- TV runs at 30 fps (actually it's something like 29.97), not 25.
Your other points are valid, but this only holds true in NTSC-land AFAIK. PAL uses 25/50iHz. Besides, you should have pointed out that most of the time, you don't play games on the TV but on the PC monitor which should be set to at least 75Hz everywhere (unless you got a TFT/LCD in which case 60Hz is good enough for everyone).
Re:Disconnect and motivation
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 0
American culture is quite beautiful, rich, and storied.
There seems to be a typo in your post. It should be stoned.
Technically (which is what counts in court) he didn't lie. He asked beforehand what the phrase "sexual relations" was defined as, got the answer that it specifically meant intercourse and proceeded to tell the narrowly defined truth: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He omitted "She did suck my dick once and I did push a cigar up her pussy which I then proceeded to smoke with great pleasure, but y'all didn't ask about that, now did'ya?".
Then again, it's more serious if the President almost lies about if he got a blowjob or not than if he lies to invade a sovereign nation, killing 100,000 ragheads and a few thousand GI Joes in the process.
They just happened to be the ones he was stupid enough to utter under oath.
Clinton is many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He's like a combination of Nixon's slickness, JFK's libido and the fiscal sense of FDR. Bush OTOH has Nixon's malice, no libido, no fiscal sense and Quayle's brainpower.
"Public Enemy #1" is busy releasing videos for public consumption...
I thought he'd be back at his ranch in Crawford by now?
no real news today, so we better post the Cable Folding article.
I guess a few Diebold employees have already mastered the art of folding cables as well as ballots. Today's election fraud is tomorrow's news. Today we wallow in our ignorance of what's really going on. No news today, indeed.
Nothing worst than Slashdot editors high cocaine unable check submissions.:-P
Besides, folding IDE cables an art? Ptoii! Terminating SCSI cables is an art, this is just the locals peddling handicraft to tourists. What is this, national "Bend a cable, get on Slashdot"-day?
This is akin to the voluntary no-breed folks, wanting the human race to die out so the world can live on. That said, I have also come to the same scary realisation as you... Maybe we're better off with Bush fucking up so bad that the neocons will be on the same page in the history book as the nazis and commies. Then again, the cynic in me tells me that they will just blame the chaos on cosmic radiation or the Democrats and get just as many votes as before. Just see what the article in this story says... Reality is an unnecessary option for Bush voters.
Playing world police necessarily implies that Americans are going to be dying overseas for your police actions.
It's interesting how different we see these things... I see it as a way to rein in the comboys and add some other countries to do the bleeding. Since the US will go in for her own reasons, I'd like to add Swedes, Brits, Germans, Pakistanis or whoever do the peace-keeping force to a LARGER extent. Case in point: I'd have wanted the US to hold off the invasion of Iraq until MORE countries could either see the evidence for WMDs and be persuaded to help (actually creating a real coalition in the process instead of the current small gang of thugs) OR point out that there was no evidence and get Bush to call it off completely. I am not, in any way, advocating that the rest of the world should send Americans to die for our reasons. I'm simply saying that if there are compelling reasons to use military force against a nation-state, this should be the responsibility of the rest of the world with the US as a strong participant, it should NOT be a matter of the US only doing all the heavy lifting.
And we do have a checks and balances system; it's called Congress. They authorized the war.
No, they authorized Bush to authorize the war. It was a cop-out. They didn't take their responsibility to check the facts first, they just assumed Bush had done his homework (which it turns out, he hadn't) and wrote him a blank check.
Oh, and the UN didn't really keep Iraq out of Kuwait did it?
Yes, it did. President George Herbert Walker Bush would not have ousted the Iraqis from Kuwait without proper authorization from the UN Security Council. He would not have done it with US troops alone simply because doing so would have been in violation of the rules and Poppy Bush was big on rules. Too bad he was too busy to raise his kids...
