A keypad that could attach to a pda would be neat, and would free up a lot of screen space, too.
That might be fine for those who use the calculator as a "four-banger" (+,-,*,/), but that still doesn't give keys for pi, 1/x, x^y, log, sin, cos, tan, square root, etc. It does not provide keys for hexadecimal entry. A PDA is really a useful tool, but it's not a substitute for a calculator any more than it is a substitute for a wristwatch -- though it can fill those roles in a pinch.
The number one reason that a PDA won't replace a calculator is that a touchscreen is a piss-poor substitute for real buttons with travel and tactile feedback ("click", but that doesn't sound as high-tech). I have a Handspring Visor and have downloaded and used multiple calculator apps on it. Some of them are damned good, but I always turn to my trusty HP 32SII for anything more than a handful of calculations.
There is an important difference between file sharing and speeding though.
Yes, there is. No one is going to be killed by someone file sharing but some percentage of accidents occur every year because someone was going 5mph too fast to stop.
Please spare me the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" defense. Even if a person would not have bought it, there is a significant chance that at least one of the web of people who downloaded a mp3 would have bought the CD if the song were not available for free.
There is a significant chance that at least one of the people buying a rifle will use it to kill someone. Does that mean that every person who bought a rifle should be held accountable for that murder?
You are right in a sense though, for both speeding 5 mph over and P2P there is not a fear of prosecution.
I don't think that it's just that. People disobey laws that they think are unreasonable and unjust. It's pretty damned absurd to claim that a 1975 Chevy Impala and a 2003 BMW M3 both have the same 55mph maximum safe speed. People recognize that and many have the judgement to determine a maximum safe speed for their vehicle, skills, and the road conditions. Therefore, they break what they view as an unjust and unreasonable law. I think that the same thing is happening with P2P. While there are people who are using P2P instead of buying music, many are using it to get music that they would not buy and, thus, are harming no one.
What is Linksys thinking? If they release all of the source code for their routers, every geek in the world will buy their hardware with the intent of improving the firmware. I can envision people building VPNs using Linksys hardware and modified firmware. I can foresee changes that allow the Linksys routers to handle unusual configurations (mixture of static and dynamic IPs on the same WAN interface for example), advanced firewalling capabilities, enchanced logging, or perhaps even simple web page serving.
It's not like Linksys has some kind of monopoly on router firmware. SMC, Gigafast, Netgear, Belkin, D-Link, Trendware, Zyxel, Compex, Asante, Hawking, and probably a bunch of others that don't immediately come to mind all market consumer-grade routers and there is very little to distinguish one from the other. If Linksys would make the source available for their routers, they would have a tremendous edge. Every router that I've gotten my hands on is deficient in some major way (can't assign DHCP IP address by MAC, can't use mixed static & dynamic addresses on WAN, can't do MAC address restriction solely on the wireless portion, can't specify IP address of time server, DNS forwarding not supported, inadequate or missing logging, etc.). I'd love a community-supported, open source router for which advanced features were readily available with a simple firmware flash.
Why you ask? Because the owner of the material says so, if you do not agree to the terms then you do not get the toy. Get it?
No, I do not get it. When the owner of The Beatles catalog published it in the U.S., they did so with the understanding that they were getting a copyright, a form of government granted monopoly, that would expire at a certain date. Now, suddenly, they find that the expiration has been extended with no consideration to the public good.
Too expensive, too hard to find in a store, so what. Get over yourself, you know damn well that you are wrong.
No, I am right. You are wrong. You don't even know the difference between copyright infringement and theft.
If I tell you that something costs a dollar, and you want it bad but do not have a dollar, you do not have the right to fucking steal it.
Downloading music via a P2P network is not stealing. In some cases it is copyright infringement, but it is not stealing. If some kid downloads Britney Spears' latest single, does Britney have one less copy of it to sell? If a lot of people do it, does she have to issue a press release saying "Sorry, but there are no more copies of my single available. They were all stolen by people on the Internet."?
Get off your high horse. You've broken copyright laws over and over, so don't lecture me with your f***ing holier than thou attitude.
Dude I was talking about your bigotry related to your exclusion of all the "other" kinds of love. Only man/woman man/man woman/woman ? What's up with you ?
Okay. Sorry. No offense meant to you or your significant goat.;-)
I don't give a fuck about smoking, frankly, you are right about everything regarding smoking..
Oooh ooh, and lots of people do hard drugs, steal, murder and otherwise devalue society.
Should we allow all those to be legal too?
No, because society as a whole thinks that those things are wrong and should be illegal. Society at large has not viewed loaning CDs, albums, and tapes to friends as wrong. That's why libraries will loan out books, tapes, CDs, records, etc. But why do you specify "hard drugs"? Are you using pot but think it's okay even though it's illegal?
Speeding is illegal. Going 65 in a 55mph zone is against the law. Should the speeding laws be amended so that anyone caught doing that faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine? That punishment has been proposed in Congress for anyone who makes any copyrighted material available via a P2P network -- even if it's just one track for a few minutes.
As for taping off radio, you can't actually give out those tapes to people. That is still copyright infringement.
Why is it okay for me to make a recording of "American Top 40" on cassette and not okay for me to record those same 40 songs from Kazaa onto my hard drive?
But you missed the whole point. The copyright laws are being perverted by big business paying off legislators. Stuff that SHOULD have already been in the public domain long ago is now locked away for another God-knows-how-many-years. Disobeying unjust laws is "illegal", but it's not automatically "wrong." I also took offense at the original poster referring to everyone who traded copyrighted music as "assholes."
I'm almost as bigoted and narrow-minded about people who sweat profusely and don't use deodorant.
Who are you to dictate what's acceptable and what is not ?
I'm not dictating anything. I'm stating a fact. About 75% of the people in this country are non-smokers and the vast majority of them find the smell of cigarette smoke to be offensive. Many of them don't want to get involved with someone who will cause their clothes, car, and hair to reek of cigarette smoke. They don't want a partner with yellow teeth, tobacco stained fingers, and a gravel voice. They don't want their drapes and walls turning a yellowish-brown color. And they don't want the heartache of being 45 years old and discovering that the person around whom they planned their lives is dying of lung cancer. So they don't get involved. Why do you think so many personal ads specify "non-smoker"?
Why? Why should I be able to record a song off of the radio but not off of another person's hard drive? Why should I not be able to share an out-of-print, but still copyrighted, piece of music? You act like pirating music is some heinous, horrible, despicable act. It's not. People have been trading cassettes, loaning albums, and letting their friends borrow CDs for years. They've been making "mix tapes" for their friends. They've been taping their friends' records. It's normal and healthy.
The entire copyright bullshit is infuriating. Were there not extension after extension granted by Congress, much of the copyrighted material that's out there would now be in the public domain -- as the founding fathers (of the U.S.) intended. Instead, legislation has been bought by the record companies so that they can continue to collect their ill-gotten gains for years.
The operative word here is 'probably'. Only it's not 'probably', it's 'may'. Despite the warnings and the Truth ads, there are millions (billions?) of smokers of any age living quite happily.
And many of those smokers will be killed by their habit. The "perfectly happy" woman smoker in her 40's that I worked with just died of lung cancer. According to statistics, more than one-third of all regular cigarette smokers will be killed by the habit, including many smokers who are still in middle age. Smokers lose an average of 20-25 years of life expectancy compared to non-smokers. Factor out those killed by accidents, homicide, and suicide, and probably more than half of smokers die from their habit.
It really is a flip of the coin whether or not you come down with cancer. You can get it with or without smoking. Cigarettes merely improve the odds somewhat that you'll get it.
