I was able to get a few more frames by toying around with some settings. Open your DoomConfig.cfg file and look for: seta image_cacheMegs "32"
If you have a newer video card you can move the number up. I have a 9800XT and got it up to 96. Anything more than that and I start loosing preformance. The
beta Radeon driver also helped a little bit.
The media giants have also bribed DECA to begin teaching their spin on copyright. I didn't beleive it when I first heard it. This is a highly complex subject that the best lawyers spend years to learn. How can we expect high school kids to come to an informed opinion on a multi-sided subject with only one angle being presented to them? I can't imagine them going to any length to teach children about their rights to copy something (like educational purposes or fair use). When I was in school the worst corporate sponshorship was Georgia Pacific's educational series on environmental conservation. When compared to the media giants, all I can say is that at least GP replanted seedlings after tearing down a forrest.
"pseudo-liberal socialist" is a compliment compared to the corporate entities currently occupying the oval office. One day we will all look back at the first term of the new millennium and realize it as the era when big business truly ruled the people. I know both major parties pander to corporations, but Bush & Co. have really set the bar. Also, bravo to Moore for having the balls to speak his mind instead of falling in line with the rest of apathetic people who are otherwise too ignorant of and/or turned off by modern politics. I for one applaud anyone who inspires public debate. Leave it to a liberal to think of others instead of just themselves.
The Scientology comment was the most advertised removal on slashdot. What's worse than a cult? A cult with thousands of highly paid lawyers that leech money from the ultra-rich.
It's just as immoral to leech pirated software from Bittorrent as it is to run out of Software Etc. with a box under your arm.
There is one key difference. A physical box has pass through more people. You have the comapny that mass produces the CDs and another that presses and boxes them. Then you have producers that design the instructions, box, and other art; and let's not forget the printers that mass produce them. Then you have wholesalers, distributors, truck drivers, and finally a store that buys in bulk to stock the product.
When someone lifts a box from a store they are removing something that another person would definately have paid for. Not everyone who downloads software would have bought it had it not been available online. We're talking about actual losses versus theroectcal losses. Yes, both are wrong, but one does much, much more damage.
Burglary is defined as "The act of entering a building or other premises with the intent to commit theft". Make a few more stupid and deceptive comments and you might just become Michael Moore
So you are upset about me equating mass bootlegging as burglary? How is that any different than saying piracy is theft? They are both improper uses of (somewhat) similar words. As far as your "taking something for your pleasure and denying them their just reward" statement, you are under the assumption that pirates would have bought the product had they not been able to get a copy. Imagine McDonalds suing you for not buying a burger they advertised. Did you deprive them of the money they deserve by ignoring their ad? Keep on not thinking before you talk and you might be President Bubba's heir.
Oi ve. First you describe Doom 3 as an "it," then go on to say you can only steal a noun. Well if "it" isn't a pronoun used for nouns, I don't know what is.
A boxed CD is definately something physical. That's why downloading it is copyright infringment and removing a box from a store without paying is stealing.
I correct people, not because it makes infringment more acceptable, but because I do what I can to counter all of the misinformation spewed by lawyers and special interest groups that would like the average person to be as completely ignorant as possible. We're living in an era where paid politicians are stripping personal rights to make the jobs of copyright enforcers easier. They aren't adding new laws or protections, copyright protection has always been there. They are just making enforcement and prevention easier at the expense of our rights.
How many 'anti-theft' solutions are smart enought to know when I'm exercising fair-use to make a backup because I'm hard on my CDs and want to keep the originals stored in my CD rack? How many media groups will take a damaged CD and replace it for only the cost of the media and S&H? When you buy a CD you are buying a license to use it. You still have the license even if the medium is destroyed, yet most every time you break a CD you have to go back to the store and buy a new one for full price. Copyright is an important and complex issue and will become ever more complex as communication and technology advance and spread to new people. Yet most people don't even think or care about it and how it affects them. History dictates that most people don't really care about their rights or freedoms until they are gone. I do what I can to make sure that I and everyone around take them into full consideration before signing them over to some corporation. The myth that copyright infringemnt and stealing are the same thing is midlessly supporting the corporate line that wants to keep the average person oblivious to their rights.
