The idea of bringing democracy to the severely troubled part of the world mainly came around after the WMDs never materialized. The
Except that, the PNAC had posted this sort of thing way back before even Bush was elected. In fact, that is the very basis of the charge that Bush "lied about the war". He was out to bring democracy to Iraq all along, regardless of their involvement with 9/11 and WMD, and just used both as an excuse to goad the public into buying it.
So, Bush lied for the greater good. So what. I think it was the right thing to do.
Most people would believe that science is a tool for business, and not the other way around, therefor, Bush is doing the right thing. What you see as "poor scientists getting dissed by the administration", most normal people would see as reining in a multibillion dollar national science effort that has utterly failed in every single one of its goals. There are no flying cars, there is no nuclear fusion, bases on mars, or cures for cancer, and none of them are in sight. Most people see scientists as just another body of people grubbing for money in a broader political space, and yes, they approve of how Bush handles it.
Your central argument is that Bush's low approval ratings translate into hoards of conservatives and moderate republicans ideologically buying into what the Democrats are offering, and that's just absurd. National attitudes are not changing, as evidenced by the simple polls that show that the vast majority of Americans:
a) are against lifelong welfare b) are in favor of private gun ownership c) are in favor of free speech d) are in favor of torturing probable terrorists e) are anti-islam f) prefer cars with big engines g) are against a socialized economy h) are against amnesty for illegal immigrants i) prefer a balanced budget j) remain against tax increases
The list goes on and on and on. Bush is in trouble yeah because of the war, but, if he had balanced the budget and kicked out all the illegal mexicans, he'd be more popular than FDR. Bush's problems are because he bought into the Rovian nonsense that he had to pull to the left to form a ruling majority, when the reality is, he needed to veer right.
IF you have something that conducts electricty that well, and could wind it up, couldn't you theoretically get a really tiny but super powerful electric motor? There's a lot of cool applications that could come from that. For one, I could have a DVD tray on my PC that could actually mix drinks, besides just hold them.
If you think that a low Bush approval translates into an approval of liberal politics, you are smoking some good stuff.
The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget. If he were to have come down hard on illegal immigration, then, he would have a much higher approval rating. The moral of the story is that the vast majority of the country remains conservative, and only really disapprove of Bush because of the liberal-sounding things that he has done. Republicans are uneasy about the war, to be sure, but, amnesty is the third rail of Republican politics and Bush touched it.
You watch. Hillary is the only candidate that has a shot at winning the presidency on the national stage because everyone else is too far to the left. Obama already has said enough during the primary to doom his national campaign. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying that he would talk to the likes of Chavez unilaterally. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying he would not retaliate if the USA had two cities attacked ala 9/11. He might take California and Massachusetts, but that's it.
Or, to put it another way... I could smoke a bowl with some baby boomer hippy, or drink a beer with any righty, disagree about everthing political, but then agree on the fundamental things: people need to give a shit, and whose ordering the pizza.
And it doesn't even matter which political flank one hails from either. I see just as many righties blaming the vast left wing conspiracy for their ills as lefties blaming the vast right wing conspiracy. It's not about voting for this or that or donating to this or that. It's about standing up in an office when you see a woman being sexually harrassed. It's about saying, geez, maybe there is some tangible worth to buying something made by a local craftsmen rather than something tossed together by slave laborers in asia. It's about raising your voice when you see someone steal, raising your heart when you see someone in need. It's just about living right. You don't need a preacher to find god, and you don't need a politician to be a good person, either. But right now, we live in such a service oriented society, that we think that public service is something we can buy too, when, its not. It's up to us to make our own world, one street at a time.
I hate it to break it to you, but America has EXACTLY the government that it wants. Americans don't like the war in Iraq, but they don't like to lose either. Sure, every poll says that most people don't like the war, but, if you frame the question as, do you want America to quit Iraq and lose the war, most people say no. The politicians see that, and hence, the war continues.
Americans bitch about government spending, right up until it is their program that is going to be cut. Americans bitch about the size of the military, right up until it is their base being closed. Americans bitch that we are not this, or are not that, so, somewhere, in DC, is a politician reading those polls trying to figure out how to be this, or that, in such a way to make it look like he's not just reading the polls.
