Slashdot Mirror

I think what you mean is "That's why there's an ever shrinking need for a lower-class population." If I'm not mistaken, the "lower class" has been expanding while the "middle class" has been shrinking.

How about something as simple as this.

The middle class is shrinking and the ranks of the poor and the rich are increasing.

Your statistics do not refute that; in fact, a closer look confirms it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=249

I understand that the risk that the levees could break was well-known, and that governments (at various levels) decided to do nothing about it.

Actually, no. The only risk that was well-known by the Government was that the levees might overtop and flood (not break) during a Cat 5 storm. Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:

"We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think they would actually be breached."

In fact, in 2002 the Bush adminisration commissioned a detailed study to simulate the effects of a Catagory 5 storm on the city of New Orleans, and the LSU engineers who worked on the project specifically stated that a breach in the levees was possible, but not at all expected.

(Quote taken from here)

"Then what explains Bill Clinton's failure to fix these problems?"

It can safely be said the Clinton administration funded the levees way better than the Bush administration did. The Bush administration has slashed EVERY Army Corps of Engineer funding request for the levees since they came to power. They've been to busy funding Iraq, squandering money on biowarfare gear for fire departments in Podunk, Wyoming and directing pork to their rich, white Republican friends.

I especially love the fact the Bush administration allocated $100 million, and transfered a key Army engineer in Louisiana, to restore the marshlands in Iraq. $100 million for the wetlands in Iraq this year versus $87 million for New Orleans levees. Really screwed up priorities there, with 20/20 hindsight.

Fortunately for the Bush administration it probably can't be established if the breeches would have been prevented if they hadn't gutted Army Corp funding and personel for levee maintenance and upgrade though an independent investigation will be interesting. Its a certainty that slashing funding for them didn't help. The fact is levees, especially at the extent they exist around New Orleans, are expensive to maintain. Either you have to committ to maintain them, abandon New Orleans or do what the Bush administration did, let them deteriorate in the face of a surge in hurricanes and their intensity and have a catastrophic disaster.

Follows is a great run down from from factchecks.org which is a pretty nonpartisan outfit:

"In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper, from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30." ...

A long history of complaints

Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane protection projects was inadequate:

October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that federal officials are postponing new projects of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may create a financial pinch for the program. The paper went on to report that President Bushs budget proposed $52 million for SELA in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the Senate approved $62 million. Still, the $62 million would be well below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design expenses for future projects.

April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that less money is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next year. Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study a study of how to restore coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a buffer from hurricane storm surges was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the Garden of Eden wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, for which President Bushs 2005 budget gave $100 million.

June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:

Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in the presidents budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq , and I suppose thats the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees cant be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans had been completed and generated enough information for a second study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush administration ordered the New Orleans district office of the Army Corps of Engineers no

Sorry, but all those mean things that the Republicans said about Joe Wilson and his wife were true. Valerie did recommend her husband for the trip. Joe reported back findings to the CIA that seemed to indicate that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. And later on, Joe deliberately contradicts his own findings in his infamous newspaper article.

Go check out the report by the bipartisan Senate Intellgence Committee:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/US%20Report .pdf

Check your facts please the middle class is shrinking. http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html [factcheck.org]

From factcheck.org:
"Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households. At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years."

Check your facts please the middle class is shrinking. http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html

From factcheck.org:
"Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households. At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years."

Interesting, in that John Kerry was rated the most liberal member of the Senate

That claim derives from cherry-picked data.

brief commentary, longer commentary

1) Lack of judicial review. If you want to search my house, get a d*mn judge to approve a warrant. Doing it because "you suspect I'm a terrorist" is just flat crap.

But there is judicial review. What the Patriot Act allows is TEMPORARILY secret searches. This is meant to get evidence on terrorists without the terrorists knowing that they've been caught and warning their comrades. The FBI must tell the searchee in a resonable period of time after the search that it took place. And once again, these searches must be approved by a judge.

http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html

Please know that the PATRIOT Act does NOT allow secret searches. Trusty www.factcheck.org (which I swear is non-partisan) strikes again!

http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html

The money Cheney receives from Halliburton is deferred compensation that he earned as its CEO, BEFORE BECOMING the Vice Presidential nominee. This isn't some fancy trick they cooked up to disguise kickbacks; it's a typical part of executive compensation plans, for both financial and accounting reasons.

