I think the only thing you're doing is convincing people you don't know much about C++. Pass by reference isn't hard - not even remotely one of the advanced topics in the language. Const is also a keyword in C, btw, it just has more uses in C++ because of the class syntax.
I think you misunderstand many things about C++, but heres an important one:
I'm saying to use member functions for the orginazation they provide. You could get somthing similar with a good naming convention. This OTOH is supported by the language.
Like I said- function pointers. Like this:
struct foo{
int (*bar)(int);
}
foo has a member bar, which is a pointer to a function that takes an integer and returns an integer. You assign it like: foo->bar=myfunc; This is exactly what a member function does- the only difference is that the this pointer won't exist, so the first parameter to any member function would have to be a pointer to itself. You can even call it this:)
When you say "this is exactly what a member function does" - you're wrong.
Your stuct wastes one word per object per "member" function. For non-virtual functions, C++ uses 0 words per object for member functions. for virtual member functions, C++ uses one word per object regardless of the number of virtual member functions. So in the first case, with your approach, you're paying a huge space overhead and 1 indirection. C++ is paying no space overhead and no indirection - everything is known at compile time. For the case where virtual functions are used, you still pay less space overhead in C++, but you get an extra indirection. C++ is smart enough to know at compile time whether the virtual dispatch is needed or not. This is an important difference that you don't seem to understand.
Finally, storing function pointers in objects (stucts or classes) is perfectly valid in C++, if you are disatisfied with the static or dynamic binding mechanisms provided.;)
PS - many of the details above are implementation defined, but the above is the usual approach.
Your statements represent a gross misunderstanding of what Standard C++ is. Undefined Behaviour (UB) is part of the definition of C++ - it's a statement of what constructs that would normally seem like valid syntax are not valid C++. These constructs have "undefined behaviour" - sometimes it is platform defined, but it's still not part of standard C++. The same hold trues for straight C - there are many constructs in C that might appear to be valid, but are UB, and so are defined as invalid.
For examle, this is "undefined behavior" in both C and C++:
int arr[4];
int i = 0;
arr[i++] = i;
In summary, the existence of "undefined behavior" in the C++ and C standards in no way make the compilers implementing the standards "untrustworthy".
There were some optimization bugs in the gcc 3.1 series - documented in gcc bug database I'm sure. These bugs applied both to C and C++ mode. If the grandparent post is implying that C++ compilers have bugs whereas C compilers do not, he'd be wrong, of course.
Why is it everyone wants to bring up Turing machines like I have no idea what they are... Grr! Look, there is no feature of C++ which has an obvious advantage over the natural C construction in the Linux kernel.
Probably because you initially made a broader statement about C++ and C without regard to usability in the kernel. I could quote if for you if you don't want to look back in the thread. The tactic you are demonstrating is frequently known as "moving the goal posts".
Your knowledge of C++ seems passable, but your failure to mention RAII and destructors, and your apparent opinion that exceptions can be thrown willy nilly (with out regard to standard library usage, without regard to allocator usage, etc), makes me wonder if you've thought about everything. My knowledge of the kernel is poor, however, so I'll admit that you might be right that there is no place for C++ in kernels or kernel modules. But, hell, anyone that says "c can do anything c++ can do" as a serious attempt to disparage C++ probably isn't qualified to discuss it.
Also, barring some non-standard C-isms the kernel is probably using, and barring any of the rare non-compatible corner cases, you could take the kernel and compile it today as if it were C++. Then, if there was just one feature that made your life easier, and presuming you had the disipline not to employ paradigms and use C++ features that were detrimental (seems safe) to your requirements, you'd have a win. YMMV
I'm obviously not going to convince you, I give up. Go vote for the guy that says the Patriot act is all roses instead of the guy that says it's partly garlic.
Well, neither candidate is ideal, most of us can agree on that. But on one hand we have someone who says there is no problem, and on the other we have someone who seems to think there might be some problems, either in execution or definition, and who at least is considering legislation to correct the problems. So the point stands, there is a some difference in the candidates here, perhaps not as much as I'd like, but if you're trying to support Bush with this tactic, it seems pretty weak to me.
