Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Well, I suppose the people who train our Special Forces and Pilots are "bad guys" then. The SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and the Green Berets all go through those things as a matter of course during portions of their training.
Have someone from Paizo pop over to Ft. Lewis to see what our elite go through during training...
That's training. Not the real thing, jeez! Not at all comparable.(And I see you also didn't answer the question.)
Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)
Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Which, even Obama admits, is what is going to happen regardless of what we do.
Yes they will. So you going to lower yourself to their level? (I also note you didn't answer the question. Would it be torture or not?)
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.
He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.
Define 'Has no teeth'? Do you mean that the President can't close the detention camp down, or what?
According to US News and World Reports the order to close Gitmo contained "significant loopholes" including allowing rendition to continue and tabling the discussion of any details of how and when to actually close the doors at Gitmo and what to do with the prisoners for at least six months. Therefore, while a symbolic order to close Gitmo was signed on January 22, 2009; the earliest any real discussion of the specifics will not begin until at least the very end of June or beginning of July. On January 23, the New York Times even reported that the decision that may come out of that meeting, when it is held, will be to keep Gitmo open.
And yes, it's understandable that the closure of Gitmo will take some time. Bush left dangerous men in there, in a legal black hole. Any evidence against them could be easily thrown out of court, as it was probably obtained through torture. I think him taking time to see what the best options are is probably the best way forward, and I'm happy to give him that time. Now, if after a year, Gitmo is still open, and there isn't a damn good explanation from President Obama, then you'll see me criticising him a lot. However, I do not think that is going to happen, given Obama's willingness to move away from the Bush era tactics.
Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)
Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.
He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.
Define 'Has no teeth'? Do you mean that the President can't close the detention camp down, or what?
And yes, torture may not have been committed by the CIA since 2005, but Obama moved quickly to make sure it wouldn't happen again. Which is a good thing. It may just be symbolic, but it's still a great move. You think you'll win over the masses of moderate muslims in the world if the US tortures people in the black legal hole of Gitmo? No, you won't, and you'll lose the 'War' on Terror because of it. Standing up and saying 'This is the United States of America, where we respect the rights of even those trying to kill us, and give them a fair and legal trial, under US law' does win the respect of people. Sure, it might just be PR, but you've got to be better then your enemies.
Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.
And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's. (And I mean full speeches, not the snippets shown in the media). They are thoughtful, nuanced and hopeful. Further, they are intellectual while still being able to be understood by the masses. I also think Obama's media image is much better cultivated. He's very aware of the possibilities of new media, and used them brilliantly during his campaign and his time so far in office.
I don't think Bush was dumb though. I think he was a smart man, who just made a lot of bad choices and had many slips of the tongue. I disagreed with Bush on policy grounds, as they were abhorrent to any right thinking person.
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.
He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Damn right. We Brits love Obama. Much of the anti-American sentiment that some feel and were able to talk about much more freely when Bush was in charge has ebbed away. It's what a smart man as your leader does for you!
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Facts which I provided for you, which you curiously ignored. Ah well.
The story isn't true, by the way.
The "facts" that you mention are just the Director of the News' opinion. That one article that you mention there are two former employees of BBC that freely admit to the left wing bias while they worked there. Of course that is their opinion as well. However, as Sam mentioned, BBC's Middle-East editor recently got into trouble. That might tell you that BBC is not as impartial as you might think.
Again, you seem to be misunderstanding something. Firstly, the Daily Mail article suggested that this was a leaked document from a secret event. It wasn't.
Secondly, the Daily Mail article suggested that this was BBC policy. It wasn't. It was an open debate, full of off the cuff remarks. It does not at all show that the BBC is biased. Or that it's policy is biased against Christianity, and full of 'Political Correctness'. (Incidentally, the argument that the BBC is politically correct kinda falls down when you realise that the BBC makes Top Gear. ;) )
Personal opinions do not make BBC Policy. What does are the Guidelines, which I linked to earlier. What the Daily Mail article implied was that the personal opinions at that seminar were infact BBC policy. Which is wrong.
Now, as to Jeremy Bowen. Firstly, the complaint against him was handled by the BBC Trust, an impartial body set up to deal with complaints. The complaint was partially upheld. You can read the BBC Trust's findings here. The actual findings seem quite mild. Hardly evidence of any bias.
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
If that was the case, then they'd just say 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties'. They wouldn't call them FNC Tax Tea Parties unless they wanted to imply ownership.
Again, was there anything at these events with banners or such that said, "FNC Tea Parties" or was it just a graphic shown on their program. You know a graphic that is often written in a way to minimize space. But again, that is the boring interpretation, and who really wants that right?
