A lot of hypothermia research was conducted on Jews by the Nazis. Needless to say it was without their consent and with little regard for their safety. But as a result of this research, we now know that cold-weather rescues are quite possible as well as open heart surgery. Many lives have been saved.
Yes, I suppose you could compare experiments on a single cell organizism in a vial in a fridge to the torture of adult humans, if you were really, really stupid.
Not only that, since all people die anyway, it's only religious foolishness to say that killing people is wrong.
Sounds just like the stupid fucking hicks that proclaim that allowing gays to get married will lead to people marrying their pets, as if dogs and cats could give consent and sign marriage contracts.
Which is to say, in case you missed the sarcasm, that the natural rate of viability of fertilized eggs is completely irrelevant from a moral point of view.
Not in the slightest. If a fertilized egg is really a human being, then there are millions of deaths every year. But the real moral issue is stopping embryos from being used for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash at fertility clinics.
Many people do not define humanity by consciousness, or any particular level of development.
And some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Too damned bad for them.
The people who oppose embryonic stem cell research generally also oppose the deliberate fertilization of eggs that will be consciously denied the chance to live.
Right, which is why the right wing cries and moans every time a Christian family has a buttload of kids through in vitro fertilization. Oh wait, they don't. At all.
So by this reasoning it is ok to kill unconscious people, since any unconscious person only has the potential to become conscious, you can't prove they will until they do.
I suppose some could see it that way, if they're total morons. A person asleep will wake up. A person in a coma might wake up. The chances of a fertilized egg waking up: zero.
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
Because 100% of the nation's research is done in California? The same California that is now facing a $40 billion deficit because of tax cutting jihadists and obviously has so much money to throw around?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
Other than lack of funding, having to spend large sums of money on setting separate labs so no federal money would be used on the verboten stem cells, and lack of funding?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
And in other news, Chewbaca brings his family to Endor...
First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Embryonic stem cell research has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with abortion. It takes fertilized embryos from fertility clinics for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash.
Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
Yes, because the rich suffered SO MUCH in the 90's with a marginal tax rate 3% higher than it is now. This whining about Obama and taxes is so stupid it makes one's hair hurt.
because the bulk of the benefits will be impossible to monetize. Since anyone can use the products of basic research, those who fund it create something that their freeloading competitors can use just as easily as they can. So basic research will always be starved under a private sector regime.
No, this is why there is a patent system. I know, much reviled here, but that's what it's for.
But with private sector research, you have to mark off a majority of the profits for lobbying, advertising, and the annual 15% increase in compensation for board members already earning millions per year, with the little left over going back into R&D.
Second, the percentage of deduction for charitable giving for those in the top bracket is going to drop to 28% -- a 7% drop in some circumstances.
Charity is insignificant next to social spending from the government. The Hooverites in the 30's were counting on charity to pull us out of the Great Depression - it didn't happen then, and it wont happen now.
Hell yeah! And if you want a road built
People used to do that a lot more than they do now.
Because we used to believe in the public sector in this country, and used to have a 91% marginal tax rate, even under Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon. But now, after decades of free market propaganda, our media and politicians love that free market cock. They're insatiable:
In 1939, President Roosevelt decided to mobilize Americans to create a new source of energy: atomic power. Although he was urged to focus on government-funded R&D, FDR chose a different route. He wisely encouraged private capital to invest in atomic energy research by a variety of tax incentives. To make atomic power investment more palatable to private capital, FDR boldly chose to make all other forms of energy in the U.S. uneconomical, by slapping high taxes on kerosene and coal. With the money from the new federal Kerosene Cap and Trade system, President Roosevelt and Congress funded a small-scale federal research program, in the hope of attracting much greater private investment...
Wait. What's that you say? FDR didn't do that? He poured federal money into the all-public Manhattan Project and created the
The "ban" was actually the first time a president had set aside funding specifically for embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of about $400 million if I remember correctly.
Red herring. Stem cell research wasn't funded before that because it was a completely new area of study. Your talking point pretends that stem cells were an established area of study like AIDS or cancer when that's not the case.
because it forced researchers to find other viable sources of stem cells. Several studies have noted that embryonic stem cells have a high incidence of becoming cancerous. Stem cells from other sources have a lower incidence.
Sounds like climate change deniers when they latch on to a piece of information to retroactively justify their ideological beliefs. Like the reports of thickening arctic ice that proved that climate change was bunk - nevermind that the increase was due to increased precipitation in warmer weather.
