You need to give up and stop misrepresenting the legal system as well as the situation. You are severely confused whether you know it or not and continuing to tripe on just makes you look silly.
I really don't know why I discuss things with you, as you've repeatedly demonstrated you're as dumb as a post.
Courts, before they listen to any facts, they determine whether or not it would constitute a violation of the law if those facts proved what the prosecutor wanted. There is something called a question of law [wikipedia.org], which is entirely distinct from the question of facts [wikipedia.org] which is the trial itself.
As an example you may be able to understand, let us say the police arrest me for turning right on a red light. In some jurisdictions, where that is illegal, there would actually be a case there, where people would introduce evidence and witnesses.
In other places, where that is legal, the case would be thrown on the finding of law that such behavior is not actually illegal, regardless of what I actually did or didn't do. The person's 'guilt' or 'innocence' doesn't enter into it, because said behavior isn't actually a crime.
First of all, this is a civil case up to this point, not criminal charges have ever been filed. What you describe in running a red light has an indictment process that either employs a grand jury or witness indictment by an officer of the law. In a civil trial, they look at the claims to see if they can be supported and if someone has standing in law. It does not mean a law was violated or that anyone violated any laws. It means that the claim is substantial enough that the claim could be supported and nothing else. The appeals court tossed the case out (and the injunction) because the plaintiff didn't have standing to pursuit the matter. That still doesn't mean that a law was broken, that needs to be proven first and it wasn't.
Now, hold that thought, and let's get back to what you said. And I'll quote 'Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal'.
Judges can, in fact, do that. They can say something isn't a crime. That would be a finding of law. They can stand there and say 'The behavior that this person is accused of is not a crime, case dismissed.'. They do this first, before any evidence is presented. (Because, obviously, it doesn't depend on any evidence.)
They did not do that in this case. They got past that little hurdle, and then threw out the case due to lack of evidence. (Strictly speaking, it was lack of evidence of standing, not lack of evidence of the crime itself, but that amounts to the same thing here.)
In other words, according to the court, the US government has not been proven to have done specific acts which the courts thinks would be illegal. They said, quite clearly to anyone who knows that the slightest bit about courts, that they think that behavior might be illegal but that it cannot be proven the government actually did it.
Incidentally, your claim that the judge who originally found them guilty was operating in an unprofessional manner is idiotic.
First of all, you need to change would to could. Would is presupposed considering the claims and facts pan out. Without the plaintiff proving those, and barring any exceptions to the rule which is what I suggested in the first place that is supported by congressional action, the proper wording is could not would. Second, the claim was "creditable court". The judge had a clear biased interest in the plaintiff of the case (ACLU) which is most probably why the case had to go to an appeals court in order to be tossed out instead of the original judge doing what's right according to the rules and law in the first place. The judge lost all credibility when she refused to recuse herself and then acting in a manor that a higher court had to overturn.
You haven't had to tackle some of the more nasty stuff then.
There are worms/malware that spawn or attach to other processes and check for it's existence in the startup and if it isn't running, it will create a copy of itself and launch it on the next boot. And yea, it generally picks a process that is supposedly needed for windows to run or breaks in such a way when it is closed that it will mod the registry to ensure it's startup when the computer resumes then cause a blue screen. You need something to block registry writes or that is capable of isolating and closing the process.
Also you have problems with worms/malware that will entwine itself into the winsock settings or even replace the TCP driver so when it's removed, networking or some other function will no longer work. This has become easier to fix lately with MS's inclusion of the winsock repair tools after XP SP2.
Now, I'm not limiting this to worms specifically, it's all sorts of malware from virus to spyware that does this crap. Manual removal is almost impossible on some of these. Removal without specific instructions is virtually impossible too. You will need to wait for third parties to come up with a solution unlesss you are one of those third parties in which case, you shouldn't be having problems in linux.
If your going to try another distro, I would like to suggest Mandriva. I can't vouch for the latest offerings but I know the older versions usually worked out of the box better then the new popular versions.
Personally, I think Mandriva/mandrake has better tools for configuration and such. Their URPMI tool is prety much the bomb for quick and easy installs of almost anything availible. The only doesn side to it is that they preconfigure most of the software to general specs which means if your doing something different/custom (you will know when you are attempting to do it), you will have to either install from source or patch the RPM. I find it's easier to just install from scratch but I'm generally doing the Linux from scratch thing now so that could be why.
Anyways, give it a try, I do not think you will be disappointed.
I wouldn't even agree about XP. I had a multifunction printer fail with a SP2 upgrade and HP, after stating it was windows XP compatible, decided not to fix the diver.
There are lots of legacy printers and other drivers that will not work in XP after SP2 is installed. Most of these were left as obsolete in hopes that you would by a new device instead of fixing the problem with the otherwise perfectly functional devices.
I think maybe you are comparing apples and oranges here.
You see, your worm method in NT relies on someone else to come up with a fix or tell you what registry settings to remove/change back and usually, they package this into a little program for you to update constantly and execute.
Now on the other hand, if you get hit with a bad Wlan connection in windows, you still have to wait from someone to fix it, but it's even worse. You can't look at the source code and attempt to fix it yourself. You can't take the source code and ask someone why it isn't working for you and have them make changes, your in the same boat.
So all in all, if your experiencing problems, your in the same boat regardless. The only real problem might be the difference between official support and unofficial support. At least with open source, if it really means that much to you, you can hire someone to fix the issue where with windows, your just waiting.
The problem with system restore is that the use has no clue how they broke their computer so they continue to do so.
Often, I find it's something minor like an install that never cleared the wininit settings and continuously attempts to finish the install but the temp files were deleted so it blue screens on boot. I also find that when your disk becomes corrupt, the system restore can blow the entire hard drive forcing a reformat and data recovery.
As for the last know configuration bullshit, all that does is makes it harder for people like me to fix the damn thing instead of wiping it and starting over because it removes a lot of the traces that caused the problem in the first place.
You may think those things are a blessing, but sooner or later, you will see them bite you first hand. And yes, I have seen hosed windows boxes where safe mode was not an option. So as you said, make sure you have backups.