Before Cheney accepted the VP nomination, he negotiated with Halliburton to replace the performance-related component of his deferred compensation with fixed payments of lower expected value, then took out an insurance policy to insure that he will receive the money even if Halliburton goes bankrupt. The amount he receives is thus utterly independent of how well Halliburton does, or even whether it continues to exist. I'm not sure how he could have handled the situation any MORE ethically.

>When Cheney returned to government "service", Haliburton was so sorry to see him go that they gave him a special bonus.
>My recollection is that it was around $40 million.

Your information and recollection are wrong. Can you cite a source? Mine is

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

unfortunetly, medical plans are way to expensive due to medical lawsuits

Noooo... http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

Yep. It still means the same thing. Kerry's comment was served up by the right as a prime example of his "flip-flopping". It was a bullshit accusation, of course (FactCheck has teh skinny), but it managed to "stick" and he took quite a bit of abuse for it. While it was a silly thing to say, it did highlight the fact that many in congress succombed to "peer" pressure by voting for an Iraq invasion without questioning the facts. Now, hopefully, we know better that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Let's do the math shall we?

China's middle class at 19% of 1.3bil:
(http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t8 0880.htm) 247mil people.

India's middle class at roughly the same percentage, 19% of 1bil: 190mil people.

The middle class of the US at 45% of 300mil: (http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html) 135mil

Which market would be more attractive to you as a handset maker?

Fully dynamic websites will crush your server.

Dynamic websites may be easy for beginners with this book, but introduce (a) a large amount of data or (b) a large amount of traffic (e.g. slashdot effect), and your server will fall over faster than a debutante in her first set of heels.

I was on the team that helped set up cnn.com, back in the "early days" of the Web. And more recently, during the U.S. presidential debates, I convinced FactCheck.org that their server would stop falling over, if they just exported their article database as static HTML files, rather than being 100% dynamic. (that indeed fixed the problem)

Dynamic content has its place, but too many newbies make the assumption that a fully dynamic website is a good idea. For content that does not change frequently, it is often more wise to use triggers to export the data as static HTML than to continually query and generate the same dynamic content over and over again. Database query caches help, but not a whole lot. Static HTML pages, and dynamic pages that provide the HTTP cache/expire/etag info are much more friendly to the web caching infrastructure in your browser and at your ISP.

Dean, interesting. Just finished reading some on him. Unfortunately he still supports an Assualt Weapons ban (where an assault weapon is described as a rifle with a pistol grip). Read here for some more http://www.factcheck.org/article115.html As for Zen Miller? I'm not sure he's the best example given the last election. He's also not running again.

But I'm curious now, are there any others? Or can you point me to a site that lists some more?

A Catholic is also supposed to agree with the Pope on the Death Penalty, the War in Iraq, and birth control amongst other things. I imagine that most Catholic politicians deviate quite a bit from the "official" position, almost all of us do, (yes I was Catholic).

As for "most liberal", ah the echo-chamber works, and works well. It wasn't a liberal magazine, it was the moderate National Journal, and he was only ranked "most liberal" a few times over the last however many years.

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

Or you could look at a non-partisan site like Factcheck.org for the real, documented facts, showing that he did indeed do his service.

I think that people have a real misconception on Bush's service, and don't realize just how mush serving he did. Bush joined Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began training: Six weeks of basic training, Fifty-three weeks of flight training, Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. So for those counting at home that's 80 weeks of service, and to give you an idea, although not to compare services, John Kerry served in the military for a total of 22 weeks (6 weeks of basic, 16 in country).

Of course, that wasn't all of Bush's service. By the time training was over, which was a full-time job, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation, and according to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, enough points for 5 years for the standard guardsman. But was Bush through? Nope. He earned 340 points for the year 1969-1970. He earned 137 points for 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points for 1971-1972.

