I don't disagree with your position but I will point out, some "really good coders" are often worth 3-5 "medicore coders" and may only cost 1.5x-2x what of those "medicore coders" cost the company.
Its often simple economics as to why "Pig Pens" of the world are allowed to exist.
I wonder if wind turbines might be able to use this method to store "over charges produced from gusts which can then be feed into the grid when the wind drops off. In other words, simply use it as a capacitor for off-peak wind capacity.
If you can not interpret the law, you can not enforce it. Police were never meant to be mindless robots. Police are the face of the law.
This mindless position is what lawyers have been spoon feeding people to brainwash them for the last several decades. It's complete bullshit. Laywers like this position because it makes them money. Judges like this position because in many cases, it makes them extra money. In short, your position is the same as demanding police enforce quotas on every aspect of the law. That's both bad and dumb.
Simple fact is, if a police officer can not interpret the law he has no business being a police officer. Heck, if you look at various advocacy rights groups, many times they have to inform the police what the laws are, why they are on the books, and what the intent of the law is. They may have to get the watch commander on the radio after he's double checked it from a book/computer, but they interpret the law. That's their job. Period.
If the police interpret the law such that they find you have broken it, only then is it up to the courts to prove you have done so - or done so under some other interpretation of the law.
Being arrested is a big deal. Dealing with the courts is a big deal. Even if your completely innocent and nowhere near a gray area of the law, defending your self in court can cost you hundreds, thousands, and tends of thousands of dollars, lost work, lost jobs, etc. That's a high price to pay for stupid, robot, police officers. Simple fact is, everything works better when the police do interpret the law. And surprise, surprise, this is something they are taught to do.
So stop being a sock puppet for lawyers and take a position which actually benefits society rather than mindlessly making money for lawyers and judges.
The last thing people or society needs are mindless, robot police. Making this claim effectively lowers the bar for what it means to be a policeman. Making this claim means only idiots who see the world in black and white are qualified to be a policeman. That's not a world anyone with any sense wants to live in.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I posted was a literal cut-n-paste. I changed nothing. Shortly after I saw the text I posted, I also noticed they changed their text. Likely they typo'd after I had already captured the original text I pasted.
The Colorado Departent of Labor and Employment regrets that this service is unavailable at this time. (We like Firefox too...and safari.....and chrome...)
Its pretty funny what a good slashdotting will do.
So you're saying an empty set is simultaneously NULL and empty? Since when is an empty set NULL? A select returning no rows does not return NULL. It returns empty.
I disagree. An empty set (empty result) represents the absence of data. NULL represents undefined data. An empty set is well defined. Undefined data, usually represented as NULL, is well, undefined.
and you can't burn clinton without burning H. W. Bush, who you can't burn without burning Reagan, who you can't burn without burning Carter etc. etc. etc.
Once again you're confused as to the contributions made by others. We're talking about ROOT cause.
You're trying to have it both ways, either 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan are W's fault, or they're result of a string bad foreign policy decisions, with blame resting on everyone and starting with Truman.
I'm actually not "trying" anything. It seems pretty clear your hatred has blinded you. One action is not equal to all other actions - which you seem to understand but can't focus on anything other than Bush. This is why it seems your hatred has blinded you.
You also fail to understand the difference between policy and action - or lack thereof. There is huge difference; a difference which you seem to easily ignore or more likely, simply can't see because of your bias.
You also go into the time line but fail to see, no surprise, once intelligence did connect the dots, Clinton failed to do the right thing. Your time line also ignores Clinton's briefings (where Bush is later told the same thing), Clinton's response (he did fire cruise missiles - something you claim wasn't and couldn't have been done), so on and so on. You're seriously narrow minded in what facts you're willing to even acknowledge.
You are happy to excuse extreme incompetence when it is a Democrat but become enraged when its a Republican. That's tunnel vision with blinders on. Believe it or not, adding the label, "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't suddenly make someone superhuman and the other an idiot. All humans screw up. Some more than others. Both Bush and Clinton fall into the later category. Had Clinton not fucked up so supremely, Bush would have never had the opportunity to follow suite. Thusly, we establish root-cause; Clinton.
If you want to continue to wear your blinders, we'll have to agree to disagree. In fact, based on your completely blind response, its clear we have to agree to disagree. No other options exist that I can see.
Here's what I don't get: we have to look to the root cause - but we can't go back further than Clinton?
