THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT. They both pay people who helped helped them get into office.
Republicans pay the farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, defence contractors, and big business etc. The democrats pay the unions (teachers, cops, firemen, steelworkers etc), the african americans, jews, and hollywood.
The only difference is that they have different owners.
You are the one making stupid statements like "republicans do better with the economy" as if it really matters who gets into office not me.
all I am asking you to do is to look at actual facts before you start spewing the things you heard on fox news or read on a web site.
Yes it's a ad hominem but you deserve it. YOu are gullable, you believe what people say about themselves without actually looking at how they behave.
So let's get back to how this thread started.
Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever that republicans do a better job with the economy? If so what criterea did you choose and where did you get your stats from?.
The answer to the above question is a big fat no. You have no evidence, you have done no research, you simply parrot what other people tell you.
All I am asking you to do is to think for yourself. I know it's hard but you ought to give it a try.
Once again, you seem to be an easily duped person who believes what people say about themselves. I can say that I am better looking then brad pitt, more virtous then Mother Teresa and taller then Yao Ming but that doesn't mean its true.
Both partied do the same thing: pay the people who put them into office with generous subsidies and govt contracts.
look at what they do, not what they say. Look at how the govt is being run under republican administrations and democratic administrations and judge from that.
As I said pick a criterea, any criterea will do. If you are concerned about economic performance (which you claim you are) then look to see who ACTUALLY does a better job. Words are cheap, politicians lie, don't take what they say as some kind of a gospel. Oh yea that goes for Fox News, sean hannity, ann coulter, david horowitz, rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly or any other member of the rightwing zealot kooks too.
"The numbers are out there, but they still tell you NOTHING about the administration in charge. There are still too many variables to extract that fine grained of a conclusion from such noisy data."
In that case your statement about republicans being better for the economy is false. At best it's completely unverifiable.
The economy is a subset of psychiatry. Being a republican or a democrat has difference on the economy.
By the way the rest of your post is just pure stereotypical zealotry the right wing has been spewing out of talk radio for a decade. It has no correlation to reality.
Apparently you have bought it hook line and sinker. Just another sheeple in the Rush Limbaugh amen corner.
Milton Friedman is an idiot. I have read his books, I have seem him talk and he is utterly clueless when it comes to the environment. Well maybe that's not really true. He knows he is talking bullshit but his belief structure will not allow him to admit it.
for example: During a talk he was going on about market forces and pollution. He said 'if your shit gets dirty from pollution you can sue the company that produced the pollution'. I am thinking to myself, "what the fuck? is that the worst thing that is going to be happening to me because of pollution? What if I have a deformed baby? What if I get cancer 20 years after the plant has shut down?"
The man is a nimcompoop. You shouldn't listen to him.
Economic theory is junk science. There are as many theories as there are economists and all of them are afraid to actually gather data to back up their theories because they all know they are full of shit.
Trust reality. Take a bunch of indicators for economic health of a nation and compare them under democratic and republican governments and see which ones have done better. We have all this data, it's easy to look it up.
Look at income growth, unemployment, debt, rate of savings, deficits, govt spending, the size of the govt, whatever you want. Then look at the real data. If the the actual real life data does not match the theory then theory is junk and should not be ever used again. That's the way science works.
An economist saying "lower taxes lead to greater R&D in business" is no different then a hippie saying "crystals will heal your soul". Neither one has any evidence whatsoever, both of them are stating what they think "ought" to happen given their weird frame of mind.
There are lots of printers that are not supported by the Mac. In fact since Mac uses CUPS every printer compatible with the Mac is compatible with linux.
Liberterianism is doomed because it is so out of tough with reality. I was mocking them but they seem not to be able to detect that either.
Let me put it this way.
No person who is AGAINST abortion is FOR prostitution or drugs.
All of the midwest and most of the west (except california) would destroy any candidate which propsed to cut off farming, logging, mining, ranching subsidies.
"Most Libs would agree that "Poisoning the water supply" is a criminal activity"
I don't think so. They tend to be vehemtly against any environmental or health and safety regulations. If they had their way any business could do anything they wanted in their own property including poisoning the water. Once that water leeched into your river then all you could do is to sue them civilly. It would not be against the law for them to dump whatever they wanted as long as they owned the property.
I am for abortion, prostitution, and legalization of drugs. I am against gun control, I want to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, farm subsidies, logging subsidies, mining subsidies. I want to eliminate all environmental regulation and all health and safety regulations. I want to weaken the federal and state governments drastically so that the court system is your only recourse if you get harmed by anybody. If you are harmed by a company you will have to sue them in court for damages (remember it will be legal for them to poison you water supply).