IT is we as a people that do not agree, and, historically, hate our government. We've always hated our government. But its our government to hate and we do need to have it. It's just an expensive pain in the ass. Even worse, we as an American people, much to the horror of the world, as much as we claim to hate partisan bickering, hate bipartisanship even more. Americans, as Patton noted, love a good fight. We liked it when Tip ONeil and Ronald Reagan went to the mat, when Gingrich squared off against Clinton, and we like it when Bush squares off against Pelosi and Reid. And, we don't like any of them. We never have.
Americans are a divided, bickering, greedy, and bitchy people, and always have been, and therefor, we have a divided, bickering, greedy and bitchy government, and always will have. For Christ sakes, it was barely 150 years ago when we fought one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history. In the 1960s, it looked like we were headed to another.
The only thing that unites America is that we like to get fucked up and fuck. And we can't even agree on the particulars of that!
You know who the corporate masters are? It is the biggest joke that you don't. WE, that is, you and I and just about everyone else on this board that has a 401k of some kind, are the corporate masters. There's not some kabal out there of people trying to conspiratize anything. There's only a bunch of CEOs that are getting paid a ton of money by a board of directors who, in turn, take their marching orders directly from what you and I decide to do with their stock.
Every time you shop at Walmart, or buy something made offshore, you indirectly encourage other corporations to do the same. I'd be more than willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats , that's right, Democrats, are as heavily invested in the likes of McDonalds, Walmart as are Republicans. I'd be even more willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats, that's right, Democrats, would invest in a company that dumped nuclear waste on children in the 3rd world while making adults convert to Christianity, if that company had an annual rate of return of more than 30%.
There's no conspiracy. There's no fingers to point or people to blame except that the ones we see in the mirror in the morning. There's no country to "take back". We've got it! The so-called powers that be spend billions of dollars trying to figure out what we want, from Amazon with its data mining, to all the spyware, to all the web, tv, and radio demographic surveys, from opinion polling, cross selling, it is all about what WE WANT.
We have invented the most perfect democracy in the world, and also the laziest. We don't even have to protest to get what we want. We just live out our lives as normal, and whoever wants to get rich, will do so, but only if they sell us what we want. The whole illusion of power in Washington or in the corporate boardroom is just that, an illusion. We are the power. And, if we don't like the society that we have, its only because we are doing it to ourselves.
Ask some guy sitting in front of a TV in Central Missouri what he thinks of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress today, and it may pain them to say it, but their instincts tell them this is one bad actor.
The reality is, most people don't know who Albert Gonzales either. There was a very funny Sean Hannity skit, where he had one of his guys go to a left wing "impeach Bush" rally, and asked them some basic questions:
a) Who is the vice president b) name 4 justices on the supreme court.
And the vast majority of these peace protestors flunked.
The reality is, most Americans don't give a shit about most left wing causes, really, and honestly, they don't even really care that much about the war. What they do care about is the stock market, the real estate market, and the price of gasoline, and as long as one of those is screwed up, then, they think the economy is doing badly.
If the price of gas were 30 cents a gallon, Americans would have re-elected Republicans easily, despite the war. As it is, the real estate market is soft, gas is expensive, and they are pissed off at both parties. Bottom line is, we have to get some black gold out of our Iraqi prize (I mean, liberated ally in the war on terror).
If the chemicals needed to shoot down your mortars are significantly lighter than the mortars you fire, advantage goes to the guy with the laser. See, war at this scale is all about who can transport the most stuff to the front first. If you have to bring a truckload of mortars to take out one laser truck, all those things that the laser truck "protects" are going to get you.
As it is, this is a great weapon that can be used to suppress insurgencies. Insurgents have the element of surprise, but they generally have shitty transport capabilities and have to haul things up for an attack up very slowly. Like, a guy smuggles in a rocket launcher on a donkey. If you take away the likelihood of success of an occasional rocket attack, you've just defeated, militarily, a huge portion of insurgent strategy.
This makes it far, far easier to impose democracy on new nations, and increases the likelihood that future Iraqs can succeed and much more easily. If we can get something to detect IEDs, we would be golden.
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
d) Although the execution was botched, while Democrats and liberals bemoan dictatorships around the world, George Bush put 200,000 boots on the ground to try and bring about democracy in a severely troubled part of the world.
By contrast, Democrats argue for MORE laws about how we use our property, for a wide variety of pet causes, call for more TAXES, not less, call for an end to the idea that the USA should intervene against dictatorships, and call for increased regulation in general. Sure, you might like what the Democratic vision offers, but at the end of the day, Republicans will give you more freedom than you can ever want, leaving you to the chaos of the marketplace, whereas the Democrats inevitably argue for less freedom in favor of social stability!