Seem to be confusing root cause with associative cause. Yes, there are other factors but we're talking about the root - Clinton.
W didn't go after those responsible either.
He couldn't. The US had already, "responded." An additional response at that point in time would have been very negatively viewed by the world.
So Clinton didn't preemptively invade Afghanistan
An invasion would have never been required if Clinton had used enough force to completely destroy the known Al Qaeda bases which were actively training recruits. Intelligence even watched them via satellite. He didn't. He used only enough force to destroy some buildings (and yes *some* people - they were in those buildings) to send a message. Frankly, I'm not sure what message that was. It seems if you murder hundreds, including US citizens, attempt to blow up the trade center towers in NY, blow up our embassys, murder our allies, blow up a US destroyer and murder sailors, you run the risk of temporarily losing your training facility and maybe a dozen men or so? WTF? He clearly sent the message you can do whatever you want with little risk of retaliation.
In that part of the world, Clinton gave them a green light to do whatever they wanted - setting the stage of Bush to stumble in. To say it was a green light for successful asymmetrical warfare againsts the US is an understatement. Hmmm... couple dozen(?) men dead in exchange for hundreds of westerners and millions of dollars of damages plus actual sailors dead too. Sounds like victory by anyone's measure. And oh, to kill those few men and buildings we spent millions more to use cruise missiles to achieve no strategic or tactical victory. Pure brilliance.
Like I said, Clinton taught W how to fuck things up.
So Clinton didn't preemptively invade Afghanistan - ok, but Bush was asleep at the switch with real actionable intelligence.
So was Clinton. Clinton received the very same reports all the while tons of attacks took place under this watch and he did nothing but validate their theory of asymmetrical warfare means victory. You can't burn Bush without doubly burning Clinton.
Hell, he would've avoided the Iraq quagmire if he'd read his daddy's book. That's what really burns - his own father outlined the reasons for not invading and what would happen if he did.
Adding on to your chain if failure, the war situation could've been avoided had we not been waging a sort of covert war against the middle east for the past 100 years or so.
You don't listen, because you present Greenspan and Reagan as people who aren't being blamed. They are - in spades.
Opps. Sorry, I was confused from the fact most people are only pointing a finger at Bush. Which, given the context above, means you're barking up the wrong tree. Which in turn means, I do listen when in fact, it is you who is not listening.
The war situation could also have been avoided had
Yes, yes, yes....we all know that. That's the entire point of my post and yet you still entirely miss the point. Who is ultimately responsible? Bush. Who is the enabler who fucked easily on scale of that of W Bush? Clinton. That's the point - at least as far as the war goes. Ya others before him had a hand too...but they had a bigger hand in the financial woes too...the war is one problem...the economy is the other...and the economic problems were put in place during Reagan's, Bush Senior's, and Clinton's terms in office...yet people only want to blame 'W. That's the point. People are rabidly blaming Bush when there are many others to blame too.
So yeah, I'm still laying it at the feet of W, because arguments about Afghanistan aside there's no denying that the decider chose to go to Iraq, and chose to let the financial institutions operate almost entirely free of regulation.
And I place it where it belongs - for the war - at the feet of Clinton and Bush. Had Clinton simply done his job, Bush would have never been empowered to do everything you cited. In short, Clinton's huge fuck ups empowered an idiot to go on a rampage. Without Clinton empowering him, the masses would have seen him for what he was - an idiot; or he would have stayed outside the boundaries of idiocy. Not to mention, had Clinton simply done his job, thousands and thousands of people would be alive today.
People want to make this a party issue - simple fact is, Clinton created a monster and far, far too many people refuse to even consider there is blame to share outside of 'W.
It's cute that you think Islamist reaction to US imperialism can be completely laid at the feet of Bill Clinton.
It's cute you can't comprehend what you read. That's not what I said. The "Islamist reaction" is what was fuelling the attacks to which Clinton utterly failed to react. Though in that part of the world, failure to act is weakness, which in turn does fuel further action.
I never said he is the cause of all "Islamist reaction." I did say, which is factually correct, he directly started a chain a events which led to the attack on 9/11 after failing to properly respond to many, many other attacks which took place while he was in office. His response to some of these attacks were...drum roll...do nothing. And when he finally does respond...he does the minimal possible rather than what is an appropriately scaled response - as the military had requested. This in turn allowed Osama to escape death long before the attack on 9/11 was fully hatched. This in turn allowed 9/11 which empowered Bush to go to war in Afghanistan which in turn opened the door for him to attack Iraq. In short, had Clinton not been such a fuckup, Bush would never have been allowed to fuck up like he did because the window of opportunity would simply not had existed. To be clear, this is NOT high praise for Bush!
