To be fair, they're not presenting it as a scientific poll. It's a poll for Fox News viewers, and I don't know if there are any controls to keep a person from voting more than once.
So what it represents could be that Fox News viewers only see what they want to see, or, alternatively, only see what they're told to see.
- 4 year time-line for nuclear material cleanup. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
I don't think you understand or have knowledge of what Kerry was talking about. There is a program in place to secure former Soviet Union nukes, where we were basically paying to secure those nukes. More or less, we buy the nukes so that the terrorists can't. Bush cut most of the funding to this program. Kerry proposes to increase it. So, despite your belief, the fact is that there is a clear implementation and the timeline is realistic.
Your idea of tying Kerry's personal funds to his proposal is an interesting idea, but I confess I find something absurd about it. By the same token, shouldn't Bush use his personal fortune to compensate all the unemployed? He did promise that the tax cuts for the rich would solve the unemployment problems.
North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show that the USA was more willing to "go it on its own" as you accused Bush of doing over Iraq.
First Korea. It's obvious that you are not aware of the course of events. Kerry laid it out last night, if you were paying attention:
With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.
And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.
That happened on this president's watch.
Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.
If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.
Voting mistakes?
You said a number of times that you made mistakes when you voted for things in Congress. How will you reassure me that you won't make more "mistakes" when signing bills into law? Are you going to sign something and then recant after it's too late? Are you going to veto something that you'll come back later and say you should have signed? You, in effect, basically stated that you vote without knowing all the issues or something.
Your position seems to be that you don't want a le
You spent a lot of time writing this, and I feel obligated to answer, though I don't have much time at the moment.
- Why did Bush use Afghani troops to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
A politician and soldier should know why Afghani troops were used in this way. If USA troops actually went in and killed Osama bin Laden then it was the USA vs. Muslims. By using Afghani troops, it would be his own people "throwing him out". The political difference should be obvious.
Bin Laden is not Afghani, he's Saudi. And with something as important as capturing or killing Bin Laden, you want to observe such diplomatic niceties, while overlooking the diplomatic failures of Bush in the Iraq matter?
- More diplomacy was needed in Iraq.
The UN had passed 16 resolutions in 10 years (also note that 10 years covered more than Bush's term in office) detailing what Iraq needed to do. Houssein repeatedly ignored them and/or balked at them. What behavior over the past 10 years and 16 resolutions would lead one to believe that the 17th or the 18th resolutions would be different? There is a saying: The definition of "insanity" is "Repeating the same experiment many times expecting different results."
You're ignoring the fact that we were getting results, something I would like to credit the President. Using the crediblethreat of force, Bush got inspectors back into Iraq, and they were making progress. And to give Kerry and others in congress credit, they voted to give Bush that tool, the credibility of force. So, your "insanity test" fails on that point when we look at the facts.
On the other hand, I think that test might apply very well to Bush's execution of policy in Iraq. As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
- How can you expect to rally support for a cause that you have publicly stated you believe to be a mistake/diversion?
After having publicly stated that the War in Iraq was a mistake and/or a diversion, what makes anyone think that you can sell other countries on more participation? By these statements, you've shown that your resolve is not strong and/or your goals and exit strategy will change. You may state that you will see it through, but your previous statements define your position as not agreeing with the war, so your heart isn't in it. Therefore, you will not do as good a job. In addition to this, as you so frequently remind us, you learned many things during your service in Vietnam (which I am definitely not questioning and I do acknowledge and respect). It seems to me that one of the most important lessons that you should have learned is what happens in a military action where the nation/President/government that is not fully committed to the task. You've already demonstrated that you aren't fully committed (simply because you think it is a mistake). What assurances would you give to me that this will not turn worse and become another Vietnam type situation (note: I'm not saying that it won't do the same with Bush, but he is very clear about his resolve to the issue, at least). These points were brought up many times during the debate by both sides but you never stated why you expected other nations to become *more* committed in the face of your comments.
Easy. Pointing out a mistake does not lessen a commitment to correct that mistake. If you make a mess, does this somehow lessen the commitment or the ability of your mom to clean up that mess? Did Kerry give any hint that he was going to wash his hands of the mess that Bush made? No, he repeatedly emphasized his commitment to clean it up, and he has a specific plan to do it.
Now, you claim that acknowledging the mistakes of Bush would hinder diplomacy and alliance building. I say the opp
No, it's fact presented in a manner to make you look like an idiot, and instead of countering that perception with counter argument or any sort of evidence, you reinforced it with your response.
