> I agree with you, cheating at a nationally televised debate would be audacious, brash, and brazenly stupid given the likelihood of getting caught. Though the President has almost certainly used in-ear prompters during press conferences, I'm skeptical of their use during the debate. That said, I'll reserve judgement since he certainly has shown all of those aforementioned qualities.
That is indeed the sad part: that things have gotten so bad that people are willing to entertain the possibility.
> Let's be real people. Most of us dislike George W. as much as the other guy but do you really think they would try to cheat at the debates?
Yes. There's not much his inner circle wouldn't do to win the election.
> And don't you think that if they did cheat Bush would have done a better job?
That's debatable.
Pro the rumor:
Google for bush prompter debate and you'll get some semi-plausible claims that he has been wearing one of these things all year.
Con the rumor:
Part of the argument is that he was hunched over due to the wiring rather than straight-shouldered as usual, but that doesn't make sense if he has been wearing this thing for months.
One site claims he was seen consulting a cheat sheet, but that also doesn't make sense if he was wired.
Who knows. But it will be interesting to watch him in the upcoming debate.
> While I think the flaw itself is a concern the 'rewrite their applications' quote is pure drivel. All thats required is a couple of lines in Global.asax. Thats hadly a rewrite.
Since it's trivial, can I expect Microsoft to send someone by to do it for us?
> Shall I teach my kids about sex by having intercourse with my wife in their presence?
That has probably been the norm throughout most of history, with peasants crowded together in one-room hovels.
Probably promotes healthier attitudes toward sex as well, in comparison to making a grand taboo out of it and then teasing around the taboo in books, movies, commercials, etc.
> As someone who invited a bunch of teenagers from church watch the Superbowl together at a youth group superbowl party, I found the whole halftime "tit show" disappointing.
You gather your innocents to watch an annual festival famous for its racy lingerie commercials, and you're shocked, shocked, at the display of raw sexuality in front of them?
> Not completely out of the question; Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire peninsula makes West Virginia look tame in the inbreeding department. Marrying your first cousin is highly encouraged there.
Unless I'm miscalculating, the only way you'd have your paternal grandmother's mDNA is if she were also your maternal grandmother - IOW, if Pa and Ma were siblings.
> It has been proven many times: The American people don't mind violence, even extreme violence, but the moment you do something sexual, the American public will call for your head on a pike.
Like flashing a tit at the Superbowl. Oh, the humanity!
> You're being sarcastic, but what I don't understand is how they straight-up lied about WMDs and whatnot (and knew about it), yet not a damned thing is happening about it. Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?"
> Especially in this case, since there are literally thousands of people alive today who share bin Laden's paternal grandmother's mitochondrial DNA. The old sheikh was prolific, let's put it that way.
Absent some serious inbreeding, OBL doesn't have any of his paternal grandmother's mDNA.
> What happenes to the election of a terrorist attack takes out George W? Do you still go to the polls? Do you get Cheney by defualt? And how long could he delay the election before going foward?
Anti-US terrorists would probably prefer that we be divided among ourselves over the legitimacy of the elections, in which case they can win without investment by sitting back and letting Diebold and Jeb Bush handle it.
> Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement. Oh wait...
And while we're on that topic, notice that the US strategy for managing the rebellion in Iraq is essentially the same as Israel's management of the intifada: "precision" air strikes and occasional intense bouts of urban warfare; "Sorry about the dead kids, we're just just here to do our job."
If you want to know how long it's going to take to suppress the Iraqi rebellion, project the results of suppressing the intifada and then scale it for a country the size of Iraq.
> If they had him they would have busted him out in August or so. Osama really did get away. I think that that is clear now. If they had him that would be a rumor that they just couldn't supress.
Slashdot Mirror
> I hate GW but I can't see him cheating at a debate.
Invade a country on false pretexts, sure, but cheat on a debate - never!
> I've got to say that if Bush was cheating, he did a pretty piss poor job of it.
<Goldfinger>Maybe James Bond was bonking the lady that was supposed to be prompting him.</Goldfinger>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that Libertarians nly care about their own property rights
In my case, it was from reading their posts on Slashdot.
> The article tells us the democrats "plan to mobilize tens of thousands of lawyers on Election Day."
You'd think they'd try a simpler solution first, such as nominating a candidate that more than half the public would prefer over Bush.
> I just assumed that's where the fuel cell's went for our robotic prez.
Actually, it was Cheney's knuckle.
