To continue your example... the Anonymous Coward can now buy a Jaguar XJR-15, Viper SRT/10,Lamborghini Diablo and all other top sports cars at 1/4 the price of a Ferrari F430. Not to mention that you CAN'T BUY THE FERRARI, you can only LEASE IT. With all other car companies you can buy the car.
So in this case the dealerships are saying that Ferrari needs to lower it's prices to be competitive. Ferrari could ignor its' dealerships and see how it goes, or they could listen.
RedHat is a fool to belive their competition is Sun, and as such they charge what they do. Their real focus should be on Windows servers, but their upper management has become greedy and stupid.
Now the other issue is the HUGE price differences that have occured in the last three years.
3 years ago. RedHat 7.1 was ~$60. You load it on as many machines as you wanted for no additional cost. You could also pay for support on a per server basis.
1 year ago. RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 was $2,500 minimum a year per server. If you did not renew your license, you were NOT allowed to run the server.
Today - RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 is $350 a year per server. Again, you must pay per server EVERY year.
So using your example. Ferrari releases the F40 for say $30,000. Then next year releases basically the same car for say $300,000/year lease. Then the next year releases if for say $60,000/year lease. All this while their management seems hell bent on taking down Leblanc (2% market of high performance sports cars), while Porche owns the vast majority of the high performance sports car world, and they don't force people to lease. So to continue this example more... Lets say Porche isn't as fast, and can't brake quite as good.... but they are working on it, and have enormous resources, while Ferrari has about 1/50th the resources as Porche.
NOTE: The car percentages are just examples, not real world:-) I personally love Ferrari.
I for one would love to see Dell start pushing SuSe more, or ANY OTHER DISTRO.
My last complaint is this.
RedHat does not do the following: 1. Code a majority of Apache. 2. Code a majority of the Kernel 3. Code a majority of KDE or GNOME 4. Code a majority of TCP/IP stack 5. Code a majority of FTP/DNS/SAMBA servers 6. Code a majority of SSH 7. Code a JVM for Linux.
They just take what other people do, build a good installer, and make sure that everything works well together and make a good update program. Granted that is some significant work, but it doesn't compare at all to doing all that development in house. So why do they charge so much?
The good news is that there is competition out there, and this will balance itself out. I believe it was SuSe alone that forced RedHat to lower it's X86-64 prices.
I believe that RedHat should release a version of their product without support that you own, not lease for $350. That would get you one year of updates and can be loaded on as many machines as you want, however to get updates on those other machines would cost you $75/year per machine. Again you would OWN the product, not lease it.
So did you buy an Alpha and run NT on it when it was out? I feel for the people that bet the farm on those boxes. Now if you ran Linux on it, at least someone could pick up the development and continue it.
Yes Microsoft currently holds the lions share of the desktop market, but a TON of that is NOT to any inovation on their part. A large part of it is because of all the legacy applications that have been built on their platform. Now with this chip, that advantage goes away.
Take a look at Microsofts' history in areas that they couldn't leverage their desktop OS. 1. Alpha/NT. - Died 2. XBOX - By most account a huge failure. 3. WebTV - Dead 4. Windows CE - Almost dead 5. Windows Phones - Going nowhere fast. 6. Windows on Itanium - Almost Dead 7. Windows on X86-64 -Still not out.
I could go on, and I want to say that I personally wouldn't care if Microsoft supported cell technology or not. But I would warn any customer that thought they were getting Windows on X86, and with it all the legacy apps; that they are not. They will NOT be able to go out and buy Doom3 and expect it to run well. They will be no different that those users running Linux and trying to get Doom3 to run on the same platform.
Now I would also caution that the performace of this new technology will probably not be anywhere near the 10X speed improvement over what we currently have.
I would be willing to bet that when this shows up in a "PC" you will be able to; build a similar X86-64 machine and it will perform the same. Why do I feel that way? Well Intel puts around $12 BILLION in R&D every year. They have AMD for competition and they will not sit still. That and I have seen IBM/Motorolla/Sony/Apple make these predictions before.
Heck it was last December that Steve Jobbs said a >3Ghz PPC chip would be out by now. Last time I checked he was wrong. I believe he said 5GH in a year.... well a year is almost up and Apple is around 2GH.
So when cell technology is released in the PS3, we will have some idea of its performance. From what I have read that will probably be out by next Christmas,,, I wonder what AMD and Intel will have by then?
At the end of the day, people who buy Microsoft don't take risks. They are the same type of people who bought IBM in the 80's.
You do realize that none of your X86/Windows apps would run. Every one of them would need to be re-written to run on this new platform. So what advantage would you have over this thing running Linux?
Now if they ported Java and.NET over to it, the apps written in those "Platforms" would run. Well at least the ones written in Java would.
So I doubt you would actually buy one. In my opinion this is the exact reason the Alpha died. Yes it had NT, but no apps.
Should the government of India also be held responsible?
If you think that they are at least somewhat responsible, then why on earth would you let them "place judgement" on anyone. How were they held accountable?
I do agree that a company that chooses to run it's business in a third world country such as India, to save money should be held somewhat responsible for damages done, BUT the people of that country should demand accountability from their government.
Can't you just see it. India comes to the U.S. and says "put that dangerous plant in our country, it will employ a ton of our cheaper labor people and we don't have near the restrictions the U.S. has". The company says sure, but we have our "standard" safety measures that must be kept up. India says "No problem, we can handle that....": but they don't.
This reminds me of dealing with Indian software developers now. Every answer out of their mouth is "Yes we can do that". You ask a question like "We need someone with 20 years of Java experience, do you have anyone like that...." and before you can finish they have answered "Yes we have many people like that". Then when you need the work done, you find out the truth. Granted nobody dies, (unless it is some medical system), but this illistrates how they oporate, and shows that nothing has changed in 30+ years of doing business with them.
So yes the guy is somewhat accountable, but you want the people that hold a lions share of the blame (their government) to put this guy on trial?
While I would love to agree with everyone here on Slashdot, I can't.
Does you father want you to switch to a different school, but yet stay in I.T?
If that is the case, then I probably agree with most of the other posters. However, if he is saying to switch to a better school and look at a different career path, then I would agree with him. I.T. sucks bad now and won't change in the near future. There is a stong possibility that you will not find a job at all after college, or the one you do find will pay little more than what you could earn delivering pizza. If that thought doesn't scare you, and you would rather code or do help desk support, rather than deliver pizza then I say GO FOR IT.
I don't want to imply that you can't make a ton of money in any profession, but the odds of it are far less.
I somehow think you Father is talking more about I.T. in general and not a specific school.
It is the opposite. Kerry has blamed the OBL tape and Fox News on his loss.
I believe in his mind he thinks that Fox news was not fair to him. Yet the irony is that he was asked multiple times to come on the network. Also I believe he thinks that once the tape was released it caused people to be scared again and thus those people voted for Bush.
What I would have liked to see him do is take the blame on himself and try and understand why he carried such a small amount of the religious vote. It gets very bad for him when you consider that over 70% of his vote came from people that were voting AGAINST BUSH!
He like most of the slashdot community seem to take methods when talking with conservatives. 1. Call them stupid. 2. Paint them as war mongers and evil. 3. Blame others when they don't get their way.
