Add a database and some level of interactivity and you should be able to improve on the old list of questions.
#1. Some way to add a question. This serves two functions:
#1a. The most obvious. It gets new questions on the FAQ.
#1b. Even if you know it is exactly like another question already covered. Different people ask the same question in different fashions. Having multiple questions link to the same answer helps people who don't think in the same terms that you do.
#2. A method of classifying "questions" as: a. A real question that I had. b. Information that I found useful but would not have thought to ask. c. Self-indulgent crap. (add more categories that you think of)
#3. A method of ranking whether the "answer" really answers the question (this can get back to #1b where everyone doesn't think in the same terms you do). a. +5 perfect answer - no improvement b. good answer c. okay answer, parts unclear d. bad answer, much unclear or partially wrong e. you suck! the option you mention isn't even available
#4. A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections. Suppose I have some time available and I want to look at all of the "useful information" items with +5 answers.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income.
It is correct that the data for the Reagan years shows an increase in income.
You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
No I am not assuming that. I am pointing out that the data does not support your claim that cutting taxes increases government income.
And I am showing that in a very easy to understand fashion. I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
Therefore, tax cuts do NOT mean increased governmental income. It's simple science (unlike your pseudo-science).
You claim change X has effect Y. Change X occured at two instances. Effect Y was noticed at one instance. The OPPOSITE effect was noticed at the other.
Therefore, you are wrong.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
Typical pseudo-science. Just like phrenology. When your claims don't match reality, claim that there was something that you didn't mention that more than countered the factor you claimed would have an effect.
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell.
Why not? They are the same thing. The tax revenues are down because the economy is down.
I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
How? Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Therefore, since the economy is bad and so many people are unemployed, the tax revenue is down.
Or do you live in a world where unemployed people pay federal taxes? Life must be extra hard for those unemployed people in your world.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
But that macro trend you are quoting covers 8 years of Clinton's budget management.
You cannot use revenue growth data from Clinton's tax-and-spend years to compensate for the decline during the cut-taxes-borrow-and-spend years of Bush.
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
To put is simply, Bush's tax cuts have resulted in lower governmental income. Just look at Clinton's years to see the difference.
But I've seen the spyware crap install itself without any warnings or check boxes popping up. It seems that it exploits flaws in IE (or just having IE setup with too low of a security setting).
If so, I don't think this is a matter of "policing the Internet" but more a matter of fining people for intentionally dumping crap on your property.
If I came over to his house and dropped off a few open drums of used motor oil, I'm sure he would have a problem with that. This is the same concept.
Now, if people get the crap because they WANT the cool pointers and such, that's their own fault.
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
I didn't read the first one right when I posted that, but both of the other items are correct. So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
In fact, 2002 is less than 2000.
What's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that?
Again, what's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000. An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that?
Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!!
Yeah, you're right. Yet three YEARS later we're showing WORSE numbers than BEFORE the attack. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Ummm, no. 1982 - 632,240,506 1983 - 627,246,793 difference = -4,993,713 Then a jump UP!
2000 - 2,096,916,925 2003 - 1,952,929,045 difference = -143,987,880 With NO jump up.
Not 2x as bad.
Not 5x as bad.
Not even 10x as bad.
Almost 30x WORSE than your example. And still trending downward.
The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
Where is the "increased government income" that you're promising? Or are you going to continue to hide behind an attack that took place over 3 years ago?
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
Now look at the numbers from 1999 on.
1999 - 2000 = growth
Bush comes into office 2000 - 2001 = decline
2001-2002 = decline
2002-2003 = decline
So by your "data", the government income DECREASED when Bush cut taxes. How is that possible when you say that cutting taxes INCREASES the government's income?
Maybe the situation is not as simplistic as you portray?
Removing him when you KNOW its going to cost lives requires a tad more moral character, will, and resolve, especially when you know its going to piss some people off who are making money off that dictatorship.
Yep, that's right.
But it isn't applicable in this case because that wasn't how the war was sold to the US citizens.
We didn't go in to remove a dictator.
