yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
What bias do you have against Christians? Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil?
If you learn one thing in this life, I pray that you actually learn to have an open mind, instead of just professing to have one.
I think you're missing the point. The point is you've pissed off all of your customers and made a large portion of your base feel like criminals - so much so that now they are no longer customers. That's the point. i.e. When's the last time I bought a CD? I've bought a total of 1 I think this year. $$$$ is also a big deal. $15-$20 for a new CD is really just too damn expensive.
As for the genetic implications that the article implies , this article totally screwed up... Kind of makes you want to throw the whole article out...
"America's experimentation with genetics as a tool for social change is not new. In the 1920s the United States..."
1920s = "experimentation with genetics"? I think NOT.
As for sterilizing a woman who can't keep her legs shut? Some might think that's a good thing. Especially when she a) leeches off of society and uses her children to do so and/or b) society has to take care of those children because she can't.
So if you punch me in the nose, and you know in advance I might kill you if you do, then there's no culpability on your part? The utter stupidty of the palestinians for this is crazy. The parents of the kids throwing rocks should be the ones being shot, not the kids. And they should be shot for a) not taking care of the kids. If they were, their kids wouldn't be THROWING the DAMN ROCKs in the first place. There are better ways to protest than sending your children off to kill themselves.
Of course, if the Arabs wouldn't have attacked Isreal in the first place, this whole thing might not exist today. And people that we call palestinians today might still be considered Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian.
But I digress.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Um. I dunno. But that looks pretty clear to me. Whether it's a formal Militia or not is irrelevant. The point is, it's there. Too bad if you disagree. Denial doesn't win your argument.
Yep, and you still use spanning tree. Think multilayer switched networks and vlans not the antiquated central routers and a bunch of switches hanging off of it tying you to whatever subnet your switch happens to be uplinked to. These days you can move across the campus, plug into a completely seperate switch, have your port set automatically via policy manager, and keep working using the same IP address and subnet. You still use spanning tree for loop avoidance and redundancy with these multilayer switches though.
You can, but you are just adding unneeded complexity to the network by spanning segments across the WAN. I also understand that they may be one large campus, but you have two choices - either a network that the doctors design (by their requests/demands), or you have a network based on some simple common sense, based on real requirements (believe me, I know what kind of things doctors have to "HAVE". And if you balk, all they do is say that you are risking patient care, etc. Kind of like playing the race card, IMHO, but...).
I just don't think it's good practice to have the same network segment span physical locations (WAN) just because some doctor/user may want to keep his same IP address.
As for prevention, some strategic planning on their part also may have been able to prevent the complete system-wide meltdown that they had. i.e. The question that should have asked, is "is there anyway, that any single event can take down the entire network?)
I will just be blunt. Abortions are selfish in nature. Whether it's life threathening or not, ultimately that is the case in every abortion. It is selfish because the woman doesn't want to raise the baby for one reason or another. Whether she knows the father won't be there, whether she was raped, whether her life is in danger, it's still selfish. You can't argue that. Killing a life before it ever has a chance to live is wrong. And whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant - it doesn't make it right.
Yes, but a good education and a good government are NOT directly proportional. It's a fallacy to say that since the U.S. educational system sucks compared to the rest of the idustrialized world's "Intellectualized" and edumacated nations, that we are somehow implicity wrong, inferior and/or should be unable to make unilateral decisions that would benefit the U.S. I will start off with why is it wrong to do things that are in the best interest of the U.S. (provided we are magnanamous and not selfish in nature)?
You can MOOOve to the Midwest. $200k gets you around 2500 sq ft here in the KC area.
Oh, and it's not that baaaaaad.:O
And if you want to live really cheap, you can buy a double-wide for about $20k new (lot INcluded). And it lasts until the next tornado hits. Guaranteed!
There is no way that they can "push" this to their "clients". The only way will be for the client machine to initiate the connection. a.k.a. Automatic Windows Update (or some other memory resident application) that then goes and pulls the configuration.
People give Microsoft more credit than they deserve (good and bad). They don't have any "secret" technology like you are implying here.
But, I do agree with you here on one thing though. The Windows Updating information SHOULD be put in the readme file. Because, NOW Microsoft can say "well you didn't follow the License Agreement which clearly states you are supposed to let us keep your computer up to date and you didn't" and then will probably just stop supporting you. Anytime a corporation can save money, I think they will. And in their sick, twisted minds, this is one more way that they can "reduce costs" which are a obviously a "negative" on that 40 billion dollars in cash that they have (and still growing by $1 billion a month at the last report).
