Slashdot Mirror
Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
Fetch the man his coffee, post haste!
Some Americans have yet to receive their forty acres and mules.
This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.
This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand.
1. Anger most of the population
2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
3. ???
4. Pro...Re-election!
Bush will have broadband in everyone's home about the same time he lands humans on Mars.
Rank Presidents by th
homeland security plans.
When everyone has XP and DRM and ABC and DEF and CIA, then braodband to boot, no amount of tinfoil on earth will cloak your activities from BB...
Of what a joyous future ahead...
Presidential candidates say absolutely anything to get themselves elected. More on this at 10:00pm...
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
As much I would like to have cheap broadband. This is obviously a last ditch effort to get the /.er's vote.
I'm glad Slashdot editors are doing such a fine job treating subjects fairly!
But hey, wouldn't universal broadband be kewl!!!!????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
If we're going to have "Universial Service" for Internet access, we first need to determine what level of service is going to be considered the universial level.
For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.
The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?
And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.
Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
I advise all slashdot readers to vote for this patriot on the upcoming election!
Bush is all about freedom, has been and always will be.
This man knows every american has a universal right; and that is to download pornography at high speeds.
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid....see, he wants to get a spending bill passed that will subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but if co-ops form, that means less money for his porky friends.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What he meant is that he wants broads banned, universally.
What a sexist pig!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
Although I am in favor of broader adoption of broadband, I do see a couple of downsides:
1. More telecom taxes to support universal service (including taxes on VoIP)
2. more zombie boxen and virus datastorms from clueless broadband users
We shall see if universal service improves the economies of scale enough to cover the increased costs of taxes and AV/firewall.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I know the idea of having the internet being a government regulated utility has been around. Should it be like water and power? I think it would be a very bad idea myself.
Has there ever been a stronger cause for Americans to unite behind?
Got news for you -- it already is in full gear... We are listening to you -- NOW.....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Who needs broadband when you have AOL with TOPSPEED technology?
oh wait...
I agree. All Americans ought to have it.
When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.
Ok, great. so he's proposing all these programs, like hte Mars mission, ubiquitous broadband-- the thing is, he doesn't actually plan on coming through on any of them. It's called "starving the beast".
In bold print on the first page of the long-term conservative playbook is a tactic called "Starving The Beast". It goes like this:
* lower taxes (especially for your friends) to the point where a fiscal train wreck finally ensues.
*declare that "raising" taxes (returning them to a prior level) would destroy the economy, and that the only solution is to gut Social Security and other unwanted New Deal programs.
"Starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario -- it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants, like missile defense.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system -- the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical -- continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
But yeah, ubiquitous broadband is a great idea, if he actually meant it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I am sorry, but broadband in the household is not like FDR's Public Works Proejcts of the 1930's. Roosevelt used such initiatives to give work to those hammered by the Great Depression while simultaneously modernizing the US infrastructure - electricity for rural communities and the like.
I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.
Here's a hint, turn your head East.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
What President Bush meant to say was that we'll have broadband on mars so those lonely astronauts won't get bored. In further news, Halliburton annouced the formation of a new division specializing in the provisioning of broadband. Can I have my pony now, and skip the 2007 broadband?
Remain calm! All is well!
Lessee... GNU/Linux, and FOSS in general is all about standards, as is the internet. Since Microsoft is about proprietary software in general, they're in the way of spreading the internet... Now if only someone were to mention to Bush they *might* have WOMD...
On a more serious note, what's to stop this from happening anyway. I mean, not necessarily by 2007, but if you look at the rate that broadband access has spread throughout the US, and where prices tend to be in the areas where it is widespread, there's a decent chance it'll be very available throughout the US without his help. It's entirely possible he's just saying it now, so he can take credit for it later.
No pony for me thanks. Just credit it towards my ISP bills.
Bush is probably looking to propose a plan comparable to FDR's REA (Rural Electrification Administration) which funded power lines to rural developments and encouraged rural businesses to adopt newer technologies. I hope Bush will take a lesson from FDR and not only extend BB access to rural homes and businesses but to give funding to poorer families and rural businesses to help close the "digital divide". For more information on the REA, see http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/1930s/newdeal .html
Before we get all excited about universal broadband, we should consider parts of the country that haven't even received narrow-band telephone lines.
1)call for something to happen that is a popular idea
2)???
3)re-election!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
massmailing free AOL for Broadband CDs to every known address in the US.
AOL for broadband - It's faster! It's smarter! It's included!
On dial-up surf the web upto 5x times faster than a standard dial-up connection with AOL TopSpeed(TM) technology all through your existing phone jack at no additional charge!
That could work.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
You can gain the nerd vote a lot easier by getting out of Iraq then try to appease us with wiretapped broadband. Broadband is good, but I think little things like not having a trillion dollar debt would be a good idea to take care of first.
SAILING MISHAP
Witnesseth:
1. AIDS in Africa is being brought under control by his jihad against the virus that causes it (using the proven method of abstinence)
2. Osama is in fact "either dead or alive"
3. The Hubble is being scrapped as the first step to landing a Man on Mars
4.Global warming is behind us (because there need to be more studies)
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
Anyone ever noticed how much Bush has been talking about Spain's bombing lately ?
Bush proclaims that 'americans should also experience world peace by 2007'
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
Broadband for everyone? That's just what RIAA needs to stop the music pirates. I heard that 50 million figures for p2p networks are way overblown, but with the help of W they will become a reality.
I say, kudos to the president Bush.
i'm not wearing socks, you insensitive clod.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
I mean, this is a news site, right? We just wouldn't make things up out of thin air to push our agenda here, would we?
I ask this because the Pony part seems unbelievable to me.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.
I loved "independent" thinkers.
Good news: There'll be broadband Internet for everyone.
Bad news: There won't be any porn or P2P.
yet that Michael is a democrat? Its nice how he can use this entire website as a big ad for the democrats. Perhaps the other /. editors should think about replacing him and bringing a shred of dignity back to this site.
This is just nuts, both technologically, and unprofitable wise, as going to Mars by 2020.
The amount of switches needed to put everyone on ground based broadband is nuts. I live out in an area where there is no cable TV, and a sparse population, so there is no highspeed option. And you can't consider Satellite an option yet, because 2 way is too expensive for a single household, and one way you still need the expensive dialup account.
Canada promised to give highspeed access to everyone by about this time, and the project just needs technology to catch up with consumer will.
I also don't think it is a good idea to give everyone and their dog access to highspeed Internet. With the inherent insecurities in the Internet's design, it is stupid to give attack capabilities to people who are unable and unwilling to keep their computers free of worms and trojans. The very safety of the Internet relies on some people not having quick service to the net.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Before that, maybe the U.S. should first tackle the phoneless problem, seeing that there are 5 million households(5%) without a phone(pdf.
5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.
that he did not invent the Internet.
(And - probably contrary to George's belief - Al Gore never claimed he did)
Alex
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
Don't forget the guy who founded the fsf, is american.
And if you say you don't want broadband, you'd rather have affordable health care, quality education for your children, or a feasibly sustained social security fund, then you're a communist... errr... terrorist and just plain un-American.
You can kiss a nun... Just don't get into the habit.
it saysit may be something along the lines the of subsidized telephones provided in rural areas. .. of course, we know John Kerry is for and against broadbad..
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
See how life is unfair: Al Gore invents the Internet, now Dubbya profit from it. The system should have some kind of protection to prevent people from stealing each other's ideas...
if Bush declares that having the iPod is the right of every american, I'm sure, every slashdotter will vote for him! Huray!
There needs to be more competition in this area.
.. paying upwards of $4 an hour (even more!) for service. Once more ISPs started joining the fray, the more prices dropped and better services were offered. Hell, most ISPs GIVE their first few months of access away.
I wouldn't really count DSL as viable broadband since you have to be so far from a covad to get service, so I'll just be referring to cable.
We have 2 companies in this area competing for broadband: Comcast and Wide Open West. Prices for 4 Mbps broadband are upwards of $60. That might sound reasonable to most people, but honestly what they don't realize is that $60 is still overpriced.
The more companies that we allow to compete with each other, the more the prices will drop to what they should be.
Kinda like when dial-up became fairly popular. Before it caught on, people were being royally screwed
Broadband is no different. This technology is old. I've been paying $50 for service for the past few years (granted, went up from 1.5 Mbps to 4). It's about time that changed and dropped.
At least this way we can start making the next-generation high-speed internet (way beyond broadband) a reality.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
The Farm Bill
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Pill Plan
You made a mistake. The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative. He says he is, but his actions prove otherwise. (But he sure has fooled a bunch of people)
He just wishes to be stay in power and will damn near say anyting to stay in the whitehouse.
Americans "ought to have" universal health care too...
- A
Bush may have succumded to the alluring charms of Broadband over Power Lines.
....the IP packets don't flow down oil "pipes"? ;-)
-psy
A prez comes up with the issue of giving broadband to everyone in America (KICK ASS) and michael has to pout and cry and simper about it. What a 'tard.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
The unemployment rate is going down ... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.
It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Just figured I'd let you know, your poll is unscientific as its a voluntary response poll - they're most likely biased because people with strong opinions, both positive and negative, are most likely to respond. Besides, every American knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst President ever.
I like how Bush is bringing up all of these 'great' ideas all of a sudden now that his job is on the line. (although this idea was brought up by gore 4 years ago). But IF he is reelected i wouldnt be suprise at all if the Moon plans and these broadband by 2007 plans never materialize.
-Kacy
Why does every american need a pony? Is it kind of a pet for americans? Or it's about some special zoo-sex?
Less is more !
Free?
Have you read the EULA yet?
Section 38:
The NSA monitors and logs all activity on BushNet.
Section 39:
Secure communication over BushNet (SSL, SSH, PGP, etc.) is prohibited.
Anyone violating this policy will be labeled a terrorist.
Oh yeah? As a loyal Bush voter I have complete faith that four years from now I'm going to be downloading gigabytes of porn in my oversized RV parked on the edge of Bonneville crater. And the deficit is going to be cut in half by then too- I can't wait! President Bush promised.
He has a LOT of credibility!
Broadband for everyone probably means broadband taxes for everyone.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Maybe he can use GoreSat to help with the goal.
Table-ized A.I.
If one were going to make a broad comment like "every American should have broadband" by a certain date, it seems to me like the point has been missed completely.
Public schools are woefully behind in technology. This should not be a surprise to anyone. But the bigger issue, I think, is that what President Bush has suggested is that every American should have Broadband in their home by 2007. It would seem to me that if students aren't learning computers in school, the only advantage to having Broadband at home would be to spend all day on Slashdot (not that there's anything wrong with that) wishing you could find work or get into college with your underdeveloped skills.
Putting the cart before the horse, aren't we?
Revolutions in waiting editorial from the UK Guardian.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Perhaps broadband would reduce the need for so much automobile traffic and congestion. With information at your fingertips, many could reduce trips to library, to buy newspapers/magazines, comparative shop online and even telecommute, etc. After telecommuting 1 day/week via broadband on a pilot program for several years, I feel in my case it's a real productivity boon, but perhaps not for all (i.e. new hires) but a privilidge earned over time or as an achievement award..
Will Bush's plan be similar to Pennsylvannia's plan?