We went in because a dictator with terrorist connections was hiding "WMD's" and preparing to use them against the US.
Telling so many lies (and continuing to tell them) to sell your war does NOT show "moral character, will, and resolve".
Rather it shows the opposite. Too bad for your side.
There was a time, pre-Iraq invasion, when a US citizen could live in Saudi Arabia.
That time is over. If you are a US citizen in Saudi Arabia (and not a Muslim), you are far more likely to be killed or kidnapped now than in 2001.
you can't threaten me with the spectre of armies of religious madmen responding to my actions when my actions are the response to armies of religious madmen
There weren't "armies" of them.
Our actions have created those armies.
your analysis is not useful if you present to me a negative consequence that preexists my actions
It's called "degree". There is a huge difference between 100 terrorists spread throughout the world and 10,000 terrorists living in the same area.
you seem to have some issues with logic there
Hardly. I understand that 10,000 terrorists hating us is a WORSE situation than having 100 terrorists hating us. And that is what we've created.
so when something like 9/11 happens, don't be surprised if the us responds militarily. in what world do you live in where a military response from the us is not appropriate or just, to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening ever again?
You're assuming the claimed result before such has been established.
At the moment, it looks as if our military actions have created MORE terrorists. Which makes the possiblility of another attack on the US even more likely.
please be intellectually honest people: the us does good and bad in the world.
You seem to like that phrase. Such a pity it is meaningless in this discussion.
Rather than rant about "intellectual honest people", ask yourself this: "Was our invasion of Iraq the best use of our resources for reducing terrorism?"
At the moment, it seems that it was not. There are more terrorists now, in more countries, with more attacks and al Queda has become a world-wide symbol to rally them.
However, the NYT's article also says time after time that the Department of Energy's access to the White House was limited, whereas the CIA had direct access to senior officials.
So, WHY was the DoE's access limited?
So, WHY did the CIA have direct access?
So, WHY was there a difference between the DoE and the CIA?
Now, part of the job of the PotUSoA involves gathering ALL the information necessary to make an informed decision on what is best for the USofA.
For my part, I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was already decided. Those individuals and organizations that provided any information to support that decision were valued while any individuals or organizations that provided information CONTRARY were derided.
Once the people of this country get their heads out of their false reality created by what they are fed via consolidated media perhaps they will learn. It is unlikely that anything will change because people refuse to think for themselves. They want to be a passive recipient of all the news they get.
That is because political views are learned the same place/time their religious views are learned. At home in early childhood.
People, as a whole, tend to decide upon a question EMOTIONALLY and then attempt to justify that EMOTIONAL decision with whatever "facts" are available.
Of course, what constitutes a "fact" is determined by their political/religious upbringing so......
No, it's a damn shame that the idiots in this country believe that he is right.
Of course he is right. He's telling them what they ALREADY know is the truth.
His administration has been caught in the liars den multiple times yet somehow they are able to get people to continue to turn to them in the face of this "imminent threat".
When people are afraid, they react as herd animals. All Bush needs to do is keep enough of them afraid enough for long enough to get him re-elected.
Stop looking at recent history from factual analysis. Look at it from an emotional analysis standpoint. Everything will become so much clearer.
It's all about maintaining and re-enforcing the fear. Fear gives you control of the herd.
Rather than look at how the crap gets installed and dealing with THAT, let's talk about software to remove the crap AFTER it gets installed.
Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there.
Not to mention this will be another DAILY download update along with: #1. Security updates #2. Anti-virus signatures
So the response of the passengers can be assumed to have changed.
Why do you believe the approach of the hijackers will not also change to compensate for the change in the passengers' response?
Yes, if everyone was armed, fewer terrorists would be able to take over planes. On the other hand, it would tend to cull the idiots in our own population.
Since we are not going to arm all of our passengers, the terrorists' new object will be to immediately kill anyone who might be a threat to them once they take over the plane. This makes it harder for them, but not impossible. Particularly given the failures of our airport screening system.
There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Also, the development will turn towards weapon systems that are not subject to that defense system, i.e. backpack nukes.
