Slashdot Mirror
The Votemaster Is...Andrew Tanenbaum
A reader writes: " www.electoral-vote.com, a site of daily updated maps of the US electoral college based on a number of polls is probably a site that the policially inclined check daily. Well, it has been revealed that the person behind the site, AKA the votemaster, is none other than Andrew Tanenbaum, noted author of numerous CS books." He's also known for a little discussion with someone named Linus Torvalds.
Zogby has lost all credibility. He's out there predicting a democratic victory when all the other pollsters aren't (even the biased ones like CBS).
Nope, I have to disagree with you, it *is* just the US that matters..
The rest of you arent worth a hill of beans..
And its about time our leaders started acting that way, and stop coddeling the stupid UN or risking 'offending' someone when we protect ourselves..
To hell with all of you outsiders..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But, in this case, i'll make an educational exception.
Go to Jibjab and watch the first "This Land" video. It explains why an American would vote for Bush pretty effectively. Note Kerry in the S&M gear and Bush riding the missile.
Yeah, that's why.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
He then goes on, at length, describing/proving that the world "hates" Bush/the administration/etc. This comes as absolutely no surprise to me. However - and FORGET about "Bush" for a second - how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate?
When people go around murdering thousands of USA citizens because they hate the policies Bush supports, it's a strong indicator that the policies are inappropriate.
Why does "hating" someone mean what they're doing is wrong?
Bush has repeatedly stated that one of the primary goals of the next administration should be the "war on terror". Reducing terrorism is damn near impossible when everybody hates you.
I'm not going to beat around the bush, as it were, any more: the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period.
So, in other words, the message Bush has sent to the world is that if you don't have a government that is USA approved, you'd better get some WMD so you aren't such an easy target. Hell, you can even scratch the USA approved bit; it's not like the USA's current enemies weren't their allies at one point.
We are trying to kill off a movement to construct a radical theocratic Islamic empire in the whole of the mideast, which desires to be the seat of government for the world, and anyone who does not subscribe to their twisted beliefs will be brutally slaughtered or subjugated.
So instead of the mideast subjugating other countries in their bid to spread their form of government, it's the USA subjugating other countries in their bid to spread their form of government?
They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West.
So I guess invading two middle-eastern countries in two years is going to make the Muslim world a) more supportive of the USA or b) more wary of the USA?
I hope you realize that what Kerry is proposing - namely, expanding the military, and fighting and winning against al-Qaeda in all 60 nations in which they are operating
He isn't proposing any such thing. If you hadn't conveniently ignored the "intelligence" part of what he was saying and the fact that many of those 60 countries will be cooperating with the USA, you would see that. He didn't say that he would be invading those 60 countries, you said that by misinterpreting what he said.
No, a "noun" can't be defeated. But you can make the region a fuck of a lot more unfriendly to terrorism.
Yes you can. You can also make the region a fuck of a lot more friendly to terrorism. There are now two middle-eastern countries that are in ruins after invasion by the USA, with a hell of a lot of civilian casualties. Those casualties have families. A tremendous amount of people will be in the situation of having their country invaded and family members killed by the USA. Do you think that makes them more or less likely to take up arms against the USA?
The US never went to Iraq for WMD
Yes, in a way, it went for "oil".
So what you are saying is that Bush lied to the USA and the rest of the world about the reasons for invading another country and you are still going to vote for him?
I literally cannot believe how black-and-white supposedly "open-minded" "progressive" people view this.
It's not a case of black & white. Bush has done a number of things that make him completely unsuitable to be president. Dismissing him isn't an attempt to paint the world as black & white.