Verizon has already agreed to wire 50% of Pennsylvannia by the end of 2004. And this is not just DSL connection, this is 45MB/s symmetrical fiber service right to the doors of homes and businesses. Verizon has already recieved an estimated $2.1 billion dollars for doing so.
But, as it turns out, Verizon is unable to meet its legal obligation to provide a modernized network with broadband capable of at least 45 MBps upstream and downstream. And PA is not going to hold Verizon accountable for the billions they've already pocketed. I predict any plan Bush comes up with will have a similar result.
Choice quote: "make sure that as soon as possible thereafter [that] consumers have plenty of choices" What do you think that means? I can tell you.
In Kentucky, they are pushing state deregulation of telcos to encourage new investment in broadband in new areas.
The result? They will charge competitors more thus pricing out competition allowing them to charge exhuberant prices to consumers.
I expect this is an announcement of similar steps on the federal level.
In the end, these are attacks on small startups and consumers in the form of ruthless monopolistic practices on the part of telcos and high prices for consumers.
But this is what big business is all about and Bush is a big business kind of guy. Thus I am perplexed why the common man would be so in favor of him but that is another discussion altogether.
You must be new here.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service.
For my part, I don't care whether you like George Bush or not. (I do, but that's my opinion, and nobody says you have to share it.)
Seriously though Michael, if you want to show ANY sort of objectivity on this kind of thing, don't make such statements--they totally sound like flamebait. There may be pros and cons to the idea of communities providing their own broadband service, but I wouldn't know it from listening to you, michael. I don't see any facts backing up what you say, either.
However, all this aside, I think there IS a legitimate case to be made that it is better to have private business (corrupt as it appears to be right now) do such things than have governments attempt to create a virtual government-run monopoly. After all, I'll agree with you ANY day that our Big Business Community(tm) is corrupt. But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?
Sounds like the Green Party and universal health care.
Oh well, politics is politics.
George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough?
Maybe soon we will also get all those jobs he promised.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.
I see an upside:
1) More people needing cheap computers and software, ie. Linux.
2) VoIP becomes feasible as more people have access to it.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
but with wi-fi hotspots everywhere like that what will happen to hte poor chaps with the tinfoil hats? Won't all those radio signals fry their brains?
A little off topic, but This MSNBC Article mentions that the Hamas have declared war on America, Bush and Sharon. This is because the US vetoed a UN vote which said that blowing up leaders in wheel chairs with rockets was a Bad Thing.
So yeah! Bush is going to give us broadband. Maybe I can chat with my kids when they get drafted. We should limit the Presidency to 4 years. Then at least they could concentrate on doing their job instead of all this BS.
He's doing it for the Media companies that are all salivating over the prospect of using the internet to transform our home entertainment systems into pay-for-play juke boxes. The RIAA and MPAA are gonna have too much trouble killing off thier unlimited use formats (CD and DVD, respectively) otherwise.
Thing is, I wish I could say this is bad for most consumers. For someone like me, who tends to listen to a few favorite albums and watch a few favorite movies again and again, it sucks. But I think most people find music and movies disposable enough they won't mind this. So if you're a nerd like me with very particular tastes, this new regime is gonna suck.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because unlike free health care this is something big companies (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want to see happen. It'll let them kill off those nasty buy-once/unlimited-play formats (CD/DVD). As for who's gonna pay for it, well, I don't know about you but Bush raised my taxes (on about $10,000 bucks in earnings no less; while cutting the taxes for millioniars. But that's another rant all together).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.
This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand
While its a nice political gesture to want everyone to have broadband ( its not a necessity, but its nice to have ), how about everyone having a job to pay for it?
That would be much more useful, with how jobs are flying out of the country at a frightening pace.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
especially on the Liebold(R) voting machines. . .
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Anyone can say any numbers of things but in the case of G.W. Bush "affordable high-speed Internet access be available to all Americans by 2007...", without specific plan is just a game of words to appear politically correct. Besides even if there was money and will-power to do that it wouldn't be easy and probably not by 2007. 2010-12 would be more realistic, but obviously it wouldn't be possible to do that by extending fibre optic technology into rural areas (huge expense), there would have to be inclusion of BPL (broadband over power lines). But that is politically charged issue with the radio industry. So, here we have it, several big problems right at the start.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
if this trial ballon of his goes anywhere:
1) Ban all granting of monopolies to broadband service companies. This does mean pulling rank over state and local governments, but the Democrats have tortured the Interstate Commerce Clause a lot worse than this.
2) Stop forcing the telcos to share their networks, but mandate network interoperability. The latter is redundant since it's part of the definition of the Internet, but the average journalist and politician doesn't know that so it's best to specify. After this, the telcos will have to put up or shut up about building proper broadband networks, and if they don't, someone else will hopefully come in and kick their ass.
3) Put the DOJ on the short leash over their trying to block community-run broadband. So long as local governments don't grant themselves a monopoly or do anything else blatantly anticompetitive, leave them alone.
Basically, get the frickin' lawyers out of the way and let the usual process of Darwinian natural selection begin.
Apple?
(Subjective opinion follows: big companies in the USA are not generally known for quality products, preferring strategy based on existing dominant position, combined with marketing & spin. However, the US has an "entrepreneurial culture", so there are many small to medium size businesses that succeed in creating quality products for smaller markets, e.g. 'niche market' products like Source Offsite, but there are many examples. Also, companies like id software?)
Because the people who should care about these things do nothing but bitch when a Republican makes the proposal. Politicians do listen to voters. Unfortunately most of what they hear is "we couldn't give a fuck about the policy, we will just vote for our party". So you get what you asked for. No policies. All partisan warfare.
I SAID "HARUMPH!"
The WWW for example, was invented by an Englishman
Another example on which much of the Internet is based, fiber(/fibre) optics, developed in England.
A lot of useful R&D is done in the US, though. But in most cases, you find the people 'breaking ground' actually doing the research have come to the US from all over world ... the US has essentially created an environment that is "ideal" to researchers (e.g. in terms of funding, equipment, resources, etc) and thus attract the best minds from all over the world. Look at the average technology/physics etc PhD paper in the US, you'll often find the names on it are Chinese or Russian or Indian or South African or (etc etc etc).
This seems to be the only thing this guy is good at making a lot of noise about stuff that will never get done because with all the tax cuts, there is no funding to actually do anything like fix the schools, go to mars or build infrastructure of any kind the only thing our govt is doing is wasting what money they do have.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
Even though this is from 1994 let me guess that the survey asked for landlines and the increase is due to switch to mobile. Second I did a little googeling and it seems the the Phone question was one of the ones targeted as a NOSY question and a few groups were advocating "Just say no" to that one.
Young men even in the lower income bracket is the one with the most discretionary money.
Meaning most likely wrong and the portion that is "right" it is of Choice not Necessity
Help fight continental drift.
"George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough?"
Given typical Republican economic policies, you can assume if you don't hear differently:
1. Private companies will build it, using whatever methods they think best.
2. Consumers will pay for it.
Therefore, Bush's statement isn't so much a govt. policy statement as much as an encouragement of businesses to find solutions without govt. help. Given the govt. record of involvement in public works, I'm glad they're not going to try to run broadband themselves. Just looking at the road system and power system in CA, the best rating you can give the govt. in these areas is barely adequate. I'd hate it if that's what broadband turned into here.
Vote for Pedro
I have realized over the last few years that Slashdot has actually become the place where you can find "News for Liberal Nerds. Stuff that matters to Liberals." This, however, is way, way over the top.
The idea of universal access is not new. It has been accomplished to provide telephone service to those in remote communities where it makes no financial sense for a company to provide service. As more and more services (especially government services) are delivered over the internet, the gap between rich and poor grows larger. Things that used to be done in person can now be done remotely, requiring less time wastage and thus less money wastage. Ensuring that everyone has access to such services is something I believe a liberal would support. A dyed-in-the-wool libertarian certainly wouldn't. It is unbelievable to me that liberals would be against such an idea.
Hey, weren't African Amercians promised 40 acres and a mule at emancipation? And let's not even TALK about what the gov promised Native Americans. Yeah, yeah. They have casinos. blah blah. They still got a raw deal IMB.
Still, there is economic incentive for the feds to accomplish this. But 2007? I think I might as well ask the next black guy I meet where his mule is (as long as he's smaller than me and doesn't know kung-foo).
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
its trendy to bash bush, but none of his competitors really discuss how to pay for most of their inititiaves either, and perhaps it is obvious that bush doesnt intend on the government paying for it, rather he wants private industry to do that, and the government to endorse it by giving tax benefits this is an important issue, there is a major difference in information for those who have or dont have good bandwidth. bush should be applauded for bringing attention to this problem, and sure, now it needs to be discussed and different solutions evaluated, but it should be ok to identify a problem before you have all of the solutions. both bush and kerry are pretty decent people who want to work hard. dont buy into the hollywood hogwash that you have to hate one of them just because they disagree. if we really want to get somewhere with technology, we probably should keep the plodding and clumsy government out of funding it. im very happy with bush's idea to assist it by not taxing it, and i hope that extends to online purchases indefinately. too many narrow minded people out there who hate bush for his social conservatism, and offesive civil rights ideas and dont realiz that he also has done a lot of great things for progressivism and human rights.
More infor Here
As usual don't believe things that does not sound right. Check it yourselves.
Help fight continental drift.
I know a solid promise when I hear one. Soon we shall all have broadband. Huzza!
I thought most communities don't allow ponies for pets these days. Couldn't imagine what all those apartment dwellers with ponies anyways.
In 2003, a report was generated for 1998 data, where I found a quick stat of 96.2% of households has at least one phone, 36.3% has at least once cell phone (of 102,652,000 households). US Population in 1998 was est at 269,094,000.
is there anything in my comment that would suggest I was solely blaming Bush and the GOP?
no there is not, so shut the fuck up you over emotional retard.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that. The fact is, good jobs that pay a living wage are growing more and more scarce. Except, of course, unless you happen to be a CEO, in which case you are making more than ever!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I submitted this story 3 days ago. I guess my post wasn't Anti-Bush enough to be accepted.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid...
That's an interesting interpretation.
Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops. (Which, by the way, the explicitly support, along with broadband supplied by other little companies, even if it competes with their "big business buddies".)
They're arguing against broadband companies run by county and local GOVERNMENTS. And even then they're only arguing against them when they're implemented in violation of the objections of the STATE governments from which the smaller governments derive their powers and mandates.
The issue was STRICTLY whether an FCC regulation allowing "any entity" to operate a broadband company free of state regulation could be used by cities, counties, and the like, as arms of their state, to escape control by their state legislatures and constitutions.
But of course certain rabid Bush-haters just LOVE to lie about it, claiming that the Bush administration is trying to block small broadband carriers, rather than to block governments from squeezing them out, with tax-subsidized unfair competition and conflict-of-interest driven regulatory roadblocks against any little guy that wants to compete with THEIR operation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If they pay for it, they'll want to be able to control it, too. That means DRM and trusted computing, and Carnivore too.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It could be called Operation Interplanetary Liberation. (...and where there's simple hydrocarbons like methane there there may be more complex hydrocarbons...) Given this new evidence they may then rename the mission Operation Interplanetary Freedom (OIF for short).
...both?.
Anyone ever ask what allows Nasa to exist- Interplanetary space travel is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. The 13 enumerated powers of congress barely apply unless it is millitary or interstate commerce, or
If it were stagnant the US wouldn't be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
Our government has not changed form for over 200 years not because it is stagnant, but because it works.
