Clinton had an affair and lied about it. (Gee, I bet he's the first married guy that ever did that.) And you compare him to Nixon?
There you go again making what Clinton did only about sex.  It doesn't matter which President it happens to be.  Perjury is still perjury.  Obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice.  Failing in their constitutional to uphold the law is just that.  Both Nixon and Clinton were guilty of that.  I'm not totally convinced that G.H.W. Bush is guilty of it but evidence does seem to indicate that he may well have been.  Thanks for the details of Watergate.  I never intended to dispute that Nixon was a bad seed.  I just happen to believe that Clinton and he are equals with respect to corruption.
As for diminishing the value of your vote, you did that when you voted for that mental midget that now occupies the White House.
Yeah.  George Bush, the idiot.  Good one.  Don't you know that the tactics have changed?  Now Bush's words are responsible for our current economic situation.  Get with the program so we can all stay on the same liberal page.  Isn't it amazing that the Democrats attribute so much power to the words of a man they consider to be so stupid?
Am I the only one thinking that SOMEBODY -- be it the PGP people, the Free Software Foundation, or Microsoft for that matter -- should figure out a TRULY easy, TRULY fast, TRULY seamless means for the common email user to encrypt a message?
I'm going to describe shortfalls of PGP, but really, it applies to any infrastructure that's based on a web of trust.
Using encryption is easy.  I would argue that with 5 minutes of training, anybody familiar with their email client (assuming it supported hooks to PGP) could encrypt their messages.
So what?  That doesn't mean squat.  Yeah, I can get your PGP key from your user ID but again, that gains me little as I have no way of validating your identity.  Yeah, PGP has a web of trust, but that's not really realistic.  So you say, "OK, I guess you need to set up a central registry like the Post Office."  People are (rightfully) afraid of the abuses of their social in-security number.  You think they're going to trust their government public/private key pair?  I'd certainly be skeptical....
The point is, it's not the technology or the user's intelligence that are the problem.  It's the lack of a large scale supportable infrastructure that holds PKI back from widespread use.
Now, I do think that PGP works well with people whose physical identity you or another you trust has verified.  So realistically I can encrypt all my email to friends and family.  And that brings us smack dab into the middle of the hassle factor.  For a user to decrypt their mail they need to enter their passphrase.  If users need to type it a lot, they're going to make it short and sweet.  You just lost security.  But you can keep the passphrase in memory.  You just lost some more security since a black-hat can possibly look at the memory and get at your passphrase.
What's the answer?  I don't know if there is one given that there really isn't (yet) a compelling need to encrypt everything sent via email.
Yes, trot out all the totally unsubstantiated slurs on Clinton, and then claim the moral highground. You're not very convincing, buddy.
Oh, that's right.  I guess I fell victim to the propaganda of that "vast right wing conspiracy".  How foolish of me.  Come on, we have testimony from many women that Bill Clinton sexually harassed them.  What do you do?  Work on a lame justification and give him a "one grope pass".  We have documented evidence of illegal campaign contributions.  What do you do?  Work on yet anther lame justifcation and push 1st amendment limiting crap like "Campaign Finance Reform".  We have documented evidence of the Clinton's guilt in Whitewater yet those who could and should testify instead plead the 5th and amazingly get a pardon (Susan McDougal.)  What do you do?  Put out another lame justification and state that the pardon was granted on the merits.  We have documented evidence that Clinton called a Democratic fundraiser regarding a Presidential pardon of a fugitive.  What do you do?  You bitch about how the Bush tax cut will "cost us too much" after Clinton just pardoned the largest tax evader in US history.  And it goes on and on.  Damn, man, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you'd call it a house while redefining all of the passive verbs in the English language.
As for claiming the moral highground, you bet I do.  I respect the rights of others (even you whom I suspect I have very little in common with philosophically) and do my best to help my fellow man by donating time and monies to charities.  I follow the law to the best of my ability and do not work to actively circumvent it.  So yeah, morally and ethically, I've got it all over Clinton and am not afraid to say it.
Or are you so foolish to believe that the enemies of Clinton had evidence of murder
Who said anything about murder?  As for the rest of the evidence, he was being tried in a political arena and if it wasn't for the apathy of the American public, he'd be gone.  Just goes to show how effective denying and deflecting can be.
The man never asks a question and never writes an opinion
That simply is not true.  While he didn't write many opionions in his early terms, he now writes quite a few and asks many questions as well.  But that's right, I suppose all you know about the Supreme Court is what you learned during the Florida debacle.
