I don't believe this has much impact on creationism, but young-earth creationists have been pointing to claims of finding blood cells in Dinasaur bones for a while. I remember reading it in 2003 on a site that was pretty old at that point. It is interesting that the finding that was difficult to track down and corroborate then, is now validated in some way with this finding.
When I tracked this on some debate forums, I saw some general debate about how petrification might happen quicker or slower than we currently know. I'm not sure if this will or won't settle the matter, I assume it would only if petrification was the means we have been relying on to date materials.
But if there is one moral of science to take from this, it is that the real world has many suprises in store for what we assume to be pat scientific knowledge.
Firefox has always been patched in Debian (and many distros).
Gentoo shows a bus-error patch (not sure what version it applies to), a mork patch and thats it. The patch seems to come from Redhat SRPM (RHEL4) contains for what I can tell only back-port patches from newer revisions.
In each case, as best I can tell each patch comes from the Mozilla people.
Debian is stepping out on its own with the code, its forking the tree. There is nothing about the DFSG that means they are exempt from a projects development cycle.
According to the DFSG, they'd have to keep it in nonfree if they wanted to keep the name.
As someone pointed out above, having a trademark does not make something non-free. Debian is trademarked, for instance. While Debian has a logo for distros that are based on debian technology to some degree, a google images search shows Ubuntu (for instance) doesn't include it. Nor does Xandros. I'm not sure if the unofficial debian trademark has any value at all. I wouldn't fault Mozilla for not having one. Perhaps they have a trademark for gecko technology based browsers though.
Long and short of it, I don't believe Debian (for once) is picking a fight with someone on a free software issue. Mozilla seems to be upset about Debian's abuse of the trademark, and I don't believe non-free was ever forwarded as an option. If Debian plays like it should and accepts Mozilla's update cycle and review, its still free. Sounds like they'd rather fork it, more power to them. But they can't keep the old stuff around, and that says volumes about their politeness.
Which brings up the real knee-slapper in this. Debian is worried that following Mozilla's update cycle procedure will hold up Debian releases.
Distros like Gentoo maintain a set of their own patches for the Linux kernel
The gentoo kernel which has the patches is different than the linux kernel.
* sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
Latest version available: 2.6.17-r7
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of files: 40,538 kB
Homepage: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/genpatches
Description: Full sources including the gentoo patchset for the 2.6 kernel tree
License: GPL-2
What debian is doing is simply making a fork to accomodate their own packaging conveniences. All Mozilla seems to be saying is that if they want to fork it, they should go through all the motions of the fork.
I remember one early day on #gentoo a developer I recognized from the mindless cabal that was #devian-devel came a'trollin. The conversation went something like this:
debian-stud> Nice little distro you have here generic1> Thanks generic2> Welcome Thanks! debian-stud> Its not very good now, but it could be debian-stud> it has many violations of the FSB...
There were many replies, but this one seemed to typify the attitude of Gentoo at the time:
superdev>FSB compliant does not make a great distro
A great distro is one that people love. Why people love it is up to them, but chances are if you love it then someone else will too. They were doing what they love, and that was great. BTW, I am for FSB compliance but that is another matter.
I think that attitude still exists, and will prevail. That is just a grand philosophy about life. Either that happens or someone takes their experience with Gentoo and fixes it by making their own. In the LWN article we note how people hate forks, but its worked pretty well for X-org. But I digress, I'm not calling for or predicting a fork. Just that people who want to do what they love will prevail over people who want to tell people to do things for them.
He's always been a person who does something first, and then talks about it later. I remember way back in the Stampede days, it was all just an idea that code could be compiled to run faster. And the Stampede team just did it.
But what really made Gentoo nice was when DRobbins took from BSD the ability to turn on and off features for the whole system from the bottom up. Having watched Turbo Fredriksson chaff on Debian's package scheme (although I don't think it felt as painful to him as it looked to me) Gentoo was a welcome suprise.
