Every generation to the United States has brought with it a new wave of immigration. First we had the Spanish and Dutch, then the British, then the German, then the Irish, the Polish, the Italian and for every generation there were those that lamented the passing of an old American culture, spreading their fears about the invention of the new.
America is about change. The USA is the dragon of cultures, thriving on the human dynamism of constant change, and my Republicans need to be the party that embraces it. We are the party that has opened the borders to free trade and have asked the American people to live through the changes that it causes, and in doing so we should live up to our own ideals and not fear the changes brought about by the free flow of people as well as capital.
Freedom is a good thing. It means freedom to change, and change usually leads to improvement in the human condition. When people can move as well as their money, freely across international borders, it can only mean the lot of mankind is seeking and will eventually improve itself.
Both candidates have faults on this issue. McCain (when he doesn't change his mind), has been more right about free trade and immigration than Obama has, but he needs to accept that the old social norms of America cannot remain when new people join our country. Republicans need to note that Obama's opposition to the free flow of people and capital is an attempt to thwart change, not an embrace ofit. Similarly, Democrats need to accept that the best lot of humanity is to allow itself to change, and to accept the free flow of people and capital across national borders. If you want to be the candidate of change, accept free trade, and free immigration.
I seriously disaqgree with my conservative collegues and liberal union folks who argue against immigration to the United States. I am the descendant of immigrants, as is nearly everyone else in the USA, and our ancestors came when there were no rules to immigration.
I would argue that people who are motivated enough to leave their homelands to come to the USA are motivated enough to work hard and succeed and I have 200 years of outstanding economic growth and opportunity to back me up. Every time this country has opened its borders, we have gotten increased opportunity, increased social dynamism, all pumping the engine of capitalism and driving the USA to ever greater success.
Clamping down on Phds and graduate students from American universities is about the stupidest immigration policy that one could ever devise. If someone has come to this country to study and obtain a university degree, I would think that proves that they are the stuff we want our citizens to be.
The issue of immigration has split the Republican Party right down the middle, but I for one think that Bush and McCain were on the right side of the issue and it is a shame that the odd coalition of labor activists and xenophobes combined to bring what would have been an outstanding immigration bill dead in its tracks. Regardless of who is elected, I hope that saner heads will prevail in both parties, this time around, and America will once again live up to the promise of the statue of liberty, "Give me your poor, tired huddled masses yearning to breath free."... or, in the very least, "give me all of your phds in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering, in fact, just give me all of them and your undergrads too."
Yeah, I was like... uh, the Cylons set the term of the Genocidal war....turnabout is fair play. In general, the whole arc of people gradually liking the cylons on some level is utterly ridiculous. It's just not how people work.
Please, explain to me why it wouldn't be a good political strategy for Republicans to favor legislation that essentially drives liberal institutions out of business. How could Michael Moore make any movies if it were legal for everyone to copy them without penalty?
Now you've gone from "I already gave you proof" to "Go find proof yourself!". This is backpedaling, and a further admission that you have no proof.
First off, the fact that Obama commonly runs against McCain by saying that McCain is to continue the "Bush" economy implicitly rejects Republican economic policies. In fact, he does this explicitly in his book. So, what are Republican policies, and who do they favor, and how would Obama reject that. So right off the wheel, based on that statement alone, Obama is against free trade, domestic manufacturing, coal mining, farming and oil drilling, because, the Bush economy has been to be pro-free trade, devalue the dollar to promote domestic manufacturing, increase coal mining and oil drilling, and other resource extraction.
Saying that Obama is a radical leftist if not downright communist is like calling the sky blue. There's not a single statement that I made that could actually dispute. Still, for the benefit of our readers, here we go:
Rejects free market vision of government In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest.
Just read what he says.... it's not like he's trying to hide anything. Full bore commy liberal, and all the heavy handed state stamping out of free enterprise that follows.