So please, knock off the double think that the left wing has instilled in you. You can't be free if the government takes more of your wealth and makes more laws.
There's a minority opinion in US circles that suggests that copying an executable, in order to use it, constitutes fair use. So that, if I had a GPL "thing", and sought to use it, then, I could.
We'll have computers each that use the mass of a sun to power and calculate with at the same time. Given that there are a few billion stars in the Milky Way by itself, that ought to make for one awesome frag fest, assuming that a 2 million year ping time doesn't hold anyone back.
For the most part, the basic C level services of Win32, that do things like manage processes and files, work JUST fine. Everything else, really, sits on top of that, and can be thought of as a set of libraries, each of which has their own personality just as much as all the different libraries for Linux do.
USER is a bit dated, but, the only real feature improvement to be made there would be make the U/I pervasively multithreaded like BeOS was. I don't see anyone doing it on the Linux side, either. But CreateWindow, SendMessage, PeekMessage, all work pretty well for most applications. GDI is a bit dated, but, still remarkably useful, and GDI+ is an easy enough thing to use for someone even writing straight up SDK style applications?
From there, we have to ask ourselves, what libraries in Windows do you NOT like? I could see an argument against all the services that are based on COM. It makes Windows a PITA to program in a language like C, whereas Linux doesn't have that problem.
To go beyond that, we really need to think deeply about assumptions in OS design... all mainstream operating systems are based on procedural languages. BeOS was based on C++, but its dead. Do we really even want an OOP implementation for an OS anyway? I'd be willing to bet that plenty of Linux kernel hackers would strongly vote NO. Or what about some sort of a relational database as the OS core. I bet Oracle salivates at the prospect. Then we could all have super RDBMS based operating systems that take 20 minutes to find a file and an hour to paint a display... but we would be secure as all hell. Implement rollback in an OS, anyone? What does THAT mean?
So, name me which Democratic Candidate has offered to:
a) Repeal USA PATRIOT b) Repeal Dept of Homeland Security
The answer is, none of the above.
In fact, Democrats are introducing legislation to have even MORE searches and more Federal Power with the "Complete" implementation of the 9/11 recommendations.
Bottom line is, your faith in Democrats as guarantors of liberty is misplaced.
To think that the number of articles has anything to do with the quantity? I would think that a scientist that reports on progress in nuclear fusion every two years has more to offer than some that writes an article a week about some less difficult topic.
99% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and we chalk up a change in climate to our 1% fluctuation, as if, that vast lion of 99% doesn't fluctuate on its own. So, why not worry about radiowaves in a radioactive universe.
And, here, you've managed to totally disgust me. You like killing, and you don't care about the future of our world, or about anyone outside of your own small neighborhood, evidently. What's the big deal about a 350hp V8 car that gets you so... excited, anyway? It sounds quite illogical to me.
If you had ever really driven a 2004 Pontiac GTO and felt the thrum of an LS1 V8, you would understand. There's nothing but pure, addictive pleasure in that.
Honestly though, the way to go for climate change is sequestration, because only sequestration can cover the case that maybe all this excess CO2 isn't from us after all.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of bringing democracy to the severely troubled part of the world mainly came around after the WMDs never materialized. The
Except that, the PNAC had posted this sort of thing way back before even Bush was elected. In fact, that is the very basis of the charge that Bush "lied about the war". He was out to bring democracy to Iraq all along, regardless of their involvement with 9/11 and WMD, and just used both as an excuse to goad the public into buying it.
So, Bush lied for the greater good. So what. I think it was the right thing to do.
Most people would believe that science is a tool for business, and not the other way around, therefor, Bush is doing the right thing. What you see as "poor scientists getting dissed by the administration", most normal people would see as reining in a multibillion dollar national science effort that has utterly failed in every single one of its goals. There are no flying cars, there is no nuclear fusion, bases on mars, or cures for cancer, and none of them are in sight. Most people see scientists as just another body of people grubbing for money in a broader political space, and yes, they approve of how Bush handles it.
Or is it distortions? I'd argue the latter.