That's just idiocy. It's like saying that it's "really a flip of the coin whether or not you get in an auto accident" and that "drinking until you are practically comatose before driving will merely improve the odds somewhat that you'll be in an auto accident." 90% of all lung cancer is caused by smoking. That' means that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by a factor of nine! That's not "somewhat."
There is no rational, reasonable explanation for smoking. It is likely to kill you or at least horribly reduce your quality of life. It will make employers less likely to hire you. It will increase your costs for medical insurance greatly. If you smoke near your kids, it will increase their chances of getting asthma, ear infections, throat infections, and even cancer from secondhand smoke. It is most prevalent among those with less education and lower income. Is that the image you wish to put forth? It is a social stigma that means that you will not be invited to parties, dinner, etc. because the host/hostess does not want to choose between confronting you or putting up with the acrid smell of your cigarettes. It makes you unattractive to most people of the opposite (or same, depending on your preferences) sex. It's just stupid.
If we're talking about a new version of media player (presuming the new version isn't a security patch... ahem), them there's no reason that it need be free.
Microsoft has traditionally used the Windows Update service to push out new products from which they hope to make money. The new version of Media Player you mention may have some kind of DRM that they want to convince commercial vendors to use. If Microsoft charges for it, then it will have a lower adoption rate. Lower adoption means that commercial vendors will be less willing to use it. If they are less willing to use it, then Microsoft doesn't sell them some kind of expensive 'media server' for distributing content. The vendor goes to a Microsoft competitor and maybe even foregoes Microsoft products altogether.
Microsoft has a vested interest in seeing that people update their products and adopt new technologies being pushed by the software giant. Anything to discourage that is a mistake IMNSHO.
The dude had cancer, it's not like he lost his tongue in a way that'd earn him a Darwin Award Honorable Mention.
I'd bet good money that he got cancer from using tobacco products. The only real difference between those who get the Darwin Awards and tobacco users is that the Darwin Award recipients did not see news reports, scientific studies, and warning labels that, for years, told them that what they were about to do would probably kill them.
Makes fucking perfect sense. If you pay more you will get more back. It is not supposed to be another entitlement program but a fucking tax cut.
It is an entitlement program for the rich. I have a better idea: Don't cut taxes for the rich at all or, if you insist on cutting their taxes, cut them less. Cut the tax rates for the lower income people that need the money (and will spend it) rather than cutting Dick Cheney's yearly taxes by several hundred thousand dollars per year. But why should there be a tax cut at all when the government isn't bringing in nearly enough money to cover the Bush budget?
Cut the fucking waste, pork and all this nonsense, and there will be enough money for another 4 fucking tax cuts.
Want to know where 25% of your federal tax dollars go? They pay interest on the debt accrued under the Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations. That's right. 25% of all tax dollars buy nothing. They don't pay for social programs, defense, education, roads, or anything else. It pays interest on the debt accrued in the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Now Dubya is running up the debt more with record deficit spending on top of huge tax cuts. You want a tax cut? Pay down the debt and taxes can be cut by 25% without cutting any government services or programs.
You people want to cut taxes and then have the government spend money that isn't coming in -- to the tune of $455 billion dollars this year alone. Cut expenses first and then adjust the tax rates to match government expenditures.
After all, these days US government takes more in taxes than ever and you are still whining we are not being taxed enough ?
That is simply untrue. Here are the average federal tax rates (percentage of adjusted gross income paid in federal income taxes):
I didn't read it. I discerned it from keeping current on politics and economic policy.
What is your fucking experience in these matters ?
I am educated, intelligent, and have a good understanding of economics.
What kind of enterprise are you running ?
I am not running an "enterprise" nor does one need to in order to understand economics. In fact, running a large business often means that one is concerned with the business's quarterly profit statements, not the health of the economy as a whole for the next few decades.
Why am I even talking to a clueless maniac like you.
Ad hominem attacks reflect poorly on those making them.
For all I you could be 17 years old idiot who just got his first erection after reading "Capital".
I am a 42 year old professional software engineer. I have worked as a W2 employee and as an independent contractor (1099 income). I have investments in mutual funds, individual stocks, and have invested in, and made money from, grain futures. I own my own home which has appreciated in value by 73% in the last five years. And what is your background so that I know who I am talking to?
I try to, unless the post is just absurd. If someone speaks to me in person, I don't just turn away and ignore them, so it seems impolite to do so online.
As far as right-winger stuff ? What's wrong with that?
I dislike the entire value set the right-wing holds dear. I think that the right wing is far more concerned with businesses than people. I believe that their understanding of economics is screwed up to the point of endangering our entire economy. I am tired of their dirty tricks -- such as trying to embarass Clinton about his sex life rather than facing him on the issues. They are hypocrites. They attacked Clinton for not having served in the military while they supported Bush despite the fact that he joined the National Guard to avoid the draft and then went AWOL for a year ('72-'73). I get tired of the claims that they are against government interference when they pass laws limiting abortion, outlawing forms of consensual sex between adults, forcing libraries to install filtering software, etc. They yell about "state's rights" until a state passes a law that they don't like -- such as medical marijuana laws and then they are at work trying to undermine the state's authority.
I could go on and on, but I think that you see my position.
Despite what you think , you are not some middle of the road, objective observer but a hardcode left-winger yourself.
I've considered myself a liberal for years and am proud of it. I feel that it's the moral high ground. Pushing for a tax cut that lines your own pockets requires no moral courage. Pushing for social programs that will probably never directly help you but that you will fund with your tax dollars is much more noble.
You want to reduce stress in the workplace? Why not start by not giving your employees twelve hour work days?
That's what happens when people fight against unionization and legislation to protect workers. Businesses will use a bad economy and high unemployment as a tool to extort more hours out of the employees while reducing benefits and freezing, or even cutting, wages. When they manage to completely burn out a worker, they just fire the worker and replace him/her from the huge pool of unemployed people whe are desperate for work. If they can't get U.S. workers to put in 12 hours per day or work 7 day work weeks, then they will import H1-B or L-1 visa workers to replace the U.S. workers. Or they may even fire the entire U.S. staff and send the work to India, Pakistan, or some other second or third world nation.
Unregulated capitalism sucks. It makes the wealthy wealthier while driving down the standard of living for those not in the upper echelons of the pay scale. If companies get more hours from existing workers, then that's fewer workers that they have to hire. Fewer workers means more unemployment. More unemployment means more desperate people willing to accept crappy working conditions and long hours at low pay rates. More unemployment also means less consumer spending. Less consumer spending means less demand for goods. Less demand for goods means layoffs. Layoffs means higher unemployment and, predictably, lower wages. Lower wages means less taxes collected while high-unemployment means more government spending on the unemployed. It's a vicious cycle.
If Bush was truly interested in "creating jobs", he would be pushing for limits to the work week rather than giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy CEOs who are exploiting U.S. workers and outsourcing U.S. jobs to foreign nationals.
You think you have provided all that. In reality, your stuff is factually not much better then his name calling.
In other words, you are a right-winger who disagrees with my position but who does not have any logical basis for that disagreement. You probably just "like" tax cuts but do not like to think about where they come from and how the affect the economy. Whatever makes you happy.
Tell me you are pulling our collective leg here...
If you can counter my arguments, do so. If you are just going to continue with your idiotic and immature trolling, just go away. I've provided logic, respected sources, quotes, and facts to back up my position. All you've done is engage in name calling.
You can't be that stupid ?
You calling someone "stupid" is like Michael Jackson calling someone "weird."