Why? Bush should say something about how terrible it is, and do absolutely nothing. Let's face it - the entertainment industry is not exactly packed with Republicans these days. Republicans need to be about as friendly to the entertainment business as the entertainment business is to coal and nuclear. If the whole world and all of your allies want you to let your political enemies be driven out of business by too much copying, why should you really stop them? Come on liberals, copy away. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but its still a weakling compared to the greenback
So, really, you are saying that there is no evidence Obama said he was going to go after big oil. Yeah, right. That's like saying, geez, there's no evidence the United States is in Iraq because there is no link to it in a post. Really your academic insistence on citation in a paper world is completely obsolete in the wake of Google. Just go to his web site, or listen to the radio, and just make a list of every industry he plans on controlling. Just make a list. I did.
Hey, I'm a right wing lunatic but the truth on this matter is pretty clear.
If we really read our history, it was those same conservative Democrats that jumped ship and joined the Republican Party when Nixon embarked on his "Southern Strategy". The party of Law and Order in the north might have meant dealing with crime to northern Republicans, but down south, it meant, dealing with n---.
Your post is weak... "oh, you confessed." Your very argument was based on a false premise and therefor the two logical conclusions you drew from it were retarded. Fair thee well, commy traitor, and give my regards to your Marshall Pharobama of the Congress of the 1st Communist People's Deputies...
Your next post will either be concrete proof of this or an abject confession that it's a lie. Those are your ONLY possible choices.
I have plenty of proof. First is the assault on the free markets. Obama and his arch liberals have attacked:
Oil - see various speeches about "big oil" Auto - see various speeches about telling Detroit what cars to build Agriculture - see various speeches about "the price of food." Coal - see cap and trade calls. Health - attacks health insurance industry Trade - attacks free trade Finance - attacks lenders
Really, the question with Obama, and most leftists, is what business has he not attacked? Its pretty clear that Obama despises private enterprise, because, every time someone makes a profit, he's out there arguing that those profits need to be taken. And, in fact, if you really look at cap and trade, it really is, getting government's permission and a piece of every form of economic activity there is.
By the same token, Obama wants to vastly expand government even more than Bush has expanded it. He argues that, rather than everyone working the same number of days per year to pay their taxes, some folks should have to work, so that he can pay the bill for... let's see, his $500 billion civilian helper corp to rival the pentagon, his $300 billion health insurance plan, his plan to double medicare spending, his plan to increase social security spending, and his plan to buy everyone broadband...
So, he wants to restrict, tax, and otherwise disincentivize economic activity in the private sector, whereas turn off the brakes on government. This is essentially a command and control economy, where, in the supposed name of saving the planet and helping the poor, Obama and his boys and girls will build a federal state that consumes nearly every dollar of profit earned by everyone, and gives it to himself.
That's pretty commy crap enough for me.
Piggy Piggy super Obama on top. Or, maybe he just wants to be like a Pharoah. Daddy's little Pharoah... that's your Liberal Messiah.
Of course, they have newer crash test regulations essentially designed to jack up the weight of cars. So we probably need to trade some safety to get out of the gas engine altogether...
Obama only wants you to think that that reason so many are opposed to his retarded ideas is because he is black. The fact of the matter is, being black has helped Obama way more than it has helped.
Since all blacks vote Democrat, and then vote for the black Democrat, it guaranteed that Obama would win in his districts first as a state senator and then as a US senator. Then, in the primary, Obama won by carrying all the black votes while the white vote split evenly for Obama, Hitlery, and Edwards. Oh, how I wish Edwards would have been selected to be Obama's VP.
But really, the only reason Republicans are opposing Obama is because we know that he and his ultra-liberal collegues want to destroy American society and replace it with a commy-crap fiesta with themselves as Orwell's uber pig on top. It's nothing about race, its about his stupid economic ideas of stealing from the capable to give to the losers, always, keeping a cut for himself and his buddies in government.
You just wait, until Putin shows up on the Turkish border again, and see just how little President Obama does nothing for you.. arguing that NATO is an "idea", not a military alliance. Kinda tough to defend Turkey in our alliance, when President Obama stuffs the army with all of his homo buddies and arms the soldiers with flowers and cicero.
this is precisely the kind of sentiments these shows make fun of, its too bad some people are too dense to see what kind of douches they are when saying things like what the parent has stated.
You missed the underlying point. The reason that republicans do not get a bounce when they appear on Colbert is because no Republicans actually watch the show.
