"Leftists" is better, but don't let him guilt trip you. As I pointed out, the guy is being dishonest and trying to make others believe he isn't biased. His own webpage says repeatedly that he's a liberal, and in a recent entry he even calls himself a democrat. It's sad when you add that to the fact he discredits republicans automatically. Luckily I don't think he's old enough to vote yet, so there's still time for the ignorance and dishonesty to wear off.
So I suppose the question is: Do we want a leader who prefers to consult his advisors and do his research, or the guy who can quickly spew the most garbage, regardless of consistency? Kerry's quick thinking is what has him behind in the polls now. He's quick, but what he says barely syncs up. Luckily for him, people have short memories and they get tired of hearing the same old "flip flop" one liners. I feel bad for Bush though, because people are much quicker to point out a flaw in speech/appearance or something obscure rather than true core issues. It's funnier to point out "nucular" than to actually dissect the arguments.
Which illustrates the point that the democrats do not care about who gets hurt in their little political game. BTW I live in an extremely rural community, and there are plenty of gas-guzzing SUVs (as well as huge trucks) and drug-dealing children. Your generalities make me about as sick as this draft idea does. Anyway, we have an all volunteer military that is repeatedly told when they sign up that they might have to go to war. Instead of the democrats scaring everyone with a draft and getting people killed to win votes, let the volunteers do their job.
I won't bet with you, but what difference does it make what weapon is used? With proper motivation, mass casualties can be afflicted using a variety of weapons. Charles Whitman murdered 14 and wounded 31 with the type of rifle anyone can easily obtain. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people using a bomb he made himself. Terrorists on September 11th killed thousands by using box cutters, obtainable by a 12 year old, to take over airplanes. The last incident really brings an important fact to light. Fear is your most deadly weapon. People do not want to die, and will generally not challenge you if taken by surprise. Do you have any idea what kind of damage you could cause with a simple pump action shotgun? People are really ignorant to weapons and tactics anyway. Most people seem to think that having an assault rifle makes you unstoppable, but that's really not true. If it was, we wouldn't bother training our soldiers. We'd just give them all automatic rifles and boxes of bullets. Remember, people don't just stand still and let you shoot them. Even with an 'assault rifle', even if it's an automatic one, you're still limited by time, reaction, accuracy, recoil, training/lack thereof, and so on. On the other hand, a 'properly' motivated murderer can take out many without even using a firearm. It's thought that Ted Bundy may have killed over 100 (36 officially). I don't believe he had to use an assault rifle to do that. If you look at our special forces and such, you'd be surprised how much they can do with pistols and bolt action rifles. There is just so much fear and misinformation out there, it isn't funny. The ban doesn't affect me much, and I get to use weapons a lot more powerful than you'd ever see on the market, but it saddens me that people really believe that a demented individual with an assault rifle is so much more powerful than a demented individual with a simple...crossbow or something.
So, lightweight cars somehow defy the laws of physics? Sure, ultra strong lightweight materials are good, but if your light car smashes into another light car, you'll both get all crumpled up just the same because of the momentum.
Just one question for ya... Does it really matter what they think? Hell, I wonder what they think of the clothes you see on guys and girls on MTV videos for that matter. I'm rather suprised that the average person over there even knows what a Ninja Turtle is. Where did you hear that?
Were those Kurds plotting world domination? Had they already attacked multiple times? Were they engaged in a long running war where millions of people had already died, and yet millions more might still have to die? Get your head back where it belongs and try making a valid comparison next time.
If a child does not care about school, it is NOT always the home environment's fault.
I don't mean to start bashing this kid's family or anything, but well... I remember (even recently) complaining about how so much work doesn't even matter, but even in college I still tried to get an A. The first step really has to be taken at home, though at this point it may be too late. Making yourself a good example as well as being strict about grades/work is important. If child sees dad come home from work complaining about it and laying on the couch the rest of the day, they'll likely take the same attitude towards school and simply endure it while failing. You say that the kid gets grounded and such, but I refuse to believe it's really that harsh for him at home. It sounds like the classic child vs parent situation where the parent gives in too quickly. An incentives standard should *always* be in place. Games, presents, television, and roaming priviledges should be luxuries. It really shouldn't be looked at as punishing the child for getting bad grades, because kids rebel against punishment. Instead you're rewarding them when they do right and helping them understand how the world works, rather than giving them a free ride. Also, learning disorders and such cannot be overlooked. Is the guy really uncaring, or is he missing something critical?
