Slashdot Mirror

I too bet on the Democrats, more or less. I bought stocks in a company called StemCells, Inc (Nasdaq: STEM). How's my investment doing you ask? The stock has taken a 20% hit today. The only good news today is that California had a "ballot initiative" to fund stem-cell research at the state level and it passed. Woo hoo! So after the emotion tanks run empty and the stocks return to normal trading my investment should fair well that's to the ballot initiative, even though Bush's political-religious stance will continue to stiffle progress nationally.

Okay, then how about John C. Randolph (jcr@_INSERTED_TO_PREVENT_SPAM_idiom.com -- because, unlike you, I am not a dick). Sound a bit closer?
Sherlock. Wow, you are a "finder" aren't you?

It's not failed if it made money, which it did. I could have kept it open had I chosen to aggressively pursue clients, but I had the business acumen to know that I was better off waiting out the tech sector bust in a W2 job and then reopening my consulting business.
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're the fucking idiot who first called OPEC a "nation" and then said that OPEC sells oil. It does not. It controls price and supply but does not sell anything.
You are the fucking idiot here. Only a fucking drooling mongoloid idiot would assume someone saying "OPEC" sells meant it literally. I cant believe such a high level thinkers needs such details spelled out. Then again, you are a mental midget simpleton.

You lied and said that *I* protested nuclear power. No, I never admitted anything of the kind, you liar.
No, you support anti-nuclear candidates.

The IEEE-USA analyzed BLS numbers and reported the following high-tech employment trends on July 26: {snipped out of context fabrications}
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.

If they are illegal, prove it or STFU
Theresa giving to terrorist organizations is illegal in my book. A quick search of any news sources will highlight these blnuders.

You lie and fabricate. Show any evidence for your statement, liar. {snipped pure lies about Kerry tax returns}
No links. These are just numbers. Balderdash. Poppycock. Lies.

My VW Golf diesel gets 45mpg. What does your car get? As to your claim, why did oil prices skyrocket since our war on Iraq if it was just normal global demand for oil?
Caught you. You think if you drive something gas conserving you are fixing a problem. BZZT. Gas will be burned until it isn't economical to do so (taxing the shit out of this wont help). Poor understanding of things again. Sorry you are so partially educated and wrong all the time. Your 45 mpg is your feel good excuse, no one cares what you do - it isn't fixing the problem.

So you think it's fine for a President to lie in order to get support for wars that he wants to wage? Since you are someone who blatantly lies for personal gain, I'm not surprised that you'd take that view.
Bush and Kerry saw the same intelligence. Kerry authorized force. Kerry agreed initially to everything. He authorized in 1998. He authorized Bush. Now he lies about his own past. His own medals. His own betrayal of America, his own voting record. Bush received bad intelligence, as did Kerry.

You'll notice that Darfur has no significant quantities of oil, so Bush and Cheney are perfectly happy ignoring the genocide there.
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. Hypocrite idiot.

As do you. And I'm willing to pay for it. If it goes to $8/gallon, I'll pay for that oil and won't recommend sucking our reserves dry while oil is still available on the world market.
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?

That was just another of your lies since I never said anything of the kind.
Let's get one thing straight, you are the liar and the fact twisting sicko here, not me.

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

Then, what happened was that he (Bush I) was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

And according to the US army unit commander the facility was locked down when they were there on April 10th. They left it as is, as they weren't ordered to do anything with it. The Iraqi's noted it had been looted some months later.

Oh wait....

That company (Voters Outreach of America) ran registration drives in other states, but so far the allegations are confined to Nevada and Oregon, which are hardly swing states. One is +5.7% for Bush, and the other is +5.0% for Kerry.

and rarely vice versa,

Hardly: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041015-12132 5-3896r.htm

Read the part about ACORN. They also mention the problems with Voters Outreach.

probably a fraction of the total fraud going on.

You are right about that:

• Breaking into offices of political adversaries.
• Throwing cinder block bricks through the front door of offices of political adversaries.
• Shooting bullets through the windows of offices of political adversaries.
• Laying siege to offices of political adversaries
• Bullyingvoters in line at polling places.

