I love how you try to associate Clinton with the S & L bailout, but fail to mention the Bush Family, which has a long history of making fortunes from their government and insider connections. We don't want anyone to remember Neil Bush!
If you want to conceal a knife on your person, be my guest. It's highly unlikely that an innocent bystander is going to be unintentionally stabbed, especially if he is a block away.
My point in bringing up a crazy person was to show that your "personal handgun MAD" idea was a bad one. Once shots are fired, your theory that concealed weapons will prevent gun violence has failed.
And if it's so easy for a crazy person to obtain a handgun, perhaps we need better controls in place to prevent the mentally ill from having handguns. Background checks, waiting periods and registration?
If you want to carry a gun so badly, why don't you get a carry permit, and wear a holster in plain sight? Why do you need to conceal your weapon? Go get a job as a security guard so people won't laugh at you (as much).
"Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.'"
Given what we know Bush is dyslexic and avoids reading, relying on oral reports for his information, from advisors who's job is to keep him insulated from reality, then it's clear that he's not being assisted by any audio signal.
Hey, even better, let's compare gun murder rates with Tokyo or London!
MAD works when you assume that both parties are rational and care about self-preservation. MAD doesn't work when one or more parties are crazy or don't care about self-preservation. There is (or used to be, before the Bush administration) a high barrier for entry into the nuclear club. There are no such barriers for entry into the gun club.
Furthermore, under MAD there were many fail safes in place to prevent "accidental nuclear war" (and even then, there were reportedly close calls). What fail safes would you propose for your handgun MAD policy?
It's a crackpot idea, although I admit it's appealing to me in a chronically adolescent kind of way.
If the 2000 election was a statistical tie, and Bush can only lose votes since then...how could he win?
Two words: Electronic voting.
There won't be a recount in Florida this year, for obvious reasons. The fix is in. The only purpose of the Bush campaign is to keep the poll numbers up, so it won't be too obvious.
Interesting ideas, but you don't account for the infusion of the Dixiecrats, our very socially conservative religious brethren from the south. Their ideals seem to be what most informs the Bush Program, and the alliance that the GOP formed with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority now can be seen for what it was, a deal with the Devil. I don't know which would be worse, if Bush is pandering to these people or if Bush is one of them.
It's been really bad during this presidency, because the Republicans control both the presidency and the legislature, so there aren't checks on the politicians' greed. Right now, the House and Senate are racing to push through as much pork as they can, especially corporate welfare pork, as they're not sure who will be President next year. If they push it through now, they're guaranteed a signature because even if he's not re-elected, Bush will still be in office until January.
You sound like a schizophrenic*, but I'm basically in the same boat. =) I commonly describe myself as a a conservative or a fiscal conservative, but political labels really seem to fail, especially when they get misused and abused by the power hungry (i.e., the cabal that has usurped the GOP).
Socially, I'm fairly liberal (or libertarian, however you want to spin int). I'm even for social welfare programs if we can afford them, i.e., pay as you go. This does not mean committing to expensive programs during prosperous years that will unduly burden us during lean years.
Although it sounds like an oxy moron, if there were a moderate libertarian party, I'd sign up in a heart beat. -
- *Yes, I realize that the true definition/diagnosis of schizophrenia is different than that of multiple personality disorder.
You might be oversensitive due to years and years of Apple Bashing, but I think you should consider this as just a lame attempt at humor. But then, maybe I'm de-sensitized due to years of Apple bashing. =)
The rest of the article is one of the best I've read. If he continues to use his Mac, I'd be very interested in reading a follow up at 6 months and one year.
Well, part of the problem was that he put his lover on the payroll. So, even of you're open minded and not bothered by his sexual orientation, you should be bothered by the corruption.
The other gay guy was New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey. Note that he appears in front of a "Welcome to New Jersey" sign. IIRC, McGreevey is a Democrat.
You've got my total agreement. With all the possible issues they could have used in their satire, they chose to make some up? This piece not only reeks of bias, it also stinks of a half-assed job by jibjab. This is the best they could come up with?
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but if I'm reading that statement correctly, then PabloJones = extremely ignorant. =) If your statement is correct, then Bush = Hitler is equally correct. If I misunderstand, forgive me.
I don't find GoogleNews biased so much as occassionally off the wall. Sometimes this is refreshing. For example, at this moment there is a movie review in the entertainment section from The Times of India entitled, "Chadha's Ash-flick falls flat". The lead paragraph reads:
If you thought that only Yash Chopraji had a thing for sarson-da-khet in sadda Punjab, you are mistaken. Cause Gurinder Chadha, true to her Punjabi roots has done the same in Balle Balle! Amritsar to LA (that's Bride and Prejudice dubbed in Hindi).
I'm so used to popular culture coming out of Hollywood that it's a pleasant shock to read something out of Bollywood.
