True, this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is funny enough... no need to flame and just make it funnier.
Macroevolution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution.
Macroevolution is the theory that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time. It is distinct from microevolution, which is the sequence of changes that occur within a single population.... While microevolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers, macroevolution has to be inferred
Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
How could having a human heart make an animal human? That's like saying a person with a liver transplant is now two people. No Einstien, its one person and a liver (albeit a new one). When we can transplant a mind and a soul to an animal and then have a conversation with it in which we contemplate the meaning of life, that's when we can start asking quesitons like this. And that is never going to happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned... that's just another pile of horseshit. The only difference is that more people believe that one then just a couple slashdoters. Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
I'd put more money on the animals...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Another quote, "...Authoritarian countries become corrupt; corrupt countries become poor; and poor countries are weak."
True... but the fact is the animals (in the headlined quote from story) are much more keen and aware then many "hackers" out there. The problem is that many people posing as hackers are really just cheap and are trying to deprive legitimate and earnest copyright holders of the money due them. Hack all you damn want, just don't break copyright or patent law, that's what I say.
This country has been so innovative because of its encouragement through patents and copyright law. I'm not saying our patent system doesn't need reform... it most certainly does. But I'm tired of people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater... who actually are just cheap bastards in disguise.
Maybe bush has the worst record in your opinion... but the facts of the matter are air quality has improved in the 4 years he has been president. He cited that in the last debate, and I haven't heard anyone debunk it.
What are you going by? For all I know you're going by the fact that he supported legislation to allow thinning and management of the types of forests we saw are timberboxes a couple of years ago with the horrible and destructive fires out west. In that case... you and I can look at the same data and I can come to the conclusion that Bush actually has a better record on the environment then Clinton, since Bush has helped protect it from being burnt to ashes! We're talking minimal forest management here, not clear cutting.
Obviously the majority of the editors and posters here have similar viewpoints to eachother politically and socially, and so to anyone with an opposing view this place is filled with propoganda.
I personally think musicians have a right to make money from selling their music, especially small artists, without a bunch of jackasses giving their work away to literally thousands and thousands (and then millions if the work is deemed valuable and gets popular) of people.
I say sue the pants off the bastards. If you disagree with the way an artist chooses to distribute and/or charge for his/her music... then don't listen to the artist. Its as simple as that. Or get off your lazy ass and make your own music.
Many artists see value in free distribution. And so P2P is good for them, and often they'll encourage it at their shows. Some artists don't see the value and feel robbed. Hence legal action against the criminals who violate their rights is the only recourse at this point in the game.
If I have 50 computers in a simple Windows workgroup environment (no active directory) that all will need the same exception added, is there a script (or can I write one) that will automatically add that exception to all of the firewalls?
Its not fair... someone who sells only one illegal copy of a movie shouldn't get anywhere close to 5 years in prison, and someone like Glisan should get more like 10 to 20 years or so if you ask me.
The original poster said "REAL" prison time. A few years in a federal country club for the rich is not that, so you didn't really give what was asked for, proving the point that the rich don't receive sufficient punishment to deter the large scale theft in which they participate. As far as wishing rape on someone, I wouldn't either, but it's hardly fair that those who steal the pensions of the elderly are insulated from it while someone who posesses a few grams of marijuana or gets caught with a camcorder in a theatre is.
If I told you tonight that you were never going to be allowed again to work in the field in which you've gained all your career experience, you were going to be fined of all your money, and you were going to have to spend the next 5 years of your life making license plates in the pen I doubt you'd say, "Fine by me, as long as it's not 'real' prison time." And seriously, "a few grams" of marijuana isn't gonna get you 5 months in jail let alone 5 years... shit, it probably won't even get you 5 days. Trust me, I've been caught with a few grahams (before I became a Christian).
Having said that, I agree that sentences should be longer... maybe 10 or even 20 years especially if the money can't be recovered. But think about it this way, bank robbers usually get pretty decent sentences, and lots of people still rob banks.
I'll bet a Slashdot gift subscription that none of these people are in anything more harsh than what is commonly described as a "Club Fed" for "non-violent" (i.e. rich) offenders. If one of them's doing time in a prison where being forced to make sweet lovin' to a cellmate named Hammer is a possibility, post proof in the form of a link to the mainstream press, and I'll give you a Slashdot gift subscription. Seriously.
You people never give up. I was asked for names of people those who have been sent to prison, and I gave them. Now your asking me for their jizz-stained underwear. I was kidding about Hammer, the man loving cellmate. Who knows, maybe prison rape it more prevelant in the wards reserved for the violent criminals (which would make sense). Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to take my chances in any federal prison. I'll leave it to the aforementioned corporate thieves to find out what its like in there. And I wouldn't wish rape on anyone.
Name two people who are actually doing REAL prison time for defrauding investors. Go on -- name 'em.
Easy...
Ben Glisan played a key role in designing Enron's web of infamous off-balance-sheet partnerships. On Septeber 12, 2003 he was sentenced to five years in federal prison. He was not assisting prosecuters in their investigation.
Frank Bergonzi, formerly Rite Aid's cfo, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on May 27 of this year. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit accounting fraud by manipulating the company's earnings and financial statements. Providing "substantial assistance" to prosecutors helped Bergonzi reduce the sentence. He also agreed to permanently be barred from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company.
Michael Kopper, a former deputy to Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, on the other hand is helping the feds in their case against the former chief financial officer. If he can help them prove their case, then they will likely go easier on him. Which makes sense... what we want is the big dogs to go down, the one's responsible for the robbery and the ones not willing to admit and correct their actions. Kopper agreed to turn over $12 million in ill-gotten gains and cooperate with government prosecutors. He hasn't been sentenced yet.
Lets keep in mind that these guys like Kopper didn't kill anyone or even threaten too (which is why armed liquor store robbers often get long prison sentences). These guys are more like petty pick pocket thieves, but just on a much larger scale. There is no assault with a deadly weapon, violence, or even the threat of violence involved. So if they can return what they stole, help prosecutors nab the big dogs responsible, and be banned from ever having responsibility over such large amounts of other peoples money... then that seems fair to me.
