Only if the demarcation between 'left' and 'right' is 'prohibiting/allowing ownership of property'. Because 'state ownership of land' is about the only plank the European left cares about that the American left doesn't.
The left in America believes in abortion rights, gay marriage, social and racial justice, legalizing drugs, social safety nets, taxing the rich, limiting corporate power, restricting corporate executive pay, and many other of the planks in the international leftist movement.
Several members in our Congress are hard core leftists based on those criteria. Just because the US also has an actual right wing, doesn't mean its left wing is missing. This turkey may not fly, but it does have the equipment needed, if only it knew how to utilize it properly.
Interestingly, someone locally has the laserdisc set of the original trilogy up on Craigslist. It's been there for quite a while. No one wants it for $75.
Thanks for the laugh. I don't watch tv news, except during major events like the Boston attack. And as far as being right wing, I voted for the Green Party candidate last fall. You probably don't even know who that was, and yet still hate them for taking some votes from president Obama.
But, hey, you were spot on about Drudge. I just followed links from there to stories about storm chasers and a murderous bouncer.
Well, I don't know if they are beyond all hope. Sometimes they surprise me with real thought. And those few gems are generally from the left, waking up and smelling the crap they had been buried in by their leaders.
But really, I just say things how I see them. I'm not actually attempting to change someone's mind, I'm trying to clarify my own beliefs.
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
she wasn't saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?
She claims she got the quote from a conservative, Lee Atwater, who quoted Mao to make a point but never implied he was a "favorite political philosopher".
Atwater jokingly quoted Mao but never called him 'one of my favorite philosophers'. Lee just used a quote from Mao to provide an ironic point, much in the same way others use quotes from historic figures, both egregious & beneficent.
And what about Dunn's description of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers?" Not to worry, Dunn comes up with yet another comedy line to explain it away via CNN:
As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.
So you see. You peons just don't have the mental ability to see that Anita Dunn was merely being ironic despite the fact that was absolutely nothing in her facial expression, vocal tone, nor in what she said that displayed the slightest sense of irony. In fact, she was dead serious as you can plainly see in the video of her speech.
So, taken in context she is saying exactly what it appears she is saying. Letting her later say is was "irony" is just lefties covering up for her.
Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.
Well, you are right on the second point. I have no idea what that game was.
As for being spoiled, notice I said my friend owned the game. At that time (late 70s to early 80s), my games included climbing trees, running through the fields, and splashing in the crick (that's a creek that is too small to actually swim in) then pouring salt on the bloodsuckers to get them off our legs.
I think you hit onto its key problem, which was immersion into the movie storyline, or any storyline for that matter. Contrast that game to Adventure for the Atari 2600. I really felt I was wandering mazes and entering castles with that one. (Okay, not like a modern first person RPG, obviously, but this was a 2600, after all.)
Exactly. Just because it was low-graphics, didn't mean it was impossible to have an immersive experience. Many games were very likable for their gameplay, but were just blips and blocks moving around. ET was a spinning cement block, with rat shit falling out onto you.
And if you were a balrog, I would certainly mod you up. For me, I'm just wondering how my first post was deemed to be redundant. Maybe someone doesn't know the meaning of the word.;^)
It sucked. With or without any bugs that I have forgotten in the mists of time, the gameplay was horrible, the field of play was idiotic, and it lacked any immersion into the movie storyline. It sucked.
But praise and fawning over Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wow. You genuinely believe that, don't you?
Probably because he has read the fawning words of leftists/liberals/progressives for those people many times.
One of Obama's close advisers counts Mao as one of her guiding lights. I would find a link for you, but I just don't care to enlighten your dim-witted mind further at this moment.
Since those 3000+ American soldiers volunteered to join the military of their own free will, you should hesitate to assume you know what they would say if they could.
If you have never served in the military (for any country), you should just not assume anything at all in relation to dead soldiers. You literally have no clue.
You speak as if "all the other kids" are only allowed to enter one fair. You are wrong. They can all enter at least two fairs.