If our government ever were to become stagnant as you suggest, we the people would have the power to change it. We would have that power because we would have the ability to use force to achieve that change.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
And most of them fail within the first year.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You need to have an economy with low deficit, high employment and healthy growth before you can have the funding for such lesser things as broadband.
bring it on! --- JFK
Politics blows. I really wish we could evolve beyond it, but some structure (read: flaw) in the human mind just won't allow it.
Damn these simian brains!
--- Ban humanity.
and have since the late '90s. Satellite broadband from Dish and Direct has been available for 4 years or so. It's here, it works.
It is definitely expensive at $70/month during the first year, but two-way satellite is available from starband.
If you do a 3-year contract, your average monthly price for all three years goes down to $60/month.
Just don't expect to game on it-- ping time via geosync is horrible.
Broadband in every home.... with a little govt owned camera on the end for Homeland Security.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough?"
I'm noticing a lot of people don't seem to have a problem believing we'll all be watching hi-def TV's by 2005, but somehow this is beyond the realm of possibility. Not that buying a new hi-def TV will cost you any, right? Ask yourself the same damn questions posed here about Hi-def and you'll probably get answers that can easily be applied to braodband here. I mean, is it really such a leap, or does somebody bare a political grudge???
Yeah, thought so.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
We can have broadband in every home now w/o stringing more wires. We would have to launch more satellites. Do the same for satellite connnected Internet service through the FCC, as the FCC did for satellite based television. Allow for up to a 1 meter dish (actually make it 1.5 meters since this is an uplink as well) in the 48 "lower states" and give AK and HI up to 6 feet, preempting any restrictive covenents, local ordances, homeowners agreements, etc. in the name of fostering competition. Then lower the barrier to entry for getting a licensed satellite in orbit for the purpose of delivering Internet service to foster competition on that side. So lower taxes on Internet distribution companies, etc. to allow builduout of the infrastructure to keep the rates on par with cable modem delivered Internet. And allow up to 2 meters for combined two-way satellite and DBS dishes if it is a single combined dish installation (that lets one install the more compact higher gain double reflector "orange peel" elliptical dishes.
The short side is, I'd rather see tax breaks for companies that deliver phone and network services to the rural areas on par with the suburban and urban prices rather than have my bills go up (or have me raise my ISP customers bills) to pay for the rural service areas.
Just like I feel for individual taxes, we ought have a uniform flat rate for corporate taxes with a single small/new business deduction (no taxes for the first $50,000 earned, flat rate above that would be nice but you'd have to work out the level of the deduction to encourage and support new and small businesses). Then give limited targeted tax breaks for the areas you want to encourage. Capitalism will then take over and do the heavy lifting.
If it did not cost anything to get the license for a satellite for dedicated Internet two-way service and the launch was done at cost (or subsidized if you were flexible about the launch timing) if all the technical and saftey details were met, etc. We'd have multiple folks offering cheap internet service from space at that point.
Free to the community to use. Launch a constellation of satellites (similar to the GPS ones) that all communicat with each other and communicate with ground stations that use GPS-like control to find the satellites and track them. When traffic drops on the connection to a low level, change the connection point. Put a radome 1.5 meters in diameter on your roof that covers the antenna and if in an area with snow or ice, steal exhaust air from the house and blow it through the radome before doing further heat recovery or flusing it to the outside world. Equipment could be subsidized through the length of the contract for service (just like free cell phones) to reduce the initial sticker shock.
Or, subsidze research to limit or elliminate the nasty side affects of interference from powerline distribution of Internet service. For example they would be greatly reduced if during routine powerline maintenance they replaced the ground wire of the high tension line with "fog wire" (fiberoptic core with a copper / steel reinforced wrap/cover). One could allow for limited powerline distribution for 5-10 years to be gradually replaced by "fog wire" style distribution (require all new or repaired rural power grid systems to use fogwire?).
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
...he's driving hard to win Hispanic voters (along with Jeb) in Flordia...
Frankly, I think that Jeb would vote for Dubya even without that.
#1. Bush was AWOL. Absent WithOut Leave. He was not at the place he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. It doesn't matter how long Bush spent training, what matters is whether he was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there.
/ petition. cfm?itemid=15977
#2. Bush attends funerals? Do you have any support for this statement? Everything I've seen says the opposite. In fact, here's a petition to get him to change:
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism
#3. Yet the suicide rate amongst our troops in Iraq is significantly higher than other times. I find it strange how you can know what "most" troops over there believe. Particularly when there are reports of low morale amongst many of them.
#4. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault? But Clinton's policy was what made the invasion so easy. Clinton kept up the sanctions and Iraq was not able to rebuild their weapons. Or did you mean that Clinton was responsible for the lack of planning about how to handle Iraq AFTER the invasion?
#5. Yep, under Clarke, 5 attacks did happen. So, because he wasn't infallible then, he's wrong now? Nice "logic" there.
#6. Whatever. The guy is a registered Republican and worked for Bush the Elder. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get another job in Washington.
#7. No. Halliburton only met the criteria because the criteria was designed to choose Halliburton. A better use would have been to contract with other ARAB companies to do the work.
Means we all listen to the Go-Gos all the time?
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
"First, we're up to 591 now."
When did Iraqis cease to count as people?
My Blog
The justice department was not arguing against communities running their own telcos.. they are against having the local government run the telco... as it destroys competition. Goverments can prop up bad business with tax dollars, private businesses just go broke.
The community is completely free to form a co-op, like many do, and run it's own telco.
I'm from Australia, I thought that a large amount of people in the US already used broadband internet or is that just another sexed up CIA or NSA document, let the WAR ON ISP'S START NOW THE AXIS OF LOW PING MUST BE STOPPED.
Ohh my spleen
a lot of companies took on a lot of fat. When the boom ended the companies cut the fat. It takes a lot more man power to get something up and running quickly than it does to maintain it. And of course with all these people working and making money it trickles down leading to more jobs all around since we all like to buy and eat crap and it takes people to make that crap.
Unless Al Gore actually invented the internet it's very difficult to claim Clinton had anything to do with the employment rate considering anyone who could write HTML could get a job.
Now companies are being more "sensible" with where they put their money at the expense of American workers since the only thing that matters is the value of their stock.
This genius idea of jacking up minimum wage a couple bucks is only going to encourage companies to look elsewhere since that minimum wage trickles up fast. Every company is built like a pyramid. The idea is to work your way up it or jump to new pyramids as bricks fall out. Forcing companies to fatten up the bottom is just going to encourage them to cut off layers.
I just can't wait to need a college education just so McDonald's can justify paying me $12.00 an hour to flip burgers.
Hiring standards are already overly strict at some companies as it is for grunt labor.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
The pony would probably be more trouble to bring along than not, all things considered.
Actually, the local DIAL-UP ISP pulled out of the county in the middle of nowhere where my parents are located about six months ago. There really are parts of the U.S. that could benefit from third world initiatives. Provide the high school computer club with a four or five modem bank and a cheap linux mail server.
But why not broadband? Money for everything in the Bush budget.
We'll get our broadband and our ponies. As soon as he figures out how to get them to Mars.
Situations like this reiterate the need for the government to subsidize fiber to every home. We could put phone service, cable television, and internet access on the 1 fiber line going into each home.
The technology is available, why don't we embrace it?
I have one problem with it:
Potential for government monopoly on broadband in that community.
I can just see it becoming similar to our one city one cable company system - which for my city has resulted in a hideous quality of service, high prices, even worse customer service, broadband upgrades only for new neighborhoods and a big fuck you to existing ones, everyone and their brother switching to satellite and a lack of profits for whatever cable company is in the area at the moment until they realize they can't afford to climb out of the hole their predecessor dug and sells the area off at a loss.
Mind you, that's a situation with private companies with a government mandated monopoly. However, I can think of other examples...
Derek Greene
Obviously we can count cable modems out. Cable television isn't generally availible to those people in the fringes that receive service subsidized by the USF.
The biggest issue is those customers that are "on fiber." DSL works by transporting the data signals alongside the analog phone calls. In rural areas, they use multiplexors to provide service. This means there is no way to colocate the DSL equipment at the central office and extend service, since the layout is more distributed and connected by fiber.
If the multiplexors were upgraded, or new cards developed there shouldn't be much of a problem pushing the speed of the fiber up and then using that excess bandwidth to provide DSL service. In the remote multiplexor you could house new circuit cards that provide DSL + Analog capability.
There are plenty of companies out there working in this market, and this type of solution probably already exists. If nothing else, they could buy DSLAMS from eBay and rack them out remotely.
It might even be possible to exted ISDN (64k channels) off of the multiplexors.
Phone companies don't seem to want to do things until shoved. Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) kept the prices of ISDN at $250 a month well into the day of cable modem deployment.
My parents retired to an area that lacks broadband. It isn't that it would be hard to do, it is just the telcos don't seem to care. And there would easily be enough subscribers to support racking out a DSLAM in a cabinet next to the fiber mux that is servicing the community. If I lived closer, I would probably try to do it.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
Job creation is running at a tenth of what it needs to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is dropping because they don't count people who have fallen off the unemployment insurance dole; they "are no longer looking for work" because they have given up and taken crap jobs. Hardly counts as a true decrease in unemployment.
Infuriate left and right
#1. No, there is no proof. That is why you are unable to provide it.
#2. I'm not the one saying that he did go to any funeral(s). You are. I'm the one saying that there are a lot of stories saying that he did NOT go to any. It is up to you to provide proof that he did.
#3. Yes, 1% is less than a majority. But I still find it strange that you know what the majority feels when by all other counts, troops over there are more likely to kill themselves.
#4. What you said was: "The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this."
Now what you say is "I didn't say Clinton had faulted at all."
So, it was Clinton's fault, but not Clinton's fault. Right.
#5. Yes, there were 5 attacks that succeeded while Clarke was in charge. That does not mean that Clarke is wrong for saying that Bush was not focused enough on terrorism. You are trying to imply that it does.
And so on and so forth. You provide NOTHING to substantiate your claims. The facts are available. Whether you want to believe them or not.
First, you sound like someone who is going to believe Bush is the worst, no matter what, and not bother to think about it.
The Justice Department argued against **local government** (e.g., cities, counties, other municipalities, or collections thereof) entering the telecom business - and at that, ONLY if the state chooses to prohibit it. And the Supreme Court sided with that argument, 8-1! (If the state does not choose to prohibit it, local government can STILL enter the telecom business.)
It does NOT prevent a small private group of individuals, a coop, a business, or anyone else from becoming a broadband and/or telecom provider.
Get your facts straight.
I never said that I thought Clinton did a good job. I would also wager that I have read more on military strategy and tatics then you.
One of the major, as in if you don't do it you die or get sent to military prison, rules in war is that you secure/control all areas of entry/exit into your base.
And the president vetos them. (Which he hasn't done once). All Bush has to do is fight for what needs to be done, he hasn't even done that! He also controls the exec branch of the goverment and could direct the heads of those agenceys to do more.
Their is a lot the he could do and you damn well know it.
You overlooked this vision with $1B funding increase over 5 years with a complete reorganization of NASA (and $) toward this vision.
Our President "actually proposed spending government money on [this vision] during his term" along with hundreds of other initiatives. Iraq may be important but perhaps we're too focused on it (a tree - a big one, granted) and missing the forest.