And when the UN finally gets around to admitting they can't ignore the genocide in Dafur, guess who'll be called out to fix the problem? Yup that'll be US money and US blood on the ground over there.
Now I know you're delusional.
1. The UN has been sounding the alarm bells over Sudan in general and Darfur in particular for years, but it's just recently that anyone has bothered to check it out, with the US one of the last in line to acknowledge there's a problem.
2. The US has been constantly behind on her payments to the UN for the last 20 years or more (and yes, I do remember that) so don't give me that "US money" bit, you cheap bastard. The US is one of the cheapest nations on earth when it comes to giving aid per capita.
Why don't you just stay at home and play with your money and leave the rest of us the fuck alone? Please? Pretty please?
If the U.N. had done its job, the Iraq war would never have been necessary.
If the US had let the UN do its job, the war in Iraq would never have been necessary. The inspectors were already back in, the inspections were already working and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he any threat to his neighbors. I agree that the credible threat of military force was necessary to bring down Saddam, but there should not have been any need to actually use it.
agree on a resolution that would result in "serious consequences" if broken
What, you still think 1441 was reason enough to go to war? Get outta here! You been living under a rock the last year? Even Dubya gave up on that one and started harping on about how 678 was still in effect (which it wasn't, the cease-fire after Gulf War I killed it) before he gave up on that angle altogether and started with his "better off without Saddam" line which he's currently using. Read 678, especially the "all necessary means" bit. That bit is missing from 1441 which means it does NOT automatically authorize the use of force to implement it. Another resolution was required and Negroponte et al tried really hard to bribe and coerce one into being, but most of the security council resisted so they went it alone instead. And that's why Kofi Annan called the invasion illegal, because formally it was an unlawful act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Before Bush came around, the combined moral and political might of the U.N. couldn't even keep inspectors in
The UN kept inspectors in Iraq for several years before Bush was appointed president. Richard Butler withdrew them once, but Clinton got them back in, presumably between blowjobs. And he didn't need no invasion to do it either.
Saddam was trying to weasel his way out of sanctions so he could start up his nuclear program again.
Yep. But he wasn't succeeding. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell in a statement he made in 2001:
We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it.
And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place
You mean the nuclear weapons program that they were able to develop because every time North Korea broke the proliferation agreement with the US Clinton just let them keep getting thier aid money and said "Just don't do it again"?
If you'd checked the facts with Cheney's alternate reality shield turned off, you'd seen that Poppy Bush and Cheney were the ones that started the slide by letting NK off the hook and leaving the whole mess for the Chinese to sort out back in November 1991 after having decided to withdraw all US nukes from South Korea in October the same year. This in spite of persistent reports since 1985 that they were up to no good.
Clinton at least got the North to sign the treaty and dismantle their plutonium program by threatening to bomb their Pu reactor off the peninsula and together with the South Korean government made the North go with a more easily controlled uranium-based power generation program, delaying their bomb program by ten years. There were no indications at the time that they were breaking the deal until 2002 and last year when they openly admitted it. George W. Bush then took strong, resolute and decisive action by doing jack shit about it.
Neither Reagan, Bush or Bush has done anything except defer to the Chinese in this matter. Fact is, if it wasn't for Clinton and his credible threat of airstrikes, North Korea could have had plutonium bombs ready to go some time around 1995.
So in otherwords, you'd prefer that American's die where it's in your interests and if it happens to be in our interests too, the great
No, I'd like for no Americans to die at all. And no Iraqis, Somalians, Afghanis, Brits, Martians, Rwandans or Zimbabwean farmers either. I'm not really sure how you could have arrived at your conclusion there, but maybe it's part of that alternate reality field that Karl Rove is projecting?
