News for the programmers of that system- volitile memory may not be the best place to buffer 13,000 scanned ballots- you should be writing to disk after every scan.
No, but it's a start- the rest has to deal with actually paying women to *be* mothers, because at this point, children are the only manufactured product we have left in America. So we might as well actually invest in them.
What I learned most from that chapter- ALWAYS encrypt your hard drives. Of course- I learned this way back in the Hacker Crackdown of '92- even had a friend who wrote me a great virus for this (one of these days, if I ever need it again, I'll pull out that boot sector virus and recode it for XP- but I haven't needed it since DOS days).
So you have foreign dopes saying stupid-ass shit. Like the Vatican endorsing Kerry. Then they're asked, "isn't it a sin to vote for a candidate in favor of abortion? Didn't you say exactly that LAST ELECTION?". And they go "ummm ummm ummmm But Bush is a dummY!!!!!1!!!! Him mess up a cliche during a speech!1!1!!"
I'm willing to bet you got the 60% figure from the "George W Bush Abstinence Only Foundation" or some such, right?
Nope- got it from my 9th grade sex ed book. I've never seen anything to doubt it- it was used to remind us that *any* method missused is likely to result in pregnancy- and that was before AIDS really was well known.
I have yet to see one that puts it at less than 85%, usually higher than that.
With or without adequate usage?
Gee, that makes sense. Latex stops sperm and viruses are smaller than sperm, therefore latex is permiable to viruses?
No- you missed the point. Latex does NOT stop sperm in many cases- even your own figures suggest 15%. In those 15% of cases, why should the virus be stopped when the sperm isn't?
I suppose the thought that the pores in latex are smaller than viruses never crossed your mind?
Has nothing to do with the size of the pores- and everything to do with the 2% failure rate even when correctly used.
Oh this gets better and better. You compare the theoretical success rate of abstinence to the effective rate of condoms and call it a day?
No- one actually has to TEACH abstinence for abstinence to be effective- but then again, one actually has to teach condom use for condoms to be effective, correct?
Why not compare the effective rate of both?
Sure- when used correctly- but we'd better pick an abstinence education first. Since you brought up the Catholic Church, I'll pick RELIGOUS BRAINWASHING. When done correctly, complete with the sleep depravation- I'm sure it's quite effective...
Oh, that's right. Because among teens who say they'll refrain from sexual relationships, most of them ended up getting it on anyway.
Depends on how effective the family is, actually. But I'll bet your kids do- and they'll probably use that condom ineffectively too, since you'll just hand them the condom and hope they know what to do with it right?
Abstinence is only a success if you make a point of ignoring the failures.
Or if you make a point of correctly discouraging the failures. Say, by segregating the children by sex between the ages of 9 and 26...or there's always Islam's method of enforcing abstinence, no Islamic women or men are going to die of STDs, because they'll be executed for adultery first.
specifically condoms, is useless for preventing the spread of STDs, which is demonstrably not true.
Care to demonstrate how a birth control method which is only 98% effective at preventing PREGNANCY when used correctly (and 60% effective when you consider how often it's used incorrectly) is able to prevent transmission of a viurs many times smaller than a human sperm? 60% effective, possibly, but that's pretty useless for preventing the spread of STDs- at least compared to celebacy, which is much more goof proof when used correctly- don't have sex you won't get STDs.
I'll keep it in mind in case we ever get health insurance again. I'll also start trying some more common, easily done tests in the home (hmm...this could also explain why he keeps messing with the volume on the TV- though I still think that's because messing with the volume on the TV is far more fun than actually watching it at his age).
Completely agreed- so what about the other option- A United States of America that isn't engaged in the world at all? If they hate us that badly, what if we suddenly *stopped* importing and exporting, defaulted on the entire $8 trillion we owe to other countries, exiled the MNCs and just simply stopped buying from the rest of the world? I hope they enjoy the depression.
Thanks for biting and playing- you still haven't figured it out, have you?
The whole genocide thing is a FAKE- as is Information-R-Us, as is the rest. I'm a social engineer, and you fell completely for my trap- and wasted your time completely. Heck- I even got you arguing that the Arabic World during the Dark Ages was releasing *secular* art- when secular art is completely against the Koran. You also obviously don't know anything about the history of your own religion- must be Irish or Italiano- or about the history of the United States. What a goofball!
