"Unless of course you're a grandma or a friend of some Linux guy who foisted his preferred distribution upon you because he knows what's best for your computer..."
Those filthy Linux guys. Always corrupting our grandmothers! I hate them. All of them!
"Oh, I'm sure apt is portable enough to run on anything. You're just forgetting that a repository is also necessary, which only exists for the major distributions."
No, I'm not forgetting it.
I'm asking you for SPECIFICS and you keep coming back with hypothetical cases.
Again, someone who CHOOSES that distribution already KNOWS the limitations and has CHOSEN it for some reason.
Even in a world with a Central Authority controlling the naming of files, the naming of packages, the placement of files and the actions of the installer, that would STILL be a problem.
Simply put, why should the additional functionality of your hypothetical distribution be REQUIRED of all distributions in the perfect world you claim needs to exist?
If it is NOT required, then you are right back to where you are today. Conflicts and all.
"Because Linux zealots seem to believe that a little bit of distribution consistency is the worst possible thing that could happen..."
I guess that's your problem.
You are NOT advocating for "a little bit of distribution consistency".
If you can't see that, you're an idiot. That was why I pointed out all the things needed to achieve your fantasy. The Central Authority for naming all files, all versions, all packages, all the contents of packages, and all the behaviours of the installer.
Not to mention the limitations on what kernel patches are required to be applied (and which are forbidden).
"So in other words, your standard works as long as you confine yourself to a single platform? Some standard."
It's called a "defacto standard".
It works. The process works. Linux advances. Users have options.
Under your solution, MANY of those options would be TAKEN AWAY so that some idiot would be sure that every possible package he could find would run on his machine.
"The only problem is that you've posted a solution to the problem of maintaining packages on Debian/Fedora, not on Linux in general."
Nonsense. The technology is there. The technology is proven. The technology is Open Source.
Unless by "Linux in general" you meant Linus' work on the KERNEL. In which case, this does NOT belong there.
"Not every distribution has the ability to use apt or yum or whatever or even a package system."
So? The people who would choose that kind of distribution KNOW what they are getting and they've chosen it for a REASON.
"Or it may have a package system, but no one has made a decent number of packages for the distribution because it's not as popular as Debian or Fedora."
Again, the people who have chosen that distribution have chosen it for a REASON and they know what they're getting in to.
Seriously, name one non-niche distribution that would not be able to run apt.
"Now wouldn't it be nice if a standard were made and users could be assured that, for the most part, regardless of what distribution they're using:"
It's called a "defacto standard". The LSB has tried to force rules such as that onto everyone and they've failed miserably.
"Of course, every time I bring up the idea of standardizing important parts of Linux distributions the lynch mob comes after me, because consistency and distribution-neutral package installation goes against the spirit of Open Source or something ("stifles choice", I've heard)."
Dude, when someone CORRECTS your MISCONCEPTIONS it is NOT the same as "coming after" you.
"I mean, wouldn't it be nice to tell someone "just use apt-get and do X, Y, and Z" instead of "[Install Debian] and use apt-get to do X, Y, and Z"?"
The problem is that YOU have not looked at ALL the requirements to achieve this.
#1. Centralized naming authority. Otherwise, different distributions can have different package names. This would include the version numbering schemes and actual file names.
#2. Centralized package content authority. Once the package and files have been named and versioned correctly, everyone must know what files are in each package. That way, package foo depends upon lib-bar and knows that it is in package bar-utils.
#3. Centralized file hierarchy authority. What files go where. For all files. Under every circumstance.
Easily done for the MAJORITY of the MOST COMMONLY used apps / libraries / packages / etc.
But that's already working TODAY. As long as you stay with a particular distribution.
What happens when Red Hat includes kernel patches that cause some app to break?
But Debian does not include those kernel patches. So the app works with Debian, but not with Red Hat.
Well, then. That's easy, we have a Central Kernel Authority to rule on what patches are mandated and what patches are illegal.