And Rush Limbaugh is the best name you can come up with to represent your argument? You've really just provided all the hysterical laughter I need for the day!
Hey, Excellence in Broadcasting Network makes what, 300 million bucks for a ten year deal? You can laugh all you want, but it seems to me that El Rushbo is laughing even harder, all the way to the bank. I'll take Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity over Colbert or Stewart, any day of the week.
I would posit that electrical power from coal to drive electric cars would ultimately be cheaper for consumers, better for the environment, and would place on a better path to national energy independence.
It is far more efficient to have a single big plant burning electricity and sending electrons to people rather than having everyone around with their own little tiny power plants. A single giant coal plant has a generator that runs at a fixed rate, maximizing power output for fuel burned, whereas an internal combustion engine car operates over a wide range of RPMs, offering more of a compromise than a fuel solution.
The single giant plant is only one physical distribution point for many cars. Instead of having fleets of tanker trucks with hundreds of people hauling fuel around to dozens of gas stations, you instead have a single train run by one or two people hauling up to a month's supply of coal for a big coal unit and in one single trip.
If we did switch to electric cars, even if they did come from coal plants, you would also eliminate the environment problem of gasoline spills. There's nothing to "spill" in an electric car that is really bad. Yes, you will wind up with either lead acid batteries that are environment nightmare, or, lithium polymer batteries that periodically explode and kill everyone in the car, but ultimately, the birds will sing and trees will wave their branches in joy, if that's the sort of stuff you like.
Oh goody, the liberals have banded together to make one show moderately successful. Meanwhile, right wing talk has so dominated radio that Democrats want to overturn the first amendment to silence it. Rush Limbaugh just got a contract for hundreds of millions of dollars while NPR can't exist without federal subsidies and beggar's nights despite owning all of the IP for Sprout and Sesame Street.
The Washington Post and New York Times lay off hundreds of workers because no one even reads their free sites while the Wall Street Journal can actually make money from paid online subscriptions. Fox News is usually always number 1, while MSNBC is a lukewarm also ran.
Even the remade Battlestar Galactica tanked in ratings once it tried to make the retarded liberal argument that we could even be friends with the Cylons after they destroyed the entire human race.
If using a GPS device on a car can prove someone is a serial killer because you follow the car to one of the bodies, then, that's a great thing. But it seems to me that if a cop could go before a judge and say, "hey, we think this guy is a serial killer because of some XYZ reason, and we're going to put a GPS on his car to find a body and prove it", I would think a judge would approve the technique and issue the proper warrant.
Katzer and company really need to be smacked down.
On their web site, they try to create the impression that they had their own solution and didn't copy any code from the open source guys, but, then, in court, they fully admit that they in fact, did that.
So, they stole a bunch of code, made some money on it, then, they admitted it in court, but continue to lie to the public about what they did.
What Georgia is really all about is Putin sending a signal to all the states bordering Russia that they could be next, and to also test the resolve of NATO in a public way that is safe for Russia.
It's obvious that the Russian invasion of Georgia was pre-planned and that they baited Georgia into doing what they do. Attacks of the scale the Russians have done take time to organize, and the Russian response was immediate. How else, one might ask, do the Russians suddenly appear not even a day after the crisis, with several hundred tanks and thousands of men, without first having had a plan.
Putin baited. Georgia foolishly took the bait and provided Putin an excuse to smash Georgia in such a way as to intimidate those NATO states that are actually bordering Russia, and those states that might join NATO (like the Ukraine).
Anyone thinking that this is about Russia defending its own people is a fool. I thought we'd learned from the Sudetenland that this sort of an argument is crap. This is an effort by Russia to bully the states on its borders, as they have been doing now for the last few years with things like turning off the gas, turning on the gas, issuing passports in bulk to people in one's own country...it's classic Soviet Era stuff.
AS far as the Space Station goes, well, the Shuttle is just going to have to keep flying until Ares is ready. That's it. The only reason the Shuttle is being grounded is because the Congress mandated panel did what Congress told it to do, and, the Congress can easily change those parameters to allow for new geopolitical realities. The shuttle will fly, it won't be safe, but, Alan Shephard rode a fricking ICBM during the cold war "built by the lowest bidder", and that's what space shuttles do.
