At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us.
WTF do you guys get this idea from? WTF do you think a guy who didn't get a real job until he was forty, and skipped out on his Air Guard commitements, be more qualified than someone who spent 30+ years in public service, and served in Vietnam, although in a non-combat role? Nevermind the fact that with the exception of Nixon and Vietnam, every serious conflict in the 20th centruy was resolved by a Democratic president? No, the first Gulf War doesn't count since the kill ratio was something on the order of 1,000 to 1.
Go watch the "my pet goat" video. Even if Bush didn't have a god damn clue what to do, he could pick up the phone and call his Vice President, a former Secretary of Defense. Or call Rumsfield, a two time SOD. Or call his Secreatry of State, Collin Powel, who has just a few years of military experience. That fact that he didn't is inexcusable, and proof that you are full of shit on who needs "parenting".
Great, the you agree with me. We won't invade Canada. What was your point again? Something about Iraq?
Um, right. If you think that we shouldn't invade countries that aren't an imminent threat, then why'd you say "waiting until a country is an imminent threat is a bad idea."
The US didn't beat down the Iraq army in 1991 because it invaded another country. It did it because he wanted to take over the whole middle east.
Uh huh. Then why all the stuff about "The warplaning for what became Operation Iraqi Freedom started in the mid 90s. Infact the entire US policy of removing Saddam began with the Clinton White House. Rember Operation Desert Fox? 1998, Clinton White House and the UK."
Actually, since I was the original poster, I know exactly what I was talking about.
It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you are bipolar and the left side of your brain doesn't know what the right is typing, and then they switch.
"No its not simple, its a god damn pain in the ass to use regular file system transfers."
To you maybe. To me it's the other way around. You're writing like it's fact, when it really is preference.
But it *is* a fact, which I will prove to you now.:) The only reason to buy an iRiver or an iPod is if you have a sizeable collection, or else you'd get a smaller, cheaper flash player. And if you have a sizeable collection, you're going to want transfer queing, which you wont get using Explorer or the Finder. Otherwize you are going to have to wait until one transfer is done before starting the next, or start a new one and watch your transfer speed go to hell. So if you're transfering a few gigs of songs, you're either going to be doing lots of babysitting or lots of waiting, or both. Then there's the speed advantage of being able to search for songs in iTunes rather than browsing the filesystem (which wont help you with id3 tags) and having the database on the iPod for faster searching.
I can think of only two instances where using regular file transfers would be an advantage: if you want to put a song on your player without adding it to the iTunes library, or if you want to get a song off a friend's computer who doesn't have iTunes.
I don't even understand what you mean by the Moore reference.
I'm not surprised, as you seem to be pretty stupid. The point was that in their rush to prove Moore wrong on his movie F911, his dectractons don't him wrong, and commit the same lies, mistatments of facts, etc that they accuse him of doing. So they are a) wrong b) stupid c) dicks. Like you.
The argument was that iTunes Store-bought songs are more "open" than WMP Store-bought songs. Which is simply not the case.
No, the PP's beef was how the press keeps calling AAC Apple's proprietary format, which it obviously isn't. Go back and reread his post.
Because you sound like one of those people who are so caught up in proving him wrong, that they make the same lies, mistatments and hair splitting that they accuse him of. You know, idiots.
What can one say, but that you're wrong. iTunes Store uses 100% Apple-proprietary FairPlay DRM.
So what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? He's not wrong, you boob, those files still use AAC, which is still an open standard. Which was his beef in the first place. Its the FairPlay wrapper that is proprietary. And no tracks that you yourself encode into AAC will have it.
Not wanting to licence WMA is a valid concern, but the issue is that nobody can use FairPlay without Apple's permission (and if you reverse-engineer it, Apple will sue you).
You're point being...what exactly? Microsoft will sue you just as fast for making a WMA device without asking them first, too. It should also be mentioned that there are tons of different restrictions on WMA songs, sometimes even from the same store. Whereas with AAC and FairPlay, there is only one set of restrictions for *all* songs.
