No, the difference is that they're wasted. All major operations sustain casualties, even training. I seem to remember a few in the beginning where a humvee rolls over, and a soldier died. Surely those, or ones like them would have happened, even if they were stationed on a US base. So are you going to give Dubya back 5%?
The deaths are wasted. Even Gore would have sent some of them somewhere, as Clinton had done (hopefully, in Afghanistan rooting out that fucker Osama). And many would have died. Difference being, something important might have been accomplished, other than Halliburton graft.
But don't fantasize that the deaths were avoidable to any large degree.
The moral of this story: What's worse than dying for your country destroying one of its enemies? Dying to destroy a paper tiger that a dimwit got a hardon for...
A good point. Certainly this is more troublesome than what should rightly be seen as a low number of casualties.
No need to go tinfoil hat though... I suspect that it's more difficult to cover up than this. The families here would be saying things about how they haven't talked to PFC Timmy in 5 months. Dunno though, how long would it take before we became aware of that? Certainly not as long as was the case in WWII?
So what comparison works better? Math is only a tool, not the guide. I need to prioritize a great many issues here, and math doesn't say much about whether a war should be more important to me than the economy which will see me in a soup line at the local homeless shelter. It may not be the prettiest (I do appreciate math, you know), but it seems to work for me.
I can even see how other people's fuzzy prioritization won't match mine exactly. What I don't see, is how it can make 1000 casualties so high on the list. There are any number of other issues, where raw count in lives trumps this, so raw count doesn't sway you. Percentage rates? Yes, the warzone is highly dangerous... but so are extreme sports. Maybe you're trying to find a candidate that would push to outlaw those?
And the worst part is, you'll just claim I'm minimalizing the Iraqi casualties... I'm not. I just think you're putting them at a #1 (#2ish maybe?) spot on the list that should be reserved for vietnamesque scenarios, which this isn't. My own priorities still place it within a top 10, maybe top 5 issues sort of thing.
Then why did you say it like this, "But you do realize that more people die in car accidents per month, than have died in Iraq, total?" You are implying that it is actually more dangerous to be in a car, aren't you?
Because in that context, not many are dying. Think of it this way. Some weird surgery, where only 1 out of 100,000 die due to complications. But at this one hospital, the 2 people have already died... the rate is now *incredibly* high (since they haven't exactly performed 100,000 of them). Is that bad? Yes, I don't like to think that anyone dies unnecessarily. Is it something the nation should be concerned about? Hardly. 2 deaths is a low number, let it be handled more locally. When the 100th patient has died, and nothing has been done yet, maybe then its something to be outraged about.
From this perspective, I hope it's apparent that 1000 soldiers dead is something to be concerned about as a nation. However, it's still a rather meager number for a major military event. Compare it to Vietnam, and tell me it's more dangerous. Tell me more have died. Hell, tell me that it's a significant fraction of the number dead in Vietnam.
Tell me that if the invasion had been better managed, that only 300 would now be dead.
But don't sit there rambling on about so many have died... that's not the problem here, not many have. The problem is the goal(s) of this misadventure, whatever in the hell they are this week.
We're already implementing https and ssl irc over our network... not that they'll see even that far, they'll likely never see past the exterior VPN tunnels.
I won't dispute your numbers, they're close enough to not matter, certainly.
But all your math proves is that the military in Iraq is more dangerous than being in the US. No need to prove that, it's common sense.
What I had intended, was that from a reasonable perspective, more are dying in car wrecks than in military service over there. Which is also fairly obvious. If it were only 20 deaths in Iraq, that would still be higher than the numbers you chose (all lower than 20 per 100,000), would you still be ranting then? Or would the shock factor be so minimal that democrat ranters would have to latch onto something else?
I didn't think going to Iraq was wise or useful, either before or afterward. I don't like Bush. But latching onto these numbers is just dumb, they're low by any standard worth considering.
The polls aren't predictive anymore. With every single voter familiar with the concept of voting strategy, polls serve only to reinforce some sort feedback loop. If the political process wasn't already so corrupted, I'd say they should be outlawed.