What happens is this: USA continues shuttle, kicks the Russians out, probably keeps the Russian modules, and the NATO countries have a nice little space station.
They believed the situation to be potentially unsafe, and based on what I see I agree with them.
The point is, it was done unlawfully. Look, I voted for Bush twice and number myself among the dozen people left in the USA that would vote for him again. So, its not like I'm some kind of a flower carrying, unicorn riding love and passion guy.
But...
This is a clear case of the end justifying the means. We can't have a country where the government is allowed to go and trample someone by merely waving a safety flag. The government has to make its case before the people and in a consistent fashion. Taking the case before the people, via a trial, is the essence of democracy and, and consistency is the hallmark of the rule of law. In this case, our government capriciously applied a zoning statute, violating consistency and civil discourse and did so to trample someone's rights.
You can't have cops just busting into your house because they argue some provision of safety. It's pretty simple. It's like, I thought conservatives were against excessive power applied by the government. Look at it this way... this is another spin on that god-aweful eminent domain decision. William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, are all rolling over in their graves, right along with Ben Franklin, saying:
"He who trades liberty for safety deserves neither!"
It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research before coming to their black-and-white conclusion about how The Man is bad and this poor fellow is being an upstanding citizen with his rights violated. How dare the police invade this man's home! It's an attack on science! They hate the science!
The burden of proof otherwise is on the man. Government has to prove itself innocent of trampling civil rights and the rights of the people because we have seen that government is not honest.
Slashdot Mirror
Every generation to the United States has brought with it a new wave of immigration. First we had the Spanish and Dutch, then the British, then the German, then the Irish, the Polish, the Italian and for every generation there were those that lamented the passing of an old American culture, spreading their fears about the invention of the new.
America is about change. The USA is the dragon of cultures, thriving on the human dynamism of constant change, and my Republicans need to be the party that embraces it. We are the party that has opened the borders to free trade and have asked the American people to live through the changes that it causes, and in doing so we should live up to our own ideals and not fear the changes brought about by the free flow of people as well as capital.
Freedom is a good thing. It means freedom to change, and change usually leads to improvement in the human condition. When people can move as well as their money, freely across international borders, it can only mean the lot of mankind is seeking and will eventually improve itself.
Both candidates have faults on this issue. McCain (when he doesn't change his mind), has been more right about free trade and immigration than Obama has, but he needs to accept that the old social norms of America cannot remain when new people join our country. Republicans need to note that Obama's opposition to the free flow of people and capital is an attempt to thwart change, not an embrace ofit. Similarly, Democrats need to accept that the best lot of humanity is to allow itself to change, and to accept the free flow of people and capital across national borders. If you want to be the candidate of change, accept free trade, and free immigration.
I seriously disaqgree with my conservative collegues and liberal union folks who argue against immigration to the United States. I am the descendant of immigrants, as is nearly everyone else in the USA, and our ancestors came when there were no rules to immigration.
I would argue that people who are motivated enough to leave their homelands to come to the USA are motivated enough to work hard and succeed and I have 200 years of outstanding economic growth and opportunity to back me up. Every time this country has opened its borders, we have gotten increased opportunity, increased social dynamism, all pumping the engine of capitalism and driving the USA to ever greater success.
Clamping down on Phds and graduate students from American universities is about the stupidest immigration policy that one could ever devise. If someone has come to this country to study and obtain a university degree, I would think that proves that they are the stuff we want our citizens to be.
The issue of immigration has split the Republican Party right down the middle, but I for one think that Bush and McCain were on the right side of the issue and it is a shame that the odd coalition of labor activists and xenophobes combined to bring what would have been an outstanding immigration bill dead in its tracks. Regardless of who is elected, I hope that saner heads will prevail in both parties, this time around, and America will once again live up to the promise of the statue of liberty, "Give me your poor, tired huddled masses yearning to breath free."... or, in the very least, "give me all of your phds in mechanical, electrical, and computer engineering, in fact, just give me all of them and your undergrads too."
