Al Qaeda has been holding a French guy for a while, and said they would wait on the decision of his fate until after this election.
The meaning is obvious, it was a ploy to get the French to vote for the liberal. Anti-war, pro-appeasement liberals are exactly what Al Qaeda wants in Western governments. It makes their job easier. There is precedent for this, as Radio Moscow was one big Mondale advertisement just before the 1984 election.
Anyway, now that the socialist has lost, and the guy who likely will make life a bit more difficult for Al Qaeda has won, the French guy in Afghanistan probably doesn't have long to live.
Long-term vision is so rare these days that people are surprised when they see it.
Short-term Wall Street thinking wouldn't have allowed this. They'd say the XBox division was running a loss for 12 quarters straight and demand they stop the cash drain.
It's the parents' responsibility to instill morals and values into their children. The school should not have to do your parenting for you.
That pretty well ties in with the point of my post.
People like you are always trying to force kids to waste time in special classes on abstinence, creationism, and anti-goat-screwing.
You rush to judgment. Just because I don't believe in the PC liberal socialist agenda doesn't mean I am an abstinence-only, creation-supporting Christian.
If you are indeed correct in your view, then I think you've just met the world's first creationist atheist.
Push it up the chain to the owners, then if there's no love:
The BSA gives out rewards for reporting piracy. Tell them the situation, but not the company, and find out if the reward will be worth possibly losing your job for reporting them. Then if you do lose your job that's good lawsuit fodder. Reporting is confidential, so the BSA won't tell it's you, but they'll probably know anyway due to your past protests.
I really don't like the BSA, which likes to drastically punish people for shoddy license accounting. But this is a case of a company willfully and against clear advice installing, using and profiting off of unlicensed software on a large scale. It's just wrong.
Apple learnt a valuable lesson today; there are some issues (not all, but some) that when you're secretive about, people get rightly suspicious and assume you're up to no good.
And we learn today that the suspicions were completely unfounded.
If they'd responded to Greenpeace in the first place, then this negative press would have never occurred.
Why should Apple have to cater to an activist organization that's known to push its agenda rather than real care for the environment? In addition, Greenpeace's methodology was screwed, so even further why should Apple have to change its practices to suit the screwed methodology of said organization?
What am I talking about? They do it here too, the schools want to push their agenda down every kid's throat in order to make one big ultra-tolerant (where screwing goats is a "lifestyle choice" that should be not only accepted, but promoted by all), revisionist (where whites were solely responsible for the African slave trade), metrosexual (can't let boys be boys) world. Okay, the first example was over the top, but that's the direction we're going.
BTW, remember the movie Gotcha!? I can't imagine that being done these days without students going to jail.
Pardon me, but how does everyone having a kalashnikov in the closet constitute a "well regulated militia"?
A militia shouldn't have military-style weapons? Isn't that the whole point of the militia, that the people themselves can rise up and defeat an army?
But that doesn't have anything to do with the assault weapons ban, which basically banned semi-automatic weapons because they looked mean or had large magazines (and we just saw in VT that you don't need large magazines to kill lots of people).
I don't think your beloved constitution quite say what you want it to
It says exactly that. The right to guns is an pre-existing natural right that is not to be infringed. The purpose as stated by the founders is not only to defend the country, but to be able to rise against the government should it become oppressive. The people only being allowed single-shot 22s does not fulfill either of those purposes. AK-47s do.
It's all fine and good to chalk this up to protecting oneself, but one should not act at all surprised when the world hates America as a result.
Yes, war isn't pretty, and a lot of people got hurt by it. However, it's interesting that so many ignore the good things we've done around the world. Those who love the UN blast us, forgetting we are a founder and major funder of their UN, which wouldn't exist without us.
I think a lot of people hate us simply because we're powerful, and we're an easy scapegoat for their locally-created problems.
BTW, we apparently have to remove Hillary Clinton from office, too. She just said we might have to use the military option in Iran and that all avenues must be explored (== Cheney's "all options open").
