I'll answer this once- nobody said that Casino Marketers knew anything about physics. The idea was basically a joke about how fast casinos build. Therefore, this point doesn't really matter.
Isn't this obvious? I'll bet of you scratch the surface- this is an award from the Casino History. Hoping to draw even more clients, the outpost will be a small hotel, complete with casino, in Geocentric orbit above Nevada, with your trip comped on a $5 million buy in of chips....
Yes- that's the part that should have been the big clue, shouldn't have it- Cheney's ties to Halliburton, and their military contracts. I doubt that's the whole story- the neoconservative movement does NOT, despite appearances, revolve around a single politician. But it is a clue.
The one thing the Bush Administration and the Kerry Campaign have taught me: trust nobody. Ever. Especially when they have monetary ties to starting a war.
How exactly, again, does that line of reasoning go?
That as politicians themselves, they should have known that you can never trust a politician on *anything*, that there is always a hidden agenda. They thus should have, after talking with Cheney, Tenet, Jacoby, and the USAF guy, they should have proceeded to call the sources in the CIA reports at random to check out the story (and also, sent a diplomatic envoy to England to talk with M5, since they were one of the primary sources, as well as one to France to talk with Interpol, as they should have been one of the primary sources but were missing).
But the role of authority is to check the facts *themselves* before giving authorization, thus preventing the lie. That simply did not happen in this case- or in the case of the Patriot Act- or in a lot of what our so-called *Representative* Democracy considers. That's what makes this an equal-opportunity blog- Bush didn't check his facts out of a bias, but neither did the Democrats. Heck, Clinton even believed that Iraq had WMDs- and signed an executive order supporting *any* mission that would topple Saddam short of full invasion (covert ops, like supporting the Kurdish insurgency).
That's what I always liked about Reagan (and that's saying a lot for me). All of his wars without Congressional Approval (and I can think of three off the top of my head, there were probably more that I'm forgetting) were over in 48 hours or less. Well within Presidential Initiative. There is NO reason why Bush couldn't have done this September 12th, none at all.
I'm in Oregon. NCLB came to us so underfunded, that combined with our stupid one-leg funding system, schools closed and local taxes were raised more than we saved in the federal income tax break.
Kerry is telling us the story, though, that he thought the bill had certain pre-requisites for that authorization- specifically proving the WMD story through the use of US inspectors and seeking a new resolution from the UN approving use of force. Neither of these happened- therefore the section of the bill approving use of force should have been null and void.
But beyond that- I'm still agreed with your side- Bush sought approval, and asside from those pesky pre-requisites, actually GOT approval. And there's *some* proof that he even tried to fullfill the pre-requisites. So the original article is a real non-starter.
If I hire Dick Cheney to tell you and 74 of your friends that some person is going to bomb Washington with anthrax drones that don't acutally exist, aluminum centrifuge tubes that don't actually exist, and yellowcake from Nigeria that doesn't actually exist, and you all vote to bomb that person first, does that mean you authorized it?
YES, it does- and it means you're as bad at checking your facts as Dan Rather.
Completely agreed with you- though I doubt the person who wrote this blog would agree with you. Kerry wasn't even mentioned in the article at all, only Bush and his "predecessors". I may still be voting Badnarik, if Kerry sews up Oregon by the time the ballots ship.
But it's the wrong issue- since both the Left and the Right in this case at least sought congressional approval (as well as UN approval), and got it in the case of Afghanistan. There were some conditions attached to the approval in Iraq, and there's some argument whether those conditions were achieved, but you can't say that the Bush Administration didn't *seek* approval.
No- but in general for-profit news (as opposed to opinion blogs) require advertising to survive, so advertising has become a sign that somebody is being paid to be at least as objective as the corporation that hired him. Plus, this is "NEWS" not "BLOGS".
Ah, but by the time we can go 36 light years, do you really think we won't have table-top nanofactories? Any organic or pre-organic molecule has the right elements to turn into food- it's just a matter of rearranging them properly.
