He didn't say the war would be won, only that it would end. He also only promised 34,000 troops would come home, which would set the troop levels in Afghanistan to about the same level they were at when Bush was in office.
"U.S. troops" is a specific term that does not include "private security" (read: mercenaries), contractors, DoD "consultants", State Department, CIA, etc., etc. What's left in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world (they call it a "complex"), with tons of military equipment like Apache attack copters, tanks, rocket launching platforms, and of course facilities for launching drones (although most of the drones in the region are actually launched and controlled from Djibouti). So, yea, the "war" is "over" there, too.
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
If we can set spending levels there, too, it might just work. But if you're nervous about a 42% cut in federal spending, we could just go back to Clinton-era spending (when they actually came really close to balancing the budget), which would only be a 35% spending cut.
I think you just dis-proved the point you were trying to make using that example, because it's actually a bi-partisan statist position, not a right wing one.
Of course it doesn't disprove the point. It's simply that both Republican and Democrat are right wing.
No True Scotsman
For example, the policies of the Democrat party are to the right of the policies of the UK Conservative party.
Pursuing economic interests through war is most certainly a right wing idea. Pursuing social justice through war would be a left wing one.
You ignored France - or are they right wing too? Russia, also right wing? Perhaps you can enlighten me just how far "left" you would have to go for you to consider it not "right wing", nothing in the real world seems to support your idea. Can you provide even one example of a country starting a war for "social justice" purposes?
People believe in conspiracy theories because it is way much easier than to actually learn the truth. The great thing about conspiracy theories that you don't have to know the actual facts (in the case of many theories it is actually a hindrance), you don't have to be very rigorous with your logic and if there's any hole in the theory you are welcome to make up any explanation. Compare that to the hard work required to be competent in a real area of knowledge.
Define "much easier than to actually learn the truth" in the context of "impossible to learn the truth because the only ones that have it either keep it secret or lie about it", as in the GP's example where the "authorities" are demonstrably doing exactly that.
Also, your reasoning does not make much sense: you cannot trust the authorities so you believe everything the first nut job tells you? Really?
I think anyone skeptical enough to realize that the authority is not being forthcoming would not be likely to believe the first nut job idea, either, but may simply look for some plausible explanation and latch onto it to resolve their internal conflict. Plausibility in this case, of course, would be highly subjective depending on a person's world view, which would explain why some people would promote, say, David Icke's theories rather than realize that wealthy people with control of lots of resources would tend to favor similar ideas of governance.
It saddens me as I used to vote for the Green party but it just seems to fracture into left vs right wing ideologies.
Some things can only be expressed by left vs right wing ideology.
If you think (say)that it is legitimate for the US to pursue its economic interests through war, you are taking a right wing position whether you like it or not.
I think you just dis-proved the point you were trying to make using that example, because it's actually a bi-partisan statist position, not a right wing one. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and François Hollande being clear left-wing examples of thinking it is legitimate for the US (and France) to pursue economic interests through war.
It's just a firmware setting that informs the operating system of the type of device. It informs the OS how to perform write-caching and file operations. It doesn't create a lock or anything. A USB attached hard drive, for instance, would present itself differently, so you could always use that as a "Windows To Go" device, but of course that's not as convenient as a thumb drive, and more susceptible to shock damage.
The fact is, Windows 8, booting and running entirely from a removable drive, is going to require better performance on a removable drive than a trimmed Linux distro. And it's for a different use. It's intended for a different use, too - in some use cases, companies can provide floating workers with a USB stick instead of a laptop, and they still have their customized settings, their applications and data, organization logins and identity certificates, etc. Which is why using an IronKey makes sense, too, because the whole thing can use drive encryption so it's useless the finder if the stick gets lost. Plus the setup disables access to the host computer's local drives - it's intended as a standalone environment, not just an alternate way to boot the computer.
Except if you're really interested in doing the "Windows To Go" thing, that drive probably won't work. The 120MB/s write and 200MB/s read speeds are more than twice as slow as this IronKey drive, and it will likely present itself as a "removable" drive (most USB sticks do), which means Windows To Go won't even install on it.
If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.
Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?
Doesn't always work for presidents. Your point?
You don't get it? I'll spell it out for you: Claiming that your right to protect yourself is provided by "society" through the police force so banning your access to firearms is not an infringement of rights (as you claimed) is a lie.