Voter strategizing is something that should be discouraged. I don't want people voting for who they think will win (we'll figure that out soon enough anyway), I want them voting for who they want in office.
I have to be careful here, or people will mistake me for a Dubya supporter. But you do realize that more people die in car accidents per month, than have died in Iraq, total? This isn't 500 caskets a week like Vietnam. Or is it that people just can't find any more words, any more concepts, and they have to use 30 year old outdated cliches?
the rapid and ongoing decline in the world opinion of their country
When frenchies are writing that we brung it on ourselves, a few weeks after 9-11, in snide condescending tones with just a whiff of sympathy, the sympathy an elitist feels for the retard that just stuck his dick in an eletrical socket... well, this may come as a shock to some, but the opinions were already pretty damn low. I find it hard to believe that the decline from there could be both rapid and ongoing. One or the other, but it's already bottomed out, or soon will.
Politicians these days will never, ever make strong stands on anything that the pollsters suggest might cost votes. Only greed and a thirst for power matter to most of them.
And yet ijits everywhere say that without a hint of sarcasm, and turn right around and cheer for Kerry. Mind you, you never specifically say you like him, so you might be an exception, but what about the rest of those that think Kerry will be any better?
It is good that there are people like Soros who will stand up and speak their minds.
Yes, because I trust the billionaire to be my friend. Even amongst billionaires, this guy is a grade A USDA asshole. Even Gates, who I detest, *makes* something and sells it. This guy speculates on currency, no? Gambling on something that wasn't meant to be gambled upon... the US Treasury doesn't run a casino. He considers the world his plaything, as only a billionaire elitist can, and he wants to make it more compliant to his wishes. If he starts agreeing with your own opinions, you need to re-evaluate them yourself...
Perhaps you should see what happens in a blue collar school system.
Grew up in one, not so long ago. Still have no idea how you think Kerry will be an improvement... this horse has left the gate. Rarely does a president reverse such a trend, and Kerry isn't the guy to stand up to it. Maybe you mean democrats in congress, which I grant have more ability to put an end to SOL tests, but even the odds of that...
Besides which, schools are a mess. Out of all the problems that have been going on for decades, you pick this one problem, and act as if were it fixed, things would be ok again. It's merely a symptom of something far worse... and all the inertia of this is downhill. Republican, democrat. In the end, neither will fix any of it.
I think it's ludicrous that I have to pay for roads that I don't use and regulatory departments that keep other people's workplaces safe. Give me a break. I guess instead will just let those worthless grannies die out in the streets. That will teach them!
I support paying for roads, even those I'll never travel on directly. Who knows, I might decide to go on vacation. Certainly the things I buy travel on them, getting to me. It's one of the few enterprises the government should be in (guess I just got kicked out of the libertarian party). OSHA? Hmm. Some of the shit they pull is ridiculous, granted... but I trust big companies even less. So yeh, maybe its not perfect, but regulatory agencies, they're ok. Compare the cost of those to federal welfare, even just medicare alone. Hell, take some money, do a study on how we might not let the grandmas rot without shackling me to trillion dollar debts. That's my tax money well spent. Ill spent is saying I have to pay to help people that will certainly never, ever help me. When I'm 70 and living in my cardboard box, medicare and social security will both be bankrupt, but since retirement will have been moved to age 97, I guess it won't matter...
You don't understand. It's not about Canada, it's about generic drugs. Patents are killing the sick while making the rich richer. That sounds quaint.
Well, the example I'm most familiar with, is patented AIDS anti-virals. It is quite ridiculous, that Africa hasn't been blanket exempted. Or that when they are, they're exempted in such contrived ways as to make it meaningless (can't import the generics from the only willing countries who have the infrastructure to produce them). I'm also hearing stirrings of the same with some custom antibiotics that treat the resistant TB and such. What can I say? Just shows that even the patent portions of IP law are being abused, have serious problems. You'd cry if you heard about the nascent push to extend patents up to 30some years... looks like we may agree on something. Go figure.
You totally missed the point so I will spell it out for you. People's indiffernce towards each other is what causes such rifts in society in the first place. Indifference breeds hatred. Hatred has led some to terrorism.