You must be doing something wrong. I have had about equal success in both windows and linux. Of course I started out on Mandrake (now Mandriva) and moved to doing plain vanilia kernals with my own apps installed. IF your having problms, I suggest using the comminity version of mandriva which is a distribution that does quite a bit of the work for you. You can get the pay versions which would include a lot more driver support and I believe they have a non-free version in that it incorporates a lot of the non-free driver support. I never liked the Debian based installs like Knoppix or Ubuntu except for the odd live distribution (Knoppix live DVD is pretty awesome)
Anyways, back to the point, I have installed hundreds of linux and windows boxes. It's about the same as far as headaches go. I haven't installed win7 yet but I'm not going to assume it isn't any worse then what's already out there. The upgrade time scares me, so maybe I will have to script it somehow. But hell, just two weeks ago, I had to find a floppy drive just to get windows 2003 server to install to the on board raid controller of a motherboard that's been around for several years. Windows isn't as bad as it was with win9X but at the same time, linux isn't either. If you knew as much about linux as you know about windows, used a newbe hardened distribution like Mandriva, you would probably agree with me.
You know, I was going to make a nice long reply to this, but if you can't even do the most basic research about this, I don't know why I'm bothering.
Courts have two things...first a findings of law, and findings of fact. That is, before a case starts, before anyone starts asserting what did, or didn't, happen, they first make sure the behavior actually alleged was in violation of the law. This do this finding of law before any testimony or evidence, so the court doesn't, for example, charge people with things that are not actually illegal even if all the facts alleges were proven true.
And, and this is very important, neither court which heard the ACLU's case did so. Neither of them threw out the case on finding of law, which means the court thinks such behavior by the government would be illegal, at least to the extent the court can tell. To restate: The courts seem to think that such wiretapping would be illegal if done to the plaintiffs.
You still fail. You are attempting to jump from neither court determined the facts to it's a fact because neither court threw the case out because of it. Now what this means isn't that it's a fact that Bush violated the law, it means it's possible. However, no court has declared it a violation of the law except one in which the judge had a personal interest in.
Now you are also wrong about the findings a court makes. It does not find that a violation of a law happened, the find that it's possible it happened and the case determines if it happened or not. Often, after the court has taken testimony and tried the facts, it is determined that a law was not broken. You are no closer then if the case didn't happen at all- let alone happen by someone who should have recused herself because of personal interest. If you knew half as much as you think you do about law and court, you wouldn't have just attempted to blatantly misconstrue the process.
You can stand there and argue that, because of the lack of evidence, there was no wiretapping, and hence everything was legal. You'll sound crazy, but you can, in theory, argue that.
Why in the hell would I want to do that for. I already said that there is plenty of support for the taps to of been legal. Unlike you, I do not need to obscure things to make my point.
But you cannot argue that the courts found such wiretapping legal, as they most certainly did not. They found it couldn't be proven to have happened.
I think you have a problem with your reading comprehension. I have never said the courts found them legal, I have said that the courts have not competently ruled on them one way or the other and that there is support for the idea that they were legal. How you can mangle that into a ignoring them or that a court has already ruled is beyond me.
There is absolutely no legal theory that would allow the president to spy on communications of American citizens without warrants.
Yes there is. In the 1968 Omnibus Crime bill, it provided exceptions to the wiretaping and stated the warant requirement would not be construed to "limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities."
Now congress believed the president had this power constitutionally in 1967-68, so how did it disappear without any constitutional amendments?
FISA came about to limit abuses where domestic law enforcement agents were going to the CIA or military and claiming national security to get around warrants. FISA does not removed the president's constitutional authority as confirmed by the 1968 Omnibus
What court are you talking about? Do you even know what impeachment is? If you did, you'd know it takes place in the legislature, not in judicial court.
I'm talking about the court of law President Bill Clinton was in when he was the defendant of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. That's when he lied under oath and that's the perjury that the impeachment charges talk about.
Did you do the slightest bit is looking up the facts or are you simply spouting halth truths on purpose?
And even in court, a prosecution is not permitted to redefine well known and accepted definitions for the purposes of conviction.
The prosecution did not redefine anything. Judge Susan Weber Wright defined the term so as to be completely clear what the intents of asking the question would be. The plaintiff and the defendant both negotiated on the definition to be used but it was the Judge who set it in stone for the purposes of the case.
Again, did you remotely look into the facts surrounding this before spouting untrue accusations? This even was ten years ago and all the facts are freely availible to anyone who isn't intellectually lazy. There is no excuse for you not knowing about this and then attempting to spout off whatever you can make up in your head.
Further, you may or may not have made valid points, but you've dimished whatever position you hold by a lack of restraint for the ad hominem. If you can't excercise self-control, you have no hope to hold intelligent discourse, though I suppose this is readily apparent by your clever screenname.
No, I didn't invalidate anything. This has been publicly discusses and is ten years old by now. There is no excuse for you not knowing what happened and attempting to chime in as if you did. You have completely made shit up with no other purpose then to misconstrue the facts. This is slashdot, not 4chan, do not expect to argue with someone when you can't be bothered to learn the facts surrounding your position. These facts are not disputed by anyone who has exerted the simplest amount of effort looking into them. You attempted to present a fallacious situation and attribute it to something that couldn't be further from the truth of the matter while claiming everyone else in the world is wrong. IF you feel like I treated you like an idiot, you should because your own actions warrant that distinction.
At times like this, I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz where the scarecrow sings "if I only had a brain". I imagine you doing that a lot.
Your definition doesn't matter because the court supplied a specific definition and Clinton was told to answer under that definition. That specific definition that Clinton not only had access to for almost the entire trial, but also asked to have it repeated right before he answered the question. Clinton knew full well what was required of him and you pointing to some other source is not genius as you think, it just shows how difficult it is for you to follow facts and comprehend the situation.
IF a court defines being a virgin as not getting to second base, then for the purpose of that court, no you are not a virgin.
This isn't about abstract meanings. Clinton and his lawyers had the court defined definition and Clinton actually asked to have it repeated to him before he lied about it. The question was about sexual relations which the definition included diddling twat with cigars and oral sex. It would also include you getting to second base whether you remained a virgin or not by any definition.
Please stop trying so hard to defend the guy who already has admited to it and distorting the context in the process. It's been 10 years since it happened, the facts are know, and only idiots like you and the OP pretend to make up different ones in order to stick up for the guy. It only serves to make you look like a loser which is probably why you posted AC instead of being brave enough to put your name on it.
You need to give up. The definition wasn't changed, it was defined at the beginning of the trial, it was read to Clinton before he answered the question. He knew well in advance of the question what the court expected the definition to be, he was a fucking lawyer and wrongly attempted to mislead the court with an untruthful answer which was reflected in the courts punishment of Clinton and his loss of law licenses.