In short, stop willingly reading your misinterpretations into the writings and statements of others so you can protect your ignorant view of the world. Like it or not, Clinton fucked up. Like it or not, Clinton fucked up BAD! And as a nation, we all payed for it. Had Clinton not so completely fucked up, Bush would never have had the provocation which brought us to this point in time; and it would be very unlikely he would have won a second term to boot.
Any reasonable Democrat should be pissed at Clinton. Few has fucked up as badly as he did. You might even say, he was the original "W".
LOL. That is a pretty bad mistake. It was early morning, I'd not had coffee, and I had just finished reading an article about Obama so his name was fresh in mind. No bigotry required unless all humans are bigots to the degree your assign to me. That's just the way the human brain works.
because clearly suggesting that a Republican was incompetent at foreign affairs is tantamount to heresy.
I actually agree with you here. For some reason people seem to only see the world in black or white when it comes to politics and stupidly believe everyone must fall in line with the two major parties. Simple fact is, Bush screwed up a lot things. He did a lot of things to which I completely disagree. But the point remains, many people are blindly, ignorantly, dumbly, blaming him for things which he had nothing to do and reacting accordingly. Sadly, this behaviour of blind ignorance and stupidity will only result in far, far worse results if we're not very careful. It's only blind ignorance and zealotry which seems to make people ignore the truth.
Your post is odd to say the least. You scold me for failure to listen, then you agree with me, then you disagree with me by professing what I can only assume is ignorance of the facts. Very odd to say the least.
Read my post about Clinton vs Bush above. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Bush has zero culpability here. I am say Bush is not the root cause. Most, especially the blind-eye, die hard, Democrates, seem truly shocked and surprised to learn the war situation could have been completely avoided, and thousands and thousands alive today, had Clinton simply done his job by allowing the military to do their job in the first place. Read my post above about Clinton's failure to act and act appropriately when he finally does.
If you can't understand, and obviously you can't, why I interpreted it the way I did, then an obvious, "WHOOSH" is in order. And the word, "order" is all too appropriate because its an order of magnitude more obvious given the context as provided.
In other news, you have a new entry on your freak list.
That's fine by me. I won't have to see the stupidity which is your illogical "whoosh"ing in the face of obvious context; which is irony of irony given your, "whoosh"ing position. The irony of your position is enough to make ones head explode.
Now that's funny. Seriously, think about it. That's seriously funny. Using your own logic you should be marking your self as your own, worse freak. WHOOSH. LOL.
Actually its well documented he is responsible. Had Clinton killed Obama when he had the chance, the two towers would likely still stand today. But Clinton decided a very limited response was more appropriate. Twice he failed to kill Obama despite clear evidence he and his group were behind embassy bombings and various terrorist attacks against both the West and the US.
Basically, the Al Qaeda that the US military fought during Bush's terms is the same Al Qaeda Clinton allowed to train and build, all the while they were attacking Western and US targets during Clinton's term. In short, had Clinton done his job, Bush would had never had cause to initiate war. That's what we call "root cause". And when I said do his job, I mean actually ensured the terrorists were killed rather than simply piss them off.
It's well documented Clinton failed to kill Obama on two occasions. And in both of those occasions, had Clinton allowed the military to do a measured response, as they requested, rather than the "limited" response required by Clinton, Obama would be dead and very likely 9/11 would never have happened. And likely hundreds of others would still be alive today - not counting those who died post 9/11. And, let's not forget those that died during the USS Cole bombing which was allowed to happen because of Clinton's failure to act and respond.
Actually you broke it for be in line with your broken perception of reality.
This isn't about blaming parties. Its about knowing the facts. You want to blame the person with whom you can visually associate problems. That's fine. That's a common problem and a natural error. The simply fact is, W is not the root cause of all the problems the US is currently suffering. Okay, I understand you want to irrationally hate monger. That's fine. When you get to the point where you'd rather be right rather than irrationally hate monger, go back and re-read what I said. Until people stop hate mongering and actually bother to both, understand the root cause and how we got here, we're doomed to repeat.
