tkhayes

I actually agree with that, but I also think that when you get 'caught', the transparency better include justification for what happened...... "Yes we mowed down these civilians with a helicopter gunship and here is exactly why we did that." Not "OK, for showing that video, I am going to try and destroy you...." Is there room for political assassinations? Probably. Osama Bin Laden for example. But if we assassinate Hugo Chavas because Pat Robertson thinks it's Ok to do that, secret or not, that will not likely be justified in the long run. That's the kind of secrecy that concerns me. ANY movement of government towards a seccret state like the former Eastern Bloc countries troubles me. Secrets are bad. Just like unlimited power is bad. So don't prosecute someone because they released the 'secrets'. If the secrets got leaked, then perhaps you are doing somethign wrong and perhaps you should re-examine your own internal structures and how and what secrets you keep.

I don't disagree with the Pulitzer/Nobel theory, but whatever - at least he is getting recognized. A lot of social change comes from people getting pissed off at each other - I care less about that part of it. Martin Luther King Jr got a lot of people pissed off. Abraham Lincoln got a lot of people pissed off. Thomas Jefferson got a lot of people pissed off - they are all great people who made huge changes to society. Is Julian Assange another MLK? I doubt that but he is changing the world in some way. 20 years form now we will know more about his impact.

show me where the Constitution allows people to drive cars - but we do it every day. Not everything is in the Constitution. Not everythng needs to be either. Show me a 'state secret' that was divulged by Wikileaks...... Who gets to define what a state secret is anyway? Most likely the people who want to keep the secrets I expect. Kind of like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 60's..... just where I want my country to be going.....

your words, not mine. It's even harder to communicate with right-wing religious zealots who think that the only justice that exists in the world is their version when it suits them.

Bradley Manning has not been charged with, nor convicted of treason - does not sound like treason to me, but thanks for playing judge jury and executioner for his case.....

so the military can do whatever it wants? I doubt that. They are accountable for their actions through Congress and the President and whatever other ways are in place. And yes, I am a US Citizen - are you?

That is pretty much what I said. He tells the truth, just to an extreme. I actually really like the guy - it is sarcasm (my favorite) taken to an extreme on video. Yes, he has factual content - glad you pointed that out. And he makes a good point. Your 'propaganda' is another man's 'agenda for change'. If Michael Moore is propaganda, then what does that make Glenn Beck? Touche...

corrective action is to NOT jump in gusty/strong winds. And that is totally subjective. Experienced skydivers make decisions every day. Sometimes the winds are borderline and some people choose to stay on the ground, some do not. The problem is that no one knows if or when a gust might get them, or even if they will be able to fly through it, but not too many think they are going to 'die', - I think most just think they risk some injury. And I am sure that the skill level of the individual does actually have a lot to with the outcome. better pilots with better equipment definitely have an advantage - the risk may be smaller, but it is still there. Know your limits - learn something new every day, practice, and do not assume that you are invincible.

once again, tromp all over the Constitution..... name something that he put out that was not the truth. name ONE soldier put in harms way from his actions. That is the rhetorical line all the opponents like to use - "putting lives in danger", but no one can name a single incident where it happened - because it didn't yeah, I guess I am a traitor because I want my government, military, official held accountable for their actions......

A difference of what? Between what? I actually said he was different (than Julian Assange)

many times,

Michael Moore is a different piece of pie. He takes a stand on something and then takes it to the extreme to make a point. Not everything he says is 'true' but little of it is a lie. But he makes a good point. Not everyone in Cuba gets health care for a nickel. But Michael Moore makes that point by bringing someone to Cuba and getting them health care for a nickel. Did he make that up? Is he un-credible because he managed to do that? Julian Assange and Michael Moore are only alike in that you happen to dislike them both. They both stand for truth, just in different ways.

attaboy - STAND behind that constitution...... Mallets to the head for all - especially those who speak for truth....

YAAAAAAYYYYY!!! finally some fucking common sense....

I agree with IQ statement, but Obama is pretty bright - he just does not have the balls to demand/force/implement/influence/whatever it his way. Bush was an idiot, but he had the balls to say my-way-or-the-highway. I actually have respect for that. 4 more years of Bush? wow, that would be tragic....

I did not know that anyone was out to "destroy everything that America stands for" What exactly does America stand for anyway. Would that be YOUR America or my America? Or someone else's America. The problem with statements like yours is that it assumes there is only one definition - and there is not. Pull your pants up - no one is trying to destroy America - some people speak up about issues, just like you do, and some people want change and reform on SPECIFIC issues - not the whole of American society. geez.....