The only issue is that this kid entered a regional fair after he entered a state level fair. It didn't matter if he placed in one or the other, or both. The only issue is the timing of a regional fair was later in the year than the state fair.
Because that is the only reason he was disqualified, the people in charge are planing to rewrite the rule to take these circumstances into account.
He went to the science fair in Wyoming, conducted by the University of Wyoming, which is a 'State Level' fair. He didn't place.
His school also attends a 'Regional Level' fair, sponsored by the South Dakota School of Mines. He did place at that one.
He get disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair because he went to a regional fair after attending a state fair.
If those two events had simply happened in the reverse order, he would have been fine. It's not his fault the two events are scheduled the way they are.
Also, his town is only 3 miles from the South Dakota border, so it's not like he crossed five states to try to cheat the system. For all we know, students who live in South Dakota attend his high school.
Just do what a few people did when these machines were new. Decline the machine, accept the pat down/grope, strip to your underwear, and let them have a feel.
If every person did this, the shit would stop after about 3 days. Because everyone would be late for flights, and Leno would have the time of his life cracking jokes about it and showing how silly the whole charade is.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
As opposed to so many way more brutal dicatorships US government supports (far too many to list them all here) and sometimes even gives them technology to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan).
This is something I have been wondering lately.
It's bad that the US supports dictators rather than helping democracies around the world. But it seems that many places don't want a peaceful democracy. They want violence and tribal warfare. So is it wrong for the US to support a strong leader that ends the violence, but who does it by being a dictator, if the alternative is years of tribal wars that kill thousands annully?
I'm not saying it is always right, but maybe it isn't entirely wrong either.
No, they don't realize that. That is a big part of the problem.
The 'mystique' of nuclear warfare has overshadowed the truth of the Japan bombings. We wiped most of Japan's cities off the map before August 1945, with conventional bombings, using the high explosive and incendiary varieties of bombs. While their factories were modern steel and cement, the 'bamboo-n-rice-paper' style of their houses meant they burnt very well.
So, while the two bombs produced the largest numbers of victims from single weapons, they didn't kill as many people as many other bombing runs before them.
Actually, quite a few of his titles would have gone to the guy who placed 5th or lower in the actual race, because spots 2, 3, and 4 (& 5, & 6 for some) were all disqualified already. And of the people who would then be the winner, they all had doping issues themselves, but nothing proven. One of them was cleared, the rest were just not pursued any longer.
Your description of the operation is false. I guess that is where your interpretation differs from mine. They let a lot more than "a few shipments" go, and they made no effort to catch the small fish or the big fish.
If they made no effort to catch anyone than what's your theory on what they were doing?
So, rather than admit they made no effort to catch the criminals, you want to sidetrack the conversation to what my theory is. As if you care what my theory is.
And, NO, stopping smuggling does not become smuggling. Smuggling is smuggling in itself. As there was no attempt to stop said smuggling, I'm not even sure what your argument really is.
I agree that not stopping smuggling doesn't become smuggling, which makes me really confused at to how you changing your tune agreeing with that point makes you wonder what my argument is.
I didn't change my tune. I specified there is a difference between "stopping smuggling" and "smuggling". I guess that is too complicated of a theory.
And I still have seen no reason to believe a field office would try such a half assed scheme without someone in Washington knowing about it. Since Holder and Obama have claimed documents about it are covered by Executive Privilege, I think my argument is stronger than yours.
They claim EVERYTHING is covered by Executive Privilege, as did Bush, and would Clinton if he were in office now.
That's because these operations are coordinated in conjunction with the national headquarters, and if not necessarily authorized by the head of the department, in this case the Attorney General, they are at least known by someone under him. At the least, lawyers are consulted for clarification of what is legal and what isn't. You don't seem to understand that international law isn't something to be ignored by a regional leader in Arizona.