It makes it that much easier to look yourself in the mirror.
I bought my copy today. I don't know why you assumed I downloaded it. If theft and copyright infringement are the same thing then why did people make a second word to describe the same thing? Answer: Because they are not the same thing. You can only steal a noun. Since information is neither person nor place nor thing it cannot be stealing or thievery. You can steal a painting, you can steal a CD, and you can steal a book. You cannot steal an authors inspiration. Calling someone who downloads coprighted material a thief is incorrect. It's like calling someone who hates rich people a racist. While both are a form of hate they are distinctly different. It doesn't speak highly of a persons intelligence if they consistently use the wrong vocabulary just to stir an emotional response. You should leave that to lawyers and politicians. Find me a case where someone bootlegging CDs was charged with burglary and I'll retract my statement.
Maybe in Bizarro World. But in this universe, thieves are responsible for the thefts.
And in my world pirates are responsible for copyright infringment... and increased sales of eye patches... and parrots. Now, if the article were talking about people walking into stores and pocketing the whole box, that would be thievery.
Ok, please. No one banned stem cell research. The only thing that happened that people are absolutely outraged about is the federal government put a limit of FEDERAL (!) research funds so they dont go to stem cell research that uses live human embryos.
Yes, $0 is a limit. The government is not the only source for medical research funding, but it is one of the largest. He also severly restricted the use of existing genetic lines. That's about as close to a ban as you can get. Bush's assumption is that it's much better to throw out an aborted fetus as medical waste than gain insight and devise treatments for disease.
I love all these vague attacks I'm hearing this week from the convention. "ties to corporate interests and the many executive decisions that favor them". Why not just say you dont like the way his ears look? It's pretty much the same substance-wise.
Perhaps you can give a logical reason why Halliburton was handed contracts for the development of Iraq's energy reserves. Precedent dictates that government contracts are given to the lowest bidder, yet this was coincidentallyhanded to a corporation with unquestionable ties to the President and Vice President. Or how about his ties to the Bin Laden family and his help in their hasty escape after 9/11 to avoid questions from investigators? Did the father or brother of Americas attacker have not the slightest bit of insight? Maybe his retraction from Kyoto, which benefits only big business such as energy concerns, was also coincidental. Am I still vague, or should I list more examples?
Look, he's fighting a very effective war against terrorism that was waged on us halfway through the clinton reign and was ignored until we got hit hard enough to care. He also significantly cut taxes on the middle class which seems to have gotten the economy rolling again despite the terrorist attacks. I hardly see what could scare the crap out of you
And what an effective war it is! Look how well he did at eliminating Osama. Does it concern you the least bit that he focused on Saddam who one day could possibly have posed a threat to America instead of the person who was directly caused the deaths of over 3,000 citizens. I mean there are more police guarding the DNC right now than there troops in Afghanistan. Why aren't we invading Iran? They did more to help terrorists than Saddam. They are even actively pursuing the development nukes. They have the knowledge, materials, and technicians. The answer is simple: Bush entered office with the intention of going after Saddam. Being a great opportunist, he used our fears of terrorist attacks to pursue his personal agenda. He convinced people that Saddam was a greater threat than the Taliban, Iran, Sudan, and Libya with little reason other than intelligence selectively publicized and ignored in order to back his position.
As far as taxes are concerned, I'm middle class and with his reduction I might be able to Super Size my value meal a few extra times. It's a trivial cut that he mad in order to say "I cut taxes".
The economy leveling off can not be credited to Bush. They are not mutually exclusive. If anything, Greenspan deserves the credit. Bush is the first to take the credit or pass the blame as he sees fit.