Now you are correct in that the definition wasn't codified into law, the next nearest definition would be in the civil right act of 1964 which was much more broad and would still have included Clinton's escapades. It wasn't used because it would have included much more.
The only time that matters is under oath. He asked for a definition of sex (make sure oral sex was included in the list). Oddly, it wasn't included in the definition the judge gave.
Actually it was and the judge fined Clinton and he lost his law license because of it. This is the definition the Judge gave
"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:
Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.
Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."
Now tell me, how is oral sex or fiddling twat with a cigar not covered. The definition specifically outlines the touching of any genitalia directly or indirectly with an object for sexual purposes.
He then went with that answer and took it to the people, which was a lie. He did not speak an untruth to the judge
Yes he did lie. He asked for the definition to be read before he answered so there was no mistake and the definition required him to admit to getting a blowjob in the least because it's covered specifically by "Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and # Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person;" Fuck dude, give it up, all this information is out on the internet and there is no excuse for you to remain willfully ignorant over it.
He did not speak it with the intent to deceive, as it was proper according to the instructions. But when he told it to the people, he knew that the answer would mislead. And speaking with the intent to mislead is a lie (even if technically a truth), at least in my book and in most American's books. So he lied to the people, but he did not lie under oath.
He was the chief law enforcement officer in the land and lied in court to save his ass from a sexual harassment lawsuit that he eventually settled out of court. You can't sit here and say it was a lie to the people and not to the court when the fucking definition the court gave included both the blow jobs and diddling twat with cigars. Quit attempting to distort history in order to save a tarnished image.
And, of course, it took an investigation of about $100 million to find nothing other than people that were not cooperative. Absolutely nothing that was being investigated came close to being substantiated, but they pried enough for so long that they were able to take a single answer to a question and a general distain for for the investigation and turn those into a perjury and obstruction charge.
Maybe, just Maybe, if the clintons were not so used to lieing that they will do it in federal court to save their ass, and if the people were cooperative, then something would have been found. What you are saying right here is that nothing was found because people stonewalled and weren't truthful. Now why Star went after the perjury investigation is unknown but the bottom line is that Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, gave the ok for Star to move in that direction. That's right, it was a democrat appointed by Clinton himself who gave Ken Star the Authority to look into the Lewinsky matter. Now get over it and quit distorting history and attempting to paint a picture that doesn't exist.
Um, wiretapping people without warrants? A clear violation of the law. A felony, in fact, for each offense. Um, duh.
Like I said, you can provide nothing that hasn't already been discredited. Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal and the one judge who did, not only got overturned, but also had ties to the ACLU which was a plaintiff in the case. There is good legal evidence that makes the wire taps seem legal in specific situations and congress did not think it was an impeachable offense as the option had been brought up to them several times by the loony-toon democrats.
Also, it's only a violation of the law if the law can be constitutionally applied. There is good support that it couldn't and therefore FISA wouldn't have applied regardless of what it says. The biggest reason congress failed to attempt to impeach Bush was because they knew there was a good chance of this standing and they would lose the power they think they had over the administration.
As opposed to Bush torturing people, which even England wouldn't do.
So two wrongs make a right? I mean what the hell does someone doing something wrong have to do with their children heirs, or whoever other then them? The op said "Obama really needs to issue an executive order to lock them (and their families, aids, hairdressers, etc) up until we get answers to some of those questions" which is a corruption of blood, something clearly denied in the constitution. Now I know your hatred for bush blinds you but think about that, if your daddy goes out and drinks and drives and kills someone, should you be locked up because of it? Should you be locked up on an executive order because of it? That's what your saying isn't it, that because bush supposedly tortured someone, that you can be locked up on a single person's decree simply because you were related to someone who might have did something wrong in some way? Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking here? Even if Bush did do something that even England wouldn't do, it still doesn't make someone else doing severe wrong right.
You idiots simply amaze me. How can anyone take you seriously when your answer to someone supporting a highly repulsive act, an unconstitutional act, an act that led to the revolution in the first place, is at least bush did X. That's fucking ridiculous and frivolous at best. I know you have a brain, fucking use it. I know your capable, we have discussed things in the past. Quit acting moronic here. I'm sorry, but you just set a new low here. "but Obama can do it because Bush did something else". At least when the bush apologists claim "clinton did it", they are actually talking about the same thing or the same context. Fuck, I expected more from you.
Police officers and Military personnel aren't exactly elected politicians. However, in most of the cases, it's the half left home who wants the divorce and not the police military officials. For the police officers, I do not trust most of them anyways. You shouldn't either.
Since when has any politician actually pledge themselves to you or the people.
It's a matter of importance. If they can't keep a pledge, then why do you expect them to remain truthful to you or the people or the office in which they hold? We have already seen people like Clinton violate the Constitution and the war powers act with the Balkan occupation.
You do not need proof to understand that less of a thread binds them to a job compared to a spouse they gave vows to.
Were you born yesterday? He was asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky, not just sex. Furthermore, the court defined what sexual relations entailed and found that Clinton lied during his statement to the court. This lie ended up getting him fined by the court, he lost his law license, and he paid Jones a settlement and lawyers fees to stop it from going to trial again.
I understand your intent on protecting what you believe in no matter what, even if you have to lie about it, but this is well documented and at your fingertips on the internet. You are attempting to make your claims to others who have the same resources, not your intellectually lazy friends who just take your word for it because your IQ is 5 points above average.
Actually, Clinton signed into law back in 1994 or 96 a provision that allows a person claiming sexual harassment to include outside references of the behavior in order to establish a pattern. Clinton probably didn't realize it at the time but that law made the Lewinsky material relevant to the Jones case. You can't say there was no grounds to involve it because Clinton Signed into law the very grounds that allowed it's involvement.
Now, Clinton also had the option of taking the fifth and then publicly claiming it was no one's business but his own. He was/is a master at spin and could have very well pulled that off. He didn't, he didn't tell the truth, and there are plenty of democrats who had affairs and kept their office so it wasn't like his political career was over. Despite that, his actions got his law license revoked, he was impeached, and he was fined as well as had to pay Jone's attorney's fees. The question was asked of him after his second term in office began as well. Not to many Ex-presidents go on to hold other elected offices so it isn't like his political career would be any more in jeopardy then it was after being president.
