"The trouble is...these things are being sold over here as a preventative measure against terrorists."
HUH?! It's being sold as fighting crime. You have twisted it in your mind.
I see no way for the orwellian "big brother" scenario to materialize in the United States, yet terrorists are beating down our door. If this system gets abused it will have the lid shut on it faster than you can say hot potato. As it is, it appeals to a lot of people who have had their car stolen in NYC, etc. It makes a whole lot of sense.
So long as they don't give me tickets with these cameras, like the UK does, then I don't give a damn. More cameras the better.
And here's where you're wrong, rtb61, you can't have fair trade if I'm greedy and you're not. You have to be greedy also, for it to work. Don't think about me, think about yourself, and I will think about my self.
I don't care what you want to think about. If you don't consider health care important, you aught not have it. No law of nature says you are entitled to it, and there in lies your own greed. You don't give a fucking damn about your neighbors, you just want some rich SOB to pay for your fat and lazy ass. Your neighbors, 90% of them, all have health insurance.
Greed is the heart of the capitalist society. There was a time when the Roman Catholic church had a bounty out for human greediness. It was only until someone learned to harness this greed that society really began to take off.
So when you attack my "greed", you are attacking the foundational principal of capitalism. Your "friendlier, happier" plan is extremely inefficient, and when you're talking about inefficiency in a health care system, you're talking about lives lost.
What changes in your preferred socialized medicine is 1) the rich pay for the poor, 2) there is no more free market, you get what the government says you get and nothing more, 3) the prospect for profit for a particular health remedy is nil and thus no suppliers move to fill that segment, or else their effort is small and lackluster and thus 4) the quality of health care suffers.
And this market, the United States pharma companies, is one that the world depends on. So this argument you persist is actually not in your best interest. It might make sense for you to pay nothing while the upper class pay for your American developed drugs, but were we to adopt socialized medicine, these pharma companies would serve you less.
My solution is to eliminate the AMA, first, and then enact legislation to prevent abuse of the consumer on a case by case basis, for instance, force employers to offer the cash equivalent of a health care plan, make sure every employer is offering HSA plans, stuff like that.
I will give you an example of the broken free market.
I have shoulder pain that the (damn) doctors can't seem to figure out, yet they will bill me for services provided. I had 2 MRI's done that each cost $1500-2000. I could have gone to a private clinic that specializes in "full body scan" and had a CT scan done of my entire upper body for $300, but this is not something the doctors will do. The reason the price of the CT scan is so cheap is that the equipment is older, and there are no health insurance companies or care providers telling me what I need, should have, can have...
That's why I'm switching to the HSA, so I can choose what care I get. Next time I may skip the doc and his useless opinion and just have a radiologist look at some scans and see if anything is wrong.
The price elasticity has very little to do with the efficiency of a particular industry. Fuel is not elastic, you need fuel, you buy fuel, WHO you buy it from depends on what they charge. This argument only makes sense on the individual gas station level, because the entire industry as a whole is fixed. You buy from BP over Texaco because the price on the sign is less.
The problem with US healthcare is the insurance companies and health care providers have done their best to fix the price, so we all pay more than we have to, yet it is still comparable to the price English pay.
Your point about drugs is different. You need to trust the free market before you can understand that the price you pay for a drug is worthwhile because it will save your life. If nobody was willing to pay that price, the drug wouldn't exist. Take this article as an example of the public's misconception.
You see, that man in the article was trying to do the victims of the disaster a favor by bringing them generators in the hour of need, he was charging twice as much, but if he were not able to charge that price than nobody would buy them.
Which brings me to my point, that the far more worrisome consequences of the public health care system is that the quality of the health care will suffer. Whether or not you get this or that no longer depends on what you are willing to pay, but rather, it depends on what the government says you can have. Nobody is going to bring those generators down to you.
I think this "price elasticity" argument is flat out misleading. I see no basis for your argument at all. Would you care to explain further?
Was this multi-paragraph first post some sort of coordinated effort to deceive people?
I don't think the length of a game has the ultimate say. I played half-life twice through, it was so much fun... #2 was good too, but some parts of it seemed as though they were just "filler", like when you got on that sled boat and cruised down a river or something, that part seemed to go on and on...
I don't go to a movie expecting to be entertained for 3+ hours, why should the games that take forever to beat be rated higher?
