It is not true that raising taxes always increases revenue.
How true that is.
For example, California recently tripled the vehicle registration fees. In our soon-to-be-former Governor's eyes, this was going to triple the revenue from vehicle registrations. In reality, that is threatening to crush new car sales (dealerships are already advertising for sales to beat the Oct 1 increase). And businesses are leaving the state rather than pay the extra money.
Contrast that with the Reagan tax cuts. From 1980 when Reagan took office to 1989, nominal federal revenues doubled $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. The tax cuts fueled economic growth.
How about those 500,000 dead Iraqi children from sanctions?
The Iraqi children did not die because of the sanctions. The sanctions NEVER limited importing food or medical supplies. On the contrary, the UN met several times and URGED Iraq to allow more food in the country. They even established the Oil For Food program, but Saddam refused to participate. Instead he decided it was more important to build lavish palaces and invest in weapons programs.
The blame for the suffering Iraqi children rests soley on Saddam Hussein. Your attempts to shift that reveal your true motivations.
I'd have no problem with the recall if it didn't put the incumbent at such a disadvantage in terms of vote requirements
I disagree. The burdon is on the recall advocates to get a majority vote on the recall. That is a pretty high burdon- higher than the requirements to be elected in the first place. Davis only needed a plurality to win last November, but now the recall advocates need a majority to recall him.
This is ridiculous, they should be seperate ballots entirely.
They essentially are seperate ballots. You can vote 'no' on the recall, but still vote for a replacement. I don't see how adding a month between the two would help anything. It would just cost more money and be harder to get people to vote both times.
I'm irritated by the process because the original vote has an expiry date of four years, and Davis got that vote.
The recall statutes have been on the books for most of the century. Ever since then the term of the Governor has been either 4 years, or until enough people get pissed off to boot him out, whichever comes first. There is no manipulation or trickery in this recall- it is a constitutional right afforded by California.
A recall is, if not expensive, then at least highly disruptive to the job of governing.
Great- then Davis should campaign on that principle instead of working more backroom deals with special interest groups. And the recall advocates need(ed) to demonstrate why it is better for Davis to be recalled than to leave him in office (and IMO, they have shown that quite well).
The way to do that is to vote him out on the next election...voters (and most particularly the losing party from the last election) need to learn to live with the consequences of their choices.
We are dealing with the consequences of our choices, and we are doing so by using the constitutional provision of a recall election. This is pure democracy at work!
I think the recall is unfair because it required so few signatures in relation to the size of the state
The number was based on the voter turnout in the 2002 elections. They needed signatures totalling 10% of the number of votes in the election (around 8 million).
it's between 40-60 million right?
30 million and shrinking...
So by my math that means roughly 2% of the population needs to be peeved at the govenor to start a recall.
The 1.5 million signatures that were collected are nothing to sneeze at. There have been over 30 recall attempts in the past, but none of them have succeeded.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes- if the majority really does want to keep Davis, then they will vote no on the recall on Oct 7.
One thing that is interesting to note here is the fact that the massive state budget gaps come not from poor management, but from reduced consumer spending.
But they are all related. Consumer spending is down because people are out of work. People are out of work because the economy is bad. The economy is especially bad in California because of the asinine anti-business legislation that is driving businesses out of the state.
The message? Sales taxes are a bad idea.
The message I get is that you shouldn't increase state spending by 30% in three years during a period of unsustainable growth in tax revenue.
And I happen to think that sales taxes are the most fair methods of taxation because they let the individual choose how much taxes they are going to pay.
Your argument is based on the assumption that everybody that votes no on the recall would vote for Davis as a replacement. That would be true in many cases, but look at the campaign slogan of Lt Gov Bustamante to see how that could change. And either way, there are more people are voting against Davis than people voting for him.
I think it is fair because of one important reason- that is how the law is written. If a majority wants Davis out of office, then he is gone. Simple as that.
