You know it's not "skepticism" to scream "GODWIN" when someone shows how obviously Bush is apeing his Nazi predecessors.
You're just another rules lawyer gaming the system to keep Bush in power, despite the obvious lessons from history. Unspecified "leftist groups"?
Cut the bullshit. You're working to keep people from seeing the obvious repetition of past fascist regimes. At this late stage in the game, you're fooling only yourself.
What the fuck is wrong with people who will go out and vote more power to Bush and his fucking fascist government this Tuesday?
Torture, shredded Habeas Corpus, thousands of kidnapped people in CIA prisons around the world, "signing statements" vowing to break the law he just signed, martial law powers, leaving the country only by his permission... Bush has turned himself into the king of a fascist kingdom,
If you know one of these monsters voting for the Republican Congress in collusion with Bush, do everything you can to get them to vote people into Congress on Tuesday who will stop this destruction of America.
They stumbled across some of the docs on thumbdrives only after a drug raid on a nearby trailer. Drug criminals holding nuke secrets:
one federal official recently briefed on the issue says "It's devastating." If a nuclear weapon were stolen, the information "would tell the terrorists everything they need to do to get a weapon to fire."
Bush is the guy who suppresses journalists informing Americans that Bush is illegally spying on us, kidnapping random people into torture gulags, and explaining even the most basic miserable facts about his Iraqatastrophe by calling them "traitors", who "aid the enemy". Meanwhile, he publishes atomic bomb instructions to any enemy with a Web connection.
And waives the requirements on N Korea's nuke plants that kept them from becoming weapons. And sends our army to Iraq instead of securing Afghanistan. And WHERE'S OSAMA?
Bush is the worst terrorist enemy the US has ever had. Even just in Iraq he's killed as many Americans as Osama killed in NYC, DC and PA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands badly maimed, and the tens-hundreds times as many Iraqis.
This Tuesday, November 7, you'll have the chance to go to the polls and vote for a Democrat for your representative in the House. Probably your senator is up for selection as a Democrat, too. Throw out the criminal Republican co-conspirators with Bush who have let him wage his Terror War against us without oversight or complaint. Stop this criminal act now, before it kills again.
Whoops - too late. Tuesday can't come fast enough to save the Americans in Iraq who will have to die before we can even get a Democratic Congress to stop Bush in January. But at least we can start cutting our losses ASAP.
BUSH: [...]We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly. And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century. [...] LEHRER: [...] if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation? BUSH: In the hands of a terrorist enemy.
We are doing everything we can to deploy that Star Wars missile-defense system, starting with creating the threats that require the system.
Except that H1B (formerly known as a "person") in the next cube may be working for a lot less money than you are, because they return to their home country where their expenses are a lot lower than yours. Which country is cheap because it's polluted, domestic labor is abused and working for even less than the H1B does in America.
Foreign labor from many countries unfairly competes against American labor with lower labor costs subsidized by foreign conditions not required to be as good or expensive as in America.
A true free marketer could argue that American workers can live in foreign countries in the same worse conditions as our H1B coworkers. But those countries typically have labor laws for immigrants with money ("Americans") totally asymmetrical to American H1B laws. And that scenario is a good demonstration of how economics is not the only determinant of people's behavior: will Americans rather go without work than live 3/5 years in a Bangladesh village without electricity or smog laws? The economist will say they should, but the human will realize how economics doesn't really govern that scenario as much as noneconomics.
That same true free marketer could argue that such disparity will eventually force the foreign countries to upgrade in order to compete. That does happen sometimes, but most foreign countries have demonstrated they accept the brain drain, and the subsidy mailed home, and the investments into their upper classes, without improving their environment or labor. At least not quickly enough to make a difference. Especially compared to the much faster rate of damage done there by American (and other) corporations outsourcing dirty/cheap/dangerous work to those other countries.