Oh please, is this the best you can do? Conservative doesn't mean you never want to change anything. Perhaps knowing this you can become more informed. Conservatism is a set of values.
1. More US customers adopted dial-up internet access early, and this has been sufficient for them so far. (big one, I'm sure) 2. The US has more monopolistic cable and telephone companies who drive the price of broadband up and up, $50 3. More people in the US are "borrowing" wireless internet access from their neighbor. 4. The "Moral Majority" in the United States doesn't want their kids to look at internet porn, so they just use it at work.
What the hell? He'll be remembered for the war in Iraq, which isn't over yet. This wiretap thing will fade, it's a foreign surveillance program, the problem is the law isn't clear enough. I've looked over the law, Bush's lawyers looked at the law, there is no legal reason for him NOT to have done it, there is no legal basis for prosecution. The law just needs to be more clear. Personally, I don't think they'll change the law, the foreign surveillance program was a great idea. Phone intercepts have been the single most effective way to uncover terrorists, and the public supports it. The public would support it even more if they knew how effective it was.
I don't need numbers to back up my claims. It's basic economic theory. Production will go where it's cheapest. Here, I will give you a crash course.
The reason you get so much stuff from neighboring countries is because the EU is a free trade zone. The UK has a bunch of silly taxes and tariffs on American goods, for instance, the Coca Cola you get in the EU is made with sugar beets, instead of the Corn Syrup used in the United States. The Coca Cola company could sell American Coca Cola, but that would be supporting American corn farmers, and the UK wants to support it's own farmers. It may be an American recipe, but it's largely manufactured in Europe.
The reason you guys don't trade with China, without actually knowing the true reason, I can only give you two possibilities. Either it is too expensive to ship goods from China to Europe, as it would either have to cross western Asia by land or sail around south Africa, when China is comparatively close to the United States. Another reason might be because the EU doesn't support the labor practices of China (child labor, minimum wage, pollution, etc.) and they impose price controls on Chinese goods.
But I'll give you an example of production shifts. There was a big steel industry here in the United States until China entered the market. China can produce steel incredibly cheap because environmental regulation is practically non-existent, while here in the US you've got to go out to the middle of nowhere to produce steel, the fuel is taxed and emissions are taxed. So it's cheaper to just buy it from China, and it was a big national debate whether we should impose price controls, but today all the steel companies have dried up, and steel is cheaper than ever.
The lesson to learn here is that free trade is in general a good thing, child labor and poverty are bad things, but free trade doesn't necessary ENCOURAGE those, because the poverty would still be there. Free trade is still generally good for the country being exploited for it's labor. China needs to find it's own way to improve human rights in their country. By trading with China, we are making China into a rich country, and soon they will have to do something about their human situation.
You apparently have no understanding of basic economic principals. This is a problem for more Europeans, I know.
When the United States makes solar power more affordable than fossil fuels, you'll all be singing the praises of the free market. Japan, a country based on our economic system, and which also currently has comparatively little public support for green regulations, is developing clean transportation. It has nothing to do with changing peoples attitudes, and everything to do with the invisible hand.
If the world goes in the direction I suspect it's going, to plug in hybrids powered by renewable energy, Europe will have contributed very little to that as their economies have been turned upside down by artificial price controls and environmental regulation. We'd all be living in mud huts if "progressive" organizations like Greenpeace had their way. Leave it to the capitalists and the transition will be easy and profitable.
These are not significant contributors. I'm talking about REVOLUTIONARY technology, not just a bunch of little tweaks you cobbled together.
What swedish company is manufacturing these fuel efficient jet engines? As far as I know, the fore-runners in jet engine technology are pratt & whitney and rolls royce.
Flight path selection is irrelevant, as flights are not selected based on how inexpensive it is to get there, but on things like timing. Maybe with parcel flights, but I know of only US companies doing international parcel post, likely in-house development. I don't understand why you feel this is a significant contribution, especially since it is far fetched at best that Sweden was the driving force.
Improved manufacture of solar cells is irrelevant, Norway and Sweden are neither large producers nor consumers, solar cells has remained out of reach for decades, and is only now starting to show possibility for breaking through the price barrier. I wouldn't give Sweden and Norway ANY credit for this.
Better dry cleaning machines?
Gas from Black liquor? Truly revolutionary!