Or for a medical example, say a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses got together to block research on organ transplants for religious reasons, then crowed how right they were when transplants failed due to being the wrong blood type.
Since we're talking about research and not treatment, talking about how embryonic stems cells may be more cancerous is at this point a red herring.
Damn them for keeping upgrades under wraps. I would have held off if I knew the new one was only two months away.
That will happen. If you want to buy a system, look and see what the date of the last refresh was. If it's been a while, then you might want to hold off until the next update. Then you can either get the new stuff, or get the out of date stuff for a discount. Or an out of date refurb and save even more money (Apple refurbs have the same warranty as new machines).
Too dangerous to work on inside.
Don't be a sissy.:) Working on the original iMac design or the iBooks was a serious pain in the ass - you damn near had to disassemble the the things to change the memory/hard drive. New machines are a piece of cake in comparison.
You really pay a lot more for the parts with Apple.
Never buy memory and especially hard drives from Apple without checking prices first. For example, for the price of upgrading the drive in a laptop as a BTO option, you could buy the same class drive from Newegg AND an external enclosure to put the original drive in. About the only thing they don't rip you off on three ways till Sunday is on the ECC RAM for the Mac Pro/Xserves.
Please explain how forcing banks to make bad loans in the name of "social justice" proves that regulation keeps capitalism from destroying itself.
Fortunately we don't have to explain any such thing, as you're repeating a well debunked bald faced lie:
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
It was greed and deregulation, not a 30 year old law that prevents banks from denying loans on race, that blew a few hundred billion in mortgages into a credit default swap market larger than the GDP for the entire planet.
Too bad your opinion isn't based on reality. It was the lack of regulation that let bankers run up a few hundred billion in mortgages into a bubble larger than the GDP of the entire planet. It was the lack of regulation that let Bernie Maddoff swindle billions of dollars from investors, despite the fact that a whistleblower was screaming at the SEC for years that the hedge fund was a Ponzi scheme. It was the Republican gutting of IRS investigations that let other Ponzi schemers turn in the same income tax returns multiple times without notice. It's the lack of regulations that executives take over 100% of a firm's profits in bonuses.
So give it up already, your freeper BS just aint gonna fly any more.
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
Reality has a well known anti-wingnut bias. Or maybe you'd like to try and explain how minorities and a 30 year old law are resonsible for ballooning a few hundred billion in mortgages into a bubble larger than the GDP of the entire planet.
Ahh yes, the "deregulation" that resulted in the existing financial market - the most highly regulated market in America.
Maybe in whatever alternate reality you come from, but here the facts don't meet your story line. At all. You had an SEC that was asleep at the wheel. You had Republican love for deregulation leading to the credit swap market being larger than the GDP entire planet.
Or just watch Sicko, where Michael Moore uses to the weak US health system to ask WTF Cuba has nearly as good a health care system as the U.S. despite spending 1/30th as much per patient
Does a plumber get additional fees everytime you flush?
That might be a valid comparison if the pluming company got money every time you flushed, but they don't. TV studios continue to make money every time a show is put in syndication, sold on DVD, or downloaded from the Internet.
Serves me right for posting w/o coffee...I just saw the "gamer" part.
My only point is that, while you may WANT those things, Apple doesn't owe it to you to accommodate you.
Didn't say they did. Maybe I'll pony up for the Family Pack for my Hackintosh so I wont feel too guilty.
This may have something to with the fact that while the needs you mention above are NEEDS to you, you're niche and not worth rolling out a product line for.
Methinks that there's more than a "niche" of people who want lots of storage but don't need lots of processing power, and for whom a vanilla dual core is more than sufficient. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if Apple would up Firewire to match SATA, but for now it's stuck at a quarter of the speed.
who is an expandable mid-ranged desktop targeted at? Geeks and gamers.
Or someone who wants to put a lot of storage into a Mac without forking over $2500 for a baseline tower. Snow Leopard is supposed to have ZFS support - it would be awsome to put four 2-terabyte drives into a system without forking out the cash for a couple Xeons in the process.
And no, four external drives is not a substitute. Internal drives are far less likely to be jostled, which can shorten the life of the drive. And Firewire 800 is nice for single drives, but isn't a substitute for 3.0 Gbs SATA and a raid card.
So I'll probably be taking a hard look at building a Hackintosh once Snow Leopard is released. I like Apple's stuff, but I don't want to pay for Xeons when I just want a case with space.