But I have to say, I finally understand what the poster might be getting at. The problem is not Gentoo as much as it is a general problem that Gentoo has not solved for itself. And that is managers vs doers. The person linked as a complainer wants more management, and the people in the LWN article want more doing. Management is overhead if all you do with it is make decisions. Management streamlines and makes the doers' job easier when done right.
I remember the golden days of slashdot ended for me when I realized that it was filled with managers not doers. Everyone was giving opinions on what everyone else should do, from software development to technical development. I suppose it is only natural, slashdot is a place to talk and think. So that is who it attracts.
So it is funny to me that this debate that seems to have come full circle, and probably will continue to hound projects like Gentoo. The person who posted the controversy seems to have completely missed the topic, and his summary shows it. But I hope all the best for Gentoo. I'm sure they'll figure it out with a few hard knocks here and there. I don't think Gentoo will go anywhere, unless a better source distro comes along. And if so, I have no problem with that.
For a number of years, CA's strict emmissions have been met by all auto manufacturer's anyway. There is no special CA car like there was in the 80's.
When there was such an arrangement, bringing in an out of state car incurred a penalty fee on registration. For me it would have been $300 some odd dollars (ironically more than half the price of the car). But before I could register it, the car was deemed a gross polluter and I was forced to sell it out of state.
As far as I know, there was no way to retrofit a car to match the standards. Many a hobbyist have expressed how much they wish they could just pass some straight forward test for emissions, thats it end of story. But the car has to have some sort of pedigree, meaning either the engine you put in the car becomes the standard for the emissions test. You can only put in an engine from a newer car, and it has to be manufactured for CA (if that applies to that year).
For all of the screaming you hear about the sacred institution of marriage, it was strictly a political and financial arrangement up until about a hundred years ago or so.
Not too bad on accuracy, but two problems: 1) It never stopped being a financial and political arrangement, 2) contradictory evidence exists such as early Jewish law as well as ancient fables record romance as a direct influence on marriage.
The only use the church has for marriage is that it allows tracking of a paternal lineage by creating a 'blessed' family tree
Actually, the use the church and state have for marriage is encouraging people to take responsibility for children before they are born. Marriage is a political arrangement because of the potential for children who are then governed by the parents. Such governance establishes a family as a political unit. As a unit they are financial held as one for the same reason.
allowing inconvienent bastards to be tossed asside unless extrememly useful.
That was the problem of not being married. Were marriage as cheap and useless as you say, there would be much more abandonment than that.
Now, your other points are well taken - certainly mistakes
It never ceases to amaze me. There are those that rightly point out Saddam and Bin Laden were assisted by the USA in its covert gaming of the international political spheres, from Gerald Ford through Carter and Reagan and Clinton. Its a policy that started with Eisenhower. And often these are the same people that put George Bush number one on their list of presidential demons for setting up a truely representational government in full daylight for all the world to see exactly what is going on.
It is their abject fear of such upfront actions that drives those covert and stupid mistakes. Would they could put one and one together.
Also speaking of wire-tapping phones, am I the only one here who remembers the late 90's here on Slashdot and all the paranoia over Clinton's Eschelon program? Those posts were classic, and the replies with phrases set to trip off the system were hilarious. Now we have not only duplicate articles saying we've never heard of monitoring calls before, but now we are shocked, SHOCKED, to find out it was going on before 9/11.
NX helps your situation in general. But to answer your specific question:
Does the functionality exist right now to fully buffer that window so that it doesn't have to completely redraw each time?
Yes, its been in X since as long as I can remember. Look for turning "Backingstore" and "Saveunders" on for your specific graphics card. Usually in the video device section of your X configuration file you put...
Option "Backingstore" "yes"
But you might have more hoops to go before getting the full save-unders.
You wound up only proving yourself bigoted, intollerant and stupid.
Your proof requires one to believe that all Mormons are stupid, that is simple bigotry. The page you linked to expects that what others have experienced must be wrong if they can't demand the terms of such experiences, and that is intollerant. To try to use that as a proof to show someone else as stupid is, well, stupid.
*Sigh*
Perhaps you wanted to make a more serious attempt?