Unless your kid is like my Christopher- who very early on learned "ok" and promptly forgot it- and seems to have mimiced the behavior with every new word since. He'll repeat the word for a while, we'll repeat it back to him, and he never says it again. 17 months old, and he's yet to move beyond single words repeated for a while and then forgotten. OTOH, he is showing that he understands what WE say, and can follow basic dog-obediance-school level vocabulary; so I guess he is progressing somewhat, but it's damned slow.
Yep- exactly right. I think most people, if given a workable option, would support isolationism rather than co-operate with dictators- but no politician will.
As I said above- the best we can hope for as long as *any* candidate is taking corporate campaign contributions (aka BRIBES) is gridlock. The only way at this point to rectify the situation is with *either* a massive grass roots campaign against it (not likely to happen as long as corporations are allowed to spend campaign money at all) or violent revolution. I see no candidate offering either one at all. Thus, sadly, gridlock is the best we can hope for.
I will personally be putting up my candidacy to over the grassroots option for 2008- but I don't predict that my plan for raising campaign funds will even work (Internet fund raising only- IP addresses will be recorded- no IP address is allowed to give more or less than $10 to the campaign- server will shut down the page entirely at $500,000 given. If at least $88,000 is recieved, we will have enough for the minimal whistle stop campaign in the summer of 2007).
And actually a better plan from the point of view of the neoconservatives- they're not interested in any freedom, and nuking Iraq takes those oil fields out of commission, perhaps forever. That's the ONLY reason to support limited warfare in the War on Terror- to preserve the natural resources of the region so that the United States can profit from them.
If we were ACTUALLY trying to "free" them, we'd be treating them one hell of a lot better than arresting them and torturing them in the prisons. Heck- if we really believed in a just God who *personally* intervenes in history, we'd realize that all of our messing about in the middle east has done nothing by create *more* suffering- and that the only two possible solutions at this point are genocide or isolationism- with isolationism being the more moral of the two choices.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
Zionists are not a part of this- only Mammon worshipers in the great church of the stock markets. The Zionists don't affect anything outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- because that's their only issue.
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist?
Because the whole label of "The Dark Ages" is a PROTESTANT propaganda.
More Zionist Propaganda?
Nope, has nothing to do with them- during this period, most Zionists were slaves.
And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades?
Arabia invaded the Holy Land, which called to the Pope for assistance, which created the Crusades. Arabia was the invader- the Crusaders were defenders.
Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
I have a BSET from Oregon Institute of Technology- admitedly it's not a Islamic Institution, but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
The best solution is to force gridlock so that all those we elected are the most powerless to do anything? That is what we consider best for the USA, to put people in power for the purpose of blocking those others we have put into power?
As long as we no longer have democracy by the minority of the mega corporations being the only ones allowed to pick the viable candidates- this is the best we can hope for.
ONLY when we finally figure out that it's not a good idea to allow corporations to donate money to politicians, will we once again have a democracy- until that happens, your method of refusing to participate in the game will only insure that the corporations will contine to have carte blanche on whatever they want to pass.
To me- most of the discussions on Politics have been fruitfull. Having said that, this is likely to be one of just a handfull of posts in Politics that I will make in the next week. I'm working on starting my own political site; I'm sick and tired of this election (and the recount hasn't happened yet) and the one big thing I've learned is that FUD is just as primary motivator for voting as it is for purchasing operating systems (and there's plenty of FUD on both sides to go around). I thus plan to capitalize on all the FUD in my own political party- creating a whole new platform based on the things that both Democrats and Republicans from Kansas like (You know- Pro-life, with just enough pro-choice to cover life of the mother, with economic support for family farms, small businesses, and destroy the corporations that make our lives miserable, while preserving the socialistic and communistic aspects of ownership by the people, but please get rid of the New York (and other) Stock Exchange, which makes it so that we can't count on our money being worth the same day to day). Anybody who can successfully mix social conservativism and fiscal liberalism will sneak under the radar of the major parties- and might just capture 60% of the vote from all the good people who go to church every Sunday but earn less than $120,000/year, and have thus been cut out of our society.
At this point, do you really believe that closing the borders would make everyone else all of the sudden think differently of us and stop terrorist attacks? No way.
You apparently didn't watch (or maybe didn't watch YET) Bin Laden's most recent tape over the weekend.
