If I disagree with the candidate on a fundamental issue, like basic civil rights, they don't get my vote. And I note that the DLC and other top leaders in the Democratic Party thoroughly supported that FISA abomination. I won't vote for anyone who voted to support that. No one.
So don't vote for them or donate money to their campaigns. Duh.
Whatever dude.
Obtuse much? I'm not saying the Dems are great, I'm saying they're only half as rotten as the GOP, and it's easier to start cleaning up half a party than a whole party. I'm sorry it's only Cindy Sheehan challenging Nancy Pelosi this year and not someone with broader credibility and support.
Generally, half the Democratic party is descent, and half is rotten. But the Republicans are 100% rotten - if you aren't enough of an asshole on taxes or God Norquist and Dobson will run your ass out of town. So it's easier to try and fix the party that's half rotten while driving the GOP into Whig territory than start a 3rd party.
Congress doesn't have to override Bush's veto, they just have to get enough votes together to stop funding the war. So no, they don't need 60 votes, they need 41.
The U.S. Attorney for his state brought charges against Siegelman as he was running for re-election, with a trial one month before the election. While the U.S. Attorney's husband was running his opponents campaign. I agree with what other's have said: this will be way bigger than Watergate, if it isn't covered up and the press pulls its head out of its ass.
I have to wonder how someone can say that it's the repubs that are in the pockets of big oil when it's been the democrats reduction of supply that has caused the biggest profit of a company in one quarter ever.
Oil prices trippled under Bush and the GOP Congress, but it's the Democrats who are blocking something that wont even take effect for 10-15 years who are now at fault for high prices? You are so full of shit it's funny.
But lets say we do it your way and open up our coasts for drilling. The problem is that it wont be our oil - it will be Exxon's or BP's oil. Some of it would go to the U.S., but some of it might go to India or Germany. In other words, it will just to into the world's oil supply, so once again, domestic prices wont be affected.
Unless, of course, you want to nationalize the oil fields. But then we'd have to have the CIA overthrow our government.
Thanks for doing your part to encourage double standards. You know, like all the talking heads exploding over the John Edwards affair after giving complete passes to Vitter, Giuliani and of course McCain. Tom Delay auctions off chairmanships to biggest fundraisers, not a problem. House Republicans completely shut out any bill not supported by Republicans, not a problem. Pelosi doesn't bring up one bill and keeps a scheduled recess? Oh, now we're talking Abuse of Power.
Domesitc production wont do jack to change the price of oil, because it wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's oil, and as likely to end up in India as Texas. Unless, of course, we nationalized the oil fields. But then we'd have to the CIA overthrow our government for being (gasp!) socialist.
It's absurd to think that at no point in time will extra domestic oil supply result in no reduction in prices.
There you go again. It wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's oil, and as likely to end up in India as Texas. So no, domestic production will not affect the price of oil in any meaningful way.
Unless, of course, we nationalized the oil fields. But then we'd have to the CIA overthrow our government for being (gasp!) socialist.
While I agree the stunt is a little immature I commend them for drawing attention to such an important issue- Nancy Pelosi.
They held a vote. The vote passed. Sure, someone's playing political games, but it isn't the speaker.
She has refused to allow the house to vote on offshore drilling.
Because it's a fraud. It's not about lowering the price of gas, it's about handing more money to Exxon.
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling.
What a surprise, you're wrong. It would take 10+ years to see results, and the oil wouldn't automatically go to the U.S., Exxon or Shell or BP could just as easily send it to the India or China. The amount of oil obtained would be dwarfed by what could be saved with basic energy conservation. Finally, and most importantly: why aren't the oil companies drilling on the land they already have the rights to.
Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.
And how common is 138.07 billion dollars in revenue? Moron. And higher taxes would make up for the fact that they've continued to receive tax breaks and subsidies while their profits were exploding.
False equivalency alert. Dems protested in the House because the minority was shut out of the process. Now that Dems have control of Congress, Bush has still gotten his war funding, his telecom immunity, and the most impeachable offenses ever are met with Sternly Worded Letters instead of impeachment.
None of your blathering changes the fact that ~4% of the world's population has been producing ~25% of the world's emissions. Or that anyone who insists that India make the first move, when they have less than a 4th of GDP of the U.S. while having three times the population, is a self centered moron.
The waterboarding manual used by the CIA was taken from a Chinese manual written in 1957 on how to force confessions - reguardless of the persons actual guilt. After WWII, we sentenced men from the Japanese military that waterboarded American troops to 15 years of hard labor.
So, two questions for you, my friend. First, do you enjoy being a communist, and second, tell us how wrong we were to send that poor Japanese man to jail for torturing our troops.
The FISA court has granted thousands of warrants since 1978, and has denied something like....4. All the government has to do is call up the court before the wiretapping (or 72 hours after) and say "hey, we suspect so-and-so is a terrorist" and the FISA court says "oh, ok." That the Bush Administration didn't even bother with that little fig leaf means they had no reason to tap those phone lines.
