Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the.30-06. The.30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
But isn't that because the AK's can be easily modified to fire full-auto? Good luck doing that with a bolt action rifle.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There is no logic there because you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't pick up a can of beer or a joint and kill somebody with it. You can however do that with a firearm. And before somebody complains about the thousands of drunk driving related deaths, DD is illegal too. And its virutally impossible to totally divorce a generally victimless crime like getting drunk and people driving in cars, as much as driving is ingrained in our society.
Another problem with Nader's candidacy is that it is pure idiocy to try to split the left while the right is still 100% united. Until there is a split between finanical conservatives and religious conservatives, the left needs to stick together unless they want those financial and religious conservatives to have all the power.
Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.
People keep saying this, and stuff like "why oh why are we stuck with two choices". It's called democracy. Its called the primaries. How many Republicans ran for president in 2000? How many Democrats ran in 2004? Answer to both: plenty.
has been forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about being in Cambodia
"Lied" my ass. Given the rivers that they were on, you couldn't tell if you were in Vietnam or in Cambodia, so he could easily have thought he was there when in fact he was still in Vietnam. And given the fact he did do missions in Cambodia, under fire, and apparantly did do missions on Christmas, he could have gotten confused there as well. If you've ever read or watched anything about police investigations, you'll probably remember that eyewitness memory is one of the least reliable tools you can use, especially as time goes by. So why the fuck are the accusations of some of the members of SBVFT sooo much more reliable 30 years after the fact, when 30 years ago they were praising Kerry? Maybe a little GOP money perhaps?
Also, I notice that you don't mention that the Navy has opened an investigation
So they have, because somebody screwed up. But it's proven that there were some shenanigans involved on Kerry's behalf, and not some clerical error, the point is irrelevant.
a "combat V" when such thing does not exist.
Of course they exist. They just aren't awarded with stars because it would be redunant to add an award for valor to one for courage. Do you have the barest clue of what you are talking about?
That pretty much nails down who was telling the truth and who the Navy records agree with, doesn't it?
With the exception of the (irrelevant) question of wether Kerry was in Cambodia on December 21st or December 24th, yes they do. When he was under fire, when and how he was wounded, doctor's reports, performance reviews...yes they back up Kerry and not SBVFT. Bitch.
The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.
Why and how to go to war are decisions that are just as important as wether or not you declare war in the first place.
Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.
As if that law was the only reason to be wary of Ashcroft.
By whose standards?
By anyone who's not a complete moron that's been in a coma for the last 4 years?
Every man on his boat *except one* backs up his story. And then there's the fact that naval records back up Kerry's verison of events 100%. And then there's the fact that you need someone else to recommend you for a medal, so you're calling more vets than just Kerry a liar.
but all men who absolutely despise Kerry for the way he behaved in Viet Nam
More bullshit. Aside from the medals, the personal testimonials of those who actually served with Kerry, there's his stellar performance reviews. And the fact that the SBVT guys keep changing their stories and fuding the facts, like one of them claiming that he hadn't been active in politics for 30 years but had received thousands of dollars from Republicans to "assist" him attack Kerry.
Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.
No he didn't, you moron, as others have shown. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "intercourse". For him to have said that, yes, he had had "sexual relations with Monica" would have been a lie. Eat it, bitch.
It does not matter what he lied about, the key issue was that he LIED UNDER OATH.
Of course it matters. For it to be purgery, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And while perjury is illegal, so is entrapment.
Open your fucking eyes man...endless congressional investigations and an independant prosecutor with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimited time, and an unlimited scope of investigation. If the government did all that to you, spending 60 some million on the way, that the worst thing they could come up with was making misleading statments about your (perfectly legal) sex life?
This was not a case of someone being tried for a crime they comitted, its a case of someone being tried for a crime (actually, not even a crime, see below) that they were pressured into making. Thats called entrapment and is illegal.
As others have pointed out, he was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica. He asked the court to define "sexual relations". The court defined it as intercourse. Now, if all he had gotten was a blow job, to say yes at this point would have been a lie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it. And even if he did have intercourse and lied about it, its still not perjury as the statment has to be relevant to the case at hand.
Right. And I'm sure you'd make the same decision, if a special prosecutor was breathing down your neck with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimted time and last but not least, an unlimited scope to look over your entire life for any evidence of wrongdoing. Probable cause or suspicion need not apply. Oh, and don't forget the Republican majoraty just looking for a moderatly passable excuse to impeach you.
at the very least get him disbarred
Why? If someone is asking you questions that are noneoftheirfucking business, its noneoftheirfucking business what kind of answer you give.
Apple is partnered with Microsoft in pushing their Office products, and Internet Explorer when Microsoft actually updated the damn thing. For a while IE on the Mac was possibly the best looking and most standards-compliant browser around.
