wanted to cut taxes at a time when the country is $9 *TRILLION* in debt Are you under the mistaken impression that not cutting taxes would improve our ability to service that $9 Trillion in debt? Our ability to service debt solely relies on the size of the economy, no the amount of tax revenue the government takes in.
Fine. That may well be true. But what does that have to do with anything? As you should probably already know, dismissing his teachings or doctrine because of that is a classical logical fallacy.
Interesting reply, considering that you don't know what references I've checked out or what my world view is.
But, never mind. You've read your hit piece and your mind is made up. It doesn't bother me a bit. I just chuckle at the irony in your accusation that those who didn't fall for the hit piece must be sheltered.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people should be accurate in what they say, and the original statement was intended to mislead for partisan purposes. I have no love for Democrats, just truth. Nonsense. It is universally accepted that the documents came from Bill Burkett, who is a Democrat. It is not untruthful to point that out.
But I do find this accusation interesting considering it comes off a thread where the actions of a single man 20 years ago are being used as the basis of the "Republican Motto" today.
I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan. But ignoring facts does.
Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth. Unfortunately, forensic evidence isn't possible here because Burkett claims to have burned the originals. Hmmm. Why would he do that?
But plenty of evidence was presenting proving that the only machines that were capable of making that kind of typeface in that time period were far too expensive and difficult to operate for a secretary in a dusty national guard office.
There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics. And it could have been the aliens who mistakenly beamed it to the wrong planet. And it could have been a million drunk monkeys typing on a million keyboards who accidentally produced the documents. Or it could have been a 7th grade reading paper that was accidentally turned into a leading Texas Democrat.
Dammit! We just don't know for sure!
This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth. Indeed.
Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back. This is 1/2 right. The other half of this truth is that Democrats bash Republicans endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back. Of course, which half of truth you get depends on the political persuasion of the person you are asking.
Actually, what seems to matter is your complete inability to comprehend the fundamental principles behind the Republican party along with your flawed analysis of who the Republicans "embrace".
No, Democrats brought up his national guard service in the 2000 election, which prompted the Bush campaign to release documents proving his honorable discharge. It wasn't until 2004 when the Democrats forged some documents to try and make it an issue again.
The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention. That simply doesn't make any sense. That is akin to sending the Police out in the streets with nothing more than a sign that says "Please don't break the law". That situation would not be sustainable -- as soon as the police remove themselves from a position of authority, somebody else would step in to exert their own authority.
The same is true with nuclear proliferation. You can't "undiscover" the technology. If we disarm, that would only provide more incentive for the people whom we are trying to prevent from aquiring the technology to get some nukes.
Drastic action? This was a military exercise that had all upside and no downside. There is no valid reason why we shouldn't have given it a try. How is this drastic?
You can't assume that the hydrazine fuel inside the tank gets heated to 1400c. The tank is heavily insulated to protect the fuel from the temperature extremes on orbit.
First, can you provide a link that states this conclusively? Hydrazine propellant tanks are also made of steel, coated with titanium or other metals to prevent corrosion.
Second, even if the tank didn't melt, it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures. And as soon as the containment failed, the hydrazine would begin to decompose. Since it is a monopropellant, it wouldn't need the presence of another gas for this reaction to commence, and the entire tankful would break down in short order. Link: It was estimated to be carrying up to 450 kilograms of hazardous fuel called hydrazine, encased in a titanium tank.
That was just the first link that came up on a Google News search.
And you don't know what temperature the hydrazine fuel would reach inside the tank. Remember, the tank is heavily insulated to protect it against the extreme temperatures it would be subjected to during orbit.
I disagree. The reasons we shot it down were:
1) Because the risk to human life was non-zero
2) To prevent sensitive technology from going into the wrong hands. (You can bet that there would have been a mad dash to salvage at ground zero by just about everybody once it went down)
3) To further test our ABM technology.
4) To show everybody once again that we kick ass.