Great, so we have the unified Linux system.
But then we have lots of development happening in the forks. Illegal kernel patches are loaded and tested and advanced development happens. But the people who want to load the latest stuff will find that it doesn't work because the development stuff is NOT in the scheme of the Central Authority.
So you're back to the original problem. People cannot use apt-get to install really-cool-app-v.0.0.5 because it depends upon a file that isn't available for the distribution they're using.
And that is the sum and total of most people's "understanding" and "political discussions".
No thought. No processing. No attempts at understanding. Just simple conditioned responses.
Key phrases elicit conditioned responses.
And the person cannot even recognize that those responses are conditioned. The person will even get angry if you point that out. The person truly BELIEVES that s/he is "thinking".
B: (that's you): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190& cid=102 04406 You didn't process the thread. You jumped in when you saw the trigger phrase.
Now, down that thread....
K: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&c id=102 04884 I point out that this isn't about that. This is about his conditioned response to trigger phrases and that you have the same characteristics.
K: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&c id=102 06191 Again, I point out that this is about his conditioned response and that you are still exhibiting the same response.
K: This post. Still, you have not managed to process the thread. Still, you are regurgitating your conditioned response to the trigger phrases. Just like I said you do.
This isn't about the content of the article. This isn't about whether Kerry lied. This is about the CONDITIONED RESPONSE that CERTAIN PEOPLE (you being one of them) have to TRIGGER PHRASES that completely shut down whatever cognitive skills you initially possessed.
The article contained those phrases and daveschroeder reacted accourdingly.
You saw my response to him, you reacted to the trigger phrases and NEVER managed to process the CONTENT of my post.
You STILL haven't managed it. Even after THREE posts explaining it.
The REASON you haven't managed to do so is because, as I have said before, you are REACTING to the TRIGGER PHRASES and NOT PROCESSING the content.
You are a prime example of why political discussion is pretty much useless in the USofA.
"Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be true if any of the others are true - that means that at least three of the responses are lies."
Now you process this. Find and post the URL where daveschroeder posted that (not the time he posted the entire article) prior to my pointing out that he was just repeating his mantra.
You will not be able to do so because he did not do so.
He did not do so because he wasn't processing my questions. He was repeating his mantra.
The same as you are doing now. You THINK you're presenting "facts", but you don't understand what my point was. You are RE-ACTING instead of PROCESSING.
"Are you a fool Khasim??? He plainly points out two specific statements by Kerry that could not both be true - that means he did lie at some point about throwing the medals away."
Check this thread again. No he did not. Even when I specifically asked him to. The BEST he could do is some "poker chip" analogy and pasting the ENTIRE article. He was UNABLE to process the article and extract the information that supported his position. All he could do is claim that it was there. This is because he saw the recognition phrases in the article so he "knew" the article to be "true" about Kerry's "lies".
You are another example of the same mindset he has. You are not reading the thread, you are repeating the recognition mantra. You are not processing the DISCUSSION.
And that is the problem with the "political" discussions / debates in the US. There isn't any. There are just conflicting mantras. People screaming sound bites at each other.
Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD, all you are doing is repeating your mantra.
You are like so many others. You are unable to think for yourself. You recite the proper phrases to others to confirm that you believe what they believe, but you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe.
Even when you have a complete article by a fellow true believer, you cannot sort through it to find a single example to support what you believe.
"When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie."
Again, post a quote where he did that. I've read the article. I didn't see any lies from Kerry.
Yes, the link is nice, but it seems to go on and on and on and on about medals, decorations, ribbons, decorations, medals, decorations, ribbons, ribbons and medals.
"When the Kerry camp says that all records have been released then refuse to sign the from to prove that all records have been released then the safests thing to do is to conclude that something is being covered up."
No, that is not the "safests thing". That is called a "conspiracy theory". That is favoured by "conspiracy nuts".
Again, is there some record that you believe should be available that is not? Which record and why do you believe it exists? -or- Do you believe some incident is being covered up? What incident and why do you believe so?