Your central argument is that Bush's low approval ratings translate into hoards of conservatives and moderate republicans ideologically buying into what the Democrats are offering, and that's just absurd. National attitudes are not changing, as evidenced by the simple polls that show that the vast majority of Americans:
a) are against lifelong welfare
b) are in favor of private gun ownership
c) are in favor of free speech
d) are in favor of torturing probable terrorists
e) are anti-islam
f) prefer cars with big engines
g) are against a socialized economy
h) are against amnesty for illegal immigrants
i) prefer a balanced budget
j) remain against tax increases
The list goes on and on and on. Bush is in trouble yeah because of the war, but, if he had balanced the budget and kicked out all the illegal mexicans, he'd be more popular than FDR. Bush's problems are because he bought into the Rovian nonsense that he had to pull to the left to form a ruling majority, when the reality is, he needed to veer right.
America is a conservative country.
IF you have something that conducts electricty that well, and could wind it up, couldn't you theoretically get a really tiny but super powerful electric motor? There's a lot of cool applications that could come from that. For one, I could have a DVD tray on my PC that could actually mix drinks, besides just hold them.
tjstork, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard
Read? Why, I'm surprised you are capable of it.
If you think that a low Bush approval translates into an approval of liberal politics, you are smoking some good stuff.
The only reason Bush is not at 50% is because of his stance on immigration and his budget. If he were to have come down hard on illegal immigration, then, he would have a much higher approval rating. The moral of the story is that the vast majority of the country remains conservative, and only really disapprove of Bush because of the liberal-sounding things that he has done. Republicans are uneasy about the war, to be sure, but, amnesty is the third rail of Republican politics and Bush touched it.
You watch. Hillary is the only candidate that has a shot at winning the presidency on the national stage because everyone else is too far to the left. Obama already has said enough during the primary to doom his national campaign. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying that he would talk to the likes of Chavez unilaterally. Yeah, run that footage of Obama saying he would not retaliate if the USA had two cities attacked ala 9/11. He might take California and Massachusetts, but that's it.
Or, to put it another way... I could smoke a bowl with some baby boomer hippy, or drink a beer with any righty, disagree about everthing political, but then agree on the fundamental things: people need to give a shit, and whose ordering the pizza.
And it doesn't even matter which political flank one hails from either. I see just as many righties blaming the vast left wing conspiracy for their ills as lefties blaming the vast right wing conspiracy. It's not about voting for this or that or donating to this or that. It's about standing up in an office when you see a woman being sexually harrassed. It's about saying, geez, maybe there is some tangible worth to buying something made by a local craftsmen rather than something tossed together by slave laborers in asia. It's about raising your voice when you see someone steal, raising your heart when you see someone in need. It's just about living right. You don't need a preacher to find god, and you don't need a politician to be a good person, either. But right now, we live in such a service oriented society, that we think that public service is something we can buy too, when, its not. It's up to us to make our own world, one street at a time.
I hate it to break it to you, but America has EXACTLY the government that it wants. Americans don't like the war in Iraq, but they don't like to lose either. Sure, every poll says that most people don't like the war, but, if you frame the question as, do you want America to quit Iraq and lose the war, most people say no. The politicians see that, and hence, the war continues.
Americans bitch about government spending, right up until it is their program that is going to be cut. Americans bitch about the size of the military, right up until it is their base being closed. Americans bitch that we are not this, or are not that, so, somewhere, in DC, is a politician reading those polls trying to figure out how to be this, or that, in such a way to make it look like he's not just reading the polls.
IT is we as a people that do not agree, and, historically, hate our government. We've always hated our government. But its our government to hate and we do need to have it. It's just an expensive pain in the ass. Even worse, we as an American people, much to the horror of the world, as much as we claim to hate partisan bickering, hate bipartisanship even more. Americans, as Patton noted, love a good fight. We liked it when Tip ONeil and Ronald Reagan went to the mat, when Gingrich squared off against Clinton, and we like it when Bush squares off against Pelosi and Reid. And, we don't like any of them. We never have.
Americans are a divided, bickering, greedy, and bitchy people, and always have been, and therefor, we have a divided, bickering, greedy and bitchy government, and always will have. For Christ sakes, it was barely 150 years ago when we fought one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history. In the 1960s, it looked like we were headed to another.
The only thing that unites America is that we like to get fucked up and fuck. And we can't even agree on the particulars of that!