The funny thing is that Gray Davis is doing a decent job.
You are definately in a minority if you believe that.
Much of the deficit is Enron's fault (I seem to recall that taking roughly $30 billion to clean up)
I think the upper estimates of the cost of the energy crisis were around $4 billion. That hurts, but that does not bring the deficit from $12 billion (like Davis was claiming during the campaign) to $35 billion. Davis wasn't responsible for creating the energy crisis mess, but he sure didn't handle the situation well when it came up (and signing those overpriced long term contracts in a panic 2 years ago didnt help either).
No, the problem with Davis is deeper than just the energy crisis. In Davis's first years in office, his budgets increased state spending by double digits each year. This was on unsustainable ".com-boom" tax revenue. During this time he also signed anti-business legislation, like the workers compensation act and the paid family leave act. As a result, businesses started leaving California en-masse. In fact, California has lost more jobs so far this year than the rest of the nation combined. As an icing on the cake, Davis went ahead and tripled the vehicle registration taxes a few months ago. In his mind this was going to increase revenue, but in reality it has just killed new car sales and further hurt the economy.
I think the most telling aspect of Davis has been his reaction to this whole thing. After the recall vote was certified, Davis could have gone out and touted his accomplishments to clear his name. After all, if Davis is right and he shouldn't be recalled, then there should be some reasons to keep him in office, right? But no. The first thing he does is huddle in a room with some lawyers for a week to come up with a ridiculous suit against the recall process itself. When that fails, he flies to Chicago to meet with big labor union bosses to negotiate their "support". And instead of campaigning for himself, all he has done so far is belittle his opponents and the recall process in general.
Do you think the california recall election is fair?
What is unfair about it? It is a constitutional way for the people to re-assert their power in California. There are plenty of reasons why Davis should lose his job, but the single most important reason is that the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!
I personally love this whole thing. The only people that are upset by this process are people like Davis that think that they are losing power. They can't stand that they have no control over what is happening or what candidates end up on the ballot. As far as I am concerned, the further this gets from the typical choice between two boring candidates slinging mud at each other, the better.
Woah, hang on there. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. Nobody else in the world thought they were a "legit" government, and they didn't even represent Afghanistan in the United Nations.
And they had a hell of a lot to do with Al Qaeda. They provided logistical support and gave aid to Al Qaeda, and they did so knowing that he was carrying out terrorist activities (here is the US's stance on the Taliban). Nobody really disputes this. Some people have even speculated that Bin Laden requested Mullah Omar's approval before any terrorist act.
believed to have been purged of about 57,700 eligible voters that were incorrectly identified as felons.
Incorrect. There were 57,700 names total on the list, and some unknown percentage of that were not actually felons. But that is beside the point- being on the list did not mean you were purged from the voter registration, it only meant that the individual county elections supervisors might attempt to verify your eligibility to vote (many counties ignored the list completely).
In fact, when the Federal Elections Commission held hearings on the Florida election, they couldn't find a single eligible person that was prevented from voting because of the ChoicePoint/DBT felon list.
Innocent schmuck in Florida, who was dangerously close to help elect a Democratic president: DE-nied.
When the Federal Election Commission met to investigate the Florida election, they couldn't find a single person that was actually prevented from voting because they were erroneously identified as a felon (Source).
On the other hand, when the Miami Herald researched the issue, they concluded that the biggest problem with the felon list was that it allowed too many ineligible felons to vote (about 6,500 ineligible felons ended up voting in the election).
One county, Leon, did. And in Leon, of 694 names only 34 were ineligible voters.
Right- that was the exact intent of the list. Cast as wide of a net as they could to include any possible matches, then let the county supervisors sort it out. The legislature thought that would make it less likely that a convicted felon would slip through.
After being sued by NAACP, ChoicePoint's DBT agreed to settle and thus avoid class-action claims. DBT removed 50 000 names from the list.