I do understand that sometimes eggs need to be cracked to make omelets, but there are very good reasons for putting the UNSEC in charge of allowing forceful invasions of sovereign nations. It's to keep the Chinese out of Taiwan. It's to keep the Germans out of Poland and the Russians out of Latvia. And it's to keep the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
It should also be to keep the Americans out of Iraq and Israelis out of Palestine, but you seem to have your own little addendum to the rulebook that says "Applies to anyone that doesn't hear voices from God".
You elect a president that listens to the congress and the rest of the world and the rest of the world will support the USA. Easy as that. Elect a president that won't listen to anyone except the voices in his head and the whole world has a problem.
The US is currently around 5% of the population of the world. Half of those vote and half again vote for Bush. Is it fair that a little over one percent of the population gets to decide one of the most important issues in the world today? Is it strange that we're watching the election, hoping it won't turn into a selection again? Is it strange that we want to live in stability and peace instead of living in fear, knowing there's a madman in the White House with his finger on the big red button?
Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
Staying until things are stable is the right thing to do.
No, making things stable so you won't have to stay indefinitely is the right thing to do. Bush hasn't done squat to actually stabilize Iraq, he's just keeping the occupation at some kind of status quo with more or less daily insurgent attacks. If you want to call that stable, fine. It shouldn't have to take five+ years to overthrow a hated dictator and free his people. If it does, you're doing something very wrong. Just look at how fast eastern Europe adapted to not having the big red bear breathing down their backs.
I'm not saying Clinton was the best president ever (he would rank above average in my book for the last 50 years with FDR and Ike tied for first, Kennedy coming in on second place with Reagan and Clinton tied for third and the rest of the anonymous vision-less admins (Ford, Johnson, Carter and Poppy Bush) in a below-average pool) but Bush is currently sharing the bottom position in that league with Nixon. Carter is probably the best ex-president ever, though.:-)
They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control.
Not really. We want YOU to have some control. A loose cannon is dangerous to everyone in the world. I don't particularly mind the US playing world police as long as you obey some kind of ruleset and there are some checks and balances that prevent you from just raiding anyone you feel like. A deranged chief of police is a danger to all the law-abiding citizens and neighboring counties too, you know - not just the criminals in his 'hood. You're a superpower, start acting like one instead of a spoiled frat brat. Oh, wait...
Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program? Big step forward, there. I feel much safer already.
Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, it's SOP for the GOP.
But the rest of world also wants America weaker and less relevant., because it makes them (France, are you listening?) look less pathetic.
Considering how pathetic this whole sorry mess Bush has gotten you into makes the US look, that's a tall order. "We were attacked by terrorists from over there, quick, attack that country that had nothing to do with it to make it look like we're doing something! Then restrict the rights of our own people so they think we've heightened security by not actually capturing any terrorists!" Smart moves there. Real classy. Envy of the world, you are. I think the UN needs to put together a real coalition soon to free you from your brain-washing overlords in D.C. Judging by the pioneering and trailblazing background of the USA, I'm surprised to see so many sheep blindly following their master instead of, oh I dunno - thinking for themselves for a change? Maybe there really are dominant slave genes...
Besides, I would imagine that those countries who weren't coerced or bribed to leave Bush's coalition still support him.
You mean the ones that were bribed or coerced to stay in Bush's personal little coalition? Riiight. Imagine on, dream-boy.
Yeah, or debating this shit on Slashdot... It gets tiring, with all the alternate reality trolls cheering for Bush with their make-believe facts and home-made arguments.
Well, it's gonna be over soon, I hope. I can't take four more years of their warped world-views and the incessant battles of the wits with Bush's legions of unarmed astroturfers.
There is no proof of Iraqi involvement. Doesn't mean there's no involvement, just no proof.
Well, there is no proof of intelligence in the White House either. Doesn't mean there's no intelligence, just no proof. Yoda says: Will prove a negative, you?
there is no question at all that Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism, including Palastinian suicide bombers.
Weird typo there, instead of "including", you should have written "even if they were only". And just their families, actually. He never paid out any money to the bombers, just gave aid to their families after the Israelis bulldozed their homes. That said, I think Saddam should hang for what he did to the kurds and the world IS a better place with him gone. It's just that it would be even better with Bush gone, too.