In May 1972 -- the time that has been the focus of so many news reports where it has been claimed Bush "deserted" (or AWOL according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee), Bush asked for, and was given permission by his superiors to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. So Bush stopped flying, and from May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned 56 points -- not much by his previous years numbers, but still enough to meet his requirement.

The reasons surrounding Bush and the decision for him to stop flying we may neve know fully since his commanding officers are now dead. The only thing we have to go on is their words they left in the files. Words such as these:

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further."

And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

I find it sad, when people constantly decry Bush's service, because it seems obvious to me, that these people haven't read the record and are just reciting partisan rhetoric. Sadly, it's these same people, who semingly find no fault in the fact that John Kerry has always refused to release his whole military record when Bush has always been forthcoming about his service record, and has NEVER made an apology (nor should he) about it.

Both men answered the call to serve. Both men served. Get over it already

Too bad it wasn't around in time for the elections; there couldn't be more abuse of numbers than there.

Fact Check did a good job of analyzing what the politicians said during the election.

He owns no investment in Halliburton.

You sure kicked the crap out of that straw man.

Unfortunately, the 2004 USA Election has been a victory of FUD over Facts.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts"- Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The mainstream forth estate news organizations, on both sides, have utterly failed to hold either Democrats or Republicans accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts. In cases where journalists have made a consistent argument, the news organization has allowed that position to be "shouted down" by political camp followers repeating the same lies over and over again though the same outlet. In those same replies, there was very rarely comments by the news organization when known facts obviously contradicted the opinion. Many news organizations seem unwilling to publicly chastise either party for continuing to avoid addressing serious questions when the facts do not concur. The result has been an outright failure of the concept of journalistic ethics.

Some alternative sources, be they partisan or bipartisan organizations, individuals, websites, documentaries, forums or the blogosphere, have done a better job at holding both sides accountable. Sadly, even the most popular alternative source reaches a small fraction of the audience covered by the mainstream media. However, to even that small fraction, those same sources have utterly failed to present an overall palatable, concise and coherent position to the opposing or undecided viewers.

The resulting output from both mainstream and alternative sources has only polarized each sides opinion of each other, further dividing the nation.

Democracy is effective only when a large majority of voters are capable of making an informed choice. In my opinion, the majority of voters, despite who they voted for, were badly served by those organizations who claim they are responsible for keeping the public informed. It's not as if the same could not be said for past elections in any country, but this election cycle the "Whopper" mud slinging has been so much worse than any election since the introduction of television.

What does this mean for the tech industry?

In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned.

Whether choosing a political or consumer platform, it is possible to make an informed choice when the mainstream political or technical media performs its role to certain ethical standards.

From the International Federation of Journalists:

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON THE CONDUCT OF JOURNALISTS

Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by

Unfortunately, the 2004 USA Election has been a victory of FUD over Facts.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts"- Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The mainstream forth estate news organizations, on both sides, have utterly failed to hold either Democrats or Republicans accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts. In cases where journalists have made a consistent argument, the news organization has allowed that position to be "shouted down" by political camp followers repeating the same lies over and over again though the same outlet. In those same replies, there was very rarely comments by the news organization when known facts obviously contradicted the opinion. Many news organizations seem unwilling to publicly chastise either party for continuing to avoid addressing serious questions when the facts do not concur. The result has been an outright failure of the concept of journalistic ethics.

Some alternative sources, be they partisan or bipartisan organizations, individuals, websites, documentaries, forums or the blogosphere, have done a better job at holding both sides accountable. Sadly, even the most popular alternative source reaches a small fraction of the audience covered by the mainstream media. However, to even that small fraction, those same sources have utterly failed to present an overall palatable, concise and coherent position to the opposing or undecided viewers.

The resulting output from both mainstream and alternative sources has only polarized each sides opinion of each other, further dividing the nation.

Democracy is effective only when a large majority of voters are capable of making an informed choice. In my opinion, the majority of voters, despite who they voted for, were badly served by those organizations who claim they are responsible for keeping the public informed. It's not as if the same could not be said for past elections in any country, but this election cycle the "Whopper" mud slinging has been so much worse than any election since the introduction of television.

What does this mean for the tech industry?