I suggest you browse the thread again to see more examples of why people should be deeply concerned about Bush.
The ban on stem cell research is no more religious based than a ban on forcible medical testing on death-row inmates.
The ban is based on the false idea that the only source of stem cells is a human fetus. Before I go further, abortion is legal (for the moment). They can either be thrown out as biomedical waste, or we can try to learn as much as we can in order to make unfathomable gains in medial knowledge and devise treatments of currently untreatable diseases. Please remember that almost every modern advance in medicine is largely due to the dissection of human corpses (also once illegal). If your argument is based on religious reasons (which usually is on this topic), wouldn't stem cell research be comparable to a family donating to science the body of a relative who was murdered?
Anyway, I completely lost track of my point. The latest experiments have been able to turn otherwise ordinary cells back into stem cells. Not all the results have been duplicated, but it's only a matter of time before it's science. By then, America will be far behind (in some aspects we already are) and playing catch-up. Who knows what companies will hold patents and copyrights by then; and with the latest international treaties strictly forcing nations to honor each others copyrights and patents we may never regain our lead.
"During his first run for office he billed himself as a compassionate conservative. If the last 4 years have shown anything, it's that his definition of 'compassionate' is seriously flawed."
I hear this claim alot from people, stated in these accusative terms or in general terms.
Never once have I heard someone tell what criteria they have judged his compassion on.
I'm going to focus on one topic. If you read through this thread, other people have raised other good issues and how they demonstrate Bush's lack of compassion on social topics. I just wrote at length on this one, not because it directly affects me, but because it can set a dangerous precedent for government. It has the most substance, best examples, and usually leads to the most volatile conversations. The topic is Bush's attempts at a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.
First off, it is without a doubt based on religious pressure. It's almost Marxist to use the supreme law of the land to enforce religious dogma that affects only a small percentage of the population. Forcing the ideals of the majority on the minority solely because of religious inspired (and sometimes mandated) intolernace is about as anti-constitutional as one can be. I think Jon Stewart stated it the best way. He was on Larry King and was asked what his stance of the subject was. "At first I was against it. I love my wife. Then I did some reading on the topic and realized it wasn't mandatory [marrying a man]. Now I'm pretty much for it." There is no legitimate reason why two people who love each other can't go to a courthouse and proclaim their love by announcing their desire to live together for the rest of their lives.
The fact that 50% of American marriages lead to divorce and the popularity of game shows and reality TV that make a mockery of marriage show that there is no way someone can say with a straight face gay marriage defiles a sacred institution. Heterosexual American society beat them to it.
Others argue that it will open the door for other untold perversions like people marrying animals. That completely ignores the fact that animals have neither legal standing nor the ability to sign their name. Besides, using an animal reference as a simile to gay marriage equates to calling a black person a 'coon'. It's ignorant to say the least.
The most used argument is that it will somehow devalue heterosexual marriage. If a gay couple moved in next door, I couldn't imagine how it would make me love my wife any less. This is the one of the same arguments people used to discourage mixed race marriages.
The most important reason everyone should care about this topic is because it is not the governments' role to define or ill-define love. A constitutional amendment for such a topic is an abuse of power and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state. This is much more a religious problem than a social issue. Any attempt to rationalize a ban is so politicians can say that they are not doing it because of religious reasons (which would violate one of our most important amendments). Religion has been used by people to support perverted positions throughout history; like slavery, Jim Crow, and prohibition. Generally speaking, the bible contradicts itself on too many topics to trust it as a source of social law, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Besides, the founding fathers did their best to keep America from becoming a theocracy, and for very good reasons.
To me, conservatives are afraid of change, or at least rapid change.
Yes! Exactly! As the original founders wanted. Make it as difficult as possible for the government to make laws. Make the branches check each other. Maybe it was short sighted at the time because they never anticipated such a rapidly changing world. Maybe it should be changed. But rapid reaction to the world requires less people in the law making loop and I don't think that's a good idea.