What country are YOU living in? Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada), punishment rarely fits the crime. If you steal a billion dollars from investors, you'll be asked to retire and pay a fine. Steal a hundred dollars from a liquour store, and you'll get twenty years in jail.
Pirating films isn't white-collar enough to warrant a light sentence. The only crimes that have stiff sentences are the ones that wealthy people don't commit.
What hole are you living in? Last I checked if you get convicted of stealing a billion dollars from investors you go to federal prison to get molested by your roomie "Hammer" for years and years. The hard part is convicting people, because it is easier to hide some types of white collar crime under mounds of paper and red tape. But once they're convicted, they get screwed. No pun intended.
~Jay9333
I would have thought that night-vision equipment and kicking perpetrators out of cinemas would work.
You're kidding, right? That isn't a deterrent at all. The goal is to deter people from thinking illegal recording is worth it. What fool would think recording a flick is worth a few years in prison? Not many. I guarantee you, though, lots of (morally defunct) fools think recording a flick is worth getting kicked out of a showing.
I support deterring crime with actual punishment. 3 years should be the maximum though, for repeat offenders who do it for profit. 3 months seems like a good starting point to teach the thieves their lesson the first time.
~Jay9333
Question 1: how do you know the box firewall you bought is secure and no backdoors?
Answer: normally you do not.
Question 2: Why do majority ofpeople buy those instead of making their own?
Answer: Because it is a lot more convinient
So instead of spending time to build something, most people want to just get something that works and thus have to just trust the vendors, as they do not have the skill/time/inclanation/will etc to do it themselves.
No one has the time to examine every line of every piece of software (or hardware/firmware) they use that could potentially contain a vulnerability. It is impossible. That is why you only use software that has been in the community (open-source or closed) long enough to where it is generally trusted by experts and laymen alike. That is no guarantee, but that is the best one possible. Shit happens.
Child 'abuse' has been around for thousands of years and probably thousands more. Ask the year 0 Greeks if they enjoyed sex with children (someone below the age of 18). Their clay pots seem to suggest they did.
A more sensible approach seems to be needed to solve the harm, if any harm exists, with regards to sexual relationships between children and adults or children and children.
Yes, get rid of the people. Lock them up so they don't abuse children. Will we ever lock up every child abuser, murderer, or rapist? No. So should we stop fighting evil because of that? Of course not.
So because the Greeks did it, you think child abuse is ok? Is that whay you're saying... that we should focus on getting children to be okay with it instead of getting adults to stop taking advantage of young children? Sort of like the "Man/Boy Love Assoc."? That's freaking horrible. I can't tell if you're just trolling for a reaction, or if this is actually the results of post-modern thought and relative morality coming to a head in the modern era.
In many previous cultures (and in some today) rape of women was considered okay. So do you think that means we should focus on getting women to be okay with rape, instead of removing rapists from society? That's an interesting moral guide you follow there: "Whatever people have done before is okay." Its not very far from the ever so prevelant, "Whatever I feel is right for me... is, and the same goes for everyone else." That common philosophy is the same morality that led to some of the brutal, horrible sins of past cultures, and its the same morality that leads to destruction in this culture. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV)
I believe it's "children", not "childs". Anyway, if all you do is remove the pictures, the sources keep posting them. You've got to remove the people, that's the only way to fight this problem. And if it is a person who not only has viewed, stored, and shared pictures of children being sexually abused, but has actually participated in the abuse himself (which relatively often is the case) I suggest removing both that person *and* his johnson.
Maybe it isn't helping you, but it helps many others. And it helped me.
I suffered from schizophrenic type symptoms in early high school. I heard voices tell me to do things and all that jazz. I was utterly confused about reality; sometimes I would have to leave class balling crying because I was so confused. I thought people were talking to me subliminally, and heard other voices too. It really wrecked my life. My deliverance from all that crap was nearly instantaneous the summer of my sophomore year, and it happened when I placed faith in Jesus Christ and prayed to Him to be my Savior. That instant I knew that I was healed. It gave me an anchor of reality, of absolute Truth in a world of relative thought and morality, which allowed me to determine truth from fiction and "real" reality from inner thoughts or temptations. As I read His words and submitted to the Creator'sworldview, I was delivered more and more.
For some prayer may not work, especially when not combined with faith (which is deeper them simple intellectual belief, it goes one's core and effects their actions and morals). For some it may not work because God doesn't will it to work for whatever good reason He may have. Sometimes medicine is the only way to find relief. But for many, prayer has worked and continues to. Prayer has helped me in so many ways it isn't funny.
I also used to speak with such a terrible stutter (later on in high school, after becoming a Christian) that I could not even read to my classmates in school. After praying as directed by Philippians 4:4-9 (which is a verse I'd found in the new testament of the Bible) for a few weeks I was able to give my testimony and share my faith at a home for troubled boys and girls in front of 400 people. It went off without even a hint of stuttering. I was amazed. That night several other people decided who the Answer to their problems was and began to be transformed by Christ. And one I have kept up with to this day continues to find help and comfort through faith and prayer.
Prayer works. I'm 25 now and I have many personal experiences proving it through and through to me, as do many friends of mine and family members dealing with everything from depression to addiction. All I can say is it works for me, and many others.
And so I'll pray for you, that one day you might have a more open mind and more freedom of thought then you've shown in this thread.
July 11, 2003 CIA Director George Tenet says that he is responsible for President Bush's false allegation in his State of the Union address that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium in Africa. (MSNBC.com, 7/11/03)
This shows how biased you're sources are. The President never even alleged that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium (much less alleged falsely). He simply reported the *fact* that the British believed Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. This fact remains true to this day. Your news source, however, twists this and reports that Bush himself alleged Iraq sought uranium in Africa. The straight, unbiased data is that Bush told us that British intelligence analysts believed Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
And I'll assume you have no citation of this "poll" your citing. Gee... I wonder why?