Thanks for the analysis. Question. Does this apply to people or just corporations? That is, if I'm a US citizen living abroad and making money abroad (dual citizenship, if that helps), does Bush's tax break apply to me as well, or do I still need to pay US income tax?
Do so many of you not realize that every illegal vote that is counted is the disenfranchisement of one legal voter? Can so many of you really not see from this perspective? This blindness is amazing.
Not allowing a voter the right to vote results in the disenfranchisement of exactly one voter. An illegal vote (assuming it is not found), given a random probability of that invalid vote, has a net expected disenfranchisement of zero.
The problem is of course when the disenfranchisement and extra votes are not the result of systemmatic, random errors, but are the result of willful or unwillful bias in process. These errors are what people are concerned about in this case. Your math doesn't add up.
If it is bad to disenfranchise 22,000 or even just 2,444 voters, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 to 57,700 fellons vote, no questions asked?
You reasoning seems analagous to "if it is bad to imprison 22000 innocent people, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 guilty people free"? The analogy is probably thin, but you seem to want to err in the opposite way that our government traditionally does to guaruntee civil liberties and due process. Also, I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that allowing felons to vote is terrible. I believe ex-cons should be able to vote, and they can in many states. Please don't tell me what the law is in florida, I know the law and I think it should be upheld (or repealed) there. I'm addressing your statement that allowing felons to vote is "terrible".
Regardng your sig, death and taxes, ha ha. You may be interested to know that many of the interesting ideas that have gone into the formation of the US have been liberal ideas. You may be interested to know that real people have a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas and values. What color is the sky in your reality?
Does it really matter what the president's opinion on outsourcing is anyways?
Probably not much. The stronger critique of the Bush adminstration is the alleged tax break given to out-sourcing companies. I never did hear Bush respond in the debates to this break, so I'm not sure what the counter-argument is. Ideally, the US government might be tax-neutral towards outsourcing. Some might support an administration that would take efforts to prevent outsorceing. Bush answered the outsourcing question with answers about increased education opportunities. Education helps, but I'd rather he give a firm answer to the crticism. Some might even support more agressive means to prevent outsourcing (taxes, trade resticitions, embargoes, etc). I'm not saying I'm in that camp, but surely the president has more influence on this issues that just his opinion.
KERRY: Former Governor Racicot, as chairman of the Republican Party, said he thought that the Patriot Act has to be changed and fixed.
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said over his dead body before it gets renewed without being thoroughly rechecked.
A whole bunch of folks in America are concerned about the way the Patriot Act has been applied. In fact, the inspector general of the Justice Department found that John Ashcroft had twice applied it in ways that were inappropriate.
People's rights have been abused.
I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn't even allowed to call his lawyer, wasn't allowed to get -- finally, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois intervened and was able to get him out.
This is in our country, folks, the United States of America.
They've got sneak-and-peek searches that are allowed. They've got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings without any showing of potential criminal activity or otherwise.
Now, I voted for the Patriot Act. Ninety-nine United States senators voted for it. And the president's been very busy running around the country using what I just described to you as a reason to say I'm wishy-washy, that I'm a flip-flopper.
Now that's not a flip-flop. I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism.
But you know what we also need to do as Americans is never let the terrorists change the Constitution of the United States in a way that disadvantages our rights.
Saying there is no problem doesn't make it go away.
You may be right about the records. The record isn't everything for this issue, though. Sinse almost everyone on the hill voted for the Patriot act, correcting it will either take politicians admitting they were wrong (aka flip-flopping), a massive turnover of congress-critters (you can thank gerrymandering for that not happening), or some intervention by the supreme court (hopeful). Badnarik is another possibility, but pretty remote.