In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies.
The main problem with that position is that the reason Bush is steadfast and resolute is because he believes he is always right. The man has never admitted a mistake and that's an incredibly dangerous attitude for a President to have. It's the wrong kind of leader for ANY kind of times. Strong and decisive is all well and good, but not when it leads the entire world on wild goose chases. There are times when it's better to think first and act later, especially when you hold millions of lives in your hands.
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
I totally agree. The trick would be to make people safer while making them believe they're in mortal danger. It's a game of visualising risks. Since they can see they're going to be two minutes late for that important meeting but can't see the broken down truck over the next hill or see themselves as pieces of decaying flesh at the roadside, they put the pedal to the metal.
And this is why bikers in general (there are sadly a LOT of exceptions to this rule) are not as prone to accidents as people in general (the non-biking public, as it were) might imagine. We're too close to the road to not notice it rushing by at break-neck speeds. I believe it's best said in Zodiac where a bicyclist, all dressed up in black, is asked why he doesn't have any lights or flourescent clothing and he responds with "For that to work, I'd have to assume every motorist around me is wide awake, sober and not trying to kill me. That's stupid. I pretend there's a million dollar bounty on my head and everyone's trying to hit me. It's my responsibility to make sure they don't." and there's a certain amount of truth in it. That and the spike works for me.:-)
It's strangely fitting that the response I first got was the error message: "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." The Slashdot effect has finally spread to the browser.
However, my Mozilla passed the test without crashing.:-P
I second that, with the same setup. I scrounged two 21" Tandberg Insta-cancer CRTs from a dumpster and they're side-by-side with a 19" iiyama and a 17" Samsung. I normally run Gentoo on one of the machines and XP on the other, with Slashdot in Mozilla on both. Mail/browsers/GIMP/PageMaker/OOo/Terminal Services and ssh sessions basically take up all of that screen real estate.
At home I only have one 19" Viewsonic and I feel locked up, cramped.
since there's no hurry just put in in your bootloader and wait till next reboot to load it....
I do that too. But once in a while something goes wrong and since it was ages since I updated the kernel and put it in like a grub timebomb, I've forgotten that I did it. Fun and games.
1. $180 is well "over $100".
2. If you RTFA, you'd learn that the target is available directly from ISO for "only 116 Swiss Francs (about $US93 as of this writing)".
So the write-up may be wrong, but if so it's the wrong kind of wrong for the wrong reason.:-P
In America, we have no list of citizens. We can't send mail to everyone. We have no idea who they are, where they live, or even if they are alive or dead. It's one of those freedoms that we have.
Slashdot Mirror
Check the topic and then answer me if the nVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP graphics card fits in a Playstation. :-P
Your other points are valid, but this only holds true in NTSC-land AFAIK. PAL uses 25/50iHz. Besides, you should have pointed out that most of the time, you don't play games on the TV but on the PC monitor which should be set to at least 75Hz everywhere (unless you got a TFT/LCD in which case 60Hz is good enough for everyone).
There seems to be a typo in your post. It should be stoned.
Technically (which is what counts in court) he didn't lie. He asked beforehand what the phrase "sexual relations" was defined as, got the answer that it specifically meant intercourse and proceeded to tell the narrowly defined truth: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". He omitted "She did suck my dick once and I did push a cigar up her pussy which I then proceeded to smoke with great pleasure, but y'all didn't ask about that, now did'ya?".
Then again, it's more serious if the President almost lies about if he got a blowjob or not than if he lies to invade a sovereign nation, killing 100,000 ragheads and a few thousand GI Joes in the process.
They just happened to be the ones he was stupid enough to utter under oath.