The stock market has certainly been wrong about it's predictions in the past. I am talking about real empirical data that republicans tend to be better for the economy.
We have had both democratic and republican presidents and congress in the last few decades and all the data I have seen indicates that the economy does better under democrat control of the white house (no matter who is in congress). In fact the economy does worst when republicans control both the white house and congress.
Look at bush for a perfect example. The lasrgest exapnsion of the govt ever, creation of the biggest new govt agency ever, running record deficits, slow to no growth, waste, cronyism, bungling of virutally every economic factor etc.
Fuck that. Lets just presume that half the people in the govt are imcompetent. Bush gave metal to the guy responsible for the largest failure of american intelligence ever!. Me, I would have fired him.
"You seem to have entirely missed the point of my message. No one will ever listen to your version of the truth if you can't package it coherently, regardless of how correct you are or how important the topic is. Even if it's justified, foaming at the mouth is a huge turn-off to the vast body of the population."
What? Where the hell have you been? Have you listened to right wing radio? Have seen fox news?
Yelling, screaming, lying, cheating, calling your enemies godawful things works very well. Kerry was called a coward for going to war meanwhile bush was called a hero for dodging it.
WOW you just confirmed every stereotype of the idiot republican I have.
Those ports belonged to the UK company, a foreign company is silling to port to another foreign company.
And you really thought bush was doing a good job during the first term? 9/11 was the largest failure of american inteligence in history (except maybe pearl harbor) and bush gave the head of the cia a metal?
i don't think either israel or us gives a shit about what the rest of the world thinks. By the same token the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about what happens to palestenians.
The cartoon protests caused the burning of a half a dozen buildings and the death of a dozen protesters and the world threw a fit. During the same time israel destroyed more building in palestine and killed more palestenians and nobody even noticed.
Tommorrow ISrael could fly a crop duster full of anthrax over palestine and nobody would even notice. They have been killing palestenians by the thousands every year (as well as having a sate policy of torture), they have run an apartheid regime for 20 years. The only people who complain are the palestenians themsevles who have a silly notion that they deserve to be free and have their own country.
"I voted for Bush for various reasons, but I would probably stand alongside you if a recall vote were held today. The time for partisan sniping is over. We need to work together if we want to make a difference."
In the rest of the world when the US or the UN monitors elections in some far off land they rely mainly on exit polling. They compare their exit polls numbers to the actual vote to see is they match up within statistical significance.
Errr. Nevermind. That too points to a couple of rigged elections.
Except that the SCO case isn't about patents. In fact nobody really knows what it is really about because the US legal system allows a company to make non specific allegations for two or three years.
"Hasn't this dispute been going on forever? The sad irony is that if you add up all the legal resources consumed by this case and divert them to pure technology you could completely reinvent and develop the entire system."
yes but then what would the lawyers do? They need to eat too you know.
Anyway it's called the US legal system. It's the biggest joke in the world. Look at how long the SCO case has been going on. Following that case taught me that the US legal system is a like a hot dog factory. You don't want to know how it works.
"Honestly, as someone who's not worked with large linux networks, I'm not sure what the alternative would be. However, lack of a viable alternative, or even lack of a popular alternative, doesn't make Microsoft wrong for packaging Active Directory with their product"
There are lots of alternatives both open source and commercial. By far the best one is NDS by Novell which makes AD look like joke.
I don't understand your "lack of a viable alternative" FUD there. Clearly there are viable alternatives and even popular alternatives (see LDAP and kerberos).
The polifiration of licenses is due to the open source movement, not the free software movement. The FSF prefers that you use the GPL or the LGPL. The open source movement created or approved all the other licenses as an appeasement to various businesses who didn't want to comply with the terms of the GPL or the LGPL.
Then I suggest that google work to embed a lisp interpreter in firefox. That way we can ditch HTML altogether and just go with lisp. Lets face it, there was no need to invent XML or HTML both are poorly thought out s-expressions.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't been paying attention have you.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT. They both pay people who helped helped them get into office.
Republicans pay the farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, defence contractors, and big business etc. The democrats pay the unions (teachers, cops, firemen, steelworkers etc), the african americans, jews, and hollywood.
The only difference is that they have different owners.
You are the one making stupid statements like "republicans do better with the economy" as if it really matters who gets into office not me.
all I am asking you to do is to look at actual facts before you start spewing the things you heard on fox news or read on a web site.
Yes it's a ad hominem but you deserve it. YOu are gullable, you believe what people say about themselves without actually looking at how they behave.