Wow, I don't know why anyone modded you insightful, you spouted nothing that hasn't already been said by the Bush bashing comic strips and you even kept it as vague as possible to leave no avenue of address to the specifics of your claims. If you hadn't done that one thing, you would have been shot down by the simplest observations in the scenario. So I have to ask, what was done that warranted impeachments and be specific enough that it can be addressed. Your not going to be able to hash anything out that is truthful and hasn't already been proven to not be impeachment worthy.
As for Obama, you are a complete idiot. The constitution says you cannot work corruption of blood which is exactly what you are suggesting. Why in the fuck can you claim on person violated the constitution or deserved to be impeached with no hard facts to back it up while advocating that the current administration do one of the most abhorrent acts any sitting president could do that not only is forbidden in the constitution, but also a key reason why we rebelled from England in the first place. Is it the ends justify the means only when you agree with it or something?
No need to get all upset about this, boy. Just keep civil, you'll get more audience.
I'm not upset over anything about this. I'm just disapointed that people think that the only way to change is to undo the change that they claim is the problem. It's not very forward thinking of them and it's not very historically thinking of them. The advancements made over the years have same countless more lives and made millions or more acreas of land availible then they have damages in some potential future. There is no reason why we shouldn't expect those advancements to continue.
Now, sorry for pointing out the obvious, but extrapolating the future advances in the area of climate (or "sea level") control from the past advances in computer technology is... not very scientific of you.
And you point is what? I mean 1000 years is ten centuries. While we will not necessarily have the same level of advancements in the next century as the last, we will have advancements and they will work in our favor. You need to quit acting like 1000 years is tomorrow and everything needs to be done yesterday or it will not be done. I didn't just compare our advancements with computer technology, that was just one of the advancements I pointed to. Take a real hard look back at what life was like before electricity or running water, or our understanding of diseases and sanitation. Now ponder a future where that seems as much of a relic as going to the outhouse and pumping water from a well by hand just to cart it into the house.
Since the dawn of men, we moved not one little step towards climate control (I don't count shooting the clouds in order to lower the danger of a hailstorm as "climate control"). If you allow, I'd not just bet the future on "well, some day, a smart person will figure out how to fix it, so who cares" approach.
Oh, I think if you would look, we have achieved some remarkable goals in the realm of climate control. We can seed certain clouds to make rain, we have removed pollutants from exhaust plumes in order to stop acid rain, our vehicle exhaust has been cleaner then it ever has and so on.
You seem to be suffering from a short sightedness. In years past, the thought of using electricity for productivity consisted of chemical reactions with little power. Now we can control those reactions, reverse them to some extent and ever crease larger sources of power in smaller states. Who would have thought that the worlds most powerful battery in 1850 could be contained in a package the size of something that could fit into you hand and last 200 times as long. But now, we can smash atoms to create electricity and even use atomic filters to pull electrons from hydrogen and force their return through a controlled path from a completely none destructive atomic state.
The tech we use is pretty much at it's limits today. We can tweak it some, we may be able to improve is some, but the future is going to open many new doors to processes and technology only imagined today. All you have to do is look at the past to see that this is inevitable. It's even more so when the potential for global warming is present and there is a need. What's that saying, necessity is the mother of ingenuity. Just give it time and things will come around. From personal fusion reactors to solar cells that are over 80% efficient. It will happen because 100 or 200 years is enough time for the supporting sciences to make advancements that will allow things like that to happen. I mean look at the size and power consumption of computing devices today compared to back in 1970 and the amount of work they accomplish. Look at the fuel Mileage and power of cars today compared to 1920.
Even today, people are looking into diversion power capturing techniques to turn almost any river into a series of Hydropower plants. This works by tunneling from one point in a river upstream to a lower point down st
Why not skip the tax altogether, create an international body designed solely for the purpose of creating energy sources free of GHG's offer royalty free use of those designs and simply have the country mandate their implementations as it progresses. It will have all the same effects without any of the starving the poor or reverting many people's lives back to the stone age. If you get labs with 20 countries involved, then costs will be less per country then most spend on maintaining their government buildings in their capitols.
Actually, it became political in the late in 1992 when people at the UN attempted to use global warming as scare tactic to implement a way to repay the third world debt. I'm not sure how politically aware you were in the 1980's and 1990's but there was a movement that attempted to get the first world nations to forgive the third world debt which was caused by the investments in non-OPEC countries during the 1970's when they attempted to step up and supply the US with oil after OPEC embargoed the US.
There is a reason why the Kyoto accords ignore smaller countries and allow them to sell carbon credits as well as allows first world nations to simply move their GHG to those third world countries and count it as a reduction. Of the 158 some countries now signed onto Kyoto, only 38 of the have limits and one of those 38 has a limit above what it was producing at the time of the treaty's ratification. It's little more then a redistribution of wealth that doesn't address Co2 production in general, it addresses the Co2 Production of wealthy countries. Look at China and India who are signatories to Kyoto, they have races to the top of the list as polluters because most of Europe is outsourcing their Co2 to them. Before and after Kyoto figures in trade going to China and India is almost ten fold now with China surpassing the US in Co2/GHG emissions.
You can blame the republicans for seeing that scam, Gore was one of the supporters of forgiving the third world debt and it's no wonder he was a big supporter of the scam to achieve the goal of them paying it off. But do not stop half way in your assessment of why it's political else you will be covering the reasons for it up.
You need to look at the advancements made in the last century along to see the different approaches to doing things.
In just one century, we put man on the moon, created personal computers that are more powerful then all the computers (as in the people who would compute formulas for science and business applications) in the world in 1950. We can now build buildings that will survive earth quakes and so on. Imagine what can be done in 10 centuries. Well, you do not have to think all that hard because almost every futuristic scifi movie hints at the possibilities.
It may also be that in as little as 100 years, some new energy source is discovered and Co2 isn't even a consideration anymore. As this recent discovery indicates, it may be possible that Co2 isn't even as big of a factor as you currently think it is. Since the time of the movie, we have had to adjust climate models to include our new understandings of solar interaction at least once, how water vapor interacts at least twice, had to correct the temperature record for the US at least once because faulty math had been used, and we still do not have open access to the data being used to cite the temps in all parts of the world. Hell, the UK and Europe still will not make their data open to people simply wanting to double check their math.