I was referring to social changes. As our society adapts and evolves many people are quick to fall back on the default emotion of fear. That fear is usually based on a lack of education on a given topic and followed by a knee-jerk reaction. Topics like gay rights, minority population increases (and migration), private/religious education, stem cell research, to name a few, are all growing concerns to American society. Unfortunately most people rely on the media, church, and word of mouth as sources of education. Needless to say all of the above are usually very biased and should not be used to further you knowledge of technology or society, and how each impacts the other.
Here is the important part: Since politics is half money and half votes politicians will do whatever they can to make people afraid of something and then tell them that only they have a solution. If there is one thing that 9/11 and the Bush administration 'solutions' to it have proven, it is that fear is the greatest motivator. The downside: Even though fear is an effective way for politicians to gain and keep control, it is often to the detriment of American society. The stigma can last for decades, create more social problems, and hinder social development.
Lincoln is often cheered as one of the greatest Republicans in history. If you do some reading about America's political history you will see the Democrats and Republicans have traded points of view before. If Lincoln were alive today and still held his same ideals he would most likely be a 3rd party candidate, or at least a Democrat. FDR's NEW Deal and Reconstruction programs put him more in line with today's Republican Party than the Democrats. There are many more examples too if you dig around. What does all this mean? The simple answer is that anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a great fool. Political parties have no real stability, only their name.
I don't know how to classify Bush Jr. Honestly, he scares the crap out of me. His attempts to force the government to define love, an uneducated (and religious based) ban on stem cell research that is choking Americas participation in modern medicine, his staff and other government appointments, and the many questionable ties to corporate interests and the many executive decisions that favor them, all force me to question his commitment to humanity. During his first run for office he billed himself as a compassionate conservative. If the last 4 years have shown anything, it's that his definition of 'compassionate' is seriously flawed.
I'm still unsure of what the true definition of conservative is. What are we losing that people are so concerned about saving. I know it's not the environment. To me, conservatives are afraid of change, or at least rapid change. Everyone I've met has quoted some nonsense about a return to 'the good old days' while the time they reminisce about was 'good' only to white, middle class males.
Neither party is better or worse than the other. To beleive otherwise demonstrates how fooled the American public is when it comes to choosing the lesser of 2 evils to govern us all.
Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement?
Dems, Repbs.... what's the difference? They are each a different means to the same end... the reduction of personal rights in favor of corporate rights.
[RANT] Around election time when the patriotic propaganda comes out attempting to make people feel bad for not voting there is usually one message behind it all. "If you are not voting, what does are you saying?" I'm saying plenty by not voting. "Americas 2 party electoral system is a sham, and I won't participate. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not liberty or freedom." Hell, even Communist Russia had elections. You could choose between the hard handed communist in corner A, or the hard handed communist in corner B.[/RANT]
A government earning money instead of forcing its citizens to supply it under threat of force.
If you don't like taxes there must be some country on Earth where citizens pay none. I mean it's just so outdated. The US Mint makes the money, why can't they just make extra and give it to the government?
The worst part is how he justified the war with Iraq by saying God told him to do it.
I feel like a broken record, but he did not say that.
Then why did Bush OK a video that uses that as one of his direct quotes and make it the main video link of his offical website for almost 2 weeks? The video in no way was presented as rebutal to that comment. Anyone who didn't know the origins of the quote could easily think that he said it and was advertising it on his website. Either it was the most poorly produced political video I can ever remember, or he actually said it.
What's really crazy is that the President doesn't think he shouldn't be held to a higher standard. I'm not saying he can't participate in a little mud slinging, but that video was a bit too low. The worst part is how he justified the war with Iraq by saying God told him to do it. That's the scary thing about the video. Moore is a private citizen and MoveOn is a private orginization, they are able to enjoy their freedom of speech, but canidates and sitting Presidents should think about what they say before going public.