They claim executive privilege with or without a real scandal because a) So claiming Executive Privilege doesn't become evidence of a scandal the next time when there's a real scandal they're trying to keep hidden b) It's safer because someone in the DOJ may have known something they didn't know about, or some other scandal might exist buried in the docs c) Even if the docs are clean it's not that hard to twist something out of context (re climategate) d) Even if the DOJ is completely innocent, a news cycle consisting of "the DOJ has released documents in the investigation into the Fast & Furious scandal and investigators are looking through them" is super damaging to the ears of the uninformed voter.
Just consider, if a rival group with no other objective than to get you in as much trouble as possible asked to look through all your work emails for evidence that you did something wrong would you agree to it?
As a private citizen, no.
If I were the head of the Executive branch of federal government of the USA, and a leader in the Legislative branch requested this information, I would be hard pressed to justify keeping it from him or her. Maybe I would make it available only to the top leaders in that branch, but I would not ignore their legitimate inquiries that are in line with their role as spelled out in the document that created their office as well as my own.
But, then again, I would never have people who thought the Fast and Furious operation was sensible and correct actually working in my administration. I would make it clear that any idiocy like that would be grounds for immediate dismissal. But, hey, that's just my way of being the head of an organization. Following the rules that are in place, and stuff like that.
And my sig is very relevant here. You are the gymnast, hoping to play down scandals of your political side. You have stated no "obvious fact" about the ATF office in Pho
Slashdot Mirror
Only if the demarcation between 'left' and 'right' is 'prohibiting/allowing ownership of property'. Because 'state ownership of land' is about the only plank the European left cares about that the American left doesn't.
The left in America believes in abortion rights, gay marriage, social and racial justice, legalizing drugs, social safety nets, taxing the rich, limiting corporate power, restricting corporate executive pay, and many other of the planks in the international leftist movement.
Several members in our Congress are hard core leftists based on those criteria. Just because the US also has an actual right wing, doesn't mean its left wing is missing. This turkey may not fly, but it does have the equipment needed, if only it knew how to utilize it properly.
I would, but they tore up the train tracks behind the farm I grew up on. Just can't make the journey if it isn't on train tracks.
Interestingly, someone locally has the laserdisc set of the original trilogy up on Craigslist. It's been there for quite a while. No one wants it for $75.
Unlike you, I'm willing to enlighten a dim-witted mind.
You seem to be getting ahead of yourself.
Maybe he means he is shining a flashlight into his ear.
Then the question would be "Is the flashright to the right or the left of him?".
Thanks for the laugh. I don't watch tv news, except during major events like the Boston attack. And as far as being right wing, I voted for the Green Party candidate last fall. You probably don't even know who that was, and yet still hate them for taking some votes from president Obama.
But, hey, you were spot on about Drudge. I just followed links from there to stories about storm chasers and a murderous bouncer.
I'm so far right, I'm surprised you can see me.
(That's sarcasm, in case you can't tell.)
Well, I don't know if they are beyond all hope. Sometimes they surprise me with real thought. And those few gems are generally from the left, waking up and smelling the crap they had been buried in by their leaders.
But really, I just say things how I see them. I'm not actually attempting to change someone's mind, I'm trying to clarify my own beliefs.
That was our favorite one, for that same reason.
So when she said this:
"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."
she wasn't saying that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers?
She claims she got the quote from a conservative, Lee Atwater, who quoted Mao to make a point but never implied he was a "favorite political philosopher".
According to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Lee_Atwater_quote_Mao
Atwater jokingly quoted Mao but never called him 'one of my favorite philosophers'. Lee just used a quote from Mao to provide an ironic point, much in the same way others use quotes from historic figures, both egregious & beneficent.
For further analysis of the situation, here is another site
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/10/17/anita-dunn-blames-lee-atwater-quoting-mao
And what about Dunn's description of Mao as one of her "favorite political philosophers?" Not to worry, Dunn comes up with yet another comedy line to explain it away via CNN:
As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing.
