when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored
It is the UN's authority and jurisdiction gave us this responsibility (not right) to act against Iraq this week. There are 17 unanimously passed UNSEC resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement of the resolution in the case of non-compliance. Even France voted for this 17 times. The only people who are ignoring the UN are those who refuse to enforce the 17 resolutions that require the UN to act.
you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction
Come on! Listen to yourself and this ridiculous stance you are taking. There is no dispute that Iraq had WMD -- it is a plain and simple fact. The UN resolutions required Iraq to destroy these weapons in the presence of UN Observers. Saddam waffled on this for 8 years and eventually kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and for the past 4 years (until last December) he had absolutely no supervision on his weapons program. You are insanely arguing that he secretly disposed of these weapons on his own even though he knew he had to provide proof that they were destroyed, and has been hiding the evidence even though he knew he would be attacked because of it. Give me a break!
In reality, he is harassing the UN inspectors, and has even killed his Missile chief because he didn't want the UN to pry any secret information from him. Does this sound like the actions of an innocent man who has already done everything we asked him to do?
they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago
President Bush talked about the people of Iraq in his first state of the Union address 14 months ago. Amnesty International has been talking about the people of Iraq for years, as had the Human Rights Watch. If you have not heard people talking about the people of Iraq, it's because you haven't been listening.
the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.
Ah. We get to the root of your argument. You are not anti-war, you are anti-capitalist. In fact, the entire anti-war movement appears to be motivated by political idealology rather than any kind of respect for peace or humanity. Otherwise we would have seen protests in the street when Clinton was bombing passenger trains in Kosovo and lobbing cruise missiles towards Iraq and Afghanistan. The deafening silence from the left when Clinton was in office doing the very same thing speaks volumes for your motivations today. You don't care one bit about Iraqi civilians or peace, you just don't like President Bush and see this as an opportunity to undermine his presidency.
I'm sure you have heard the oil rebuttals many times, but I'll give it another shot. Opening up the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves will only do one thing: cause oil prices to plummet. The US oil companies don't get the Iraqi oil because it has already been earmarked by the UN for the rebuilding of Iraq. The only thing the US oil companies get is a 30% reduction in revenue when oil prices drop.
Besides, if the US wanted to seize the worlds oil supply, why haven't we done anything in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Kuwait (I mean, we already have troops there, and they don't have any mustard gas or VX waiting for us)? Or why didn't we do it in Iraq 12 years ago?
Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. The connection is clear -- both Iraq and Al Queda have a common goal of destroying America. We know what Bin Laden said last month, and we also know that Iraq was the only country that did not offer any sympathy after the 9/11 attacks. It is obvious that they are sympathetic to each others cause even if they do not agree idealogically with each other.
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda
I believe that not fighting this war would strengthen Al-Queda. Some of the constant rhetoric that we hear from Bin Laden every time he makes an appearance is that we (Americans) are weak cowards. Proving to him that we indeed are not willing to fight for what we think is right would be a much greater recruiting tool than showing recruits pictures of the kinds of bombs that we will be using against them. Both Iraq and Al-Queda would be emboldened by our non-action.
I'd say that 16 people after 2 days of bombing proves that the US is avoiding civilian targets with extreeme care.
Also, Baghdad still has power and radio/TV, which typically are the first targets of a city. This war is proceeding with surgical precision with the idea that Iraq will need to be rebuilt.
I guess you missed the Bin Laden tape recording last month where Osama called for the Arab world to "unite in support of Iraq" and fight against the Americans.
Its no secret that Osama thinks that Hussein is an infidel, and it is also no secret that they both have a common goal to destroy America and our way of life.
I don't know the reasons why, but I find it interesting that he told Dan Rather just a few weeks ago that he wouldn't set fire to the oil fields under any conditions.
Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
Nice try. The prosecutor in that case hired Private Detectives to get an accounting of the adult intertainment served by Hotel pay-per-view. Stop to think why this may be flawed. Lets see here, the people that stay in hotels are travelling, and thus are not from the community. All that says is that people that are visiting Utah watch more pr0n.
Oh, and from your linked article:
None of the corporate leaders of AT&T, Time Warner, General Motors, EchoStar, Liberty Media, Marriott International, the Hilton, On Command, LodgeNet Entertainment or News Corp. -- all companies that have a big financial stake in adult films and are held by millions of shareholders -- were willing to speak publicly about the sex side of their businesses.
How can anybody claim to know how much revenue is obtained from adult material in Utah when the companies selling it won't even tell?
so there need to be artificial controls put in place to redirect wealth.