Now Kerry's image with the religious voters appeared to be that of someone who tries to say the correct things but his actions and voting record appear to be the opposite. Specifically he is a Catholic who is dicated by the pope to believe life begins at conception, yet he has voted multiple times against partial birth abortion. He never explained this to the satisfaction of those voters. At least Bush went to the black caucus. Granted after the way he was treated, I can't blame him for not going back.
So what I would like to see is the democrates refocus their efforts and try and reach out to those other voters. They don't appear to be doing that at all. Now that they are losing their total control over the mass media, their future doesn't look too bright if they don't make some changes.
I wish your ideas would work. However, just look at all the small shops that Wallmart crushes out of business. A huge amount of people buy on nothing but price.
Again, I wish what you said would be true. The only example I can think of is Harley Davidson, and that is because the government stepped in to help them out.
I am not 12. I was in college and had worked the summer to pay for stuff during the year. Now I had a budget and I needed to stick with it. The way to "cheat" the budget was to skip a meal or two. The place of our choice was Nobel Romans. I liked their cheese.
You and I agree on a lot of the issues, but please understand that we are not talking about a 'few' people here. In the last "job fair" in my area the coordinators divided people in two two main groups. One for I.T. people and one for everyone else. The I.T. line at the openining was well over 200 people, at the end of the day there were over two times as many I.T. people as all the other jobs. (Thousands showed up) Compair that to just two years earlier when it was difficult to hire an I.T. person and you see the huge issue here (Time). My main point is that the government could do more to slow this process down. Granted Bush did extend unenployment and lower taxes. Those have helped, but they are not enough. Kerry did not focus on this enough and didn't have a clear plan on what he would do to help. Yes he mentioned this slightly in the second debate, but he chose to make the war and terrorism his primary focus.
I honestly don't believe either candidate gives a rats ass about I.T. people, and I.T. people don't like Unions, so I don't see this problem being addressed at all. Unless the war goes badly and we are still there in 4 years, then just about any Democrat will win.... well except possibly Hillary.
First don't confuse Capatalism with greed. They are two completely different things.
Second the problem is that once ONE of your competitors out-souces their work to near slave labor (India and China) then you will be forced to as well; OR you will be put out of business soon. What should happen is that the government should step in and try and stabalize things. yes those jobs will EVENTUALLY end up over in India or China but they will slowly go over there and the wages over here will slowly go down.
Lastly don't draw developers hate of capatalism to Linux success. There are quite a few reasons for the success and now you have companies like Oracle, Novell, AOL, IBM and Sun dumping a lot of resources behind it. You would be supprised to see the very large percentage of kernel patches that come from corporate sponsored people.
The core issue is that the government has worked to help Harley Davidson, Chrystler and Steel Workers but not at all to help I.T. workers. Lowering taxes will help some, but it is not enough in the short term. Kerry could have made this the cornerstone of his run, but for some reason chose to make the war and terrorism his primary concern. That was a huge mistake.
I agree with the concept you are trying to convey. Save money whenever possible.
However, when you take someone who has earned X dollars for ten+ years, let them go and instantly make it impossible for them to get a job except by moving around, and that job only pay 1/10th of what X did, then something is seriously wrong. Now if this happened over say 10+ years that would be bad enough (like the manufacturing jobs) but this happened over two years. That is horrible.
Yes people should learn to save. I remember saving up all week to take my girlfiend out and get breadsticks on the weekend. If I skipped a few meals during the week I could actually afford extra cheese for both of us.:-) (Yes it is possible for geeks to get girlfriends)
However, when someone with a family looses their job they don't instantly sell their house, all their cars (at a loss mind you) and start farming for food. Normally they will try for a long time to work in their profession in their area, then they will start to lower their standards over time to work just about anywhere, and then at last be forced to make very tough decisions. I have seen many of my friends have to make these tough decisions after being out of work a long time. Thankfully most have found a new job, but some more are about to loose their jobs now. I will say that the difference between now and a few years ago is that people know that the there are no jobs now. They didn't know that a few years ago.
I can tell you that NOBODY wants to hire an I.T. person for another profession. Their fear is that the economy will turn upward again and the person will quit. I have seen a few of my friends try and get jobs a Walmart and others. This has NEVER worked. So they are stuck.
So yes I agree that people should save whenever possible. But for those 35-55 year olds out there that have been "downsized", it is not reasonable to expect them to become farmers overnight. Again as I mentioned above, today is different than two years ago. Today, if you have an I.T. job, you better be saving like mad.
The sad part of all this is that if Kerry would have been smart, he would have played this issue up and made this his core issue. In my opinion he didn't and that is why he lost. Well that and the fact that his past haunted him.
Canada only allows far left wing news on their TV. Having quite a few Canadian coworkers I can assure you that they tend to agree with most of the conservatives when presented with the facts. Understand that Canada will not allow Fox news in their country but yet they allow CNN. You honestly belive the media was easy on Bush? 1. CBS forged documents. 2. Comedy shows constant attacks. 3. CBS "lost weapons" being held to 2 days before election (NY Times forced them to go early) 4. MTV's constant attack 5. Exit poll numbers that were wrong for the first time in modern history - not wrong in one state but EVERY swing state!!! 6. CBS not conceeding Flordia or Ohio even after Kerry did. 7. The constant attacks from actors. 8. The constant attacks from the music industry.
I realize that loosing the election for "your guy" must hurt, and you and your fellow left wingers need to sit down and rethink your parties focus. The number one issue people voted on was morality. Those people voted for Bush. For the first time in modern history the 18-24 year olds voted for a Republican more than a Democrat. So what exactly makes up your party? Well you have the inner city, and black vote locked up. You HAD the women vote and youth vote but those are shifting.
Your party constantly attacks conservative in one of two ways. 1. Evil people bent on world domination. 2. Stupid people.
If you can't paint the republican as number 2 above then you will quickly paint them as number one. Now the liberals use to control ALL the major media, but that is changing because newspaper and local news viewership is way down. I would imagine that this has to bug the crap out of the "established" media, and as such they are became more and more vicious in their attacks. Fortunately for the United States it is far easier to prove their "mis-information" than ever before. That coupled with the fact that concervative viewpoints are now on the radio and some tv is killing your cause.
Could Kerry have won the election? Heck yeah, but he went with the far left of the party (people like yourself), in focusing on the war. He should have focused on the economy and stayed with it. He could have agreed with Bush on every aspect of the war and he still would have gotten your vote (and all the "Anybody But Bush" people). But nooooooo he decided to focus on the far left of the party (Howard Dean people) and fight Bush on an issue that he could never win. (In most peoples eyes). The Democrats have NEVER been strong on defence and are foolish to debate on that issue long, let alone make a campain about it. You do notice that Bush NEVER focused on what he did before he took office:-)
The majority of Bush supporters do not get their facts wrong either. It is this exact "you are stupid" attitude that lost you guys the election. If you want to win back anything I would strongly suggest you guys change your attitude. Perhaps learning WHY YOU LOST instead of being bitter and calling people names.
Also my STRONG suggestion is to NOT run somebody like Hillary in the next election. I know you guys love her but she will not win. You think a lot of states looked red before. Just wait. You guys need to run someone like Evan Bahy from Indiana. Also do NOT pair him up with any EXTREEM left wing guy or gal. i.e. the guy from Chicago that just won. Pick some moderate from the south.
