"do your own damn research," the call of the Caught-Red-Handed bird.
Historians have never been polled on Clinton. You lied and have been caught lying. Now you're trying to back out of it with anger and explicatives - and more lies. Clinton did not do what you accused him of doing - neither the f word, nor selling the bedroom. He did not give sensitive technology to Chineese Communists or ignore terrorists. You, however, lied about something as trivial as a survey. Why should anyone believe your lies now?
"Clinton has been voted by many historians (who are generally liberal) as one of the WORST presidents in modern US History."
I asked for some sort of backup for this - you provided a link to a poll you allege was conducted by Pew (it was actually conducted by Gallup). It used a sample of 1,050 adults nationwide.
Again, please provide a refrence to historians, you lying partisan hack.
You allege the White House cosigned loans. In addition to not having the constitutional power to do so, they also did not do so. You allege that an article shows how far Clinton's Pals were using influence to help their buisness budies - but they didn't, beucase Rubin was not working in the White House and he got rebuffed by actual Clinton appointees.
Whitewater was not baseless - the Clintons were defrauded, and then we were defrauded.
There's a boatload of aspersions cast, and the only fact - made up.
I'd like to see just a few historians who voted Clinton has one of the worst presidents in modern US history. Of course, you can't do that, because you are making shit up.
There is "no substantial and credible evidence" that President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton sought confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks of former GOP White House personnel, according to a report filed Thursday by Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray's office.
Ahh, yes. Atrios, where the posters threaten to throw people in the duck pond clearly compares to LGSnotballs, where commentors regularly advocate nuking middle eastern countries and propose carpetbombing the palestinans.
Er, the Arkansas project was started before there was any evidence Clinton had done anything wrong. Given that, do you care to retract and revise your statement?
Against you. You said no one ever said Clinton was a terrorist - but they did, and still do. you said no one ever burned Clinton in effigy - you, of course, were wrong.
Here's someone writing "clinton is a terrorist." Don't worry, I posted all the content. After that, theres "There is NO difference between clinton and the terrorists." Again, I included all the context.
Here's a "conservative" rally where likenesses of HR Clinton were burned in effigy. Of course, no major republicans, like a membner of the house would attend, well, except for the member of the house that attended:
http://www.workingfilms.org/onthejob/teachers/ar ti cle_detail.asp?ID=27
There are, of course, scores of rallies where clinton was burned in effigy by the anti-globos.
This whole "Bush Haters are Worse Than Clinton Haters" is bullshit. Where's the Arkansas project for Bush, exactly?
Bush's papers are, in effect, private. They are not subject to the Texas Open Records law, as they are housed in a federal facility. That facility can decline to produce documents and does not have to abide by the 10 day limit that the state law would place on the records otherwise. Spin Machine.
No, they are not. They are required to provide the source along with any binaries they provide. Using the GPL internaly does not require you to release changes you made internaly. The Dean campaign did not have to release anything.
The government collected 1 trillion dollars in income tax last year. You propose cutting the average tax rate in about half, on top of providing an exemption twice as large.
The only proposal you include as a cut is the EITC - at a net savings of 31 billion dollars. You still owe the system at least 470 billon dollars. What's the next cut?
Post the 1986 TRA only. You know, the Bill Bradley authored TRA that removed all those exemptions so that effective rates on the very very rich went up? Yes, in 1987 charitable giving was the highest in real dollar terms, probably because in 1987 there were no tax loophones to funnel income through that were more beneficial, because Bill Bradley closed them all. I'm not sure how that proves your point about lower taxes and charitable giving, but if you say so.
If there was any evidence that decreased tax rates increased charitable donations, your scheme might work. As it is, they don't. Our society has chosen to provide a safety net for people who are down on their luck. You might not want to participate in funding that, but that's a decision not made from behind the veil of ignorance, so it's irrelevent.
The graduated income tax and the social welfare system are both constitutional, having been attacked numerous times and reaffarimed without comment by the Supreme Court just as many.
