Slashdot Mirror

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure miserable failure war criminal

Interesting sig you've got there, but isn't it more important to highlight this international disgrace.

Nice sig, dipshit...

National Treasure

Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt.

You forgot to mention the most dangerous chemical of all, dihydro monoxide. Why worry about mercury, when you have all that H2O around ...

No, the biggest environmental threat to humans isn't either radiation or chemicals, it's ignorance, stupidity, and paranoia.

It is a good thing then that we have Bush in the White House, to fight for more arsenic and lead in the water and more mercury in the air. These stupid environmental laws are just in the way when fighting against ignorance and stupidity.

Hum.. I guess not..

This slashdot thing is not too bad, in spite of the weird alphabet and the left to right text.

I hope you find this message. Anyways:

Please tell Mr. SMITH that his FRUIT shipment is ready for delivery, and that the PROM QUEEN is in the TAXI.

--------
Free the world from the great Satan

Nobody wants electronic voting without a verifiable system of reciepts.

I can think of one guy.

According to them, only 2% of adult American internet users visit "adult websites" on a typical day.

News flash: people lie about sex.

More seriously though, I find it hard to believe that only 54% of adults with internet access use that access on a typical day.

Dialup, which is what most people have, is a pain in the ass. While we're using our DSL lines to post 20 comments a day to Slashdot, most people are in front of a different kind of monitor, watching the latest Fear Factor or Joe Millionaire or biased "news" program.

<a title="traitor"
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/p resident/gwbbio.html">traitor</a>

<a title="traitor"
href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/p resident/gwbbio.html">traitor</a>

If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?

I guess the republicans would have cheered since they would finally get proof that the democrats are as dirty as they are.

Since you bring up Bush's AWOL, compare how Clinton was treated because he used the chance he had to not get sent to Vietnam. Compare that with how Bush is treated for using daddy to get out safe of the war he supported, then taking an AWOL and getting paid for it.

GW Bush was the head of the CIA for a while, but he was rich before that.

George W. Bush has never been head of the CIA (thank God). You are thinking of the father of the present joke in the White House, George H.W. Bush who was appointed head of the CIA in 1976.

miserable failure
unelectable

miserable failure
unelectable

--Mike--

Nazis? - I hate Illinois Nazis

Why not, when our country is being guarded by a LUNATIC

Just like it didn't give a shit about: 1. The Kyoto protocol, to which the Clinton administration had previously committed the US;

2. The International Criminal Court, (together with the Clinton administration) by demanding a complete US exemption from prosecution;

3. Free trade, by placing tarriffs on steel, lumber and other imports, in direct violation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements;

4. Invading Iraq, which was done without a proper UN mandate, hence the UN-bashing when the US didn't get close to getting what it wanted (no, the previous decade old resolutions were not sufficient, if they were the US wouldn't have been looking for a new resolution green-lighting the war in late 2002 and it wouldn't have got so shitty with France and the other countries in the Security Council that promised to veto any such resolution);

5. The other long-range missile treaties with Russia (originally signed in the 1970s, when it was part of the USSR), which it unilaterally scrapped almost as soon as it entered office.

And that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head. Face facts, when it comes to international relations, there's a lot that the Bush administration doesn't give a shit about. Pretend all you want, but the current US government has set back US-World relationships more than any other in history. It took all the goodwill and support the World had to offer after September 11 and either pissed it away or threw it back into people's faces. Anti-US sentiment is rife, even in those countries whose governments had backed the US invasion of Iraq: In Britain 85 percent were opposed to war, In Australia it was over 80 percent and in Spain it was over 90 percent, and most of those in opposition were highly critical of Bush's motives. It turns out that they (and the rest of the World) were right to be. It's not hard to find "Bush bashing crap". The man's done a lot of crap that's worthy of bashing.

"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."

What does the part in italics mean? that all afghanis are terrorists, or just most of them, or just those in charge? If it is just those in charge, are they terrorists or generals? are the men fighting soldiers in an army or members of al queda? where is the distinction?

.As for the northern Aliance, They are nothing more the mercenaries. We looked around for a existing faction that was alligned with our goals and paid them off to do our dirty work. Need I remind you of the warlord Dostum who killed ~3-5 thousand prisoners? Yep, we were working with him to fight "al Qaeda's vision"/taliban/terrorists. In fact the people that we worked with to overthrow the taliban bore a striking resemblence TO the taliban. Does that mean they are terrorists to? These labels, terrorists/freedom fighter are meaningless unless meaning is ascribed to them by the relevent authorities.

I'd like to bet about a milllyun dollars that about five minutes after this scheme came into effect, somebody (okay, me) would be spamming the entire world with an email that included links to images like this one, that one, maybe even this one, and because I'm a non-discriminatory irritant, this one. And you convinently block them all yourself.

In the bush era of no penalties for Worldcom or Enron execs Daryl may be laughing at all of us a few months from now.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but Andrew Fastow (Enron CFO) and his wife are going to jail. Jeff Skilling (Enron CEO) will likely be charged this week. You can check here.

You may also be shocked to notice that the crimes in question took place between 1996 and February 2001. Now, who was the President during those years?

Now, if you want to complain about how the Bush administration messed up the Microsoft case, I with you, brother.

They benefit most from the services that taxes pay for (law, order, financial security (the Fed, SEC), military defense, and more).

Care to explain your reasoning? The largest item in the federal budget is social security ($470 billion). Social security hardly benefits the rich at all. The second largest item in the federal budget is medicare and medicaid ($411 billion). The rich people do not benefit from either of those at all. The third biggest item is the Department of Defense ($388 billion). Bin Laden wants to kill poor americans just as much as he wants to kill rich ones. How about other services? Do the rich use our public highways more than poorer people? Do they need the police more than South Central LA? (Source for budget info).

Also, while they may pay a large chunk of taxes, individually they still pay less taxes in proportion to their earnings than poorer citizens.

This is completely untrue. We have a progressive tax system- the more money you make, the higher your tax rate is. Lets look at the actual numbers:

In 2000, the richest 1% accounted for just over 20% of all taxable income. That 20% of the income paid 37% of all income taxes. If you look at the richest 5%, they account for 35% of taxable income, but they pay 56% of all income taxes.

On the other hand, the poorest 50% of the country accounted for about 13% of the income, but they only paid about 4% of all income taxes. That means that the rich pay a much higher proportion of their earnings to tax than poorer people. Can they afford it more than poor people? Of course- thats why we have a progressive tax system. But exactly how much do we want to punish success in this country?