And usually the best deal you can get is a refurb of the previous generation. I got a mid range Macbook Pro refurb for $1350 after the last refresh refresh and saved several hundred dollars. Apple refurbs have the same warranty as new machines, too.
Can't click the link, but I'll assume it's describing how to stream torrents.
Pretty much.
Just so you know, this is not how torrents were designed to work, and forcing them to work like that kinda makes you an asshole. It's rarest piece first, not first piece first.
Meh. When a new episode of Heroes (or whatever) is torrented, it would be nice to start watching in 20 minutes, as opposed to waiting a couple hours for it to download.
I was under the impression that there WAS good access in San Francisco and Manhattan. You have WiFi in most coffee shops, and restaurants. You have the first roll out of G3 wireless.
By "good access" I meant "access like some European and Asian countries have", not "lots of availability". So yeah, you can find plenty of Wi-Fi spots around town. 100 Mbps duplex connections to your apartment for 30 USD per month? Not so much.
The rest of the country considers that pork barrel spending.
So? That's why senators from New England give support to projects from western states. Despite all the hay being made over "pork barrel spending" and earmarks, the budget bill is going to have 9,000+ earmarks in it.
My point was that the US isn't the only one with these issues. In fact, I've seen great students come out of countries with WORSE facilities available to them.
Which does nothing to dismiss the fact that our schools need more money. That some dedicated souls do a great job for $25k a year doesn't mean we should keep paying all teachers peanuts.
The dirty little secret that the teachers union don't want everyone to know is that TEACHERS provide the quality education, not the buildings.
Simplistic platitudes. The fact is that the quality of the facilities have a great impact on the quality of education: the classroom sizes, the availability of athletic/computer/shop classes, and the ability of the students to study while warm in winter, cool in summer, without a leaky roof over their heads.
Wow, you seriously want all the jobs to go overseas?
Then why didn't they seriously go overseas when we had a 91% tax rate? And you really think there will be a shortage of job applicants for jobs with multimillion dollar salaries?
Your posts just make you sound like you're jealous of what other people have and blah blah blather blather
If American CEO's are worth what they've been paid, then where's our awesome economy?
The facts just don't support your story line. At all.
"The final terms of a stimulus plan will be hammered out by a conference among House and Senate leaders, who will bargain over how to reconcile competing Senate and House versions of the plan."
Which of course is normal legislative procedure. Next up, the WSJ reports on how water is wet...
As for the rest of congress -- Like I said, there was not a final draft of the bill available until less than 24 hours before the voting took place. And I didn't say this was limited to Republicans. I said "the whole of the house."
Which again, is whining misdirection. They could have read the damn bill in the days and weeks beforehand, and then read any changes in the last 24 hours. But why do the obvious when you can grandstand?
The leftist media
You guys still pushing that? After the media spent months making shit up about Gore (Inventing the Internet) while ignoring Bush taking credit for patients rights legislation that he vetoed as governor, after the media acted as a willing propagandist on the Iraq war, after sitting on NSA wiretapping through the 2004 election, after continuing to put pro-invasion pundits on to talk about the Iraq war while continuing to ignore those who got it right in the first place, you're still pushing this "leftist media" claptrap? Even Rush has started to call it the "drive by media", and when Rush is more reasonable than you are, you need clinical help.
It's about our government out of control, government involvement being largely responsible for the mess we're in, and more government being far, far from an appropriate or effective solution.
The lack of government is why we're in the mess we're in. And government is the only entity that can get out of this mess, by spending to create demand. Just how many times do you Hooverites need to drive the country into the ground before you realize your ideas are absolute crap?
There's hundreds of years of jurisprudence based on the idea that an eyewitness account of an alleged act, delivered by a person bound by oath to be truthful, can be accepted by the court as evidence supporting the alleged act. Why would you want to reverse that?
Because we didn't have cameras hundreds of years ago. Duh. Should we also stop collecting DNA evidence because that wasn't an option in 1580?
Taken to a logical end, wouldn't this also mean that rapists, murderers, and kidnappers would walk free if none of the witnesses to their crimes happened to have a cameraphone handy at the right moment?
Since your logic sucks, the answer to that would be "no".
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of hypothermia research was conducted on Jews by the Nazis. Needless to say it was without their consent and with little regard for their safety. But as a result of this research, we now know that cold-weather rescues are quite possible as well as open heart surgery. Many lives have been saved.
