"US soldiers will not kill you if you leave them alone" Hahahahaaaa!!! That's hilarious. Did you see any one of the tens of news reports from Iraq where US soldiers killed innocent civilians? Like that "roadblock" the US set up. It turns out the US troops were hiding alongside a road, and when any traffic approached, they'd open fire. They killed about 6 truck loads of people. None of them were armed. Or when the iraqis attacked the US Apache helicopters. All of the helicopters were severely damaged, and the US ended up shooting at random into a town. They killed entire families with armour-piercing rounds. Even the US army isn't safe from the US army. When they call in Air Support, it's not uncommon for the US to blow chunks out of friendlies on the ground. Hardly the model army, are they? More like yahoos with assault rifles and "how to be a soldier" pamphlets.
And as for your point about new york police... what about their tendancy to use janitorial supplies as suppositories?:-P
You obviously don't oppose genocidal dictators. The guy invaded Iraq. If it was such a success, why are normal Iraqi people blowing themselves up on American checkpoints? If he didn't do it for them, who did he do it for? Certainly not his big oil buddies... oh no.
You missed off my point where I mention Bush's danger comes from the fact that he's armed to the teeth and chomping at the bit to ride roughshod over the middle east. He's already shown he doesn't mind trampling into places he's not wanted.
Saddam didn't use human shields this time round. Everyone knows that. Saying that shows how much you really know about the war. And it would have been pretty hard for Saddam to kill "most of those" as I don't think he had the attack helicopters and bombers used to kill them. I'm pretty sure they were American.
As for saying ANSWER is "hardline stalinist" just demonstrates, even further, how little you know about the real world. ANSWER is a group dedicated to stopping war. Was Stalin opposed to war? no. How can it be "hardline stalinist" then? Your logic makes no sense.
They were "siding with evil"? That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Americans saying that because they didn't side with the US. That's the sort of threat the US plied on the smaller nations in the coalition. Can't you see? They were either with the US, or against it. It's not a tough call to make.
Bush is President of the US, not just President of the US Christians. By stating, publicly, his belief in a god, he ceases to represent those of different faiths. Imagine how you'd feel if you were a Christian, and Bush stood up there and prayed to Allah to save your soul. He shouldn't do it, full stop. His first responsibility is to EVERY US citizen - regardless of faith. His spouting his mouth off about god every five minutes undermines not only his leadership, but his impartiality. Bearing in mind most of his perceived problems are with the Muslim world, Rev'd bush is hardly doing a good job letting people know he's impartial. It doesn't take a genius to realise a leader has to lead all his people, not just those the same as him. Calling people bigots who are offended when their purported leader defers *his* leadership to that of a God they don't believe in, shows great lack of understanding on your part. I imagine you'd be screaming your head off if the shoe was on the other foot. Oh, and FYI, please read this:
If those terrorists were "caught fighting red handed in terrorist armies", why aren't they tried? Surely if you're a bastion of freedom and democracy, you'd show the world how true you are to that cause by employing it on your enemies. But no, the US imprisons innocent people (remember - innocent until proven guilty), without trial or representation or ANYTHING. That's hardly "land of the free and the home of the brave", is it?
I was actually pandering to the US preconception that people in turbans are muslims. My housemate is sikh, so I'm well aware of the sikh religion. I studied it at school. Even so, in your unfounded torrent of abuse, you managed to sideline the question. A true republican.
Again, the US imposes more sanctions of any kind on any other country in the world - how can you defend it?
It's not because it's a superior platform - it's because it's legacy. Media companies have historically used macs since the days of DTP taking off. When they near the end of their life, they get replaced by more macs. The companies have vendor accounts already in place, and tech support who know macs. That's why. I've worked at companies like that, and that's what happens. The tech guys know macs so well that when it's time to upgrade, they reach for the mac catalogue.
There is absolutely no technical reason why they should use macs over wintel boxes - none whatsoever. The reason for the use of macs in the film industry is purely a social one.
Oh that's rich... you say you hate genocidal dictators, yet you support Bush - hahahaha! He's the biggest genocidal dictator this world has seen. Ever. The sheer power at his disposal make him the world's most dangerous man. Forget Osama Bin Laden - Bush is the real international terrorist.