And he's also one of Bush's often-stated models of what a supreme court justice should be.
You mean a strict constitutionalist?  A judge that doesn't believe in legislation from the bench?  What's wrong with that?
The constitution does not need to be "interpreted".  If there is something about it you don't like, ammend it.  Otherwise, read it and follow it and don't try and derive a hidden meaning.
We'd better hope Strom Thurmond kicks off soon, so the Senate can block any and all Supreme Court nominations by this illegitimate president.
Yeah, that's good.  Hope for ill will upon others for your short-term political gain.  You seem like a real peach.  As for the legitimacy of President Bush...  How many votes did Gore gain in the most liberal recounting of all the undervotes in Miami-Dade?  That's right, 49.  And with the Palm Beach methodology, Bush ended up gaining more.  And what did NBC report?  That idiot Democrat voters cannot tell the difference between Lieberman and Libertarian.  Sorry, I don't feel sorry for the voters that cannot be concerned to read the intructions and double check their vote.
Otherwise we're going to pay the price for the next forty years or so.
If it stops the stripping of constitutionally protected rights, I'll pay that price twice.
You mean that warhead technology that the Chinese government tested during the Bush I administration?
I'm referring to W-88 nuclear warhead technology. According to reports a W-88 nuclear warhead weighs about 300 pounds and has the explosive capacity ten times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.  Not sure what you're referring to.
Dragging your opponents through the mud is an ancient political strategy predating the U.S. by a few millenia.
Yep, I'm aware of that.  That's why I said "modern era".  After Nixon politics got decidedly nastier.
I reserve most of my contempt for moral, cultural, and religious conservatives
I reserve mine for hypocritical Clinton apologists that will bash a Republican for doing much less and liberals that feel the income tax should be used as a tool to redistribute wealth.
Thanks for your rational response.  Others in this thread are not as articulate or level headed in their responses.
I don't mind that he lied under oath about his sexual liasons.
This is truly sad.  How can you NOT be outraged about this?  A lie is a lie and if you don't value truth under oath you've just destroyed our legal system.
It's not like we are talking about him trading arms for hostages and then pardoning all of his cronies that were involved.
Yeah, that's right.  You offer the typical Clinton defense.  "See, he's not so bad.  Look at how bad all of these other people were."  Last I checked, we were talking about the actions of Clinton here.  Yawn
How can you compare Nixon, who abused the power of the Presidency to subvert the very process of democracy, to Clinton, who, according to a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation, did nothing worse than have an affair and lie about it?
Quite easily. Did Nixon do a stupid thing ( and yeah, it was stupid -- he had the re-election wrapped up.)?  Yeah, just like Clinton.  Did Nixon use his office to delay the investigation?  Yeah, just like Clinton did.  Did Nixon lie about his actions?  Yeah, just like Clintion did.  Note the pattern?
Good. I was afraid that your vote would actually count.
I voted for Bush this go-around and Libertarian on the rest of the races.  Regardless, my vote would count.  Thanks for trying to diminsh the value of another citizen's vote.
By the way, I am an American and I believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
I believe this too, but the President of the United States works for me.  As such, I am able to hold him to whatever system of values that I choose.  I don't need a court when I have evidence, a voice and a vote.
WOW after years and years of investigation and a buttload of money spent and hundreds of lawyers the combined might of the congress, keneth starr, conservative legal foundations, newsweek, time, new york times, washing post, fox TV and fox news, CNBC, MSNBC etc could not make any of the charges stick except for one thing.
How much was spent?  A whopping 40 million for a 4+ year investigation.  In Washington terms, that's a goddamn bargain.  And isn't it amazing how evidence relating to those investigations was missing yet later found in the White House residence.  No doubt the Clinton's did their best to cooperate with the mean and nasty Republican independent council. 
Did you stick you dick in monica lewinsky? No I did not.
Try:
< Bill Clinton does his best to give us a stern look and make his voice crack as if he's under some terrible strain... >
"I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman... Ms. Lewinsky."
What does that show me how Bill Clinton feels about me as a citizen?  "You petty people have no right to harass me and I can lie to your face to try and make you feel bad."  But you're right, it was all about sex. sigh
Listen just because Rush or Bill Oreilly says it, that does not mean it's true.
That's nice.  I don't listen to either of them.  And my cable carrier does not offer Fox News so I'm stuck with MSNBC or CNN.
If a hundred of the highest paid lawyers in the world could not make any of the accusations you just so carelessly made stick why should we believe you? I millions of dollars spent and the awsome powers of the senate and the house and the independent council could not gather enough evidence to make a case then all you have left are baseless accusations.