...and some legislators are consdering 7 rounds as the limit
Actually, New York state already passed that into law. It caused quite an outburst from the police in the state, because the legislators neglected to provide them an exemption. They've promised to "fix" the law, immediately, of course. Which just demonstrates it's not about gun control, it's about establishing a gun monopoly.
If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.
Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?
And, BTW, there have been numerous cases where the courts have made it explicitly clear that police are under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to protect anyone.
AT&T likes being able to charge you global roaming fees so they go out of their way to make sure you can't just hop on a European competitors network when you are in town.
My personal experience doesn't bear this out. Planning a trip to Germany for a month, ordered a SIM chip from a third-party provider that offered service in Germany, then called AT&T and they sent a code to unlock the phone so I could use it with the other SIM while overseas.
Maybe it's because it was a short time, or because I was actually keeping the service (part of a family plan) or whatever, but they had no problem with me doing that and were very helpful making sure it worked smoothly.
Google doesn't sell Android. It gives away Android so it can sell the eyeballs of Android users to its real customers.
Doesn't Google make a cut of all the apps sold from the Google Play? I think that's the model there. They make the platform, partners make the hardware, and they control the app store where they make money.
This is the market that Microsoft is trying to tap with Windows 8. They have an app store now, too. And you can't even play Solitaire (even thought it's a "free" app) on Windows 8 without signing up, providing a credit card, and downloading the app from the MS app store.
This is why Apple have placed themselves as the gatekeeper to installing software in iOS and Microsoft is heading that way with Windows 8. Want to install software? We get a cut. We also get to tell you what you can and can't install.
Kind of. What they are doing is giving you a platform for up-selling. It's the model Apple has been using since iTunes, and continued with iPhone, iPad, and is also used by Google, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. Some of them even sell the platform at a loss expecting future revenues from their integrated "store". They can sell their own apps, or get a cut from other developers' apps. They can create free apps that are missing some specific functionality that is only included in another paid app.
This seems like pretty old news at this point. Red-light cameras are put in place by private companies promising revenue. It was never about safety, and study after study has shown increased hazards at intersections where they are installed.
As usual in these cases, people need to remember to follow the money. One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona. He has been all over the country teaching activists how to fight these things and make local legislators afraid of the people, instead of kow-towing to the rich lobbyists. He's been beating up on politicians (figuratively) for years, and winning.
Again I have to ask, why are black people partisan for voting Dem, but LGBTs are not? What is the difference?
You're just wrong about this - the LGBT community votes on issues regardless of party - they don't vote party. Yes, they are split on parties, and as I mentioned, several Republican candidates won the gay vote in the most recent election. You're just refusing to accept facts.
The Republican-majority New York state house voted for gay marriage. The Republican party has a gay coalition (the "Log Cabin Republicans PAC", GOProud Inc., etc.).
Also, I love how you provide an example from the Civil War era to show an example of Republicans doing something for black people, yet gave me hell for mentioning the much more recent Lee Atwater admission.
It's a pretty big one, don't you think, ending slavery? I also mentioned Eisenhower pushing for Civil Rights legislation over LBJ's objections to it in the Senate, but you forgot that real fast, didn't you? And that's the real problem with most of the electorate: they too quickly forget history.
Which republican politicans support black people and black issues?
I can name a few, but you want "seniority in the GOP", and no major politicians support black people and black issues, not even Obama. Many pander to them, and then stab them in the back, but that's about it. That's the current dynamic. Black Democrats are elected in majority-black districts, and portray their entire constituency as victims that he will "fight for" - then they use that rhetoric to gain power for themselves. Much has been written about this, so I'm sure it's no surprise to you. I worked hard this year on Dean Longo's campaign, but despite a much better message for his community and a do-nothing zombie opponent, he couldn't get even 30% of the vote. Can't do anything if you can't get elected.
There was a president who passed the Civil Rights Act against strident opposition from southern whites. That president was LBJ.
You have a skewed version of history in your head. Public school? Try learning a little history on your own about the "parties" (oh, there are 2 of them, right?) and about LBJ. Note the president supporting Civil Rights legislation 10 years earlier - a Republican.
What have the GOP ever done for them?
Emancipation Proclamation ring a bell? What have the Democrats done for them? I mean, really, not just rhetoric.
