Ok, they increased GDP and median income per household.
GDP usually increases (only six of the last fifty years decreased). In fact, in terms of year-2000 dollars, the GDP in the first five years of the Bush administration increased 14.4%. Pretty good...unless you compare it to the 20.4% of the first five years of the Clinton administration or the 18.4% of the first five years of the Reagan administration. But, hey, he beat the 11.4% of the four years of the Carter administration.
Really? And what effect did the tax cuts in question have on the economy? Did they balance the budget (sorry, that should read "Did they continue the budget surplus")? No. Did they lower the unemployment rate? No. Did they create new jobs? No. Please, enlighten us on how those tax cuts did any good for the economy.
While I am not a fan of Bush, the deficit slide can't be blamed entirely on Bushes economic plan. The magnitude, sure, but the slide started long before.
Part of leadership is responding to change. How did the Bush administration respond to an impendining budget shortfall? By cutting taxes on the wealthy. How did the Bush administration respond to an actual budget shortfall? By staying the course. How did the Bush administration respond to the increased expenditures required by this unending B.S. war? By staying the course.
I blame the Bush economic "plan" completely for the budget mess. What about Congress? Congress has been Bush's lapdog for the past six years so the blame still rests with him.
Lame article on the current state of online music:
Mentions Apple 0 times.
Mentions iTunes 1 time.
Mentions iPod 1 time.
Mentions Amazon 3 times.
Typical of Yahoo: confront the competition by ignoring it. Just like company management not mentioning Google (except to say ridiculous things like, "This (Panama) will have Google shaking in their boots!"), Ian ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (Apple/iPod) and focuses on Amazon. Who offered DRM-free downloads first, Apple or Amazon (let's leave eMusic out of this for now)? Go right ahead, Ian, and concentrate on competing against Amazon. Then you can enjoy dancing to your DRM-free music on the deck of the good ship Yahoo while it sinks.
That he even worked on Yahoo Music Unlimited strongly suggests he doesn't know which end is up.
Economy: taxes raises - At least Kennedy recognized that tax cuts increase Treasury coffers while simultaneously strengthen the economy - we have been at record low unemployment rates.
Really? The most recent rate is 4.7%. Even looking at the 4.6% rate for 2006 it is still higher than the 4.0% that Bill Clinton left Dubya with.
Forked Tongued: they speak out of both sides of their mouth; condemning the troops' work why 'claiming' to support them - this is only because of the lessons of how the Baby Boomer generation treated the troops during Vietnam - read: Clinton, Kerry, and their ilk
Kerry was one of the troops during Vietnam. He earned the right to say whatever he wants to about Vietnam because, unlike Dubya, he was there--as a volunteer--for two tours.
Downsizing: in the 1990's Clinton significantly reduced the size of our standing military, which leads me into the following:
That doesn't matter. Know why? Because Rumsfeld put fewer troops into Iraq than his commanders recommended.
They Love Defeat
I would argue that President Bush loves defeat. He must, because his strategy in Iraq has done everything to encourage defeat.
Power: they love it and will do any thing to get to it
Yes, unlike Republicans. (rolls eyes) You must be new around here.
Politics and Party: because they lust after Power they will put their Party first
See above.
You do realize that what you state is largely a myth, not a fact? back in the day when only one working parent was common (actually a briefer era than many realize), Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores. I wasn't born yesterday, but I did spend part of yesterday (and many part of many days before it) reading actual books and research on what life used to be like (a sideline into my research on cooking in America) - rather than parroting myths.
Fortunately I grew up in that mythical time instead of merely reading about it in books. It does not take that long to take care of a house. If a homemaker's time was 100% occupied by chores, there would be no game shows or soap operas (that may sound sexist but think about it before flaming). Part of being a homemaker is being there for the children. Between chores, cooking, and children (and Oprah, in my wife's case), it is definitely a full-time job (one that I wish I had instead of being a rat).
It many have been common at your school - but it wasn't any thing resembling common anywhere at anytime. Mother, or fathers, with that much spare time were very much the exception.
It's not a matter of spare time. You make time for things that are important to you. We're fortunate that my wife can stay at home and she does plenty of volunteering at school. Sure, there are tradeoffs (like not having a clean kitchen when I go to cook dinner at night) but life is full of them.
When you say "freeze" you, of course, mean "freeze with dry ice in an oxygen-free styrofoam cooler". Freezing in your typical refrigerator/freezer will introduce quantum shading from the motor. Don't even get me started on the freezer light when you open the door. I recommend stabilizing the coolor on sand to dampen vibrations which might affect molecular alignment.
