Given today's administration, that will get you deported if you're an immigrant; otherwise, your laptop and any traveling in like manner will be confiscated and used against you in an obstruction of justice trial. Unconstitutional? Probably, but they know it'll take years before it's struck down as such if they delay you long enough, and by then the intended damage is done and they're out of office.
They are rapidly reaching the area beyond accountability by law, because they are rejecting the rule of law. The next and final option that remains is accountability by armed force, and they have the upper hand here (unless the military, FBI, CIA, Marshals, etc. decide Bush and Cheney aren't their masters anymore).
Being held accountable did squat to stop the actual fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. With the exception of Franco, it took either an angry mob or an enemy's army at their doorsteps.
American companies-- especially those not in the tech industry-- by and large are very lax about information security on computing devices. Many managerial decisions result in poor security, including:
1. Cost cutting on software, equipment, and/or training. 2. Creating an environment too hostile to employees or too comfortable to upper management. 3. Hubris of the "it can't possibly happen to us" sort. 4. Active involvement in the trafficking of personal information, i.e. sales thereof to partners and marketing clients.
The whole point of outsourcing information and jobs like this to the private sector is to get the job done better and more efficiently.
That's the "whole point of privatizing government operations" that was sold to us for well over a decade. The actual point is to:
1. Reduce costs (so the Republicans can collectively pat themselves on the back) 2. Increase private revenue at taxpayer cost 3. Remove government accountability-- at least, until the public outcry forces the Feds to regulate.
Notice that job quality is nowhere in the picture, as evidenced by Halliburton, Blackwater, and now the companies contracted by the TSA. Yet the loudest voices clamoring for smaller government would have us believe on faith that private companies will always outperform the government.
Part and parcel with the propaganda campaign to privatize everything is the tired McCarthyist accusation of calling anyone who opposes it a "socialist" (code for "Commie").
Suggestion: Practice on the rig using a throwaway disc (failed burns, any AOL promo discs that might still exist), then on burns of backed up CDs/DVDs. First to get the technique required not to tear the disc, then to get the technique required to get a disc that's actually readable.
Note also: if you hold the disk up to the light and see lots of pinholes... the aluminium layer's fucked and you haven't a hope. I dunno if you can repaint an aluminium layer...
You would also have to recreate the binary pattern on the disc, which wouldn't be hard, and make sure it sticks without unbalancing the disc, tossing metal fragments inside the drive, or compromising the plastic underneath.
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits? I realize that the case law precedent would be stronger if they were defeated on a thorough review of their arguments, but if a loss by a technicality grants an injunction against their driftnet attack on their own customers, I for one am all for it.
And, aside from the idiots who screwed up in UMG vs. Lindor, they're not crappy lawyers, IMO. They are lawyers who know the law and procedures enough to avoid following the intended purpose. That's not easy to do, unless you divest yourself of your conscience and common sense. After reading NYCL's article summarizing their tactics, I am sure many here would agree that they should at least be investigated and sanctioned, if not disbarred.
That said, if this big-shot lawyer plays by the rules and if he's defeated by reason in the Capitol hearing, this will effectively ice the RIAA's campaign and crush any hope of the same tactic by the MPAA and BSA. I'm thinking NYCL's excited about this, as the RIAA has spent time and resources to try to keep the courts from seeing that they are acting much like the stereotypical mafia boys roughing up innocent people for payment. I'm sure you'll agree that while there are legions of downloaders grabbing infringing content, there are far more people who only use the Web and email without any clue what a P2P application is.
And you guys have been saying that for many years. That's why we couldn't fix the problem back then too. False dichotomy. Appeal to fear/unknown/authority. If the problem with high oil/gas prices is due to lack of drilling, I'd love to see you explain the impact of China, India, Brazil, etc.
Translation: "Americans can't have cheaper gas because some corporation might make some money. It's worth it to have poor people suffer just so you can stick it to those nasty corporations." Straw man. The oil corps are making record profits by keeping supply low.
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices. It's also patently disingenuous to imply that it will solve all our woes at the gas pump. Fans of drilling are clamoring for more supply when something can be done about the high demand...
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them. Oh, such humility. Yes, and we'll conveniently ignore that we'll just continue to use finite resources, toss more mercury into the environment, and go on wild goose chases after oil that's costly to extract. Why go for the best solution when there are cheaper ones out there?