They knew Bush was lying before accepting?
"I think this line is mostly filler"
No one can say what the Vietnamese government would have been like if the French hadn't insisted on resuming colonial control in 1945, which was when the Vietnamese switched from fighting Japanese occupiers to fighting the French who had American assistance. The only assistance they could get was from the communists, so of course they took it, just as our own war against a colonial master was assisted by the French, who we were at war with just a few years later. To ignore all that is about as ridiculous as possible. A whole lot of the crap that has gone on in Vietnam is directly attributable to the natives trying to shake off colonial powers. We appointed ourselves their saviors, they did not ask for our help or want it. To claim that the South Vietnamese government was in any way better than the north is a sure sign of someone who knows nothing.
There was absolutely no rational reason for us to be there. The first torpedo boat attack on our destroyers was a direct result of our destroyers backing up a South Vietnamese attack on the north, and would not have occurred if we hadn't been attacking them to start with. The second attack, which triggered the congressional resolution which started the massive US involvement, was a complete fabrication and never happened.
And the US isn't controlling things in Iraq, wow that is news to just about everybody else in the world.
Why don't you check out what it means to be the controlling power in Iraq, to be the occupier? How you can claim we aren't the controlling power is beyond me.
Of course, I do not expect you to understand this.
Infuriate left and right
Why do I only get 1.5Mb broadband when I see in Japan they have 45Mb? Why is it that city-wide gigabit fiber couldn't be roled out to every home to form a MAN that delivered REAL broadband to every home? Is there a technical reason this wouldn't work? It'd not just be about conencting to the Internet.. it's about connecting within the city. School to school video conferencing, kick ass multiplayer gaming, file sharing, etc. Maybe with frequent wireless access points connecting throughout the cities business and educational areas.
Of course there are economic reasons it would take time to roll out but would it cost any more to implement than DSL or cable? For new regions without DSL or cable is there any economic reason to implement those slower and more complex technologies instead of going with the gigabit ethernet as might be done on a campus network?
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
The second amendment is the final check and balance put in place to ensure that should all the other checks and balances fail the people themselves would be able to defend themselves against tyrrany.
True in the 18th century, not true now.
There are millions of people who feel that the invasion on Iraq was wrong, the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, and are thoroughly unhappy with what they see to be a 'tyrannical' government. But I bet if those guys picked up their guns and marched to Washington, they'd be taken out by the Army in NO time.
You just can't go and march on government and bust it up these days. It's not done. This amendment is thoroughly past its sell by date.
Ah yes, they "knew the risk and accepted it"--good to see you have a solid grasp of class issues. More like: really needed the money and joined before Sept. 11th with the pretty justifiable assumption that the US wouldn't be going to war any time soon.
Or something
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to have avoided military service, I guess you can't ask them how they feel about being in Iraq.
No new taxes.
Bush says Americans 'Ought to Be Working' and the working, homeless 'Ought to buy a House'. Get out your bootstraps and pull man, PULL.
just me. Still, I doubt I'm the only one paying more in taxes. Moreover, why the hell should a millionaire be getting a tax break in the first place. It seems to me those who are recieving more benefit from society (i.e. the wealthy who owe that wealth to society, since no single individual could possibly gather that much wealth alone) should shoulder the most burden.
And what 'services' are you talking about? I pay for my own education, health care, housing and transportation (and yes, I know education is subsidised, but that ought to come from my state taxes). If you mean the military, I say let's cut back on oil use by forcing public transportation on everyone (and maybe building a few more nuclear power plants) and we'll see how much of a military we really _need_ (apart from the nukes to keep China at bay, which we really do need).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You fucking prick.
Nice moderating - how this isn't flamebait is beyond me.
Hmm, it's not a troll because it's mostly based on fact. However, Americans are shocked that someone would point these things out, so it must be flamebait.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter.
1 -bush-guard-usat_x.htm
In fact, the White House didn't have a leg to stand on. They talked out their asses for a while until they convinced everyone who doesn't pay attention that they had a case. If you paid attention, like I did, you'd have a different view. To give you some documentation, I googled it. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-1
It's from USA Today. A relevant excerpt (boldfaces mine):
In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush said he fulfilled his Guard commitment and offered to make his records public. Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."
Since then, White House officials have released only documents concerning whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations. White House statements have not addressed the release of any papers that could show disciplinary actions, medical exams, legal scrapes and the like.
On Tuesday, the White House released pay records from a military archive in Denver that it said showed Bush was paid for at least the minimum training time he was obligated for in 1972 and 1973.
But the records showed only what days he was paid for, not where he was or what duty he performed. Neither did they address outstanding questions about why Bush missed a required physical in 1972, forcing him to stop flying, or what happened during a five-month gap in 1972 when Bush didn't show up for training.
Here's another article for your perusal (boldfacing mine, again):
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."
That's the proof the white house had, BTW. Pay records. I've heard members of the national guard at the time say that they had managed to get paid without even showing up for duty. We'll assume for the sake of argument that GWB was 'getting paid for the days on which he served,' though:
The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.
That's a five month gap. Nobody knows where he was during those five months.
AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.
Desertion-----absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
Five months-----150 days
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops.
Because the big companies stand to gain by selling fiber/backbone access to the coopts (and likely at inflated prices) and to other small companies.
Of *course* they're not going to argue against it.
BTW, your last paragraph is somewhat ambiguous...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
I live in area that will never see broadband unless I go with a dish and I'm only 1 mile away from the nearest CO. If you ask when we'll get broadband they say in near future which they have been saying for last 5 yrs. Give me broadband at $20 something and few free hotspots and I'll be a happy camper. Dialup since 1995
#1. Yep, that link says that. Pity it doesn't examine the DATES. :)
. ph p
e /
:)
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/9872
Seems that Bush was seen somewhere he wasn't.
#2. Okay, you've gone from claiming that Bush did attend funerals to claiming that OTHER presidents did not attend funerals.
You don't understand this "substantiation" thing, do you? It isn't about what OTHER presidents have done. It is about what BUSH DID and DID NOT DO.
#3. You say: "It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts."
But you had previously stated: "I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for."
So, they feel that the goal is worth risking their lives for, but they get depressed over risking their lives?
#4. "You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do."
No, what I'm doing is showing that the FACTS do not agree with your story. Clinton's policy of continuing the sanctions is what kept Iraq from rebuilding their military. Which means fewer US troops died during the invasion.
The "failure" is that there was no plan for AFTER the invasion.
#5. Which is why Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/clark
The GOP and White House can claim ANYTHING (much as you do). That is, until the information is actually released and the facts are available.
#6. Your link refers to Wesley Clark, not Dick Clarke. Big difference.
#7. You have enough trouble with established facts. I'm not going to get into planning and whether something would have been "better" or not.
its the HEALTHCARE we want not WAR , not BROADBAND
:-)
Right, cause after all, we all know everybody wants the lowest bidder looking after their health.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Allow me to give you props for turning a broadband thread into a Bush bashing war hating thread. You should all be proud of yourselves.
It is nothing more than rebellion against God.
Actually, banning gay marriage really has little foundation in divine command, even in Christian belief.
Leviticus 18 deals with homosexuality, and prohibits it. However, there is a huge quantity of other old Judaic law in these sections, containing other commands that are ignored by modern-day Christians, mostly because they are inconvenient (don't eat pork, treat your deceased brother's wife as your own wife, etc).
The idea that Christians have is that Christ established a new covenant, and that the commands they have to obey are listed in the New Testament (which contains nothing banning homosexuality). However, there was an arbitrary mishmash of Old Testament stuff that just happened to be kept and shoved into Church doctrine. It's a serious inconsistency in Christianity -- essentially, there are no Biblical grounds for both eating pork and condemning homosexuality. It's really nothing more than a cultural thing that happens to live on with the church.
May we never see th
Can you ping me now? Good.
Anybody want a peanut?
your suckage seems to be on the rise
Recapitulating the thread: Grandparent comment accuses Great-grandparent of pro-Bush administration spinning by asking "How is the weather in D.C. today, Mr Rove?"
Parent comment decides that's unfair to Karl Rove, who, as President Bush's primary political advisor, is clearly a public figure and one who would spin the administration line.
Parent commenter decides that the proper way to argue his case against grandparent is not to argue that facts, but to make a (rather lame -- "your suckage") ad hominem attack, and then injury to the insult by displaying grandparent poster's (unmunged) email address, in the hopes that spam-bots screen-scraping Slashdot will find it.
Now, there are these who would say that such personal smearing of opposition, without making any attempt to refute their arguments, is precisely what the Republican Party in general, and Karl Rove in particular, are doing to Richard Clarke, for Clarke's courage in coming forward and telling the American public that the Bush Administration was more concerned about going to war with Iraq than with fighting Osama bin Laden.
And there are some who would say that this sort of smear is similar to the Administration's false accusation that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill disclosed classified documents, in an attempt to discredit O'Neill's candid account of the Bush Administration's shortcomings.
And some might even go so far as to say that posting an unmunged email address is a pale echo of how the Bush Administration punished Ambassador Joseph Wilson for telling the truth -- that Iraq didn't have nuclear bomb making materials --, by telling conservative columnist Robert Novak to publish to the world that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA agent, thereby ending her effectiveness as a agent -- and thus harming the country's national security -- as well as threatening her own life.
But I would never say these things, because I'd be afraid that some Anonymous Coward might post my unmunged email address. Congratulations to you, Mr. Republican Coward! Once again you've let everyone know that lese majeste, any offense against King George, will be punished, even if -- especially if -- that offense is to tell the truth about this Administration's smear tactics.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
That's my guess.
No - I'm not shocked at all. Hey - if you want to claim garbage like that as fact, so be it.
It's a fact that France has 10% unemployment and surrenders at the drop of a hat. Just as it's fact that French women wear more perfume, as they shower less (statistically true, btw.)
Flamebait? I suppose since an American said it, it must be. C'est la vie.
> the reason the Justice department is
> arguing against co-op broadband systems is then
> his big business buddies in the telecom
> and cable industry don't get paid....see, he
> wants to get a spending bill passed that will
> subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but
> if co-ops form, that means less money for his
> porky friends.
Most anyone that got far enough to read your post, and the sucinctly-stated reply, can see that you chose to transition from an action by a government agency to an attack on someone with "porky friends" whom you define using the word "his". I'm realitively sure most everyone understood that as an unwarrented Bush bash. If thats not what you meant, you need to learn to communicate and/or learn to use pronouns properly.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
While the Constitution may the ultimate law of the land, it is only powerful when it is applied and if everyone chooses to ignore it then it ceases to be relevant. It is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution, so technically anything written in the Constitution could be invalidated by a court decision. While this would unlikely effect gun ownership, it is conceivable that a poorly written gay marriage ammendment that appears at odds with the rest of the Constitution could be effectively invalidated in this manner.
Of course, the Constitution could be replaced by overthrow or invasion, so amendment is not strictly necessary.
abolish the FCC.
This
Not that married couples typically get tax breaks for being married, but it's absurd to argue that same-sex couples should be denied those same benefits. There are many more important benefits afforded to married couples than tax filing status.
The government needs to get out of the social engineering business. The only conceivable benefit to society of promoting marriage is the welfare of children and that can be done far more directly. The moral arguments need to be left to the churches where they belong. As far the government goes, there should only be civil unions and marriages shouldn't exist at all.