I thought that Wilson said the yellow cake claim was not true
Correct.
the white house came around and admitted the fameous "16 words" in the state of the union were in fact not true
Source? I remember them saying they shouldn't have put it in the address, but no statement that I'm aware of retracted the statement as untrue.
[me:]every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US
The GOP has a page with a good summary on how Joe Wilson lied. The Washington Post also has some more.
I thought Clarke didn't make just "gossipy" claims, but very disturbing ones such as how he couldn't even get an audience with Rice, et al.
The end of that sentence undermines the beginning.
The leak on the NSA is viewed differently because of the disturbing notion that the government is now spying on the "free press" in a manner that brings facist or communist regimes to mind.
Or you and me private citizens. Anonymous sources are the tools of a kangaroo court, which is much of what the media runs these days.
And the NSA program is nothing I see a problem with. While one can wonder what such a vague term as "domestic spying" means, the actual program and what is going on is nothing I've seen a problem with.
but Reagan and Michael Deaver showed a long time ago that the medium controls the message, not the substance of the message.
I'm not saying people can't be duped. I'm saying if people are duped its their fault becuase the truth is usually very accessible. If not the truth than proper principles that help one decide the right thing to do with little information.
entitlement reform just won't happen until those programs actually crash and burn
*Sigh* but one can always hope. Looking at GM and how they are litterally knocking on the door of bankruptcy for what they pay out in pensions, I can't imagine what will happen when the US government goes bankrupt also. I imagine the furor we saw when people only suspected they would be shortchanged would be a hundred fold more sevier when they are faced with a real loss of everything.
Clark, to my knowledge, has not supported Wilson's charge that Saddam never sought to purchase yellow cake from Nigeria. That claim was discredited by every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US.
Clark made a large laundry list of gossipy statements that proved to be nonsense. Like Rice didn't know about Al Queida before he mentioned it to her, etc...
They are making the same grand accusation, but their data doesn't mesh. The coordination in their messages is something to note, but does not validate it.
The Bush white house outs his wife as a CIA agent because they think the CIA has it in for them
Actually, the outting was because Wilson lied in saying it was the white-house that sent him. Turns out it was his wife, and one wonders why.
And yes, the CIA has it out for this presidency as far as I can tell. If you wish to argue that topic, just let me know.
Now when you say they all came off looking bad, that isn't because of the things they said,
Well, you can blame the smear campaign or you can blame the fact that the documents were forged, Wilson and Clark said statements that turned out to be knowingly false, etc... Given one explanation is stupidity and the other is malice, I favor stupidity on their part as the explanation.
BTW, you won't hear my blame the MSM or Fox/Rush/etc... for anything. People are in general smarter than that and if they do err most of the time it is because they outsmarted themselves, not that someone outsmarted them.
Now we hear that telephone records are being used to connect the endpoints between calls to and from reporters.
Ever find it interesting that two very wierd and contradictory directions are happening at once with leaks? Scooter Libby leaks, and its a grand investigation. Others leak information, also breaking the law and the investigation is somehow wrong. FWIW, I think all of these leaks of information have been useful and I wish to see a David Brin style transparent society. The problem is not all of these leaks have turned out to be true.
Bullets stick to this president, but he and his people just don't care.
You'll have to show me the bullet holes then. I am suspicious you are suffering from that outsmarting yourself I talked about earlier.
To do this and simultaneously slash taxes is just obscene
You want tax cuts in two cases, national emergency where you invest in the populace to help boost the economy and surplus. Word is there was a tax surplus last month. Bush started the tax cuts when there was a surplus in 2000. Inbetween we had the largest attack ever on US soil to a main financial hub and a large bubble burst.
My take on the spend-spend-spend is simply Bush has been giving Congress a blank check in exchange for them supporting the work in Iraq. Bush is one of those presidents that is very comprimising except on the one or two things he thinks are most important. Its a gambit that I am waiting to see how well plays off, but for now (and before he was president) I've simply agreed on what he considers to be most important.
Well, social security reform is one of those areas where the most important part just didn't happen. BTW, if you ask me this illegal immigration thing is congress's way (economically, not politically) of sweeping the problems with social security under the carpet for a decade or so longer. I can discuss that further if you wish, just say so.