Put away the Democrat Party playbook. Only a minority of the tax cuts go to the "wealthy". In fact, most go to "working families" (a favorite playbook phrase). Stop trying to mislead, it is not working, most Americans are not buying it.
Use some real numbers instead of quoting White House bullshit:
Nearly two-thirds of the most recent tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 10% of taxpayers, and almost half of the benefits will go to the richest 5%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% will see roughly eight percent of the total tax cut.
In 2003, the 8.6% of taxpayers who earn at lest $100,000 annually will get nearly 60% total cuts, and the 54% of taxpayers who earn $30,000 or less would get less than 5% of the total (sourse: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center).
The aforementioned analysis also shows that the average taxpayer earning above $1,000,000 annually would see more than $93,000 in tax relief in 2003, but the average filer earning $40,000-$50,000 would get a tax cut of about $450.
$450 is not a tax cut. It's chump change. It's a way that Bush and his supporters (like you) can say "we gave a tax cut to working families" while only providing meaningful tax cuts to the wealthy.
How much has he "given out" in tax cuts? It's an astounding total: $0. Yes, $0. No money has been "given out". A tax cut is not a gift.
Yes, it is a gift -- and a stolen one at that. Bush is giving gifts (actually bribes for voting for him) -- and he's doing it by stealing the money from future generations. He is funding the tax cut by borrowing money and running up the national debt. For decades to come, taxpayers will pay interest on the debt he is accruing -- all to give unsound tax cuts to rich people.
Did the government provide military defense of the country? Did they wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did the government provide funding for social programs? Did they fund education? Did they fund NASA, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, CIA, NSA, and FBI? Did they provide funding for road construction and maintenance? Did they send ambassadors to foreign countries? If so, your taxes have already been spent.
It's analogous to going into Walmart, buying $500 worth of merchandise and then coming back in a week to demand a portion of that money back because, as Bush says, "it's your money." If Bush ran Walmart, he'd give you $100 back. In four years, Walmart would be mired in debt, Bush would be replaced as the head of Walmart, and his successor would have to raise prices to pay for Bush's reckless spending. Then Bush's supporters would say that his successor was evil for raising prices.
There are two kinds of Republicans: Those who don't understand economics and those who understand economics, know that they are screwing the country and future administrations, and don't have the scruples to give a damn.
Watching your pseudo-intellectual nonsense I can only rejoice in the fact that your influence is limited to bitching on some third rate board.
You passing judgement on my intellect is like Roseanne Barr saying that Pamela Anderson is ugly.
Whine, bitch , complain... while Bush machine moves forward.
Yep. Now I know how Germans who opposed Hitler felt when he came to power.
Not a good time for a looser[sic] like you , is it ?
It's not a good time for anyone in the U.S. -- except wealthy CEOs who are firing Americans and sending the jobs overseas.
2000+ comments ? You must be one of these fat,ugly motherfuckers who are afraid to live their lifes.
Better to have over 2000 comments that are, in general, well-regarded than to have a bunch of 0 and -1 troll postings like you do. As for my life, I'm probably taking my motorcycle to the beach again today and might be headed up to Connecticut in a few days. If not, I'll be out in my boat fishing. What will you be doing, you bitter little man?
I did the research: the proof came up quickly. The burden of proof is on you. Go ahead and try.
I'm not playing that game. I provide sources and documentation for my claims. If you won't provide them for yours, I'm not going to wade around from one right-wing zealot site to the next trying to prove your point for you. Sorry, you lose this one.
Nothing you said of her travels contradict her being a pundit. In fact, it is totally irrelevant, like saying "He can't be a pastry chef! He's been to Cleveland". Non-sequitur.
Wrong. She would not have been allowed to accompany all of those Presidents if she was the partisan pundit you make her out to be. Given her credentials, awards, years of service, and respect from both fellow journalists and the public, I'll simply state that you are wrong.
Where is his speech did he refer to these then? We are still waiting.
Well wait no more: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."--President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 in a speech given in Cincinatti.
I guess I should have just been a dick about it and said "Google it."
Checking for violations of the UN sanctions was very legitimate.
Only if that's what the planes were authorized to do there, which it was not. The planes were solely authorized to prevent Saddam from launching air attacks against the minorities in those reasons. Any other activity undertaken in those fly-overs was not legitimate.
No, it was not. It was an investigation into an operation that included a dozen felons.
But the person being investigated was not found to have committed any crimes, thus it was not legitimate. The reason for an Independent Counsel is to investigate the President, not his associates.
Two bits? That's 50 cents.
No, it's worth 25 cents. It also has the meanings petty and/or insignificant, which is how I was using the term.
The Whitewater scam involved millions of dollars.
Not before Starr got involved. Whitewater was the purchase of 220 acres of land in Arkansas in 1978 with the intent of developing it with homes. The initial investment was under $250,000 or just over a dollar an acre. Subsequent investments were small, such as $30K to build a model home. The Clinton's sold their share of Whitewater to the McDougals for $1,000 in 1992. How is that "millions of dollars"?
Nice bazillion-percent margin of error you are running with.
"Bazillion"? My, you are the math whiz.
I really don't know why he has chosen to lie about the situation in Iraq. No explanation.
But you assert that he lied based on what? Your personal experiences in Iraq? Your time creating weapons of mass destruction for Saddam? A Christmas card from the Husseins that showed their stockpile of weapons? Just how have you come to the conclusion that Hans Blix lied?
So, Saddam Hussein is like a made-up killer robot. Hope you are having fun there.
No. Bush said that Saddam had unmanned planes capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. You said that the reason that you had never seen one of these planes was because of Bush's fine job in protecting us from them. I countered that I've been doing an equally fine job of protecting you and your family from killer robots and offered as proof the fact that you had not seen any killer robots. Nice try.
I've seen the actual words in the speeches from then. He referred to the nuclear facilities as a fact.
So what's your point? That you trust Clinton implicitly? Or that our incompetent military could not have possibly been successful in destroying said facilitie
It is not ad-hominem to report that someone is being paid to make statements about someone.
Yes, it is, when you attack the person's motive rather than address his statements. I'm still waiting for you comments on Hans Blix's statements.
So much for your earlier implication that they had no business being there.
They did have no business being there for the purposes of spying.
Necessary for spying? What happene to your earlier statement about satellites seeing a gnat's ass?
Since you chose not to address that point, neither will I. You can't simply choose to ignore my arguments when they do you harm and then try to turn those same arguments against me later.
She didn't need a court order: she needed the FBI with fake charges.
The OIC's allegations included no allegation of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton related to the White House travel office firings.
You are glad she withheld evidence?
Yes. It was a witch hunt. No two-bit land deal like that has ever gotten the attention of the Congress. The sole purpose of the witch hunt was to embarass and harass the Clintons and I am glad that they fought the right-wing dirty politicians behind the muckraking.
Google it.
Screw you! If you want to debate, then do your own research to support your claims. You made the statement. The burden of proof is on you.
No, I have not. Thanks to Bush.
Have you seen a photo of one? Have you seen one captured by our troops? Are you going to tell me that Bush is also protecting you from the Boogie Man? By the way, it is only through my hard work that killer robots have not broken into your home and killed you and your family. Send me $10,000 to help me continue my work. You can tell that I am effective because you've never even seen a killer robot, have you?
Where in his speech did he lie about ICBMs?
I did not say "ICBMs." I said "intercontinental weapons delivery systems", referring to the (imaginary?) pilotless aircraft we were discussing (see above).
It depends on what the meaning of Is is, I guess!
I will take that as an admission that Bush's comments about British intelligence were lies.