You had a moving anecdote about troops going without personal body armor (families buying them on eBay and sending the armor to them) and equipment and they need these things desperately. However, you thought allocating more money for these very things for our troops wasn't a good idea. How do you reconcile your actions with your story?
I completely agree with you on this question. Kerry's answer on this hasn't been completely clear, other than to admit that he made a mistake. He was clear about his vote to give the ability to go to war as a last resort to Bush, which Bush clearly mis-used. Exactly, though, what does Kerry consider to be his mistake on the vote for the 87 billion?
On the otherhand, it's valid to question how Bush has been spending the money earmarked for Iraq, and it's valid to call into question how Bush has been persecuting the war.
For the first time in history, money for reconstruction went to the DoD instead of USAID. DoD did not and still does not have the infrastructure for such efforts. The most obvious evidence of this is the 18 billion dollars that has not been spent that the administration now wants to shift back to military purposes. There are also many reports on the ground of how this policy is failing to bring Iraqis into participation, as the DoD lacks the infrastructure and contacts to use smaller local contractors, and instead uses big American and international contractors.
Arguably, one of the greatest effects of using the DoD is that the reconstruction is now seen by the Iraqis as part of the military occupation, rather than the other way around.
Similarly, most of the emphasis on reconstruction has been placed on the oil industry, which reinforces the appearance that we are primarily there for Iraqi oil. A major part of our military operations has been to secure not only the oil fields, but to provide security for Halliburton contractors.
Which leads me to a question for Bush. How can we afford to provide security for a private company when we cannot afford to equip our own troops? Regardless of how Kerry voted, you still got your money. Why do front line troops still lack proper body armor? Why are 10,000 of the 12,000 HUMVEEs in Iraq unarmored? Why are units being given assignments for which they lack proper training?
Bush has said that the "War on Terrorism" must be waged on multiple fronts, but it's pretty clear now that before we invaded Iraq, Iraq wasn't one of them. It's also clear that our forces are stretched so thin that we would be unable to fight on other fronts, should other fronts open up, god forbid. Is Bush ready to officially reinstate the draft? This would probably be political suicide, but what is happening now to reservists and guard units is untenable. They are serving the terms they agreed to and then being forced to continue serving (google "stop loss" or better yet, read about stop loss at Operation Truth. (Operation Truth is a non-partisan site where you will read criticism of both Bush and Kerry by the troops. You'll also get a good idea of what is happening on the ground from the troops point of view.)
I wish Kerry actually had time to answer these questions for me, as I'm trying to decide how to vote.
My impressions of the debate last night:
Kerry made a better impression on me that he had in the past. He definitely has a good presentation and look about him. He is confident and seems to be a decent enough guy. He seems to also be "human" in that we saw him smile some, laugh some, and be generally nice. He seemed to be able to seperate the man and the office (Bush) in some comments and he appeared not to necessarily be personally attacking Bush as he had in some past comments, which is good.
Bush seemed to do OK, too. I think he beat the "a free Iraq makes the world safer" drum a couple times too many, but it is an important point and it is a part of what he thinks is one of the weak p
Make no mistake, I'm not voting for Bush this November. It's tempting to vote Libertarian, but this election is just too crucial. (Besides which, the Libertarian platform seems a little too extreme.)
So, I'm going to vote for Kerry. And after the first debate, I feel better about my decision, i.e., less like I'm just voting against Bush and more like I'm voting for Kerry. Bush offered nothing of substance and offered no clear vision on where he was leading us. Worse, Bush seemed incredibly juvenile, while Kerry came off as an adult that can lead this country.
So hopefully, we elect Kerry for 4 years, and by the time of the next election we can find a suitable replacement for him. Unfortunately, I'm afraid John McCain will be too old by then, and I see no one else on the horizon.
I'm aware that there is a "more conservative" wing of the Democratic party, but the liberal wing is still very powerful. I don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, but I do have insurmountable differences with the liberal view. At the same time, I'm hardly a model conservative. I'm not completely against social welfare programs, provided we can pay for them without increasing the tax burden or the deficit. I also think we must be extremely selective and focused about which programs get funding.
Sometimes I feel like Goldilocks. This party is too soft. That party is too hard. Where is the party that is just right?
Slashdot Mirror
I love how you try to associate Clinton with the S & L bailout, but fail to mention the Bush Family, which has a long history of making fortunes from their government and insider connections. We don't want anyone to remember Neil Bush!
your password is "fhqwhgads"?
If you want to conceal a knife on your person, be my guest. It's highly unlikely that an innocent bystander is going to be unintentionally stabbed, especially if he is a block away.
My point in bringing up a crazy person was to show that your "personal handgun MAD" idea was a bad one. Once shots are fired, your theory that concealed weapons will prevent gun violence has failed.
