It is true that he can't make the laws, however, the President tends to be highly influencial towards those who do (esspecially on issues that are not a left vs right issue).
"Bush, do you have anything to bomb for reasons that aren't so dripping in politics and ideology that it burns holes through the floor like the blood from one of Ripley's bad guys, or is this just more of the same old same old left versus right fiddling and warring while civilization decays and our enemies laugh?"
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations Address September 12, 2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio Address October 5, 2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've 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're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address January 28, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the Nation March 17, 2003
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
We can bitch back and forth to the end of time. But just show me/one/ barral of "thousands of tons of chemical agents" that Iraq supposedly produced. Just show me/one/ of the "growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons," that Iraq supposedly developed. Just show me/one/ gallon of the "materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent," that Iraq supposedly had. Or are those inquiries too "unpatriotic" to be answered?
Not only does it run in 3D, but it runs in true 3D, provided you have two eyes. It also runs in the truest color, and highest resolution known to man.:)
"1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan -- Factory turns out to be making aspirin To distract people from Monica Lewinsky, yeah. I don't agree with it... but I also didn't agree with him committing perjury about it either."
Sort of how Bush launched an attack against Iraq to distract people from the shitty economy? Yeah, I don't agree with it.. but I also don't agree with him lying the the nations of the world either (esspecially in a way that makes them feel as though they are in mortal danger) -- not to mention the American people. But I guess if you take all things into consideration, lying about getting head is much worse than lying to the nations of the world in such a way that incites a war leading to the deaths of thousands of innocient people (including American lives).
"Sept. 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people So he piloted one of the planes? Great! Then we don't need to waste any more time looking for him."
According to our own legal system, if I tell someone to kill you, and they do, then I am guilty of murdering you, regardless of whether or not I'm even on the same planet as you, and it would be accurate to say that I murdered you. In the same way, if Osama bin Laden tells some guys to kill people, and they do, then he is guilty of murdering them, and it would be accurate to say that Osama bin Laden murdered those people.
"1990's: The U.N. (emphesis on The U.N.) estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. That's just crap made up by the Iraqis. They got those numbers by assuming what the population would be, then subtracting what the population actually was... then assuming all those missing "people" were killed by the sanctions. There has never been ANY evidence of it at all."
Actually it was stated by, "a former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday" http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/halliday.html
Microsoft is also developing search technology for the next version of its Windows operating system, code-named Longhorn, that could further its ambitions to take on Google. The search technology, borrowed from the company's SQL Server database, is expected to make it easier to find documents locally, on individual PCs, and across the Internet by linking to MSN's search services.
Now they're trying to integrate their search engine into the OS? Well if they do MSN's search service will eventually rise to #1 regardless of how poor the quality of it is (It's working for IE). Because most people will just use Windows' search function, and a smaller portion will be aware of that as/the/ way to search the Internet.
"If you're insane, and you want to shoot someone 15 times in the head, do you REALLY think waiting 2 weeks to purchase a handgun is going to stop you from getting one? Seriously... if you're certifiably crazy and you want to murder someone, not having a gun isn't going to stop you. Want proof? Try taking a sledgehammer on an airplane with you and tell them it's your "safety blanket". It's not a dangerous weapon, right? It's certainly not a gun, so it must not be too dangerous..."
This really has nothing to do with what I am saying. The ATF used to publish a database that showed how many times gun dealers were caught selling weapons illegally do those who do not qualify, felons for example. Well that wasn't a very convienent list considering the fact that members of the gun industry were facing lawsuits and claiming under oath that there is no way for them to tell if a gun dealer has a bad rep or not, claiming that they don't have access to any of those statistics. Which was a total lie, as the ATF was publishing that database to the public. And what a concidence, once Ashcroft (who has accepted millions from gun lobbying groups) gains control over the ATF (via the homeland "security" bill) the ATF is to no longer publish those statistics.
