I think that the fact that the drug companies have made record profits in a time of economic downturn makes it clear that it is extremely unlikely that they will no longer make any profits after this bill has been passed.
Kinda like how you can bet that Microsoft will continue to be profitable even if they're forced to stop their anti-competetive monopoly pricing practices. The whole drug patent thing gives drug companies a guaranteed monopoly for a period of time; I don't argue that that's necessarily a bad thing, but they've been abusing it. Rather than take away their patents, forcing more reasonable pricing by allowing reimportation seems like a good solution.
Sound economic policy? (in sig for those who don't read them) From a man who thinks the industry with the highest profits for the last several years is imminently going to go bankrupt because we the people are sick of being price gouged? Please!
There are people who hack the chips on their honda accords, too. For every elegant, simple, user friendly industrial design out there, there will be someone who wants to tweak it under the covers. That doesn't mean that the design doesn't "get out of your way".
See above: get a ethernet to wireless bridge. I have a D-Link model that works like a champ for my HTPC, since in my 80-year-old house running hard wires across the entire house was not an option.
And Christianity was made up by some guy 2000 years ago. So how long does wicca have to be around before it's a "real religion"? How about Mormons, do they have a real religion, or is the fact that The Church of Latter Day Saints is 150 years or so old mean it has enough seniority in your opinion to count? Somehow I missed the part of the constitution that said the President got to decide what was or wasn't a "real" religion.
No evidence, except that he says that people who are wiccans don't have a "legitimate" religion, and the military should make no accomodations for them. Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a damn duck, and wiccans are just as religious as anyone else, no matter what the bigot in chief may think to the contrary. here's the information on his position, and his lame ass dodge of "his personal beliefs" doesn't make it any better.
I thought the most interesting thing on global warming recently was the point that weather patterns seem to correlate strongly with our position relative to the Sun. Seems like variations in that are easily as much to blame for global warming as our greenhouse gasses. Do I think that means we should just indiscriminately dump CO2 into the atmosphere? No, but it doesn't mean Chicken Little (aka the Greens) are right either, and I get more and more suspicous as they get more and more dogmatic about it. In history, any "science" that screams about dogma more than simply arguing the existing facts ends up being wrong.
Half trained? Personally, everyone I've ever met who chose the shrink profession, whether psychologist or psychiatrist, with like 3 relatively minor exceptions, has been there because *they* needed therapy. Not someone I'd go to for advice whether they had an M.D. or not.
Seems to me that the government has been manipulating and misrepresenting "scientific" data for a long time. Let's see, "marijuana makes you violent" came in the 40's as I recall, and there are plenty of other examples. This is nothing new with this administration.
there is no need to draw the distinction between traitor in terrorist, especially when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists
And this is where we fundamentally part ways. You can be a traitor and all the despicable things that implies, without wanting to kill civilians, which is what is required to be a terrorist.
As far as "Islamic fundamentalists", given that Mike shaved his beard during his normal life, I would say you've got a hard sell if you want to make anyone (but those already biased against him) believe that he was anything of the sort. Again, one can be a traitor and an enemy without being the lowest of the low, killing anyone indiscriminately, a terrorist.
Because the Taliban are in that boat, so is anyone who wants to help the Taliban? I don't see that argument making much sense. I have seen no facts on the ground that Mike was any threat to civilians here at home. Until I do, I am going to presume that even if he really is guilty of what he has plead to (and no reason to de facto assume otherwise, suspicions aside), he was not what I'd consider a terrorist. A traitor perhaps, but that is indeed a different kettle of fish.
The Taliban was put into government in Afghanistan by the USA
Umm...no. Bin Laden may have been trained by the US, but the Taliban were a Pakistani creation.
Even if it did, someone helping someone who helps terrorists is not a terrorist
And if you bothered to read anything else I've written in this, you'd know that I was not saying that Mike was or should be treated as a terrorist. Quite the opposite, in fact. It remains that asking "why would anyone consider the Taliban the same as Al Quaeda" is a really stupid question.
his goal was not the destruction of the United States
And you have knowledge that this was Mike Hamwash's goal? Sounds to me like his goal was defense of the Taliban, same as Lindh's.
As for Malvo, they had reason to believe he was responsible, they should have charged him, period. I was not aware that he was held as "material witness" and I'd be just as against it for him as for Hamwash. If you have a crime to charge him with, charge him and hold him, end of story.
Fair enough. So instead of "the police" how about "that neighbor"? In a situation where there really aren't any police, what's the right thing to do? The UN does NOT count as "the police".
Hm. Providing land for terrorist training. Providing money. Accepting logistical and military aid. Refusing to assist in arrest.
That sounds like a lot more than "association".
I'm not talking about Mike here, I'm talking about The Taliban. I'm not defending our policy towards Saudi Arabia. And I'm not towing any party line, I was simply answering the really fucking stupid question "why would anyone confuse the Taliban with Al Quaeda?" I think it's clear that the two were closely related, and I don't recall saying that all our actions in response to that fact were justified.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a straw and BLOW FOR THEIR LIVES, MAN!
"Natural Causes" says CNN, but I think it's the Blaster Worm affecting all those embedded windows systems....
Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.