Screw POTS. Telephone lines are the past. If they don't have 'em by now, they don't need 'em. Set up broadband and they'll be happy to have more than they started with.
Don't even bother with the phone lines... It's a waste of resources on old technology.
FDR was a great and well-meaning man, but he was the most socialist president we've ever had. Nothing like sound-good promises to a believe-anything public to earn four consecutive elections!
Don't get me wrong, I like FDR, but thank God there hasn't been anyone like him since. If I wanted to live in a country like [anything in] Europe, I'd cross the Atlantic. (Europe is a wonderful place, but its nations' laws and customs are not what I want to live under.)
I've lived my life. Have fun dying for a selfish regime's policies, shithead.
I very much doubt that they would pass the entrance exam. The school was founded by Henry VIII is run by the Church of England and is utterly establishment oriented. In US terms you would call it a prep school, in the UK the elite private schools are called public schools for reasons you are unlikely to understand
I guess they might have been adding Marxist propaganda into the meals served in the cafeteria but I somehow doubt it, we had a holiday to celebrate the election of the blessed St Margaret of Thatcher to number 10. and in the sixth form general studies consisted mostly of lectures from serving NATO generals telling us the finer details of the Soviets plans for the invasion of Western Europe.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I'm a conservative Republican. I have some pretty strong Libertarian leanings, but given the Libertarian party is fond of putting up candidates like Howard Stern for major political positions, I can't in good conscience throw myself in with them. So, as a conservative Republican, let me respond to your twenty bits o' trollage.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, without regard to your occupation, fame, or anything else. However, being a drug addict does not prevent you from also being human, and thus deserving of human dignity and compassion. There is no contradiction here: the "contradiction" only exists because you're unwilling to consider that "the Enemy" (which is to say, me and people like me) may have views which don't reduce down into a three-second sound bite.
The United States shouldn't get out of the United Nations, but at the same time, we shouldn't have any delusions that the United Nations confers legitimacy. The majority of nations at the U.N. are totalitarian dictatorships, and it is beyond me how you can imagine that a bureaucracy of despots can confer legitimacy.
I don't like dealing with the U.N., but I'm fanatically in favor of dealing with NATO, with the European Community, and with basically any other multinational organization composed of free nations.
But until such time as we're able to come up with a better alternative to the U.N., should U.N. mandates be obeyed? Yes, unless doing so would directly and substantially reduce our security. For instance, I think we should be pressing Israel to return to their 1967 borders, as required by a Security Council resolution; and I think Israel is within rights to say "screw you, do you have any idea how tiny those borders are? We could be overrun in a matter of hours!"
Again, there's no contradiction here. The contradictions only seem to exist because you're not willing to view the other side as anything more than a straw man.
Government should relax regulations at all levels. The more laws you pass, the more you're going to inhibit economic development. If you don't believe me, just look at France--or ask JFK, who cut income taxes by huge amounts expecting that it would lead to an increase in tax revenues and a boosted economy. (Both happened, by the by.)
With regard to marijuana... I believe government should enforce the law and I believe the Federal government should, in most things, defer to the states. It's a matter of constant irritation to me that our current administration has sicced the FDA on those states who've enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. That's something the Left would do, override local government in favor of the divine wisdom of Washington. Conservatives, speaking generally, strongly doubt the divine wisdom of Washington and prefer to let states and municipalities handle things.
Read some basic economics books, starting with David Ricardo. Until such time as you learn some microeconomics, please don't give people economic advice.
And no, Ricardo isn't some neocon or some colleague of Milton Friedman. He's an 18th-century economist and a peer of Adam Smith. I hav
Whats the source on your projections?
NewsMax? Aunt Hilda's Polling service?
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
BTW, your last paragraph is somewhat ambiguous...
Not unlike your entire post.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
I suppose advocating health care over a fat pipe is a -1 (Troll) on Slashdot.
Looks like the moderator needs to reconsider his priorities too.
404 Error:
www.usda.gov/rus/regs/info/100-1/title_i.htm
www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/newsroom/1999/63rea.htm
A ridiculous case of telling a lie with an over-specific truth. Under Clinton the press do not appear to have had any difficulty gaining access since they were able to film the return of troops killed in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Aden.
What you are doing here is playing games, the Bush order said that no filming was permitted without prior permission from the Whitehouse. This was always granted refused under Bush I and Bush II and consistently granted under Clinton.
All this flim-flam about when the order was given is just another GOP camouflage, a way of lying with the absolute litteral truth. And they criticized Clinton for prevaricating about the meaning of 'is'!
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
They also raise questions about how he could be credited with at least 14 days of duty during subsequent periods when his superior officers in two units said they had not seen him.
Brigadier General William Turnipseed said something like that to the Boston Globe in 2000. In 2004 when people started pushing the story to discredit Bush, the same General did a 180 on his original statement, "I don't know if Bush showed up, I don't know if he didn't. I don't remember how often I was even at the base."
The Bush AWOL story is nothing but a ridiculous partisan talking point and it's sad to see so many people fall for and perpetuate it.
My other SIG is a 9mm.
Since I have a vested interest in this issue, I have done quite a bit of thinking about it.
;) I'll share that with the world at this moment:
Mostly, I feel annoyed that neither the pro-gay-marraige nor the anti-gay-marriage crowds will talk about what is issue is really about. And, since I'm so unbelievably intelligent
What gay people really want is for sexuality to be a non-issue. They want the "average joes" of the world to treat it like the non-issue, amoral concept that most everyone treats heterosexuality. (Keep in mind that "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", like "black" and "white", are defined solely by our culture, and not by science or anything else.) The problem with this is that our culture will have to change dramatically for the "average joes" to treat homosexuality as the amoral, non-issue that it should be.
The pro-gay-marraige folks' thought about this is that they'll force culture to change through the courts. The anti-gay-marraige folks' thought about that is that they'll use force to keep that from happening. This issue is going to be decided with force, not with science or reason or facts. The anti-gay-marraige folks have decided that they've had enough, and now they are emboldened and are fighting back. If the constitutional amendment passes (and I think it will easily pass congress but will probably die in the states), then I can think of some gay activists that I would like to see die alone and afraid for their immense stupidity.
So what if the amendment fails, and gays are granted legal right to marry? Well, the result of this is that if two consenting adults have the right to marry, then why not three? Conservatives can see the writing on the wall, and I think their predictions on this issue are correct. If marraige is not "only one man and only one woman", then it can be any arrangement of consenting adults. I'm not putting a value judgement on this; in fact, I think any consenting adult should be granted the freedom to associate in any way with any other consenting adult provided that it does not deprive another of life, liberty, or property. What I am arguing is that this would change society in a way that lots and lots of straight, conservative people would not like it to change, and they're willing to fight to make sure it stays the way it is.
That said, I think all of the arguments that conservatives use against gay people suck. Let's run through them "right quick":
1. "Marraige is about raising children"
If this is true, then all infertile couples' marraiges are terminated. When a woman enters menopause, her marraige rights are terminated.
2. "Marraige is the foundation of society"
Not in America, it ain't. We Americans like convenience and individual freedoms. We choose to make and break relationships as they suit us, and that includes marraiges. Our society contines along and adapts. If marraige truly were "the foundation" of society, then I don't see how America could be where it is right now. I think the foundation of American society is capitalism, which, by the way, has no support in the Bible (for all your "Christian businessmen" out there).
3. "Studies show that children do better with one male parent and one female parent in a stable, committed relationship"
And what does "do better" mean? I would accept that it means that children in the gay families will "do worse," which means that there is harm done to the children. Okay, fine. What kind of harm, and how much harm? I'm asking you to qualify and quantify this alleged "harm." Conservatives consistently fail to produce this evidence.
Oh, and here's a little comment that I'd like to make to all the straight readers of this message, especially the conservative ones: failure rates of marraige, even among born-again Christians, are about 50%. 50% is an F. You straights have earned an F in marraige, even with mighty Jesus's help. You have failed. Your claims
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Having a man and a woman raise a child is always better than 2 men or 2 women or even 1 man or 1 woman. There are many single parent families in the US and although they may get by okay and the child doesn't seem to be affected too much the best way to raise a child is to have 1 woman and 1 man.
Single-parent families are bad for children because no parent is actually parenting the child for much of the day. Parenting ends up being done by day-care workers and school officials. Parents have a hard time enforcing limits on children when they're not around. We all know kids who didn't have any limits growing up. Not too pretty, is it? So I agree with you that singe-parent famlies are bad for kids. How does that make a two-parent, same-sex family bad for children?
It takes both to raise a child because each sex can provide a certain side of child rearing that is needed to raise a child the best way possible.
1. What precisely do children need to be raised the "best way possible"? Please qualify and quantify your answer.
2. What can a man give a child than a woman cannot give, and what can a woman give a child that a man can not give? Please, be specific.
Not to mention that 2 women are 2 men lowers the values set aside by society as a whole and although your mind says it is okay to live that way society as a whole does not want children thinking that it is okay.
"Society as a whole" does not agree on any one single issue. What you're actually talking about is the majority of society imposing its opinions on the minority. I believe that James Madison wrote about this. He called it "The Tyranny of the Majority," and much of the Constitution was written with this thought and how to thwart it in mind.
If it was okay then everyone would be like that but then again if everyone was like that the species would cease to exist. Makes sense doesn't it?
It does in a really stupid and redneck way. It seems that most guys really love fucking pussy as frequently as possible with as many different, anonymous, young partners as possible, so I think the dangers of depopulation through faggification are greatly overstated.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
And most of the conservatives' arguments on the issue boil down to this: "It's wrong because we say it is!" It's called argument by assertion. Once your opponents ask, "And why do you feel that way?" then the inherent fag-bashing bigotry rears its ugly head. Since you feel that way, why not just come out and say it? It's become trendy to buck "policital correctness," so why not go whole hog and just say that you don't like gay people? (Not counting the hot lipstick lesbians in your porn collection, of course.)
If we were meant to act that way and not be with the opposite sex the species would become extinct so maybe that would tell you something about whether it is in the best interest of a child, let alone the society/species as a whole.
If the main goal of our lives were to continue the species, then I can't see why marraige and its procreative-limiting features would be beneficial. The better idea would be to groom (read: force) women to be nothing more than baby-producing machines and then have a means of choosing the men who would have the best seed with which to impregnate them. The womb and its accursedly-long 9-month incubation cycle is the ultimate commodity in a world where the continuation of the species is the ultimate value.
By all means, write back. This really is fun for me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I'm not going to say much, except that the parent was mostly correct except that he said "Republicans" and "Conservatives" and not "our current administration and their followers". Because if there is one thing I've learned in the last 4 years from observing him and talking with real Conservatives is that Bush ain't a traditional Republican. I mean, really, can anyone really call him a conservative? And have the word still mean something? Anyway, let me ask you to forgive the parent for mistaking Bush for the average, typical, median, or what have you Republican.
Whenever someone is criticizing "Republicans" and "Democrats", usually they're talking about the politicians wearing those labels, not the general public who holds those views. That's why both Dems and Repubs get lambasted for selling out to special interests and big corporations. Very few people actually believe in doing those things, but pretty much all of our wonderful congress-critters do. That's why I was torn so much in 2000 -- whatever the flavors of syrup the candidates applied to themselves, I knew their core was a double-scoop rocky road of graft and authoritarianism. Since then, Bush has done an admirable job of demonstrating the subtle differences I had missed.