But Kucinich won't call for her removal because she's in his party.
So the current score: Cheney and Clinton go due to violating treaty, and Reid goes up for treason. Or can we just leave all this politicking behind?
"Stopping Soviet expansion" was an all-too-common line back then to justify just about anything, you should be smarter than to buy into that McCarthy-ist BS.
It's not McCarthy-ist BS. They called it the Cold War for a reason: it was a war. Both sides had countries that they couldn't allow to fall into the other's hands, or wanted to take out of the other's hands. Allowing such was dangerous, as in Cuba and its missiles. Talking about overthrowing democratically elected leaders means less when you know that those leaders were Soviet pawns.
Vague statements of "we're keeping all options open" are not overt threats. This administration has shown in the past that it will not attack unless under UN resolution (Iraq) or having been attacked (Afghanistan). The article also talks about how Iran is supposedly willing to cooperate, but as we know the statements were empty, and the administration knows it. This government that is developing nuclear weapons has also pledged the destruction of our most important ally in the region, which is dangerous to the security of the US should they be allowed to. They have overtly threatened our security, and Cheney has told them they will not be allowed to go through with it. This one is dead.
Harry Reid publicly stating the fact that "this war is lost" is not a constitutional offense.
The argument can be made that one of our most prominent politicians stating we lost gives comfort to the enemy. Plus voting to pull out troops before the Iraqi government can run its own security, thus allowing our enemy to overrun Iraq and plot our destruction from there, gives aid to the enemy. Aid and comfort == treason, and we have enough witnesses to the same overt acts.
How about this: You impeach Cheney and kick him out of office, and I'll convict Reid for treason and have him put to death.
Or we could forget all this political grandstanding and admit we just don't like the other's politics or methods (or in my case, I don't like either).
Cheney trying to start another one, or expanding the current one, is political posturing at the cost of thousands+ lives.
The other side of the argument is that not taking care of those who want to destroy us is threatening the security of the nation at the potential cost of millions of lives. Political disagreement != constitutional issue.
Pahlavi was later. Have you been brain-washed so much you can't even check Wikipedia?
Okay, let's check Wikipedia. Pahlavi reign 1941-1979. You're quote, "In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence." How can you say Pahlavi was later?
What I said perfectly fits with the Wikipedia entry, including that we assisted the Shah in stopping Soviet expansion, in this case through the banned Tudeh communist party. Pahlavi approved Mossadegh twice, but had to get rid of him once he gained substantial authoritarian powers and started working with the Tudeh party and implementing communist doctrines, going down the road to being a Soviet satellite state.
You know, the Soviets and Iraq under Saddam held democratic elections all the time, and so does China today. That doesn't/didn't make their leaders any good or reflect on a free democratic state.
While Cheney may be a bad guy, I can't see how anything here amounts to justification for impeachment. All I see is a lot of "I don't like what he did" and "I think it hurts the country."
If we impeached presidents or removed congressmen and senators because we thought what they did was damaging to the country and not upholding the Constitution, the only business of Congress would be articles of impeachment. Harry Reid definitely needs to go on this score for his recent statements, as do those who voted for the Patriot Act, copyright extensions, McCain Feingold, the assault weapons ban and numerous other blatantly unconstitutional acts.
What are you talking about? Iran wasn't democratic. The British and Soviets kicked out Reza Shah, an unelected authoritarian ruler, and installed his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was still authoritarian, but a lot better than his father. He was overthrown by the Islamic revolution, which hasn't turned out to be any better for the people of Iran.
We were only later involved because Mohammad Reza was anti-communist, and the Soviets were pushing a communist party in Iran. Reza cracked down on the party, and we were only to happy to assist in stopping Soviet expansion.
Kucinich is so far behind he needs something to get him in the headlines and appeal to the far-left base. The fact that he has the hottest wife in Congress isn't going to help.
