(9:11 A.M.) A few minutes later, the F-15's receive orders to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they do that for the next four hours. At no point are these pilots given permission to shoot down any airliners. Nash points out that even if he had reached New York City before Flight 175, he couldn't shoot it down because only the President could make that decision. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] During this time, President Bush is reading a book about a goat to 18 second-graders.
The process you talk about starts and stops with the man in the classroom. Some reports indicate that Cheney gave the go ahead... tough shit. He isn't in the chain of command and nobody would listen to him, because they know his place is in the shitter with every other civilian.
By the time Bush's handlers got their act together, it was too late.
Don't trash the military because they have to accept this guy as CIC. They were in the air and waiting for orders.
Check out this timeline and realize that what should have been done was canceling the photo op and taking care of business. Pay particular attention to what each person did at 8:45.
Democrats have been losing because the Gore and Kerry are wooden bores.
That isn't why the dems have been losing. The lose because they aren't willing to lie, cheat and steal to "win at all costs".
They aren't playing dirty enough to match the 'pubs. Until they are willing to get in the mud and kill, just like the enemy... they will never defeat them.
Kerry didn't learn the right lessons in Vietnam... when someone kicks you in the balls, your job is to rip the other mf's balls off. And, when he doubles over... you snap his neck... and when he falls to the ground you gut him... then you take the parts and spread them far and wide to make sure nobody every gets the entire picture.
There is no kill like overkill. Any thing less is insufficient.
Until the dems are willing to go house to house killing the offspring of their enemy... they will continue to lose. (They don't have to actually do it... they just have to be willing.)
But we don't call our opponents Hitler, Nazis or Stalin.
Well, that wouldn't really make a lot of sense... I mean, they were RIGHT WING nuts.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
And, do we want people like BG owning tanks?
Why would he need a tank?
He has major ownership* in one of the only companies that makes nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines... and... he is making sure that they run Windows also.
* At least at one time... he may have divested by now, but the point remains... this ban means nothing if you have serious money. Guns? We don't need no stinkin' guns!
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
What happens when Bill Gates buys a million tanks and sends them all at Linux users?
Linux users are not "an oppressive government."
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Second point is that its only been illigal to make new guns, not illigal to own or even sell an existing gun.
Yep.
I never really felt the need to own a gun. But, when both the house and senate passed this bill (1994) I went out and bougt a shitload of the subject material before it got signed into law.
I felt that as soon as my government started limiting guns was about the time I needed to get real interested in owning some.
So now... the only guns I own... are assault weapons, purchased as a direct result of this laws passage.
Basically, people with a Libertarian or socially liberal, fiscally conservative bent can either wish that there was a Libertarian party with a chance of getting elected, or they can hammer on one of the other parties.
I haven't picked either party... I alway vote for gridlock.
That means, this year I'll be voting democrat. They could run Hitler... I'd still vote for him.
I simply don't want congress and the executive branch ran by the same assholes.
And, they only get to interpret laws that are badly written. Well written laws don't cause "confusion" and don't need "interpreting". Only bad ones do.
So... next time you hear some politician telling you the problem is "activist" judges, you can now realize it is actually because of politicians passing shitty laws so they can make their contributors happy.
Slashdot Mirror
But just don't be an apologist for Linux, it just makes "us" look hypocritical.
;-)
I wasn't apoligizing. It makes perfect sense to me.
Then agian, I have a calculator that you turn off by pressing the "ON" key.
Seriously tho...
Many devices have a single power button. You push it... thing comes on... push it again... thing turns off.
If anyone should apologize, it is the person that decided on "Start" for the button label.
And, in *nix... init 6 does just what it says it does.
It initializes run level six. Run level six can do anything you want it to do. It doesn't have to shut down the system.
So... WTF would I even have to apologize for? The fact that the parent associates it in his mind with shutting down?
It doesn't shut down... it initializes run level six. If you don't want it to shut down when you init 6... change it.
If you don't want to go to the "Start" button in Windows to shut down... well... that one is your problem. Not mine.
doesn't sound like it should start (initialize) anything
So... it should not initialize (begin) run level 6?
I don't think so...
It has been in bad shape all day where I am, long before any posting here.
Linux: if you want to completely remove it: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=512 count=1
Please don't do that. You'll nuke your partition table.
Reference
Why for?
Because I bought weapons (legally) when my government started to outlaw them?
I think that to do otherwise would be foolish.
If that makes me a moron... guilty.
At least I'm a well armed moron.