Yeah, I was like... uh, the Cylons set the term of the Genocidal war....turnabout is fair play. In general, the whole arc of people gradually liking the cylons on some level is utterly ridiculous. It's just not how people work.
Please, explain to me why it wouldn't be a good political strategy for Republicans to favor legislation that essentially drives liberal institutions out of business. How could Michael Moore make any movies if it were legal for everyone to copy them without penalty?
Now you've gone from "I already gave you proof" to "Go find proof yourself!". This is backpedaling, and a further admission that you have no proof.
First off, the fact that Obama commonly runs against McCain by saying that McCain is to continue the "Bush" economy implicitly rejects Republican economic policies. In fact, he does this explicitly in his book. So, what are Republican policies, and who do they favor, and how would Obama reject that. So right off the wheel, based on that statement alone, Obama is against free trade, domestic manufacturing, coal mining, farming and oil drilling, because, the Bush economy has been to be pro-free trade, devalue the dollar to promote domestic manufacturing, increase coal mining and oil drilling, and other resource extraction.
Saying that Obama is a radical leftist if not downright communist is like calling the sky blue. There's not a single statement that I made that could actually dispute. Still, for the benefit of our readers, here we go:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Some salient points:
Rejects free market vision of government
In a 2005 commencement address, Obama described the conservative philosophy of government as "to give everyone one big refund on their government, divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it, Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity." Obama has rejected this free market vision of government, preferring to see the power of the state as something that can serve the public interest.
Just read what he says.... it's not like he's trying to hide anything. Full bore commy liberal, and all the heavy handed state stamping out of free enterprise that follows.
Why? Bush should say something about how terrible it is, and do absolutely nothing. Let's face it - the entertainment industry is not exactly packed with Republicans these days. Republicans need to be about as friendly to the entertainment business as the entertainment business is to coal and nuclear. If the whole world and all of your allies want you to let your political enemies be driven out of business by too much copying, why should you really stop them? Come on liberals, copy away. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but its still a weakling compared to the greenback
So, really, you are saying that there is no evidence Obama said he was going to go after big oil. Yeah, right. That's like saying, geez, there's no evidence the United States is in Iraq because there is no link to it in a post. Really your academic insistence on citation in a paper world is completely obsolete in the wake of Google. Just go to his web site, or listen to the radio, and just make a list of every industry he plans on controlling. Just make a list. I did.
Again, by not providing any proof for your accusations, you admit that said accusations are lies.
I did provide proof. You rejected it. It is not my fault you are foolish. Besides, you are lying right now.
Hey, I'm a right wing lunatic but the truth on this matter is pretty clear.
If we really read our history, it was those same conservative Democrats that jumped ship and joined the Republican Party when Nixon embarked on his "Southern Strategy". The party of Law and Order in the north might have meant dealing with crime to northern Republicans, but down south, it meant, dealing with n---.
Your post is weak... "oh, you confessed." Your very argument was based on a false premise and therefor the two logical conclusions you drew from it were retarded. Fair thee well, commy traitor, and give my regards to your Marshall Pharobama of the Congress of the 1st Communist People's Deputies...
but you really have to wonder if voting shouldn't be a little more... restricted
Democrats are the ones that got rid of poll taxes and voting tests with a constitutional amendment.
Your next post will either be concrete proof of this or an abject confession that it's a lie. Those are your ONLY possible choices.
I have plenty of proof. First is the assault on the free markets. Obama and his arch liberals have attacked:
Oil - see various speeches about "big oil"
Auto - see various speeches about telling Detroit what cars to build
Agriculture - see various speeches about "the price of food."
Coal - see cap and trade calls.
Health - attacks health insurance industry
Trade - attacks free trade
Finance - attacks lenders
Really, the question with Obama, and most leftists, is what business has he not attacked? Its pretty clear that Obama despises private enterprise, because, every time someone makes a profit, he's out there arguing that those profits need to be taken. And, in fact, if you really look at cap and trade, it really is, getting government's permission and a piece of every form of economic activity there is.
By the same token, Obama wants to vastly expand government even more than Bush has expanded it. He argues that, rather than everyone working the same number of days per year to pay their taxes, some folks should have to work, so that he can pay the bill for... let's see, his $500 billion civilian helper corp to rival the pentagon, his $300 billion health insurance plan, his plan to double medicare spending, his plan to increase social security spending, and his plan to buy everyone broadband...
