US Chamber of Commerce slam President Obama for transparency

It's more like Grenada than Korea right now. If there are some bullets exchanged, then we can begin calling it a war.

More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/

Whether it is a war or not does depend on the length and/or intensity of conflict, but the main point I was getting across is that using a different term doesn't change what it actually is. It's pretty much similar to saying that Japan doesn't have a military, they have a "Self-Defence Force", or the use of the term "quarantine" instead of blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis because a blockade is an act of war, or the US changing the Department of War to the Department of Defense. I think the phrase "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" is appropriate here.

Whether it is a good thing or bad thing depends on the context.

edited 29th Apr '11 11:08:40 PM by Driscoll

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A DIALOG BOX INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY.

I consider war to be infantry of one side vs infantry on the other side while armor and airforce support the infantry, with the capturing of territory and the holding of said territory.

This is simply us providing support and small military operations. Or are we at war with Pakistan too because of the Drone Strikes?

And this is off topic so I'm stopping here.

edited 29th Apr '11 11:19:17 PM by Thorn14

Thank you.

To re-rail... sort of...

Is there any merit at all to the Chamber of Commerce?

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

@ Driscoll

Let me give you an example. Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You have freedom of expression. One limitation is that you cannot use it to incite violence against an identifiable group.

You have freedom of association. One limitation is that corporate donations are completely banned in Canada.

The problem with simply going "Oh but the government is trampling upon my rights!" is that you're just simply not considering the negative effects of those actions. If it was some kind of white supremacist group calling for black people to be lynched in the streets, are you not harming the rights of black people to live a peaceful life? If you allow corporations to donate to political parties are you not trampling on the rights of those with less money by limiting their democratic participation in the political system?

Isn't that limited?

Fight smart, not fair.

^ I'm not clear what you're asking.

The US Chamber of Commerce is a corrupt organisation paid to lobby for corporate welfare and minimal regulations. Of course it would criticise any attempts to increase accountability.

edited 30th Apr '11 5:33:43 PM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

Requiring it to be directed at an identifiable group. I think it's illegal to try to incite violence at all most places.

Fight smart, not fair.

Well in any case, the point was merely that Freedom of Speech is limited.

For comparison, the new regulations in Finland say that corporations, organisations and individuals are allowed to donate money, but campaign donations have to be declared and sums that exceed €1500 are not allowed to be anonymous - so if you donate more than that (to a single candidate, during the entire campaign - so no donating €1 1501 times!) you can't prevent your name getting published.

Then someone went and set the time limit for publishing the campaign finance reports to be after the election 'cause it's fun to be fucking stupid

, so people won't know who gave money to their candidate until the election's over. So naturally, out of the biggest right-wing party, only about 2.5% of their candidates published their campaign donation records before the election, while most leftist candidates across all leftist parties published theirs in time for election.

I'm pretty sure that that's the general trend in every country when it comes to transparency, at least if you don't count dictatorships as leftist (because democracy is one of the defining traits of Socialism, at least in theory).

edited 1st May '11 3:21:16 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.