In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned.

Whether choosing a political or consumer platform, it is possible to make an informed choice when the mainstream political or technical media performs its role to certain ethical standards.

From the International Federation of Journalists:

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON THE CONDUCT OF JOURNALISTS

Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by

Unfortunately, the 2004 USA Election has been a victory of FUD over Facts.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts"- Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The mainstream forth estate news organizations, on both sides, have utterly failed to hold either Democrats or Republicans accountable for claims that diverge widely from the known facts. In cases where journalists have made a consistent argument, the news organization has allowed that position to be "shouted down" by political camp followers repeating the same lies over and over again though the same outlet. In those same replies, there was very rarely comments by the news organization when known facts obviously contradicted the opinion. Many news organizations seem unwilling to publicly chastise either party for continuing to avoid addressing serious questions when the facts do not concur. The result has been an outright failure of the concept of journalistic ethics.

Some alternative sources, be they partisan or bipartisan organizations, individuals, websites, documentaries, forums or the blogosphere, have done a better job at holding both sides accountable. Sadly, even the most popular alternative source reaches a small fraction of the audience covered by the mainstream media. However, to even that small fraction, those same sources have utterly failed to present an overall palatable, concise and coherent position to the opposing or undecided viewers.

The resulting output from both mainstream and alternative sources has only polarized each sides opinion of each other, further dividing the nation.

Democracy is effective only when a large majority of voters are capable of making an informed choice. In my opinion, the majority of voters, despite who they voted for, were badly served by those organizations who claim they are responsible for keeping the public informed. It's not as if the same could not be said for past elections in any country, but this election cycle the "Whopper" mud slinging has been so much worse than any election since the introduction of television.

What does this mean for the tech industry?

In a lot of ways, both sides campaigns are mirrored by Microsoft's unabated campaign of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ( commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD ). Microsoft's advocates probably consider the use of the same strategy by both Democrats and Republicans a green light to continue to spread FUD, despite the evidence which contradicts the claims, including Microsoft's own internal research. Any forum attached to an article that even hints at Linux being used on the desktop results in a similar barrage of FUD that is familiar in form to that spouted by the political camp followers. Microsoft's advocates claim the same thing happens whenever Microsoft's record of security is mentioned.

Whether choosing a political or consumer platform, it is possible to make an informed choice when the mainstream political or technical media performs its role to certain ethical standards.

From the International Federation of Journalists:

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON THE CONDUCT OF JOURNALISTS

Adopted by the Second World Congress of the International Federation of Journalists at Bordeaux on 25-28 April 1954 and amended by

My girlfriends name is heather boyle and told me to google her when we met, so I did- here's the first link- NSFW

I'm not really sure what my point was, but I thought this was somewhat related.

people make mistakes with url's all the time- hell, Cheney even did it during the debate with factcheck.org
and then there's always the whitehouse site that's been screwing up kids, parents and teachers for 7 years

of course none of this changes the fact that the isp should keep their fucking hands out of what their client host as long as it's not spam or child porn.

disputed

Article Quoted:
In fact, tax experts say the incentive has been there for decades - since there has been a corporate income tax. It's not Bush's doing.

The incentive exists because the US taxes corporations at rates higher than most other countries. According to the Institute for International Economics, the effective rate for US corporations was just over 30% in 2002, while mainland China's effective corporate rate was only 11.3%, Britain's 18.2%, Mexico's 15.1% and Indonesia's a miniscule 0.2%.

Coming from someone writing for the big dogs I can honestly say I'm not surprised. What the hell else was he going to say? "Oh, the mainstream media is fucking dead. The Internet will take over as the true purveyor of news? Yeah, that would have been printed...

Right... I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the network news to put out a story that network news has become sensationalistic garbage.

The only fact checking I've seen was in the presidential debate after the VP one. Some reporter came on afterwards and debunked a few claims made by bush and kerry, ala factcheck.org. Still, they presented just a small handful of claims, and they presented them evenly - two for bush, two for kerry.

But to any news broadcaster reading this: Sometimes things ARE UNEVEN! And you must report it! Unbiased does not mean you massage every story until it sounds like both sides have equally balanced and valid points.

