Because it's only a short term way to get money, but binds your CO2 emissions long term? If they don't plan now to keep their carbon emissions low, they will end up losing money in the future.
we would have used Saddam as an oil-for-food crony the way France and Germany were.
Do you have solid proof when you say that, or does just repeating it endlessly make it true?
Kerry an idiot? Have you weighed your own IQ recently? Consider that: *you* fell for the republican ploy to paint Kerry as a demagogue. Now if you had argued that he led a bad campaign... (from the 'how a US presidential campaign should be held' point of view)
But what happens when these people turn a country into a police state or a theocracy? After all people that have been declared mentally irresponsible lose their right to vote, as do convicted felons.
Personnaly I'd rather live in a country that respects human rights rather than one that's just a democracy (after all, democracy in the strictest sense only means that the majority gets to decide). Frankly, where would you rather live?
When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro?
Oh, let me try! AMD processors from Dresde, Germany?
If you weren't around at the beginning then you have no business questioning He who was.
You mean "He who may have been but probably never was"?
And yes, there are ways of knowing, such as carbon-14 datation.
This is completely false, for so many reasons. - Bush is a religious fanatic, Kerry isn't. This in itself would take hours to detail point by point (abortion, gay marriage, state and church, nutty remarks, discrimination of non christians..). But then again you probably believe in pledging alegiance to god every morning in school even though your constitution expressively forbids it. - Bush lied on Iraq - Bush plays on fears and so called 'patriotism' ( ie: blindly believing what fox news will tell you) - etc etc etc ad eternam
When Saddam was (sadly) in charge, the average iraki wouldn't die from an Apache raining a fiery death upon them, or a car bomb blast.
Have a nice day denying that and go wave that starry flag of yours.
Some people seem to see the world in black & white.
Tbe fully social solution (educating people) has an enormous cost (both in time and money). Jamming phones at the cinema/theater works *now*.
Moreover the jammer's primary function is probably not so much to stop rude people from phoning, as it is to prevent cell phones whose owner has forgotten to turn them off from ringing.
Do you yourself believe the tale you spin? Half truths are what it's made of.
Bush lied, and repeatedly so, just have a look at any foreign news source or what Hans Blix has to say for 'proof'.
Moreover, if you believe that Bush was only repeating false information, why do you argue that there was correct information ? (those so-called banned weapons). Sounds like someone desperately trying to save face, putting forward any argument he can find, however ridiculous it might be.
Just a nitpick with your comment. Jacques Chirac has always been (in office) to the center right. Bush caters to the far right (religious loonies, anti-abortion/anti-gay individuals).You can't possibly say that Chirac is nothing less than the french version of Bush, even though is party is part of the 'right'.
Intended? How so? Are you actually nutty enough to believe the whole Kyoto protocol was just devised to cripple the US economy? The burden of proof is on you I guess.
Re:Thats not the major problem
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
It has nothing to do with being the best and a lot to do with charisma.
People like Bush try to cover the whole electorate from center right to far right. Unfortunately it's in human nature to prefer the shiny things.
Why should the parties give their best man if he won't win?
So here goes:
Do you believe that the president should, in a country with a separation of church and state, make public references in his speeches to an hypothetical god.
Should the president's religious beliefs interfer with the country's foreign policy (ie: calling a crusade, defining "good" and "evil")?
So suddently you care about the sovereignty of Iran? Come forward and admit it, you actually BELIEVED the WMD BS (and hang your head in shame!) and are just trying to justify an invasion.
So what country with a murderous regime do you invade next? Honest question, there are many to choose from.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's only a short term way to get money, but binds your CO2 emissions long term? If they don't plan now to keep their carbon emissions low, they will end up losing money in the future.
we would have used Saddam as an oil-for-food crony the way France and Germany were.
Do you have solid proof when you say that, or does just repeating it endlessly make it true?
Kerry an idiot?
Have you weighed your own IQ recently?
Consider that: *you* fell for the republican ploy to paint Kerry as a demagogue.