Last thing -- don't assume evolution is so simple. It isn't at all. A member of the species who bears no offspring can still see provide for the survival of the species, and thus ensure the survival of gene carriers. Completely contrived example to bring the point home: Your gay older brother never has kids. However, he saved your life when you were eight, allowing you to grow up and have kids of your own. The trait was carried by your parents genes, which were passed on to you, and thusly does the trait survive.
Basically, the rule is: that which survives, survives. There's no rule that says how that has to occur.
Actual last thing: Seriously, it's because the drugs he used are legal? Wouldn't he have had to get them illegally? What's the difference between damaging addictive legal drugs and damaging addictive illegal drugs? Is it just the arbitrary rules of what's legal and not that are defining morality now? It doesn't make sense to me.
The enemies of Democracy are
So, making a statement that "All Americans ought to have broadband." is something that nobody's goign to disagree with, and is not something he can be called for not following through on. More or less, he's said nothing newsworthy at all... he's just trying to get the geek vote without offering much in return.
You have just provided the most concise definition of the Leadership of George Bush that I have ever seen.
He is the epitomy of the Typical Washington Politican. He says much, does little, and expects to be rewarded for it.
MR. PRESIDENT?!!!
Marriage is about the community recognizing a relationship. For that to happen it has to be a legal recognition and not just a casual one.
My favorite math professor is married. I've met his kids, and I've been in his office when he was on the phone giving his wife computer advice. When I saw him at a Univ. festival, he was with his family; his wife and kids. The community recognizes their relationship, and refer to them using words like "married," "husband," and "wife."
However, they never bothered to get married legally or under any church. People who know this about them regard it as a trivial factoid. It's rather like knowing that a famous scene from a movie was shot in your back yard; interesting but not terribly relevant. Also, I wouldn't call their relationship "casual."
They're not religious (the prof himself was brought up Jewish, but he isn't really a believer). And, they had no reason to ask the government whether it approved of them living together. There were no laws against it.
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
That would be what we call a general exceeding his authority. These days, what with instant communication and monitoring, it's rather harder to do, but back in the civil war times the generals had total control over what happened in their area, until the higher ups finally got notified. Sherman gave land to freed slaves to get them to quit following his army, something he had no authority to do. This never was an act of congress or a presidential order and thus of no legal standing.
s p# add for more info.
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/blacktax.a
Good to see you have a solid grasp of personal responsability.
The US is not currently drafting civilians. You do not need to be wealthy to avoid military service, you just have to NOT voluntarily apply.
The military seems pretty straightforward about the "running risks, shooting people" part, they're not lying about it. They may not put it in the harshest light, but I don't see them selling the "Army of One" idea as "cushy job, easy salary". Rather, they try to sell it as heroism.
If you sign up for the military, you do it knowing the risks, regardless of your motivation.
While "I'll never see action" may be a "justifiable assumption", it is still a conscious risk to take based on the odds. You're still signing a contract that says you're willing to risk your life if necessary, and that's your part of the deal, regardless of how unlikely you think that necessity is.
If you wanted to take advantage of the deal and never pay up on your promise, we'll, it was your own bad decision.
Soldier is not the only profession that expects you to potentially risk your life in some undetermined future. We don't normally expect cops to say "well, I never really expected to deal with crime directly anyway" or national guards to neglect duty on the grounds that "I didn't expect to deal with REAL emergencies!".
We don't steal the responsability from their actions by assuming they don't know what they're signing for.
Instead, we expect them to be the proud professionals we need them to be; we're aware they'd rather not deal with the ugly side of things, but we hope they will rise to the needs of the situations they're trained for. We praise their outstanding character and do our best to make sure they can do their work as safely as possible.
In other words, we give them the benefit of the doubt of being decent people who can make their own decisions, good or bad. They can marry, they can have kids, they can join the circus or the military.
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to worry about the class issues and make the assumption their social disadvantage makes them defenseless children freeloading on the government, I'd suggest you use some of your ample free time to re-read the articles you link to, which do not support your argument and are actually orthogonal to the whole issue.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The timeline you are drawing attention to constitutes necessary but not sufficient evidence to support your primary claim, i.e. that the credit for Libya should go to the president who started a nearby war for what amounts to no reason. However, the developments in Libya had been taking place over a timescale of years, and plenty of evidence exists linking Libya's capitulation to overtures made by the previous administration. The timing might make a nice anecdote, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence.
If there were "plenty of interesting evidence" then you'd be able to prove it. The fact that this oft-repeated falsehood remains unproven merely demonstrates that the "plenty of interesting evidence" alluded to is at best interesting garbage.
Have you heard of mass transit?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I agree that preventing two men from getting married constitutes discrimination. The idea of marriage is inherently discriminatory however, so I don't find the argument legally compelling. (OTOH IANAL). Basically marriage is a priviledge, not a right, otherwise everyone show get the benefits. Of course I think laws banning cohabitation and the like constitute and unconstitutional invasion of government power. We are talking about confering special status to certain groups, If marriage excludes anyone (and is still constitutional) then banning homosexual marriage is constitutional. Of course if a state really wants to allow it through the democratic process our constitution is silent on such matters.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
It's the party in charge. The people who do the most whining around here aren't democrats, there are, if anything, anarchists. Bush is the current target since he is the President. However, when a democrat is in power, it'll be the same.
I'd say it's > 40megabits per second. I have a feeling US companies believe it's > 0.7megabits per second.
Have you been in the military? I have. My experience is that most people are in the military to get away from the little town they grew up in. Second most popular reason is to have money for school. Third is because it was expected of them by their family.
Being a hero is way down there.
I do think the people who signed up AFTER 9/11 probably wanted to be heros though. Too bad they are just being cops instead. Hopefully that will be heroic enough for them.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
bush should be applauded for bringing attention to this problem, and sure, now it needs to be discussed and different solutions evaluated, but it should be ok to identify a problem before you have all of the solutions.
Only problem is that lack of broadband access PALES in comparison to the REAL problems facing this country -- the aforementioned lack of healthcare is obviously number problem 1.
both bush and kerry are pretty decent people who want to work hard.
Bush hasn't worked a day in his life.
if we really want to get somewhere with technology, we probably should keep the plodding and clumsy government out of funding it.
Clearly you've forgotten (or never knew) that this very same government funded the Internet when it was first designed and implemented. Ever hear of DARPANet?
im very happy with bush's idea to assist it by not taxing it, and i hope that extends to online purchases indefinately.
I'm really glad you're happy. I hope you're still happy when internet traffic is wiretapped and ultimately censored, since that fits right in with the Bush Administration's anti-privacy ('cept for them, natch) initiatives -- think PATRIOT Act.
The best argument against an internet sales tax is that it's regressive in the same way that local sales taxes are regressive. I really doubt that there would be a catastrophic drop in online sales if sales taxes were added to the purchases. The reasons are obvious, and are the same reasons people use the internet for shopping today: choice and convenience.
too many narrow minded people out there who hate bush for his social conservatism, and offesive civil rights ideas and dont realiz that he also has done a lot of great things for progressivism and human rights.
He has done NOTHING for progressivism and human rights -- in fact, he has worked AGAINST everything that progressives believe in. Perhaps that's why he's been dubbed "The Regressive." You need some education, my friend.
my brother joined because he wanted to, and he joined in January of 2001, no september 11 to "cloud his judgment"
he is in Iraq right now in fact.
we come from a white upper middle class family, so there goes your "poor dumb solduir who was forced into service because of the racial discrimination our country pounds on him" theory of yours.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
umm...where did I say and the Democrats are innocent?
the topic was bush so I talked about bush your dumb fuck...
your reading comprehension level is about zero if you cannot answer this question:
"what is the readers opinion on the Democratic party?"
your answer "he things their shit don't stink"
the CORRECT answer is "I do not know, he did not talk about the Democratic party"
who is the idiot now? yeah I thought so...idiot!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
good job...yes...I did Bush bash...but if you think you can deduct my thoughts on the democratic party from my comment you are a fucking moron.
/dorks fucking illiterate!!!
is it just me or are
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I hate how Bush keeps promising us stuff. Nation Wide broadband by 2007, Fully hydro-electric cars by 2010, Man on Mars by 2020. Notice how non of this fall under his current tenure? By the time it rolls around nobody is going to care about what Bush says. And a full broadband network accross the country? a LARGE part of the country does not even have basic cable TV, let along possibility for DSL! I think he needs to start doing some research before he follows in Gore's footsteps and claims to invent something techy.
#1. The guy who claims he was with Bush claims that Bush was there when Bush was not there. If he sees Bush when Bush isn't there, then his account is not verification of your claims. I can find people who have seen space aliens land here.
#2. No, it does not matter what other presidents have done. The issue was whether Bush attended any funerals and you claimed he had. You were wrong. But now you're trying to claim that you weren't wrong because other presidents didn't attend funerals.
The fact is that Bush sent these people over there to be killed and doesn't even attend their funerals. Sad, very sad.
#3. I do not claim to speak for "most" of the troops. All I do is look at the statistics. You are the one that claims to know what "most" of the troops believe. The statistics say that the troops over there are suffering from low morale and suicide. Those are NOT items normally associated with supporting the mission.
#4. I'm sure that Clinton and Bush both believed in Santa Clause when they were kids. Belief means nothing. Actions are what matter. Clinton kept up the sanctions and held daily anti-terrorist meetins. Bush did not. Bush invaded Iraq without an exit strategy and without a plan for how to turn over the country. Bush created this disaster and all the dead in Iraq are because of Bush.
#5. No, none of your "evidence" "proves" anything. The White House is leaking bits and pieces of information and the CONTEXT cannot be verified. So Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED.
That does NOT sound like someone who thinks that the information will not support his position. You have not shown that he is a liar. Which is why I support his claim to have all 6 hours of his testimony declassified and released.
#6. He didn't ask for a Democratic ballot. He asked for a Republican ballot. He voted for McCain. He's a Republican. He is not a Democrat.
#7. What do you mean "conspired"? Aren't you aware of the process involved? Halliburton legally won those contracts. The problem is that "legal" in this instance is NOT the same as "best" or even "better". It would have been BETTER to have pulled in OTHER ARAB COMPANIES to do the work. I never said there was a "conspiracy". Again, that is the reason I'm not bothering to debate this because you have enough trouble with established facts. Attempting to explain why having other local companies work on the infrastructure would be too difficult.
instead of complaining about partisanship etc etc, consider this "push" by Bush (or Kerry if he's lucky) as the next excuse to hand out subsidies to the TV/Telecom industries.
What! you mean they've been collecting money for years with the sole purpose of giving everyone broadband!?! Yes, but i garauntee that if this gets legislated into reality, it'll involve either
A) Federal funds,
B) More fees on your cable/phone bill,
C) Tax Breaks,
D) All of the above
Don't believe me? consider the added fees for number portability & the do not call list. yep, with either President, we'll end up paying for it. ain't life grand.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I thought the current administration was Republican.
(BTW, the donkey has a mildly interesting history.)
And I suppose eating snails, frogs, rotting cheeses and 1000 year old turds buried by woodland creatures is a better alternative. (Let's not forget the sulfites in the wine, too).
1 - Buy yourself a gun To become a fully-fledged Yank, you'll need to get a weapon. Americans think that having more killing machines magically makes their country safer, and it helps them to walk around saying "I'll put a cap in your ass". Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.
