They completely IGNORE that the elections in Afghanistan went well, and that women actually got to vote over there.
Bullshit. Retract. I've heard news (both warts and roses) about the Afganistan election from many outlets including NPR. Will you retract or will you confirm that you are one of those people for whom the position is more imprortant than the facts?
For such a smart guy, you're amazingly unable to enumerate the particular positions and issues upon which you base your political decisions. Amazing. Let me sum up your political analysis for you:
You don't like (some unspecified) issues John Kerry supports. You despise trial lawyers that represent consumer interests against corportations. End of your amazing political analysis of the democratic ticket.
You like bush though you disagree with (some unspecified) issues and decisions. End of your analysis of the Republican ticket.
You hate Nadar (see hatred of those who advocate consumers, above, as a possible justification, though not enumerated). End of your analysis of the Nader ticket.
You like Badnarik because you perceive him to be like Bush, yet he is really very very unlike Bush with regard to positions and issues. You reject him because you don't want Bush to lose to Kerry. End of your analysis of the Libertarian. Ticket.
The war accounts for less than half of Bush's record deficit this year. Again, Bush has the largest deficit ever; historically, deficits have gone up under republican presidents and down under democrat presidents, but believe what you want about what what will happen.
Vote for Bush - the triumph of hope over experience.
I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. [A ton of info not news to anyone on this forum snipped
.
Actually, I'm not. The grandparent poster indicated he is usually votes republican, but occaisonally supports a democrat. I'm fully away of the 3rd party candidates. I may even vote for one for president this year, and I always support some 3rd part candidates on lower races. Thanks for sharing though.
Whom are you voting for this year? Neither party seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.
Re:Movies while working are newsworthy & produ
on
A Dual Monitor Experiment
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have 4 17" monitors and a laptop on my desk at work. Two of the monitors are in a dual-head setup on my main machine, the other two monitors and the laptop are connected via synergy. Theres also an old sun box connected via a KVM on one of the main monitors. How much energy am I wasting?
If one credits the Bush Administration for keeping us safe after 9/11, doesn't one have to blame the Bush Administration for not keeping us safe on 9/11? Just curious - I'm not saying you have that opinion, exactly, and I certainly don't, but those who support the present administration because of the feeling of safety they get should think about that. The real reasons for the lack of terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 are
The terorrists have limited resources
Even in our non-security-aware pre-9/11 day, terrorist attacks in the US were extremeley rare
The intelligence community has been tracking terrorist activity for decades. They're doing more of it now, sure, but they were doing in before.
General security measures at airports and other places (metal detectors, bomb sniffers, id checks, etc), while not perfect, certainly limited the types of action terrorists could take.
Conducting a terrorist activity in the US probably takes brains, connections, money, time, and other resources. Putting all that together in a group of non-self-destructive extremists is probably rare
Of course, it may and probably will happen again. I personally think a better approach is a strong intelligence and home-land security community working on the problem behind the scenes. The public shouldn't need to get all slathered up about it with threat levels and campaign trail bullshit. Civil liberty restrictions are of course wrong and probably counterproductive as well. We don't need to be triggering the McVeihs whlie we're doing this.
As far as being glad the shit is going down in Iraq rather than over here, that's pretty sad. Is that a new justification for the un-justifiable war? Stir up some hornets' nest in some country we don't care about to keep us safe at home? Will your opinion change with the number of US casualties exceeds those of 9/11 (non US casualties are already way over the 9/11 numbers, but not every cares about those people).?
I believe the ceramic lens are stiffer than their glass counterparts, so that the lens can be made thinner without deforming. Also, the phrase you are looking for is "refractive index".
Suicide is illegal in lots of places. Attempted suicide may be, too. I think abstinence alone approach to sex-education fails unless the act is illegal (I don't think it should be). Just telling a bunch of kids with raging hormones and budding body parts and influential peer groups that they shouldn't do something is irresponsible by itself, and a shitty thing to do for the health and welfare of our kids.
aelbric: F911 make this hypocritcal
crynoVR: no, not hypocritical for reason X
you: (not refuting reason X), yeah but it's X because Moore is greeeedy
Take you party's dick out of your mouth, open your eyes and ears, and listen to yourself - you can't even keep the arguement at hand in focus without changing the attack.
