For the record, I have never made any such claims. What I have done is help other people to learn the Cocoa frameworks, and I didn't get many complaints from attendees of any classes I taught or workshops I ran.
Yes, we listened to the first weapons inspector who was constantly being jerked around and was given little access. But why didn't we listen to the other one later on who had far better access at a time when Saddam was much more open in an effort to avoid a war
Because by that time, we had no reason to believe that Saddam would ever act in good faith. Remember, we're talking about a thug who had launched unprovoked attacks on two neighboring countries, and had not only obtained WMDs but had used poison gas against both Iranian soliders and his own civilian population. He signed up for certain obligations under the cease-fire after his troops were kicked out of Kuwait, and he routinely violated those promises.
You're a little fuzzy on how that went down. Hunting down the WMDs was not the inspectors' job. It was Saddam's obligation to destroy them, and document having done so, not to play chicken and jerk the inspectors around. He was bluffing, and he bluffed his way to the gallows.
Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
There are environmentalists, and there are misanthropes who pretend to be environmentalists. The former are enthusiastic about alternative energy sources. The latter want us all to just freeze in the dark.
Most of the wave energy is reflected back into the ocean
Most?
Not hardly. If that were the case, the ocean would be a lot rougher than it is. On a sandy or rocky shore, most of the wave's energy grinds the bits of the beach together, creating the sand, and slightly warming the water (which is offset by evaporation). The only places where you get most of the wave returned to the ocean is where it hits sheer, rocky cliffs.
The ignorance and lack of common sense on Slashdot never ceases to fucking amaze.
At the time, we were part of a country called Great Britain.
Nope. We were colonies of Great Britain. Had we actually been part of the country, then we would have had representation in parliament. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" ring a bell?
Paul is a congressman who's on the record as 1) opposing abortion and 2) believing that abortion should be a matter for the states. A bill to ban a particular late-term procedure comes up for a vote. Should he 1) vote for it, thus upholding his stated position, or 2) vote against it, contradicting his stated position? There is no third option (like returning the matter to the states) available in this vote. Now, the bloviator who calls Paul a liar may claim that voting on this bill at all makes him a liar, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Well, to be precise, the constitution authorizes the federal government to coin money, and prohibits it from issuing fiat currency. It places no restrictions on private coinage or bills of credit.
You must concede that on at least this issue, he's at least flip-flopped,
Nope. He's consistently said that he opposes abortion, and that it should be a matter for state jurisdiction. Your frantic attempts to twist his words do not make him a liar, they make you a liar.
People who believed that merely by going into debt, they could benefit from inflation, are now losing their homes in foreclosure. The beneficiaries of inflation are those who get to spend the newly-created money first. That's not you or me.
Slashdot Mirror
For the record, I have never made any such claims. What I have done is help other people to learn the Cocoa frameworks, and I didn't get many complaints from attendees of any classes I taught or workshops I ran.
-jcr
Oh, for crying out loud. If you want to ladle out the sarcasm, at least have the guts to do with your name attached.
-jcr
I have this amazing technique to avoid getting hit by trucks. I look before I step into the street.
-jcr
I doubt I'll hear it. I usually have my iPod on when I'm walking around outside.
-jcr
Yes, we listened to the first weapons inspector who was constantly being jerked around and was given little access. But why didn't we listen to the other one later on who had far better access at a time when Saddam was much more open in an effort to avoid a war
Because by that time, we had no reason to believe that Saddam would ever act in good faith. Remember, we're talking about a thug who had launched unprovoked attacks on two neighboring countries, and had not only obtained WMDs but had used poison gas against both Iranian soliders and his own civilian population. He signed up for certain obligations under the cease-fire after his troops were kicked out of Kuwait, and he routinely violated those promises.
The dude bluffed his way to the gallows.
-jcr
See here. Discussion of the nuclear program starts around 2:20.
Also, see Richard Butler's book(ISBN 0297646001) for far more details on just how Saddam was obstructing the inspection process.
-jcr
Saddam, on the other hand, didn't have a nuclear program
Yes he did, and he admitted to it in the cease-fire agreement, which he violated.
-jcr
How's he supposed to do this?
Basically the same way that Muammar Khaddafi did it.
-jcr
You're a little fuzzy on how that went down. Hunting down the WMDs was not the inspectors' job. It was Saddam's obligation to destroy them, and document having done so, not to play chicken and jerk the inspectors around. He was bluffing, and he bluffed his way to the gallows.
-jcr
Make you buy a bunch of DRM-infested music
Hold on there.. They're not making you buy anything.
-jcr
In the best possible scenario, Saddam would have been shot by another Iraqi as soon as he deserved it, but it didn't work out that way.
-jcr
More like, it becomes possible to destroy a missile launcher even when the Hamassholes have hidden them among their own civilians.
-jcr
Hey, has anyone survived driving an ice pick through the base of their skull and swishing it around a few times?
The guy's a Darwin Award applicant.
-jcr
Some of them want us to burn or explode instead!
Yeah, like those "earth first" arsonists.
-jcr
Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
There are environmentalists, and there are misanthropes who pretend to be environmentalists. The former are enthusiastic about alternative energy sources. The latter want us all to just freeze in the dark.
-jcr
Most of the wave energy is reflected back into the ocean
Most?
Not hardly. If that were the case, the ocean would be a lot rougher than it is. On a sandy or rocky shore, most of the wave's energy grinds the bits of the beach together, creating the sand, and slightly warming the water (which is offset by evaporation). The only places where you get most of the wave returned to the ocean is where it hits sheer, rocky cliffs.
The ignorance and lack of common sense on Slashdot never ceases to fucking amaze.
You amaze yourself?
-jcr
Who do you know that surfs miles offshore?
-jcr
At the time, we were part of a country called Great Britain.
Nope. We were colonies of Great Britain. Had we actually been part of the country, then we would have had representation in parliament. Does the phrase "taxation without representation" ring a bell?
-jcr
Oh, oh. You are weaseling your way out.
Like hell I am.
Paul is a congressman who's on the record as 1) opposing abortion and 2) believing that abortion should be a matter for the states. A bill to ban a particular late-term procedure comes up for a vote. Should he 1) vote for it, thus upholding his stated position, or 2) vote against it, contradicting his stated position? There is no third option (like returning the matter to the states) available in this vote. Now, the bloviator who calls Paul a liar may claim that voting on this bill at all makes him a liar, but wishing doesn't make it so.
-jcr
How much of a handicap do you need?
You know, you don't strengthen your position in any way just by becoming more pompous and patronizing. You are a lying weasel.
-jcr
It is currently up to the states.
Not paying attention, are you? State jurisdiction over abortion has been usurped by the federal government ever since Roe v. Wade.
That makes him a liar.
Bullshit.
-jcr
It does not follow that because one believes that a matter should be under state jurisdiction, that it must be ignored in the meantime.
Keep trying, sunshine. You're doing a great job of showing just how feeble your case is.
Ron Paul is an honest man, and you are a lying weasel.
-jcr
Well, to be precise, the constitution authorizes the federal government to coin money, and prohibits it from issuing fiat currency. It places no restrictions on private coinage or bills of credit.
-jcr
You must concede that on at least this issue, he's at least flip-flopped,
Nope. He's consistently said that he opposes abortion, and that it should be a matter for state jurisdiction. Your frantic attempts to twist his words do not make him a liar, they make you a liar.
-jcr
Sucker.
People who believed that merely by going into debt, they could benefit from inflation, are now losing their homes in foreclosure. The beneficiaries of inflation are those who get to spend the newly-created money first. That's not you or me.
-jcr