Yes, I suppose you could compare experiments on a single cell organizism in a vial in a fridge to the torture of adult humans, if you were really, really stupid.
Pro-choicers (many of them) defend this as a perfectly acceptable practice.
Which ones, exactly. Oh, what's that? You're lying through your teeth? Huh, interesting.
virtually no one... except the president of the united states?
Except that's a lie told by lying liars.
Not only that, since all people die anyway, it's only religious foolishness to say that killing people is wrong.
Sounds just like the stupid fucking hicks that proclaim that allowing gays to get married will lead to people marrying their pets, as if dogs and cats could give consent and sign marriage contracts.
Which is to say, in case you missed the sarcasm, that the natural rate of viability of fertilized eggs is completely irrelevant from a moral point of view.
Not in the slightest. If a fertilized egg is really a human being, then there are millions of deaths every year. But the real moral issue is stopping embryos from being used for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash at fertility clinics.
Many people do not define humanity by consciousness, or any particular level of development.
And some people think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Too damned bad for them.
The people who oppose embryonic stem cell research generally also oppose the deliberate fertilization of eggs that will be consciously denied the chance to live.
Right, which is why the right wing cries and moans every time a Christian family has a buttload of kids through in vitro fertilization. Oh wait, they don't. At all.
So by this reasoning it is ok to kill unconscious people, since any unconscious person only has the potential to become conscious, you can't prove they will until they do.
I suppose some could see it that way, if they're total morons. A person asleep will wake up. A person in a coma might wake up. The chances of a fertilized egg waking up: zero.
Because the State of California is giving out private donations?
Because 100% of the nation's research is done in California? The same California that is now facing a $40 billion deficit because of tax cutting jihadists and obviously has so much money to throw around?
I was kind of pissed at Bush for blocking federal funding on new lines until I really thought about it for awhile. There's nothing that precludes researchers from doing research on new lines.
Other than lack of funding, having to spend large sums of money on setting separate labs so no federal money would be used on the verboten stem cells, and lack of funding?
If people wanted this so bad, what prevented them from pulling out their checkbooks? Hello, there, Silicon Valley. There's lots of rich people there. How about a donation? You, too, Hollywood, if this is such a big issue.
And in other news, Chewbaca brings his family to Endor...
First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Embryonic stem cell research has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with abortion. It takes fertilized embryos from fertility clinics for research that would otherwise be thrown in the trash.
Second, his tax plan does probably kill off the possibility of private funding.
Yes, because the rich suffered SO MUCH in the 90's with a marginal tax rate 3% higher than it is now. This whining about Obama and taxes is so stupid it makes one's hair hurt.
No, this is why there is a patent system. I know, much reviled here, but that's what it's for.
But with private sector research, you have to mark off a majority of the profits for lobbying, advertising, and the annual 15% increase in compensation for board members already earning millions per year, with the little left over going back into R&D.
Second, the percentage of deduction for charitable giving for those in the top bracket is going to drop to 28% -- a 7% drop in some circumstances.
Charity is insignificant next to social spending from the government. The Hooverites in the 30's were counting on charity to pull us out of the Great Depression - it didn't happen then, and it wont happen now.
People used to do that a lot more than they do now.
Because we used to believe in the public sector in this country, and used to have a 91% marginal tax rate, even under Republican presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon. But now, after decades of free market propaganda, our media and politicians love that free market cock. They're insatiable:
The "ban" was actually the first time a president had set aside funding specifically for embryonic stem cell research, to the tune of about $400 million if I remember correctly.
Red herring. Stem cell research wasn't funded before that because it was a completely new area of study. Your talking point pretends that stem cells were an established area of study like AIDS or cancer when that's not the case.
because it forced researchers to find other viable sources of stem cells. Several studies have noted that embryonic stem cells have a high incidence of becoming cancerous. Stem cells from other sources have a lower incidence.
Sounds like climate change deniers when they latch on to a piece of information to retroactively justify their ideological beliefs. Like the reports of thickening arctic ice that proved that climate change was bunk - nevermind that the increase was due to increased precipitation in warmer weather.
Or for a medical example, say a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses got together to block research on organ transplants for religious reasons, then crowed how right they were when transplants failed due to being the wrong blood type.
Since we're talking about research and not treatment, talking about how embryonic stems cells may be more cancerous is at this point a red herring.
Damn them for keeping upgrades under wraps. I would have held off if I knew the new one was only two months away.