There is a word for this. Its called "communism".
Trickle down economics are a load of bullshit
Here is a good read to debunk your argument against supply-side economics.
When the rich make money they invest it, rather than spending it. That's how they stay rich. When less affluent people make money, they spend it, because they have to do so in order to survive. They don't usually have investment portfolios.
First of all, the rich investing money does help the poor. When they invest money, interest rates drop, and the companies that employ the poor prosper with the infusion of cash. This means the poor are getting pay raises and can afford a house. Second, if the poor started following what the rich do, maybe they wouldn't be poor any more. This means the poor should have investment portfolios and should be investing instead of spending. In a free market, everybody has the chance.
the free market naturally supports the 'rich get richer' concept
The "rich get righer" concept is baloney. The correct way to phrase it is "the rich continue to do the things that made them rich, and the poor continue to do the things that made them poor". The free market supports anybody who goes out and does things to make them rich. Artificial controls are not the answer -- hard work and financial intellect are.
Lets see. The parents assertion was that republicans are the only people passing censorship legislation.
Did Tipper Gore write the Child Online Protection Act?
The COPA was co-authored by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic president, and defended by a democratic attorney general.
Did she sponsor the Communications Decency Act
No, but it was sponsered by Sen. James Exon, a Democrat (not to mention signed into law by Bill Clinton, and struck down by the republican supreme court).
Was she behind the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?
No, but Clinton Appointee Bruce Lehman was the author of the DMCA.
How is a U.S. "worker" going to prosper when his job is being done by some guy in India?
The is no shortage of demand for skilled workers in the US. India can have as many of the $6/hour tech support jobs they want, its not going to affect us in the long run.
Reagan's experiments in trickle-down economics proved that they did not work
Wrong. They did work and they worked very well. Reagan economics has been recognized by many economists as very successful.
Here is a good read on the Reagan economic record. Some points:
Average economic growth during the Reagan years was 3.2%, compared to 1.3% by Bush Sr. and 2.6% by Clinton (through his 1st term, when this report was issued, we know now that any growth in his second term was completely artificial, as evicenced by the dot-com burst that occured in his last year, and the amount of accounting scandals that date back into the Clinton years).
The poorest 20% experienced a 6% increase in income during the Reagan years, compared to a 3% loss in the post-Reagan years.
Minorities experience a 11% increase in household income during the Reagan years, compared to a 2% increase in the post-Reagan years. (Whites were +11% during Reagan, -3.8% after Reagan)
Everybody across all income ranges experienced a growth in income. It was not the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer", it was "the rich and the poor got richer".
Federal Revenue grew 24% during the 8 year Reagan period. Defense spending only grew.6% as a percentage of the federal deficit.
What moral right do you have to punish a woman for choosing an abortion?
What moral right do we have to punish anybody for anything? It makes no sense to punish a murderer, protest a war on the grounds of humanity, and then turn around and agree that women should have the right to murder thier children without any recourse.
Republicans tend to want to censor speech more than the dems, so the dems win this one
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion because the biggest driving force behind censorship in the past decade has been Tipper Gore, a Democrat.
Republicans want to search you, your house, your moms house etc in the name of the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terror"
Clinton spent more on the so-called war on drugs than Bush did. As for the war on terror, how many times has Ashcroft come banging on your door to search your house? Aside from it taking 5 minutes longer to get through airport security, my freedoms are the same as they were on September 10th, 2001. My guess is this really isn't the issue. You don't care about the 4th amendment, you just don't like Bush and Ashcroft. I would be willing to bet that you would be among the first out there calling for Bush's head if he wasn't fighting the war on terror and another terrorist atack happened.
Abortion - Well in reality making it illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, it simply makes it punishable. so even if you are against abortion, you have to realize outlawing it is futile
Oh boy. Might as well take bank robbery and capital murder of the books because making those illegal certainly has not prevented that from happening. Come to think about it, there probably isn't a law on the books that has not been broken at some point or another. Might as well get rid of all the laws because they are all futile!
The whole point of making a law is to make it punishable because there is no way that any law can be prevented 100% of the time. By attaching a punishment, you discourage the smart people that don't want to get the punishment attached to the crime.
How anyone can vote for something that will reduce their wages, reduce their health care, make them work longer hours all so that some asshole in a board room can export thier job to india to make even more money is beyond me.
