The problem with the swamp was...it was a swamp. Both sides had to deal with it and it didn't work out so well particularly for the invaders. I agree completely with you that the weight lies on the JFK administration for the failure of the invasion. It wasn't the invaders' fault that it went to pot.
Had they not been screwed over by JFK and actually had a decent landing area, operational security, good intelligence, air cover, and everything else needed for a good invasion, it would have worked. NOTHING was done right on the Bay of Pigs invasion. NOTHING.
ALL THREE politicians you stated were center-right. JFK would be considered conservative by most modern standards; FDR would have been at LEAST conservative on a few issues (abortion, guns, etc), as well as LBJ. Clinton ran with the DLC - at worst a center-left, and he could only get things passed by a center-right congress. Americans didn't vote for Goldwater because he was a little crazy and they were war-weary. The recent Democratic resurgence resulted in several congressmen who are socially conservative.
Al Gore couldn't win his home state because of several liberal stances (something which no candidate should lose), as well as Clinton and Edwards.
Hillary couldn't get "universal" health care passed because of its unpopularity, Dems continue to misread America on gun control...
NO politician has gotten elected on an extremely liberal platform in America in a national election. Carter was as much of an "accident" as anything you can come up with. Clinton never got a majority.
The youth vote is still overrated - and always has been. Obama is the first "youth" candidate to have any success since JFK, and the only push they may ever give him is a slight majority - not overwhelming.
Gotcha, didn't know about your overall feedback on that measure. May not matter that much as a buyer - a few guys may cancel your bid (I wouldn't), and there are plenty who would read your feedback and see what happened. You would have a tough time selling, however.
You should have tried contacting a couple more times and negged them and taken the hit. Feedback doesn't matter much unless you drop below the 99.4% range. Even then, I've gotten some great deals from misunderstood sellers.
As a VERY part-time seller on ebay (I may make $5k this year, and with everything I put into it, I may not really be making any money), I can attest to the oddities that ebay is trying to pull.
Right now, I'm doing okay, except I can't make much on an item I sell for.99 and cover the fees unless I add about $4-$5 to shipping, which is REALLY starting to cheese people off at times. Ebay hates it, too, but I don't really care about that.
Of course, other major sellers on other sites (Amazon, or any major retailer) have similar shipping (or pay for bulk rates) and also have the luxury of 4-6 weeks shipping. Not NotQuiteCajun, no sirreebob. If I don't have it out next day, (or get an ignorant buyer on the west coast) I can get tagged with 4's instead of 5's on my shipping time for no good reason than they didn't get it yesterday.
The sellers not being able to neg buyes is gonna be a wash - I don't think it's going to hurt as much as some sellers (particularly on the ebay feedback newsboards state), but we ARE going to see a rash of a small percentage of new buyers try and say "send me crap for free or I neg you." Ebay BETTER step up to the plate when that happens and back up the sellers, because it is going to get VERY bad between some sellers because it will be VERY easy to slam your competition by making a new user id and bidding something up and not paying.
I may shift to trying to move stuff first on discussion boards and such instead of auctions. We'll see.
I can see - and understand the reasoning behind the post; however, buyers have a responsibility as well. I sold some hot wheels to a buyer who proceeded to neg me WITHOUT asking if I would refund or do anything about the transaction. I gave him a neut because he wouldn't communicate and see if I was willing to do anything about the issue.
In the short run, those centrist voters may swing to Obama, but when it comes out that he is further left than McCain is right - which is true - they will be heading to McCain in droves. Americans are center-right as a rule, NOT center-left. The youth vote is ALWAYS overrated - it hasn't made an impact since JFK, and was hardly one then because he may not have won without LBJ on board, and a questionable result in Illinois which Nixon didn't pursue.
There are plenty of good conservatives who feel the same. I think there is ideologically room for those of us who are real conservatives (a la Reagan/Gingrich) in a third party, because we felt similar disappointments in 2000-2004 that the liberals had in 1992-1994 when they could have easily promoted their own agenda and didn't.
I don't think most Americans realize what is going on with agribusiness here. We STUPIDLY prop up corporate farming, and the recent ethanol idiocy has driven corn prices - and thereby food prices overall, trickling down to even beef - through the roof. It also prevents some food goods in third world countries from being sold on a more profitable market (not so much here, but it REALLY bites when the Euros - particularly France - do it).
Nah, he would probably come up with some off-color snarky comment about how it was too small in certain places or not muscular enough or something. Galileo was a jerk.
That museum is WAY FRICKIN COOL. I can't remember half the stuff in it, but it's a transportation right back to Renessaince and late Medieval science experiments. It's like walking through an HG Wells novel. I half expected to see the Time Machine from the book somewhere in there. A MUST-see if you go to Florence.
Actually, if you go farther back, and make God at least responsible as "first cause" - the Creator of everything, then my argument can hold up. If that is the starting point, there really can't be any evidence "against" God because He would STILL stand as watchmaker.