Well, that's why we have courts, attorneys, and discovery. If I were a prosecutor I would be looking at charges of harassment, stalking and child abuse. That she's being prosecuted for a lame TOS violation instead does raise questions. Guess we'll have to wait for the Lifetime channel movie.:)
we wont spare you. It's not that a girl was insulted, it's that someone pretended to be a pen-pal boyfriend only to to trash her. It's like deliberately putting drinks in front of a recovering alcoholic for six months and then acting shocked, schocked! when they finally go on a bender and die in a car accident. You might not have put them behind the wheel, but you're still a slimeball with a great deal of responsibility for the result.
That was a nice feature of the original Shuffle, wish they'd kept it.
supports directories
Dragging files over manually is a pain in the ass and a waste of time. If you've got enough music to use a gigabyte mp3 player, you're going to want some library management software unless you're a fan of tedium.
sequential directory Fast-Forward (which the shuffle *can't*!)
What do bandwidth hogs have in common with the Easter Bunny? They don't exist. There are no bandwidth hogs, only companies that oversell their connections.
Actually, any number of commentators have pointed out that if you look at the best times today and 50 years ago, you'll find that most of the fastest females today easily beat the fastest males of 50 years ago.
And what would happen if you took today's top male track athletes and pitted them against women from 50 years ago? Apples to apples, please.
This is often used to argue that the time differences today are a measure of either training or drugs (or both).
It does sorta make you wonder whether there would be a difference if there weren't social forces acting against the training (or drugging;-) of female athletes.
Nope.
And the same problem exists with math ability, where anyone with half a brain can see the obvious social pressures against female training.
Anyone with half a brain can see that is total garbage. You'd have a great point about discrimination in training - if this were 1950. Other than the military, there are no limits on what women can do, only in what they are willing to do - and that's been the case for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
If I disagree with the candidate on a fundamental issue, like basic civil rights, they don't get my vote. And I note that the DLC and other top leaders in the Democratic Party thoroughly supported that FISA abomination. I won't vote for anyone who voted to support that. No one.
So don't vote for them or donate money to their campaigns. Duh.
Whatever dude.
Obtuse much? I'm not saying the Dems are great, I'm saying they're only half as rotten as the GOP, and it's easier to start cleaning up half a party than a whole party. I'm sorry it's only Cindy Sheehan challenging Nancy Pelosi this year and not someone with broader credibility and support.
Generally, half the Democratic party is descent, and half is rotten. But the Republicans are 100% rotten - if you aren't enough of an asshole on taxes or God Norquist and Dobson will run your ass out of town. So it's easier to try and fix the party that's half rotten while driving the GOP into Whig territory than start a 3rd party.
Congress doesn't have to override Bush's veto, they just have to get enough votes together to stop funding the war. So no, they don't need 60 votes, they need 41.
The U.S. Attorney for his state brought charges against Siegelman as he was running for re-election, with a trial one month before the election. While the U.S. Attorney's husband was running his opponents campaign. I agree with what other's have said: this will be way bigger than Watergate, if it isn't covered up and the press pulls its head out of its ass.
No one's talking of felony murder. Parent:
I don't want to send her to jail for murder or even manslaughter, but for stalking, harassment and child abuse. Not this TOS violation crap.
I have to wonder how someone can say that it's the repubs that are in the pockets of big oil when it's been the democrats reduction of supply that has caused the biggest profit of a company in one quarter ever.
Oil prices trippled under Bush and the GOP Congress, but it's the Democrats who are blocking something that wont even take effect for 10-15 years who are now at fault for high prices? You are so full of shit it's funny.
But lets say we do it your way and open up our coasts for drilling. The problem is that it wont be our oil - it will be Exxon's or BP's oil. Some of it would go to the U.S., but some of it might go to India or Germany. In other words, it will just to into the world's oil supply, so once again, domestic prices wont be affected.
Unless, of course, you want to nationalize the oil fields. But then we'd have to have the CIA overthrow our government.
Thanks for doing your part to encourage double standards. You know, like all the talking heads exploding over the John Edwards affair after giving complete passes to Vitter, Giuliani and of course McCain. Tom Delay auctions off chairmanships to biggest fundraisers, not a problem. House Republicans completely shut out any bill not supported by Republicans, not a problem. Pelosi doesn't bring up one bill and keeps a scheduled recess? Oh, now we're talking Abuse of Power.
Domesitc production wont do jack to change the price of oil, because it wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's oil, and as likely to end up in India as Texas. Unless, of course, we nationalized the oil fields. But then we'd have to the CIA overthrow our government for being (gasp!) socialist.
It's absurd to think that at no point in time will extra domestic oil supply result in no reduction in prices.
There you go again. It wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's oil, and as likely to end up in India as Texas. So no, domestic production will not affect the price of oil in any meaningful way.
Unless, of course, we nationalized the oil fields. But then we'd have to the CIA overthrow our government for being (gasp!) socialist.
ANWR alone could have oil flowing in around eighteen months, and that certainly would affect prices near term.