You have it backwards here. Workers prosper when corporations prosper. You can place all of the regulations and minimum wages that you want, but when companies fail because of it, the workers are not any better off. Its simple "trickle down" economics: As the rich spend big bucks, it trickles down to everybody and everybody makes more money. The less money the rich have to spend, the worse the economy does.
spend money on educating our children so that they will be prepared to lead our country when they inherit it, or cut spending in schools and parks & rec programs only to eventually spend more money on jails to house our misguided uneducated forgotten youth
First, I don't know where you are getting this idea. This is more of a clueless rant than anything that is based on reality. The republican administration passed a very good education bill less than 2 years ago. Second, look at how much money Clinton threw at public schools when he was in office. Are you really trying to say that schools are any better off because of that?
Republicans are greedy assholes who can afford private shools for their children.
Ah, we get to the root of your position. Basically, you don't like it when people are more successful to you, so you spend your time convincing yourself that the only reason those rich bastards have any money is because they stepped all over you to get it. The thing you don't realize is that if you didn't waste your time complaining, you could be getting off your ass and making money yourself.
And your entire private school rant is completely misguided. Those rich bastards that send their kids to private school are also paying taxes that go towards public schools. So they have to pay for a school that their kids will never set foot in. How is that damaging to the poor?
Oh, and the idea that the rich are all republicans is moronic. 8 of the top 10 richest senator
the Athlon seems to do a good job keeping up with the P4, and at a lower price...The Athlon XP 3000+ has essentially the same performance as a P4
If you did a little research, you would find that the XP 3000+ is actually $9 more expensive than the Pentium 4 3.06GHz. The XP 2800+ is $22 more expensive than the P4 2.8GHz.
I'd say about 50% of poor people are poor because they're stupid, and the other 50% are poor because they're oppressed
What the heck does this mean? The poor are no more "oppressed" than the rich are. If a rich guy doesn't pay his bills, you can bet that people are going to go after them just as much as a poor man that doesn't pay.
I'd also say that about 20% of rich people are rich because they're shrewd, and the other 80% are rich because they're priveleged...it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know
And I'd say that you are full of crap. If knowledge had absolutely no bearing on your wealth, why is it that a college graduate earns 60% more on average than somebody with a high school diploma? While I don't deny that some people are rich because of a priveleged position that they were in, it is certainly not a limiting factor. Some of the richest people in the world started out without knowing anybody (think of the Sam Waltons and Bill Gates of the world).
while another man - with just as much talent and integrity - is forced to work at McDonalds and get nickeled-and-dimed to death...
I would say this other man is most definately not as talented, otherwise he wouldn't be working for McDonalds. It doesn't take any talent at all to sit around and bemoan the great injustices that have been heaped upon you, while blaming the rich or privileged for all of your problems. A truly talented person would find a way to use his skills constructively, regardless of this position.
There's gotta be a better way.
Well, thats fine and dandy. A typical leftist approach is to find fault with anything they disagree with, but when it comes to actually providing a constructive alternative, they suddenly fall silent.
I'll give you a hint. Currently, there is not a better way than the way we do things. Capitalism is the only system that has shown constant success over the past 200+ years. Note that the alternatives have all been dismal failures.
What you are preaching is communism. If you take away the incentive to develop or research these cures, then nobody will develop or research them. Are we any better off then?
How can you be so sure that they do not have nuclear capability? All we know is that they are actively trying to get nuclear capability. In fact, when France sold Iraq a Nuclear generator to build a "power plant" (even though they live on top of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world) in the 80's, many experts agreed that they would have had nuclear weapons by the time the first Gulf war rolled around. (Fortunately, this made Israel a bit to nervous, so they took the generator out with an air strike).
North Korea is very different because they have told us that they have nukes. The only reason you tell the world that you have nukes is to gain diplomatic leverage, which is something North Korea desperately needs now considering their economic situation. On the other hand, the only reason you would develop nukes and not tell the world is so that you can use them.
Iraq is causing a general disruption to world peace
Iraq is causing a general disruption to the global economy (because of the current instability in the middle east)
Iraq is already breeding terrorists
Iraq already has WMD and has shown a propensity of using them
Innocent civilians are already being killed
Iraq should disarm for the same reasons Hitler was forced to disarm.
And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do.
Is this as silly as sitting around and waiting for them to try and destroy us? In a post 9/11 world, we cannot afford to wait and see what our enemies are willing to do to us. Saddam has clearly stated that he wants to destroy the US, and has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to use WMD (against the Kurds). Is this a chance you are willing to take?
What should then? The Patent process can't be that subjective because there is no clear place to draw a line where something should and should not require a patent.
This Amazon patent is common sense. If Amazon didn't patent common ideas like this, you'd better bet that somebody else would. This is a pre-emptive strike by Amazon to make sure they don't end up on the wrong end of a patent dispute.