I agree with your last sentence though. I'm really sick of being told we need to pour funds into the school system and all when it's not helping the kids a single bit. We really have to toughen up the standards and force the schools to follow them. Get the money to the educators instead of paying for overhead and useless programs.
It's probably not always going to be "family" entertainment in really strict households, but damn... If you can't handle watching football, we might as well throw in the towel right now. Getting rough in a controlled environment, no matter what sport it is, isn't going to cause the downfall of society. I still consider the 'idea' of the football player to be a good role model. Yes, I know there are dark sides, but in general when we watch a football game, we're watching a display of what you can achieve when you really put your mind and body into something. Dedication, determination, and usually good sportsmanship. If you've ever watched a game, you'll often see players from opposing teams hugging, shaking hands, and helping eachother get up. Anyone who's watched more than a few games knows that neither side wants anyone to truly get hurt, even the opposing teams fans applaud when an injured player is able to get up off the field. If all you're seeing is "guys beating the crap out of each other", I believe you are the one with the problem.
Ever watch NCAA hockey? In any case, beating the crap out of someone in hockey still gets you a penalty and gives the other team a powerplay no matter what league you're in. A lot of unsportsmanlike penalties draw suspensions and big fines, as well as somehow making it out into the media where everyone who wouldn't like hockey anyway begin to whine and complain.
The fact that they wear protective equipment is exactly what allows it to be considered "family entertainment". This is not a bloody gladiator match, no one wants to get hurt out there. It's a game about team strategy, determination, endurance, and individual hard work. I'm sure those qualities are difficult for you to comprehend, but get over it, it's not that bad.
I don't get it... How is 'perfect example of hockey' an event that rarely ever happens? Hell, I bet it happens in most other sports just as often. Idiot.
It amazes me what some people say about WMDs and such. Maybe you're all just stupid or something. I supported the war based on more than what Bush said, but I was never lead to believe they were nuclear. Did you even pay attention to what Bush actually said, or did you just make that assumption all on your own?
But by your logic, when crude prices drop everyone in the chain should immediately see that thier replacement cost will be less, and so be able to immediately drop thier prices.
Er... No. If you expect your next shipment to cost more, you need to make money to cover it. If your next shipment is going to cost less, you still have to pay for the last shipment. The prices are pretty elastic as a precaution. You don't want to dip too low because prices may go up again, but you also don't want to spike too high because people won't buy from you. It's better to be a little conservative in either direction. If you responded immediately, you would find yourself in a hole very quickly. I find that most gas stations get pretty regular shipments these days though, and so gas prices are fairly responsive. I live in a rather rural area, and yet gas prices will still usually respond in either direction within 48 hours or so. Busier gas stations in the city will sometimes even have lower prices by nightfall, depending on demand and how much risk they are willing to accept.
I would hate them just as much, but at least have more respect for them if they just came out and admitted that there is industry wide price fixing and collusion (every gas station in town is within $0.03, and the price changes at every one on the same day) and they were out to make the public pay as much as they can.
Honestly, I think that we all get ripped off by everyone selling anything. One of my good friends shops at a hippie store (self-proclaimed) and she pays as much as some of my other friends who shop in the mall, all because it's "made by hand." I find myself paying more for less when I go out to eat, etc,. So, I do understand your anger with big business, but let us be realistic here. How much cheaper are the gas companies going to be able to sell it for? The fact is, gasoline prices are not the same around the country. It's good old supply and demand in action more than anything. Add to that the fact that OPEC controls so much of the oil supply, and you see that the oil companies have good reason to regulate gasoline prices. We have to realize that oil is in limited supply and it costs money to dig up, refine, and ship. Oil companies don't even have a lot of control over the supply, we don't let them drill or build refineries here in the USA. For all we know, OPEC could cut the oil supply in half at any time and the oil companies would be up the creek in debt if they didn't hold on to a profit. Really, gasoline production is not a public service. OPEC doesn't care about you, oil usage is on the rise, few corporate executives actually care about giving you gasoline, the government taxes it to death, the supply is unreliable, and because we care about the environment, heavy R&D is required to make the cleaner burning semi-efficient fuels we have today. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but our concern for the environment and the fast pace at which we want the world to work are our main reasons for the high gasoline prices. The best things we can do to bring down gasoline prices are use less, allow the building of more refineries, allow the oil companies to drill for oil in non-opec areas, and of course, support energy research.