Clinton is many things, but stupid isn't one of them. He's like a combination of Nixon's slickness, JFK's libido and the fiscal sense of FDR. Bush OTOH has Nixon's malice, no libido, no fiscal sense and Quayle's brainpower.
One might think this particular project was a natural for a KDE port.
Get your slacker ass in gear and VOTE! :-P
I thought he'd be back at his ranch in Crawford by now?
no real news today, so we better post the Cable Folding article.
I guess a few Diebold employees have already mastered the art of folding cables as well as ballots. Today's election fraud is tomorrow's news. Today we wallow in our ignorance of what's really going on. No news today, indeed.
Besides, folding IDE cables an art? Ptoii! Terminating SCSI cables is an art, this is just the locals peddling handicraft to tourists. What is this, national "Bend a cable, get on Slashdot"-day?
This is akin to the voluntary no-breed folks, wanting the human race to die out so the world can live on. That said, I have also come to the same scary realisation as you... Maybe we're better off with Bush fucking up so bad that the neocons will be on the same page in the history book as the nazis and commies. Then again, the cynic in me tells me that they will just blame the chaos on cosmic radiation or the Democrats and get just as many votes as before. Just see what the article in this story says... Reality is an unnecessary option for Bush voters.
It's interesting how different we see these things... I see it as a way to rein in the comboys and add some other countries to do the bleeding. Since the US will go in for her own reasons, I'd like to add Swedes, Brits, Germans, Pakistanis or whoever do the peace-keeping force to a LARGER extent. Case in point: I'd have wanted the US to hold off the invasion of Iraq until MORE countries could either see the evidence for WMDs and be persuaded to help (actually creating a real coalition in the process instead of the current small gang of thugs) OR point out that there was no evidence and get Bush to call it off completely. I am not, in any way, advocating that the rest of the world should send Americans to die for our reasons. I'm simply saying that if there are compelling reasons to use military force against a nation-state, this should be the responsibility of the rest of the world with the US as a strong participant, it should NOT be a matter of the US only doing all the heavy lifting.
And we do have a checks and balances system; it's called Congress. They authorized the war.
No, they authorized Bush to authorize the war. It was a cop-out. They didn't take their responsibility to check the facts first, they just assumed Bush had done his homework (which it turns out, he hadn't) and wrote him a blank check.
Oh, and the UN didn't really keep Iraq out of Kuwait did it?
Yes, it did. President George Herbert Walker Bush would not have ousted the Iraqis from Kuwait without proper authorization from the UN Security Council. He would not have done it with US troops alone simply because doing so would have been in violation of the rules and Poppy Bush was big on rules. Too bad he was too busy to raise his kids...
And when the UN finally gets around to admitting they can't ignore the genocide in Dafur, guess who'll be called out to fix the problem? Yup that'll be US money and US blood on the ground over there.
Now I know you're delusional.
1. The UN has been sounding the alarm bells over Sudan in general and Darfur in particular for years, but it's just recently that anyone has bothered to check it out, with the US one of the last in line to acknowledge there's a problem.
2. The US has been constantly behind on her payments to the UN for the last 20 years or more (and yes, I do remember that) so don't give me that "US money" bit, you cheap bastard. The US is one of the cheapest nations on earth when it comes to giving aid per capita.
Why don't you just stay at home and play with your money and leave the rest of us the fuck alone? Please? Pretty please?
If the US had let the UN do its job, the war in Iraq would never have been necessary. The inspectors were already back in, the inspections were already working and Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, nor was he any threat to his neighbors. I agree that the credible threat of military force was necessary to bring down Saddam, but there should not have been any need to actually use it.