You know who the corporate masters are? It is the biggest joke that you don't. WE, that is, you and I and just about everyone else on this board that has a 401k of some kind, are the corporate masters. There's not some kabal out there of people trying to conspiratize anything. There's only a bunch of CEOs that are getting paid a ton of money by a board of directors who, in turn, take their marching orders directly from what you and I decide to do with their stock.
Every time you shop at Walmart, or buy something made offshore, you indirectly encourage other corporations to do the same. I'd be more than willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats , that's right, Democrats, are as heavily invested in the likes of McDonalds, Walmart as are Republicans. I'd be even more willing to bet that the vast majority of Democrats, that's right, Democrats, would invest in a company that dumped nuclear waste on children in the 3rd world while making adults convert to Christianity, if that company had an annual rate of return of more than 30%.
There's no conspiracy. There's no fingers to point or people to blame except that the ones we see in the mirror in the morning. There's no country to "take back". We've got it! The so-called powers that be spend billions of dollars trying to figure out what we want, from Amazon with its data mining, to all the spyware, to all the web, tv, and radio demographic surveys, from opinion polling, cross selling, it is all about what WE WANT.
We have invented the most perfect democracy in the world, and also the laziest. We don't even have to protest to get what we want. We just live out our lives as normal, and whoever wants to get rich, will do so, but only if they sell us what we want. The whole illusion of power in Washington or in the corporate boardroom is just that, an illusion. We are the power. And, if we don't like the society that we have, its only because we are doing it to ourselves.
Ask some guy sitting in front of a TV in Central Missouri what he thinks of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales in front of Congress today, and it may pain them to say it, but their instincts tell them this is one bad actor.
The reality is, most people don't know who Albert Gonzales either. There was a very funny Sean Hannity skit, where he had one of his guys go to a left wing "impeach Bush" rally, and asked them some basic questions:
a) Who is the vice president
b) name 4 justices on the supreme court.
And the vast majority of these peace protestors flunked.
The reality is, most Americans don't give a shit about most left wing causes, really, and honestly, they don't even really care that much about the war. What they do care about is the stock market, the real estate market, and the price of gasoline, and as long as one of those is screwed up, then, they think the economy is doing badly.
If the price of gas were 30 cents a gallon, Americans would have re-elected Republicans easily, despite the war. As it is, the real estate market is soft, gas is expensive, and they are pissed off at both parties. Bottom line is, we have to get some black gold out of our Iraqi prize (I mean, liberated ally in the war on terror).
If the chemicals needed to shoot down your mortars are significantly lighter than the mortars you fire, advantage goes to the guy with the laser. See, war at this scale is all about who can transport the most stuff to the front first. If you have to bring a truckload of mortars to take out one laser truck, all those things that the laser truck "protects" are going to get you.
As it is, this is a great weapon that can be used to suppress insurgencies. Insurgents have the element of surprise, but they generally have shitty transport capabilities and have to haul things up for an attack up very slowly. Like, a guy smuggles in a rocket launcher on a donkey. If you take away the likelihood of success of an occasional rocket attack, you've just defeated, militarily, a huge portion of insurgent strategy.
This makes it far, far easier to impose democracy on new nations, and increases the likelihood that future Iraqs can succeed and much more easily. If we can get something to detect IEDs, we would be golden.
Contrary to protestations of the left, many of us Republicans like what the President is doing just fine.
I am not happy with the Dept of Homeland Security or USA PATRIOT, but, even with those issues aside, I could make the argument that in total, Bush has done more to EXTEND freedom to the American people than Democrats would have.
a) By continually deregulating everything, Bush gives the small business owner and entrepreneur more rights, whereas Democrats would take them away. Bush has made it easier for people to use their land as they best see fit, and made it easier for business's to hire whom they want, when they want. Democrats, on the other hand, would make it harder for a person to use their land the way they want, harder for businesses to hire flexibly, and harder to adjust to market conditions for wages.
b) George Bush has reaffirmed the right to revolution by changing the Justice Dept stance that 2nd Amendment implies an individual right to keep and bear arms, and backed that up by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.
c) George Bush's tax cuts have allowed people to keep more of their money, and, more importantly, his cuts on the death tax allow people to decide what their life's work is for, not the government.
d) Although the execution was botched, while Democrats and liberals bemoan dictatorships around the world, George Bush put 200,000 boots on the ground to try and bring about democracy in a severely troubled part of the world.