Let's get one thing straight first, both of these attacks were not unprovoked. I'm not saying either was justified, but the popular media views on both events are severely distorted. In both cases, an attack was expected. On 9/11, the form of attack was not fully known, and who could have known anything as horrible as that could happen. The attack was generated from hatred arising from dubious policies on the procurement of oil. And the war in Afghanistan has only led to more of this; do you think the Rangers are there to protect the people or the pipeline? Where do you think this will lead? More terrorists, more death. Would a missile shield have helped anyway?
By that definition, that argument itself could be contrued as provocative. In HINDSIGHT (and in both cases), an attack could have been SAID to have been exptected. Armchair quarterbacking is always easier after the fact. I don't agree with the OIL policy, but OPEC is just as much a guilty party in this as anyone. Also, the education system (or lack of) in most of the middle east where religious fanatacism IS the educational system, would give a better reason of whats going on. They don't hate us because of the OIL. They hate us for religous reasons. Everything else is just icing on the cake as far as they are concerned. We are talking about a conflict that has been going on since the time of Abraham.
In Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were not "denied oil" as you said, an embargo stopped most shipping trade. They are an island nation, in case you didn't notice. They depend on it. It's kind of like strangling a person and complaining when they hit you back. It's rumoured that Eisenhower provoked them intentionally to start the war, which was against US public option at the time. That's the stuff of conspiracy theories, but scaringly the same parallels are being made to Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11. I really hope these things are stuff of the paranoid, but these days it's hard to tell. Especially in someone as untrustworthy as Bush & pals, who have a long dark history together. He is a proven liar, yet no one cares? Why is that?
This isn't even the same thing here. They attacked us for our morality (or lack of in their opinion). Also the issue of foreknowledge of the untrustworthy "Bush and pals"? You shouldn't try to take things that are more stereotypes then apply intellectual arguments to them. It doesn't work here.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Defending yourself is one thing, but to advocate a practically useless defence shield citing the fact there have been wars in the past as justification is not valid. Moreover, when has a missile ever been launched from a rouge state on another in a form that would be stopped by a missile shield?
By that comment, then why do we have a military at all? Justification (or lack of) can not be determined by whether or not it has already happened. Justification is determined by "threat" and a nation's ability and WILL to follow through with it. Both of THOSE are subjective and debatable, but the argument that just because it hasn't happened therefore we should defend against it, I think is short-sighted.
Who is going to attack the US? Who would be so stupid? No nation state for sure. If Saddam or anyone else was going to launch a attack on the US, they would know that they stood no chance. There will be no more Vietnams, wars aren't fought that way anymore. The US will simply bomb the hell out of them. And rightly so.
Believe me, there are a lot of stupid people in this world.:)
So that leaves only terrorists harbouring hatred as a motivation, rather than the traditional greed that starts all wars. That hatred is generated by the above behaviour. Anyway, terrorists don't have ballistic missile systems.
This war was not started because of greed. It was started in spite of it. It also "started" the day Isreal declared it's Independence.
That's were most Americans fail on the understanding on the recent terrorism. The US annoyed them first, but your media won't tell you that, they prefer the "attacking freedom and democracy" story. By supporting corrupt governments, especially in the Middle East, an enormous amount of hatred as built up. Look at it from the civilian's point of view, where the terrorists get their money and recruits. The US comes into a country and strikes a deal for oil from the (corrupt) government. By all rights, the country (one nation under whatever god) owns that oil, yet only a handful of people will ever see it, most of them unaccountable to the public. Some of these counties are extremely poor, and how do you think they react to seeing US troops about, guarding their national property from them while they live in poverty? It's the presence of these troops in Saudi that drives Bin Laden. They want to control their own resources; they want freedom and democracy. Not tyranny. Their methods are abhorrent, but you can't fail to see their reasoning.
What country has ever liked the United States? We have all of the people that the world didn't want for whatever reason, either religious, cultural, (yes criminal), you name it. But we deal with it better than any other country has, could, or even would. The problem with the oil isn't the "corrupt" US government. I will just say it. Saudia Arabia. They are the heart of this beast. They are the heart of the problem. They are the corrupt government (Although I will grant you that there is an old axiom "you are who you associate with"). The only thing that WE in the United States can do is to hope that the energy policy becomes one of energy Independence, instead of energy convenience.