All they want is for us to stop messing around in the politics of the area. What that means in the middle east is we need to pull our corporations & soldiers OUT- button down and stop endangering Arab Security by supporting corrupt and downright criminal regimes. Do that- and al Qaida has NO real qualms with us. Better yet- stop importing from China and China in turn will use less oil, thus giving the common arab in the street a better chance at Justice. That's what Jihad is to begin with after all, the fight for justice.
We need to engage the world as equals, not superiors.
Too late by over 100 years- the Monroe Doctrine, should we choose to continue it, insures that we will NEVER engage the world as equals- always as superiors. I say, better than that- stop egaging the world at all. Why should we force our way of life off onto others? What's so wrong about their way of life that we have to destroy it?
We need to practice what we preach, show compassion for the less fortunate nations, and try and gain morality once again.
The best way we can do that is to admit that we don't have all the answers- admit that we've FAILED every place we've tried to replace their government (we have, after all- Japan's been in a recession for nearly 15 years now, Germany is returning to their superior form of government), and stop destroying the way of life in the third world. Don't try to industrialize them- they don't need industrializing, and when they do, they'll find a way to do it themselves with no help from us. Everything we touch, we affect negatively- so we should stop touching.
None of this can be done if we close ourselves up like 1700s China trying to stop Christianity.
None of it can be done at all. It's a bad idea. We're not competent enough to run a stable economy or an honest government here- what makes you think we can run one elsewhere? It's simply a bad idea.
Look what the close door policy did to China. Do you really want us to go there?
YES. Everything that is bad in our society is tied to two basic wrong headed ideas: 1. That multinational corporations are good for anybody other than the investors and C-level executives of multinational corporations. 2. That we can duplicate the freedom we had in the 1820s by mimicing the economy and government we had in the 1920s elsewhere.
Neither of these are valid ideas- and neither should be even attempted.
Parties are things that only Neurotypical people go to.
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
Or maybe you're the one who doesn't have Zionists and Islamics in the family- thus you haven't heard some of the more "special" ideas they have for Mecca or Jerusalem's place in the world.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell.
And it can go right back in, now that it's proven that it doesn't know how to be a superpower without making people want to blow up buildings with planes.
You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy?
I think you have some mistaken idea what closing the borders means. Obviously, anybody trying to get across the border without prior authorization and a background check is a BAD GUY! Ideally- so is anybody with prior authorization and a background check that was done in any foriegn nation- because they don't have the data protection laws we do here. Thus, anybody trying to come across a closed border is a BAD GUY.
Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC. Like I said before- it's a choice between our morality and our economy- and it's far easier to redesign the economic system to work without foreign trade than it is to design a new religious/moral code that allows the murder of a billion people, regardless of the fact that they are trying to kill us right back.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
Ah, you're drinking THAT flavor of the Kool-aid. Thank you for straightening that out.
What you fail to understand is the lesson I learned the hard way over the last four years- Islamics, Europeans, MNC C-level executives, Asains, none of them can be trusted. It's time to take back America for the only Americans that count- the natives.
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place?
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq.
I'll have to remember that one- you think the Hindu Kush Mountain Range is the same climate as a desert that is several latitude south and several longitude west.
One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Granted- that's one of the major problems in AFGHANISTAN. But we were talking about Iraq- totally different climate.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well.
Read again- see how much I agreed with you when I changed every single point!
In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
Guess what- they already have plenty of reason to nuke us. But I know you can't see it- because you haven't lost your trust yet. Foolish, naiv
So vote for who you really want to win, because either Bush or Kerry are going to win anyway and they will both equally suck.
See, that's where this reasoning falls down for me- I don't think they'll EQUALLY suck. I think Kerry's obvious INTELLIGENCE and flip flopping HYPOCRISY means more government gridlock and fewer stupid stuff sneaking by. Which ends up a net plus for America.
Having said that- if you're not in a swing state, if EITHER Bush or Kerry is leading your state by more than 10%, we need you to send a message to the major parties. You don't have to vote Libertarian. Just write in someone you'd rather see, like your dentist or a Seventh-Day Adventist (ok, sorry, channeling Jimmy Pheromone for a second there, I'll give you all Bacardi if you'll Join the All Night Party).
Slashdot Mirror
News for the programmers of that system- volitile memory may not be the best place to buffer 13,000 scanned ballots- you should be writing to disk after every scan.
No, but it's a start- the rest has to deal with actually paying women to *be* mothers, because at this point, children are the only manufactured product we have left in America. So we might as well actually invest in them.
