Which is why I'm not a McCain fan - he's just out for the Presidency job. Of course, so is Obama, but most people are too dumb to see past the rhetoric. Has Obama ever had a major piece of legislation pass?
It's the issue on whether or not warrants are needed when investigating foreigners. There are many transmissions for cell phones and email where the signal passes through US equipment, but is between two non-Americans. It's debatable whether or not those need warrants. The issue is more complicated than ZOMG! NO WARRANTS WERE GOTTEN when we need to know if there was need for them at all. Most debate on this that I've seen has been too over-simplified on both sides of the issue.
Which is the worst move he could make. If he wants to present himself as a leader, he needs to show leadership on such an important issue. He's done nothing so far on this, and many other issues. I can't think of a bill which has Obama's name attached. If you like his legislation or not, at least McCain has done something - McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman...
He points to Lotus and whines about lack of innovation. I'd really like to
know exactly what innovations that microsoft have made that are relevant
to their customers and Lotus product.
No, there was plenty there, just he was protected by enough Democrats. I would say, though, there he was pretty much useless to the left after that point.
Wow, that's a massive overstatement. So far as I can see, we've seen an expansion of religious and speech and press liberties (or hardly any curtailment, what with the internet and all), and the fight for me to own a gun and have more gun rights is getting better (looks like the DC law will be struck down). I can go where I want, pretty much do what I want, and say what I want here.
You're missing the problem. The issue at hand is that there's no time to get a warrant BEFOREHAND in many situations, something the founders didn't necessarily foresee (they didn't even have the telegraph yet), and the Constitution doesn't cover much more than search and seizure of person and home. FISA was originally set up during pre-cell phone days for such instances, and didn't cover all the international routing and such...and it also needs occasional re-approval, such as the latest PATRIOT act passage. Those in-between periods it seems the administration still feels that it has the authority to act without congressional approval on the matter.
If you applied your standard across the board, I imagine we would have to arrest almost every high-level politician in the US. Don't limit your vitriol to the Republicans. We could name plenty of garbage that FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton pulled while in office and go around and around about that. I do agree with you about accountability, however, there is always a certain amount of balance that needs to be placed in the Presidency where the position gets a LOT of power as well. We have a unique system that typically works well and breaks down at times. Deal with it.
Now imagine this - more kids raised that way. It was the way things more or less USED to be done, and it wasn't all that bad, outside it was kids not getting an education at all. We're asking kids to not grow up soon enough, yet we dress them like little adults and pamper and shelter them through their teen years.
Do we know that the administration was listening in on calls between two people in the US? All I see in these arguments are statements about "domestic" wiretapping when the actual discussion should be covering calls between an American citizen and someone on a watch list who NEEDS his calls tapped, and the Bush admin just didn't file the proper paperwork. Yeah, maybe it's more sinister than that, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of philosophical/theoretical arguments and NO real-world situations that even allegedly occurred.
Not that I'm totally defending the administration, but the FISA bill needed updating because it was written in a time where there weren't any cell phones and calls weren't routed through ten different countries and satellites and all that mess.
Because public schools teach those lessons SO well. No thanks. My wife was homeschooled with those same values; and the problem with "working with" idiot bureacracy is that it doesn't give much incentive to change it. And simply because a kid is homeschooled doesn't mean they're "cooped up" and sheltered at home. Homeschooled kids learn social skills from adults - not peers, which is why so many may seem "weird." They aren't beaten down by the day-to-day pressure of kids poking fun for stupid reasons (too skinny? too chubby? too smart? too stupid? braces?) - doesn't exactly teach "tolerance." Also, why should a kid be forced to do work for an hour when they've grasped a concept in ten minutes? Why shouldn't a kid learn how to actually RUN a business - one of the best educations you can get and you CAN'T learn it in school Pre-K through PH.D - by the time they're a teenager?
Classroom education can be done in less than half the time, and there's a real world to explore with churches, civic organizations, clubs, jobs, etc that can provide all the socialization a kid needs without being locked up with mediocrity. There are TWO things that a high school has that I may not be able to provide, and one may just take ingenuity - a decent science lab and a competetive sports team in high school.
Well, all these arguments MIGHT make sense if we had a nuclear accident from the old reactors that are still working which actually did some damage...pointing at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is a punchline now.
All this "oh noes! Big corps ftl!" crap gets under my skin at times.
Right...because giving power to the government works SO much better than corporations. Also, there are quite a few places where you physically CAN'T put wind and solar power, and the energy is produced by spewing something into the air. I'm not arguing against local stuff, just keep in mind that it's not a cure-all.
This is why I plan on homeschooling. I can monitor my kids' progress, and I don't have to put up with idiot bureacracies and juvenile malcontents and stupid parents.