Kinda like how you can bet that Microsoft will continue to be profitable even if they're forced to stop their anti-competetive monopoly pricing practices. The whole drug patent thing gives drug companies a guaranteed monopoly for a period of time; I don't argue that that's necessarily a bad thing, but they've been abusing it. Rather than take away their patents, forcing more reasonable pricing by allowing reimportation seems like a good solution.
Sound economic policy? (in sig for those who don't read them) From a man who thinks the industry with the highest profits for the last several years is imminently going to go bankrupt because we the people are sick of being price gouged? Please!
There are people who hack the chips on their honda accords, too. For every elegant, simple, user friendly industrial design out there, there will be someone who wants to tweak it under the covers. That doesn't mean that the design doesn't "get out of your way".
See above: get a ethernet to wireless bridge. I have a D-Link model that works like a champ for my HTPC, since in my 80-year-old house running hard wires across the entire house was not an option.
What are you babbling about? She's hardly the only female candidate on the ballot. Some of them have some decent credentials even.
And Christianity was made up by some guy 2000 years ago. So how long does wicca have to be around before it's a "real religion"? How about Mormons, do they have a real religion, or is the fact that The Church of Latter Day Saints is 150 years or so old mean it has enough seniority in your opinion to count? Somehow I missed the part of the constitution that said the President got to decide what was or wasn't a "real" religion.
No evidence, except that he says that people who are wiccans don't have a "legitimate" religion, and the military should make no accomodations for them. Sorry, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a damn duck, and wiccans are just as religious as anyone else, no matter what the bigot in chief may think to the contrary. here's the information on his position, and his lame ass dodge of "his personal beliefs" doesn't make it any better.
I thought the most interesting thing on global warming recently was the point that weather patterns seem to correlate strongly with our position relative to the Sun. Seems like variations in that are easily as much to blame for global warming as our greenhouse gasses. Do I think that means we should just indiscriminately dump CO2 into the atmosphere? No, but it doesn't mean Chicken Little (aka the Greens) are right either, and I get more and more suspicous as they get more and more dogmatic about it. In history, any "science" that screams about dogma more than simply arguing the existing facts ends up being wrong.
Well, except he wants everyone to be a good little monotheist or their opinion doesn't count....
As for facts, you mean like that Nigerian Nuke contact Saddam had? Sorry, but whether he's doing it knowingly or not, he's misleading the country.
Half trained? Personally, everyone I've ever met who chose the shrink profession, whether psychologist or psychiatrist, with like 3 relatively minor exceptions, has been there because *they* needed therapy. Not someone I'd go to for advice whether they had an M.D. or not.
Seems to me that the government has been manipulating and misrepresenting "scientific" data for a long time. Let's see, "marijuana makes you violent" came in the 40's as I recall, and there are plenty of other examples. This is nothing new with this administration.
A "troll toll".
You're telling me they didn't just fake it for Saddam if they wanted to fake it? That'd be bloody stupid, don't you think?
And this is where we fundamentally part ways. You can be a traitor and all the despicable things that implies, without wanting to kill civilians, which is what is required to be a terrorist.
As far as "Islamic fundamentalists", given that Mike shaved his beard during his normal life, I would say you've got a hard sell if you want to make anyone (but those already biased against him) believe that he was anything of the sort. Again, one can be a traitor and an enemy without being the lowest of the low, killing anyone indiscriminately, a terrorist.
how precisely does "defend the Taliban" equate to "destroy the US"?
Because the Taliban are in that boat, so is anyone who wants to help the Taliban? I don't see that argument making much sense. I have seen no facts on the ground that Mike was any threat to civilians here at home. Until I do, I am going to presume that even if he really is guilty of what he has plead to (and no reason to de facto assume otherwise, suspicions aside), he was not what I'd consider a terrorist. A traitor perhaps, but that is indeed a different kettle of fish.
And we all know that no one who pleads guilty is ever innocent.
or blowing up federal buildings? Oh wait, he wasn't bald.
Umm...no. Bin Laden may have been trained by the US, but the Taliban were a Pakistani creation.
Even if it did, someone helping someone who helps terrorists is not a terrorist
And if you bothered to read anything else I've written in this, you'd know that I was not saying that Mike was or should be treated as a terrorist. Quite the opposite, in fact. It remains that asking "why would anyone consider the Taliban the same as Al Quaeda" is a really stupid question.
And you have knowledge that this was Mike Hamwash's goal? Sounds to me like his goal was defense of the Taliban, same as Lindh's.
As for Malvo, they had reason to believe he was responsible, they should have charged him, period. I was not aware that he was held as "material witness" and I'd be just as against it for him as for Hamwash. If you have a crime to charge him with, charge him and hold him, end of story.
Fair enough. So instead of "the police" how about "that neighbor"? In a situation where there really aren't any police, what's the right thing to do? The UN does NOT count as "the police".
Hm. Providing land for terrorist training. Providing money. Accepting logistical and military aid. Refusing to assist in arrest.
That sounds like a lot more than "association".
I'm not talking about Mike here, I'm talking about The Taliban. I'm not defending our policy towards Saudi Arabia. And I'm not towing any party line, I was simply answering the really fucking stupid question "why would anyone confuse the Taliban with Al Quaeda?" I think it's clear that the two were closely related, and I don't recall saying that all our actions in response to that fact were justified.