I get scientific thought on this - I really do - but I think that much of the animosity against God is really against the ignorance of the devout, who really don't keep up with what science says. Also, science - by its nature - cannot account for the supernatural, unscientific causes.
I can see the rationale that tries to prove that there isn't any pro-evidence for God, but if there is a variable interpretation for the first few chapters of Genesis - which can be read as a dumbed - down summary from an omniscient, all-knowing God without losing a lot of the essential meaning (God made it good, and man screwed it up with his sin), then the evidence "against" God really doesn't work all that well.
As a Louisianian, my response to this is that Nebraskans may be smarter, but Louisianians can cook better. Even if Shreveport is really East Texas with legalized gambling.
Actually, Barksdale has a nearby resource - it's called Louisiana Tech University, one of the good cheap engineering schools in the USA.
Yes it is. There has to be an ample defense of international cyber-attacks against government organizations, particularly by either state or large organized elements. We're not talking about some random script-kiddies or rogue America-haters here. Those are criminal, and therefore police/FBI problems.
Attacks by possible state-sponsored elements - think Chinese or Iranians (if they could ever get their heads out their rear); or organized non-state groups such as al-Qaeda - are military problems (you could argue CIA, but they're much more closely related to the military than law enforcement). It's all a question as to who is at the ROOT of a cause.
Which is a poor inference. Simply because natural processes explain how something works does NOT correlate that a non-natural process (God) cannot and does not exist. It just means that stuff works through natural processes. Whether or not there is an involved God doesn't neccesarily correlate.
If you believe that if X happened naturally, then God didn't do it, that's fine. I don't think you can say that if God didn't do it, then He isn't Out There.
I can see how the leap can be made, I just don't see that it's the definite conclusion.
You're fairly right, except there are plenty of scientists out there who are atheists who more or less exclude the idea of God based on their beliefs in evolution...and they're rather adamant about it. The same goes for the other side, from people who don't understand the nature of science and automatically attribute atheism into it.
Tell that to my wife - prepared and ready. Homeschooled until high school, where she was smarter than most of the kids around. She turned out fine, and is smarter than most of the people around.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the swamp was...it was a swamp. Both sides had to deal with it and it didn't work out so well particularly for the invaders. I agree completely with you that the weight lies on the JFK administration for the failure of the invasion. It wasn't the invaders' fault that it went to pot.
And I want to know WHY I was modded troll, btw.
Had they not been screwed over by JFK and actually had a decent landing area, operational security, good intelligence, air cover, and everything else needed for a good invasion, it would have worked. NOTHING was done right on the Bay of Pigs invasion. NOTHING.
Insert Monty Python and the Holy Grail coconut-laden swallow jokes HERE.
ALL THREE politicians you stated were center-right. JFK would be considered conservative by most modern standards; FDR would have been at LEAST conservative on a few issues (abortion, guns, etc), as well as LBJ. Clinton ran with the DLC - at worst a center-left, and he could only get things passed by a center-right congress. Americans didn't vote for Goldwater because he was a little crazy and they were war-weary. The recent Democratic resurgence resulted in several congressmen who are socially conservative.
Al Gore couldn't win his home state because of several liberal stances (something which no candidate should lose), as well as Clinton and Edwards.
Hillary couldn't get "universal" health care passed because of its unpopularity, Dems continue to misread America on gun control...
NO politician has gotten elected on an extremely liberal platform in America in a national election. Carter was as much of an "accident" as anything you can come up with. Clinton never got a majority.
The youth vote is still overrated - and always has been. Obama is the first "youth" candidate to have any success since JFK, and the only push they may ever give him is a slight majority - not overwhelming.
Gotcha, didn't know about your overall feedback on that measure. May not matter that much as a buyer - a few guys may cancel your bid (I wouldn't), and there are plenty who would read your feedback and see what happened. You would have a tough time selling, however.
You should have tried contacting a couple more times and negged them and taken the hit. Feedback doesn't matter much unless you drop below the 99.4% range. Even then, I've gotten some great deals from misunderstood sellers.
As a VERY part-time seller on ebay (I may make $5k this year, and with everything I put into it, I may not really be making any money), I can attest to the oddities that ebay is trying to pull.
.99 and cover the fees unless I add about $4-$5 to shipping, which is REALLY starting to cheese people off at times. Ebay hates it, too, but I don't really care about that.
Right now, I'm doing okay, except I can't make much on an item I sell for
Of course, other major sellers on other sites (Amazon, or any major retailer) have similar shipping (or pay for bulk rates) and also have the luxury of 4-6 weeks shipping. Not NotQuiteCajun, no sirreebob. If I don't have it out next day, (or get an ignorant buyer on the west coast) I can get tagged with 4's instead of 5's on my shipping time for no good reason than they didn't get it yesterday.