And if it's so easy for a crazy person to obtain a handgun, perhaps we need better controls in place to prevent the mentally ill from having handguns. Background checks, waiting periods and registration?
If you want to carry a gun so badly, why don't you get a carry permit, and wear a holster in plain sight? Why do you need to conceal your weapon? Go get a job as a security guard so people won't laugh at you (as much).
"Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.'"
Given what we know Bush is dyslexic and avoids reading, relying on oral reports for his information, from advisors who's job is to keep him insulated from reality, then it's clear that he's not being assisted by any audio signal.
Hey, even better, let's compare gun murder rates with Tokyo or London!
MAD works when you assume that both parties are rational and care about self-preservation. MAD doesn't work when one or more parties are crazy or don't care about self-preservation. There is (or used to be, before the Bush administration) a high barrier for entry into the nuclear club. There are no such barriers for entry into the gun club.
Furthermore, under MAD there were many fail safes in place to prevent "accidental nuclear war" (and even then, there were reportedly close calls). What fail safes would you propose for your handgun MAD policy?
It's a crackpot idea, although I admit it's appealing to me in a chronically adolescent kind of way.
You're not worried about viruses, worms, and trojans?
Don't sell yourself short. That's probably the best analogy I've ever read here on slashdot.
I think the "Broken record player" is a more apt analogy here.
I think people would be less likely to shoot at you if they thought you'd shoot back.
What do you suggest for the poor schnook dodging bullets from your little gun fight a block away? A sniper rifle?
If the 2000 election was a statistical tie, and Bush can only lose votes since then...how could he win?
Two words: Electronic voting.
There won't be a recount in Florida this year, for obvious reasons. The fix is in. The only purpose of the Bush campaign is to keep the poll numbers up, so it won't be too obvious.
Interesting ideas, but you don't account for the infusion of the Dixiecrats, our very socially conservative religious brethren from the south. Their ideals seem to be what most informs the Bush Program, and the alliance that the GOP formed with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority now can be seen for what it was, a deal with the Devil. I don't know which would be worse, if Bush is pandering to these people or if Bush is one of them.
It's been really bad during this presidency, because the Republicans control both the presidency and the legislature, so there aren't checks on the politicians' greed. Right now, the House and Senate are racing to push through as much pork as they can, especially corporate welfare pork, as they're not sure who will be President next year. If they push it through now, they're guaranteed a signature because even if he's not re-elected, Bush will still be in office until January.
Are you seriously suggesting that Ross Perot was a nutcase? Oh, wait. . .. he was. . . nevermind. . .
You sound like a schizophrenic*, but I'm basically in the same boat. =) I commonly describe myself as a a conservative or a fiscal conservative, but political labels really seem to fail, especially when they get misused and abused by the power hungry (i.e., the cabal that has usurped the GOP).
Socially, I'm fairly liberal (or libertarian, however you want to spin int). I'm even for social welfare programs if we can afford them, i.e., pay as you go. This does not mean committing to expensive programs during prosperous years that will unduly burden us during lean years.
Although it sounds like an oxy moron, if there were a moderate libertarian party, I'd sign up in a heart beat.
-
-
*Yes, I realize that the true definition/diagnosis of schizophrenia is different than that of multiple personality disorder.
You might be oversensitive due to years and years of Apple Bashing, but I think you should consider this as just a lame attempt at humor. But then, maybe I'm de-sensitized due to years of Apple bashing. =)
The rest of the article is one of the best I've read. If he continues to use his Mac, I'd be very interested in reading a follow up at 6 months and one year.
Well, part of the problem was that he put his lover on the payroll. So, even of you're open minded and not bothered by his sexual orientation, you should be bothered by the corruption.
The other gay guy was New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevey. Note that he appears in front of a "Welcome to New Jersey" sign. IIRC, McGreevey is a Democrat.
You've got my total agreement. With all the possible issues they could have used in their satire, they chose to make some up? This piece not only reeks of bias, it also stinks of a half-assed job by jibjab. This is the best they could come up with?
Read it again. They claim that their gun safes and fire safes are free of this problem, but that some of their cabinets are susceptible.
Have a look at their product lines. Their safes look quite a bit sturdier than their cabinets.
It's pretty amazing, even on slashdot, when the link poster didn't RTFA.
I'm not sure what you are saying here, but if I'm reading that statement correctly, then PabloJones = extremely ignorant. =) If your statement is correct, then Bush = Hitler is equally correct. If I misunderstand, forgive me.
I don't find GoogleNews biased so much as occassionally off the wall. Sometimes this is refreshing. For example, at this moment there is a movie review in the entertainment section from The Times of India entitled, "Chadha's Ash-flick falls flat". The lead paragraph reads:
I'm so used to popular culture coming out of Hollywood that it's a pleasant shock to read something out of Bollywood.