"The most probable type of missile attack" maybe. But look at how likely is that event going to happen. Basically, it's not. The missile defence shield is a "jobs for the boys" program. The American people should be outraged and demanding answers. But instead you get propaganda saying why it's necessary. The Nazis used similar methods to persuade people that persecuting someone based of race/religion/sexuality is good. It worked for the German people, what makes you immune?
It may be propoganda, (all solicitation for public funds have to include some sort of "FUD"), but that particular analogy is stupid. Make another one that we can agree with.
No. You are starting another pointless arms race. By having a missile shield, that makes a pre-emptive strike possible for the US to start and win a nuclear war. I know, that probably won't happen. But neither will the strikes you speak of, and you see them as valid justification for building a shield. Other countries will see this shield and will also desire similar systems to protect themselves. That's how an arms race works. So billions and billions of dollars are redirected from the public purse in to the coffers of the arms industry. Bush & Buddies are happy, the people lose services and pay more taxes.
No, you assume we are. This isn't EVEN a real missle defense program that the U.S is developing. It hasn't been advertised that way, and hasn't been advertised to give the U.S. first strike capabilities. If you look at how the U.S. works is the first "version" is really nothing more than a research project for the real deal. And this is the research project to give the U.S. the ability to actually develop a REAL missle defense shield. Anyone who looks at the whole concept of "needle killing needles" is going to see that it is silly. This is merely a stop-gap for the more (MUCH MORE) advanced stuff coming down the pipe. And it won't be lasers mounted with 747s (another cutsie, but again incremental but closer approach to what they are really researching).
Woah!!! You just don't get it, do you? It's that attitude that leads to these problems! There is talk of invading Iraq because they have "weapons of mass destruction". So do you. They have chemical/biological weapons? So do you, in fact, you developed most of them. They have ballistic missiles? Well, the US/Soviet space race developed that technology (for that purpose partially). They have nukes? Who invented them? Who is the only country to drop one in anger? (Ironically, if that hadn't happened and the world hadn't seen the horrors one nuke could cause, there would have probably been a nuclear war by now)
I actually agree with you here I think, but not for the same reasons. No matter how hard you think the other guy will punch, it is not good form to attack first. If the U.S. really wants to invade Iraq, there will be some "crisis" pop up (like something linking Iraq to a terrorist attack, Isreali/Palelistinian issue, etc). Also, blaming the "innovator" for the worlds problems is a CLASSIC fallacy of composition. You can't say that because we invented it, we are also responsible for all of the child probabilities that occur because of it.
What makes you holier than thou? Admittedly, Saddam is not a nice fellow, but you have no right to invade a country just because they have the capability to attack you. I'm amazed at the level of provocation against Saddam, there are UK/US strikes every other week, but it's not newsworthy, so therefore it isn't happening. Why didn't you do that to the Commies? Oh, they could fight back. Let's pick on Iraq then, they can't fight back. Oh, they have lot's of oil too? That's a coincidence...I wonder if we could topple the Saddam regime and install a US-friendly goverment. Sound familiar?
Proof? You can't keep "suggesting" this garbage without sounding someone closed-minded biased with a disposition toward a certain policty affinity that prides itself on being open minded.
Listen, I'm not anti-US. If I come off sounding that way, I apologise. I hate it when corrupt governments abuse their power, and mislead the public into backing them. Like the "war" in Afganistan, which was being planned prior to 9/11. Any time I hear someone talking that way, I feel compelled to state my opinion. Hopefully I've made a few people think about the other side of the story. Peace can only follow understanding. Not a missile shield.
Ok. You were fairly logical and well-thought out until that nonsense spewed out. Name one fact that actually proves we were planning to attack Afghanistan prior to 9/11? As for the other side of the story, I think you miss the whole point. You try to reduce every conflict to greed/corruption/power. At first it sounds logical, until you factor in religion, then all logic goes out the window. And that is where (IMHO) we are at now. This is not a war about OIL, or conspiracies, or CONTROL. On the surface, it may from time to time this way, but over the next decade or so as this thing plays out (yes, I think it will take that long), we will see who rears his ugly head, what his motivations are, and the conflict will be more head-on, rather than this beating around the bush stuff that has been going on.
There are no socialists in the US government, and Biden certainly doesn't qualify as a "socialist", let alone an "extreme socialist".