Googled it and found 500,000. Theres your independent source
Eactly why you are no better then a troll. "The Interenet" = an independed source? You're a fucking joke. I'm not going to even respond to any more of your lame ass and totally ignorant comments you made in the above post. 500,000 is absolutely ridiculous, by the way. I'd bet Iraqi soldier's deaths and civillian deaths combined isn't even that large. The US military (as far as Rumsfield's comment), by the way, has no interest in those numbers. It takes a lot of resources to compile that. They're trying to defeat the enemy, and time counting civillians is time wasted. Other groups are going to take care of that for them.
I'm done with your dumb ass. You refuse to cite any reliable sources. Half the time you cite flagrantly anti-bush websites, and 99% of the other time you cite no source at all. Goodbye troll. Feel free to respond if you want to, I won't even be reading it.
Well since it has been proven he never had WMD, I'd say it would have been pretty hard for him to prove he had destroyed them.
Actually, it was universal known that he possesed WMD's in the 90's, and had even used them on the Kurds. Every nation in the UN knew this. So it *is* a big deal that for 8 years he played games with inspectors, denied them access to some sites, and refused to present adequate evidence of those WMD's destruction. The UN admits all this is true... they were just to fucking sissy to do anything about this madman playing games for years upon years. We had to assure ourselves he had no WMD's. If he'd have cooperated, he'd still be a free man. But he chose not to. We backed up our talk with "walk", and now other countries that shouldn't be developing WMD's (i.e. some terrorist sponsoring states) will know we mean business. Libya has already been much, much more cooporative, and is vowing to end its weapons programs. Iran is being more open to nuclear inspections also (by the UN agency), and that agency is finding some pretty scary things that have been going on there. On top of that, the Iraqi's are no longer under a brutal, murderous, freedom-hating dictator.
it is illegal for any of them to be developing any WMD
And it'd be illegal for you to build a nuclear bomb in the basement of the University of Chicago. But that wouldn't necessarily stop you (assuming of course that you could build one, which I of course don't believe).
I would still like to know how many Iraqi people died while we liberated Iraq. Why is our gov't censoring us from this number.
How many Iraqi's total (including soldiers and civilians who were firing on US forces) or just how many innocent civillians? There are independent sources who are trying to compile these numbers, I'm sure. You don't need to go to the government for those types of things. But check a variety of sources (not just a couple of anti-Bush websites) to make sure you get as unbiased a report as possible.
Our own intelligence department proved conclusively that these [uranium] reports were false
No. Some in our intelligence department believe the documents were fakes. Others don't. Again, many British intelligence analyists still believe the documents to be real. And that is what Bush reported, that British intelligence analysts believe Iraq sought Uranium in Africa.
It has been proven that 60 of Fox News believe we found WMD in Iraq...I would like to see less biast news sources. And as you can see media cant be trusted to actually report facts.
I question that number... at least if you took the poll today. There have been some times in the past months when teams have thought they may have discovered WMD's (for instance, a Danish team had some shells they found last month in Iraq test positive for sarin gas in the field, but later lab tests showed no presence of sarin). At a time like that, such a poll would show people thinking WMD's have been found, because news reports are coming in all over the place saying Danish initial tests were positive. But if you take the poll right now, the number won't be nearly that high.
Foxnews aims to be unbiased, and in my opinion they do a better job of that then say CNN. But no media outlet is going to be totally unbiased. That is why I try not to watch the news for "entertainment" purposes. When I want to research a story, I go to as many various sources as possible... sources (and websites) that have a conservative "tilt" and sources that have a more liberal tilt. Then I can be sure I can do my best to find a medium... and not make a fool of myself when I quote some partison's twisted data.
1)We can rest assured the madman doesn't have WMD's. We couldn't before. He wasn't being totally forthcoming abouth is WMD programs. The UN agreed on this point. He, for whatever reason, would play games, deny inspectors access to certain sites, and fail to present the evidence necessary to prove he'd destroyed his WMD's. No one disagrees this was the case. So to know for sure, we had to go in by force so he could no longer deny us access. If he'd have been forthcoming, he would still be in power. Who knows why he chose this route instead. But when it comes to WMD's in an Islamic nation ran by a madman, we must be better safe then sorry. However unlikely you think it would be for him to use the weapons on the US (his declared enemy) or give it to others to use on us... that "chance" (however slim you think it might be) isn't one we needed to take.
2) countries that have supported terrorists (i.e. Libya, Iran) are being more forthcoming no as to their WMD programs, and we are less likely to have to use force in the future to make sure terrorist-sponsoring states aren't developing WMD's. We will have an easier time avoiding war as we go after terrorist sponsor's in the future. Believe it or not, I think avoiding war when possible is a great thing.
3) no more mass murders, rape rooms, and other consequences of rule by a brutal dictator. A liberated Iraq
Post whatever you want to about a nuclear bomb. I'll ignore it, and won't respond to it. I have not the expertise to know if its true or not. All I know is that many independent media sources have cited known experts as saying that although a "dirty" bomb would be fairly easy, it requires significant resources as I said to develop and detonate a true nuclear bomb. So if you you think you can build one in your basement, fine. I don't believe you, and showing me your "directions" won't prove it to me. So that's the end of that.
The President said that British Intelligence reported that Iraq was seeking uranium. This is true, brit intel did report this. There are still Brits that believe Iraq sought Uranium. However, there are other intel analysts that don't think Iraq did. It hasn't been "proven" one way or another. But what the president said was true: British Intelligence reported that Iraq was seeking uranium. Perhaps he shoudln't have included it, since some people disagreed with the brits. I personally don't care, because its over and done with and we needed to take out sadaam either way (see reasons cited above).
Ill have to look more for the CIA files
Do continue to look for the source of your quote. I doubt you'll find it. At least you're admiting you can't find a source for it. I'm sorry if I offended you by thinking you might just be trolling or flaming for some perverse reason. But that is often my first assumption when someone posts such things with no documentation.