Apple and Microsoft also signed a cross-patenting agreement so they wouldn't get into stupid patent fights like Adobe and Macromedia seem to get into every 6 months or so. While I don't know if Apple was given/licensed the necessary information to work with Exchange et all, remember that Microsoft has a vested interest in Not Appearing to Be a Monopoly. That and they make a ton of money on Mac Office.
Yeah, this is the Kettle Black...
Or maybe you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple have a prexisting business relationship. Apple and Real do not. While the "ethics of a hacker" comment was a lame comment for Apple to make, hypocrites they are not.
Unless there's something I'm missing, this is impossible (physically, theoretically).
Yeah, you're missing something...he was on TRAIN that was MOVING!:) Think about this for a minute...you can throw a ball while running forward, and catch the ball before it hits the ground. Now, is it so hard to imagine that you could run faster so it would hit your back on the way down?
Ock & Spidey were on a train. Doc throws Spidey up into bridge, and between loss of the source of forward momentum (the train) and wind resistance, it really doesn't require suspension of disbelief that this senario could happen.
United States of America. I enter a contract with a seller by giving my debit card info and clicking Submit. There are only three components to a contract: offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. Which do you find missing?
Not in a store you don't. You walk into Best Buy, buy a game, and walk out. There is no license crap involved, and the only thing you can't do with that disc is make copies and distribute them.
Remember the hubris resulting from trying to delete "Under God" from the US Pledge of Allegiance?
The appeals court ruling wasn't "huberis", it was "what the hell took them so long". The only huberis involved was inserting that phrase in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So instead of the current 4 to 5 battle ground states, you would have New York and California with their large urban population in complete control.
But candidates ALREADY spend all their time in the biggest states! Your complaining about something what wouldn't change one iota.
Dangit, noticed your nick and decided to post from my work account instead.
Poo.
Nah, just back him up with a couple of pet Daleks, one for the basement and one for upstairs.
nice nick btw
Go look it up.
Why don't you find a link rather than expecting him to do the work of proving your point for you.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the .30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
But isn't that because the AK's can be easily modified to fire full-auto? Good luck doing that with a bolt action rifle.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There is no logic there because you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't pick up a can of beer or a joint and kill somebody with it. You can however do that with a firearm. And before somebody complains about the thousands of drunk driving related deaths, DD is illegal too. And its virutally impossible to totally divorce a generally victimless crime like getting drunk and people driving in cars, as much as driving is ingrained in our society.
Another problem with Nader's candidacy is that it is pure idiocy to try to split the left while the right is still 100% united. Until there is a split between finanical conservatives and religious conservatives, the left needs to stick together unless they want those financial and religious conservatives to have all the power.
Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.
People keep saying this, and stuff like "why oh why are we stuck with two choices". It's called democracy. Its called the primaries. How many Republicans ran for president in 2000? How many Democrats ran in 2004? Answer to both: plenty.
and seriously doubt his abilities to make serious decisions.
Based on what, may I ask? Are you afraid he'd read a children's book while the nation was under attack for 10 minutes rather than 7?
has been forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about being in Cambodia
"Lied" my ass. Given the rivers that they were on, you couldn't tell if you were in Vietnam or in Cambodia, so he could easily have thought he was there when in fact he was still in Vietnam. And given the fact he did do missions in Cambodia, under fire, and apparantly did do missions on Christmas, he could have gotten confused there as well. If you've ever read or watched anything about police investigations, you'll probably remember that eyewitness memory is one of the least reliable tools you can use, especially as time goes by. So why the fuck are the accusations of some of the members of SBVFT sooo much more reliable 30 years after the fact, when 30 years ago they were praising Kerry? Maybe a little GOP money perhaps?
Also, I notice that you don't mention that the Navy has opened an investigation
So they have, because somebody screwed up. But it's proven that there were some shenanigans involved on Kerry's behalf, and not some clerical error, the point is irrelevant.
a "combat V" when such thing does not exist.
Of course they exist. They just aren't awarded with stars because it would be redunant to add an award for valor to one for courage. Do you have the barest clue of what you are talking about?
That pretty much nails down who was telling the truth and who the Navy records agree with, doesn't it?
With the exception of the (irrelevant) question of wether Kerry was in Cambodia on December 21st or December 24th, yes they do. When he was under fire, when and how he was wounded, doctor's reports, performance reviews...yes they back up Kerry and not SBVFT. Bitch.
The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.
Why and how to go to war are decisions that are just as important as wether or not you declare war in the first place.
Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.
As if that law was the only reason to be wary of Ashcroft.
By whose standards?
By anyone who's not a complete moron that's been in a coma for the last 4 years?
versus every other man in his unit
Every man on his boat *except one* backs up his story. And then there's the fact that naval records back up Kerry's verison of events 100%. And then there's the fact that you need someone else to recommend you for a medal, so you're calling more vets than just Kerry a liar.
but all men who absolutely despise Kerry for the way he behaved in Viet Nam
More bullshit. Aside from the medals, the personal testimonials of those who actually served with Kerry, there's his stellar performance reviews. And the fact that the SBVT guys keep changing their stories and fuding the facts, like one of them claiming that he hadn't been active in politics for 30 years but had received thousands of dollars from Republicans to "assist" him attack Kerry.