Just a few years ago, Clinton said that Saddam DID have a nuclear program (at the time clinton said it). Was Clinton also such a liar?
You have said that Clinton was a liar so you cannot cite something he said as proof that Bush was telling the truth. Either Clinton can be trusted or he cannot.
But since you bring it up, Clinton launched an attack against Iraq on December 16, 1998, targeting suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons production facilities. He cited the refusal of Saddam to cooperate with the inspections process as the basis for the attack. And what was the result? A complete lack of support from Republicans in Congress who claimed that it was just an attempt to draw attention away from the then upcoming impeachment vote. Maybe the Democrats should have been equally skeptical and claimed that GWB's attack was motivated by a desire to distract people from the deficit spending, ballooning national debt, high unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, and recession.
Do you see me quoting Limbaugh or Will here? Why do you quote a pundit from the left? Pundits are not news sources.
Helen Thomas is commonly referred to as "The First Lady of the Press" and may be the most respected woman in journalism. She is a former White House Bureau Chief and a trailblazer, having broken through barriers for women reporters while covering every President since John F. Kennedy. For 57 years, she served as White House correspondent for United Press International.
Ms. Thomas was the only female print journalist to travel with then President Nixon to China during his breakthrough trip in 1972. She has traveled around the world with Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Jr. That hardly sounds like a "pundit from the left" to me.
Damn, it must suck being bitch-slapped that hard in a debate!
Back in 1941 all kinds of half-truths and outright lies were used to justify support for UK.
And in that same period, all kinds of half-truths and outright lies were used by the Nazis to justify their invasion of other nations. The problem you have is that you don't know if the appropriate analog to our present-day situation is America or Germany in 1941.
And just like you are doing now, there were hordes of shortsighted idiots screaming, "bloody murder" every time Roosevelt did anything that even remotely violated supposed US neutrality.
Let's sum this up: If Clinton lies about who sucked his dick, then he should be impeached and driven from the Whitehouse by an angry torch-wielding mob. But if Bush lies in order to get support to attack another nation, against the wishes of the U.N. and many of the countries that were our traditional allies, we should just assume that there is some deep wisdom behind it because another President lied 60 years ago for good reasons. We should just accept the deaths of hundreds of Americans, the wounding of many more, and hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money being spent to keep troops in that country for what many in the Bush administration are now estimating to be a period of five years.
I only believe him when he says something that is actually true.
How do you know what's "true"? Have you been to Iraq and seen chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? You just believe what you want to believe. Bush claimed all of these weapons existed and yet all of Iraq, all of the way to Baghdad, fell to U.S. troops and not one of these weapons was launched. If they weren't going to use them then, when would they have used them?
What a great source! He was on Saddam Hussein's payroll when he made these statements.
What about Hans Blix? Ignoring that source because you can't come up with an easy ad-hominem attack?
They have listed numerous violations.
None of any seriousness. They found paperwork which was not up to spec. They found missiles with too long a range and Saddam was destroying them in the presence of TV cameras and U.N. observers. You've exceeded the speed limit and turned right on red without coming to a complete stop. Perhaps Bush should try to assasinate you, too?
Yes, since they would have no right and reason to, unlike the peacekeepers who were enforcing the cease fire after Saddam's first Gulf War.
The original stated intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. The Coalition started using the No-Fly Zones for spying to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. Since that was not the purpose of the no-fly zones, the U.N. had no "right" to have planes there doing that work.
Ask her why she still has not turned over the evidence in the Whitewater case, which was required to be turned over by subpeona.
I don't care about Whitewater or the subpeona. It was a witch hunt and I'm glad she defied the subpeona.
Ask her why she fired without cause the Travel Office staff
I don't care to know about petty office politics and gossip. You act like someone needs a court order to fire someone. People get fired all of the time. Get over it.
Ask her why she sold nights in the Lincoln Bedroom during her Senate campaign.
Ask Bush why he did. From an article by Helen Thomas in September of 2002:
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush sanctimoniously accused Clinton of "virtually renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big campaign donors."
He condemned the use of the "hallowed" chamber for political payoffs.
Often, however, once a candidate wins the White House, he soon begins to savor the perks his predecessors enjoyed.
Last month it was disclosed that Bush and his wife Laura have hosted about 160 guests at the White House so far. But a White House spokeswoman refused to say how many had tried the Lincoln bed in the hallowed room.
Bush's guests included some of his biggest donors or fundraisers, known as "pioneers," and their families. Each had raised or contributed at least $100,000 for the Bush presidential campaign.
The Bush celebrity guest list included country singer Larry Gatlin, songwriter Kinky Friedman and golfer Ben Crenshaw.
His personal friends included Roland Betts, a former partner with Bush in the ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team; Teel Bivins, a rancher and state senator, and Joe O'Neill, a Midland, Texas, oilman.
Others were Republican National Committee fundraiser Brad Freeman and Boston businessman Joe O'Donnell.
White House spokeswoman Anne Womack, who prepared a White House release on the subject, told me she didn't ask which of the guests had slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
When I asked if she would pursue the subject since Bush had so heartily condemned Clinton's practice, she made it very clear
Have you got Bush's fecal matter off of your lips yet? Now Bush
As long as we agree it is not a lie, fine.
It was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie. The words were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The British government could not "learn" something that we knew to be false. They didn't "learn" anything. A few misquided persons might have believed it, but none had learned it.
Discredited? British officials still insist it is true.
What British officials? All of them? Most of them? Or do you mean a handful of them who are making a last ditch attempt to avoid admitting that they lied? Blair is about to lose his job because the vast majority of those in Parliament know that it's a bunch of crap. Have you even seen a TV in recent weeks?
There has always been overwhelming proof.
Then present it. Osama Bin Laden has disapproved of Saddam Hussein's regime because it was not a fundamentalist Islamic regime.
At a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
Gee, that doesn't sound like a connection, does it?
Huh? Such things can be launched from nearby by Saddam's terrorist allies.
You are just getting pitiful now. Bush said that Saddam had unmanned aircraft with which to attack the United States. Now you are saying that someone else has them that's closer than Iraq so that means Iraq has them?
No, he did not. He violated US resolution 1441 in many ways, and was throwing roadblocks (sometimes literally) in the way of the inspectors, making a capital case every time they wanted to look someplace that looked suspicious.
According to a report by Hans Blix, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector in January: "Access has been provided to all sites we have requested to inspect."
A former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter (a card-carrying Republican, by the way) said "the rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government, has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction.... Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, has been certified as being disarmed to a 90-95 percent level."
Yeah, what do they know compared to you?
Yes, he has attacked Americans many times. He killed an American diplomat last year, and has many times attacked US peacekeepers in the "no fly" zones despite being told to knock it off.
Did he kill the diplomat using his bare hands or did he shoot him with a rifle? "US peacekeepers"? What a craptacular phrase. The "peacekeepers" wouldn't happen to be flying around in supersonic killing machines loaded with air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, would they? Tell me, if Iraq started flying aircraft over U.S. airspace to keep tabs on our weapons development, would you be terribly offended if we shot at one of those planes?
No, the US retaliated partially because Iraq was refusing to coopreate
The people doing the inspections said that they were cooperating and that the inspections needed to continue. Bush was unwilling to wait, probably because he knew that they would find nothing.
Ask France. ask Hillary. Ask many others who know that they existed and said they existed before Bush's retaliation forced Saddam to hide them elsewhere. You are duped by Saddam.
I have a lot more respect for Hillary Clinton than George W. Bush, I'll grant you that. So you're telling me that we hav
Slashdot Mirror
A keypad that could attach to a pda would be neat, and would free up a lot of screen space, too.