And terrorism leads to the dark side of the freedom fighterism. Yes, we got all that. Indifference leads to survival. I am a lone human being, that will have trouble focusing on anything more than myself, without getting *me* killed. So, when I can focus on a nation of nearly 300 million people, to the exclusion of the rest of the world, I'm doing pretty good for something that evolved from a monkey just a million years ago. I am indifferent, not hateful. This sounds sappy, but I want to cry when Dubya talks about how he's saved the Iraqis (and to be sure, there are some that would have been tortured to death, that weren't) all while letting the Rwandas of the world occur. But I'm not sure anyone can really stop them. The UN is a joke, so the best chance this country has of doing anything, is a president who does things unilaterally, in spite of all the diplomats. But in a world that hates the USA, and has hated it far longer than republicans have been in control, we likely ca
You are perfectly within your rights to evict him. A civil suit should be followed up, and a court order to forfeit any recordings, along with penalties should any become public isn't unfair.
If it were anything other than your personal bedroom or the bathroom, you might have an even more difficult time of this than you'll likely have... not that it will be easy.
And as others have said, it's doubtful that police involvement or criminal prosecution will be possible. Shameful, that.
And unfortunately, it's the single human endeavor we can ill afford to play dirty. Love, business, sports... whatever. But politics? We literally need saints, and we get the most evil of demons.
Kerry deserves to be demolished. Bush deserves to be demolished. Anyone belonging to either party deserves to be demolished. Anyone belonging to a third party that would like to take over after we've demolished the previous, deserves to be demolished.
I have to call them. And about half of them are more akin to telemarketers than anything. The last wanted the names and numbers of all the managers I could think of at the last 3 fortune 100 companies I had contract work with... once he had that, for "reference" purposes, he had a job ready for me.
I don't know why people like yourself are so happy to racebait everyone. If they were lily-white blonde Indians taking the jobs from us, it would hurt every bit as much. Mentioning that they're from India is a reference to which country is benefiting from outsourcing, that they have a different skin-color is incidental.
Do you know anyone that works in a school?? My bet is NO. I have several friends that are teachers or work in the school system. Standardized testing is killing the learning process. The school are underfunded. Bush promised a huge budget for schools and then never delivered.
I've worked in a school at several capacities, though never as a teacher. But more relevantly, the learning process was killed long ago, and standardized testing is merely a fool's attempt at a fix, or yet another sinister conspiracy to sink schools even lower. I'm undecided, but probably a little of both. You need to read John Taylor Gatto's book though... I'm too lazy to link so google for "The Underground History of American Education".
More assumptions?? I'm talking about paying twice or much, or more for medicine,
Ok, just medicare then. As an uninsured taxpayer, I think it's ludicrous that I have to pay for anyone but my own granny's medicine... especially when by the time I could hope to benefit from this system, it will have been bankrupt many decades. I'm sorry, but I can't save everyone else's grandma, and certainly not at gunpoint.
and then banning generic drugs from other countries.
Is that how you see it? The drugs are cheap in Canada, because the pharmcorps set a certain amount to be sold at that price in canada. If we start importing them, the price will rise to match our own... it's limited. So, though we can't have cheaper drugs ourselves, we could sabotage the canadian grannies. I don't hate them that much.
I hope you are never put in charge of anything. It's that "fuck everybody else" attitude that is responsible for terrorism in the first place.
Yes, you are a genius, logical and intuitive both. Imagine, me being put in charge, my introspection, my personal desire to not become a monster or impose my will on others... it would be a disaster. It's a good thing we have two-faed politicians to do this impossible work.
Bush is the one who cut their benefits, in the middle of a war. Kerry will restore them.
Yes, politicians always keep their campaign promises, and democrat politicians in particular always reverse the bad things a republican did while in office. Remind me again, didn't congress have to vote on those cut benefits? Wasn't Kerry part of congress at the time?
Oh I didn't know it was OK to deny them ONE right. I mean, it's only ONE.