Often you'll hear "A 10 year study from [insert respected non-partisan group here] revealed today that [insert political statistic here]. [Political party] dismissed the claims."

So network news broadcasters are content to let a spokeman "dismiss the claims" as a valid rebuttal? Why, at a press conference or in a phone call, don't they insist on a real answer? An explanation? Are reporters really so trusting of their politicians, that if they "dismiss the claims" then the 10 year study is ignored?

God, it's frightneing how lazy major media outlets are these days...

Besides, we were already in a recession when Clinton left office.

Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything.

Sorry but you're just plain WRONG, yes that's the non-partisan site that Cheney intended to plug during the vice-presidential debate. If you want a dissection both of Kerry's other "flip-flops" and some of the tricks the Democrats pulled as well read the articles.

I'd think Iraq would of taught you that it's important to do some actual research before coming to a definate conclusion, I want to thank uneducated voters like you for another four years of destabalization and alienation on a global scale.

The President and Vice President told the American people that Iraq (Saddam) had a hand in 9/11. That was apparently false. That said, why did they go so far as to make outrageous claims that would eventually be disproven? If Iraq was a credible threat, the truth alone would have been enough to convince the American people that we had to go to war. If they didn't feel the truth (or decent intelligence) was good for the American people, then that tells me we need to question their motives.

Factcheck.org

1. Republican talking point.
2. Classic democrat/republican divide. Both parties' platforms are just to the left and right of center.
3. His record speaks for itself with regards to the environment. Energy independence is not feasible, though there are ways to speed up the process. Drilling Alaska would give us oil for 4 years at current consumption - compared to a lifetime of untainted beauty.
4. Listen to AM radio much?
5. Kerry's the bronze and silver star winner - not a "champagne unit" veteran.

1. Republican talking point.
2. Classic democrat/republican divide. Both parties' platforms are just to the left and right of center.
3. His record speaks for itself with regards to the environment. Energy independence is not feasible, though there are ways to speed up the process. Drilling Alaska would give us oil for 4 years at current consumption - compared to a lifetime of untainted beauty.
4. Listen to AM radio much?
5. Kerry's the bronze and silver star winner - not a "champagne unit" veteran.

• http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/Around_the_World/Coun tries/United_States/Government/Politics/Elections/ 2004_U_S__Elections/
• http://www.electoral-vote.com/
• http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
• http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/campaign/ind ex.html
• http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
• http://www.factcheck.org/

Quotes from the parent in italics.

"With the new release of the Osama-Bin-Laden tape supporting John Kerry, I can 100% saying I am going for Bush. If terrorists start saying they are going to start attacking any state the Bush wins and leaves the states the Kerry wins alone, then I am for Bush. Because that shows to me that the teorrists are running scared at another Bush administration."

So public enemy #1 is not only still at large 3 years after 9/11 but seems to be healthy and is broadcasting messages to world, and this implies that Bush is doing a good job? I must learn this astro-logic you droids are using these days, it is clearly much more powerful, since it can prove things our Earth logic certainly can't. This fact, together with the fact that by most intelligence estimates al Qaeda has grown over the last 3 years, suggests that Bush is doing an awful job. Quoth factcheck.org:

"Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries."

Also, you must realize that if what Osama bin Laden says determines what you do, as you say, then you are giving him power and ultimately his tactics have been successful, because he is able to dictate our politics. This applies whether you do exactly what he says or exactly the opposite. To put it another way, did it never occur to you that such a unethical creature could be saying something other than what he actually wants? Look, you must make the will of terrorists irrelivent and make your decisions based upon what's best for your country, not on what Osama bin Laden says. I should think that would be obvious. Finally, if you look at the whole tape, bin Laden doesn't endorse either candidate. He makes it clear that he dislikes both.

"Freedom is as an effective virus as AIDS, and Influenza. It is something that cannot be stopped once it is out in the wild, and it has infected the Middle East, and it is only time when every nation on Earth will be able to say we are Free, the way God (what ever you may call god) has made us."