You want to be part of the solution or continue being part of the problem by closing your eyes and drawing lines by party divisions? Based on your comment, I can only assume your comprehension of the situation starts and stops at party lines.
That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks
This is a huge gem. So funny. Yes, their risk means if they fail they get a huge bonus. If they fail really badly, they get a huge bonus and likely a golden parachute such that they never have to work again in their life. Their buddy over at the next company, who hasn't failed miserably yet, then recommends to the board to bring them over. Cycle repeats. Its a buddy system where stupidity is handsomely rewarded.
that enable the company to succeed. The ones that can do this successfully surely should benefit the most from this when it does.
Except that is not how business is done in the US. At least not public companies in the US. In the US, public companies only look for the next quarter, the next half year, or maybe even the next year. Few truly develop and/or execute long term plans; save only for companies (examples include Intel and AMD) who make them money looking at tomorrow. This is because they want to prove worth by short vision and short vision only.
Destroying a company in five years in exchange for a good earnings report this quarter is all too common. What do they care. By the time the company implodes it will be someone else's problem and whoever is in charge then will take the heat - rather than the person who screwed the company over how. In the mean time, they'll take their money now and pretend, as all sociopaths do, their series of dumb decisions had no effect in setting up the company for failure a year or two from now.
The above depiction is well documented sociological issue and has even been covered in several articles here on slash dot in the past. These very problems are the reasons why the US in is a financial crisis. If you want to see the face of the people responsible for the economic woes in the US, you can look at the face of the majority of CEOs and board members of public companies. These same sick personalities are why the economy sucks and they don't care - after all, they already got their money. Failure for them means success and because of their sociopath personalities, they can happily turn a blind eye to the thousands left jobless in their wake and care less.
"Some of you may be anxious about finding a new job, or a new place to live. I know how you feel." President Bush, 2008
That is a funny sig line considering you're showing your ignorance of facsts. Blaming him on the current economic situation means you must also blame Clinton, Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan. And if you want to be really specific, you can blame Clinton multiple times because had the not fucked up so badly, we would be in two of the three wars we're in right now. In turn, it would be very unlikely W would have won the second term. Even worse, had it not been for Clinton's deregulation effort, the financial melt down (fraud) would have never occurred.
But hey, if you want to irrationally and illogically blame the most visible party rather than the root cause, please feel free to continue your uninformed position.
Heck, Greenspan has more culpability in the current economic woe than does Bush.
On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology [wikipedia.org]. My first 100% ethanol-burning car was a Brazilian 1983 Chevette, which I bought used in 1985. The last time gasoline was sold in Brazil without at least 10% of ethanol was in 1976 [wikipedia.org]
But you're ignoring many, many facts to make your argument. It works in Brazil because of their climate and readily available sugar cane; which is a great source for ethanol. Corn on the other hand, is a poor source of ethanol and based on current production, actually increases the cost of gas per gallon. In other words, ethanol is more expensive per gallon than is gas. Even worse, contrary to popular myth, it still takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it. Only in labs and in small scale research projects have they been able to achieve 100% efficiency, and no one is doing better than that in real, full scale production.
To make matters worse, corn requires vast quantities of water, is easily pest ridden, and can drastically suffer from drought. Assuming ethanol is the future of fuels for America makes one out to be an idiot; short of drastic technological improvements. Nothing about corn and ethanol make any sense unless your a corn farmer.
And far, far worse, the US is running out of water in its largest underwater aquifer. What does this mean? It likely means wider adoption of corn for fuel likely means wide spread famine and hugely increased food costs down the road. How so? If the nation becomes dependent on corn for ethanol and we suffer from wide spread drought (a very realistic scenario), do you honestly believe the nation will allow everything to come to a halt? Which is more likely, use of water, taken from our aquifers to create ethanol, or a country willing to pay $20/gallon? Exactly.
In the end, ethanol is as much a viable fuel source as farting into one's gas can. At least the later is economically feasible and doesn't run the risk of depleting out water supplies or endangering national security.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion no one agrees with me or him? While both of our posts are obviously upset everything stated (well, most of it posted by anonymous) is factual. How can you disagree with fact?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with your position but I will point out, some "really good coders" are often worth 3-5 "medicore coders" and may only cost 1.5x-2x what of those "medicore coders" cost the company.
Its often simple economics as to why "Pig Pens" of the world are allowed to exist.
Or you can call it a "capacitor" as it more closely follows its physical characteristics.
