Slashdot Mirror
Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
The Democrats just might make it this time. :D
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
If Obama and Biden have a joint ticket, do you think they will call it obama/biden?
If they do, will they be "cashing in" on the popular the "dyslexic terrorist" vote?
(If there's going to be a political flamewar, it may as well be my political flamewar).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Like Trickle Down economics isn't redistributive?
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
And people question his ability because he's "too young..."; yet for the same reason he may be more in touch with his country than anyone could guess. Small politics indeed.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)? Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
It's also worth noting that, in addition to things like 1 million strong for Barack, his team has set up it's own social networking site where Obama supporters can share photos, messages, groups, fundraising, and events.
Dean ushered in Internet fundraising in 2004. Could Obama harness social networking?
I may not agree with his stance on every single issue, but I have to say, I don't think I've ever felt genuinely excited about the prospect of any particular candidate becoming president before this election. Usually I'm just hoping for the guy I mind the least to get in.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
AC sez: "waaaaaaaaaah!"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Honestly, I don't even see a negative side to ethanol (other than it's still a fossil fuel). It reduces our dependance on foregin oil, and would (presumably) lower our national trade deficit and keep more money within the borders (something that conservatives are sure to be happy about).
It will be interesting to see Obama's commitment levels on the issue as we progress toward Nov, 2008.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
You mean like in Washington D.C.?
Or maybe you mean Chicago
Both cities have what is considered to be fairly draconian gun control laws by US standards. Both have violent crime rates well in excess of the national average.
Yes, it is added in places like Brazil, but that's because they derive it from sugar and not corn like the US would have to. If they could derive ethanol from any plant cellulose, that would be something.
I am an environmentalist, but ethanol is a BAD BAD idea.
No he probably means exactly the opposite of Seattle where violent crime is at one of the lowest rates in the country even with a meth scourge and understaffed police force making property crimes skyrocket. Of course the State of Washington has shall-issue CCW laws and prevents local preemption of state gun laws. Of course the Seattle mayor wants to force gun control in the state (since it will allow him to deflect the blame away from his incompetence in handling things like car theft and breakings).
Obama's running on a feel-good platform. He's big on "hope" (whatever that means). Methinks he knows his issue positions aren't what most people are looking for so he's running on good feelings and wishes.
You know what they say about wishing in one hand and shitting in the other...
i predict that this upcoming election will have the best voter turnout of all of history.
/but at the same time/
:p
the vast majority of african-americans will vote for obama to see a black man elected president (likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
the vast majority of women will vote for hillary to see a woman elected president
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
then you have to consider the other side of this
how many non black people will vote for hillary to prevent a black man from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
verses
how many men will vote for obama to prevent a woman from taking office
(likely even putting their political beliefs aside)
african american females will have reason to be happy either way i suppose
undoubtably many people here will respond to this post as 'you idiot, those aren't the only two choices', but i disagree. america is so blatantly retarded these are in fact the only two choices, regardless of what is written on the ballot.
in 2002 at work i predicted that hillary would run in 2008, and even said 'i bet she will win, just because of the female vote' (i never would have imagined it would come down to this though, this puts a whole new spin on it) and i even made it clear i didnt want her to win. this one guy in the room got very very upset with me and heavily ostracized me for even mentioning it.
someone do some stat searching and find out how many women and how many african americans are in the usa.
More at Znet [zmag.org]
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates? Those might work if we trusted you as an expert, but trust is in short supply in these debates.
The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol -- a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers.
While I'm all for alternative energy sources (and have always been proud that I have a much smaller carbon footprint than most), is there anyone else who thinks tying our food supply to the market value of fuels isn't such a good idea?
fiberoptic or copper? vote obama, cause hillary hates violent fun, plus who wants bill clinton to be the pressidents bitch? theres something wrong there.
Oh, thank Heavens he cleared up that mystery for us. This has been the longest-telegraphed punch since...since... well, since Hillary also "announced" that she was running.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
There's ONE reason people like Obama. He's a black guy who doesn't speak like one.
Slate currently has an "Obama Messiah Watch" column that chronicles the media's excessive praise of the would-be-president.
http://www.slate.com/id/2159502/?nav=navoa
And this interests readers of Slashdot ... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Politician and Science -- a very bad mix.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thats like asking not to win. Oil is the true leader of this country. What he should have done was cozied up to oil companies, then fucked them over hard core. That, would have been sweet. Now he's just going to have the full might of the oil companies after him.
Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
yet again the common fallacy that corn farmers = [agri]busnessmen. Ethanol is nice. Corn ethanol is stupid.
I've heard that industrial hemp would be 2x to 3x more efficient in producing Ethanol than other techniques. Can anyone here verify this?
Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred--in a "tone laced with contempt"--to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as "something of a gadfly."
Well, as a Minnesotan, I can tell you that he kinda was. We're a fairly liberal state as it is, but Wellstone was pretty left-leaning even for us. Nothing against him personally, though.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
He quoted his sources, which, I notice, is more than you have just done.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates?
Absolutely the issue is more complicated, and in fact, the net effect of gun control seems to be nothing but reduced access to guns for law abiding citizens. In some cases, the rate of violent (gun) crime went up, in other cases, the rate went down. Link to various studies
The bottom line, as a person that values personal liberty, and the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the state and the police have no obligation to protect you or me specifically, I prefer to live in a state where the right to be armed is still respected.
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
And ethanol does nothing significant for CO2 reduction, or is Global Warming not your concern?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
He himself is black! If he's not qualified to judge his own culture's issues, who is?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He's either going to get shot or he'll conveniently lose. You can't have a black guy called Obama as president, think of the stereotypes which don't apply.
Jonathanjk.com
I for one welcome our new, internet enabled Obama Nation.
He's promising the same bullshit Bush did and we all know how well that went over, I'm not trolling for calling for flames here, but seriously, what isnt he offering that other politicians offer? oh right, nothing.
To be fairly honest, his name doesn't really scream "president" if you look at it from the view of the average american. In fact it sounds similar to someone we cant catch in the middle east. Sadly, people do think this way. You have to have a marketable name, marketable appearance, and anything beyond that is filler material. everyone knows in the back of their minds that the filler material is bullshit. we just keep hoping maybe one candidate is not bullshitting us.
Where can you at least find maybe one better candidate? (key word is maybe) is looking at the other parties out there. but most of them are jokes. But me, personally, I'd vote for the off the wall candidates to skew the results, so if I am throwing away my vote, I'm gonna throw it away on a 3rd party instead of having the guilt that my vote went towards the next corrupt president.
All in all they're all the same in my book. occasionally you get that one president who comes in with good intentions and keeps them for at least one term. The rest are already beyond repair and are already corrupted by the time they get into office just from the campaigning and ass-kissing.
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That he's not Hillary.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I find it doubtful that you will find a viable candidate that leans far enough to the left to garner the support of the crypto-communists over at Znet.
The editor of Zmag, Michael Albert, has been a consistent and harsh critic of Marxist-Leninism. Here he debates a representative of one of the more moderate communists parties (the ISO). Most of the people published in Zmag are social democrats, anarchists, and other non-Marxist left wing radicals. Zmag is probably less communist than The Nation, and certainly less so than the countless Trotskyist party papers. Nader is seen as the most viable third party candidate in recent years and he often writes for Zmag.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Very true. Ethanol is viable only if produced from non-food-related products. Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Would you like to cite a source on that besides your rectum?
Gun control has never been shown, at least in any respectable study that I've ever seen, and I've been following the issue for a while, to lower the crime rate, except in theoretical situations where you can magically cut urban areas off from the outside world, or where you only look at specific categories of crime and neglect the crime reduction due to civilian gun ownership.
The usual anti-gun arguments that get trotted out in these situations are Europe/USA comparisons, and those are bogus for any number of reasons (simply: there are far too many variables besides gun control that lead to Europe having a far lower violent crime rate in general than the U.S., regardless of their gun control policies).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Obama is of mixed race and is not by any means poor or working class. And yes, blacks can misjudge the cause of their problems and blame "culture" (lack of "values", rap music, religion) instead of the genuine problems of poverty and continued discrimination.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Sources didn't really seem appropriate given that I didn't make an argument.
Freeing America from oil via ethanol.
8 41462
t s_for_growth/nitrogen/anhydrous_ammonia.jsp
Read this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=219742&cid=17
One ton of dry biomass = 2 barrels of oil
The USA burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day. As I incorrectly pointed out in the prior post - this is 10 million tonnes of dry biomass per day (I had a brain fart which no one picked up on and wrote 40 tonnes).
It was nicely pointed out and correctly I might add that if we were to produce the amount of ethanol required to offset the oil being burned, then we would need more than the world's production of grain.
I did a google search on "world grain production" and was impressed with the increases since the 1960's.
Since I grew up on a grain farm I have a gut feel for this. The increased production came from dwarf grains (more grain, less stalk), irrigation and fertilizer. At this point much of the north amercian farmland has been badly raped of its nutrients. As I write this a major part of the North American fertilizer industry is shut down because of a shortage of Methane. They use methane to create anhydrous ammonia.
Check here:
http://www.agrium.com/products_services/ingredien
The thing is the irrigation is not sustainable.
The dwarf grains and genetic manipulation lead to mono culture which is questionable sustainable.
The use of methane to create nitrogen fertilizers is past peak by over 5 years in North America. Its a big problem.
The short of it is that there is no way on earth we can double our grain production. We can however produce Ethanol from other than grain.
Cellulose to ethanol is a possibility with fungii like Trichoderma reeshii. But plants also contain pentosans and lignins. T. reeshii likes cellulose.
Personally I think a fungus with more potential is in the Pleurotis genus.
But that is just my guess.
The short of it is that we have a big problem - do we want to eat (grain) or do we want to drive cars.
I hope the cars lose.
As I pointed out before.... the USA would have to convert more than the whole world's supply of grain into ethanol to keep its fleet of car toys on the road.
You are free to remove it from your article listing, if you like.
Well, as a Minnesotan, I can tell you that he kinda was. We're a fairly liberal state as it is, but Wellstone was pretty left-leaning even for us.
I always thought that rural Minnesota was inhabited by moderate Lutherans who didn't really care about politics. The MN cities have a mixed range of opinion, but the Minnesotans I know who REALLY care about politics are all either anarchists or revolutionary communists. Superior, St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Winona all appear to have their fair share of radicals. I really haven't met many liberals outside of black neighborhoods (leftists and liberals have less in common than liberals and conservative). Most of the white middle class is moderate and/or apathetic. Most people who are wealthy or religious nuts are right wing reactionaries. You find a few real conservatives (who tend to lean Libertarian). I think Liberalism is slowly becoming irrelevant.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont
I stopped reading here, because it's obvious you have no concept of what the "American people" think, if you characterize Lieberman as a "neoconservative." Pro-war, perhaps, but that has more to do with his unwavering (and unapologetic) stance on Israel, which drives most of his Mid-East policy, than any real kinship with the Republican party or any real conservatives (which, to be clear, are not necessarily the same thing).
Lamont was a southern-Connecticut (NYC Suburb) carpetbagger without any real vision, who ran a negative campaign that didn't pan out in the general election (as such campaigns are wont to do). And it probably helped that Lieberman's campaign was a train wreck.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or what, but if you really think that someone like Lamont -- who couldn't get elected in one of the Bluest states in the country -- typifies what Americans want, you've been spending too much time smoking dope in Boston or L.A.; people want out of Iraq, sure, and are pretty pissed about what they perceive to be American jobs lost to outsourcing and imports, but to equate that with some wellspring of progressivism/socialism is a mistake.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Indeed, liberty is a nice way to sidestep the argument completely. But then, people don't agree on how much liberty others should have.
Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So do the rest of us. i.e., so do I, and I'm a member of the NRA.
There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.
As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
+++ATH0
I know the reason Mr. Obama is saying all of these things: He wants to be president. That is all. And I don't say this because he is a democrat. I don't say this because he is black. I say this because he is a politician.
I heartily concur!
Can we get back to discussing Microsoft Vista, SCO, Linux on the desktop, BSD's death, and Steve Ballmer's adult diaper?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Oh, whoop-de-do! So that disqualifies him?
One one hand that's a valid point, but on the other hand it probably also helped him get enough perspective to see the problem in the first place (as he wasn't mired in it himself).
My (multi-racial) girlfriend's brother exhibits exactly the kind of attitude problem we're talking about, and I can damn well tell you the cause is the "culture," not poverty or discrimination.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This is just totally out of the mainstream.
70% of Americans want our involvement in Iraq to start decreasing. Did you miss that?
Everyone agrees that health care is poor-to-mediocre and getting worse. Something has to be done. Everyone agrees on energy independence.
Repeating lies over and over again doesn't make them true.
+++ATH0
This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)
Of course Clinton probably wouldn't have won his first term if Pero didn't run. Pero was out republicaning the republicans on the majority of his stands. Clinton won by the one of the largest marjins of electorial votes of recent presidential races but recieved less then 43% of the popular vote. This is because the republicans more or less split over Pero. This is also why it was hard to find someone that would admit to voting for him when thing started getting ugly.
What you want is like taking the Hustler from the hands of a masturbating teen.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Nothing about Obama's platform is "evil." Moreover, he has repeatedly shown an ability to work with Republicans and create great, lasting compromises.
As for "what has he done lately?", you can use Wikipedia as well as I can.
+++ATH0
You could simply have gone to your Slashdot preferences page and disabled any Slashdot section you are not interested in. You registered years ago, isn't it time you learned how to use Slashdot?
I'm not sure if this is a troll or what, but if you really think that someone like Lamont -- who couldn't get elected in one of the Bluest states in the country -- typifies what Americans want, you've been spending too much time smoking dope in Boston or L.A.; people want out of Iraq, sure, and are pretty pissed about what they perceive to be American jobs lost to outsourcing and imports, but to equate that with some wellspring of progressivism/socialism is a mistake.
I live in a precinct and county that consistently vote Republican. My congressional district is "represented" by Dennis Hastart, who was until recently the most powerful Republican in the House. My town is basically trying to kick non-whites out through a series of nationally reported racist ordinances. I do not live in Boston or LA, but smack in the middle of the Midwest. I won't comment on my personal habits, but I've only been around people who were using pot once in the past year or so. The American people don't support the left on the wedge issues of immigration, gay marriage, evolution, etc. However, when it comes to economics, they are vastly more left wing than the Democratic party. Most Americans want more regulation of corporations, higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the working, and single payer nationalized healthcare. Socialism really is in the best interests of working America and that's why the first openly socialist member of the senate was just elected.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I think his issue positions are pretty darned acceptable. He's able to talk nicely to the Right while maintaining a largely traditional Democratic set of positions, without going completely far-Left overboard (see Hillary). Folks who claim Obama has no record are also off-base -- there's quite a bit of legislation he's sponsored, it's generally pretty commendable stuff (as opposed to the traditional solution-in-search-of-a-problem or show-we're-doing-something BS which comes out of Congress these days).