Next, I would take an issue that would pull a lot of fiscal concervatives over like a balanced budged amendment.
Or you can just sit back and keep up the old left wing way. "You are stupid".... "You are bent on world domination" stuff. But with loosing your grip on the media and the young kids not getting spoon fed all their information from liberal teachers (80+%) and all their news from liberal reporters, your outlook looks very bad. Granted the Hispanic vote is growing, but they also vote Republican.
The other countries want to agree to use force against Iraq but then NEVER do. They hate the idea of a strong U.S. and the last thing they want is for the U.S. to have strong allies in the middle east. So seeing that this is probably going to happen angers them a great deal.
The people dancing in the street were NOT just Afgans. But why would someone like you want to listen to reason.
France specifically said that they would NEVER support the use of force against Iraq, yet they signed the sanction that said that they would support the use of force. We have since learned that France and Germany were on the payroll of Iraq. Saddam thought that France and Germany would prevent the U.S. and it's true allies from using military force to remove him. He thought wrong. His constant refusal to comply with sanctions cost him in the end. He had many many many opportunities to comply, 10 years worth but didn't.
Yes some countries backed us going in to Afganistan. They had little choice. Now have they truely helped? You mention Russia... you do realize that Russia didn't exactly have a great relationship with Afganistan before?
You mention that there were a lot more countries in the first gulf war. Yes that is correct. It is about the exact same list that signed on to use force if Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. sanctions. As mentioned above, he had 10 years, how long does it take to comply?
You say "we", so I will assume you are an American. I can assure you that "we" were NEVER loved. Other countries HATE a strong America and always have. Well until they need our military support or our money. Then when we give it to them they either complain that it wasn't enough or that we should forget about our loans.
You want to know why Iraq was an imediat threat? That isn't the issue. The real question is why after 10 years of sanctions the U.N. who agreed to use force would not do so. This is exactly why there should never be any "Global Test" the U.S. must "PASS" before it acts to defeat terrorism.
If the Israel acted as you would hope the U.S. would then they would have been killed in the early 70's. Because they acted with force they are still around today. You may not like the fact that Saddam is no longer in power, but your kids and grandkids will appriciate it.
Lastly, you say the whole world hates us. I say that there are now two countries that hated the U.S. so much that they would do ANYTHING to attack it, are now in the process of being friends of the U.S.
You might want to do your resarch. Canda did say no to fox. Oh you want sensored news errrr sorry left wing liberal news only....
Yes Canada and most of the world felt sorry for the U.S. Yes I seem to remember some people dancing in the streets...
Yes they felt sorry for the U.S. but they didn't want the U.S. to do anything about it.
Also I have to thank you Candadians. Thank you for paying higher taxes and letting us come up and get our meds for less. We appriciate you paying the difference.
Also why doesn't Canada allow the Fox new channel?
Bush pissed off "everyone". Hmmm perhaps by everyone you mean those that hated the U.S. to begin with. Lets see.
France - Hated the U.S. to begin with - on Saddams payroll
Germany - Hated the U.S. to begin with - Also on the payroll.
China - Never a friend to the U.S.
Russia - Never a friend to the U.S.
So who were these "friends" of the U.S. that are no longer friends?
I will agree that all the countries I mentioned above do love a weak America and hate a strong America. I am also sure that they would love to have a "Global Test" before America would protect itself.
Again thanks for paying for our drugs. We appriciate it.
Good point. In our current form of government though it is the majority that generally gets their way. Now if certain judges wouldn't try and legislate from the bench, this would not have been an issue.
So what it is going to come down to is certain people believe homosexuality is a choice. Kerry said he does not believe this and yet he said he was a Catholic. Catholics are taught that homosexuality is a sin, and sin is a choice. So he is either a Catholic or he isn't. He can't have it both ways. Bush believe that protecting the core values of marrage is important to the foundation of the U.S.
I find it ironic that most people on the left find it ok to offend Christians, but not ok to offend everyone else.
You wonder why people don't want to listen to what you have to say? You say we deserve to have Americans killed.
Now lets recap. War is bad, but the U.S. will walk tall AND carry a big stick. So when the U.N. makes a resolution with the threat of force, the U.S. WILL back it up with force if needed. Granted the U.S will give that country 10 YEARS to comply with those sanctions.
"Fags are bad". Your words not mine. Well by that if you mean gay marrage should be between a man and a woman, then we can have a discussion. You did see the number of states that voted on this issue. How many of them voted to allow it?
Huge deficit is bad. We agree. I would love to see a balanced budget amendment. I would also love to see a ton of social programs moved to the private sector. So we somewhat agree.
Abortion is bad. When exactly does life begin? When does Kerry BELIEVE life begins. Understand he is a Catholic. Again I ask when does life begin?
You mention smear campain. I agree. 1. Michael Moore movie. 2. CBS fake documents 3. Comics constant attacks. 4. CBS holding on to a story for a week to show it two days before an election, but failing because the NewYork times broke it early. Then after 4 days of review it was found to be in error. If the story could have been shown as scheduled it would not have had time for "correction"l 5. Exit polls showing that Kerry won EVERY swing state. In such causing the stock market to fall.
What I find ironic is that there was such a large turnout and Bush won by over 3 million votes. Usually a large turnout is very bad for concervatives. That and Tom Dashel lost.
The point I think your are missing is that kids who use to get RedHat to try it out and play with it will no longer do that. What they could do is get RedHat for near free and then get comfortable with it. Now they have to try Fedora. Most won't.
So someone can get SuSe for near free (box version) and then try it out. Then they can use an enterprise version when they need it in a business.
My only issue is that companies like Oracle and IBM are trying to make it impossible to load their software on anything but the enterprise versions of software. This will come back to haunt them. Those same new "developers" will just use other tools (i.e. PostGresql, MySql, Jboss etc), instead of Oracle or Websphere. IBM should have learned this with their mistake of smalltalk.
I see your point, and have this conversations with our clients. I just say "Do you want to exclude African Americans from your product?" That usually garners a weird look and then a response of NO!. I then say that there are as many non ie users as African Americans (Amercians who are black). I also then add that most of our web statistics show that a very large percentage of people still use i.e. 5.5 and lower.
It won't take much for EVERYONE to be forced to code to standards.
Again, homosexuality is a choice. A choice of sin. You love the sinner but hate the sin. You mention God but do you realize that in the Christian bible it clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. When two people get married they do it between themselves and God. You see the problem here. Now we as a society realize that creating laws that promote moral behavior help us out. While creating laws that do not hurt us.
Having government take control of your meds is socialism. You can try and spin it any way you want, but it is what it is. Socialism.
Where do morals come from if not from God? They are clearly not two different things. Being a securlarist I can see that this would be difficult to understand.
You still haven't ansered my question. When does life begin?
Now a question to ask Kerry When do you BELIEVE life begins?
You saw a 20 second clip on what you call a comedy show. Nuff said.
Again Homosexuality is a choice. You may not like to hear it but it is true. I can also point to a ton of evidence supporting this. It is abnormal behaviour. Does that mean that homosexuals should not have freedoms? I did not say that. Should they be allowed to marry each other? Well most of America agrees with me. But most of America isn't a securlarist.