The sellers not being able to neg buyes is gonna be a wash - I don't think it's going to hurt as much as some sellers (particularly on the ebay feedback newsboards state), but we ARE going to see a rash of a small percentage of new buyers try and say "send me crap for free or I neg you." Ebay BETTER step up to the plate when that happens and back up the sellers, because it is going to get VERY bad between some sellers because it will be VERY easy to slam your competition by making a new user id and bidding something up and not paying.
I may shift to trying to move stuff first on discussion boards and such instead of auctions. We'll see.
I can see - and understand the reasoning behind the post; however, buyers have a responsibility as well. I sold some hot wheels to a buyer who proceeded to neg me WITHOUT asking if I would refund or do anything about the transaction. I gave him a neut because he wouldn't communicate and see if I was willing to do anything about the issue.
You have to look at the title twice as well. I saw the words "lap" and "joystick" in there at one point.
In the short run, those centrist voters may swing to Obama, but when it comes out that he is further left than McCain is right - which is true - they will be heading to McCain in droves. Americans are center-right as a rule, NOT center-left. The youth vote is ALWAYS overrated - it hasn't made an impact since JFK, and was hardly one then because he may not have won without LBJ on board, and a questionable result in Illinois which Nixon didn't pursue.
There are plenty of good conservatives who feel the same. I think there is ideologically room for those of us who are real conservatives (a la Reagan/Gingrich) in a third party, because we felt similar disappointments in 2000-2004 that the liberals had in 1992-1994 when they could have easily promoted their own agenda and didn't.
I don't think most Americans realize what is going on with agribusiness here. We STUPIDLY prop up corporate farming, and the recent ethanol idiocy has driven corn prices - and thereby food prices overall, trickling down to even beef - through the roof. It also prevents some food goods in third world countries from being sold on a more profitable market (not so much here, but it REALLY bites when the Euros - particularly France - do it).
Read others' comments before posting and get educated. Or are you Galileo?
Nah, he would probably come up with some off-color snarky comment about how it was too small in certain places or not muscular enough or something. Galileo was a jerk.
That museum is WAY FRICKIN COOL. I can't remember half the stuff in it, but it's a transportation right back to Renessaince and late Medieval science experiments. It's like walking through an HG Wells novel. I half expected to see the Time Machine from the book somewhere in there. A MUST-see if you go to Florence.
Good idea. Let's call 'em trains.
Actually, if you go farther back, and make God at least responsible as "first cause" - the Creator of everything, then my argument can hold up. If that is the starting point, there really can't be any evidence "against" God because He would STILL stand as watchmaker.
I get scientific thought on this - I really do - but I think that much of the animosity against God is really against the ignorance of the devout, who really don't keep up with what science says. Also, science - by its nature - cannot account for the supernatural, unscientific causes.
I can see the rationale that tries to prove that there isn't any pro-evidence for God, but if there is a variable interpretation for the first few chapters of Genesis - which can be read as a dumbed - down summary from an omniscient, all-knowing God without losing a lot of the essential meaning (God made it good, and man screwed it up with his sin), then the evidence "against" God really doesn't work all that well.
As a Louisianian, my response to this is that Nebraskans may be smarter, but Louisianians can cook better. Even if Shreveport is really East Texas with legalized gambling.
Actually, Barksdale has a nearby resource - it's called Louisiana Tech University, one of the good cheap engineering schools in the USA.
As a corollary, if you CAN'T meet the above requirements, and it takes you more than a month to get there, and you're not too old or disabled...
You have fitness issues that need correcting. Period.
Yes it is. There has to be an ample defense of international cyber-attacks against government organizations, particularly by either state or large organized elements. We're not talking about some random script-kiddies or rogue America-haters here. Those are criminal, and therefore police/FBI problems.
Attacks by possible state-sponsored elements - think Chinese or Iranians (if they could ever get their heads out their rear); or organized non-state groups such as al-Qaeda - are military problems (you could argue CIA, but they're much more closely related to the military than law enforcement). It's all a question as to who is at the ROOT of a cause.
No. Now DROP and give me TWENTY!
Which is a poor inference. Simply because natural processes explain how something works does NOT correlate that a non-natural process (God) cannot and does not exist. It just means that stuff works through natural processes. Whether or not there is an involved God doesn't neccesarily correlate.
If you believe that if X happened naturally, then God didn't do it, that's fine. I don't think you can say that if God didn't do it, then He isn't Out There.
I can see how the leap can be made, I just don't see that it's the definite conclusion.
You're fairly right, except there are plenty of scientists out there who are atheists who more or less exclude the idea of God based on their beliefs in evolution...and they're rather adamant about it. The same goes for the other side, from people who don't understand the nature of science and automatically attribute atheism into it.
Because public schools don't brainwash kids. Right. Sure.
Of course, keep in mind that most of the historical great Western thinkers were Christians - or received training in Christian settings.
Tell that to my wife - prepared and ready. Homeschooled until high school, where she was smarter than most of the kids around. She turned out fine, and is smarter than most of the people around.