;-)
(9:11 A.M.) A few minutes later, the F-15's receive orders to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they do that for the next four hours. At no point are these pilots given permission to shoot down any airliners. Nash points out that even if he had reached New York City before Flight 175, he couldn't shoot it down because only the President could make that decision. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] During this time, President Bush is reading a book about a goat to 18 second-graders.
(Reference)
The process you talk about starts and stops with the man in the classroom. Some reports indicate that Cheney gave the go ahead... tough shit. He isn't in the chain of command and nobody would listen to him, because they know his place is in the shitter with every other civilian.
By the time Bush's handlers got their act together, it was too late.
Don't trash the military because they have to accept this guy as CIC. They were in the air and waiting for orders.
Check out this timeline and realize that what should have been done was canceling the photo op and taking care of business. Pay particular attention to what each person did at 8:45.
The rights it represents are God given, not changable as to the whims of men.
Actually, men had to fight for those rights. They weren't "given" to them by any one/thing.
Quick!
Shoot the messenger!!
Democrats have been losing because the Gore and Kerry are wooden bores.
That isn't why the dems have been losing. The lose because they aren't willing to lie, cheat and steal to "win at all costs".
They aren't playing dirty enough to match the 'pubs. Until they are willing to get in the mud and kill, just like the enemy... they will never defeat them.
Kerry didn't learn the right lessons in Vietnam... when someone kicks you in the balls, your job is to rip the other mf's balls off. And, when he doubles over... you snap his neck... and when he falls to the ground you gut him... then you take the parts and spread them far and wide to make sure nobody every gets the entire picture.
There is no kill like overkill. Any thing less is insufficient.
Until the dems are willing to go house to house killing the offspring of their enemy... they will continue to lose. (They don't have to actually do it... they just have to be willing.)
Because that is the kind of enemy they face.
But we don't call our opponents Hitler, Nazis or Stalin.
Well, that wouldn't really make a lot of sense... I mean, they were RIGHT WING nuts.
And, do we want people like BG owning tanks?
Why would he need a tank?
He has major ownership* in one of the only companies that makes nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines... and... he is making sure that they run Windows also.
* At least at one time... he may have divested by now, but the point remains... this ban means nothing if you have serious money. Guns? We don't need no stinkin' guns!
What happens when Bill Gates buys a million tanks and sends them all at Linux users?
Linux users are not "an oppressive government."
Second point is that its only been illigal to make new guns, not illigal to own or even sell an existing gun.
Yep.
I never really felt the need to own a gun. But, when both the house and senate passed this bill (1994) I went out and bougt a shitload of the subject material before it got signed into law.
I felt that as soon as my government started limiting guns was about the time I needed to get real interested in owning some.
So now... the only guns I own... are assault weapons, purchased as a direct result of this laws passage.
Go figure.
What it would be unprecedented is to declare a 250 year old practice not valid.
This is what happens when you have a "uniter" in the White House.
He makes coming to a consensus is so easy.
Hm... if P then Q... not Q
Some of my most memorable times were with married women...
Don't knock it till... well... you've knocked it. (If you know what I mean)
Troll?
Wow... there really is no humor in politics.
Yes, I'm completely aware that 99% of the democrats have no balls. They did it to save their paltry political careers.
And, I'm aware that the Republicans put them in the position of having to do so.
If I believed in hell, I'd wish them all a long time there.
Don't confuse a statement against the Republicans as a statement for the Democrats.
You are looking for someone to screw. Don't foul your nest.
Fsck the other party.
Found the solution to that a long time ago:;-)
He'd somehow figure a way to get his time a "commander-in-chief" to count instead...
Basically, people with a Libertarian or socially liberal, fiscally conservative bent can either wish that there was a Libertarian party with a chance of getting elected, or they can hammer on one of the other parties.
I haven't picked either party... I alway vote for gridlock.
That means, this year I'll be voting democrat. They could run Hitler... I'd still vote for him.
I simply don't want congress and the executive branch ran by the same assholes.
Oh wait, that could be defeated by a group of three attackers
And probably one of the reasons that the planes had teams of five people durning the 9/11 attacks.
Knowing that they had teams of five people last time... I would say any plan that can't handle five people is flawed from the start.
We already know that five people is not improbable.
Judges don't write law.
The interpret law.
And, they only get to interpret laws that are badly written. Well written laws don't cause "confusion" and don't need "interpreting". Only bad ones do.
So... next time you hear some politician telling you the problem is "activist" judges, you can now realize it is actually because of politicians passing shitty laws so they can make their contributors happy.
I would agree, if there was someone I actually wanted to vote for.
As it is, for me, this will be 20 plus years of voting against someone.
Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.
Parent did not say they were in the military... they are brats.
In other words, they are kids of people in the military.
aka: civilians