In the definition of a troll you cited, one example of a type of troll was one who intentionally started flame wars. That is what you do when you spout the unsupported nonsense I referred to earlier, *and* give no documentation.
You still haven't cited anything where "the CIA" offically stated that it believed toppling Sadaam would make the US more unsafe in the long term (or the short term for that matter). You cited something about the controversy surrounding the British Inteligence agencies belief that Iraq was seeking uranium... but that isn't what I asked you to document. You had said, "the CIA told Congress that by going into Iraq it would make our country less safe. This is a known fact." Documentation please. As I said, "certainly some people have thought it makes us less safe. Certainly the administrations position is that as a whole we are more safe." I've cited why I think the administrations position is correct. Of course there are ways that it has openned us up to more attacks (particularly our troops that are over there)... but in the long run, it will help us achieve peace, and has caught the attention of terrorist sponsoring states and let them know we will enforce our demands that they not produce WMD's.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
I've only been able to find that quote on anti-bush websites (such as the source you cited), and haven't seen it reported in any independent news outlets. And none of them that I've found give the primary source (i.e. what speech, date, etc.). That makes me question if it was even said... don't believe everything that starts circulating on the internet, especially if you only find it on biased websites.
That being said, even if the source is true I woudln't be suprised or concerned. If we made finding Osama our most important priority, we could probably take him out in a year... but his network and leadership would still be able to attack us. What we've done is pursue him *and* his network and leadership, and I've already cited our profound success in that pursuit. I've also already cited sources and quotes showing that pursuing Osama is still an important goal of the Defense department and the administration. So your out of context quote was likely just that... taken out of context (if it is a true quote at all). And the context likely was that of saying Osama isn't our "only" priority. If you examine the whole of Bush's quotes on the subject, you'll find that finding Osama is a goal, but not the only goal. I've cited independed sources confirming this, as well as noted Bush's own comments in the State of the Union address. Any troll can pull one quote of an anti-bush website and (ignoring context and all other evidence to the contrary) use it stripped of its original meaning. It is a common practice by trolls, which is why I've questioned if you were one... just trying to get a rise out of me or start a flame war/waste my time.
And I forgot to mention, nuclear weapons are not as hard to make as you think. I use to be a Physics Engineering student. And worked with small samples of Uranium. I dont want to say any more to give anybody any ideas.
one day there will be a thermonuclear explosion on our territory. Its inavidible
Once again, we disagree.
Realize that the CIA told Congress that by going into Iraq it would make our country less safe. This is a known fact. It was on the record.
I've never heard that. Certainly some people have thought it makes us less safe. Certainly the administrations position is that as a whole we are more safe. And certainly I've outlined why (and cited specific examples and readons why) I believe we are better off with out Sadaam.
Did you know that finding Osama is no longer a priority? Bush was quoted saying this.
As ussual, you have no specific quotation or supporting reference. This is why I think you're a troll. Maybe you just get off on wasting other peoples time, so you string me along as if you really want to have an intelligent conversation, then pull shit like that above comment. I know Bush has said that there is more to Al Quida then Bid Laden alone, and that without his network of leaders he can't do us much harm. And that is true, and he said that in response to people who think all we have to do is catch Bin Laden and then its all over. Those people are ignorant and wrong.
As far as if Bin laden is still a target, Bush has continually said he believes we're going to catch him (he said this in the state of the union address) and recently defense departement leaders have said the believe we'll get him before the year is up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/34305 77.stm)
Stop being so racist. Not all Islamic people want to fly into buildings.
I didn't say all of them did. Why do you put words into my mouth? Likely because you are are a twisted troll. I can't see any other reason why you'd have to put words into my mouth like this. I love Islamic people, have travelled to Turkey and Iran amongst other places, and have Islamic friends. If you'll read what I said, you'll find nothing contrary to that. The fact that Islamic countries harbor the terrorists who seek to destroy us is a fact that we just have to admit is true (not all Islamic countries... don't put words into my mouth).
Enough were "on the Taliban's side" to begin with and make 9-11 possible. So now we've taken the war to them, and will continue to. You just want to give up like a fucking sissy and wait for your "inevitable" nuclear explosion. Well, not I. Preveting that catastrophe is entirely possible, and is why the international atomic agencies exist and why we have so much intelligence and satalites, etc to detect which countries are developing nuclear technology (it takes resources only a country could muster).
Why are you so content with saying we will always have homicides in our society? In our country something like 3.97 per 100,000 die from homicides every year, compare that to Japans 0.01! Or Canadas 2.
Actually, if you'll read what I wrote you'll find I said, "We should continue to seek to control and prevent gang violence and violent, criminal youths from killing eachother and being in gangs, even though it is a battle that we can never fully win." I didn't say we can't do any better. I said that violence will always be there, but terrorists being able to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens *at one time* doesn't have to be a problem that is always in our midst. We can beat that one. And yes, we can decrease gang violence... and we *have* in the past 5 years or so. But if we don't rid ourselves of the terrorist threat (which we have made a lot of headway in doing so far), we won't even be around to try to help youth gangs stop killing eachother.
How are managers and CEO's productive citizens. I have no respect for paper pushers.
Law abiding, hard working citizens are much more productive (and valuable to our country) then gangsters who live to steal cars, commit crimes, and fight/kill one another. Law abiding, hardworking citizens also tend to have more wealth then gangsters and criminals (on the average, there are exceptions). The fact that someone has money shouldn't tell you that they are evil or don't matter. It is entirely possible for someone to be law abiding, hard working, and *moral*.
One of the only good things that increases our safety released by the Gov't thus far have been the resistant doors to the pilot chambers.
Riiggghht. And the following facts have done nothing to make us safer? 1) Al Quaida no longer has a safe haven from which to direct operations intended to kill massive amounts of Americans in a single blow, 2) 90% of Al Quaida leadership is captured, and the rest are on the run and likely will be killed or captured soon 3)a madman and brutal dictator of a mostly Islamic country who even the UN agrees wasn't forthcoming nor cooperative in allowing international inspections of his WMD programs is captured 4)other terrorism havens (i.e. Libya, Iran) have seen the example in Iraq and are being more forthcoming with their programs, or are promising to end them all together and let us inspect them to make sure of this.