We all have to remember that at this time of the highest gasoline and energy prices in history, the oil companies are making record profits. And therein lies the proof to the lies.
When adjusted for inflation, gasoline prices are *not* the highest prices in history. They were a bit higher during the energy crisis of the Carter administration. The prices are quite high though, I am not disputing that. Now, the oil companies are making a profit, yes, but some of the better ones are using that money for research. It really is our own fault that gasoline prices have gone so high. We put huge demands on our resources, and on top of that we expect them to be clean, efficient, and cheap. The problem is, we can't have it all. If we
2) US mistreats Arabs to obtain cheap supplies of oil.
eh? Cheap supplies of oil? Have you looked at global gas prices lately? I guess you haven't noticed the billions of dollars we give them for it. The terrorists bomb the people that help us, but they'll gladly except money that comes from the sale of oil. Look at OPEC for crying out loud. Did they all recently give up their ability to control the oil to the US? No, I think it's the other way around. The US allows itself to rely exclusively on oil from the middle east, oil controlled by OPEC. OPEC sets the price, OPEC is why I'm paying 2.30 USD a gallon and people in other parts of the world are paying up to 5.00, if not more.
3) Arabs get mad at US.
I don't know about the average arab, but as far as the ones that attack us... They get mad at the US for more reasons than that. The fanatics that turn into terrorists are people who believe the rest of the world should be muslim. They hate christians, jews, and I would imagine pretty much every religion other than islam.
The terrorists believe we're all evil people. They believe that they'll go to heaven and get a bunch of virgins if they kill themselves while killing us. The fact that we don't abuse our women and force them to walk around all covered up is yet another reason they hate the US. They hate hollywood, they hate tv, they think we indulge too much in pleasures. In fact, it's not even just the United States. The fanatical terrorists hate pretty much every country that isn't dominated by their religion.
The real solution to #6 is to alleviate #1
I'm all for making it so we don't need oil, but it isn't going to help us against fanatical terrorists like the ones that crash planes into our buildings. It's only the anti-war protestors who believe the war on terror is all about oil. Face it, you have a great chance of getting killed in Iraq if you happen to be a white american in the wrong place at the wrong time even if you ride a bike to work every day. Hell, the terrorists could have crashed those planes into oil refineries and blown up gas stations or something. They could have stayed in the middle east and attacked at the source of the oil, but you know what? They decided to come to america and specifically target civilians.
That is why the US became paranoic! These evil people specifically targeted CIVILIANS. People who had no idea what was coming. It's no wonder people are freaked out into taking awareness classes, they're the targets. You can be a bicycle riding anti-war pro-environment civilian and you are still a target. This is not purely the result of american aggression. The reason we're all targets is because the fanatics are evil. The only way to appease them is with your and my death.
Trying hard to find the words for this. Maybe it's that if you have honor yourself, you realize how brave the guy was, even as you mow him down. That's a victory for the underequipped guy right?
All fine and good if your objective is to appear to have the most honor.
Of course, if you kill all the honorable guys and write in the history books that they were all fanatical idiots... What does it matter how much "honor" you fought with? You're dead and gone while the victor is exploiting your land and wealth.
Perhaps they would, if the movie didn't suck. If it was trying to find out, then Bowling For Columbine failed miserably.
As far as what you're saying about Canada, such places actually stick out more than violent ones do. Sure, having fewer murders should definitely be our goal, but it's not completely fair to compare. It would be like me saying Canada is an extremely dumb society, since America has developed many more technologies over the years.
The fact is, the United States has one of the most diverse populations of any country on the planet. If you bring all these different types of people together and allow people from all over to become citizens, you end up with more than a few bad eggs. I don't need Michael Moore's shock garbage to tell me that.