What I learned most from that chapter- ALWAYS encrypt your hard drives. Of course- I learned this way back in the Hacker Crackdown of '92- even had a friend who wrote me a great virus for this (one of these days, if I ever need it again, I'll pull out that boot sector virus and recode it for XP- but I haven't needed it since DOS days).
So you have foreign dopes saying stupid-ass shit. Like the Vatican endorsing Kerry. Then they're asked, "isn't it a sin to vote for a candidate in favor of abortion? Didn't you say exactly that LAST ELECTION?". And they go "ummm ummm ummmm But Bush is a dummY!!!!!1!!!! Him mess up a cliche during a speech!1!1!!"
The Vatican Endorsed Kerry? When?
I'm willing to bet you got the 60% figure from the "George W Bush Abstinence Only Foundation" or some such, right?
Nope- got it from my 9th grade sex ed book. I've never seen anything to doubt it- it was used to remind us that *any* method missused is likely to result in pregnancy- and that was before AIDS really was well known.
I have yet to see one that puts it at less than 85%, usually higher than that.
With or without adequate usage?
Gee, that makes sense. Latex stops sperm and viruses are smaller than sperm, therefore latex is permiable to viruses?
No- you missed the point. Latex does NOT stop sperm in many cases- even your own figures suggest 15%. In those 15% of cases, why should the virus be stopped when the sperm isn't?
I suppose the thought that the pores in latex are smaller than viruses never crossed your mind?
Has nothing to do with the size of the pores- and everything to do with the 2% failure rate even when correctly used.
Oh this gets better and better. You compare the theoretical success rate of abstinence to the effective rate of condoms and call it a day?
No- one actually has to TEACH abstinence for abstinence to be effective- but then again, one actually has to teach condom use for condoms to be effective, correct?
Why not compare the effective rate of both?
Sure- when used correctly- but we'd better pick an abstinence education first. Since you brought up the Catholic Church, I'll pick RELIGOUS BRAINWASHING. When done correctly, complete with the sleep depravation- I'm sure it's quite effective...
Oh, that's right. Because among teens who say they'll refrain from sexual relationships, most of them ended up getting it on anyway.
Depends on how effective the family is, actually. But I'll bet your kids do- and they'll probably use that condom ineffectively too, since you'll just hand them the condom and hope they know what to do with it right?
Abstinence is only a success if you make a point of ignoring the failures.
Or if you make a point of correctly discouraging the failures. Say, by segregating the children by sex between the ages of 9 and 26...or there's always Islam's method of enforcing abstinence, no Islamic women or men are going to die of STDs, because they'll be executed for adultery first.
specifically condoms, is useless for preventing the spread of STDs, which is demonstrably not true.
Care to demonstrate how a birth control method which is only 98% effective at preventing PREGNANCY when used correctly (and 60% effective when you consider how often it's used incorrectly) is able to prevent transmission of a viurs many times smaller than a human sperm? 60% effective, possibly, but that's pretty useless for preventing the spread of STDs- at least compared to celebacy, which is much more goof proof when used correctly- don't have sex you won't get STDs.
Or at least, that's the REAL argument.
I'll keep it in mind in case we ever get health insurance again. I'll also start trying some more common, easily done tests in the home (hmm...this could also explain why he keeps messing with the volume on the TV- though I still think that's because messing with the volume on the TV is far more fun than actually watching it at his age).
Completely agreed- so what about the other option- A United States of America that isn't engaged in the world at all? If they hate us that badly, what if we suddenly *stopped* importing and exporting, defaulted on the entire $8 trillion we owe to other countries, exiled the MNCs and just simply stopped buying from the rest of the world? I hope they enjoy the depression.
Thanks for biting and playing- you still haven't figured it out, have you?
The whole genocide thing is a FAKE- as is Information-R-Us, as is the rest. I'm a social engineer, and you fell completely for my trap- and wasted your time completely. Heck- I even got you arguing that the Arabic World during the Dark Ages was releasing *secular* art- when secular art is completely against the Koran. You also obviously don't know anything about the history of your own religion- must be Irish or Italiano- or about the history of the United States. What a goofball!
At the end- this guy pled guilty just two months before all the evidence was destroyed in the 9-11 attacks....what a trippy ending!