I don't see us as just deciding one day to remove a bad government from power (which happens in 4 year cycles in the USA). Not even in Afghanistan where 9/11 made us wake up and do something there were we just doing something. The Taliban owe a lot to past presidents for their power. The history means something.
We put Saddam in power, it was a bad decision. Its the kind of decision I was getting fed up with. Its easier, more covert, and unfortunatly with the uproar Bush recieved is probably how presidents in the future will do it. Well maybe not since although a PR nightmare, Iraq is pretty well off considering it just had a major revolution after years of tyrannical rule. Read US early history sometime, or even visit the south in the 1950's (still harboring ill will after the civil war). You'll see the lynchings and general bad behaviour there that you see in Iraq now. But democracy instills ideals of representation and equality and over time changed the US populace. It will in Iraq also.
But just think of the powers that be that Bush had to fight against. Who set up these dictators and really loved the manipulative power they had? Well, his Dad did as head of the CIA. And now guess who is using their old playbook to undermine the president now... Yep, the CIA. Internationally we see the people who had the most to gain from Saddam screaming at his diposal, the international socialists and islamo-fascists have marched all over europe hand in hand in (ironically enough) peace rallys.
* Instead of the covert, behind the scenes nonsense that put dictator after dictator in power (by every president since Eisenhower, including Carter) Bush had the gumption to go in full daylight and set up a government in two countries in plain view of everyone. No Iran-Contra. No Guatemala. No Noriega. No more Saddams. If I hadn't been wanting to see someone finally do this after many-many years, perhaps I wouldn't still be cheering so much. * He's for supply side limitation of government. With your own medical savings account and retirement account you don't need the government. I've been waiting for someone to replace that poor excuse for Enron style accounting for years. Bush at least tried, I wish he succeeded. * He's for flattening the taxes. If it were my way all taxes would be voluntary, but in the mean time flat taxes are a good comprimise.
And if nothing else, who's made a fool of whom? Count Richard Clark, Dan Rather, Wilson, etc... A long line of people who took a pot-shot and wound up looking bad. In many examples it was because obvious deception or forgery was involved. Dan Rather, btw, considers himself the person who took down Nixon or one of them. Now he fought the W and discredited himself. These attempts bounce off like bullets off superman. Thats presidential entertainment.
You really took off to the weeds on that one. Let me help you out some more, just to get to the bottom of what you are really trying to say.
If they enumerate these particular rights, some idiot is going to assume that that's all the rights that the government cannot infringe.
Actually the ninth and tenth ammendment cover that pretty well. In any case, you presumably (in talking about warrants) would say that this program violates an enumerated right to privacy from illegal search and seizure.
Then it would seem lack of enumeration is not the issue here. (BTW, my memory about the numbers of each ammendment might be off, I hope you don't dock me for that I'm in a rush yet very interested in getting to your point).
Alright, run with that and see if you can make your point better.
You're working really hard to misinterpret my point.
I hope I'm helping you make the point. Some of it by playing devil's advocate, but nothing adversarial. I am not sure you've thought this through completely is all.
And the people making these decisions, denying security clearance to the investigators, are going to roll over and play dead when somebody shows up with a big scary WARRANT.
Interesting scenario. I've seen challenges to warrants in executive v judicial clashes before. Perhaps you could draw from one of those to better illustrate your point.
I think it's bad that this surveillance program doesn't require them
You'd have to argue there is a real privacy breach in a program that gets publically available information voluntarily by the people who own that information.
Warrants aren't supposed to be issued before investigations take place.
I don't mind getting technical, it avoids confusion. But if I were being technical from the beginning I'd have stated it this way...
Warrants are supposed to show that a proposed search (which is a form of investigation) is warranted.
Requiring judicial oversight for acquiring warrants recognizes that people have rights, and that police do not have the authority to trample those rights without just cause.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe this has much impact on creationism, but young-earth creationists have been pointing to claims of finding blood cells in Dinasaur bones for a while. I remember reading it in 2003 on a site that was pretty old at that point. It is interesting that the finding that was difficult to track down and corroborate then, is now validated in some way with this finding.