Well, I've been catching bits on the news (I try to watch them all, CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC...etc)...that seem to cast some doubt on this pledge of JK. This one quote "The $200,000 figure was plucked out of the air, maybe because polls found that most Americans thought that $200,000 was reasonably rich enough to tax," he said. "But there are a lot of dual-income families in high-cost urban areas throughout America, mostly in the [Democrat-leaning] blue states, who believe they are middle class but who will be hit by these higher rates." It is an interesting article...one of many to be found out there. While I'd say I lean conservative on many issues...they are mostly fiscal...and socially (like abortion rights) I'm slighly liberal. I vote for who I think supports my views the best, I don't care which party they are with. I support no party. I don't believe that GB has lied to the US about anything...certainly no proof. While I do think we were justified in going into Iraq for many reasons other than WMD, I don't beleive he lied...I do believe he acted on faulty intelligence and made decisions based on that. Most of the world for years had the same intelligence and believed it. right or wrong...Bush does seem to stick to his guns on issues...and agree or not, you can see what he stands for. Kerry...I don't see this. Right or wrong, I'd wish he'd pick an issue and stick with it. He seemed quite the pro-war candidate...till he started getting beat by Howard Dean...and changed his tune to win the primary's. Trouble is...he's having to stick with that somewhat in the main election...but is still trying to find wiggle room.

While I don't like the size of the deficit we have...I understand part of it comes from war expenses...and recession. I don't like the fact that GB hasn't seen a spending bill he didn't like. I want more govt. cuts...

I just have to disagree...I don't think Kerry is a straight up person. I think he will say and do anything based on the audience he is with. If I perceived he was more honest and would express his opinions on issues and stick to them...I'd be more apt to listen to him and possibly vote that way. He does have issues I like, (increased fed stem cell $'s, cut tax cred. for outsourcing)..etc.

It is still awhile till Nov. 2....but, at this point...I'm still leaning with Bush as the lesser of two evils...and the main tipping point is taxes. I not only want to keep the cuts...I want more. I don't like the wealth redistribution system the tax system is today. And Bush did indicate he not only want to cut taxes...but, to greatly simplifiy the tax code.

Low and slimy? Please. If what Kerry said was so obviously bad, why did Bush say nothing about it in his rebuttal? Perhaps because it was manufactured outrage? (the worst kind, btw)

And Mary's parents, don't get me started--those two are scum who never stick up for their daughter. Name me one instance where they expressed outrage against people in their own party for insulting their daughter. Santorum, a sitting senator, equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy, adultery, and beastiality (ok, that last one I don't have an attribution for in this article, but I can dig one up if you contest the point). Where was all that self-righteousness in defense of their daughter then?

Or maybe that's not personal enough--Mary wasn't mentioned by name. What about when Alan Keyes, a prominent Republican running for Senate, said specifically that Mary was a selfish hedonist? Mary's parents sold her out, and are only willing to fight for her to make their political opponents look bad; it's disgusting. Nowhere did John Kerry insult her or her lifestyle. The only people who have a problem with what Kerry said are those who think homosexuality is something to be ashamed of (note: it's not).

Especially with Checheny which is right now mostly a russian problem.

Really, now? What do you think about this?

I think that this goes to show that these people aren't just politically motivated--as is the common belief--they're mainly motivated by a very dangerous religious fanatacism. As far as I know, the US has nothing to do with Russian and Chechnya. But then, why are they crossing our borders?

He was booed when he appeared at a Red Sox games before the convention. I think they see through his "insincerity" when it comes to his Red Sox Fandom.

On a day that it is being reported that Kerry lied in the debate about talking to the UN Security Council, you claim we need a Kerry administration? The Republic has survived 4 years of Bush, it can survive another 4 years.

Oh, and those 350 TONS were stolen before American troops arrived. I'm sure we should have had troops there before we invaded, right?

After all Iraq and Afghanistan have been so bad that we've lost 50,000 troops, and Afghans can't hold elections because the Taliban and Al Qaeda are blowing up the polling places.

Oh, that's right, they held the first democratic election in over 2000 years there, with women voting, in a country that was radically fundamentalist Islam just 2 years ago. Ooops.

Hmm. And Karsai won...... To bad the Taliban had to sit this one out.

Democrats were only accused of doing this by the Republicans and only laptops (the easiest and most valuable hardware to steal) were taken, quickly from an office where they were plainly visible from the street.

Engaging in vandalism against Bush offices by teenagers is not quite as bad as tearing up valid registrations.