Slashdot Mirror
I installed it on a copy of XP running inside VMWare. It's been running constantly all weekend and no suspicious activity yet.
Yea. Try this post that was made in the original article:= 9905241
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117069&cid
And here's some more links for security and privacy.
I was able to get a few more frames by toying around with some settings. Open your DoomConfig.cfg file and look for:
seta image_cacheMegs "32"
If you have a newer video card you can move the number up. I have a 9800XT and got it up to 96. Anything more than that and I start loosing preformance. The beta Radeon driver also helped a little bit.
Ok let's see. Installed SP2 and the beta release of the new Radeon driver and bumped my FPS in Doom3 up about 15. Nice.
The media giants have also bribed DECA to begin teaching their spin on copyright. I didn't beleive it when I first heard it. This is a highly complex subject that the best lawyers spend years to learn. How can we expect high school kids to come to an informed opinion on a multi-sided subject with only one angle being presented to them? I can't imagine them going to any length to teach children about their rights to copy something (like educational purposes or fair use). When I was in school the worst corporate sponshorship was Georgia Pacific's educational series on environmental conservation. When compared to the media giants, all I can say is that at least GP replanted seedlings after tearing down a forrest.
"pseudo-liberal socialist" is a compliment compared to the corporate entities currently occupying the oval office. One day we will all look back at the first term of the new millennium and realize it as the era when big business truly ruled the people. I know both major parties pander to corporations, but Bush & Co. have really set the bar. Also, bravo to Moore for having the balls to speak his mind instead of falling in line with the rest of apathetic people who are otherwise too ignorant of and/or turned off by modern politics. I for one applaud anyone who inspires public debate. Leave it to a liberal to think of others instead of just themselves.
The Scientology comment was the most advertised removal on slashdot. What's worse than a cult? A cult with thousands of highly paid lawyers that leech money from the ultra-rich.
When someone lifts a box from a store they are removing something that another person would definately have paid for. Not everyone who downloads software would have bought it had it not been available online. We're talking about actual losses versus theroectcal losses. Yes, both are wrong, but one does much, much more damage.
10 OPEN mouth
20 INSERT foot
Oi ve. First you describe Doom 3 as an "it," then go on to say you can only steal a noun. Well if "it" isn't a pronoun used for nouns, I don't know what is.
A boxed CD is definately something physical. That's why downloading it is copyright infringment and removing a box from a store without paying is stealing.
I correct people, not because it makes infringment more acceptable, but because I do what I can to counter all of the misinformation spewed by lawyers and special interest groups that would like the average person to be as completely ignorant as possible. We're living in an era where paid politicians are stripping personal rights to make the jobs of copyright enforcers easier. They aren't adding new laws or protections, copyright protection has always been there. They are just making enforcement and prevention easier at the expense of our rights.
How many 'anti-theft' solutions are smart enought to know when I'm exercising fair-use to make a backup because I'm hard on my CDs and want to keep the originals stored in my CD rack? How many media groups will take a damaged CD and replace it for only the cost of the media and S&H? When you buy a CD you are buying a license to use it. You still have the license even if the medium is destroyed, yet most every time you break a CD you have to go back to the store and buy a new one for full price. Copyright is an important and complex issue and will become ever more complex as communication and technology advance and spread to new people. Yet most people don't even think or care about it and how it affects them. History dictates that most people don't really care about their rights or freedoms until they are gone. I do what I can to make sure that I and everyone around take them into full consideration before signing them over to some corporation. The myth that copyright infringemnt and stealing are the same thing is midlessly supporting the corporate line that wants to keep the average person oblivious to their rights.
It makes it that much easier to look yourself in the mirror.