How do you ever find lawyers
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
How can you ever find lawyers who would write a C&D letter like this
Neil is on a whirlwind tour for his latest books (3!) both this month and next (1602, Endless Nights, and Wolves in the Wall); as you may know, I'm Neil's lawyer on the MiracleMan litigation, and he asked me if I could respond to your nice email. First, it needs saying that the passion of you and of so many others (including me) for the MiracleMan coda of material is the primary motivator for this litigation - as you know, Neil's avowed purpose is to get the material back before the public in beautiful format, and at an affordable price. And as you may also know, if Neil nets any money from this, it's all already promised to charity. When it comes to acting based on principle, just because it's, well, because it's just the right thing to do, Neil is one of our heroes. And deservedly so.
Now. Much as we appreciate the sentiments of your idea, it's a really bad idea, and would do much harm to the cause. First, much of the rights issue has already been decided: Alan Moore DOES have the copyrights to his work (the writing of Eclipse's MM 1-16), as does Neil for MM 17-24. Mark Buckingham owns the copyrights for the books he did with Neil, and various artists share copyrights on Alan's work. The question is now down to some trademark questions, and on that it is also now clear that Neil has at least 30%, and Gary Leach has most all of the rest (unless Eclipse really did have them, which I doubt, in which case Todd McFarlane may have an interest). But the point is that your publishing them on the web would do two things: (1) it dilutes the value of the copyrights for subsequent sales when they do get republished - and they will - which means charity will get hurt, and (2) it's a clear copyright violation, directly hurting the very people whose work you profess to admire, and flying in the face of the various artists' rights principles we're fighting so hard to protect. So I really need to ask you cease and desist now, with all due respect and appreciation for your good intentions. I realize that this means some people will have to wait a while for the stories to be in front of them in affordable form. But trust me, when they are, the wait will have been worth it.
Again, Captain, thanks for your support...
Best wishes,
-Ken F. Levin
Re:Todd McFarlane (hack) is blocking reprinting
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
Wait, was that Todd McFarlane (bad hack) who has no original thoughts is blocking printing of the Best Comic Ever (I have an inhuman income, so I've read it), becuase he's a sore, rich looser with no talent and he's a hack? Is that what you're saying?
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, it's not funny now. Even a Beowulf cluster of that joke is less funny than a fart joke.
Oops, I didn't spend enough time reading this.
Bill was convicted of perjury: false.
Is there a single listed fact that isn't a deliberate lie?
"do your own damn research," the call of the Caught-Red-Handed bird.
Historians have never been polled on Clinton. You lied and have been caught lying. Now you're trying to back out of it with anger and explicatives - and more lies. Clinton did not do what you accused him of doing - neither the f word, nor selling the bedroom. He did not give sensitive technology to Chineese Communists or ignore terrorists. You, however, lied about something as trivial as a survey. Why should anyone believe your lies now?
You wrote, and I quote:
"Clinton has been voted by many historians (who are generally liberal) as one of the WORST presidents in modern US History."
I asked for some sort of backup for this - you provided a link to a poll you allege was conducted by Pew (it was actually conducted by Gallup). It used a sample of 1,050 adults nationwide.
Again, please provide a refrence to historians, you lying partisan hack.
More lies perpetuating as fact:
You allege the White House cosigned loans. In addition to not having the constitutional power to do so, they also did not do so. You allege that an article shows how far Clinton's Pals were using influence to help their buisness budies - but they didn't, beucase Rubin was not working in the White House and he got rebuffed by actual Clinton appointees.
Whitewater was not baseless - the Clintons were defrauded, and then we were defrauded.
Another poor right-wing hackery.
There's a boatload of aspersions cast, and the only fact - made up.
I'd like to see just a few historians who voted Clinton has one of the worst presidents in modern US history. Of course, you can't do that, because you are making shit up.
Let's try that again, this time with honestly.