So you see. You peons just don't have the mental ability to see that Anita Dunn was merely being ironic despite the fact that was absolutely nothing in her facial expression, vocal tone, nor in what she said that displayed the slightest sense of irony. In fact, she was dead serious as you can plainly see in the video of her speech.
So, taken in context she is saying exactly what it appears she is saying. Letting her later say is was "irony" is just lefties covering up for her.
Sorry, your attempt at saving your political side's image failed.
Well, you are right on the second point. I have no idea what that game was.
As for being spoiled, notice I said my friend owned the game. At that time (late 70s to early 80s), my games included climbing trees, running through the fields, and splashing in the crick (that's a creek that is too small to actually swim in) then pouring salt on the bloodsuckers to get them off our legs.
I think you hit onto its key problem, which was immersion into the movie storyline, or any storyline for that matter. Contrast that game to Adventure for the Atari 2600. I really felt I was wandering mazes and entering castles with that one. (Okay, not like a modern first person RPG, obviously, but this was a 2600, after all.)
Exactly. Just because it was low-graphics, didn't mean it was impossible to have an immersive experience. Many games were very likable for their gameplay, but were just blips and blocks moving around. ET was a spinning cement block, with rat shit falling out onto you.
And if you were a balrog, I would certainly mod you up. For me, I'm just wondering how my first post was deemed to be redundant. Maybe someone doesn't know the meaning of the word. ;^)
It sucked. With or without any bugs that I have forgotten in the mists of time, the gameplay was horrible, the field of play was idiotic, and it lacked any immersion into the movie storyline. It sucked.
But praise and fawning over Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Wow. You genuinely believe that, don't you?
Probably because he has read the fawning words of leftists/liberals/progressives for those people many times.
One of Obama's close advisers counts Mao as one of her guiding lights. I would find a link for you, but I just don't care to enlighten your dim-witted mind further at this moment.
Since those 3000+ American soldiers volunteered to join the military of their own free will, you should hesitate to assume you know what they would say if they could.
If you have never served in the military (for any country), you should just not assume anything at all in relation to dead soldiers. You literally have no clue.
You speak as if "all the other kids" are only allowed to enter one fair. You are wrong. They can all enter at least two fairs.
The only issue is that this kid entered a regional fair after he entered a state level fair. It didn't matter if he placed in one or the other, or both. The only issue is the timing of a regional fair was later in the year than the state fair.
Because that is the only reason he was disqualified, the people in charge are planing to rewrite the rule to take these circumstances into account.
No. Exactly this. I'm referring to propping oneself up on the work of others;
Maybe you should have actually read the article.
Basically, Wyoming has to have their fair later in the season, so these kids can do the regional fair first. Is that the right solution?
That's not quite accurate.
He went to the science fair in Wyoming, conducted by the University of Wyoming, which is a 'State Level' fair. He didn't place.
His school also attends a 'Regional Level' fair, sponsored by the South Dakota School of Mines. He did place at that one.
He get disqualified from the International Science and Engineering Fair because he went to a regional fair after attending a state fair.
If those two events had simply happened in the reverse order, he would have been fine. It's not his fault the two events are scheduled the way they are.
Also, his town is only 3 miles from the South Dakota border, so it's not like he crossed five states to try to cheat the system. For all we know, students who live in South Dakota attend his high school.
Well, I don't know how big your colon is, but I'm only retaining a little bit of shit at the moment.
Just do what a few people did when these machines were new. Decline the machine, accept the pat down/grope, strip to your underwear, and let them have a feel.
If every person did this, the shit would stop after about 3 days. Because everyone would be late for flights, and Leno would have the time of his life cracking jokes about it and showing how silly the whole charade is.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
As opposed to so many way more brutal dicatorships US government supports (far too many to list them all here) and sometimes even gives them technology to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan).
This is something I have been wondering lately.
It's bad that the US supports dictators rather than helping democracies around the world. But it seems that many places don't want a peaceful democracy. They want violence and tribal warfare. So is it wrong for the US to support a strong leader that ends the violence, but who does it by being a dictator, if the alternative is years of tribal wars that kill thousands annully?