Bushes actions caused the terrorist attack. Come one now. How is the Koolaid?
The first Gulf war was wrong? Well that in of itself also says a lot about you.
Kerry being a Catholic. Hey there is nothing wrong with Kerry not believing in what Church LAW dictates. It just means he isn't a Catholic. No problem here. He just can't have it both ways. He is either a Catholic or not. He can't flip flop on this one:-)
Druge developed by the Government. Again, you are dead wrong. Being somewhat invloved in this industry I can say without fact that the government has had little to do with ANY major medical breakthrough in resent years. The advertising exceeds their R&D. Well I guess you can just make facts up now. Perhaps the Koolaid is taking hold:-) You are correct in that the government is involved in the drug business, but mostly as an obsticle (FDA).
I am a fan of letting the free market work on drugs. Just keep the government out of it. If you feel this way then you are against Kerry's view on this. You can try to spin this in to his favor, but he is for socialized meds.
2nd Amendment- Again, look at Kerries voting record. Now look at Bushes. Who has voted for more restrictive gun laws?
Bush and Taxes - Come on now. A person making under 50k a year with kids had their taxes lowered. A family making under 60k a year also had theirs lowered. Now Kerry wants to raise taxes not just on the "richest" but on some small businesses. So, you have one candidate talking about lowing taxes and one about raising them. You somehow spin this in to Bush is going to raise taxes. Kerry will raise taxes, and probably do what Clinton did, raise them on the middle class AND dead people.
Kerry, of course, voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He voted against eliminating the marriage penalty a dozen times. In 1993, he voted twice for President Clinton's budget plan, which raised taxes by a history-making $240 billion. In 1998 Kerry voted against requiring a super-majority to raise taxes. He voted no to across-the-board spending cuts in 1999. He's been greedily at the trough with the best of them, voting at least five times to raid the Social Security trust fund.
Charting out some highlights helps with the perspective:
# 1989-90: Votes against considering a capitol gains tax cut.
# 1993-94: Votes against spending reductions - an amendment to reduce budget spending by $94 billion. Votes for the largest tax increase in American history.
# 1995-96: Votes against balancing the budget - a bipartisan plan to balance the books in seven years.
# 1997-98: Votes against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. Votes against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
# 1999-2000: Votes against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.
# 2001: Votes against the Bush tax cut - a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the "marriage penalty" and gradually repeal the estate tax. Votes to reduce Bush's proposed tax cut ceiling by $448 billion over 10 years.
Then in April of 2002, Kerry doubles back on himself, calling for a tax cut even larger than the one passed in 2001, telling CNN's "Crossfire":
"It's not a question of courage.... And it's not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year.... [T]he nex
1. One show talks about polictial issues from a concervative side and a liberal side. Another show constantly makes most candidates look like fools. Which is bad for America? Heck even you quoted a Daily show? Yet you say it isn't news. Can't you tell the difference:-)
2. If Bush was attacked the same as Clinton. You and I see it way differenlty here. A lie.... what exactly is a lie. Boy Clinton sure would know the definition of that one...:-) Bush acted on his intellegence at that time. Was that intelligence correct? Clinton on the other hand lied to a grand jury. Do you see the difference? Again, this involves some morality and is difficult to explain to a secularist.
Credibility - You and I agree on some points here. We just see different sides. Let me add that credibility is not gained by constantly getting public opinion to base your political views.
You are flat out wrong about someone being Catholic and being pro choice. Now could someone have been pro choice and is now a Catholic? Yes. People can confess their sins and be forgivin. But you cannot go around and be pro choice and say you are a Catholic at the same time. As for the Catholic church supporting any other abuses, you are again wrong. You do realize that Kerry said he will NEVER appoint a judge that is pro life. So what he is saying is that he will never appoint a Catholic to the bench. Could you imagine if he said he would NEVER appoint a Jew, or even someone like you? I suggest you get your facts about the Catholic church down more and I would be more that willing to point you to some information if you want. It is funny how you say because Kerry lives in XYZ he can be pro choice. To a Catholic, no matter what location you live in you have your beliefs. You can't separate the man from the religion. Yes you and I would agree that laws are made to allow people to live together, but the U.S. laws are based off of some morality. That morality was founded in a Jewish, Christian belief.
Jon Stewarts irony. Well you yourself quoted them as news. Nuff said.
You saw a 20 second clip on the Daily show. Well that proves my point about how some people get their news. I can't believe you quote the Daily show for news... That in itself proves all my points.
Homosexuality is a choice. People are NOT born that way. Prove to me otherwise.
You honestly believe that Kerry would not turn troops over to U.N. control?
Kerry would do a better job of proteting America? Look at the guys voting record. Now if you mean he will bend over backwards to avoid war, and allow other countries to harbor terrorist, then yes the U.S. would be safer in the short term. Kind of like Clinton. Realize that Kerry did NOT vote for the first gulf war. What does that say? Again, he can't run from his voting record. He is anti military, and for a secular society. He may say otherwise now, but his record indicates otherwise.
Abortion: "The same people who are trying to outlaw abortion are the same trying to prevent the ability to avoid it through contraception." As with most of your points you are wrong here. Kerry being Catholic should never support anything that prevents life. Catholics do not. This point is not irrelivant either. Answer the question... when does life begin? I will ask it again WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? Anwer that and we can talk about the rest.
Soicialized meds - Well now we see that your are a socialist. This makes a lot more sense now. Lets see now how many new drugs have been developed in socialist countries.... How many in capatalist countries? Now another question for you. Name a government program that is run efficient? NONE. That is the correct answer. The U.S. was founded not on socialist values but on capatalist values. If you like socialism and live in the U.S. then you can go live in one the many socialist countries around the world.
Increasing taxes - You didn't anwer the question, yet again. When the U.S. raises taxes and a busines s can now move it's entire operation to say Mexico, because the labor and taxes are far far far less they will. In Kerry's plan he would offer incentives to business not to move part of the organization to another country. While that is a good step, they will just move their entire orgainization there. So China and India look to gain in a huge way.
Second Amendment - I am not surprised that a socialist isn't a big fan of the second amendment, but without it you would not have the first:-) To say that it is a wash??? How does the Koolaid taste?
Bush is more likely to raise taxes on the middle class? Are you serious? How many tax increases has Kerry voted for. How many against? Who is talking about raising them again? Who is NOT.
Gay marrage - Actually most people are not against civil unions. That is radically different than marrage. But to a socialist and secularist that would be hard to understand. Kerry being a Catholic though should have an excellent understanding of it, abortion, the death penality and other moral issues.:-) He just needs to decide is he a Catholic or not. The Bishops in his area have talked seriously about not serving him communion. Why do you think that is? As a Catholic when does Kerry belive life begins?
Slashdot Mirror
To continue your example... the Anonymous Coward can now buy a Jaguar XJR-15, Viper SRT/10,Lamborghini Diablo and all other top sports cars at 1/4 the price of a Ferrari F430. Not to mention that you CAN'T BUY THE FERRARI, you can only LEASE IT. With all other car companies you can buy the car.
:-) I personally love Ferrari.
So in this case the dealerships are saying that Ferrari needs to lower it's prices to be competitive. Ferrari could ignor its' dealerships and see how it goes, or they could listen.