When I tracked this on some debate forums, I saw some general debate about how petrification might happen quicker or slower than we currently know. I'm not sure if this will or won't settle the matter, I assume it would only if petrification was the means we have been relying on to date materials.
But if there is one moral of science to take from this, it is that the real world has many suprises in store for what we assume to be pat scientific knowledge.
The patch seems to come from Redhat SRPM (RHEL4) contains for what I can tell only back-port patches from newer revisions.
Sorry, that should read, "The patch that comes from"
Firefox has always been patched in Debian (and many distros).
Gentoo shows a bus-error patch (not sure what version it applies to), a mork patch and thats it. The patch seems to come from Redhat SRPM (RHEL4) contains for what I can tell only back-port patches from newer revisions.
In each case, as best I can tell each patch comes from the Mozilla people.
Debian is stepping out on its own with the code, its forking the tree. There is nothing about the DFSG that means they are exempt from a projects development cycle.
According to the DFSG, they'd have to keep it in nonfree if they wanted to keep the name.
As someone pointed out above, having a trademark does not make something non-free. Debian is trademarked, for instance. While Debian has a logo for distros that are based on debian technology to some degree, a google images search shows Ubuntu (for instance) doesn't include it. Nor does Xandros. I'm not sure if the unofficial debian trademark has any value at all. I wouldn't fault Mozilla for not having one. Perhaps they have a trademark for gecko technology based browsers though.
Long and short of it, I don't believe Debian (for once) is picking a fight with someone on a free software issue. Mozilla seems to be upset about Debian's abuse of the trademark, and I don't believe non-free was ever forwarded as an option. If Debian plays like it should and accepts Mozilla's update cycle and review, its still free. Sounds like they'd rather fork it, more power to them. But they can't keep the old stuff around, and that says volumes about their politeness.
Which brings up the real knee-slapper in this. Debian is worried that following Mozilla's update cycle procedure will hold up Debian releases.
I should add that Debian is taking an additional step in removing Firefox from their distribution in favor of their own fork.
Way to flex those muscles, Debian.
Distros like Gentoo maintain a set of their own patches for the Linux kernel
The gentoo kernel which has the patches is different than the linux kernel.
* sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
Latest version available: 2.6.17-r7
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of files: 40,538 kB
Homepage: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dsd/genpatches
Description: Full sources including the gentoo patchset for the 2.6 kernel tree
License: GPL-2
What debian is doing is simply making a fork to accomodate their own packaging conveniences. All Mozilla seems to be saying is that if they want to fork it, they should go through all the motions of the fork.
If we only had a source for 1.21 gigawatts that could charge the system while driving...
I think that attitude still exists, and will prevail. That is just a grand philosophy about life. Either that happens or someone takes their experience with Gentoo and fixes it by making their own. In the LWN article we note how people hate forks, but its worked pretty well for X-org. But I digress, I'm not calling for or predicting a fork. Just that people who want to do what they love will prevail over people who want to tell people to do things for them.
Way cool.
He's always been a person who does something first, and then talks about it later. I remember way back in the Stampede days, it was all just an idea that code could be compiled to run faster. And the Stampede team just did it.
But what really made Gentoo nice was when DRobbins took from BSD the ability to turn on and off features for the whole system from the bottom up. Having watched Turbo Fredriksson chaff on Debian's package scheme (although I don't think it felt as painful to him as it looked to me) Gentoo was a welcome suprise.
But I have to say, I finally understand what the poster might be getting at. The problem is not Gentoo as much as it is a general problem that Gentoo has not solved for itself. And that is managers vs doers. The person linked as a complainer wants more management, and the people in the LWN article want more doing. Management is overhead if all you do with it is make decisions. Management streamlines and makes the doers' job easier when done right.
I remember the golden days of slashdot ended for me when I realized that it was filled with managers not doers. Everyone was giving opinions on what everyone else should do, from software development to technical development. I suppose it is only natural, slashdot is a place to talk and think. So that is who it attracts.