You know what? Keep the delusion that you know better than your critics. "Liberals" would rather stop destroying the planet we live in, so they don't like short-sighted "solutions"
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling. It's a simple supply and demand problem.
Fair enough, but who has the most demand for crude oil, and is expected to continue expanding this demand? It isn't the United States, it's the developing industrial nations known as China and India. Because of this high demand, one should expect prices to remain high even if we add a few drops to the bucket with offshore/ANWR drilling and oil shale. The only way to lower prices now is to collapse China/India's economies (not going to happen) or transition to non-fossil fuels. If you're going to blame anyone for not getting production up, look at the oil companies sitting on hundreds of granted exploration/drilling permits but picking their noses instead. Why? Artificially low supply drives prices up-- look at Exxon's record profits.
Here, let me translate that: "We decided to give the President and his followers the benefit of the doubt, and allowed them to establish a regime based on the unitary executive. Anything King George says goes."
it wouldn't be that hard to remove all encoded material from usenet. just set up a simple rule and restrict by size. once you do that, and usenet becomes text only again, usenet can be reborn to satisfy what made it so great in the first place. its social networking lite
Or {2|4}chan. Actually, Usenet's newsgroups were probably the inspiration for the ever-popular jumble of discussion threads. It would be neat to see Usenet returning to its roots, as this way they won't have to deal with the inefficiency and liability of binaries.
No matter how unrewarding and soul-draining the job, the police officer has an obligation and duty to uphold the law and protect the people he serves. I'm not referring to your brother-in-law or your friend, whom I am sure are fine policemen. I and many others in this discussion are referring to the officers who abuse their position of power to destroy any accountability placed upon them. No one likes to be held accountable, much less risk losing their job for what they consider inconvenient (but is part of the rights, protected by case law and the Constitution, that they too enjoy). But the reality is, the more law enforcement rejects the active involvement of the community and the accountability that brings, the more they will become more like the Gestapo and the SS, and the more they will be reviled by the community.
And the noises from the politicians over your brother cursing at a minor in a heated standoff? I'll toss some Norm MacDonald at them: "Tuck off, hypocrites!" I hope any judge, if it gets to the courtroom, sees that ending an incident involving firearms without gunshots is far more important than any four-letter words the kid will hear in juvie anyway.
Not to excuse the ISPs' recent false advertising, but because of the low speed/bandwidth of American "broadband", we've only started to saturate the outdated infrastructure. I suspect that's why they were able to get away with saying "unlimited" all this time to keep up an image of competition, whereas in other countries like Australia, the ISPs routinely tell you what the monthly limit is.
The OSS crowd will cooperate with your company if and only if they:
1. Abandon the software patent threat against OSS projects entirely, notably Wine and ReactOS, 2. Order its sales, marketing, legal, and executive departments to cease using its partners in "committee stuffing" as it very clearly did in the ISO approval process of Office OXML, 3. Disassociate any so-called "intellectual property rights" protections from its software and sell/license the code to the RIAA/MPAA member companies, 4. Cease using sales contracts with OEMs as leverage for excluding alternative operating systems and/or software, and 5. Make a public, visible commitment to upholding the above in every aspect of its business.
Although the serf-of-business Bush administration gave your company a slap on the wrist and marginal supervision, it is still a convicted monopolist and still engaging in business methods that are at least unconscionable. There are those in the OSS community who still remember how it undercut Netscape into oblivion, how it bullied companies like Dell and Gateway into excluding Linux, how it betrayed IBM re: OS/2, or how it toyed with WordPerfect. Just in the past few months there was evidence of committee-tampering by Microsoft partners, indicating that Microsoft has learned to end-run the system rather than follow the rules. So don't be surprised that there are those who hate you and do not trust you at all, because the likelihood that your management will ever listen to pro-OSS ideas is zero or less.
If you truly love open source, I strongly suggest you leave Microsoft and work for Red Hat, IBM, Google, Sun, or Canonical. Until then, you are either appallingly naive, or worse, a dangerous evangelist.
A better way to put GP's point would be "open source is not supposed to be bound to one platform forcibly through business contracts or licensing agreements." Open source means anyone can take the source and port it to other platforms if they wish, without fear of litigation or underhanded tactics*. Try doing that to Windows, Office, Media Player, or DirectX. I can guarantee that you will have more lawyers on you than a stray mutt has fleas.