It takes weeks to ship things from China because people don't want to pay the extra to have things flown over.
Then again, if I order an iPod directly from Apple, I get free shipping from China and it arrives in just a few days. I suspect my iMac order next month will have the same deal.
These people have eyes, yes? Presumably they use them to see where they are going, correct? Now, imagine thousands of protesters who have covered themselves from head-to-toe with aluminum foil being trampled because they can't see the thousands of protesters who haven't covered themselves from head-to-toe in aluminum foil and have just been zapped with the Abu Ghraib 3000...I mean the Silent Guardian. Ouchie.
Really? Apple stole the money from you? Say you go buy $500 worth of clothes on Thursday, and on Friday the store has a 25% off everything sale. Did they jack you, too? Say you buy a brand new 2007 Ford Mustang this week. Next week the dealership has an inventory reduction sale to make room for the 2008's. Did they jack you, too?
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved).
Would you point me to a reference about California subsidizing these green vehicles? I can't find one.
Then I read this quote: ""You would subscribe to music...You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home.
Yes, the iPod will be obsolete. Just ask Napster...or Yahoo...or Microsoft. Sigh.
In my opinion (here's where I become an asshole) it takes a particularly immature mind to believe that downloading commercially sold entertainment in an illegal fashion is somehow the morally superior alternative.
I don't see where the GP made any claims about the morality of choice (C). However, it is the choice he will be making given that choice (D), purchase from iTunes (or similar service) the next day, is not available. It takes a particularly closed mind to not accept the reality of the situation and adjust accordingly. Think about it: people are willing to pay NBC (through iTunes) for something they can get for free elsewhere but NBC doesn't want to take their money. What kind of company refuses money from customers?
This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.
Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who was elected President in 1800?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, unemployment did go down signifigantly, to it's currently very low levels.
Just not as low as what it was when he took office.
Ok, they increased GDP and median income per household.
GDP usually increases (only six of the last fifty years decreased). In fact, in terms of year-2000 dollars, the GDP in the first five years of the Bush administration increased 14.4%. Pretty good...unless you compare it to the 20.4% of the first five years of the Clinton administration or the 18.4% of the first five years of the Reagan administration. But, hey, he beat the 11.4% of the four years of the Carter administration.
As for median household income, it's increased over the last two years but not over the last five.
Now if we had supported entitlement spending cuts, that would have been better.
Some measure of fiscal responsibility would be nice. Cutting taxes while waging war does not fall under that category.
Really? And what effect did the tax cuts in question have on the economy? Did they balance the budget (sorry, that should read "Did they continue the budget surplus")? No. Did they lower the unemployment rate? No. Did they create new jobs? No. Please, enlighten us on how those tax cuts did any good for the economy.
a) Give me a reference or two.
b) Obviously it didn't increase them enough to keep up with spending, which is what matters.
While I am not a fan of Bush, the deficit slide can't be blamed entirely on Bushes economic plan. The magnitude, sure, but the slide started long before.
Part of leadership is responding to change. How did the Bush administration respond to an impendining budget shortfall? By cutting taxes on the wealthy. How did the Bush administration respond to an actual budget shortfall? By staying the course. How did the Bush administration respond to the increased expenditures required by this unending B.S. war? By staying the course.
I blame the Bush economic "plan" completely for the budget mess. What about Congress? Congress has been Bush's lapdog for the past six years so the blame still rests with him.
Lame article on the current state of online music:
Typical of Yahoo: confront the competition by ignoring it. Just like company management not mentioning Google (except to say ridiculous things like, "This (Panama) will have Google shaking in their boots!"), Ian ignores the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (Apple/iPod) and focuses on Amazon. Who offered DRM-free downloads first, Apple or Amazon (let's leave eMusic out of this for now)? Go right ahead, Ian, and concentrate on competing against Amazon. Then you can enjoy dancing to your DRM-free music on the deck of the good ship Yahoo while it sinks.
That he even worked on Yahoo Music Unlimited strongly suggests he doesn't know which end is up.
Really? The most recent rate is 4.7%. Even looking at the 4.6% rate for 2006 it is still higher than the 4.0% that Bill Clinton left Dubya with.
Kerry was one of the troops during Vietnam. He earned the right to say whatever he wants to about Vietnam because, unlike Dubya, he was there--as a volunteer--for two tours.
That doesn't matter. Know why? Because Rumsfeld put fewer troops into Iraq than his commanders recommended.
I would argue that President Bush loves defeat. He must, because his strategy in Iraq has done everything to encourage defeat.
Yes, unlike Republicans. (rolls eyes) You must be new around here.