I wonder if wind turbines might be able to use this method to store "over charges produced from gusts which can then be feed into the grid when the wind drops off. In other words, simply use it as a capacitor for off-peak wind capacity.
Police may have to interpret events, but this different from interpreting law.
Wrong. If you are "interpreting events", you are not dealing with facts. You want police to interpret the law as it applies to the available facts.
If you can not interpret the law, you can not enforce it. Police were never meant to be mindless robots. Police are the face of the law.
This mindless position is what lawyers have been spoon feeding people to brainwash them for the last several decades. It's complete bullshit. Laywers like this position because it makes them money. Judges like this position because in many cases, it makes them extra money. In short, your position is the same as demanding police enforce quotas on every aspect of the law. That's both bad and dumb.
Simple fact is, if a police officer can not interpret the law he has no business being a police officer. Heck, if you look at various advocacy rights groups, many times they have to inform the police what the laws are, why they are on the books, and what the intent of the law is. They may have to get the watch commander on the radio after he's double checked it from a book/computer, but they interpret the law. That's their job. Period.
If the police interpret the law such that they find you have broken it, only then is it up to the courts to prove you have done so - or done so under some other interpretation of the law.
Being arrested is a big deal. Dealing with the courts is a big deal. Even if your completely innocent and nowhere near a gray area of the law, defending your self in court can cost you hundreds, thousands, and tends of thousands of dollars, lost work, lost jobs, etc. That's a high price to pay for stupid, robot, police officers. Simple fact is, everything works better when the police do interpret the law. And surprise, surprise, this is something they are taught to do.
So stop being a sock puppet for lawyers and take a position which actually benefits society rather than mindlessly making money for lawyers and judges.
The last thing people or society needs are mindless, robot police. Making this claim effectively lowers the bar for what it means to be a policeman. Making this claim means only idiots who see the world in black and white are qualified to be a policeman. That's not a world anyone with any sense wants to live in.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I posted was a literal cut-n-paste. I changed nothing. Shortly after I saw the text I posted, I also noticed they changed their text. Likely they typo'd after I had already captured the original text I pasted.
I'm not sure what you mean. What I posted was a direct cut-n-paste.
Last I heard there are still two in use. One for NASA's high altitude experiments and the second for NASA/CIA/NSA high altitude experiments.
The Colorado Departent of Labor and Employment regrets that this service is unavailable at this time.
(We like Firefox too...and safari.....and chrome...)
Its pretty funny what a good slashdotting will do.
So you're saying an empty set is simultaneously NULL and empty? Since when is an empty set NULL? A select returning no rows does not return NULL. It returns empty.
No. NULL in SQL represents an absence of data.
I disagree. An empty set (empty result) represents the absence of data. NULL represents undefined data. An empty set is well defined. Undefined data, usually represented as NULL, is well, undefined.
and you can't burn clinton without burning H. W. Bush, who you can't burn without burning Reagan, who you can't burn without burning Carter etc. etc. etc.
Once again you're confused as to the contributions made by others. We're talking about ROOT cause.
You're trying to have it both ways, either 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan are W's fault, or they're result of a string bad foreign policy decisions, with blame resting on everyone and starting with Truman.
I'm actually not "trying" anything. It seems pretty clear your hatred has blinded you. One action is not equal to all other actions - which you seem to understand but can't focus on anything other than Bush. This is why it seems your hatred has blinded you.
You also fail to understand the difference between policy and action - or lack thereof. There is huge difference; a difference which you seem to easily ignore or more likely, simply can't see because of your bias.
You also go into the time line but fail to see, no surprise, once intelligence did connect the dots, Clinton failed to do the right thing. Your time line also ignores Clinton's briefings (where Bush is later told the same thing), Clinton's response (he did fire cruise missiles - something you claim wasn't and couldn't have been done), so on and so on. You're seriously narrow minded in what facts you're willing to even acknowledge.
You are happy to excuse extreme incompetence when it is a Democrat but become enraged when its a Republican. That's tunnel vision with blinders on. Believe it or not, adding the label, "Democrat" or "Republican" doesn't suddenly make someone superhuman and the other an idiot. All humans screw up. Some more than others. Both Bush and Clinton fall into the later category. Had Clinton not fucked up so supremely, Bush would have never had the opportunity to follow suite. Thusly, we establish root-cause; Clinton.
If you want to continue to wear your blinders, we'll have to agree to disagree. In fact, based on your completely blind response, its clear we have to agree to disagree. No other options exist that I can see.