"illegal and terrorist aliens" Bro.. most of our terrorists are legal.
English is so imprecise. I meant illegal and terrorist as two different classes of aliens. The Act has provisions dealing with both, and those are totally within the power of the federal government. As far as the 10th Amendment, I'm normally a stickler for it with massive federal encroachment, but this was written very well. States are still free to disregard it. The feds only state what ID they will take.
Would guns on campus have prevented more people from getting shot? Who the hell knows?
Very likely. Not long after Charles Whitman started shooting people at the University of Texas in 1966 a lot of locals showed up to help provide suppressive fire with their rifles. That forced Whitman to keep his head down, and he could no longer shoot freely as he had done earlier. This was kept up until two people (one an armed civilian) managed to get to the top of the tower and shoot Whitman.
How would death rates on campus be affected in the long-term with tens of thousands of college students with ready access to large amounts of alcohol and firearms?
Don't know, but there haven't been any murders among the general public with millions of concealed carry permits issued, and I'm sure that includes a good number of drinkers.
Slashdot Mirror
Bow wow wow's "I Want Candy" was a cover of the 60s song by the Strangeloves. It was better than any of the other covers.
Al Qaeda has been holding a French guy for a while, and said they would wait on the decision of his fate until after this election.
The meaning is obvious, it was a ploy to get the French to vote for the liberal. Anti-war, pro-appeasement liberals are exactly what Al Qaeda wants in Western governments. It makes their job easier. There is precedent for this, as Radio Moscow was one big Mondale advertisement just before the 1984 election.
Anyway, now that the socialist has lost, and the guy who likely will make life a bit more difficult for Al Qaeda has won, the French guy in Afghanistan probably doesn't have long to live.
It's worth it if in the end you're a major player in a multibillion dollar market where you previously had no product.
Long-term vision is so rare these days that people are surprised when they see it.
Short-term Wall Street thinking wouldn't have allowed this. They'd say the XBox division was running a loss for 12 quarters straight and demand they stop the cash drain.
If you are indeed correct in your view, then I think you've just met the world's first creationist atheist.
Is that they are the most intolerant bunch around.
Push it up the chain to the owners, then if there's no love:
The BSA gives out rewards for reporting piracy. Tell them the situation, but not the company, and find out if the reward will be worth possibly losing your job for reporting them. Then if you do lose your job that's good lawsuit fodder. Reporting is confidential, so the BSA won't tell it's you, but they'll probably know anyway due to your past protests.
I really don't like the BSA, which likes to drastically punish people for shoddy license accounting. But this is a case of a company willfully and against clear advice installing, using and profiting off of unlicensed software on a large scale. It's just wrong.
And we learn today that the suspicions were completely unfounded.
Why should Apple have to cater to an activist organization that's known to push its agenda rather than real care for the environment? In addition, Greenpeace's methodology was screwed, so even further why should Apple have to change its practices to suit the screwed methodology of said organization?
The school mods the student
What am I talking about? They do it here too, the schools want to push their agenda down every kid's throat in order to make one big ultra-tolerant (where screwing goats is a "lifestyle choice" that should be not only accepted, but promoted by all), revisionist (where whites were solely responsible for the African slave trade), metrosexual (can't let boys be boys) world. Okay, the first example was over the top, but that's the direction we're going.
BTW, remember the movie Gotcha!? I can't imagine that being done these days without students going to jail.
A militia is given as a reason. The right is given as absolute, not to be infringed. Take away the militia, the right still exists.
Now log in or no more talk.
A militia shouldn't have military-style weapons? Isn't that the whole point of the militia, that the people themselves can rise up and defeat an army?
But that doesn't have anything to do with the assault weapons ban, which basically banned semi-automatic weapons because they looked mean or had large magazines (and we just saw in VT that you don't need large magazines to kill lots of people).