> I agree with you, cheating at a nationally televised debate would be audacious, brash, and brazenly stupid given the likelihood of getting caught. Though the President has almost certainly used in-ear prompters during press conferences, I'm skeptical of their use during the debate. That said, I'll reserve judgement since he certainly has shown all of those aforementioned qualities.
That is indeed the sad part: that things have gotten so bad that people are willing to entertain the possibility.
> Let's be real people. Most of us dislike George W. as much as the other guy but do you really think they would try to cheat at the debates?
Yes. There's not much his inner circle wouldn't do to win the election.
> And don't you think that if they did cheat Bush would have done a better job?
That's debatable.
Pro the rumor:
Con the rumor:
Who knows. But it will be interesting to watch him in the upcoming debate.
> While I think the flaw itself is a concern the 'rewrite their applications' quote is pure drivel. All thats required is a couple of lines in Global.asax. Thats hadly a rewrite.
Since it's trivial, can I expect Microsoft to send someone by to do it for us?
"No, no, no. This one is for the termites. That one is for the ladies."
...your gerbil just can't reach.
> Shall I teach my kids about sex by having intercourse with my wife in their presence?
That has probably been the norm throughout most of history, with peasants crowded together in one-room hovels.
Probably promotes healthier attitudes toward sex as well, in comparison to making a grand taboo out of it and then teasing around the taboo in books, movies, commercials, etc.
> As someone who invited a bunch of teenagers from church watch the Superbowl together at a youth group superbowl party, I found the whole halftime "tit show" disappointing.
You gather your innocents to watch an annual festival famous for its racy lingerie commercials, and you're shocked, shocked, at the display of raw sexuality in front of them?
> Not completely out of the question; Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire peninsula makes West Virginia look tame in the inbreeding department. Marrying your first cousin is highly encouraged there.
Unless I'm miscalculating, the only way you'd have your paternal grandmother's mDNA is if she were also your maternal grandmother - IOW, if Pa and Ma were siblings.
> Anyone else want to boycott Slashdot subscriptions?
No need...
> Considering the utter shit that Michael's been approving lately, I'd just about decided to kill the bookmark to the site and go my merry way.
Yeah, 'cause ignoring inconvenient facts got us into this mess, so maybe ignoring more inconvenient facts will get us back out.
> We haven't accomplished a damned thing over there other than making the Arab popluation hate us even more.
I suspect that that's precisely what Bush's neocon handlers had in mind.
> Do we wait on the "Global Test" or do we turn them in to glass?
Obviously we nuke them into glass. Then when we find out the President lied about the intelligence, we say we actually did it to liberate them.
> It has been proven many times: The American people don't mind violence, even extreme violence, but the moment you do something sexual, the American public will call for your head on a pike.
Like flashing a tit at the Superbowl. Oh, the humanity!
> You're being sarcastic, but what I don't understand is how they straight-up lied about WMDs and whatnot (and knew about it), yet not a damned thing is happening about it. Clinton gets a BJ, and everyone starts screaming "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?"
That's our "liberal media" at work...
> Especially in this case, since there are literally thousands of people alive today who share bin Laden's paternal grandmother's mitochondrial DNA. The old sheikh was prolific, let's put it that way.
Absent some serious inbreeding, OBL doesn't have any of his paternal grandmother's mDNA.
> we have no DNA from Osama bin Laden so there's no way for us to positively identify any of the human remains recovered as being from him.
We routinely use relatives' DNA for this kind of thing.
> What happenes to the election of a terrorist attack takes out George W? Do you still go to the polls? Do you get Cheney by defualt? And how long could he delay the election before going foward?
Anti-US terrorists would probably prefer that we be divided among ourselves over the legitimacy of the elections, in which case they can win without investment by sitting back and letting Diebold and Jeb Bush handle it.
> Yes because Israel has proved that killing a movement's leaders is so effective at nullifying the movement. Oh wait...
And while we're on that topic, notice that the US strategy for managing the rebellion in Iraq is essentially the same as Israel's management of the intifada: "precision" air strikes and occasional intense bouts of urban warfare; "Sorry about the dead kids, we're just just here to do our job."
If you want to know how long it's going to take to suppress the Iraqi rebellion, project the results of suppressing the intifada and then scale it for a country the size of Iraq.
> Terrorists want Bush in power.
> Only a fool would believe this. When Bush is in power, terrorists LEADERS die.
If they think they're ushering in some kind of apocalypse, they surely want the enemy who's most likely to escalate.
> If they had him they would have busted him out in August or so. Osama really did get away. I think that that is clear now. If they had him that would be a rumor that they just couldn't supress.
There actually has been a rumor, for months now.
Not to imply that I believe it.