Heh, that's some of the hardest work I've seen gone into plagiarism. That is, outside of academia and Hollywood and politicians where everyone pretty much copies everyone else...
Well, if my "problem" leads to lower taxes, increased rights to bear arms, rights for the unborn to live, energy independance, and smaller government...I probably should wait for the next election, but i'll GLADLY bear this "problem."
Without diving into details that compromise security, can you reveal anything about the types or quantities of attacks that the US military is able to fend off, and how often they are faced?
I doubt you could REALLY answer this, but Is the US military playing any sort of role in the semi-undergroung "hacker war" that appears to be going on between China and the US?
Remember, they readily come here to get educated at our grad schools as well. Not only could they have learned there, they could have learned HERE as well.
I'm in agreeance with you on the whole lack-of-experience thing being a positive, but that's the ONLY positive I see about Obama. Of course, I'm a right-wing nutjob conservative, so it makes sense.
I like bigger autos. I'm 6'3" with a family history of back problems. I DON'T want a car, I want a fuel-efficient pickup/SUV/Crossover that doesn't bounce around like a jeep and I don't have to deal with the up-and-down motion of getting in and out of. I like hauling crap around. I like being able to see OVER traffic.
GM is on the right path with the Hybrid Silverado they are making, but I would like to see something a little smaller, along the lines of a Ranger or S-10/Sonoma (I LOVED the 1994 Sonoma I drove through college). Americans are going to buy small cars in the near future, but the REAL money will be made when we can drive larger SUV's and trucks that get 30+ MPG's.
Some points:
1. Since when does "you don't need it" form the basis for a law?
2. If most gun owners don't know how to use a gun properly, why aren't they all dead or maimed? I GREATLY dispute your assertion, because most gun owners I know ALL know how to properly use a gun, and are responsible with it. I would say a majority of gun owners fall into this category.
3. How will you get the law-abiding to give up their weapons?
4. Why is the basis of "people dying" reasonable? Should we make people give up "luxuries" that cause deaths as well - smoking, drinking, fatty foods? Those affect FAR more than gun deaths cause to society.
It's curious that those who are most loose in their interpretation of the Constitution are the most strict when it comes to guns.
You're still missing part of the point - the VAST majority of guns and the VAST majority of gun owners in America ARE NOT CRIMINALS, and own their guns RESPONSIBLY. WHY should I be punished for the malfeasance of the minority?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why I'm not a McCain fan - he's just out for the Presidency job. Of course, so is Obama, but most people are too dumb to see past the rhetoric. Has Obama ever had a major piece of legislation pass?
It's the issue on whether or not warrants are needed when investigating foreigners. There are many transmissions for cell phones and email where the signal passes through US equipment, but is between two non-Americans. It's debatable whether or not those need warrants. The issue is more complicated than ZOMG! NO WARRANTS WERE GOTTEN when we need to know if there was need for them at all. Most debate on this that I've seen has been too over-simplified on both sides of the issue.
Which is the worst move he could make. If he wants to present himself as a leader, he needs to show leadership on such an important issue. He's done nothing so far on this, and many other issues. I can't think of a bill which has Obama's name attached. If you like his legislation or not, at least McCain has done something - McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman...
He points to Lotus and whines about lack of innovation. I'd really like to know exactly what innovations that microsoft have made that are relevant to their customers and Lotus product.
Ummm...Excel?
No, there was plenty there, just he was protected by enough Democrats. I would say, though, there he was pretty much useless to the left after that point.
Wow, that's a massive overstatement. So far as I can see, we've seen an expansion of religious and speech and press liberties (or hardly any curtailment, what with the internet and all), and the fight for me to own a gun and have more gun rights is getting better (looks like the DC law will be struck down). I can go where I want, pretty much do what I want, and say what I want here.
You're missing the problem. The issue at hand is that there's no time to get a warrant BEFOREHAND in many situations, something the founders didn't necessarily foresee (they didn't even have the telegraph yet), and the Constitution doesn't cover much more than search and seizure of person and home. FISA was originally set up during pre-cell phone days for such instances, and didn't cover all the international routing and such...and it also needs occasional re-approval, such as the latest PATRIOT act passage. Those in-between periods it seems the administration still feels that it has the authority to act without congressional approval on the matter.
If you applied your standard across the board, I imagine we would have to arrest almost every high-level politician in the US. Don't limit your vitriol to the Republicans. We could name plenty of garbage that FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton pulled while in office and go around and around about that. I do agree with you about accountability, however, there is always a certain amount of balance that needs to be placed in the Presidency where the position gets a LOT of power as well. We have a unique system that typically works well and breaks down at times. Deal with it.
Now imagine this - more kids raised that way. It was the way things more or less USED to be done, and it wasn't all that bad, outside it was kids not getting an education at all. We're asking kids to not grow up soon enough, yet we dress them like little adults and pamper and shelter them through their teen years.