Well, we allow them to vote, live their own lives, hold property, do pretty much anything a man can do. Oh. Men are allowed to have abortions, but women aren't. Haha. Tell me again how something that is generally wrong can be a "right". Please someone, explain this.
You must watch a lot of Bill O'Reilly because "Loser" seems to be your only response.
Perfect score. Wrong even on the trivial stuff. i want neither Bush nor Kerry in office. I have serious doubts about Badnarik, for that matter. Why would I listen to an asshat like O'Reilly, or his girlfriend Rush Limbaugh?
Irony that, 'The Right'(tm) and Christians (I'm one...don't hurt me), usually view the good and evil and Republicans good, liberals and democrats evil.
So you're saying christian and non-christian alike are grade A stupid. Yeh, I think I can accept that. Thank you for the heads up.
What a great movie concept! I'm going to start working on the treatment right this minute!
al'Turmenadrar:
Dirty infidel western computers have perverted the will of Allah, and used black magic to send an assassin back in time to kill Osama before he's even born. But the true believers manage to crash a jetliner into the temporal displacement facility, and send back a soldier to protect his burqua-covered mother and him. Watch as stupid western liberal laws throw obstacles in the path of the killer at every turn! Due process, warrants and religious freedom, hah!
Haha. How? In that they make sure all their soundbites have a pro-school spin? Whatever.
Better for medicare:
I also assume you want to add in a "social security" here. Maybe not. Either way, how? Even if Jesus H. Christ (Senator, NM, Democrat) proposed some ingenius bill that would solve all funding problems, and give everyone the benefits that they wanted... you think it would ever make it out of committee? God you're a loser.
Better for diplomacy:
Yes, but diplomacy is a bad thing. Mostly because it is practiced by diplomats. We should kill them all, and since killing the foreign ones would create a mess, we could start with our own.
Veteran's Benefits:
How do you figure? If the democrat party nominates me, I magically start caring about them, and the urge to use them to gain or maintain political power takes a backseat to their concerns? Haha.
The enviroment: Yes, they do pay more lip service to it the enviroment. And in some cases, they seem to be willing to burn the forest 10 trees at a time, rather than by the acre... big help that is. Of course, only when it's politically expedient.
Women's rights: Ah. Abortion. I mean, what other "right" are we denying them?
Yeh, be proud of that. Loser. But please, go on...
Seriously?!?! The socialist nanny-state has an obligation, nay, a sacred duty to protect them from themselves! We shouldn't ever go into space until the risk is less than 1 in 55 trillion that anyone will be injured. Except of course for highly trained astro-bureaucrats who navigate the proper NASA departmental absurdities.
Actually, the first few used film, which was chuted back to earth. Other than initial tests, I'd be shocked if they were wasting film to snoop on the citizens, when they had less capacity than they'd like to spy on the commies.
Only with the advent of sending video/image data back over RF do I think it likely they might have been tempted to spy on us.
But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...
No idea, but it's a good question. I'd like to say enough, but I bet it's just as debatable as "how much oil is there?". But to an extent, it can be mitigated by the fact that you can actually make more of it as you use it. In theory, at least.
Is it sustainable to become dependent on this type of fuel?
Another good question. Longterm (>1000 years), I would think "no". Decades at least, yes. But, it's mostly for electricity generation... it won't really help with america's SUV culture. It's my opinion though, that it would last until we can finally do fusion...
And of course, where is it all? Do we have to demolish pristine wilderness to get it?
Australia has alot. Places in the american southwest have some, and I think Russia, maybe Canada. Seems like's it is always in a desert from what I know, but some consider those just as much wilderness as is a forest of redwoods. I would think that it may be as destructive as coalmining and oildrilling... but I'm not sure how much extra you get for it. If one uranium mine can produce as much juice as 20 coal mines, but only has the enviromental impact of a single coalmine...
Slashdot Mirror
No, the difference is that they're wasted. All major operations sustain casualties, even training. I seem to remember a few in the beginning where a humvee rolls over, and a soldier died. Surely those, or ones like them would have happened, even if they were stationed on a US base. So are you going to give Dubya back 5%?