Why do I say his statement is fact? Because the US Army has reported it as fact.
When facts cannot deter one in their belief, there is something wrong with that person. Last night, at the debate, Bush showed either that he has and continues to lie to the American people, or that his beliefs are undeterred by the facts, that he is not able to adjust mentally when the facts do not adjust to his preconceived notions.
I hope that neither of these cases is true for you. I will ascribe your childish angry response to being shocked of being confronted by an ugly truth, and speaking before you had a chance to take it in. It's not unusual, upon being disillusioned, to attack the person that opened your eyes.
I'm a conservative Republican that doesn't buy into the spew, and I don't support the crooks who have taken over my party. Maybe that's why I enjoy the Daily Show.
So what you're saying is that there were handlers in the audience that incited the audience to laugh on on cue, or that it wasn't a real audience, but people recruited specifically to laugh on cue.
Did I get that right? Otherwise, what the hell are you saying?
The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.
The way that Bush used Alawi as a prop for his presidential campaigh was more disgraceful. The way Alawi allowed himself to be used was equally disgraceful.
The parallels with Vietnam continue. However, in Vietnam, the Vietnamese political leaders and generals misled our leaders, who then misled the American people. In the current case, the Bush team is coaching Alawi to mislead the American people.
Craig Kilborn was OK, but he doesn't hold a candle to John Stewart in either humor or intelligence. His late night show sucked, and was never worth staying up for.
Whether or not John has a bias, you can't deny that he's one of the fairest people on TV when it comes to political topics. He's very even handed with the jokes; in fact, I'm pretty sure there's a 1:1 ratio of Bush jokes to Kerry jokes on the show. He's also polite and kind and never arrogant. He doesn't talk down to anyone he has on his show. Even tonight, when he challenged Skeletor, I mean, Giuliani, on what Kerry actually said, and what Rudy said that Kerry said, he was completely civilized. He didn't call Giuliani a liar, though he could have.
I liked Giuliani before tonight. But I feel as though he looked me (and all the other viewers) directly in the eye, and told a direct lie. Previously, I had thought that Giuliani was a leader, but he's just another of the current breed of Republican politician that puts the Party and/or his career above all else. Giuliani showed tonight that he is without honor.
No, he's saying that you (or someone, perhaps your employer) paid for an operating system that is only legal ideas and technological capabilities, not actual code? The code is only the implementatio of those ideas and capabilities, and you do not own it.
Nothing has changed, except you learned a little bit more since you last checked. Hopefully.
There's a difference between a political party that tries to foster an economic environment that promotes business in general (old GOP) and a political party that engages in corporate welfare and crony capitalism (new GOP and the Bush Administration).
The one nice thing you can say about Bush is that he stays bought.
Now, that doesn't sound bad to me. Implementation-wise, maybe it shouldn't have been as much in the kernel and the implementation had problems (security and otherwise), but I can see the logic in having a "universal viewer" and not having to load/use 20 other programs to do the same thing, just with different data streams.
But that's the point. The implementation was purely to sidestep the case and to maintain their new stranglehold in applications beyond the OS, a stranglehold they had achieved illegally.
Funny... since the court case was *about* this particular thing, it's funny that they would have built it into the system in order to cause a court case to happen in order to win a court case with it. I think you have the order in which things happened mixed up.
No, you've got the order mixed up. What was originally bundled they later claimed was integrated, and therefore "impossible" for them to remove. When that claim was debunked and they were shown to be liars, they set about to completely intergrate it at the kernal level. The result is that Windows is inherently crippled security-wise.
That's the problem with an unregulated monopoly. They can fearlessly put their profits ahead of the consumer. Let me restate that: They can hurt the consumer for the sake of more profits without fear of repercussions. If they had any serious worries about competition, i.e., if the playing field were level and they didn't wield monopoly power, such actions would be punished by the marketplace.
To be honest, I don't think Bush or Kerry will do as good a job as I'd like. I guess when it comes time for me to vote, I'll have to vote for which one will screw up the least and I think I've already made up my mind who I think that will be.
So, you're voting for Kerry or for a third party candidate?
I'm a conservative, especially in fiscal matters, and I think that Tax and Spend is better than Spend and Make Our Children Pay the Piper.
You say that Democrats believe in HUGE government. Well, judging by actions, not words, the President and the Republicans in Congress believe in a government so huge that it outstrips the most liberal politician's wet dreams by orders of magnitude.