Economics is, after all, just a description of human transactions. Which can be measured by economics, but are not determined by the economics rules. The economics rules, to be an accurate model of the human transactions, must often become extremely complex, imprecise, and less useful than sociological descriptions. Like "foreigners force Americans to lower our standards to compete for money". When those lost standards cost more than the extra money made, the economics win, and the humans lose.
Unfortunately, Congress' tendency to shy away from recorded votes means that some important events were not available to score.
And many other ways in which Congress games the system to make laws and influence policies also make such an oversimplified rating as this one nearly useless.
Did the raters rate those 20 bills on which Congress voted on overall "tech-friendliness"? Does voting against a tech-unfriendly bill score the same as voting for tech-friendly ones? Should it, if one is much more un/friendly? How many unfriendly votes can't be counted, and how much worse are they?
How many tech-friendly bills couldn't be voted on because the majority party prevented the vote from even getting to the floor? The raters didn't rate the committees, all of which are controlled by even a bare majority party, but where practically all of the bills are killed or pushed to a floor vote.
And who's so sure that "H1B visas" and other issues are "tech-friendly", and not just "tech corporation friendly", working against the interests of American tech workers, consumers, and perhaps the technology itself?
20 votes across over a decade, to determine a career's rating? Where's CNet's history of producing political ratings, to get some kind of track record for accuracy and insight?
The Tech Law Journal published a scorecard for the 1998 Congress, part of their central mission to cover these issues. I'd be interested in an IEEE or ACM scorecard, but not so much in a Communication Workers of America or American Association of Manufacturers scorecard, unless some wizard could somehow combine them in a model that was simple enough for most people to understand and agree. Impossible, really.
So, in fact, the whining of nerds about MS screwups is worth whining. Because sometimes it protects everyone from MS screwups, when MS changes after hearing the whining.
When people complain about that whining, calling it "MS bashing" among other insults, they're working against the improvement of MS products, and for the screwups.
Who cares if you're offended? You started the namecalling, and are trying to change the subject to a strawman argument of whether "the initiative in creating" is "creating", when the argument is whether "creating" is "inventing".
You Republicans are so stupid that you can't even tell when you're changing the argument, and still losing it.
Actually, that article does discuss how the judge in question decided that fingerprints are not as reliable as he'd believed before. Which indicates that he'd reviewed evidence, come through an analysis, and found conclusions different from the conventional professional wisdom among judges.
I remembered the original story flying around at the time, which indicated that there was no actual science underlying the late-1800s emergence of fingerprints as unique identifiers, nor any rigorous science since then proving them. When I read this lie detector story, I thought I'd revisit the fingerprint story to see whether a few years had produced some legitimate claims of science underlying fingerprint evidence, but I found none.
That's why I reported in my post that fingerprints are "questionable", legitimately, because I found no scientific basis, and a trustworthy analysis finding questions about them. If you can find the science establishing reliability of fingerprint evidence, I'd love to hear it. That would be a lot more reassuring than the current status.
Any state interested in better voting service, not just corporate welfare for digital voting system vendors (and who knows, perhaps rigged/broken elections), would test these new machines side by side with the old ones.
Not the "public beta" insanity that puts machines known to fail into the critical path for so many votes. Rather, just have a demo booth, and ask every voter to vote on the demo machines, after they've voted on the machines that will be counted. Don't count the demo votes. But compare their totals to the totals of the regular machines, mostly out of curiosity. The real data will come first from interviewing demo voters about whether the system seemed to work for them. After those UI bugs are worked out, then we can try a demo cycle testing teh actual counting of the demo votes.
The government has one of the best beta program populations available. Because it's large, geographically distributed, highly varied in skill, mostly highly motivated to take the process seriously, and already showing up to perform this function on existing machines. Of course, we're giving that benefit free to voting system vendors, but without forcing them to feedback the results into their production, or even preventing beta results from making important changes to essential real-world systems.
Let's roll back the rollout, and scale up the beta, before we crash the whole system. Our political system, which relies on voters trusting the voting process.