Maybe you wouldn't be so sick of the iTMS comparison if you had your facts right.
Abortion: The GOP never really tries. If they did they would try harder.
Of course they try plenty hard. But due to the courts and filibusters, they can't dominate the agenda.
I also find it funny that the killing of thousands in Iraq pisses off some on the left, yet the killing of millions of kids doesn't.
Of course they aren't kids during the first trimester. And even if they were, this would still mark a a difference in the parties, no? Or are you just trying to change the subject since you have no case on the parties "being cut from the same cloth".
Economic Policy: Please name the major economic policy bills that Kerry has submitted to the Senate.
Irrelevant, but nice attempt of using RNC propaganda. Aside from passing legislation, a senator can also distinguish himself as either a leader, or as an investigator. Kerry has good credentials on the latter, as he was one of the first if not the first senator to start investigating Iran Contra. Why he doesn't bring this up, especially since people involved in that scandal work in the current Bush administration, is beyond me. I blame it on how Democrats campaign: they go against other Democrats just fine, but run around like headless chickens against a Republican. Neither this election nor the last one should even be close.
Foreign Policy: Kerry has said the he would have went into Iraq too.
Uh huh. To get rid of Saddam because he was an evil dictator, but that's not why Bush said he wanted to go in. Bush's (stated) reason: imminent threat, which he obviously wasn't.
Chicken Hawks: Bosnia?
The point, which you missed, was not that the president must have served in the military to be a good commander in chief; neither does his secretary of Defense. What they should do is listen to those who have served in the military, which the Bush chicken hawks (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowiz, Rice) have not.
What about the smearing of Swift Boat Vets?
What, you mean John Kerry? Yes, its disgusting that people are smearing Kerry's record as a swift boat veteran, by people with credibility and consistency problems.
Jail: Name them
Um, all the people being kept in prison at Guantanamo, for starters? And its hard to really know how many the government has in custody, since they keep that information secret as well.
RC: So you are saying that NYC didn't want them their? They why did so many of the prosters have to drive/fly in to NYC to protest?
Um, because they don't live in NYC and wanted to protest? Duh?
No, Bush doesn't have open rallies for the same reason he doesn't have open press conferences: he is an idiot who can't handle any environment that's not scripted.
There's a big difference between posting someone's info with the encouragement to harrass and annoy, and postings someone's info with the encouragement to harrass and kill.
Two words: Southern Strategy. Either you've been out of it or you conveiniently ignored the fact that the old racist, southern Democratic base is now in the GOP. Two more words for you: Strom Thurmond.
Racial opression is wrong no matter who is doing it. The Democrats don't have clean hands.
Alright why don't you go find 10 racist Democrats from the 50's who are still around and are still Democrats. I wont hold my breath while you look.
Canada is as much a threat to the United States as Iraq was before the invasion. Which is to say, none at all.
We did? Then what did they invade and loot and pillage Kuwait with?
You're confusing order of events here. We destroyed their military during the first gulf war and during subsequent bombings and sanctions. They had a very weak army and no stockpiles of WMD's when Junior decided to invade, and thus were not an imminent threat.
Not what they SAY is different, but what in their ACTIONS shows they are different?
That's a big list. How about we say how they are similar instead? Both would probably keep copyright laws like the DMCA as is. Both would probably pander to feminists, with the exception of one of the following areas.
Now, in everything else they'd be diametrically different: abortion, economic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy, tax breaks, regulation, relying on chicken hawks for your war planning, smearing a triple amputee veteran as "unpatriotic", going to war when the intelligence clearly did not support it, throwing people in jail indefinitely without trial, deliberately having his party's convention in a city that doesn't like you while trying to take advantage of a national tragedy in the same city....
So like I said, the common clay of the new West. Or maybe you're just color blind?
Wow, you used moron three times. I'm betting you did that all by yourself without the aid of a thesaurus. Very impressive. You've shown enough talent to be a Slashdot regular.
Just using repetition so your limited mind might stand a chance of grasping the point.
