Didn't Republicans have control of congress at the time? Actually, it seems that a Republican introduced the DMCA. I'm not seeing the Democratic conspiracy here. Maybe the venerable AC thinks that mind control was involved?
If you're going to be pointlessly pedantic, dear AC, go all the way. There never was a Gulf War because congress never declared war. There were just a bunch of military actions. Some of them were 'justified' in some sense and some were not.
The military action we (so erroneously) call "Gulf War II" is remarkable in its total lack of reasonable justification. You can't point to previous military actions and conclude that future military actions are fine and dandy. Each instance of intervention must be weighed on its own merits.
Blizzard doesn't do creativity. Their top game is an Everquest clone that continues a franchise based on a setting created by Games Workshop. They haven't had an original title since Diablo in 1996, which is just a simplified dungeon crawler with online play.
If we haven't hauled our butts off this rock in a billion years, we deserve to be fried.
Ah, but you're forgetting the heat death of the universe! That's nature joke about people who don't commit suicide. You struggle all your life, and the universe ends anyway.
The climate will change. We need to change with it. Not fight a nonlinear system we don't yet understand. How do we know we won't make matters even worse?
You have defeated your own argument. How do we know that we're not already making matters even worse? No matter what you suggest we do, we'll still have to deal with a nonlinear system we don't completely understand. The logical thing to do would be to use what knowledge we have to guide policy.
Oh if change=rough times then sure, but don't buy the media hype or the AG dribble.
Okay, let's not listen to the media or AG. (They're 'pedestrian', right?) Who are we left with? Science journals are good for some people, but they don't make good introductory material. Various "science authors" are no more reliable than AG. Policymakers and legislators in the government just want to follow the will of the people (or their private agendas). Religious leaders have no authority in this area. Random people on slashdot are full of crap more often than not (and besides, slashdot is part of the media). We could try to think for ourselves, but we have already established that we're incurious people who only think about our cars and jets. Without someone to teach us, how will we ever learn the basic facts about a prominent issue?
It makes Bush the same thing as the congressional Republicans who drafted and overwhelmingly voted for the Real ID act.
I'd like to blame Bush and dismiss his presidency as a fluke, but all signs indicate that what we're seeing in the White House represents the direction the Republican party is headed. And that is sad.
Diplomacy had already failed long before the US entered WWII, so your comment makes no sense. It seems that those who supported "killing and destruction" instead of diplomacy ended up getting destroyed themselves.
Reform their government? Credibility to the UN? Are we talking about the same invasion? If you'll recall, there were only two things we were interested in securing: high-ranking officials and oil assets. The assumption at the time was that a new US-friendly government would appear out of nowhere, and we'd be laughing all the way to Siberia's oil reserves. The whole "credibility to the UN" appeared (ironically) as a rebuttal against giving the UN any consideration at all. Recall that Bush didn't even want to ask the UN for support, and the UN was barred from participating in the occupation.
Don't get me wrong; I understand where you're coming from. I believe that some humanitarian intervention would have been justified at some time. But it was painfully obvious from the very start that the people behind the invasion did not have their heads and hearts in the right places.
Read the Bush quotation again. He was talking to us, not Putin. I personally don't think the president has any business lying to his own people. Do you?
I noticed that as well. Why is it so hard to be factually correct in the summary? I think they intended to present these results:
"12. Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"
30% = God guided process
13% = God had no part 48% = Created in present form
9% = Other / Don't know
The title is justified; 48% do reject the concept of evolution (whether God-guided or not). The summary, however, is just plain wrong.
Let's try to apply that logic in a more evenhanded manner. Compare the number of people participating in the pro-war demonstrations to those participating in the anti-war protests. Now look at whom the politicians chose to listen to and whom they ignored. Are you telling me that in a country where a few religious nuts can get a supreme court nominee withdrawn, a massive grassroots movement ought to be completely ignored?