Where are these nanotech heat exchangers? If they use carbon nanotubes, then they are the product of American corporate funded research.
And Volvo has done very little compared to American and Japanese car makers to improve fuel efficiency. In my opinion, their brand recognition centers around safety, which is great IMO, but sorry, no green credit.
This is a lousy list. REVOLUTIONARY technology that will actually make significant contributions to the "climate crisis" only, please.
Yes, we DO MORE! Read other opinions here that back me up.
Of course, the issue is much, much more complex, and no one wants to take into consideration the very real economic impacts of taking drastic action to reduce emissions, especially when China and India - forget the EU - are not saddled with the same restrictions.
Exactly the problem, Europe has mostly just shifted production over to China, where the environment is a lower priority. Lets just wait for China to realize that they've got a problem.
One thing the United States aught to get more credit for is R&D for new technologies.
All the latest and greatest green tech is American.
Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for hybrid cars.
Thin film solar cells.
Composite fuselage airliners by Boeing.
Lots of work going on in hydrogen fuel cells in Japan and the United States.
Gotta give France some credit for their enthusiasm over nuclear energy and ITER (although ITER surely won't pay off for at least 100 years, if ever).
But really, name one green tech with Europe's name on it? "Smart" cars?
I don't think that guy really understands the problem. Reminds me of an old car that used to overheat on me going up steep hills. If I slowed the car down, the temperature would hold steady at HOT, but would not go into the red. It didn't matter how slow I went.
One day someone suggested I turn on my heater full blast going up this familiar hill. I did that and the temperature went right down to normal levels.
So this guys tweaks to emacs is comparable to slowing the car down, while a real solid fix is to have surgery. The surgery is relatively simple outpatient procedure to make a little more space in your wrist for your nerves and things.
After struggling with it for years, I'm convinced now that it's just genetic. My wrists are smaller than usual, yet I do more with them than most people, no way around it.
By the way, screw the switching mouse hands crap, just get a pen tablet. I type with the pen in my hand, and it actually helps my hand remain in a more natural position, with the eraser end between my thumb and forefinger (in the web) and the pointed end in between middle and ring finger, fingers all curved naturally.
In order to agree to this, you must first accept this theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are going to destroy the earth. Until there is a global climate change model that holds up to scrutiny, these draft proposals need to stay right where they are. I have heard a LOT of fear mongering in my lifetime.
Two, forcing the United States to change is only going to create a surplus in cheap energy, other countries will come along to fill in the gaps, production will shift closer to China where energy is still cheap.
Best bet is to either increase the price of oil, globally, which you see happening on it's own already, or to invest in free market initiatives for cheap clean energy, such as new solar technologies, nuclear (somewhat controversial), or build more dams; put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. I see these free market initiatives going fast and steady as we speak. Plug in hybrids are only a couple years off. Plug in hybrids alone could reduce these CO2 emissions by double digit percent.
Hats off to Germany for putting their money where their mouth is, we shall see what effect this has, I myself am optimistic about Germany's future, they have really made themselves the solar energy capital of the world. I think California is headed in that direction as well.
What doesn't make any sense to me is why the government can't make itself more efficient with the internet. I've noticed the DMV near my house is less and less crowded. I haven't been using the internet renewal like everyone else... but the facility is being used less and less, and it costs pennies to operate the website.
They'll just keep doing things the old fashioned way and tax more and more. Always expanding....
The problem with you liberals is you can't be reasoned with. It's anything but a fact that he LIED intentionally, as you put it. Even if you believe it, even if it LOOKS like he lied, that is no fact. Those chemical munitions still haven't been accounted for, but who cares, right? We're well beyond that now.
Yes you may have just been throwing the word FACT around, but none the less, your BELIEF is unjustified, and it shouldn't take a stupid thing like that (not finding WMDs) to invalidate this war. Like I said, we're well beyond that now.
You liberals will go down in history as ignorant, arrogant and misguided. While the middle east steers itself toward annihilation, you want to pull up the drawbridge of American foreign policy, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it.
Slashdot Mirror
"The trouble is...these things are being sold over here as a preventative measure against terrorists." HUH?! It's being sold as fighting crime. You have twisted it in your mind.