So, he wants to restrict, tax, and otherwise disincentivize economic activity in the private sector, whereas turn off the brakes on government. This is essentially a command and control economy, where, in the supposed name of saving the planet and helping the poor, Obama and his boys and girls will build a federal state that consumes nearly every dollar of profit earned by everyone, and gives it to himself.
That's pretty commy crap enough for me.
Piggy Piggy super Obama on top. Or, maybe he just wants to be like a Pharoah. Daddy's little Pharoah... that's your Liberal Messiah.
Very cool.
Of course, they have newer crash test regulations essentially designed to jack up the weight of cars. So we probably need to trade some safety to get out of the gas engine altogether...
Obama only wants you to think that that reason so many are opposed to his retarded ideas is because he is black. The fact of the matter is, being black has helped Obama way more than it has helped.
Since all blacks vote Democrat, and then vote for the black Democrat, it guaranteed that Obama would win in his districts first as a state senator and then as a US senator. Then, in the primary, Obama won by carrying all the black votes while the white vote split evenly for Obama, Hitlery, and Edwards. Oh, how I wish Edwards would have been selected to be Obama's VP.
But really, the only reason Republicans are opposing Obama is because we know that he and his ultra-liberal collegues want to destroy American society and replace it with a commy-crap fiesta with themselves as Orwell's uber pig on top. It's nothing about race, its about his stupid economic ideas of stealing from the capable to give to the losers, always, keeping a cut for himself and his buddies in government.
You just wait, until Putin shows up on the Turkish border again, and see just how little President Obama does nothing for you.. arguing that NATO is an "idea", not a military alliance. Kinda tough to defend Turkey in our alliance, when President Obama stuffs the army with all of his homo buddies and arms the soldiers with flowers and cicero.
this is precisely the kind of sentiments these shows make fun of, its too bad some people are too dense to see what kind of douches they are when saying things like what the parent has stated.
You missed the underlying point. The reason that republicans do not get a bounce when they appear on Colbert is because no Republicans actually watch the show.
And Rush Limbaugh is the best name you can come up with to represent your argument? You've really just provided all the hysterical laughter I need for the day!
Hey, Excellence in Broadcasting Network makes what, 300 million bucks for a ten year deal? You can laugh all you want, but it seems to me that El Rushbo is laughing even harder, all the way to the bank. I'll take Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity over Colbert or Stewart, any day of the week.
I would posit that electrical power from coal to drive electric cars would ultimately be cheaper for consumers, better for the environment, and would place on a better path to national energy independence.
It is far more efficient to have a single big plant burning electricity and sending electrons to people rather than having everyone around with their own little tiny power plants. A single giant coal plant has a generator that runs at a fixed rate, maximizing power output for fuel burned, whereas an internal combustion engine car operates over a wide range of RPMs, offering more of a compromise than a fuel solution.
The single giant plant is only one physical distribution point for many cars. Instead of having fleets of tanker trucks with hundreds of people hauling fuel around to dozens of gas stations, you instead have a single train run by one or two people hauling up to a month's supply of coal for a big coal unit and in one single trip.
If we did switch to electric cars, even if they did come from coal plants, you would also eliminate the environment problem of gasoline spills. There's nothing to "spill" in an electric car that is really bad. Yes, you will wind up with either lead acid batteries that are environment nightmare, or, lithium polymer batteries that periodically explode and kill everyone in the car, but ultimately, the birds will sing and trees will wave their branches in joy, if that's the sort of stuff you like.
Oh goody, the liberals have banded together to make one show moderately successful. Meanwhile, right wing talk has so dominated radio that Democrats want to overturn the first amendment to silence it. Rush Limbaugh just got a contract for hundreds of millions of dollars while NPR can't exist without federal subsidies and beggar's nights despite owning all of the IP for Sprout and Sesame Street.
The Washington Post and New York Times lay off hundreds of workers because no one even reads their free sites while the Wall Street Journal can actually make money from paid online subscriptions. Fox News is usually always number 1, while MSNBC is a lukewarm also ran.