Just because he did it on public property doesn't make it right. Because it was not pr0n doesn't make it right.
No, what made it right was that he was a single protester, not disrupting traffic or anyone's business, making a temporary, non-obscene political statement on public property. You know, like what's covered by the first amendment.
Er, Kerry himself said "I mean, look, the President has won every debate he's ever had."* Now, maybe I don't know much about debates, but doesn't it involve people who disagree with you?
Yeah, what the hell was up with that, Bush couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. He's helpless without a teleprompter. He especially got his ass kicked during the third debate with Gore in 2000.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
And just whose nose was this guy hitting?
You can't defame, threaten, or defraud someone with your speech, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. By your reasoning, a person should be able to break the law to express himself. So they can stop traffic? Spray paint walls of public buildings? Come into my business and disrupt it? Enter my home? This would be a prescription for anarchy.
Why don't you try comparing apples to apples here? Since you claim to know so much, just what is the relevant case law on a single peaceful demonstrator placing a non-obscene, easily removable political statement on a public sidewalk? One that will disappear in the next rain?
Actually, its a fact that he wasn't, as proven by the complete lack of WMD stockpiles and the means to deliver them.
Do you really think Al "Clipper" Gore would have done anything different?
The clipper chip was meant to give the NSA a backdoor into communications, hardly in the same league as throwing people in jail indefinitely without a trial....
and what do we have to show for it? The Europeon countries for whom we took this action -- shed this blood, sacrificed a Cabinet Secretary -- have proven they will not reciprocate. We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.
As the other poster said, wtf are you talking about here? We have to set up military bases in countries that are freed? And half the reason (our blank-check support for Israel being the other half) Arabs are pissed as us is because we have military bases on their "holy land".
We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia. We are left with the conclusion that President Clinton's actions were simply to distract from his dishonorable domestic conduct.
The only "dishonorable domestic conduct" at the time was from Republicans in Congress who wanted to get rid of Clinton for a reason, any reason. And when they couldn't find any legal reason to remove him, they tried entrapment by asking questions that were noneoftheirfuckingbusiness.
And you people are fucking amazing. Clinton was trying to "distract the country" whenever he used the military, but at the same time its his fault that he didn't stomp out Al Queda when he was in office. You try to have it both ways at the same time, you suckers of Satan's cock.
have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East.
Um, our only real ally is Israel. Iraq is hardly an ally, as their, and other Arab's, distrust of us is at an all time high.
We have a great big unsinkable aircraft carrier. We have a California-size staging area for further pacifications.
Okay, are you English or retarded? Or maybe you're just trolling...
or the Salman Pak training camp.
Debunked debunked debunked. If there was an actual, reputable tie between international terrorism and Saddam, Team Bush would have been signing about it at the top of their lungs. The fact that they haven't is proof that their isn't any available, fucktard.
If you want a President who kicks ass, vote Republican.
Uh huh. The simple fact is that Democrats have a far better record on war than Republicans do. World War I? Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. World War II? Roosevelt and Truman, Democrats. Korean War? Truman again. Cuban missle crisis? Kennedy, Democrat. Vietnam? Nixon, R, and Johnson, Democrat.
The fact is that every single major war or conflict that America has been in this century have been handled by Democratic presidents, and handled well, with the exception of Vietnam. But then if you're looking for "kickass presidents" then the questionable reasons for sending troops there wont bother you any more than the questionable reasons for invading Iraq today. Reagan doesn't even get an honorable mention, because the most he did was bomb some huts in Grenada. Gulf War I doesn't count as a "major war or crisis" because the Iraqi military was at least 20 years behind us and the kill ratio was something on the order of 1,000 to 1. Note that I'm also not including the successful Kosovo operation under Clinton, either.
I'll say again: Democrats have a much better record when it comes to war than Republicans do. Anything else is a neocon cock gobbling fantasy.
If you want a President who kisses ass, vote Democrat.
