Distract to a derogatory about Reagan when the point is CARTER, a Democrat, started arming what would become Al Qaeda.
Then distract to a distant place long ago, when we're currently talking about US policy, and how Carter, a Democrat, formalized our militaristic Middle East policy.
The Democrats are good. They apparently have the nation believing that Republicans were the ones who did these things.
he could have been giving arms & equipment to Al Qaeda. Man, I'm glad we've never had any presidents who were stupid enough to do that...
President Jimmy Carter.
Oh, I bet you thought it was Reagan who started that. They don't call the doctrine of us promising to use military force to protect our Persian Gulf interests the "Carter Doctrine" for nothing.
Oh, you probably thought George HW Bush started the idea of invading Middle East countries.
A good chunk of our electorate thinks all of the unconstitutional, oppressive actions Bush has done are A-OK in the name of national security. The Germans value their freedom, too (I lived there for over a decade), but they got suckered in by someone promising they could be a great country again. By the time they realized the oppression it was too late, just as it could be here if we follow the president passionately.
The system here is different that others. Our president is both a head of state (the emotional pick) and the executive, an equal branch of government whose policies definitely affect the country. I don't choose policies based on emotions.
As for Clinton, we were already geared for fighting in the Middle East, and Clinton was more than happy to send troops into Kosovo. He just never felt the need to send them against people who had successfully bombed us at least four times under his watch. The only response was one ineffective cruise missile salvo at one suspected training camp. Al Qaeda was strong and confident enough to launch 9/11 precisely because of Clinton's inaction and lack of desire to send troops to root these people out.
Election day is two months plus about a week away. That is the day he thinks Obama would become president.
"Five months from now is... end of January."
And when did you think inauguration is? It's January 20th, five months minus about a week away. FYI, inauguration day is the day a president elect assumes his office and becomes the "Leader of the Free World."
Wow, somebody who doesn't know the government running to the defense of somebody who doesn't know the government.
It lets bad people do bad things with little resistance.
Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler stirred the emotions of the people, and the people followed them almost without question to disastrous results. We need a president who will try to convince us he is right and follow him, not one who will be assumed right because everybody loves him.
I will credit Credit Clinton for doing it, but it wasn't about policies but, but general leadership and making people feel good about the future.
There's the problem with feeling instead of thinking. The Republican Congress ended the recession with sound fiscal policy, aided by the dot com boom. Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.
Secondly, thereâ(TM)s the fact that a man whose writing demonstrates a finely-developed capacity for introspection, self-criticism, and doubt might become the Leader of the Free World in two months.
No, such a man, if that is Obama, might become the "Leader of the Free World" in five months. Where was this idiot in civics class? Does he think a president elect moves into the White House in November? Do we really want people like this voting, much less having his vote magnified though what he plans?
Any worldview that isnâ(TM)t wracked by self-doubt and confusion over its own identity is not a worldview for me.
Now to differing views. Does he really think we need an identity-confused president wracked by self-doubt in this time of world-wide conflict?
Thirdly, seeing President Clinton in his stride always cheers me up a little.
Clinton cheers him up? This man has no doubt. He knows what he wants, power and pussy.
What if it can be scientifically and objectively demonstrated that the US electoral system is the freest and fairest ever devised and should be forcibly imposed on the rest of the world, and reimposed whenever an election produces a leader who won't do what America says?
Nice, except we don't do that. They tend to come out with parliamentary systems, like Iraq and Afghanistan have now.
There might be a reason, might there not, why those who are trying to do a good job seem to be 'biased' towards the left?
That is only in your view. People on the right want to do a good job too, only the methods differ. What is clear to me is that the people on the right seem to have read their history and don't want to repeat the socialist mistakes that the world's history is littered with, along with the bodies of the victims of those mistakes. The people on the left keep saying "It'll work this time."
How do we pin this on man-made global warming? It's a stretch, but the populace has accepted longer stretches than this. Can I buy credits to offset the effects of this?
She's probably running the House like her comrades are running the Senate, pushing what they want through and stopping anything else cold. The Democrats running the Senate were recently shown to have passed 855 of 911 bills without allowing debate or vote.
We don't need no stinkin' debate! We are the overlords! Maybe that's why they're down around single digits in approval ratings, putting party politics and agenda above the good of the country.
He compares video games with the military's conditioning.
I've done both. Nothing alike. Grossman may know Army, but he doesn't know video games. There's a big difference between serious training to kill under stress conditions and emphasizing cooperation and trust among the team, and mashing buttons on a console controller. The mindset is completely different. The military does use video games for training, but it's LAN play stressing team tactics, not for desensitizing.
