My grandfather lost his mother when he was six years old. There were complications surrounding the birth of his baby brother, and both the mother and baby died. My great-grandfather was remarried a few years later, and his new wife didn't much like my grandfather. Threw him out of the house at age 14 cause he was old enough to be on his own.
Now I'm not saying that is a situation for an abortion. But I am saying, I'll bet if you had asked my grandfather, he would have liked to have had his mother alive through his childhood.
I'm often baffled by abortion opponents love for babies and absolute denial that the life of the mother has any value.
Maybe you should stop and think about what it is you are actually advocating instead of spewing talking points.
I'll even go further then argue Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.
HE ACTUALLY AUTHORED PROVISIONS IN IT! AND SO DID JOHN EDWARDS!
But let's get past the political hackery that Reason is promoting... "WHAAA! John Kerry voted for the Act, and now he's criticizing it, how can you trust him!? Whaaaaa!!!!" It's an amazingly thoughtless critique, even more so intellectually dishonest in that it criticizes Kerry for criticizing the Act.
But the truth of the matter is the Patriot Act wasn't a well thought out bill, or one that was even debated thoroughly. What it was, was a collection of hundreds of little issues that various Congresscritters had brought up over the years, all jammed together. So when Kerry and Edwards wrote parts of it, they wrote the parts which deal with dealing with money launderers and things like that.
And when they criticize it, they're complaining about the parts that allow the FBI to search your Library checkout records.
And GW Bush would have you believe the opposite, that Kerry and Edwards are complaining about the parts they themselves wrote.
The truth is... Parts of the Act are Good, and parts are Bad. AND THAT IS WHY JOHN KERRY IS SUGGESTING WE REVIEW IT!
The reason.com article is intellectually dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
I will admit that I am as mystified as the next guy as to why he didn't just let the inspectors back in at that point, so he'd have the rest of the world on his side when it did.
This has never made any sense to me, it's like people want to be mystified and are unwilling to accept the truth at simple face value.
Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. The only way he kept power was through the threat of retalitation. That he had used these chemical weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe is evidence of that.
So if people thought that he didn't have these weapons any more... Saddam wouldn't be in a particularly safe position.
And that included not just Iraqi dissidents, but also the threat of invasion by Iran.
So Saddam tried to play a little game, where he walked to knife edge pretending to comply, but at the same time keeping just a hint of skepticism going, to keep his enemies uncertain about attacking him.
This is not my theory, it comes from David Kay and the others involved in the weapons inspection.
But I think everybody, including Bush, admits this mistake now.
I've not heard Bush admit to any mistake. What he usually does is find someone, usually in the military, which he can blame the failure upon.
I don't think Kerry has "flip-flopped" in the sense of saying that knowing what we knew then, going to war was a fundamentally bad idea, though perhaps he might not make the same vote knowing what he knows now (I'm not sure if he ever answered that hypothetical question explicitly).
Kerry has said he'd make the same vote. Which is consistent, as you note, for he was voting to authorize threat of force to get the UN inspectors back in.
Where he differs from Bush, is he wouldn't have invaded if the inspections were working, as appeared to be the case back in March of 2003.
This is not a sensationalistic documentary like Moores, this is going to be speeches given by Kerry, an account of where he was, and interviews with wives of POWs who say that their husbands were made to listen to Kerry as torture when they were in prison (to demoralize them, I guess).
sensationalistic documentary like Moores?
The worst thing Moore did was play quotes out of context, which is exactly what this propaganda film is doing.
You must be smoking crack.
To complain about this but not Dan Rather's 60 Minutes is a double standard.
But isn't complaining about things Kerry did 30 years ago, but not about what Bush did 30 years ago also a double standard?
All the bad news that is reported on the news is Pro-Kerry propaganda.
So they are just balancing this out by publishing their own anti-Kerry news.
Besides. Sinclair is only doing this because they want Bush to win and deregulate the media markets further so they can buy up additional stations. That's it, it has nothing to do with Vietnam or any other nonsense.
The evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It all came from the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi... essentially an Iranian Intelligence front organization.
Not another "Bush is the most cunning, manipulative and intelligent *puppet* evar" routine.
I never claimed he was cunning, manipulative or intelligent.