Unless your kid is like my Christopher- who very early on learned "ok" and promptly forgot it- and seems to have mimiced the behavior with every new word since. He'll repeat the word for a while, we'll repeat it back to him, and he never says it again. 17 months old, and he's yet to move beyond single words repeated for a while and then forgotten. OTOH, he is showing that he understands what WE say, and can follow basic dog-obediance-school level vocabulary; so I guess he is progressing somewhat, but it's damned slow.
Yep- exactly right. I think most people, if given a workable option, would support isolationism rather than co-operate with dictators- but no politician will.
What's the website? Is it up yet, or are you like me and waiting for *after* the current election?
I agree, Character Does Matter- too bad the characters we're faced with are an idiot corporate puppet and a meglomaniac hypocrite.
As I said above- the best we can hope for as long as *any* candidate is taking corporate campaign contributions (aka BRIBES) is gridlock. The only way at this point to rectify the situation is with *either* a massive grass roots campaign against it (not likely to happen as long as corporations are allowed to spend campaign money at all) or violent revolution. I see no candidate offering either one at all. Thus, sadly, gridlock is the best we can hope for.
I will personally be putting up my candidacy to over the grassroots option for 2008- but I don't predict that my plan for raising campaign funds will even work (Internet fund raising only- IP addresses will be recorded- no IP address is allowed to give more or less than $10 to the campaign- server will shut down the page entirely at $500,000 given. If at least $88,000 is recieved, we will have enough for the minimal whistle stop campaign in the summer of 2007).
And actually a better plan from the point of view of the neoconservatives- they're not interested in any freedom, and nuking Iraq takes those oil fields out of commission, perhaps forever. That's the ONLY reason to support limited warfare in the War on Terror- to preserve the natural resources of the region so that the United States can profit from them.
Because you are trying to free them?
If we were ACTUALLY trying to "free" them, we'd be treating them one hell of a lot better than arresting them and torturing them in the prisons. Heck- if we really believed in a just God who *personally* intervenes in history, we'd realize that all of our messing about in the middle east has done nothing by create *more* suffering- and that the only two possible solutions at this point are genocide or isolationism- with isolationism being the more moral of the two choices.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
Zionists are not a part of this- only Mammon worshipers in the great church of the stock markets. The Zionists don't affect anything outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- because that's their only issue.
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist?
Because the whole label of "The Dark Ages" is a PROTESTANT propaganda.
More Zionist Propaganda?
Nope, has nothing to do with them- during this period, most Zionists were slaves.
And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades?
Arabia invaded the Holy Land, which called to the Pope for assistance, which created the Crusades. Arabia was the invader- the Crusaders were defenders.
Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
I have a BSET from Oregon Institute of Technology- admitedly it's not a Islamic Institution, but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
The best solution is to force gridlock so that all those we elected are the most powerless to do anything? That is what we consider best for the USA, to put people in power for the purpose of blocking those others we have put into power?
As long as we no longer have democracy by the minority of the mega corporations being the only ones allowed to pick the viable candidates- this is the best we can hope for.
ONLY when we finally figure out that it's not a good idea to allow corporations to donate money to politicians, will we once again have a democracy- until that happens, your method of refusing to participate in the game will only insure that the corporations will contine to have carte blanche on whatever they want to pass.
To me- most of the discussions on Politics have been fruitfull. Having said that, this is likely to be one of just a handfull of posts in Politics that I will make in the next week. I'm working on starting my own political site; I'm sick and tired of this election (and the recount hasn't happened yet) and the one big thing I've learned is that FUD is just as primary motivator for voting as it is for purchasing operating systems (and there's plenty of FUD on both sides to go around). I thus plan to capitalize on all the FUD in my own political party- creating a whole new platform based on the things that both Democrats and Republicans from Kansas like (You know- Pro-life, with just enough pro-choice to cover life of the mother, with economic support for family farms, small businesses, and destroy the corporations that make our lives miserable, while preserving the socialistic and communistic aspects of ownership by the people, but please get rid of the New York (and other) Stock Exchange, which makes it so that we can't count on our money being worth the same day to day). Anybody who can successfully mix social conservativism and fiscal liberalism will sneak under the radar of the major parties- and might just capture 60% of the vote from all the good people who go to church every Sunday but earn less than $120,000/year, and have thus been cut out of our society.
At this point, do you really believe that closing the borders would make everyone else all of the sudden think differently of us and stop terrorist attacks? No way.
You apparently didn't watch (or maybe didn't watch YET) Bin Laden's most recent tape over the weekend.