See above.
You do realize that what you state is largely a myth, not a fact? back in the day when only one working parent was common (actually a briefer era than many realize), Mom was busy with cooking and cleaning and other chores. I wasn't born yesterday, but I did spend part of yesterday (and many part of many days before it) reading actual books and research on what life used to be like (a sideline into my research on cooking in America) - rather than parroting myths.
Fortunately I grew up in that mythical time instead of merely reading about it in books. It does not take that long to take care of a house. If a homemaker's time was 100% occupied by chores, there would be no game shows or soap operas (that may sound sexist but think about it before flaming). Part of being a homemaker is being there for the children. Between chores, cooking, and children (and Oprah, in my wife's case), it is definitely a full-time job (one that I wish I had instead of being a rat).
It many have been common at your school - but it wasn't any thing resembling common anywhere at anytime. Mother, or fathers, with that much spare time were very much the exception.
It's not a matter of spare time. You make time for things that are important to you. We're fortunate that my wife can stay at home and she does plenty of volunteering at school. Sure, there are tradeoffs (like not having a clean kitchen when I go to cook dinner at night) but life is full of them.
Make people feel good while saying the name of your product and they will buy it, whether or not they need it.
Are you sure you aren't talking about religion?
When you say "freeze" you, of course, mean "freeze with dry ice in an oxygen-free styrofoam cooler". Freezing in your typical refrigerator/freezer will introduce quantum shading from the motor. Don't even get me started on the freezer light when you open the door. I recommend stabilizing the coolor on sand to dampen vibrations which might affect molecular alignment.
It is hard for me still to think of a more basic, grittier, violent sexual song today than Midnight Rambler.
It's easy for me. ;-)
The rebel ships looked beat up because that's how rebels usually look. If they had money for shiny new ships, they'd be in power. MHO.
It takes weeks to ship things from China because people don't want to pay the extra to have things flown over.
Then again, if I order an iPod directly from Apple, I get free shipping from China and it arrives in just a few days. I suspect my iMac order next month will have the same deal.
Geez, they let just anyone in, don't they?
No, they seems to be pretty good a separating the wheat from the chaff.
These people have eyes, yes? Presumably they use them to see where they are going, correct? Now, imagine thousands of protesters who have covered themselves from head-to-toe with aluminum foil being trampled because they can't see the thousands of protesters who haven't covered themselves from head-to-toe in aluminum foil and have just been zapped with the Abu Ghraib 3000...I mean the Silent Guardian. Ouchie.
And this helps your exposed head, neck, eyes, and hands how?
What do you do if you add some tracks to disk? There's no obvious incremental search. Drag-n-drop did nothing. Searching menus was fruitless.
File->Add to Library->select the files you want to add.
If that is still too complicated, command-O->select the files you want to add.
Apple made it pretty idiot-proof. You shouldn't have upgraded.
I wasn't wearing a helment, because we did not intend the bike to even move!
Brilliant. This is exactly the same as "I didn't know the gun was loaded."
Serious question: is that legal?
The making your own ringtone part: yes (though record companies wish it wasn't). The ripping CDs from the library part: no (not even a little).
So you got jacked out of $200.
Really? Apple stole the money from you? Say you go buy $500 worth of clothes on Thursday, and on Friday the store has a 25% off everything sale. Did they jack you, too? Say you buy a brand new 2007 Ford Mustang this week. Next week the dealership has an inventory reduction sale to make room for the 2008's. Did they jack you, too?
These vehicles are heavily subsidized by the states where you may sell them, and they're interested in getting their investment back. California lays out wads of cash for some cleaner vehicles, so California wants them driven in California (for example; there are several other states involved).
Would you point me to a reference about California subsidizing these green vehicles? I can't find one.
Then I read this quote: ""You would subscribe to music...You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home.
Yes, the iPod will be obsolete. Just ask Napster...or Yahoo...or Microsoft. Sigh.
In my opinion (here's where I become an asshole) it takes a particularly immature mind to believe that downloading commercially sold entertainment in an illegal fashion is somehow the morally superior alternative.
I don't see where the GP made any claims about the morality of choice (C). However, it is the choice he will be making given that choice (D), purchase from iTunes (or similar service) the next day, is not available. It takes a particularly closed mind to not accept the reality of the situation and adjust accordingly. Think about it: people are willing to pay NBC (through iTunes) for something they can get for free elsewhere but NBC doesn't want to take their money. What kind of company refuses money from customers?
Does a dead ex-spouse count?
This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.
Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who was elected President in 1800?
Prior art from 1996, anyone. Thank you, Bill! ;-)