Right, Clinton totally kissed the asses of the Chinese government after our spy plane crashed and they were holding the crew hostage until they got an apology. Oh no wait a minute! That was Bush that kissed their asses!
If you want a President who is an ass, vote Green.
There's more to the link than Kerry saying that he would cast the same vote again. Like how we went to war on false pretenses (Saddam *wasn't* an imminent threat).
The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes.
Don't be a boob. The poor pay plenty of taxes, just not income taxes. Medicare taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes. And the rich should pay more because they get more benefit from government expenditures than the poor do.
Name five you've lost.
In addition to the others mentioned, the right to travel by air without having to show id. And while not directly related, the recent (horrible) Supreme Court decision that police officers can demand to see id without probable cause might have been swayed by the terrorism scare.
Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91.
Oh, and how many of those are in name only? Are their more foreign troops there this time around? More foreign aid? I doubt there are, as we seem to be taking most of the costs and most of the casualties.
France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."
Right, like its going to be any better for the States. Did you forget that Saddam was our pet dictator during the 80's? Its always brought up that he "gassed his own people", but who looked the other way when he was gassing said Kurds? And who's secretary of defense is seen in a famous photograph, shaking Saddam's hand? I think France will come out smelling better than the US if Saddam's dirty laundry is aired.
or wish to take away women's rights...
Again, name five.
He's probably referring to abortion, which I'm basically neutral on. I don't think a fetus is a person until the last trimester, but as men don't have any option to sever their parental responsibilities, at any point during the pregnancy or after birth, I don't see why women should be able to.
And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?
Sure, but this isn't the first crisis we've had. All the wars we've been in, not to mention the entire cold war. The economy didn't go into and stay in the crapper after the Cuban Missle crisis for example.
If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid.
True, politicians can't just waive their hands and make the economy all better. But if you think that they don't have any influence, then you are just as stupid. Rather than giving huge tax breaks to people who don't need them, they could have made cuts in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending. What if all the billions of dollars flowing to Iraq instead went into building roads, new research, expanding AmeriCore, and rebuilding the crab ass power grid in the north west. That could create over a million new jobs, which would obviously be good for the economy.
But Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Repeat till this sinks in. Bush, who had plenty of intelligence to indicate that Saddam was not an imminent threat (his stated reason for invading), did. As if making plans to invade and spending thousands of lives and billions of dollars were remotely comparable, anyway.
Saddam supported terrorists by paying the families of suicide bombers
So? The United States has given Israel billions in military and economic aid in support of, and vetoed U.N. resolutions critical of, their illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Once Saddam has given a few billion dollars to the Palestinians to create their own military, including nuclear weapons, then we'll talk.
Democrats kept protestors in a cage called the "Free-Speech Zone" during the DNC. The RNC isn't limiting free speech to a cage.
No, if there were as many pissed off people at the DNC, the cage wouldn't have mattered, anymore than NYC prohibiting protesters from marching through Central Park will hold protesters back in New York. And also, while their wasn't a "cage" in NYC, they wanted protests confined to a bridge far away from, well, anything. Bathrooms, major streets, the convention center....
Slashdot Mirror
At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us.
WTF do you guys get this idea from? WTF do you think a guy who didn't get a real job until he was forty, and skipped out on his Air Guard commitements, be more qualified than someone who spent 30+ years in public service, and served in Vietnam, although in a non-combat role? Nevermind the fact that with the exception of Nixon and Vietnam, every serious conflict in the 20th centruy was resolved by a Democratic president? No, the first Gulf War doesn't count since the kill ratio was something on the order of 1,000 to 1.
Go watch the "my pet goat" video. Even if Bush didn't have a god damn clue what to do, he could pick up the phone and call his Vice President, a former Secretary of Defense. Or call Rumsfield, a two time SOD. Or call his Secreatry of State, Collin Powel, who has just a few years of military experience. That fact that he didn't is inexcusable, and proof that you are full of shit on who needs "parenting".
Great, the you agree with me. We won't invade Canada. What was your point again? Something about Iraq?