Anyhow, he's running for President, not dictator. Consensus-building is much more important than having the right positions on the issues -- after all, it's Congress that's doing the lawmaking. What we need right now is a President who isn't going to go power-mad overboard again and who can foster a less poisonous political environment. I think Obama is the person to do precisely that.
Oh.. bummer!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Did you ever consider the fact that they're both major centers of poverty?
You could not be more right.
Algal biodiesel is *the* way forward to an oil-free, carbon-neutral energy cycle. Now if we can just get the industry to support it.
I'm in favor of incentives to car companies, as opposed to legislating "you MUST produce x number of BD-powered cars."
+++ATH0
The inefficiency is only true for gas engines converted to run on booze. When you design an engine that cannot run on gasoline but runs well on alcohol, you design it to use much, MUCH higher compression ratios that would be impossible to use in a gas engine, and efficiency actually surpasses that of gasoline.
+++ATH0
And how much does that make up for the inherent inefficiency (MPG) of ethanol (up to 33%) compared to regular gasoline? Or does the feel good quotient make up for that?
Imported energy sources have hidden costs.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
is almost certainly PART of the problem. It is not the whole problem; poverty and discrimination certainly DO play a part in the disenfranchisement of blacks. But when a black kid who likes to read and works hard in school is considered by his peers to be "acting white," that is an enormous problem.
+++ATH0
I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
He may have good chances. It appears (32% approval, etc.) the electorate is tired of a president that is not articulate nor prone to careful thought and analysis.
They just might go for the opposite.
The energy for ruminants like cows ( 4 stomaches) comes from micro-organisms that digest the complex sugar polymers in herbacious plant material.
Humans cannot digest this stuff. Cows can.
Fungii can digest pretty much everything. I'm talking about the whole kingdom here... the 5th kingdom and I personally think they got it wrong because its the 1st kingdom. IE. Fungii (the 5th kingdom) had to be on earth as life evolved. Without fungii, the earth would be full of garbage.
Your question: Can we make ethanol from other than grain? Ans: yes. We can do it from cellulose using fungii like T. reeshii. But T. Reeshii is a cellulose digester and makes our Stone washed blue jeans. There is some piddling going on in the genome. IE genetic modification.
My short answer? I do not see a solution other than undertaking a massive constuction project for nuclear power plants and in the alternative, the vast majority park their cars and take public transportation (ie - the bus).
This country is not yet ready for a black prez, particularly the one whose father is from a predominantly Muslim country and who has the last name that rhymes with Osama. If he goes on ballot, Republicans will win again by unleashing a horrific misinformation campaign right before the election. Sadly, in order to win presidency in this country one needs to be a white, Christian-god-fearing male. I'd love to be wrong about this, though.
For the record, I'm a left-wing Democrat.
And you, my friend, are a lunatic! Either that or you are intentionally taking Obama's statements out of context.
He does support the troops, not the least in the way that he supports veterans' benefits. He WILL bring them home, he is for phased withdrawal. If Iran started waving nuclear weapons around and was immune to diplomacy, and started threatening neighboring countries, you think it would be a BAD idea to hit them with surgical missile strikes? He's not saying it's GOING to come to that, he's saying there is a small chance that it might.
He did not "embrace Israel's brutal bombings of Lebanon." Where are you getting this batshit insane stuff from?
+++ATH0
A tiny issue to be sure, but I'm appreciative of the website linked for providing a video link that's easy to use, even in Linux.
Addressing the larger scheme of things, I'd just like to say it's sad how politics seems to eventually run into centrism, especially for the presidential elections, due to the "winner takes all" approach. I was really rooting for Dean during the last primaries, but it seems like the Dems preferred a more bland candidate. Oh well. Here's to hoping that people have wised up since '04.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Biodiesel. With the exception that current commuter cars don't run on it, but that's not terribly hard to fix.
+++ATH0
Which is more important? Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim, or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health, education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?
:)
When the results of global warming release natures fury, you can shoot at the ocean as it trespasses on your property in Texas.
I'm being a little silly but there are more important things than gun control. I hope no one basis their vote on that single issue. There is so much more at stake in our daily lives. If you live for guns and guns alone you have a problem. I beleive in the right to self defend yourself, own a gun etc... but there really are other important issues and we only get two fucking choices unfortunately. Hopefully no one actually does vote based on a single issue... but this country is certainly full of people that do.
Being human doesn't mean you "speak just like anyone else."
Overwhelmingly, black culture in America entails a certain, less-educated-sounding way of speaking. This doesn't have to be true, but it is. From what I understand from friends overseas, the same does not apply in places like the United Kingdom.
+++ATH0
I agree with you 100%.
You made the same conclusion I did and I'm probably older than you.
As I see it the short of it is there is little reason for an uraban population to use cars.
Without cars, the USA might start to look more like India.
Instead of 6 lanes of cars in lock-grid traffic - perhaps 6 lanes of rickshaws? or bicycles? Maybe we could have 60 lanes of bicylces... and healthier people?
long before the ideas I just posted come to pass... we'll be building nuclear power plants. We have enough uranium already mined to power the nuclear industry for between 6,000 and 60,000 years.
So which future? I don't know. You tell me.
Hussein Obama has said publicly that he believes in the Wahhabbi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
No. He hasn't. What the hell are you talking about? Do you follow the Karl Rove doctrine that if you repeat a lie often enough, people think it's the truth?
+++ATH0
horse shit. even if you took away all the guns, which never happens, crooks find something else to use in the commiting of crimes, only with gun control they can feel safer knowing the house they are breaking into won't have anyone armed to defend it. remmeber, the only thing that will stop a rampaging lunatic with a gun, is another person with a gun.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
You left out yet another reason industrial hemp is DOA: the textile industry, which knows that hemp is a miracle plant and doesn't want to have to spend millions upon billions of dollars re-engineering their businesses to grow it instead of cotton.
;)
Shame on you.
+++ATH0
I agree with you. And yes, I remember the Brady Bill.
However, I think Obama's priorities are far, far away from making the possession of firearms unilaterally a crime. This would also be an excellent example of something he'd be willing to compromise on. How about enforcing laws on the books to make sure that only licensed gun owners can purchase guns rather than passing new and pointlessly restrictive laws?
+++ATH0
"you insensitve clod", etc etc
The problem is not the dependence of the USA to oil, but the fact the USA is destroying the environment and the whole world with it. 30% of the CO2 comes from the USA, that's just not right. In stead of building more defense, the USA should invest in uclear fusion, windmills, solar power, whatever. The USA could create a nuclear bomb in a few years, until this day the one thing that has the most destructive power, it's about time they're doing something nice with that same atoms: nuclear fusion. If the stake is high, and it is high, this should be done in a few years, just as 65 years ago.
My photo's.
I think the fact that you think "compromise" is a dirty word says it all.
+++ATH0
As long as Barack Obama's healthcare plan isn't as bad as Hillary's "I'll throw you in jail if you hire your own doctor" plan.. wait a minute why would Americans want socialized healthcare? The only thing politicians are doing now are posturing, throwing their ideals away to gain power, and whoever can bullshit the best will probably get voted in. I can only hope that Clinton gets thrown out in the primaries, she is a scary woman. I can only imagine the effect she'll have on our economy when she starts redistributing income. (Gingrich ftw, bring back the sensible Republicans) Also, the last thing we need is another extremist president, but that'll never happen.
It's great to see Liberty lovers fighting the good fight against this human mascot. What a piece of socialist scum.
"My first order of business will be do take money from all people to provide for free health care - even people who don't WANT to use their money to support free health care, and who could donate to free health care charities if they did. Then I'm going to get your guns."
No, it cost $2 billion to set-up. And a very large part of this cost was to accommodate people who were trying to circumvent (or simply avoid) registering in the first place.
Gun registration has never been about crime reduction, and more than the fact that the Province makes me register my car reduces traffic accidents. The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime, and in this regard the gun registry has been a major boon for law enforcement officials (note that every time the Conservatives start making noise about scrapping it, the police unions step up and plead their case that the registry routinely aids in their ability to investigate gun crimes).
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer.
Yaz.
Whooo all this canidate is about: touchy-feely hippie leftist double-talk about reducing dependance on foreign oil. None of the alternative energy sources truely warrant federal subsidy or real consideration, either hydrogen fuel cells or ethanol. I like net neutrality. I hate gun control. I really don't care for most of his far right posturing and far left voting history. The good seems to cancel out the bad with this canidate. I for one, am voting Clinton or Nader.
But as you note, this can be engineered around. We sort of do the same thing these days with summer gas and winter gas (though the chemical components are completely different and done for different reasons, the principle of different blends is the same).
+++ATH0
The reason that there has been such strong resistance to the gun registry is that it includes long guns, rifles and shotguns, which play very little role in crime. Possession of handguns is very limited here. Target shooters and collectors can get licenses for them, with tight controls. Otherwise, for all practical purposes no one other than a police officer can possess a handgun.
And where do you get the idea that the gun registry has been so expensive because of the resistance to it? There's no connection, except for the fact that if there weren't such resistance more people would register and the registry would be even more overwhelmed.
Hehehe... liveral? :) Does that mean you drink too much but don't suffer from side-effects?
I know, I know... just thought it was funny.
If I were to attribute any one factor to the rates of violent crimes, I would have to say it might have more to do with the culture of a region. But I think it's way more than that as well. The ratio of police to civilians might have a lot to do with it. It's not the ownership of guns that make the difference, but rather the motivations that people have for wanting to own guns that are the real indication of the problem. If, for example, the majority of gun owners want to own guns because they think they are cool or collectible, I'd be the least worried about it. If, however, the majority feels they need guns because they feel unprotected and in some way afraid, there's another cause that should be addressed. Then there's the "illegal" gun owners who use them as tools in their other criminal activities. If there were simply more police on the street making their presense seen, there would be far fewer opportunities to use them.
In all the gun-control debates I hear, I can't recall ever hearing an argument for controlling the rate of production of new firearms. No, gun control is about controlling people, not the businesses who make guns now isn't it?
actually, often it is culture. Cultures that favor education tend to do better everywhere and in all social groups. Ones that do not tend ot fail.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hey, instead of arguing about methanol and oil, how about just consuming less? Use energy efficient products, and shop wisely. All of you. Do you really need all your cars?
But look closely. Where does it say exactly what he's going to do? He hasn't signed on to any of the resolutions disapproving of Bush sending more troops. He does have a bill (S. 433) with regards to Iraq, but Thomas doesn't have it up yet, so we'll have to see how he wishes to "end the war". Anyone can say they are for "Improving Our Schools" and for "Creating a Healthcare System that Works". What is his specific plan to do so?
His bills on Thomas are generally good, but as of yet, I've not seen him do much more than use "everyman" politics in order to get people to like him. When you think about it, elections are about getting the least informed people to like you better than the other guy. Until he starts putting actions behind his words, I could care less about him.
this is the 2nd post in this post already where you just pull bullshit out of your ass expect people to believe it, and been called out on it.
If you think Hillary is "far-Left overboard", then you probably think Bush is a moderate. We can get into a pissing match about where which politician falls on some semi-useful scale, but common wisdom is that she's pretty moderate.
Of course, these folks are running in the primaries, so expect them to get a whole lot more liberal in the coming months.
either way, the democrat race is between two grammy award winning artists... bet that's a first
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
The amount of gun crime in Canada is negligable. The vast majority of gun crimes commited with hand guns. The majority of the hand guns in canada are not legal and will not be registered. It's basically a ploy to gain support for the liberals from urban people in montreal, toronto, and Vancouver. They made it overly broad because the Liberal are well known to large beucratic messes. For each case of litigation against a beligerent rifle owner there are as many cases against a anqiues dealer who was chased down to registered a non function show piece. Both cases have been infrequent. The majority of the money has been wasted since its hasn't decreased gun crime at all or increased conviction rates.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I agree there are many factors. But poverty correlates so well to crime. More specifically "disparity". the greater the disparity in a country the greater the crime.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
As it's the wee hours of the morning, and I'm hoping to go to bed, I'll have to find a specific reference for you later (assuming I remember to do so, of course), however at one point the gun registry started a programme where they sent registration representatives all across the country, to rural, remote, and Native Canadian community areas to personally register people due to very low compliance levels.
Hiring, training, and flying hundreds of people around the country to help people fill out forms doesn't come cheap. Now I won't disagree that the overall start-up cost wasn't outrageous, and that there wasn't any waste -- but the same can be said of pretty much anything run by humans. The Government of the day, however, bent over backwards to make sure they weren't making criminals out of gun-owning Canadians. Registration deadlines were pushed back, people were hired to fill in forms for people who should have just picked them up from their local post office or community centre and mailed them in, and all sorts of allowances were made to try to prevent creating criminals out of tens of thousands of citizens. And let's not forget the advertising budget -- the Government didn't sneak this legislation in and then send the cops to peoples doors -- to try to encourage registration complience, they had several major advertising campaigns, including to-the-door pamphlet mailings, 1-800 numbers for asking questions about the registry, etc.
People seem to think that such services come for free. They don't. The Government could have taken a hard-line stance, and as soon as the original registration deadline came and went start sending the police to peoples homes, but instead they extended deadlines, had further advertising and educational campaigns, and sent staff to peoples homes to fill in the forms for them. Such services weren't budgeted for, as the Government of the day failed to anticipate how much of a backlash they would see from instituting the registry.
(FWIW, I know a number of gun owners, my father included, who were 100% FOR the registry, and who registered early and on-time).
As for long guns and crime, it happens way more often than you might think. That police woman killed in Montreal two or three years ago was killed by a long gun. The gunman who went on the rampage at Dawson College in Montreal last September was using a long gun. The gunman who killed 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal used a long gun. The Taber, Alberta school shooting was committed with a long gun. These were all very, very high-profile crimes here in Canada, and each and every one of them was committed with a long gun. Long guns play a very significant role in crime. Methinks that all too many long gun owners here in Canada have a very short memory when it comes to the crimes committed here using them.
Yaz.
Yaz.
nt
Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc, all of them make me want to never vote again.
I've always voted for third parties, since I refuse to buy into the belief that a vote on principles is a wasted vote, but I think we need a new option on ballots:
"Throw the bastards out."