And, sorry, you're just wrong about LGBT voters. They are not partisans as a group. Sure, they voted in the 70% range for Obama, but fairly split on parties in general. Several Republicans in the recent election won the LGBT vote over their Democratic opponents. That's why they have real political power, while black (voting in the 95% range for Democrats) do not.
The Republicans succeed in the South because of a certain strategy, and that strategy is racial anxiety and coded stoking of anti-black sentiment.
Incorrect. That's propaganda from the DNC, nothing more. Successful propaganda, I'll grant you, but pure propaganda without basis. They keep talking about these strange "codes" that Republicans have - do you have the code book, I'd really like to see those codes. The truly divisive rhetoric comes exclusively from the mouths of partisan Democrats.
the Republicans are actively against black communities and people
No - it's Democrats that will do ANYTHING to keep blacks voting Democrat, and their primary strategy for that is to keep them poor, ignorant (by trapping them in failing schools), dependent on government handouts, and convinced that they are too inferior to get by without government support. This is the most insidious and psychologically damaging activity that could be perpetrated against a group, and it is done willfully and without regard for the people harmed.
Turning away to where? The Republicans? Don't make me laugh. The Libertarians? I think not. Greens?
Maybe they need to learn a lesson from the LGBT community, and learn to figure out which politicians will support their issues, instead of voting along party lines.
The government can't restrict your free speech. But it can restrict how you use government facilities
Not in this context, it can't. It can only restrict your representation of a government entity, not relevant in this case. There is plenty of case law on this that you are apparently ignorant of. These are NOT government employees in any case, they are students, and these restrictions are a violation of speech, and there are many examples of courts throwing out these kinds of content-based speech restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
Look a little closer. There was a claimed "surplus" for one year, yet there was also an increase in debt. How? Because it was kind of faked.
He didn't say the war would be won, only that it would end. He also only promised 34,000 troops would come home, which would set the troop levels in Afghanistan to about the same level they were at when Bush was in office.
"U.S. troops" is a specific term that does not include "private security" (read: mercenaries), contractors, DoD "consultants", State Department, CIA, etc., etc. What's left in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world (they call it a "complex"), with tons of military equipment like Apache attack copters, tanks, rocket launching platforms, and of course facilities for launching drones (although most of the drones in the region are actually launched and controlled from Djibouti). So, yea, the "war" is "over" there, too.
Statistics. Use these data points, stated this way, and it will support your position.
"Shut up already. It's Science".
Please read the entire second amendment. It mentions the need for a "well regulated militia"
I don't think it means what you think it does.
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
If we can set spending levels there, too, it might just work. But if you're nervous about a 42% cut in federal spending, we could just go back to Clinton-era spending (when they actually came really close to balancing the budget), which would only be a 35% spending cut.
surveillance that is implied by Obamacare Well this should be amusing. What the frack are you babbling about now?
He's probably talking about stuff like this and this and this, among other things.
the HP laptop I tried
Well right there is your first mistake, right there.
I think you just dis-proved the point you were trying to make using that example, because it's actually a bi-partisan statist position, not a right wing one.
Of course it doesn't disprove the point. It's simply that both Republican and Democrat are right wing.
No True Scotsman
For example, the policies of the Democrat party are to the right of the policies of the UK Conservative party.
Pursuing economic interests through war is most certainly a right wing idea. Pursuing social justice through war would be a left wing one.
You ignored France - or are they right wing too? Russia, also right wing? Perhaps you can enlighten me just how far "left" you would have to go for you to consider it not "right wing", nothing in the real world seems to support your idea. Can you provide even one example of a country starting a war for "social justice" purposes?
Where's the evidence that reasonable counter measures will destroy the economy?
In Spain.
People believe in conspiracy theories because it is way much easier than to actually learn the truth. The great thing about conspiracy theories that you don't have to know the actual facts (in the case of many theories it is actually a hindrance), you don't have to be very rigorous with your logic and if there's any hole in the theory you are welcome to make up any explanation. Compare that to the hard work required to be competent in a real area of knowledge.
Define "much easier than to actually learn the truth" in the context of "impossible to learn the truth because the only ones that have it either keep it secret or lie about it", as in the GP's example where the "authorities" are demonstrably doing exactly that.
Also, your reasoning does not make much sense: you cannot trust the authorities so you believe everything the first nut job tells you? Really?