Um, right. If you think that we shouldn't invade countries that aren't an imminent threat, then why'd you say "waiting until a country is an imminent threat is a bad idea."
The US didn't beat down the Iraq army in 1991 because it invaded another country. It did it because he wanted to take over the whole middle east.
Uh huh. Then why all the stuff about "The warplaning for what became Operation Iraqi Freedom started in the mid 90s. Infact the entire US policy of removing Saddam began with the Clinton White House. Rember Operation Desert Fox? 1998, Clinton White House and the UK."
Actually, since I was the original poster, I know exactly what I was talking about.
It doesn't sound like it. It sounds like you are bipolar and the left side of your brain doesn't know what the right is typing, and then they switch.
The iRiver supports Ogg Vorbis.
:) The only reason to buy an iRiver or an iPod is if you have a sizeable collection, or else you'd get a smaller, cheaper flash player. And if you have a sizeable collection, you're going to want transfer queing, which you wont get using Explorer or the Finder. Otherwize you are going to have to wait until one transfer is done before starting the next, or start a new one and watch your transfer speed go to hell. So if you're transfering a few gigs of songs, you're either going to be doing lots of babysitting or lots of waiting, or both. Then there's the speed advantage of being able to search for songs in iTunes rather than browsing the filesystem (which wont help you with id3 tags) and having the database on the iPod for faster searching.
Doesn't support AAC. Get one, loose a bigger one.
The iRiver has better battery life.
Which is good.
"No its not simple, its a god damn pain in the ass to use regular file system transfers."
To you maybe. To me it's the other way around. You're writing like it's fact, when it really is preference.
But it *is* a fact, which I will prove to you now.
I can think of only two instances where using regular file transfers would be an advantage: if you want to put a song on your player without adding it to the iTunes library, or if you want to get a song off a friend's computer who doesn't have iTunes.
I don't even understand what you mean by the Moore reference.
I'm not surprised, as you seem to be pretty stupid. The point was that in their rush to prove Moore wrong on his movie F911, his dectractons don't him wrong, and commit the same lies, mistatments of facts, etc that they accuse him of doing. So they are a) wrong b) stupid c) dicks. Like you.
The argument was that iTunes Store-bought songs are more "open" than WMP Store-bought songs. Which is simply not the case.
No, the PP's beef was how the press keeps calling AAC Apple's proprietary format, which it obviously isn't. Go back and reread his post.
Because you sound like one of those people who are so caught up in proving him wrong, that they make the same lies, mistatments and hair splitting that they accuse him of. You know, idiots.
What can one say, but that you're wrong. iTunes Store uses 100% Apple-proprietary FairPlay DRM.
So what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? He's not wrong, you boob, those files still use AAC, which is still an open standard. Which was his beef in the first place. Its the FairPlay wrapper that is proprietary. And no tracks that you yourself encode into AAC will have it.
Not wanting to licence WMA is a valid concern, but the issue is that nobody can use FairPlay without Apple's permission (and if you reverse-engineer it, Apple will sue you).
You're point being...what exactly? Microsoft will sue you just as fast for making a WMA device without asking them first, too. It should also be mentioned that there are tons of different restrictions on WMA songs, sometimes even from the same store. Whereas with AAC and FairPlay, there is only one set of restrictions for *all* songs.
Maybe you wouldn't be so sick of the iTMS comparison if you had your facts right.
Shut up, Mr. Pot.
Abortion: The GOP never really tries. If they did they would try harder.
Of course they try plenty hard. But due to the courts and filibusters, they can't dominate the agenda.
I also find it funny that the killing of thousands in Iraq pisses off some on the left, yet the killing of millions of kids doesn't.
Of course they aren't kids during the first trimester. And even if they were, this would still mark a a difference in the parties, no? Or are you just trying to change the subject since you have no case on the parties "being cut from the same cloth".
Economic Policy: Please name the major economic policy bills that Kerry has submitted to the Senate.