Criminally negligent op-ed pieces do not facts make.

Accusing a group of committing illegal activities with no evidence is a typical Republican tactic.

Press releases aimed at creating a non-existant scandal and failing are pretty weak as a source.

Finally, defrauding a company by making up fake voter registrations to earn more money in a $9 per hour job is not making people think they are registered when they are not.

Take off your DNC-issue blinders, and maybe you'll see that both sides engage in all sorts of nefarious activities to make sure their side wins. Nothing to see here, move along.

Three computers were taken sometime between 11 p.m. Monday and 7 a.m. Tuesday, apparently by an intruder who broke a side window.

One of the computers belonged to office manager Barbara Koonce, who was responsible for names and addresses of hundreds of party members, volunteers, and candidates, a master schedule for all candidates' events, and financial information.

It also included a list of registered Democrats - information that had been analyzed as part of the Democrats' campaign strategy, Ms. Koonce said.

...to the left. Voter fraud goes on in every election, by lots of people in both parties. And it's not like there's been a lack of stories about Democratic voter fraud. And pointing this out DOES NOT ENDORSE IT. All voter fraud should be punished. But it's a damn disgrace (and a big help to the Democratic party) to only point it out when it helps Republicans. Since Slashdot won't report it when Dem s do it, here's a recent sampler:

- Attempted Democratic Voter Fraud In Nashville
- Voter Fraud In South Dakota
- Colorado To Tackle Voter Fraud Fears
- Rendell will send monitors to elections offices
- ACORN Voter Registration Fraud Allegations Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg, Says Employment Policies Institute

And lets not forget the revelation that the Democratic Party plans a pre-emptive strike by alleging voter fraud in close races, even if there's absolutely no proof of it.

Slashdot; not fair, and damn sure not balanced.

"we are FAR from being the bottom of the pile in the tech industry and further from being a soft electronic target. I'll worry about the north korea electonic threat when they can feed their own population!!"

Sure, North Korea couldn't plough money into military programs in preference to feeding its population could it? I mean look at their track record - no way they'd have the cash left after all the other great stuff they've spent money on. And so long as they're too broke to eat, they can't pose a threat. No need to worry about them is there? Anyway the major reason people become soft targets is complacency.

Oh wait....

I can't help but wonder about the "fake" Bush service records too. They were created in such a way as to appear genuine until closely scrutinized. What if the content of the documents were generally correct but forged versions were prepared by Republicans to discredit the real ones that they feared were about to turn up.

The forged memos that you are refering to were pathetic forgeries prepared by someone with more Anti-Bush venom than brains. CBS's own experts warned them about the documents, but 60 Minutes went ahead with the story anyway. Maybe that was because Mary Mapes, the producer of the story who is also known as a liberal activist, had been after the story for five years and this was one of the last chances to get the story out before the election. Well, at least she had the decency to put her source for the documents, Bill Burkett, an ardent Bush hater and Democrat activist, in touch with the Kerry campaign as he requested.

You can read more of this pathetic story here, here, and here.

Hopefully this will put some of your fears to rest.

Maybe you can't find the article because it was a RUSSIAN ship that the pilot was observing when he got hit.

Here's a quote from recent article that mentions the incident:

"In one case, Naval Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly and Canadian helicopter pilot Capt. Pat Barnes suffered eye injuries hours after an aerial surveillance mission to photograph a Russian merchant ship that had been shadowing the ballistic-missile submarine USS Ohio in Washington state's Strait of Juan de Fuca."

You don't have any anti-American bias do you?

• Kerry's story about how Nixon sent him to Cambodia during Christmas, and how this was "seared, seared" in his memory. Only now we find out that he was never in Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president then anyways.

Wrong on several counts; he never said Nixon sent him -- here's an anti-kerry blog with a compendium of Kerry's Cambodia quotes here's another -- show me a "Nixon sent" quote or you'll have to retract. Sure, Kerry mentions Nixon, but he never says what you claim. Next, on June 16, 1971 O'Neill told Nixon that "I was in Cambodia, sir." This was recorded by Nixon's secret taping system. That story even made it to freepers, so you have no excuse for missing it!

What we have is, in the 1970's both Kerry and O'Neill agreeing they were in Cambodia, and in 2004 O'Neill changing his story. To you this is proof Kerry lied? A number of vets have come out against O'Neill's group's claims. Read about it here. According to this article, Kerry's boat was very near the border; how can you prove he wasn't on the Cambodian side?