I think anyone skeptical enough to realize that the authority is not being forthcoming would not be likely to believe the first nut job idea, either, but may simply look for some plausible explanation and latch onto it to resolve their internal conflict. Plausibility in this case, of course, would be highly subjective depending on a person's world view, which would explain why some people would promote, say, David Icke's theories rather than realize that wealthy people with control of lots of resources would tend to favor similar ideas of governance.
It saddens me as I used to vote for the Green party but it just seems to fracture into left vs right wing ideologies.
Some things can only be expressed by left vs right wing ideology.
If you think (say)that it is legitimate for the US to pursue its economic interests through war, you are taking a right wing position whether you like it or not.
I think you just dis-proved the point you were trying to make using that example, because it's actually a bi-partisan statist position, not a right wing one. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and François Hollande being clear left-wing examples of thinking it is legitimate for the US (and France) to pursue economic interests through war.
It's just a firmware setting that informs the operating system of the type of device. It informs the OS how to perform write-caching and file operations. It doesn't create a lock or anything. A USB attached hard drive, for instance, would present itself differently, so you could always use that as a "Windows To Go" device, but of course that's not as convenient as a thumb drive, and more susceptible to shock damage.
The fact is, Windows 8, booting and running entirely from a removable drive, is going to require better performance on a removable drive than a trimmed Linux distro. And it's for a different use. It's intended for a different use, too - in some use cases, companies can provide floating workers with a USB stick instead of a laptop, and they still have their customized settings, their applications and data, organization logins and identity certificates, etc. Which is why using an IronKey makes sense, too, because the whole thing can use drive encryption so it's useless the finder if the stick gets lost. Plus the setup disables access to the host computer's local drives - it's intended as a standalone environment, not just an alternate way to boot the computer.
Agreed, at those prices, it's Patriot Magnum for me.
Except if you're really interested in doing the "Windows To Go" thing, that drive probably won't work. The 120MB/s write and 200MB/s read speeds are more than twice as slow as this IronKey drive, and it will likely present itself as a "removable" drive (most USB sticks do), which means Windows To Go won't even install on it.
Yes, won't someone please think of the children?
No cost is too high if we can just prevent one child from getting one nick on their vulnerable little finger!
If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.
Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?
Doesn't always work for presidents. Your point?
You don't get it? I'll spell it out for you: Claiming that your right to protect yourself is provided by "society" through the police force so banning your access to firearms is not an infringement of rights (as you claimed) is a lie.
...and some legislators are consdering 7 rounds as the limit
Actually, New York state already passed that into law. It caused quite an outburst from the police in the state, because the legislators neglected to provide them an exemption. They've promised to "fix" the law, immediately, of course. Which just demonstrates it's not about gun control, it's about establishing a gun monopoly.
If you call the police and say: "somebody is trying to kill me", you will have a whole bunch of police units coming to you to protect you.
Riiiiiiiight... That ALWAYS works, doesn't it? I can't think of one single incident where a threatened person called the police and they failed to arrive before the killing occurred. Oh, wait, I have that backwards, don't I?
And, BTW, there have been numerous cases where the courts have made it explicitly clear that police are under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to protect anyone.
AT&T likes being able to charge you global roaming fees so they go out of their way to make sure you can't just hop on a European competitors network when you are in town.
My personal experience doesn't bear this out. Planning a trip to Germany for a month, ordered a SIM chip from a third-party provider that offered service in Germany, then called AT&T and they sent a code to unlock the phone so I could use it with the other SIM while overseas.
Maybe it's because it was a short time, or because I was actually keeping the service (part of a family plan) or whatever, but they had no problem with me doing that and were very helpful making sure it worked smoothly.
Google doesn't sell Android. It gives away Android so it can sell the eyeballs of Android users to its real customers.
Doesn't Google make a cut of all the apps sold from the Google Play? I think that's the model there. They make the platform, partners make the hardware, and they control the app store where they make money.
This is the market that Microsoft is trying to tap with Windows 8. They have an app store now, too. And you can't even play Solitaire (even thought it's a "free" app) on Windows 8 without signing up, providing a credit card, and downloading the app from the MS app store.
This is why Apple have placed themselves as the gatekeeper to installing software in iOS and Microsoft is heading that way with Windows 8. Want to install software? We get a cut. We also get to tell you what you can and can't install.