The thing is, it says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Not "News for Nerds AND Stuff that matters":p In either case, does it really matter what Michael Moore does? Most people either think he's a loon or that he's a comedian. Either way, doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.
Just how antithetical to the democratic process does one have to be to suggest that a disputed Presidential election in 2000 is ancient history not worthy of discussion?
I never said it wasn't worthy of discussion. I said that people who continue whining about it must have some time on their hands. There is a difference between discussing something and being obsessed with it to the point that you continually whine about it for 4 years as if whining is suddenly going to change history in your favor.
despite the flagrant evidence of the potential for abuse of the voting process in front of us in the form of the whole Diebold story
Uh... If you want to discuss that, go ahead. I never said anything was wrong with discussing that, did I?
The pivotal state happened to feature, as its governor, the brother of one of the candidates.
k
The US Supreme court voted 4-3 on strictly partisan lines -- and one of the majority Justices (Clarence Thomas) didn't recuse himself despite his wife working on the transition team for one of the parties before the court
This is irrelevant now, Bush would have won anyway.
The standards for vote counting varied radically by county and constituency -- for example, Bush pushed hard (and successfully) to allow questionable absentee votes to be recorded in strongly Republican counties as he tried to have the whole hanging chads process stopped. The Secretary of State behaved in the most partisan manner possible, in violation of any standard of objective behavior in the office.
Bush won by Gore's standards. Did he win by every standard? I don't know, but the standards the Gore team fought for were tried afterwards and guess what? Bush won. By a small margin? Yes, but I don't see what it matters or why you're arguing with me.
That all won't disappear just because you think the right guy won.
Bush is the president no matter how much you whine. That is my whole point. People who continually whine about the election are simply wasting their time. I never said anything about the legitimacy of their claims in my original post. I said, "You would think that someone who is STILL whining about the election would have enough time on their hands."
If you had any, any ability to see past your own nose, you'd recognize exactly how the Republican party and its flaks would have behaved had Gore been 300 votes up that first night.
Why must you be so difficult? If the Republican party was whining about it, I'd say the same thing about them. Geeze.
One doesn't have to be some sort of flake to see that things broke down, and that the breakdowns weren't trivial, and that there's the potential for it happening again. It's starkly obvious.
One doesn't have to be a flake, but you certainly are. If you want to work on making future voting systems more reliable, go for it. Whining about the previous election is all I commented on.
Sophistry like "I can quote another article for every one you quote" is the most pathetic sort of denial -- but you're clinging to it because it's all you've fricking got. Sleepwalking past this one ain't going to do the trick. You're going to wake up from this and see it was a delusive nightmare.
That's what I keep trying to tell you guys, but you won't listen!
Give me Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Ford
All fine men. Ford wouldn't be on my personal list, but that's fine.
This is a junta of sullen chickenhawks who don't know a damn tar baby when they see one, and who don't give a shit about the people of this nation.
I'll walk away slowly now, please don't follow me.
"Monkelectric" states in his sig that he doesn't know anything about Bush, so of course he has to use a pile of garbage conspiracy theorist book as a source. It would be like me digging up some weird supermarket tabloid that says Kerry is an alien and claiming that it's true. I mean heck, these farmers out in Arkansas saw Kerry beam down from a flying saucer! It must be true!
This is the type of weak argument I hear from anti-Bush fanatics all the time. Oh... Look this book/moviestar/singer/newspaper said Bush is corrupt, so it's true! Well listen, I can find lots of books and articles that say the exact opposite, big deal.
You would think that someone who is STILL whining about the election would have enough time on their hands to gather information and make a decent argument, you know?
I agree with the other AC, it really does appear that he did. Stating your opinion against the article apparently gets one modded down though, very sad and depressing.
Hmm... So I guess that explains why NASA makes so many mistakes.. Oops.. You know, math is hard when you're being watched, sorry we wasted a few billion of the taxpayers money..
bah.. Professionals should be good at what they do, no silly excuses.