I would recommend his other book about the effects having to kill has on people such as police and soldiers.
European rivers, Greek and Roman gods, and fruits.
I've also been in a place that used network, purpose and number together. That works very well for servers, as by the name of the server you know what it does. And if you're told to go to, say, the Exchange server, you can bet going to a machine name such as "xxxEXCH01" will get you to one.
Going by physical location for all machines doesn't work well, as you need to change DNS for every workstation move.
What is necessary is that religion have no power over the state. Denmark has an official church, many European countries do, but the church has no power to enforce its doctrine through the state so the countries are relatively free at least as far as religion is concerned.
Howitzers are great if you have fronts. Not so useful when the enemy is all around you. Tanks are good too, but they are very succeptable to Molotov cocktails and other improvised devices in cities.
The military's structure and tactics would make a good force multiplier, but then a good chunk of the rebels would be former military too, able to apply the same knowledge.
And of course this doesn't count that a large number of the military would defect to the side of the people. "Against all enemies foreign and domestic" can include the government itself being the enemy.
Let's see, about three million active and reserve military. You can really only use one gun at a time, but let's have fun and double it, six million guns (from my experience that's generous, most have one gun, some none, but there are many in storage). We'll forget the fact that many of those three million have non-combat duties.
25% of adults in the US own a gun, making it 75 million vs. 3 million in the military, not counting that half the population lives in a house where there is a gun. There about 223 million guns in the US vs. maybe 6 million for the military.
Although since the 2nd has been neutered, the armed forces do have bigger ones that shoot faster.
IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.
When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.
Calculate an unchanging position Obama has on something (just be sure to check for divide by zero errors). Bonus points if you find a workable solution for anything.
Calculate when the public's rapidly declining opinion of the Democrat-led Congress (12%, worst ever of all institutions measured by Gallup in 35 years) will bottom out.
Copyrights are to provide incentive to produce more works. The ability to get back any improvements to your free software is incentive to make and distribute, thus it is what was intended.
who dismissed Wesley Clark from commanding NATO (apparently for winning the Kosovo War without any US casualties)
It's easy not to have casualties when the war consisted entirely of a bombing campaign against an enemy with little anti-aircraft ability. He did just about try to start WWIII with the Russians though, only a disobeying of his orders preventing armed conflict.
Clark was Clinton's boy, politically promoted twice against the Army's wishes, and eventually stripped of command when the useful idiot was no longer useful.
Once they file the suit, the labels may then have the court issue a subpoena for the ISP to identify the registered user for the IP address. That person then replaces John Doe as the defendant.
That is not what happens. The RIAA drops the John Doe suit once it has the identity, and then sends the person one of their extortion letters.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice diversions:
Distract to a derogatory about Reagan when the point is CARTER, a Democrat, started arming what would become Al Qaeda.
Then distract to a distant place long ago, when we're currently talking about US policy, and how Carter, a Democrat, formalized our militaristic Middle East policy.
The Democrats are good. They apparently have the nation believing that Republicans were the ones who did these things.
President Jimmy Carter.
Oh, I bet you thought it was Reagan who started that. They don't call the doctrine of us promising to use military force to protect our Persian Gulf interests the "Carter Doctrine" for nothing.
Oh, you probably thought George HW Bush started the idea of invading Middle East countries.
A good chunk of our electorate thinks all of the unconstitutional, oppressive actions Bush has done are A-OK in the name of national security. The Germans value their freedom, too (I lived there for over a decade), but they got suckered in by someone promising they could be a great country again. By the time they realized the oppression it was too late, just as it could be here if we follow the president passionately.
The system here is different that others. Our president is both a head of state (the emotional pick) and the executive, an equal branch of government whose policies definitely affect the country. I don't choose policies based on emotions.
As for Clinton, we were already geared for fighting in the Middle East, and Clinton was more than happy to send troops into Kosovo. He just never felt the need to send them against people who had successfully bombed us at least four times under his watch. The only response was one ineffective cruise missile salvo at one suspected training camp. Al Qaeda was strong and confident enough to launch 9/11 precisely because of Clinton's inaction and lack of desire to send troops to root these people out.
Election day is two months plus about a week away. That is the day he thinks Obama would become president.
"Five months from now is ... end of January."
And when did you think inauguration is? It's January 20th, five months minus about a week away. FYI, inauguration day is the day a president elect assumes his office and becomes the "Leader of the Free World."
Wow, somebody who doesn't know the government running to the defense of somebody who doesn't know the government.
It lets bad people do bad things with little resistance.
Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler stirred the emotions of the people, and the people followed them almost without question to disastrous results. We need a president who will try to convince us he is right and follow him, not one who will be assumed right because everybody loves him.
There's the problem with feeling instead of thinking. The Republican Congress ended the recession with sound fiscal policy, aided by the dot com boom. Clinton also saved a lot of money by not asking Congress for it in the area of defense, and look where that got us as he let Al Qaeda grow for a decade, doing nothing about it. Now we get to pay a lot more due to his laxity.
No, such a man, if that is Obama, might become the "Leader of the Free World" in five months. Where was this idiot in civics class? Does he think a president elect moves into the White House in November? Do we really want people like this voting, much less having his vote magnified though what he plans?
Now to differing views. Does he really think we need an identity-confused president wracked by self-doubt in this time of world-wide conflict?
Clinton cheers him up? This man has no doubt. He knows what he wants, power and pussy.
How do we pin this on man-made global warming? It's a stretch, but the populace has accepted longer stretches than this. Can I buy credits to offset the effects of this?
Classic!
She's probably running the House like her comrades are running the Senate, pushing what they want through and stopping anything else cold. The Democrats running the Senate were recently shown to have passed 855 of 911 bills without allowing debate or vote.
We don't need no stinkin' debate! We are the overlords! Maybe that's why they're down around single digits in approval ratings, putting party politics and agenda above the good of the country.
"are popular with plaintiffs because they provide the plaintiff with a predictable litigation timetable"
And because the Eastern District of Texas is famous for making sure the plaintiff wins most of the time.
What a coincidence, headquartered only a short drive away from Patent Troll Central, a.k.a., the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas.
I've done both. Nothing alike. Grossman may know Army, but he doesn't know video games. There's a big difference between serious training to kill under stress conditions and emphasizing cooperation and trust among the team, and mashing buttons on a console controller. The mindset is completely different. The military does use video games for training, but it's LAN play stressing team tactics, not for desensitizing.
I would recommend his other book about the effects having to kill has on people such as police and soldiers.
European rivers, Greek and Roman gods, and fruits.
I've also been in a place that used network, purpose and number together. That works very well for servers, as by the name of the server you know what it does. And if you're told to go to, say, the Exchange server, you can bet going to a machine name such as "xxxEXCH01" will get you to one.
Going by physical location for all machines doesn't work well, as you need to change DNS for every workstation move.
What is necessary is that religion have no power over the state. Denmark has an official church, many European countries do, but the church has no power to enforce its doctrine through the state so the countries are relatively free at least as far as religion is concerned.
Wouldn't this be fun in war, enemy invades, gets control of the kill switches, and immobilizes almost everyone.
Howitzers are great if you have fronts. Not so useful when the enemy is all around you. Tanks are good too, but they are very succeptable to Molotov cocktails and other improvised devices in cities.
The military's structure and tactics would make a good force multiplier, but then a good chunk of the rebels would be former military too, able to apply the same knowledge.
And of course this doesn't count that a large number of the military would defect to the side of the people. "Against all enemies foreign and domestic" can include the government itself being the enemy.
Let's see, about three million active and reserve military. You can really only use one gun at a time, but let's have fun and double it, six million guns (from my experience that's generous, most have one gun, some none, but there are many in storage). We'll forget the fact that many of those three million have non-combat duties.
25% of adults in the US own a gun, making it 75 million vs. 3 million in the military, not counting that half the population lives in a house where there is a gun. There about 223 million guns in the US vs. maybe 6 million for the military.
Although since the 2nd has been neutered, the armed forces do have bigger ones that shoot faster.
IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.
When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.
Calculate an unchanging position Obama has on something (just be sure to check for divide by zero errors). Bonus points if you find a workable solution for anything.
Calculate when the public's rapidly declining opinion of the Democrat-led Congress (12%, worst ever of all institutions measured by Gallup in 35 years) will bottom out.
Copyrights are to provide incentive to produce more works. The ability to get back any improvements to your free software is incentive to make and distribute, thus it is what was intended.
Clark was Clinton's boy, politically promoted twice against the Army's wishes, and eventually stripped of command when the useful idiot was no longer useful.
It works well as a daily driver, and you can fit a whole shopping cart of groceries in it.
Plus according to British folk I know, it's used as a test for picking up girls. You don't want her if she can't get in easily with the roof on.
The original Lotus Elise got almost 30 mpg with 1.8l, 120 hp, and it was a high-performance car.
Put a little 1 liter, 60 horsepower engine in there and it'll probably get 50 mpg, but have regular car performance.
The secret? Weighing only about 1,650 lbs.