Even the remade Battlestar Galactica tanked in ratings once it tried to make the retarded liberal argument that we could even be friends with the Cylons after they destroyed the entire human race.
If using a GPS device on a car can prove someone is a serial killer because you follow the car to one of the bodies, then, that's a great thing. But it seems to me that if a cop could go before a judge and say, "hey, we think this guy is a serial killer because of some XYZ reason, and we're going to put a GPS on his car to find a body and prove it", I would think a judge would approve the technique and issue the proper warrant.
When I was a teenager, I used to pirate every game I could get my hands on. Now that I am older and make a bit more money, I buy them.
Katzer and company really need to be smacked down.
On their web site, they try to create the impression that they had their own solution and didn't copy any code from the open source guys, but, then, in court, they fully admit that they in fact, did that.
So, they stole a bunch of code, made some money on it, then, they admitted it in court, but continue to lie to the public about what they did.
I mean, how sickening is that?
What Georgia is really all about is Putin sending a signal to all the states bordering Russia that they could be next, and to also test the resolve of NATO in a public way that is safe for Russia.
It's obvious that the Russian invasion of Georgia was pre-planned and that they baited Georgia into doing what they do. Attacks of the scale the Russians have done take time to organize, and the Russian response was immediate. How else, one might ask, do the Russians suddenly appear not even a day after the crisis, with several hundred tanks and thousands of men, without first having had a plan.
Putin baited. Georgia foolishly took the bait and provided Putin an excuse to smash Georgia in such a way as to intimidate those NATO states that are actually bordering Russia, and those states that might join NATO (like the Ukraine).
Anyone thinking that this is about Russia defending its own people is a fool. I thought we'd learned from the Sudetenland that this sort of an argument is crap. This is an effort by Russia to bully the states on its borders, as they have been doing now for the last few years with things like turning off the gas, turning on the gas, issuing passports in bulk to people in one's own country...it's classic Soviet Era stuff.
AS far as the Space Station goes, well, the Shuttle is just going to have to keep flying until Ares is ready. That's it. The only reason the Shuttle is being grounded is because the Congress mandated panel did what Congress told it to do, and, the Congress can easily change those parameters to allow for new geopolitical realities. The shuttle will fly, it won't be safe, but, Alan Shephard rode a fricking ICBM during the cold war "built by the lowest bidder", and that's what space shuttles do.
What happens is this: USA continues shuttle, kicks the Russians out, probably keeps the Russian modules, and the NATO countries have a nice little space station.
At least, give them credit, that the CWA at least recognizes the need to have more communications product to get more communications workers.
They believed the situation to be potentially unsafe, and based on what I see I agree with them.
The point is, it was done unlawfully. Look, I voted for Bush twice and number myself among the dozen people left in the USA that would vote for him again. So, its not like I'm some kind of a flower carrying, unicorn riding love and passion guy.
But...
This is a clear case of the end justifying the means. We can't have a country where the government is allowed to go and trample someone by merely waving a safety flag. The government has to make its case before the people and in a consistent fashion. Taking the case before the people, via a trial, is the essence of democracy and, and consistency is the hallmark of the rule of law. In this case, our government capriciously applied a zoning statute, violating consistency and civil discourse and did so to trample someone's rights.
You can't have cops just busting into your house because they argue some provision of safety. It's pretty simple. It's like, I thought conservatives were against excessive power applied by the government. Look at it this way... this is another spin on that god-aweful eminent domain decision. William F Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Henry Hyde, are all rolling over in their graves, right along with Ben Franklin, saying:
"He who trades liberty for safety deserves neither!"
BTW: I do own a H&K-91 and no, I've never considered using it on a person in a real life situation.
Then what's the point of having it?
It's amazing how many Slashdotters don't even bother to do a bit of research before coming to their black-and-white conclusion about how The Man is bad and this poor fellow is being an upstanding citizen with his rights violated. How dare the police invade this man's home! It's an attack on science! They hate the science!
The burden of proof otherwise is on the man. Government has to prove itself innocent of trampling civil rights and the rights of the people because we have seen that government is not honest.