"If Clinton would have simply said 'Yeah, I got a piece of ass, so what?' I'd have no problem with it. Unfortunately, he lied under oath. In case you're taking notes, that's perjury... which seems to be a crime only when a Republican commits it."
Well I happen to find a distinction between someone lying about sleeping around, and lying to the world in such a way that incites a war. But maybe that's just me.
"Oh, and while you're whining about the innocent people dying because of Bush standing up for what's right and decent in the world, maybe you should look into the humane torture practices your buddy Saddam was committing. The last figure I heard was a LOT higher than a thousand or so."
First of all, Saddam is certainly not/my/ buddy. I am not the one who gave him billions of dollars in weapons funding, that would be Reagan. I am not the one who provided Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, once again that would be your GOP friend Reagan (boy what ingegrity he brought to the White House eh?).
Secondly, let's look at a little timeline of events here:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran -- Installs Shah as dictator 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala -- 200,000 civilians killed in the process 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile -- Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende Assassinated -- Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed -- 5,000 Chilieans murdered under his rule 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador -- 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed 1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets -- CIA gives them $3 billion 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" -- 30,000 Nicaraguans die 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington -- U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega -- 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. (If you can't trust an "evil" murderous dictator, who can you trust?) 1991: U.S. enters Iraq -- Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait 1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan -- Factory turns out to be making aspirin 1990's: The U.N. (emphesis on The U.N.) estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions. 2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid" Sept. 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.
So please do excuse me when I do not trust the White House's motives. Esspecially when the only evidence anyone has ever been able to provide is, "Trust us" and "He's a really evil man"
"But remember that Clinton and many Democrats made exactly the same claims about Saddam's weapons programs. Were they also lying?"
Yes, however they did not shove it down the rest of the world's throat and pretend as though the US is going to be nuked next week if we don't bomb the hell out of Iraq. He took care of what he apparently thought was an issue on his own. Bush on the other hand pulls out his primate logic of, "You're with us or against us." and then asks who is going to support our war effort, and on top of it his administration mocks the democratic process by threatening retaliation towards nations who did not vote in a way he saw fit. (e.g. Slashdot is holding a vote to see if advertisements should be removed, however it is made clear that those who vote for the removal of the advertisements will recieve a swift punch in the face. Alright everybody, line up and "vote"!)
At times, however, it was fairly obvious that the Clinton administration used, or attempted to use, attacks as a distraction from the scandal that was going on. At least in my mind, killing innocient people to help your political agenda (e.g. a distraction from bad PR) is a FAR worse travisty than getting head. If Clinton should be remembered for doing anything wrong, it should be his using war as a distraction (much like Bush is doing right now), because that was the/real/ scandal. But some people have their moral priorities as such that getting head is worse than causing the deaths of thousands of innocient people for political reasons heh. However, like I said, at least he kept the blood on his hands, instead of forcing it upon that of the nations of the world.
No, but you shouldn't claim to participate in something that you clearly do not stand for. I guess this is what some would refer to as, "bringing integridy back to the White House" laff
Let's see, thanks to Bush I've been able to witness a war over weapons of mass destruction (Iraq has WoMD you just can't see them fool), I've been given the honor to go through a POS economy (and don't give me this Clinton set it up crap, the GOP was in office for 6 years before Clinton, and for 6 years the economy crap), the Bush appointed Ashcroft cut the DOJ's budget for the Microsoft case & changed course from justice to slap on the wrist (if you can even call it that), the Bush appointed Ashcroft -- gaining control via the homeland security bill -- put an end to the inconvenient reports filed by the ATF each year that showed the stats of gun dealers in regards to them being caught selling illegally, my state -- along with the vast majority of the states -- are poor as hell now due to tax cuts that lead to a drastic cut in federal funding...
Oh, but this president doesn't get laid, so I guess that should make me proud. Because getting laid is much more shameful than inciting a war that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people (Oh, I think I figured it out, Saddam is using ultra-high tech/invisable/ WoMD!).