Slashdot Mirror
"Leftists" is better, but don't let him guilt trip you. As I pointed out, the guy is being dishonest and trying to make others believe he isn't biased. His own webpage says repeatedly that he's a liberal, and in a recent entry he even calls himself a democrat. It's sad when you add that to the fact he discredits republicans automatically. Luckily I don't think he's old enough to vote yet, so there's still time for the ignorance and dishonesty to wear off.
Just in case the parent doesn't bother to do research:
"I'm just a poor college student, who is a liberal, and is a democrat."
http://www.dugnet.com/dug/oldstuff/000126.html
So I suppose the question is: Do we want a leader who prefers to consult his advisors and do his research, or the guy who can quickly spew the most garbage, regardless of consistency? Kerry's quick thinking is what has him behind in the polls now. He's quick, but what he says barely syncs up. Luckily for him, people have short memories and they get tired of hearing the same old "flip flop" one liners. I feel bad for Bush though, because people are much quicker to point out a flaw in speech/appearance or something obscure rather than true core issues. It's funnier to point out "nucular" than to actually dissect the arguments.
Which illustrates the point that the democrats do not care about who gets hurt in their little political game. BTW I live in an extremely rural community, and there are plenty of gas-guzzing SUVs (as well as huge trucks) and drug-dealing children. Your generalities make me about as sick as this draft idea does. Anyway, we have an all volunteer military that is repeatedly told when they sign up that they might have to go to war. Instead of the democrats scaring everyone with a draft and getting people killed to win votes, let the volunteers do their job.
I won't bet with you, but what difference does it make what weapon is used? With proper motivation, mass casualties can be afflicted using a variety of weapons. Charles Whitman murdered 14 and wounded 31 with the type of rifle anyone can easily obtain. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people using a bomb he made himself. Terrorists on September 11th killed thousands by using box cutters, obtainable by a 12 year old, to take over airplanes. The last incident really brings an important fact to light. Fear is your most deadly weapon. People do not want to die, and will generally not challenge you if taken by surprise. Do you have any idea what kind of damage you could cause with a simple pump action shotgun? People are really ignorant to weapons and tactics anyway. Most people seem to think that having an assault rifle makes you unstoppable, but that's really not true. If it was, we wouldn't bother training our soldiers. We'd just give them all automatic rifles and boxes of bullets. Remember, people don't just stand still and let you shoot them. Even with an 'assault rifle', even if it's an automatic one, you're still limited by time, reaction, accuracy, recoil, training/lack thereof, and so on. On the other hand, a 'properly' motivated murderer can take out many without even using a firearm. It's thought that Ted Bundy may have killed over 100 (36 officially). I don't believe he had to use an assault rifle to do that. If you look at our special forces and such, you'd be surprised how much they can do with pistols and bolt action rifles. There is just so much fear and misinformation out there, it isn't funny. The ban doesn't affect me much, and I get to use weapons a lot more powerful than you'd ever see on the market, but it saddens me that people really believe that a demented individual with an assault rifle is so much more powerful than a demented individual with a simple...crossbow or something.
Shoot... SUVs are already going around killing everyone...
Momentum is what kills not Speed.
So, lightweight cars somehow defy the laws of physics? Sure, ultra strong lightweight materials are good, but if your light car smashes into another light car, you'll both get all crumpled up just the same because of the momentum.
Just one question for ya... Does it really matter what they think? Hell, I wonder what they think of the clothes you see on guys and girls on MTV videos for that matter. I'm rather suprised that the average person over there even knows what a Ninja Turtle is. Where did you hear that?
Were those Kurds plotting world domination? Had they already attacked multiple times? Were they engaged in a long running war where millions of people had already died, and yet millions more might still have to die? Get your head back where it belongs and try making a valid comparison next time.
I don't mean to start bashing this kid's family or anything, but well... I remember (even recently) complaining about how so much work doesn't even matter, but even in college I still tried to get an A. The first step really has to be taken at home, though at this point it may be too late. Making yourself a good example as well as being strict about grades/work is important. If child sees dad come home from work complaining about it and laying on the couch the rest of the day, they'll likely take the same attitude towards school and simply endure it while failing. You say that the kid gets grounded and such, but I refuse to believe it's really that harsh for him at home. It sounds like the classic child vs parent situation where the parent gives in too quickly. An incentives standard should *always* be in place. Games, presents, television, and roaming priviledges should be luxuries. It really shouldn't be looked at as punishing the child for getting bad grades, because kids rebel against punishment. Instead you're rewarding them when they do right and helping them understand how the world works, rather than giving them a free ride. Also, learning disorders and such cannot be overlooked. Is the guy really uncaring, or is he missing something critical?