If this wins the majority, the candidates for the parties are legally prohibited from ever running for office again, and we start over with new primaries.
It'd be nice if we could go so far that if this option wins, the candidates and all their cronies get exiled to some godforsaken rock in the Pacific.
Yeah, it'll never happen. Let me dream please.
It's as if you're talking about the US Government after reading the constitution in your History book. In truth, the Imperial President sets the Agenda in American politics. The power of a single congressmen varies from congressmen to congressmen because the power of a congressmen is not his vote. His power is his ability to persuade the votes of others. The president has this same ability, in both the house and the Senate. And he has the trump card of the American people.
In truth, the president of the United States is the single most powerful "legislator" in Washington, and the fact that he cannot introduce or vote on bills is entirely incidental.
Not that I disagree with your idea, though. I live about 1 mile away from my work place, and once it gets warm enough I'll start walking to work.
I used to believe in gun control.
Then I saw 9/11, Patriot Act, the war on Iraq and the general crackdown on civil-liberties. I saw a questionable first election and a _very_ questionable re-election. I never imagined the US could be in such danger.
It's conceivable that a people can have to rise against its government to defend the country against it. If the government has the exclusive right to the possession of weapons, then it becomes very hard to win.
Allowing people to have guns may be risky, but I would rather take that risk.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
(p -> q) -> (q -> p) is a fallacy
those farmers deserve the same quality of internet porn as what slashdotters enjoy every night.
After everything we've been through as a country I really feel that a great potential candidate is going to be torn down by the politics in Washington. The race for the presidency hasn't even begun, but the political assassinations seem to be underway....
okinawa japan
I was at a presentation where a member of our agricultural research group presented the result of a feasibility study for bioenergy in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries. Basically, the conclusion was that if we converted the entire food production, and the entire production from forestry into equivalents of oil, it would cover 40% of our current oil consumption.
The situation is probably better in the US, but I think it is a healthy exercise to see what the potential is before investing too much in that energy source.
Something also worth considering is that, baring any huge catastrophes, simple demographics tell us that the Earth population will reach 12 billion people in our lifetime, even if the average number of children per women fall to the low number of Japan and Europe and life expectancy stay put. The more realistic scenarios top around 20 billion people.
It finding other purposes for our agriculture than food really what we want to do, even considering that there currently is a world surplus of 2% in the food production?
News for nerds, stuff that matters.
Where?
Is there someone to offer a sensible opinion as to whether or not there is any chance of a black US president in 2008?
No, I think Bush is far-Right overboard. You're right, though, that Hillary has some positions which are far-Right-overboard (anti-flag-burning), and the things I detest her for (thinkofthechildren) aren't so much far-Left as they are just plain fearmongering. I retract my characterization.
ouch, that's gotta hurt
I thought gun crime is low in Europe because guns are not freely available. Now a Canadian liveral says it is due to social programs... I'm a bit confused.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Jimmy Carter was a huge corn-fuel advocate and all he did was bring us the worst energy crisis in U.S. History. I live in England, so don't get me started on the "benefits" of nationalized health care.
That one was gone by the time Barack was 2 years old. Chances are, the guy doesn't remember him at all. His stepfather, though, was from Indonesia. 88% of Indonesia population is Muslim.
Red state citizen? realise this could force millions more poor Mexicans to head north
Re Broadband, It's important, but the carving-up of of our common public culture into so-called intellectual property which must be paid for again and again is much more significant for poor towns, as we've seen in history.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
This guy sounds like he makes a lot of sense, however firstly I'm wondering if it's just because he's next to Bush and that is skewing my perception, but secondly if he's for real, I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to assassinate him. Seems to be how America treats people who talk sense.
You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
The opposite of progress is congress
Easy with the "everyone" comments. I live in England, and lived in Germany. I've seen Canadian health care first hand. The US health care system is better than all three of these systems combined.
"many American black people don't consider Obama black as it turns out."
Nonsense. Obama is the "great black hope". Black people are going out of their way to attack anyone who suggest Obama isn't the best choice. I have no idea if he is, but his platform seems one of seeing what he can spend money on, rather than fundamental restructuring or change. Thus, he will turn off a large part of the voters not because he's black, but because his rhetoric is the typical politican's response of "Oh yes, I'll spend money on you too!"
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Nice trolling.
Cuz your locked properly stowed handgun will defend you WHILE YOU SLEEP.
Gotcha.
Note: that's not an argument AGAINST gun ownership. It's an argument against "omg it defends me from the bad [re: black] people!"
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If we want a fair and honest government then we must educate*1*2 our fellow citizens as to the actual tradeoffs involved. The more power you give a government and the more security you demand from them the less fair and honest it will be inherently. We need some Common Sense again.
*1 Thomas Jefferson *2 Thomas Jefferson
I'm from the Midwest. We're the ones who sent Obama to the senate, remember?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Everyone knows that the color of a person reflects on their intelligence. Blond hair? Room temperature IQ. It is a fact.
Well, we act like it anyway. We know it is a joke and yet, can you truly honestly say that if you are introduced to a brunette and a blond you do not instantly make an judgement on their IQ?
The problem is not as simple as racism. Well, unless you are an tv-show host. I think it is closer to a negative spiral.
Blondes are stupid, so teachers spend less time on them, so they receive less education, so they truly are more stupid. Blondes then learn that being stupid can work so pretend to be even more stupid to "fit in" wich reinforces the idea that blondes are stupid.
There are others as well. People with glasses can't be athletic. Redheads are feisty. Very simple outward apperances (remember, glasses are nowadays optional so that super athlete may have contacts or laser surgery) that nonetheless most of us use instinctevely.
Oh you can claim you are above them but you are not.
I know you are not. You refer to American black people. Think you are PC? Well actually it is a horrible genetic slur against millions of americans. The "half-breeds". Simple fact is that millions of so-called blacks are in fact the result of interbreeding between different genetic races. If one parent is black and the other white why is their offspring called black? Is one gene superior to the other or something? In theory, since a popular racist theory is that "blacks" are strong and "whites" are smart, then at least some "greys" should be the combination of the best qualities of both and be superior to either. That is afterall how farmers create new animals/crops, mixing the best of two breeds to create a new superior animal/crop.
And why would a grey need black rolemodels at all? Why wouldn't a white rolemodel be just as good?
For that matter what is wrong with a yellow rolemodel, or a red one or a light brown one? Can I only have a rolemodel with extreme freckles?
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
Lovely thing racism, isn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Honestly, I'd rather see a government sponsored NPO for the purpose of a non-profit insurance company (similar in structure to the Post Office)... not a perfect idea, but better than the way most government departments work out. In this move people on the current government health care (Medicare/Medicaid, Non-Active Military/VA) to this program. Yes, it wouldn't be 100% government managed internally, but in a lot of ways that is a *GOOD* thing... I would also say to offer this as the opt-in for the states at different levels, so we don't have 50 different social health care programs going on at the government level.
This could be bought into by private citizens, and small businesses at cost... without being profit driven (I would say allow a banking of up to 5% annually, for future expansion), and open to operate as an insurance provider. It would likely operate more efficiently, still allow for competition, and set a baseline for other providers and services.
With regards to gun control, I am for the most part against it... The Brady bill/law I was in favor of, to prevent criminal/felony ownership... beyond this, I don't feel that restrictions on gun ownership is right. It is a *RIGHT* not a want, or desire. It also says "the people" not the states, as some would suggest that only state militia's have the right. The constitution, and amendments are very specifically worded with regards to right of the states, and rights of the people.
With regards to a right to privacy and other encroachments as of late. It was suggested that despite specific outlines of when habeas corpus can be suspended, that there is no "right" to it assigned. I would suggest with the wording of when it can be suspended, combined with the 9th amendment it *IS* a right granted to the people. So much has been done by government outside of what it was designed to limit, and what it wasn't it sickens me.
I will say, that for the most part, I am a pragmatist, and lean towards libertarian. I don't believe we can have the "pure" federal government originally envisioned by the founders (who argued semantics as much then as our legislatures now). By the same note, I really feel compelled to fight tooth and nail against some of the things that are pressing against a "too far" state of being. I for one would fight for constitutional first amendment rights as much as any other (such as the second, or non-specific rights under the 9th). Most liberals, and conservatives are only willing to fight on the side of about half of them.
If what I've said has offended you, there's probably a good reason for it, you're a political ass-hat.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
He is both black and white. Why would the race of anyone mean anything about his capabilities as a leader? All we care about is that we have someone who is smart enough to lead the country. We've been stuck with a moron for the past 6 years. It would be very refreshing to have someone who is intelligent for a change.
Nobody, whether it be Democrat or Republican, gets into office unless they are fundamentally a sock puppet that can be controlled by the genuine powers that be. Democratic supporters in particular have a tendency to be horrifically childlike and naive in their desperate need to believe that the American political system is still genuinely functional. It isn't.
The proverbial man behind the curtain is who is genuinely in power, and he never gets voted out. With the Presidency, the only person you're really voting for is the guy who has to take the blame on the frequent occasions when the man behind the curtain screws up.
Who's this 'we' shit, and who pays for it? Sounds like Universal Service Fee part II. I'm not interested in spending $25,000 per person to connect a bunch of people who choose to live in the Bayou. Broadband access is not critical to life, and I'm not interested in subsidizing it.
Obama has a lot of great ideas with no funding.
You mean "extremely right-wing in almost every developed country but the US".
My new blog
An Obama/Biden ticket would be a loser ticket. It would be stupid of the part of Obama to take Biden as his running mate. Biden like a majority of republican is a property of the banking industry. He has lost touch with the American workers and side for the banking industry during the passage of the new bankrupty law. A large majority of those who file for bankrupty have either been in debt because of mariage breakup, lost of their job or sickness. It has become easier for companies to screw their employees in a bankrupty and harder for the average American to recover from bad luck. The bankrupty bill has been written by the bank industry with Biden and Hilary Clinton has strong backer.
I would never vote for Biden or Hilary Clinton unless I have to choose between them and a republican neocon where I would have to choose the lesser of two evils.
The ideal tickets would be Edwards/Obama , Obama/Edwards, Richardson/Obama, Obama/Richardson, Richardson/Edwards or EdWards/Richardson
Acceptable tickets would be Obama/Clinton, Edwards/Clinton, Obama/Biden, Richardson/Clinton, Richardson/Biden if enough democratic senators are elected so the vote of the vice president would become irrelevant.
Exactly. That's the main reason I think Kerry failed. He ran on the 'I'm not Bush' platform, but never actually explained what he wanted to do. When pushed for any real answer he fell back to 'I'm not Bush'.
I hear all these politicians saying they are against the war b/c it's the popular thing to do now, so please tell me how you plan to end it. Health care costs are out of control, tell me how you plan to fix it. Education is bad and going downhill, tell me how you plan to fix it. The first part of any of these answers also better not be give X dollars...
How can anything so blind to the truth be modded "insightful"? Notice that the grandparent was modded "troll", makes the polictical leanings of the moderators here this morning somewhat obvious as they are seeking to crush any conversation that might indicate a divergence of our country's government under Obama leadership from what was intended by our founding fathers. Making gun ownership/possession a crime can never stop a criminal from having a gun, it however has stopped people from protecting themselves adequately from criminals and the government. Whomever modded that as troll behaved in the same fashion as the Bush administration bring people's patriotism into question over disagreements in policy.
Regarding the GP moderation: Come on people let's keep the polictical discussion open and use history and logic in our discussions and leave the labels out of it. (Yeah, this comment from the same AC as called the parent comment "blind".)
you forgot to mention that he coincided with internet's discovery and appointed a liberal on its regulatory board, and allowed it to progress freely and expansively making it what we know today. if reps were there back then, internet would be a corporate tool. now, here we are, together, free ...
if this is not a 'difference' by your standards, i wonder what is.
Read radical news here
You are demonstrably and provably wrong about the guy at the college. Or maybe you just can't diiferentiate between a 9mm carbine and a long gun.
This guy is way out there
The two candidates you mentioned are presently experiencing technical difficulties that make it difficult to run story about their position on issues such as stem cell research, network neutrality, etc. With a very few exceptions (McCain support escalating the war in Iraq even more than Bush, Clinton is opposed to flag burning) neither of them seem able to come up with a single clear and consistent position on an issue.
In general Clinton can't seem to take a stand on either side of an issue, and McCain can't seem to refrain from taking a stand on both.
Maybe the best solution would be to run a story on their positions ("Clinton and McCain collectively support and oppose stem cell research, a guest worker program, the great wall of Arizona, soft money, torture, and a prohibition on the gratuitous use of the word 'Belgium' in video games") and them let them wait until their focus groups have decided what they should think before getting into which of them took which position.
--MarkusQ
It's an HTTP URL for an .asx file which in turn point to a .wmv file served over the mms:// protocol. Not exactly what I call an open standard.
Sure, providing a link it's better than the usual windows-only non-standard <object> tag, and I don't expect to find anytime soon an honest ogg (theora+vorbis) file served over an open protocol, but at least the Clinton announcement site offered a .mov file (with H.264 video) over HTTP.
Disclaimer: this is only a technical remark, no political criticism implied here.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Speaking as a European, I really hope this guy gets in, he would do wonders for the global image of the United States. I'm not sure even the quite-worldly Slashdot crowd realise what damage Bush has wrought upon America's relationship with the rest of the planet. As previous posters have commented though, I'm not sure middle America is ready for him. Like many Europeans, I have enormous respect for the America ideal and I know that your government doesn't really represent you. But on the other hand, literally, it does. Good luck guys! Don't let the oil companies rig it. Unintentional pun, honest
Er.. you tried to prove that long guns constitute a significant amount of crime by naming three annecdotal stories. It's great that they made the news and left an impression on you, but a naming a few incidents is entirely meaningless other than proving that the number of incidents is nonzero. For all I know the actual statistics support you, but I hate all the misinformation and illogic that talk of gun control seems to breed, and let's not encourage that.
I liked the rest of your post, fwiw.
Cheers.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today.
Obama was quoted as saying:
"NOBODY ROCKS LIKE... [quick glance at post-it note on back of guitar]... SPRINGFIELD!"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Blacks are discriminated against by certain people. No doubt.
But so are Koreans, Japanese (internment camps? Hello???), Chinese... all face major discrimination. Greater than, or equal to the discrimination faced by blacks. And yet despite that, they thrive.
Economics plays a part in it, but it's mainly the idea that popular black culture favors the rap lifestyle. Now the truth is that middle class blacks as a whole are extremely conservative, but the message blaring out to black youth is hip-hop/gangsta. It's as if you start making the life of hookers and pimps the predominant "cool" culture for white people and then act surprised when the boys beat women and the girls and a bunch of whores.