I read once that during the Clinton era, it took all of the tax money generated east of the Mississippi River just to pay the paychecks of the National Governmental employees. The rest was left for social programs.
We had a balanced budget under Clinton. He might have lied under oath, but you can't fault his fiscal policies.
I also can't believe that so many people still fail to understand the "Fool in the Shower" economic theory and attribute economic trends solely to the President in office.
Bush is the first President to cut taxes during a major war. AFAIK (BINS), he's the first to preside over a "jobless" recovery. He promised that the tax cut would lead to job growth, but that promise hasn't materialized.
I'm not going to vote Republican again until the group in control of the GOP starts to actually reflect good old conservative values in their actions, instead of merely using them as wedge issues for political gain, all the while acting contrary to those values.
Currently I'm ashamed of the majority of people in my party, who seem to have forgotten our principles and values, and who place party loyalty higher than loyalty to our country.
heh, I did really well on the LSAT, too, and that was before it went all multiple choice. So well, in fact, that I got into a decent school despite my really bad grades.
My problem was that I didn't really know why I was there. The law was interesting to me, and my mental make up was a good fit, but I had no passion. Also, within a few weeks, I realized that I couldn't stand 90% of my fellow students and I further realized that if I continued I'd end up spending most of my working life with people I considered complete tools. Furthermore, for the first time in my life, school was severely impacting my drug use. =)
So, when I was offered a management position at a commercial soundstage a few weeks into the first semester, I jumped. I never looked back until very recently. The SCO case has reawakened my interest and as I've read more and more on Groklaw and other sites, a passion for the law I never had before has been kindled. So, I've actually considered going back to school, and since I no longer do drugs, I'd have much more time to study. =)
I probably won't, though. I still don't want to hang out with arrogant assholes all day. =)
I have looked into programs that focus on journalism and the law as well, but I haven't fond anything that struck me as compelling.
Good luck to you. Try not to be too much of an asshole when you can help it.
It's too bad you didn't read further, or you would have gotten to this wining line:
My view is that government schools unofficially support secular humanism as the "official religion", and I wouldn't want my kids in that environment.
After that, I knew he was either a troll or a moron or both. I've never really understood how people like him can pervert religious faith into willful ignorance. I don't know whether it takes a village to raise a child, but I know it only takes one asshole to permanently damage a child.
Even though it was ruled unconstituional, it is still a law
Not in the jurisdiction of the court in which the ruling was made.
if you want that portion out, you have to write it out of the law books.
Are you just making this shit up or did someone tell you this and you believed it? When a law is found unconstitutional, it doesn't remain a valid law until we get around to publishing new law books.
It's not just the neocons. The neocons are just supplying the ideology. There are other groups in this cabal. Big Oil, for one. Apocalyptic Christian nutjobs, for another.
And I do blame the Republican Party, of which I am a member. We've allowed our GOP to be hijacked, and many of us seem to be brainwashed. The GOP has become a cult, putting party loyalty above our country and above the truth. We assailed Clinton for lying under oath, then turned around and elected the biggest gang of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.
Part of the problem is that the Republican Party has been hijacked by a group of power hungry men and women. They wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism just as they wrap themselves in the flag. Yet it's a lie. They care not for principles, nor do they care for country. The only loyalty they have is to "The Party" GOP UBER ALLES!
Moderate and Progressive Republicans are all but extinct. The Republican Party still gives lip service to the Conservatives, but I imagine that they'll purge all the conservatives (while usurping the title) before too long.
What is ironic is that John Kerry seems to be more financially conservative than George Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
So are we at Blackwatch Plaid or Moving Pictures?
To be fair, they're not presenting it as a scientific poll. It's a poll for Fox News viewers, and I don't know if there are any controls to keep a person from voting more than once.
So what it represents could be that Fox News viewers only see what they want to see, or, alternatively, only see what they're told to see.
I find it hard for anyone to assign a timeline to a task such as this. How can you guarantee this or is it simply an idle promise for the campaign? To be honest, timelines on tasks that have no clear implementation and so many unknowns seem very hard to fix in time so I have to simply dismiss your timeline for this as simple election gab. Are you willing to commit the military to insure your timeline is met? Are you willing to supply your own private funds as monitary backing to insure your promise of 4 years? If you aren't willing to bet your entire wealth on your timeline, you cannot be as sure of it as you appeared in the debates.