The deaths are wasted. Even Gore would have sent some of them somewhere, as Clinton had done (hopefully, in Afghanistan rooting out that fucker Osama). And many would have died. Difference being, something important might have been accomplished, other than Halliburton graft.
But don't fantasize that the deaths were avoidable to any large degree.
The moral of this story: What's worse than dying for your country destroying one of its enemies? Dying to destroy a paper tiger that a dimwit got a hardon for...
A good point. Certainly this is more troublesome than what should rightly be seen as a low number of casualties.
No need to go tinfoil hat though... I suspect that it's more difficult to cover up than this. The families here would be saying things about how they haven't talked to PFC Timmy in 5 months. Dunno though, how long would it take before we became aware of that? Certainly not as long as was the case in WWII?
So what comparison works better? Math is only a tool, not the guide. I need to prioritize a great many issues here, and math doesn't say much about whether a war should be more important to me than the economy which will see me in a soup line at the local homeless shelter. It may not be the prettiest (I do appreciate math, you know), but it seems to work for me.
I can even see how other people's fuzzy prioritization won't match mine exactly. What I don't see, is how it can make 1000 casualties so high on the list. There are any number of other issues, where raw count in lives trumps this, so raw count doesn't sway you. Percentage rates? Yes, the warzone is highly dangerous... but so are extreme sports. Maybe you're trying to find a candidate that would push to outlaw those?
And the worst part is, you'll just claim I'm minimalizing the Iraqi casualties... I'm not. I just think you're putting them at a #1 (#2ish maybe?) spot on the list that should be reserved for vietnamesque scenarios, which this isn't. My own priorities still place it within a top 10, maybe top 5 issues sort of thing.
Then why did you say it like this, "But you do realize that more people die in car accidents per month, than have died in Iraq, total?" You are implying that it is actually more dangerous to be in a car, aren't you?
Because in that context, not many are dying. Think of it this way. Some weird surgery, where only 1 out of 100,000 die due to complications. But at this one hospital, the 2 people have already died... the rate is now *incredibly* high (since they haven't exactly performed 100,000 of them). Is that bad? Yes, I don't like to think that anyone dies unnecessarily. Is it something the nation should be concerned about? Hardly. 2 deaths is a low number, let it be handled more locally. When the 100th patient has died, and nothing has been done yet, maybe then its something to be outraged about.
From this perspective, I hope it's apparent that 1000 soldiers dead is something to be concerned about as a nation. However, it's still a rather meager number for a major military event. Compare it to Vietnam, and tell me it's more dangerous. Tell me more have died. Hell, tell me that it's a significant fraction of the number dead in Vietnam.
Tell me that if the invasion had been better managed, that only 300 would now be dead.
But don't sit there rambling on about so many have died... that's not the problem here, not many have. The problem is the goal(s) of this misadventure, whatever in the hell they are this week.
We're already implementing https and ssl irc over our network... not that they'll see even that far, they'll likely never see past the exterior VPN tunnels.
I won't dispute your numbers, they're close enough to not matter, certainly.
But all your math proves is that the military in Iraq is more dangerous than being in the US. No need to prove that, it's common sense.
What I had intended, was that from a reasonable perspective, more are dying in car wrecks than in military service over there. Which is also fairly obvious. If it were only 20 deaths in Iraq, that would still be higher than the numbers you chose (all lower than 20 per 100,000), would you still be ranting then? Or would the shock factor be so minimal that democrat ranters would have to latch onto something else?
I didn't think going to Iraq was wise or useful, either before or afterward. I don't like Bush. But latching onto these numbers is just dumb, they're low by any standard worth considering.
The polls aren't predictive anymore. With every single voter familiar with the concept of voting strategy, polls serve only to reinforce some sort feedback loop. If the political process wasn't already so corrupted, I'd say they should be outlawed.
Voter strategizing is something that should be discouraged. I don't want people voting for who they think will win (we'll figure that out soon enough anyway), I want them voting for who they want in office.
Then move to Switzerland. The Swiss are allowed guns, because all the bankers live there.