1. How much is the Apple Corps worth? Is it publicly-traded?
It's not publicly traded, and it's probably worth ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
2. How much does Apple Computer have on hand that they could use in a corporate acquisition?
Apple has on the order of ONE MILLION DOLLARS cash reserves. Not to mention sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.
nd before you discount this as liberal spin, the reported who outed Wilson's wife is Robert Novak, a well known conservative reporter . . .
Robert Novak is scum. When he dies, I will find where he is buried and crap on his grave.
MS doesn't have the volumes, either. They lost the FAT patent. Unless he's talking about the new filesystem that will be/won't be part of longhorn.
- Equipment for troops
You had a moving anecdote about troops going without personal body armor (families buying them on eBay and sending the armor to them) and equipment and they need these things desperately. However, you thought allocating more money for these very things for our troops wasn't a good idea. How do you reconcile your actions with your story?
I completely agree with you on this question. Kerry's answer on this hasn't been completely clear, other than to admit that he made a mistake. He was clear about his vote to give the ability to go to war as a last resort to Bush, which Bush clearly mis-used. Exactly, though, what does Kerry consider to be his mistake on the vote for the 87 billion?
On the otherhand, it's valid to question how Bush has been spending the money earmarked for Iraq, and it's valid to call into question how Bush has been persecuting the war.
For the first time in history, money for reconstruction went to the DoD instead of USAID. DoD did not and still does not have the infrastructure for such efforts. The most obvious evidence of this is the 18 billion dollars that has not been spent that the administration now wants to shift back to military purposes. There are also many reports on the ground of how this policy is failing to bring Iraqis into participation, as the DoD lacks the infrastructure and contacts to use smaller local contractors, and instead uses big American and international contractors.
Arguably, one of the greatest effects of using the DoD is that the reconstruction is now seen by the Iraqis as part of the military occupation, rather than the other way around.
Similarly, most of the emphasis on reconstruction has been placed on the oil industry, which reinforces the appearance that we are primarily there for Iraqi oil. A major part of our military operations has been to secure not only the oil fields, but to provide security for Halliburton contractors.
Which leads me to a question for Bush. How can we afford to provide security for a private company when we cannot afford to equip our own troops? Regardless of how Kerry voted, you still got your money. Why do front line troops still lack proper body armor? Why are 10,000 of the 12,000 HUMVEEs in Iraq unarmored? Why are units being given assignments for which they lack proper training?
Bush has said that the "War on Terrorism" must be waged on multiple fronts, but it's pretty clear now that before we invaded Iraq, Iraq wasn't one of them. It's also clear that our forces are stretched so thin that we would be unable to fight on other fronts, should other fronts open up, god forbid. Is Bush ready to officially reinstate the draft? This would probably be political suicide, but what is happening now to reservists and guard units is untenable. They are serving the terms they agreed to and then being forced to continue serving (google "stop loss" or better yet, read about stop loss at Operation Truth. (Operation Truth is a non-partisan site where you will read criticism of both Bush and Kerry by the troops. You'll also get a good idea of what is happening on the ground from the troops point of view.)
I wish Kerry actually had time to answer these questions for me, as I'm trying to decide how to vote.
My impressions of the debate last night:
Kerry made a better impression on me that he had in the past. He definitely has a good presentation and look about him. He is confident and seems to be a decent enough guy. He seems to also be "human" in that we saw him smile some, laugh some, and be generally nice. He seemed to be able to seperate the man and the office (Bush) in some comments and he appeared not to necessarily be personally attacking Bush as he had in some past comments, which is good.
Bush seemed to do OK, too. I think he beat the "a free Iraq makes the world safer" drum a couple times too many, but it is an important point and it is a part of what he thinks is one of the weak p
Make no mistake, I'm not voting for Bush this November. It's tempting to vote Libertarian, but this election is just too crucial. (Besides which, the Libertarian platform seems a little too extreme.)
So, I'm going to vote for Kerry. And after the first debate, I feel better about my decision, i.e., less like I'm just voting against Bush and more like I'm voting for Kerry. Bush offered nothing of substance and offered no clear vision on where he was leading us. Worse, Bush seemed incredibly juvenile, while Kerry came off as an adult that can lead this country.
So hopefully, we elect Kerry for 4 years, and by the time of the next election we can find a suitable replacement for him. Unfortunately, I'm afraid John McCain will be too old by then, and I see no one else on the horizon.
I'm aware that there is a "more conservative" wing of the Democratic party, but the liberal wing is still very powerful. I don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, but I do have insurmountable differences with the liberal view. At the same time, I'm hardly a model conservative. I'm not completely against social welfare programs, provided we can pay for them without increasing the tax burden or the deficit. I also think we must be extremely selective and focused about which programs get funding.
Sometimes I feel like Goldilocks. This party is too soft. That party is too hard. Where is the party that is just right?