If your comfortable with this, then be it. Others aren't and rightfully so. The 100 verses 1000 problem can just as easily be no problem in 100-200 years as it could be a problem in 1000 years. Here, let me put it a little more simpler for you. Suppose a new computer was designed today and it costs 100,000 dollars. You wanted it. Which would be easier, paying for and getting it within the next week, or 50 years down the road? Now consider that they are backlogged for the next 30 years in orders. OF course the longer you wait the easier it will be to afford plus tech would have changed, it's most likely going to be cheaper as well as probably outdated and you can get more power for less money.
I just do not get how people can claim everything has changed and now we have this problem but nothing will ever change in the future.
The science is on his side as long as it's settled and no new discoveries are made. Obviously this isn't happening as his own statements indicates he wished.
The pseudoscience in a lot of cases is clear science questioning the calculations being pushed by the global warming alarmist. Your just too biased to see that and use pseudoscience as an escape. In fact, the pseudoscience is has been claiming an interaction between the warmth of the atmosphere and solar evens since the 1990's. This discovery just shows how inadequacy our understanding was and how dismissive people like you are.
Your observation is the result of democrats attempting to play the underdog card. A few posts up someone even attempts to misconstrue the number of seats held by the republicans from 2000 to 2006 without even bothering to check just because this point was hit so hard with him.
The problem is, the people are against most of the health care reforms. I know at least 5 people who claimed to of been life long democrats until the dems started calling them republicans for being against the current health care bills in congress. They are claiming they will vote party line republican from now on because of it. There are a lot of problems in the legislation on the hill, we have seen how the sloppy rushing through congress has failed in the past and Nancy Pelosi's no debate vote without enough time to even read let alone understand the bill and amendments added to the house bill before forcing a party line vote has infuriated plenty of people who would have been supportive if we just took our time and did it right. With representatives mocking people wanting to be thorough and saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand the bills, it's painfully clear that they do not care what is happening as long as they can place their name to it.
A lot of people who used to blame republicans for everything are waking up and realizing it's not better under democrats. This first became obvious with the TARP legislation in which the loudest speaker against companies using bailout money to pay bonuses turned out to be the same one who put the wording into the law that makes it legal. When the dems can't even remember what they did, or attempt to ignore it instead of fixing it, or are the reasons the mess exists in the first place (I'm looking at you Ted Kennedy), eventually people will look at it and wake up.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to give up and stop misrepresenting the legal system as well as the situation. You are severely confused whether you know it or not and continuing to tripe on just makes you look silly.
First of all, this is a civil case up to this point, not criminal charges have ever been filed. What you describe in running a red light has an indictment process that either employs a grand jury or witness indictment by an officer of the law. In a civil trial, they look at the claims to see if they can be supported and if someone has standing in law. It does not mean a law was violated or that anyone violated any laws. It means that the claim is substantial enough that the claim could be supported and nothing else. The appeals court tossed the case out (and the injunction) because the plaintiff didn't have standing to pursuit the matter. That still doesn't mean that a law was broken, that needs to be proven first and it wasn't.
First of all, you need to change would to could. Would is presupposed considering the claims and facts pan out. Without the plaintiff proving those, and barring any exceptions to the rule which is what I suggested in the first place that is supported by congressional action, the proper wording is could not would. Second, the claim was "creditable court". The judge had a clear biased interest in the plaintiff of the case (ACLU) which is most probably why the case had to go to an appeals court in order to be tossed out instead of the original judge doing what's right according to the rules and law in the first place. The judge lost all credibility when she refused to recuse herself and then acting in a manor that a higher court had to overturn.
You haven't had to tackle some of the more nasty stuff then.
There are worms/malware that spawn or attach to other processes and check for it's existence in the startup and if it isn't running, it will create a copy of itself and launch it on the next boot. And yea, it generally picks a process that is supposedly needed for windows to run or breaks in such a way when it is closed that it will mod the registry to ensure it's startup when the computer resumes then cause a blue screen. You need something to block registry writes or that is capable of isolating and closing the process.
Also you have problems with worms/malware that will entwine itself into the winsock settings or even replace the TCP driver so when it's removed, networking or some other function will no longer work. This has become easier to fix lately with MS's inclusion of the winsock repair tools after XP SP2.
Now, I'm not limiting this to worms specifically, it's all sorts of malware from virus to spyware that does this crap. Manual removal is almost impossible on some of these. Removal without specific instructions is virtually impossible too. You will need to wait for third parties to come up with a solution unlesss you are one of those third parties in which case, you shouldn't be having problems in linux.
If your going to try another distro, I would like to suggest Mandriva. I can't vouch for the latest offerings but I know the older versions usually worked out of the box better then the new popular versions.
Personally, I think Mandriva/mandrake has better tools for configuration and such. Their URPMI tool is prety much the bomb for quick and easy installs of almost anything availible. The only doesn side to it is that they preconfigure most of the software to general specs which means if your doing something different/custom (you will know when you are attempting to do it), you will have to either install from source or patch the RPM. I find it's easier to just install from scratch but I'm generally doing the Linux from scratch thing now so that could be why.
Anyways, give it a try, I do not think you will be disappointed.
I wouldn't even agree about XP. I had a multifunction printer fail with a SP2 upgrade and HP, after stating it was windows XP compatible, decided not to fix the diver.
There are lots of legacy printers and other drivers that will not work in XP after SP2 is installed. Most of these were left as obsolete in hopes that you would by a new device instead of fixing the problem with the otherwise perfectly functional devices.
I think maybe you are comparing apples and oranges here.
You see, your worm method in NT relies on someone else to come up with a fix or tell you what registry settings to remove/change back and usually, they package this into a little program for you to update constantly and execute.
Now on the other hand, if you get hit with a bad Wlan connection in windows, you still have to wait from someone to fix it, but it's even worse. You can't look at the source code and attempt to fix it yourself. You can't take the source code and ask someone why it isn't working for you and have them make changes, your in the same boat.
So all in all, if your experiencing problems, your in the same boat regardless. The only real problem might be the difference between official support and unofficial support. At least with open source, if it really means that much to you, you can hire someone to fix the issue where with windows, your just waiting.
The problem with system restore is that the use has no clue how they broke their computer so they continue to do so.
Often, I find it's something minor like an install that never cleared the wininit settings and continuously attempts to finish the install but the temp files were deleted so it blue screens on boot. I also find that when your disk becomes corrupt, the system restore can blow the entire hard drive forcing a reformat and data recovery.