They see the boys dying every day in Iraq
I have to be careful here, or people will mistake me for a Dubya supporter. But you do realize that more people die in car accidents per month, than have died in Iraq, total? This isn't 500 caskets a week like Vietnam. Or is it that people just can't find any more words, any more concepts, and they have to use 30 year old outdated cliches?
the rapid and ongoing decline in the world opinion of their country
When frenchies are writing that we brung it on ourselves, a few weeks after 9-11, in snide condescending tones with just a whiff of sympathy, the sympathy an elitist feels for the retard that just stuck his dick in an eletrical socket... well, this may come as a shock to some, but the opinions were already pretty damn low. I find it hard to believe that the decline from there could be both rapid and ongoing. One or the other, but it's already bottomed out, or soon will.
Politicians these days will never, ever make strong stands on anything that the pollsters suggest might cost votes. Only greed and a thirst for power matter to most of them.
And yet ijits everywhere say that without a hint of sarcasm, and turn right around and cheer for Kerry. Mind you, you never specifically say you like him, so you might be an exception, but what about the rest of those that think Kerry will be any better?
It is good that there are people like Soros who will stand up and speak their minds.
Yes, because I trust the billionaire to be my friend. Even amongst billionaires, this guy is a grade A USDA asshole. Even Gates, who I detest, *makes* something and sells it. This guy speculates on currency, no? Gambling on something that wasn't meant to be gambled upon... the US Treasury doesn't run a casino. He considers the world his plaything, as only a billionaire elitist can, and he wants to make it more compliant to his wishes. If he starts agreeing with your own opinions, you need to re-evaluate them yourself...
Perhaps you should see what happens in a blue collar school system.
Grew up in one, not so long ago. Still have no idea how you think Kerry will be an improvement... this horse has left the gate. Rarely does a president reverse such a trend, and Kerry isn't the guy to stand up to it. Maybe you mean democrats in congress, which I grant have more ability to put an end to SOL tests, but even the odds of that...
Besides which, schools are a mess. Out of all the problems that have been going on for decades, you pick this one problem, and act as if were it fixed, things would be ok again. It's merely a symptom of something far worse... and all the inertia of this is downhill. Republican, democrat. In the end, neither will fix any of it.
I think it's ludicrous that I have to pay for roads that I don't use and regulatory departments that keep other people's workplaces safe. Give me a break. I guess instead will just let those worthless grannies die out in the streets. That will teach them!
I support paying for roads, even those I'll never travel on directly. Who knows, I might decide to go on vacation. Certainly the things I buy travel on them, getting to me. It's one of the few enterprises the government should be in (guess I just got kicked out of the libertarian party). OSHA? Hmm. Some of the shit they pull is ridiculous, granted... but I trust big companies even less. So yeh, maybe its not perfect, but regulatory agencies, they're ok. Compare the cost of those to federal welfare, even just medicare alone. Hell, take some money, do a study on how we might not let the grandmas rot without shackling me to trillion dollar debts. That's my tax money well spent. Ill spent is saying I have to pay to help people that will certainly never, ever help me. When I'm 70 and living in my cardboard box, medicare and social security will both be bankrupt, but since retirement will have been moved to age 97, I guess it won't matter...
You don't understand. It's not about Canada, it's about generic drugs. Patents are killing the sick while making the rich richer. That sounds quaint.
Well, the example I'm most familiar with, is patented AIDS anti-virals. It is quite ridiculous, that Africa hasn't been blanket exempted. Or that when they are, they're exempted in such contrived ways as to make it meaningless (can't import the generics from the only willing countries who have the infrastructure to produce them). I'm also hearing stirrings of the same with some custom antibiotics that treat the resistant TB and such. What can I say? Just shows that even the patent portions of IP law are being abused, have serious problems. You'd cry if you heard about the nascent push to extend patents up to 30some years... looks like we may agree on something. Go figure.
You totally missed the point so I will spell it out for you. People's indiffernce towards each other is what causes such rifts in society in the first place. Indifference breeds hatred. Hatred has led some to terrorism.