I agree with your last sentence though. I'm really sick of being told we need to pour funds into the school system and all when it's not helping the kids a single bit. We really have to toughen up the standards and force the schools to follow them. Get the money to the educators instead of paying for overhead and useless programs.
It's probably not always going to be "family" entertainment in really strict households, but damn... If you can't handle watching football, we might as well throw in the towel right now. Getting rough in a controlled environment, no matter what sport it is, isn't going to cause the downfall of society. I still consider the 'idea' of the football player to be a good role model. Yes, I know there are dark sides, but in general when we watch a football game, we're watching a display of what you can achieve when you really put your mind and body into something. Dedication, determination, and usually good sportsmanship. If you've ever watched a game, you'll often see players from opposing teams hugging, shaking hands, and helping eachother get up. Anyone who's watched more than a few games knows that neither side wants anyone to truly get hurt, even the opposing teams fans applaud when an injured player is able to get up off the field. If all you're seeing is "guys beating the crap out of each other", I believe you are the one with the problem.
Ever watch NCAA hockey? In any case, beating the crap out of someone in hockey still gets you a penalty and gives the other team a powerplay no matter what league you're in. A lot of unsportsmanlike penalties draw suspensions and big fines, as well as somehow making it out into the media where everyone who wouldn't like hockey anyway begin to whine and complain.
The fact that they wear protective equipment is exactly what allows it to be considered "family entertainment". This is not a bloody gladiator match, no one wants to get hurt out there. It's a game about team strategy, determination, endurance, and individual hard work. I'm sure those qualities are difficult for you to comprehend, but get over it, it's not that bad.
I don't get it... How is 'perfect example of hockey' an event that rarely ever happens? Hell, I bet it happens in most other sports just as often. Idiot.
It amazes me what some people say about WMDs and such. Maybe you're all just stupid or something. I supported the war based on more than what Bush said, but I was never lead to believe they were nuclear. Did you even pay attention to what Bush actually said, or did you just make that assumption all on your own?
Well, look at what some of the athletes are already using. Injecting massive amounts of Growth Hormone will cause these problems and more.
But by your logic, when crude prices drop everyone in the chain should immediately see that thier replacement cost will be less, and so be able to immediately drop thier prices.
Er... No. If you expect your next shipment to cost more, you need to make money to cover it. If your next shipment is going to cost less, you still have to pay for the last shipment. The prices are pretty elastic as a precaution. You don't want to dip too low because prices may go up again, but you also don't want to spike too high because people won't buy from you. It's better to be a little conservative in either direction. If you responded immediately, you would find yourself in a hole very quickly. I find that most gas stations get pretty regular shipments these days though, and so gas prices are fairly responsive. I live in a rather rural area, and yet gas prices will still usually respond in either direction within 48 hours or so. Busier gas stations in the city will sometimes even have lower prices by nightfall, depending on demand and how much risk they are willing to accept.
I would hate them just as much, but at least have more respect for them if they just came out and admitted that there is industry wide price fixing and collusion (every gas station in town is within $0.03, and the price changes at every one on the same day) and they were out to make the public pay as much as they can.
Honestly, I think that we all get ripped off by everyone selling anything. One of my good friends shops at a hippie store (self-proclaimed) and she pays as much as some of my other friends who shop in the mall, all because it's "made by hand." I find myself paying more for less when I go out to eat, etc,. So, I do understand your anger with big business, but let us be realistic here. How much cheaper are the gas companies going to be able to sell it for? The fact is, gasoline prices are not the same around the country. It's good old supply and demand in action more than anything. Add to that the fact that OPEC controls so much of the oil supply, and you see that the oil companies have good reason to regulate gasoline prices. We have to realize that oil is in limited supply and it costs money to dig up, refine, and ship. Oil companies don't even have a lot of control over the supply, we don't let them drill or build refineries here in the USA. For all we know, OPEC could cut the oil supply in half at any time and the oil companies would be up the creek in debt if they didn't hold on to a profit. Really, gasoline production is not a public service. OPEC doesn't care about you, oil usage is on the rise, few corporate executives actually care about giving you gasoline, the government taxes it to death, the supply is unreliable, and because we care about the environment, heavy R&D is required to make the cleaner burning semi-efficient fuels we have today. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but our concern for the environment and the fast pace at which we want the world to work are our main reasons for the high gasoline prices. The best things we can do to bring down gasoline prices are use less, allow the building of more refineries, allow the oil companies to drill for oil in non-opec areas, and of course, support energy research.