I don't think you understand or have knowledge of what Kerry was talking about. There is a program in place to secure former Soviet Union nukes, where we were basically paying to secure those nukes. More or less, we buy the nukes so that the terrorists can't. Bush cut most of the funding to this program. Kerry proposes to increase it. So, despite your belief, the fact is that there is a clear implementation and the timeline is realistic.
Your idea of tying Kerry's personal funds to his proposal is an interesting idea, but I confess I find something absurd about it. By the same token, shouldn't Bush use his personal fortune to compensate all the unemployed? He did promise that the tax cuts for the rich would solve the unemployment problems.
North Korea bi-lateral talks... tried that and failed. Why are you against multi-lateral talks? Why are they not the next step?
As with the diplomacy in Iraq above. You state you want bi-lateral talks. This had already been done and proven ineffective. Now that there are a number of other interested parties in the mix, why would they now be excluded or would you end-around them? It would demonstrate to the other interested parties that you didn't have confidence in those efforts and it would definitely show that the USA was more willing to "go it on its own" as you accused Bush of doing over Iraq.
First Korea. It's obvious that you are not aware of the course of events. Kerry laid it out last night, if you were paying attention:
If you don't believe Kerry, you could check the facts.
Voting mistakes?
You said a number of times that you made mistakes when you voted for things in Congress. How will you reassure me that you won't make more "mistakes" when signing bills into law? Are you going to sign something and then recant after it's too late? Are you going to veto something that you'll come back later and say you should have signed? You, in effect, basically stated that you vote without knowing all the issues or something.
Your position seems to be that you don't want a le
You spent a lot of time writing this, and I feel obligated to answer, though I don't have much time at the moment.
- Why did Bush use Afghani troops to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan?
A politician and soldier should know why Afghani troops were used in this way. If USA troops actually went in and killed Osama bin Laden then it was the USA vs. Muslims. By using Afghani troops, it would be his own people "throwing him out". The political difference should be obvious.
Bin Laden is not Afghani, he's Saudi. And with something as important as capturing or killing Bin Laden, you want to observe such diplomatic niceties, while overlooking the diplomatic failures of Bush in the Iraq matter?
- More diplomacy was needed in Iraq.
The UN had passed 16 resolutions in 10 years (also note that 10 years covered more than Bush's term in office) detailing what Iraq needed to do. Houssein repeatedly ignored them and/or balked at them. What behavior over the past 10 years and 16 resolutions would lead one to believe that the 17th or the 18th resolutions would be different? There is a saying: The definition of "insanity" is "Repeating the same experiment many times expecting different results."
You're ignoring the fact that we were getting results, something I would like to credit the President. Using the crediblethreat of force, Bush got inspectors back into Iraq, and they were making progress. And to give Kerry and others in congress credit, they voted to give Bush that tool, the credibility of force. So, your "insanity test" fails on that point when we look at the facts.
On the other hand, I think that test might apply very well to Bush's execution of policy in Iraq. As Kerry pointed out, Bush is promising us "more of the same" of a failing plan. Bush's stubbornness in sticking to his plan despite the realities on the ground, his unwillingness to accept facts that do not jibe with his preconceived notions, should be seen as delusional, which your test nicely points out.
- How can you expect to rally support for a cause that you have publicly stated you believe to be a mistake/diversion?
After having publicly stated that the War in Iraq was a mistake and/or a diversion, what makes anyone think that you can sell other countries on more participation? By these statements, you've shown that your resolve is not strong and/or your goals and exit strategy will change. You may state that you will see it through, but your previous statements define your position as not agreeing with the war, so your heart isn't in it. Therefore, you will not do as good a job. In addition to this, as you so frequently remind us, you learned many things during your service in Vietnam (which I am definitely not questioning and I do acknowledge and respect). It seems to me that one of the most important lessons that you should have learned is what happens in a military action where the nation/President/government that is not fully committed to the task. You've already demonstrated that you aren't fully committed (simply because you think it is a mistake). What assurances would you give to me that this will not turn worse and become another Vietnam type situation (note: I'm not saying that it won't do the same with Bush, but he is very clear about his resolve to the issue, at least). These points were brought up many times during the debate by both sides but you never stated why you expected other nations to become *more* committed in the face of your comments.
Easy. Pointing out a mistake does not lessen a commitment to correct that mistake. If you make a mess, does this somehow lessen the commitment or the ability of your mom to clean up that mess? Did Kerry give any hint that he was going to wash his hands of the mess that Bush made? No, he repeatedly emphasized his commitment to clean it up, and he has a specific plan to do it.