As for the last know configuration bullshit, all that does is makes it harder for people like me to fix the damn thing instead of wiping it and starting over because it removes a lot of the traces that caused the problem in the first place.
You may think those things are a blessing, but sooner or later, you will see them bite you first hand. And yes, I have seen hosed windows boxes where safe mode was not an option. So as you said, make sure you have backups.
You must be doing something wrong. I have had about equal success in both windows and linux. Of course I started out on Mandrake (now Mandriva) and moved to doing plain vanilia kernals with my own apps installed. IF your having problms, I suggest using the comminity version of mandriva which is a distribution that does quite a bit of the work for you. You can get the pay versions which would include a lot more driver support and I believe they have a non-free version in that it incorporates a lot of the non-free driver support. I never liked the Debian based installs like Knoppix or Ubuntu except for the odd live distribution (Knoppix live DVD is pretty awesome)
Anyways, back to the point, I have installed hundreds of linux and windows boxes. It's about the same as far as headaches go. I haven't installed win7 yet but I'm not going to assume it isn't any worse then what's already out there. The upgrade time scares me, so maybe I will have to script it somehow. But hell, just two weeks ago, I had to find a floppy drive just to get windows 2003 server to install to the on board raid controller of a motherboard that's been around for several years. Windows isn't as bad as it was with win9X but at the same time, linux isn't either. If you knew as much about linux as you know about windows, used a newbe hardened distribution like Mandriva, you would probably agree with me.
You still fail. You are attempting to jump from neither court determined the facts to it's a fact because neither court threw the case out because of it. Now what this means isn't that it's a fact that Bush violated the law, it means it's possible. However, no court has declared it a violation of the law except one in which the judge had a personal interest in.
Now you are also wrong about the findings a court makes. It does not find that a violation of a law happened, the find that it's possible it happened and the case determines if it happened or not. Often, after the court has taken testimony and tried the facts, it is determined that a law was not broken. You are no closer then if the case didn't happen at all- let alone happen by someone who should have recused herself because of personal interest. If you knew half as much as you think you do about law and court, you wouldn't have just attempted to blatantly misconstrue the process.
Why in the hell would I want to do that for. I already said that there is plenty of support for the taps to of been legal. Unlike you, I do not need to obscure things to make my point.
I think you have a problem with your reading comprehension. I have never said the courts found them legal, I have said that the courts have not competently ruled on them one way or the other and that there is support for the idea that they were legal. How you can mangle that into a ignoring them or that a court has already ruled is beyond me.
Yes there is. In the 1968 Omnibus Crime bill, it provided exceptions to the wiretaping and stated the warant requirement would not be construed to "limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities."
Now congress believed the president had this power constitutionally in 1967-68, so how did it disappear without any constitutional amendments?
FISA came about to limit abuses where domestic law enforcement agents were going to the CIA or military and claiming national security to get around warrants. FISA does not removed the president's constitutional authority as confirmed by the 1968 Omnibus
I'm talking about the court of law President Bill Clinton was in when he was the defendant of the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. That's when he lied under oath and that's the perjury that the impeachment charges talk about.
Did you do the slightest bit is looking up the facts or are you simply spouting halth truths on purpose?
The prosecution did not redefine anything. Judge Susan Weber Wright defined the term so as to be completely clear what the intents of asking the question would be. The plaintiff and the defendant both negotiated on the definition to be used but it was the Judge who set it in stone for the purposes of the case.
Again, did you remotely look into the facts surrounding this before spouting untrue accusations? This even was ten years ago and all the facts are freely availible to anyone who isn't intellectually lazy. There is no excuse for you not knowing about this and then attempting to spout off whatever you can make up in your head.
No, I didn't invalidate anything. This has been publicly discusses and is ten years old by now. There is no excuse for you not knowing what happened and attempting to chime in as if you did. You have completely made shit up with no other purpose then to misconstrue the facts. This is slashdot, not 4chan, do not expect to argue with someone when you can't be bothered to learn the facts surrounding your position. These facts are not disputed by anyone who has exerted the simplest amount of effort looking into them. You attempted to present a fallacious situation and attribute it to something that couldn't be further from the truth of the matter while claiming everyone else in the world is wrong. IF you feel like I treated you like an idiot, you should because your own actions warrant that distinction.
At times like this, I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz where the scarecrow sings "if I only had a brain". I imagine you doing that a lot.
Your definition doesn't matter because the court supplied a specific definition and Clinton was told to answer under that definition. That specific definition that Clinton not only had access to for almost the entire trial, but also asked to have it repeated right before he answered the question. Clinton knew full well what was required of him and you pointing to some other source is not genius as you think, it just shows how difficult it is for you to follow facts and comprehend the situation.
IF a court defines being a virgin as not getting to second base, then for the purpose of that court, no you are not a virgin.
This isn't about abstract meanings. Clinton and his lawyers had the court defined definition and Clinton actually asked to have it repeated to him before he lied about it. The question was about sexual relations which the definition included diddling twat with cigars and oral sex. It would also include you getting to second base whether you remained a virgin or not by any definition.
Please stop trying so hard to defend the guy who already has admited to it and distorting the context in the process. It's been 10 years since it happened, the facts are know, and only idiots like you and the OP pretend to make up different ones in order to stick up for the guy. It only serves to make you look like a loser which is probably why you posted AC instead of being brave enough to put your name on it.
You need to give up. The definition wasn't changed, it was defined at the beginning of the trial, it was read to Clinton before he answered the question. He knew well in advance of the question what the court expected the definition to be, he was a fucking lawyer and wrongly attempted to mislead the court with an untruthful answer which was reflected in the courts punishment of Clinton and his loss of law licenses.
Now you are correct in that the definition wasn't codified into law, the next nearest definition would be in the civil right act of 1964 which was much more broad and would still have included Clinton's escapades. It wasn't used because it would have included much more.
Actually it was and the judge fined Clinton and he lost his law license because of it. This is the definition the Judge gave
Now tell me, how is oral sex or fiddling twat with a cigar not covered. The definition specifically outlines the touching of any genitalia directly or indirectly with an object for sexual purposes.
Yes he did lie. He asked for the definition to be read before he answered so there was no mistake and the definition required him to admit to getting a blowjob in the least because it's covered specifically by "Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; and # Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person;" Fuck dude, give it up, all this information is out on the internet and there is no excuse for you to remain willfully ignorant over it.