"American == Gun Owner" is a common European misconception. In this country only ghetto troubelmakers, Elmer Fudd types, Cops, homeowners, and French-inspired Libertarians own guns. The first and last categories are regrettable, but it's only becuase we respect our constitution and don't change it like dirty underwear as the French do.
On the other hand, we don't have criminally-ispired Islamic ghettos where young women are gang-raped by do-nothings hanging around the hallways of tenements, while the government turns its head. But then again, we are not France.
2 - Put on at least 25 stone Skinny? Medium? Chubby? That won't cut it in the good ol' US of A. Because America has the highest obesty levels on the planet, you'll need to get those rolls of flab built up. Eating 18 waffles with Maple syrup for breakfast (and visiting Burger King five times in a day) is all natural when much of the world is suffering massive poverty. Get fat and fit in.
That's a lofty complaint from a national of a country where the average family spends 75 percent of its income on food, most of it is drenched in animal fat. It leads one to conclude that the reason there are not many Fat Frenchmen, is due to the fact they all die at an early age from congenital heart disease.
Heart attack on a plate, nicotine and spit-drenched stogies hanging from the lower lip, and booze are what kills Frenchmen. Inability to protect yourselves from invaders, and lack of air conditioning will probably kill-off whoever's left.
3 - Learn the lingo We've talked about issues affecting society, but on a personal level you'll need more knowledge (or ignorance as it may be) to fit in. First, forget proper English. Confuse "your" with "you're". Say "must of" instead of "must have". Whenever anything interesting occurs, say "shucks" repeatedly. Instead of clever spontaneity or witty insults, call people "asswipes". It's funny!
You apparently think language is only suitable as a vehicle for insults and vulgarities. If you want to beat the Russians at this game, your culture is already halfway there. It's never the language that is ugly. It's the the people who use it. They just have no class.
4 - Throw away all maps, history books etc. To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is. Scrap your knowledge of the lengthy Chinese history. Make cretinous remarks like "India? Is that in Africa?". Because ALL that matters is America, and it doesn't matter how pathetic you look to educated people the world over.
And that unfounded French egotism will make you all that more attractive to the world. Your "intimate" knowledge (and subsequent ignorant abuse) of other cultures will not buy you influence and respect you think you deserve.
I love it when the French complain about English being the defacto standard language of world trade and international diplomacy. They are so bitter about losing the cultural influence they once had. Acknowlege your has-been country is no longer what it once was to international diplomacy and world trade. Contribute to the furtherance of Western Culture and put something on the line. If you ju
That'll put an end to DailyKos and the rest.
Finding God in a Dog
For comparison, only about 40% of US households bought a book in the last year. So broadband has already passed books. Only 21% of US households subscribe to a newspaper, while about 75% of Americans with a phone line have Internet access. Only 66% of US households subscribe to cable TV, so the Internet has already passed cable TV. Cable TV isn't growing, so, if you take the trends seriously, broadband Internet will pass cable TV within two years.
What's the problem?
Instead of going crazy with the broadband, why not create a system of free dial-in connections that is administrated by the local library system? Imagine: when applying for a library card, your average American might be given a list of phone numbers to a local dial-in server, along with a unique user ID and password. Along with this service, library patrons might be allowed to check out various free software, such as internet browsers or a program that helps walk people through the basics of establishing a dial-up connection as well as teaching them how to browse the internet.
GWB is being so shortsighted here. The kind of people who could conceivable really =need= Broadband can afford to it on their own... nationwide availabilty will slowly evolve as demand increases. The most important thing is not to make sure that the most privileged people can have the highest tech internet access available, it is to make sure that as many Americans as humanly possible have the most essential, entry-level internet access.
CANADA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 79.83 years
female: 83.38 years (2003 est.)
male: 76.44 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
USA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 77.14 years
female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
male: 74.37 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
I live in little Denmark and we've had something like 98% coverage (more or less everyone can get ADSL) for a few years I believe. Futhermore, various power companies is starting to offer "fiber to home" solutions in various parts of the country and VoIP is a pretty hot subject here too.
The contract to build the monster has been given to Haliburton.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
So, is God going to liberate some slaves from Mexico, lead them north by a rather roundabout route and then have them kill all the fat heathen Americans? That would be interesting to see. But I fear that God's chosen instrument for America's destruction is either dead under a million tons of Tora Bora rock or hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan... divine retribution will have to wait awhile, it seems.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Bush: "Every home in America will have
broadband internet service by 2007."
(meaning: I intend to re-constitute Ma Bell
(the Mother of all Monopolies) and give
them enough tax credits to pay for wiring
Mars.)
Ohhh, yeah. A chicken in every pot, forty
acres and a mule, and free beer (just vote
for me).
"Airbus easily builds better aircraft than Boeing" Yeah right. That's laughable. Cheers to Dastard. Oh, and to the French moron, doesn't posting under "Anonymous Coward" kind of prove everyone's point about your culture's cowardice? Lame, very very lame. As for the "Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank" remark, well, I would like to say "Thats crap and you know it", but clearly you don't know much of anything. Banning guns has hurt EVERY place that has done it. Just because to turn your cheek to the facts doesn't mean they don't exist. Some of the places with the lowest crime rates, are the places with decent gun laws. Afterall, no one tries to hold up a store knowing full well that they will be shot full of holes by nearly everyone around them. In banned places however, the lawful people will have no means of defense, having complied with the laws, and turning in their weapons. The criminals wil not care about the laws, and will have weapons anyway. Proven time and time again. It's hard to take someone seriously when all they spout is drivel. Please, for the sake of not making yourself look stupid, know what you are talking about, and if you truly believe in what you are saying, post as yourself (or did you Anonymous Coward?) I don't hate French people. I hate people that have a problem with me, and the people I care about. You sir, are an idiot.
Isn't it interesting how politicians like to make themselves look generous by spending other people's money? They are pirates dividing booty among themselves those who put them in power. By what right do they take money from Joe Shmoe so John Doe can have broadband internet service or universal healthcare or crappy public art?
Now that both major parties belong to the communist/socialist party, we are damned no matter how we vote.
The only possible reason I see to vote for Bush is to prevent the Muslim nut jobs from destroying this country. (Kerry isn't up to the task. He is literally the type of person the enemy can quote to torture our military people.) Maybe that is how someone wants it to be.
http://www.marxist.com/
However, Microsoft *earned* a steady and widespread hatred from many Slashdotters from years of screwing customers and competitors alike over. They're simply paying for their original actions in installments.
This is the best, most concise reason I've seen for why people like to bash Microsoft. If I'd had mod points, they would be yours. =)
Second, rich people tend to spend money on all sorts of useful things, the most important being investment. Businesses get more capital, which allows them to grow more quickly, etc
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
They're always proposing those big ideas without thinking about where the money's coming from. Wait a minute, Bush suggested it? Oh, that's different.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I read this and I feel nothing but pity for you. It's people like yourself that are the problem for the world as a whole - the ones too pig headed to realize you're the problem.
Instead of shit slinging and finger pointing, why not try talking to an actual American? Why not try talking to 95% of the students at my school and ask them how they feel about Bush and American foreign policy. Believe me, you'd be surprised how many people share your views.
You speak of World War II and our cowardness in it. Were you even alive then? I sure wasn't, I know what I've read about the War and what I've heard from American veterans - my family members - who were on the beaches of France on D-Day, the ones who were wounded in the fighting. Let's not forget, as well, that most of southern France was in collaboration with the Nazis - a fact that you subtly glossed over.
I could go on forever about how it's the people like yourself - that exist on both sides of ANY argument - that truly are the problems, the road blocks to progress to a mutual understanding and respect for one another. Realize that we have our problems, you, yourself, have problems as well. Our governments do things that we might not nescessarily like - it's not indicative of the opinion of every single person living in that country. The moral of this post? Don't hate.
no.
Kerry actually voted against the purchase of the body armor. Trust me, military folks won't forget that.
I propose that Bush have a big tall glass of shut-the-hell-up and focus on fixing Medicare, Social Security, corporate malfeasance and skullduggery and our reliance on foreign oil instead. Broadband is spreading without his help, and given his track record on the above issues during his administration, I'd just as soon he not help.
> But I would never say these things, because I'd be afraid that some Anonymous Coward might post my unmunged email address. Congratulations to you, Mr. Republican Coward!
Get a clue, stop trolling (to the parent, GP too). A Democrat would do the same thing. Both of those parties and their followers are basically the same and "both sides" lack the same morality.
Actually what Bush said was, "All Americans should pony up for broadband."
I didn't say that the Americans won the war, the Allies won the war. The US did enter the battle late, yes, you can read a history book. There are reasons for this - that's out of the scope of this posting, however what happened did, in fact, happen. Frankly, I consider that payback for LaFayette's help in the Revolutionary War, sooooo....we're even!
Where do we go from here? Try respect. I don't hate on the French, there are many positive things that have come out of France, as have come out of the US. The same can be said for the bad things.
I find it disturbing that all of the /.'ers who are replying to this and are, presumably, French or of the French sentiment are replying as Anonymous Cowards. All this does is feed the fire of the stereotype of the cowardly Frenchman. Maybe there's some truth to that rumor?
no.
Am I the only one who finds this line of reasoning rather insane? Animals don't sign contracts before they mate with each other, and we sure as hell don't ask them to sign contracts before we cut off their tails/castrate them/euthenize them/etc. In short, we don't give a damn about their lack of communication when it comes to *anything* else, so why should we demand it when it comes to this? (Also, it's worthwhile mentioning that we CAN reliably communicate with some animals, such as monkeys that have been taught sign language.) I'm not into beastiality, I'm just against stupidity.
"Get yoh ponies to Mahs!" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Well, I don't feel like arguing with your liberal lies and mistruths today, so I think I'll just post this...
Top 25 things you have to believe to be a Democrat today:
1. Drug addiction is a disease that should be treated with compassion and understanding...unless the addict is a Conservative radio host.
2. The United States should be subservient to the United Nations. Our highest authority is not God and the U.S. Constitution, but a collective of tinpot dictators (and their appeasers) and the U.N. charter.
3. Government should relax drug laws regardless of the abuse potential, but should pass new anti-gun laws every time a gun is misused by a criminal.
4. Calls for increased security after a terrorist attack are "political opportunism," but calls for more gun control after a criminal's spree killing is "a logical solution."
5. "It Takes a Village" means everything you want it to mean...except creeping socialist government involvement in the nuclear family.
6. Disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens helps protect them from evil, lawless terrorists.
7. Slowly killing an unborn innocent by tearing it apart limb from limb is good. Slowly killing an innocent disabled woman by starving her to death is good. Quickly killing terrorists and convicted murderers & rapists is BAD.
8. Every religion should be respected and promoted in public schools the name of diversity, so long as those religions don't include Christianity.
9. The best way to support our troops is to criticize their every move. This will let them know they're thought of often.
10. Sexual harassment, groping and drug use are degenerate if you're the governor of California, but it's okay if you're the President of the United States.
11. Sex education should be required so that teens can make informed choices about sex, but gun education should be banned because it will turn those same teens into maniacal mass-murderers.
12. Minorities are blameless for the hatred of the racist, but America is entirely at fault for the Jihadist's hatred.
13. Poverty is the cause of all terrorism...which is why the leaders of al Qaeda are almost entirely U.S.-educated and were raised in wealth and luxury.