That might be fine for those who use the calculator as a "four-banger" (+,-,*,/), but that still doesn't give keys for pi, 1/x, x^y, log, sin, cos, tan, square root, etc. It does not provide keys for hexadecimal entry. A PDA is really a useful tool, but it's not a substitute for a calculator any more than it is a substitute for a wristwatch -- though it can fill those roles in a pinch.
The number one reason that a PDA won't replace a calculator is that a touchscreen is a piss-poor substitute for real buttons with travel and tactile feedback ("click", but that doesn't sound as high-tech). I have a Handspring Visor and have downloaded and used multiple calculator apps on it. Some of them are damned good, but I always turn to my trusty HP 32SII for anything more than a handful of calculations.
There is an important difference between file sharing and speeding though.
Yes, there is. No one is going to be killed by someone file sharing but some percentage of accidents occur every year because someone was going 5mph too fast to stop.
Please spare me the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" defense. Even if a person would not have bought it, there is a significant chance that at least one of the web of people who downloaded a mp3 would have bought the CD if the song were not available for free.
There is a significant chance that at least one of the people buying a rifle will use it to kill someone. Does that mean that every person who bought a rifle should be held accountable for that murder?
You are right in a sense though, for both speeding 5 mph over and P2P there is not a fear of prosecution.
I don't think that it's just that. People disobey laws that they think are unreasonable and unjust. It's pretty damned absurd to claim that a 1975 Chevy Impala and a 2003 BMW M3 both have the same 55mph maximum safe speed. People recognize that and many have the judgement to determine a maximum safe speed for their vehicle, skills, and the road conditions. Therefore, they break what they view as an unjust and unreasonable law. I think that the same thing is happening with P2P. While there are people who are using P2P instead of buying music, many are using it to get music that they would not buy and, thus, are harming no one.
What is Linksys thinking? If they release all of the source code for their routers, every geek in the world will buy their hardware with the intent of improving the firmware. I can envision people building VPNs using Linksys hardware and modified firmware. I can foresee changes that allow the Linksys routers to handle unusual configurations (mixture of static and dynamic IPs on the same WAN interface for example), advanced firewalling capabilities, enchanced logging, or perhaps even simple web page serving.
It's not like Linksys has some kind of monopoly on router firmware. SMC, Gigafast, Netgear, Belkin, D-Link, Trendware, Zyxel, Compex, Asante, Hawking, and probably a bunch of others that don't immediately come to mind all market consumer-grade routers and there is very little to distinguish one from the other. If Linksys would make the source available for their routers, they would have a tremendous edge. Every router that I've gotten my hands on is deficient in some major way (can't assign DHCP IP address by MAC, can't use mixed static & dynamic addresses on WAN, can't do MAC address restriction solely on the wireless portion, can't specify IP address of time server, DNS forwarding not supported, inadequate or missing logging, etc.). I'd love a community-supported, open source router for which advanced features were readily available with a simple firmware flash.
Why you ask? Because the owner of the material says so, if you do not agree to the terms then you do not get the toy. Get it?
No, I do not get it. When the owner of The Beatles catalog published it in the U.S., they did so with the understanding that they were getting a copyright, a form of government granted monopoly, that would expire at a certain date. Now, suddenly, they find that the expiration has been extended with no consideration to the public good.
Too expensive, too hard to find in a store, so what. Get over yourself, you know damn well that you are wrong.
No, I am right. You are wrong. You don't even know the difference between copyright infringement and theft.
If I tell you that something costs a dollar, and you want it bad but do not have a dollar, you do not have the right to fucking steal it.
Downloading music via a P2P network is not stealing. In some cases it is copyright infringement, but it is not stealing. If some kid downloads Britney Spears' latest single, does Britney have one less copy of it to sell? If a lot of people do it, does she have to issue a press release saying "Sorry, but there are no more copies of my single available. They were all stolen by people on the Internet."?
Get off your high horse. You've broken copyright laws over and over, so don't lecture me with your f***ing holier than thou attitude.
Dude I was talking about your bigotry related to your exclusion of all the "other" kinds of love.
;-)
Only man/woman man/man woman/woman ?
What's up with you ?
Okay. Sorry. No offense meant to you or your significant goat.
I don't give a fuck about smoking, frankly, you are right about everything regarding smoking..
Thanks.
Peace.
Oooh ooh, and lots of people do hard drugs, steal, murder and otherwise devalue society.
Should we allow all those to be legal too?
No, because society as a whole thinks that those things are wrong and should be illegal. Society at large has not viewed loaning CDs, albums, and tapes to friends as wrong. That's why libraries will loan out books, tapes, CDs, records, etc. But why do you specify "hard drugs"? Are you using pot but think it's okay even though it's illegal?
Speeding is illegal. Going 65 in a 55mph zone is against the law. Should the speeding laws be amended so that anyone caught doing that faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine? That punishment has been proposed in Congress for anyone who makes any copyrighted material available via a P2P network -- even if it's just one track for a few minutes.
As for taping off radio, you can't actually give out those tapes to people. That is still copyright infringement.
Why is it okay for me to make a recording of "American Top 40" on cassette and not okay for me to record those same 40 songs from Kazaa onto my hard drive?
But you missed the whole point. The copyright laws are being perverted by big business paying off legislators. Stuff that SHOULD have already been in the public domain long ago is now locked away for another God-knows-how-many-years. Disobeying unjust laws is "illegal", but it's not automatically "wrong." I also took offense at the original poster referring to everyone who traded copyrighted music as "assholes."
You fucking bigoted, narrow-minded asshole !
I'm almost as bigoted and narrow-minded about people who sweat profusely and don't use deodorant.
Who are you to dictate what's acceptable and what is not ?
I'm not dictating anything. I'm stating a fact. About 75% of the people in this country are non-smokers and the vast majority of them find the smell of cigarette smoke to be offensive. Many of them don't want to get involved with someone who will cause their clothes, car, and hair to reek of cigarette smoke. They don't want a partner with yellow teeth, tobacco stained fingers, and a gravel voice. They don't want their drapes and walls turning a yellowish-brown color. And they don't want the heartache of being 45 years old and discovering that the person around whom they planned their lives is dying of lung cancer. So they don't get involved. Why do you think so many personal ads specify "non-smoker"?
Stop pirating music assholes. D'uh.
Why? Why should I be able to record a song off of the radio but not off of another person's hard drive? Why should I not be able to share an out-of-print, but still copyrighted, piece of music? You act like pirating music is some heinous, horrible, despicable act. It's not. People have been trading cassettes, loaning albums, and letting their friends borrow CDs for years. They've been making "mix tapes" for their friends. They've been taping their friends' records. It's normal and healthy.
The entire copyright bullshit is infuriating. Were there not extension after extension granted by Congress, much of the copyrighted material that's out there would now be in the public domain -- as the founding fathers (of the U.S.) intended. Instead, legislation has been bought by the record companies so that they can continue to collect their ill-gotten gains for years.
As to your "asshole" remark, bite me.
I'm really not illiterate -- just not the world's most careful editor:
The sentence should have read:
The vendor may go to a Microsoft competitor and maybe even forego Microsoft products altogether.
I got half way through editing it and then got distracted by dinner preparations. Oh well.
The operative word here is 'probably'. Only it's not 'probably', it's 'may'. Despite the warnings and the Truth ads, there are millions (billions?) of smokers of any age living quite happily.