I see no way for the orwellian "big brother" scenario to materialize in the United States, yet terrorists are beating down our door. If this system gets abused it will have the lid shut on it faster than you can say hot potato. As it is, it appeals to a lot of people who have had their car stolen in NYC, etc. It makes a whole lot of sense. So long as they don't give me tickets with these cameras, like the UK does, then I don't give a damn. More cameras the better.
And here's where you're wrong, rtb61, you can't have fair trade if I'm greedy and you're not. You have to be greedy also, for it to work. Don't think about me, think about yourself, and I will think about my self.
I don't care what you want to think about. If you don't consider health care important, you aught not have it. No law of nature says you are entitled to it, and there in lies your own greed. You don't give a fucking damn about your neighbors, you just want some rich SOB to pay for your fat and lazy ass. Your neighbors, 90% of them, all have health insurance.
Greed is the heart of the capitalist society. There was a time when the Roman Catholic church had a bounty out for human greediness. It was only until someone learned to harness this greed that society really began to take off.
So when you attack my "greed", you are attacking the foundational principal of capitalism. Your "friendlier, happier" plan is extremely inefficient, and when you're talking about inefficiency in a health care system, you're talking about lives lost.
What changes in your preferred socialized medicine is 1) the rich pay for the poor, 2) there is no more free market, you get what the government says you get and nothing more, 3) the prospect for profit for a particular health remedy is nil and thus no suppliers move to fill that segment, or else their effort is small and lackluster and thus 4) the quality of health care suffers.
And this market, the United States pharma companies, is one that the world depends on. So this argument you persist is actually not in your best interest. It might make sense for you to pay nothing while the upper class pay for your American developed drugs, but were we to adopt socialized medicine, these pharma companies would serve you less.
My solution is to eliminate the AMA, first, and then enact legislation to prevent abuse of the consumer on a case by case basis, for instance, force employers to offer the cash equivalent of a health care plan, make sure every employer is offering HSA plans, stuff like that.
I will give you an example of the broken free market.
I have shoulder pain that the (damn) doctors can't seem to figure out, yet they will bill me for services provided. I had 2 MRI's done that each cost $1500-2000. I could have gone to a private clinic that specializes in "full body scan" and had a CT scan done of my entire upper body for $300, but this is not something the doctors will do. The reason the price of the CT scan is so cheap is that the equipment is older, and there are no health insurance companies or care providers telling me what I need, should have, can have...
That's why I'm switching to the HSA, so I can choose what care I get. Next time I may skip the doc and his useless opinion and just have a radiologist look at some scans and see if anything is wrong.
The price elasticity has very little to do with the efficiency of a particular industry. Fuel is not elastic, you need fuel, you buy fuel, WHO you buy it from depends on what they charge. This argument only makes sense on the individual gas station level, because the entire industry as a whole is fixed. You buy from BP over Texaco because the price on the sign is less.
/ mississippi_has_a_place_for_he.html
The problem with US healthcare is the insurance companies and health care providers have done their best to fix the price, so we all pay more than we have to, yet it is still comparable to the price English pay.
Your point about drugs is different. You need to trust the free market before you can understand that the price you pay for a drug is worthwhile because it will save your life. If nobody was willing to pay that price, the drug wouldn't exist. Take this article as an example of the public's misconception.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05
You see, that man in the article was trying to do the victims of the disaster a favor by bringing them generators in the hour of need, he was charging twice as much, but if he were not able to charge that price than nobody would buy them.
Which brings me to my point, that the far more worrisome consequences of the public health care system is that the quality of the health care will suffer. Whether or not you get this or that no longer depends on what you are willing to pay, but rather, it depends on what the government says you can have. Nobody is going to bring those generators down to you.
I think this "price elasticity" argument is flat out misleading. I see no basis for your argument at all. Would you care to explain further?
Was this multi-paragraph first post some sort of coordinated effort to deceive people?
I don't think the length of a game has the ultimate say. I played half-life twice through, it was so much fun... #2 was good too, but some parts of it seemed as though they were just "filler", like when you got on that sled boat and cruised down a river or something, that part seemed to go on and on... I don't go to a movie expecting to be entertained for 3+ hours, why should the games that take forever to beat be rated higher?
Half-life goes at the top of my list.
The word fascist has lost all it's meaning because of people like you.
Oh please, is this the best you can do? Conservative doesn't mean you never want to change anything. Perhaps knowing this you can become more informed. Conservatism is a set of values.
I think stewbacca wants to be friends!