These points you're making are utterly ridiculous. Are you sure you're not just trolling, or am I misunderstanding you?
Slashdot Mirror
True, this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is funny enough... no need to flame and just make it funnier.
Macroevolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution.
Macroevolution is the theory that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time. It is distinct from microevolution, which is the sequence of changes that occur within a single population.... While microevolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers, macroevolution has to be inferred
What you are saying is that micro-evolution is a fact. And with that I obviously agree... and I've never even heard of anyone who doesn't.
Macro-evolution is obviously a myth.
I'd say that is the more likely scenario.
Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
How could having a human heart make an animal human? That's like saying a person with a liver transplant is now two people. No Einstien, its one person and a liver (albeit a new one). When we can transplant a mind and a soul to an animal and then have a conversation with it in which we contemplate the meaning of life, that's when we can start asking quesitons like this. And that is never going to happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned... that's just another pile of horseshit. The only difference is that more people believe that one then just a couple slashdoters. Tell me this, if evolution is true then where are all the "half-monkey/half-man" things walking around now? They are nowhere.
Evolution is always talked about as if it is a fact. It is a *theory* people. And it is an utterly ridiculous one at that. Open your eyes and look around; there is obviously distict separation between species. Evolution was concieved by people with utter contempt for the idea of a God who was personally involved in creation. Evolutionists just make themselves look stupid in their attempt to define their own existance, and most are driven simply by a desire to define their own morals and close their eyes to the light of Him who made us all.
Sure, there are ancient fossils of animals that are now extinct, etc. But this idea of the half-monkey/man that will contemplate life with you and then go nest in a tree and eat its own dingleberries is just a myth.
Another quote, "...Authoritarian countries become corrupt; corrupt countries become poor; and poor countries are weak."
True... but the fact is the animals (in the headlined quote from story) are much more keen and aware then many "hackers" out there. The problem is that many people posing as hackers are really just cheap and are trying to deprive legitimate and earnest copyright holders of the money due them. Hack all you damn want, just don't break copyright or patent law, that's what I say.
This country has been so innovative because of its encouragement through patents and copyright law. I'm not saying our patent system doesn't need reform... it most certainly does. But I'm tired of people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater... who actually are just cheap bastards in disguise.
jay
Maybe bush has the worst record in your opinion... but the facts of the matter are air quality has improved in the 4 years he has been president. He cited that in the last debate, and I haven't heard anyone debunk it.
What are you going by? For all I know you're going by the fact that he supported legislation to allow thinning and management of the types of forests we saw are timberboxes a couple of years ago with the horrible and destructive fires out west. In that case... you and I can look at the same data and I can come to the conclusion that Bush actually has a better record on the environment then Clinton, since Bush has helped protect it from being burnt to ashes! We're talking minimal forest management here, not clear cutting.
Obviously the majority of the editors and posters here have similar viewpoints to eachother politically and socially, and so to anyone with an opposing view this place is filled with propoganda.
I personally think musicians have a right to make money from selling their music, especially small artists, without a bunch of jackasses giving their work away to literally thousands and thousands (and then millions if the work is deemed valuable and gets popular) of people.
I say sue the pants off the bastards. If you disagree with the way an artist chooses to distribute and/or charge for his/her music... then don't listen to the artist. Its as simple as that. Or get off your lazy ass and make your own music.
Many artists see value in free distribution. And so P2P is good for them, and often they'll encourage it at their shows. Some artists don't see the value and feel robbed. Hence legal action against the criminals who violate their rights is the only recourse at this point in the game.
If I have 50 computers in a simple Windows workgroup environment (no active directory) that all will need the same exception added, is there a script (or can I write one) that will automatically add that exception to all of the firewalls?
Its not fair... someone who sells only one illegal copy of a movie shouldn't get anywhere close to 5 years in prison, and someone like Glisan should get more like 10 to 20 years or so if you ask me.
If I told you tonight that you were never going to be allowed again to work in the field in which you've gained all your career experience, you were going to be fined of all your money, and you were going to have to spend the next 5 years of your life making license plates in the pen I doubt you'd say, "Fine by me, as long as it's not 'real' prison time." And seriously, "a few grams" of marijuana isn't gonna get you 5 months in jail let alone 5 years... shit, it probably won't even get you 5 days. Trust me, I've been caught with a few grahams (before I became a Christian).
Having said that, I agree that sentences should be longer... maybe 10 or even 20 years especially if the money can't be recovered. But think about it this way, bank robbers usually get pretty decent sentences, and lots of people still rob banks.
You people never give up. I was asked for names of people those who have been sent to prison, and I gave them. Now your asking me for their jizz-stained underwear. I was kidding about Hammer, the man loving cellmate. Who knows, maybe prison rape it more prevelant in the wards reserved for the violent criminals (which would make sense). Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to take my chances in any federal prison. I'll leave it to the aforementioned corporate thieves to find out what its like in there. And I wouldn't wish rape on anyone.
~jay9333
Easy...
Ben Glisan played a key role in designing Enron's web of infamous off-balance-sheet partnerships. On Septeber 12, 2003 he was sentenced to five years in federal prison. He was not assisting prosecuters in their investigation.
Frank Bergonzi, formerly Rite Aid's cfo, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on May 27 of this year. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit accounting fraud by manipulating the company's earnings and financial statements. Providing "substantial assistance" to prosecutors helped Bergonzi reduce the sentence. He also agreed to permanently be barred from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company.
Michael Kopper, a former deputy to Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, on the other hand is helping the feds in their case against the former chief financial officer. If he can help them prove their case, then they will likely go easier on him. Which makes sense... what we want is the big dogs to go down, the one's responsible for the robbery and the ones not willing to admit and correct their actions. Kopper agreed to turn over $12 million in ill-gotten gains and cooperate with government prosecutors. He hasn't been sentenced yet.