We, the undersigned consortium of 75 international scientists, are deeply concerned about the periodic inaccurate portrayal of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in media reports...
The central psychological deficits in those with ADHD have now been linked through numerous studies using various scientific methods to several specific brain regions (the frontal lobe, its connections to the basal ganglia, and their relationship to the central aspects of the cerebellum). Most neurological studies find that as a group those with ADHD have less brain electrical activity and show less reactivity to stimulation in one or more of these regions. And neuro-imaging studies of groups of those with ADHD also demonstrate relatively smaller areas of brain matter and less metabolic activity of this brain matter than is the case in control groups used in these studies...
This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder...This is in striking contrast to the wholly unscientific views of some social critics in periodic media accounts that ADHD constitutes a fraud, that medicating those afflicted is questionable if not reprehensible, and that any behavior problems associated with ADHD are merely the result of problems in the home, excessive viewing of TV or playing of video games, diet, lack of love and attention, or teacher/school intolerance.
Well one of your problems was due to the fact that you should not mix caffine with adderall. I take adderall, and I notice my heart starts to race like crazy if I drink caffine while I'm on it. Adderall has a side-effect of making your heart race a little on it's own, combine this with caffine (a drug who's main purpose is to get your heart racing to wake you up) and you're gonna just kill your poor heart.
We, the undersigned consortium of 75 international scientists, are deeply concerned about the periodic inaccurate portrayal of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in media reports...
The central psychological deficits in those with ADHD have now been linked through numerous studies using various scientific methods to several specific brain regions (the frontal lobe, its connections to the basal ganglia, and their relationship to the central aspects of the cerebellum). Most neurological studies find that as a group those with ADHD have less brain electrical activity and show less reactivity to stimulation in one or more of these regions. And neuro-imaging studies of groups of those with ADHD also demonstrate relatively smaller areas of brain matter and less metabolic activity of this brain matter than is the case in control groups used in these studies...
This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder...This is in striking contrast to the wholly unscientific views of some social critics in periodic media accounts that ADHD constitutes a fraud, that medicating those afflicted is questionable if not reprehensible, and that any behavior problems associated with ADHD are merely the result of problems in the home, excessive viewing of TV or playing of video games, diet, lack of love and attention, or teacher/school intolerance.
Re:Sugar+Caffine+Video games+TV+Couch+Kid=
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
We, the undersigned consortium of 75 international scientists, are deeply concerned about the periodic inaccurate portrayal of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in media reports...
The central psychological deficits in those with ADHD have now been linked through numerous studies using various scientific methods to several specific brain regions (the frontal lobe, its connections to the basal ganglia, and their relationship to the central aspects of the cerebellum). Most neurological studies find that as a group those with ADHD have less brain electrical activity and show less reactivity to stimulation in one or more of these regions. And neuro-imaging studies of groups of those with ADHD also demonstrate relatively smaller areas of brain matter and less metabolic activity of this brain matter than is the case in control groups used in these studies...
This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder...This is in striking contrast to the wholly unscientific views of some social critics in periodic media accounts that ADHD constitutes a fraud, that medicating those afflicted is questionable if not reprehensible, and that any behavior problems associated with ADHD are merely the result of problems in the home, excessive viewing of TV or playing of video games, diet, lack of love and attention, or teacher/school intolerance.
Slashdot Mirror
It is true that he can't make the laws, however, the President tends to be highly influencial towards those who do (esspecially on issues that are not a left vs right issue).
"The reason politics stinks is because the population is too stupid and lazy to fight for something better."
Amen to that.
Wait until the Surpeme Court is a majority of your party.
Cheat.
When a recount is demanded appeal it all the way to your buddies in the Surpreme Court -- they cease it for you.
Profit.
Well, maybe in place of ones who happen to be running this enterprise right into the ground.