The 2000 election was the first big test of the 1998 law, and after they saw how flawed that method was, they changed it.
However Harris has refused to return their civil rights.
If you are talking about convicted felons, then its not Harris's job to return their civil rights. Florida is one of around 10 states that doesnt let convicted felons vote, and Harris was bound by those laws on the books. Interestingly enough, just yesterday Florida changed some of their policies regarding felon voting rights.
ChoicePoint's vice president James Lee called the BBC in February 2000 and said, that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon."
Uh, of course. Again, that is completely consistent with the stated purpose of the list, which was to generate as many hits as possible. Being on the list just meant that the county officials had to look into your status. If they couldn't verify that you were a convicted felon then nothing happened. That is a crappy way to do things, but that is what the legislature decided in 1998.
Gore most definately did not win a "majority" of the recounts. In fact, he only won under one scenario, and that was if they counted every single "overvote" that included Gore as a vote for Gore. However, this is not a legal count under any interpretation of the law.
he won EVERY scenereo where the "Will Of The People" was the primary consideration.
I think you are confusing the "Will of Al Gore" with the will of the people.
First, take a look at Mr Palast's website. That is not the place to go to find unbiased information about the election- Palast appears to have staked his career on attacking Bush and conservatives in general. He also has a significant financial interest in promoting his version of the story to sell his book.
Now lets talk about what really happened. Mr Palast wants people to believe that there was a vast conspiracy by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to keep minority and democratic voters from voting, but the facts just don't support that.
After discovering widespread fraud where several convicted felons and even dead people voted in a 1997 Mayoral election, the Florida legislature (not the Governor or Secretary of State) passed a law that called for a statewide list of convicted felons to be generated
In 1998, Elections supervisor Ethel Baxter (a Democrat) contracted with Database Technologies to compile the list (Database Technologies later merged with Choicepoint). The list had about 57,000 names on it.
According to the Florida Statute, the intent of the list was to generate as many possible matches as they could. This list was then forwarded to each county where the County Election Supervisors were required to verify the names before they took any action against the voters.
Many counties decided to ignore the list completely. However, if somebody actually was incorrectly kept from voting, by law the county election supervisor (once again, not Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris) is to blame.
If the County Elections Supervisor did validate a name as being a convicted felon, the voter was given notice well in advance of the election that their name had been removed from the voter registration, and they were given a procedure to dispute the decision.
Aside from some anecdotal evidence of minorities being turned away at the polls, there are no actual documented cases of people be incorrectly kept from voting. When the Federal Election Commission held hearings about the election, NOBODY stepped forward to claim that they were denied the right to vote.
The NAACP, who was called in to Florida to represent the minority voters, states very plainly in this settlement that the "Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group". The NAACP also concedes that most of the changes that they requested were already implemented before they filed suit.
Katherine Harris had very little to do with any of this, and Jeb Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it. The law was passed by the legislature, the firm was hired by a democrat, and the final decision on each name on the list was made by the individual counties!
So Palast's shocking story boils down to this: -Out of the 57,000 people on the list, an unknown number of them were not felons -Out of that unknown number of innocent people, an unknown number actually lived in counties that decided to use the list -Out of that unknown number, an unknown number were incorrectly verified by the County Election supervisor and removed from the voter registration -Out of that unknown number, an unknown number didn't follow the procedure to dispute their removal from the voter registration -And out of that unknown number, probably about 50% of them would have actually voted anyway (voter turnout)
Palast wonders why nobody else is talking about this- its because this isn't a story at all!
Unless you have written the music, sing the music, or otherwise own the copyright to the music, then it certainly not yours and you can't do whatever you want with it. Thats like saying, "I just downloaded this cool Linux kernel, but I'm not going to make my source available when I modify it and distribute it because its mine and I can do whatever I want with it".