Lets keep in mind that these guys like Kopper didn't kill anyone or even threaten too (which is why armed liquor store robbers often get long prison sentences). These guys are more like petty pick pocket thieves, but just on a much larger scale. There is no assault with a deadly weapon, violence, or even the threat of violence involved. So if they can return what they stole, help prosecutors nab the big dogs responsible, and be banned from ever having responsibility over such large amounts of other peoples money... then that seems fair to me.
~jay9333
Pirating films isn't white-collar enough to warrant a light sentence. The only crimes that have stiff sentences are the ones that wealthy people don't commit.
What hole are you living in? Last I checked if you get convicted of stealing a billion dollars from investors you go to federal prison to get molested by your roomie "Hammer" for years and years. The hard part is convicting people, because it is easier to hide some types of white collar crime under mounds of paper and red tape. But once they're convicted, they get screwed. No pun intended. ~Jay9333
I would have thought that night-vision equipment and kicking perpetrators out of cinemas would work. You're kidding, right? That isn't a deterrent at all. The goal is to deter people from thinking illegal recording is worth it. What fool would think recording a flick is worth a few years in prison? Not many. I guarantee you, though, lots of (morally defunct) fools think recording a flick is worth getting kicked out of a showing. I support deterring crime with actual punishment. 3 years should be the maximum though, for repeat offenders who do it for profit. 3 months seems like a good starting point to teach the thieves their lesson the first time. ~Jay9333
Answer: normally you do not.
Question 2: Why do majority ofpeople buy those instead of making their own?
Answer: Because it is a lot more convinient
So instead of spending time to build something, most people want to just get something that works and thus have to just trust the vendors, as they do not have the skill/time/inclanation/will etc to do it themselves.
No one has the time to examine every line of every piece of software (or hardware/firmware) they use that could potentially contain a vulnerability. It is impossible. That is why you only use software that has been in the community (open-source or closed) long enough to where it is generally trusted by experts and laymen alike. That is no guarantee, but that is the best one possible. Shit happens.
Child 'abuse' has been around for thousands of years and probably thousands more. Ask the year 0 Greeks if they enjoyed sex with children (someone below the age of 18). Their clay pots seem to suggest they did.
A more sensible approach seems to be needed to solve the harm, if any harm exists, with regards to sexual relationships between children and adults or children and children.
Yes, get rid of the people. Lock them up so they don't abuse children. Will we ever lock up every child abuser, murderer, or rapist? No. So should we stop fighting evil because of that? Of course not.
So because the Greeks did it, you think child abuse is ok? Is that whay you're saying... that we should focus on getting children to be okay with it instead of getting adults to stop taking advantage of young children? Sort of like the "Man/Boy Love Assoc."? That's freaking horrible. I can't tell if you're just trolling for a reaction, or if this is actually the results of post-modern thought and relative morality coming to a head in the modern era.
In many previous cultures (and in some today) rape of women was considered okay. So do you think that means we should focus on getting women to be okay with rape, instead of removing rapists from society? That's an interesting moral guide you follow there: "Whatever people have done before is okay." Its not very far from the ever so prevelant, "Whatever I feel is right for me... is, and the same goes for everyone else." That common philosophy is the same morality that led to some of the brutal, horrible sins of past cultures, and its the same morality that leads to destruction in this culture. "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV)
I believe it's "children", not "childs". Anyway, if all you do is remove the pictures, the sources keep posting them. You've got to remove the people, that's the only way to fight this problem. And if it is a person who not only has viewed, stored, and shared pictures of children being sexually abused, but has actually participated in the abuse himself (which relatively often is the case) I suggest removing both that person *and* his johnson.
Maybe it isn't helping you, but it helps many others. And it helped me.
I suffered from schizophrenic type symptoms in early high school. I heard voices tell me to do things and all that jazz. I was utterly confused about reality; sometimes I would have to leave class balling crying because I was so confused. I thought people were talking to me subliminally, and heard other voices too. It really wrecked my life. My deliverance from all that crap was nearly instantaneous the summer of my sophomore year, and it happened when I placed faith in Jesus Christ and prayed to Him to be my Savior. That instant I knew that I was healed. It gave me an anchor of reality, of absolute Truth in a world of relative thought and morality, which allowed me to determine truth from fiction and "real" reality from inner thoughts or temptations. As I read His words and submitted to the Creator'sworldview, I was delivered more and more.
For some prayer may not work, especially when not combined with faith (which is deeper them simple intellectual belief, it goes one's core and effects their actions and morals). For some it may not work because God doesn't will it to work for whatever good reason He may have. Sometimes medicine is the only way to find relief. But for many, prayer has worked and continues to. Prayer has helped me in so many ways it isn't funny.
I also used to speak with such a terrible stutter (later on in high school, after becoming a Christian) that I could not even read to my classmates in school. After praying as directed by Philippians 4:4-9 (which is a verse I'd found in the new testament of the Bible) for a few weeks I was able to give my testimony and share my faith at a home for troubled boys and girls in front of 400 people. It went off without even a hint of stuttering. I was amazed. That night several other people decided who the Answer to their problems was and began to be transformed by Christ. And one I have kept up with to this day continues to find help and comfort through faith and prayer.
Prayer works. I'm 25 now and I have many personal experiences proving it through and through to me, as do many friends of mine and family members dealing with everything from depression to addiction. All I can say is it works for me, and many others.
And so I'll pray for you, that one day you might have a more open mind and more freedom of thought then you've shown in this thread.
Jay
This shows how biased you're sources are. The President never even alleged that Baghdad was trying to buy uranium (much less alleged falsely). He simply reported the *fact* that the British believed Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. This fact remains true to this day. Your news source, however, twists this and reports that Bush himself alleged Iraq sought uranium in Africa. The straight, unbiased data is that Bush told us that British intelligence analysts believed Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
And I'll assume you have no citation of this "poll" your citing. Gee... I wonder why?