Does the CIA even need to work with Google? Can't the NSA ("signals intelligence") just sniff every packet in/out near Google on the backbones connected to Google, and store copies of all Google's unencrypted traffic, analyzing it with the CIA? Why even bother to get Google's permission?
For the past few years, even fingerprints (the real ones on the end of our fingertips) have been analyzed to be much less reliable than the absolute standard they are often assumed.
The FBI is in the business of convincing judges, not necessarily rigorous scientific proof. Science and facts are props used in the "justice theater" that is the law, quite different from actual justice.
The GPS would be much more useful in conjunction with SMS than voice calls. A high percentage of mobile voicecalls are already just "where are you?" If my phone could ask yours where you are, show me on the map, with just a couple button pushes, then let me call you if necessary, we'd probably have a lot less people on public transport with annoying ringing and semversations.
If YouTube gave the labels only $50 million, and Google gave YouTube $1.6 BILLION, no matter what the relative value, rights, or agreements, the labels are going to renege on the agreement.
They might not get away with it. Whatever happened to their attempts to wrestle out of their <$0.99 deal with Jobs on iTunes?
They're dumb, but they're strong. $50M is a drop in the bucket, even with the CD sales biz down to something like $10-12B a year.
It will be interesting to see how much Google eventually winds up paying these vultures, and how much unrestricted distribution results. And how much blood is spilled along the way.
OK, so now that you can't peddle your bullshit lies hiding Bush's National Guard blackmail of LA during Katrina, putting the blood of hundreds more Americans on his hands, you want to change the subject.
To some other bullshit lie protecting Bush. This time, weaseling out of Bush's obligation to protect the people who volunteered in the worst Disaster in American history.
You hate America. You're doing whatever you can to back its conversion to fascism. Fuck you.
It depends on the sanctions. A simple economic blockade is collective punishment. It's applied on the theory that the people, under pressure, will rebel against the rulers causing the sanctions, who will be weaker, because they won't be as rich, well-supplied, or motivated to keep their hold on a broken country.
It's a stupid theory, like all collective punishment, especially one that conflicts with patriotism, especially under totalitarian regimes which keep the people misinformed about why the economics are cut off. It's obvious it hasn't worked in Cuba, the poster child, or anywhere else. I'd like to hear about a model country where it has worked, because it just seems sadistic and propagnada.
Some targeted sanctions can have a constructive effect, where the ruling people have something to lose, and something to gain by conceding. Like sanctions against buying oil from Iran, which has produced change - Iran wants and needs the oil money to flow every day, more than the smaller tyrannies they've been willing to drop. Likewise against the old Soviet Union. But always more effect on style than substance, and always with mostly "collateral damage" to the people, for adjustments in the tyrants' "lifestyle". Targeted sanctions helped accelerate the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, but it was part of lots of factors for progress, not least the leadership of the heroic Nelson Mandela, whose personal charisma was able to forge a nation from behind decades of prison bars, more powerful a patriotism than that offered by the racists clinging to power by force.
What worked on N Korea, and usually has worked to keep countries from going nuclear, has been highly targeted requirements of IAEA nuke inspectors in exchange for money and materiel to produce nonweapon nuke power plants. But Bush waived the inspections requirements that were the main success of the Clinton agreements which kept N Korea from going nuclear. While feeding them half of the money they paid to Rumsfeld to get the plants to convert to weapons production.
In other words, Bush is doing everything wrong, if he wants to stop our enemy from threatening us. Everything right, if he wants to justify American military buildup while creating a much more dangerous enemy with a specific beef against the US. No wonder he doesn't want to get locked alone in a room with Kim Jong Il.
The question would be "did those things have anything to do with Gore?" You castigated Clinton and some courts, then tried to blame Gore.