Of course they felt threatened. You saw what happened to France and Germany - when they said "no", the US got in a hissy fit. Colin Powell even said they'd "pay" for their supposed insubordinance. That's hardly the action of a diplomatic country, is it? More like a toddler with a scraped knee.
So Saddam kills 10,000 Iraqis a year? Well, Bush has killed 10,000 iraqis in this last war, which is under a year old. You can do the maths.
I was at an ANSWER march, and those people participating had more knowledge of foreign countries than those Free Republicans who came to try and oppose our position. I talked to some Freeps, and they knew next to nothing about anything. They just sounded like Fox and CNN mixed into one. They couldn't rationalise or think for themselves - they just spouted racist abuse at me and my wife, and told me to "go back to Germany!" (I'm not german - that made me laugh). If those aren't the morons you're referring to, I suggest you check into them.
Seperation of church and state. The idea is to extend religious freedom to every US citizen by the state not openly supporting one religion over another. Bush's frequent mentions of God and the Bible/10 commandments is obviously a breach of this. How you can stand to argue it isn't is beyond me. He said God. That's not allowed. It's that simple. It isn't about free speech - it's about the government staying religiously impartial. Sure, Bush has the right to say whatever he wants, but he must realise he's President first, and a Christian second. The use of the word God is offensive to atheists and non-Christians.
Democracy is being sidelined in the US. Diebold will make it go away completely in the next couple of decades. Those in power know it can remove them, and they will get rid of it. As they saying goes "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal".
How can Bush be a promoter of democracy? Surely you're aware of Diebold?? He accepts money from them. That's not supporting democracy - that's making sure you get to decide the outcome of the votes yourself. That's destroying democracy.
Bush tried to get Enron lucrative contracts for unethical sourcing of fuels - that was their payoff. They obviously didn't give him enough to make all the other bad stuff disappear. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Guantanamo bay is full of people who haven't been proven guilty. As you say in America, innocent until proven guilty. If they're as guilty as you say, then try them. Not trying them just shows the world how much the US thinks of Arabs and Muslims - even your ideals of justice don't apply if you wear a turban. US Hypocrisy at its best.
If you oppose all sanctions, how can you defend the US? The US imposes more sanctions on other countries than any other in the world.
You seem to be dripping with hypocrisy. It seems to be the in-thing for republicans these days... "Justice! Unless you're a muslim." "Freedom! Unless you're a muslim."
The terrorists wanted to destroy America. Bush did that for them. They've already won. Your rights are being eroded, and they've done such a good job of blinding you to the fact, YOU SUPPORT THEM! They've pulled a good one on you. You'll notice one day. By then it'll be too late.
The doubt exists in anyone who knows what went on. The BBC ran reports on it. Other news agencies around the world did the same. People from many walks of life around the world have doubts about it, yet the only vehement supporters of his legitimacy are republicans. Strange, huh? Also, pulling statistics out of your butt without citing the sources might work in high school, but not here.
It went exactly as it did before?? Jeb did what he did twice?? For Bill??? Jeb had his hand in falsifying lists of felons who moved into Florida. Funnily enough, that list (over 10,000 names) was false. Lots of people were labelled as felons (and so unable to vote), and those people were predominantly black. It's well known the majority of black people don't vote republican, so those were mainly democrat seats.
Again, if they had nothing untoward to do with the process, they could have done a LOT better at representing that. How can you say that Grey Davis was as biassed towards Gore as Jeb was to HIS OWN BROTHER?? err... BROTHER - did you miss that term? He has the same political bias that Grey has towards Gore, but he has a family tie on top - surely that adds bias, not removes it.
The "haters" as you put it aren't kicking up a stink because of who he is, but because he blatantly stole the election. The Republican party has done little to strengthen its air of legitimacy (breaking into democrat computers hardly helps their already tattered image). The "haters" are those who vehemently stand up for democracy. Republicans only stand up for it because their guy won. Those opposed to it are the real fans of democracy. They're the real advocated.