Otherwise, you are a conspiracy nut who is ranting about an item that only holds significance in your delusional conspiracy fantasy.
Is there something you believe is being covered up by him not signing that form?
No, don't go back over "all his records will be released". Explain WHY that is important to you.
I'm all for complete transparency, but it sounds like you have found ONE THING that Kerry hasn't done yet and you're trying to portray it as something that is somehow important.
Explain WHAT you believe that you will find and WHY you believe it is there.
"QUESTION: If he has nothing to hide, why will he not sign the damn form?"
No, it doesn't work like that. YOU have to explain WHAT you believe you'll find and WHY you believe it.
Here's a quick example: Bush's military records.
WHAT: A lapse in service and a skipped physical and a lack of disciplinary action for both.
WHY: Several reports by people saying that they did not see him where he claimed to have been and to clarify why he lost his flight status.
What he needs to say is: "If I had the facts then that I have now, I would NOT vote to give G.W. Bush the authority to divert troops from the war on terror into a war in Iraq."
Their past military service is what they are attempting to use to differentiate themselves.
Now if Kerry had vote against the war, that would be something to differentiate him from Bush.
This is the final run to the election. Kerry's camp has to show that Bush is a spoiled little rich boy who is afraid to risk himself in combat, but loves sending US troops to be killed in useless wars.
Bush's camp has to show that Kerry will be worse than Bush on whatever item is key to whatever group.
"Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush."
Hardly. And neither do I subscribe to YOUR definition of "terrorism" that includes any and all acts of violence.
"As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to."
So, you've included acts which we both agree are terrorism. Yet you failed to include any acts that you believe are "terrorism" but that I would NOT call terrorism. All you've done is to say that such acts exist. Go ahead, specify them.
"That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time."
Why don't you post a link to where I said that? Hmmmmm? Go ahead. Any reference to where I said that the USofA would stand till the end of time.
"WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it."
Yep, but IF we lose it, it will NOT be because of terrorists. It will be because we VOTED and ALLOWED it to happen.
"Where did I say anything remotely close to that?"
Here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12103 2&cid=101 92291 "The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."
"What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it."
Emphasis on the "try". What I'm saying is that they can try all they want, but Osama will never be elected President of the USofA.
"The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made..."
Again, Osama will never be elected President....
"For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive."
Again, Osama will never be elected President... If we decline, it will be because we voted for it and allowed it to happen.
The Patriot Act can still be repealed. If we vote to do so. The people we voted to elect have voted to pass it.
Vote, vote, voted, vote, voted....
Osama will never be voted in as President of the USofA.
The US government will not be replaced by an Islamic theocracy.
"That said..people like you piss me off."
Too bad, soo sad. Maybe if you learned to read it would help?
"You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey."
You really seem to have a problem with reading and comprehension. You also seem to be supplying my half of this discussion in your head.
"Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?"
Less than 100 years.
"You really need to get a clue.."
Like I said, you seem to be handling both side of this discussion in your head and disregarding (or are unable to comprehend) what I have posted. Given that, it would seem to be you that needs the clue.
"Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected???"
If we keep our freedoms and our government, then terrorism has a net zero effect. You seem to be arguing that terrorism is a threat to the USofA. I'm saying it is not.
"He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking
"Government does not need money for social programs. It should not be dispensing social programs. It is not good at it. The market place can do the same thing more efficiently and can serve needs better and faster."
If that were so then why is it not happening?
"Government is needed to provide a common defense (not an active offense). Government should not interfere with the internal politics of other nations. Government need not enter military alliances and treaties."
It is easier and cheaper to build mutual defense alliances than to pay for your own huge army. Again, taxes must be collected to pay for that army and how those taxes are collect will be "meddling".
"Government need not mandate education. Education is best controlled by local communities and by parents, not by whoever gains political power."
Again, if that were so then why is it not happening? Nothing prevents parents from educating their children. But few seem to do so.