It says exactly that. The right to guns is an pre-existing natural right that is not to be infringed. The purpose as stated by the founders is not only to defend the country, but to be able to rise against the government should it become oppressive. The people only being allowed single-shot 22s does not fulfill either of those purposes. AK-47s do.
Yes, war isn't pretty, and a lot of people got hurt by it. However, it's interesting that so many ignore the good things we've done around the world. Those who love the UN blast us, forgetting we are a founder and major funder of their UN, which wouldn't exist without us.
I think a lot of people hate us simply because we're powerful, and we're an easy scapegoat for their locally-created problems.
BTW, we apparently have to remove Hillary Clinton from office, too. She just said we might have to use the military option in Iran and that all avenues must be explored (== Cheney's "all options open").
But Kucinich won't call for her removal because she's in his party.
So the current score: Cheney and Clinton go due to violating treaty, and Reid goes up for treason. Or can we just leave all this politicking behind?
It's not McCarthy-ist BS. They called it the Cold War for a reason: it was a war. Both sides had countries that they couldn't allow to fall into the other's hands, or wanted to take out of the other's hands. Allowing such was dangerous, as in Cuba and its missiles. Talking about overthrowing democratically elected leaders means less when you know that those leaders were Soviet pawns.
Nobody said war is pretty.
The argument can be made that one of our most prominent politicians stating we lost gives comfort to the enemy. Plus voting to pull out troops before the Iraqi government can run its own security, thus allowing our enemy to overrun Iraq and plot our destruction from there, gives aid to the enemy. Aid and comfort == treason, and we have enough witnesses to the same overt acts.
How about this: You impeach Cheney and kick him out of office, and I'll convict Reid for treason and have him put to death.
Or we could forget all this political grandstanding and admit we just don't like the other's politics or methods (or in my case, I don't like either).
The other side of the argument is that not taking care of those who want to destroy us is threatening the security of the nation at the potential cost of millions of lives. Political disagreement != constitutional issue.
Okay, let's check Wikipedia. Pahlavi reign 1941-1979. You're quote, "In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence." How can you say Pahlavi was later?
What I said perfectly fits with the Wikipedia entry, including that we assisted the Shah in stopping Soviet expansion, in this case through the banned Tudeh communist party. Pahlavi approved Mossadegh twice, but had to get rid of him once he gained substantial authoritarian powers and started working with the Tudeh party and implementing communist doctrines, going down the road to being a Soviet satellite state.
You know, the Soviets and Iraq under Saddam held democratic elections all the time, and so does China today. That doesn't/didn't make their leaders any good or reflect on a free democratic state.
While Cheney may be a bad guy, I can't see how anything here amounts to justification for impeachment. All I see is a lot of "I don't like what he did" and "I think it hurts the country."
If we impeached presidents or removed congressmen and senators because we thought what they did was damaging to the country and not upholding the Constitution, the only business of Congress would be articles of impeachment. Harry Reid definitely needs to go on this score for his recent statements, as do those who voted for the Patriot Act, copyright extensions, McCain Feingold, the assault weapons ban and numerous other blatantly unconstitutional acts.
What are you talking about? Iran wasn't democratic. The British and Soviets kicked out Reza Shah, an unelected authoritarian ruler, and installed his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was still authoritarian, but a lot better than his father. He was overthrown by the Islamic revolution, which hasn't turned out to be any better for the people of Iran.
We were only later involved because Mohammad Reza was anti-communist, and the Soviets were pushing a communist party in Iran. Reza cracked down on the party, and we were only to happy to assist in stopping Soviet expansion.
Kucinich is so far behind he needs something to get him in the headlines and appeal to the far-left base. The fact that he has the hottest wife in Congress isn't going to help.
I say I do. Anyone who tries to suppress the ideas of another is guilty of hate speech, as it is hate towards freedom.
Real ID isn't just about drivers licenses, it does a lot about illegal and terrorist aliens. Are they rejecting that, or just the license provisions?