Do we know that the administration was listening in on calls between two people in the US? All I see in these arguments are statements about "domestic" wiretapping when the actual discussion should be covering calls between an American citizen and someone on a watch list who NEEDS his calls tapped, and the Bush admin just didn't file the proper paperwork. Yeah, maybe it's more sinister than that, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of philosophical/theoretical arguments and NO real-world situations that even allegedly occurred.
Not that I'm totally defending the administration, but the FISA bill needed updating because it was written in a time where there weren't any cell phones and calls weren't routed through ten different countries and satellites and all that mess.
Because public schools teach those lessons SO well. No thanks. My wife was homeschooled with those same values; and the problem with "working with" idiot bureacracy is that it doesn't give much incentive to change it. And simply because a kid is homeschooled doesn't mean they're "cooped up" and sheltered at home. Homeschooled kids learn social skills from adults - not peers, which is why so many may seem "weird." They aren't beaten down by the day-to-day pressure of kids poking fun for stupid reasons (too skinny? too chubby? too smart? too stupid? braces?) - doesn't exactly teach "tolerance." Also, why should a kid be forced to do work for an hour when they've grasped a concept in ten minutes? Why shouldn't a kid learn how to actually RUN a business - one of the best educations you can get and you CAN'T learn it in school Pre-K through PH.D - by the time they're a teenager?
Classroom education can be done in less than half the time, and there's a real world to explore with churches, civic organizations, clubs, jobs, etc that can provide all the socialization a kid needs without being locked up with mediocrity. There are TWO things that a high school has that I may not be able to provide, and one may just take ingenuity - a decent science lab and a competetive sports team in high school.
Well, all these arguments MIGHT make sense if we had a nuclear accident from the old reactors that are still working which actually did some damage...pointing at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island is a punchline now.
All this "oh noes! Big corps ftl!" crap gets under my skin at times.
Right...because giving power to the government works SO much better than corporations. Also, there are quite a few places where you physically CAN'T put wind and solar power, and the energy is produced by spewing something into the air. I'm not arguing against local stuff, just keep in mind that it's not a cure-all.
No they don't. They have grad assistants to do that.
This is why I plan on homeschooling. I can monitor my kids' progress, and I don't have to put up with idiot bureacracies and juvenile malcontents and stupid parents.
Heh, that's some of the hardest work I've seen gone into plagiarism. That is, outside of academia and Hollywood and politicians where everyone pretty much copies everyone else...
Well, if my "problem" leads to lower taxes, increased rights to bear arms, rights for the unborn to live, energy independance, and smaller government...I probably should wait for the next election, but i'll GLADLY bear this "problem."
Without diving into details that compromise security, can you reveal anything about the types or quantities of attacks that the US military is able to fend off, and how often they are faced?
I doubt you could REALLY answer this, but Is the US military playing any sort of role in the semi-undergroung "hacker war" that appears to be going on between China and the US?
Remember, they readily come here to get educated at our grad schools as well. Not only could they have learned there, they could have learned HERE as well.
I'm in agreeance with you on the whole lack-of-experience thing being a positive, but that's the ONLY positive I see about Obama. Of course, I'm a right-wing nutjob conservative, so it makes sense.
I like bigger autos. I'm 6'3" with a family history of back problems. I DON'T want a car, I want a fuel-efficient pickup/SUV/Crossover that doesn't bounce around like a jeep and I don't have to deal with the up-and-down motion of getting in and out of. I like hauling crap around. I like being able to see OVER traffic.
GM is on the right path with the Hybrid Silverado they are making, but I would like to see something a little smaller, along the lines of a Ranger or S-10/Sonoma (I LOVED the 1994 Sonoma I drove through college). Americans are going to buy small cars in the near future, but the REAL money will be made when we can drive larger SUV's and trucks that get 30+ MPG's.
Some points: 1. Since when does "you don't need it" form the basis for a law?
2. If most gun owners don't know how to use a gun properly, why aren't they all dead or maimed? I GREATLY dispute your assertion, because most gun owners I know ALL know how to properly use a gun, and are responsible with it. I would say a majority of gun owners fall into this category.
3. How will you get the law-abiding to give up their weapons? 4. Why is the basis of "people dying" reasonable? Should we make people give up "luxuries" that cause deaths as well - smoking, drinking, fatty foods? Those affect FAR more than gun deaths cause to society.
It's curious that those who are most loose in their interpretation of the Constitution are the most strict when it comes to guns.
Begins? HAH. You're behind the curve - would half this stuff get posted if it WASN'T past-420?
You're still missing part of the point - the VAST majority of guns and the VAST majority of gun owners in America ARE NOT CRIMINALS, and own their guns RESPONSIBLY. WHY should I be punished for the malfeasance of the minority?