Irrelevant, but nice attempt of using RNC propaganda. Aside from passing legislation, a senator can also distinguish himself as either a leader, or as an investigator. Kerry has good credentials on the latter, as he was one of the first if not the first senator to start investigating Iran Contra. Why he doesn't bring this up, especially since people involved in that scandal work in the current Bush administration, is beyond me. I blame it on how Democrats campaign: they go against other Democrats just fine, but run around like headless chickens against a Republican. Neither this election nor the last one should even be close.
Foreign Policy: Kerry has said the he would have went into Iraq too.
Uh huh. To get rid of Saddam because he was an evil dictator, but that's not why Bush said he wanted to go in. Bush's (stated) reason: imminent threat, which he obviously wasn't.
Chicken Hawks: Bosnia?
The point, which you missed, was not that the president must have served in the military to be a good commander in chief; neither does his secretary of Defense. What they should do is listen to those who have served in the military, which the Bush chicken hawks (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowiz, Rice) have not.
What about the smearing of Swift Boat Vets?
What, you mean John Kerry? Yes, its disgusting that people are smearing Kerry's record as a swift boat veteran, by people with credibility and consistency problems.
Jail: Name them
Um, all the people being kept in prison at Guantanamo, for starters? And its hard to really know how many the government has in custody, since they keep that information secret as well.
RC: So you are saying that NYC didn't want them their? They why did so many of the prosters have to drive/fly in to NYC to protest?
Um, because they don't live in NYC and wanted to protest? Duh?
wtf do Bush campaign stops have to do with the protests in NYC?
As the other guy said: Robert Kennedy. 'Nuf said.
No, Bush doesn't have open rallies for the same reason he doesn't have open press conferences: he is an idiot who can't handle any environment that's not scripted.
There's a big difference between posting someone's info with the encouragement to harrass and annoy, and postings someone's info with the encouragement to harrass and kill.
Two words: Southern Strategy. Either you've been out of it or you conveiniently ignored the fact that the old racist, southern Democratic base is now in the GOP. Two more words for you: Strom Thurmond.
Racial opression is wrong no matter who is doing it. The Democrats don't have clean hands.
Alright why don't you go find 10 racist Democrats from the 50's who are still around and are still Democrats. I wont hold my breath while you look.
Ah, that explains a lot. :) That's what you get through for hearing a quote without any of the context.
When we decide they're a threat.
Canada is as much a threat to the United States as Iraq was before the invasion. Which is to say, none at all.
We did? Then what did they invade and loot and pillage Kuwait with?
You're confusing order of events here. We destroyed their military during the first gulf war and during subsequent bombings and sanctions. They had a very weak army and no stockpiles of WMD's when Junior decided to invade, and thus were not an imminent threat.
Not what they SAY is different, but what in their ACTIONS shows they are different?
That's a big list. How about we say how they are similar instead? Both would probably keep copyright laws like the DMCA as is. Both would probably pander to feminists, with the exception of one of the following areas.
Now, in everything else they'd be diametrically different: abortion, economic policy, foreign policy, environmental policy, tax breaks, regulation, relying on chicken hawks for your war planning, smearing a triple amputee veteran as "unpatriotic", going to war when the intelligence clearly did not support it, throwing people in jail indefinitely without trial, deliberately having his party's convention in a city that doesn't like you while trying to take advantage of a national tragedy in the same city....
So like I said, the common clay of the new West. Or maybe you're just color blind?
Wow, you used moron three times. I'm betting you did that all by yourself without the aid of a thesaurus. Very impressive. You've shown enough talent to be a Slashdot regular.
Just using repetition so your limited mind might stand a chance of grasping the point.
Just because he did it on public property doesn't make it right. Because it was not pr0n doesn't make it right.
No, what made it right was that he was a single protester, not disrupting traffic or anyone's business, making a temporary, non-obscene political statement on public property. You know, like what's covered by the first amendment.
Any more stupid questions?
Waiting until a country is an imminent threat is a bad idea.
Great! So when should we invade Canada?