I highly doubt that Amazon lawyers will be banging on the door of every other web store asking for royalties. They are just making sure nobody else will be banging on their own door.
Inflexible? For a company that makes everything from expensive enterprise server tools to gaming consoles to development tools to Media Computers to keyboards to consumer software (with a 90% market share), inflexible is about the last word I would use to describe Microsoft.
Whats the matter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?
Nah, you can call me as many names as you want. Believe me, anything that would come from the likes of you won't bother me a bit. I just found it hypocritical that you thought it was acceptable to call somebody a name in the same sentence you were codemning them for calling name.
The media is republican...The press is overwhelmingly republican there is no disputing that
The only area of media where conservatives have an edge is in the talk radio business. And that is only because nobody listens to liberal talk shows (I mean, all they really do is complain, and who wants to listen to that? Put a liberal in a talk show setting where people call in to debate and that liberal would be completely lost).
As for the rest of the news media (print and broadcast), it is hopelessly slanted to the left. From Peter Jennings calling Bush a coward on 9/11, to Katie Couric calling Reagan an "air head", there is clear bias in the media. CNN Political reporter Judy Woodruff has flat out admitted that she hates George W. Bush and thinks he is a spoiled brat. Thats objective. The NY Times has called Bush the "most anti-civil rights president" yet, despite the fact that he has the most racially diverse cabinet in history. Ted Turner (who used to be the #1 media mogul, up until last week) has been quoted as saying he is a "socialist at heart". Do want to ignore this and still claim there is a republican bias in the media?
Not that you will actually visit these places, but The Media Research Center and Fight The Bias will document on a daily basis the left wing bias in the media today. But I suspect you won't bother to click those links -- its much to easy for you to ignore blatant facts.
No, I said that it was an attempt to obey state law, I didn't say they did it correctly. They settled because the management of the lists did provide the opportunity for error, and so they changed the proceedure again. The settlement targets the county election officials (not Catherine Harris or Jeb Bush) that blindly used the list without any verification of the names, even though only 5 names have been found that were incorrectly included on the list.
By the way, this list was originated in 1998 by Ethel Baxtor, the Florida Division of Elections Director, a Democrat. Not Jeb Bush or Catherine Harris. Catherine Harris wasn't even in office yet.
While yield may drop with a larger die size, a more important factor is the die size itself. If your wafer costs are $3000 per wafer, and a smaller chip can fit 400 die on each wafer but the larger chip can only fit 150, you are getting 62% less die for the same amount of money.
Boy, you really don't like to face the facts, do you?
I don't know who this Greg Palast is... Greg Palast is the only person that has decided this was a big enough story to report it. Interestinly enough, this nutcase isn't even an American, so who knows why he is so interested in illegitimizing the Bush presidency.
It was an effort to put obstacles in front of black people to discourage and prevent people from voting. Wrong. It was an effort (driven by both parties, not just Jeb Bush) to clean the voter registration lists of all unregistered voters. This included convicted felons, as well as other irregularities (such as dead people who were supposidly voting in the 1998 election). Thats right -- it was an effort driven by both parties, not some evil plot that Jeb Bush thought up to prevent blacks from voting against him.
You can not prevent people from voting unless they jump through your hoops
Correct. Thats why the state of Florida implemented most of the corrective action before they even settled with the NAACP.
Blame the victim and excuse the criminal
This was the proceedure that was agreed upon by everybody involved. If you got a letter in the mail telling you that you needed to confirm your voter registration with local authorities, wouldn't you respond? Or would you wait until after the election and complain?
Republicanazi response number two. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a commie, socialist, pinko fag, atheist, tree hugging feminst facist". I have heard it many times from dittoheads like you
"Republicanazi"?? And we are the only people here guilty of name calling?
The fact that the American media has not followed this story tells me that the media is overwhlmingly republican. Liberals have no voice.
Now this line makes me think you are just simply trolling here. If you really believe this, I strongly suggest that you pay more attention to what the media reports and how they report it.
Actually, all of the facts that I listed were gleaned from the article written by Greg Palast himself. Yes, he is the socialist, left-wing BBC mukraker who apparently has decided to devote his life trying to illigetimize the Bush presidency (you only have to visit his web site for 30 seconds to figure that out).