By contrast, Democrats argue for MORE laws about how we use our property, for a wide variety of pet causes, call for more TAXES, not less, call for an end to the idea that the USA should intervene against dictatorships, and call for increased regulation in general. Sure, you might like what the Democratic vision offers, but at the end of the day, Republicans will give you more freedom than you can ever want, leaving you to the chaos of the marketplace, whereas the Democrats inevitably argue for less freedom in favor of social stability!
So please, knock off the double think that the left wing has instilled in you. You can't be free if the government takes more of your wealth and makes more laws.
There's a minority opinion in US circles that suggests that copying an executable, in order to use it, constitutes fair use. So that, if I had a GPL "thing", and sought to use it, then, I could.
I didn't annoit Michelle Malkin, and I'm a Republican. The logic is stupid. Does that mean that Dennis Kucinich speaks for all Democrats?
We'll have computers each that use the mass of a sun to power and calculate with at the same time. Given that there are a few billion stars in the Milky Way by itself, that ought to make for one awesome frag fest, assuming that a 2 million year ping time doesn't hold anyone back.
I'm going to take exception to that claim.
For the most part, the basic C level services of Win32, that do things like manage processes and files, work JUST fine. Everything else, really, sits on top of that, and can be thought of as a set of libraries, each of which has their own personality just as much as all the different libraries for Linux do.
USER is a bit dated, but, the only real feature improvement to be made there would be make the U/I pervasively multithreaded like BeOS was. I don't see anyone doing it on the Linux side, either. But CreateWindow, SendMessage, PeekMessage, all work pretty well for most applications. GDI is a bit dated, but, still remarkably useful, and GDI+ is an easy enough thing to use for someone even writing straight up SDK style applications?
From there, we have to ask ourselves, what libraries in Windows do you NOT like? I could see an argument against all the services that are based on COM. It makes Windows a PITA to program in a language like C, whereas Linux doesn't have that problem.
To go beyond that, we really need to think deeply about assumptions in OS design... all mainstream operating systems are based on procedural languages. BeOS was based on C++, but its dead. Do we really even want an OOP implementation for an OS anyway? I'd be willing to bet that plenty of Linux kernel hackers would strongly vote NO. Or what about some sort of a relational database as the OS core. I bet Oracle salivates at the prospect. Then we could all have super RDBMS based operating systems that take 20 minutes to find a file and an hour to paint a display... but we would be secure as all hell. Implement rollback in an OS, anyone? What does THAT mean?
So, name me which Democratic Candidate has offered to:
a) Repeal USA PATRIOT
b) Repeal Dept of Homeland Security
The answer is, none of the above.
In fact, Democrats are introducing legislation to have even MORE searches and more Federal Power with the "Complete" implementation of the 9/11 recommendations.
Bottom line is, your faith in Democrats as guarantors of liberty is misplaced.
forget what party gutted habeus corpus, thinks torture is OK,
Didn't the Democrats put 200,000 Japanese citizens in concentration camps during World War II?
Run MK-ULTRA, and numerous CIA / FBI abuses during the Cold War?
Allow J Edgar Hoover's FBI to amass data on US Citizens for almost 40 years?
Run illegal wiretaps throughout every Presidency since Truman?
The whole notion of Democrats having of moral superiority when it comes to civil rights has no historical basis in fact.
Our best hope would have been to have conservatives acting like conservatives, gutting the government rather than expanding it.
so, um, does that make him right?
To think that the number of articles has anything to do with the quantity? I would think that a scientist that reports on progress in nuclear fusion every two years has more to offer than some that writes an article a week about some less difficult topic.
There's more CO2 in the ocean, and then there's even more that's been taken up in limestone.
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html
99% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and we chalk up a change in climate to our 1% fluctuation, as if, that vast lion of 99% doesn't fluctuate on its own. So, why not worry about radiowaves in a radioactive universe.
And, here, you've managed to totally disgust me. You like killing, and you don't care about the future of our world, or about anyone outside of your own small neighborhood, evidently. What's the big deal about a 350hp V8 car that gets you so ... excited, anyway? It sounds quite illogical to me.
If you had ever really driven a 2004 Pontiac GTO and felt the thrum of an LS1 V8, you would understand. There's nothing but pure, addictive pleasure in that.
Honestly though, the way to go for climate change is sequestration, because only sequestration can cover the case that maybe all this excess CO2 isn't from us after all.