* Granted, there is potential for asshattery in OSS project management, but it's nowhere near the corporate level.
Disclaimer: I am not an active Obama supporter. I believe that while the third-parties would do considerably less harm than a McCain administration, their utter disdain for anyone from the mainstream parties will work against them (as in, instant lame-duck President. Don't they realize they also need to control Congress as well? At least Dr. Paul groks this...).
On the flipside, it's always unfortunate when the media are complicit with the government anywhere. No citations supporting this anywhere in this thread. Not even in alternative media. Ergo, this man is a conspiracy theorist. I'd love to hear his stories about who really is "responsible" for 9/11.
Kind of like in America. Is anyone reporting on Obama's shady dealings during his state and senate careers? No? I wonder why. What citations he does issue are easily demonstrated to refute his claims. Ergo, he is at the very least a conservative or an Obama opponent. Karl Rove would love to have him on board, but I doubt this man would accept (see below). Notice also that this accusation is a favorite among 'net trolls who oppose Obama.
How is it that the press is all over a Republican who might-be-gay, but is amazingly silent on a Louisiana congresscritter who was caught on tape taking a bribe, then with marked bills in his freezer, during an FBI bribery sting? This is shown to have a lack of common sense (gay Republican? From a party that is notoriously anti-gay? Say it ain't so!) and due diligence (there were reports, they just weren't that interesting unless it were Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!).
Is anyone reporting on the fact that the US Congress has only a 14% job approval rating while Bush is at least above 25%? No? I wonder why - maybe it doesn't fit the biased story the MSM wants to portray. There are plenty of outlets reporting this, there just aren't that many compared to those putting the cameras and mikes on the Presidential election. Either he doesn't like to read/use Google, or he has a serious chip on his shoulder (mmm, and a bit of fish, too!).
How come the press isn't reporting on two latino political prisoners in US jail, who've been railroaded by the corrupt Bush administration and his cronies, for arresting a known Mexican drug smuggler? How come the financial and connective records of all the administration officials, the DA, the judge who illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence and prevented the jury from hearing that this smuggler had been caught more than a dozen times (including twice during his immunity agreement!), haven't been put through the microscope by the press? Here he probably has a valid point, but the earlier references and reliance on common soundbytes from alternate parties damages his credibility. Later in the thread he touts Barr as a good candidate, revealing his affiliation.
Moryath is a competent rhetoritician, but many of his points are as disingenuous as any of Fox's implied connection of Obama to Islam/terrorism/anti-patriotism. I can't mod this thread, but given that he seems to claim a monopoly on the truth, and that he's calling everyone who disagrees "Obamabots", I would agree with the critical mods that his posts no longer seem "Insightful".
Interesting that you haven't addressed this response.
Obsessively monitoring the moderation of your original post and attributing any negative mods to "Obamabots" does very little to bolster your original or follow-up points. If anything, it will make you look like a paranoid conservative on the order of a certain radio show host, even if you are actually from the Libertarian party.
Please, if you're going to make a case for your party, don't start by harping on alleged wrongdoings of your opponents. It looks bad on the mainstream parties, it looks exponentially worse on the ultra-minority parties. "But we're about substance, not appearance." Bullshit! You do not get elected on substance; if we elected on substance, we would never have elected Clinton, Nixon, let alone Cheney's puppet Bush Jr. It's been said, "Let him who has no sin among you, cast the first stone." I would wager that if the NSA aired your dirty laundry, it would soon be very lonely in your campaign HQ.
Listen, kid. The Republicans, notably Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, are masters of rhetorical bullying, the sort that drowns out reasoned arguments of the sort you were railing at. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in this thread that you are far too hot-headed for even that sort of discourse.
Close this thread, and walk away. Go to a gym and pummel a punching bag. You'll feel much better, I promise.
Slashdot Mirror
Given today's administration, that will get you deported if you're an immigrant; otherwise, your laptop and any traveling in like manner will be confiscated and used against you in an obstruction of justice trial. Unconstitutional? Probably, but they know it'll take years before it's struck down as such if they delay you long enough, and by then the intended damage is done and they're out of office.