And plagiarism has nothing to do with political affiliation. People on the right and on the left plagiarize, take bribes, defraud the government and investors, and cheat on their wives. Politics selects for people with checkered pasts and iffy morals--on the left and on the right.
There are no socialists in the US government? Please.
"The CIA are the biggest threat in the world, not China"
Senator Church gutted the CIA in the early 80's. It's been going downhill ever since. Yet it's always the fall guy when it fails. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. So please explain to me how a gutted agency of the government is more dangerous than a nation with 1 billion people and refers to us as "the enemy"? Specifics please. no more blah blah blah. Cite specifics. I will counter. You will lose.
you my friend, are a moron. Do you believe everything mommy and daddy tells you? How about what your union tells you. I will pick personal responsibility aka Republicans over the Socialist Communist "Democratic" Party, which frankly looks like a bunch of silly little kids bitching and moaning because the Bush administration did nothing with Enron. i.e. they WEREN'T involved with Enron going down, nor were they involved with bailing out the execs at Enron. The execs don't need republicans to give them golden parachutes, they only need to be execs. I think that the Enron "scandal" that Carville the alien as stated is crap. So who's be "partisan" now? Bash the Republicans, bash Bush. Bash him for doing nothing. Bash him for helping, Bash Bash Bash,
I liken Democrats being nothing more than the hippie 60's generation that never grew up - bitch about everything, take responsibility for nothing, and then sit on your ass and do nothing.
Of course, Clinton is the perfect personification of the 60's generation.
Yet he is idolized by the mindless, borg-like left. Like a bunch of lemmings following him around believing whatever the liar says. No individualism at all, just a bunch mindless lemming-like drones running around repeating whatever their political party says.
But hey, the Democrats are after the the "intelligent" educated party. HA.
Slashdot Mirror
yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
What bias do you have against Christians? Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil?
If you learn one thing in this life, I pray that you actually learn to have an open mind, instead of just professing to have one.
May god bless you, in Jesus' name. Amen.
-Mike
Get used to it. It's not going to change anytime soon. The revolution is coming, though, and you WILL have to decide which side you are on. Be ready.
And what say you?
What about Open Exchange from Suse Linux?
I think you're missing the point. The point is you've pissed off all of your customers and made a large portion of your base feel like criminals - so much so that now they are no longer customers. That's the point. i.e. When's the last time I bought a CD? I've bought a total of 1 I think this year. $$$$ is also a big deal. $15-$20 for a new CD is really just too damn expensive.
I call bullshit.
As for the genetic implications that the article implies , this article totally screwed up... Kind of makes you want to throw the whole article out...
"America's experimentation with genetics as a tool for social change is not new. In the 1920s the United States..."
1920s = "experimentation with genetics"? I think NOT.
As for sterilizing a woman who can't keep her legs shut? Some might think that's a good thing. Especially when she a) leeches off of society and uses her children to do so and/or b) society has to take care of those children because she can't.
So if you punch me in the nose, and you know in advance I might kill you if you do, then there's no culpability on your part? The utter stupidty of the palestinians for this is crazy. The parents of the kids throwing rocks should be the ones being shot, not the kids. And they should be shot for a) not taking care of the kids. If they were, their kids wouldn't be THROWING the DAMN ROCKs in the first place. There are better ways to protest than sending your children off to kill themselves. Of course, if the Arabs wouldn't have attacked Isreal in the first place, this whole thing might not exist today. And people that we call palestinians today might still be considered Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian. But I digress.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Um. I dunno. But that looks pretty clear to me. Whether it's a formal Militia or not is irrelevant. The point is, it's there. Too bad if you disagree. Denial doesn't win your argument.
How can you copyright word of mouth?
Yep, and you still use spanning tree. Think multilayer switched networks and vlans not the antiquated central routers and a bunch of switches hanging off of it tying you to whatever subnet your switch happens to be uplinked to. These days you can move across the campus, plug into a completely seperate switch, have your port set automatically via policy manager, and keep working using the same IP address and subnet. You still use spanning tree for loop avoidance and redundancy with these multilayer switches though.
:)
You can, but you are just adding unneeded complexity to the network by spanning segments across the WAN. I also understand that they may be one large campus, but you have two choices - either a network that the doctors design (by their requests/demands), or you have a network based on some simple common sense, based on real requirements (believe me, I know what kind of things doctors have to "HAVE". And if you balk, all they do is say that you are risking patient care, etc. Kind of like playing the race card, IMHO, but...).