And many of those smokers will be killed by their habit. The "perfectly happy" woman smoker in her 40's that I worked with just died of lung cancer. According to statistics, more than one-third of all regular cigarette smokers will be killed by the habit, including many smokers who are still in middle age. Smokers lose an average of 20-25 years of life expectancy compared to non-smokers. Factor out those killed by accidents, homicide, and suicide, and probably more than half of smokers die from their habit.
It really is a flip of the coin whether or not you come down with cancer. You can get it with or without smoking. Cigarettes merely improve the odds somewhat that you'll get it.
That's just idiocy. It's like saying that it's "really a flip of the coin whether or not you get in an auto accident" and that "drinking until you are practically comatose before driving will merely improve the odds somewhat that you'll be in an auto accident." 90% of all lung cancer is caused by smoking. That' means that smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by a factor of nine! That's not "somewhat."
There is no rational, reasonable explanation for smoking. It is likely to kill you or at least horribly reduce your quality of life. It will make employers less likely to hire you. It will increase your costs for medical insurance greatly. If you smoke near your kids, it will increase their chances of getting asthma, ear infections, throat infections, and even cancer from secondhand smoke. It is most prevalent among those with less education and lower income. Is that the image you wish to put forth? It is a social stigma that means that you will not be invited to parties, dinner, etc. because the host/hostess does not want to choose between confronting you or putting up with the acrid smell of your cigarettes. It makes you unattractive to most people of the opposite (or same, depending on your preferences) sex. It's just stupid.
If we're talking about a new version of media player (presuming the new version isn't a security patch... ahem), them there's no reason that it need be free.
Microsoft has traditionally used the Windows Update service to push out new products from which they hope to make money. The new version of Media Player you mention may have some kind of DRM that they want to convince commercial vendors to use. If Microsoft charges for it, then it will have a lower adoption rate. Lower adoption means that commercial vendors will be less willing to use it. If they are less willing to use it, then Microsoft doesn't sell them some kind of expensive 'media server' for distributing content. The vendor goes to a Microsoft competitor and maybe even foregoes Microsoft products altogether.
Microsoft has a vested interest in seeing that people update their products and adopt new technologies being pushed by the software giant. Anything to discourage that is a mistake IMNSHO.
The dude had cancer, it's not like he lost his tongue in a way that'd earn him a Darwin Award Honorable Mention.
I'd bet good money that he got cancer from using tobacco products. The only real difference between those who get the Darwin Awards and tobacco users is that the Darwin Award recipients did not see news reports, scientific studies, and warning labels that, for years, told them that what they were about to do would probably kill them.
Makes fucking perfect sense. If you pay more you will get more back.
It is not supposed to be another entitlement program but a fucking tax cut.
It is an entitlement program for the rich. I have a better idea: Don't cut taxes for the rich at all or, if you insist on cutting their taxes, cut them less. Cut the tax rates for the lower income people that need the money (and will spend it) rather than cutting Dick Cheney's yearly taxes by several hundred thousand dollars per year. But why should there be a tax cut at all when the government isn't bringing in nearly enough money to cover the Bush budget?
Cut the fucking waste, pork and all this nonsense, and there will be enough money for another 4 fucking tax cuts.
Want to know where 25% of your federal tax dollars go? They pay interest on the debt accrued under the Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations. That's right. 25% of all tax dollars buy nothing. They don't pay for social programs, defense, education, roads, or anything else. It pays interest on the debt accrued in the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Now Dubya is running up the debt more with record deficit spending on top of huge tax cuts. You want a tax cut? Pay down the debt and taxes can be cut by 25% without cutting any government services or programs.
You people want to cut taxes and then have the government spend money that isn't coming in -- to the tune of $455 billion dollars this year alone. Cut expenses first and then adjust the tax rates to match government expenditures.
After all, these days US government takes more in taxes than ever and you
are still whining we are not being taxed enough ?
That is simply untrue. Here are the average federal tax rates (percentage of adjusted gross income paid in federal income taxes):
1980 15.31%
1981 15.76%
1982 14.72%
1983 13.79%
1984 13.68%
1985 13.73%
1986 14.54%
1987 13.12%
1988 13.21%
1989 13.12%
1990 12.95%
1991 12.75%
1992 12.94%
1993 13.32%
1994 13.50%
1995 13.86%
1996 14.34%
1997 14.48%
1998 14.42%
1999 14.85%
2000 15.26%
Yeah, well, where did read that one ?
I didn't read it. I discerned it from keeping current on politics and economic policy.
What is your fucking experience in these matters ?
I am educated, intelligent, and have a good understanding of economics.
What kind of enterprise are you running ?
I am not running an "enterprise" nor does one need to in order to understand economics. In fact, running a large business often means that one is concerned with the business's quarterly profit statements, not the health of the economy as a whole for the next few decades.
Why am I even talking to a clueless maniac like you.
Ad hominem attacks reflect poorly on those making them.
For all I you could be 17 years old idiot who just got his first erection after reading "Capital".
I am a 42 year old professional software engineer. I have worked as a W2 employee and as an independent contractor (1099 income). I have investments in mutual funds, individual stocks, and have invested in, and made money from, grain futures. I own my own home which has appreciated in value by 73% in the last five years. And what is your background so that I know who I am talking to?
I am just fucking with you.
Whatever floats your boat.
Do you always respond to every post ?
I try to, unless the post is just absurd. If someone speaks to me in person, I don't just turn away and ignore them, so it seems impolite to do so online.
As far as right-winger stuff ? What's wrong with that?
I dislike the entire value set the right-wing holds dear. I think that the right wing is far more concerned with businesses than people. I believe that their understanding of economics is screwed up to the point of endangering our entire economy. I am tired of their dirty tricks -- such as trying to embarass Clinton about his sex life rather than facing him on the issues. They are hypocrites. They attacked Clinton for not having served in the military while they supported Bush despite the fact that he joined the National Guard to avoid the draft and then went AWOL for a year ('72-'73). I get tired of the claims that they are against government interference when they pass laws limiting abortion, outlawing forms of consensual sex between adults, forcing libraries to install filtering software, etc. They yell about "state's rights" until a state passes a law that they don't like -- such as medical marijuana laws and then they are at work trying to undermine the state's authority.
I could go on and on, but I think that you see my position.
Despite what you think , you are not some middle of the road, objective observer but a hardcode left-winger yourself.
I've considered myself a liberal for years and am proud of it. I feel that it's the moral high ground. Pushing for a tax cut that lines your own pockets requires no moral courage. Pushing for social programs that will probably never directly help you but that you will fund with your tax dollars is much more noble.
You want to reduce stress in the workplace? Why not start by not giving your employees twelve hour work days?
That's what happens when people fight against unionization and legislation to protect workers. Businesses will use a bad economy and high unemployment as a tool to extort more hours out of the employees while reducing benefits and freezing, or even cutting, wages. When they manage to completely burn out a worker, they just fire the worker and replace him/her from the huge pool of unemployed people whe are desperate for work. If they can't get U.S. workers to put in 12 hours per day or work 7 day work weeks, then they will import H1-B or L-1 visa workers to replace the U.S. workers. Or they may even fire the entire U.S. staff and send the work to India, Pakistan, or some other second or third world nation.
Unregulated capitalism sucks. It makes the wealthy wealthier while driving down the standard of living for those not in the upper echelons of the pay scale. If companies get more hours from existing workers, then that's fewer workers that they have to hire. Fewer workers means more unemployment. More unemployment means more desperate people willing to accept crappy working conditions and long hours at low pay rates. More unemployment also means less consumer spending. Less consumer spending means less demand for goods. Less demand for goods means layoffs. Layoffs means higher unemployment and, predictably, lower wages. Lower wages means less taxes collected while high-unemployment means more government spending on the unemployed. It's a vicious cycle.