I bought my copy today. I don't know why you assumed I downloaded it. If theft and copyright infringement are the same thing then why did people make a second word to describe the same thing? Answer: Because they are not the same thing. You can only steal a noun. Since information is neither person nor place nor thing it cannot be stealing or thievery. You can steal a painting, you can steal a CD, and you can steal a book. You cannot steal an authors inspiration. Calling someone who downloads coprighted material a thief is incorrect. It's like calling someone who hates rich people a racist. While both are a form of hate they are distinctly different. It doesn't speak highly of a persons intelligence if they consistently use the wrong vocabulary just to stir an emotional response. You should leave that to lawyers and politicians. Find me a case where someone bootlegging CDs was charged with burglary and I'll retract my statement.
The V-Chip still requires you to trust the body who rates the program and have faith that they are unbiased.
You are forgetting that America was founded by prudes. For Gods sake, the Brittish thought they were too uptight.
And what an effective war it is! Look how well he did at eliminating Osama. Does it concern you the least bit that he focused on Saddam who one day could possibly have posed a threat to America instead of the person who was directly caused the deaths of over 3,000 citizens. I mean there are more police guarding the DNC right now than there troops in Afghanistan. Why aren't we invading Iran? They did more to help terrorists than Saddam. They are even actively pursuing the development nukes. They have the knowledge, materials, and technicians. The answer is simple: Bush entered office with the intention of going after Saddam. Being a great opportunist, he used our fears of terrorist attacks to pursue his personal agenda. He convinced people that Saddam was a greater threat than the Taliban, Iran, Sudan, and Libya with little reason other than intelligence selectively publicized and ignored in order to back his position.
As far as taxes are concerned, I'm middle class and with his reduction I might be able to Super Size my value meal a few extra times. It's a trivial cut that he mad in order to say "I cut taxes".
The economy leveling off can not be credited to Bush. They are not mutually exclusive. If anything, Greenspan deserves the credit. Bush is the first to take the credit or pass the blame as he sees fit.
I suggest you browse the thread again to see more examples of why people should be deeply concerned about Bush.
The ban on stem cell research is no more religious based than a ban on forcible medical testing on death-row inmates.
The ban is based on the false idea that the only source of stem cells is a human fetus. Before I go further, abortion is legal (for the moment). They can either be thrown out as biomedical waste, or we can try to learn as much as we can in order to make unfathomable gains in medial knowledge and devise treatments of currently untreatable diseases. Please remember that almost every modern advance in medicine is largely due to the dissection of human corpses (also once illegal). If your argument is based on religious reasons (which usually is on this topic), wouldn't stem cell research be comparable to a family donating to science the body of a relative who was murdered?
Anyway, I completely lost track of my point. The latest experiments have been able to turn otherwise ordinary cells back into stem cells. Not all the results have been duplicated, but it's only a matter of time before it's science. By then, America will be far behind (in some aspects we already are) and playing catch-up. Who knows what companies will hold patents and copyrights by then; and with the latest international treaties strictly forcing nations to honor each others copyrights and patents we may never regain our lead.
First off, it is without a doubt based on religious pressure. It's almost Marxist to use the supreme law of the land to enforce religious dogma that affects only a small percentage of the population. Forcing the ideals of the majority on the minority solely because of religious inspired (and sometimes mandated) intolernace is about as anti-constitutional as one can be. I think Jon Stewart stated it the best way. He was on Larry King and was asked what his stance of the subject was. "At first I was against it. I love my wife. Then I did some reading on the topic and realized it wasn't mandatory [marrying a man]. Now I'm pretty much for it." There is no legitimate reason why two people who love each other can't go to a courthouse and proclaim their love by announcing their desire to live together for the rest of their lives.
The fact that 50% of American marriages lead to divorce and the popularity of game shows and reality TV that make a mockery of marriage show that there is no way someone can say with a straight face gay marriage defiles a sacred institution. Heterosexual American society beat them to it.
Others argue that it will open the door for other untold perversions like people marrying animals. That completely ignores the fact that animals have neither legal standing nor the ability to sign their name. Besides, using an animal reference as a simile to gay marriage equates to calling a black person a 'coon'. It's ignorant to say the least.