I just read through the transcript of your video - the download speed was really slow, and I have to turn my laptop off soon. The transcript appears to be almost pure spin, though. Tons of quotes, all in isolation (without much context), many of which may seem inconsitent, but most of which speak the message that Kerry always tries to get across. If you listen to entire speeches instead of just isolated quotes, or his debates on the senate floor or in committe, the message is consistent. Certainly his concerns about our failure to employ due process in going to war are shared by many, many Americans. This transcript in no way addresses these cocncerns. Do you think these isolated quotes paint an accurate picture? Seriously? What do you think about the overall theme of John Kerry, from his post-Vietnam days until today, that the use of force needs to be justified? He said that after Vietnam, and I respect him for it. He said it 1991, in 1998, in 2002, in 2003, in 2004, and other times, and I respect him for it. The current president doesn't appear to share this concern. Bush doesn't seem to have the experience or capabilities to even discuss the issue.
Your video doesn't even address any of this, of course. The problem with the spin doctors is that they think the so-called flip-flooping is more important than the real issues Amerians and the world has with US foreign policy. In Iraq, and in the past. You seem like a thinking person, buy you seem to have bought into this approach to poltical discourse.
This is the nature of spin. No mention is made of Bush's threat to veto the version of the $87B funding bill that Kerry supported. No quarter is give to Kerry's desire to be fiscally responsible in funding expenseive wars of choice. If we can't affort it, then maybe we shouldn't do it, afterall? At least it's worth discussing. No quarter is given to kerry by your video for his desire to exhaust all non-violent remedies before going to war. Bush made the promise to do the same, but appears to not have followed through on his promise. Is Bushes defense of "last resort" adequate? I don't see how anyone could think so. Is that not important compared to the spin? No quarter is given to Kerry's questioning, pre-war, of the real quanitative extent of Saddam's WMD program. He did this in the Senate hearings, but it's certainly not adressed in the Video. Yet history has born these concerns out, yet eventhough that and the other primary justification for the war given to the tAmerican people have been discredited, the spin doctors think Kerry's waffling and nuanced position is more important than that. And you apparently think so, too.
There are so many important things going on right now - this video (based on the transcript) contributes nothing.
Does Kerry seem to waffle? Yes. He does waffle some. His positions on the Iraq War and his approach to war in general is certainly more appealing than Bush's approach though, and truthfully, Kerry's approach is probably more in-line with traditional Republicanism than Bush's approach, too.
Is reading the transcript sufficient for me to reject your video as Spin?
When did I say your video was grossly inaccurate? You'd win that dollar, I did see F911, but I almost regret it. The only value the movie serves is to point out interesting topics to research. And it was kind of funny - perhaps if you viewed it as satire. The analysis was lacking, but there are certainly issues in the movie that Republicans should addess without resorting to just attacking Moore or calling the Movie "Grossly Inaccurate". The analysis was lacking, but your characterization of it isn't quite fair either. Did you see it?. Live and learn. Your video is on my short list, what more do you want (short of telling me how to best spend my time (see your previous post))?
The C-SPAN special was interesting and seemed to be fairly balanced - showing how his positions regarding Iraq have changed, how he has bent to public and political opinions, how he has tried to asuage his conscience by qualifying his positions, how his experiences with war have shaped his political career. All of this with recorded footage from the C-SPAN archives and actual context ( GASP!!) around his quotes. I recommend catching it, if you can. You can hate him or love him for it directly from the data, if you want.
You see, you lost the point the moment you used someone else's endorsement of the documentary to formulate your opinion
The problem is, I don't have an infinite amount of time. Therefore, I make judgements about what makes sense for me to invest my time in. In this case, I chose not to spend the time watching a movie based on the deceptive spin-doctoring on the front page of the website hosting the movie. Perhaps I'm judging the book by it's cover, but sometimes, if the cover of the book is clearly deceptive, you can put the book down and spend your time on more worthwhile things. Really, this is the best they can do? If they're trying to reach out to anti-bush crowd instead of pandering to their fan boys, they could do better than put such hollow endorsements on the front page. It's like looking at a fan-zine for some teen-boy band.