RedHat is a fool to belive their competition is Sun, and as such they charge what they do. Their real focus should be on Windows servers, but their upper management has become greedy and stupid.
Now the other issue is the HUGE price differences that have occured in the last three years.
3 years ago. RedHat 7.1 was ~$60. You load it on as many machines as you wanted for no additional cost. You could also pay for support on a per server basis.
1 year ago. RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 was $2,500 minimum a year per server. If you did not renew your license, you were NOT allowed to run the server.
Today - RedHat ES 3.x for X86-64 is $350 a year per server. Again, you must pay per server EVERY year.
So using your example. Ferrari releases the F40 for say $30,000. Then next year releases basically the same car for say $300,000/year lease. Then the next year releases if for say $60,000/year lease. All this while their management seems hell bent on taking down Leblanc (2% market of high performance sports cars), while Porche owns the vast majority of the high performance sports car world, and they don't force people to lease. So to continue this example more... Lets say Porche isn't as fast, and can't brake quite as good.... but they are working on it, and have enormous resources, while Ferrari has about 1/50th the resources as Porche.
NOTE: The car percentages are just examples, not real world
I for one would love to see Dell start pushing SuSe more, or ANY OTHER DISTRO.
My last complaint is this.
RedHat does not do the following:
1. Code a majority of Apache.
2. Code a majority of the Kernel
3. Code a majority of KDE or GNOME
4. Code a majority of TCP/IP stack
5. Code a majority of FTP/DNS/SAMBA servers
6. Code a majority of SSH
7. Code a JVM for Linux.
They just take what other people do, build a good installer, and make sure that everything works well together and make a good update program. Granted that is some significant work, but it doesn't compare at all to doing all that development in house. So why do they charge so much?
The good news is that there is competition out there, and this will balance itself out. I believe it was SuSe alone that forced RedHat to lower it's X86-64 prices.
I believe that RedHat should release a version of their product without support that you own, not lease for $350. That would get you one year of updates and can be loaded on as many machines as you want, however to get updates on those other machines would cost you $75/year per machine.
Again you would OWN the product, not lease it.
So did you buy an Alpha and run NT on it when it was out? I feel for the people that bet the farm on those boxes. Now if you ran Linux on it, at least someone could pick up the development and continue it.
Yes Microsoft currently holds the lions share of the desktop market, but a TON of that is NOT to any inovation on their part. A large part of it is because of all the legacy applications that have been built on their platform. Now with this chip, that advantage goes away.
Take a look at Microsofts' history in areas that they couldn't leverage their desktop OS.
1. Alpha/NT. - Died
2. XBOX - By most account a huge failure.
3. WebTV - Dead
4. Windows CE - Almost dead
5. Windows Phones - Going nowhere fast.
6. Windows on Itanium - Almost Dead
7. Windows on X86-64 -Still not out.
I could go on, and I want to say that I personally wouldn't care if Microsoft supported cell technology or not. But I would warn any customer that thought they were getting Windows on X86, and with it all the legacy apps; that they are not. They will NOT be able to go out and buy Doom3 and expect it to run well. They will be no different that those users running Linux and trying to get Doom3 to run on the same platform.
Now I would also caution that the performace of this new technology will probably not be anywhere near the 10X speed improvement over what we currently have.
I would be willing to bet that when this shows up in a "PC" you will be able to; build a similar X86-64 machine and it will perform the same. Why do I feel that way? Well Intel puts around $12 BILLION in R&D every year. They have AMD for competition and they will not sit still. That and I have seen IBM/Motorolla/Sony/Apple make these predictions before.
Heck it was last December that Steve Jobbs said a >3Ghz PPC chip would be out by now. Last time I checked he was wrong. I believe he said 5GH in a year.... well a year is almost up and Apple is around 2GH.
So when cell technology is released in the PS3, we will have some idea of its performance. From what I have read that will probably be out by next Christmas,,, I wonder what AMD and Intel will have by then?
At the end of the day, people who buy Microsoft don't take risks. They are the same type of people who bought IBM in the 80's.
Why would you buy one?
.NET over to it, the apps written in those "Platforms" would run. Well at least the ones written in Java would.
You do realize that none of your X86/Windows apps would run. Every one of them would need to be re-written to run on this new platform. So what advantage would you have over this thing running Linux?
Now if they ported Java and
So I doubt you would actually buy one. In my opinion this is the exact reason the Alpha died. Yes it had NT, but no apps.
Should the government of India also be held responsible?
If you think that they are at least somewhat responsible, then why on earth would you let them "place judgement" on anyone. How were they held accountable?
I do agree that a company that chooses to run it's business in a third world country such as India, to save money should be held somewhat responsible for damages done, BUT the people of that country should demand accountability from their government.
Can't you just see it. India comes to the U.S. and says "put that dangerous plant in our country, it will employ a ton of our cheaper labor people and we don't have near the restrictions the U.S. has". The company says sure, but we have our "standard" safety measures that must be kept up. India says "No problem, we can handle that....": but they don't.
This reminds me of dealing with Indian software developers now. Every answer out of their mouth is "Yes we can do that". You ask a question like "We need someone with 20 years of Java experience, do you have anyone like that...." and before you can finish they have answered "Yes we have many people like that". Then when you need the work done, you find out the truth. Granted nobody dies, (unless it is some medical system), but this illistrates how they oporate, and shows that nothing has changed in 30+ years of doing business with them.
So yes the guy is somewhat accountable, but you want the people that hold a lions share of the blame (their government) to put this guy on trial?
While I would love to agree with everyone here on Slashdot, I can't.
Does you father want you to switch to a different school, but yet stay in I.T?
If that is the case, then I probably agree with most of the other posters. However, if he is saying to switch to a better school and look at a different career path, then I would agree with him. I.T. sucks bad now and won't change in the near future. There is a stong possibility that you will not find a job at all after college, or the one you do find will pay little more than what you could earn delivering pizza. If that thought doesn't scare you, and you would rather code or do help desk support, rather than deliver pizza then I say GO FOR IT.
I don't want to imply that you can't make a ton of money in any profession, but the odds of it are far less.
I somehow think you Father is talking more about I.T. in general and not a specific school.
It is the opposite. Kerry has blamed the OBL tape and Fox News on his loss.
I believe in his mind he thinks that Fox news was not fair to him. Yet the irony is that he was asked multiple times to come on the network. Also I believe he thinks that once the tape was released it caused people to be scared again and thus those people voted for Bush.
What I would have liked to see him do is take the blame on himself and try and understand why he carried such a small amount of the religious vote. It gets very bad for him when you consider that over 70% of his vote came from people that were voting AGAINST BUSH!
He like most of the slashdot community seem to take methods when talking with conservatives.
1. Call them stupid.
2. Paint them as war mongers and evil.
3. Blame others when they don't get their way.
Now Kerry's image with the religious voters appeared to be that of someone who tries to say the correct things but his actions and voting record appear to be the opposite. Specifically he is a Catholic who is dicated by the pope to believe life begins at conception, yet he has voted multiple times against partial birth abortion. He never explained this to the satisfaction of those voters. At least Bush went to the black caucus. Granted after the way he was treated, I can't blame him for not going back.
So what I would like to see is the democrates refocus their efforts and try and reach out to those other voters. They don't appear to be doing that at all. Now that they are losing their total control over the mass media, their future doesn't look too bright if they don't make some changes.