• It was also seared in his memory about when he was in Vietnam when he heard MLK Jr. was shot. Only MLK Jr. was shot months before Kerry went to Vietnam.

Correct, Kerry is in error here, although Kerry never uses the word "seared" regarding that memory. Kerry was on the USS Gridley, mostly in the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly how far is that from Vietnamese territorial waters?

• Kerry has admitted that his first Purple Heart "may have" been self-inflicted (by accident). This is mainly because Kerry's journal from the time stated that they hadn't been attacked yet.

False. Kerry admitted no such thing. The "self inflicted" claim comes from this line of logic: Kerry was first wounded Dec 2, then wrote in his journal Dec 11 "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,". Kerry-haters, reading this journal entry, have claimed the wound must have been self-inflicted, but Kerry said no such thing.

• Kerry said he got an honorable discharge before schmoozing with the North Vietnamese, but in fact he was still an officer.

False. Kerry never said he was discharged when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris. The error is in an AP timeline; not in Kerry materials. You can read about it here. Show me where Kerry claims he was discharged before Paris, or retract.

• He now claims that he requested and signed up for the most dangerous job in the Vietnam War, but in actuality he tried to sign up for the safest. (After failing to get a deferment.) How do we know this? Not only because of records (swift boats were changed from easy coastal patrols to dangerous river missions after Kerry signed up). But we also have Kerry's own admission of this fact a few years ago.

False. Show me where Kerry claims he "requested" the "most dangerous job." Kerry explains he volunteered for the Swift Boats so he could be near the action but not in it. Here's a direct quote: "They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." It is a measure of K

Just wait a few years and the US will start censoring websites. In the run-up to the Iraq war US news outlets didn't ask any questions. Americans who looked at cbc.ca or bbc.co.uk realized the world was against the war (for good reason). Only seems reasonable, for homeland security reasons, that Homeland security dept should not allow Americans to read evil foreign websites in the run-up to the Iran war.

That explains all the headlines:

Doctor shortage cripples Canadas free health care
Broken health care system
Canadian health care deal adds $14 billion to ailing fund Pact ...

Just because people want something for free, doesn't mean they can actually get it.

http://www.hispanicheritage.com/health/immigrantva ccines_08_02.htm

Please research the jobs that illegals are taking. If you do this you will find that it is mostly the starter jobs and the low wage jobs which, before this invasion, where taken by blacks. Just look at the unemployment rate in the black community.

Deportees are liinked to Mexico crime rate.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040912/n ews_1n12deport.html

http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10513 206p-11432370c.html
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040825112521 -6070r.htm

See, unlike you I don't live in a dream world where I can just make shit up. You own me an appology.

Mr. Badnarik -
In a recent Washington Times article entitled "Third parties seen as threat to Bush" you were quoted as saying, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for."

As a Libertarian leaning voter, this statement concerned me. Traditionally, the word conservative has been used to describe those who believe in smaller government, which is certainly a Libertarian position. However, it's also a word used to describe those who wish to legislate morality and religious doctrine, which I can't imagine being something any Libertarian would support.

Can you clarify this quote? What aspects of conservatism do you see as being in line with Libertarian values, and at what points do the two diverge?

Mr. Badnarik -
In a recent Washington Times article entitled "Third parties seen as threat to Bush" you were quoted as saying, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for."

As a Libertarian leaning voter, this statement concerned me. Traditionally, the word conservative has been used to describe those who believe in smaller government, which is certainly a Libertarian position. However, it's also a word used to describe those who wish to legislate morality and religious doctrine, which I can't imagine being something any Libertarian would support.

Can you clarify this quote? What aspects of conservatism do you see as being in line with Libertarian values, and at what points do the two diverge?

Bush/Cheney [vs] Kerry/Edwards
What a great choice to make; nuclear war or learning Spanish as a new national language. Hmmmmm, what's that half life again?

I hope you live in a "swing state"! This Google search on Bush's amnesty plan for illegal aliens turns up almost 7,000 hits. From just the top ten hits we have the Washington Times, a top ranked Conservative Christian site, GOP USA, and even FOX News ALL criticizing Bush's plan.