The charges could not stick becuase the arena was that of politics and not one of strict adherance to the laws that you and I are subjected to.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that Bill Clinton was not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?  I feel very sorry for you if you can.
On another note, I don't need hard proof of a quid-pro-quo in the current pardon scandals.  It's so obvious that Clinton traded pardons for favors that Ray Charles can see it.  But that's right, if it doesn't stick, that means that it must be another one of those pesky baseless accusations.
Nixon was a traitor, reagan betrayed his country, Bush sr. killed a hundred thousand arabs for cheaper oil
Funny how you have no problems making those same careless accusations that you condem...
They were the ones that sought to embarass Clinton by first holding a hearing about an ancient money-losing land deal and then twisting it into an inquiry about his extramarital affairs.
Yeah, that's it.  Never mind that Clinton obstructed justice.  Never mind that Clinton molested at least two women against their will and raped another.  Never mind that Clinton lied under oath.  But yeah, that's right, the impeachment hearing were only about sex.  Never mind that the Chinese government funneled money to the Clinton and Gore campaigns in exchange for nuclear secrets.  Give me a break.
Oh yeah, and before the Clinton years, who dragged Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas through the mud?  That's right, it was the saintly Democrats.  Your lapses in memory are quite convenient.  And FYI, the modern era of dragging public officials through the mud can be traced back to the Democrats doing it to Nixon.  Not that Nixon was a saint (I consider he and Clinton to be in the same low-class w.r.t ethics.)  Get your facts before looking like an ass and pointing fingers.
If Bush wants to send secret e-mail love letters to the big-wigs at...the tobacco lobby
How much money did Gore take from that Tobacco lobby before it became fashionable to bash them?  And how much personal wealth did he gain from his family's tobacco farm?
Don't blame me.  I'm a Libertarian and think that both the Democrats and the Republicans suck -- I just happen to think the Democrats suck more.
and it's not uncommon to spend $1.00 playing a 10 minute game.
Try substantially less than 10 minutes.  Many of today's current games don't seem to want to reward excellence with more play time.  Regardless of how many times I came in first place on Taito's downhill skiing game from a few years back, I never got to race again.  I'm sure that an operator can set the option allowing another race but as it was, my dollar lasted about 2 minutes.  Not a good value IMHO.
Microsoft has announced that will release software that will allow non-MS operating systems to run.NET web services. Ballmer specifically mentions that Linux is one of the platforms.
I'll believe it when I see it.  Microsoft was supposed to release IE for UNIX platforms as well.  And indeed they did but it didn't work well and was not supported.
Well for music buying people like myself, it means anytime I wanted to purchase a cd from my favourite group, say bandX, I simply go to www.bandX.music and I know that it will be there.
Doesn't a search engine, such as Google, serve the same purpose?  And how many independent artist really trademark their band name?
Retard. It's called the news. Feel free to divest yourself of your ignorance. See, when she holds a press conferece stating she'll be using the powers of her office to investigate the ex-president, I tend to take her at her word. St00pit me.
Yeah, and you ASSumed that since she's going after the ex-President that she must be a Bush supporter/appointee.  That ain't the case.  If you do some *RESEARCH* you would find that she's a Clinton appointee.  And just because she's a Clinton appointee, do you think that she shouldn't do her job (of investigating criminal wrongdoing)? Do you have trouble reading or is it just too hard for you to understand what's being said?
a philosophy of personal responsibility is fine and dandy, but distill it down a bit more and it's nothing more than survival of the fittest, and basically anarchy.
No, that's not correct.  It's personal responsibilility that gives individuals the freedom to deal with problems on their own.  With that freedom comes responsibility that is currently not expected of citizens today.  What you seem to be advocating is that the govenernment should protect the weak.  In my view, all this does is keep them weak and make others more so.  Don't fear corporations.  Just give them less power over the government.  In a free society there are less (bureaucratic) obstacles to starting your own business in order to fight corporations that you don't like via competition.  Also keep in mind that much of the legislation today (such as copyright) benefits those same corporations.  Take that away and you take away their power.  That's why I value the freedom for the individual and am hence a Libertarian.
As she should...  Even Stevie Wonder can see that pardons were sold for money and favors.  However, I think the government should stay out of the MPAA vs. 2600 case.
I would imagine event the woman prosecuting the case (Mary Jo White, (212) 637-2741) has a thought process something like this:
Uh, last I checked, Mary Jo White was a Clinton appointee.  So if that was indeed her thought process, they didn't do a very thorough background check on her when she was nominated.