I too think that ending tyrrany across the globe could help to curb terrorism, but attacking counties that pose no demonstrable threat to us and occupying them is hardly "spreading freedom". We will see if true freedom ever takes hold in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but we already know from many survey's that it has done a lot to make many in the rest of the world hate the US and more in the muslim world sympathize with Osama bin Laden. If we help people to be free, that will gain us friends, but if we attack people in the name of "freeing" them, that will only make us enemies. After all, the Soviets would have certainly claimed that an attack on the US would have been to "free" the working class from the tyrrany of the upper classes, so saying you want freedom alone does not make you good or popular. I'd also point out that there is already democracy in the region, as both Turkey and Isreal have parlamentary systems. Now Iran is a place in which democracy was actually growing as the reformers in the parlement there fought for more power against the theocratic wing of the government. There was a real chance to fan the flames of democracy, but Bush labeled it shortly after as part of the "axis of evil", which undermined the democratic movement there because it seemed to be associated with westerners who were calling Iran evil.

"I think you all should give the canidate that has proven himself..."

I could not agree with this more. John Kerry has proven himself to be an effective leader in the Senate, fighti

learn.

I voted for Gore in 2000. I personally feel that a large segment of the left has jumped off the deep end. Bush may have moved right (as did I) but much of the left moved even farther.

And so, you wish for these extreme changes to be made with a democrat controlled congress (it could happen next election in 2006), executive, and judicial?

And if Kerry wins, with a record of voting against military programs and funding and voting for cuts in intelligence funding, that will be a better alternative?

There is something that everyone should realize: Bush is lying to you. And even when someone points out the lies, he keeps on lying.

Actually, Spinsanity's RSS feed is pretty good. They tend to bash both sides. :)

If only factcheck.org would make a feed...

In other words, you sir, are a troll - while there are veterans who may oppose Kerry for his protests against the Vietnam war (and perhaps even rightfully so, since he seems to have branded everyone there with the "atrocity" brush), the swifties were merely a proxy for a wealthy republican who wanted to attack Kerry on his strengths, a classic Karl Rove tactic.

If we're going to judge the candidates by their actions 30 years ago, I'd rather support a war veteran than someone who evaded foreign service, and will not deny that he has used cocaine (his statement was that "he could pass a drug test at the time of his Pres. Bush Sr.'s administration"), or a team that between them have 3 DUIs (Cheney 2, Bush Jr. 1).

I know what you are up to, you neo-Nazi loser. You announce that you are Jewish and then play into all of the bigoted stereotypes about Jews being obnoxious, arrogant, thinking they are better than everyone else, etc. in order to foment anti-semetism. Well, it won't work with me because I know way too many Jewish people to fall for your little scheme. Unlike you, they are decent, respectable people.

Sherlock. Wow, you are a "finder" aren't you?

It was easy. You have a unique combination of irrationality, ignorance, bigotry, paranoia, and cowardice.

There was only a bust for the incompetent or those seeking VC money. Real engineers always had a job the whole time. That wouldn't be you.

You aren't a "real engineer." You are just a low-level coder boy. Don't flatter yourself.

Only a fucking drooling mongoloid idiot would assume someone saying "OPEC" sells meant it literally.

Don't blame me for your inability to express yourself clearly. And please stop using offensive ethnic slurs, Nazi-boy.

No, you support anti-nuclear candidates.

But you lied and said that *I* protested nuclear power.

No information on retirements, no information on the fact less people are going into engineering now and the last few years. No fresh blood plus retirements. Simple.

Yes, you are simple if you believe that 15% of software engineers retired in one quarter. Moron.

Theresa giving to terrorist organizations is illegal in my book. A quick search of any news sources will highlight these blnuders[sic].

Here's a solid debunking of your idiotic claim.

No links. These are just numbers. Balderdash. Poppycock. Lies.

You provide no links because you are lying and no reputable links support your lies.

Your 45 mpg is your feel good excuse, no one cares what you do - it isn't fixing the problem.

Yes, it is fixing the problem. It's reducing world demand for oil.

Bush and Kerry saw the same intelligence. Kerry authorized force.

Kerry authorized Bush to use force in the hopes that Bush would be smart enough to use it to pressure Saddam.