Perhaps you prefer the general Republican platform on immigration to the general Democrat platform on immigration, but in this case Bush is so pro-business that his policy is to protect business's "right to employ illegal aliens" and to encourage businesses to import even more cheap immigrant labor.

Bush refuses to to call it an "amnesty" program. The Whitehouse website attempts to explain it is not an "amnesty" program. However every news story I have seen calls it an amnesty program and immigrants are calling it an amnesty program. And it *has* trigged a surge in Mexicans flooding the border.

I may not be thrilled with people voting for Bush because they agree with him, but that's still a million times better than people being mislead by Bush spin and mistakenly voting for him.

P.S.
This isn't really an issue I care about. I have about a hundred other reasons to want Bush out.

-

to quote some anonymous 'US Official' as saying it 'could' be the result of some hypothetical means nothing

Secretary of State Colin Powell (per this story) is hardly an anonymous official, though to any Democrat, he's invisible (as we can't have black conservatives in the highest positions of authority in the US Government - it just blows the whole conspiracy theory about the evil conservatives keeping the black man down).

Here are a few websites that reference this situation:

UPI: breaking news

littlegreenfootballs.com

AllahPundit here and here and here.

indcjournal.com

cnsnews.com

command-post.org

hftp.blogspot.com

It is a release form to authorize the military to release your records.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php ?StoryID=20040818-121345-3874r

Time and Newsweek fabircated polls?

its gonna be fun to watch dubya fail.

See my sig

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

Kerry at times has claimed that he only threw away his military ribbons and not his medals at anti-war protests, but the swift vets use video uncovered by ABC News that shows him saying he did in fact toss his own medals.

Here is another Kerry claim that is withering:

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart -- awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 -- did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

And more:

None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.

Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.

You should also be clear that not all of the veterans who have spoken out and revealed information contrary to John Kerry's claims are members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And then there is John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, which was a masterpiece of political theater in the service of lies.

It is also interesting to note that while you will hear endlessly repeated that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are funded by rich Republicans which means this:

But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.... The third major backer is John O'Neill, who put up $25,000 and is co-author of the group's book.

.. what you won't hear is that the seed money was followed up by a lot of people making small individual contributions:

But the swift-boat veterans have vowed to continue their ad campaign and have raised more than $2 million in contributions, a

I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post.

Ah, yes. Salon is a great source of unbiased news. The others aren't nearly as biased as Salon, but they aren't exactly fair and impartial either. Incidentally, I've read most of the articles in the Washington Post and New York Times and their "debunking" of the Swift Boat Veterans claims isn't exactly convincing.

Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire.

Why don't you go to the source on this one and check out Thurlow's response. In all likelihood the language from his citation came directly from John Kerry's after action report since Kerry seems to be the only one that filed a report describing the incident.

Also, Kerry's citation claims that they were under constant small arms and automatic weapons fire for 5000 meters while they fled the scene. I'm sorry, but if that were true they would probably all be dead. Also, how did they rescue and repair the damaged PCF-3 boat if they were under constant fire?

-- Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?

He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.

Um, no he hasn't. Look for "Standard Form 180" and "FOIA"; the Washington Post only received six of about 100 pages. And "review papers" seem to be pretty important if we're trying to figure out if this guy deserves to be President.

Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia.

It was actually John O'Neill, not Thurlow, that was recorded speaking to Nixon. Also, O'Neill, unlike Kerry, does a pretty good job of clarifying the recording. Keep in mind that we don't get to hear the entire conversation from the recording.

Also, the statements you provided are both 1) nothing like what Kerry has said about Cambodia, and 2) don't address Kerry's lies about Cambodia. This isn't just a small, little claim. This is something that Kerry says was "seared -- seared -- in [him]." He has repeated this story many times for over 15 years at least, and now that it has been proven to be a total fabrication, he has been forced to change it.

First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war".

No, I mean served WITH him. Like on his boat, next to his boat during combat, and as his commanding officers. While not all of the Swift Boat Veterans served as closely with Kerry, I'm addressing and talking about those that did. These guys (the vocal ones of the SBVT) were eye witnesses to Kerry and their accounts should be heard.