And terrorism leads to the dark side of the freedom fighterism. Yes, we got all that. Indifference leads to survival. I am a lone human being, that will have trouble focusing on anything more than myself, without getting *me* killed. So, when I can focus on a nation of nearly 300 million people, to the exclusion of the rest of the world, I'm doing pretty good for something that evolved from a monkey just a million years ago. I am indifferent, not hateful. This sounds sappy, but I want to cry when Dubya talks about how he's saved the Iraqis (and to be sure, there are some that would have been tortured to death, that weren't) all while letting the Rwandas of the world occur. But I'm not sure anyone can really stop them. The UN is a joke, so the best chance this country has of doing anything, is a president who does things unilaterally, in spite of all the diplomats. But in a world that hates the USA, and has hated it far longer than republicans have been in control, we likely ca
Economist/stockbroker jargon.
You are perfectly within your rights to evict him. A civil suit should be followed up, and a court order to forfeit any recordings, along with penalties should any become public isn't unfair.
If it were anything other than your personal bedroom or the bathroom, you might have an even more difficult time of this than you'll likely have... not that it will be easy.
And as others have said, it's doubtful that police involvement or criminal prosecution will be possible. Shameful, that.
Really? I learned to gather pebbles and entomb the the enemy ant holes so that they would starve and die off.
One wonders if a Davinci who lived long into old age, might have painted a smile face on top of the Mona Lisa in a fit of senility...
all politics is dirty, right?
And unfortunately, it's the single human endeavor we can ill afford to play dirty. Love, business, sports... whatever. But politics? We literally need saints, and we get the most evil of demons.
Kerry deserves to be demolished.
Bush deserves to be demolished.
Anyone belonging to either party deserves to be demolished.
Anyone belonging to a third party that would like to take over after we've demolished the previous, deserves to be demolished.
I have to call them. And about half of them are more akin to telemarketers than anything. The last wanted the names and numbers of all the managers I could think of at the last 3 fortune 100 companies I had contract work with... once he had that, for "reference" purposes, he had a job ready for me.
Hahaha.
I don't know why people like yourself are so happy to racebait everyone. If they were lily-white blonde Indians taking the jobs from us, it would hurt every bit as much. Mentioning that they're from India is a reference to which country is benefiting from outsourcing, that they have a different skin-color is incidental.
Duh.
Do you know anyone that works in a school?? My bet is NO. I have several friends that are teachers or work in the school system. Standardized testing is killing the learning process. The school are underfunded. Bush promised a huge budget for schools and then never delivered.
I've worked in a school at several capacities, though never as a teacher. But more relevantly, the learning process was killed long ago, and standardized testing is merely a fool's attempt at a fix, or yet another sinister conspiracy to sink schools even lower. I'm undecided, but probably a little of both. You need to read John Taylor Gatto's book though... I'm too lazy to link so google for "The Underground History of American Education".
More assumptions?? I'm talking about paying twice or much, or more for medicine,
Ok, just medicare then. As an uninsured taxpayer, I think it's ludicrous that I have to pay for anyone but my own granny's medicine... especially when by the time I could hope to benefit from this system, it will have been bankrupt many decades. I'm sorry, but I can't save everyone else's grandma, and certainly not at gunpoint.
and then banning generic drugs from other countries.
Is that how you see it? The drugs are cheap in Canada, because the pharmcorps set a certain amount to be sold at that price in canada. If we start importing them, the price will rise to match our own... it's limited. So, though we can't have cheaper drugs ourselves, we could sabotage the canadian grannies. I don't hate them that much.
I hope you are never put in charge of anything. It's that "fuck everybody else" attitude that is responsible for terrorism in the first place.
Yes, you are a genius, logical and intuitive both. Imagine, me being put in charge, my introspection, my personal desire to not become a monster or impose my will on others... it would be a disaster. It's a good thing we have two-faed politicians to do this impossible work.
Bush is the one who cut their benefits, in the middle of a war. Kerry will restore them.
Yes, politicians always keep their campaign promises, and democrat politicians in particular always reverse the bad things a republican did while in office. Remind me again, didn't congress have to vote on those cut benefits? Wasn't Kerry part of congress at the time?
Oh I didn't know it was OK to deny them ONE right. I mean, it's only ONE.