"Bush, do you have anything to bomb for reasons that aren't so dripping in politics and ideology that it burns holes through the floor like the blood from one of Ripley's bad guys, or is this just more of the same old same old left versus right fiddling and warring while civilization decays and our enemies laugh?"
Bush isn't even honest in his State of the Union Address, and Americans don't seem to be having a hard time trusting him...
The latest version of RealVNC (realvnc.com) is actually faster and smoother than remote desktop in my experiences.
Maybe this will scare people into securing their web servers (e.g. possibly less Nimba traffic and whatnot).
I believe 7.1 does have new mail notifications.
Wow, that must be the most unfunny thing I have ever heard...
We can bitch back and forth to the end of time. But just show me
"Name ONE nation that didn't believe that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. If you can, provide a link to where they stated it."
France (is a link really necessary?).
Not only does it run in 3D, but it runs in true 3D, provided you have two eyes. It also runs in the truest color, and highest resolution known to man. :)
http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/halliday.html
"1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan -- Factory turns out to be making aspirin
To distract people from Monica Lewinsky, yeah. I don't agree with it... but I also didn't agree with him committing perjury about it either."
Sort of how Bush launched an attack against Iraq to distract people from the shitty economy? Yeah, I don't agree with it.. but I also don't agree with him lying the the nations of the world either (esspecially in a way that makes them feel as though they are in mortal danger) -- not to mention the American people. But I guess if you take all things into consideration, lying about getting head is much worse than lying to the nations of the world in such a way that incites a war leading to the deaths of thousands of innocient people (including American lives).
"Sept. 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people
So he piloted one of the planes? Great! Then we don't need to waste any more time looking for him."
According to our own legal system, if I tell someone to kill you, and they do, then I am guilty of murdering you, regardless of whether or not I'm even on the same planet as you, and it would be accurate to say that I murdered you. In the same way, if Osama bin Laden tells some guys to kill people, and they do, then he is guilty of murdering them, and it would be accurate to say that Osama bin Laden murdered those people.
"1990's: The U.N. (emphesis on The U.N.) estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
That's just crap made up by the Iraqis. They got those numbers by assuming what the population would be, then subtracting what the population actually was... then assuming all those missing "people" were killed by the sanctions. There has never been ANY evidence of it at all."
Actually it was stated by, "a former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday" http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/halliday.html
The feature doesn't seem to stand out very well. I'm sure they will become much more obnoxious about it as their new engine develops.
Now they're trying to integrate their search engine into the OS? Well if they do MSN's search service will eventually rise to #1 regardless of how poor the quality of it is (It's working for IE). Because most people will just use Windows' search function, and a smaller portion will be aware of that as
"If you're insane, and you want to shoot someone 15 times in the head, do you REALLY think waiting 2 weeks to purchase a handgun is going to stop you from getting one? Seriously... if you're certifiably crazy and you want to murder someone, not having a gun isn't going to stop you. Want proof? Try taking a sledgehammer on an airplane with you and tell them it's your "safety blanket". It's not a dangerous weapon, right? It's certainly not a gun, so it must not be too dangerous..."
/my/ buddy. I am not the one who gave him billions of dollars in weapons funding, that would be Reagan. I am not the one who provided Saddam with chemical and biological weapons, once again that would be your GOP friend Reagan (boy what ingegrity he brought to the White House eh?).
This really has nothing to do with what I am saying. The ATF used to publish a database that showed how many times gun dealers were caught selling weapons illegally do those who do not qualify, felons for example. Well that wasn't a very convienent list considering the fact that members of the gun industry were facing lawsuits and claiming under oath that there is no way for them to tell if a gun dealer has a bad rep or not, claiming that they don't have access to any of those statistics. Which was a total lie, as the ATF was publishing that database to the public. And what a concidence, once Ashcroft (who has accepted millions from gun lobbying groups) gains control over the ATF (via the homeland "security" bill) the ATF is to no longer publish those statistics.