I don't mind if kos, free republic or little green footballs plays this game. If you want to believe Vince Foster was really killed by Clinton... who am I to care?
But what has always bothered me is a Whitehouse administration which plays this game. Taking forged intelligence handed to them by Iranian spies and using it as a justification to launch a war into Iraq. At some point you really have to ask... "Exactly who are these guys working for, anyway?"
I guess what I always find interesting about Glenn Reynolds blog is that he spends most of his time building up strawman arguments that he can tear down.
It's funny, but it's rather disappointing to see from someone claiming to be a Law Professor. But then I guess maybe this is what trial lawyers do all the time, and he's just being himself.
Notice how in both cases, we've gotten off the real subject and focused on some side issue?
Exactly where is the bias? I think the point here is that Journalists should be extremely careful and report in such a way that they can't be nitpicked to death on side issues.
Is the fact that as questions began to be raised, most lefties started backing away from Rathers.
If this had been raised by right-wing media against Clinton, as questions were raised the wingnuts would have claimed it as proof that the media is leftie biased and they were trying to hide the truth.
why look, even PapayaSF follows the same pattern in his message.
The North Koreans agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars of aid in the form of food and oil, and assistance in developing a "peaceful" nuclear program. The North Koreans then used their "peaceful" nuclear program with assistance from Abdul Qadeer Khan from Pakistan to develop their own nukes thus secretly breaking their agreement.
You forgot one little fact.
The US didn't provide the aid as part of that agreement. And in 2001 when Bush took over he halted all discussions with North Korea and told them to fuck off, apparently thinking this was a Strong Stance showing America's Resolve. I don't know whether the buying off would have worked or not, but given both sides broke the agreement... was there ever really an agreement?
As for the choices you outline... They are all bad.
1. Doubt it would work at this point, not after the Iraq invasion has taught NK they have to have weapons to repel American invaders. 2. The Iraq war would look like a walk in Central Park by comparison. This may be required, but the costs are tremendous. 3. This move will signal that the US is backing off from being a global superpower, and establish the rise of a dominant China as a world power in the asian theatre. 4. This is what we are doing now and it is obviously not working.
All that your statement shows is your own bias and assumptions
But I've never claimed to not be biased. The key is whether or not you are honest about it.
Pointing to others and saying "they do it too" isn't a justification.
Justification for what? I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying bias is good. We've all got bias. We all have opinions. Let them all hang out. Quit trying to hide and claim you aren't biased.
It is quite another thing to lie about facts or to purposefully deceive people, putting together information in a blatantly misleading manner.
You mean like claiming income taxes are the equivalent of theft? Interesting how you use a tactic you accuse others of.
But now... Where exactly did Michael Moore lie in his film?
What you've complained about thus far is simply taking things out of context. But what is context? Context of that particular moment, or context of the broader picture?
Historians do this all the time. The reason why Marx has certain theories is because he looked at events within one context based on his perceptions. Other's had different theories based on different perceptions.
For instance, in my perception, based upon the context of just these two posts of yours... I think you're a fucking whiner.
The left seems to do this far more than the right.
No. The left seems to worry about it much more than the right.
Hitlery Feminazi's Paul Wellstone with a Red Communist flag in the background Max Cleland morphing into Osama bin Laden Willie Horton Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Ann Coulter flip-flopping between comparing Democrats to Stalin or Hitler Same with Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Bill O'Reilly Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell blaming 9/11 on the queers, kikes, dykes and jews
and so on, and so on, and so on
The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle.
I am the middle. I voted for Dole in the '88 Iowa caucuses. I was deeply disturbed by Pat Robertson's campaign. I was even more disturbed by Bush's willie horton ads. At the last week, I pulled the lever for Dukakis even knowing he'd probably lose.
Then we had the Anita Hill smear campaign.
This was followed up during the Clinton years by some of the most venomous crap I have ever seen in my life. Claims which were just clearly pulled out of someone's ass, etc.
We saw it in the 2000 campaign, when they portrayed Gore as a liar and an cheat.
and sadly you know what the Right has learned? This shit works.
So what do we have in 2004. We have Kerry going around trying to talk about substansive issues.
And Bush going around calling Kerry names, and using his Swift Boat veteran surrogates to make up shit about him.
Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.
Where is this alternate reality world that you live in? Maybe you ought to start paying attention to what the Right spews out on the news networks.
Go into a bookstore and buy anything written by Ann Coulter.
No, I'm sorry. I don't have the lack of morals that Republicans do and I'm not willing to just make shit up. But I'm not willing to back down, and I'm going to call a Spade a Spade. And I don't want John Kerry to do it either, just because a few little Republicans are whining that we're being mean to President Bush.
Well, the fucking leader of the free world ought to be able to handle a little bit of criticism. And maybe if he opens his god damned mind for a bit, he'll take the criticism to heart and stop being a fucking idiot.
I am the middle, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it any more.
Where I have issues with the Libertarians is largely in their wanting to eliminate police and fire services.... and their hypocrisy in complaining about mass transit and wanting to promote instead the mass confiscation of land in order to add more lanes to highways.
I think there are good points, I think they should be part of the political debate. But he doesn't have a snowballs chance, and the risk of Bush winning reelection is too great to go playing around with third parties.
Besides the Democratic party is already fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I have a few issues with some of their stances on health care and education funding... but those issues are generally negated by the Congressional debate, and I'd rather have them discussed then implement the Corporate Welfare solutions the Republicans propose as alternatives.
I don't really like Michael Moore. But why is it bad that he's biased? Why is it bad that he is presenting his point of view and interpretation of events?
I watched F9/11. I didn't particularly like it. I felt the only meaningful point made in the film was the 7 minute footage of Bush just sitting there when the towers were hit by planes.
Watching that, I can't imagine anybody being impressed, and yet I heard scores upon scores of people making the patently stupid statement, "Oh, but he didn't want to scare the children."
Christ, talk about bias.
On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.
You've just described the entire GW Bush reelection campaign, right there. How many times have we heard John Kerry is a flip-flop based upon taking statements out of context?
If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself.
If you actually think ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a right wing agenda then your frame of reference must be so far leftward that you truly have to be an activist simply to pimp your extreme views to the masses.
I didn't realize that it was a left/right thing to be against a war based on falty reasoning.
Always thought of that as being an libertarian position.
But saying that there have been absolutely no improvements is a blantant lie.
I didn't say Linux hasn't improved. I said that the position of Linux relative to Windows hasn't improved, but has rather moved further behind.
The problem with your position is that you assume that Windows is static, so all of these improvements in Linux allows it to move closer to Windows. But that supposition is patently not true, because in the past 7 years Windows has improved at an even faster pace than we have seen with Linux.
Ohwell, I can't believe people are still advocating Linux as a computing solution. It's like the old Amiga zealots keep telling us "Any day now!" back in 1994.
I was first introduced to Linux back in 1992. I also used OS/2, and I had an Amiga before that, and I even tried BeOS.. you know I'm pretty well versed in the world of zealotry.
Linux is a decent alternative to commercial Unix. But in 1997 is when things changed and the Zealots took over and decided that Linux was going to replace Microsoft.
That's when the idiocy took over.
The marketshare Linux has captured has not been at the expense of Microsoft, but rather Sun, HP, IBM, SCO and others. Why people won't just admit that and be happy, I don't know. Instead we get filled this tripe about how it's going to take over the desktop before Microsoft releases Longhorn. blah blah blah, ain't gonna happen.
I flame MacOS whenever some Mac zealot makes the same claims. Same problem, people basing decisions off religion and wishful thinking, than technical understanding.
That's 7 years now, and Linux is no closer today than it was in 1997... in fact it's actually quite further behind. Everybody I know who flirted with Linux back a few years ago has dumped it and is running Windows XP.
Honestly can't believe this post was rated insightful.
That someone would seriously claim that men serving in Vietnam or even Iraq are not putting themselves in harms way. That being wounded in a fire fight isn't a big deal because it wasn't a life crippling wound.
It's really just quite pathetic.
I can at least understand Kerry being opposed to the war having been there. What I cannot fathom is GW Bush claiming to support the war, and then doing everything in his power to avoid being there.