The copyright holder does have the authority to restrict how and when their stuff gets used. The exact same principle that allows the GPL to dictate how their source code can be used allows recording companies to dictate how people can listen to their music (only approved DRM players, etc) and it allows movie studios to dictate how their DVD's can be played (region encoding, no DeCSS). To claim otherwise is hypocritical.
Exactly just like Apple's Itunes store, only works on the Mac, and the only player that works is the Ipod.
I believe you can listen to iTunes music either directly on your mac, or download it to your iPod, or burn them to an unlimited number of CDs.
Nah. I upgraded my XG-29 from Win98 to Win2k a few years back without any problems. From the looks of it right now, they have drivers available for XP too.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.... This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
How long did that take for dubya, anyway?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How long did what take?
No, not his words. He didn't say, "You are either with me or with the terrorists". The 'us' he was referring to was people that believe in freedom and democracy, or maybe it just refers to people that want to be able to get into an airplane without fear of some jackass flying it into a building.
Funded quite and pushed more than quite a bit by the Reagan administration. Somewhere on the order of tens of billions of dollars for what is essentially a pork project that wasn't capable of shooting down another plane let alone a hypersonic missile.
Star Wars was one of the biggest reasons that the cold war is over. Reagan's emphasis on it was more of a poker-style bluff than anything else, and it worked like a charm. Gorbechev was scared to death that his missiles would be rendered useless, and suddenly the US would have all of the power. Thats why he agreed to the INF treaty in 1987. Smart move by Reagan.
However, the concept of missile defense is still attractive, that is why money is still spent on it. Who knews if it will ever work, but its worth a try.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not true that raising taxes always increases revenue.
How true that is.
For example, California recently tripled the vehicle registration fees. In our soon-to-be-former Governor's eyes, this was going to triple the revenue from vehicle registrations. In reality, that is threatening to crush new car sales (dealerships are already advertising for sales to beat the Oct 1 increase). And businesses are leaving the state rather than pay the extra money.
Contrast that with the Reagan tax cuts. From 1980 when Reagan took office to 1989, nominal federal revenues doubled $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. The tax cuts fueled economic growth.
How about those 500,000 dead Iraqi children from sanctions?
The Iraqi children did not die because of the sanctions. The sanctions NEVER limited importing food or medical supplies. On the contrary, the UN met several times and URGED Iraq to allow more food in the country. They even established the Oil For Food program, but Saddam refused to participate. Instead he decided it was more important to build lavish palaces and invest in weapons programs.
The blame for the suffering Iraqi children rests soley on Saddam Hussein. Your attempts to shift that reveal your true motivations.
I'd have no problem with the recall if it didn't put the incumbent at such a disadvantage in terms of vote requirements
I disagree. The burdon is on the recall advocates to get a majority vote on the recall. That is a pretty high burdon- higher than the requirements to be elected in the first place. Davis only needed a plurality to win last November, but now the recall advocates need a majority to recall him.
This is ridiculous, they should be seperate ballots entirely.
They essentially are seperate ballots. You can vote 'no' on the recall, but still vote for a replacement. I don't see how adding a month between the two would help anything. It would just cost more money and be harder to get people to vote both times.
I'm irritated by the process because the original vote has an expiry date of four years, and Davis got that vote.
The recall statutes have been on the books for most of the century. Ever since then the term of the Governor has been either 4 years, or until enough people get pissed off to boot him out, whichever comes first. There is no manipulation or trickery in this recall- it is a constitutional right afforded by California.
A recall is, if not expensive, then at least highly disruptive to the job of governing.
Great- then Davis should campaign on that principle instead of working more backroom deals with special interest groups. And the recall advocates need(ed) to demonstrate why it is better for Davis to be recalled than to leave him in office (and IMO, they have shown that quite well).
The way to do that is to vote him out on the next election...voters (and most particularly the losing party from the last election) need to learn to live with the consequences of their choices.
We are dealing with the consequences of our choices, and we are doing so by using the constitutional provision of a recall election. This is pure democracy at work!