It *is* the culture. It's not the white devil holding black people down. Its internal attitudes. Yeah, people don't like you, but get over it. That's why Asian people succeed. They don't give a crap if you don't like them.
Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812
Canada didn't declare independence until 1950.
We have 20 months to go, during which time I have every confidence that golden-child Obama will end up like previous golden-child Howard Dean.
"Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim"
Well, you can't do that, either on a whim or with a lot of thought beforehand. Those things aren't for sale in this country.
"or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health"
I think the right way to solve this is more complex than "single payer, government gives health care" that a lot of people want to want. I think every Democratic idea on this has been to toe the party line and is therefore a non-starter.
"education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?"
Yeah, Bush is a lousy president, but the Democrats have gone right along making the deficit and debt worse. Those lousy IP laws like DMCA and others? They've got bipartisan support in Washington. So the issues you raise are the fault of both parties.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Something about this guy just doesn't seem trustworthy. Maybe it's that he's the typical sweep-it-under-the-rug politician.
Both of those would be immediate disqualifiers for me, I'm afraid.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Jizzle for everyone!
The weapons are more important.
You can look after your own health care. You don't need the government to do that for you. (Okay, infectious diseases are an exception, but make up a small fraction of overall health care expenses. Keep the CDC and privatise everything else.)
The same goes for education. And if you stopped demanding that the government pay your bills for you, that debt wouldn't exist.
But the government is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution from passing laws restricting gun ownership.
And the reason for that is so that if it ever becomes necessary, the people can shoot their leaders.
Why do you think talk abut a militia covers personal usage? It does not. It never did. That interpretation has always been made in error.
Thankyou for that insight, I truely had never thought of that before.
At the last elections morons voted for a moron. They obviously were not attracted by a smart man so they voted for Bush.
FYI: I was convinced of this issue after I read a United Nations survey which reported on every nation (they also broke-down states within large countries like the US), listed their gun-control laws, and the corresponding non-suicide handgun related deaths. In short, it showed that gun control laws are not statistically related to gun-related death rates. What I found interesting, was that deaths are proportional to education rates. Maybe THAT is why the U.S. has such trouble.
I'm trying to find that survey now. I'll post again if I find the link. I read it years ago. It was very eye-opening.
I think what the poster meant was not Chicago, Gary or other inner cities where the majority of people/unions vote for the Democrats, but rather the vast rural areas of the mid-west where the people (generally white people), want smaller government, are religious (generally Christian), and want a strong America. For the most part these people hate taxes and see the government as a very inefficient system for social projects. They see most of their money go away and they get little to no benefit from it; more specifically it appears to go to the people in the inner cities after the government takes their large cut. Most of these people do want less reliance on oil, but understand that all the corn in the world won't make a serious dent in our energy needs for today, let along tomorrow. So having said all that, most of these people vote Republican.
:-) Not going to happen, but it would be fun to see.
Now this election will probably be far different because of one BIG reason. The war. That one issue gives whomever is running against the Republicans a huge advantage. Granted I would imagine the Republicans will bring to light that there hasn't been a major attack in the U.S. since the terrorist Muslim attack on Sept 11th, but from what I see the "mid-west" people here are swayed a lot by the war more than any other issue, although the traditional media (paper and tv) appear to be loosing their ability to sway people on this issue here. The other growing change in the mid-west is the giant influx of Hispanic (Mexican) people moving in. These people, the legal ones appear to vote with whomever wants an open border with Mexico.
Lastly, I do mention that anyone running against the Republicans has a significant advantage because of the war, but that advantage will be gone if someone like Hillary or Obama runs as opposed to someone like Evan Bayh or Liberman runs. Now "if" Rudy could survive the primary (not going to happen), he could hold his own against any Democrat, but again that probably isn't going to happen.
I would love to see someone like Liberman and Condi win. It would be fun to see the Republicans put forth a black female while the Democrats put up a more traditional white male.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
In Springfield, shouldn't that person be Mayor Quimby?
The problem is that the the best technology doesn't get adopted in society. We had battery powered cars in the 30's. The technology we should apodt should be the most efficent one. Getting off oil shouldn't mean we adopt an inferior technology such as ethonal, when pond scum biodiesel is good for the enviroment. I wonder how much alternative energy IP has been bought up by the oil interest, which never makes it too market;-( ?? I mean there was the 100mpg carbuerator back before they toughted fuel injection as the next greatest thing. What role can government play instituting new technological standards? Ecspecially, when the executive branch filters out what our lawmakers see such as scientist reports concerning global warming; stuck on oil status quo?
Nader is seen as the most viable third party candidate in recent years and he often writes for Zmag.
The best Nader ever did was 2.74% of the popular vote. Ross Perot got 18.9%. And that's why I get all my political news here.
I have been in Chicago multiple times and have never seen border guards checking cars for illegal imports.
Hurray for corporate welfare and self-destructive policy.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"It was either Barack Hussein Obama or Alan Carpetbagger Keyes. Obama was the sane sounding black guy so he got elected. Believe me, in 2008, as long as he's not facing a complete lunatic, he will lose because he is black."
Good point (Alan Keyes was outrageous), but:
- Keyes was not the original candidate, Ryan was (before he had a very embarassing revelation from his divorce). Ryan was fairly mainstream. Obama was way ahead in the polls before he ran into trouble.
- Same folks put Carol Mosely Braun into the Senate.
- Obama is insanely popular here. Can't say I have heard a disparaging word about him from anyone.
Blacks are fairly rare in the Senate, and Illinois has put two in within very recent times. I think we have a better record of taking race out of the picture than the coasts.
You might be right on your general assessment, but it won't be because of the midwest, at least not the upper-Midwest. He will have trouble in places like Kansas because of his stance on abortion, not likely because of his race.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
Though this is only partially related to the whole ethanol discussion going on here, I thought everyone would find it interesting:
http://pesn.com/2005/08/02/9600142_IAUS_Solar/
(Be sure to check the part about methanol production)
>>I want a black, gay, muslim woman for president!
I'm a white straight Christian man, you insensitive clod!
I haven't been this excited since Al Gore was running as Vice pres after writing "The Earth in Balance". How'd that work out in the end? He did vote for the Kyoto protocol didn't he? Clean air act? I'm sorry, what?!??
Look, I want to be as excited as anybody that there is one political candidate talking actual sense (broadband, in particular, I really don't see the point of ethanol, methanol, or any other of the "methadone" alternatives to our oil addiction. We have solar and laptop batteries right? Remember the EV-1!?!?), but what are the chances that anyone in either major political party is actually going to do ANYTHING not totally in line with the corporate greed and corruption that rules our nation today?
Call me when we actually have elections again, or call me when you're handing out guns.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You'll note after the Brady act went in, the murder rate went down drastically.
Then forbid people with criminal records from carrying guns, let people without criminal records carry them (is the current law like this?)
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Does this mean that if elected President, he will provide hundreds of billions of dollars worth subsidies to telephone companies to roll out fiber to every address in America, with the end result being the telephone companies' accepting the subsidies but not delivering to suburban or rural areas because "it's not cost effective" to do so?
Wait, hasn't this happened before? Or is it just deja vu?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Just so long as he does not compare his compaign with Lincoln. That would really anger many of those of us in the South whose families suffered horribly because of his policies of war and destruction. Families, black and white suffered for 100 years or more because of the war and its aftermath, all fueled by Mr. Lincoln. Some in Ala, Miss, etc. STILL suffer.
No, Chicago sent Obama to the Senate. Check your numbers in the rest of Illinois.
Interviewer: So, Mr. Obama, What experience do you have that would qualify you to be CEO of a Fortune 100 company. ...
Obama: Well, I'm currently a project manager in charge of a team of six people. Oh, and I spent several years as a team lead
Of course, George W didn't have a lot of prior experience when he became President (though more than Obama). And we all know how THAT worked out.
[Insert pithy quote here]
thats about all I can respond with.
yeah right.
.
near. No dag nabbit, I said the senator is a N...BONG! Seriously, I guess no one asked how he was going to PAY for all this "good will"...perhaps tax increases on "the rich", yeah, that always works....NOT. Go to the treasury and see what happens when liberals "punish" the rich. More of the money they would have INVESTED, gets shipped off shore to some non taxable account. People still don't get it. Tax cuts have ALWAYS increased the money going INTO the treasury.
Stem cell - Spend
Broadband - Spend
As a caution to Mr Obama, unaffiliated centrists like me are often turned off of the democratic platform because we hear "increase funding for..." If you want to increase funding for these worthy(?) pursuits that's great. Where does the money come from?
Then again, the "fiscal conservatives" have been blowing money on a scale that was unimaginable a few years ago.
Ugh, the evil of two lessers...
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Nah, he'll lose because his middle name is Hussein and/or he's not experienced; that is: percieved as not ready for that responsibility.
Concerning him being black: I wish J.C. Watts, Jr. was running because there just aren't too many republicans I can throw my whole heart behind in this race. However, I know where J.C. stands and that he has integrity in that stance (with which I agree).
P.S.: Who's the jackass who decided that a blue and rad donkey would be representative of politics in America?
Don't forget ... the best candidate and president in the world is DO NOTHING if the Conress is DO NOTHING.
If you want your vote to mean something, don't forget the other candidates in other races.
The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime
No, the idea of gun registration is primarily about revenue generation (like most of what the government does). "Investigating gun crime" is the excuse they use to justify the gun tax.
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer.
That's not a "registration fee," that's a tax. At least call it what it is. It won't work because the vast amount of criminals who commit violent crimes with guns now obtained them illegally and don't register them anyway (and, of course, they don't pay taxes). You'd just be excessively taxing law-abiding citizens.
The other reason these gun laws exist is to score political points under the guide of fighting crime. Here in Maryland, for example, our newly-empowered legislature is trying to ram through an assault weapons ban. If passed, it will be basically meaningless because (you guessed it) nearly zero percent of the violent crime here in Maryland is committed with assault weapons; instead, it's almost committed with unregistered "Saturday Night Specials" and other cheap weapons. The reps are just looking for a soundbite to justify things when they say "we're tough on crime," and potentially some additional revenue coming from revised "registration" processes.
There is no such thing as an "expert" when talking about gun control. An expert is someone who groks both sides of an argument.
The gun control debate is so polarized, there's no room for anyone to get a full picture.
(As for me? 2nd amendment all the way!)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Yes, current law is like this.
After that, of course, one need only outlaw some activity common to the group of people you want to take guns away from. Hey...that's what they've done with votes. (Once you're a felon, you lose your right to vote. Nice way of biasing the vote pool.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Very well said.
Seconded from another Canadian.
Judging from the responses to your original post, it seems that even discussing how the USA has changed is not an option, let alone holding a mirror up to how the US has changed.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
The only reason for them not providing real bandwidth everywhere in the country is because they
will see less profit from it than with the urban areas. It's not that they won't make money
rolling out broadband in rural areas- far from it. It's that they can clear 3-5 times as much
or more from someone in a major city than in a farm town or on the farm.
They don't need subsidies. They never really did. What they need to get told to do is if it's
not a dead loss, of which they need to honestly prove without magic bookkeeping, they have to provide
service in the less lucrative areas- period.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
He is articulate.
I love the slashdot moderation system...post anything that isn't socialist left wing dogma and you are moderated as a troll.
"Did you ever consider the fact that they're both major centers of poverty?"
Hummm. . . It sounds like banning poverty would be a better way of solving the problem then. Or maybe you should just try to do something more proactive than arbitrarily banning shit to piss people off. I mean, there was crime long before there were guns, why would you think banning them would reduce crime?
I really do. I just had an odd sub-thought to toss out there. The NFL (which is far less important than the presidency... ... ...right???)
;)
has a policy that states when a team is hiring a new head coach, they *MUST* interview at least one minority candidate. The reason for this policy is that they want the percentage of coaches of "color" to fit more in line with the percentage of players. I guess that makes sense. I get frustrated by coaches being interviewed just to "fill the requirement" even though they've made up their minds, and several current head coaches have spoken up in the past about the policy, but I digress...
It would seem natural that the percentage of people "in power" line up with similar percentage of the population when it comes to racial lines. The problem is that most people don't vote. Period. I'm as guilty as everyone else too - last election was the first time I got out and voted. That holds true - then it's the white straight christian men that all go out and vote, and your inner city black gay muslim women aren't getting out and voting enough.
(Not racist....honest!)
I've actually pondered how it is that highly urban areas don't wind up with "Gangsta Jones" for mayor. The math would certainly be there...
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
It's the official symbol of the Democratic Party, under which Obama is running. When it's a Republiucan-centered story, Slashdot uses an elephant, which is the appropriate symbol for them.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Corn producers (often huge agribusinesses) are massively subsidized by the federal government, more than big oil. Cheap Brazilian ethanol is denied import. Ethanol is a shitty fuel. It is water soluble. It has lower power density than gasoline. Ethanol will have its place, but it is hardly the panacea you describe.
Obama's pandering to ethanol is hardly unique amongst presidential candidates these days.
an ill wind that blows no good
Here's a reference, but it hardly supports your argument.
From the article:
For something a little more recent, the Auditor General's 2006 report includes an update on this sorry program. After wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS), they went out and have wasted another 90 million so far on CFIS II.It is a rather polarized issue, and I don't fully trust the numbers from either side of the debate. For a firearm owners perspective, look here. The numbers should be verifiable, as they reference government websites in Myth's #5 and #6, so if you're going to do any research, please try to find the sources they referenced first. I should note that the next reference corroborates most of the myths.
I thought that it would take me most of the day to try and pull together semi-reliable information on how many of the firearms used in crimes are handguns instead of long rifles (I'd guess mostly handguns), and even more time to determine how many were registered (likely most were stolen or imported from the US by criminals). I got lucky, though, from a Wikipedia article, here's a PDF from Statscan.
There's plenty more information in that PDF, including gems such as the following: The Wikipedia article above indicated that handgun regulations have been in place in Canada since 1892, and registration of handguns has been mandatory in Canada since 1934. When I look at how few deaths long gun registration is likely to prevent, I cannot see any reason to justify the money spent on the program. If we could save a lot more lives in other ways with the same amount of money, it would be criminally negligent to spend so much money for such little return.Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
GP says Obama is for gun control and redistributive economics and gets modded troll.
Parent disparages single issue voters (despite GP mentioning TWO issues), and gets modded +5 insightful.
No bias here, move along...