I never touch Bush anymore when it comes to deciding who to vote for. Kerry is probably the right ABB vote in my state (Oregon is a swing state on every poll other than Zogby), but I must admit, Peroutka for coming close to my actual beliefs and Badnarik for being so exactly the opposite of my beliefs that he'll accomplish some things that I think need doing anyway; and a Kerry vote would make me feel like a hypocrite on my social conservative issues (even though I'm convinced that universal health care will reduce abortion).
Ah, ok, thanks. Not that I would have noticed- I'm hardly using my bandwidth at all during the day, and because it's a aDSL line, it throttles at 128kbaud up (768kbaud down), so the most that happens is people can't get to my website for a while- I don't get charged for extra bandwidth because it simply doesn't scale. At all. If I get 4 56k users coming on at the same time, the site is effectively slashdotted for everybody else.
Thanks for the suggestion- I'll remember it when I find the time to update that package.
Like I said- haven't had time recently and at least two of those are outdated and one more needs to be removed and replaced with a more general anti-virus program, if I can find a good freeware one (everything in that list is either Open Source or Freeware. The out of date programs are AdAware (AAW6) and Zone Alarm Free (version 5.1.011))
Except...for both the Afghani Theater and the Iraqi theater Bush DID go to Congress and got approval. Sure, there's some argument as to approval for what and under what conditions on Iraq, but approval from Congress WAS sought and obtained. So all that we're left with is Bush protecting priviledge for his "predicessors"....
Learning Disability != moron, it just appears so. And it's more the editors than the actual people who read slashdot.
Finally, when the new Politics Forum was announced, it was promised that the editors would be Fair and Balanced (tm, Fox News). Five pro-Kerry stories to every pro-Bush story is not balanced, no matter how you look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll answer this once- nobody said that Casino Marketers knew anything about physics. The idea was basically a joke about how fast casinos build. Therefore, this point doesn't really matter.
New Soddom!
Isn't this obvious? I'll bet of you scratch the surface- this is an award from the Casino History. Hoping to draw even more clients, the outpost will be a small hotel, complete with casino, in Geocentric orbit above Nevada, with your trip comped on a $5 million buy in of chips....
Yes- that's the part that should have been the big clue, shouldn't have it- Cheney's ties to Halliburton, and their military contracts. I doubt that's the whole story- the neoconservative movement does NOT, despite appearances, revolve around a single politician. But it is a clue.
The one thing the Bush Administration and the Kerry Campaign have taught me: trust nobody. Ever. Especially when they have monetary ties to starting a war.
Uh- Eisenhower didn't get it either- that's why he sent in "trainers" and "observers" to Vietnam.
How exactly, again, does that line of reasoning go?
That as politicians themselves, they should have known that you can never trust a politician on *anything*, that there is always a hidden agenda. They thus should have, after talking with Cheney, Tenet, Jacoby, and the USAF guy, they should have proceeded to call the sources in the CIA reports at random to check out the story (and also, sent a diplomatic envoy to England to talk with M5, since they were one of the primary sources, as well as one to France to talk with Interpol, as they should have been one of the primary sources but were missing).
This should be SOP...but isn't.
Bush isn't smart enough to be either a geek or a nerd- he's a partying frat boy. What we called a preppie in the 1980s.
The Big Bang Burger Barn? (obRef, Restaurant at the End of the Universe).
But the role of authority is to check the facts *themselves* before giving authorization, thus preventing the lie. That simply did not happen in this case- or in the case of the Patriot Act- or in a lot of what our so-called *Representative* Democracy considers. That's what makes this an equal-opportunity blog- Bush didn't check his facts out of a bias, but neither did the Democrats. Heck, Clinton even believed that Iraq had WMDs- and signed an executive order supporting *any* mission that would topple Saddam short of full invasion (covert ops, like supporting the Kurdish insurgency).
That's what I always liked about Reagan (and that's saying a lot for me). All of his wars without Congressional Approval (and I can think of three off the top of my head, there were probably more that I'm forgetting) were over in 48 hours or less. Well within Presidential Initiative. There is NO reason why Bush couldn't have done this September 12th, none at all.