I think the recall is unfair because it required so few signatures in relation to the size of the state
The number was based on the voter turnout in the 2002 elections. They needed signatures totalling 10% of the number of votes in the election (around 8 million).
it's between 40-60 million right?
30 million and shrinking...
So by my math that means roughly 2% of the population needs to be peeved at the govenor to start a recall.
The 1.5 million signatures that were collected are nothing to sneeze at. There have been over 30 recall attempts in the past, but none of them have succeeded.
Or am I missing something here?
Yes- if the majority really does want to keep Davis, then they will vote no on the recall on Oct 7.
One thing that is interesting to note here is the fact that the massive state budget gaps come not from poor management, but from reduced consumer spending.
But they are all related. Consumer spending is down because people are out of work. People are out of work because the economy is bad. The economy is especially bad in California because of the asinine anti-business legislation that is driving businesses out of the state.
The message? Sales taxes are a bad idea.
The message I get is that you shouldn't increase state spending by 30% in three years during a period of unsustainable growth in tax revenue.
And I happen to think that sales taxes are the most fair methods of taxation because they let the individual choose how much taxes they are going to pay.
One idea I like is the circulation fee system.
I hate that idea. Coerced spending- ugh.
Gotcha. My joke-o-meter must be low on batteries.
Your argument is based on the assumption that everybody that votes no on the recall would vote for Davis as a replacement. That would be true in many cases, but look at the campaign slogan of Lt Gov Bustamante to see how that could change. And either way, there are more people are voting against Davis than people voting for him.
I think it is fair because of one important reason- that is how the law is written. If a majority wants Davis out of office, then he is gone. Simple as that.
10-11 months until what? Davis's current term is to 2006, and a replacement in the recall election would finish that whole term.
The funny thing is that Gray Davis is doing a decent job.
You are definately in a minority if you believe that.
Much of the deficit is Enron's fault (I seem to recall that taking roughly $30 billion to clean up)
I think the upper estimates of the cost of the energy crisis were around $4 billion. That hurts, but that does not bring the deficit from $12 billion (like Davis was claiming during the campaign) to $35 billion. Davis wasn't responsible for creating the energy crisis mess, but he sure didn't handle the situation well when it came up (and signing those overpriced long term contracts in a panic 2 years ago didnt help either).
No, the problem with Davis is deeper than just the energy crisis. In Davis's first years in office, his budgets increased state spending by double digits each year. This was on unsustainable ".com-boom" tax revenue. During this time he also signed anti-business legislation, like the workers compensation act and the paid family leave act. As a result, businesses started leaving California en-masse. In fact, California has lost more jobs so far this year than the rest of the nation combined. As an icing on the cake, Davis went ahead and tripled the vehicle registration taxes a few months ago. In his mind this was going to increase revenue, but in reality it has just killed new car sales and further hurt the economy.
I think the most telling aspect of Davis has been his reaction to this whole thing. After the recall vote was certified, Davis could have gone out and touted his accomplishments to clear his name. After all, if Davis is right and he shouldn't be recalled, then there should be some reasons to keep him in office, right? But no. The first thing he does is huddle in a room with some lawyers for a week to come up with a ridiculous suit against the recall process itself. When that fails, he flies to Chicago to meet with big labor union bosses to negotiate their "support". And instead of campaigning for himself, all he has done so far is belittle his opponents and the recall process in general.
No, I won't miss Davis at all.
Do you think the california recall election is fair?
What is unfair about it? It is a constitutional way for the people to re-assert their power in California. There are plenty of reasons why Davis should lose his job, but the single most important reason is that the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!
I personally love this whole thing. The only people that are upset by this process are people like Davis that think that they are losing power. They can't stand that they have no control over what is happening or what candidates end up on the ballot. As far as I am concerned, the further this gets from the typical choice between two boring candidates slinging mud at each other, the better.
