per gram. A quantity as small as a kilogram of antimatter would release 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy. Given that roughly half the energy will escape as non interacting neutrinos, that gives 90 petajoules of combined blast and EM radiation, or the rough equivalent of a 20 megaton thermonuclear bomb.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
I'm not sure any of us have any knowledge how to improve the CIA given we know nothing of their operations.

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
Duke, so since we do not know the methods of the CIA we should assume they needed more info and give up some privacy?

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Yeah well we differ on that. I'd like to have kids some day and be able to live in a city and be confident that we have as much a handle on protecting ourselves as we can and because of that they are safe. Terrorists aren't magical. And I don't see you not being able to do anything that you were able to do before. So you'd rather die for something that has had no impact on your life at all?

[JORDAN JAN-21-08]
Millions of people died for those freedoms and you're willing to give them up because you're scared?

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
bam.

[CURT JAN-21-08]
BURN!!!!!!!

[KUBIAK JAN-21-08]
Oh, and I just decided that was the final rebuttal and no one else can respond. Also Jordan gets double prize money.

[DUKE JAN-21-08]
Millions of people died for those freedoms is correct. I want to do what it takes to keep us able to have those freedoms. Meaning stopping terrorists from destroying the country that those people died for.

[TOM JAN-22-08]
I'm all for stopping terrorist attacks. The problem is the blanket solution the government attempts that do nothing but encroach on civil liberties such as partnering up with mass telecommunication companies for grandiose wiretapping of its customers and subpoenaing everything Google knows about me when I put "bomb" in the search field. Federal government should not be able to get private data without just cause and a warrant. That's the whole point of the Justice system is for checks and balances of the Executive branch (which the police, CIA, and FBI fall under) so no one branch can bend us over and make us take it.

[ASH JAN-23-08]
I have obviously come into this conversation late, but I find this one difficult. I agree that in my everyday life, I don't see a difference when it comes to civil liberties. I do worry about that fact that a mistake could cause me to be locked up for days without charge. Lets say I go on a trip to Asia and then I come into the States. I don't want to be suspected of something that I haven't done and then held. Equally, I would like "bad guys" to be caught and it is being sold to us that we need to give a little to try and get that protection. I would like to know if any of these measures have actually helped at all. Has anyone actually been caught, or a plot foiled due to any of these new measures? Did we not stop bombings and things before? If 9/11 we about to happen today, would it be prevented? As has been said before, it sounds like the people involved had clean records so I doubt it. Ultimately, my biggest fear is that we let this go now, then later something else is needed, then another thing...


[DUKE JAN-23-08]

Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"[49] — and it may be extended at the court's discretion.[50] These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[51][52]


For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[50] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[210] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[211][212] However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.[213] In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologised to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[214] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[51][52]


Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[216][217][218][219] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". [220] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[132] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.[221][222][223]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

Thom's statement saying you will be flagged for typing bomb is a bit misleading. The rules that allowed anything like that have been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Also if you read the full article linked to above the only way such information could be gathered was if you were already suspected of something. Not to mention something so simple as typing "bomb" in a search engine wouldn't get you flagged. I'd have to say millions of people have typed words like that into search engines. Its not as simple as "fear-mongers" make it out to be.
The information about the Patriot Act not affecting our civil liberties as bad as originally thought seems to get buried in the news or left out completely just like the good progress we make in Iraq.

[TOM JAN-24-08]

I admit that the "typing 'bomb' in a search engine" statement was a bit of an exaggeration. The problem is still they can subpoena any information they want, the ACLU just fought so the companies subpoenaed can fight against leaking private data to them. AT&T and Verizon actually were still leaking customer info to the FBI up to last week, and only stopped temporarily because the FBI was falling behind on payments. Seriously. The FBI also has been mismanaging info retrieved from finance centers, phone companies, etc. by losing classified databases numerous times exposing countless innocents to possible identity theft:

Source: 1
Source: 2

[JORDAN JAN-24-08]
The problem is: Where does it end? You give a little here, a little there, and it slowly gets worse. How much will you give up before it's enough?
"Those who would sacrifice liberty to gain safety end up having neither."

BTW Tom, did you change your color stance on purpose?

[DUKE JAN-24-08]
I think the argument that the information you put out in the public domain is perfectly valid as well. You put the information out there for people to see you can't exactly get upset when people see it. Its like telling a gossip a secret. Its stupid to get upset when everyone finds that secret out. You completely have the choice of not putting that information out there but you chose to do so knowing that it can be seen. Its like complaining about getting arrested if you say you killed somebody while in a Starbucks. Or even just being suspected. How is that much different? If I don't want people to have my information I don't share it with people.