Every argument you put forward for the "haters" to hate, equally applies to you "lovers" to love. Your argument carries no water. Your point about 20% is pure speculation.
The thing about Democrats and other left-wing people is their true respect for democracy. They don't mind the other guy winning if he won fairly. That's what this is all about. Whether he won fairly or not is beside the point - the fact remains that he won in highly dubious circumstances. No amount of right-wing "leftie bashing" can negate the fact that the Pres's brother was instrumental in deciding the outcome. That is a fact you can't deny.
The elected president has to prove to people he won fairly. Usually it's not a problem as most people win without causing so much doubt in people's minds. If you want people to stop questioning his presidency, get a decent report published into the election. If over half the country claims he didn't win, something's up. Obviously.
Who decides what's "right" and "wrong"? Do you make up your own mind, or do you tow your leaders' line of right and wrong?
Bush acted unilaterally. Sure - he had people in his "coalition", but he threatened them to be there. "You're either with us or against us" - sound familiar? Also, if there really was such a huge amount of support across the globe, why was everyone up in arms about what was going on? Why did millions of people march across the globe to get their voices heard? I was at an anti-war march in the US, and the only arguments I heard from the pro-War guys were pulled directly off CNN. These people didn't think about their arguments, they just recited them ad infinitum, like some crazy flock of right-wing parrots.
The only dent he made in the constitution?? What about that judge last week who branded parts of the PATRIOT act unconstitutional? What about Bush's use of the word "God" in every public address? I mean - that's in the first ammendment - not hard to miss. How can there be a seperation of church and state when the president is calling on God to help the US every week. That's hardly respecting the non-Christian Americans, is it?
Comparing Bush's threat to democracy with that of Hitlers isn't comparing Bush's actions to those of Hitler. Did I touch a nerve to make you jump to that conclusion? He is the biggest threat to democracy. If he isn't, what is?. He just invaded a country, and is trying to install his own government there. He has no respect for democracy. His (reciprocal) supporters include Diebold, who make one of the most undemocratic devices ever even thought off - closed-source, privately owned, and politically biassed. If he was such a supporter of democracy, he would not accept their contributions. Can't you see there's a huge conflict of interest there? Saying Bush is a defender of freedom and democracy is just laughable. He's imprisoned hundreds of people on an island, with no charges. They have no recourse to legal defense. They have nothing. How is that championing freedom and liberty? That's pissing on it, surely. He can't possibly like freedom and justice if he treats people that way. It's like a vegetarian chowing down a Big Mac - they're mutually exclusive.
So, on to your last fantastic point. You seem to have used the fact that the USSR were in a place decades ago as justification for the US's inhumanitarian sanctions on many countries around the world. There is nothing that can excuse the US's actions around the world. America acts for its own best interests, screwing the rest of the world over. The new ideas of "Preventative" war are completely un-American, yet people (like yourself, I can tell) support it. Surely just that little nugget of truth must make you question something?
I'm not making up lies. There is serious doubt over the legitimacy of his election. If it had happened in an African country, the international community would have branded it null and void. Purely the conflicts of interest present in the election (Jeb et al, down in florida).
If he won legitimately, he could have done a lot better at proving it.
After all, if he won fairly, why are people up in arms? If it was as legit as some people would make it seem, there would be no problem.
Errr... yes? I seem to remember Hitler killing tens of millions of people in WWII. Millions more died in WWI. The US killed millions in all its little "police actions" it likes to take around the world... As far as I can see, the commies aren't in the lead.
Care to cite some sources for your incredible propaganda?:)
Err... you seem to be contradicting yourself. The USSR were as hell-bent as destroying the US as the US was USSR. That, surely, evens the playing field. The US can't have the upper hand, either ethically or morally. You have proved your argument false by the very logic you employed to defend it. Ironic, really.
I disagree with most of your post - you seem to be spouting anecdotal evidence and "patriotic" rhetoric.
This bit made me laugh the most, though:
'There is no "unilateral power"'
No unilateral power, huh? The fact that the US can do what it wants without the co-operation of international organisations? The UN wasn't behind Bush's jaunt into the desert last year - he just went and did it.