I've certainly willingly digested information offered in opposition of my views. You'll notice that I did not disparage the video other than estimating it wasn't worth my time to look at. I'll put it on my list of books and media to look at, if it makes you feel better. I'm not looking for shit arguments from Rudy or you. I'm not looking for a discussion of Clinton and Serbia. How many times are you going to bring Clinton up? I didn't really like the guy. Oh well, so much for your staw man. What I feel and felt about the Serbia mess is irrelavent to this discussion. I'm concerned about this war and this president.
I know you don't give a fuck about the lies on both side, because you've got nothing to say about that Kerry quote. Bush might stay to finish the job. Or he might get bored and invade Iran. I don't know and you don't know. His father handled Iraq a hell of a lot better than he's doing.
What happened to the Republicans party with candidates I could support?
What was Saddam really up to? Posturing, researching, conniving, planning, etc? Yes. Building WMD's? No.
Even Clinton knew that he was making them, Blix knew, and so did the UN.
But he wasn't making them WMD after 1991. His plans and goals were almost completely unrealized. Of all the places in the world building WMD's, Iraq is not even worth mentioning.
but would you rather have someone who you know to make the right descision based on his morals or someone who takes a poll everyday and changes based on that data.
I can't support either of them fully. Your caricature of Kerry is of course unfair. I don't expect you to support it or retract it, though. I can't support a candidate who has demostrated incompetence as president. I may vote for Kerry or I may vote for a 3rd party candidate. I'd rather not have Bush as president anymore, that's what I'd rather do.
From the report you link: "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
These are seriously stupid arguments. How do you propose we "start with Kerry"? Should we audit his taxes? Garnish his wages? Maybe take back the check he got from MA? Road to recovery, here we come!!!! If the State of Mass. had(has) a program where if you served in Vietname (and you agreed with everything about the Vietnam War) you could apply for a 1 time check for serving, you might have a point. The part in bold is fictional, though, and Kerry serverd, and you have no point. Now go away you stupid troll.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I wouldn't argue that your crystal ball (even if used in sarcastic mode) is any more accurate than that used by the OP. Conspiracies, whether they exist or not, have nothing to do with my arguments.
I didn't watch the video, but this ringing endorsement of it is on the front page:
Rudy Giuliani, Former Mayor Of New York City: "Every American Should See This." "The tape that I saw before, which I urge Ed to show to every American because I think every American should see this... On that tape John Kerry explains his vote against the 87 billion dollar appropriation. And these are John Kerry's words, I quote, and nothing could tell you more about him than this quote. He says, I quote, 'I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it.' Does that tell you everything you need to know about John Kerry's record in the United States Senate?"
See, I know a little something about the $87B two vote issue. If you or Rudy think that the quote above ("I voted before the appropriation before I voted against it") does any justice to the full issue of the vote, you're so far deluded as to be worthless. Rudy has proven himself the worst kind of partisan spin doctor out there. What happened with the vote is interesting for many reasons - there's lots of important insights people couuld learn about the way our government works if they would just read the whole story. But instead of a modest 5 minute treatment, we get one line summaries from Rudy-party-cocksucker-giuliani to feed the spin-dragon. Even if you disagree with the decision Kerry made, the above treatment is unjustified. What do you think about the Bush's threat to veto the first version of that bill, btw?
You and everyone out there that thinks this kind of shit is good politics need to just fuck off. It's dishonest and it's hurting America. Please stop.
Based on that endorsement, I believe I'm justified in not choosing to waste my time watching it. One's time is limited, after all.
Saddam would still be struggling with UN sanctions
Interesting definition of struggling. Saddam had pocketed over $11 billion via the "oil for food" scandal. Clearly you have not read into the Duelfer report which clearly stated that Saddam's goal was to contiunally wear down the sanctions through bribery and political manipulation.