Here's what I don't get: we have to look to the root cause - but we can't go back further than Clinton?
Seem to be confusing root cause with associative cause. Yes, there are other factors but we're talking about the root - Clinton.
W didn't go after those responsible either.
He couldn't. The US had already, "responded." An additional response at that point in time would have been very negatively viewed by the world.
So Clinton didn't preemptively invade Afghanistan
An invasion would have never been required if Clinton had used enough force to completely destroy the known Al Qaeda bases which were actively training recruits. Intelligence even watched them via satellite. He didn't. He used only enough force to destroy some buildings (and yes *some* people - they were in those buildings) to send a message. Frankly, I'm not sure what message that was. It seems if you murder hundreds, including US citizens, attempt to blow up the trade center towers in NY, blow up our embassys, murder our allies, blow up a US destroyer and murder sailors, you run the risk of temporarily losing your training facility and maybe a dozen men or so? WTF? He clearly sent the message you can do whatever you want with little risk of retaliation.
In that part of the world, Clinton gave them a green light to do whatever they wanted - setting the stage of Bush to stumble in. To say it was a green light for successful asymmetrical warfare againsts the US is an understatement. Hmmm... couple dozen(?) men dead in exchange for hundreds of westerners and millions of dollars of damages plus actual sailors dead too. Sounds like victory by anyone's measure. And oh, to kill those few men and buildings we spent millions more to use cruise missiles to achieve no strategic or tactical victory. Pure brilliance.
Like I said, Clinton taught W how to fuck things up.
So Clinton didn't preemptively invade Afghanistan - ok, but Bush was asleep at the switch with real actionable intelligence.
So was Clinton. Clinton received the very same reports all the while tons of attacks took place under this watch and he did nothing but validate their theory of asymmetrical warfare means victory. You can't burn Bush without doubly burning Clinton.
Hell, he would've avoided the Iraq quagmire if he'd read his daddy's book. That's what really burns - his own father outlined the reasons for not invading and what would happen if he did.
Adding on to your chain if failure, the war situation could've been avoided had we not been waging a sort of covert war against the middle east for the past 100 years or so.
I can't disagree with anything you've stated.
You don't listen, because you present Greenspan and Reagan as people who aren't being blamed. They are - in spades.
Opps. Sorry, I was confused from the fact most people are only pointing a finger at Bush. Which, given the context above, means you're barking up the wrong tree. Which in turn means, I do listen when in fact, it is you who is not listening.
The war situation could also have been avoided had
Yes, yes, yes....we all know that. That's the entire point of my post and yet you still entirely miss the point. Who is ultimately responsible? Bush. Who is the enabler who fucked easily on scale of that of W Bush? Clinton. That's the point - at least as far as the war goes. Ya others before him had a hand too...but they had a bigger hand in the financial woes too...the war is one problem...the economy is the other...and the economic problems were put in place during Reagan's, Bush Senior's, and Clinton's terms in office...yet people only want to blame 'W. That's the point. People are rabidly blaming Bush when there are many others to blame too.
So yeah, I'm still laying it at the feet of W, because arguments about Afghanistan aside there's no denying that the decider chose to go to Iraq, and chose to let the financial institutions operate almost entirely free of regulation.
And I place it where it belongs - for the war - at the feet of Clinton and Bush. Had Clinton simply done his job, Bush would have never been empowered to do everything you cited. In short, Clinton's huge fuck ups empowered an idiot to go on a rampage. Without Clinton empowering him, the masses would have seen him for what he was - an idiot; or he would have stayed outside the boundaries of idiocy. Not to mention, had Clinton simply done his job, thousands and thousands of people would be alive today.
People want to make this a party issue - simple fact is, Clinton created a monster and far, far too many people refuse to even consider there is blame to share outside of 'W.
It's cute that you think Islamist reaction to US imperialism can be completely laid at the feet of Bill Clinton.
It's cute you can't comprehend what you read. That's not what I said. The "Islamist reaction" is what was fuelling the attacks to which Clinton utterly failed to react. Though in that part of the world, failure to act is weakness, which in turn does fuel further action.