He was the chief law enforcement officer in the land and lied in court to save his ass from a sexual harassment lawsuit that he eventually settled out of court. You can't sit here and say it was a lie to the people and not to the court when the fucking definition the court gave included both the blow jobs and diddling twat with cigars. Quit attempting to distort history in order to save a tarnished image.
Maybe, just Maybe, if the clintons were not so used to lieing that they will do it in federal court to save their ass, and if the people were cooperative, then something would have been found. What you are saying right here is that nothing was found because people stonewalled and weren't truthful. Now why Star went after the perjury investigation is unknown but the bottom line is that Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general, gave the ok for Star to move in that direction. That's right, it was a democrat appointed by Clinton himself who gave Ken Star the Authority to look into the Lewinsky matter. Now get over it and quit distorting history and attempting to paint a picture that doesn't exist.
Like I said, you can provide nothing that hasn't already been discredited. Not one creditable judge has said the wire taping was illegal and the one judge who did, not only got overturned, but also had ties to the ACLU which was a plaintiff in the case. There is good legal evidence that makes the wire taps seem legal in specific situations and congress did not think it was an impeachable offense as the option had been brought up to them several times by the loony-toon democrats.
Also, it's only a violation of the law if the law can be constitutionally applied. There is good support that it couldn't and therefore FISA wouldn't have applied regardless of what it says. The biggest reason congress failed to attempt to impeach Bush was because they knew there was a good chance of this standing and they would lose the power they think they had over the administration.
So two wrongs make a right? I mean what the hell does someone doing something wrong have to do with their children heirs, or whoever other then them? The op said "Obama really needs to issue an executive order to lock them (and their families, aids, hairdressers, etc) up until we get answers to some of those questions" which is a corruption of blood, something clearly denied in the constitution. Now I know your hatred for bush blinds you but think about that, if your daddy goes out and drinks and drives and kills someone, should you be locked up because of it? Should you be locked up on an executive order because of it? That's what your saying isn't it, that because bush supposedly tortured someone, that you can be locked up on a single person's decree simply because you were related to someone who might have did something wrong in some way? Seriously, what the fuck are you thinking here? Even if Bush did do something that even England wouldn't do, it still doesn't make someone else doing severe wrong right.
You idiots simply amaze me. How can anyone take you seriously when your answer to someone supporting a highly repulsive act, an unconstitutional act, an act that led to the revolution in the first place, is at least bush did X. That's fucking ridiculous and frivolous at best. I know you have a brain, fucking use it. I know your capable, we have discussed things in the past. Quit acting moronic here. I'm sorry, but you just set a new low here. "but Obama can do it because Bush did something else". At least when the bush apologists claim "clinton did it", they are actually talking about the same thing or the same context. Fuck, I expected more from you.
Police officers and Military personnel aren't exactly elected politicians. However, in most of the cases, it's the half left home who wants the divorce and not the police military officials. For the police officers, I do not trust most of them anyways. You shouldn't either.
Since when has any politician actually pledge themselves to you or the people.
It's a matter of importance. If they can't keep a pledge, then why do you expect them to remain truthful to you or the people or the office in which they hold? We have already seen people like Clinton violate the Constitution and the war powers act with the Balkan occupation.
You do not need proof to understand that less of a thread binds them to a job compared to a spouse they gave vows to.
Were you born yesterday? He was asked if he had sexual relations with Lewinsky, not just sex. Furthermore, the court defined what sexual relations entailed and found that Clinton lied during his statement to the court. This lie ended up getting him fined by the court, he lost his law license, and he paid Jones a settlement and lawyers fees to stop it from going to trial again.
I understand your intent on protecting what you believe in no matter what, even if you have to lie about it, but this is well documented and at your fingertips on the internet. You are attempting to make your claims to others who have the same resources, not your intellectually lazy friends who just take your word for it because your IQ is 5 points above average.
Actually, Clinton signed into law back in 1994 or 96 a provision that allows a person claiming sexual harassment to include outside references of the behavior in order to establish a pattern. Clinton probably didn't realize it at the time but that law made the Lewinsky material relevant to the Jones case. You can't say there was no grounds to involve it because Clinton Signed into law the very grounds that allowed it's involvement.
Now, Clinton also had the option of taking the fifth and then publicly claiming it was no one's business but his own. He was/is a master at spin and could have very well pulled that off. He didn't, he didn't tell the truth, and there are plenty of democrats who had affairs and kept their office so it wasn't like his political career was over. Despite that, his actions got his law license revoked, he was impeached, and he was fined as well as had to pay Jone's attorney's fees. The question was asked of him after his second term in office began as well. Not to many Ex-presidents go on to hold other elected offices so it isn't like his political career would be any more in jeopardy then it was after being president.
Wow, I don't know why anyone modded you insightful, you spouted nothing that hasn't already been said by the Bush bashing comic strips and you even kept it as vague as possible to leave no avenue of address to the specifics of your claims. If you hadn't done that one thing, you would have been shot down by the simplest observations in the scenario. So I have to ask, what was done that warranted impeachments and be specific enough that it can be addressed. Your not going to be able to hash anything out that is truthful and hasn't already been proven to not be impeachment worthy.
As for Obama, you are a complete idiot. The constitution says you cannot work corruption of blood which is exactly what you are suggesting. Why in the fuck can you claim on person violated the constitution or deserved to be impeached with no hard facts to back it up while advocating that the current administration do one of the most abhorrent acts any sitting president could do that not only is forbidden in the constitution, but also a key reason why we rebelled from England in the first place. Is it the ends justify the means only when you agree with it or something?
I'm not upset over anything about this. I'm just disapointed that people think that the only way to change is to undo the change that they claim is the problem. It's not very forward thinking of them and it's not very historically thinking of them. The advancements made over the years have same countless more lives and made millions or more acreas of land availible then they have damages in some potential future. There is no reason why we shouldn't expect those advancements to continue.
And you point is what? I mean 1000 years is ten centuries. While we will not necessarily have the same level of advancements in the next century as the last, we will have advancements and they will work in our favor. You need to quit acting like 1000 years is tomorrow and everything needs to be done yesterday or it will not be done. I didn't just compare our advancements with computer technology, that was just one of the advancements I pointed to. Take a real hard look back at what life was like before electricity or running water, or our understanding of diseases and sanitation. Now ponder a future where that seems as much of a relic as going to the outhouse and pumping water from a well by hand just to cart it into the house.