Question: What is the biggest fear about terrorists?
Answer: That they will get a backpack nuke and smuggle it into one of our cities.
So following that course of "defense" will only make us more vulnerable to the REAL threat in the future. Therefore, that "defense" is not very defensive.
Yup, I can see that happening. Maybe even as much as Gartner says. Maybe more, maybe less.
But that still doesn't justify their spin on their story. It isn't Linux, it is those filthy, thieving Microsoft junkies.
Why didn't Gartner frame the discussion as.....
"Gartner says: Linux users 75% LESS likely to pirate software than Windows users"
In a recent Gartner study, it was found that 100% of Linux users had paid for the OS that was installed on their PC's. Windows users frequently purchased Linux-based PC's and then installed pirated versions of Windows.
What kind of Linux user would buy a computer with Windows preinstalled when he could just build his own and not pay the MS tax?
The corporate kind! I have several machines at work that originally shipped with Windows (workstations) or were listed as Windows servers. But they now run Linux.
The older Compaq servers make great Debian servers. Their latest desktops run Knoppix beautifully.
The only problem I've had has been with the DL320 servers. They took too long getting the drivers released for Linux.
Which kind of contradicts TFA's statement: "Linux is the product of mass participatory innovation among thousands of Pro-Am technologists. Many of them program commercial software for a living but work on Linux in their spare time because the spirit of collaborative problem solving appeals so powerfully."
How can you be an "amateur" working on Linux if you are paid to write code?
I can see how Linux STARTED as an amateur project. Linus was still in school.
"Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another?"
Newsflash!
Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.
It's possible to support the UN's efforts at finding "WMD's" in Iraq (they did have people on the ground there) -and- Shore up the country you just invaded (Afghanistan) -and- Push world-wide efforts to trace the money the terrorists are using -and- Balance the budget.
"While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out."
The US government is bringing back people who have already LEFT the military in an attempt to fill vacant slots. We are ALREADY "spread out". That is because Bush does not understand leadership any more than you do.
"Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before."
Saddam wasn't even a threat to the countries around him. He wasn't any "problem".
"Iran and North Korea are being dealt with."
And all the problems will be fixed in the next service pack. Right. Iran knows that we cannot invade another country. North Korea knows that we're pinned down. Now is the best time for them to drive their programs. The sooner they get nukes, the sooner they're on an equal footing with us. Bush made a complete mess of that situation.
"You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq."
Iran is closer to Afghanistan than Iraq is.
Iran already has an Islamic fundamentalist government while Iraq was secular.
Why would Osama move to Iraq instead of to Iran?
You also need to look at the usage of the word "reportedly" in that section your quoted. No evidence, just people saying that such and such happened.
Just like our invasion was based upon people saying that such and such "WMD's" were there. In fact, let's break this down a bit.
"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban."
"According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Again, when you WANT to hear something, you'll take someone's WORD that it is true. Which is what got us stuck in Iraq.
Rather than relying upon what other people SAY happened, can we just stick to verifiable facts?
"Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated?" "No."
This depends upon how you define "liberated". If you define it as "no long under Saddam's rule", then they are liberated. If you define it as "self rule" then they are still under US control as we can veto anything their "government" does (and we have with the release of the female prisoners).
"Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam?""Possibly yes, probably not."
Again, it comes down to definitions. Some are dead... some are worse off... some are better off.
It is all about the specifics of each case. Enough specifics and you have a general consensus.
"We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement."I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.
If protestors die, does it REALLY matter if it was Saddam who killed them or if it was us?
Personally, I'd place those protestors who were killed in the NOT "better off now than with Saddam" category.
But when the discussion drops to the level of arguing whether a dead civilian is better off or worse off than an oppressed civilian, the ONLY thing that can be said is that both sides are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
And I've seen it too.
:)
Maybe there should be a FAQ on business website basics.
Add a database and some level of interactivity and you should be able to improve on the old list of questions.
#1. Some way to add a question. This serves two functions:
#1a. The most obvious. It gets new questions on the FAQ.