So it is funny to me that this debate that seems to have come full circle, and probably will continue to hound projects like Gentoo. The person who posted the controversy seems to have completely missed the topic, and his summary shows it. But I hope all the best for Gentoo. I'm sure they'll figure it out with a few hard knocks here and there. I don't think Gentoo will go anywhere, unless a better source distro comes along. And if so, I have no problem with that.
For a number of years, CA's strict emmissions have been met by all auto manufacturer's anyway. There is no special CA car like there was in the 80's.
When there was such an arrangement, bringing in an out of state car incurred a penalty fee on registration. For me it would have been $300 some odd dollars (ironically more than half the price of the car). But before I could register it, the car was deemed a gross polluter and I was forced to sell it out of state.
As far as I know, there was no way to retrofit a car to match the standards. Many a hobbyist have expressed how much they wish they could just pass some straight forward test for emissions, thats it end of story. But the car has to have some sort of pedigree, meaning either the engine you put in the car becomes the standard for the emissions test. You can only put in an engine from a newer car, and it has to be manufactured for CA (if that applies to that year).
But that is all from memory. Its been a while.
Not only that, doing George Takei impersonations is much more fun that Kirk, Picard or Sisco impersonations.
For all of the screaming you hear about the sacred institution of marriage, it was strictly a political and financial arrangement up until about a hundred years ago or so.
Not too bad on accuracy, but two problems: 1) It never stopped being a financial and political arrangement, 2) contradictory evidence exists such as early Jewish law as well as ancient fables record romance as a direct influence on marriage.
The only use the church has for marriage is that it allows tracking of a paternal lineage by creating a 'blessed' family tree
Actually, the use the church and state have for marriage is encouraging people to take responsibility for children before they are born. Marriage is a political arrangement because of the potential for children who are then governed by the parents. Such governance establishes a family as a political unit. As a unit they are financial held as one for the same reason.
allowing inconvienent bastards to be tossed asside unless extrememly useful.
That was the problem of not being married. Were marriage as cheap and useless as you say, there would be much more abandonment than that.
Now, your other points are well taken - certainly mistakes
It never ceases to amaze me. There are those that rightly point out Saddam and Bin Laden were assisted by the USA in its covert gaming of the international political spheres, from Gerald Ford through Carter and Reagan and Clinton. Its a policy that started with Eisenhower. And often these are the same people that put George Bush number one on their list of presidential demons for setting up a truely representational government in full daylight for all the world to see exactly what is going on.
It is their abject fear of such upfront actions that drives those covert and stupid mistakes. Would they could put one and one together.
Also speaking of wire-tapping phones, am I the only one here who remembers the late 90's here on Slashdot and all the paranoia over Clinton's Eschelon program? Those posts were classic, and the replies with phrases set to trip off the system were hilarious. Now we have not only duplicate articles saying we've never heard of monitoring calls before, but now we are shocked, SHOCKED, to find out it was going on before 9/11.
These people crack me up.
NX helps your situation in general. But to answer your specific question:
Does the functionality exist right now to fully buffer that window so that it doesn't have to completely redraw each time?
Yes, its been in X since as long as I can remember. Look for turning "Backingstore" and "Saveunders" on for your specific graphics card. Usually in the video device section of your X configuration file you put...
Option "Backingstore" "yes"
But you might have more hoops to go before getting the full save-unders.
You wound up only proving yourself bigoted, intollerant and stupid.
Your proof requires one to believe that all Mormons are stupid, that is simple bigotry. The page you linked to expects that what others have experienced must be wrong if they can't demand the terms of such experiences, and that is intollerant. To try to use that as a proof to show someone else as stupid is, well, stupid.
*Sigh*
Perhaps you wanted to make a more serious attempt?
I thought that Wilson said the yellow cake claim was not true
Correct.
the white house came around and admitted the fameous "16 words" in the state of the union were in fact not true
Source? I remember them saying they shouldn't have put it in the address, but no statement that I'm aware of retracted the statement as untrue.