Kerry's campaign has been forced to backtrack on his fraudulent Christmas in Cambodia story and they have now been forced to backtrack on his first Purple Heart, admitting that his wound may have been self-inflicted. From what I've seen the Swift Boat Vets have been solid in their claims and have forced Kerry to backtrack. This goes to show that there is at least some tr

I'm sorry, but if the author couldn't do some basic background checking on someone's voting record why the heck should I trust their reporting on scientific matters? Especially when they've already shown a premeditated bias against what they're reporting on?

Come on, wake up and look at the facts...

Have we been so primed by TV and movies to expect fantastical aliens that we don't think that we may end up finding the technological equivalent to ourselves fifty or a hundred years ago?

They'll call in lil Johnny Edwards!!

He'll channel people from beyond the grave and sue for billions!!!

He dosen't mind driving up the cost for us little people so he can bank $150 million.

I don't see how all this adds up to the US providing some obscene proportion of the world's spam.

read this http://washingtontimes.com/books/20030816-105043-6 895r.htm.

Also I hope you didn't try to justify stalins murders just now.

He got honorably discharged from the military. Deserters do not get honorably discharged. There are only three months unaccounted for, I dont know what happened during those three months, or what deal he struck with the National Guard. From the sounds of This report, he completed enough training the previous year to cover the three months. I dont know how the national guard works and i dont pretend to, but i do know the military doesnt just give out honorable discharges.

Interesting that in 1992 it wasnt important to John Kerry that Bill Clinton didnt serve in vietnam, saying "we all served in many different ways".

Also, Bush is not a liar. I can only pressume you are talking about the WMD in iraq. Please note, if Bush lied when he said that Iraq had WMD's, then you are also saying that Saddam Hussain, Kofi Annon, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madylin Albright and more lied about it as well. You cant play a game of pin the tail on the incumbant here. There is also an AP News story about "things" being trucked into Syria.

I just am not a fan of rhetoric. The summation of arguments agaist Bush is... He is stupid, He is a Liar, and HALIBURTON!. Oh yeah, and he's AWOL. While it is hard to find evidence about one's intelligence, he did graduate from Yale and is the President. Most stupid people dont accomplish that. I already cited sufficiently, I believe, why Bush is not a liar. As for HALLIBURTON!, I can only say it is a big american company that helps our military in certain situations. It has been used by Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. Maybe people dont like they idea of such a big company, but... there arent exactly Mom and Pop small-buisnesses that can provide high octane fuel to bases in Basra.

Just my 2, well, maybe 3 cents.

I don't have the energy to go into a long-winded response on what I view to be the many gross factual misrepresentations in this post, so I'll just point out a couple:

1) "True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush." Are you really naive enough to believe that only the conservatives are doing this sort of thing? You need to get out more...

2) "Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected." This exact same thing is said of EVERY President going for their 2nd term. Can you provide examples of what you consider to be "REALLY controversial"?

3) "This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist" A Google search seems to show that many (for example) would disagree with you.

Really, why do Slashdot story submitters have to have such completely and deliberately inaccurate stories? It *sucks*. I'd happily add a day or whatever on to the time until a story comes out if the eds would just read the linked to article on each story that they actually pass.

I already posted an admission (P.S. why was that moderated funny?) that my original link for "recent mass migration away from MSIE" should have referenced a different article (although that one has a typo). I goofed; I'm sorry!

I don't like IE either, but come on. There is no "recent mass migration."

I think the tiny grain of truth somewhere was that the current version of IE actually saw a market share decrease last month instead of an increase.

And by "mass", I wasn't implying "majority". I agree that the market share decrease was small; however, the absolute number of switchers was very large compared with Mozilla.org's historical conversion rate. Hence, the adjective, "mass".

I agree, I submitted a bad link. I was referring to the recent loss of MSIE's market share to Firefox and other alternatives.

Sorry!

Not according to this

And thats from when Buddy was *in* office. And before you ask, why yes I am from Rhode Island, born and raised.

The concept of a $100 million executive jet is a bit much. For comparison, a Grumman Gulfstream IV, considered the top-of-the-line executive jet, costs about $18 million.

There are over 200 Billionaires in the US alone, will they be content to toddle around at 500mph when their contemporaries are going 1,500mph?

And then there will be a few for our government to wisk people around in, and ours won't be the only government to want a few.

We live in a world where people already spend over 100 million on private yachts, and those only go 20 miles an hour!

Remember, this comes out of your pension fund.