Go back under your bridge, troll.
Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.
No he didn't, you moron, as others have shown. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "intercourse". For him to have said that, yes, he had had "sexual relations with Monica" would have been a lie. Eat it, bitch.
It does not matter what he lied about, the key issue was that he LIED UNDER OATH.
Of course it matters. For it to be purgery, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And while perjury is illegal, so is entrapment.
Open your fucking eyes man...endless congressional investigations and an independant prosecutor with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimited time, and an unlimited scope of investigation. If the government did all that to you, spending 60 some million on the way, that the worst thing they could come up with was making misleading statments about your (perfectly legal) sex life?
This was not a case of someone being tried for a crime they comitted, its a case of someone being tried for a crime (actually, not even a crime, see below) that they were pressured into making. Thats called entrapment and is illegal.
As others have pointed out, he was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica. He asked the court to define "sexual relations". The court defined it as intercourse. Now, if all he had gotten was a blow job, to say yes at this point would have been a lie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it. And even if he did have intercourse and lied about it, its still not perjury as the statment has to be relevant to the case at hand.
position to sell pardons to people
Yes, he did make some questionable pardons. But nothing compared to Bush I who pardoned heroin dealers and people who could have testfied against him in the Iran Contra trials.
And who appointed Starr again? Who gave him permission to pursue the case
And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
If you dont know the question to either of those you have no basis for commenting on hims actions.
If you bring up irrelevant details maybe you should STFU and stay out of the discussion. Oh, and to answer your question: Janet Reno.
Lying about it was the coward's way out
Right. And I'm sure you'd make the same decision, if a special prosecutor was breathing down your neck with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimted time and last but not least, an unlimited scope to look over your entire life for any evidence of wrongdoing. Probable cause or suspicion need not apply. Oh, and don't forget the Republican majoraty just looking for a moderatly passable excuse to impeach you.
at the very least get him disbarred
Why? If someone is asking you questions that are noneoftheirfucking business, its noneoftheirfucking business what kind of answer you give.
So he violated his oath to tell "The truth, the whole truth, so help me God..."
Are you blind, or did you just skip over the post you are replying to?
Telling the truth is pretty not complicated. It's frightening sometimes, but it's usually the simplest course.
Not when the question is one that is noneofyourfuckingbusiness to be asking in the first place.
The crime wasn't the blowjob... It was the lie under oath.
No, he didn't. As the other poster pointed out.
That is called perjury.
No, its not. Even he did lie, its not perjury because it has to be relevant to the case at hand.
Furthermore it was a lie about the same piece of legislation that HE signed into existence.
What are you talking about?
not that your eyes could detect it.
Myth. TV and film are at 24 fps because that's how the technology evolved, not because that's what you eyes are capable of seeing.
to prevent this sort of cheating.
If its a part of the game that can be taken advantage of without cracks its not cheating.
Apple is partnered with Microsoft in pushing their Office products, and Internet Explorer when Microsoft actually updated the damn thing. For a while IE on the Mac was possibly the best looking and most standards-compliant browser around.
Apple and Microsoft also signed a cross-patenting agreement so they wouldn't get into stupid patent fights like Adobe and Macromedia seem to get into every 6 months or so. While I don't know if Apple was given/licensed the necessary information to work with Exchange et all, remember that Microsoft has a vested interest in Not Appearing to Be a Monopoly. That and they make a ton of money on Mac Office.
Yeah, this is the Kettle Black...
Or maybe you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple have a prexisting business relationship. Apple and Real do not. While the "ethics of a hacker" comment was a lame comment for Apple to make, hypocrites they are not.
Unless there's something I'm missing, this is impossible (physically, theoretically).
:) Think about this for a minute...you can throw a ball while running forward, and catch the ball before it hits the ground. Now, is it so hard to imagine that you could run faster so it would hit your back on the way down?
Yeah, you're missing something...he was on TRAIN that was MOVING!
Ock & Spidey were on a train. Doc throws Spidey up into bridge, and between loss of the source of forward momentum (the train) and wind resistance, it really doesn't require suspension of disbelief that this senario could happen.
Theft of intellectual property
Its copyright infringment, not theft.
Doesn't matter. Sony still patented the rest of the console
So what? A mod chip modifies how the console works. You don't necessarily have to violate patents to do that.
United States of America. I enter a contract with a seller by giving my debit card info and clicking Submit. There are only three components to a contract: offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration. Which do you find missing?
Not in a store you don't. You walk into Best Buy, buy a game, and walk out. There is no license crap involved, and the only thing you can't do with that disc is make copies and distribute them.
Remember the hubris resulting from trying to delete "Under God" from the US Pledge of Allegiance?
The appeals court ruling wasn't "huberis", it was "what the hell took them so long". The only huberis involved was inserting that phrase in the first place.