agree on a resolution that would result in "serious consequences" if broken
What, you still think 1441 was reason enough to go to war? Get outta here! You been living under a rock the last year? Even Dubya gave up on that one and started harping on about how 678 was still in effect (which it wasn't, the cease-fire after Gulf War I killed it) before he gave up on that angle altogether and started with his "better off without Saddam" line which he's currently using. Read 678, especially the "all necessary means" bit. That bit is missing from 1441 which means it does NOT automatically authorize the use of force to implement it. Another resolution was required and Negroponte et al tried really hard to bribe and coerce one into being, but most of the security council resisted so they went it alone instead. And that's why Kofi Annan called the invasion illegal, because formally it was an unlawful act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Before Bush came around, the combined moral and political might of the U.N. couldn't even keep inspectors in
The UN kept inspectors in Iraq for several years before Bush was appointed president. Richard Butler withdrew them once, but Clinton got them back in, presumably between blowjobs. And he didn't need no invasion to do it either.
Saddam was trying to weasel his way out of sanctions so he could start up his nuclear program again.
Yep. But he wasn't succeeding. Let me quote Secretary of State Colin Powell in a statement he made in 2001:
You're not calling Colin Powell a liar, are you?
If you'd checked the facts with Cheney's alternate reality shield turned off, you'd seen that Poppy Bush and Cheney were the ones that started the slide by letting NK off the hook and leaving the whole mess for the Chinese to sort out back in November 1991 after having decided to withdraw all US nukes from South Korea in October the same year. This in spite of persistent reports since 1985 that they were up to no good.
Clinton at least got the North to sign the treaty and dismantle their plutonium program by threatening to bomb their Pu reactor off the peninsula and together with the South Korean government made the North go with a more easily controlled uranium-based power generation program, delaying their bomb program by ten years. There were no indications at the time that they were breaking the deal until 2002 and last year when they openly admitted it. George W. Bush then took strong, resolute and decisive action by doing jack shit about it.
Neither Reagan, Bush or Bush has done anything except defer to the Chinese in this matter. Fact is, if it wasn't for Clinton and his credible threat of airstrikes, North Korea could have had plutonium bombs ready to go some time around 1995.
No, I'd like for no Americans to die at all. And no Iraqis, Somalians, Afghanis, Brits, Martians, Rwandans or Zimbabwean farmers either. I'm not really sure how you could have arrived at your conclusion there, but maybe it's part of that alternate reality field that Karl Rove is projecting?
I do understand that sometimes eggs need to be cracked to make omelets, but there are very good reasons for putting the UNSEC in charge of allowing forceful invasions of sovereign nations. It's to keep the Chinese out of Taiwan. It's to keep the Germans out of Poland and the Russians out of Latvia. And it's to keep the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
It should also be to keep the Americans out of Iraq and Israelis out of Palestine, but you seem to have your own little addendum to the rulebook that says "Applies to anyone that doesn't hear voices from God".
You elect a president that listens to the congress and the rest of the world and the rest of the world will support the USA. Easy as that. Elect a president that won't listen to anyone except the voices in his head and the whole world has a problem.
The US is currently around 5% of the population of the world. Half of those vote and half again vote for Bush. Is it fair that a little over one percent of the population gets to decide one of the most important issues in the world today? Is it strange that we're watching the election, hoping it won't turn into a selection again? Is it strange that we want to live in stability and peace instead of living in fear, knowing there's a madman in the White House with his finger on the big red button?
Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
No, making things stable so you won't have to stay indefinitely is the right thing to do. Bush hasn't done squat to actually stabilize Iraq, he's just keeping the occupation at some kind of status quo with more or less daily insurgent attacks. If you want to call that stable, fine. It shouldn't have to take five+ years to overthrow a hated dictator and free his people. If it does, you're doing something very wrong. Just look at how fast eastern Europe adapted to not having the big red bear breathing down their backs.