The most used argument is that it will somehow devalue heterosexual marriage. If a gay couple moved in next door, I couldn't imagine how it would make me love my wife any less. This is the one of the same arguments people used to discourage mixed race marriages.
The most important reason everyone should care about this topic is because it is not the governments' role to define or ill-define love. A constitutional amendment for such a topic is an abuse of power and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state. This is much more a religious problem than a social issue. Any attempt to rationalize a ban is so politicians can say that they are not doing it because of religious reasons (which would violate one of our most important amendments). Religion has been used by people to support perverted positions throughout history; like slavery, Jim Crow, and prohibition. Generally speaking, the bible contradicts itself on too many topics to trust it as a source of social law, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Besides, the founding fathers did their best to keep America from becoming a theocracy, and for very good reasons.
Here is the important part:
Since politics is half money and half votes politicians will do whatever they can to make people afraid of something and then tell them that only they have a solution. If there is one thing that 9/11 and the Bush administration 'solutions' to it have proven, it is that fear is the greatest motivator. The downside: Even though fear is an effective way for politicians to gain and keep control, it is often to the detriment of American society. The stigma can last for decades, create more social problems, and hinder social development.
Hate replying to my own comments, but judging by replies to my comment I think I didn't make my sarcasim clear enough....
Lincoln is often cheered as one of the greatest Republicans in history. If you do some reading about America's political history you will see the Democrats and Republicans have traded points of view before. If Lincoln were alive today and still held his same ideals he would most likely be a 3rd party candidate, or at least a Democrat. FDR's NEW Deal and Reconstruction programs put him more in line with today's Republican Party than the Democrats. There are many more examples too if you dig around. What does all this mean? The simple answer is that anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a great fool. Political parties have no real stability, only their name.
I don't know how to classify Bush Jr. Honestly, he scares the crap out of me. His attempts to force the government to define love, an uneducated (and religious based) ban on stem cell research that is choking Americas participation in modern medicine, his staff and other government appointments, and the many questionable ties to corporate interests and the many executive decisions that favor them, all force me to question his commitment to humanity. During his first run for office he billed himself as a compassionate conservative. If the last 4 years have shown anything, it's that his definition of 'compassionate' is seriously flawed.
I'm still unsure of what the true definition of conservative is. What are we losing that people are so concerned about saving. I know it's not the environment. To me, conservatives are afraid of change, or at least rapid change. Everyone I've met has quoted some nonsense about a return to 'the good old days' while the time they reminisce about was 'good' only to white, middle class males.
Neither party is better or worse than the other. To beleive otherwise demonstrates how fooled the American public is when it comes to choosing the lesser of 2 evils to govern us all.
Do you really believe that it is just the republicans that are pushing heavy copyright enforcement?
Dems, Repbs.... what's the difference? They are each a different means to the same end... the reduction of personal rights in favor of corporate rights.
[RANT] Around election time when the patriotic propaganda comes out attempting to make people feel bad for not voting there is usually one message behind it all. "If you are not voting, what does are you saying?" I'm saying plenty by not voting. "Americas 2 party electoral system is a sham, and I won't participate. Choosing between the lesser of 2 evils is not liberty or freedom." Hell, even Communist Russia had elections. You could choose between the hard handed communist in corner A, or the hard handed communist in corner B.[/RANT]
A government earning money instead of forcing its citizens to supply it under threat of force.
If you don't like taxes there must be some country on Earth where citizens pay none. I mean it's just so outdated. The US Mint makes the money, why can't they just make extra and give it to the government?
What's really crazy is that the President doesn't think he shouldn't be held to a higher standard. I'm not saying he can't participate in a little mud slinging, but that video was a bit too low. The worst part is how he justified the war with Iraq by saying God told him to do it. That's the scary thing about the video. Moore is a private citizen and MoveOn is a private orginization, they are able to enjoy their freedom of speech, but canidates and sitting Presidents should think about what they say before going public.