Googled it and found 500,000. Theres your independent source
Eactly why you are no better then a troll. "The Interenet" = an independed source? You're a fucking joke. I'm not going to even respond to any more of your lame ass and totally ignorant comments you made in the above post. 500,000 is absolutely ridiculous, by the way. I'd bet Iraqi soldier's deaths and civillian deaths combined isn't even that large. The US military (as far as Rumsfield's comment), by the way, has no interest in those numbers. It takes a lot of resources to compile that. They're trying to defeat the enemy, and time counting civillians is time wasted. Other groups are going to take care of that for them.
I'm done with your dumb ass. You refuse to cite any reliable sources. Half the time you cite flagrantly anti-bush websites, and 99% of the other time you cite no source at all. Goodbye troll. Feel free to respond if you want to, I won't even be reading it.
Actually, it was universal known that he possesed WMD's in the 90's, and had even used them on the Kurds. Every nation in the UN knew this. So it *is* a big deal that for 8 years he played games with inspectors, denied them access to some sites, and refused to present adequate evidence of those WMD's destruction. The UN admits all this is true... they were just to fucking sissy to do anything about this madman playing games for years upon years. We had to assure ourselves he had no WMD's. If he'd have cooperated, he'd still be a free man. But he chose not to. We backed up our talk with "walk", and now other countries that shouldn't be developing WMD's (i.e. some terrorist sponsoring states) will know we mean business. Libya has already been much, much more cooporative, and is vowing to end its weapons programs. Iran is being more open to nuclear inspections also (by the UN agency), and that agency is finding some pretty scary things that have been going on there. On top of that, the Iraqi's are no longer under a brutal, murderous, freedom-hating dictator.
it is illegal for any of them to be developing any WMD
And it'd be illegal for you to build a nuclear bomb in the basement of the University of Chicago. But that wouldn't necessarily stop you (assuming of course that you could build one, which I of course don't believe).
I would still like to know how many Iraqi people died while we liberated Iraq. Why is our gov't censoring us from this number.
How many Iraqi's total (including soldiers and civilians who were firing on US forces) or just how many innocent civillians? There are independent sources who are trying to compile these numbers, I'm sure. You don't need to go to the government for those types of things. But check a variety of sources (not just a couple of anti-Bush websites) to make sure you get as unbiased a report as possible.
Our own intelligence department proved conclusively that these [uranium] reports were false
No. Some in our intelligence department believe the documents were fakes. Others don't. Again, many British intelligence analyists still believe the documents to be real. And that is what Bush reported, that British intelligence analysts believe Iraq sought Uranium in Africa.
It has been proven that 60 of Fox News believe we found WMD in Iraq...I would like to see less biast news sources. And as you can see media cant be trusted to actually report facts.
I question that number... at least if you took the poll today. There have been some times in the past months when teams have thought they may have discovered WMD's (for instance, a Danish team had some shells they found last month in Iraq test positive for sarin gas in the field, but later lab tests showed no presence of sarin). At a time like that, such a poll would show people thinking WMD's have been found, because news reports are coming in all over the place saying Danish initial tests were positive. But if you take the poll right now, the number won't be nearly that high.
Foxnews aims to be unbiased, and in my opinion they do a better job of that then say CNN. But no media outlet is going to be totally unbiased. That is why I try not to watch the news for "entertainment" purposes. When I want to research a story, I go to as many various sources as possible... sources (and websites) that have a conservative "tilt" and sources that have a more liberal tilt. Then I can be sure I can do my best to find a medium... and not make a fool of myself when I quote some partison's twisted data.
The toppling of Sadaam was good because:
1)We can rest assured the madman doesn't have WMD's. We couldn't before. He wasn't being totally forthcoming abouth is WMD programs. The UN agreed on this point. He, for whatever reason, would play games, deny inspectors access to certain sites, and fail to present the evidence necessary to prove he'd destroyed his WMD's. No one disagrees this was the case. So to know for sure, we had to go in by force so he could no longer deny us access. If he'd have been forthcoming, he would still be in power. Who knows why he chose this route instead. But when it comes to WMD's in an Islamic nation ran by a madman, we must be better safe then sorry. However unlikely you think it would be for him to use the weapons on the US (his declared enemy) or give it to others to use on us... that "chance" (however slim you think it might be) isn't one we needed to take.
2) countries that have supported terrorists (i.e. Libya, Iran) are being more forthcoming no as to their WMD programs, and we are less likely to have to use force in the future to make sure terrorist-sponsoring states aren't developing WMD's. We will have an easier time avoiding war as we go after terrorist sponsor's in the future. Believe it or not, I think avoiding war when possible is a great thing.
3) no more mass murders, rape rooms, and other consequences of rule by a brutal dictator. A liberated Iraq
Post whatever you want to about a nuclear bomb. I'll ignore it, and won't respond to it. I have not the expertise to know if its true or not. All I know is that many independent media sources have cited known experts as saying that although a "dirty" bomb would be fairly easy, it requires significant resources as I said to develop and detonate a true nuclear bomb. So if you you think you can build one in your basement, fine. I don't believe you, and showing me your "directions" won't prove it to me. So that's the end of that.
The President said that British Intelligence reported that Iraq was seeking uranium. This is true, brit intel did report this. There are still Brits that believe Iraq sought Uranium. However, there are other intel analysts that don't think Iraq did. It hasn't been "proven" one way or another. But what the president said was true: British Intelligence reported that Iraq was seeking uranium. Perhaps he shoudln't have included it, since some people disagreed with the brits. I personally don't care, because its over and done with and we needed to take out sadaam either way (see reasons cited above).
Ill have to look more for the CIA files
Do continue to look for the source of your quote. I doubt you'll find it. At least you're admiting you can't find a source for it. I'm sorry if I offended you by thinking you might just be trolling or flaming for some perverse reason. But that is often my first assumption when someone posts such things with no documentation.