Come here and gimme a hug!
I have a few possible explanations for this:
1. More US customers adopted dial-up internet access early, and this has been sufficient for them so far. (big one, I'm sure)
2. The US has more monopolistic cable and telephone companies who drive the price of broadband up and up, $50
3. More people in the US are "borrowing" wireless internet access from their neighbor.
4. The "Moral Majority" in the United States doesn't want their kids to look at internet porn, so they just use it at work.
What the hell? He'll be remembered for the war in Iraq, which isn't over yet. This wiretap thing will fade, it's a foreign surveillance program, the problem is the law isn't clear enough. I've looked over the law, Bush's lawyers looked at the law, there is no legal reason for him NOT to have done it, there is no legal basis for prosecution. The law just needs to be more clear. Personally, I don't think they'll change the law, the foreign surveillance program was a great idea. Phone intercepts have been the single most effective way to uncover terrorists, and the public supports it. The public would support it even more if they knew how effective it was.
I don't need numbers to back up my claims. It's basic economic theory. Production will go where it's cheapest. Here, I will give you a crash course.
The reason you get so much stuff from neighboring countries is because the EU is a free trade zone. The UK has a bunch of silly taxes and tariffs on American goods, for instance, the Coca Cola you get in the EU is made with sugar beets, instead of the Corn Syrup used in the United States. The Coca Cola company could sell American Coca Cola, but that would be supporting American corn farmers, and the UK wants to support it's own farmers. It may be an American recipe, but it's largely manufactured in Europe.
The reason you guys don't trade with China, without actually knowing the true reason, I can only give you two possibilities. Either it is too expensive to ship goods from China to Europe, as it would either have to cross western Asia by land or sail around south Africa, when China is comparatively close to the United States. Another reason might be because the EU doesn't support the labor practices of China (child labor, minimum wage, pollution, etc.) and they impose price controls on Chinese goods.
But I'll give you an example of production shifts. There was a big steel industry here in the United States until China entered the market. China can produce steel incredibly cheap because environmental regulation is practically non-existent, while here in the US you've got to go out to the middle of nowhere to produce steel, the fuel is taxed and emissions are taxed. So it's cheaper to just buy it from China, and it was a big national debate whether we should impose price controls, but today all the steel companies have dried up, and steel is cheaper than ever.
The lesson to learn here is that free trade is in general a good thing, child labor and poverty are bad things, but free trade doesn't necessary ENCOURAGE those, because the poverty would still be there. Free trade is still generally good for the country being exploited for it's labor. China needs to find it's own way to improve human rights in their country. By trading with China, we are making China into a rich country, and soon they will have to do something about their human situation.
You apparently have no understanding of basic economic principals. This is a problem for more Europeans, I know.
When the United States makes solar power more affordable than fossil fuels, you'll all be singing the praises of the free market. Japan, a country based on our economic system, and which also currently has comparatively little public support for green regulations, is developing clean transportation. It has nothing to do with changing peoples attitudes, and everything to do with the invisible hand.
If the world goes in the direction I suspect it's going, to plug in hybrids powered by renewable energy, Europe will have contributed very little to that as their economies have been turned upside down by artificial price controls and environmental regulation. We'd all be living in mud huts if "progressive" organizations like Greenpeace had their way. Leave it to the capitalists and the transition will be easy and profitable.
These are not significant contributors. I'm talking about REVOLUTIONARY technology, not just a bunch of little tweaks you cobbled together.
What swedish company is manufacturing these fuel efficient jet engines? As far as I know, the fore-runners in jet engine technology are pratt & whitney and rolls royce.
Flight path selection is irrelevant, as flights are not selected based on how inexpensive it is to get there, but on things like timing. Maybe with parcel flights, but I know of only US companies doing international parcel post, likely in-house development. I don't understand why you feel this is a significant contribution, especially since it is far fetched at best that Sweden was the driving force.
Improved manufacture of solar cells is irrelevant, Norway and Sweden are neither large producers nor consumers, solar cells has remained out of reach for decades, and is only now starting to show possibility for breaking through the price barrier. I wouldn't give Sweden and Norway ANY credit for this.
Better dry cleaning machines?
Gas from Black liquor? Truly revolutionary!
Where are these nanotech heat exchangers? If they use carbon nanotubes, then they are the product of American corporate funded research.