All they want is for us to stop messing around in the politics of the area. What that means in the middle east is we need to pull our corporations & soldiers OUT- button down and stop endangering Arab Security by supporting corrupt and downright criminal regimes. Do that- and al Qaida has NO real qualms with us. Better yet- stop importing from China and China in turn will use less oil, thus giving the common arab in the street a better chance at Justice. That's what Jihad is to begin with after all, the fight for justice.
We need to engage the world as equals, not superiors.
Too late by over 100 years- the Monroe Doctrine, should we choose to continue it, insures that we will NEVER engage the world as equals- always as superiors. I say, better than that- stop egaging the world at all. Why should we force our way of life off onto others? What's so wrong about their way of life that we have to destroy it?
We need to practice what we preach, show compassion for the less fortunate nations, and try and gain morality once again.
The best way we can do that is to admit that we don't have all the answers- admit that we've FAILED every place we've tried to replace their government (we have, after all- Japan's been in a recession for nearly 15 years now, Germany is returning to their superior form of government), and stop destroying the way of life in the third world. Don't try to industrialize them- they don't need industrializing, and when they do, they'll find a way to do it themselves with no help from us. Everything we touch, we affect negatively- so we should stop touching.
None of this can be done if we close ourselves up like 1700s China trying to stop Christianity.
None of it can be done at all. It's a bad idea. We're not competent enough to run a stable economy or an honest government here- what makes you think we can run one elsewhere? It's simply a bad idea.
Look what the close door policy did to China. Do you really want us to go there?
YES. Everything that is bad in our society is tied to two basic wrong headed ideas:
1. That multinational corporations are good for anybody other than the investors and C-level executives of multinational corporations.
2. That we can duplicate the freedom we had in the 1820s by mimicing the economy and government we had in the 1920s elsewhere.
Neither of these are valid ideas- and neither should be even attempted.
You must be great at parties.
Parties are things that only Neurotypical people go to.
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
Or maybe you're the one who doesn't have Zionists and Islamics in the family- thus you haven't heard some of the more "special" ideas they have for Mecca or Jerusalem's place in the world.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell.
And it can go right back in, now that it's proven that it doesn't know how to be a superpower without making people want to blow up buildings with planes.
You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy?
I think you have some mistaken idea what closing the borders means. Obviously, anybody trying to get across the border without prior authorization and a background check is a BAD GUY! Ideally- so is anybody with prior authorization and a background check that was done in any foriegn nation- because they don't have the data protection laws we do here. Thus, anybody trying to come across a closed border is a BAD GUY.
Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC. Like I said before- it's a choice between our morality and our economy- and it's far easier to redesign the economic system to work without foreign trade than it is to design a new religious/moral code that allows the murder of a billion people, regardless of the fact that they are trying to kill us right back.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
Ah, you're drinking THAT flavor of the Kool-aid. Thank you for straightening that out.
What you fail to understand is the lesson I learned the hard way over the last four years- Islamics, Europeans, MNC C-level executives, Asains, none of them can be trusted. It's time to take back America for the only Americans that count- the natives.
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place?
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq.
I'll have to remember that one- you think the Hindu Kush Mountain Range is the same climate as a desert that is several latitude south and several longitude west.
One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Granted- that's one of the major problems in AFGHANISTAN. But we were talking about Iraq- totally different climate.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well.
Read again- see how much I agreed with you when I changed every single point!
In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
Guess what- they already have plenty of reason to nuke us. But I know you can't see it- because you haven't lost your trust yet. Foolish, naiv
And no good libertarian would ever support a Theo-nazi like Peroutka, right?
Only to a libertarian or a statist. To a Republican or a Democrat they are one and the same.
So vote for who you really want to win, because either Bush or Kerry are going to win anyway and they will both equally suck.
See, that's where this reasoning falls down for me- I don't think they'll EQUALLY suck. I think Kerry's obvious INTELLIGENCE and flip flopping HYPOCRISY means more government gridlock and fewer stupid stuff sneaking by. Which ends up a net plus for America.
Having said that- if you're not in a swing state, if EITHER Bush or Kerry is leading your state by more than 10%, we need you to send a message to the major parties. You don't have to vote Libertarian. Just write in someone you'd rather see, like your dentist or a Seventh-Day Adventist (ok, sorry, channeling Jimmy Pheromone for a second there, I'll give you all Bacardi if you'll Join the All Night Party).