5) And most importantly: Because there were no downside to doing it. This wasn't a dangerous mission that put soldiers or civilian lives at risk. We launched a missile, and if it missed, no big deal, no harm done. But if it was a success, we can celebrate because of reasons #1-#4.
There really isn't any valid argument for not trying this operation.
No, all Rush did was point out that Fox appeared week after week in a TV drama and other Television appearances without any apparent symptoms, but when he appeared in a political ad with the very sharp political accusation that George Bush and Michael Steel didn't care about people like him, things were strikingly different. That is a pretty obvious manipulation, and it is perfectly valid to point that out. You will note that Limbaugh's harshest words were for the politicians who were behind this manipulation of Fox for their own political gain.
You will note that the parents post claimed (and the video from Fox confirmed) that "Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms".
This has everything to do with the political ad, along with his testimony to Congress.
I have listened to his show, and he is an ignorant bag of crap the represents everything that is wrong with the country.
Actually, I think that automatically dismissing somebody who disagrees with you as an "ignorant bag of crap" represents everything that is wrong with the country.
I sure hope so. If that were the case, that would mean a significant portion of the population would willingly be part of taking this whole killing and dying thing. That would suck.
Actually, it only takes a very small portion of the population to willingly be part of this whole killing and dying thing to compel a significant portion of the population to unwillingly be part of killing and dying to protect themselves and their countrymen.
Sounds like a great theory and all, until you realize that "your country" is only half of the equation in a potential conflict. History has shown that to some types of leaders, making an effort to "get along" is only a sign that you will be easy to conquer.
Let's pretend it's 1808. Do you think that the Iraq war would be seen as constitutional? If not, then what has changed? Certainly not the Constitution.
Absolutely, because Constitutionally there is no difference between a congressional resolution that says "We declare war on Iraq", and one that says "We give the President authorization to use military force against Iraq."
First of all, that isn't true. The first time US engaged in military activities against another nation without a formal declaration of war was in 1798 when Congress gave the the President specific authorization to attack French ships that were interfering with trade. This isn't a new phenomenon since the Korean war.
Congress doesn't have a "Constitutionally-granted responsibility of taking the nation to war". They have a Constitutionally-granted right to declare war, and the President has a Constitutionally-granted right to command the troops as Commander-in-chief. So far, every formal declaration of war by congress has been prompted by the President.
This isn't an obvious question, so I too am surprised that that many people got it right. From This Chart, it would appear that the 3rd ranking member is the Majority Leader, behind the Vice President (1st), and the President Pro Tempore (2nd).
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. That may well be true. But what does that have to do with anything? As you should probably already know, dismissing his teachings or doctrine because of that is a classical logical fallacy.
Interesting reply, considering that you don't know what references I've checked out or what my world view is.
But, never mind. You've read your hit piece and your mind is made up. It doesn't bother me a bit. I just chuckle at the irony in your accusation that those who didn't fall for the hit piece must be sheltered.
There. Now it's "pretty well documented" that you are a pedophile. Nice how that works, huh?
But I do find this accusation interesting considering it comes off a thread where the actions of a single man 20 years ago are being used as the basis of the "Republican Motto" today. I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan. But ignoring facts does. Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth. Unfortunately, forensic evidence isn't possible here because Burkett claims to have burned the originals. Hmmm. Why would he do that?
But plenty of evidence was presenting proving that the only machines that were capable of making that kind of typeface in that time period were far too expensive and difficult to operate for a secretary in a dusty national guard office. There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics. And it could have been the aliens who mistakenly beamed it to the wrong planet. And it could have been a million drunk monkeys typing on a million keyboards who accidentally produced the documents. Or it could have been a 7th grade reading paper that was accidentally turned into a leading Texas Democrat.
Dammit! We just don't know for sure! This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth. Indeed.
Actually, what seems to matter is your complete inability to comprehend the fundamental principles behind the Republican party along with your flawed analysis of who the Republicans "embrace".
No, Democrats brought up his national guard service in the 2000 election, which prompted the Bush campaign to release documents proving his honorable discharge. It wasn't until 2004 when the Democrats forged some documents to try and make it an issue again.