Which is shorter? 'Tax Day Tea Party' or 'FNC Tax Day Tea Party'?
Intentionally or otherwise, by putting their name infront of the 'Tax Day Tea Party', Fox implied ownership. That's just a basic rule of grammar.
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
Listening to John Stewart I see. :D
Or maybe it just indicates which of these gatherings they would be at. Of course that is a less interesting explanation.
If that was the case, then they'd just say 'And Fox will be at these Tea Parties'. They wouldn't call them FNC Tax Tea Parties unless they wanted to imply ownership.
I love it, point out nearly 200,000,000 deaths caused by people who refute the existence of God, and it isn't the ideology's fault, they're mad men. But religion caused all the other stuff.
I love hypocrites, y'all are fun!
Atheism is no more responsible for those deaths then Theism is for the deaths suffered during the Inquisition. It's like saying that any murders caused by tall people are done in the name of tall people. Utter nonsense. (And by the way, I never blamed Religion for the other stuff, but I enjoyed your strawman.)
Further, most Atheists I know would be entirely happy with Religion if they kept to teaching in the privacy of their church and their own homes. However, it doesn't, does it? Religious people try to enforce their own views upon countries. Views that say I can't marry my best friend. Or that women should wear vail's, and not be in control of their own bodies. And that people should be taught about Creationism as if it's a legitimate scientific pursuit.
This, funnily enough, shows that you've done nothing more then a quick google search and plucked out an article.
Actually, I knew to look for the article because the story made news here in the States a couple of years back. The story is true. Your insulting tone doesn't change the facts.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Facts which I provided for you, which you curiously ignored. Ah well.
The story isn't true, by the way.
As for the Tea Parties, while there may not have been direct sponsorship by Fox News, the fact they put 'FNC' before several of the Tea Parties they went too does imply some level of ownership, the same way the 'Barclay's Premiership' does.
Of course not. There are other Right Wing papers here in the UK, just as there are Left Wing papers. You fail to realise that there is often a large tension between the print media and the BBC. They are eager to paint the BBC in a bad light whenever they can, due to the BBC's massive advantage of the license fee. It doesn't change my point, which is that the BBC is often accused of being biased towards and in favour of all political viewpoints.
And I've probably watched hours worth of Fox News, via smaller snippets on various media. Do full ten minute clips, unedited and uncut not count?
I see we agree anyway. Fox does lean to the right (though, 'lean' is probably underselling it)
You don't seem to understand. This is something the BBC has come out and admitted in a leaked document. This has nothing to do with "right" wing vs "left" wing newspapers. However, if you have a newspaper article that can counteract this info I'll gladly take a look at it.
This, funnily enough, shows that you've done nothing more then a quick google search and plucked out an article.
Point 1. This was not a 'leaked' document. This was from a conference held by the BBC and broadcast live on the web.
Point 2. The points raised in the article you mentioned were all points raised in open discussion, by individuals (albiet individuals in positions of influence). They did not at all define BBC policy. What does define BBC policy are the Editorial Guidelines, which you can read here.
Point 3. Here's the response to the article (which was one of many of the laughable attempts by the print media to attack the BBC, for the reasons I explained above) from the Director General of the BBC, and the director of the news at the BBC.
Finally, in regard to the Fox News point, if I wanted to watch it, I'd have to pay extra money. Which I really, really don't want to. So I make do with watching in horror the various clips on the net. While this may not give me a full account of what Fox News is, I feel the hours of clips I've seen from various sites do give me a good enough view to form a valid opinion.
Of course not. There are other Right Wing papers here in the UK, just as there are Left Wing papers. You fail to realise that there is often a large tension between the print media and the BBC. They are eager to paint the BBC in a bad light whenever they can, due to the BBC's massive advantage of the license fee. It doesn't change my point, which is that the BBC is often accused of being biased towards and in favour of all political viewpoints.
And I've probably watched hours worth of Fox News, via smaller snippets on various media. Do full ten minute clips, unedited and uncut not count?
I see we agree anyway. Fox does lean to the right (though, 'lean' is probably underselling it)
Most of the clips I've seen of Fox are not edited either (something that'd show up pretty obviously). And they leave me in no desire to watch any more of the 'news' channel.
From a mixture of sources. Reading the internet, looking on various forums, checking YouTube Videos, watching the Daily Show along with various news orientated programs over here. Fox gets mentioned a lot!
There was a recent show over here, called Newswipe, which looked at the media's coverage of the G20 conference and the demonstrations around it. It concluded by showing Bill O'Reilly declaring that demonstrators wanted 'Communism everywhere, and for us to lower our weapons while Osama Bin Laden beheads people', because they were, rather loosely mind you, protesting about the economy and the war in Iraq.