Meanwhile, what this has to do with Bush is not even anything to do with the Internet. It has to do with the terror Bush has spread across the globe. Refusing to sign even the mild Kyoto treaty, lying about "our own, better way". Ignoring the Geneva Conventions on torture, and torturing prisoners. Getting Habeas Corpus suspended. Illegally wiretapping our own country. Invading Iraq on WMD lies, then staying around to trash the country, while leaving Afghanistan to fall back into the Taliban. Dismissing weapons inspectors so he could invade Iraq, and waiving the requirement for inspecting N Korean nukes that Rumsfeld sold them, while leaving N Korea and Pakistan with nuke missiles. Disrupting the Mideast so thoroughly that oil prices have tripled, crushing global economic growth while funding other terrorists and tyrants.
Bush's terrorism has inspired global anxiety. His rigged elections in 2000 and 2004 have completed the undermining of international trust of the US overseeing such global infrastructure as the Internet. There's not necessarily any other better steward, but the US used to be trusted, and is now not. For good reasons. Bush reasons.
Not Gore reasons. And there's no reason to believe that Gore would have trashed any of that trust. To the contrary, especially regarding such central issues as the environment and the Internet, Gore's reputation inspires unprecedented trust. Too bad we'll never know how well that trust could have stood us in a better version of the past 6 years.
No, you're the fool who doesn't understand the difference between "creating" and "inventing", as was amply distinguished both in that Snopes page. And elsewhere in this thread. And a million times every time some Republican fool like you spews stupid bullshit. And as part of the normal development process of adults without the obvious brain defect you've got.
Man, you Republicans are so stupid. No wonder the Internet is so full of bullshit, after Gore's initiative expanded its reach to include retards like you.
Rumsfeld is a Commie. Any freemarketer would scream at Rumsfeld's government propaganda competing with private media corporations.
Give a guy a $TRILLION annual budget, and he thinks he's Rupert Murdoch. Without ever having to sell a widget, except that "slam dunk" pitch to America that "Saddam Hussein has WMD in Baghdad and Tikrit, and North, South, West and East of there".
Slashdot Mirror
You know it's not "skepticism" to scream "GODWIN" when someone shows how obviously Bush is apeing his Nazi predecessors.
You're just another rules lawyer gaming the system to keep Bush in power, despite the obvious lessons from history. Unspecified "leftist groups"?
Cut the bullshit. You're working to keep people from seeing the obvious repetition of past fascist regimes. At this late stage in the game, you're fooling only yourself.
No, goldspider loses the ability to learn from Nazi atrocities when they're repeated in front of goldspider's own eyes.
You still think this is a game to be won by nonsense rule lawyering, when you're helping destroy your own country?
Bush is an antichrist. It's in the book.
What the fuck is wrong with people who will go out and vote more power to Bush and his fucking fascist government this Tuesday?
Torture, shredded Habeas Corpus, thousands of kidnapped people in CIA prisons around the world, "signing statements" vowing to break the law he just signed, martial law powers, leaving the country only by his permission... Bush has turned himself into the king of a fascist kingdom,
If you know one of these monsters voting for the Republican Congress in collusion with Bush, do everything you can to get them to vote people into Congress on Tuesday who will stop this destruction of America.
Bush is the Qaeda. Osama's best friend - won't catch or kill him, repeats his terrorism as often as possible.
Anonymous terrorist Coward, you hate America. Osama, is that you?
They stumbled across some of the docs on thumbdrives only after a drug raid on a nearby trailer. Drug criminals holding nuke secrets:
George Bush: worse than Katrina. Feel safer?
Bush insisted on publishing all those docs without review, despite even his Republican crony Intelligence Czar trying to stop his insane blunder.
Bush is the guy who suppresses journalists informing Americans that Bush is illegally spying on us, kidnapping random people into torture gulags, and explaining even the most basic miserable facts about his Iraqatastrophe by calling them "traitors", who "aid the enemy". Meanwhile, he publishes atomic bomb instructions to any enemy with a Web connection.
And waives the requirements on N Korea's nuke plants that kept them from becoming weapons. And sends our army to Iraq instead of securing Afghanistan. And WHERE'S OSAMA?
Bush is the worst terrorist enemy the US has ever had. Even just in Iraq he's killed as many Americans as Osama killed in NYC, DC and PA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands badly maimed, and the tens-hundreds times as many Iraqis.