Wow John Kerry is now posting on Slashdot!
:-)
Sorry you lost John, but I thought it was funny you are now blaming Fox news and the OBL tape on your loss.
Well seeing that you have a lot more time on your hands now, perhaps we will see more of your post on Slashdot
Oh yeah please give my simpathy to Dan Rather, he did everything he could to get you elected and it cost him his job.
I wish your ideas would work. However, just look at all the small shops that Wallmart crushes out of business. A huge amount of people buy on nothing but price.
Again, I wish what you said would be true. The only example I can think of is Harley Davidson, and that is because the government stepped in to help them out.
I am not 12. I was in college and had worked the summer to pay for stuff during the year. Now I had a budget and I needed to stick with it. The way to "cheat" the budget was to skip a meal or two. The place of our choice was Nobel Romans. I liked their cheese.
You and I agree on a lot of the issues, but please understand that we are not talking about a 'few' people here. In the last "job fair" in my area the coordinators divided people in two two main groups. One for I.T. people and one for everyone else. The I.T. line at the openining was well over 200 people, at the end of the day there were over two times as many I.T. people as all the other jobs. (Thousands showed up) Compair that to just two years earlier when it was difficult to hire an I.T. person and you see the huge issue here (Time). My main point is that the government could do more to slow this process down. Granted Bush did extend unenployment and lower taxes. Those have helped, but they are not enough. Kerry did not focus on this enough and didn't have a clear plan on what he would do to help. Yes he mentioned this slightly in the second debate, but he chose to make the war and terrorism his primary focus.
I honestly don't believe either candidate gives a rats ass about I.T. people, and I.T. people don't like Unions, so I don't see this problem being addressed at all. Unless the war goes badly and we are still there in 4 years, then just about any Democrat will win.... well except possibly Hillary.
Wow take it easy guy.
First don't confuse Capatalism with greed. They are two completely different things.
Second the problem is that once ONE of your competitors out-souces their work to near slave labor (India and China) then you will be forced to as well; OR you will be put out of business soon. What should happen is that the government should step in and try and stabalize things. yes those jobs will EVENTUALLY end up over in India or China but they will slowly go over there and the wages over here will slowly go down.
Lastly don't draw developers hate of capatalism to Linux success. There are quite a few reasons for the success and now you have companies like Oracle, Novell, AOL, IBM and Sun dumping a lot of resources behind it. You would be supprised to see the very large percentage of kernel patches that come from corporate sponsored people.
The core issue is that the government has worked to help Harley Davidson, Chrystler and Steel Workers but not at all to help I.T. workers. Lowering taxes will help some, but it is not enough in the short term. Kerry could have made this the cornerstone of his run, but for some reason chose to make the war and terrorism his primary concern. That was a huge mistake.
I agree with the concept you are trying to convey. Save money whenever possible.
:-) (Yes it is possible for geeks to get girlfriends)
However, when you take someone who has earned X dollars for ten+ years, let them go and instantly make it impossible for them to get a job except by moving around, and that job only pay 1/10th of what X did, then something is seriously wrong. Now if this happened over say 10+ years that would be bad enough (like the manufacturing jobs) but this happened over two years. That is horrible.
Yes people should learn to save. I remember saving up all week to take my girlfiend out and get breadsticks on the weekend. If I skipped a few meals during the week I could actually afford extra cheese for both of us.
However, when someone with a family looses their job they don't instantly sell their house, all their cars (at a loss mind you) and start farming for food. Normally they will try for a long time to work in their profession in their area, then they will start to lower their standards over time to work just about anywhere, and then at last be forced to make very tough decisions. I have seen many of my friends have to make these tough decisions after being out of work a long time. Thankfully most have found a new job, but some more are about to loose their jobs now. I will say that the difference between now and a few years ago is that people know that the there are no jobs now. They didn't know that a few years ago.
I can tell you that NOBODY wants to hire an I.T. person for another profession. Their fear is that the economy will turn upward again and the person will quit. I have seen a few of my friends try and get jobs a Walmart and others. This has NEVER worked. So they are stuck.
So yes I agree that people should save whenever possible. But for those 35-55 year olds out there that have been "downsized", it is not reasonable to expect them to become farmers overnight. Again as I mentioned above, today is different than two years ago. Today, if you have an I.T. job, you better be saving like mad.
The sad part of all this is that if Kerry would have been smart, he would have played this issue up and made this his core issue. In my opinion he didn't and that is why he lost. Well that and the fact that his past haunted him.
Canada only allows far left wing news on their TV. Having quite a few Canadian coworkers I can assure you that they tend to agree with most of the conservatives when presented with the facts. Understand that Canada will not allow Fox news in their country but yet they allow CNN.
:-)
You honestly belive the media was easy on Bush?
1. CBS forged documents.
2. Comedy shows constant attacks.
3. CBS "lost weapons" being held to 2 days before election (NY Times forced them to go early)
4. MTV's constant attack
5. Exit poll numbers that were wrong for the first time in modern history - not wrong in one state but EVERY swing state!!!
6. CBS not conceeding Flordia or Ohio even after Kerry did.
7. The constant attacks from actors.
8. The constant attacks from the music industry.
I realize that loosing the election for "your guy" must hurt, and you and your fellow left wingers need to sit down and rethink your parties focus. The number one issue people voted on was morality. Those people voted for Bush. For the first time in modern history the 18-24 year olds voted for a Republican more than a Democrat. So what exactly makes up your party?
Well you have the inner city, and black vote locked up. You HAD the women vote and youth vote but those are shifting.
Your party constantly attacks conservative in one of two ways.
1. Evil people bent on world domination.
2. Stupid people.
If you can't paint the republican as number 2 above then you will quickly paint them as number one. Now the liberals use to control ALL the major media, but that is changing because newspaper and local news viewership is way down. I would imagine that this has to bug the crap out of the "established" media, and as such they are became more and more vicious in their attacks. Fortunately for the United States it is far easier to prove their "mis-information" than ever before. That coupled with the fact that concervative viewpoints are now on the radio and some tv is killing your cause.
Could Kerry have won the election? Heck yeah, but he went with the far left of the party (people like yourself), in focusing on the war. He should have focused on the economy and stayed with it. He could have agreed with Bush on every aspect of the war and he still would have gotten your vote (and all the "Anybody But Bush" people). But nooooooo he decided to focus on the far left of the party (Howard Dean people) and fight Bush on an issue that he could never win. (In most peoples eyes). The Democrats have NEVER been strong on defence and are foolish to debate on that issue long, let alone make a campain about it. You do notice that Bush NEVER focused on what he did before he took office
The majority of Bush supporters do not get their facts wrong either. It is this exact "you are stupid" attitude that lost you guys the election. If you want to win back anything I would strongly suggest you guys change your attitude. Perhaps learning WHY YOU LOST instead of being bitter and calling people names.
Also my STRONG suggestion is to NOT run somebody like Hillary in the next election. I know you guys love her but she will not win. You think a lot of states looked red before. Just wait. You guys need to run someone like Evan Bahy from Indiana. Also do NOT pair him up with any EXTREEM left wing guy or gal. i.e. the guy from Chicago that just won. Pick some moderate from the south.