"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."
What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.
"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."
Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?
I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.
"Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow.."
The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".
It isn't.
"Terrorism" is the EXCUSE given to justify those actions. Most of the new laws we have to deal with were proposed BEFORE the WTC attack. But they didn't have any hope of passage.
Once there was a significant FOREIGN terrorist attack in the US, it was used to justify the passage of those laws.
Terrorism isn't the cause or the reason.
Power is the reason.
Terrorism is the excuse.
Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.
This is just ONE step in ratchetting up the cost of spamming.
As you can see in the article, the spammers paid LOTS of money to savvis for the bandwidth.
Now they'll have to find another ISP which will, probably, charge them even MORE money to put up with the crap that savvis is unwilling to deal with any more.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unless of course you're a grandma or a friend of some Linux guy who foisted his preferred distribution upon you because he knows what's best for your computer..."
Those filthy Linux guys. Always corrupting our grandmothers! I hate them. All of them!
"Oh, I'm sure apt is portable enough to run on anything. You're just forgetting that a repository is also necessary, which only exists for the major distributions."
No, I'm not forgetting it.
I'm asking you for SPECIFICS and you keep coming back with hypothetical cases.
Again, someone who CHOOSES that distribution already KNOWS the limitations and has CHOSEN it for some reason.
Even in a world with a Central Authority controlling the naming of files, the naming of packages, the placement of files and the actions of the installer, that would STILL be a problem.
Simply put, why should the additional functionality of your hypothetical distribution be REQUIRED of all distributions in the perfect world you claim needs to exist?
If it is NOT required, then you are right back to where you are today. Conflicts and all.
"Because Linux zealots seem to believe that a little bit of distribution consistency is the worst possible thing that could happen..."
I guess that's your problem.
You are NOT advocating for "a little bit of distribution consistency".
If you can't see that, you're an idiot. That was why I pointed out all the things needed to achieve your fantasy. The Central Authority for naming all files, all versions, all packages, all the contents of packages, and all the behaviours of the installer.
Not to mention the limitations on what kernel patches are required to be applied (and which are forbidden).
"So in other words, your standard works as long as you confine yourself to a single platform? Some standard."
It's called a "defacto standard".
It works. The process works. Linux advances. Users have options.
Under your solution, MANY of those options would be TAKEN AWAY so that some idiot would be sure that every possible package he could find would run on his machine.
"The only problem is that you've posted a solution to the problem of maintaining packages on Debian/Fedora, not on Linux in general."
Nonsense. The technology is there. The technology is proven. The technology is Open Source.
Unless by "Linux in general" you meant Linus' work on the KERNEL. In which case, this does NOT belong there.
"Not every distribution has the ability to use apt or yum or whatever or even a package system."
So? The people who would choose that kind of distribution KNOW what they are getting and they've chosen it for a REASON.
"Or it may have a package system, but no one has made a decent number of packages for the distribution because it's not as popular as Debian or Fedora."
Again, the people who have chosen that distribution have chosen it for a REASON and they know what they're getting in to.
Seriously, name one non-niche distribution that would not be able to run apt.
"Now wouldn't it be nice if a standard were made and users could be assured that, for the most part, regardless of what distribution they're using:"
It's called a "defacto standard". The LSB has tried to force rules such as that onto everyone and they've failed miserably.
"Of course, every time I bring up the idea of standardizing important parts of Linux distributions the lynch mob comes after me, because consistency and distribution-neutral package installation goes against the spirit of Open Source or something ("stifles choice", I've heard)."
Dude, when someone CORRECTS your MISCONCEPTIONS it is NOT the same as "coming after" you.
"I mean, wouldn't it be nice to tell someone "just use apt-get and do X, Y, and Z" instead of "[Install Debian] and use apt-get to do X, Y, and Z"?"
The problem is that YOU have not looked at ALL the requirements to achieve this.
#1. Centralized naming authority.