If you think this is the only or even a significant measure of the net costs of the UN sanctions on Saddam's regime you are sadly mistaken. How much is $11B compared with the economic cost of the sanctions? How much is that compared to what he takes in from other sources (i.e. is it a triffle or something significant)? Where's the rest of the data? Ignorance or spin, strictfoo? I'm sure Saddam had lots of goals. Wearing down the UN machinery is one of them. Perhaps he also had the goal of world domination. Who cares? More improtant is realistic threat. Saddam was so contained that it's not even funny. What is funny is listening to people paint him as this huge threat to the US and the world - even knowing what we do now about his capabilities - such delusion and revisionism.
From 1991 to 2003, he made no measurable headway on it. But I'm sure at any minute, he was going to become Nuclear capable.
From the report (yes, the same one that many of the leftist editorialists used to attack Bush):
"Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with the UN inspections -- to gain support for lifting the sanctions -- with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face."
Neither you nor the report refutes what I said. Saddam made no measureable headway in his nuclear arms program from 1991 to 2003. If preserving intellectual capital (funny term) for WMD is justification for armed invasion, you're going to need to deploy your troops to countries, libraries, physics departments, and commercial labs around the world. Are you really arguing that "his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD" somehow refutes the statement that he made no headway on his nuclear program? Or that vague, barely-measurable statement justfies war? Are you for real?
An average of 32,000 Iraqis were killed per year under Saddam including tens (if not hundreds) of thousands during the years where he was "struggling with UN sanctions"
I'd like to see a source for those numbers.
Here's a question for you, if we weren't in Iraq, and the terrorists weren't coming into Iraq to fight us, what would Zarqawi and his friends be doing? Knitting? Playing squash?
Why are you asking me? Are you implying that Iraq was the only alternative - that if we hadn't gone in to destabilize that country, we would have done nothing to find and incapacitate terrorists, instead? You're the one with the crystal ball. It is my firm belief that US actions in Iraq will contribute to a net increase in anti-US terrorism.
Yes, had Kerry been in power Hussein would still be in power and most likely close to getting rid of the UN Sanctions against him. That's a powerful platform to run on.
"Most likely"? "Most likeley"? Bwahahahahaha.
So you're telling me if Kerry had been in power, over 1000 American troops would still be alive, over 15000 iraqa would still be alive, the US government would have $140B lower deficit this year, and Saddam (lame duck dictator) would still be struggling with UN sanctions. I wonder if he'd be building WMD's? After all, his program was dismantled in 1991. From 1991 to 2003, he made no measurable headway on it. But I'm sure at any minute, he was going to become Nuclear capable. Like Iran or North Korea. I'm sure your crystal ball can tell us what was going to happen.
The sad thing about Kerry and American Politics is that it would be suicide for him to state that we would be better off if we had left Saddam in power. The system selects against rational thought. Only a party-felating apologist like yourself could defend US actions in Iraq.
If this is an issue you can't defend, just attack on another issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the only thing you're doing is convincing people you don't know much about C++. Pass by reference isn't hard - not even remotely one of the advanced topics in the language. Const is also a keyword in C, btw, it just has more uses in C++ because of the class syntax.
When you say "this is exactly what a member function does" - you're wrong.
Your stuct wastes one word per object per "member" function. For non-virtual functions, C++ uses 0 words per object for member functions. for virtual member functions, C++ uses one word per object regardless of the number of virtual member functions. So in the first case, with your approach, you're paying a huge space overhead and 1 indirection. C++ is paying no space overhead and no indirection - everything is known at compile time. For the case where virtual functions are used, you still pay less space overhead in C++, but you get an extra indirection. C++ is smart enough to know at compile time whether the virtual dispatch is needed or not. This is an important difference that you don't seem to understand.
Finally, storing function pointers in objects (stucts or classes) is perfectly valid in C++, if you are disatisfied with the static or dynamic binding mechanisms provided. ;)
PS - many of the details above are implementation defined, but the above is the usual approach.