Slashdot Mirror
when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored
It is the UN's authority and jurisdiction gave us this responsibility (not right) to act against Iraq this week. There are 17 unanimously passed UNSEC resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter, which requires enforcement of the resolution in the case of non-compliance. Even France voted for this 17 times. The only people who are ignoring the UN are those who refuse to enforce the 17 resolutions that require the UN to act.
you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction
Come on! Listen to yourself and this ridiculous stance you are taking. There is no dispute that Iraq had WMD -- it is a plain and simple fact. The UN resolutions required Iraq to destroy these weapons in the presence of UN Observers. Saddam waffled on this for 8 years and eventually kicked the UN inspectors out of the country and for the past 4 years (until last December) he had absolutely no supervision on his weapons program. You are insanely arguing that he secretly disposed of these weapons on his own even though he knew he had to provide proof that they were destroyed, and has been hiding the evidence even though he knew he would be attacked because of it. Give me a break!
In reality, he is harassing the UN inspectors, and has even killed his Missile chief because he didn't want the UN to pry any secret information from him. Does this sound like the actions of an innocent man who has already done everything we asked him to do?
they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago
President Bush talked about the people of Iraq in his first state of the Union address 14 months ago. Amnesty International has been talking about the people of Iraq for years, as had the Human Rights Watch. If you have not heard people talking about the people of Iraq, it's because you haven't been listening.
the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.
Ah. We get to the root of your argument. You are not anti-war, you are anti-capitalist. In fact, the entire anti-war movement appears to be motivated by political idealology rather than any kind of respect for peace or humanity. Otherwise we would have seen protests in the street when Clinton was bombing passenger trains in Kosovo and lobbing cruise missiles towards Iraq and Afghanistan. The deafening silence from the left when Clinton was in office doing the very same thing speaks volumes for your motivations today. You don't care one bit about Iraqi civilians or peace, you just don't like President Bush and see this as an opportunity to undermine his presidency.
I'm sure you have heard the oil rebuttals many times, but I'll give it another shot. Opening up the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves will only do one thing: cause oil prices to plummet. The US oil companies don't get the Iraqi oil because it has already been earmarked by the UN for the rebuilding of Iraq. The only thing the US oil companies get is a 30% reduction in revenue when oil prices drop.
Besides, if the US wanted to seize the worlds oil supply, why haven't we done anything in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Kuwait (I mean, we already have troops there, and they don't have any mustard gas or VX waiting for us)? Or why didn't we do it in Iraq 12 years ago?
Interesting theory, but I don't buy it. The connection is clear -- both Iraq and Al Queda have a common goal of destroying America. We know what Bin Laden said last month, and we also know that Iraq was the only country that did not offer any sympathy after the 9/11 attacks. It is obvious that they are sympathetic to each others cause even if they do not agree idealogically with each other.
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda
I believe that not fighting this war would strengthen Al-Queda. Some of the constant rhetoric that we hear from Bin Laden every time he makes an appearance is that we (Americans) are weak cowards. Proving to him that we indeed are not willing to fight for what we think is right would be a much greater recruiting tool than showing recruits pictures of the kinds of bombs that we will be using against them. Both Iraq and Al-Queda would be emboldened by our non-action.
I'd say that 16 people after 2 days of bombing proves that the US is avoiding civilian targets with extreeme care.
Also, Baghdad still has power and radio/TV, which typically are the first targets of a city. This war is proceeding with surgical precision with the idea that Iraq will need to be rebuilt.
I guess you missed the Bin Laden tape recording last month where Osama called for the Arab world to "unite in support of Iraq" and fight against the Americans.
Its no secret that Osama thinks that Hussein is an infidel, and it is also no secret that they both have a common goal to destroy America and our way of life.
I don't know the reasons why, but I find it interesting that he told Dan Rather just a few weeks ago that he wouldn't set fire to the oil fields under any conditions.
Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
Nice try. The prosecutor in that case hired Private Detectives to get an accounting of the adult intertainment served by Hotel pay-per-view. Stop to think why this may be flawed. Lets see here, the people that stay in hotels are travelling, and thus are not from the community. All that says is that people that are visiting Utah watch more pr0n.
Oh, and from your linked article:
None of the corporate leaders of AT&T, Time Warner, General Motors, EchoStar, Liberty Media, Marriott International, the Hilton, On Command, LodgeNet Entertainment or News Corp. -- all companies that have a big financial stake in adult films and are held by millions of shareholders -- were willing to speak publicly about the sex side of their businesses.
How can anybody claim to know how much revenue is obtained from adult material in Utah when the companies selling it won't even tell?
so there need to be artificial controls put in place to redirect wealth.
There is a word for this. Its called "communism".
Trickle down economics are a load of bullshit
Here is a good read to debunk your argument against supply-side economics.