That will happen. If you want to buy a system, look and see what the date of the last refresh was. If it's been a while, then you might want to hold off until the next update. Then you can either get the new stuff, or get the out of date stuff for a discount. Or an out of date refurb and save even more money (Apple refurbs have the same warranty as new machines).
Too dangerous to work on inside.
Don't be a sissy. :) Working on the original iMac design or the iBooks was a serious pain in the ass - you damn near had to disassemble the the things to change the memory/hard drive. New machines are a piece of cake in comparison.
You really pay a lot more for the parts with Apple.
Never buy memory and especially hard drives from Apple without checking prices first. For example, for the price of upgrading the drive in a laptop as a BTO option, you could buy the same class drive from Newegg AND an external enclosure to put the original drive in. About the only thing they don't rip you off on three ways till Sunday is on the ECC RAM for the Mac Pro/Xserves.
Please explain how forcing banks to make bad loans in the name of "social justice" proves that regulation keeps capitalism from destroying itself.
Fortunately we don't have to explain any such thing, as you're repeating a well debunked bald faced lie:
It was greed and deregulation, not a 30 year old law that prevents banks from denying loans on race, that blew a few hundred billion in mortgages into a credit default swap market larger than the GDP for the entire planet.
Regulation is what CREATED this crisis.
Too bad your opinion isn't based on reality. It was the lack of regulation that let bankers run up a few hundred billion in mortgages into a bubble larger than the GDP of the entire planet. It was the lack of regulation that let Bernie Maddoff swindle billions of dollars from investors, despite the fact that a whistleblower was screaming at the SEC for years that the hedge fund was a Ponzi scheme. It was the Republican gutting of IRS investigations that let other Ponzi schemers turn in the same income tax returns multiple times without notice. It's the lack of regulations that executives take over 100% of a firm's profits in bonuses.
So give it up already, your freeper BS just aint gonna fly any more.
You read too much liberal propaganda
You lie too much.
The truth is that the banks were /regulated/ by the government to issue high-risk loans.
Liar:
Reality has a well known anti-wingnut bias. Or maybe you'd like to try and explain how minorities and a 30 year old law are resonsible for ballooning a few hundred billion in mortgages into a bubble larger than the GDP of the entire planet.
Ahh yes, the "deregulation" that resulted in the existing financial market - the most highly regulated market in America.
Maybe in whatever alternate reality you come from, but here the facts don't meet your story line. At all. You had an SEC that was asleep at the wheel. You had Republican love for deregulation leading to the credit swap market being larger than the GDP entire planet.
Are you suggesting that the financial markets are/were totally unregulated?
It's the credit default swap markets that were totally unregulated, leading to our current financial mess.
Or just watch Sicko, where Michael Moore uses to the weak US health system to ask WTF Cuba has nearly as good a health care system as the U.S. despite spending 1/30th as much per patient
Fixed that for you.
Does a plumber get additional fees everytime you flush?
That might be a valid comparison if the pluming company got money every time you flushed, but they don't. TV studios continue to make money every time a show is put in syndication, sold on DVD, or downloaded from the Internet.
And this doesn't qualify as a geek... how?
Serves me right for posting w/o coffee...I just saw the "gamer" part.
My only point is that, while you may WANT those things, Apple doesn't owe it to you to accommodate you.
Didn't say they did. Maybe I'll pony up for the Family Pack for my Hackintosh so I wont feel too guilty.
This may have something to with the fact that while the needs you mention above are NEEDS to you, you're niche and not worth rolling out a product line for.
Methinks that there's more than a "niche" of people who want lots of storage but don't need lots of processing power, and for whom a vanilla dual core is more than sufficient. This wouldn't be as much of an issue if Apple would up Firewire to match SATA, but for now it's stuck at a quarter of the speed.
who is an expandable mid-ranged desktop targeted at? Geeks and gamers.
Or someone who wants to put a lot of storage into a Mac without forking over $2500 for a baseline tower. Snow Leopard is supposed to have ZFS support - it would be awsome to put four 2-terabyte drives into a system without forking out the cash for a couple Xeons in the process.
And no, four external drives is not a substitute. Internal drives are far less likely to be jostled, which can shorten the life of the drive. And Firewire 800 is nice for single drives, but isn't a substitute for 3.0 Gbs SATA and a raid card.
So I'll probably be taking a hard look at building a Hackintosh once Snow Leopard is released. I like Apple's stuff, but I don't want to pay for Xeons when I just want a case with space.