They are rapidly reaching the area beyond accountability by law, because they are rejecting the rule of law. The next and final option that remains is accountability by armed force, and they have the upper hand here (unless the military, FBI, CIA, Marshals, etc. decide Bush and Cheney aren't their masters anymore).
Being held accountable did squat to stop the actual fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. With the exception of Franco, it took either an angry mob or an enemy's army at their doorsteps.
As much as I want English to have a consistent glyphs-to-phonemes mapping, you'll have to tag it "goodsummary".
American companies-- especially those not in the tech industry-- by and large are very lax about information security on computing devices. Many managerial decisions result in poor security, including:
1. Cost cutting on software, equipment, and/or training.
2. Creating an environment too hostile to employees or too comfortable to upper management.
3. Hubris of the "it can't possibly happen to us" sort.
4. Active involvement in the trafficking of personal information, i.e. sales thereof to partners and marketing clients.
That's the "whole point of privatizing government operations" that was sold to us for well over a decade. The actual point is to:
1. Reduce costs (so the Republicans can collectively pat themselves on the back)
2. Increase private revenue at taxpayer cost
3. Remove government accountability-- at least, until the public outcry forces the Feds to regulate.
Notice that job quality is nowhere in the picture, as evidenced by Halliburton, Blackwater, and now the companies contracted by the TSA. Yet the loudest voices clamoring for smaller government would have us believe on faith that private companies will always outperform the government.
Part and parcel with the propaganda campaign to privatize everything is the tired McCarthyist accusation of calling anyone who opposes it a "socialist" (code for "Commie").
Suggestion: Practice on the rig using a throwaway disc (failed burns, any AOL promo discs that might still exist), then on burns of backed up CDs/DVDs. First to get the technique required not to tear the disc, then to get the technique required to get a disc that's actually readable.
You would also have to recreate the binary pattern on the disc, which wouldn't be hard, and make sure it sticks without unbalancing the disc, tossing metal fragments inside the drive, or compromising the plastic underneath.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
Those who still can't, lobby.
Grond-breaking? Gandalf probably could've used Crick during the siege.
"He broke Grond, sir."
"... Ah, just send the Nazgûl to smash the gates."
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits?
I realize that the case law precedent would be stronger if they were defeated on a thorough review of their arguments, but if a loss by a technicality grants an injunction against their driftnet attack on their own customers, I for one am all for it.
And, aside from the idiots who screwed up in UMG vs. Lindor, they're not crappy lawyers, IMO. They are lawyers who know the law and procedures enough to avoid following the intended purpose. That's not easy to do, unless you divest yourself of your conscience and common sense. After reading NYCL's article summarizing their tactics, I am sure many here would agree that they should at least be investigated and sanctioned, if not disbarred.
That said, if this big-shot lawyer plays by the rules and if he's defeated by reason in the Capitol hearing, this will effectively ice the RIAA's campaign and crush any hope of the same tactic by the MPAA and BSA. I'm thinking NYCL's excited about this, as the RIAA has spent time and resources to try to keep the courts from seeing that they are acting much like the stereotypical mafia boys roughing up innocent people for payment. I'm sure you'll agree that while there are legions of downloaders grabbing infringing content, there are far more people who only use the Web and email without any clue what a P2P application is.
And you guys have been saying that for many years. That's why we couldn't fix the problem back then too.
False dichotomy. Appeal to fear/unknown/authority. If the problem with high oil/gas prices is due to lack of drilling, I'd love to see you explain the impact of China, India, Brazil, etc.
Translation: "Americans can't have cheaper gas because some corporation might make some money. It's worth it to have poor people suffer just so you can stick it to those nasty corporations."
Straw man. The oil corps are making record profits by keeping supply low.
More drilling alone isn't a fix by itself, but it's patently stupid and dishonest to say that more oil in the supply line won't help prices.
It's also patently disingenuous to imply that it will solve all our woes at the gas pump.
Fans of drilling are clamoring for more supply when something can be done about the high demand...
If you were really concerned about us solving our energy problems, you'd actually let us solve them.
Oh, such humility. Yes, and we'll conveniently ignore that we'll just continue to use finite resources, toss more mercury into the environment, and go on wild goose chases after oil that's costly to extract. Why go for the best solution when there are cheaper ones out there?