I just don't think it's good practice to have the same network segment span physical locations (WAN) just because some doctor/user may want to keep his same IP address.
As for prevention, some strategic planning on their part also may have been able to prevent the complete system-wide meltdown that they had. i.e. The question that should have asked, is "is there anyway, that any single event can take down the entire network?)
Of course, hindsight is always 20-20
Talk about someone who's up-tight. sheesh.
I will just be blunt. Abortions are selfish in nature. Whether it's life threathening or not, ultimately that is the case in every abortion. It is selfish because the woman doesn't want to raise the baby for one reason or another. Whether she knows the father won't be there, whether she was raped, whether her life is in danger, it's still selfish. You can't argue that. Killing a life before it ever has a chance to live is wrong. And whether it is illegal or not is irrelevant - it doesn't make it right.
Name me one abortion that was good for the baby.
What, you never heard of adoptions?
Yes, but a good education and a good government are NOT directly proportional. It's a fallacy to say that since the U.S. educational system sucks compared to the rest of the idustrialized world's "Intellectualized" and edumacated nations, that we are somehow implicity wrong, inferior and/or should be unable to make unilateral decisions that would benefit the U.S. I will start off with why is it wrong to do things that are in the best interest of the U.S. (provided we are magnanamous and not selfish in nature)?
You can MOOOve to the Midwest. $200k gets you around 2500 sq ft here in the KC area.
:O
Oh, and it's not that baaaaaad.
And if you want to live really cheap, you can buy a double-wide for about $20k new (lot INcluded). And it lasts until the next tornado hits. Guaranteed!
Have you tried the "License Logging Service"? That would be the only service I know of that controls licensing in NT...
Is that with or without abortions being counted?
There is no way that they can "push" this to their "clients". The only way will be for the client machine to initiate the connection. a.k.a. Automatic Windows Update (or some other memory resident application) that then goes and pulls the configuration.
People give Microsoft more credit than they deserve (good and bad). They don't have any "secret" technology like you are implying here.
But, I do agree with you here on one thing though. The Windows Updating information SHOULD be put in the readme file. Because, NOW Microsoft can say "well you didn't follow the License Agreement which clearly states you are supposed to let us keep your computer up to date and you didn't" and then will probably just stop supporting you. Anytime a corporation can save money, I think they will. And in their sick, twisted minds, this is one more way that they can "reduce costs" which are a obviously a "negative" on that 40 billion dollars in cash that they have (and still growing by $1 billion a month at the last report).
Let's get one thing straight first, both of these attacks were not unprovoked. I'm not saying either was justified, but the popular media views on both events are severely distorted. In both cases, an attack was expected. On 9/11, the form of attack was not fully known, and who could have known anything as horrible as that could happen. The attack was generated from hatred arising from dubious policies on the procurement of oil. And the war in Afghanistan has only led to more of this; do you think the Rangers are there to protect the people or the pipeline? Where do you think this will lead? More terrorists, more death. Would a missile shield have helped anyway?
:)
By that definition, that argument itself could be contrued as provocative. In HINDSIGHT (and in both cases), an attack could have been SAID to have been exptected. Armchair quarterbacking is always easier after the fact. I don't agree with the OIL policy, but OPEC is just as much a guilty party in this as anyone. Also, the education system (or lack of) in most of the middle east where religious fanatacism IS the educational system, would give a better reason of whats going on. They don't hate us because of the OIL. They hate us for religous reasons. Everything else is just icing on the cake as far as they are concerned. We are talking about a conflict that has been going on since the time of Abraham.
In Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were not "denied oil" as you said, an embargo stopped most shipping trade. They are an island nation, in case you didn't notice. They depend on it. It's kind of like strangling a person and complaining when they hit you back. It's rumoured that Eisenhower provoked them intentionally to start the war, which was against US public option at the time. That's the stuff of conspiracy theories, but scaringly the same parallels are being made to Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11. I really hope these things are stuff of the paranoid, but these days it's hard to tell. Especially in someone as untrustworthy as Bush & pals, who have a long dark history together. He is a proven liar, yet no one cares? Why is that?
This isn't even the same thing here. They attacked us for our morality (or lack of in their opinion). Also the issue of foreknowledge of the untrustworthy "Bush and pals"? You shouldn't try to take things that are more stereotypes then apply intellectual arguments to them. It doesn't work here.