And usually the best deal you can get is a refurb of the previous generation. I got a mid range Macbook Pro refurb for $1350 after the last refresh refresh and saved several hundred dollars. Apple refurbs have the same warranty as new machines, too.
After some customization, I can get a mac pro for $3,500 that is almost comparable (not quite) to the pc I just put together for $1,400.
With what, Xeon's from a pawnshop that some guy "found" at a "garage sale"?
Can't click the link, but I'll assume it's describing how to stream torrents.
Pretty much.
Just so you know, this is not how torrents were designed to work, and forcing them to work like that kinda makes you an asshole. It's rarest piece first, not first piece first.
Meh. When a new episode of Heroes (or whatever) is torrented, it would be nice to start watching in 20 minutes, as opposed to waiting a couple hours for it to download.
I was under the impression that there WAS good access in San Francisco and Manhattan. You have WiFi in most coffee shops, and restaurants. You have the first roll out of G3 wireless.
By "good access" I meant "access like some European and Asian countries have", not "lots of availability". So yeah, you can find plenty of Wi-Fi spots around town. 100 Mbps duplex connections to your apartment for 30 USD per month? Not so much.
The rest of the country considers that pork barrel spending.
So? That's why senators from New England give support to projects from western states. Despite all the hay being made over "pork barrel spending" and earmarks, the budget bill is going to have 9,000+ earmarks in it.
My point was that the US isn't the only one with these issues. In fact, I've seen great students come out of countries with WORSE facilities available to them.
Which does nothing to dismiss the fact that our schools need more money. That some dedicated souls do a great job for $25k a year doesn't mean we should keep paying all teachers peanuts.
The dirty little secret that the teachers union don't want everyone to know is that TEACHERS provide the quality education, not the buildings.
Simplistic platitudes. The fact is that the quality of the facilities have a great impact on the quality of education: the classroom sizes, the availability of athletic/computer/shop classes, and the ability of the students to study while warm in winter, cool in summer, without a leaky roof over their heads.
Wow, you seriously want all the jobs to go overseas?
Then why didn't they seriously go overseas when we had a 91% tax rate? And you really think there will be a shortage of job applicants for jobs with multimillion dollar salaries?
Your posts just make you sound like you're jealous of what other people have and blah blah blather blather
If American CEO's are worth what they've been paid, then where's our awesome economy?
The facts just don't support your story line. At all.
"The final terms of a stimulus plan will be hammered out by a conference among House and Senate leaders, who will bargain over how to reconcile competing Senate and House versions of the plan."
Which of course is normal legislative procedure . Next up, the WSJ reports on how water is wet...
As for the rest of congress -- Like I said, there was not a final draft of the bill available until less than 24 hours before the voting took place. And I didn't say this was limited to Republicans. I said "the whole of the house."
Which again, is whining misdirection. They could have read the damn bill in the days and weeks beforehand, and then read any changes in the last 24 hours. But why do the obvious when you can grandstand?
The leftist media
You guys still pushing that? After the media spent months making shit up about Gore (Inventing the Internet) while ignoring Bush taking credit for patients rights legislation that he vetoed as governor, after the media acted as a willing propagandist on the Iraq war, after sitting on NSA wiretapping through the 2004 election, after continuing to put pro-invasion pundits on to talk about the Iraq war while continuing to ignore those who got it right in the first place, you're still pushing this "leftist media" claptrap? Even Rush has started to call it the "drive by media", and when Rush is more reasonable than you are, you need clinical help.
It's about our government out of control, government involvement being largely responsible for the mess we're in, and more government being far, far from an appropriate or effective solution.
The lack of government is why we're in the mess we're in. And government is the only entity that can get out of this mess, by spending to create demand. Just how many times do you Hooverites need to drive the country into the ground before you realize your ideas are absolute crap?
You know, the one that started the "Invented the Internet" urban legend for wingnuts.
There's hundreds of years of jurisprudence based on the idea that an eyewitness account of an alleged act, delivered by a person bound by oath to be truthful, can be accepted by the court as evidence supporting the alleged act. Why would you want to reverse that?
Because we didn't have cameras hundreds of years ago. Duh. Should we also stop collecting DNA evidence because that wasn't an option in 1580?
Taken to a logical end, wouldn't this also mean that rapists, murderers, and kidnappers would walk free if none of the witnesses to their crimes happened to have a cameraphone handy at the right moment?
Since your logic sucks, the answer to that would be "no".