Now, you claim that acknowledging the mistakes of Bush would hinder diplomacy and alliance building. I say the opp
No, it's fact presented in a manner to make you look like an idiot, and instead of countering that perception with counter argument or any sort of evidence, you reinforced it with your response.
Why do I say his statement is fact? Because the US Army has reported it as fact.
When facts cannot deter one in their belief, there is something wrong with that person. Last night, at the debate, Bush showed either that he has and continues to lie to the American people, or that his beliefs are undeterred by the facts, that he is not able to adjust mentally when the facts do not adjust to his preconceived notions.
I hope that neither of these cases is true for you. I will ascribe your childish angry response to being shocked of being confronted by an ugly truth, and speaking before you had a chance to take it in. It's not unusual, upon being disillusioned, to attack the person that opened your eyes.
No, I don't. If it saves the life of one American then it's worth it.
Don't you mean, if it saves you 5 cents at the gas pump, then it's worth it? =)
Yeah, that's my usual reaction to unpleasant facts, too.
Personally, getting all you news from Fox is like getting all your news from one politial campaign or another.
It's more like getting all your news from the Ministry of Information.
I'm a conservative Republican that doesn't buy into the spew, and I don't support the crooks who have taken over my party. Maybe that's why I enjoy the Daily Show.
So what you're saying is that there were handlers in the audience that incited the audience to laugh on on cue, or that it wasn't a real audience, but people recruited specifically to laugh on cue.
Did I get that right? Otherwise, what the hell are you saying?
The way Kerry and his staff reacted to Prime Minister Allawi was simply disgraceful.
The way that Bush used Alawi as a prop for his presidential campaigh was more disgraceful. The way Alawi allowed himself to be used was equally disgraceful.
The parallels with Vietnam continue. However, in Vietnam, the Vietnamese political leaders and generals misled our leaders, who then misled the American people. In the current case, the Bush team is coaching Alawi to mislead the American people.
Craig Kilborn was OK, but he doesn't hold a candle to John Stewart in either humor or intelligence. His late night show sucked, and was never worth staying up for.
Whether or not John has a bias, you can't deny that he's one of the fairest people on TV when it comes to political topics. He's very even handed with the jokes; in fact, I'm pretty sure there's a 1:1 ratio of Bush jokes to Kerry jokes on the show. He's also polite and kind and never arrogant. He doesn't talk down to anyone he has on his show. Even tonight, when he challenged Skeletor, I mean, Giuliani, on what Kerry actually said, and what Rudy said that Kerry said, he was completely civilized. He didn't call Giuliani a liar, though he could have.
I liked Giuliani before tonight. But I feel as though he looked me (and all the other viewers) directly in the eye, and told a direct lie. Previously, I had thought that Giuliani was a leader, but he's just another of the current breed of Republican politician that puts the Party and/or his career above all else. Giuliani showed tonight that he is without honor.
No, he's saying that you (or someone, perhaps your employer) paid for an operating system that is only legal ideas and technological capabilities, not actual code? The code is only the implementatio of those ideas and capabilities, and you do not own it.
Nothing has changed, except you learned a little bit more since you last checked. Hopefully.
There's a difference between a political party that tries to foster an economic environment that promotes business in general (old GOP) and a political party that engages in corporate welfare and crony capitalism (new GOP and the Bush Administration).
The one nice thing you can say about Bush is that he stays bought.
But that's the point. The implementation was purely to sidestep the case and to maintain their new stranglehold in applications beyond the OS, a stranglehold they had achieved illegally.
No, you've got the order mixed up. What was originally bundled they later claimed was integrated, and therefore "impossible" for them to remove. When that claim was debunked and they were shown to be liars, they set about to completely intergrate it at the kernal level. The result is that Windows is inherently crippled security-wise.
That's the problem with an unregulated monopoly. They can fearlessly put their profits ahead of the consumer. Let me restate that: They can hurt the consumer for the sake of more profits without fear of repercussions. If they had any serious worries about competition, i.e., if the playing field were level and they didn't wield monopoly power, such actions would be punished by the marketplace.
To be honest, I don't think Bush or Kerry will do as good a job as I'd like. I guess when it comes time for me to vote, I'll have to vote for which one will screw up the least and I think I've already made up my mind who I think that will be.