Yeah, I know it's not fair to expect you to have the slightest clue about what you're saying...
I mean, I know the libertarians have a strong online presence, but they're just whacko
I take offense to that remark.  The Libertarians are a party that advocates personal responsibility?  When you distill their message, that's excatly what it boils down to.
I will be the first one to sign up for this if it will lower the retail cost of games and apps, even if it means giving up a bit of my privacy. After all, I've got nothing to hide!
Please tell me that you just forgot to put the smiley on the end of your statement.
Just stop and think about it for a second from a historical perspective.  Audio CDs when they were released were not copyable to recordable CDs for years.  Were they cheaper than tapes even though manufacturing costs were way less?  No.  DVD are still not able to be cheaply copied by joe-blow.  Are they cheaper than VHS tapes even though they cost way less to manufacture?  No.  Copy protection will *NOT* lower prices.  Why?  Because copying by joe-blow by and large does *NOT* hurt sales.  I guarantee that most people that copy stuff would definitely not pay for it in the first place.  So all copy protection does is makes things a pain in the ass for the law abiding citizen.
The problem is that John McCain was the closest thing to libertarian we saw in any mainstream party.
I disagree with that view of John McCain.  Look no further than his campaign finance reform and his desire for "targeted" tax cuts.  McCain, while a great American, is nothing more than a liberal Republican.
Bush and the gang will take your freedoms as well.
Such as?  Let's not jump the gun and give the guy a chance.  Then, if he screws up, let him have it.  All in all, I'm very pleased with his first three weeks in office.  He's been true to his campaign promises and I think he is making a positive impact in Washington.
How about the fact that he is a total hypocrite.
How so?  I think we can safely label Bill Clinton a hypocrite.  Likewise for Jesse Jackson.  I'll reserve judgement on George W. Bush for the time being.
Regarding abortion and prayer in school.  I don't give a damn about prayer in school.  If somebody wants to pray, go for it.  And then there is abortion...  When on earth are we ever going to have a rational dialoge on it?  When can we rationally discuss the man's role (what if he wants to keep the baby?  What if he wants to abort it?)  When can we rationally discuss partial birth abortions?  Until their can be a rational discussion, one will easily be able to polarize views in the way that yours are which is a shame.  My views?  I'm kind of in the middle.  My wife and I would never have one (we have two children and we love them to pieces.)  However, I wish that people would exercise restraint and take responsibility for thier actions.  Abortion in some ways nullifies this need to be responsible.  On the other hand, I don't want somebody raising a child (poorly) that they don't want and will become a large burden on society later in life.  I would suggest adoption to that person over an abortion, but that would and should be their choice to make.
His appointment of John Ashcroft as attorney general leaves a lot to be desired. Ashcroft is a religious NUT!
Again, I think you're jumping the gun.  John Ashcroft by all rational accounts is a good and honest man.  His record as a Senator and A.G. of Missouri are very good.  Give the man a chance.  Anything has to be better than Janet Reno's office.
Neither Republican nor Democrat are the answer to America's problems.
I agree with you there.  However, the Republicans are a hell of a lot closer to the Libertarians than the Democrats are...
Unless we change the government, the government won't change.
Yep, so send money to the Libertarian party and organizations like CATO.  And be sure to have rational discussions with others about the issues.  Speak with your mind and keep your emotions in check.
You've got to be kidding, right?  At least Bush does things to force personal responsibility (eg. school vouchers and letting us in California suffer with our damn electricity debacle we've gotten ourselves into) which is far more than Gore or Clinton did ("We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right...")  Not that the Republicans are stellar in regard to making us far less dependent on government but at least they are a step in the right direction.  The Democrats are doing their best to strip that away from you in the form of hate crime legislation, gun control, excessive taxation and the latest (and greatest) reparation for past wrongs of slavery.  Heaven forbid that you should have to care for yourself and your family.  No, don't be silly!  We need the government to care for us and fix wrongs against ug.  Most of all, we need the government to keep us safe and secure. 
Well I say, "You reap what you sow."  You can't have freedom AND security.  Please choose responsibly.
And don't blame me.  I own a gun, care for my family and vote Libertarian...
Maybe you'll call me an arrogant European socialist, but the idea to take money from GE, IBM and Esso (big corporations contribute much more to tax revenue than "taxpayers" do)
Do those corporations really pay taxes?  Nope.&nbp You, their customer, pay their taxes in the form of higher prices (and with those higher prices pay a larger sales or VAT tax.)  Thus it's you, the customer, that gets screwed twice.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that income taxes are wrong (both personal and business) and would greatly favor usage based taxes.