We never voted on whether to invade Iraq. I don't know whether such a vote would have passed, and I'll never know. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
I assume that this was moderated "Troll" because of the bit of paranoia at the end. Nevertheless, I think the main point is valid. YouTube is not the populist tool many think it is, but yet another corporate offering that we're supposed to consume. It doesn't matter whether Google is abusing its power or not; the potential is there. Instead of trusting the government to let us protest, posters to YouTube are trusting Google to let them protest. It's the same system with a different master. You'd think that we could make our own public space on the internet without having to rely on the goodwill of big business.
Yeah, and every soccer mom wannabe liberal advocate....
Um... what? Soccer moms are "liberal"? Either you forgot your sarcasm tags or you've completely lost your mind. If liberals are too tough on crime, then why have conservatives always claimed that liberals are too weak on crime? Could it be that you'd blame "liberals" for absolutely anything that you don't like?
You don't speak for the Religious Right; they speak for themselves. And they speak overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Thus it is fair to hold them accountable for the policies they continue to help put into place. I don't know what it means to be a "Moderate Republican" -- do you support torture just a little bit? -- but you need to make up your own mind about where the party is headed. You need to stop buying into the "liberal = evil" propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Bush has, by choice, engaged in unconstitutional activity. Up until now, congress has been unable or unwilling to stand up to Bush. But the responsibility for the illegal activity ultimately rests on Bush's shoulders. Passing legislation requiring Bush to obey the law isn't going to change anything; congress needs to do some real investigation up to and including impeachment if necessary. And that's exactly what they seem to be doing. Legislation might help prevent abuses of power in the future, but the immediate problem will not end until Bush is out of office. Then we can begin the process of undoing the damage and preventing it from happening again.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Republicans have control of congress at the time? Actually, it seems that a Republican introduced the DMCA. I'm not seeing the Democratic conspiracy here. Maybe the venerable AC thinks that mind control was involved?
If you're going to be pointlessly pedantic, dear AC, go all the way. There never was a Gulf War because congress never declared war. There were just a bunch of military actions. Some of them were 'justified' in some sense and some were not.
The military action we (so erroneously) call "Gulf War II" is remarkable in its total lack of reasonable justification. You can't point to previous military actions and conclude that future military actions are fine and dandy. Each instance of intervention must be weighed on its own merits.
Actually, the solar crisis is caused by light industry.
But you know, why don't we just invade the sun? If we don't fight the photons there then we'll have to fight them here at home.
Blizzard doesn't do creativity. Their top game is an Everquest clone that continues a franchise based on a setting created by Games Workshop. They haven't had an original title since Diablo in 1996, which is just a simplified dungeon crawler with online play.
Is CNN doing a special on necrophobes?
Anyone who seriously expected Microsoft to be hurt by Vista has way too much faith in the market.
Ah, but you're forgetting the heat death of the universe! That's nature joke about people who don't commit suicide. You struggle all your life, and the universe ends anyway.
</sarcasm>
You have defeated your own argument. How do we know that we're not already making matters even worse? No matter what you suggest we do, we'll still have to deal with a nonlinear system we don't completely understand. The logical thing to do would be to use what knowledge we have to guide policy.
Okay, let's not listen to the media or AG. (They're 'pedestrian', right?) Who are we left with? Science journals are good for some people, but they don't make good introductory material. Various "science authors" are no more reliable than AG. Policymakers and legislators in the government just want to follow the will of the people (or their private agendas). Religious leaders have no authority in this area. Random people on slashdot are full of crap more often than not (and besides, slashdot is part of the media). We could try to think for ourselves, but we have already established that we're incurious people who only think about our cars and jets. Without someone to teach us, how will we ever learn the basic facts about a prominent issue?
It makes Bush the same thing as the congressional Republicans who drafted and overwhelmingly voted for the Real ID act.
I'd like to blame Bush and dismiss his presidency as a fluke, but all signs indicate that what we're seeing in the White House represents the direction the Republican party is headed. And that is sad.