Marriage is a flimsy institution that should not be legislated with definitions, much less Christian-based rules Given the number of marriages that end in divorce, it is a bit of a joke anyway, but we, as a society, cling to it. Given that people typically pair up throughout their lifetimes, homosexual or otherwise, and that we have daily social decisions that depend on taking care of one another - i.e. pensions, working, savings, wills and estates, health care and end-of-life decisions, I think that should be about the extent of any 'definition' in the legislature at any level. Anyone (adult) should be able to define anyone else as their 'partner' It is a free country (I thought)

I never argued that this was the only solution, I only argued that it is part of the solution. I never argued that it would STOP any shootings, but it would reduce them "More guns LESS crime" is the title. And the point of the mental health care is not to 'predict' who will become violent fer chrissake - it is to TREAT people with mental illness. And three posts ago, the claim was made that mental health professionals are NOT advocating for this - so thanks for at least clamoring that they are in fact. not necessarily true. The type of violence, that would likely be reduced DRAMATICALLY, by gun control, mental health care, access to firearms, whatever you want to call it would be the 'one-time-nut-job' who decides to kill his wife, spouse, kids, whatever. THe lady who just killed her kids in Tampa was NOT a violent offender, is NOT a violent offender (well, she is now), and I expect that the event would never be repeated even if she was freed tomorrow. Better mental health care for her and less access to a handgun might have prevented the tragedy. One of the things that I have advocated for MANY times in the past was proper training and use of a firearm prior to being allowed to own one. And then ongoing training to maintain that status - kind of like a pilot's license. I bet most of society (including that mom in Tampa) would not have bothered with it (too much hassle) and therefore she might not have had a gun in her purse at the ready. Whereas today, I can go to a gun show in Florida, do a CW permit in 2 hours and walk out with a handgun, legally allowed to carry it, No it does not STOP gun crime, but it reduces the number of guns out there to the 'law abiding people who really want to carry them' instead of 'every person who has the RIGHT to carry them just because they have a small penis' If there were no guns, then there could be no gun crime. I am not advocating no guns as a realistic solution, but it is still a fact. If there was only ONE gun in all of society, then there would likely be no gun crime either. So somewhere between 0 guns and the millions and millions that are out there is a number that society can tolerate with an amount of gun crime that society can tolerate. Society seems to be willing to tolerate the number of guns, but not the gun crime - so what are we going to do about that?

30 seconds to find one article - yes can to try a little harder? http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

Mental Health organizations ARE fighting for more action: http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=22427516 http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=A4E57EA7-1372-4D20-C8B17D1418D1D85B http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp96145.pdf took me 4 minutes to find dozens of articles and various mental health and psychiatric associations that have issues with mental health and gun 'control'. Most of them advocate better mental health care - not necessarily restricting the gun laws further and further to 'blacklist' potential nut-bars from buying guns - which you seem to advocate would be the only way to solve the problem. These are professional organizations with well-respected credentials. Perhaps we should listen to them.

no but you are welcome to conclude that the substance of my argument is contained in all the dozen or so posts i have made in this thread, many of which contain cost-analysis and other substantial information. Maybe you shoudl review them. If it makes you feel better to think that nothing can be done to help improve the gun crime situation in this country - well then I guess that makes you feel better. It does not for me. Cost benefit. It is better to have a vaccine for disease that to deal with the black plague and its effects. But there is no data to demonstrate how much the plague would cost society. cost benefit (some would argue, but the numbers have not shown it) that taking the fight to the terrorists by invading Iraq and Afghanistan is better than dealing with a World Trade Center event. Cost benefit - it is better to have driver training PRIOR to letting people get a drivers license - yet there is probably no data to suppor tthat. Cost benefit, etc The saddest part is that I actually respond to this sort of jibberish -

prevention is better than cure - you are saying that cure is better than prevention - right......I am in a fantasy....

I think the Detroit EMT's have been wearing bullet proof vests for 20 years now already.

kinda like the numbers YOU just made up there.....? prove me wrong....show me how much a mass shooting costs society.... show me how much a murder trial costs society show me how much a brain injury costs society.. show me how much mental health care would cost - and NO, not mandatory for everyone, because that is not what is needed. but go ahead, make something up just like I made up the mass shootings that did not really happen.

hey, I posted numbersat least. All you posted was a comment about how 'smarter I must think i am' I thought YOU were smarter than that.....