Buchanan is no longer a republican. John McCain, made some negative comments about him, and when he wouldn't apologize, he left the party. (so, there was some republican outcry as well)
Buchanan is now in the Reform party, and could be a posible candidate, might be running aganst donald trump.... -- "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
OGL does not run on top of DirectX. Infact now Hardware companys are spending more time on OGL drivers then Direct3d drivers now, beacuse Quake and all its dirivatives run on GL. Since quake is the 'standard' in gaming, cards that run quake better sell better. (This is especialy true of nVidia.)
Its pretty entertaining, these people are crazy: It's this sort of chutzpah that makes the namers at Landor see red. "The Internet is filled with arrogance," says Amy Becker coldly. "You might have a provocative, fun name. But do you have the basis for a lasting brand? We still don't know how compelling a brand Yahoo will be 10 years from now. I sense a real missed opportunity."
"Let's put it this way," says Redhill. "Over the years, we have created and sustained many of the world's most durable brands. We make a lot more hits than companies who think up their own symbols and names. I'm not suggesting that a company couldn't get it right with a stroke of insight or genius or luck. But if it's your own brand, how can you possibly be objective? I mean, would you name your own baby?"
I take it from your earlier posts that you are from India correct?
WHAA??
I don't know where you could infer that. I currently live in the same city I was born. Ames, Iowa. Iowa, as you'll recall is one of the United States of America.
My poor spelling has nothing to do with English not being my primary language.(If that's what you thought)
Anyway, Ether you give sovereignty to every country, or none at all. The right of a country to have sovereignty is much like individual rights of citizens. Ether everyone has them, or no one does. (And only the most powerful, like the US) can do what they want.
So suddently saving people is a bad idea? Hmm.. I guess we should make 911 a phone sex number then because no one needs emergency assistance right? You couldn't be more wrong about needing to help people in times of crisis. The balkan nations are not really the interesting in and of themselves but because of where they are strategically places.
I didn't say that it was wrong, I only said that it was a NATO action, not a UN action. I was correcting the poster befor me (He said it was the UN). Wether it was right or wrong, it still pissed of china, russia, etc.
Its intresting that you get so worked up about Kosovo(a), and yet ignore the much larger problems in africa. Oh well.
If you live there and want a continuous trade relationship for basics like food and medicine and stable working conditions.
but see, the WTO has nothing to do with that, its still up to the contries. Just a second ago you were saying what we did in serbia was good, now your saying it was *bad*? (beacuse, after all, dosn't serbia have a right sovereignty as well, or is that just for contries you like?)
Perhaps you don't know what sovereignty means. It means a contrie can do whatever it likes, including inslaving and murdering there people.
If I were a Kosovar Albainian, I sure as fuck wouldn't care about Serbian sovereignty, infact I'd be very intrested in its removal.
As for my last point, I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I do not want a government run by bill gates, however. I count in my rights the right to vote, and to know whats going on in my own government. These rights would be extended to people in other contries as well. No the WTO does not do this now, but if it did, then there woudln't be a problem.
Dude, russia was aganst us, they were supporters of Slobo. This didn't stop clinton from saying that they were on our side when the whole thing started, though...
Um, first of all, the environment has been Improving for many years, and secondly even in the worst times what would were doing could hardly be called 'destroying'
You know theres a limitless supply of oil, don't you? its called ethinol (comes from corn).
The WTO has no real power. If tit has a problem with one of our laws, and cites us, all we have to do is ether withdraw from the WTO, or ignore it. (Certainly, the United States is not a nation known for following treaties). Without the US, the WTO looses much of its luster, and persuasive power. It's unlikely that it would do anything to upset us.
Other countries may have trouble staying in the WTO if they just ignore it, But ultimately, the WTO has NO power whatsoever. They have no military, and while they're capable of passing laws, no one is under any obligation to follow them.
Members of the United States are bound by the Its constitution (No one ever thinks of the US as having members, but the states were originally independent countries... sort of). Secession is illegal, and the US has a military force to back it up. The WTO has no such capability
The fact that the stock market was good both in the 1920s and today dosn't really mean anything, and has nothing to do with the WTO.
Well, the UN Didn't enter Kosovo, it was NATO. And it pissed a lot of people off (most notably China, bombing there embassy wasn't such a good idea ether)
Anyway, I realize that Countries are going to like the idea of sovereignty quite a bit, because if sovereignty is lost, the people signing the treaties loose power. Its an important thing, for those in power. Since I'm not in power, I don't really care.
Because your rights aren't necessarily preserved. Can you vote rulers/officers of these Para-national bodies out of office? Are the actions taken by such a body (actions that affect you) open to public, open review? Is there a legal appeals process and what are your rights under that process as a citizen? And beyond the protection of your rights under such a system, on a pragmatic basis, is power adequately distributed via a system of checks and balances to prevent or ameliorate corruption or tyranny?