Hubbell was convicted of stealing from the Clintons, and the Starr team eventually determined that McDougal had defrauded the Clintons.
Of course, that makes it a foul and reprehensible fraud - perpetuated on the Clintons.
Oh, come on. To use one of these images you have to:
a. Open up the Tivo - Torx Drivers required.
b. Play with the IDE cables, IDE jumpers and other crap.
c. Run Linux, or use a Linux Boot disk.
No one who does that even remotely thinks that calling CS is going to help.
Build a better mousetrap.
All nusicians that lose revenue to Kazza are rich. Look at the sharing lists of people who they go after. Do you see any little indi artists there?
Ahh, yes. Atrios, where the posters threaten to throw people in the duck pond clearly compares to LGSnotballs, where commentors regularly advocate nuking middle eastern countries and propose carpetbombing the palestinans.
Of course, of course.
Er, the Arkansas project was started before there was any evidence Clinton had done anything wrong. Given that, do you care to retract and revise your statement?
Against you. You said no one ever said Clinton was a terrorist - but they did, and still do. you said no one ever burned Clinton in effigy - you, of course, were wrong.
The blind rage is comparable.
Here's someone writing "clinton is a terrorist." Don't worry, I posted all the content. After that, theres "There is NO difference between clinton and the terrorists." Again, I included all the context.
t s? page=196#196
r ti cle_detail.asp?ID=27
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/566577/pos
Here's a "conservative" rally where likenesses of HR Clinton were burned in effigy. Of course, no major republicans, like a membner of the house would attend, well, except for the member of the house that attended:
http://www.workingfilms.org/onthejob/teachers/a
There are, of course, scores of rallies where clinton was burned in effigy by the anti-globos.
This whole "Bush Haters are Worse Than Clinton Haters" is bullshit. Where's the Arkansas project for Bush, exactly?
They didn't sell the .com or .net registery aspect - they still are the registery. They just sold the customer-facing registrar business.
Bush's papers are, in effect, private. They are not subject to the Texas Open Records law, as they are housed in a federal facility. That facility can decline to produce documents and does not have to abide by the 10 day limit that the state law would place on the records otherwise. Spin Machine.
No, they are not. They are required to provide the source along with any binaries they provide. Using the GPL internaly does not require you to release changes you made internaly. The Dean campaign did not have to release anything.
I assume you have read through Bush's Gubernatorial records, or were at least as angry that he didn't release them.
What? You didn't know that Bush didn't release his records? Yet another victim of the Right Wing Spin Machine!
The government collected 1 trillion dollars in income tax last year. You propose cutting the average tax rate in about half, on top of providing an exemption twice as large.
The only proposal you include as a cut is the EITC - at a net savings of 31 billion dollars. You still owe the system at least 470 billon dollars. What's the next cut?
Post the 1986 TRA only. You know, the Bill Bradley authored TRA that removed all those exemptions so that effective rates on the very very rich went up? Yes, in 1987 charitable giving was the highest in real dollar terms, probably because in 1987 there were no tax loophones to funnel income through that were more beneficial, because Bill Bradley closed them all. I'm not sure how that proves your point about lower taxes and charitable giving, but if you say so.
Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. You have fallen for the right-wing spin machine.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
Fall for the right-wing spin much?
If there was any evidence that decreased tax rates increased charitable donations, your scheme might work. As it is, they don't. Our society has chosen to provide a safety net for people who are down on their luck. You might not want to participate in funding that, but that's a decision not made from behind the veil of ignorance, so it's irrelevent.
The graduated income tax and the social welfare system are both constitutional, having been attacked numerous times and reaffarimed without comment by the Supreme Court just as many.
Wait, was that Todd McFarlane (bad hack) who has no original thoughts is blocking printing of the Best Comic Ever (I have an inhuman income, so I've read it), becuase he's a sore, rich looser with no talent and he's a hack? Is that what you're saying?
Cause, if it is, you're right.