#1b. Even if you know it is exactly like another question already covered. Different people ask the same question in different fashions. Having multiple questions link to the same answer helps people who don't think in the same terms that you do.
#2. A method of classifying "questions" as:
a. A real question that I had.
b. Information that I found useful but would not have thought to ask.
c. Self-indulgent crap.
(add more categories that you think of)
#3. A method of ranking whether the "answer" really answers the question (this can get back to #1b where everyone doesn't think in the same terms you do).
a. +5 perfect answer - no improvement
b. good answer
c. okay answer, parts unclear
d. bad answer, much unclear or partially wrong
e. you suck! the option you mention isn't even available
#4. A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections. Suppose I have some time available and I want to look at all of the "useful information" items with +5 answers.
No its not because you are making the assumptions that you can not prove true. The Reagan data clearly shows an increase in government income.
It is correct that the data for the Reagan years shows an increase in income.
You assume that if the Bush tax cuts had not happened that government income would have at least remained steady, this is easily proved to be a false assumption.
No I am not assuming that. I am pointing out that the data does not support your claim that cutting taxes increases government income.
And I am showing that in a very easy to understand fashion. I am taking the data that YOU provided and showing that the governmental income DROPPED after Bush's tax cuts.
Therefore, tax cuts do NOT mean increased governmental income. It's simple science (unlike your pseudo-science).
You claim change X has effect Y.
Change X occured at two instances.
Effect Y was noticed at one instance.
The OPPOSITE effect was noticed at the other.
Therefore, you are wrong.
And as such my argument is that the tax cuts, in this case, saved the economy from a further downhill slide.
Typical pseudo-science. Just like phrenology. When your claims don't match reality, claim that there was something that you didn't mention that more than countered the factor you claimed would have an effect.
Flip-flop Alert: You tell me is the economy improving or not? You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell. I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?
You can't in one breath tell me how bad the economy is and in the next ask me why tax revenues fell.
Why not? They are the same thing. The tax revenues are down because the economy is down.
I take that back you can but in doing so you negate your own argument.
How? Unemployed people do not pay taxes. Therefore, since the economy is bad and so many people are unemployed, the tax revenue is down.
Or do you live in a world where unemployed people pay federal taxes? Life must be extra hard for those unemployed people in your world.
I'm not the one off topic and looking for micro trends to prove my point. The overall Macro trend from 1980 to today does show a "CONTINUING trend" in government income not the "3X" decrease you site but instead a 4X increase.
But that macro trend you are quoting covers 8 years of Clinton's budget management.
You cannot use revenue growth data from Clinton's tax-and-spend years to compensate for the decline during the cut-taxes-borrow-and-spend years of Bush.
If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.
To put is simply, Bush's tax cuts have resulted in lower governmental income. Just look at Clinton's years to see the difference.
I like that he stuck to his beliefs.
But I've seen the spyware crap install itself without any warnings or check boxes popping up. It seems that it exploits flaws in IE (or just having IE setup with too low of a security setting).
If so, I don't think this is a matter of "policing the Internet" but more a matter of fining people for intentionally dumping crap on your property.
If I came over to his house and dropped off a few open drums of used motor oil, I'm sure he would have a problem with that. This is the same concept.
Now, if people get the crap because they WANT the cool pointers and such, that's their own fault.
Not 30x, just 3x. I had an extra zero there.
Here, I'll do it for you.
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2001 - 2,128,831,182
2002 - 2,016,627,269
2003 - 1,952,929,045
Love how you guys always play the "Let's make up data" game.
I didn't read the first one right when I posted that, but both of the other items are correct. So, your statement that cutting taxes increases government income is STILL shown to be incorrect from data in 2002 and 2003.
In fact, 2002 is less than 2000.
What's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000.
Now what could possibly have cause a financial downturn in 2001??? Hmm what could have "attacked" our financial system like that?
Again, what's WORSE is that 2003 is LESS than 2000. An attack in 2001 should NOT mean that 2003 is worse than 2000. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that?
Its almost like the system shutdown for days and a primary means of moving goods within the country was interrupted for three days!!!