I fail to see the relevance of this. Defending yourself is one thing, but to advocate a practically useless defence shield citing the fact there have been wars in the past as justification is not valid. Moreover, when has a missile ever been launched from a rouge state on another in a form that would be stopped by a missile shield?
By that comment, then why do we have a military at all? Justification (or lack of) can not be determined by whether or not it has already happened. Justification is determined by "threat" and a nation's ability and WILL to follow through with it. Both of THOSE are subjective and debatable, but the argument that just because it hasn't happened therefore we should defend against it, I think is short-sighted.
Who is going to attack the US? Who would be so stupid? No nation state for sure. If Saddam or anyone else was going to launch a attack on the US, they would know that they stood no chance. There will be no more Vietnams, wars aren't fought that way anymore. The US will simply bomb the hell out of them. And rightly so.
Believe me, there are a lot of stupid people in this world.
So that leaves only terrorists harbouring hatred as a motivation, rather than the traditional greed that starts all wars. That hatred is generated by the above behaviour. Anyway, terrorists don't have ballistic missile systems.
This war was not started because of greed. It was started in spite of it. It also "started" the day Isreal declared it's Independence.
That's were most Americans fail on the understanding on the recent terrorism. The US annoyed them first, but your media won't tell you that, they prefer the "attacking freedom and democracy" story. By supporting corrupt governments, especially in the Middle East, an enormous amount of hatred as built up. Look at it from the civilian's point of view, where the terrorists get their money and recruits. The US comes into a country and strikes a deal for oil from the (corrupt) government. By all rights, the country (one nation under whatever god) owns that oil, yet only a handful of people will ever see it, most of them unaccountable to the public. Some of these counties are extremely poor, and how do you think they react to seeing US troops about, guarding their national property from them while they live in poverty? It's the presence of these troops in Saudi that drives Bin Laden. They want to control their own resources; they want freedom and democracy. Not tyranny. Their methods are abhorrent, but you can't fail to see their reasoning.
What country has ever liked the United States? We have all of the people that the world didn't want for whatever reason, either religious, cultural, (yes criminal), you name it. But we deal with it better than any other country has, could, or even would. The problem with the oil isn't the "corrupt" US government. I will just say it. Saudia Arabia. They are the heart of this beast. They are the heart of the problem. They are the corrupt government (Although I will grant you that there is an old axiom "you are who you associate with"). The only thing that WE in the United States can do is to hope that the energy policy becomes one of energy Independence, instead of energy convenience.
"The most probable type of missile attack" maybe. But look at how likely is that event going to happen. Basically, it's not. The missile defence shield is a "jobs for the boys" program. The American people should be outraged and demanding answers. But instead you get propaganda saying why it's necessary. The Nazis used similar methods to persuade people that persecuting someone based of race/religion/sexuality is good. It worked for the German people, what makes you immune?
It may be propoganda, (all solicitation for public funds have to include some sort of "FUD"), but that particular analogy is stupid. Make another one that we can agree with.
No. You are starting another pointless arms race. By having a missile shield, that makes a pre-emptive strike possible for the US to start and win a nuclear war. I know, that probably won't happen. But neither will the strikes you speak of, and you see them as valid justification for building a shield. Other countries will see this shield and will also desire similar systems to protect themselves. That's how an arms race works. So billions and billions of dollars are redirected from the public purse in to the coffers of the arms industry. Bush & Buddies are happy, the people lose services and pay more taxes.
No, you assume we are. This isn't EVEN a real missle defense program that the U.S is developing. It hasn't been advertised that way, and hasn't been advertised to give the U.S. first strike capabilities. If you look at how the U.S. works is the first "version" is really nothing more than a research project for the real deal. And this is the research project to give the U.S. the ability to actually develop a REAL missle defense shield. Anyone who looks at the whole concept of "needle killing needles" is going to see that it is silly. This is merely a stop-gap for the more (MUCH MORE) advanced stuff coming down the pipe. And it won't be lasers mounted with 747s (another cutsie, but again incremental but closer approach to what they are really researching).