And ethanol from corn is plain stupid, since it is already causing riots in Mexico since the price of tortillas has tripled. From cellulose maybe, but we're not there yet, unless he is going to fund the science for it instead of being anti-science like Bush.
Mind you if I was american I couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary either, since she thinks that video games are the root of all evil (and I write (Disneyesque) games myself).
DM: Hi, I'm a Democrat.
RP: And I'm a Republican.
Heh. You mean you RTFS (read the effing site). GASP! How not-slashdot!
I noticed the same thing you did. His platform is vacuuous. All platitudes and generalities.
C//
Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
C//
Your pixelated donkey icon needs to be redone.
Here's a new one I made for you (thanks to Wikipedia for having an svg version).
http://i5.tinypic.com/4hvcknq.gif
The key problem with Obama is that his platform, or lack thereof, consists of nebulous hopes wrapped up in positive wordplay. He isn't actually proposing a plan to enhance broadband accessibility or promising to do anything to help it. He's just hoping someone will do it and saying he thinks it would be a good thing if someone does. You can see a dramatic illustration of this in the difficulty the poster in the summary (pretty obviously a shill) is having concretely describing this in a way that would appeal to the Slashdot crowd:
* "Boost broadband? - This is a meaningless statement. How do you "boost broadband?" Did broadband access increase overnight? Did he actually propose a way to increase broadband access?
* " Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd" - Exactly, because they aren't listening to the what he is saying, they are just listening to the words and audience cues built into his speech through pauses and wordplay. I suspect that actual neurological activity in the average crowd member would be around that of watching television - they are just being entertained. Also, the shill is trying to use social proofing to make you think, hey, everyone else was cheering this, I should to. Unfortunately, it invalidates the salience of the boost broadband comment used as the lead to capture the interest of Slashdot readers because, if they were cheering for everything, then their cheering for broadband is meaningless.
"I'm from the Midwest. We're the ones who sent Obama to the senate, remember?"
You didn't send Obama to the Senate. Back to back meltdowns of his opponents did. If you read his history, you will see he was defeated in a House run. Then in the Senate run he was going to lose in the Dem primary, but his opponent had some drama that took him down. Then against the Republican in the general election, his opponent got taken down by filings by his opponent's wife in a court case. Obama is essentially the de facto Senator from Illinois. There was no substantive election.
I'm not sure that I follow how your emphasis on having put two blacks in the Senate correlates to taking race out of the picture. That sounds like it's not too far off from the people who say that racial equality is directly related to how well people understand the different types of black people.
All points of time and space are connected.
Police don't like people to have guns, because police like being the only people with guns and they don't care if the only people who give up their guns are law-abiding citizens: every person who doesn't have a gun is a step toward the police having all the firepower. When you give your police greater power than your average citizens, your police are no longer civilian police but paramilitary and you have set up a police state.
But that is entirely moot because we don't want to live fully documented and fully accountable lives so that Big Brother can keep everyone in line.
The gun registry is by far the worst offender on that front. Some day the government will decide the people don't need a say in who is elected, that they can't be trusted to look after themselves, that the government must assume total power 'for the greatest good.' And the first order of business will be to pull out that handy list of honest citizens with firearms and confiscate them.
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer. If I may ask, exactly how many of the ne'er do well criminal types are you expecting to not only register their murder weapons, but all pay $500 to the government on top of that?When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
frickin' discordians... totally got me on that one
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'm sure the police would say the same thing about camers in all public places, including looking through peoples' private windows.
I don't usually make posts like this, but he does have sources. Argue with those, AC.
And no, this post is not offtopic, you insensitive clod(s)!
So a guy mentions one sentence about broadband and it's front page Slashdot? And what he said makes about as much sense as the Chewbacca defense: I mean, I can see rural areas not having broadband, but "lay down broadband lines through the heard of inner cities?" It's 2007 Obama, this isn't a problem... If it's an American city, they have broadband already... Why is this here?
!newsfornerds, politics, wtf
Hurrah!
So now terrorist organizations, instead of using one nation as base of operations and primary sponsor, are now infiltrating private business, soliciting private sponsorship and otherwise operating as individual cells, thus making them much, much harder to track down.
And as a bonus, there are now -more- governmental agencies running in the dark with no civilian oversight, private citizens can shut down entire metropolitan areas with no more than an exposed breadboard and some LEDs, and the enshrined rights of The People have been systematically torn down from within!
You win!
A Chicago politician whose opponents keep getting taken down? I'm shocked. Maybe Obama is onto something.
Whether American black people consider him one of them or not, his election would still be enormously positive for them--because American whites do consider him black. Therefore, if they vote for him anyway, an election of Barack Obama in 2008 would prove that blacks can win elections--however they choose to define that category.
I can see their point, however. American Black is a distinct and strong culture, and he's not from there. (He's not from Africa either, in any real sense. Born in Hawaii, educated in Jakarta and Hawaii. His dad being Kenyan does not make him "from Africa".) And most of all, he's been in a well-to-do family his whole life. Like it or not, the American Black culture is strongly linked to the poverty faced by a disproportionate number of blacks in this country, and he ain't poor.
However, his wife is from south-side, working-class Chicago so he has a strong touchstone to that culture (again, however you choose to define it). His kids and his wife have faced and will face racism in our culture, and so has he. The very debate about whether Barack Obama is black enough represents a fight he's facing against racism. The debate about whether a black man can become president represents a fight he's facing against racism!
I hope he wins. My wife and I have already volunteered for his campaign.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
No, Chicago sent Obama to the Senate. Check your numbers in the rest of Illinois.
He's a Democrat. Same thing happens for all the white democrats Illinois sends to the Senate.
paintball
I agree wholeheartedly that, thus far, where he stands and his plan on issues is extremely light on details. It is kind of reminiscent of Walter Mondale (Where's the beef?). That being said, we should remember that it is February 2007. After all, the primaries aren't for another year and the general election isn't for another year and nine months.
Right now, I only know some details about where one person wants to go with regard to issues (Ron Paul) and, unfortunately, there is no way he is going to win the Republican nomination.
I'll have to wait and see about Obama.
I agree with most of what you've said. I'm from a rural town in Illinois, and although I've always been pretty liberal (and consequently a democrat), the vast majority of people where I grew up were very conservative republicans. However, over the last 3 years or so, I've seen almost all of them change to to democrats. People are fed up with the republicans.
What I didn't completely agree with you about is the idea that Hillary or Obama will lose the "I'm not a republican" advantage. I think that the people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or Obama because he's black are mostly the same people who are still going to vote republican because that's the only way they see to vote. The rural farmers who are voting democrat for the first times in their lives have taken a big step, so I'm not sure if race or sex will be enough to turn them back at this point. Then again, I'm really not sure about that, it's just an idea.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Wait, WHAT?
Ethanol is good for the fact that it can be produced locally, but that is all that can be said for it. Have you made any effort to look into the land needed to produce a large amount of ethanol? Many in the midwest are for it because it will bring in a huge amount of money to local farmers. If you bother to look at the actual facts, you would know that it is in NO WAY a solution.
I sometimes wonder if a bunch of CNN reporters were sitting around having coffee one day, joking about how powerful they are. Then one guy was like, "I bet we could take a junior senator and turn him into a presidential candidate". Wager donuts for breakfast. OK! You're on. Loser has to sit next to cologne-soaked Carl on the next flight out to a location shot.
Oh, and it's fine to take surplus grain that's no longer fit for human consumption and use it as a reserve fuel; but it will never get us off oil. Reduce sprawl and improve battery life for electrics. Switching fuels is easier at the power plant than it is at the pump. With electicity as the fuel-neutral choice, we can shift from oil/coal/nuclear/natgas/bio/wind at will, based on the relative cost and availablity of any particular fuel. Oil spiking while natgas priced reasonably? Shut down generator 2 that burns oil, and fire up generator 4 that runs natgas. With electricity as the mediator, cars will always be fueled by the most affordable technology, and if any new tech comes online it will be incorporated with no fuss at the consumer level.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Global warming is a concern, but so is the economics of the US. Right now corn farmers in my state get tons of money, more than the tax cuts of 2-5 cents/gallon are worth on all the ethanol sold in my state. We import a lot of oil, and we run at a very high trade deficit. If we can make a product that is nearly the same ourselves, why wouldn't we?
Also for the record, if I change my driving habits (i.e. not floor it every time I accellerate... coast more and use the breaks less), I make a significant change in the amount of fuel I use compared to what I might lose burning ethanol.
Maybe not. There's an argument to be made that the US needs a black man to become president at this moment in history. The black men I know who've managed to overcome the smallmindedness you often find in the US to become successful, have developed a real skill for seeing through BS, don't suffer fools and aren't easily played. I've still got a fair amount of faith in my fellow US citizens and although it sometimes takes them a while, they do learn. And the last six years have been a real hard lesson.
Anyway, I could walk down to skid row and pick up anyone stumbling out of a liquor store and he'd almost certainly do a better job than the current occupant of the White House. In fact, now that I think about his CV, that may be something like the way he got the job.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know how you quantified "better", but all studies with actual data and metrics suggest exactly the opposite: in the US we pay the most and receive the least.
a tch.html
One quote I found with a 30s Google search:
"By all the usual measures of health-life expectancy, infant mortality, childhood immunization rate- we do worse than most Western countries. The only plausible explanation is how health care is financed and delivered. The American health care system is staggeringly wasteful and inflationary. The United States is unique in treating health care as a market commodity distributed according to the ability to pay instead of as a social good distributed according to medical need."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/Health_w
That site includes links to other articles, etc.
No President since Regan in 84 has had more than a modicum of a mandate from the people
Unless, of course, they are given one by the media.
Do you not recall how with the victory he barely eked out over John Kerry (questionable all by itself), news outlets everywhere were talking about how he had a mandate?
+++ATH0
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
The big question then is this: Why is Saudi arabia untouched? A lot of the money required for 9/11 came from Saudi princes. Afganistan was a show of force to deter, Iraq made a farce of the whole thing.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I've lived in NYC too and I remember the draconian restrictions you're talking about very well. But the president isn't responsible for things like that -- mayors and city councils are.
I would love to watch crime numbers drop even further than they already have in NYC if concealed carry was liberalized a bit -- and by "liberalized" I mean "given to people who submit to background checks, ffs," but I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. Too many knee-jerk liberals in city council.
+++ATH0
They said that there was no option for "fully automatic," so they picked the one for semi-automatic. Don't know what his ACTUAL position on it is, but that's what they said.
+++ATH0
Summarizing the article summary:
Obama is running for president and will boost broadband! You are nerds, so here are a bunch of other reasons that I, kdawson, think you should vote for Obama and forget that Hillary is far ahead in the polls and that everybody knows 2008 will be Giuliani versus Hillary. Hey, he talks about something that might be stem cell research! You guys are for that, right? I know it hasn't given us any results like adult and cord cells have, but let's stick it to those mean conservatives by opposing them for the sake of it. Oh, and he mentions ethanol! Isn't that wonderful? Nobody else has ever mentioned ethanol, including Bush! And the mere fact he mentions ethanol means the dream will come true. And laying down broadband lines in every city! Wow, nobody in any city ever has thought of doing that before! Google who? *orgasm*
---
To me, Obama is just another Howard Dean. A guy who gets all hyped up by liberals in the media who love charismatic people with no substance but goes onto fail on the national stage. I mean, Obama fans keep telling me Obama represents a "new direction" and a "change in politics," but none of them will actually describe what that means or what he will actually change. They're caught up in pre-election hype.
Hillary will get the nomination, Giuliani will get his, and I'll be voting for Giuliani because he's economically conservative but socially liberal, more like a libertarian. Plus, Giuliani goes into an interview and flat-out answers any questions you throw at him and clearly defines his position. Hillary retreats from direct interviews and lives in Kerry's ambiguous world, where you can claim you voted to go to war because you knew Saddam was dangerous and your husband's experience with the U.N. told you they wouldn't do anything about it, then the polls shift and suddenly you're against the war and Bush "tricked" you. Puh-leeze.
"Sufferin' succotash."
If the gun registry were sending people out to every little community that would no doubt be quite expensive, but as far as I know they have not done that. I live in northern British Columbia and have a lot of contact with people on reserves and I haven't heard of this. I wonder if what you heard about wasn't a proposal that got shot down rather than something that actually happened? One reason both that I think I would have heard about it if it had happened and that it might have been shot down is that sending registrars to reserves would have been very controversial in the native community because, independent of the other issues about the registry, most native organizations have taken the position that they have an aboriginal right to own and use guns that would be infringed by requiring them to register.
I sense that you are young, healthy, single and male?
Most people aren't.
There are a lot of democrats that won't vote for a woman, and there are a ton of people that won't vote for an extreme left woman. Unfortunately there are also a ton of democrats that won't vote for a black person.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
This is why you don't produce it with foodstocks, and instead use pools of algae grown in areas that would otherwise be completely barren.
+++ATH0
Firstly, the Canadians did not fight America to a draw. America invaded Canada in a show of bravado; Canada not only repelled the attack, they fought their way across the great majority of the United States (at the time), eventually reaching and burning down the White House. In fact, part of Maine is now Canada as we seceded our rights to end the war. American (and I guess Canadian) history books distort the truth, but the fact is America had its ass handed to it by Canada in 1812 -- I can't think of a more decisive and humiliating total defeat.
Secondly, the United States was loathed before 911. Back then, one of the major complaints was that we weren't involved in world affairs enough. I remember many a diatribe about how we let down the Kurds by not toppling Sadam after the first gulf war -- there was even a movie "The Siege" expressing the very idea that the world hated us precisely because we never followed through in world events.
Well, now we've followed through, and the world still hates us. Forgive me if I'm starting to lose patience and concern with the world's vacillating opinion. The only common thread seems to be a hatred of America.
Thirdly, I take issue with anyone who portrays China as benevolent alternative to the United States. China is most definitely not benevolent. Say what you want about American oil policies, they are not as bad as Chinese oil policies: China Blocks Security Council Resolution 1556. Or maybe a Chinese AIDS village would be a better example of Chinese benevolence. Or maybe their support of Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela is your idea of benevolent policies.
Finally, its easy to criticize the United States and its policies while you benefit from them. Any country who imports oil or any foreign resource, depends on the might of the American navy to keep those shipping lanes open. Canada, in particular, has no room to criticize, as they are America's largest trading partner and directly contribute to and benefit from those policies the most. The United States may have single handedly fought and financed the war in Iraq, but all western societies will benefit equally from the increased oil trade. Exxon-Mobile sells worldwide, America enjoys no disparate benefit. The same, however, cannot be said about China's oil companies, who are state owned, and not bound to sell to anyone but the Chinese.