That's the problem the world has with America. The staunch support for America from John Q. Public blinds him to the fact that America isn't what America says it is. After all, on paper America supports freedom and justice. Look around the world and you'll see that's exactly NOT the case. America only cares about that stuff when it suits America. Be it a re-election campaign, the 4th of july, or whenever. It's something the US government (or indeed any organisation) can whip out of the bag and make all the little niggling voices of doubt in the public's mind go away. It's the panacea for any American opposition to an Un-American stance.
Bush's tactics are so clear to the rest of the world. He's put into place all the national resources he needs to point a finger at a country, call "terrorists!" and blow it up/invade it/take its oil/whatever. Sure, you could call the world paranoid, but the fact of the matter is - the US has done that before. Nicaragua? Venezuela? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Guatemala? Cuba? They're all poor for a reason - excessive US meddling in internal affairs. If the US loved everyone as much as it said, it wouldn't condemn those countries to poverty as it has.
Bush has done nothing to assure the world he's not a despotic madman. He takes power in a highly dubious manner. If he won legitimately, he could have done a lot better at proving it then he did. Bush has systematically erroded the US constitution, destroying the very thing he's sworn to protect (and, indeed, professes to be acting in its best interests when he rips it up and pisses on it). Bush is the biggest threat to democracy since Hitler.
The west was just as bad as the Russians, that's for sure.
I can't see how you can obviously love the ideals of "life, liberty and justice", yet you have no inclination to extend those to other people. That's the real American Dream(tm) - Hypocrisy(R)
So, for all the times the US has stolen technology from other countries, they should be allowed to be blown up? Is that your logic, or yet another stunning example of indoctrinated American hypocrisy?
What are you on about? These guys made the material - even if they were using the most heaviest Microsoft DRM, it's original content so they can do whatever they want.
DRM isn't a technology to screw people - it's simply to enable people to keep control of their media files after they've left their control. As these people were the creators, they would be able to specify which DRs to be Md.
Professionals in the movie business use what they know can accomplish the job. Some people use macs, some use Windows machines. The thing is, they're both as good as each other to do the job. You get Adobe Premiere on both platforms. They both support all sorts of firewire devices. They both support gigabit ethernet connections. They both have stupidly-large graphics cards. They both have massive screens. They both have 7.1 digital surround sound. (In fact, does the Mac have THX-certified sound hardware? Just a question - I know the PC does)
Saying people use macs because they "can reliably do the job" shows a wee bit of your bias. I'm not in either camp, but I know that macs == wintel boxes on every front. The only thing wintel boxes don't have is raving zealots who think wintel solutions are stuck back in '95, and that any piece of hardware with the apple logo is instantly worth 1.5x its market value.
Yeah... he ran pretty fast. I let him get away in the end, though. I saw the wachowski brothers getting into a cab and thought I'd get the new matrix films while I was at it.
They're hard disks. You can do that with any external firewire hard disk. And, what's more - the iPod was designed to do that. Apple always mentioned the fact it can be used as a HDD.
I love iPods - I've had 2 (original 5gig, and now a 40gig), but this strikes me as pro-Apple marketing. There's nothing special about what Peter Jackson did that required Mac hardware - you could do it on anything.
Slashdot Mirror
And as for your point about new york police... what about their tendancy to use janitorial supplies as suppositories? :-P
You missed off my point where I mention Bush's danger comes from the fact that he's armed to the teeth and chomping at the bit to ride roughshod over the middle east. He's already shown he doesn't mind trampling into places he's not wanted.
Saddam didn't use human shields this time round. Everyone knows that. Saying that shows how much you really know about the war. And it would have been pretty hard for Saddam to kill "most of those" as I don't think he had the attack helicopters and bombers used to kill them. I'm pretty sure they were American.
As for saying ANSWER is "hardline stalinist" just demonstrates, even further, how little you know about the real world. ANSWER is a group dedicated to stopping war. Was Stalin opposed to war? no. How can it be "hardline stalinist" then? Your logic makes no sense.