For examle, this is "undefined behavior" in both C and C++:
int arr[4];
int i = 0;
arr[i++] = i;
In summary, the existence of "undefined behavior" in the C++ and C standards in no way make the compilers implementing the standards "untrustworthy".
There were some optimization bugs in the gcc 3.1 series - documented in gcc bug database I'm sure. These bugs applied both to C and C++ mode. If the grandparent post is implying that C++ compilers have bugs whereas C compilers do not, he'd be wrong, of course.
Probably because you initially made a broader statement about C++ and C without regard to usability in the kernel. I could quote if for you if you don't want to look back in the thread. The tactic you are demonstrating is frequently known as "moving the goal posts".
Your knowledge of C++ seems passable, but your failure to mention RAII and destructors, and your apparent opinion that exceptions can be thrown willy nilly (with out regard to standard library usage, without regard to allocator usage, etc), makes me wonder if you've thought about everything. My knowledge of the kernel is poor, however, so I'll admit that you might be right that there is no place for C++ in kernels or kernel modules. But, hell, anyone that says "c can do anything c++ can do" as a serious attempt to disparage C++ probably isn't qualified to discuss it.
Also, barring some non-standard C-isms the kernel is probably using, and barring any of the rare non-compatible corner cases, you could take the kernel and compile it today as if it were C++. Then, if there was just one feature that made your life easier, and presuming you had the disipline not to employ paradigms and use C++ features that were detrimental (seems safe) to your requirements, you'd have a win. YMMV
The philosophy behind is C++ is two fold. C++ provides for multi-paradigm programming. With C++, you don't pay for what you don't use.
I'm obviously not going to convince you, I give up. Go vote for the guy that says the Patriot act is all roses instead of the guy that says it's partly garlic.
Why is it so hard for you to concede this point?
Well, neither candidate is ideal, most of us can agree on that. But on one hand we have someone who says there is no problem, and on the other we have someone who seems to think there might be some problems, either in execution or definition, and who at least is considering legislation to correct the problems. So the point stands, there is a some difference in the candidates here, perhaps not as much as I'd like, but if you're trying to support Bush with this tactic, it seems pretty weak to me.
Thanks for the analysis. Question. Does this apply to people or just corporations? That is, if I'm a US citizen living abroad and making money abroad (dual citizenship, if that helps), does Bush's tax break apply to me as well, or do I still need to pay US income tax?
Not allowing a voter the right to vote results in the disenfranchisement of exactly one voter. An illegal vote (assuming it is not found), given a random probability of that invalid vote, has a net expected disenfranchisement of zero. The problem is of course when the disenfranchisement and extra votes are not the result of systemmatic, random errors, but are the result of willful or unwillful bias in process. These errors are what people are concerned about in this case. Your math doesn't add up.
You reasoning seems analagous to "if it is bad to imprison 22000 innocent people, how much more terrible is it to let 55,270 guilty people free"? The analogy is probably thin, but you seem to want to err in the opposite way that our government traditionally does to guaruntee civil liberties and due process. Also, I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that allowing felons to vote is terrible. I believe ex-cons should be able to vote, and they can in many states. Please don't tell me what the law is in florida, I know the law and I think it should be upheld (or repealed) there. I'm addressing your statement that allowing felons to vote is "terrible".
Regardng your sig, death and taxes, ha ha. You may be interested to know that many of the interesting ideas that have gone into the formation of the US have been liberal ideas. You may be interested to know that real people have a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas and values. What color is the sky in your reality?
Probably not much. The stronger critique of the Bush adminstration is the alleged tax break given to out-sourcing companies. I never did hear Bush respond in the debates to this break, so I'm not sure what the counter-argument is. Ideally, the US government might be tax-neutral towards outsourcing. Some might support an administration that would take efforts to prevent outsorceing. Bush answered the outsourcing question with answers about increased education opportunities. Education helps, but I'd rather he give a firm answer to the crticism. Some might even support more agressive means to prevent outsourcing (taxes, trade resticitions, embargoes, etc). I'm not saying I'm in that camp, but surely the president has more influence on this issues that just his opinion.
and little else (see this for the full text. Kerry said:
Saying there is no problem doesn't make it go away.