[me:]every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US
The GOP has a page with a good summary on how Joe Wilson lied. The Washington Post also has some more.
I thought Clarke didn't make just "gossipy" claims, but very disturbing ones such as how he couldn't even get an audience with Rice, et al.
The end of that sentence undermines the beginning.
The leak on the NSA is viewed differently because of the disturbing notion that the government is now spying on the "free press" in a manner that brings facist or communist regimes to mind.
Or you and me private citizens. Anonymous sources are the tools of a kangaroo court, which is much of what the media runs these days.
And the NSA program is nothing I see a problem with. While one can wonder what such a vague term as "domestic spying" means, the actual program and what is going on is nothing I've seen a problem with.
but Reagan and Michael Deaver showed a long time ago that the medium controls the message, not the substance of the message.
I'm not saying people can't be duped. I'm saying if people are duped its their fault becuase the truth is usually very accessible. If not the truth than proper principles that help one decide the right thing to do with little information.
entitlement reform just won't happen until those programs actually crash and burn
*Sigh* but one can always hope. Looking at GM and how they are litterally knocking on the door of bankruptcy for what they pay out in pensions, I can't imagine what will happen when the US government goes bankrupt also. I imagine the furor we saw when people only suspected they would be shortchanged would be a hundred fold more sevier when they are faced with a real loss of everything.
Correct me if I am wrong,
Clark, to my knowledge, has not supported Wilson's charge that Saddam never sought to purchase yellow cake from Nigeria. That claim was discredited by every independant investigation thrown at it, both in England and the US.
Clark made a large laundry list of gossipy statements that proved to be nonsense. Like Rice didn't know about Al Queida before he mentioned it to her, etc...
They are making the same grand accusation, but their data doesn't mesh. The coordination in their messages is something to note, but does not validate it.
The Bush white house outs his wife as a CIA agent because they think the CIA has it in for them
Actually, the outting was because Wilson lied in saying it was the white-house that sent him. Turns out it was his wife, and one wonders why.
And yes, the CIA has it out for this presidency as far as I can tell. If you wish to argue that topic, just let me know.
Now when you say they all came off looking bad, that isn't because of the things they said,
Well, you can blame the smear campaign or you can blame the fact that the documents were forged, Wilson and Clark said statements that turned out to be knowingly false, etc... Given one explanation is stupidity and the other is malice, I favor stupidity on their part as the explanation.
BTW, you won't hear my blame the MSM or Fox/Rush/etc... for anything. People are in general smarter than that and if they do err most of the time it is because they outsmarted themselves, not that someone outsmarted them.
Now we hear that telephone records are being used to connect the endpoints between calls to and from reporters.
Ever find it interesting that two very wierd and contradictory directions are happening at once with leaks? Scooter Libby leaks, and its a grand investigation. Others leak information, also breaking the law and the investigation is somehow wrong. FWIW, I think all of these leaks of information have been useful and I wish to see a David Brin style transparent society. The problem is not all of these leaks have turned out to be true.
Bullets stick to this president, but he and his people just don't care.
You'll have to show me the bullet holes then. I am suspicious you are suffering from that outsmarting yourself I talked about earlier.
To do this and simultaneously slash taxes is just obscene
You want tax cuts in two cases, national emergency where you invest in the populace to help boost the economy and surplus. Word is there was a tax surplus last month. Bush started the tax cuts when there was a surplus in 2000. Inbetween we had the largest attack ever on US soil to a main financial hub and a large bubble burst.
My take on the spend-spend-spend is simply Bush has been giving Congress a blank check in exchange for them supporting the work in Iraq. Bush is one of those presidents that is very comprimising except on the one or two things he thinks are most important. Its a gambit that I am waiting to see how well plays off, but for now (and before he was president) I've simply agreed on what he considers to be most important.
Well, social security reform is one of those areas where the most important part just didn't happen. BTW, if you ask me this illegal immigration thing is congress's way (economically, not politically) of sweeping the problems with social security under the carpet for a decade or so longer. I can discuss that further if you wish, just say so.
I'm not sure.