Next, I would take an issue that would pull a lot of fiscal concervatives over like a balanced budged amendment.
Or you can just sit back and keep up the old left wing way.
"You are stupid".... "You are bent on world domination" stuff. But with loosing your grip on the media and the young kids not getting spoon fed all their information from liberal teachers (80+%) and all their news from liberal reporters, your outlook looks very bad. Granted the Hispanic vote is growing, but they also vote Republican.
Think of it this way. The war goes well, the U
It appears that the U.N. want to speak softly and ..... well nothing....
10 years of sanctions with the threat of force. No force used. What kind of message does that send?
The other countries want to agree to use force against Iraq but then NEVER do. They hate the idea of a strong U.S. and the last thing they want is for the U.S. to have strong allies in the middle east. So seeing that this is probably going to happen angers them a great deal.
The people dancing in the street were NOT just Afgans. But why would someone like you want to listen to reason.
France specifically said that they would NEVER support the use of force against Iraq, yet they signed the sanction that said that they would support the use of force. We have since learned that France and Germany were on the payroll of Iraq. Saddam thought that France and Germany would prevent the U.S. and it's true allies from using military force to remove him. He thought wrong. His constant refusal to comply with sanctions cost him in the end. He had many many many opportunities to comply, 10 years worth but didn't.
Yes some countries backed us going in to Afganistan. They had little choice. Now have they truely helped? You mention Russia... you do realize that Russia didn't exactly have a great relationship with Afganistan before?
You mention that there were a lot more countries in the first gulf war. Yes that is correct. It is about the exact same list that signed on to use force if Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. sanctions. As mentioned above, he had 10 years, how long does it take to comply?
You say "we", so I will assume you are an American. I can assure you that "we" were NEVER loved. Other countries HATE a strong America and always have. Well until they need our military support or our money. Then when we give it to them they either complain that it wasn't enough or that we should forget about our loans.
You want to know why Iraq was an imediat threat? That isn't the issue. The real question is why after 10 years of sanctions the U.N. who agreed to use force would not do so. This is exactly why there should never be any "Global Test" the U.S. must "PASS" before it acts to defeat terrorism.
If the Israel acted as you would hope the U.S. would then they would have been killed in the early 70's. Because they acted with force they are still around today. You may not like the fact that Saddam is no longer in power, but your kids and grandkids will appriciate it.
Lastly, you say the whole world hates us. I say that there are now two countries that hated the U.S. so much that they would do ANYTHING to attack it, are now in the process of being friends of the U.S.
You might want to do your resarch. Canda did say no to fox. Oh you want sensored news errrr sorry left wing liberal news only....
Yes Canada and most of the world felt sorry for the U.S. Yes I seem to remember some people dancing in the streets...
Yes they felt sorry for the U.S. but they didn't want the U.S. to do anything about it.
Also I have to thank you Candadians. Thank you for paying higher taxes and letting us come up and get our meds for less. We appriciate you paying the difference.
Also why doesn't Canada allow the Fox new channel?
Bush pissed off "everyone". Hmmm perhaps by everyone you mean those that hated the U.S. to begin with. Lets see.
France - Hated the U.S. to begin with - on Saddams payroll
Germany - Hated the U.S. to begin with - Also on the payroll.
China - Never a friend to the U.S.
Russia - Never a friend to the U.S.
So who were these "friends" of the U.S. that are no longer friends?
I will agree that all the countries I mentioned above do love a weak America and hate a strong America. I am also sure that they would love to have a "Global Test" before America would protect itself.
Again thanks for paying for our drugs. We appriciate it.
Good point. In our current form of government though it is the majority that generally gets their way. Now if certain judges wouldn't try and legislate from the bench, this would not have been an issue.
So what it is going to come down to is certain people believe homosexuality is a choice. Kerry said he does not believe this and yet he said he was a Catholic. Catholics are taught that homosexuality is a sin, and sin is a choice. So he is either a Catholic or he isn't. He can't have it both ways. Bush believe that protecting the core values of marrage is important to the foundation of the U.S.
I find it ironic that most people on the left find it ok to offend Christians, but not ok to offend everyone else.
"We deserve to get attacked again. We really do."
You wonder why people don't want to listen to what you have to say? You say we deserve to have Americans killed.
Now lets recap.
War is bad, but the U.S. will walk tall AND carry a big stick. So when the U.N. makes a resolution with the threat of force, the U.S. WILL back it up with force if needed. Granted the U.S will give that country 10 YEARS to comply with those sanctions.
"Fags are bad". Your words not mine. Well by that if you mean gay marrage should be between a man and a woman, then we can have a discussion. You did see the number of states that voted on this issue. How many of them voted to allow it?
Huge deficit is bad. We agree. I would love to see a balanced budget amendment. I would also love to see a ton of social programs moved to the private sector. So we somewhat agree.
Abortion is bad. When exactly does life begin? When does Kerry BELIEVE life begins. Understand he is a Catholic. Again I ask when does life begin?
You mention smear campain. I agree.
1. Michael Moore movie.
2. CBS fake documents
3. Comics constant attacks.
4. CBS holding on to a story for a week to show it two days before an election, but failing because the NewYork times broke it early. Then after 4 days of review it was found to be in error. If the story could have been shown as scheduled it would not have had time for "correction"l
5. Exit polls showing that Kerry won EVERY swing state. In such causing the stock market to fall.
What I find ironic is that there was such a large turnout and Bush won by over 3 million votes. Usually a large turnout is very bad for concervatives. That and Tom Dashel lost.
The point I think your are missing is that kids who use to get RedHat to try it out and play with it will no longer do that. What they could do is get RedHat for near free and then get comfortable with it. Now they have to try Fedora. Most won't.
So someone can get SuSe for near free (box version) and then try it out. Then they can use an enterprise version when they need it in a business.
My only issue is that companies like Oracle and IBM are trying to make it impossible to load their software on anything but the enterprise versions of software. This will come back to haunt them. Those same new "developers" will just use other tools (i.e. PostGresql, MySql, Jboss etc), instead of Oracle or Websphere. IBM should have learned this with their mistake of smalltalk.
I see your point, and have this conversations with our clients. I just say "Do you want to exclude African Americans from your product?" That usually garners a weird look and then a response of NO!. I then say that there are as many non ie users as African Americans (Amercians who are black). I also then add that most of our web statistics show that a very large percentage of people still use i.e. 5.5 and lower.
It won't take much for EVERYONE to be forced to code to standards.
The question is far from irrelivant.
When does life begin?
When does John Kerry belive life begins?
Again, homosexuality is a choice. A choice of sin. You love the sinner but hate the sin. You mention God but do you realize that in the Christian bible it clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. When two people get married they do it between themselves and God. You see the problem here. Now we as a society realize that creating laws that promote moral behavior help us out. While creating laws that do not hurt us.
Having government take control of your meds is socialism. You can try and spin it any way you want, but it is what it is. Socialism.
Where do morals come from if not from God? They are clearly not two different things. Being a securlarist I can see that this would be difficult to understand.
You still haven't ansered my question.
When does life begin?
Now a question to ask Kerry
When do you BELIEVE life begins?
You saw a 20 second clip on what you call a comedy show. Nuff said.
:-)
:-) You are correct in that the government is involved in the drug business, but mostly as an obsticle (FDA).