Slashdot Mirror
My grandfather lost his mother when he was six years old. There were complications surrounding the birth of his baby brother, and both the mother and baby died. My great-grandfather was remarried a few years later, and his new wife didn't much like my grandfather. Threw him out of the house at age 14 cause he was old enough to be on his own.
Now I'm not saying that is a situation for an abortion. But I am saying, I'll bet if you had asked my grandfather, he would have liked to have had his mother alive through his childhood.
I'm often baffled by abortion opponents love for babies and absolute denial that the life of the mother has any value.
Maybe you should stop and think about what it is you are actually advocating instead of spewing talking points.
Now I remember why I stopped voting for Republicans.
Almost forgot.
I'll even go further then argue Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.
HE ACTUALLY AUTHORED PROVISIONS IN IT! AND SO DID JOHN EDWARDS!
But let's get past the political hackery that Reason is promoting... "WHAAA! John Kerry voted for the Act, and now he's criticizing it, how can you trust him!? Whaaaaa!!!!" It's an amazingly thoughtless critique, even more so intellectually dishonest in that it criticizes Kerry for criticizing the Act.
But the truth of the matter is the Patriot Act wasn't a well thought out bill, or one that was even debated thoroughly. What it was, was a collection of hundreds of little issues that various Congresscritters had brought up over the years, all jammed together. So when Kerry and Edwards wrote parts of it, they wrote the parts which deal with dealing with money launderers and things like that.
And when they criticize it, they're complaining about the parts that allow the FBI to search your Library checkout records.
And GW Bush would have you believe the opposite, that Kerry and Edwards are complaining about the parts they themselves wrote.
The truth is... Parts of the Act are Good, and parts are Bad. AND THAT IS WHY JOHN KERRY IS SUGGESTING WE REVIEW IT!
The reason.com article is intellectually dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
This has never made any sense to me, it's like people want to be mystified and are unwilling to accept the truth at simple face value.
Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. The only way he kept power was through the threat of retalitation. That he had used these chemical weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe is evidence of that.
So if people thought that he didn't have these weapons any more... Saddam wouldn't be in a particularly safe position.
And that included not just Iraqi dissidents, but also the threat of invasion by Iran.
So Saddam tried to play a little game, where he walked to knife edge pretending to comply, but at the same time keeping just a hint of skepticism going, to keep his enemies uncertain about attacking him.
This is not my theory, it comes from David Kay and the others involved in the weapons inspection.
I've not heard Bush admit to any mistake. What he usually does is find someone, usually in the military, which he can blame the failure upon.
Kerry has said he'd make the same vote. Which is consistent, as you note, for he was voting to authorize threat of force to get the UN inspectors back in.
Where he differs from Bush, is he wouldn't have invaded if the inspections were working, as appeared to be the case back in March of 2003.
This is not a sensationalistic documentary like Moores, this is going to be speeches given by Kerry, an account of where he was, and interviews with wives of POWs who say that their husbands were made to listen to Kerry as torture when they were in prison (to demoralize them, I guess).
sensationalistic documentary like Moores?
The worst thing Moore did was play quotes out of context, which is exactly what this propaganda film is doing.
You must be smoking crack.
To complain about this but not Dan Rather's 60 Minutes is a double standard.
But isn't complaining about things Kerry did 30 years ago, but not about what Bush did 30 years ago also a double standard?
You better set down your crack pipe.
All the bad news that is reported on the news is Pro-Kerry propaganda.
So they are just balancing this out by publishing their own anti-Kerry news.
Besides. Sinclair is only doing this because they want Bush to win and deregulate the media markets further so they can buy up additional stations. That's it, it has nothing to do with Vietnam or any other nonsense.
LOL!
PT Barnum was right.
What forged intelligence was this?
The evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It all came from the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmed Chalabi... essentially an Iranian Intelligence front organization.
Not another "Bush is the most cunning, manipulative and intelligent *puppet* evar" routine.
I never claimed he was cunning, manipulative or intelligent.
I claimed he was duped, and he won't admit it.
Baghdad-Bobia?
I don't mind if kos, free republic or little green footballs plays this game. If you want to believe Vince Foster was really killed by Clinton... who am I to care?
But what has always bothered me is a Whitehouse administration which plays this game. Taking forged intelligence handed to them by Iranian spies and using it as a justification to launch a war into Iraq. At some point you really have to ask... "Exactly who are these guys working for, anyway?"