This Tuesday, November 7, you'll have the chance to go to the polls and vote for a Democrat for your representative in the House. Probably your senator is up for selection as a Democrat, too. Throw out the criminal Republican co-conspirators with Bush who have let him wage his Terror War against us without oversight or complaint. Stop this criminal act now, before it kills again.
Whoops - too late. Tuesday can't come fast enough to save the Americans in Iraq who will have to die before we can even get a Democratic Congress to stop Bush in January. But at least we can start cutting our losses ASAP.
We are doing everything we can to deploy that Star Wars missile-defense system, starting with creating the threats that require the system.
Except that H1B (formerly known as a "person") in the next cube may be working for a lot less money than you are, because they return to their home country where their expenses are a lot lower than yours. Which country is cheap because it's polluted, domestic labor is abused and working for even less than the H1B does in America.
Foreign labor from many countries unfairly competes against American labor with lower labor costs subsidized by foreign conditions not required to be as good or expensive as in America.
A true free marketer could argue that American workers can live in foreign countries in the same worse conditions as our H1B coworkers. But those countries typically have labor laws for immigrants with money ("Americans") totally asymmetrical to American H1B laws. And that scenario is a good demonstration of how economics is not the only determinant of people's behavior: will Americans rather go without work than live 3/5 years in a Bangladesh village without electricity or smog laws? The economist will say they should, but the human will realize how economics doesn't really govern that scenario as much as noneconomics.
That same true free marketer could argue that such disparity will eventually force the foreign countries to upgrade in order to compete. That does happen sometimes, but most foreign countries have demonstrated they accept the brain drain, and the subsidy mailed home, and the investments into their upper classes, without improving their environment or labor. At least not quickly enough to make a difference. Especially compared to the much faster rate of damage done there by American (and other) corporations outsourcing dirty/cheap/dangerous work to those other countries.
Economics is, after all, just a description of human transactions. Which can be measured by economics, but are not determined by the economics rules. The economics rules, to be an accurate model of the human transactions, must often become extremely complex, imprecise, and less useful than sociological descriptions. Like "foreigners force Americans to lower our standards to compete for money". When those lost standards cost more than the extra money made, the economics win, and the humans lose.
And many other ways in which Congress games the system to make laws and influence policies also make such an oversimplified rating as this one nearly useless.
Did the raters rate those 20 bills on which Congress voted on overall "tech-friendliness"? Does voting against a tech-unfriendly bill score the same as voting for tech-friendly ones? Should it, if one is much more un/friendly? How many unfriendly votes can't be counted, and how much worse are they?
How many tech-friendly bills couldn't be voted on because the majority party prevented the vote from even getting to the floor? The raters didn't rate the committees, all of which are controlled by even a bare majority party, but where practically all of the bills are killed or pushed to a floor vote.
And who's so sure that "H1B visas" and other issues are "tech-friendly", and not just "tech corporation friendly", working against the interests of American tech workers, consumers, and perhaps the technology itself?
20 votes across over a decade, to determine a career's rating? Where's CNet's history of producing political ratings, to get some kind of track record for accuracy and insight?
The Tech Law Journal published a scorecard for the 1998 Congress, part of their central mission to cover these issues. I'd be interested in an IEEE or ACM scorecard, but not so much in a Communication Workers of America or American Association of Manufacturers scorecard, unless some wizard could somehow combine them in a model that was simple enough for most people to understand and agree. Impossible, really.
"You who comprise the enthusiast market"
So, in fact, the whining of nerds about MS screwups is worth whining. Because sometimes it protects everyone from MS screwups, when MS changes after hearing the whining.
When people complain about that whining, calling it "MS bashing" among other insults, they're working against the improvement of MS products, and for the screwups.
Whine on, nerds!
Who cares if you're offended? You started the namecalling, and are trying to change the subject to a strawman argument of whether "the initiative in creating" is "creating", when the argument is whether "creating" is "inventing".