[JORDAN JAN-24-08]
I have no idea what you're talking about Duke.

[TOM JAN-24-08]
Duke, if Jordan is in my boat, then he doesn't get how talking on a phone/cell phone, using a search engine, or writing a check is anything like confessing a murder to a crowd of people. I believe private data should have its own accountability law similar to HIPAA where the company/institution that stores the data cannot give it out unless there's definite proof of intention of the client planning to harm others or themself.

[DUKE JAN-24-08]
What I'm talking about is that there is a little bit of debate whether that data is actually private. I don't exactly see why it should be considered as private data and my Starbucks statement is an example of that. I don't see how giving information to a 3rd party it is still considered private. But if you want to go so far as to say it is (which I disagree with), I guess you could say I look at it like how doctor patient confidentiality works. You have privacy until the point that the doctor thinks you are going to harm yourself or others. I'm saying I keep my information private by keeping it to myself.

[KUBIAK JAN-24-08]
What information are we putting in the public domain?

[DUKE JAN-24-08]
I'm not sure how I'm not being clear on this. Sharing information with a 3rd party is making the information public. If I have a conversation with a friend in a public place and someone overhears it they are not invading my privacy. You can't just put the label of private on whatever. Also you guys say where do you draw the line. That line drawing works both ways. You keep manipulating the definition of privacy and guys like that guy that got trying to solicit sex in a men's room will be okay. He said that what he did was okay because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[KUBIAK JAN-24-08]
Wow. We are sooo far apart on this one.

"Sharing information with a 3rd party is making the information public."
Why do you think it is so important for companies to have privacy policies? If a company does not have good privacy policies it is thrashed by the public.

"If I have a conversation with a friend in a public place and someone overhears it they are not invading my privacy."
What is your definition of privacy? Only what you think in your head?

Read Full Discussion ==>

Should the US pull out of Iraq now?

[ASH JAN-20-08]
So it turns out the US should never have invaded in the first place, but that isn't what we are debating here. The US should really start packing up though. The natives need to start policing themselves and taking responsibility for thier own country.

[KUBIAK JAN-20-08]
I agree we need to start getting out of there. We are at the point where we may be doing more damage than help, but we need to pull out nice and easy. Do not want to leave a mess.

[TOM JAN-21-08]
Yes. How are they supposed to learn about freedom and democracy if we're forcing them to be a military state? The only reason we invaded them instead of using stricter economic sanctions is because they're in the OPEC. The US didn't even enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, and Hitler was leagues beyond Saddam in terms of terrorism.

[JORDAN JAN-22-08]
Yes, unless you want all of your money to be worthless soon. All we're doing is driving our own country into the ground. The entire world hates the US. Thousands of men have died on both sides... and for what? Higher oil prices? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and dead. What kind of freedom democracy is it when 75% of the people want out of Iraq yet the government doesn't care? Do our representatives really represent us.. or the corporations?

[DUKE JAN-22-08]
I disagree. I know that us being over there sucks and its hard on tons of people. I think the big root of this question comes from this idea that we need to change our international policy and stop being on other people's land. My problem with this, as great an idea as it may sound, is that how do we handle our allies? I think we have to treat the new Iraq as we would any other country that was an ally of ours. You could of course say that we make it a rule that we don't use our military to help our allies and try to do it with just trade. However, that won't do much. Our allies enemies will still get help from military outside their country and we would just be leaving our enemies hung out to dry. Eventually we wouldn't have any allies. Along side us helping our new ally I think that we should leave the decision up to the generals that we put in charge of the war that know how to handle it and evaluate it. We made the mistake of not listening to the right people when we went over there in the first place so I don't think we will do any better correcting the mistake of going over there by repeating the initial mistake.

[TOM JAN-23-08]
The problem with the "help our allies" view is that we're going against most of our allies wishes by being over there and the ones that are helping us are being despised internationally. Nobody wants the US to be in Iraq except the current US cabinet. Britain, Australia, and Canada support us because they all want to be our best friends and Japan is still on our leash and bends to our every whim. Our international policy before and during WWII has been to stay the hell out of foreign affairs unless we're dragged into it. The whole point of the U.N. is to prevent the kind of shit we pulled; we pulled the trigger on invading a country we had no business being in. Even Bush knows shit could go badly for him once he leaves office and pardoned himself and his cabinet so they couldn't be tried for war crimes.

[ASH JAN-23-08]
I suppose I have to agree with Duke in that we need to listen to the generals and leaders on the ground. While the US probably can't pull out immediately, (which is what the question asks,) it should be the main objective to get out ASAP, based on the views and planning of the military. But the orders need to change from above for them to do that.

Read Full Discussion ==>