Kind of like invading Iraq BEFORE they took over all of the middle east, not afterwords.
They couldn't have, since we destroyed their military and their economy.
Next?
Er, Kerry himself said "I mean, look, the President has won every debate he's ever had."* Now, maybe I don't know much about debates, but doesn't it involve people who disagree with you?
Yeah, what the hell was up with that, Bush couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag. He's helpless without a teleprompter. He especially got his ass kicked during the third debate with Gore in 2000.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
And just whose nose was this guy hitting?
You can't defame, threaten, or defraud someone with your speech, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. By your reasoning, a person should be able to break the law to express himself. So they can stop traffic? Spray paint walls of public buildings? Come into my business and disrupt it? Enter my home? This would be a prescription for anarchy.
Why don't you try comparing apples to apples here? Since you claim to know so much, just what is the relevant case law on a single peaceful demonstrator placing a non-obscene, easily removable political statement on a public sidewalk? One that will disappear in the next rain?
So I can come over to your house and chalk up your driveway
That would be on private property, moron, this guy was on public.
and pro child pr0n messages
That's not what he was doing, moron.
Yea for the right to deface property!
Its not defacing property if it's a harmless message and washes off in 30 seconds of water, moron.
True. Iraq was arguably an actual threat
Actually, its a fact that he wasn't, as proven by the complete lack of WMD stockpiles and the means to deliver them.
Do you really think Al "Clipper" Gore would have done anything different?
The clipper chip was meant to give the NSA a backdoor into communications, hardly in the same league as throwing people in jail indefinitely without a trial....
endorsing bad accounting practices by the Clinton administration
Come again? Those "bad accounting practices" that led to repeated surpluses and the best economy in history?
Dozens of Americans were killed in Bosnia
As opposed to hundreds in Afghanistan/Iraq?
and what do we have to show for it? The Europeon countries for whom we took this action -- shed this blood, sacrificed a Cabinet Secretary -- have proven they will not reciprocate. We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.
As the other poster said, wtf are you talking about here? We have to set up military bases in countries that are freed? And half the reason (our blank-check support for Israel being the other half) Arabs are pissed as us is because we have military bases on their "holy land".
We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia. We are left with the conclusion that President Clinton's actions were simply to distract from his dishonorable domestic conduct.
The only "dishonorable domestic conduct" at the time was from Republicans in Congress who wanted to get rid of Clinton for a reason, any reason. And when they couldn't find any legal reason to remove him, they tried entrapment by asking questions that were noneoftheirfuckingbusiness.
And you people are fucking amazing. Clinton was trying to "distract the country" whenever he used the military, but at the same time its his fault that he didn't stomp out Al Queda when he was in office. You try to have it both ways at the same time, you suckers of Satan's cock.
have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East.
Um, our only real ally is Israel. Iraq is hardly an ally, as their, and other Arab's, distrust of us is at an all time high.
We have a great big unsinkable aircraft carrier. We have a California-size staging area for further pacifications.
Okay, are you English or retarded? Or maybe you're just trolling...
or the Salman Pak training camp.
Debunked debunked debunked. If there was an actual, reputable tie between international terrorism and Saddam, Team Bush would have been signing about it at the top of their lungs. The fact that they haven't is proof that their isn't any available, fucktard.
If you want a President who kicks ass, vote Republican.
Uh huh. The simple fact is that Democrats have a far better record on war than Republicans do. World War I? Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. World War II? Roosevelt and Truman, Democrats. Korean War? Truman again. Cuban missle crisis? Kennedy, Democrat. Vietnam? Nixon, R, and Johnson, Democrat.
The fact is that every single major war or conflict that America has been in this century have been handled by Democratic presidents, and handled well, with the exception of Vietnam. But then if you're looking for "kickass presidents" then the questionable reasons for sending troops there wont bother you any more than the questionable reasons for invading Iraq today. Reagan doesn't even get an honorable mention, because the most he did was bomb some huts in Grenada. Gulf War I doesn't count as a "major war or crisis" because the Iraqi military was at least 20 years behind us and the kill ratio was something on the order of 1,000 to 1. Note that I'm also not including the successful Kosovo operation under Clinton, either.