I like the idea but not if it costs alot.
The internet is flawed. The internet is already running out of capacity.
Fiber optics tech right now is not working for big video downloads with p2p.
...he sounds like just the guy we need over here to repair the damage El President Blair has done to this country.
I never quite understood this. If hemp is so great, how come third world countries haven't started growing it? Why can't they grow hemp and make clothes, fuel and what not? Seems like one could really boost the economy by doing so.
sri
and McCain is a crook. Remember the Keating Five? IMHO, he should have gone to prison for that...but it works out karmically because of his POW time. He talks a good game, but he's a slimy criminal backstabber just like most any other suckup politico. He's been alternately sucking up to/backstabbing Mr. Bush throughout his presidency.
If it ends up being McCain vs Hillary, it'll be too close to call...both have shady histories that will come out. Obama looks to be pretty clean, and relatively sane, and would probably trounce whatever republican he ran against.
It is for this reason alone that the Democratic party is incapable of nominating him.
For one, the author of the Bill of Rights said so. If you spend some time researching and reading works of our founding fathers it will leave no doubt in anyone, clear of mind, that the militia was all of the people and that all of the people had the right to hold and bear arms even against the government itself. The government has worked to upsurp this right, as Alexander Hamilton forewarned of any enumeration of rights, ever since then. The Militia Act establishing the National Guard in many ways was just another effort to force a misinterpretation of the the use of the word militia in the Constitution.
You're fucking stupid. Black culture keeps blacks down in America. Impoverished members of different ethnic cultural identities value things such as work ethic, personal responsibility, and education. That is why they succeed and blacks do not. Blacks value things like easy money, escaping work, and blaming everyone else for their problems. If they continue to do that, they will never escape their position at the bottom of the minority shit heap.
It wasn't their fault to be put there in the first place; that was a tragedy borne of slavery. It is, however, their fault that they remain there after more than a century.
Anything that isn't Bush MUST be better than what we have!!!
No, the "Midwest" did not send Obama to the U.S. Senate. Illinois sent him there. Illinois is most definitely a "blue state" these days, and that's not horribly surprising considering the huge percentage of its population that lives in a major metro area (Chicago most notably). Illinois does not have state laws, state representatives, or federal representatives who are particularly similar to those of the other midwestern states. Illinois is liberal in its social and fiscal policies, programs, laws, taxes, and costs of living. The Midwest at large is, and the non-Illinois states in particular tend to be conservative in most or all of these areas.
I know it was a glib response to a glib interjection, but it came at the expense of being disingenuous (or flat out wrong). Funny? Yeah. Accurate? Not remotely.
So now terrorist organizations, instead of using one nation as base of operations and primary sponsor, are now infiltrating private business, soliciting private sponsorship and otherwise operating as individual cells, thus making them much, much harder to track down.
While your comments are correct in observing the terrorists fleeing to the winds, what you have failed to grasp is how significantly more capable and malign nation states are when they turn to terror. You have simply no idea.
C//
The English had finished off the French runt and turned their attention to the traitorous colonials.
The fact they were not able to reconquer the USA and install their own government means they lost.
Somewhat like what is happening in Iraq right now.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The military did a blind poll of Marines asking if they would fire on civilians that were refusing to turn in their guns.
More said they would join the protest then said they would fire.
Members of the military at least understand that gun ownership is the ultimate 'check and balance' on government power. They also know that someday they will again be civilians themselves.
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.
Do I have to give you a list of democracies (sans gun rights) turned into repressive dictatorships in the 20th century? (I'm sure I can't come up with a complete list).
Do you honestly believe the civil rights protests were gun free? They were smart enough not to brandish them, but I guarantee you the protesters were in some cases armed. They would have been crazy not to be.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
See the answer below. Our addiction to oil is so huge that even using all the fertile land to produce ethanol will make up to only about 40% of our needs, without having any land left for food crops. THe problem is not the land itself. It's the water supply. After oil we are addicted to water, which has been used most of the time not in th optimal way. Chemical contamination, overuse for electrical production, reduced the amount usable, for agriculture. In addition, let's not forget the desertification of the North American continent, and of Europe. Once the land becomes desert, there is usually no way back. For this reason I strongly opposed ethanol and the huge investments regarding its use instead of crop for food. Let's spend research money to improve solar and nuclear. With a solid alternative source of energy, we could extract potable water from the sea. It's a dream, I know, but poper use of nuclear energy would allow that. So I am in favor of real alternative sources of energy, which do not rely on current primary needs, and ethanol is not one of those.
Iraq should have answered your argument if you had no knowledge of history (which I suppose is a prerequisite for making that argument).
The second amendment remains the 'national failsafe'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The super vs. turbo charger debate isn't primary here. Both can vary boost.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Poverty != Crime To say that crime is caused by those that are impoverished is a horrible insult. Crime stems from the lack of respect for property right. Those that are the beneficiaries of government programs plunder the labor and the successes of others. The take from others without any labor or effort. They receive rewards for producing no value. When the value of labor is marginalized, the fruits of that labor (i.e. material possessions) and subject to criminal exploitation and criminal intentions. Cities like Chicago and Washington DC are centers for government programs and are blackholes for 'urban renewal programs'. We should be ashamed that we allow the government to steal our labor for their 'get-elected-quick-schemes'.
Which smart man? Gore and Kerry both were below average students, perhaps you mean to say less unintelligent? Ralph Nader is probably the most educated (does not always equate to smartest, but in this case, probably yes) of the bunch, and I don't think you meant him.
I'm thinking it's going to be Hillary/Obama versus McCain/Lieberman. That should make for an interesting 2008 election cycle. A couple years ago I'd be leaning toward McCain/Lieberman on that one but I've lost a lot of respect for McCain since he stuck his nose up the ass of the far right conservative groups he used to attack. I think Hillary is a little less two-faced than that and Obama's downright shiny. So I'm going to call the 2008 election now -- Hillary/Obama FTW!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm just not convinced of that. I guess that depends on what you mean by "a lot". I think most democrats don't care, and by most I mean at least the majority. I think that generally, republicans are more conservative while democrats are more liberal, and that these beliefs tend to extend into the issues of race and feminism. I'm not sure if the number of democrats who won't vote for either of the two will outweigh the number of republicans who don't want to see another Bush, but the more I talk to other people about the subject, the less I worry about having another republican in office.
With that said, I'm not trying to say that it isn't a factor. If the democrats get a white male through the primaries, I have trouble seeing any way for the republicans to win, while it could be a battle if Obama or Hillary wins the primaries. I just don't think that enough people care about race or sex (although I think Obama has the better shot) anymore to give this battle to the republicans.
His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Vote for him and the terrorists win.
I am not a crackpot.
Washington is one of them. The right to vote can be restored, but you do lose it upon conviction of a felony.
California is another. Once you serve your sentence and are not on parole, you're eligible to register to vote.
If you want more, you are free to research the information that is publicly available on every State's website. Just find the link for the Secretary of State for the State in question.
Actually, it's probably the case that more of that money is going to rural areas, and to the South. Tax money is flowing out of the wealthy cities to subsidize our impoverished rural areas, in the form of farm subsidies, entitlements (welfare, Medicare, Social Security), military spending, prisons. Remember that most tax revenue comes from the rich and they mostly live in big cities. This system was put in place by the Democrats in the era where the Dems were the populist party of the rural South, and it's been propping up our rural areas with handouts ever since.
It's amazing that the same conservatives who insist that government can do no right when it comes to anything remotely focused on the individual citizen can suddenly say that it can do no wrong with respect to the act of waging war. Oh how soon the $800 hammer can be forgotten.
That is all.
Corn oil, snake oil...it's all the same to me.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
When someone does something nice for you, like give you the opportunity to seize dictatorial powers, you would naturally seek to do something nice for them in return. It's just courtesy.
I am not a crackpot.
This sounds like a simple problem to solve at first- hey, make it illegal [whatever 'it' may be] and that'll show 'em! The problem is that this rarely works in reality. It's illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime, but that crime was illegal to begin with, and the simple fact of it being illegal didn't stop it happening.
Legislative approaches like this seem to fall into the sort of 'feel-good' category of 'being tough on crime', never mind that tough and effective are not the same thing.
The same problem applies with the "war on drugs"- instead of enforcing existing laws against theft or violence or driving impaired, they decided to try to proscribe drugs, and here's how well that worked: this year, the number one cash crop in the united states is pot.
In the end, defining more things as illegal (guns, drugs, whatever) rather than enforcing the laws we've already got seems stupid. After all, making something illegal doesn't stop the crime, it merely defines a new class of criminal.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
Secondly, the United States was loathed before 911. Back then, one of the major complaints was that we weren't involved in world affairs enough. I remember many a diatribe about how we let down the Kurds by not toppling Sadam after the first gulf war -- there was even a movie "The Siege" expressing the very idea that the world hated us precisely because we never followed through in world events.
Well, now we've followed through, and the world still hates us. Forgive me if I'm starting to lose patience and concern with the world's vacillating opinion. The only common thread seems to be a hatred of America.
Maybe the hatred isn't because the US finally did something about Saddam, maybe the reason is because the US did it on the pretense of a bunch of lies, and then managed to completely botch it anyway.
Right. That makes sense. I understood the rule to be while in jail or on parole you lose the right to vote, but once your sentence is finished (off parole/probation) all your rights are returned. A lot of people like to say that once you are convicted of a felony you can NEVER vote again. There are programs here in CA that are trying to get people (ex-convicts) to realize the truth.
All points of time and space are connected.
People, before jumping on this one, realize it's just a parody! A pretty funny send-up of a crazed, xenophobic, deeply ignorant, and totally enraged Rush Limbaugh listener, the kind of person who never once crossed the Atlantic etc. etc.
The one slip is that I only noticed a single orthographic error. Typically, exponents of the Rush crowd can't spell English (even as they insist English be the official and only language in the US).
Good stuff.
Obama is an excellent speaker and is very charismatic. On top of that, there is a media love fest that is just oozing over the fellow. This is where the warm and fuzzy feelings for him come from.
While the ability to speak is a big bonus (though apparently not required - see GWB), it doesn't make a good president on its own. Obama has done an excellent job saying nothing other then warm fuzzy shit that people want to hear.
He talks endlessly about compromise and understanding, but he has yet to spit out an actual innovative proposal on an issue that puts his 'philosophy' into practice. As far as I can tell from few things he actually has a REAL position on, they are straight across the board moderate democratic party line proposals.
Obama is a great speaker, but I don't trust someone who speaks of warm and fuzzy things yet refuses to take an actual stand. It is still early though. I don't discount Obama. He still has plenty of time to make some actual proposals with meat on them. I just think that the big media orgy and public love festival surrounding Obama is horrifically premature. See if you still like the guy after he actually takes a stand on an issue.
No commercial production yet, but that will change as the engineering is worked out. Of course, before anyone can do the engineering they need funding.
And yes -- the biggest issue is public image.
+++ATH0
Not all rights are restored, but yes, in most States, the right to vote is restored.
"2. You assume that "the government" is a monolithic hive-mind, rather than being an organization consisting of a few million individuals, many of whom would turn against the government if they thought it had become irretrievably corrupt."
*shrug*
Slashdot entertains the same fallacy, everytime businesses* are mentioned, be it MS or some other company. Why do you think there's going to be an exception now?
*media, organizations.
"free America from the tyranny of oil" - when he supports a military attack on Iran? And don't tell me he doesn't, either. He babbles on about Iran's "nuclear threat" - just like Hillary does - when there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has or will have ANY nuclear weapons program whatsoever. Even assuming (and it might well be a correct assumption) that various factions in Iran WANT nuclear weapons, they HAVE NO PROGRAM. Not a scrap of evidence other than some documents which Iran has not accounted for from the A Q Khan network years ago has been uncovered that there is ANY such thing as an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
It has been ESTABLISHED that the Iranian NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH program is years, if not DECADES, away from being able to enrich sufficient quantities of uranium to the 90-95% level required for ONE nuclear weapon. Said weapon will have NO delivery system whatsoever outside of truck, container ship or camel, let alone be a threat to the estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons (including those on second-strike capable cruise missiles on submarines) that Israel possesses, let alone Europe, Russia or (gimme a break!) the United States.
Five minutes after the first US bomb drops on Iran, you will be paying $5/gallon for gas at the pump.
In a year, you'll be paying $10-20/gallon.
The oil companies have set this up for exactly that reason.
Do any of you morons remember that the Bush crime family is an OIL crime family?
Obama is a JOKE - a slick-talking Black "preacher" (okay, not officially, but he represents himself the same as one), just like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a host of others. He will last five minutes in an election campaign, before the entire country decides he's just another smooth-talking hustler. Give me Lou Gossett instead - I KNOW he can talk the talk.
Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician owned and operated by AIPAC and the Israeli Lobby who will immediately involve the US in a war with Iran - assuming Bush hasn't done so by then, which is a virtual certainty.
Personally, even as an anarchist, I think we need to start a political party that will run Vladimir Putin for President, with British MP George Galloway for Vice President. At least we'd have two politicians who are both smart and don't mind telling the truth (when it serves their purposes, at least)instead of being morons and lying ALL the time like ours do.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor."
I've heard of the Mythical Provence of Alberta, where the streets flow with liquid gold and even the sands are filled with oil.
But I don't think anyone in the US believes it actually exists.
Australia has strict gun control as well, and although hardened criminals will always get guns, I now hardly ever here about
- accidental shootings (kids playing with dads gun)
- hot head shootings (husband wife arguing, husband/wife grabs convenient gun)
In Australia there in no culture of 'its my right' to carry a gun.
I'm not saying either is right or wrong.. just an observation..
46137
Regarding the whole "black" thing:
I sincerely hope we elected a 95-year-old African-American/Asian-American lesbian aitheist with a bum knee and poor vision. Of course, only if her mother was an abusive alcoholic, her father left home when she was a baby, she was evicted, fired, beaten and shunned.
That way, I can point to her in shining example and say: "See! See! She made it. I'm not buying your excuse. Sorry."
I'm not keen on Obama's stance on gun control, but I still hope he wins. If for no other reason than to lay this "black" issue to bed once and for all.
And, for what its worth, his mom was white. How a "black guy" has a white mom, I'll never know.
barack to the future?
Based on your statement, I am led to assume that only gun owners are victims of gun-related crimes. After all, as you so aptly put, such a gun registry system is about investigating gun crime, and so is effectively meant only to help victims (and investigators) of gun-related crimes. It is my firm belief that if the group paying for a system is going to be limited to a select number, then it should be limited to the ones benefiting from said system. Unless, of course, there is some way to charge the group creating the need for the system, in this case, the criminals. But I think it's safe to say that the average criminal would not be able to afford such costs, thereby eliminating this as a feasible option.