So, left wing protests are nutcases, while right wingers who want Texas to leave the Union are praised by Sean Hannity.
Finally, the BBC is not left wing. It is neutral (by law). And it's neutral in content, as one can tell by the constant accusations of bias by both sides of the political spectrum.
Is that the Fox that decries protests from left wing groups as 'a call for violence' 'dangerous' and calls the protesters pinheads? Or is that the Fox that lets Cody Willard, Business Correspondent decry the fascism in the US? Or the Fox that lets people call for revolution, and not be shot down by Sean Hannity?
Either way, I listen to and watch the BBC. Much better news.
Further, I'd find it less amusing if conservatives in the US hadn't viciously attacked anyone protesting the establishment of the DHS on civil liberties grounds. I believe the words used were 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.
Actually lots of conservatives did protest the creation of DHS on civil liberty grounds. Others protested it on limited government grounds.
And yet it took the DHS looking into militia groups and other right wing radicals for them to find their voice, for the most part. I don't remember Limbaugh decrying the DHS when they looked into left wing groups. Or Malkin. Or House/Senate Republicans. Or Fox News.
What I do remember was rhetoric along the lines of “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said by that nice chap Senator John Cornyn, (R-TX). News flash for you folks! You create a huge surveillance state, and it's going to turn it's eye upon you. And it wasn't the Democrats who did that. (Though, sadly, many of them got scared in key votes, which was a real annoyance. Understandable though, given the Republican tendency to wrap themselves around the flag and 9/11 and decry anyone who opposed these acts as helping Al-Qaeda)
Also, the Teabagging nonsense was quite amusing. Especially the Fox sponsorship of the events!
Since Communists are generally regarded as atheists (even though most people living in communist nations are/were probably no more or less religious than they were before the nations became so), I would like to point out that atheists probably killed more people in the 20th Century than all of the religious groups combined.
Just saying.
Of course, Mr. Maher is as likely to point that out as Mr. Moore is to point out the culpability unions share with management in the auto industry fiasco...
You know, if you want to go down that road, we can blame religion for the evils of the crusades, 9/11, holy wars, the inquisition etc etc.
Or one could look at the intensive usage of religious mechanisms in the establishment of the cults of personality surrounding Stalin and Mao, something that enabled them and their fanatical followers to commit horrific acts, all the name of an ideology.
Now, Athiesm has (probably) not killed anyone. Extreme, fanatical devotion to an ideology, be it political or religious, certainly has.
What's illegal about staging an anti war rally?
How can seizing a college campus be a threat to US national security?
Now, last time I checked, the Department of Homeland Security was set up to monitor threats to US national security. Which it did for groups across the political spectrum.
Further, I'd find it less amusing if conservatives in the US hadn't viciously attacked anyone protesting the establishment of the DHS on civil liberties grounds. I believe the words used were 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear'.
What? 10-1 is a big number now? That's quite low. I was thinking more in the region of 1000-1. Either way, while the ratio used to be 10-1, it's now 1-0. Pirates will still get the PDF's they want, while customers won't.
I remember a thread over on EnWorld discussing the lack of a 'Fight the Dragon, save the Princess' type adventure, in all versions of D&D. Which was odd, given that the game is called Dungeons and Dragons.
It seems, however, that this module will fill that gap quite nicely. Which looks awesome. I wonder how quickly this module could be run though.
Why are there Sharia courts in Great Britain now? The British are afraid. Must not offend immigrants by expecting them to follow British civil law.
Same reason there are Beth Din courts in the UK. The Sharia courts have even less power then those.
They shouldn't have either, frankly. If you want to move away from your third world s#~*hole to a better place, you should submit (catch the irony there?) to the laws of your new home. Period.
They do. They follow UK Arbitration Laws to the letter. The Beth Din (and, some hope, Sharia) courts function as arbitration services, for certain civil cases, such as divorce or inheritance. Both parties have to agree to the arbitration, but if they don't, then it goes to the UK Civil Courts. Heck, in divorce cases, they must still get the civil divorce.
I think the PostMonster is just kidding us, and is actually trying to solve the reversal of entropy, to make the Paizo Packaging process more efficient.
What's scary is that people get suckered by something from InfoWars.
As I stated earlier the story is correct. Do some research and you can find it anywhere(except the liberal news sources of course).
Yes. It is correct that Bill H.R 1388 was passed. What isn't correct is the slant given to it by InfoWars, a site run by notorious conspiracy nut Alex Jones. It's typical conspiracy nonsense really. Something taken out of context then exploded out of all proportion.