Am I the only one, who after reading the doubleclick DoS article here found that their usage of the term 'hackers' was really rather....stupid? Something to that point? After reading the Great Hackers article, anyways... Surely I can't be the only one who was bugged by this.

they don't even bother to read the text of the laws they pass?

Yeah...Kerry has said that about various bills and reports. But then again, he doesn't even bother to vote in ~3/4 of them anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter if he reads it or not.

Obviously our Government doesn't have enough budget set up for the program to go on. Don't worry, earth is our home.

they do have alot of oil

Yes, I'm sure that someone with a phobia of Mexicans will vote for Bush. The right wing are really happy with his policies on immigration.

Regarding intelligence failures:
Off the top of your head, tell me how many intelligence successes occur annually? No, don't go looking to the media (not even FoxNews...). No, don't even ask Congress.

Can't think of many, right?

By unofficial definition a true "intelligence success" will never be public knowledge. We, as the general public, have no idea of the staggeringly high number of times intelligence has saved our lives. Ironically, we know all too well a sickening amount of detail from such clusterf$%@s that led to 9/11, the U.S.S Cole bombing, etc.

If we had any clue as to how many "intelligence successes" have saved us from destruction/distress we would probably be scared to get out of bed. We should all be thankful that people are out there working to make sure we don't have to hide under the covers quaking in fear.

You wanted some sources? OK:

• Bureau of Labor and Statistics lists plenty of information on employment/unemployment. Take a look at the historical unemployment rates and whip out a calculator. For '92 to '00 I calculate unemployment to an average of 6.1% -- Nothing wrong with that. That's a very healthy unemployment rate and I couldn't complain, but when you compare that with the current rate quoted at 5.6%, a lot of complaints about the current administration's unemployment rate lose their ability to hold water.

• I see 214,000 jobs added last month. That's bad?

• As for the economic theory, I am a firm believer in Keynesian economics as well as the ideas of John Hicks.

• Bankrate.com has some great information and graphical representations of historical rates and economic indicators. Take a look and let me know how you feel about the current indicators?

• If you want a look at how other people are thanklessly putting their lives on the line for my safety and yours, and hence why they command my utmost respect and gratitude to the extent that I refuse to acknowledge intelligence failures, read Book Of Honor by Ted Gup.

Sorry, no references to anything on the Washington Times, FoxNews, the Washington Post, PBS.org, antiwar.com, or thenation.com. Call me crazy, but I like my data unbiased.

That's all for now.

Regarding the document that was released on February 18, 2004 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), I believe the UCS accusations are wrong and misleading. The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement. I believe the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions, not the least of which is the failure to consider publicly available information or to seek and reflect responses or explanations from responsible 3 government officials. Unfortunately, these flaws are not necessarily obvious to those who are unfamiliar with the issues, and the misleading, incomplete, and even personal accusations made in the document concern me deeply. It is my hope that the detailed response I submit today will allay the concerns of the scientists who signed the UCS statement. I can say from personal experience that the accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous. After all, President Bush sought me out to be his Science Advisor - the highest-ranking S&T official in the federal government - and I am a lifelong Democrat.

Greenwatch, not a member of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' lists UCS as part of the 'radical left': here

The Washington Times says here that the UCS is funded entirely by the left:

The New York Times' reporter James Glanz, for example, identified the Union of Concerned Scientists simply as "an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and often has taken stands at odds with administration policy." The Washington Post characterized the critics as "two groups of prestigious scientists." Unfortunately, we're likely to see a gushing torrent of this kind of a "blinders-on" reporting from now until Election Day. Anyone who has taken Journalism 101 -- or Propaganda 101, for that matter -- knows reporters have a duty to delve more deeply into the background of the critics. If the media had taken the trouble to dig a little further, they would have known the Union of Concerned Scientists is partially funded by a secretive philanthropy called the Tides Foundation, a clearinghouse that funnels money into a variety of left-wing groups including MoveOn.org, a Web site devoted to defeating President Bush this fall. The Tides Foundation also has received more than $4 million in recent years from the Howard Heinz Endowment, whose board is chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Leahy has been relentless in his attacks. Recently, he blamed the intelligence failures on President Bush while the senate committed determined in a bipartisan manner that the failures had nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with practices at the CIA.

It is rumored that Sen. Leahy said something to Cheney before Cheney's outburst.