I'm in Oregon. NCLB came to us so underfunded, that combined with our stupid one-leg funding system, schools closed and local taxes were raised more than we saved in the federal income tax break.
Kerry is telling us the story, though, that he thought the bill had certain pre-requisites for that authorization- specifically proving the WMD story through the use of US inspectors and seeking a new resolution from the UN approving use of force. Neither of these happened- therefore the section of the bill approving use of force should have been null and void.
But beyond that- I'm still agreed with your side- Bush sought approval, and asside from those pesky pre-requisites, actually GOT approval. And there's *some* proof that he even tried to fullfill the pre-requisites. So the original article is a real non-starter.
If I hire Dick Cheney to tell you and 74 of your friends that some person is going to bomb Washington with anthrax drones that don't acutally exist, aluminum centrifuge tubes that don't actually exist, and yellowcake from Nigeria that doesn't actually exist, and you all vote to bomb that person first, does that mean you authorized it?
YES, it does- and it means you're as bad at checking your facts as Dan Rather.
Completely agreed with you- though I doubt the person who wrote this blog would agree with you. Kerry wasn't even mentioned in the article at all, only Bush and his "predecessors". I may still be voting Badnarik, if Kerry sews up Oregon by the time the ballots ship.
But it's the wrong issue- since both the Left and the Right in this case at least sought congressional approval (as well as UN approval), and got it in the case of Afghanistan. There were some conditions attached to the approval in Iraq, and there's some argument whether those conditions were achieved, but you can't say that the Bush Administration didn't *seek* approval.
No- but in general for-profit news (as opposed to opinion blogs) require advertising to survive, so advertising has become a sign that somebody is being paid to be at least as objective as the corporation that hired him. Plus, this is "NEWS" not "BLOGS".
Ah, but by the time we can go 36 light years, do you really think we won't have table-top nanofactories? Any organic or pre-organic molecule has the right elements to turn into food- it's just a matter of rearranging them properly.
I never touch Bush anymore when it comes to deciding who to vote for. Kerry is probably the right ABB vote in my state (Oregon is a swing state on every poll other than Zogby), but I must admit, Peroutka for coming close to my actual beliefs and Badnarik for being so exactly the opposite of my beliefs that he'll accomplish some things that I think need doing anyway; and a Kerry vote would make me feel like a hypocrite on my social conservative issues (even though I'm convinced that universal health care will reduce abortion).
Ah, ok, thanks. Not that I would have noticed- I'm hardly using my bandwidth at all during the day, and because it's a aDSL line, it throttles at 128kbaud up (768kbaud down), so the most that happens is people can't get to my website for a while- I don't get charged for extra bandwidth because it simply doesn't scale. At all. If I get 4 56k users coming on at the same time, the site is effectively slashdotted for everybody else.
Thanks for the suggestion- I'll remember it when I find the time to update that package.
Like I said- haven't had time recently and at least two of those are outdated and one more needs to be removed and replaced with a more general anti-virus program, if I can find a good freeware one (everything in that list is either Open Source or Freeware. The out of date programs are AdAware (AAW6) and Zone Alarm Free (version 5.1.011))
Should have previewed that- apprently I had the same spelling teacher as W and Quayle- predecessors.
Except...for both the Afghani Theater and the Iraqi theater Bush DID go to Congress and got approval. Sure, there's some argument as to approval for what and under what conditions on Iraq, but approval from Congress WAS sought and obtained. So all that we're left with is Bush protecting priviledge for his "predicessors"....
Learning Disability != moron, it just appears so. And it's more the editors than the actual people who read slashdot.
Finally, when the new Politics Forum was announced, it was promised that the editors would be Fair and Balanced (tm, Fox News). Five pro-Kerry stories to every pro-Bush story is not balanced, no matter how you look at it.
Your search should have included W. All of the genocidal members of the family who were president have already retired.