And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting.
But that doesn't stop people from believing that they're literally true.
That's not a contract, and would be unenforceable (IIRC, a contract involves each party receiving consideration from the other party, not just one party providing the other party with something). I could sign that and walk out the door, refusing to show my receipt.
Just raise taxes and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Yeah, because Bush would really sign that into law, wouldn't he? So Congress is forced to take what they can get, and raising the minimum wage is better than nothing.
Reminds me of last November's election in Colorado, where there was a referendum passed that raises the minimum wage and indexes minimum wage to inflation. The Republican line was "raising the minimum wage is ok, but it doesn't go in the constitution - you should let the legislature do it!" Of course, the legislature had plenty of opportunity to do it, and failed to do so. So the people of Colorado did the only thing that they really could do to help - which was vote for an amendment that may not have been perfect (for the very reason that the republicans stated). But the other option was to do nothing....
Odd. So do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to talk to other people on airplanes? It should be no easier or harder to block out than people talking on phones. Or is the problem that you can't listen to both ends of the conversation so it's no fun to eavesdrop when somebody is on the phone?
I'm making no arguments about whether attacking North Korea would be good, bad or other. I'm taking exception to you implication that it's the Democrats', media's, or anybody other than GWBs fault that he would have a tough time selling a war against North Korea.
You are right, he did say that Iraq was playing cat and mouse games. However, GWB did not make his case for the Iraq war based on those cat and mouse games. You'll note that the quote that you posted from the wiki says (emphasis mine): "if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission". A warning from Blix about what behavior not to engage in doesn't constitute valid rationale for a war.
So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services? Not the administration, who attempted to discredit Valerie Plame's husband and his report that there was nothing to the Nigerian yellowcake story by outing her as a spy? And failed to listen to Hans Blix, who "accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix ). Maybe you should just admit that this was what Bush wanted, he did everything he could to make it happen, and it's his fault.
Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.
Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.
I'm speechless. The Democrats have had no power for 6 years. Every little bit of what's going wrong in Iraq is the fault of Republicans, and I can say that with a straight face. You have no credibility.
You know, perhaps we'd have the patience to see things out in Iraq if we hadn't been feed lines such as "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." (Rumsfeld) or " I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." (Cheney) (these quotes from http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm) .
It's clear that this administration had no idea what it was getting into, and is trying to pretend that they know what's going on. They don't. It's quite time for the blame game - this thing has been bungled and if we don't start holding people responsible, no effort will be made to try to do things correctly. As W says, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Nothing that the Democrats proposed ever made it to the floor because the Republicans wouldn't let anything on the floor unless they know that a majority of Republicans supported it. You're just saying that the Democrats didn't do anything because the Republicans didn't let them, and somehow that's the fault of the Democrats.
Why do you expect to get a mid-level IT job with no relevant experience? Just about everybody starts at the bottom. If you're good, you won't stay there for long.
What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either.
I agree that voting based on a single issue is generally silly. But I don't think that you're thinking about this statement in the right way. You're thinking in a very short-term manner. Long-term, Bush has done quite a bit about abortion laws, by putting conservative people on the Supreme Court. That's where the battle ground is on that issue, and it's not a battle to be won overnight. The Republicans definitely understand that.
Agreed - it's bad when it is pork. But the argument presented here is that it will benefit people who are backing it, which is not really a problem if it's a good bill.
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
Shocking! Because I'm sure that the oil industry never profits from any legislation that they push, right? Why is it surprising (or wrong) that people are pushing bills that help them?
Slashdot Mirror
The Coop is not affiliated with Harvard.
And, for pity's sake, the Jonah/Noah/parting of the sea myths are all thousands of years old, and part of an oral culture that embellishes stories to make them interesting.
But that doesn't stop people from believing that they're literally true.
That's not a contract, and would be unenforceable (IIRC, a contract involves each party receiving consideration from the other party, not just one party providing the other party with something). I could sign that and walk out the door, refusing to show my receipt.
You're the one calling it ineffective. I'll agree that it's less effective. Are you saying that you would prefer that lawmakers never compromise?