His own medals. His own betrayal of America, his own voting record.

Kerry earned medals in Vietnam. Bush had daddy pull strings to keep him out of 'Nam, went AWOL from the Air National Guard, got busted for DUI, and snorted crack cocaine. And he's your boy!

No, the UN is perfectly happy doing nothing. People like you kick and scream like fucking pussies every time someone goes to free oppressed people an/or get resourced for the economy you leech off of.

Nice try at ducking the point, but Bush/Cheney are letting genocide occur in Darfur because there is no oil there. You may support attacking sovereign nations to steal their natural resources, but I do not.

Doesn't fix the root power problem. Foolish ignoramus response. You would fuck the working class you claim to love the MOST with this ridiculous elitist bullshit philosophy. How they supposed to get to work, Daddy Warbux?

By purchasing fuel-efficient cars, moron. That reduces demand, which results in lower oil prices.

Let's get one thing straight, you are the liar and the fact twisting sicko here, not me.

Nice try, but I caught you in yet another lie.

If it was economical, it would be competing already.

So why is Bush spending our tax money on hydrogen fueled cars? If they were economical, they would be competing already. People don't tend to buy cars that use biodiesel if biodiesel isn't readily available. Fuel station owners aren't going to sell biodiesel if there isn't much demand. That's why tax incentives can get the ball rolling -- much as Bush claims to be doing with hydrogen-fueled vehicles.

I wrote:{lies

Sarcasm or irony, take your pick:
Yeah the Democrats seem overly keen on reinstalling the draft (not really but close enough for them to make noise about it and trying to pin it on Republicans) seeing as they created the bills in congress and senate... luckily the Republicans wont touch it with a ten foot pole.

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html

There wont be support for a draft unless US soil is the arena for war (maybe not even then). Nobody wants it, least of all the military.

Usually speaking the incumbent is going to talk about what they've done over the last couple years,

I think there is a lot of truth in this. However, Kerry has been in the senate for a lot of years, yet I don't hear him talking a lot about what he has done. Why not? He should be showing how his record of votes, submitted bills, etc., makes him a better choice. But mostly I hear BUSH talking about kerry's past, not kerry, except for the Vietnam distraction.

Check out the stuff kerry has sponsered in twenty years in the senate. It isn't a lot, and except in a couple of cases, it isn't very impressive:

http://factcheck.org/article282.html

Kerry isn't perfect, but a) it ISN'T universal healthcare, but it does get us closer. b) 2 trillion? factcheck.org, among others, have widely put down the number Bush has put out there on how the government will be running the health care system if kerry wins, and the number used to pooh-pooh the plan are imcomplete are wrong.

However, if you wanted to say a (reasonable and accurate) 900 billion dollar figure, that both Kerry has accpeted and the multiple non-partisan groups have arrived at and presented with facts. Thorpe Study presented by Factcheck.org. (it is a .doc file, sorry)

Factcheck has the best article, and it is even critical of Kerry. Yes, he has more specifics to give. His plans will pay for a bulk of it, but not necesarily all of it. More specifics and more ways of redistributing money would likely cover this.

2 Trillion is a rediculous and simply unfounded number. I understand that not everyone has time to lookup every fact, but don't spread things you havn't atleast TRIED to look into as truth. Esspecially if you were presented this information from a politician that stands to benefit from the damage those numbers imply.

Kerry isn't perfect, but a) it ISN'T universal healthcare, but it does get us closer. b) 2 trillion? factcheck.org, among others, have widely put down the number Bush has put out there on how the government will be running the health care system if kerry wins, and the number used to pooh-pooh the plan are imcomplete are wrong.

However, if you wanted to say a (reasonable and accurate) 900 billion dollar figure, that both Kerry has accpeted and the multiple non-partisan groups have arrived at and presented with facts. Thorpe Study presented by Factcheck.org. (it is a .doc file, sorry)

Factcheck has the best article, and it is even critical of Kerry. Yes, he has more specifics to give. His plans will pay for a bulk of it, but not necesarily all of it. More specifics and more ways of redistributing money would likely cover this.