I guess what I always find interesting about Glenn Reynolds blog is that he spends most of his time building up strawman arguments that he can tear down.
It's funny, but it's rather disappointing to see from someone claiming to be a Law Professor. But then I guess maybe this is what trial lawyers do all the time, and he's just being himself.
The facts are...
Chevy trucks did explode on side impacts.
GW Bush didn't serve honorably in the Guard.
Notice how in both cases, we've gotten off the real subject and focused on some side issue?
Exactly where is the bias? I think the point here is that Journalists should be extremely careful and report in such a way that they can't be nitpicked to death on side issues.
Is the fact that as questions began to be raised, most lefties started backing away from Rathers.
If this had been raised by right-wing media against Clinton, as questions were raised the wingnuts would have claimed it as proof that the media is leftie biased and they were trying to hide the truth.
why look, even PapayaSF follows the same pattern in his message.
The North Koreans agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars of aid in the form of food and oil, and assistance in developing a "peaceful" nuclear program. The North Koreans then used their "peaceful" nuclear program with assistance from Abdul Qadeer Khan from Pakistan to develop their own nukes thus secretly breaking their agreement.
You forgot one little fact.
The US didn't provide the aid as part of that agreement. And in 2001 when Bush took over he halted all discussions with North Korea and told them to fuck off, apparently thinking this was a Strong Stance showing America's Resolve. I don't know whether the buying off would have worked or not, but given both sides broke the agreement... was there ever really an agreement?
As for the choices you outline... They are all bad.
1. Doubt it would work at this point, not after the Iraq invasion has taught NK they have to have weapons to repel American invaders.
2. The Iraq war would look like a walk in Central Park by comparison. This may be required, but the costs are tremendous.
3. This move will signal that the US is backing off from being a global superpower, and establish the rise of a dominant China as a world power in the asian theatre.
4. This is what we are doing now and it is obviously not working.
All that your statement shows is your own bias and assumptions
But I've never claimed to not be biased. The key is whether or not you are honest about it.
Pointing to others and saying "they do it too" isn't a justification.
Justification for what? I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying bias is good. We've all got bias. We all have opinions. Let them all hang out. Quit trying to hide and claim you aren't biased.
It is quite another thing to lie about facts or to purposefully deceive people, putting together information in a blatantly misleading manner.
You mean like claiming income taxes are the equivalent of theft? Interesting how you use a tactic you accuse others of.
But now... Where exactly did Michael Moore lie in his film?
What you've complained about thus far is simply taking things out of context. But what is context? Context of that particular moment, or context of the broader picture?
Historians do this all the time. The reason why Marx has certain theories is because he looked at events within one context based on his perceptions. Other's had different theories based on different perceptions.
For instance, in my perception, based upon the context of just these two posts of yours... I think you're a fucking whiner.
The left seems to do this far more than the right.
No. The left seems to worry about it much more than the right.
Hitlery
Feminazi's
Paul Wellstone with a Red Communist flag in the background
Max Cleland morphing into Osama bin Laden
Willie Horton
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Ann Coulter flip-flopping between comparing Democrats to Stalin or Hitler
Same with Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell blaming 9/11 on the queers, kikes, dykes and jews
and so on, and so on, and so on
The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle.
I am the middle. I voted for Dole in the '88 Iowa caucuses. I was deeply disturbed by Pat Robertson's campaign. I was even more disturbed by Bush's willie horton ads. At the last week, I pulled the lever for Dukakis even knowing he'd probably lose.
Then we had the Anita Hill smear campaign.
This was followed up during the Clinton years by some of the most venomous crap I have ever seen in my life. Claims which were just clearly pulled out of someone's ass, etc.
We saw it in the 2000 campaign, when they portrayed Gore as a liar and an cheat.
and sadly you know what the Right has learned? This shit works.
So what do we have in 2004. We have Kerry going around trying to talk about substansive issues.
And Bush going around calling Kerry names, and using his Swift Boat veteran surrogates to make up shit about him.
Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.
Where is this alternate reality world that you live in? Maybe you ought to start paying attention to what the Right spews out on the news networks.
Go into a bookstore and buy anything written by Ann Coulter.