I never said he is the cause of all "Islamist reaction." I did say, which is factually correct, he directly started a chain a events which led to the attack on 9/11 after failing to properly respond to many, many other attacks which took place while he was in office. His response to some of these attacks were...drum roll...do nothing. And when he finally does respond...he does the minimal possible rather than what is an appropriately scaled response - as the military had requested. This in turn allowed Osama to escape death long before the attack on 9/11 was fully hatched. This in turn allowed 9/11 which empowered Bush to go to war in Afghanistan which in turn opened the door for him to attack Iraq. In short, had Clinton not been such a fuckup, Bush would never have been allowed to fuck up like he did because the window of opportunity would simply not had existed. To be clear, this is NOT high praise for Bush!
In short, stop willingly reading your misinterpretations into the writings and statements of others so you can protect your ignorant view of the world. Like it or not, Clinton fucked up. Like it or not, Clinton fucked up BAD! And as a nation, we all payed for it. Had Clinton not so completely fucked up, Bush would never have had the provocation which brought us to this point in time; and it would be very unlikely he would have won a second term to boot.
Any reasonable Democrat should be pissed at Clinton. Few has fucked up as badly as he did. You might even say, he was the original "W".
LOL. That is a pretty bad mistake. It was early morning, I'd not had coffee, and I had just finished reading an article about Obama so his name was fresh in mind. No bigotry required unless all humans are bigots to the degree your assign to me. That's just the way the human brain works.
because clearly suggesting that a Republican was incompetent at foreign affairs is tantamount to heresy.
I actually agree with you here. For some reason people seem to only see the world in black or white when it comes to politics and stupidly believe everyone must fall in line with the two major parties. Simple fact is, Bush screwed up a lot things. He did a lot of things to which I completely disagree. But the point remains, many people are blindly, ignorantly, dumbly, blaming him for things which he had nothing to do and reacting accordingly. Sadly, this behaviour of blind ignorance and stupidity will only result in far, far worse results if we're not very careful. It's only blind ignorance and zealotry which seems to make people ignore the truth.
Your post is odd to say the least. You scold me for failure to listen, then you agree with me, then you disagree with me by professing what I can only assume is ignorance of the facts. Very odd to say the least.
Read my post about Clinton vs Bush above. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Bush has zero culpability here. I am say Bush is not the root cause. Most, especially the blind-eye, die hard, Democrates, seem truly shocked and surprised to learn the war situation could have been completely avoided, and thousands and thousands alive today, had Clinton simply done his job by allowing the military to do their job in the first place. Read my post above about Clinton's failure to act and act appropriately when he finally does.
Whoosh.
If you can't understand, and obviously you can't, why I interpreted it the way I did, then an obvious, "WHOOSH" is in order. And the word, "order" is all too appropriate because its an order of magnitude more obvious given the context as provided.
In other news, you have a new entry on your freak list.
That's fine by me. I won't have to see the stupidity which is your illogical "whoosh"ing in the face of obvious context; which is irony of irony given your, "whoosh"ing position. The irony of your position is enough to make ones head explode.
Now that's funny. Seriously, think about it. That's seriously funny. Using your own logic you should be marking your self as your own, worse freak. WHOOSH. LOL.
Um, Clinton wasn't responsible for Iraq.
Actually its well documented he is responsible. Had Clinton killed Obama when he had the chance, the two towers would likely still stand today. But Clinton decided a very limited response was more appropriate. Twice he failed to kill Obama despite clear evidence he and his group were behind embassy bombings and various terrorist attacks against both the West and the US.
Basically, the Al Qaeda that the US military fought during Bush's terms is the same Al Qaeda Clinton allowed to train and build, all the while they were attacking Western and US targets during Clinton's term. In short, had Clinton done his job, Bush would had never had cause to initiate war. That's what we call "root cause". And when I said do his job, I mean actually ensured the terrorists were killed rather than simply piss them off.
It's well documented Clinton failed to kill Obama on two occasions. And in both of those occasions, had Clinton allowed the military to do a measured response, as they requested, rather than the "limited" response required by Clinton, Obama would be dead and very likely 9/11 would never have happened. And likely hundreds of others would still be alive today - not counting those who died post 9/11. And, let's not forget those that died during the USS Cole bombing which was allowed to happen because of Clinton's failure to act and respond.
Fixed it for you.
Actually you broke it for be in line with your broken perception of reality.
This isn't about blaming parties. Its about knowing the facts. You want to blame the person with whom you can visually associate problems. That's fine. That's a common problem and a natural error. The simply fact is, W is not the root cause of all the problems the US is currently suffering. Okay, I understand you want to irrationally hate monger. That's fine. When you get to the point where you'd rather be right rather than irrationally hate monger, go back and re-read what I said. Until people stop hate mongering and actually bother to both, understand the root cause and how we got here, we're doomed to repeat.