We all have to remember that at this time of the highest gasoline and energy prices in history, the oil companies are making record profits. And therein lies the proof to the lies.
When adjusted for inflation, gasoline prices are *not* the highest prices in history. They were a bit higher during the energy crisis of the Carter administration. The prices are quite high though, I am not disputing that. Now, the oil companies are making a profit, yes, but some of the better ones are using that money for research. It really is our own fault that gasoline prices have gone so high. We put huge demands on our resources, and on top of that we expect them to be clean, efficient, and cheap. The problem is, we can't have it all. If we
2) US mistreats Arabs to obtain cheap supplies of oil.
eh? Cheap supplies of oil? Have you looked at global gas prices lately? I guess you haven't noticed the billions of dollars we give them for it. The terrorists bomb the people that help us, but they'll gladly except money that comes from the sale of oil. Look at OPEC for crying out loud. Did they all recently give up their ability to control the oil to the US? No, I think it's the other way around. The US allows itself to rely exclusively on oil from the middle east, oil controlled by OPEC. OPEC sets the price, OPEC is why I'm paying 2.30 USD a gallon and people in other parts of the world are paying up to 5.00, if not more.
3) Arabs get mad at US.
I don't know about the average arab, but as far as the ones that attack us... They get mad at the US for more reasons than that. The fanatics that turn into terrorists are people who believe the rest of the world should be muslim. They hate christians, jews, and I would imagine pretty much every religion other than islam.
The terrorists believe we're all evil people. They believe that they'll go to heaven and get a bunch of virgins if they kill themselves while killing us. The fact that we don't abuse our women and force them to walk around all covered up is yet another reason they hate the US. They hate hollywood, they hate tv, they think we indulge too much in pleasures. In fact, it's not even just the United States. The fanatical terrorists hate pretty much every country that isn't dominated by their religion.
The real solution to #6 is to alleviate #1
I'm all for making it so we don't need oil, but it isn't going to help us against fanatical terrorists like the ones that crash planes into our buildings. It's only the anti-war protestors who believe the war on terror is all about oil. Face it, you have a great chance of getting killed in Iraq if you happen to be a white american in the wrong place at the wrong time even if you ride a bike to work every day. Hell, the terrorists could have crashed those planes into oil refineries and blown up gas stations or something. They could have stayed in the middle east and attacked at the source of the oil, but you know what? They decided to come to america and specifically target civilians.
That is why the US became paranoic! These evil people specifically targeted CIVILIANS. People who had no idea what was coming. It's no wonder people are freaked out into taking awareness classes, they're the targets. You can be a bicycle riding anti-war pro-environment civilian and you are still a target. This is not purely the result of american aggression. The reason we're all targets is because the fanatics are evil. The only way to appease them is with your and my death.
So he dies, but yet in a way he hasn't lost.
Trying hard to find the words for this. Maybe it's that if you have honor yourself, you realize how brave the guy was, even as you mow him down. That's a victory for the underequipped guy right?
All fine and good if your objective is to appear to have the most honor.
Of course, if you kill all the honorable guys and write in the history books that they were all fanatical idiots... What does it matter how much "honor" you fought with? You're dead and gone while the victor is exploiting your land and wealth.
Perhaps they would, if the movie didn't suck. If it was trying to find out, then Bowling For Columbine failed miserably.
As far as what you're saying about Canada, such places actually stick out more than violent ones do. Sure, having fewer murders should definitely be our goal, but it's not completely fair to compare. It would be like me saying Canada is an extremely dumb society, since America has developed many more technologies over the years.
