magekillr

Helpful links:

Well there's one of two reasons the UK was involved: Tony Blair had oil and corporate interests there like they had in the 1950's regarding Iran or He was Bush's asskisser. I mean, I think he's the latter, but that doesn't stop him from being the former, either. Tony Blair is a hack and just as criminal as Bush, although he didn't have to sell an illegal invasion to the UN, or torture false confessions to use as evidence that we need to go to war with Iraq over 9/11. Congratulations, Brits. We'll be out by 2011 (I hope).

I would also say that people have the universal right to live in a healthy environment too. Yes, and that's why you're entitled to a vaccination. Doesn't mean you can demand other people to get a vaccination. Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places. There's no doubt that it would be medically beneficial, but the right to control what goes in to your own body is paramount. I disagree. There's a reason that many diseases are kept at bay, and it's because of herd immunity. This freaking vaccination controversy with autism has caused a sudden uprising in different infections, especially among young children. Measles are now making a come back because of these controversies. Freedom over one's body comes at a certain cost, namely there should be fees if you don't vaccinate for certain highly contagious things such as the measles. You are affecting others' health by not being vaccinated, just as second hand smoke affects others' health around you. Granted, there are and should be exemptions for philosophical and religious reasons. For example, children before enrolling in public and private schools are by law required to be vaccinated here in the US, but can get around it through the law. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf

I would also say that people have the universal right to live in a healthy environment too. Yes, and that's why you're entitled to a vaccination. Doesn't mean you can demand other people to get a vaccination. Without mandatory vaccinations, many diseases would not be wiped out. They are vital to the public health, just like smoking bans in public places.

Yes. Vaccinations should be mandatory when it involves a highly contagious virus and/or disease like the flu, polio, small pox, chicken pox, etc.

Sorry that I missed it, I was more angry at Scalia's reasoning than anything.

School officials. Strip searching a child. Officials that have no training, and frankly, no authority. You don't see the problem? These aren't police officers, these are teachers. Just imagine if you were a parent. Would you want your child to be forcibly searched by a school official? It's a blatant disregard for any rights whatsoever.

So, how about that Antonin Scalia? Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safford_Un ... v._Redding I can't even express how outraged at this that I am. It's not [bleep]ing meth we're talking about, this was ibuprofen. And even if it were a serious drug, these are school officials, not police officers trained to search people. This is at school, where a child of 13 should feel safe, not threatened and abused. This is about a child, in a school, dealing with SCHOOL OFFICIALS WHO HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO BE MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS! What's next? Cavity searches? "Oh, well, I don't see the medicine in her backback or on her clothes...it's gotta be in her underwear! Oh, no, it's not there? Hmm, well we have probable cause...so do a cavity search!" I swear to God, if they rule in favor of the school and school board...I will be really pissed. All of those cases in the 70's took away every single right that young people have in public schools. Thank God for the ACLU. Once again, I am going to donate more money to them if they win this case, just as they beat Obama over the state secrets.

I'm not sure. Isaac Newton, Da Vinci, or Galileo Galilei. That's as far as western society goes. Alhazen was a brilliant Muslim physicist, and much of his work built the foundation for all modern physics. He was also the pioneer for the scientific method. He's not given much credit.

It's not as big of a deal as the media is making it out to be, but this is just rich: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/ ... l=hp_picks The sad thing is, people are now dying because of this, and Europe has now advised against travel to the US and Mexico.

And I know plenty of military men, mostly Marines, who have ALSO seen it first hand, and worked with them in Iraq; these same people oppose them. I know how much of a fan of Capitalism you are, Trapical, so it shouldn't be a surprise to see your support for private military companies and jails when it's been proven that they're abusive. The purpose they serve isn't worth contracting them, and they're bad news. They're unprofessional, lack discipline, all think that they are Rambo, and have a "shoot first, and ask questions never" attitude. However, I do support infrastructure/reconstruction work by private "armies."

I stick to Jeremy Scahill on this issue: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4369311258

Oh, I don't know, charging ridiculous amounts for their services? Being awarded no-bid contracts kind of helps that along, no? I don't support a company that's paid to kill, either. Privatization of this sort of policy is extremely dangerous, and easily taken advantage of. Among other things like these that I don't support are private prisons.

Do not support these companies, whatsoever. Blackwater/Xe rob the American people A LOT of money, they are involved in a lot of evil stuff, and they should be done away with.