I don't see us as just deciding one day to remove a bad government from power (which happens in 4 year cycles in the USA). Not even in Afghanistan where 9/11 made us wake up and do something there were we just doing something. The Taliban owe a lot to past presidents for their power. The history means something.
We put Saddam in power, it was a bad decision. Its the kind of decision I was getting fed up with. Its easier, more covert, and unfortunatly with the uproar Bush recieved is probably how presidents in the future will do it. Well maybe not since although a PR nightmare, Iraq is pretty well off considering it just had a major revolution after years of tyrannical rule. Read US early history sometime, or even visit the south in the 1950's (still harboring ill will after the civil war). You'll see the lynchings and general bad behaviour there that you see in Iraq now. But democracy instills ideals of representation and equality and over time changed the US populace. It will in Iraq also.
But just think of the powers that be that Bush had to fight against. Who set up these dictators and really loved the manipulative power they had? Well, his Dad did as head of the CIA. And now guess who is using their old playbook to undermine the president now... Yep, the CIA. Internationally we see the people who had the most to gain from Saddam screaming at his diposal, the international socialists and islamo-fascists have marched all over europe hand in hand in (ironically enough) peace rallys.
All's good.
why DO you support him?
A few reasons:
* Instead of the covert, behind the scenes nonsense that put dictator after dictator in power (by every president since Eisenhower, including Carter) Bush had the gumption to go in full daylight and set up a government in two countries in plain view of everyone. No Iran-Contra. No Guatemala. No Noriega. No more Saddams. If I hadn't been wanting to see someone finally do this after many-many years, perhaps I wouldn't still be cheering so much.
* He's for supply side limitation of government. With your own medical savings account and retirement account you don't need the government. I've been waiting for someone to replace that poor excuse for Enron style accounting for years. Bush at least tried, I wish he succeeded.
* He's for flattening the taxes. If it were my way all taxes would be voluntary, but in the mean time flat taxes are a good comprimise.
And if nothing else, who's made a fool of whom? Count Richard Clark, Dan Rather, Wilson, etc... A long line of people who took a pot-shot and wound up looking bad. In many examples it was because obvious deception or forgery was involved. Dan Rather, btw, considers himself the person who took down Nixon or one of them. Now he fought the W and discredited himself. These attempts bounce off like bullets off superman. Thats presidential entertainment.
Ooohhh, Gotcha.
If Bush were a mormon too you'd have something.
Next?
*Sigh*
Probably too afraid to lay his cards on the table.
Next?
You flatter yourself :)
I support him, prove me stupid.
LOL.
You really took off to the weeds on that one. Let me help you out some more, just to get to the bottom of what you are really trying to say.
If they enumerate these particular rights, some idiot is going to assume that that's all the rights that the government cannot infringe.
Actually the ninth and tenth ammendment cover that pretty well. In any case, you presumably (in talking about warrants) would say that this program violates an enumerated right to privacy from illegal search and seizure.
Then it would seem lack of enumeration is not the issue here. (BTW, my memory about the numbers of each ammendment might be off, I hope you don't dock me for that I'm in a rush yet very interested in getting to your point).
Alright, run with that and see if you can make your point better.
You're working really hard to misinterpret my point.
I hope I'm helping you make the point. Some of it by playing devil's advocate, but nothing adversarial. I am not sure you've thought this through completely is all.
And the people making these decisions, denying security clearance to the investigators, are going to roll over and play dead when somebody shows up with a big scary WARRANT.
Interesting scenario. I've seen challenges to warrants in executive v judicial clashes before. Perhaps you could draw from one of those to better illustrate your point.
I think it's bad that this surveillance program doesn't require them
You'd have to argue there is a real privacy breach in a program that gets publically available information voluntarily by the people who own that information.
Warrants aren't supposed to be issued before investigations take place.
I don't mind getting technical, it avoids confusion. But if I were being technical from the beginning I'd have stated it this way...
Warrants are supposed to show that a proposed search (which is a form of investigation) is warranted.
Requiring judicial oversight for acquiring warrants recognizes that people have rights, and that police do not have the authority to trample those rights without just cause.
Agreed.