The Taliban was a legit government
Woah, hang on there. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. Nobody else in the world thought they were a "legit" government, and they didn't even represent Afghanistan in the United Nations.
And they had a hell of a lot to do with Al Qaeda. They provided logistical support and gave aid to Al Qaeda, and they did so knowing that he was carrying out terrorist activities (here is the US's stance on the Taliban). Nobody really disputes this. Some people have even speculated that Bin Laden requested Mullah Omar's approval before any terrorist act.
believed to have been purged of about 57,700 eligible voters that were incorrectly identified as felons.
Incorrect. There were 57,700 names total on the list, and some unknown percentage of that were not actually felons. But that is beside the point- being on the list did not mean you were purged from the voter registration, it only meant that the individual county elections supervisors might attempt to verify your eligibility to vote (many counties ignored the list completely).
In fact, when the Federal Elections Commission held hearings on the Florida election, they couldn't find a single eligible person that was prevented from voting because of the ChoicePoint/DBT felon list.
Innocent schmuck in Florida, who was dangerously close to help elect a Democratic president: DE-nied.
When the Federal Election Commission met to investigate the Florida election, they couldn't find a single person that was actually prevented from voting because they were erroneously identified as a felon (Source).
On the other hand, when the Miami Herald researched the issue, they concluded that the biggest problem with the felon list was that it allowed too many ineligible felons to vote (about 6,500 ineligible felons ended up voting in the election).
One county, Leon, did. And in Leon, of 694 names only 34 were ineligible voters.
Right- that was the exact intent of the list. Cast as wide of a net as they could to include any possible matches, then let the county supervisors sort it out. The legislature thought that would make it less likely that a convicted felon would slip through.
After being sued by NAACP, ChoicePoint's DBT agreed to settle and thus avoid class-action claims. DBT removed 50 000 names from the list.
The 2000 election was the first big test of the 1998 law, and after they saw how flawed that method was, they changed it.
However Harris has refused to return their civil rights.
If you are talking about convicted felons, then its not Harris's job to return their civil rights. Florida is one of around 10 states that doesnt let convicted felons vote, and Harris was bound by those laws on the books. Interestingly enough, just yesterday Florida changed some of their policies regarding felon voting rights.
ChoicePoint's vice president James Lee called the BBC in February 2000 and said, that the state "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon."
Uh, of course. Again, that is completely consistent with the stated purpose of the list, which was to generate as many hits as possible. Being on the list just meant that the county officials had to look into your status. If they couldn't verify that you were a convicted felon then nothing happened. That is a crappy way to do things, but that is what the legislature decided in 1998.
You discount the 54,000 people illegally prevented from voting.
Heh. Check out my other post in this thread. In short, there weren't 50,000+ people illegally prevented from voting.
If its "just for the record", then at least get your facts right.
s tories/main.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/
Gore most definately did not win a "majority" of the recounts. In fact, he only won under one scenario, and that was if they counted every single "overvote" that included Gore as a vote for Gore. However, this is not a legal count under any interpretation of the law.
he won EVERY scenereo where the "Will Of The People" was the primary consideration.
I think you are confusing the "Will of Al Gore" with the will of the people.
First, take a look at Mr Palast's website. That is not the place to go to find unbiased information about the election- Palast appears to have staked his career on attacking Bush and conservatives in general. He also has a significant financial interest in promoting his version of the story to sell his book.
Now lets talk about what really happened. Mr Palast wants people to believe that there was a vast conspiracy by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to keep minority and democratic voters from voting, but the facts just don't support that.
After discovering widespread fraud where several convicted felons and even dead people voted in a 1997 Mayoral election, the Florida legislature (not the Governor or Secretary of State) passed a law that called for a statewide list of convicted felons to be generated
In 1998, Elections supervisor Ethel Baxter (a Democrat) contracted with Database Technologies to compile the list (Database Technologies later merged with Choicepoint). The list had about 57,000 names on it.