"If Clinton would have simply said 'Yeah, I got a piece of ass, so what?' I'd have no problem with it. Unfortunately, he lied under oath. In case you're taking notes, that's perjury... which seems to be a crime only when a Republican commits it."
Well I happen to find a distinction between someone lying about sleeping around, and lying to the world in such a way that incites a war. But maybe that's just me.
"Oh, and while you're whining about the innocent people dying because of Bush standing up for what's right and decent in the world, maybe you should look into the humane torture practices your buddy Saddam was committing. The last figure I heard was a LOT higher than a thousand or so."
First of all, Saddam is certainly not
Secondly, let's look at a little timeline of events here:
1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran -- Installs Shah as dictator
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala -- 200,000 civilians killed in the process
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia
1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile -- Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende Assassinated -- Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed -- 5,000 Chilieans murdered under his rule
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador -- 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets -- CIA gives them $3 billion
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" -- 30,000 Nicaraguans die
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington -- U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega -- 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. (If you can't trust an "evil" murderous dictator, who can you trust?)
1991: U.S. enters Iraq -- Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait
1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan -- Factory turns out to be making aspirin
1990's: The U.N. (emphesis on The U.N.) estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid"
Sept. 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.
So please do excuse me when I do not trust the White House's motives. Esspecially when the only evidence anyone has ever been able to provide is, "Trust us" and "He's a really evil man"
More like the same policy he has claimed to have with regards to the WTO specificly.
"But remember that Clinton and many Democrats made exactly the same claims about Saddam's weapons programs. Were they also lying?"
/real/ scandal. But some people have their moral priorities as such that getting head is worse than causing the deaths of thousands of innocient people for political reasons heh. However, like I said, at least he kept the blood on his hands, instead of forcing it upon that of the nations of the world.
Yes, however they did not shove it down the rest of the world's throat and pretend as though the US is going to be nuked next week if we don't bomb the hell out of Iraq. He took care of what he apparently thought was an issue on his own. Bush on the other hand pulls out his primate logic of, "You're with us or against us." and then asks who is going to support our war effort, and on top of it his administration mocks the democratic process by threatening retaliation towards nations who did not vote in a way he saw fit. (e.g. Slashdot is holding a vote to see if advertisements should be removed, however it is made clear that those who vote for the removal of the advertisements will recieve a swift punch in the face. Alright everybody, line up and "vote"!)
At times, however, it was fairly obvious that the Clinton administration used, or attempted to use, attacks as a distraction from the scandal that was going on. At least in my mind, killing innocient people to help your political agenda (e.g. a distraction from bad PR) is a FAR worse travisty than getting head. If Clinton should be remembered for doing anything wrong, it should be his using war as a distraction (much like Bush is doing right now), because that was the
No, but you shouldn't claim to participate in something that you clearly do not stand for. I guess this is what some would refer to as, "bringing integridy back to the White House" laff
Let's see, thanks to Bush I've been able to witness a war over weapons of mass destruction (Iraq has WoMD you just can't see them fool), I've been given the honor to go through a POS economy (and don't give me this Clinton set it up crap, the GOP was in office for 6 years before Clinton, and for 6 years the economy crap), the Bush appointed Ashcroft cut the DOJ's budget for the Microsoft case & changed course from justice to slap on the wrist (if you can even call it that), the Bush appointed Ashcroft -- gaining control via the homeland security bill -- put an end to the inconvenient reports filed by the ATF each year that showed the stats of gun dealers in regards to them being caught selling illegally, my state -- along with the vast majority of the states -- are poor as hell now due to tax cuts that lead to a drastic cut in federal funding...
/invisable/ WoMD!).
Oh, but this president doesn't get laid, so I guess that should make me proud. Because getting laid is much more shameful than inciting a war that lead to the death of thousands of innocent people (Oh, I think I figured it out, Saddam is using ultra-high tech
http://www.additudemag.com/addabc.asp?DEPT_NO=200
I use apt as well. :)