You want to be part of the solution or continue being part of the problem by closing your eyes and drawing lines by party divisions? Based on your comment, I can only assume your comprehension of the situation starts and stops at party lines.
This post is so funny.
That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks
This is a huge gem. So funny. Yes, their risk means if they fail they get a huge bonus. If they fail really badly, they get a huge bonus and likely a golden parachute such that they never have to work again in their life. Their buddy over at the next company, who hasn't failed miserably yet, then recommends to the board to bring them over. Cycle repeats. Its a buddy system where stupidity is handsomely rewarded.
that enable the company to succeed. The ones that can do this successfully surely should benefit the most from this when it does.
Except that is not how business is done in the US. At least not public companies in the US. In the US, public companies only look for the next quarter, the next half year, or maybe even the next year. Few truly develop and/or execute long term plans; save only for companies (examples include Intel and AMD) who make them money looking at tomorrow. This is because they want to prove worth by short vision and short vision only.
Destroying a company in five years in exchange for a good earnings report this quarter is all too common. What do they care. By the time the company implodes it will be someone else's problem and whoever is in charge then will take the heat - rather than the person who screwed the company over how. In the mean time, they'll take their money now and pretend, as all sociopaths do, their series of dumb decisions had no effect in setting up the company for failure a year or two from now.
The above depiction is well documented sociological issue and has even been covered in several articles here on slash dot in the past. These very problems are the reasons why the US in is a financial crisis. If you want to see the face of the people responsible for the economic woes in the US, you can look at the face of the majority of CEOs and board members of public companies. These same sick personalities are why the economy sucks and they don't care - after all, they already got their money. Failure for them means success and because of their sociopath personalities, they can happily turn a blind eye to the thousands left jobless in their wake and care less.
"Some of you may be anxious about finding a new job, or a new place to live. I know how you feel." President Bush, 2008
That is a funny sig line considering you're showing your ignorance of facsts. Blaming him on the current economic situation means you must also blame Clinton, Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan. And if you want to be really specific, you can blame Clinton multiple times because had the not fucked up so badly, we would be in two of the three wars we're in right now. In turn, it would be very unlikely W would have won the second term. Even worse, had it not been for Clinton's deregulation effort, the financial melt down (fraud) would have never occurred.
But hey, if you want to irrationally and illogically blame the most visible party rather than the root cause, please feel free to continue your uninformed position.
Heck, Greenspan has more culpability in the current economic woe than does Bush.
On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology [wikipedia.org]. My first 100% ethanol-burning car was a Brazilian 1983 Chevette, which I bought used in 1985. The last time gasoline was sold in Brazil without at least 10% of ethanol was in 1976 [wikipedia.org]
But you're ignoring many, many facts to make your argument. It works in Brazil because of their climate and readily available sugar cane; which is a great source for ethanol. Corn on the other hand, is a poor source of ethanol and based on current production, actually increases the cost of gas per gallon. In other words, ethanol is more expensive per gallon than is gas. Even worse, contrary to popular myth, it still takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it. Only in labs and in small scale research projects have they been able to achieve 100% efficiency, and no one is doing better than that in real, full scale production.
To make matters worse, corn requires vast quantities of water, is easily pest ridden, and can drastically suffer from drought. Assuming ethanol is the future of fuels for America makes one out to be an idiot; short of drastic technological improvements. Nothing about corn and ethanol make any sense unless your a corn farmer.
And far, far worse, the US is running out of water in its largest underwater aquifer. What does this mean? It likely means wider adoption of corn for fuel likely means wide spread famine and hugely increased food costs down the road. How so? If the nation becomes dependent on corn for ethanol and we suffer from wide spread drought (a very realistic scenario), do you honestly believe the nation will allow everything to come to a halt? Which is more likely, use of water, taken from our aquifers to create ethanol, or a country willing to pay $20/gallon? Exactly.
In the end, ethanol is as much a viable fuel source as farting into one's gas can. At least the later is economically feasible and doesn't run the risk of depleting out water supplies or endangering national security.
Care to explain anything you stated?
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion no one agrees with me or him? While both of our posts are obviously upset everything stated (well, most of it posted by anonymous) is factual. How can you disagree with fact?