Now if you had argued that he led a bad campaign... (from the 'how a US presidential campaign should be held' point of view)
You're the exception, not the rule. BTW, Have you considered that you voted for a man that believes he's a prophet?
But what happens when these people turn a country into a police state or a theocracy? After all people that have been declared mentally irresponsible lose their right to vote, as do convicted felons.
Personnaly I'd rather live in a country that respects human rights rather than one that's just a democracy (after all, democracy in the strictest sense only means that the majority gets to decide).
Frankly, where would you rather live?
When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro?
Oh, let me try! AMD processors from Dresde, Germany?
Are you implying there is a genetic or a cultural deficience in the french population?
Oh and you do know that Napoleon was french?
If you weren't around at the beginning then you have no business questioning He who was.
You mean "He who may have been but probably never was"?
And yes, there are ways of knowing, such as carbon-14 datation.
Seeing how much people outside the US love GW Bush, we at least know it certainly wasn't done to reduce the server load...
This is completely false, for so many reasons.
- Bush is a religious fanatic, Kerry isn't. This in itself would take hours to detail point by point (abortion, gay marriage, state and church, nutty remarks, discrimination of non christians..). But then again you probably believe in pledging alegiance to god every morning in school even though your constitution expressively forbids it.
- Bush lied on Iraq
- Bush plays on fears and so called 'patriotism' ( ie: blindly believing what fox news will tell you)
- etc etc etc ad eternam
Explain this then: why Saddam?
When Saddam was (sadly) in charge, the average iraki wouldn't die from an Apache raining a fiery death upon them, or a car bomb blast. Have a nice day denying that and go wave that starry flag of yours.
Some people seem to see the world in black & white. Tbe fully social solution (educating people) has an enormous cost (both in time and money). Jamming phones at the cinema/theater works *now*.
Moreover the jammer's primary function is probably not so much to stop rude people from phoning, as it is to prevent cell phones whose owner has forgotten to turn them off from ringing.
Exactly! Having lived in Singapore with advert breaks every 15min, I wonder how people can tolerate 20 min Simpsons that stretch 40min or so.
You're calling him a nut? Have a look at your sig you idiot, it tells a lot more about you.
Do you yourself believe the tale you spin? Half truths are what it's made of.
Bush lied, and repeatedly so, just have a look at any foreign news source or what Hans Blix has to say for 'proof'.
Moreover, if you believe that Bush was only repeating false information, why do you argue that there was correct information ? (those so-called banned weapons). Sounds like someone desperately trying to save face, putting forward any argument he can find, however ridiculous it might be.
...The Jews have brought that one down on themselves.
Why do you keep calling them the Jews? They are Israelis.
Just a nitpick with your comment.
Jacques Chirac has always been (in office) to the center right. Bush caters to the far right (religious loonies, anti-abortion/anti-gay individuals).You can't possibly say that Chirac is nothing less than the french version of Bush, even though is party is part of the 'right'.
How is the UK's army more modern than France's? Really? (I wouldn't know)
Intended? How so? Are you actually nutty enough to believe the whole Kyoto protocol was just devised to cripple the US economy? The burden of proof is on you I guess.
At last. Someone here is sane.
It has nothing to do with being the best and a lot to do with charisma.
People like Bush try to cover the whole electorate from center right to far right. Unfortunately it's in human nature to prefer the shiny things.
Why should the parties give their best man if he won't win?
So here goes:
Do you believe that the president should, in a country with a separation of church and state, make public references in his speeches to an hypothetical god.
Should the president's religious beliefs interfer with the country's foreign policy (ie: calling a crusade, defining "good" and "evil")?
So suddently you care about the sovereignty of Iran? Come forward and admit it, you actually BELIEVED the WMD BS (and hang your head in shame!) and are just trying to justify an invasion.
So what country with a murderous regime do you invade next? Honest question, there are many to choose from.
A very frequent mistake on your side of the atlantic apparently. Some would think he's trying to confuse the two...