They were "siding with evil"? That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Americans saying that because they didn't side with the US. That's the sort of threat the US plied on the smaller nations in the coalition. Can't you see? They were either with the US, or against it. It's not a tough call to make.
Bush is President of the US, not just President of the US Christians. By stating, publicly, his belief in a god, he ceases to represent those of different faiths. Imagine how you'd feel if you were a Christian, and Bush stood up there and prayed to Allah to save your soul. He shouldn't do it, full stop. His first responsibility is to EVERY US citizen - regardless of faith. His spouting his mouth off about god every five minutes undermines not only his leadership, but his impartiality. Bearing in mind most of his perceived problems are with the Muslim world, Rev'd bush is hardly doing a good job letting people know he's impartial. It doesn't take a genius to realise a leader has to lead all his people, not just those the same as him. Calling people bigots who are offended when their purported leader defers *his* leadership to that of a God they don't believe in, shows great lack of understanding on your part. I imagine you'd be screaming your head off if the shoe was on the other foot. Oh, and FYI, please read this:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
If those terrorists were "caught fighting red handed in terrorist armies", why aren't they tried? Surely if you're a bastion of freedom and democracy, you'd show the world how true you are to that cause by employing it on your enemies. But no, the US imprisons innocent people (remember - innocent until proven guilty), without trial or representation or ANYTHING. That's hardly "land of the free and the home of the brave", is it?
I was actually pandering to the US preconception that people in turbans are muslims. My housemate is sikh, so I'm well aware of the sikh religion. I studied it at school. Even so, in your unfounded torrent of abuse, you managed to sideline the question. A true republican.
Again, the US imposes more sanctions of any kind on any other country in the world - how can you defend it?
There is absolutely no technical reason why they should use macs over wintel boxes - none whatsoever. The reason for the use of macs in the film industry is purely a social one.
SLL and non-SSL on one process doesn't require IP-based vhosting - you can quite happily use port-based vhosting. *:80 for http, and *:443 for SSL...
Of course they felt threatened. You saw what happened to France and Germany - when they said "no", the US got in a hissy fit. Colin Powell even said they'd "pay" for their supposed insubordinance. That's hardly the action of a diplomatic country, is it? More like a toddler with a scraped knee.
So Saddam kills 10,000 Iraqis a year? Well, Bush has killed 10,000 iraqis in this last war, which is under a year old. You can do the maths.
I was at an ANSWER march, and those people participating had more knowledge of foreign countries than those Free Republicans who came to try and oppose our position. I talked to some Freeps, and they knew next to nothing about anything. They just sounded like Fox and CNN mixed into one. They couldn't rationalise or think for themselves - they just spouted racist abuse at me and my wife, and told me to "go back to Germany!" (I'm not german - that made me laugh). If those aren't the morons you're referring to, I suggest you check into them.
Seperation of church and state. The idea is to extend religious freedom to every US citizen by the state not openly supporting one religion over another. Bush's frequent mentions of God and the Bible/10 commandments is obviously a breach of this. How you can stand to argue it isn't is beyond me. He said God. That's not allowed. It's that simple. It isn't about free speech - it's about the government staying religiously impartial. Sure, Bush has the right to say whatever he wants, but he must realise he's President first, and a Christian second. The use of the word God is offensive to atheists and non-Christians.
Democracy is being sidelined in the US. Diebold will make it go away completely in the next couple of decades. Those in power know it can remove them, and they will get rid of it. As they saying goes "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal".
How can Bush be a promoter of democracy? Surely you're aware of Diebold?? He accepts money from them. That's not supporting democracy - that's making sure you get to decide the outcome of the votes yourself. That's destroying democracy.
Bush tried to get Enron lucrative contracts for unethical sourcing of fuels - that was their payoff. They obviously didn't give him enough to make all the other bad stuff disappear. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Guantanamo bay is full of people who haven't been proven guilty. As you say in America, innocent until proven guilty. If they're as guilty as you say, then try them. Not trying them just shows the world how much the US thinks of Arabs and Muslims - even your ideals of justice don't apply if you wear a turban. US Hypocrisy at its best.
If you oppose all sanctions, how can you defend the US? The US imposes more sanctions on other countries than any other in the world.