Woah!!! You just don't get it, do you? It's that attitude that leads to these problems! There is talk of invading Iraq because they have "weapons of mass destruction". So do you. They have chemical/biological weapons? So do you, in fact, you developed most of them. They have ballistic missiles? Well, the US/Soviet space race developed that technology (for that purpose partially). They have nukes? Who invented them? Who is the only country to drop one in anger? (Ironically, if that hadn't happened and the world hadn't seen the horrors one nuke could cause, there would have probably been a nuclear war by now)
I actually agree with you here I think, but not for the same reasons. No matter how hard you think the other guy will punch, it is not good form to attack first. If the U.S. really wants to invade Iraq, there will be some "crisis" pop up (like something linking Iraq to a terrorist attack, Isreali/Palelistinian issue, etc). Also, blaming the "innovator" for the worlds problems is a CLASSIC fallacy of composition. You can't say that because we invented it, we are also responsible for all of the child probabilities that occur because of it.
What makes you holier than thou? Admittedly, Saddam is not a nice fellow, but you have no right to invade a country just because they have the capability to attack you. I'm amazed at the level of provocation against Saddam, there are UK/US strikes every other week, but it's not newsworthy, so therefore it isn't happening. Why didn't you do that to the Commies? Oh, they could fight back. Let's pick on Iraq then, they can't fight back. Oh, they have lot's of oil too? That's a coincidence...I wonder if we could topple the Saddam regime and install a US-friendly goverment. Sound familiar?
Proof? You can't keep "suggesting" this garbage without sounding someone closed-minded biased with a disposition toward a certain policty affinity that prides itself on being open minded.
Listen, I'm not anti-US. If I come off sounding that way, I apologise. I hate it when corrupt governments abuse their power, and mislead the public into backing them. Like the "war" in Afganistan, which was being planned prior to 9/11. Any time I hear someone talking that way, I feel compelled to state my opinion. Hopefully I've made a few people think about the other side of the story. Peace can only follow understanding. Not a missile shield.
Ok. You were fairly logical and well-thought out until that nonsense spewed out. Name one fact that actually proves we were planning to attack Afghanistan prior to 9/11? As for the other side of the story, I think you miss the whole point. You try to reduce every conflict to greed/corruption/power. At first it sounds logical, until you factor in religion, then all logic goes out the window. And that is where (IMHO) we are at now. This is not a war about OIL, or conspiracies, or CONTROL. On the surface, it may from time to time this way, but over the next decade or so as this thing plays out (yes, I think it will take that long), we will see who rears his ugly head, what his motivations are, and the conflict will be more head-on, rather than this beating around the bush stuff that has been going on.
-Mikestro
There are no socialists in the US government, and Biden certainly doesn't qualify as a "socialist", let alone an "extreme socialist".
And plagiarism has nothing to do with political affiliation. People on the right and on the left plagiarize, take bribes, defraud the government and investors, and cheat on their wives. Politics selects for people with checkered pasts and iffy morals--on the left and on the right.
There are no socialists in the US government? Please.
You are the perfect example of a sheeple.
If the USA not #1, then who is? China, EU, Russia?
Someone has to be #1.
"The CIA are the biggest threat in the world, not China"
Senator Church gutted the CIA in the early 80's. It's been going downhill ever since. Yet it's always the fall guy when it fails. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. So please explain to me how a gutted agency of the government is more dangerous than a nation with 1 billion people and refers to us as "the enemy"? Specifics please. no more blah blah blah. Cite specifics. I will counter. You will lose.
you my friend, are a moron. Do you believe everything mommy and daddy tells you? How about what your union tells you. I will pick personal responsibility aka Republicans over the Socialist Communist "Democratic" Party, which frankly looks like a bunch of silly little kids bitching and moaning because the Bush administration did nothing with Enron. i.e. they WEREN'T involved with Enron going down, nor were they involved with bailing out the execs at Enron. The execs don't need republicans to give them golden parachutes, they only need to be execs. I think that the Enron "scandal" that Carville the alien as stated is crap. So who's be "partisan" now? Bash the Republicans, bash Bush. Bash him for doing nothing. Bash him for helping, Bash Bash Bash,
I liken Democrats being nothing more than the hippie 60's generation that never grew up - bitch about everything, take responsibility for nothing, and then sit on your ass and do nothing.
Of course, Clinton is the perfect personification of the 60's generation.
Yet he is idolized by the mindless, borg-like left. Like a bunch of lemmings following him around believing whatever the liar says. No individualism at all, just a bunch mindless lemming-like drones running around repeating whatever their political party says.
But hey, the Democrats are after the the "intelligent" educated party. HA.
Ya, but how will you do that when you don't have guns to fight back with? he he.