According to the Florida Statute, the intent of the list was to generate as many possible matches as they could. This list was then forwarded to each county where the County Election Supervisors were required to verify the names before they took any action against the voters.
Many counties decided to ignore the list completely. However, if somebody actually was incorrectly kept from voting, by law the county election supervisor (once again, not Jeb Bush or Katherine Harris) is to blame.
If the County Elections Supervisor did validate a name as being a convicted felon, the voter was given notice well in advance of the election that their name had been removed from the voter registration, and they were given a procedure to dispute the decision.
Aside from some anecdotal evidence of minorities being turned away at the polls, there are no actual documented cases of people be incorrectly kept from voting. When the Federal Election Commission held hearings about the election, NOBODY stepped forward to claim that they were denied the right to vote.
The NAACP, who was called in to Florida to represent the minority voters, states very plainly in this settlement that the "Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group". The NAACP also concedes that most of the changes that they requested were already implemented before they filed suit.
Katherine Harris had very little to do with any of this, and Jeb Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it. The law was passed by the legislature, the firm was hired by a democrat, and the final decision on each name on the list was made by the individual counties!
So Palast's shocking story boils down to this:
-Out of the 57,000 people on the list, an unknown number of them were not felons
-Out of that unknown number of innocent people, an unknown number actually lived in counties that decided to use the list
-Out of that unknown number, an unknown number were incorrectly verified by the County Election supervisor and removed from the voter registration
-Out of that unknown number, an unknown number didn't follow the procedure to dispute their removal from the voter registration
-And out of that unknown number, probably about 50% of them would have actually voted anyway (voter turnout)
Palast wonders why nobody else is talking about this- its because this isn't a story at all!
Oh brother...
it's my music I can do what I want with it.
Unless you have written the music, sing the music, or otherwise own the copyright to the music, then it certainly not yours and you can't do whatever you want with it. Thats like saying, "I just downloaded this cool Linux kernel, but I'm not going to make my source available when I modify it and distribute it because its mine and I can do whatever I want with it".
The copyright holder does have the authority to restrict how and when their stuff gets used. The exact same principle that allows the GPL to dictate how their source code can be used allows recording companies to dictate how people can listen to their music (only approved DRM players, etc) and it allows movie studios to dictate how their DVD's can be played (region encoding, no DeCSS). To claim otherwise is hypocritical.
Exactly just like Apple's Itunes store, only works on the Mac, and the only player that works is the Ipod.
I believe you can listen to iTunes music either directly on your mac, or download it to your iPod, or burn them to an unlimited number of CDs.
Nah. I upgraded my XG-29 from Win98 to Win2k a few years back without any problems. From the looks of it right now, they have drivers available for XP too.
Maybe other models are different.
No- that is pretty much straight from his speech:
How long did that take for dubya, anyway?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How long did what take?
His words, not mine.
No, not his words. He didn't say, "You are either with me or with the terrorists". The 'us' he was referring to was people that believe in freedom and democracy, or maybe it just refers to people that want to be able to get into an airplane without fear of some jackass flying it into a building.
Funded quite and pushed more than quite a bit by the Reagan administration. Somewhere on the order of tens of billions of dollars for what is essentially a pork project that wasn't capable of shooting down another plane let alone a hypersonic missile.
Star Wars was one of the biggest reasons that the cold war is over. Reagan's emphasis on it was more of a poker-style bluff than anything else, and it worked like a charm. Gorbechev was scared to death that his missiles would be rendered useless, and suddenly the US would have all of the power. Thats why he agreed to the INF treaty in 1987. Smart move by Reagan.
However, the concept of missile defense is still attractive, that is why money is still spent on it. Who knews if it will ever work, but its worth a try.
I hate it when people begin their sentences with "Umm." It's rather low-class.
This coming from somebody that chose "Acidic_Diarrhea" as their nick...
8 byte key with 1 parity bit per byte (7 bits * 8 = 56). That is what DES uses.