2 Trillion is a rediculous and simply unfounded number. I understand that not everyone has time to lookup every fact, but don't spread things you havn't atleast TRIED to look into as truth. Esspecially if you were presented this information from a politician that stands to benefit from the damage those numbers imply.

Here's some real homework on the whole issue. http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html I'd highly suggest this non-partisan site for anyone of either persuasion who wants a few zingers to shut up the overbearing Kerry (or Bush) supporter sitting in the next cube.

Wow, I looked at factcheck.org, and I wouldn't consider any of the eleven bills factheck.org listed as being anything even remotely substantial.

In fact, I would say they are nops. My favorite:

S.J.Res.160: To renew "World Population Awareness Week" for 1991. (1991)

http://factcheck.org/article282.html

You're absolutely right about the veracity of politicians. Check out http://www.factcheck.org/ if you want to see some of the rhetoric of both sides debunked. If you want me to deluge you with "facts" to convince you to vote for Bush, I'm going to have to disappoint you. I don't think making a decision in an election should be like solving an equation. I can't tell you why you should vote for Bush, but I can tell you why I am. Here are a few of the issues that are important to me (in no particular order). - Social Security: The way it looks now, I stand to get zero, zilch, nada out of Social Security when I retire. I like Bush's proposal to allow a portion of my FICA contribution to go into a personal savings account. - Security: I haven't forgotten the uncertainty immediately following 9/11 (as I think so many have) and the feeling I got when Bush addressed the country. I think that he provided strong leadership and guided the country through a very trying time. - Tax Policy: I guess I'm a supply-sider at heart, but I don't believe that the way to spur the economy is to tax the bejesus out of those individuals and companies who actually employ people and spend money. I got tax relief, and I'm not one of the "rich" that supposedly got all the money. These are just a few of the positive things I like about Bush. I would honestly like to see a Kerry supporter explain why he is voting for Kerry without slamming Bush. It seems to me that most people are voting against Bush and not for Kerry.

Kerry's record for introducing and passing bills.

At least try to find out if your claim is true before you try to reason based on it.

It's pretty clear that your mind is made up, so don't think I'm trying to change your vote. However, I would encourage you to read up on the some of the misinformation shoved down our throats by both parties. FactCheck.org is an excellent resource--it was recommended by Cheney in the VP debate.

The gist of the arcticle you site is that we really don't have any good estimates of what the costs are. A 1999 GAO study quoted in the article you sited concludes "Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed." Likewise a '94 OTA study mentioned concluded "it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine." So perhaps that the estimates are in fact too low, not too high.

The definition of "frivilous lawsuits" is slippery--there are plenty of highly paid "expert witnesses" who will solemnly swear that Dr. X egregiously breached the standard of care, when any other physician who hears about the case will call the allegations pure BS. Also note that frequently every doctor who saw the patient gets sued once the lawyers get started. So even if the suit itself may have some merit against 1 physician, 9 or 10 other pysicians are also sued without true justification, all in the same suit. Such suits may not be labeled as frivolous, but for 9 of the 10 defendents it is.

I'll grant that I'm biased on this. I am a physician, and I've been sued for malpractice once. By a patient who I had never seen who had been in a hospital I had never set foot in. Despite the fact that I had nothing to do with this person in any way, it took 9 months to get myself dropped from the suit (which involved ~10 other doctors and 2 hospitals for charges that were BS). So I've had an intimate experience with this issue.

"Frivolous lawsuits" are less than 2% of the total, and hardly register in terms of actual dollars. No, the skyrocketing cost of medicine in the US can be firmly laid at the feet of PharmaCorps and the out-of-control insurance companies. Lawsuits actually went down in the past couple of years, yet malpractice insurance fees continued to rise.

In fact, ridding frivolous lawsuits and capping patient recoveries would not put a dent in medical costs. All that would do is take power out of the hands of judges who should be the final arbiters of what is and isn't a frivolous case and destroy the ability of plaintiffs to adequately address what, due to its nature, is a rather grievous harm.

You want to bring down the costs of medicine? Reign in the skyrocketing costs of drugs and insurance that doesn't adequately cover the insureds.