You Republicans are so stupid that you can't even tell when you're changing the argument, and still losing it.
Actually, that article does discuss how the judge in question decided that fingerprints are not as reliable as he'd believed before. Which indicates that he'd reviewed evidence, come through an analysis, and found conclusions different from the conventional professional wisdom among judges.
I remembered the original story flying around at the time, which indicated that there was no actual science underlying the late-1800s emergence of fingerprints as unique identifiers, nor any rigorous science since then proving them. When I read this lie detector story, I thought I'd revisit the fingerprint story to see whether a few years had produced some legitimate claims of science underlying fingerprint evidence, but I found none.
That's why I reported in my post that fingerprints are "questionable", legitimately, because I found no scientific basis, and a trustworthy analysis finding questions about them. If you can find the science establishing reliability of fingerprint evidence, I'd love to hear it. That would be a lot more reassuring than the current status.
Any state interested in better voting service, not just corporate welfare for digital voting system vendors (and who knows, perhaps rigged/broken elections), would test these new machines side by side with the old ones.
Not the "public beta" insanity that puts machines known to fail into the critical path for so many votes. Rather, just have a demo booth, and ask every voter to vote on the demo machines, after they've voted on the machines that will be counted. Don't count the demo votes. But compare their totals to the totals of the regular machines, mostly out of curiosity. The real data will come first from interviewing demo voters about whether the system seemed to work for them. After those UI bugs are worked out, then we can try a demo cycle testing teh actual counting of the demo votes.
The government has one of the best beta program populations available. Because it's large, geographically distributed, highly varied in skill, mostly highly motivated to take the process seriously, and already showing up to perform this function on existing machines. Of course, we're giving that benefit free to voting system vendors, but without forcing them to feedback the results into their production, or even preventing beta results from making important changes to essential real-world systems.
Let's roll back the rollout, and scale up the beta, before we crash the whole system. Our political system, which relies on voters trusting the voting process.
Does the CIA even need to work with Google? Can't the NSA ("signals intelligence") just sniff every packet in/out near Google on the backbones connected to Google, and store copies of all Google's unencrypted traffic, analyzing it with the CIA? Why even bother to get Google's permission?
For the past few years, even fingerprints (the real ones on the end of our fingertips) have been analyzed to be much less reliable than the absolute standard they are often assumed.
The FBI is in the business of convincing judges, not necessarily rigorous scientific proof. Science and facts are props used in the "justice theater" that is the law, quite different from actual justice.
The GPS would be much more useful in conjunction with SMS than voice calls. A high percentage of mobile voicecalls are already just "where are you?" If my phone could ask yours where you are, show me on the map, with just a couple button pushes, then let me call you if necessary, we'd probably have a lot less people on public transport with annoying ringing and semversations.
If YouTube gave the labels only $50 million, and Google gave YouTube $1.6 BILLION, no matter what the relative value, rights, or agreements, the labels are going to renege on the agreement.
They might not get away with it. Whatever happened to their attempts to wrestle out of their <$0.99 deal with Jobs on iTunes?
They're dumb, but they're strong. $50M is a drop in the bucket, even with the CD sales biz down to something like $10-12B a year.
It will be interesting to see how much Google eventually winds up paying these vultures, and how much unrestricted distribution results. And how much blood is spilled along the way.
OK, so now that you can't peddle your bullshit lies hiding Bush's National Guard blackmail of LA during Katrina, putting the blood of hundreds more Americans on his hands, you want to change the subject.
To some other bullshit lie protecting Bush. This time, weaseling out of Bush's obligation to protect the people who volunteered in the worst Disaster in American history.
You hate America. You're doing whatever you can to back its conversion to fascism. Fuck you.
The governors didn't create the delay, Bush did.
Yeah, the name calling. You're a fascist. Fascist liar.
It depends on the sanctions. A simple economic blockade is collective punishment. It's applied on the theory that the people, under pressure, will rebel against the rulers causing the sanctions, who will be weaker, because they won't be as rich, well-supplied, or motivated to keep their hold on a broken country.