Otherwise, different distributions can have different package names. This would include the version numbering schemes and actual file names.
#2. Centralized package content authority.
Once the package and files have been named and versioned correctly, everyone must know what files are in each package. That way, package foo depends upon lib-bar and knows that it is in package bar-utils.
#3. Centralized file hierarchy authority.
What files go where. For all files. Under every circumstance.
Easily done for the MAJORITY of the MOST COMMONLY used apps / libraries / packages / etc.
But that's already working TODAY. As long as you stay with a particular distribution.
What happens when Red Hat includes kernel patches that cause some app to break?
But Debian does not include those kernel patches. So the app works with Debian, but not with Red Hat.
Well, then. That's easy, we have a Central Kernel Authority to rule on what patches are mandated and what patches are illegal.
Great, so we have the unified Linux system.
But then we have lots of development happening in the forks. Illegal kernel patches are loaded and tested and advanced development happens. But the people who want to load the latest stuff will find that it doesn't work because the development stuff is NOT in the scheme of the Central Authority.
So you're back to the original problem. People cannot use apt-get to install really-cool-app-v.0.0.5 because it depends upon a file that isn't available for the distribution they're using.
Just get over it and stick with a distribution.
Ring ... the ... bell
The
dog
drools
Pavlovian conditioned response.
And that is the sum and total of most people's "understanding" and "political discussions".
No thought. No processing. No attempts at understanding. Just simple conditioned responses.
Key phrases elicit conditioned responses.
And the person cannot even recognize that those responses are conditioned. The person will even get angry if you point that out. The person truly BELIEVES that s/he is "thinking".
By the numbers:
& cid=102 04406
....
c id=102 04884
c id=102 05395
c id=102 06191
c id=102 06749
B: (that's you):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190
You didn't process the thread. You jumped in when you saw the trigger phrase.
Now, down that thread
K:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&
I point out that this isn't about that. This is about his conditioned response to trigger phrases and that you have the same characteristics.
B:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&
Paraphrased: "Kerry lied!"
K:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&
Again, I point out that this is about his conditioned response and that you are still exhibiting the same response.
B:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121190&
Paraphrased: "Kerry lied!"
K:
This post.
Still, you have not managed to process the thread.
Still, you are regurgitating your conditioned response to the trigger phrases. Just like I said you do.
This isn't about the content of the article. This isn't about whether Kerry lied. This is about the CONDITIONED RESPONSE that CERTAIN PEOPLE (you being one of them) have to TRIGGER PHRASES that completely shut down whatever cognitive skills you initially possessed.
The article contained those phrases and daveschroeder reacted accourdingly.
You saw my response to him, you reacted to the trigger phrases and NEVER managed to process the CONTENT of my post.
You STILL haven't managed it. Even after THREE posts explaining it.
The REASON you haven't managed to do so is because, as I have said before, you are REACTING to the TRIGGER PHRASES and NOT PROCESSING the content.
You are a prime example of why political discussion is pretty much useless in the USofA.
Pavlov would have been proud.
"Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be true if any of the others are true - that means that at least three of the responses are lies."
Now you process this. Find and post the URL where daveschroeder posted that (not the time he posted the entire article) prior to my pointing out that he was just repeating his mantra.
You will not be able to do so because he did not do so.
He did not do so because he wasn't processing my questions. He was repeating his mantra.
The same as you are doing now. You THINK you're presenting "facts", but you don't understand what my point was. You are RE-ACTING instead of PROCESSING.
Pavlov would have been proud.
"Are you a fool Khasim??? He plainly points out two specific statements by Kerry that could not both be true - that means he did lie at some point about throwing the medals away."
Check this thread again. No he did not. Even when I specifically asked him to. The BEST he could do is some "poker chip" analogy and pasting the ENTIRE article. He was UNABLE to process the article and extract the information that supported his position. All he could do is claim that it was there. This is because he saw the recognition phrases in the article so he "knew" the article to be "true" about Kerry's "lies".