-Please- tell me they've abandoned the horrid gcc '2.9.6'/separate 'kgcc' nastiness from 7.0.
If you had read the release announcement, you would have seen that they are using 2.96-RH which one could assume is a RedHat branch of the GCC 2.96 tree.  So, if 2.96 cannot compile the kernel, then yeah, they will still have the kgcc "nastiness" (although I don't see what the problem is with it -- they used 2.96 for resons that I can't recall at the moment.)
You can at least wait until responsible people fix the problem before throwing it to the peanut gallery to discuss. This is like posting American security failures on slashdot. Everybody keep your secrets, posting them here is pearls before swine.
I'm hoping that you forgot the smiley to demonstrate that you were joking.  Security through obscurity doesn't work -- never has and it never will.  Not to mention there are already tons of other sites that have either notes the problems or announced new packages for BIND.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go again making what Clinton did only about sex.  It doesn't matter which President it happens to be.  Perjury is still perjury.  Obstruction of justice is still obstruction of justice.  Failing in their constitutional to uphold the law is just that.  Both Nixon and Clinton were guilty of that.  I'm not totally convinced that G.H.W. Bush is guilty of it but evidence does seem to indicate that he may well have been.  Thanks for the details of Watergate.  I never intended to dispute that Nixon was a bad seed.  I just happen to believe that Clinton and he are equals with respect to corruption.
As for diminishing the value of your vote, you did that when you voted for that mental midget that now occupies the White House.
Yeah.  George Bush, the idiot.  Good one.  Don't you know that the tactics have changed?  Now Bush's words are responsible for our current economic situation.  Get with the program so we can all stay on the same liberal page.  Isn't it amazing that the Democrats attribute so much power to the words of a man they consider to be so stupid?
I'm going to describe shortfalls of PGP, but really, it applies to any infrastructure that's based on a web of trust.
Using encryption is easy.  I would argue that with 5 minutes of training, anybody familiar with their email client (assuming it supported hooks to PGP) could encrypt their messages.
So what?  That doesn't mean squat.  Yeah, I can get your PGP key from your user ID but again, that gains me little as I have no way of validating your identity.  Yeah, PGP has a web of trust, but that's not really realistic.  So you say, "OK, I guess you need to set up a central registry like the Post Office."  People are (rightfully) afraid of the abuses of their social in-security number.  You think they're going to trust their government public/private key pair?  I'd certainly be skeptical....
The point is, it's not the technology or the user's intelligence that are the problem.  It's the lack of a large scale supportable infrastructure that holds PKI back from widespread use.
Now, I do think that PGP works well with people whose physical identity you or another you trust has verified.  So realistically I can encrypt all my email to friends and family.  And that brings us smack dab into the middle of the hassle factor.  For a user to decrypt their mail they need to enter their passphrase.  If users need to type it a lot, they're going to make it short and sweet.  You just lost security.  But you can keep the passphrase in memory.  You just lost some more security since a black-hat can possibly look at the memory and get at your passphrase.
What's the answer?  I don't know if there is one given that there really isn't (yet) a compelling need to encrypt everything sent via email.
Oh, that's right.  I guess I fell victim to the propaganda of that "vast right wing conspiracy".  How foolish of me.  Come on, we have testimony from many women that Bill Clinton sexually harassed them.  What do you do?  Work on a lame justification and give him a "one grope pass".  We have documented evidence of illegal campaign contributions.  What do you do?  Work on yet anther lame justifcation and push 1st amendment limiting crap like "Campaign Finance Reform".  We have documented evidence of the Clinton's guilt in Whitewater yet those who could and should testify instead plead the 5th and amazingly get a pardon (Susan McDougal.)  What do you do?  Put out another lame justification and state that the pardon was granted on the merits.  We have documented evidence that Clinton called a Democratic fundraiser regarding a Presidential pardon of a fugitive.  What do you do?  You bitch about how the Bush tax cut will "cost us too much" after Clinton just pardoned the largest tax evader in US history.  And it goes on and on.  Damn, man, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you'd call it a house while redefining all of the passive verbs in the English language.
As for claiming the moral highground, you bet I do.  I respect the rights of others (even you whom I suspect I have very little in common with philosophically) and do my best to help my fellow man by donating time and monies to charities.  I follow the law to the best of my ability and do not work to actively circumvent it.  So yeah, morally and ethically, I've got it all over Clinton and am not afraid to say it.