You seem to be dripping with hypocrisy. It seems to be the in-thing for republicans these days... "Justice! Unless you're a muslim." "Freedom! Unless you're a muslim."
The terrorists wanted to destroy America. Bush did that for them. They've already won. Your rights are being eroded, and they've done such a good job of blinding you to the fact, YOU SUPPORT THEM! They've pulled a good one on you. You'll notice one day. By then it'll be too late.
It went exactly as it did before?? Jeb did what he did twice?? For Bill??? Jeb had his hand in falsifying lists of felons who moved into Florida. Funnily enough, that list (over 10,000 names) was false. Lots of people were labelled as felons (and so unable to vote), and those people were predominantly black. It's well known the majority of black people don't vote republican, so those were mainly democrat seats.
Again, if they had nothing untoward to do with the process, they could have done a LOT better at representing that. How can you say that Grey Davis was as biassed towards Gore as Jeb was to HIS OWN BROTHER?? err... BROTHER - did you miss that term? He has the same political bias that Grey has towards Gore, but he has a family tie on top - surely that adds bias, not removes it.
The "haters" as you put it aren't kicking up a stink because of who he is, but because he blatantly stole the election. The Republican party has done little to strengthen its air of legitimacy (breaking into democrat computers hardly helps their already tattered image). The "haters" are those who vehemently stand up for democracy. Republicans only stand up for it because their guy won. Those opposed to it are the real fans of democracy. They're the real advocated.
Every argument you put forward for the "haters" to hate, equally applies to you "lovers" to love. Your argument carries no water. Your point about 20% is pure speculation.
The thing about Democrats and other left-wing people is their true respect for democracy. They don't mind the other guy winning if he won fairly. That's what this is all about. Whether he won fairly or not is beside the point - the fact remains that he won in highly dubious circumstances. No amount of right-wing "leftie bashing" can negate the fact that the Pres's brother was instrumental in deciding the outcome. That is a fact you can't deny.
The elected president has to prove to people he won fairly. Usually it's not a problem as most people win without causing so much doubt in people's minds. If you want people to stop questioning his presidency, get a decent report published into the election. If over half the country claims he didn't win, something's up. Obviously.
Bush acted unilaterally. Sure - he had people in his "coalition", but he threatened them to be there. "You're either with us or against us" - sound familiar? Also, if there really was such a huge amount of support across the globe, why was everyone up in arms about what was going on? Why did millions of people march across the globe to get their voices heard? I was at an anti-war march in the US, and the only arguments I heard from the pro-War guys were pulled directly off CNN. These people didn't think about their arguments, they just recited them ad infinitum, like some crazy flock of right-wing parrots.
The only dent he made in the constitution?? What about that judge last week who branded parts of the PATRIOT act unconstitutional? What about Bush's use of the word "God" in every public address? I mean - that's in the first ammendment - not hard to miss. How can there be a seperation of church and state when the president is calling on God to help the US every week. That's hardly respecting the non-Christian Americans, is it?
Comparing Bush's threat to democracy with that of Hitlers isn't comparing Bush's actions to those of Hitler. Did I touch a nerve to make you jump to that conclusion? He is the biggest threat to democracy. If he isn't, what is?. He just invaded a country, and is trying to install his own government there. He has no respect for democracy. His (reciprocal) supporters include Diebold, who make one of the most undemocratic devices ever even thought off - closed-source, privately owned, and politically biassed. If he was such a supporter of democracy, he would not accept their contributions. Can't you see there's a huge conflict of interest there? Saying Bush is a defender of freedom and democracy is just laughable. He's imprisoned hundreds of people on an island, with no charges. They have no recourse to legal defense. They have nothing. How is that championing freedom and liberty? That's pissing on it, surely. He can't possibly like freedom and justice if he treats people that way. It's like a vegetarian chowing down a Big Mac - they're mutually exclusive.