You are another example of the same mindset he has. You are not reading the thread, you are repeating the recognition mantra. You are not processing the DISCUSSION.
And that is the problem with the "political" discussions / debates in the US. There isn't any. There are just conflicting mantras. People screaming sound bites at each other.
I guess it's easier than thinking.
"I just want to know. It's not that hard to understand."
Been over that. Same question: WHY do you want to know? (answer: you're a conspiracy nut)
"Or, If I have to spell it out. I want to make sure that the person with Release Authority isn't hidding anything in his military background."
Been over that. WHAT do you think you'll find? (answer: you're a conspiracy nut)
"I want them because he is running for President and they will shed some light on a self confesed war criminal."
Again, you are UNABLE to specify WHAT you are looking for or WHY you believe it is there.
You are a conspiracy nut with a single hot button.
Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD, all you are doing is repeating your mantra.
You are like so many others. You are unable to think for yourself. You recite the proper phrases to others to confirm that you believe what they believe, but you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe.
Even when you have a complete article by a fellow true believer, you cannot sort through it to find a single example to support what you believe.
No, spot reports are not part of his military record.
Care to try again?
Maybe you are quoting the wrong article?
"When you have a half dozen different positions of what actually happened with regard to a single event, some diametrically opposed to one another, it's pretty clear one of them is a lie."
Again, post a quote where he did that. I've read the article. I didn't see any lies from Kerry.
Could you perhaps quote it?
Yes, the link is nice, but it seems to go on and on and on and on about medals, decorations, ribbons, decorations, medals, decorations, ribbons, ribbons and medals.
What did Kerry claim that was not factual:
"When the Kerry camp says that all records have been released then refuse to sign the from to prove that all records have been released then the safests thing to do is to conclude that something is being covered up."
No, that is not the "safests thing". That is called a "conspiracy theory". That is favoured by "conspiracy nuts".
Again, is there some record that you believe should be available that is not? Which record and why do you believe it exists?
-or-
Do you believe some incident is being covered up? What incident and why do you believe so?
Otherwise, you are a conspiracy nut who is ranting about an item that only holds significance in your delusional conspiracy fantasy.
Is there something you believe is being covered up by him not signing that form?
No, don't go back over "all his records will be released". Explain WHY that is important to you.
I'm all for complete transparency, but it sounds like you have found ONE THING that Kerry hasn't done yet and you're trying to portray it as something that is somehow important.
Explain WHAT you believe that you will find and WHY you believe it is there.
"QUESTION: If he has nothing to hide, why will he not sign the damn form?"
No, it doesn't work like that. YOU have to explain WHAT you believe you'll find and WHY you believe it.
Here's a quick example:
Bush's military records.
WHAT: A lapse in service and a skipped physical and a lack of disciplinary action for both.
WHY: Several reports by people saying that they did not see him where he claimed to have been and to clarify why he lost his flight status.
There, simple.
What he needs to say is:
"If I had the facts then that I have now, I would NOT vote to give G.W. Bush the authority to divert troops from the war on terror into a war in Iraq."
He needs to SPECIFICALLY tie this war to Bush.
Their past military service is what they are attempting to use to differentiate themselves.
Now if Kerry had vote against the war, that would be something to differentiate him from Bush.
This is the final run to the election. Kerry's camp has to show that Bush is a spoiled little rich boy who is afraid to risk himself in combat, but loves sending US troops to be killed in useless wars.
Bush's camp has to show that Kerry will be worse than Bush on whatever item is key to whatever group.
"If they choose a Theocracy, then we will have to live with it."
...
Okay, so far. But then
"Anything that is democratic is better than the former system."
A theocracy is NOT a democracy. In fact, a theocracy can be worse than a secular totalitarian socialist state (the old Iraq).
"Very seldom do you see wars between two governments when the peoples of both countries have equal representation."
It won't be equal because there is a clear MAJORITY of one religion.
"Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush."
....
...