To be fair, I don't think anyone expects an operating system to automatically generate new features.
You're providing them with the videos? I'm sure there's a "Soviet Russia" line around here somewhere.
Diplomacy had already failed long before the US entered WWII, so your comment makes no sense. It seems that those who supported "killing and destruction" instead of diplomacy ended up getting destroyed themselves.
Actually, protesters at the RNC were arrested and detained. Were you really unaware of that little fact?
Oh, I see! Bush got his faulty intel from the Democrats! Well, that explains it all entirely then.
Reform their government? Credibility to the UN? Are we talking about the same invasion? If you'll recall, there were only two things we were interested in securing: high-ranking officials and oil assets. The assumption at the time was that a new US-friendly government would appear out of nowhere, and we'd be laughing all the way to Siberia's oil reserves. The whole "credibility to the UN" appeared (ironically) as a rebuttal against giving the UN any consideration at all. Recall that Bush didn't even want to ask the UN for support, and the UN was barred from participating in the occupation.
Don't get me wrong; I understand where you're coming from. I believe that some humanitarian intervention would have been justified at some time. But it was painfully obvious from the very start that the people behind the invasion did not have their heads and hearts in the right places.
Ignoring the WTO is not wrong.
Read the Bush quotation again. He was talking to us, not Putin. I personally don't think the president has any business lying to his own people. Do you?
Bush declared that Putin has a good soul, so there's obviously nothing to be worried about.
I noticed that as well. Why is it so hard to be factually correct in the summary? I think they intended to present these results:
"12. Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"
30% = God guided process
13% = God had no part
48% = Created in present form
9% = Other / Don't know
The title is justified; 48% do reject the concept of evolution (whether God-guided or not). The summary, however, is just plain wrong.
Let's try to apply that logic in a more evenhanded manner. Compare the number of people participating in the pro-war demonstrations to those participating in the anti-war protests. Now look at whom the politicians chose to listen to and whom they ignored. Are you telling me that in a country where a few religious nuts can get a supreme court nominee withdrawn, a massive grassroots movement ought to be completely ignored?
We never voted on whether to invade Iraq. I don't know whether such a vote would have passed, and I'll never know. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
I assume that this was moderated "Troll" because of the bit of paranoia at the end. Nevertheless, I think the main point is valid. YouTube is not the populist tool many think it is, but yet another corporate offering that we're supposed to consume. It doesn't matter whether Google is abusing its power or not; the potential is there. Instead of trusting the government to let us protest, posters to YouTube are trusting Google to let them protest. It's the same system with a different master. You'd think that we could make our own public space on the internet without having to rely on the goodwill of big business.
The article doesn't mention global warming at all. Please cite your sources, so we know that you're not just attacking a straw man.
Um... what? Soccer moms are "liberal"? Either you forgot your sarcasm tags or you've completely lost your mind. If liberals are too tough on crime, then why have conservatives always claimed that liberals are too weak on crime? Could it be that you'd blame "liberals" for absolutely anything that you don't like?
You don't speak for the Religious Right; they speak for themselves. And they speak overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Thus it is fair to hold them accountable for the policies they continue to help put into place. I don't know what it means to be a "Moderate Republican" -- do you support torture just a little bit? -- but you need to make up your own mind about where the party is headed. You need to stop buying into the "liberal = evil" propaganda and start thinking for yourself.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Bush has, by choice, engaged in unconstitutional activity. Up until now, congress has been unable or unwilling to stand up to Bush. But the responsibility for the illegal activity ultimately rests on Bush's shoulders. Passing legislation requiring Bush to obey the law isn't going to change anything; congress needs to do some real investigation up to and including impeachment if necessary. And that's exactly what they seem to be doing. Legislation might help prevent abuses of power in the future, but the immediate problem will not end until Bush is out of office. Then we can begin the process of undoing the damage and preventing it from happening again.
What is this Liberal America of which you speak and how do I get there?