You know what? Keep the delusion that you know better than your critics. "Liberals" would rather stop destroying the planet we live in, so they don't like short-sighted "solutions"
Second, I am one who feels the price of oil would drop with offshore drilling. It's a simple supply and demand problem.
Fair enough, but who has the most demand for crude oil, and is expected to continue expanding this demand? It isn't the United States, it's the developing industrial nations known as China and India. Because of this high demand, one should expect prices to remain high even if we add a few drops to the bucket with offshore/ANWR drilling and oil shale. The only way to lower prices now is to collapse China/India's economies (not going to happen) or transition to non-fossil fuels. If you're going to blame anyone for not getting production up, look at the oil companies sitting on hundreds of granted exploration/drilling permits but picking their noses instead. Why? Artificially low supply drives prices up-- look at Exxon's record profits.
Wouldn't a better slogan be, "Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!"
Not when the appellate courts keep giving the border agents unfettered power. This has to be taken to the Supreme Court.
Here, let me translate that:
"We decided to give the President and his followers the benefit of the doubt, and allowed them to establish a regime based on the unitary executive. Anything King George says goes."
it wouldn't be that hard to remove all encoded material from usenet. just set up a simple rule and restrict by size. once you do that, and usenet becomes text only again, usenet can be reborn to satisfy what made it so great in the first place. its social networking lite
Or {2|4}chan. Actually, Usenet's newsgroups were probably the inspiration for the ever-popular jumble of discussion threads. It would be neat to see Usenet returning to its roots, as this way they won't have to deal with the inefficiency and liability of binaries.
No matter how unrewarding and soul-draining the job, the police officer has an obligation and duty to uphold the law and protect the people he serves. I'm not referring to your brother-in-law or your friend, whom I am sure are fine policemen. I and many others in this discussion are referring to the officers who abuse their position of power to destroy any accountability placed upon them. No one likes to be held accountable, much less risk losing their job for what they consider inconvenient (but is part of the rights, protected by case law and the Constitution, that they too enjoy). But the reality is, the more law enforcement rejects the active involvement of the community and the accountability that brings, the more they will become more like the Gestapo and the SS, and the more they will be reviled by the community.
And the noises from the politicians over your brother cursing at a minor in a heated standoff? I'll toss some Norm MacDonald at them: "Tuck off, hypocrites!" I hope any judge, if it gets to the courtroom, sees that ending an incident involving firearms without gunshots is far more important than any four-letter words the kid will hear in juvie anyway.
Not to excuse the ISPs' recent false advertising, but because of the low speed/bandwidth of American "broadband", we've only started to saturate the outdated infrastructure. I suspect that's why they were able to get away with saying "unlimited" all this time to keep up an image of competition, whereas in other countries like Australia, the ISPs routinely tell you what the monthly limit is.
Probably won't stop the oil companies from trying, and thus squandering all the record profits they made in the past year.
Ugh. Upon reading my comment, I feel like a kidnapper holding someone for ransom...
Eh, it's for a good cause.
The OSS crowd will cooperate with your company if and only if they:
1. Abandon the software patent threat against OSS projects entirely, notably Wine and ReactOS,
2. Order its sales, marketing, legal, and executive departments to cease using its partners in "committee stuffing" as it very clearly did in the ISO approval process of Office OXML,
3. Disassociate any so-called "intellectual property rights" protections from its software and sell/license the code to the RIAA/MPAA member companies,
4. Cease using sales contracts with OEMs as leverage for excluding alternative operating systems and/or software, and
5. Make a public, visible commitment to upholding the above in every aspect of its business.
Although the serf-of-business Bush administration gave your company a slap on the wrist and marginal supervision, it is still a convicted monopolist and still engaging in business methods that are at least unconscionable. There are those in the OSS community who still remember how it undercut Netscape into oblivion, how it bullied companies like Dell and Gateway into excluding Linux, how it betrayed IBM re: OS/2, or how it toyed with WordPerfect. Just in the past few months there was evidence of committee-tampering by Microsoft partners, indicating that Microsoft has learned to end-run the system rather than follow the rules. So don't be surprised that there are those who hate you and do not trust you at all, because the likelihood that your management will ever listen to pro-OSS ideas is zero or less.