You may be right about the records. The record isn't everything for this issue, though. Sinse almost everyone on the hill voted for the Patriot act, correcting it will either take politicians admitting they were wrong (aka flip-flopping), a massive turnover of congress-critters (you can thank gerrymandering for that not happening), or some intervention by the supreme court (hopeful). Badnarik is another possibility, but pretty remote.
Your video doesn't even address any of this, of course. The problem with the spin doctors is that they think the so-called flip-flooping is more important than the real issues Amerians and the world has with US foreign policy. In Iraq, and in the past. You seem like a thinking person, buy you seem to have bought into this approach to poltical discourse.
This is the nature of spin. No mention is made of Bush's threat to veto the version of the $87B funding bill that Kerry supported. No quarter is give to Kerry's desire to be fiscally responsible in funding expenseive wars of choice. If we can't affort it, then maybe we shouldn't do it, afterall? At least it's worth discussing. No quarter is given to kerry by your video for his desire to exhaust all non-violent remedies before going to war. Bush made the promise to do the same, but appears to not have followed through on his promise. Is Bushes defense of "last resort" adequate? I don't see how anyone could think so. Is that not important compared to the spin? No quarter is given to Kerry's questioning, pre-war, of the real quanitative extent of Saddam's WMD program. He did this in the Senate hearings, but it's certainly not adressed in the Video. Yet history has born these concerns out, yet eventhough that and the other primary justification for the war given to the tAmerican people have been discredited, the spin doctors think Kerry's waffling and nuanced position is more important than that. And you apparently think so, too.
There are so many important things going on right now - this video (based on the transcript) contributes nothing.
Does Kerry seem to waffle? Yes. He does waffle some. His positions on the Iraq War and his approach to war in general is certainly more appealing than Bush's approach though, and truthfully, Kerry's approach is probably more in-line with traditional Republicanism than Bush's approach, too.
Is reading the transcript sufficient for me to reject your video as Spin?
PS. If I ever meet you, I will kick your goat.
The C-SPAN special was interesting and seemed to be fairly balanced - showing how his positions regarding Iraq have changed, how he has bent to public and political opinions, how he has tried to asuage his conscience by qualifying his positions, how his experiences with war have shaped his political career. All of this with recorded footage from the C-SPAN archives and actual context ( GASP!!) around his quotes. I recommend catching it, if you can. You can hate him or love him for it directly from the data, if you want.
I watched the C-SPAN special on 20 years of Kerry last night. Do you think your video is more or less complete in its coverage? More or less spin?
The problem is, I don't have an infinite amount of time. Therefore, I make judgements about what makes sense for me to invest my time in. In this case, I chose not to spend the time watching a movie based on the deceptive spin-doctoring on the front page of the website hosting the movie. Perhaps I'm judging the book by it's cover, but sometimes, if the cover of the book is clearly deceptive, you can put the book down and spend your time on more worthwhile things. Really, this is the best they can do? If they're trying to reach out to anti-bush crowd instead of pandering to their fan boys, they could do better than put such hollow endorsements on the front page. It's like looking at a fan-zine for some teen-boy band.
I've certainly willingly digested information offered in opposition of my views. You'll notice that I did not disparage the video other than estimating it wasn't worth my time to look at. I'll put it on my list of books and media to look at, if it makes you feel better. I'm not looking for shit arguments from Rudy or you. I'm not looking for a discussion of Clinton and Serbia. How many times are you going to bring Clinton up? I didn't really like the guy. Oh well, so much for your staw man. What I feel and felt about the Serbia mess is irrelavent to this discussion. I'm concerned about this war and this president.
I know you don't give a fuck about the lies on both side, because you've got nothing to say about that Kerry quote. Bush might stay to finish the job. Or he might get bored and invade Iran. I don't know and you don't know. His father handled Iraq a hell of a lot better than he's doing.