... And it's not an issue right now. We passed appropriately a tax cut as a stimulus, some $40 billion. Many of us thought it should have even maybe been a little bit larger this last year. ... [T]he nex
Again Homosexuality is a choice. You may not like to hear it but it is true. I can also point to a ton of evidence supporting this. It is abnormal behaviour. Does that mean that homosexuals should not have freedoms? I did not say that. Should they be allowed to marry each other? Well most of America agrees with me. But most of America isn't a securlarist.
Bushes actions caused the terrorist attack. Come one now. How is the Koolaid?
The first Gulf war was wrong? Well that in of itself also says a lot about you.
Kerry being a Catholic. Hey there is nothing wrong with Kerry not believing in what Church LAW dictates. It just means he isn't a Catholic. No problem here. He just can't have it both ways. He is either a Catholic or not. He can't flip flop on this one
Druge developed by the Government. Again, you are dead wrong. Being somewhat invloved in this industry I can say without fact that the government has had little to do with ANY major medical breakthrough in resent years. The advertising exceeds their R&D. Well I guess you can just make facts up now. Perhaps the Koolaid is taking hold
I am a fan of letting the free market work on drugs. Just keep the government out of it. If you feel this way then you are against Kerry's view on this. You can try to spin this in to his favor, but he is for socialized meds.
2nd Amendment- Again, look at Kerries voting record. Now look at Bushes. Who has voted for more restrictive gun laws?
Bush and Taxes - Come on now. A person making under 50k a year with kids had their taxes lowered. A family making under 60k a year also had theirs lowered. Now Kerry wants to raise taxes not just on the "richest" but on some small businesses. So, you have one candidate talking about lowing taxes and one about raising them. You somehow spin this in to Bush is going to raise taxes. Kerry will raise taxes, and probably do what Clinton did, raise them on the middle class AND dead people.
Kerry, of course, voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He voted against eliminating the marriage penalty a dozen times. In 1993, he voted twice for President Clinton's budget plan, which raised taxes by a history-making $240 billion. In 1998 Kerry voted against requiring a super-majority to raise taxes. He voted no to across-the-board spending cuts in 1999. He's been greedily at the trough with the best of them, voting at least five times to raid the Social Security trust fund.
Charting out some highlights helps with the perspective:
# 1989-90: Votes against considering a capitol gains tax cut.
# 1993-94: Votes against spending reductions - an amendment to reduce budget spending by $94 billion. Votes for the largest tax increase in American history.
# 1995-96: Votes against balancing the budget - a bipartisan plan to balance the books in seven years.
# 1997-98: Votes against approving a GOP budget to cut spending and taxes. Votes against a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
# 1999-2000: Votes against reducing federal taxes by $792 billion over 10 years.
# 2001: Votes against the Bush tax cut - a $1.35 trillion tax cut package to reduce income-tax rates, alleviate the "marriage penalty" and gradually repeal the estate tax. Votes to reduce Bush's proposed tax cut ceiling by $448 billion over 10 years.
Then in April of 2002, Kerry doubles back on himself, calling for a tax cut even larger than the one passed in 2001, telling CNN's "Crossfire":
"It's not a question of courage.
1. One show talks about polictial issues from a concervative side and a liberal side. Another show constantly makes most candidates look like fools. Which is bad for America? Heck even you quoted a Daily show? Yet you say it isn't news. Can't you tell the difference :-)
:-) Bush acted on his intellegence at that time. Was that intelligence correct? Clinton on the other hand lied to a grand jury. Do you see the difference? Again, this involves some morality and is difficult to explain to a secularist.
2. If Bush was attacked the same as Clinton. You and I see it way differenlty here. A lie.... what exactly is a lie. Boy Clinton sure would know the definition of that one...
Credibility - You and I agree on some points here. We just see different sides. Let me add that credibility is not gained by constantly getting public opinion to base your political views.
You are flat out wrong about someone being Catholic and being pro choice. Now could someone have been pro choice and is now a Catholic? Yes. People can confess their sins and be forgivin. But you cannot go around and be pro choice and say you are a Catholic at the same time. As for the Catholic church supporting any other abuses, you are again wrong. You do realize that Kerry said he will NEVER appoint a judge that is pro life. So what he is saying is that he will never appoint a Catholic to the bench. Could you imagine if he said he would NEVER appoint a Jew, or even someone like you? I suggest you get your facts about the Catholic church down more and I would be more that willing to point you to some information if you want. It is funny how you say because Kerry lives in XYZ he can be pro choice. To a Catholic, no matter what location you live in you have your beliefs. You can't separate the man from the religion. Yes you and I would agree that laws are made to allow people to live together, but the U.S. laws are based off of some morality. That morality was founded in a Jewish, Christian belief.
Jon Stewarts irony. Well you yourself quoted them as news. Nuff said.
You saw a 20 second clip on the Daily show. Well that proves my point about how some people get their news. I can't believe you quote the Daily show for news... That in itself proves all my points.
:-) To say that it is a wash??? How does the Koolaid taste?
:-) He just needs to decide is he a Catholic or not. The Bishops in his area have talked seriously about not serving him communion. Why do you think that is? As a Catholic when does Kerry belive life begins?
Homosexuality is a choice. People are NOT born that way. Prove to me otherwise.
You honestly believe that Kerry would not turn troops over to U.N. control?
Kerry would do a better job of proteting America? Look at the guys voting record. Now if you mean he will bend over backwards to avoid war, and allow other countries to harbor terrorist, then yes the U.S. would be safer in the short term. Kind of like Clinton. Realize that Kerry did NOT vote for the first gulf war. What does that say? Again, he can't run from his voting record. He is anti military, and for a secular society. He may say otherwise now, but his record indicates otherwise.
Abortion:
"The same people who are trying to outlaw abortion are the same trying to prevent the ability to avoid it through contraception."
As with most of your points you are wrong here. Kerry being Catholic should never support anything that prevents life. Catholics do not. This point is not irrelivant either. Answer the question... when does life begin? I will ask it again
WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? Anwer that and we can talk about the rest.
Soicialized meds - Well now we see that your are a socialist. This makes a lot more sense now. Lets see now how many new drugs have been developed in socialist countries.... How many in capatalist countries? Now another question for you. Name a government program that is run efficient? NONE. That is the correct answer. The U.S. was founded not on socialist values but on capatalist values. If you like socialism and live in the U.S. then you can go live in one the many socialist countries around the world.
Increasing taxes - You didn't anwer the question, yet again. When the U.S. raises taxes and a busines s can now move it's entire operation to say Mexico, because the labor and taxes are far far far less they will. In Kerry's plan he would offer incentives to business not to move part of the organization to another country. While that is a good step, they will just move their entire orgainization there. So China and India look to gain in a huge way.
Second Amendment - I am not surprised that a socialist isn't a big fan of the second amendment, but without it you would not have the first
Bush is more likely to raise taxes on the middle class? Are you serious? How many tax increases has Kerry voted for. How many against? Who is talking about raising them again? Who is NOT.
Gay marrage - Actually most people are not against civil unions. That is radically different than marrage. But to a socialist and secularist that would be hard to understand. Kerry being a Catholic though should have an excellent understanding of it, abortion, the death penality and other moral issues.