Kind of. What they are doing is giving you a platform for up-selling. It's the model Apple has been using since iTunes, and continued with iPhone, iPad, and is also used by Google, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. Some of them even sell the platform at a loss expecting future revenues from their integrated "store". They can sell their own apps, or get a cut from other developers' apps. They can create free apps that are missing some specific functionality that is only included in another paid app.
This seems like pretty old news at this point. Red-light cameras are put in place by private companies promising revenue. It was never about safety, and study after study has shown increased hazards at intersections where they are installed.
As usual in these cases, people need to remember to follow the money. One person you've never heard of, but should be thanked for exposing this issue, is Shawn Dow of Arizona. He has been all over the country teaching activists how to fight these things and make local legislators afraid of the people, instead of kow-towing to the rich lobbyists. He's been beating up on politicians (figuratively) for years, and winning.
Again I have to ask, why are black people partisan for voting Dem, but LGBTs are not? What is the difference?
You're just wrong about this - the LGBT community votes on issues regardless of party - they don't vote party. Yes, they are split on parties, and as I mentioned, several Republican candidates won the gay vote in the most recent election. You're just refusing to accept facts.
The Republican-majority New York state house voted for gay marriage. The Republican party has a gay coalition (the "Log Cabin Republicans PAC", GOProud Inc., etc.).
Also, I love how you provide an example from the Civil War era to show an example of Republicans doing something for black people, yet gave me hell for mentioning the much more recent Lee Atwater admission.
It's a pretty big one, don't you think, ending slavery? I also mentioned Eisenhower pushing for Civil Rights legislation over LBJ's objections to it in the Senate, but you forgot that real fast, didn't you? And that's the real problem with most of the electorate: they too quickly forget history.
Which republican politicans support black people and black issues?
I can name a few, but you want "seniority in the GOP", and no major politicians support black people and black issues, not even Obama. Many pander to them, and then stab them in the back, but that's about it. That's the current dynamic. Black Democrats are elected in majority-black districts, and portray their entire constituency as victims that he will "fight for" - then they use that rhetoric to gain power for themselves. Much has been written about this, so I'm sure it's no surprise to you. I worked hard this year on Dean Longo's campaign, but despite a much better message for his community and a do-nothing zombie opponent, he couldn't get even 30% of the vote. Can't do anything if you can't get elected.
There was a president who passed the Civil Rights Act against strident opposition from southern whites. That president was LBJ.
You have a skewed version of history in your head. Public school? Try learning a little history on your own about the "parties" (oh, there are 2 of them, right?) and about LBJ. Note the president supporting Civil Rights legislation 10 years earlier - a Republican.
What have the GOP ever done for them?
Emancipation Proclamation ring a bell? What have the Democrats done for them? I mean, really, not just rhetoric.
And, sorry, you're just wrong about LGBT voters. They are not partisans as a group. Sure, they voted in the 70% range for Obama, but fairly split on parties in general. Several Republicans in the recent election won the LGBT vote over their Democratic opponents. That's why they have real political power, while black (voting in the 95% range for Democrats) do not.
The Republicans succeed in the South because of a certain strategy, and that strategy is racial anxiety and coded stoking of anti-black sentiment.
Incorrect. That's propaganda from the DNC, nothing more. Successful propaganda, I'll grant you, but pure propaganda without basis. They keep talking about these strange "codes" that Republicans have - do you have the code book, I'd really like to see those codes. The truly divisive rhetoric comes exclusively from the mouths of partisan Democrats.
the Republicans are actively against black communities and people
No - it's Democrats that will do ANYTHING to keep blacks voting Democrat, and their primary strategy for that is to keep them poor, ignorant (by trapping them in failing schools), dependent on government handouts, and convinced that they are too inferior to get by without government support. This is the most insidious and psychologically damaging activity that could be perpetrated against a group, and it is done willfully and without regard for the people harmed.
Turning away to where? The Republicans? Don't make me laugh. The Libertarians? I think not. Greens?
Maybe they need to learn a lesson from the LGBT community, and learn to figure out which politicians will support their issues, instead of voting along party lines.
The government can't restrict your free speech. But it can restrict how you use government facilities
Not in this context, it can't. It can only restrict your representation of a government entity, not relevant in this case. There is plenty of case law on this that you are apparently ignorant of. These are NOT government employees in any case, they are students, and these restrictions are a violation of speech, and there are many examples of courts throwing out these kinds of content-based speech restrictions.