I'm not saying it is always right, but maybe it isn't entirely wrong either.
No, they don't realize that. That is a big part of the problem.
The 'mystique' of nuclear warfare has overshadowed the truth of the Japan bombings. We wiped most of Japan's cities off the map before August 1945, with conventional bombings, using the high explosive and incendiary varieties of bombs. While their factories were modern steel and cement, the 'bamboo-n-rice-paper' style of their houses meant they burnt very well.
So, while the two bombs produced the largest numbers of victims from single weapons, they didn't kill as many people as many other bombing runs before them.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Conventional_bombing
http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html
Actually, quite a few of his titles would have gone to the guy who placed 5th or lower in the actual race, because spots 2, 3, and 4 (& 5, & 6 for some) were all disqualified already. And of the people who would then be the winner, they all had doping issues themselves, but nothing proven. One of them was cleared, the rest were just not pursued any longer.
You just gave the Cliff Notes version of "A Message to Garcia".
Your description of the operation is false. I guess that is where your interpretation differs from mine. They let a lot more than "a few shipments" go, and they made no effort to catch the small fish or the big fish.
If they made no effort to catch anyone than what's your theory on what they were doing?
So, rather than admit they made no effort to catch the criminals, you want to sidetrack the conversation to what my theory is. As if you care what my theory is.
And, NO, stopping smuggling does not become smuggling. Smuggling is smuggling in itself. As there was no attempt to stop said smuggling, I'm not even sure what your argument really is.
I agree that not stopping smuggling doesn't become smuggling, which makes me really confused at to how you changing your tune agreeing with that point makes you wonder what my argument is.
I didn't change my tune. I specified there is a difference between "stopping smuggling" and "smuggling". I guess that is too complicated of a theory.
And I still have seen no reason to believe a field office would try such a half assed scheme without someone in Washington knowing about it. Since Holder and Obama have claimed documents about it are covered by Executive Privilege, I think my argument is stronger than yours.
They claim EVERYTHING is covered by Executive Privilege, as did Bush, and would Clinton if he were in office now.
That's because these operations are coordinated in conjunction with the national headquarters, and if not necessarily authorized by the head of the department, in this case the Attorney General, they are at least known by someone under him. At the least, lawyers are consulted for clarification of what is legal and what isn't. You don't seem to understand that international law isn't something to be ignored by a regional leader in Arizona.
They claim executive privilege with or without a real scandal because
a) So claiming Executive Privilege doesn't become evidence of a scandal the next time when there's a real scandal they're trying to keep hidden
b) It's safer because someone in the DOJ may have known something they didn't know about, or some other scandal might exist buried in the docs
c) Even if the docs are clean it's not that hard to twist something out of context (re climategate)
d) Even if the DOJ is completely innocent, a news cycle consisting of "the DOJ has released documents in the investigation into the Fast & Furious scandal and investigators are looking through them" is super damaging to the ears of the uninformed voter.
Just consider, if a rival group with no other objective than to get you in as much trouble as possible asked to look through all your work emails for evidence that you did something wrong would you agree to it?
As a private citizen, no.
If I were the head of the Executive branch of federal government of the USA, and a leader in the Legislative branch requested this information, I would be hard pressed to justify keeping it from him or her. Maybe I would make it available only to the top leaders in that branch, but I would not ignore their legitimate inquiries that are in line with their role as spelled out in the document that created their office as well as my own.
But, then again, I would never have people who thought the Fast and Furious operation was sensible and correct actually working in my administration. I would make it clear that any idiocy like that would be grounds for immediate dismissal. But, hey, that's just my way of being the head of an organization. Following the rules that are in place, and stuff like that.
And my sig is very relevant here. You are the gymnast, hoping to play down scandals of your political side. You have stated no "obvious fact" about the ATF office in Pho
Except for this case, to use your example, I saw someone else eating an apple and commenting on the experience. Somehow that became me eating fruit.
You should just learn reading comprehension.