Oh, I think if you would look, we have achieved some remarkable goals in the realm of climate control. We can seed certain clouds to make rain, we have removed pollutants from exhaust plumes in order to stop acid rain, our vehicle exhaust has been cleaner then it ever has and so on.
You seem to be suffering from a short sightedness. In years past, the thought of using electricity for productivity consisted of chemical reactions with little power. Now we can control those reactions, reverse them to some extent and ever crease larger sources of power in smaller states. Who would have thought that the worlds most powerful battery in 1850 could be contained in a package the size of something that could fit into you hand and last 200 times as long. But now, we can smash atoms to create electricity and even use atomic filters to pull electrons from hydrogen and force their return through a controlled path from a completely none destructive atomic state.
The tech we use is pretty much at it's limits today. We can tweak it some, we may be able to improve is some, but the future is going to open many new doors to processes and technology only imagined today. All you have to do is look at the past to see that this is inevitable. It's even more so when the potential for global warming is present and there is a need. What's that saying, necessity is the mother of ingenuity. Just give it time and things will come around. From personal fusion reactors to solar cells that are over 80% efficient. It will happen because 100 or 200 years is enough time for the supporting sciences to make advancements that will allow things like that to happen. I mean look at the size and power consumption of computing devices today compared to back in 1970 and the amount of work they accomplish. Look at the fuel Mileage and power of cars today compared to 1920.
Even today, people are looking into diversion power capturing techniques to turn almost any river into a series of Hydropower plants. This works by tunneling from one point in a river upstream to a lower point down st
Why not skip the tax altogether, create an international body designed solely for the purpose of creating energy sources free of GHG's offer royalty free use of those designs and simply have the country mandate their implementations as it progresses. It will have all the same effects without any of the starving the poor or reverting many people's lives back to the stone age. If you get labs with 20 countries involved, then costs will be less per country then most spend on maintaining their government buildings in their capitols.
Actually, it became political in the late in 1992 when people at the UN attempted to use global warming as scare tactic to implement a way to repay the third world debt. I'm not sure how politically aware you were in the 1980's and 1990's but there was a movement that attempted to get the first world nations to forgive the third world debt which was caused by the investments in non-OPEC countries during the 1970's when they attempted to step up and supply the US with oil after OPEC embargoed the US.
There is a reason why the Kyoto accords ignore smaller countries and allow them to sell carbon credits as well as allows first world nations to simply move their GHG to those third world countries and count it as a reduction. Of the 158 some countries now signed onto Kyoto, only 38 of the have limits and one of those 38 has a limit above what it was producing at the time of the treaty's ratification. It's little more then a redistribution of wealth that doesn't address Co2 production in general, it addresses the Co2 Production of wealthy countries. Look at China and India who are signatories to Kyoto, they have races to the top of the list as polluters because most of Europe is outsourcing their Co2 to them. Before and after Kyoto figures in trade going to China and India is almost ten fold now with China surpassing the US in Co2/GHG emissions.
You can blame the republicans for seeing that scam, Gore was one of the supporters of forgiving the third world debt and it's no wonder he was a big supporter of the scam to achieve the goal of them paying it off. But do not stop half way in your assessment of why it's political else you will be covering the reasons for it up.
You need to look at the advancements made in the last century along to see the different approaches to doing things.
In just one century, we put man on the moon, created personal computers that are more powerful then all the computers (as in the people who would compute formulas for science and business applications) in the world in 1950. We can now build buildings that will survive earth quakes and so on. Imagine what can be done in 10 centuries. Well, you do not have to think all that hard because almost every futuristic scifi movie hints at the possibilities.
It may also be that in as little as 100 years, some new energy source is discovered and Co2 isn't even a consideration anymore. As this recent discovery indicates, it may be possible that Co2 isn't even as big of a factor as you currently think it is. Since the time of the movie, we have had to adjust climate models to include our new understandings of solar interaction at least once, how water vapor interacts at least twice, had to correct the temperature record for the US at least once because faulty math had been used, and we still do not have open access to the data being used to cite the temps in all parts of the world. Hell, the UK and Europe still will not make their data open to people simply wanting to double check their math.
If your comfortable with this, then be it. Others aren't and rightfully so. The 100 verses 1000 problem can just as easily be no problem in 100-200 years as it could be a problem in 1000 years. Here, let me put it a little more simpler for you. Suppose a new computer was designed today and it costs 100,000 dollars. You wanted it. Which would be easier, paying for and getting it within the next week, or 50 years down the road? Now consider that they are backlogged for the next 30 years in orders. OF course the longer you wait the easier it will be to afford plus tech would have changed, it's most likely going to be cheaper as well as probably outdated and you can get more power for less money.
I just do not get how people can claim everything has changed and now we have this problem but nothing will ever change in the future.
The science is on his side as long as it's settled and no new discoveries are made. Obviously this isn't happening as his own statements indicates he wished.
The pseudoscience in a lot of cases is clear science questioning the calculations being pushed by the global warming alarmist. Your just too biased to see that and use pseudoscience as an escape. In fact, the pseudoscience is has been claiming an interaction between the warmth of the atmosphere and solar evens since the 1990's. This discovery just shows how inadequacy our understanding was and how dismissive people like you are.
Your observation is the result of democrats attempting to play the underdog card. A few posts up someone even attempts to misconstrue the number of seats held by the republicans from 2000 to 2006 without even bothering to check just because this point was hit so hard with him.
The problem is, the people are against most of the health care reforms. I know at least 5 people who claimed to of been life long democrats until the dems started calling them republicans for being against the current health care bills in congress. They are claiming they will vote party line republican from now on because of it. There are a lot of problems in the legislation on the hill, we have seen how the sloppy rushing through congress has failed in the past and Nancy Pelosi's no debate vote without enough time to even read let alone understand the bill and amendments added to the house bill before forcing a party line vote has infuriated plenty of people who would have been supportive if we just took our time and did it right. With representatives mocking people wanting to be thorough and saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand the bills, it's painfully clear that they do not care what is happening as long as they can place their name to it.
A lot of people who used to blame republicans for everything are waking up and realizing it's not better under democrats. This first became obvious with the TARP legislation in which the loudest speaker against companies using bailout money to pay bonuses turned out to be the same one who put the wording into the law that makes it legal. When the dems can't even remember what they did, or attempt to ignore it instead of fixing it, or are the reasons the mess exists in the first place (I'm looking at you Ted Kennedy), eventually people will look at it and wake up.