Not really. It wouldn't be our oil, it would be Exxon's or Shell's or BP's oil, and be as likely to end up in India or China as Ohio or Texas.
Energy conservation. Any more obvious questions?
The fact that the Democrats didn't even hold a vote on domestic drilling despite overwhelming public support is something that ought to be mocked.
The majority of Americans do not support more drilling, much less an overwhelming number of them.
While I agree the stunt is a little immature I commend them for drawing attention to such an important issue- Nancy Pelosi.
They held a vote. The vote passed. Sure, someone's playing political games, but it isn't the speaker.
She has refused to allow the house to vote on offshore drilling.
Because it's a fraud. It's not about lowering the price of gas, it's about handing more money to Exxon.
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling.
What a surprise, you're wrong. It would take 10+ years to see results, and the oil wouldn't automatically go to the U.S., Exxon or Shell or BP could just as easily send it to the India or China. The amount of oil obtained would be dwarfed by what could be saved with basic energy conservation. Finally, and most importantly: why aren't the oil companies drilling on the land they already have the rights to.
Fourth, anyone who believes that Exxon makes excessive profits is a moron. 11.68 billion on 138.07 billion of revenue- 8.45% profit. That's considered an average profit in the business world.
And how common is 138.07 billion dollars in revenue? Moron. And higher taxes would make up for the fact that they've continued to receive tax breaks and subsidies while their profits were exploding.
False equivalency alert. Dems protested in the House because the minority was shut out of the process. Now that Dems have control of Congress, Bush has still gotten his war funding, his telecom immunity, and the most impeachable offenses ever are met with Sternly Worded Letters instead of impeachment.
None of your blathering changes the fact that ~4% of the world's population has been producing ~25% of the world's emissions. Or that anyone who insists that India make the first move, when they have less than a 4th of GDP of the U.S. while having three times the population, is a self centered moron.
He probably also has a real thin skin if anyone questions him. Hyper-critical pricks usually do...
The waterboarding manual used by the CIA was taken from a Chinese manual written in 1957 on how to force confessions - reguardless of the persons actual guilt. After WWII, we sentenced men from the Japanese military that waterboarded American troops to 15 years of hard labor.
So, two questions for you, my friend. First, do you enjoy being a communist, and second, tell us how wrong we were to send that poor Japanese man to jail for torturing our troops.
The FISA court has granted thousands of warrants since 1978, and has denied something like....4. All the government has to do is call up the court before the wiretapping (or 72 hours after) and say "hey, we suspect so-and-so is a terrorist" and the FISA court says "oh, ok." That the Bush Administration didn't even bother with that little fig leaf means they had no reason to tap those phone lines.
No, this is NOT clear from the facts of the case.
Well, that's why we have courts, attorneys, and discovery. If I were a prosecutor I would be looking at charges of harassment, stalking and child abuse. That she's being prosecuted for a lame TOS violation instead does raise questions. Guess we'll have to wait for the Lifetime channel movie. :)
we wont spare you. It's not that a girl was insulted, it's that someone pretended to be a pen-pal boyfriend only to to trash her. It's like deliberately putting drinks in front of a recovering alcoholic for six months and then acting shocked, schocked! when they finally go on a bender and die in a car accident. You might not have put them behind the wheel, but you're still a slimeball with a great deal of responsibility for the result.
supports MP3 and no DRM
So put non-DRM files on your iPod.
can be used as a USB stick
That was a nice feature of the original Shuffle, wish they'd kept it.
supports directories
Dragging files over manually is a pain in the ass and a waste of time. If you've got enough music to use a gigabyte mp3 player, you're going to want some library management software unless you're a fan of tedium.
sequential directory Fast-Forward (which the shuffle *can't*!)
So use playlists.
What if he's got money? If I was rich I wouldn't hesitate two seconds on sicking my lawyer(s) on a BS ticket/fee/law that annoyed me.
What do bandwidth hogs have in common with the Easter Bunny? They don't exist. There are no bandwidth hogs, only companies that oversell their connections.
Actually, any number of commentators have pointed out that if you look at the best times today and 50 years ago, you'll find that most of the fastest females today easily beat the fastest males of 50 years ago.
And what would happen if you took today's top male track athletes and pitted them against women from 50 years ago? Apples to apples, please.
This is often used to argue that the time differences today are a measure of either training or drugs (or both).
You're forgetting gear. Better shoes = faster running.
It does sorta make you wonder whether there would be a difference if there weren't social forces acting against the training (or drugging ;-) of female athletes.
Nope.
And the same problem exists with math ability, where anyone with half a brain can see the obvious social pressures against female training.
Anyone with half a brain can see that is total garbage. You'd have a great point about discrimination in training - if this were 1950. Other than the military, there are no limits on what women can do, only in what they are willing to do - and that's been the case for decades.
All the ones I've met have been quite keen to point out that women can just as well be supportive of "patriarchy" as men.
But then they're still blaming men for the actions of women, and still just as full of crap.