So, on to your last fantastic point. You seem to have used the fact that the USSR were in a place decades ago as justification for the US's inhumanitarian sanctions on many countries around the world. There is nothing that can excuse the US's actions around the world. America acts for its own best interests, screwing the rest of the world over. The new ideas of "Preventative" war are completely un-American, yet people (like yourself, I can tell) support it. Surely just that little nugget of truth must make you question something?
If he won legitimately, he could have done a lot better at proving it.
After all, if he won fairly, why are people up in arms? If it was as legit as some people would make it seem, there would be no problem.
Care to cite some sources for your incredible propaganda? :)
It was being used as a hard disk, which was one of its original purposes. Your point is somewhat moot :)
Oh yeah - don't forget that the nasty weapons Saddam did have, he bought from the US :-P
Err... you seem to be contradicting yourself. The USSR were as hell-bent as destroying the US as the US was USSR. That, surely, evens the playing field. The US can't have the upper hand, either ethically or morally. You have proved your argument false by the very logic you employed to defend it. Ironic, really.
This bit made me laugh the most, though:
'There is no "unilateral power"'
No unilateral power, huh? The fact that the US can do what it wants without the co-operation of international organisations? The UN wasn't behind Bush's jaunt into the desert last year - he just went and did it.
That's the problem the world has with America. The staunch support for America from John Q. Public blinds him to the fact that America isn't what America says it is. After all, on paper America supports freedom and justice. Look around the world and you'll see that's exactly NOT the case. America only cares about that stuff when it suits America. Be it a re-election campaign, the 4th of july, or whenever. It's something the US government (or indeed any organisation) can whip out of the bag and make all the little niggling voices of doubt in the public's mind go away. It's the panacea for any American opposition to an Un-American stance.
Bush's tactics are so clear to the rest of the world. He's put into place all the national resources he needs to point a finger at a country, call "terrorists!" and blow it up/invade it/take its oil/whatever. Sure, you could call the world paranoid, but the fact of the matter is - the US has done that before. Nicaragua? Venezuela? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? Guatemala? Cuba? They're all poor for a reason - excessive US meddling in internal affairs. If the US loved everyone as much as it said, it wouldn't condemn those countries to poverty as it has.
Bush has done nothing to assure the world he's not a despotic madman. He takes power in a highly dubious manner. If he won legitimately, he could have done a lot better at proving it then he did. Bush has systematically erroded the US constitution, destroying the very thing he's sworn to protect (and, indeed, professes to be acting in its best interests when he rips it up and pisses on it). Bush is the biggest threat to democracy since Hitler.
Can't you see America's foreign policy is a lie?
It's American foreign policy - it's not supposed to make sense ;)
He's just a boring author who writes books for insecure guys who want to be action men. It's just GI Joe for grown-ups.
I can't see how you can obviously love the ideals of "life, liberty and justice", yet you have no inclination to extend those to other people. That's the real American Dream(tm) - Hypocrisy(R)
AC by name, AC by nature, I see...
Oh, and they were COMMIES, so they must have been baby-eating rapist/murderers.
errr... are you forgetting Steve Jobs is on the board of directors at Pixar? I'd say that's having a large future in the movie industry... ;)
DRM isn't a technology to screw people - it's simply to enable people to keep control of their media files after they've left their control. As these people were the creators, they would be able to specify which DRs to be Md.
Saying people use macs because they "can reliably do the job" shows a wee bit of your bias. I'm not in either camp, but I know that macs == wintel boxes on every front. The only thing wintel boxes don't have is raving zealots who think wintel solutions are stuck back in '95, and that any piece of hardware with the apple logo is instantly worth 1.5x its market value.
Yeah... he ran pretty fast. I let him get away in the end, though. I saw the wachowski brothers getting into a cab and thought I'd get the new matrix films while I was at it.
I love iPods - I've had 2 (original 5gig, and now a 40gig), but this strikes me as pro-Apple marketing. There's nothing special about what Peter Jackson did that required Mac hardware - you could do it on anything.
So somehow it's Microsoft's fault Linux has bad USB support and next to no drivers for USB devices? :)
Most windows players use the same filters for playing video, so once it's installed, chances are your media player will play it ;)
And, if you're bored, you can use graphedit to set up a conversion stream to turn your real files into something more usable.