Or are you so foolish to believe that the enemies of Clinton had evidence of murder
Who said anything about murder?  As for the rest of the evidence, he was being tried in a political arena and if it wasn't for the apathy of the American public, he'd be gone.  Just goes to show how effective denying and deflecting can be.
The man never asks a question and never writes an opinion
That simply is not true.  While he didn't write many opionions in his early terms, he now writes quite a few and asks many questions as well.  But that's right, I suppose all you know about the Supreme Court is what you learned during the Florida debacle.
And he's also one of Bush's often-stated models of what a supreme court justice should be.
You mean a strict constitutionalist?  A judge that doesn't believe in legislation from the bench?  What's wrong with that?
The constitution does not need to be "interpreted".  If there is something about it you don't like, ammend it.  Otherwise, read it and follow it and don't try and derive a hidden meaning.
We'd better hope Strom Thurmond kicks off soon, so the Senate can block any and all Supreme Court nominations by this illegitimate president.
Yeah, that's good.  Hope for ill will upon others for your short-term political gain.  You seem like a real peach.  As for the legitimacy of President Bush...  How many votes did Gore gain in the most liberal recounting of all the undervotes in Miami-Dade?  That's right, 49.  And with the Palm Beach methodology, Bush ended up gaining more.  And what did NBC report?  That idiot Democrat voters cannot tell the difference between Lieberman and Libertarian.  Sorry, I don't feel sorry for the voters that cannot be concerned to read the intructions and double check their vote.
Otherwise we're going to pay the price for the next forty years or so.
If it stops the stripping of constitutionally protected rights, I'll pay that price twice.
I'm referring to W-88 nuclear warhead technology. According to reports a W-88 nuclear warhead weighs about 300 pounds and has the explosive capacity ten times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.  Not sure what you're referring to.
Dragging your opponents through the mud is an ancient political strategy predating the U.S. by a few millenia.
Yep, I'm aware of that.  That's why I said "modern era".  After Nixon politics got decidedly nastier.
I reserve most of my contempt for moral, cultural, and religious conservatives
I reserve mine for hypocritical Clinton apologists that will bash a Republican for doing much less and liberals that feel the income tax should be used as a tool to redistribute wealth.
Thanks for your rational response.  Others in this thread are not as articulate or level headed in their responses.
Not a bit.  Jesus drives my hotrod...
This is truly sad.  How can you NOT be outraged about this?  A lie is a lie and if you don't value truth under oath you've just destroyed our legal system.
It's not like we are talking about him trading arms for hostages and then pardoning all of his cronies that were involved.
Yeah, that's right.  You offer the typical Clinton defense.  "See, he's not so bad.  Look at how bad all of these other people were."  Last I checked, we were talking about the actions of Clinton here.  Yawn
How can you compare Nixon, who abused the power of the Presidency to subvert the very process of democracy, to Clinton, who, according to a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation, did nothing worse than have an affair and lie about it?
Quite easily. Did Nixon do a stupid thing ( and yeah, it was stupid -- he had the re-election wrapped up.)?  Yeah, just like Clinton.  Did Nixon use his office to delay the investigation?  Yeah, just like Clinton did.  Did Nixon lie about his actions?  Yeah, just like Clintion did.  Note the pattern?
Good. I was afraid that your vote would actually count.
I voted for Bush this go-around and Libertarian on the rest of the races.  Regardless, my vote would count.  Thanks for trying to diminsh the value of another citizen's vote.
By the way, I am an American and I believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
I believe this too, but the President of the United States works for me.  As such, I am able to hold him to whatever system of values that I choose.  I don't need a court when I have evidence, a voice and a vote.
How much was spent?  A whopping 40 million for a 4+ year investigation.  In Washington terms, that's a goddamn bargain.  And isn't it amazing how evidence relating to those investigations was missing yet later found in the White House residence.  No doubt the Clinton's did their best to cooperate with the mean and nasty Republican independent council. 
Did you stick you dick in monica lewinsky? No I did not.
Try:
< Bill Clinton does his best to give us a stern look and make his voice crack as if he's under some terrible strain... >
"I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman... Ms. Lewinsky."
What does that show me how Bill Clinton feels about me as a citizen?  "You petty people have no right to harass me and I can lie to your face to try and make you feel bad."  But you're right, it was all about sex. sigh
Listen just because Rush or Bill Oreilly says it, that does not mean it's true.
That's nice.  I don't listen to either of them.  And my cable carrier does not offer Fox News so I'm stuck with MSNBC or CNN.