There's a problem with your rhetorical argument. If the "failure of the communist system in the late Soviet Union" is to be taken as a substantial positive evidence of the efficiency of free market econimics, then the continued existence of other communist countries (China, North Korea, etc) must be taken as negative evidence of the efficiency of free markets. Also, any dissolutions of contries with free markets must also be construed as negative evidence against free markets. I don't really buy any of this; I'm just pointing out that the grandparent poster is right that the assertion is not really supported in an overwelming way. The support is usually circumstantial, anecdotal, or based on statements of faith.
The reality is that "free markets" don't exist in the real world - they're more of a theoretical concept. The only way they exist is in some nihilist view (e.g. whatever happens is the consequence of a free market because it happens and is therefore the best outcome because it happens - this boils down to whatever happens, happens). Outside of the lab, the concept of free market is useful but not the end all and be all of understanding how the world works or how the interests of the public are best met (whatever that means).
I don't know what listing examples of dictatorships proves, other than some exist in the world, and they haven't failed yet. Are there some dictatorships that haven't abolished markets? Are there any truly free markets in non dictatorship run nations?
Christians feel that we are the minority because our rights are being
eroded away by minority interest groups.
Ok, AC-who-is-most-likely-fenke, let's see how your "rights" are being eroded
by the godless minority.
Our basic Constitutional rights are being stripped away for sake of
coddling minority interest groups due to political correctness.
Unfounded assertion
This country was founded on God-believing values and Christian values,
Unfounded assertion
The Constitution states specifically that "Congress shall make no
law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"
Yep
yet we cannot legally pray in school, we cannot share our faith in schools
or at work,
Bullshit, you can pray at school. What you can't do is force prayer to be part
of the agenda at school, or have the school lead the prayers such that all
students are unwilling participants, or have prayer be part of the curriculum.
You're being dishonest, the constitution prohibits actions which tend to
establish religion. Prayer-as-curriculum tends to establish religion. You can
put your head down and pray at your desk, or you and the others of the deluded
majority can get together and speak in tongues during down-time during the day.
No one is stopping you for the most part, liar.
abortions are legally permitted
WTF does this have to do with your rights being eroded?
many devient sexual behaviors is now legally permissive
Other people are allowed to do things that they want to do, yet this erodes your rights? LOL you selfish lying deluded fuck. HAND.
Actually, in most states, the Dems and Reps don't have to jump though the hoops, and are frequently given leeway for deadlines that marginlized-party candidates aren't. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
I'd rather go with the guy that believes in his platform, even if I disagree with it (especially if it has little chance of succeeding (universal healthcare passing with a republican congress)) than go with the bullshit artist who lays out the plan, and then magically fails to implement it with a favorable legistlature. He's going to lay out the same bullshit now, and we're supposed to believe it this time? Wake up.
As unpopular as it is here in the US, I am a Christian
Poor Chrisopher Finke, Christianity is the majority religious category of Americans, yet he still feels like a minority. How many Americans would have to be Christion before you lose your persecution complex: all of them? 99.9%?
I am certain in my faith in Jesus Christ. Miscarriages are in God's hands, not the result of a doctor's deliberate actions.
So when god kills them, its ok? Meet jesus Christ - the most prolific Abortionist in history. If someone get's cancer, obviously it's in God's hands. IF a doctor cures that person of the cancer, they are going against God's will. You religous folks boggle the mind.
I think the usual states-rights arguments against this line of reasoning is that the federal government is taking money from citizens living in a state, and conditionally giving it back. It's kind of a back door way for the federal government to control state governments - the taxes aren't optional, afterall. As far as I can tell, the back door method works. The grandparent poster's question is valid, your defense of Bush notwithstanding. The republicans of old would have made a similar argument, I think, the neocons have moved the party in strange ways.
Good catch, thanks. I did confuse those too documents, but I know the preamble had something about the point of view being of the people, not the states.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Retract. I've heard news (both warts and roses) about the Afganistan election from many outlets including NPR. Will you retract or will you confirm that you are one of those people for whom the position is more imprortant than the facts?
Vote for Bush - the triumph of hope over experience.
If there ever was a better and more solid justification for going to war, I surely haven't heard it.
Actually, I'm not. The grandparent poster indicated he is usually votes republican, but occaisonally supports a democrat. I'm fully away of the 3rd party candidates. I may even vote for one for president this year, and I always support some 3rd part candidates on lower races. Thanks for sharing though.
Whom are you voting for this year? Neither party seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.