These are all good questions, and right now the answer seems to be no. But that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously I don't want the US government replaced by a bunch g8 members and people who meet in closed conferences lead by Bill Gates. What I said was that if I keep all the rights I had now then it would be OK. This includes the right to vote, and to know what my government is up to. Let me state again: As long as I retain the rights I currently have, I don't care who's running the show. This is more then just free speech, but also the political rights I enjoy as well.
And I didn't know that it was them who had been running the 'I miss my other lung, bob' billboards. Those are great:)
However, whether or not they are 'doing good' is a matter of debate. Would Seattle have been so ravaged if there ads hadn't run? I think that's a question that they really need to ask themselves. The info about the protest on there site was your typical information-free political propaganda and nothing more then rhetoric.
If you want to fight a cause, disseminate information about it. Let people make up your own minds. If people chose not to join you, then maybe you're in the wrong.
Advertising is about manipulating people, not informing them. I certainly wouldn't call what I saw on CNN an "Unadverizment" it was as much a political ad as anything else. (actually, it was a hell of a lot better then most political ads, but that's another story)
Just because an idea is progressive, it isn't necessarily good. And, once you stop disseminating real information, and start producing propaganda, then you are no better then anyone else. You're just another salesman, pushing your ideas, regardless of how correct they are.
Advertising, in the form used by corporate America, and by adbusters.org is not designed to inform us, but rather to control us. Corporate America's message is simply to buy their stuff. Adbusers has a political agenda, and is using the tools of advertising to push it.
There was another organization that used modern advertising to achieve its 'new' goals, It was called Nazism. And they were pretty successful.
No, I'm not. (well, maybe suck is a little strong of a word)
Sovereignty works great, if you already live in a democracy with lots of rights, etc. But I don't see why its so important to extend it to rouge nations, or, for that matter why US sovereignty is even so important to begin with.
Like I said, as long as my rights are maintained, I don't really care whose running the show (this includes the right to vote, etc)
I didn't say world trade wasn't an important issue, but certanly, you wouldn't say that it is over one thousand times as important as things like the CDA? would you?
The reason this has been so effective is beacuse thousands upon thousands of people who have been unable to think for them selves marched down to seattle, and tried (sucsesfully) to stop the WTO from meeting.
Why Seattle? Because Boeing has shipped endless jobs out of there in the last few years. Japan, China - they're all getting a slice. When a Chinese machinist costs $20 less per hour than their US counterpart, you can bet your bottom dollar that job will move.
You know, I keep hearing people like Michel More, and other hardcore left/Hardcore right complain that jobs are leaving the US. And yet, no one has ever said why it is that US jobs are more important then jobs in other countries. Yes, they pay less, but then Mexicans still need to eat, right?
So, I would like it if you would answer this question: Why are US jobs more important then jobs in other countries?
I think it was Al gore, or some other Democrat that said Its time to spend less time worrying about Consumers, and more time worrying about workers!
Now, as far as I know, every person is a consumer. And lower prices on things are better for the consumers. CEOs don't make that much money really, unless they are stockholders as well (Like Bill Gates, he makes his money from owning part of MS, not in salary). The *Stock Holders* get the money. And who is the stock holders? why, you and me! and if you don't own stocks, you should buy some.
Don't forget better stock prices mean better mortgage rates for homes, meaning more people can afford them, etc, etc, etc.
"other people's property"? whose property? They are not destroying your property, right? Unless you the owner of Nike..
Um, the rioters in Seattle are destroying property, like stores and stuff. and not ones owned by Nike ether.
And while its true that the gap between rich and poor in this contry is high, our 'poor' people are still very well off compared to other contrys (A chines factory worker, employed by the Comunist government btw, makes abotu $300 a year)
Come to think of it, I can't think of very many protests that went anywhere that _weren't_ for good causes.
Well, there were plenty of pro-nazi protest in Germany in the 1930's etc.
Anyway there are different kinds of protests as well. Violent rioting accomplishes nothing. Organized, peaceful demonstration can do things like raise awareness. These, of course, were not peaceful
Slashdot Mirror
After the 'republican takeover' in '94, Chris Farly (sp?) did a spoof of Newt Gengrich.
Newt invited him to the floor of congress to do his act.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Buchanan is no longer a republican. John McCain, made some negative comments about him, and when he wouldn't apologize, he left the party. (so, there was some republican outcry as well)
Buchanan is now in the Reform party, and could be a posible candidate, might be running aganst donald trump....
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
just set your threshold to +1. all ACs will dissapear.
--
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Java is proprietary to.