Yeah, you're right. Yet three YEARS later we're showing WORSE numbers than BEFORE the attack. How many YEARS are you going to hide behind that attack?
Ofcource if you were not so afflicted with selective memory you'd remember and see in the data the exact same decline in 1983 when Reagan's cuts were pasted.
Ummm, no.
1982 - 632,240,506
1983 - 627,246,793
difference = -4,993,713
Then a jump UP!
2000 - 2,096,916,925
2003 - 1,952,929,045
difference = -143,987,880
With NO jump up.
Not 2x as bad.
Not 5x as bad.
Not even 10x as bad.
Almost 30x WORSE than your example. And still trending downward.
The Reagan tax cuts created the most explosive growth of wealth the world has ever seen. Now are we going to see the same levels of growth? No because the rate cuts are not as dramatic but alas that is not the issue at bar here.
No. Stay on your original topic. Tax cuts increase governmental income. Yet the numbers do NOT show that happening. In fact, the CONTINUING trend is over 30x WORSE than with Ronnie.
Where is the "increased government income" that you're promising? Or are you going to continue to hide behind an attack that took place over 3 years ago?
Could it be that when you cut taxes the amount of money moving in economy increases and therefor the government income actually increases. And before you spout off how theres no evidence to support that please review the IRS Internal Revenue Gross Collections, by Type of Tax, Fiscal Years 1973-2003 which clearly shows that government income doubled in during the 80's and the Reagan Tax cuts.
Now look at the numbers from 1999 on.
1999 - 2000 = growth
Bush comes into office
2000 - 2001 = decline
2001-2002 = decline
2002-2003 = decline
So by your "data", the government income DECREASED when Bush cut taxes. How is that possible when you say that cutting taxes INCREASES the government's income?
Maybe the situation is not as simplistic as you portray?
No, that's not a conservative value. That's an economic policy goal, and it's one that not all conservatives agree about.
Oh, if this is about what values all Conservatives share, that's easy.
Conservatives have no values. There is not a single value shared by every Conservative. Not a one. None.
Conservatives are for open markets and free trade.
Oooh, I'm sorry. Wasn't it Clinton that passed NAFTA? Wouldn't that make it a LIBERAL value?
Complaining about a dictator is easy.
Yep, that's right.
Removing him when you KNOW its going to cost lives requires a tad more moral character, will, and resolve, especially when you know its going to piss some people off who are making money off that dictatorship.
Yep, that's right.
But it isn't applicable in this case because that wasn't how the war was sold to the US citizens.
We didn't go in to remove a dictator.
We went in because a dictator with terrorist connections was hiding "WMD's" and preparing to use them against the US.
Telling so many lies (and continuing to tell them) to sell your war does NOT show "moral character, will, and resolve".
Rather it shows the opposite. Too bad for your side.
There was a time, pre-Iraq invasion, when a US citizen could live in Saudi Arabia.
That time is over. If you are a US citizen in Saudi Arabia (and not a Muslim), you are far more likely to be killed or kidnapped now than in 2001.
you can't threaten me with the spectre of armies of religious madmen responding to my actions when my actions are the response to armies of religious madmen
There weren't "armies" of them.
Our actions have created those armies.
your analysis is not useful if you present to me a negative consequence that preexists my actions
It's called "degree". There is a huge difference between 100 terrorists spread throughout the world and 10,000 terrorists living in the same area.
you seem to have some issues with logic there
Hardly. I understand that 10,000 terrorists hating us is a WORSE situation than having 100 terrorists hating us. And that is what we've created.
so when something like 9/11 happens, don't be surprised if the us responds militarily. in what world do you live in where a military response from the us is not appropriate or just, to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening ever again?
You're assuming the claimed result before such has been established.
At the moment, it looks as if our military actions have created MORE terrorists. Which makes the possiblility of another attack on the US even more likely.
please be intellectually honest people: the us does good and bad in the world.
You seem to like that phrase. Such a pity it is meaningless in this discussion.
Rather than rant about "intellectual honest people", ask yourself this:
"Was our invasion of Iraq the best use of our resources for reducing terrorism?"