- The terorrists have limited resources
- Even in our non-security-aware pre-9/11 day, terrorist attacks in the US were extremeley rare
- The intelligence community has been tracking terrorist activity for decades. They're doing more of it now, sure, but they were doing in before.
- General security measures at airports and other places (metal detectors, bomb sniffers, id checks, etc), while not perfect, certainly limited the types of action terrorists could take.
- Conducting a terrorist activity in the US probably takes brains, connections, money, time, and other resources. Putting all that together in a group of non-self-destructive extremists is probably rare
Of course, it may and probably will happen again. I personally think a better approach is a strong intelligence and home-land security community working on the problem behind the scenes. The public shouldn't need to get all slathered up about it with threat levels and campaign trail bullshit. Civil liberty restrictions are of course wrong and probably counterproductive as well. We don't need to be triggering the McVeihs whlie we're doing this.As far as being glad the shit is going down in Iraq rather than over here, that's pretty sad. Is that a new justification for the un-justifiable war? Stir up some hornets' nest in some country we don't care about to keep us safe at home? Will your opinion change with the number of US casualties exceeds those of 9/11 (non US casualties are already way over the 9/11 numbers, but not every cares about those people).?
I believe the ceramic lens are stiffer than their glass counterparts, so that the lens can be made thinner without deforming. Also, the phrase you are looking for is "refractive index".
Peace.
That's funny, I'm a liberal Republican and my office partner is a conservative Democrat. Oh wait, there's only one person in this office.
Do you propose making sex between consensenting minors illegal?
aelbric: F911 make this hypocritcal
crynoVR: no, not hypocritical for reason X
you: (not refuting reason X), yeah but it's X because Moore is greeeedy
Take you party's dick out of your mouth, open your eyes and ears, and listen to yourself - you can't even keep the arguement at hand in focus without changing the attack.
How about the "Pot Party"? They're more fun than the "Marijuana Pary".
C# doesn't really compete directly with C++, it competes with Java.
The reality is that "free markets" don't exist in the real world - they're more of a theoretical concept. The only way they exist is in some nihilist view (e.g. whatever happens is the consequence of a free market because it happens and is therefore the best outcome because it happens - this boils down to whatever happens, happens). Outside of the lab, the concept of free market is useful but not the end all and be all of understanding how the world works or how the interests of the public are best met (whatever that means).
I don't know what listing examples of dictatorships proves, other than some exist in the world, and they haven't failed yet. Are there some dictatorships that haven't abolished markets? Are there any truly free markets in non dictatorship run nations?
Unfounded assertion
Unfounded assertion
Yep
Bullshit, you can pray at school. What you can't do is force prayer to be part of the agenda at school, or have the school lead the prayers such that all students are unwilling participants, or have prayer be part of the curriculum. You're being dishonest, the constitution prohibits actions which tend to establish religion. Prayer-as-curriculum tends to establish religion. You can put your head down and pray at your desk, or you and the others of the deluded majority can get together and speak in tongues during down-time during the day. No one is stopping you for the most part, liar.
WTF does this have to do with your rights being eroded?
Other people are allowed to do things that they want to do, yet this erodes your rights? LOL you selfish lying deluded fuck. HAND.
You're both right.
Interesting Question. Follow up question. How many nations think prohibition of gay marriage is important enough to put in their constitution?
Actually, in most states, the Dems and Reps don't have to jump though the hoops, and are frequently given leeway for deadlines that marginlized-party candidates aren't. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
Talk is cheap, bullshit is free, vote the record.
Poor Chrisopher Finke, Christianity is the majority religious category of Americans, yet he still feels like a minority. How many Americans would have to be Christion before you lose your persecution complex: all of them? 99.9%?
So when god kills them, its ok? Meet jesus Christ - the most prolific Abortionist in history. If someone get's cancer, obviously it's in God's hands. IF a doctor cures that person of the cancer, they are going against God's will. You religous folks boggle the mind.
I think the usual states-rights arguments against this line of reasoning is that the federal government is taking money from citizens living in a state, and conditionally giving it back. It's kind of a back door way for the federal government to control state governments - the taxes aren't optional, afterall. As far as I can tell, the back door method works. The grandparent poster's question is valid, your defense of Bush notwithstanding. The republicans of old would have made a similar argument, I think, the neocons have moved the party in strange ways.
Good catch, thanks. I did confuse those too documents, but I know the preamble had something about the point of view being of the people, not the states.