When the rich make money they invest it, rather than spending it. That's how they stay rich. When less affluent people make money, they spend it, because they have to do so in order to survive. They don't usually have investment portfolios.
First of all, the rich investing money does help the poor. When they invest money, interest rates drop, and the companies that employ the poor prosper with the infusion of cash. This means the poor are getting pay raises and can afford a house. Second, if the poor started following what the rich do, maybe they wouldn't be poor any more. This means the poor should have investment portfolios and should be investing instead of spending. In a free market, everybody has the chance.
the free market naturally supports the 'rich get richer' concept
The "rich get righer" concept is baloney. The correct way to phrase it is "the rich continue to do the things that made them rich, and the poor continue to do the things that made them poor". The free market supports anybody who goes out and does things to make them rich. Artificial controls are not the answer -- hard work and financial intellect are.
Did Tipper Gore write the Child Online Protection Act?
The COPA was co-authored by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic president, and defended by a democratic attorney general.
Did she sponsor the Communications Decency Act
No, but it was sponsered by Sen. James Exon, a Democrat (not to mention signed into law by Bill Clinton, and struck down by the republican supreme court).
Was she behind the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?
No, but Clinton Appointee Bruce Lehman was the author of the DMCA.
How is a U.S. "worker" going to prosper when his job is being done by some guy in India?
The is no shortage of demand for skilled workers in the US. India can have as many of the $6/hour tech support jobs they want, its not going to affect us in the long run.
Reagan's experiments in trickle-down economics proved that they did not work
Wrong. They did work and they worked very well. Reagan economics has been recognized by many economists as very successful.
Here is a good read on the Reagan economic record. Some points:
Average economic growth during the Reagan years was 3.2%, compared to 1.3% by Bush Sr. and 2.6% by Clinton (through his 1st term, when this report was issued, we know now that any growth in his second term was completely artificial, as evicenced by the dot-com burst that occured in his last year, and the amount of accounting scandals that date back into the Clinton years).
The poorest 20% experienced a 6% increase in income during the Reagan years, compared to a 3% loss in the post-Reagan years.
Minorities experience a 11% increase in household income during the Reagan years, compared to a 2% increase in the post-Reagan years. (Whites were +11% during Reagan, -3.8% after Reagan)
Everybody across all income ranges experienced a growth in income. It was not the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer", it was "the rich and the poor got richer".
Federal Revenue grew 24% during the 8 year Reagan period. Defense spending only grew .6% as a percentage of the federal deficit.
What moral right do you have to punish a woman for choosing an abortion?
What moral right do we have to punish anybody for anything? It makes no sense to punish a murderer, protest a war on the grounds of humanity, and then turn around and agree that women should have the right to murder thier children without any recourse.
Exactly. My point is, why make a big deal about AMD announcing it when Intel has had this in the works for almost 6 months?
You poor misguided fool.
Republicans tend to want to censor speech more than the dems, so the dems win this one
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion because the biggest driving force behind censorship in the past decade has been Tipper Gore, a Democrat.
Republicans want to search you, your house, your moms house etc in the name of the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terror"
Clinton spent more on the so-called war on drugs than Bush did. As for the war on terror, how many times has Ashcroft come banging on your door to search your house? Aside from it taking 5 minutes longer to get through airport security, my freedoms are the same as they were on September 10th, 2001. My guess is this really isn't the issue. You don't care about the 4th amendment, you just don't like Bush and Ashcroft. I would be willing to bet that you would be among the first out there calling for Bush's head if he wasn't fighting the war on terror and another terrorist atack happened.
Abortion - Well in reality making it illegal doesn't prevent it from happening, it simply makes it punishable. so even if you are against abortion, you have to realize outlawing it is futile
Oh boy. Might as well take bank robbery and capital murder of the books because making those illegal certainly has not prevented that from happening. Come to think about it, there probably isn't a law on the books that has not been broken at some point or another. Might as well get rid of all the laws because they are all futile!
The whole point of making a law is to make it punishable because there is no way that any law can be prevented 100% of the time. By attaching a punishment, you discourage the smart people that don't want to get the punishment attached to the crime.
How anyone can vote for something that will reduce their wages, reduce their health care, make them work longer hours all so that some asshole in a board room can export thier job to india to make even more money is beyond me.