I'm not saying Clinton was the best president ever (he would rank above average in my book for the last 50 years with FDR and Ike tied for first, Kennedy coming in on second place with Reagan and Clinton tied for third and the rest of the anonymous vision-less admins (Ford, Johnson, Carter and Poppy Bush) in a below-average pool) but Bush is currently sharing the bottom position in that league with Nixon. Carter is probably the best ex-president ever, though. :-)
Not really. We want YOU to have some control. A loose cannon is dangerous to everyone in the world. I don't particularly mind the US playing world police as long as you obey some kind of ruleset and there are some checks and balances that prevent you from just raiding anyone you feel like. A deranged chief of police is a danger to all the law-abiding citizens and neighboring counties too, you know - not just the criminals in his 'hood. You're a superpower, start acting like one instead of a spoiled frat brat. Oh, wait...
Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that
Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program? Big step forward, there. I feel much safer already.
Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us.
Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, it's SOP for the GOP.
Considering how pathetic this whole sorry mess Bush has gotten you into makes the US look, that's a tall order. "We were attacked by terrorists from over there, quick, attack that country that had nothing to do with it to make it look like we're doing something! Then restrict the rights of our own people so they think we've heightened security by not actually capturing any terrorists!" Smart moves there. Real classy. Envy of the world, you are. I think the UN needs to put together a real coalition soon to free you from your brain-washing overlords in D.C. Judging by the pioneering and trailblazing background of the USA, I'm surprised to see so many sheep blindly following their master instead of, oh I dunno - thinking for themselves for a change? Maybe there really are dominant slave genes...
Besides, I would imagine that those countries who weren't coerced or bribed to leave Bush's coalition still support him.
You mean the ones that were bribed or coerced to stay in Bush's personal little coalition? Riiight. Imagine on, dream-boy.
Well, it's gonna be over soon, I hope. I can't take four more years of their warped world-views and the incessant battles of the wits with Bush's legions of unarmed astroturfers.
Well, there is no proof of intelligence in the White House either. Doesn't mean there's no intelligence, just no proof. Yoda says: Will prove a negative, you?
there is no question at all that Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism, including Palastinian suicide bombers.
Weird typo there, instead of "including", you should have written "even if they were only". And just their families, actually. He never paid out any money to the bombers, just gave aid to their families after the Israelis bulldozed their homes. That said, I think Saddam should hang for what he did to the kurds and the world IS a better place with him gone. It's just that it would be even better with Bush gone, too.
In the end, I support President Bush not because he's always right - of course he's not - but because he is steadfast and resolute when confronting our enemies.
The main problem with that position is that the reason Bush is steadfast and resolute is because he believes he is always right. The man has never admitted a mistake and that's an incredibly dangerous attitude for a President to have. It's the wrong kind of leader for ANY kind of times. Strong and decisive is all well and good, but not when it leads the entire world on wild goose chases. There are times when it's better to think first and act later, especially when you hold millions of lives in your hands.
John Kerry is not the kind of person who will take strong and decisive action when faced with a threat
Yes, he is.
And this is why bikers in general (there are sadly a LOT of exceptions to this rule) are not as prone to accidents as people in general (the non-biking public, as it were) might imagine. We're too close to the road to not notice it rushing by at break-neck speeds. I believe it's best said in Zodiac where a bicyclist, all dressed up in black, is asked why he doesn't have any lights or flourescent clothing and he responds with "For that to work, I'd have to assume every motorist around me is wide awake, sober and not trying to kill me. That's stupid. I pretend there's a million dollar bounty on my head and everyone's trying to hit me. It's my responsibility to make sure they don't." and there's a certain amount of truth in it. That and the spike works for me. :-)
However, my Mozilla passed the test without crashing. :-P
At home I only have one 19" Viewsonic and I feel locked up, cramped.
I do that too. But once in a while something goes wrong and since it was ages since I updated the kernel and put it in like a grub timebomb, I've forgotten that I did it. Fun and games.
2. If you RTFA, you'd learn that the target is available directly from ISO for "only 116 Swiss Francs (about $US93 as of this writing)".
So the write-up may be wrong, but if so it's the wrong kind of wrong for the wrong reason. :-P
Maybe he's talking about this MS Linux effort? :-)
Tell that to the IRS.