Now I may be mistaken, but unfortunately, I don't think anyone has come up with a way of predetermining who is going to be a victim of a gun-related crime as of yet. Which means that there is no way of fairly placing the burden of cost on a limited group of people. It's the exact same concept as paying for law enforcement or any other "public service".
It's different than, but related to, the reasons that North Korea is untouched. The North Korean situation is quite interesting. On the north side of the border: misery, despair, tyranny, and a seemingly psychotic despot. With this situation, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, many able to strike Seoul. We dare not move, lest one of the most vibrant economies in the area be destroyed.
Back the that reference to game theory, eh? Referenced psychotic despot has leeway to threaten, posture, abuse, accuse, and so on and so forth. We can do nothing insofar as his one primary card does not appear to be in play.
C//
There is no doubt the Dems have done bad things as well. I just hope that we are not throwing them back out of blind party faith. I mean that sincerely as much as i can without being insulting. I just find it so hard to deal with that when one of us, says one thing, the other has to throw something back at them in their face as matter of fact. It is so true that the Dems are not perfect... This is true.
But we need some balance. Both the Dems and Republicans are corporatist. They represent big buisness before individual citizens. We all know this. The DMCA is proof of it.
The faults are certainly with both parties... You dont have to tell me. I voted for Nader twice. I'm willing to stand up and vote my heart. Michael Badnarick (libertarian party), and David Cobb (green) both had great ideas and i felt were sincere last election.
I'm not a democrat or a republican.... or a green, or a libertarian... I'm independent. Sure i tend to lean libertarian (not the quasi republican conservative slanting libertarian) I consider myself an independent because i dont trust any of them at all. Not one bit.
Never the less.. we have to vote.... The republicans have done a horrible job. The president is a criminal in my eyes, a heartless man, with an even colder vice president beside him. The republican congress has folded over for him these past 2 terms.
I have to give the democrats a chance, as crooked as they are, they werent in power at all the past 7 years. Maybe the horrible damage has fueled them to realize what is at stake? I doubt it but its the shit position we're in. Two choices.. Evil or Evil...
I have to give the Dems a chance because i can not take another 4 years with a republican president.
Now of course it depends on the individuals, that is what mostly counts... not the party, not the bullshit, but what they say and do. But how risky is that? I mean they say what they want, then do somethign else while in power...
This is why i voted for Ralph Nader. I trust the man... I trust that he works hard and cares. I wish it was as easy to just vote for a new party or an independent candidate like Ralph, and take the country back... but our democracy is deeply broken in many ways.
Looking back at the 2000 election. Everything Ralph ran on, that i felt passionate about, has become a major issue in this country. Corporate welfare, health care costs, corruption, privacy rights, media consolidation, first amendment issues, etc. Ralph had very specific descriptions of what is going with our country and things we could do to right them... Far more detailed than i can right 7 years later but I found it histerical that as the years passed... everything Ralph said became true... and the Dems started to adopt his platform, but only in generalizations and shallow political bullshit with no power to do anything if they wanted...
Well perhaps now they get their chance... I fear the Dems are just worthless as the republicans and nothing more than political bullshit...
In the end though... 1 or the other. Our broken democracy gives us 2 choices.
I'd vote for an independent presidential candidate again in a heartbeat.
Instead of giving incentives to car companies (which already get a shit load of subsidies in the form of "free" roads for their product), how about a green house gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system. The cap-and-trade system would automatically find the cheapest way to reduce GHGs, and I really doubt that way would be by producing ethanol. Ethanol is only hot because Iowa has waaay too much influence on politics (what with the Iowa primaries and all).
i'm dead sick of these.. shall i say "old farts" running for president.
Can you explain that one?
How is this news for nerds . This matters to some, but does he really have a chance hell no , he is way too far left Even if he wins the democrat(ic) primary, he still will not win the election, not because any physical or genetic aspect , he is just too polarizing for the current state of the nation (and even in the future). I doubt that /. will be posting every announcement of a new person running for president . I just love the editors of ./ that are letting there own political opinions help select the story. I love the title too ,but the paragraph goes on to not mention at f'ing thing about broadband, and none I MEAN none of the major news outlets mention anything of the broadband crap. I so wish the editor would respond, I would like to hear their justification for this being news for nerds. ( don't even try, you have already lost)
:-(
(Tango in sight , Tango down
That would be Jim "My name is not George" Ryan. He was spending too much time explaining that he was no relation to the Governor with the same last name (and party) who was being indicted for corruption.
Carol Mosley Braun was a mistake. I seem to recall that she leased an apartment for more than her annual salary.
Obama has a chance because he doesn't look like a lunatic.
He's no Hillary, but he's a civil rights lightweight. He voted for the renewal of the patriot act. As far as I'm concerned, that knocks him out of the running. Only one current senator is worthy of consideration for the office, and that's Fiengold (as long as he's not some IP law fascist). He's the only one who stood up and said "no" the first time around, so to hell with all the rest. They're either gutless or evil.
What?
I'm not so sure that the thing that stops her will be her "extreme left" views. She comes with too much baggage in the form of her husband. As Americans we're going to have a bit of trouble dealing with the "First Husband" concept, but having one who was president is too much for us to deal with. Add on that he was Bill Clinton, and you get too much to accept, at least in my opinion.
>> If you read his history, you will see he was defeated in a House run.
Yeah. To Bobby Rush. Another popular black Chicago politician. Not just black, a former Black Panther. Seriously, we have tons of black politicians. You do realize blacks outnumber whites in Chicago, with Hispanics not far behind?
MPG is such a useless metric. What we need is some other metric that measures cost and pollution (net carbon is the main issue). If cars were suddenly rated in a metric that somehow combined the economics of fueling that car with the amount of net carbon output per mile, maybe we would think differently about things.
Right now people just care about what's cheaper to them at that moment with no thought of the future. The idea of greening our vehicles is farthest from most people's minds, other than casual talk about hybrids or electric cars, or some other thing--anything is okay as long as it doesn't affect me personally. All we seem to care about is horse power and convenience. If methanol can't give me the power I'm used to, then it's no good.
MPG is useless for the following reason. What if methanol gives 33% less MPG than gasoline? So if driving took 33% more ethanol but released less net carbon into the atmosphere (or no carbon ideally, if the methanol is finally produced in a carbon-neutral way), then that's really not an issue that it took more fuel. Of course that might mean we have to be willing to pay more overall for fuel. Are we willing to do that for the sake of our future? Are we willing to park the car at home right now and carpool even if it is not as convenient? Are we willing to plan our lives to avoid driving whenever possible? Are we willing to avoid accelerating rapidly off of a light? Seems to me that reducing CO2 output, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is a matter of public will rather than technology or even tax incentives. Somehow we have to convince the collective public (all of us) that it is worth doing. That's the hard part.
Does this mean they finally caught him? And he's running for president? Sure, I guess, *anything* to be rid of Bush...
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
That could be a coincidence. Crime rates may be a result of lots of other factors including economic status of the average resident and others. I suggest you take a look at the stats of San Francisco, Toronto, Zurich, and Singapore - four cities whose statistics will show you no conceivable relation between gun control and crime rate.
Or view the speech and rebuttals here: here
Amazing magic tricks
So, It was never lies. Unless fance, germany, Russia, and Briton were in the habbit of passing lies to us. It would be a grand scheeme too, first they give us lies, then we use those lies to goto war and finaly they expose them to be lies and vilonize us. All for what? Well, i'm not sure were the benitift of doing that is. Maybe you could tell me seeing how you have done such deep analisis of our inteligences at works and have determined that everything was lies. I'm sure we will benifit from your explainations of what these other countries have made of this conspiracy.
The fact is, our intelignece was wrong. it was wrong for several reasons but the most important one would be Saddam himself needed to make it look like he wasn't weak because he had pissed a lot of people in the region off. France russia and china were against the war because they had secrete oil deal and used the UN sanction to get them at a better rate. they hid behind the oild for food and sanction that limited the amounts of oil Iraq could sell and thee countries came in in vilation of the sanctions and got discount deals that they would loose if the US went into Iraq. And onw they have lost them, this is why they hate us right now. Of course you would hate me too if I stoped you from buying somethign below costs because i was going to do something that took your advantage away!
The funny thing is, this was done once, in ancient Greece, the birthplace in democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
I wish they would implement this in modern democracy too...
--Coder
So you're saying gun control causes poverty? Do you have a newsletter, and if so can you tell me how to subscribe?
That would be a helpful note if it wasn't false. Check out the national crime statistics for the relevent years and try again. Thanks.
Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36:
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."
Eugene Victor Debs:
"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."
Hmmm. That makes sense, but, the donkey's colors are not consistant with the recent red vs. blue color denotation ever so popular in the media.
Ah, those silly non-conformist editors.
I really doesn't have anything to do with his qualifications to be president, but some will vote against him just for that.
Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
Algae don't grow on land.I think I would support Obama, because he's liberal but he isn't a nut-case like you. There were terror camps in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda trained people there. Really. Now they're on the run, and have no tangible power. Only the boogey-man power that you admit isn't something worth being afraid of.
Hemp grows very quickly and efficiently without much need for fertilizer compared to other crops. It produces oils which could be used in biodiesel and a lot of fibrous mass which could be used for cellulosic ethanol should we finally get an efficient, cheap process for it.
However, hemp carries all the usual problems with marijuana, and there are several other crops that on par with hemp for quick growth of cellulose with low fertilizer use (such as kenaf, switchgras, or miscanthus), and there are much better sources of oil for biodiesel production (like algae).
Hemp is a non-starter as a result. Why bother with all the drug enforcement hassles when you can get the same benefits from other crops?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
FWIW, Obama *did* (briefly) mention it, in his speech:
VOTE!
Hmm, buying military weapons at wally world or cheaper healthcare. Sounds like a nice false choice although one must recognize that receiving healthcare requires that one still be alive in the first place.
If you follow the history, you'll find that everything associated with higher health care has been caused by the government. This includes what the gov. did and what the gov. didn't do. To assume the democrats or anyone in gov. is going to lower the costs of health care is to assume that john edwards, that shyster lawyer who made millions off of lies, junk science and gullible rubes on the jury is the best brain surgeon in the country and he'll operate on you for free.
From the time that health insurance begin to be included in employemment packages back in world war 2, virutally everything the gov. has done has driven up the costs. There are cost shifting where people who supposedly can afford care are being hit for more money to help pay for those who can't. The cost of every item in health care has a massive expense called lawsuit protection - where every nickel product costs a dollar due to this expense. The doctors play defensive medicine to keep from getting sued and too bad for the old general practicioner who still feels like working 1 day a week because that may not be enough to pay his malpractice insurance, assuming he could still get it.
The insurance companies don't want to spend extra effort to analyze the legimitacy of bills since their policies sell for a premium and they might make 15% off of either the $100 / month rate or off the $1000 / month rate. When the employers pay, the insured doesn't care what the payments are and it doesn't help him/her to scrutinize the bill. Hospitals have seriously huge bureaucracies now paid for by $10/pill over the counter advil and aspirin so they gouge people thru the nose too. Gov. encouraged the insurance to be paid by the employers. Gov. doesn't stop lawsuit abuse or even try to curb what is going on in that arena where it has become the daily lottery for lawyers and whoever they can drag in off the street as a client.
The FDA has made it almost impossible for smaller newer companies to get started, protecting the existing giants. They've made it impractical for low volume illnesses to have cures since there's not enough money in it to pay for the years of testing required. And, the number of lives lost due to the extended delays involved in life saving drug approval probably exceed those lost by what would happen were the FDA to vanish off the face of the earth.
A case in point is that brazinsky fellow in houston with his brain cancer therapy. I think he is probably still in trials, but the FDA went after him for years. It seems like he was treating 10-20% successfully on a disease that was 100% fatal. On the shyster side, the guy that did the goat gland transplants merely relocated across the border to mexico.
And that brings up yet another factor, the gov.'s failure to regulate the border, allowing in millions of illegals, not all of whom are here to work. This has created a new cost shifting paradigm where the employers of these illegals (the ones working) are paying subsistance wages and expecting society to pick up the tab for education and healthcare for them as they take up jobs at below market rates (and sometimes at market rates).
A wellfare loafer (foreign or domestic) could starve to death now trying to figure out which competing gov. agency is the best one to go to for a free handout, despite millions of dollars wasted on advertising the handouts by these agencies.
Politics for now and the forseeable future is going to be best described as a choice of which party is going to do the least damage to society. And the sad part is, it's often hard to tell.
Two things are for certain, especially concerning the dems. The first is that everything they are promising now is extremely destructive and unsustainable were it to be implemented. The second is that they are lying through their teeth about everything they claim to stand for. Also, there's plenty of this crap to spread around to other parties.
Actually, the numbers are better than you think, but still not great. We currently get 67 gallons of fuel from one dry ton of biomass. That's a little over 2 barrels per ton, as you point out. However, that's only with current technology. The theoretical yields of most crops is around 100-120 gallons per dry ton. We'll probably never beat 80-100, so let's consider 3 barrels our most likely max.
Current crop yields using traditional crops like corn produce about 5 dry tons per acre, but better crops like kenaf or switchgrass can yield 10 tons per acre. Now we're starting to talk 30 barrels per acre.
Furthermore, only about half of the barrels of oil we consume per day is turned into gasoline. So, now we have to cover about 10 million barrels (once we account for rounding and the lesser energy density of ethanol). This will be improved by better gas mileage standards over the next couple of decades, but we'll ignore that for now.
10 million barrels per day is 1/3 million acres per day. ~120 million acres is nearly a third of the 390 million acres of farmland we have, so it's doable, but at a hideous cost. Even with today's technology and a better selection of crops, it would take 2/3 of our farmland. So, it's doable, but probably only at the cost of the entire country going vegan. <g>
I think I'm going to hold out more hope for biodiesel, especially algal biodiesel now. The most wild-eyed estimates claim 15,000 gallons per acre or about 500 barrels per acre. Even 100 bbl/acre would cover our gasoline needs in 10% of our arable farmland, though the water needs might be prohibitive without making efforts to control evaporation. On the bright side, we might be able to make use of non-arable land for this and avoid disturbing our farmland.
By the way, thanks for making me track down the numbers on this. I've changed my stance on bioethanol because of this.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So? He attended a Catholic school while in Indonesia, was raised by an atheist mother and laid-back stepfather, and became a church-goer back in the 80s. He speaks at long length about his faith and how he came to grow into it in his book "The Audacity of Hope." You should read it sometime before spreading right-wing propaganda about him.