Well, we allow them to vote, live their own lives, hold property, do pretty much anything a man can do. Oh. Men are allowed to have abortions, but women aren't. Haha. Tell me again how something that is generally wrong can be a "right". Please someone, explain this.
You must watch a lot of Bill O'Reilly because "Loser" seems to be your only response.
Perfect score. Wrong even on the trivial stuff. i want neither Bush nor Kerry in office. I have serious doubts about Badnarik, for that matter. Why would I listen to an asshat like O'Reilly, or his girlfriend Rush Limbaugh?
Irony that, 'The Right'(tm) and Christians (I'm one...don't hurt me), usually view the good and evil and Republicans good, liberals and democrats evil.
So you're saying christian and non-christian alike are grade A stupid. Yeh, I think I can accept that. Thank you for the heads up.
What a great movie concept! I'm going to start working on the treatment right this minute!
al'Turmenadrar:
Dirty infidel western computers have perverted the will of Allah, and used black magic to send an assassin back in time to kill Osama before he's even born. But the true believers manage to crash a jetliner into the temporal displacement facility, and send back a soldier to protect his burqua-covered mother and him. Watch as stupid western liberal laws throw obstacles in the path of the killer at every turn! Due process, warrants and religious freedom, hah!
Better for education:
Haha. How? In that they make sure all their soundbites have a pro-school spin? Whatever.
Better for medicare:
I also assume you want to add in a "social security" here. Maybe not. Either way, how? Even if Jesus H. Christ (Senator, NM, Democrat) proposed some ingenius bill that would solve all funding problems, and give everyone the benefits that they wanted... you think it would ever make it out of committee? God you're a loser.
Better for diplomacy:
Yes, but diplomacy is a bad thing. Mostly because it is practiced by diplomats. We should kill them all, and since killing the foreign ones would create a mess, we could start with our own.
Veteran's Benefits:
How do you figure? If the democrat party nominates me, I magically start caring about them, and the urge to use them to gain or maintain political power takes a backseat to their concerns? Haha.
The enviroment:
Yes, they do pay more lip service to it the enviroment. And in some cases, they seem to be willing to burn the forest 10 trees at a time, rather than by the acre... big help that is. Of course, only when it's politically expedient.
Women's rights:
Ah. Abortion. I mean, what other "right" are we denying them?
Yeh, be proud of that. Loser. But please, go on...
With some of the shit Congress and the Prez have pulled... lame duckiness might be an improvement.
Seriously?!?! The socialist nanny-state has an obligation, nay, a sacred duty to protect them from themselves! We shouldn't ever go into space until the risk is less than 1 in 55 trillion that anyone will be injured. Except of course for highly trained astro-bureaucrats who navigate the proper NASA departmental absurdities.
Thank you, and give me my welfare check.
Actually, the first few used film, which was chuted back to earth. Other than initial tests, I'd be shocked if they were wasting film to snoop on the citizens, when they had less capacity than they'd like to spy on the commies.
Only with the advent of sending video/image data back over RF do I think it likely they might have been tempted to spy on us.
But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...
I don't consider this offtopic.
how much plutonium/uranium etc is there on earth?
No idea, but it's a good question. I'd like to say enough, but I bet it's just as debatable as "how much oil is there?". But to an extent, it can be mitigated by the fact that you can actually make more of it as you use it. In theory, at least.
Is it sustainable to become dependent on this type of fuel?
Another good question. Longterm (>1000 years), I would think "no". Decades at least, yes. But, it's mostly for electricity generation... it won't really help with america's SUV culture. It's my opinion though, that it would last until we can finally do fusion...
And of course, where is it all? Do we have to demolish pristine wilderness to get it?
Australia has alot. Places in the american southwest have some, and I think Russia, maybe Canada. Seems like's it is always in a desert from what I know, but some consider those just as much wilderness as is a forest of redwoods. I would think that it may be as destructive as coalmining and oildrilling... but I'm not sure how much extra you get for it. If one uranium mine can produce as much juice as 20 coal mines, but only has the enviromental impact of a single coalmine...