OGL does not run on top of DirectX. Infact now Hardware companys are spending more time on OGL drivers then Direct3d drivers now, beacuse Quake and all its dirivatives run on GL. Since quake is the 'standard' in gaming, cards that run quake better sell better. (This is especialy true of nVidia.)
and here it is in clickable form: /media/col/shal/1999/11/30/naming/index.html .
http://www.salon.com
Its pretty entertaining, these people are crazy:
It's this sort of chutzpah that makes the namers at Landor see red. "The Internet is filled with arrogance," says Amy Becker coldly. "You might have a provocative, fun name. But do you have the basis for a lasting brand? We still don't know how compelling a brand Yahoo will be 10 years from now. I sense a real missed opportunity."
"Let's put it this way," says Redhill. "Over the years, we have created and sustained many of the world's most durable brands. We make a lot more hits than companies who think up their own symbols and names. I'm not suggesting that a company couldn't get it right with a stroke of insight or genius or luck. But if it's your own brand, how can you possibly be objective? I mean, would you name your own baby?"
I take it from your earlier posts that you are from India correct?
WHAA??
I don't know where you could infer that. I currently live in the same city I was born. Ames, Iowa. Iowa, as you'll recall is one of the United States of America.
My poor spelling has nothing to do with English not being my primary language.(If that's what you thought)
Anyway, Ether you give sovereignty to every country, or none at all. The right of a country to have sovereignty is much like individual rights of citizens. Ether everyone has them, or no one does. (And only the most powerful, like the US) can do what they want.
So suddently saving people is a bad idea? Hmm.. I guess we should make 911 a phone sex number then because no one needs emergency assistance right? You couldn't be more wrong about needing to help people in times of crisis. The balkan nations are not really the interesting in and of themselves but because of where they are strategically places.
I didn't say that it was wrong, I only said that it was a NATO action, not a UN action. I was correcting the poster befor me (He said it was the UN). Wether it was right or wrong, it still pissed of china, russia, etc.
Its intresting that you get so worked up about Kosovo(a), and yet ignore the much larger problems in africa. Oh well.
If you live there and want a continuous trade relationship for basics like food and medicine and stable working conditions.
but see, the WTO has nothing to do with that, its still up to the contries. Just a second ago you were saying what we did in serbia was good, now your saying it was *bad*? (beacuse, after all, dosn't serbia have a right sovereignty as well, or is that just for contries you like?)
Perhaps you don't know what sovereignty means. It means a contrie can do whatever it likes, including inslaving and murdering there people.
If I were a Kosovar Albainian, I sure as fuck wouldn't care about Serbian sovereignty, infact I'd be very intrested in its removal.
As for my last point, I guess I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I do not want a government run by bill gates, however. I count in my rights the right to vote, and to know whats going on in my own government. These rights would be extended to people in other contries as well. No the WTO does not do this now, but if it did, then there woudln't be a problem.
Dude, russia was aganst us, they were supporters of Slobo. This didn't stop clinton from saying that they were on our side when the whole thing started, though...
Um, first of all, the environment has been Improving for many years, and secondly even in the worst times what would were doing could hardly be called 'destroying'
You know theres a limitless supply of oil, don't you? its called ethinol (comes from corn).
Ruber bullets are lethal, if the cops had really been using them, there would be thousands of dead people.
The police were using rubber slugs fired out of paintball guns.
The WTO has no real power. If tit has a problem with one of our laws, and cites us, all we have to do is ether withdraw from the WTO, or ignore it. (Certainly, the United States is not a nation known for following treaties). Without the US, the WTO looses much of its luster, and persuasive power. It's unlikely that it would do anything to upset us.
Other countries may have trouble staying in the WTO if they just ignore it, But ultimately, the WTO has NO power whatsoever. They have no military, and while they're capable of passing laws, no one is under any obligation to follow them.
Members of the United States are bound by the Its constitution (No one ever thinks of the US as having members, but the states were originally independent countries... sort of). Secession is illegal, and the US has a military force to back it up. The WTO has no such capability
The fact that the stock market was good both in the 1920s and today dosn't really mean anything, and has nothing to do with the WTO.
Well, the UN Didn't enter Kosovo, it was NATO. And it pissed a lot of people off (most notably China, bombing there embassy wasn't such a good idea ether)
Anyway, I realize that Countries are going to like the idea of sovereignty quite a bit, because if sovereignty is lost, the people signing the treaties loose power. Its an important thing, for those in power. Since I'm not in power, I don't really care.
Because your rights aren't necessarily preserved. Can you vote rulers/officers of these Para-national bodies out of office? Are the actions taken by such a body (actions that affect you) open to public, open review? Is there a legal appeals process and what are your rights under that process as a citizen? And beyond the protection of your rights under such a system, on a pragmatic basis, is power adequately distributed via a system of checks and balances to prevent or ameliorate corruption or tyranny?