The same is true with nuclear proliferation. You can't "undiscover" the technology. If we disarm, that would only provide more incentive for the people whom we are trying to prevent from aquiring the technology to get some nukes.
Drastic action? This was a military exercise that had all upside and no downside. There is no valid reason why we shouldn't have given it a try. How is this drastic?
You can't assume that the hydrazine fuel inside the tank gets heated to 1400c. The tank is heavily insulated to protect the fuel from the temperature extremes on orbit.
Second, even if the tank didn't melt, it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures. And as soon as the containment failed, the hydrazine would begin to decompose. Since it is a monopropellant, it wouldn't need the presence of another gas for this reaction to commence, and the entire tankful would break down in short order. Link: It was estimated to be carrying up to 450 kilograms of hazardous fuel called hydrazine, encased in a titanium tank.
That was just the first link that came up on a Google News search.
And you don't know what temperature the hydrazine fuel would reach inside the tank. Remember, the tank is heavily insulated to protect it against the extreme temperatures it would be subjected to during orbit.
The tank was made of Titanium - melting point of 1700 degrees Celsius.
I disagree. The reasons we shot it down were:
1) Because the risk to human life was non-zero
2) To prevent sensitive technology from going into the wrong hands. (You can bet that there would have been a mad dash to salvage at ground zero by just about everybody once it went down)
3) To further test our ABM technology.
4) To show everybody once again that we kick ass.
5) And most importantly: Because there were no downside to doing it. This wasn't a dangerous mission that put soldiers or civilian lives at risk. We launched a missile, and if it missed, no big deal, no harm done. But if it was a success, we can celebrate because of reasons #1-#4.
There really isn't any valid argument for not trying this operation.
Well, the tank was specifically designed not to rupture, so it was questionable if it would be destroyed up on reentry or not.
I can guarantee you that there would be far more outrage if, but some minute chance, that tank had plowed into an orphanage full of kids.
No, all Rush did was point out that Fox appeared week after week in a TV drama and other Television appearances without any apparent symptoms, but when he appeared in a political ad with the very sharp political accusation that George Bush and Michael Steel didn't care about people like him, things were strikingly different. That is a pretty obvious manipulation, and it is perfectly valid to point that out. You will note that Limbaugh's harshest words were for the politicians who were behind this manipulation of Fox for their own political gain.
You will note that the parents post claimed (and the video from Fox confirmed) that "Fox later admitted that he purposely skips his medication before public events like this so people will see his worst case symptoms".
This has everything to do with the political ad, along with his testimony to Congress.
Actually, I think that automatically dismissing somebody who disagrees with you as an "ignorant bag of crap" represents everything that is wrong with the country.
Actually, it only takes a very small portion of the population to willingly be part of this whole killing and dying thing to compel a significant portion of the population to unwillingly be part of killing and dying to protect themselves and their countrymen.
Sounds like a great theory and all, until you realize that "your country" is only half of the equation in a potential conflict. History has shown that to some types of leaders, making an effort to "get along" is only a sign that you will be easy to conquer.
Absolutely, because Constitutionally there is no difference between a congressional resolution that says "We declare war on Iraq", and one that says "We give the President authorization to use military force against Iraq."
First of all, that isn't true. The first time US engaged in military activities against another nation without a formal declaration of war was in 1798 when Congress gave the the President specific authorization to attack French ships that were interfering with trade. This isn't a new phenomenon since the Korean war.
Congress doesn't have a "Constitutionally-granted responsibility of taking the nation to war". They have a Constitutionally-granted right to declare war, and the President has a Constitutionally-granted right to command the troops as Commander-in-chief. So far, every formal declaration of war by congress has been prompted by the President.
That all the people who immediately claim "voter fraud" when they don't like the outcome of the election are delusional?
I don't like HDTV, so nobody else should like HDTV.
This isn't an obvious question, so I too am surprised that that many people got it right. From This Chart, it would appear that the 3rd ranking member is the Majority Leader, behind the Vice President (1st), and the President Pro Tempore (2nd).