If Bush was truly interested in "creating jobs", he would be pushing for limits to the work week rather than giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy CEOs who are exploiting U.S. workers and outsourcing U.S. jobs to foreign nationals.
You think you have provided all that. In reality, your stuff is factually not much better then his name calling.
In other words, you are a right-winger who disagrees with my position but who does not have any logical basis for that disagreement. You probably just "like" tax cuts but do not like to think about where they come from and how the affect the economy. Whatever makes you happy.
Tell me you are pulling our collective leg here ...
If you can counter my arguments, do so. If you are just going to continue with your idiotic and immature trolling, just go away. I've provided logic, respected sources, quotes, and facts to back up my position. All you've done is engage in name calling.
You can't be that stupid ?
You calling someone "stupid" is like Michael Jackson calling someone "weird."
Put away the Democrat Party playbook. Only a minority of the tax cuts go to the "wealthy". In fact, most go to "working families" (a favorite playbook phrase). Stop trying to mislead, it is not working, most Americans are not buying it.
Use some real numbers instead of quoting White House bullshit:
Nearly two-thirds of the most recent tax cuts will go to the wealthiest 10% of taxpayers, and almost half of the benefits will go to the richest 5%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% will see roughly eight percent of the total tax cut.
In 2003, the 8.6% of taxpayers who earn at lest $100,000 annually will get nearly 60% total cuts, and the 54% of taxpayers who earn $30,000 or less would get less than 5% of the total (sourse: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center).
The aforementioned analysis also shows that the average taxpayer earning above $1,000,000 annually would see more than $93,000 in tax relief in 2003, but the average filer earning $40,000-$50,000 would get a tax cut of about $450.
$450 is not a tax cut. It's chump change. It's a way that Bush and his supporters (like you) can say "we gave a tax cut to working families" while only providing meaningful tax cuts to the wealthy.
How much has he "given out" in tax cuts? It's an astounding total: $0. Yes, $0. No money has been "given out". A tax cut is not a gift.
Yes, it is a gift -- and a stolen one at that. Bush is giving gifts (actually bribes for voting for him) -- and he's doing it by stealing the money from future generations. He is funding the tax cut by borrowing money and running up the national debt. For decades to come, taxpayers will pay interest on the debt he is accruing -- all to give unsound tax cuts to rich people.
Did the government provide military defense of the country? Did they wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did the government provide funding for social programs? Did they fund education? Did they fund NASA, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, CIA, NSA, and FBI? Did they provide funding for road construction and maintenance? Did they send ambassadors to foreign countries? If so, your taxes have already been spent.
It's analogous to going into Walmart, buying $500 worth of merchandise and then coming back in a week to demand a portion of that money back because, as Bush says, "it's your money." If Bush ran Walmart, he'd give you $100 back. In four years, Walmart would be mired in debt, Bush would be replaced as the head of Walmart, and his successor would have to raise prices to pay for Bush's reckless spending. Then Bush's supporters would say that his successor was evil for raising prices.
There are two kinds of Republicans: Those who don't understand economics and those who understand economics, know that they are screwing the country and future administrations, and don't have the scruples to give a damn.
Watching your pseudo-intellectual nonsense I can only rejoice in the fact that your influence is limited to bitching on some third rate board.
... while Bush machine moves forward.
You passing judgement on my intellect is like Roseanne Barr saying that Pamela Anderson is ugly.
Whine, bitch , complain
Yep. Now I know how Germans who opposed Hitler felt when he came to power.
Not a good time for a looser[sic] like you , is it ?
It's not a good time for anyone in the U.S. -- except wealthy CEOs who are firing Americans and sending the jobs overseas.
2000+ comments ?
You must be one of these fat,ugly motherfuckers who are afraid to live their lifes.
Better to have over 2000 comments that are, in general, well-regarded than to have a bunch of 0 and -1 troll postings like you do. As for my life, I'm probably taking my motorcycle to the beach again today and might be headed up to Connecticut in a few days. If not, I'll be out in my boat fishing. What will you be doing, you bitter little man?
I did the research: the proof came up quickly. The burden of proof is on you. Go ahead and try.
I'm not playing that game. I provide sources and documentation for my claims. If you won't provide them for yours, I'm not going to wade around from one right-wing zealot site to the next trying to prove your point for you. Sorry, you lose this one.
Nothing you said of her travels contradict her being a pundit. In fact, it is totally irrelevant, like saying "He can't be a pastry chef! He's been to Cleveland". Non-sequitur.
Wrong. She would not have been allowed to accompany all of those Presidents if she was the partisan pundit you make her out to be. Given her credentials, awards, years of service, and respect from both fellow journalists and the public, I'll simply state that you are wrong.
Where is his speech did he refer to these then? We are still waiting.
Well wait no more: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."--President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002 in a speech given in Cincinatti.
I guess I should have just been a dick about it and said "Google it."
Checking for violations of the UN sanctions was very legitimate.
Only if that's what the planes were authorized to do there, which it was not. The planes were solely authorized to prevent Saddam from launching air attacks against the minorities in those reasons. Any other activity undertaken in those fly-overs was not legitimate.
No, it was not. It was an investigation into an operation that included a dozen felons.
But the person being investigated was not found to have committed any crimes, thus it was not legitimate. The reason for an Independent Counsel is to investigate the President, not his associates.
Two bits? That's 50 cents.
No, it's worth 25 cents. It also has the meanings petty and/or insignificant, which is how I was using the term.
The Whitewater scam involved millions of dollars.
Not before Starr got involved. Whitewater was the purchase of 220 acres of land in Arkansas in 1978 with the intent of developing it with homes. The initial investment was under $250,000 or just over a dollar an acre. Subsequent investments were small, such as $30K to build a model home. The Clinton's sold their share of Whitewater to the McDougals for $1,000 in 1992. How is that "millions of dollars"?
Nice bazillion-percent margin of error you are running with.
"Bazillion"? My, you are the math whiz.
I really don't know why he has chosen to lie about the situation in Iraq. No explanation.
But you assert that he lied based on what? Your personal experiences in Iraq? Your time creating weapons of mass destruction for Saddam? A Christmas card from the Husseins that showed their stockpile of weapons? Just how have you come to the conclusion that Hans Blix lied?
So, Saddam Hussein is like a made-up killer robot. Hope you are having fun there.
No. Bush said that Saddam had unmanned planes capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. You said that the reason that you had never seen one of these planes was because of Bush's fine job in protecting us from them. I countered that I've been doing an equally fine job of protecting you and your family from killer robots and offered as proof the fact that you had not seen any killer robots. Nice try.
I've seen the actual words in the speeches from then. He referred to the nuclear facilities as a fact.
So what's your point? That you trust Clinton implicitly? Or that our incompetent military could not have possibly been successful in destroying said facilitie
It is not ad-hominem to report that someone is being paid to make statements about someone.
Yes, it is, when you attack the person's motive rather than address his statements. I'm still waiting for you comments on Hans Blix's statements.
So much for your earlier implication that they had no business being there.
They did have no business being there for the purposes of spying.
Necessary for spying? What happene to your earlier statement about satellites seeing a gnat's ass?
Since you chose not to address that point, neither will I. You can't simply choose to ignore my arguments when they do you harm and then try to turn those same arguments against me later.
She didn't need a court order: she needed the FBI with fake charges.
The OIC's allegations included no allegation of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton related to the White House travel office firings.