If a hundred of the highest paid lawyers in the world could not make any of the accusations you just so carelessly made stick why should we believe you? I millions of dollars spent and the awsome powers of the senate and the house and the independent council could not gather enough evidence to make a case then all you have left are baseless accusations.
The charges could not stick becuase the arena was that of politics and not one of strict adherance to the laws that you and I are subjected to.  Can you honestly say with a straight face that Bill Clinton was not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?  I feel very sorry for you if you can.
On another note, I don't need hard proof of a quid-pro-quo in the current pardon scandals.  It's so obvious that Clinton traded pardons for favors that Ray Charles can see it.  But that's right, if it doesn't stick, that means that it must be another one of those pesky baseless accusations.
Nixon was a traitor, reagan betrayed his country, Bush sr. killed a hundred thousand arabs for cheaper oil
Funny how you have no problems making those same careless accusations that you condem...
Man, you're a big, bad AC.  I'm so awed by your cool comeback.  What substance!  BTW, that should be "Shut up, hick."
Is your Karma that precious?  Or do you really have nothing useful to contribute?
DeCSS is already in the public record in the court transcripts of MPAA vs. 2600...
What total crap.
They were the ones that sought to embarass Clinton by first holding a hearing about an ancient money-losing land deal and then twisting it into an inquiry about his extramarital affairs.
Yeah, that's it.  Never mind that Clinton obstructed justice.  Never mind that Clinton molested at least two women against their will and raped another.  Never mind that Clinton lied under oath.  But yeah, that's right, the impeachment hearing were only about sex.  Never mind that the Chinese government funneled money to the Clinton and Gore campaigns in exchange for nuclear secrets.  Give me a break.
Oh yeah, and before the Clinton years, who dragged Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas through the mud?  That's right, it was the saintly Democrats.  Your lapses in memory are quite convenient.  And FYI, the modern era of dragging public officials through the mud can be traced back to the Democrats doing it to Nixon.  Not that Nixon was a saint (I consider he and Clinton to be in the same low-class w.r.t ethics.)  Get your facts before looking like an ass and pointing fingers.
If Bush wants to send secret e-mail love letters to the big-wigs at...the tobacco lobby
How much money did Gore take from that Tobacco lobby before it became fashionable to bash them?  And how much personal wealth did he gain from his family's tobacco farm?
Don't blame me.  I'm a Libertarian and think that both the Democrats and the Republicans suck -- I just happen to think the Democrats suck more.
Try substantially less than 10 minutes.  Many of today's current games don't seem to want to reward excellence with more play time.  Regardless of how many times I came in first place on Taito's downhill skiing game from a few years back, I never got to race again.  I'm sure that an operator can set the option allowing another race but as it was, my dollar lasted about 2 minutes.  Not a good value IMHO.
I'll believe it when I see it.  Microsoft was supposed to release IE for UNIX platforms as well.  And indeed they did but it didn't work well and was not supported.
Doesn't a search engine, such as Google, serve the same purpose?  And how many independent artist really trademark their band name?
Yeah, and you ASSumed that since she's going after the ex-President that she must be a Bush supporter/appointee.  That ain't the case.  If you do some *RESEARCH* you would find that she's a Clinton appointee.  And just because she's a Clinton appointee, do you think that she shouldn't do her job (of investigating criminal wrongdoing)? Do you have trouble reading or is it just too hard for you to understand what's being said?
No, that's not correct.  It's personal responsibilility that gives individuals the freedom to deal with problems on their own.  With that freedom comes responsibility that is currently not expected of citizens today.  What you seem to be advocating is that the govenernment should protect the weak.  In my view, all this does is keep them weak and make others more so.  Don't fear corporations.  Just give them less power over the government.  In a free society there are less (bureaucratic) obstacles to starting your own business in order to fight corporations that you don't like via competition.  Also keep in mind that much of the legislation today (such as copyright) benefits those same corporations.  Take that away and you take away their power.  That's why I value the freedom for the individual and am hence a Libertarian.
As she should...  Even Stevie Wonder can see that pardons were sold for money and favors.  However, I think the government should stay out of the MPAA vs. 2600 case.
Uh, last I checked, Mary Jo White was a Clinton appointee.  So if that was indeed her thought process, they didn't do a very thorough background check on her when she was nominated.
Yeah, I know it's not fair to expect you to have the slightest clue about what you're saying...
I take offense to that remark.  The Libertarians are a party that advocates personal responsibility?  When you distill their message, that's excatly what it boils down to.
So what exactly is wrong with that?