No, I'm sorry. I don't have the lack of morals that Republicans do and I'm not willing to just make shit up. But I'm not willing to back down, and I'm going to call a Spade a Spade. And I don't want John Kerry to do it either, just because a few little Republicans are whining that we're being mean to President Bush.
Well, the fucking leader of the free world ought to be able to handle a little bit of criticism. And maybe if he opens his god damned mind for a bit, he'll take the criticism to heart and stop being a fucking idiot.
I am the middle, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it any more.
This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you.
It's not quite clear to me how this statement, even in context, is any less disturbing.
Where I have issues with the Libertarians is largely in their wanting to eliminate police and fire services.... and their hypocrisy in complaining about mass transit and wanting to promote instead the mass confiscation of land in order to add more lanes to highways.
I think there are good points, I think they should be part of the political debate. But he doesn't have a snowballs chance, and the risk of Bush winning reelection is too great to go playing around with third parties.
Besides the Democratic party is already fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I have a few issues with some of their stances on health care and education funding... but those issues are generally negated by the Congressional debate, and I'd rather have them discussed then implement the Corporate Welfare solutions the Republicans propose as alternatives.
I don't really like Michael Moore. But why is it bad that he's biased? Why is it bad that he is presenting his point of view and interpretation of events?
I watched F9/11. I didn't particularly like it. I felt the only meaningful point made in the film was the 7 minute footage of Bush just sitting there when the towers were hit by planes.
Watching that, I can't imagine anybody being impressed, and yet I heard scores upon scores of people making the patently stupid statement, "Oh, but he didn't want to scare the children."
Christ, talk about bias.
On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.
You've just described the entire GW Bush reelection campaign, right there. How many times have we heard John Kerry is a flip-flop based upon taking statements out of context?
If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself.
If you actually think ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a right wing agenda then your frame of reference must be so far leftward that you truly have to be an activist simply to pimp your extreme views to the masses.
I didn't realize that it was a left/right thing to be against a war based on falty reasoning.
Always thought of that as being an libertarian position.
Worked for Rush Limbaugh.
Will the profit go to feed an Oxycontine addiction... that is the real question!
Look how well the slogan "Fair and Balanced" has worked for Fox News!
The editors of Pravda would have been proud.
But saying that there have been absolutely no improvements is a blantant lie.
I didn't say Linux hasn't improved. I said that the position of Linux relative to Windows hasn't improved, but has rather moved further behind.
The problem with your position is that you assume that Windows is static, so all of these improvements in Linux allows it to move closer to Windows. But that supposition is patently not true, because in the past 7 years Windows has improved at an even faster pace than we have seen with Linux.
Ohwell, I can't believe people are still advocating Linux as a computing solution. It's like the old Amiga zealots keep telling us "Any day now!" back in 1994.
I was first introduced to Linux back in 1992. I also used OS/2, and I had an Amiga before that, and I even tried BeOS.. you know I'm pretty well versed in the world of zealotry.
Linux is a decent alternative to commercial Unix. But in 1997 is when things changed and the Zealots took over and decided that Linux was going to replace Microsoft.
That's when the idiocy took over.
The marketshare Linux has captured has not been at the expense of Microsoft, but rather Sun, HP, IBM, SCO and others. Why people won't just admit that and be happy, I don't know. Instead we get filled this tripe about how it's going to take over the desktop before Microsoft releases Longhorn. blah blah blah, ain't gonna happen.
I flame MacOS whenever some Mac zealot makes the same claims. Same problem, people basing decisions off religion and wishful thinking, than technical understanding.
I've been hearing this tune since 1997.
That's 7 years now, and Linux is no closer today than it was in 1997... in fact it's actually quite further behind. Everybody I know who flirted with Linux back a few years ago has dumped it and is running Windows XP.
Honestly can't believe this post was rated insightful.
That someone would seriously claim that men serving in Vietnam or even Iraq are not putting themselves in harms way. That being wounded in a fire fight isn't a big deal because it wasn't a life crippling wound.
It's really just quite pathetic.
I can at least understand Kerry being opposed to the war having been there. What I cannot fathom is GW Bush claiming to support the war, and then doing everything in his power to avoid being there.