14. The Patriot Act is a horrific compromise of Constitutional rights, but anti-Second Amendment laws and Franklin Roosevelt's Presidential Order 9066 must be regarded "necessary evils."
15. We should unquestioningly honor the wishes of our age-old allies, even when said allies no longer act like our allies and have vested economic interests in propping up our enemies.
16. Socialized medicine is the ideal. Nevermind all those people who spend every dime they have to get to the United States so they can get quality medical care...that their nation's socialized medical community can't provide.
17. Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Natalie Maines are perfectly qualified to criticize our leadership, but Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlton Heston, and Dennis Miller are just ignorant political hacks.
18. John Lott's research on how gun ownership reduces crime is junk science, but Michael Bellesiles is still an authority on why gun control is good (even though he was forced to resign from Emory due to research misconduct over his book "Arming America").
19. Bush's toppling the Saddam regime was a "diversion," but Clinton's lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at Iraq in the thick of the Lewinsky sex scandal was "sending a message."
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
21. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning Second Amendment rights and shopping the courts for judges sympathetic to causes that wouldn't pass in any legislature.
22. "The People" in the First Amendment means The People; "the People" in the Fourth Amendment means The
Probably. Bush probably doesn't even know what Broadband is. Probably thinks its a bigger band for his hat. It's like the manufacturing question. Is he just trying to spin bad numbers or, worse, is he so far out of touch that he doesn't know what a manufacturing job is? Does he even know what flipping a burger is? The question popped up on Fark recently:
(Newmoonpuppyhead): I wonder if Bush even knows how to flip a burger. It must confound him. The shaping of the meat. The placing of the pattie on the grill. Never knowing when to turn it over. I can see him sweating. Bringing in Cheney and Rice for suggestions. Not listening to Powell when he says its done. Rumsfield telling him to keep cooking it. Of course it's manufacturing to him, a huge undertaking for the Bush administration
He'll promise anything just to get re-elected. Afterall, after this election, he won't have to worry about re-election. So expect to se more empty promises and more dreams that are just that - phantom, shadows, and spectres with no substance. But in the man's defense, he (or whoever is pulling his strings) at least has dreams - which is far more than Kerry's got.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
I had no idea we were in such lousy position on this. Sure, we're behind in vacation for workers, quality of life, cell phone tech, digital TV deployment, broadband access and mass transit, but who would have thought we would also be so low on something like life expectancy?
Perhaps it has something to do with the overwhelming fatness of the people who live here. Show your patriotism and excersise! We must live longer than the socialists!
Note: if you take this as anything but sarcasm, you're retarded. It is surprising to see us SO low, even though I certainly didn't expect to be #1. Somebody mod the parent up.
Well I guess it's AC for me, but the parent is right. Klerck is fucking lame. And that shit about the pettition against LOTR two towers? It may have been a joke, but a fucking lame one at that. Geez people, take a look at his post history, the parent was just pointing out a fact.
I am the Freakin' Anti-Christ baby
Regarding Airbus vs Boeing, I doubt they have outsold Boeing, but even so, sales do not always equal quality. Infact they rarely do. Regarding my posting as my username rather then Anonymous Coward, At least people know which user I am. What are you expecting, my name, state and address? It is well known, that you shouldn't post that on the internet. Regarding the gun related section, it is in responce to the original posts arguments on it, which is the parent of the article I responded to. Wow, I must be stupid to post regarding information on the parent of a thread. "Says the guy who just proved that he's a total idiot himself.", right back at you...
"Over here, there's simply no need to have guns because there are fewer lowlifes" says the lowlife using racial slurs. Plenty of crime happens where you live too, it appears as though you are not compelled to fight it though. It's sad to see a place so conteneted with their criminals. When someone you love gets hurt or killed, you just remember that had you lived in a place where gun rights existed, or had you fought for them, your loved one could have been safe.
I agree with you on the car industry, I prefer German and Japanese cars. However, Boeing is better then Airbus. As for "The original user who posted the gun crime stuff may never find your comment because you posted it in the wrong place." your probably right, it would have been more effective to post directly to the parent, but clearly people have found my posts. I am still not sure what data you think I am supposed to put on here, but it seems cowardly to post as anonymous.
It is like I have said for a long time. Fighting crime is not why the police are here. They will not be there when you need them, and really can't be expected to be. They are here to clean up the aftermath (papers, finding the criminals AFTER the crime). It is YOUR job to protect yourself. I have thought about it. I don't live in fear of being attacked here. I live with the knowledge that should I be attacked, I can at least try to protect myself.
20. A president who lies under oath is okay, but a president who references sixteen words from an allies' intelligence report should be dragged through the streets naked.
How many people died as a result of Clinton lying about a blowjob? How many died thus far as a result of Bush's unfounded claims about "weapons of mass destruction"?
As to the rest of your semi-coherent ranting, 1/3 of your "points" involved guns. Guns just shouldn't be that important to anyone. It's one minor issue, not the very reason for our existence on Earth. I don't know if someone laughed at your penis or what, but you are way too hung up on guns for there not to be an underlying psychological problem. Maybe that's the reason that your web page (mrbrown.net) has an ad for "Viagra under $3 dose - free delivery, no prescription charges."
I'll tell you what: I don't think you're any more credible because you got one.
I agree with you completely, hell, I could be having this stupid flame war with myself for all any other poster knows.
I couldn't care less about who you are and what you do. What you say is important.
So, by your logic I could say that all airplanes are unsafe. I can say that they are unsafe and that nobody should be allowed to fly in them. I could also say that the air we breathe is actually not air at all, it's lithium, and now we all have to pay for the lithium that we breathe. Why? Because I said so - don't ask who I am, I said it, so it must be true, right?
You, sir, have the mentality of almost 99% of the media WORLDWIDE - it is imperative that you consider the source when presented with any information, no matter hoe trivial it may seem. If you don't do that you just sound stupid and end up making an ass out of yourself.
As such, I really can't place much weight on the claims that said person's grandfather was killed by American soldiers - the truth? POW's are killed every fucking day, Geneva Conventions are, well, basically just rules of thumb for both sides - and it's been that way in any war. Believe what you will, but that's a fact.
Don't be afraid to tell me where you're from, I'm not going to start a flame war with you. I'm proud that I am who I am and I'm proud that I'm from where I'm from. I also believe that George Bush is a lying, two faced, money thirsty fuckhead who should be impeached - along with his cabinet - and thrown in jail. It seems like a hypocritical thing to say, but it's really not. I love my country yet despise those in control of it. If you'd just take the time to talk to an intelligent, mature 'mericunt like myself you might actually see that we're not all a bunch of flea infested, inbreeding, obese idiots who believe everything that we see and hear on CNN. Honestly, can't we all just get the fuck along?
no.
How many things have I been promised that I never got? (ps.. Im still waiting for my flying car...)
It's a fact that...
It's a fact that the U.S. has an insanely high teenage pregnancy rate, an insanely high murder rate, comparatively low average I.Q., and can't even live up to it's own principles, like the separation of church and state.
Them are the facts, Butthead.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Bullshit. Most hispanic voters are very pro-immigration-control. Why? If they're voters, they're legal citizens(which is a long process usually cherished by those who earn it who were not born with it), and they despise those who snuck in and are getting a free ride and giving the legal immigrants a bad name. Everyone is for immigration, until they get here, and then they don't want anyone else coming in and taking a piece of the pie. It's just like people who move into a neighborhood and then a year later are bitching about a new development, how they want a small neighborhood, blah blah blah.
For example, the California "let's give all the illegals drivers licenses so they're safer!" program is hugely unpopular with legal immigrant populations, and they vote en-masse. I love it when politicians get what's coming to 'em...
Please help metamoderate.
You're missing the point.
I'm not saying that most people enter the military to be heroes. I'm saying that the military doesn't lie about the risks, and actually tries to sell them as heroic.
My argument was that regardless of your motivation you are Responsible for Your Actions (TM).
Whether you chose to be in the military because you wanted them to go to college, know the world, find yourself or follow family tradition, you cannot claim you were Forced by the Social Circumstances (TM), Deceived Into Serving The Man (TM), or any other excuse.
People have many reasons to make decisions that permanently affect their lives: marrying, having children, choosing careers, whatever...
Those are their choices, not for us to judge blindly. When we do that not only do we patronize them, we dehumanize them. We show less respect to their judgement than most have for househeld pets.
P.D.:
No, I have not served my country's military, and that was my choice. I don't have much appreciation for military organizations in general, if you must know.
But I find the pattern of renouncing and disowning personal responsability both insulting and disturbingly common.
That, and I do come from a country where there is a limited draft, and there are real class issues with respect to the military, with certain political consequences.
Which means whenever I read something like the parent comment it seems at best like a really bad joke.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Another person who would rely on the hope that people won't be corrupted by power. I am not the grandparent poster, I am an american; I am also an anarchist and it must be realized that the good will of those in power is all tat keeeps us from the slaughter now. Wait for the real fireworks soon, California will break off soon enough. If you're inclined drop by and help us shoot it out, we'll have extra guns I promise.
A blog about stuff.
What part of "I can at least try to protect myself" was unclear?
Despite your claims to the contrary, you obviously do blindly follow the news media in your country.
What are your grounds for making such a claim? I'm curious, fill me in Einstein.
It's unfortunate that people like myself are the minority.
no.
Clearly an amateur. No real American would "put" a cap in someone's ass; the proper usage is to bust a cap in one's ass.
Cheers!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Oh well. Amusing.
"The first and last categories are regrettable, but it's only becuase we respect our constitution and don't change it like dirty underwear as the French do."
D'oh, dude. You might want to look up on the French Constitution and find out you've just made yourself royally riculous. Or you might want to read up which parts of the U.S. Constitution have been altered in the last three years by GWB only.
Don't take it personally, it's not as if you actually elected him. I mean, hey, this is democracy? Someone can steal the elections and face no serious opposition of any kind? Impressive, really. Tell me, is that "democracy" thing you're "defending" everywehere around the globe the same democracy you practice? If it is, keep it for yourselves. Please.
Brighten up, people. Don't let them make you think we were separate. We're all human, and we've got serious problems to solve. I suggest we decide to ignore the media and start solving problems. If we don't, obviously nobody will. Remember Zen. Don't let the anger dissolve your power. You *can* make a change.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
How about a place this is hurt not even from a ban, but from merely having tight laws? Oh, say, New York, or Washington State. No sence re-writting what someone else has already done. Go to the NRA's website for some enlightenment.
= 9J =
Makes me glad we kicked your butt in '76.
First off, I do not control the ads on my website. I choose what category I would like (low income, middle income, high income), and quite frankly Viagra ads bring in the most income. I'm quite happy with my 7" of endowement and I can get it up quite easily.
Secondly, my "incoherent rambling" was not original material. It was something I found on the Internet, which was relevant to the conversation.
Thirdly, I watch one show on the Fox News Channel - Studio B w/ Shepard Smith, and thats only because I argue college football with the man on a regular basis. I'm a LSU student, he's an Ole Miss grad, we hate each other's team. Simple as that. So before you go calling me an "Uninformed Fox News drone", think before you speak. Political Science is my major and I work in media.
And its laughable when the only thing you really come up with is something about my penis... really. Try something original and exciting!
Pitiful fuck.