Just raise taxes and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Yeah, because Bush would really sign that into law, wouldn't he? So Congress is forced to take what they can get, and raising the minimum wage is better than nothing.
Reminds me of last November's election in Colorado, where there was a referendum passed that raises the minimum wage and indexes minimum wage to inflation. The Republican line was "raising the minimum wage is ok, but it doesn't go in the constitution - you should let the legislature do it!" Of course, the legislature had plenty of opportunity to do it, and failed to do so. So the people of Colorado did the only thing that they really could do to help - which was vote for an amendment that may not have been perfect (for the very reason that the republicans stated). But the other option was to do nothing....
Bruce, I hope that OSI has better legal arguments than "I took the authority" if it expects to have any legal backing to this effort.
To quote Homer Simpson: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
For a long discussion on this, read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
... don't save for retirement, don't have kids because then you have to send them to daycare or have the wife stay home (another mouth to feed!), etc.
Odd. So do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to talk to other people on airplanes? It should be no easier or harder to block out than people talking on phones. Or is the problem that you can't listen to both ends of the conversation so it's no fun to eavesdrop when somebody is on the phone?
My name's Poochy D
and I rock the telly.
I'm half Joe Camel
and a third Fonzarelli.
etc.
If you want a sale, buy a mac at apple.com on the day after Thanksgiving....
I'm making no arguments about whether attacking North Korea would be good, bad or other. I'm taking exception to you implication that it's the Democrats', media's, or anybody other than GWBs fault that he would have a tough time selling a war against North Korea.
You are right, he did say that Iraq was playing cat and mouse games. However, GWB did not make his case for the Iraq war based on those cat and mouse games. You'll note that the quote that you posted from the wiki says (emphasis mine): "if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission". A warning from Blix about what behavior not to engage in doesn't constitute valid rationale for a war.
So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services? Not the administration, who attempted to discredit Valerie Plame's husband and his report that there was nothing to the Nigerian yellowcake story by outing her as a spy? And failed to listen to Hans Blix, who "accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix ). Maybe you should just admit that this was what Bush wanted, he did everything he could to make it happen, and it's his fault.
Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.
Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.
[The Democrats] made the Iraq debacle.
I'm speechless. The Democrats have had no power for 6 years. Every little bit of what's going wrong in Iraq is the fault of Republicans, and I can say that with a straight face. You have no credibility.
How about this: http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=346 or this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/20/politics /main1731579.shtml
Good enough?
You know, perhaps we'd have the patience to see things out in Iraq if we hadn't been feed lines such as "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." (Rumsfeld) or " I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." (Cheney) (these quotes from http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm) .
It's clear that this administration had no idea what it was getting into, and is trying to pretend that they know what's going on. They don't. It's quite time for the blame game - this thing has been bungled and if we don't start holding people responsible, no effort will be made to try to do things correctly. As W says, "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
Nothing that the Democrats proposed ever made it to the floor because the Republicans wouldn't let anything on the floor unless they know that a majority of Republicans supported it. You're just saying that the Democrats didn't do anything because the Republicans didn't let them, and somehow that's the fault of the Democrats.
Why do you expect to get a mid-level IT job with no relevant experience? Just about everybody starts at the bottom. If you're good, you won't stay there for long.
Agreed. I use Safari at work, where I have a fast Mac. At home, I've got a 1.25 GHz Powerbook G4, and Safari is just dog-slow on it, so I use Firefox.
What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either.
I agree that voting based on a single issue is generally silly. But I don't think that you're thinking about this statement in the right way. You're thinking in a very short-term manner. Long-term, Bush has done quite a bit about abortion laws, by putting conservative people on the Supreme Court. That's where the battle ground is on that issue, and it's not a battle to be won overnight. The Republicans definitely understand that.
Then you'd be in a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
Agreed - it's bad when it is pork. But the argument presented here is that it will benefit people who are backing it, which is not really a problem if it's a good bill.
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
Shocking! Because I'm sure that the oil industry never profits from any legislation that they push, right? Why is it surprising (or wrong) that people are pushing bills that help them?