You have it backwards here. Workers prosper when corporations prosper. You can place all of the regulations and minimum wages that you want, but when companies fail because of it, the workers are not any better off. Its simple "trickle down" economics: As the rich spend big bucks, it trickles down to everybody and everybody makes more money. The less money the rich have to spend, the worse the economy does.
spend money on educating our children so that they will be prepared to lead our country when they inherit it, or cut spending in schools and parks & rec programs only to eventually spend more money on jails to house our misguided uneducated forgotten youth
First, I don't know where you are getting this idea. This is more of a clueless rant than anything that is based on reality. The republican administration passed a very good education bill less than 2 years ago. Second, look at how much money Clinton threw at public schools when he was in office. Are you really trying to say that schools are any better off because of that?
Republicans are greedy assholes who can afford private shools for their children.
Ah, we get to the root of your position. Basically, you don't like it when people are more successful to you, so you spend your time convincing yourself that the only reason those rich bastards have any money is because they stepped all over you to get it. The thing you don't realize is that if you didn't waste your time complaining, you could be getting off your ass and making money yourself.
And your entire private school rant is completely misguided. Those rich bastards that send their kids to private school are also paying taxes that go towards public schools. So they have to pay for a school that their kids will never set foot in. How is that damaging to the poor?
Oh, and the idea that the rich are all republicans is moronic. 8 of the top 10 richest senator
Why is this a big deal when Intel is moving to 2x faster (800MHz) bus later this year?
the Athlon seems to do a good job keeping up with the P4, and at a lower price...The Athlon XP 3000+ has essentially the same performance as a P4
If you did a little research, you would find that the XP 3000+ is actually $9 more expensive than the Pentium 4 3.06GHz. The XP 2800+ is $22 more expensive than the P4 2.8GHz.
I'd say about 50% of poor people are poor because they're stupid, and the other 50% are poor because they're oppressed
What the heck does this mean? The poor are no more "oppressed" than the rich are. If a rich guy doesn't pay his bills, you can bet that people are going to go after them just as much as a poor man that doesn't pay.
I'd also say that about 20% of rich people are rich because they're shrewd, and the other 80% are rich because they're priveleged...it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know
And I'd say that you are full of crap. If knowledge had absolutely no bearing on your wealth, why is it that a college graduate earns 60% more on average than somebody with a high school diploma? While I don't deny that some people are rich because of a priveleged position that they were in, it is certainly not a limiting factor. Some of the richest people in the world started out without knowing anybody (think of the Sam Waltons and Bill Gates of the world).
while another man - with just as much talent and integrity - is forced to work at McDonalds and get nickeled-and-dimed to death...
I would say this other man is most definately not as talented, otherwise he wouldn't be working for McDonalds. It doesn't take any talent at all to sit around and bemoan the great injustices that have been heaped upon you, while blaming the rich or privileged for all of your problems. A truly talented person would find a way to use his skills constructively, regardless of this position.
There's gotta be a better way.
Well, thats fine and dandy. A typical leftist approach is to find fault with anything they disagree with, but when it comes to actually providing a constructive alternative, they suddenly fall silent.
I'll give you a hint. Currently, there is not a better way than the way we do things. Capitalism is the only system that has shown constant success over the past 200+ years. Note that the alternatives have all been dismal failures.
What you are preaching is communism. If you take away the incentive to develop or research these cures, then nobody will develop or research them. Are we any better off then?
How can you be so sure that they do not have nuclear capability? All we know is that they are actively trying to get nuclear capability. In fact, when France sold Iraq a Nuclear generator to build a "power plant" (even though they live on top of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world) in the 80's, many experts agreed that they would have had nuclear weapons by the time the first Gulf war rolled around. (Fortunately, this made Israel a bit to nervous, so they took the generator out with an air strike).
North Korea is very different because they have told us that they have nukes. The only reason you tell the world that you have nukes is to gain diplomatic leverage, which is something North Korea desperately needs now considering their economic situation. On the other hand, the only reason you would develop nukes and not tell the world is so that you can use them.
Iraq is causing a general disruption to world peace
Iraq is causing a general disruption to the global economy (because of the current instability in the middle east)
Iraq is already breeding terrorists
Iraq already has WMD and has shown a propensity of using them
Innocent civilians are already being killed
Iraq should disarm for the same reasons Hitler was forced to disarm.
And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do.
Is this as silly as sitting around and waiting for them to try and destroy us? In a post 9/11 world, we cannot afford to wait and see what our enemies are willing to do to us. Saddam has clearly stated that he wants to destroy the US, and has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to use WMD (against the Kurds). Is this a chance you are willing to take?
Something like this should not require a patent.
What should then? The Patent process can't be that subjective because there is no clear place to draw a line where something should and should not require a patent.