If you truly love open source, I strongly suggest you leave Microsoft and work for Red Hat, IBM, Google, Sun, or Canonical. Until then, you are either appallingly naive, or worse, a dangerous evangelist.
A better way to put GP's point would be "open source is not supposed to be bound to one platform forcibly through business contracts or licensing agreements." Open source means anyone can take the source and port it to other platforms if they wish, without fear of litigation or underhanded tactics*. Try doing that to Windows, Office, Media Player, or DirectX. I can guarantee that you will have more lawyers on you than a stray mutt has fleas.
* Granted, there is potential for asshattery in OSS project management, but it's nowhere near the corporate level.
Disclaimer: I am not an active Obama supporter. I believe that while the third-parties would do considerably less harm than a McCain administration, their utter disdain for anyone from the mainstream parties will work against them (as in, instant lame-duck President. Don't they realize they also need to control Congress as well? At least Dr. Paul groks this...).
On the flipside, it's always unfortunate when the media are complicit with the government anywhere.
No citations supporting this anywhere in this thread. Not even in alternative media. Ergo, this man is a conspiracy theorist. I'd love to hear his stories about who really is "responsible" for 9/11.
Kind of like in America. Is anyone reporting on Obama's shady dealings during his state and senate careers? No? I wonder why.
What citations he does issue are easily demonstrated to refute his claims. Ergo, he is at the very least a conservative or an Obama opponent. Karl Rove would love to have him on board, but I doubt this man would accept (see below). Notice also that this accusation is a favorite among 'net trolls who oppose Obama.
How is it that the press is all over a Republican who might-be-gay, but is amazingly silent on a Louisiana congresscritter who was caught on tape taking a bribe, then with marked bills in his freezer, during an FBI bribery sting?
This is shown to have a lack of common sense (gay Republican? From a party that is notoriously anti-gay? Say it ain't so!) and due diligence (there were reports, they just weren't that interesting unless it were Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!).
Is anyone reporting on the fact that the US Congress has only a 14% job approval rating while Bush is at least above 25%? No? I wonder why - maybe it doesn't fit the biased story the MSM wants to portray.
There are plenty of outlets reporting this, there just aren't that many compared to those putting the cameras and mikes on the Presidential election. Either he doesn't like to read/use Google, or he has a serious chip on his shoulder (mmm, and a bit of fish, too!).
How come the press isn't reporting on two latino political prisoners in US jail, who've been railroaded by the corrupt Bush administration and his cronies, for arresting a known Mexican drug smuggler? How come the financial and connective records of all the administration officials, the DA, the judge who illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence and prevented the jury from hearing that this smuggler had been caught more than a dozen times (including twice during his immunity agreement!), haven't been put through the microscope by the press?
Here he probably has a valid point, but the earlier references and reliance on common soundbytes from alternate parties damages his credibility. Later in the thread he touts Barr as a good candidate, revealing his affiliation.
Moryath is a competent rhetoritician, but many of his points are as disingenuous as any of Fox's implied connection of Obama to Islam/terrorism/anti-patriotism. I can't mod this thread, but given that he seems to claim a monopoly on the truth, and that he's calling everyone who disagrees "Obamabots", I would agree with the critical mods that his posts no longer seem "Insightful".
Interesting that you haven't addressed this response.
Obsessively monitoring the moderation of your original post and attributing any negative mods to "Obamabots" does very little to bolster your original or follow-up points. If anything, it will make you look like a paranoid conservative on the order of a certain radio show host, even if you are actually from the Libertarian party.
Please, if you're going to make a case for your party, don't start by harping on alleged wrongdoings of your opponents. It looks bad on the mainstream parties, it looks exponentially worse on the ultra-minority parties. "But we're about substance, not appearance." Bullshit! You do not get elected on substance; if we elected on substance, we would never have elected Clinton, Nixon, let alone Cheney's puppet Bush Jr. It's been said, "Let him who has no sin among you, cast the first stone." I would wager that if the NSA aired your dirty laundry, it would soon be very lonely in your campaign HQ.
Listen, kid. The Republicans, notably Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, are masters of rhetorical bullying, the sort that drowns out reasoned arguments of the sort you were railing at. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in this thread that you are far too hot-headed for even that sort of discourse.
Close this thread, and walk away. Go to a gym and pummel a punching bag. You'll feel much better, I promise.