You are glad she withheld evidence?
Yes. It was a witch hunt. No two-bit land deal like that has ever gotten the attention of the Congress. The sole purpose of the witch hunt was to embarass and harass the Clintons and I am glad that they fought the right-wing dirty politicians behind the muckraking.
Google it.
Screw you! If you want to debate, then do your own research to support your claims. You made the statement. The burden of proof is on you.
No, I have not. Thanks to Bush.
Have you seen a photo of one? Have you seen one captured by our troops? Are you going to tell me that Bush is also protecting you from the Boogie Man? By the way, it is only through my hard work that killer robots have not broken into your home and killed you and your family. Send me $10,000 to help me continue my work. You can tell that I am effective because you've never even seen a killer robot, have you?
Where in his speech did he lie about ICBMs?
I did not say "ICBMs." I said "intercontinental weapons delivery systems", referring to the (imaginary?) pilotless aircraft we were discussing (see above).
It depends on what the meaning of Is is, I guess!
I will take that as an admission that Bush's comments about British intelligence were lies.
Just a few years ago, Clinton said that Saddam DID have a nuclear program (at the time clinton said it). Was Clinton also such a liar?
You have said that Clinton was a liar so you cannot cite something he said as proof that Bush was telling the truth. Either Clinton can be trusted or he cannot.
But since you bring it up, Clinton launched an attack against Iraq on December 16, 1998, targeting suspected nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons production facilities. He cited the refusal of Saddam to cooperate with the inspections process as the basis for the attack. And what was the result? A complete lack of support from Republicans in Congress who claimed that it was just an attempt to draw attention away from the then upcoming impeachment vote. Maybe the Democrats should have been equally skeptical and claimed that GWB's attack was motivated by a desire to distract people from the deficit spending, ballooning national debt, high unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, and recession.
Do you see me quoting Limbaugh or Will here? Why do you quote a pundit from the left? Pundits are not news sources.
Helen Thomas is commonly referred to as "The First Lady of the Press" and may be the most respected woman in journalism. She is a former White House Bureau Chief and a trailblazer, having broken through barriers for women reporters while covering every President since John F. Kennedy. For 57 years, she served as White House correspondent for United Press International.
Ms. Thomas was the only female print journalist to travel with then President Nixon to China during his breakthrough trip in 1972. She has traveled around the world with Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, Jr. That hardly sounds like a "pundit from the left" to me.
Damn, it must suck being bitch-slapped that hard in a debate!
Back in 1941 all kinds of half-truths and outright lies were used to justify support for UK.
And in that same period, all kinds of half-truths and outright lies were used by the Nazis to justify their invasion of other nations. The problem you have is that you don't know if the appropriate analog to our present-day situation is America or Germany in 1941.
And just like you are doing now, there were hordes of shortsighted idiots screaming, "bloody murder" every time Roosevelt did anything that even remotely violated supposed US neutrality.
Let's sum this up: If Clinton lies about who sucked his dick, then he should be impeached and driven from the Whitehouse by an angry torch-wielding mob. But if Bush lies in order to get support to attack another nation, against the wishes of the U.N. and many of the countries that were our traditional allies, we should just assume that there is some deep wisdom behind it because another President lied 60 years ago for good reasons. We should just accept the deaths of hundreds of Americans, the wounding of many more, and hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money being spent to keep troops in that country for what many in the Bush administration are now estimating to be a period of five years.
Isn't it time for you to be sheared yet?
How do you know what's "true"? Have you been to Iraq and seen chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? You just believe what you want to believe. Bush claimed all of these weapons existed and yet all of Iraq, all of the way to Baghdad, fell to U.S. troops and not one of these weapons was launched. If they weren't going to use them then, when would they have used them?
What a great source! He was on Saddam Hussein's payroll when he made these statements.
What about Hans Blix? Ignoring that source because you can't come up with an easy ad-hominem attack?
They have listed numerous violations.
None of any seriousness. They found paperwork which was not up to spec. They found missiles with too long a range and Saddam was destroying them in the presence of TV cameras and U.N. observers. You've exceeded the speed limit and turned right on red without coming to a complete stop. Perhaps Bush should try to assasinate you, too?
Yes, since they would have no right and reason to, unlike the peacekeepers who were enforcing the cease fire after Saddam's first Gulf War.
The original stated intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. The Coalition started using the No-Fly Zones for spying to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors. Since that was not the purpose of the no-fly zones, the U.N. had no "right" to have planes there doing that work.
Ask her why she still has not turned over the evidence in the Whitewater case, which was required to be turned over by subpeona.
I don't care about Whitewater or the subpeona. It was a witch hunt and I'm glad she defied the subpeona.
Ask her why she fired without cause the Travel Office staff
I don't care to know about petty office politics and gossip. You act like someone needs a court order to fire someone. People get fired all of the time. Get over it.
Ask her why she sold nights in the Lincoln Bedroom during her Senate campaign.
Ask Bush why he did. From an article by Helen Thomas in September of 2002:
Have you got Bush's fecal matter off of your lips yet? Now Bush
As long as we agree it is not a lie, fine.
It was a lie. It was a bald-faced lie. The words were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The British government could not "learn" something that we knew to be false. They didn't "learn" anything. A few misquided persons might have believed it, but none had learned it.
Discredited? British officials still insist it is true.
What British officials? All of them? Most of them? Or do you mean a handful of them who are making a last ditch attempt to avoid admitting that they lied? Blair is about to lose his job because the vast majority of those in Parliament know that it's a bunch of crap. Have you even seen a TV in recent weeks?
There has always been overwhelming proof.
Then present it. Osama Bin Laden has disapproved of Saddam Hussein's regime because it was not a fundamentalist Islamic regime.
At a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
Gee, that doesn't sound like a connection, does it?
Huh? Such things can be launched from nearby by Saddam's terrorist allies.
You are just getting pitiful now. Bush said that Saddam had unmanned aircraft with which to attack the United States. Now you are saying that someone else has them that's closer than Iraq so that means Iraq has them?
No, he did not. He violated US resolution 1441 in many ways, and was throwing roadblocks (sometimes literally) in the way of the inspectors, making a capital case every time they wanted to look someplace that looked suspicious.
According to a report by Hans Blix, Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector in January: "Access has been provided to all sites we have requested to inspect."
A former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter (a card-carrying Republican, by the way) said "the rhetoric of fear that is disseminated by my government, has not, to date, been backed by hard facts that substantiate any allegations that Iraq is today in possession of weapons of mass destruction.... Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, has been certified as being disarmed to a 90-95 percent level."
Yeah, what do they know compared to you?
Yes, he has attacked Americans many times. He killed an American diplomat last year, and has many times attacked US peacekeepers in the "no fly" zones despite being told to knock it off.
Did he kill the diplomat using his bare hands or did he shoot him with a rifle? "US peacekeepers"? What a craptacular phrase. The "peacekeepers" wouldn't happen to be flying around in supersonic killing machines loaded with air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, would they? Tell me, if Iraq started flying aircraft over U.S. airspace to keep tabs on our weapons development, would you be terribly offended if we shot at one of those planes?
No, the US retaliated partially because Iraq was refusing to coopreate
The people doing the inspections said that they were cooperating and that the inspections needed to continue. Bush was unwilling to wait, probably because he knew that they would find nothing.
Ask France. ask Hillary. Ask many others who know that they existed and said they existed before Bush's retaliation forced Saddam to hide them elsewhere. You are duped by Saddam.
I have a lot more respect for Hillary Clinton than George W. Bush, I'll grant you that. So you're telling me that we hav