At the moment, it seems that it was not. There are more terrorists now, in more countries, with more attacks and al Queda has become a world-wide symbol to rally them.
You're building up a case to go to war.
You're assembling the evidence for that case.
You find that some of the evidence wasn't substantiated.
You find that some of the evidence was false.
You find that some of the evidence is in dispute.
You find that some of the evidence is hearsay.
At what point do you STOP and have ALL the evidence re-examined?
Rather, what we saw was a continuing onslaught of new "evidence" and fear.
All since proven false.
Now, how is it possible to get ALL of the "evidence" wrong? Not part of it. Not some of it. But all of the "evidence".
Bush and Co. lied to get us into this mess.
However, the NYT's article also says time after time that the Department of Energy's access to the White House was limited, whereas the CIA had direct access to senior officials.
So, WHY was the DoE's access limited?
So, WHY did the CIA have direct access?
So, WHY was there a difference between the DoE and the CIA?
Now, part of the job of the PotUSoA involves gathering ALL the information necessary to make an informed decision on what is best for the USofA.
For my part, I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was already decided. Those individuals and organizations that provided any information to support that decision were valued while any individuals or organizations that provided information CONTRARY were derided.
Once the people of this country get their heads out of their false reality created by what they are fed via consolidated media perhaps they will learn. It is unlikely that anything will change because people refuse to think for themselves. They want to be a passive recipient of all the news they get.
......
That is because political views are learned the same place/time their religious views are learned. At home in early childhood.
People, as a whole, tend to decide upon a question EMOTIONALLY and then attempt to justify that EMOTIONAL decision with whatever "facts" are available.
Of course, what constitutes a "fact" is determined by their political/religious upbringing so
No, it's a damn shame that the idiots in this country believe that he is right.
Of course he is right. He's telling them what they ALREADY know is the truth.
His administration has been caught in the liars den multiple times yet somehow they are able to get people to continue to turn to them in the face of this "imminent threat".
When people are afraid, they react as herd animals. All Bush needs to do is keep enough of them afraid enough for long enough to get him re-elected.
Stop looking at recent history from factual analysis. Look at it from an emotional analysis standpoint. Everything will become so much clearer.
It's all about maintaining and re-enforcing the fear. Fear gives you control of the herd.
I liken it to the same sort of power religion has over some people, it's like the cult of Bush.
It is a religion. It is the way these people see the world, their place in it, and what constitutes "good" and "evil" / "right" and "wrong".
Rather than look at how the crap gets installed and dealing with THAT, let's talk about software to remove the crap AFTER it gets installed.
Here's some advice, Bill. It's easier to prevent the stuff from being installed then it is to clean up all the millions of variations that will be out there.
Not to mention this will be another DAILY download update along with:
#1. Security updates
#2. Anti-virus signatures
So the response of the passengers can be assumed to have changed.
Why do you believe the approach of the hijackers will not also change to compensate for the change in the passengers' response?
Yes, if everyone was armed, fewer terrorists would be able to take over planes. On the other hand, it would tend to cull the idiots in our own population.
Since we are not going to arm all of our passengers, the terrorists' new object will be to immediately kill anyone who might be a threat to them once they take over the plane. This makes it harder for them, but not impossible. Particularly given the failures of our airport screening system.
There is however a flaw. If I have a system that can knock down 10 missiles that is an incentive for my enemy to produce 11 + missiles. So if we get ourselves into another cold war these systems could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Also, the development will turn towards weapon systems that are not subject to that defense system, i.e. backpack nukes.
Question: What is the biggest fear about terrorists?
Answer: That they will get a backpack nuke and smuggle it into one of our cities.
So following that course of "defense" will only make us more vulnerable to the REAL threat in the future. Therefore, that "defense" is not very defensive.
Yup, I can see that happening. Maybe even as much as Gartner says. Maybe more, maybe less.
.....
But that still doesn't justify their spin on their story. It isn't Linux, it is those filthy, thieving Microsoft junkies.