I'm not even sure if I've been running the games 'legally', myself. I ran Murder on the Silken Caravan with three PC's, way back, so if that was against the PFS rules, then every adventure since may have been run against the PFS rules (as it'd have illegal characters)
If that gets clarified, I'll get my scenarios reported post haste.
While I do like the game, and I'm busy working my way to what will hopefully be 1000/1000 gamerpoints, I do have some issues with it. Namely, it's not a horror game, and it's odd to describe it as such. It's an action game with a poor control system. Still really fun though. The boss fights in particular, though any game that lets you have a
Spoiler:
Freaking Ion Cannon
goes quite a bit away from anything resembling horror.
I thought the AI was good myself. Sheva (or Chris, for that matter) can hold their own in combat, and don't seem to do too many stupid things.
I'm surprised at the negative reaction to the spiritual/mystical moments in the final episode. The original BSG was heavy into mythology and religion; this iteration was as well. Faith and the unexplainable *are* parts of the human experience, and BSG was, first and last, about the human experience (just using SF trappings to make it look cool).
Faith is fine. Having deus ex machina's aren't. It's a lazy plot device, used by hack writers. Anyway..
Spoiler:
Thinking about it some more, the Luddism on display in the ending angered me even more then the 'God did it' nonsense. Reducing everyone of the 39,000 remaining colonists to a hunter gatherer level likely condemned most of them to death within 6 months. First cold snap, heat wave.. or hell, bug would wipe them out. That's if the natives didn't. Or starvation. Or exposure.
Sure, they had no chance of establishing a Caprica level city. But a renaissance, or even industrial revolution level city? At least it'd have kept people alive in some semblance of civilisation, rather then condemning them to a Luddite slow death. The fact this show portrayed Luddism as a good thing frankly angered me.
Sigh. A show that gave us episodes such as '33', 'Dirty Hands', 'Pegasus and 'Exodus' gives us an ending like that. Really disappointing. Especially so, given how good the first hour or so of the episode was. I don't want to end a post on this series negatively, so I'll talk about some good things about the episode now.
Spoiler:
The entire battle was good. I loved the appearance of the old centurions. The new centurions marching along the deck of Galactica was quite a sight, as were the scenes of Lee's strike force heading in along with the centurions. Boomer redeeming herself was a nice touch.
The Opera House as Galactica was pretty good too. Cavil was awesome as always, especially his 'You're keeping two civilisations waiting' line. Tyrol killing Tori was well deserved (though, Tori's desperate attempts before linking to absolve herself were quite tragic). Racetrack getting to destroy the Colony after death was awesome (though, ultra sad that she and her co-pilot died). Finally, the scene of Galactica breaking her back after the final jump was utterly heartbreaking.
I liked the build up to the fight. Then, it just kinda went downhill. The grand rescue plan seemed to be little more then smashing the ship into the side of the colony (though, given the lack of options, one can understand this). Then we had a few running battles through the colony, Hera getting rescued by Boomer, temporary peace which quickly breaks down, meaning Galactica jumps away and arrives at Earth.. and I'm looking at the clock thinking 'There's still 45 minutes left for some plausible explanations for all this'
Except, they didn't come. It was reduced to 'Gods Plan'. Quite aside from the interesting in universe morality of accepting the plan of a higher power which involves 99.99999% of the human population getting exterminated, it's the ultimate cop out. Having such a good show boiled down to that level of (literal) deus ex machina was quite sad.
Sigh. Seriously depressing. Also, the Luddism is almost offensive. Nice to see the remaining 30,000 of human civilisation trade in technology for suffering and an average life span of 30 years.
The argument behind it being a good act seems to be that Black Dragons are always evil, so killing them is a good act. Killing them all is a really good act.
This, of course, ignores Intent, something explicitly mentioned by an outsider as the key behind morality in the OOTS world. (The Angel lass talking to Roy in the afterlife. Don't remember the strip number though)
There is one picture for representing PaizoCon UK that I've been thinking of. The Paizo golem striding over an image of the UK. It's iconic, easy to draw and reproduce and, I think, would look rather striking.
I really like that idea.
Sort of BBC News weathermap 'looking from space at an angle' UK, 'typical British scene' UK, or some other concept UK?
BBC News weathermap type UK image, yeah. Though the Paizo Golem drinking a cup of tea, playing some cricket or just transposed over the Union Flag would be fun too. :D
There is one picture for representing PaizoCon UK that I've been thinking of. The Paizo golem striding over an image of the UK. It's iconic, easy to draw and reproduce and, I think, would look rather striking.
Posts