Hardly. And neither do I subscribe to YOUR definition of "terrorism" that includes any and all acts of violence.
"As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to."
So, you've included acts which we both agree are terrorism. Yet you failed to include any acts that you believe are "terrorism" but that I would NOT call terrorism. All you've done is to say that such acts exist. Go ahead, specify them.
"That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time."
Why don't you post a link to where I said that? Hmmmmm? Go ahead. Any reference to where I said that the USofA would stand till the end of time.
"WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it."
Yep, but IF we lose it, it will NOT be because of terrorists. It will be because we VOTED and ALLOWED it to happen.
"Where did I say anything remotely close to that?"
Here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12103 2&cid=101 92291
"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."
"What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it."
Emphasis on the "try".
What I'm saying is that they can try all they want, but Osama will never be elected President of the USofA.
"The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made..."
Again, Osama will never be elected President
"For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive."
Again, Osama will never be elected President
If we decline, it will be because we voted for it and allowed it to happen.
The Patriot Act can still be repealed. If we vote to do so. The people we voted to elect have voted to pass it.
Vote, vote, voted, vote, voted....
Osama will never be voted in as President of the USofA.
The US government will not be replaced by an Islamic theocracy.
"That said..people like you piss me off."
Too bad, soo sad. Maybe if you learned to read it would help?
"You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey."
You really seem to have a problem with reading and comprehension. You also seem to be supplying my half of this discussion in your head.
"Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?"
Less than 100 years.
"You really need to get a clue.."
Like I said, you seem to be handling both side of this discussion in your head and disregarding (or are unable to comprehend) what I have posted. Given that, it would seem to be you that needs the clue.
"Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected???"
If we keep our freedoms and our government, then terrorism has a net zero effect. You seem to be arguing that terrorism is a threat to the USofA. I'm saying it is not.
"He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking
What if the PEOPLE all VOTE and elect a RADICAL ISLAMIC THEOCRACY? Particularly one that is anti-US.
As it seems they will likely do, at the moment.
Do we go in again and "finish the job" again?
People DO care if they believe they can make a difference.
But the first step is showing them that they can make a difference. And debates would be a good start.
We need multiple sources of questions:
....").
#1. A popular vote (/. style).
#2. The media's picks.
#3. The candidate's picks. This way they can focus on their strengths or pick at their opponents weaknesses.
I'd even break #1 down by region ("Detroit wants to know
Any other sources of questions?
"Government does not need money for social programs. It should not be dispensing social programs. It is not good at it. The market place can do the same thing more efficiently and can serve needs better and faster."
If that were so then why is it not happening?
"Government is needed to provide a common defense (not an active offense). Government should not interfere with the internal politics of other nations. Government need not enter military alliances and treaties."
It is easier and cheaper to build mutual defense alliances than to pay for your own huge army. Again, taxes must be collected to pay for that army and how those taxes are collect will be "meddling".
"Government need not mandate education. Education is best controlled by local communities and by parents, not by whoever gains political power."
Again, if that were so then why is it not happening? Nothing prevents parents from educating their children. But few seem to do so.
"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."
What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.
"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."
Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?
I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.
"Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow.."
The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".
It isn't.
"Terrorism" is the EXCUSE given to justify those actions. Most of the new laws we have to deal with were proposed BEFORE the WTC attack. But they didn't have any hope of passage.
Once there was a significant FOREIGN terrorist attack in the US, it was used to justify the passage of those laws.
Terrorism isn't the cause or the reason.
Power is the reason.
Terrorism is the excuse.
Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.
Only we can do that.
It is that they are industrializing now.
...
Which means they'll need more oil.
So, a limited resource but increased demand
This is just ONE step in ratchetting up the cost of spamming.
As you can see in the article, the spammers paid LOTS of money to savvis for the bandwidth.
Now they'll have to find another ISP which will, probably, charge them even MORE money to put up with the crap that savvis is unwilling to deal with any more.
This isn't the war, but it is a victory.