So, if I say that conservatives are all a bunch of know-nothing blowhards with cheese where their brains should be, you wouldn't take that as a "personal attack?" I'll keep that in mind. How about this... People who dismiss the science involved in AGW are complete idiots who shouldn't be allowed to discuss the topic among adults. Not an insult, right?
Because they don't think it's really an American city. They do not think of these places as being part of "real America." They've said as much many times. Like San Francisco, New York, or pretty much anywhere north of Hampton VA, Chicago is a liberal Communist cesspool.
It's amazing to me that these divisions in ideology still exist 150 years after the Civil War. Simply astonishing.
That is basically right. Those would not be personal attacks because you did not attack someone personally. Someone who associates with those groups might sense that you probably do not approve of their perspective, but since you did call them out personally, you are in bounds, as it were. If you said (poster name) is a blowhard, or (poster name) is an idiot, those comments would be personal attacks. You have to be able to express your viewpoints, even if people are offended by those. I will defend your right to do that no matter how absurd and preposterous your ideas become. However, there is a difference between attacking someone's opinions and attacking them personally. Attacking someone's positions is debate and discussion. Attacking someone personally is just rude and childish.
What about something like "all posters with the names Mojo and Man in them are (whatever)"? That's directed at a group, so would that be in bounds?
I would like to thank andy and dan for ruining this thread with a delusional attempt to slay a troll. Good work guys.
ACTA (a treaty the Obama administration is keeping secret (wtf!? ) was (apparently) leaked. This would effectively neuter the internet, IMO. More info here. Caveats: 1) Only leaked, hard to ascertain validity of claimed effects. 2) Treaty, not law - sign all you want, having congress make laws in conjunction....that's trickier.
There are certainly things that come into a president's scope of facts that he could not have known while campaigning, possibly forcing him to alter his course of actions. Military operations, intelligence, foreign affairs, etc.
Read the New Yorker article about unmanned drones in Afghanistan, that's far worse than the wiretaping Obama did or did not do. Nobel for the peace. Out.
Two senators call for ACTA transparency The ACTA debate resonates strongly with the wiretapping chicanery, since it too is relying on bogus claims of "state secrets" to effectively ignore any input from the citizenry or associated accountability. Obama's civil liberties speeches have yet to be proven anything more than lip-service.
EFF wins access to behind-the-scenes info from telcom lobbying effort on immunity. What should burn everyone up about this stuff is why these corporations get so much access to congressional assholes who are supposed to represent us.
I haven't been following this debate that closely but it seems to me that Telecoms would be up in arms over ACTA as it puts the onus on the ISP's police copyright violations rather than the content providers.
I wonder how Obama's DOJ will handle this completely not surprising story. (It's long, this is just the first page)
Well, color me shocked: The Obama DOJ, loaded with folks affiliated with or supportive of the RIAA , has filed a second brief defending the insane damages from the Tenenbaum case. This despite, as slashdot so nicely summarizes: And, let's all guess what this same wonderful arm of the Obama admin has to say about the FBI's tactic of requesting illegal wiretaps via post-it note. Please note that, in this case, it's the DOJ's own investigators that discovered the deplorable offense.
A sudden attack of common sense. I'm loving this. I cannot say it enough: HELL. YES. The 40 billion dollar question: WHERE ARE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES??!!?!?!