Why didn't Gartner frame the discussion as
"Gartner says: Linux users 75% LESS likely to pirate software than Windows users"
In a recent Gartner study, it was found that 100% of Linux users had paid for the OS that was installed on their PC's. Windows users frequently purchased Linux-based PC's and then installed pirated versions of Windows.
What kind of Linux user would buy a computer with Windows preinstalled when he could just build his own and not pay the MS tax?
The corporate kind! I have several machines at work that originally shipped with Windows (workstations) or were listed as Windows servers. But they now run Linux.
The older Compaq servers make great Debian servers. Their latest desktops run Knoppix beautifully.
The only problem I've had has been with the DL320 servers. They took too long getting the drivers released for Linux.
Which kind of contradicts TFA's statement:
"Linux is the product of mass participatory innovation among thousands of Pro-Am technologists. Many of them program commercial software for a living but work on Linux in their spare time because the spirit of collaborative problem solving appeals so powerfully."
How can you be an "amateur" working on Linux if you are paid to write code?
I can see how Linux STARTED as an amateur project. Linus was still in school.
Don't you blindly accept the claims of some anonymous Internet posting?
Well, you won't get far with that attitude.
"Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft...when playing against 3 other people, do you attack all 3 simultaneously, or do you attack 1, stabilize it, then attack another?"
Newsflash!
Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.
It's possible to support the UN's efforts at finding "WMD's" in Iraq (they did have people on the ground there)
-and-
Shore up the country you just invaded (Afghanistan)
-and-
Push world-wide efforts to trace the money the terrorists are using
-and-
Balance the budget.
"While I think we're capable of both walking AND chewing gum, let's not get ourselves too spread out."
The US government is bringing back people who have already LEFT the military in an attempt to fill vacant slots. We are ALREADY "spread out". That is because Bush does not understand leadership any more than you do.
"Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before."
Saddam wasn't even a threat to the countries around him. He wasn't any "problem".
"Iran and North Korea are being dealt with."
And all the problems will be fixed in the next service pack. Right. Iran knows that we cannot invade another country. North Korea knows that we're pinned down. Now is the best time for them to drive their programs. The sooner they get nukes, the sooner they're on an equal footing with us. Bush made a complete mess of that situation.
"You see the Dem's only want you to see that last line all by itself. Because if you read the whole thing in context you can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq."
Iran is closer to Afghanistan than Iraq is.
Iran already has an Islamic fundamentalist government while Iraq was secular.
Why would Osama move to Iraq instead of to Iran?
You also need to look at the usage of the word "reportedly" in that section your quoted. No evidence, just people saying that such and such happened.
Just like our invasion was based upon people saying that such and such "WMD's" were there. In fact, let's break this down a bit.
"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Tali-ban."
"According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
"The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."
"Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
Again, when you WANT to hear something, you'll take someone's WORD that it is true. Which is what got us stuck in Iraq.
Rather than relying upon what other people SAY happened, can we just stick to verifiable facts?
"Maybe "Bush started a war for profit not liberty," but what was the end goal? Has Iraq been liberated?" "No."
... some are worse off ... some are better off.
This depends upon how you define "liberated". If you define it as "no long under Saddam's rule", then they are liberated. If you define it as "self rule" then they are still under US control as we can veto anything their "government" does (and we have with the release of the female prisoners).
"Are the Iraqi people better off now than with Saddam?" "Possibly yes, probably not."
Again, it comes down to definitions. Some are dead
It is all about the specifics of each case. Enough specifics and you have a general consensus.
"We see them protesting instead of having their fingers chopped off for touching an American newspaper, so that appears to be some kind of advancement." I see protesters being mown down by American helicopter gunships instead of Iraqi helicopter gunships, though I would hardly qualify as advancement.
If protestors die, does it REALLY matter if it was Saddam who killed them or if it was us?
Personally, I'd place those protestors who were killed in the NOT "better off now than with Saddam" category.
But when the discussion drops to the level of arguing whether a dead civilian is better off or worse off than an oppressed civilian, the ONLY thing that can be said is that both sides are wrong.
I don't choose to just be less wrong than Saddam.