So, you're voting for Kerry or for a third party candidate?
I'm a conservative, especially in fiscal matters, and I think that Tax and Spend is better than Spend and Make Our Children Pay the Piper.
You say that Democrats believe in HUGE government. Well, judging by actions, not words, the President and the Republicans in Congress believe in a government so huge that it outstrips the most liberal politician's wet dreams by orders of magnitude.
I read once that during the Clinton era, it took all of the tax money generated east of the Mississippi River just to pay the paychecks of the National Governmental employees. The rest was left for social programs.
We had a balanced budget under Clinton. He might have lied under oath, but you can't fault his fiscal policies.
I also can't believe that so many people still fail to understand the "Fool in the Shower" economic theory and attribute economic trends solely to the President in office.
Bush is the first President to cut taxes during a major war. AFAIK (BINS), he's the first to preside over a "jobless" recovery. He promised that the tax cut would lead to job growth, but that promise hasn't materialized.
I'm not going to vote Republican again until the group in control of the GOP starts to actually reflect good old conservative values in their actions, instead of merely using them as wedge issues for political gain, all the while acting contrary to those values.
Currently I'm ashamed of the majority of people in my party, who seem to have forgotten our principles and values, and who place party loyalty higher than loyalty to our country.
heh, I did really well on the LSAT, too, and that was before it went all multiple choice. So well, in fact, that I got into a decent school despite my really bad grades.
My problem was that I didn't really know why I was there. The law was interesting to me, and my mental make up was a good fit, but I had no passion. Also, within a few weeks, I realized that I couldn't stand 90% of my fellow students and I further realized that if I continued I'd end up spending most of my working life with people I considered complete tools. Furthermore, for the first time in my life, school was severely impacting my drug use. =)
So, when I was offered a management position at a commercial soundstage a few weeks into the first semester, I jumped. I never looked back until very recently. The SCO case has reawakened my interest and as I've read more and more on Groklaw and other sites, a passion for the law I never had before has been kindled. So, I've actually considered going back to school, and since I no longer do drugs, I'd have much more time to study. =)
I probably won't, though. I still don't want to hang out with arrogant assholes all day. =)
I have looked into programs that focus on journalism and the law as well, but I haven't fond anything that struck me as compelling.
Good luck to you. Try not to be too much of an asshole when you can help it.
O'Reilly is just a bully and a blowhard
You forgot liar.
After that, I knew he was either a troll or a moron or both. I've never really understood how people like him can pervert religious faith into willful ignorance. I don't know whether it takes a village to raise a child, but I know it only takes one asshole to permanently damage a child.
You're partly right. Their focus is on the First Amendment, which includes free speech.
Maybe it was when he made Justice wear clothes so he wouldn't be tempted to stare at her tits? And Justice wasn't even covered in Grits!
"If you eye offends thee, throw a tarp over a naked statue".
I forget in what part of the Bible that's written.
Even though it was ruled unconstituional, it is still a law
Not in the jurisdiction of the court in which the ruling was made.
if you want that portion out, you have to write it out of the law books.
Are you just making this shit up or did someone tell you this and you believed it? When a law is found unconstitutional, it doesn't remain a valid law until we get around to publishing new law books.
Right. We've leasing it from Cuba since 1903.
more interesting info
If I ha points, I'd mod you up.
It's not just the neocons. The neocons are just supplying the ideology. There are other groups in this cabal. Big Oil, for one. Apocalyptic Christian nutjobs, for another.
And I do blame the Republican Party, of which I am a member. We've allowed our GOP to be hijacked, and many of us seem to be brainwashed. The GOP has become a cult, putting party loyalty above our country and above the truth. We assailed Clinton for lying under oath, then turned around and elected the biggest gang of liars and thieves the world has ever seen.
Have you seen this site?
Liberals piss me off.
I guess I'm OK, since I consider myself to be mostly conservative.
You, however, are not OK.
Stupid people piss me off.
Part of the problem is that the Republican Party has been hijacked by a group of power hungry men and women. They wrap themselves in the mantle of conservatism just as they wrap themselves in the flag. Yet it's a lie. They care not for principles, nor do they care for country. The only loyalty they have is to "The Party" GOP UBER ALLES!
Moderate and Progressive Republicans are all but extinct. The Republican Party still gives lip service to the Conservatives, but I imagine that they'll purge all the conservatives (while usurping the title) before too long.
What is ironic is that John Kerry seems to be more financially conservative than George Bush.