It's a stupid theory, like all collective punishment, especially one that conflicts with patriotism, especially under totalitarian regimes which keep the people misinformed about why the economics are cut off. It's obvious it hasn't worked in Cuba, the poster child, or anywhere else. I'd like to hear about a model country where it has worked, because it just seems sadistic and propagnada.
Some targeted sanctions can have a constructive effect, where the ruling people have something to lose, and something to gain by conceding. Like sanctions against buying oil from Iran, which has produced change - Iran wants and needs the oil money to flow every day, more than the smaller tyrannies they've been willing to drop. Likewise against the old Soviet Union. But always more effect on style than substance, and always with mostly "collateral damage" to the people, for adjustments in the tyrants' "lifestyle". Targeted sanctions helped accelerate the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, but it was part of lots of factors for progress, not least the leadership of the heroic Nelson Mandela, whose personal charisma was able to forge a nation from behind decades of prison bars, more powerful a patriotism than that offered by the racists clinging to power by force.
What worked on N Korea, and usually has worked to keep countries from going nuclear, has been highly targeted requirements of IAEA nuke inspectors in exchange for money and materiel to produce nonweapon nuke power plants. But Bush waived the inspections requirements that were the main success of the Clinton agreements which kept N Korea from going nuclear. While feeding them half of the money they paid to Rumsfeld to get the plants to convert to weapons production.
In other words, Bush is doing everything wrong, if he wants to stop our enemy from threatening us. Everything right, if he wants to justify American military buildup while creating a much more dangerous enemy with a specific beef against the US. No wonder he doesn't want to get locked alone in a room with Kim Jong Il.
Anonymous Republican Coward thinks there's a difference between China and Bush's America.
The question would be "did those things have anything to do with Gore?" You castigated Clinton and some courts, then tried to blame Gore.
Meanwhile, what this has to do with Bush is not even anything to do with the Internet. It has to do with the terror Bush has spread across the globe. Refusing to sign even the mild Kyoto treaty, lying about "our own, better way". Ignoring the Geneva Conventions on torture, and torturing prisoners. Getting Habeas Corpus suspended. Illegally wiretapping our own country. Invading Iraq on WMD lies, then staying around to trash the country, while leaving Afghanistan to fall back into the Taliban. Dismissing weapons inspectors so he could invade Iraq, and waiving the requirement for inspecting N Korean nukes that Rumsfeld sold them, while leaving N Korea and Pakistan with nuke missiles. Disrupting the Mideast so thoroughly that oil prices have tripled, crushing global economic growth while funding other terrorists and tyrants.
Bush's terrorism has inspired global anxiety. His rigged elections in 2000 and 2004 have completed the undermining of international trust of the US overseeing such global infrastructure as the Internet. There's not necessarily any other better steward, but the US used to be trusted, and is now not. For good reasons. Bush reasons.
Not Gore reasons. And there's no reason to believe that Gore would have trashed any of that trust. To the contrary, especially regarding such central issues as the environment and the Internet, Gore's reputation inspires unprecedented trust. Too bad we'll never know how well that trust could have stood us in a better version of the past 6 years.
No, you're the fool who doesn't understand the difference between "creating" and "inventing", as was amply distinguished both in that Snopes page. And elsewhere in this thread. And a million times every time some Republican fool like you spews stupid bullshit. And as part of the normal development process of adults without the obvious brain defect you've got.
Man, you Republicans are so stupid. No wonder the Internet is so full of bullshit, after Gore's initiative expanded its reach to include retards like you.
Rumsfeld is a Commie. Any freemarketer would scream at Rumsfeld's government propaganda competing with private media corporations.
Give a guy a $TRILLION annual budget, and he thinks he's Rupert Murdoch. Without ever having to sell a widget, except that "slam dunk" pitch to America that "Saddam Hussein has WMD in Baghdad and Tikrit, and North, South, West and East of there".