You still haven't cited anything where "the CIA" offically stated that it believed toppling Sadaam would make the US more unsafe in the long term (or the short term for that matter). You cited something about the controversy surrounding the British Inteligence agencies belief that Iraq was seeking uranium... but that isn't what I asked you to document. You had said, "the CIA told Congress that by going into Iraq it would make our country less safe. This is a known fact." Documentation please. As I said, "certainly some people have thought it makes us less safe. Certainly the administrations position is that as a whole we are more safe." I've cited why I think the administrations position is correct. Of course there are ways that it has openned us up to more attacks (particularly our troops that are over there)... but in the long run, it will help us achieve peace, and has caught the attention of terrorist sponsoring states and let them know we will enforce our demands that they not produce WMD's.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
I've only been able to find that quote on anti-bush websites (such as the source you cited), and haven't seen it reported in any independent news outlets. And none of them that I've found give the primary source (i.e. what speech, date, etc.). That makes me question if it was even said... don't believe everything that starts circulating on the internet, especially if you only find it on biased websites.
That being said, even if the source is true I woudln't be suprised or concerned. If we made finding Osama our most important priority, we could probably take him out in a year... but his network and leadership would still be able to attack us. What we've done is pursue him *and* his network and leadership, and I've already cited our profound success in that pursuit. I've also already cited sources and quotes showing that pursuing Osama is still an important goal of the Defense department and the administration. So your out of context quote was likely just that... taken out of context (if it is a true quote at all). And the context likely was that of saying Osama isn't our "only" priority. If you examine the whole of Bush's quotes on the subject, you'll find that finding Osama is a goal, but not the only goal. I've cited independed sources confirming this, as well as noted Bush's own comments in the State of the Union address. Any troll can pull one quote of an anti-bush website and (ignoring context and all other evidence to the contrary) use it stripped of its original meaning. It is a common practice by trolls, which is why I've questioned if you were one... just trying to get a rise out of me or start a flame war/waste my time.
And I forgot to mention, nuclear weapons are not as hard to make as you think. I use to be a Physics Engineering student. And worked with small samples of Uranium. I dont want to say any more to give anybody any ideas.
Sure.
jay
Once again, we disagree.
Realize that the CIA told Congress that by going into Iraq it would make our country less safe. This is a known fact. It was on the record.
I've never heard that. Certainly some people have thought it makes us less safe. Certainly the administrations position is that as a whole we are more safe. And certainly I've outlined why (and cited specific examples and readons why) I believe we are better off with out Sadaam.
Did you know that finding Osama is no longer a priority? Bush was quoted saying this.
As ussual, you have no specific quotation or supporting reference. This is why I think you're a troll. Maybe you just get off on wasting other peoples time, so you string me along as if you really want to have an intelligent conversation, then pull shit like that above comment. I know Bush has said that there is more to Al Quida then Bid Laden alone, and that without his network of leaders he can't do us much harm. And that is true, and he said that in response to people who think all we have to do is catch Bin Laden and then its all over. Those people are ignorant and wrong.
As far as if Bin laden is still a target, Bush has continually said he believes we're going to catch him (he said this in the state of the union address) and recently defense departement leaders have said the believe we'll get him before the year is up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/34305 77.stm)
Stop being so racist. Not all Islamic people want to fly into buildings.
I didn't say all of them did. Why do you put words into my mouth? Likely because you are are a twisted troll. I can't see any other reason why you'd have to put words into my mouth like this. I love Islamic people, have travelled to Turkey and Iran amongst other places, and have Islamic friends. If you'll read what I said, you'll find nothing contrary to that. The fact that Islamic countries harbor the terrorists who seek to destroy us is a fact that we just have to admit is true (not all Islamic countries... don't put words into my mouth).
Enough were "on the Taliban's side" to begin with and make 9-11 possible. So now we've taken the war to them, and will continue to. You just want to give up like a fucking sissy and wait for your "inevitable" nuclear explosion. Well, not I. Preveting that catastrophe is entirely possible, and is why the international atomic agencies exist and why we have so much intelligence and satalites, etc to detect which countries are developing nuclear technology (it takes resources only a country could muster).
Why are you so content with saying we will always have homicides in our society? In our country something like 3.97 per 100,000 die from homicides every year, compare that to Japans 0.01! Or Canadas 2.
Actually, if you'll read what I wrote you'll find I said, "We should continue to seek to control and prevent gang violence and violent, criminal youths from killing eachother and being in gangs, even though it is a battle that we can never fully win." I didn't say we can't do any better. I said that violence will always be there, but terrorists being able to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens *at one time* doesn't have to be a problem that is always in our midst. We can beat that one. And yes, we can decrease gang violence... and we *have* in the past 5 years or so. But if we don't rid ourselves of the terrorist threat (which we have made a lot of headway in doing so far), we won't even be around to try to help youth gangs stop killing eachother.
How are managers and CEO's productive citizens. I have no respect for paper pushers.
Law abiding, hard working citizens are much more productive (and valuable to our country) then gangsters who live to steal cars, commit crimes, and fight/kill one another. Law abiding, hardworking citizens also tend to have more wealth then gangsters and criminals (on the average, there are exceptions). The fact that someone has money shouldn't tell you that they are evil or don't matter. It is entirely possible for someone to be law abiding, hard working, and *moral*.
One of the only good things that increases our safety released by the Gov't thus far have been the resistant doors to the pilot chambers.
Riiggghht. And the following facts have done nothing to make us safer?
1) Al Quaida no longer has a safe haven from which to direct operations intended to kill massive amounts of Americans in a single blow,
2) 90% of Al Quaida leadership is captured, and the rest are on the run and likely will be killed or captured soon
3)a madman and brutal dictator of a mostly Islamic country who even the UN agrees wasn't forthcoming nor cooperative in allowing international inspections of his WMD programs is captured
4)other terrorism havens (i.e. Libya, Iran) have seen the example in Iraq and are being more forthcoming with their programs, or are promising to end them all together and let us inspect them to make sure of this.
These points you're making are utterly ridiculous. Are you sure you're not just trolling, or am I misunderstanding you?