What happened to the Republicans party with candidates I could support?
From the report you link: "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
These are seriously stupid arguments. How do you propose we "start with Kerry"? Should we audit his taxes? Garnish his wages? Maybe take back the check he got from MA? Road to recovery, here we come!!!! If the State of Mass. had(has) a program where if you served in Vietname (and you agreed with everything about the Vietnam War) you could apply for a 1 time check for serving, you might have a point. The part in bold is fictional, though, and Kerry serverd, and you have no point. Now go away you stupid troll.
For someone so against killing, you sure have a funny user name. :)
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I wouldn't argue that your crystal ball (even if used in sarcastic mode) is any more accurate than that used by the OP. Conspiracies, whether they exist or not, have nothing to do with my arguments.
See, I know a little something about the $87B two vote issue. If you or Rudy think that the quote above ("I voted before the appropriation before I voted against it") does any justice to the full issue of the vote, you're so far deluded as to be worthless. Rudy has proven himself the worst kind of partisan spin doctor out there. What happened with the vote is interesting for many reasons - there's lots of important insights people couuld learn about the way our government works if they would just read the whole story. But instead of a modest 5 minute treatment, we get one line summaries from Rudy-party-cocksucker-giuliani to feed the spin-dragon. Even if you disagree with the decision Kerry made, the above treatment is unjustified. What do you think about the Bush's threat to veto the first version of that bill, btw?
You and everyone out there that thinks this kind of shit is good politics need to just fuck off. It's dishonest and it's hurting America. Please stop.
Based on that endorsement, I believe I'm justified in not choosing to waste my time watching it. One's time is limited, after all.
If you think this is the only or even a significant measure of the net costs of the UN sanctions on Saddam's regime you are sadly mistaken. How much is $11B compared with the economic cost of the sanctions? How much is that compared to what he takes in from other sources (i.e. is it a triffle or something significant)? Where's the rest of the data? Ignorance or spin, strictfoo? I'm sure Saddam had lots of goals. Wearing down the UN machinery is one of them. Perhaps he also had the goal of world domination. Who cares? More improtant is realistic threat. Saddam was so contained that it's not even funny. What is funny is listening to people paint him as this huge threat to the US and the world - even knowing what we do now about his capabilities - such delusion and revisionism.
Neither you nor the report refutes what I said. Saddam made no measureable headway in his nuclear arms program from 1991 to 2003. If preserving intellectual capital (funny term) for WMD is justification for armed invasion, you're going to need to deploy your troops to countries, libraries, physics departments, and commercial labs around the world. Are you really arguing that "his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD" somehow refutes the statement that he made no headway on his nuclear program? Or that vague, barely-measurable statement justfies war? Are you for real?
I'd like to see a source for those numbers.
Why are you asking me? Are you implying that Iraq was the only alternative - that if we hadn't gone in to destabilize that country, we would have done nothing to find and incapacitate terrorists, instead? You're the one with the crystal ball. It is my firm belief that US actions in Iraq will contribute to a net increase in anti-US terrorism.
I apologize for the "party-felating" comment.
"Most likely"? "Most likeley"? Bwahahahahaha. So you're telling me if Kerry had been in power, over 1000 American troops would still be alive, over 15000 iraqa would still be alive, the US government would have $140B lower deficit this year, and Saddam (lame duck dictator) would still be struggling with UN sanctions. I wonder if he'd be building WMD's? After all, his program was dismantled in 1991. From 1991 to 2003, he made no measurable headway on it. But I'm sure at any minute, he was going to become Nuclear capable. Like Iran or North Korea. I'm sure your crystal ball can tell us what was going to happen.
The sad thing about Kerry and American Politics is that it would be suicide for him to state that we would be better off if we had left Saddam in power. The system selects against rational thought. Only a party-felating apologist like yourself could defend US actions in Iraq.
If this is an issue you can't defend, just attack on another issue.
Some really bad reviews of this - I don't own one.