I'll say again: Democrats have a much better record when it comes to war than Republicans do. Anything else is a neocon cock gobbling fantasy.
If you want a President who kisses ass, vote Democrat.
Right, Clinton totally kissed the asses of the Chinese government after our spy plane crashed and they were holding the crew hostage until they got an apology. Oh no wait a minute! That was Bush that kissed their asses!
If you want a President who is an ass, vote Green.
For once I agree with you.
John Kerry would have.
There's more to the link than Kerry saying that he would cast the same vote again. Like how we went to war on false pretenses (Saddam *wasn't* an imminent threat).
The poor don't pay income taxes, pretty much, as a rule. The top 25% of taxpayers pay 83% of the taxes.
Don't be a boob. The poor pay plenty of taxes, just not income taxes. Medicare taxes, social security taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes. And the rich should pay more because they get more benefit from government expenditures than the poor do.
Name five you've lost.
In addition to the others mentioned, the right to travel by air without having to show id. And while not directly related, the recent (horrible) Supreme Court decision that police officers can demand to see id without probable cause might have been swayed by the terrorism scare.
Coalition to fight in Iraq included more countries this time than in '91.
Oh, and how many of those are in name only? Are their more foreign troops there this time around? More foreign aid? I doubt there are, as we seem to be taking most of the costs and most of the casualties.
France and Germany had reasons to support Saddam's regime, namely, they were profiting from the oil-for-food fiasco. While that hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, it's not going to be a pretty picture for our European "allies."
Right, like its going to be any better for the States. Did you forget that Saddam was our pet dictator during the 80's? Its always brought up that he "gassed his own people", but who looked the other way when he was gassing said Kurds? And who's secretary of defense is seen in a famous photograph, shaking Saddam's hand? I think France will come out smelling better than the US if Saddam's dirty laundry is aired.
or wish to take away women's rights...
Again, name five.
He's probably referring to abortion, which I'm basically neutral on. I don't think a fetus is a person until the last trimester, but as men don't have any option to sever their parental responsibilities, at any point during the pregnancy or after birth, I don't see why women should be able to.
And how many of the past presidents were in the midst of a recession when a major act of terrorism struck?
Sure, but this isn't the first crisis we've had. All the wars we've been in, not to mention the entire cold war. The economy didn't go into and stay in the crapper after the Cuban Missle crisis for example.
If you actually think politicians create jobs, there's a reason you're unemployed -- you're stupid.
True, politicians can't just waive their hands and make the economy all better. But if you think that they don't have any influence, then you are just as stupid. Rather than giving huge tax breaks to people who don't need them, they could have made cuts in payroll taxes and increased infrastructure spending. What if all the billions of dollars flowing to Iraq instead went into building roads, new research, expanding AmeriCore, and rebuilding the crab ass power grid in the north west. That could create over a million new jobs, which would obviously be good for the economy.
But Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Repeat till this sinks in. Bush, who had plenty of intelligence to indicate that Saddam was not an imminent threat (his stated reason for invading), did. As if making plans to invade and spending thousands of lives and billions of dollars were remotely comparable, anyway.
Saddam supported terrorists by paying the families of suicide bombers
So? The United States has given Israel billions in military and economic aid in support of, and vetoed U.N. resolutions critical of, their illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Once Saddam has given a few billion dollars to the Palestinians to create their own military, including nuclear weapons, then we'll talk.
Democrats kept protestors in a cage called the "Free-Speech Zone" during the DNC. The RNC isn't limiting free speech to a cage.
No, if there were as many pissed off people at the DNC, the cage wouldn't have mattered, anymore than NYC prohibiting protesters from marching through Central Park will hold protesters back in New York. And also, while their wasn't a "cage" in NYC, they wanted protests confined to a bridge far away from, well, anything. Bathrooms, major streets, the convention center....