I'll deliberately invoke Godwin's Law here - That sort of thinking did not pass at Nuremburg. The only reason I'll let it pass in this instance is because "legally" the people were cleared. If they can't trust the legal advice on what might be "shaky" torture, then they really can't do their job properly in the future. This is why I think they should only be fired, and not prosecuted. Also, it would involve A LOT more lawyers and testimonies...and worst of all, time, in order for this to play out. By narrowing it down to the lawyers and the perpetrators, it's much easier to target and build a case. Like with Rwanda and their Truth Commission...it would have been impossible to set up a court system where hundreds of thousands would be put on trial. It's best to focus on the main perpetrators. Booman puts it nicely:

While we're on the topic of "physical" torture--as if there needs to be a separation of the two types of torture--they also "physically" tortured captives. How, might you ask? They "walled" them. What's that? I'm glad you asked. They take a plastic collar and place it around your neck, attach a chain to the collar, and slam you into walls. They also take your face and slam it into things like walls and tables with their hands on the back of your head.

Wookie, see, that's just it: it's not "simulating" drowning, it IS drowning them. The only difference is that we stop it. If we continued, they WOULD DIE. You're a sick evil human being. Go water board yourself like Chris Hitchens and tell me it's not torture:

Go read what waterboarding is before you compare it to "slapping someone in the face". Here, I'll even give you a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding I know what waterboarding is, a psychological method that is considered to be torture. If I didn't know what waterboarding was, I would have jumped in the "Water-boarding is torture" band wagon like a couple people here. Go water board yourself and tell me it's not torture. Tell me that stress positions aren't torture. Go on: Do you know where they got these methods? They got them from Communist China: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/po ... anted=2&hp

I support a Truth Commission over a trial for a couple of reasons. 1.) Under a truth commission, we'll know everything that happened. 2.) Under a truth commission, we'll give them one final chance to admit that what they did was wrong, that it did not work, and they might apologize. 3.) Under a truth commission, I expect them to lie and/or hide something that they did, or of the results. 4.) Under a truth commission, lying and/or hiding something will result in prosecutions. I demand action of some sort, but ultimately that's not Obama's call; it's Holder's. This is why I believe Obama "opposes prosecution and wants to move on;" he stays above the fray, and lets Holder and the Dept. of Justice take the heat. I mean, the AG was ALWAYS supposed to be out of the political sphere, but Bush politicized crimes (as can be seen with Jane Harman). This is also the downside of prosecuting: the risk of it being politicized. This is why ever since those brutal memos have been released that I have been lobbying my Congressman and Senators. I should ask that all of you do the same: (CLICK). Now, a truth commission goes after the real heart of justice: restorative justice. We need our law restored. Some will argue that in order for the law to be restored that we must have retributive justice, which could be true depending on an investigation. Steps that I'd like to have: 1.) An investigation and a truth commission 2.) A firing of all CIA officials that "legally" participated in torture 3.) CIA officials that acted outside of the OLC memos should be subject to prosecution if it comes down to it, and it seems that some of them did act outside of the "legal" advice of the OLC 4.) Impeachment of Jay Bybee 5.) Prosecution of all of the "higher ups" that authorized this legal advice, and the ones that wanted it in the first place; Bybee, Bradbury, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc.

I support all forms of stem-cell research, ESPECIALLY embryonic, as it's the most crucial and leaves for the most possibilities. Kind of like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 122757.ece

"When in Rome..."

Lol:

Or maybe the other states in the region could "learn a thing or two?" See the thing with Texas is, it's rich with oil, as you stated. If it didn't have any oil, it would look exactly like Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arizona; all poor impoverished states that rely HEAVILY on federal funds. So really, it's got a bunch of rich people that skew the data and hold most of the resources, kind of like Alaska except with a bigger population. Oh, and btw, that surplus is not for the new fiscal years. Oil is now 1/3 the price it was when Texas had this surplus, or at least expected it. So this could entirely change, if it hasn't already, and is entirely dependent on the price of oil. Remember, Clinton's budgets had surpluses "projected," and it was all changed by George Bush.

It's so nice to know that copyright infringement is so easy to enforce and jail perpetrators, while torture is not.

Good, let Texas and the rest of the south secede. It's all treasonous talk, but I very much welcome them to secede, while also seceding their federal aide that they get every year. Rick Perry isn't even popular in Texas, let alone the rest of the United States. This won't go anywhere, but if some wing nut ends up refusing to pay his taxes or acts in a violent form of domestic terrorism and sites Rick Perry, Rick Perry is guilty of treason and subject to at least 20 years in prison. Rick Perry's rhetoric with his actions: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 017753.php Anyway, the knee-jerk response about letting them secede aside, I just can't allow the poor Americans in the south to be subjected to such idiocy and be their own government. It's almost as bad as a human rights violation. So we cannot allow stupid idiotic states to secede, regardless of how nice it would be for the rest of the US (the north and the west coast).