Please tell me that you just forgot to put the smiley on the end of your statement.
Just stop and think about it for a second from a historical perspective.  Audio CDs when they were released were not copyable to recordable CDs for years.  Were they cheaper than tapes even though manufacturing costs were way less?  No.  DVD are still not able to be cheaply copied by joe-blow.  Are they cheaper than VHS tapes even though they cost way less to manufacture?  No.  Copy protection will *NOT* lower prices.  Why?  Because copying by joe-blow by and large does *NOT* hurt sales.  I guarantee that most people that copy stuff would definitely not pay for it in the first place.  So all copy protection does is makes things a pain in the ass for the law abiding citizen.
Maybe you should have checked the completed auctions.  Click here.
I disagree with that view of John McCain.  Look no further than his campaign finance reform and his desire for "targeted" tax cuts.  McCain, while a great American, is nothing more than a liberal Republican.
Bush and the gang will take your freedoms as well.
Such as?  Let's not jump the gun and give the guy a chance.  Then, if he screws up, let him have it.  All in all, I'm very pleased with his first three weeks in office.  He's been true to his campaign promises and I think he is making a positive impact in Washington.
How about the fact that he is a total hypocrite.
How so?  I think we can safely label Bill Clinton a hypocrite.  Likewise for Jesse Jackson.  I'll reserve judgement on George W. Bush for the time being.
Regarding abortion and prayer in school.  I don't give a damn about prayer in school.  If somebody wants to pray, go for it.  And then there is abortion...  When on earth are we ever going to have a rational dialoge on it?  When can we rationally discuss the man's role (what if he wants to keep the baby?  What if he wants to abort it?)  When can we rationally discuss partial birth abortions?  Until their can be a rational discussion, one will easily be able to polarize views in the way that yours are which is a shame.  My views?  I'm kind of in the middle.  My wife and I would never have one (we have two children and we love them to pieces.)  However, I wish that people would exercise restraint and take responsibility for thier actions.  Abortion in some ways nullifies this need to be responsible.  On the other hand, I don't want somebody raising a child (poorly) that they don't want and will become a large burden on society later in life.  I would suggest adoption to that person over an abortion, but that would and should be their choice to make.
His appointment of John Ashcroft as attorney general leaves a lot to be desired. Ashcroft is a religious NUT!
Again, I think you're jumping the gun.  John Ashcroft by all rational accounts is a good and honest man.  His record as a Senator and A.G. of Missouri are very good.  Give the man a chance.  Anything has to be better than Janet Reno's office.
Neither Republican nor Democrat are the answer to America's problems.
I agree with you there.  However, the Republicans are a hell of a lot closer to the Libertarians than the Democrats are...
Unless we change the government, the government won't change.
Yep, so send money to the Libertarian party and organizations like CATO.  And be sure to have rational discussions with others about the issues.  Speak with your mind and keep your emotions in check.
You've got to be kidding, right?  At least Bush does things to force personal responsibility (eg. school vouchers and letting us in California suffer with our damn electricity debacle we've gotten ourselves into) which is far more than Gore or Clinton did ("We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right...")  Not that the Republicans are stellar in regard to making us far less dependent on government but at least they are a step in the right direction.  The Democrats are doing their best to strip that away from you in the form of hate crime legislation, gun control, excessive taxation and the latest (and greatest) reparation for past wrongs of slavery.  Heaven forbid that you should have to care for yourself and your family.  No, don't be silly!  We need the government to care for us and fix wrongs against ug.  Most of all, we need the government to keep us safe and secure. 
Well I say, "You reap what you sow."  You can't have freedom AND security.  Please choose responsibly.
And don't blame me.  I own a gun, care for my family and vote Libertarian...
Do those corporations really pay taxes?  Nope.&nbp You, their customer, pay their taxes in the form of higher prices (and with those higher prices pay a larger sales or VAT tax.)  Thus it's you, the customer, that gets screwed twice.
Yeah, I'm of the opinion that income taxes are wrong (both personal and business) and would greatly favor usage based taxes.
If you had read the release announcement, you would have seen that they are using 2.96-RH which one could assume is a RedHat branch of the GCC 2.96 tree.  So, if 2.96 cannot compile the kernel, then yeah, they will still have the kgcc "nastiness" (although I don't see what the problem is with it -- they used 2.96 for resons that I can't recall at the moment.)
I'm hoping that you forgot the smiley to demonstrate that you were joking.  Security through obscurity doesn't work -- never has and it never will.  Not to mention there are already tons of other sites that have either notes the problems or announced new packages for BIND.