The fact is, the United States has one of the most diverse populations of any country on the planet. If you bring all these different types of people together and allow people from all over to become citizens, you end up with more than a few bad eggs. I don't need Michael Moore's shock garbage to tell me that.
The thing is, it says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Not "News for Nerds AND Stuff that matters" :p In either case, does it really matter what Michael Moore does? Most people either think he's a loon or that he's a comedian. Either way, doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.
Just how antithetical to the democratic process does one have to be to suggest that a disputed Presidential election in 2000 is ancient history not worthy of discussion?
I never said it wasn't worthy of discussion. I said that people who continue whining about it must have some time on their hands. There is a difference between discussing something and being obsessed with it to the point that you continually whine about it for 4 years as if whining is suddenly going to change history in your favor.
despite the flagrant evidence of the potential for abuse of the voting process in front of us in the form of the whole Diebold story
Uh... If you want to discuss that, go ahead. I never said anything was wrong with discussing that, did I?
The pivotal state happened to feature, as its governor, the brother of one of the candidates.
k
The US Supreme court voted 4-3 on strictly partisan lines -- and one of the majority Justices (Clarence Thomas) didn't recuse himself despite his wife working on the transition team for one of the parties before the court
This is irrelevant now, Bush would have won anyway.
The standards for vote counting varied radically by county and constituency -- for example, Bush pushed hard (and successfully) to allow questionable absentee votes to be recorded in strongly Republican counties as he tried to have the whole hanging chads process stopped. The Secretary of State behaved in the most partisan manner possible, in violation of any standard of objective behavior in the office.
Bush won by Gore's standards. Did he win by every standard? I don't know, but the standards the Gore team fought for were tried afterwards and guess what? Bush won. By a small margin? Yes, but I don't see what it matters or why you're arguing with me.
That all won't disappear just because you think the right guy won.
Bush is the president no matter how much you whine. That is my whole point. People who continually whine about the election are simply wasting their time. I never said anything about the legitimacy of their claims in my original post. I said, "You would think that someone who is STILL whining about the election would have enough time on their hands."
If you had any, any ability to see past your own nose, you'd recognize exactly how the Republican party and its flaks would have behaved had Gore been 300 votes up that first night.
Why must you be so difficult? If the Republican party was whining about it, I'd say the same thing about them. Geeze.
One doesn't have to be some sort of flake to see that things broke down, and that the breakdowns weren't trivial, and that there's the potential for it happening again. It's starkly obvious.
One doesn't have to be a flake, but you certainly are. If you want to work on making future voting systems more reliable, go for it. Whining about the previous election is all I commented on.
Sophistry like "I can quote another article for every one you quote" is the most pathetic sort of denial -- but you're clinging to it because it's all you've fricking got. Sleepwalking past this one ain't going to do the trick. You're going to wake up from this and see it was a delusive nightmare.
That's what I keep trying to tell you guys, but you won't listen!
Give me Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Ford
All fine men. Ford wouldn't be on my personal list, but that's fine.
This is a junta of sullen chickenhawks who don't know a damn tar baby when they see one, and who don't give a shit about the people of this nation.
I'll walk away slowly now, please don't follow me.
"Monkelectric" states in his sig that he doesn't know anything about Bush, so of course he has to use a pile of garbage conspiracy theorist book as a source. It would be like me digging up some weird supermarket tabloid that says Kerry is an alien and claiming that it's true. I mean heck, these farmers out in Arkansas saw Kerry beam down from a flying saucer! It must be true!
This is the type of weak argument I hear from anti-Bush fanatics all the time. Oh... Look this book/moviestar/singer/newspaper said Bush is corrupt, so it's true! Well listen, I can find lots of books and articles that say the exact opposite, big deal.
You would think that someone who is STILL whining about the election would have enough time on their hands to gather information and make a decent argument, you know?
I agree with the other AC, it really does appear that he did. Stating your opinion against the article apparently gets one modded down though, very sad and depressing.
Hmm... So I guess that explains why NASA makes so many mistakes.. Oops.. You know, math is hard when you're being watched, sorry we wasted a few billion of the taxpayers money..
bah.. Professionals should be good at what they do, no silly excuses.