This Amazon patent is common sense. If Amazon didn't patent common ideas like this, you'd better bet that somebody else would. This is a pre-emptive strike by Amazon to make sure they don't end up on the wrong end of a patent dispute.
I highly doubt that Amazon lawyers will be banging on the door of every other web store asking for royalties. They are just making sure nobody else will be banging on their own door.
Microsoft is a big, inflexible company
Inflexible? For a company that makes everything from expensive enterprise server tools to gaming consoles to development tools to Media Computers to keyboards to consumer software (with a 90% market share), inflexible is about the last word I would use to describe Microsoft.
Can you please explain how turning a $600k investment in the Texas Rangers into $15 Million is a failure?
Whats the matter? You can dish it out but you can't take it?
Nah, you can call me as many names as you want. Believe me, anything that would come from the likes of you won't bother me a bit. I just found it hypocritical that you thought it was acceptable to call somebody a name in the same sentence you were codemning them for calling name.
The media is republican...The press is overwhelmingly republican there is no disputing that
The only area of media where conservatives have an edge is in the talk radio business. And that is only because nobody listens to liberal talk shows (I mean, all they really do is complain, and who wants to listen to that? Put a liberal in a talk show setting where people call in to debate and that liberal would be completely lost).
As for the rest of the news media (print and broadcast), it is hopelessly slanted to the left. From Peter Jennings calling Bush a coward on 9/11, to Katie Couric calling Reagan an "air head", there is clear bias in the media. CNN Political reporter Judy Woodruff has flat out admitted that she hates George W. Bush and thinks he is a spoiled brat. Thats objective. The NY Times has called Bush the "most anti-civil rights president" yet, despite the fact that he has the most racially diverse cabinet in history. Ted Turner (who used to be the #1 media mogul, up until last week) has been quoted as saying he is a "socialist at heart". Do want to ignore this and still claim there is a republican bias in the media?
Not that you will actually visit these places, but The Media Research Center and Fight The Bias will document on a daily basis the left wing bias in the media today. But I suspect you won't bother to click those links -- its much to easy for you to ignore blatant facts.
No, I said that it was an attempt to obey state law, I didn't say they did it correctly. They settled because the management of the lists did provide the opportunity for error, and so they changed the proceedure again. The settlement targets the county election officials (not Catherine Harris or Jeb Bush) that blindly used the list without any verification of the names, even though only 5 names have been found that were incorrectly included on the list.
By the way, this list was originated in 1998 by Ethel Baxtor, the Florida Division of Elections Director, a Democrat. Not Jeb Bush or Catherine Harris. Catherine Harris wasn't even in office yet.
While yield may drop with a larger die size, a more important factor is the die size itself. If your wafer costs are $3000 per wafer, and a smaller chip can fit 400 die on each wafer but the larger chip can only fit 150, you are getting 62% less die for the same amount of money.
Boy, you really don't like to face the facts, do you?
I don't know who this Greg Palast is...
Greg Palast is the only person that has decided this was a big enough story to report it. Interestinly enough, this nutcase isn't even an American, so who knows why he is so interested in illegitimizing the Bush presidency.
It was an effort to put obstacles in front of black people to discourage and prevent people from voting.
Wrong. It was an effort (driven by both parties, not just Jeb Bush) to clean the voter registration lists of all unregistered voters. This included convicted felons, as well as other irregularities (such as dead people who were supposidly voting in the 1998 election). Thats right -- it was an effort driven by both parties, not some evil plot that Jeb Bush thought up to prevent blacks from voting against him.
You can not prevent people from voting unless they jump through your hoops
Correct. Thats why the state of Florida implemented most of the corrective action before they even settled with the NAACP.
Blame the victim and excuse the criminal
This was the proceedure that was agreed upon by everybody involved. If you got a letter in the mail telling you that you needed to confirm your voter registration with local authorities, wouldn't you respond? Or would you wait until after the election and complain?
Republicanazi response number two. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a commie, socialist, pinko fag, atheist, tree hugging feminst facist". I have heard it many times from dittoheads like you
"Republicanazi"?? And we are the only people here guilty of name calling?
The fact that the American media has not followed this story tells me that the media is overwhlmingly republican. Liberals have no voice.
Now this line makes me think you are just simply trolling here. If you really believe this, I strongly suggest that you pay more attention to what the media reports and how they report it.
Actually, all of the facts that I listed were gleaned from the article written by Greg Palast himself. Yes, he is the socialist, left-wing BBC mukraker who apparently has decided to devote his life trying to illigetimize the Bush presidency (you only have to visit his web site for 30 seconds to figure that out).