Besides, I'm with the AC. Who cares about the South if you're a Democrat? Increasingly, the South and the Republican Party are becoming symbiotically tied. Not only is the South no longer essential to a Democratic victory, but it's an increasingly futile gesture as it's the only place left that Republicans are making gains.
Obama should pay more attention to the Midwest and the West than the South, and I say that as a resident of Georgia.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Thank you for your retraction. Hillary has been labeled a far left nut job ever since her time as first lady (I guess it goes back to her "crazy" talk about everyone being entitled to health coverage) but her time in the Senate has shown this to be anything but true. She is a centrist in the worst possible way.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I live in that district too. What town are you referring to?
You are not the customer.
Have the gov't lay broadband --> Extract money from citizens at gunpoint to pay for broadband.
Have the gov't fund stem cell research --> Extract money from citizens at gunpoint to pay for stem cell research.
Et cetera.
That's what it is.
Thus, I will not be voting for Obama because he is advocating mass violence against the American people.
I will be voting for Ron Paul.
You are correct, I should not have said "a lot", but enough to sway the election. I would disagree that because Democrats are more liberal they are less racist. I would point to how well black candidates do in regards to the black voters. Black voters are generally Democrat but time and time again they tend to vote a lot on race and less on party. To be fair I am sure that the same amount of white conservatives vote based upon race.
We agree that Obama would fair better against any of the Republicans than Hillary, but my original point is that the Democrats could almost lock up the win with putting a more moderate candidate forward. Specifically Evan Bayh. He would carry Indiana (never done in modern history for the Democrats), and would probably carry a lot of the swing voters out there that are the types of republicans you mentioned. Liberman would also be a fair pick.
Now the Republicans, Rudy would make a great choice IF he can survive the primaries and if Condi would run then she would also pull in a lot of votes that traditionally go to the Democrats (mentioned above). I would imagine that a Rudy and Condi ticket would be a powerful combo for the republicans, but it isn't going to happen.
If history has anything to show us, it will be two candidates that we don't know much about and that are not on the radar of the media yet.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Two things are for certain, especially concerning the dems. The first is that everything they are promising now is extremely destructive and unsustainable were it to be implemented. The second is that they are lying through their teeth about everything they claim to stand for. Also, there's plenty of this crap to spread around to other parties. But you say that as if the Republicans havent screwed up this country... Which is it? Are you saying we should stick with the republicans? What evidence in the last 7 years is any reason to do so? I dont think so. This time, its the other sides chance. Crooked or not, they're not the current fuck up, do nothings that have had absolute power the past 7 years.
Destructive? Sure if it means destorying what the republicans have done, i'm all for it.
The border situation is crap. I dont see how we can realistically patrol the borders and stop the flow of illegals... but i do think we should try. Who will? The Dems or Republicans? I dont know. The Dems supposedly want the hispanic vote, but so do the republicans.... Neither really deal with the situation... so i dont suspect we'll see a mass rounding up of illegals anytime soon. Beleive me, I'd love nothing more than to round up the illegals in this country and ship them home because the damage to our economy is real. Slave labor is illegal in this country.... or so it says on paper. Yet somehow we let this continue because it benefits "small buisnesses" yeah right. So did enslaving blacks. It was wrong then and its wrong now. It's nice the illegals want to come here and work, and better themselves. I welcome them to do so, legally. I dont expect either party to really do anything about it because the truth is, we love slavery and we love exploiting people. I dont but.. well apparently the country does.
Its the donkeys or the elephants... We have to consider giving the dems a chance... after all, its really a one party system. There is very little diference between teh two. It's democrats turn... for good or bad.
It's about time a candidate appeared who could inspire people. I only hope he survives the inevitable slagging.
Already, there's been the "ZOMG he's MOOSLIM!" crowd (even though he's a devout Christian), and Faux news trying to drum up interest in the "he spent time at this fanatical muslim school with a really weird name that we'll keep saying with emphasis to ensure everyone knows it's FOREIGN!" story.
Just last week, there was someone on the Colbert Report to tell us all that yes, Obama is black, but he's not, yanno, black, he's just black. He's not an American African American, he's an African African American. So he shouldn't get the black vote, just the black vote.
So far, he's managed to stay ahead of crap like that, but as it keeps flying in, it's going to wear him down. Stories will start to stick, false but spectacular allegations will derail his attempts to stay on topic, everyone will be sure to mention he's black (but not black), and any tiny faux pas he makes will be splashed on every screen quicker than Howard Dean getting a little excited did.
But if he can keep abreast of that crap, I think he'll do well. He's an excellent orator, thoughtful, so far seems pretty unafraid to state his opinion even if it's unpopular. The way he speaks (and the way crowds respond) remind me of Dr. Martin Luther King. I'm impressed that I don't see him playing the "Vote for me, I'm black" angle. And I'm hoping he'll stick to his guns and talk about what he believes, and not what everyone else believes. I'd rather vote for a guy who is generally good, but might disagree with me on key issues, rather than a guy who agrees with me on key issues because the demographics say he should.
I also like that he's not floating specifics on his ideas. It's easy to get mired down in details... "Well, he only wants to spend 6.3B on Project X, but is he taking into account inflation? What about state taxes? Obviously he'll need 6.4B. Where's that extra 0.1B coming from? What does he intend to cut? Why is that less important than Project X?"
That's how a lot of good ideas get burned down... one small flaw, or one imperfect part, or one questionable decision, and suddenly the whole grand idea is gone. I'm happy he's staying away from that. It's time that your president was a visionary, a uniter, a powerful persona to put a positive international face on the country. I really don't care if they're black or white or purple, male or female or eunich, christian or muslim. All that matters to me, and all that should matter to americans, is whether they are the caliber of person that you want representing your ideals and dreams and country for the next 4 years. You can have healthy disagreements on issues and come to compromise decisions, but eliminating someone from contention because they disagree with you on 1 issue out of 100 is a sure way to get another president who listens more to polls than to populace.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Would you still say the same if a different amendment from the Bill of Rights were under attack, or is the second amendment somehow less important to you than the rest? If so, ask yourself why.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I have heard that Obama was raised for at least part of his life as a Muslim (I think the Hillary camp broke that). Not that religion should ever matter in an election, but do you think that someone with Muslim sympathies would be a good commander-in-chief in the war on terror?
Disclaimer: I know the difference between radical Islam and the majority of Muslims, nevertheless I do think it's a valid question.
www.joshferguson.org
No, but it is consistent with Obama's position that red and blue color denotation is a bad idea, and that in order to succeed America needs to get past that and work together.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
I'm not saying he's Muslim. I'm saying that it won't matter when Republicans unleash a smear campaign on the guy! Here's how they could play it:
1. Show Indonesians burning US flags on the streets
2. Mention Obama's stepfather is from Indonesia where they fucking hate US and he spent quite a chunk of his childhood there.
3. Profit!
Remember, we're talking about a country which sincerely believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had "nucular weapons".
You're right, as the discussion went on and points were made against subpoints, I lost track of the initial question. I don't know enough about Rudy to comment on that topic, but I agree with you everywhere else, especially the last line, which kinda over rules everything else we've said. Nice discussion though.
North Korea has already had a nation-killing trump card for a good twenty years now, as anyone even vaguely acquainted with the matter is well-aware. NK is smart enough to understand quite clearly that no matter what weapons it HAS, it cannot engage in international terrorism, because then triggers would get pulled. Yes, Afghanistan was a good thing. If anything, our response was quite restrained.
C//
A. Coward here .. if Mr Obama also throws in a free Dell Latitude D620 laptop for every school kid left behind we've got a deal here. A free Wii for the underprivileged wouldn't hurt his chances of winning either.
Medicare reform? Just more pandering to the AARP. It's still cheaper to buy many prescriptions from Canada or Mexico.
BTW, what happened to being conservative we removed the Taliban And now Afghanistan is supplying us with cheap heroin again, thanks G.W.B. Do you want to win the war on drugs (basically impossible) or the war on terror (again, basically impossible). They're both tremendously wasteful and nearly impossible to try to win by force. Perhaps diplomacy and medical treatment would be better strategies than war-mongering and the prison state. and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished. Riiiight. The first Gulf war was finished. GWB just started a new one. Even though some of the enemies were the same, and some of them wanted to fight for related reasons, the first gulf war and the invasion of Iraq are no more the same war than WW1 and WW2. Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs? Seems to have worked pretty well for them, don't you think? When was the last major terrorist attack in Canada?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
We have a lot of these interesting little dichotomies. Take gun control:
"Humans aren't trustworthy enough to have guns". "Except the humans I like, I mean." "Um, uh".
It's as if we are unable to see that the people who work in and for government are people like any other. I happen to agree. Humans aren't particularly trustworthy. Concentrating a bunch of firepower amongst the select few? Bad, bad, idea!
Hayek had that one right.
C//
That's a nice piece of revisionist history. The whole reason we had to go in unilaterally is because the rest of the world didn't believe our intelligence, and I can't blame them - as it seemed to mostly consist of a bunch of satellite photos that we took with our own satellites that didn't show shit, a paper plagerizred from some grad student, and a bunch of documents like the yellow cake stuff that the rest of the world already knew was bogus. And don't forget the US spies that we planted in the UN weapon inspection teams (who incidently, also found no evidence of mass quantities of WMD). If the rest of the world actually believed us, they would have been a lot more willing to help out (see: Afganistan).
Wow. you have a real abstract way of watching histroy unfold before you. Did you make these observations yourself or did you get them from your handlers?
And yes I say handlers, cause the yellow cake shit was from france and russia. And there was lots more too. Like the Un weapons inspectors saying upto the invasion that Iraq was hindering thier inspections and they belive they are being denied access to facilities because iraq is moving incriminating evidence and cleaning the buildings. And the enite there is not WMDs the UN inspections team claimed as the invasion was going was about two months after they reported to the UN that it would take years to asses the weapons programs. Yet two months later they were sure. I bet it has more to do with anti war positions the chief inspecter held.
I can cite and back up everything I said. If you have something to the contrary, I suggest checking it against non bias sources. I will be linking to UN reports and all sorts of stuff to prove it. Let me know if I need to stat looking them back up.
I doubt the Slashdot editors had that in mind.
Also, while that's a nice idea, there is at least one issue whose issue is so black and white, so divided, that there is no 'getting past it', as if it were just a label; it will have to be dealt with head on.
Besides, when it comes to 'reaching across the isle', George Bush has a very good track record of so doing... But look at the appriciation and respect he gets from Democrates. It's to the point that Democrates come across as not so much as being about something, as being about getting something: control.
I specifically was speaking to gun nuts. Those that are absolutely set on abolishing gun control at the cost of other issues. I beleive every citizen has the right to own a gun, and if that were under attack... I would be worried. It is not. What is happening and has been in effect is gun control. The brady bill etc. There are assualt rifle bans etc. A gun owner/enthusiast is far more knowledgeable than i am on the specific laws... but we're not talking about banning guns.
I'm saying... It would be a shame for someone to base their vote, on the single issue of gun control vs many of the other issues that are more important to a lot more people. I would not support a ban on guns. I would be tolerant of gun control laws as long as they make sense and are fair. Remember laws arent perfect, they try to fix some things, and they break other things unfortunately. I dont want to see guns banned. Thats not the issue we're talking about.
They're not going to ban guns. One may be unhappy with gun control of any kind... but if that is more important than healthcare, education,social security, and economic issues to a person... i think they need to have better priorities
Its like voting for a candiate because he has a personal relationship with god... and does nothing godly in office.
We're going to have pick one of two parties... and chances are, we're not going to agree with atleast one of their policies... but we have to weight them all out, better for worse... even if that means more gun control... or continued gun control... especially if that means improved healthcare, education policies, immigration, world trade, economic policies.
No there's not.
If by "reaching across the isle" (and it's spelled aisle) you mean telling the Democrats that anybody who doesn't do what he says is supporting terrorism, and telling Republicans that disagree with him that anybody who doesn't do what he says is supporting terrorism, then yes, he has reached across the aisle. But with a billy club. Incidentally, the president doesn't "reach across the aisle" anyway, the aisle referred to is in Congress, and the president only goes to Congress for the State of the Union address. Additionally, it's not spelled Democrates (that's 2), but Democrats, and saying that the only goal of the Democratic Party is to gain control is outright ridiculous, especially given the iron fist that the Republicans have been ruling the country with for the last several years. Yes, when you're the opposition party and the other party has shut you out of the political process entirely, and controls all three branches of government, and seems determined to run the country into the ground, then you might indeed try to take over from them. And the rest of the country agreed with the Democrats, and the Democrats now have 1 of the 3 branches back. But that wasn't to gain Democratic control, it was to break Republican control. The difference is a subtle one, and given the level of intelligence that you've demonstrated so far, I strongly doubt you'll be able to pick up on it. So with that aside, who do you favor in the Daytona 500? You might actually have your own opinion about NASCAR, as opposed to repeating what other people tell you about politics.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
You might want to check the dates on some of those reports. Like the yellow cake thing, by the time that Bush was touting that is his State of the Union address, it had aleady been discredited.
Besides, even if you go down that path, the best you can do is show how Bush administration is totally incompetent versus that they knowingly lied.
I wouldn't say discredited by in contradiction. And yea, the IAEA and several american agencies claimed there was doubt in the repoerts but the British inteligence agencies claimed they were true upto 2004. And I claimed the yellow cake report was from france when it was italy and we got the information from England. France supported the claim but warned that it couldn't be verified while Russia later said they didn't consider it worth going to war over.
But this point isn't much concern now, My understanding is that bush dropped it as a reason before going into war. It does however go to back up my claim that almost everything we used was recieved from other countries. And those countries would have had to lie to US in order for us to be "goining to war based on lies". It wasn't lies, It was bad inteligence from other countries. And we went in "unilaterally" is wrong too. We didn't, there are lots of other countries in there with us. The reasons France, russia and China among others didn't go in with us is because they had oil deals that violated UN sanctions and stood to lose a bundle of money if we went in. It is funny, people say it is "war for oil" when the fact is that anti war sediment was about oil and money. Maybe something got lost in the translation.
You don't have to go much further then Wikipedia to find this stuff out. Although they don't have some things updated like the plame leak still incinuates it was a whitehouse retaliation for wilsons unfavorable report when it was actualy a democrate (richard armatage) who inadvertantly made the leak.
And don't take my being without power and internet for the last few days as a sign of anything but that.