These are all good questions, and right now the answer seems to be no. But that's not what I'm talking about. Obviously I don't want the US government replaced by a bunch g8 members and people who meet in closed conferences lead by Bill Gates. What I said was that if I keep all the rights I had now then it would be OK. This includes the right to vote, and to know what my government is up to. Let me state again: As long as I retain the rights I currently have, I don't care who's running the show. This is more then just free speech, but also the political rights I enjoy as well.
And I didn't know that it was them who had been running the 'I miss my other lung, bob' billboards. Those are great :)
However, whether or not they are 'doing good' is a matter of debate. Would Seattle have been so ravaged if there ads hadn't run? I think that's a question that they really need to ask themselves. The info about the protest on there site was your typical information-free political propaganda and nothing more then rhetoric.
If you want to fight a cause, disseminate information about it. Let people make up your own minds. If people chose not to join you, then maybe you're in the wrong.
Advertising is about manipulating people, not informing them. I certainly wouldn't call what I saw on CNN an "Unadverizment" it was as much a political ad as anything else. (actually, it was a hell of a lot better then most political ads, but that's another story)
Just because an idea is progressive, it isn't necessarily good. And, once you stop disseminating real information, and start producing propaganda, then you are no better then anyone else. You're just another salesman, pushing your ideas, regardless of how correct they are.
Advertising, in the form used by corporate America, and by adbusters.org is not designed to inform us, but rather to control us. Corporate America's message is simply to buy their stuff. Adbusers has a political agenda, and is using the tools of advertising to push it.
There was another organization that used modern advertising to achieve its 'new' goals, It was called Nazism. And they were pretty successful.
"First of all, sovereignty sucks"
your kidding right?
No, I'm not. (well, maybe suck is a little strong of a word)
Sovereignty works great, if you already live in a democracy with lots of rights, etc. But I don't see why its so important to extend it to rouge nations, or, for that matter why US sovereignty is even so important to begin with.
Like I said, as long as my rights are maintained, I don't really care whose running the show (this includes the right to vote, etc)
I didn't say world trade wasn't an important issue, but certanly, you wouldn't say that it is over one thousand times as important as things like the CDA? would you?
The reason this has been so effective is beacuse thousands upon thousands of people who have been unable to think for them selves marched down to seattle, and tried (sucsesfully) to stop the WTO from meeting.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THE NATIONAL GUARD NEED RIOT UNITS FOR?!?
Um, probably to stop riots... or would you rather see cities burned to the ground?
Its "For" the labor unions, who want to keep Jobs from the third world, and here in the US. Why? beacuse there selfish, thats why.
Hrm. I dissagree with the protesters, in both there means, and there goals. So, I'm ether a troll or a WTO astro-turfer? um. Yeh...
Why Seattle? Because Boeing has shipped endless jobs out of there in the last few years. Japan, China - they're all getting a slice. When a Chinese machinist costs $20 less per hour than their US counterpart, you can bet your bottom dollar that job will move.
You know, I keep hearing people like Michel More, and other hardcore left/Hardcore right complain that jobs are leaving the US. And yet, no one has ever said why it is that US jobs are more important then jobs in other countries. Yes, they pay less, but then Mexicans still need to eat, right?
So, I would like it if you would answer this question:
Why are US jobs more important then jobs in other countries?
Then they can simply leave. No one is forcing them to be a part of it.
I think it was Al gore, or some other Democrat that said Its time to spend less time worrying about Consumers, and more time worrying about workers!
Now, as far as I know, every person is a consumer. And lower prices on things are better for the consumers. CEOs don't make that much money really, unless they are stockholders as well (Like Bill Gates, he makes his money from owning part of MS, not in salary). The *Stock Holders* get the money. And who is the stock holders? why, you and me! and if you don't own stocks, you should buy some.
Don't forget better stock prices mean better mortgage rates for homes, meaning more people can afford them, etc, etc, etc.
You really need to think this through more fully
"other people's property"? whose property? They are not destroying your property, right? Unless you the owner of Nike..
Um, the rioters in Seattle are destroying property, like stores and stuff. and not ones owned by Nike ether.
And while its true that the gap between rich and poor in this contry is high, our 'poor' people are still very well off compared to other contrys (A chines factory worker, employed by the Comunist government btw, makes abotu $300 a year)
Um, no one had mentioned this when I posted, how is it redundant?
Come to think of it, I can't think of very many protests that went anywhere that _weren't_ for good causes.
Well, there were plenty of pro-nazi protest in Germany in the 1930's etc.
Anyway there are different kinds of protests as well. Violent rioting accomplishes nothing. Organized, peaceful demonstration can do things like raise awareness. These, of course, were not peaceful