And Volvo has done very little compared to American and Japanese car makers to improve fuel efficiency. In my opinion, their brand recognition centers around safety, which is great IMO, but sorry, no green credit.
This is a lousy list. REVOLUTIONARY technology that will actually make significant contributions to the "climate crisis" only, please.
Yes, we DO MORE! Read other opinions here that back me up.
It's a Pat Robertson conspiracy to destroy the earth! Where is captain planet when you need him? Oh that's right, he gave all his money to the UN.
Exactly the problem, Europe has mostly just shifted production over to China, where the environment is a lower priority. Lets just wait for China to realize that they've got a problem.
One thing the United States aught to get more credit for is R&D for new technologies. All the latest and greatest green tech is American. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for hybrid cars. Thin film solar cells. Composite fuselage airliners by Boeing. Lots of work going on in hydrogen fuel cells in Japan and the United States. Gotta give France some credit for their enthusiasm over nuclear energy and ITER (although ITER surely won't pay off for at least 100 years, if ever). But really, name one green tech with Europe's name on it? "Smart" cars?
I don't think that guy really understands the problem. Reminds me of an old car that used to overheat on me going up steep hills. If I slowed the car down, the temperature would hold steady at HOT, but would not go into the red. It didn't matter how slow I went.
One day someone suggested I turn on my heater full blast going up this familiar hill. I did that and the temperature went right down to normal levels.
So this guys tweaks to emacs is comparable to slowing the car down, while a real solid fix is to have surgery. The surgery is relatively simple outpatient procedure to make a little more space in your wrist for your nerves and things.
After struggling with it for years, I'm convinced now that it's just genetic. My wrists are smaller than usual, yet I do more with them than most people, no way around it.
By the way, screw the switching mouse hands crap, just get a pen tablet. I type with the pen in my hand, and it actually helps my hand remain in a more natural position, with the eraser end between my thumb and forefinger (in the web) and the pointed end in between middle and ring finger, fingers all curved naturally.
Wacom Graphire 4 is like $130 or something, IIRC.
Cause vi is for buttholes!
Remember how VI couldn't handle the arrow keys before? It's come a long way, hasn't it?
Uh, Esc Meta and Alt are the same thing. And lucky for me, I press those with my left hand, which doesn't have carpal tunnel.
The carpal tunnel emacs correlation probably has more to do with productivity and less to do with difficult keystrokes.
This has been said before, but I'll say it again.
In order to agree to this, you must first accept this theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are going to destroy the earth. Until there is a global climate change model that holds up to scrutiny, these draft proposals need to stay right where they are. I have heard a LOT of fear mongering in my lifetime.
Two, forcing the United States to change is only going to create a surplus in cheap energy, other countries will come along to fill in the gaps, production will shift closer to China where energy is still cheap.
Best bet is to either increase the price of oil, globally, which you see happening on it's own already, or to invest in free market initiatives for cheap clean energy, such as new solar technologies, nuclear (somewhat controversial), or build more dams; put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. I see these free market initiatives going fast and steady as we speak. Plug in hybrids are only a couple years off. Plug in hybrids alone could reduce these CO2 emissions by double digit percent.
Hats off to Germany for putting their money where their mouth is, we shall see what effect this has, I myself am optimistic about Germany's future, they have really made themselves the solar energy capital of the world. I think California is headed in that direction as well.
What doesn't make any sense to me is why the government can't make itself more efficient with the internet. I've noticed the DMV near my house is less and less crowded. I haven't been using the internet renewal like everyone else... but the facility is being used less and less, and it costs pennies to operate the website.
They'll just keep doing things the old fashioned way and tax more and more. Always expanding....
The problem with you liberals is you can't be reasoned with. It's anything but a fact that he LIED intentionally, as you put it. Even if you believe it, even if it LOOKS like he lied, that is no fact. Those chemical munitions still haven't been accounted for, but who cares, right? We're well beyond that now.
Yes you may have just been throwing the word FACT around, but none the less, your BELIEF is unjustified, and it shouldn't take a stupid thing like that (not finding WMDs) to invalidate this war. Like I said, we're well beyond that now.
You liberals will go down in history as ignorant, arrogant and misguided. While the middle east steers itself toward annihilation, you want to pull up the drawbridge of American foreign policy, as Tony Blair so eloquently put it.