So let's get back to how this thread started.
Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever that republicans do a better job with the economy? If so what criterea did you choose and where did you get your stats from?.
The answer to the above question is a big fat no. You have no evidence, you have done no research, you simply parrot what other people tell you.
All I am asking you to do is to think for yourself. I know it's hard but you ought to give it a try.
Once again, you seem to be an easily duped person who believes what people say about themselves. I can say that I am better looking then brad pitt, more virtous then Mother Teresa and taller then Yao Ming but that doesn't mean its true.
Both partied do the same thing: pay the people who put them into office with generous subsidies and govt contracts.
look at what they do, not what they say. Look at how the govt is being run under republican administrations and democratic administrations and judge from that.
As I said pick a criterea, any criterea will do. If you are concerned about economic performance (which you claim you are) then look to see who ACTUALLY does a better job. Words are cheap, politicians lie, don't take what they say as some kind of a gospel. Oh yea that goes for Fox News, sean hannity, ann coulter, david horowitz, rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly or any other member of the rightwing zealot kooks too.
"The numbers are out there, but they still tell you NOTHING about the administration in charge. There are still too many variables to extract that fine grained of a conclusion from such noisy data."
In that case your statement about republicans being better for the economy is false. At best it's completely unverifiable.
The economy is a subset of psychiatry. Being a republican or a democrat has difference on the economy.
By the way the rest of your post is just pure stereotypical zealotry the right wing has been spewing out of talk radio for a decade. It has no correlation to reality.
Apparently you have bought it hook line and sinker. Just another sheeple in the Rush Limbaugh amen corner.
Milton Friedman is an idiot. I have read his books, I have seem him talk and he is utterly clueless when it comes to the environment. Well maybe that's not really true. He knows he is talking bullshit but his belief structure will not allow him to admit it.
for example: During a talk he was going on about market forces and pollution. He said 'if your shit gets dirty from pollution you can sue the company that produced the pollution'. I am thinking to myself, "what the fuck? is that the worst thing that is going to be happening to me because of pollution? What if I have a deformed baby? What if I get cancer 20 years after the plant has shut down?"
The man is a nimcompoop. You shouldn't listen to him.
Yes I meant economics, my bad.
Economic theory is junk science. There are as many theories as there are economists and all of them are afraid to actually gather data to back up their theories because they all know they are full of shit.
Trust reality. Take a bunch of indicators for economic health of a nation and compare them under democratic and republican governments and see which ones have done better. We have all this data, it's easy to look it up.
Look at income growth, unemployment, debt, rate of savings, deficits, govt spending, the size of the govt, whatever you want. Then look at the real data. If the the actual real life data does not match the theory then theory is junk and should not be ever used again. That's the way science works.
An economist saying "lower taxes lead to greater R&D in business" is no different then a hippie saying "crystals will heal your soul". Neither one has any evidence whatsoever, both of them are stating what they think "ought" to happen given their weird frame of mind.
There are lots of printers that are not supported by the Mac. In fact since Mac uses CUPS every printer compatible with the Mac is compatible with linux.
Liberterianism is doomed because it is so out of tough with reality. I was mocking them but they seem not to be able to detect that either.
Let me put it this way.
No person who is AGAINST abortion is FOR prostitution or drugs.
All of the midwest and most of the west (except california) would destroy any candidate which propsed to cut off farming, logging, mining, ranching subsidies.
"Most Libs would agree that "Poisoning the water supply" is a criminal activity"
I don't think so. They tend to be vehemtly against any environmental or health and safety regulations. If they had their way any business could do anything they wanted in their own property including poisoning the water. Once that water leeched into your river then all you could do is to sue them civilly. It would not be against the law for them to dump whatever they wanted as long as they owned the property.
"Economics is too inexact a science so you can make the numbers pretty much say anything you want :)"
in which case your statement about republicans being better for the environment is baseless.
It seems to me you simply have accepted that bit of dogma without any evidence and simply ignore any evidence which goes against your dogmatic belief.
Hello, I am a liberterian.
I am for abortion, prostitution, and legalization of drugs. I am against gun control, I want to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, farm subsidies, logging subsidies, mining subsidies. I want to eliminate all environmental regulation and all health and safety regulations. I want to weaken the federal and state governments drastically so that the court system is your only recourse if you get harmed by anybody. If you are harmed by a company you will have to sue them in court for damages (remember it will be legal for them to poison you water supply).
please vote for me.
The stock market has certainly been wrong about it's predictions in the past. I am talking about real empirical data that republicans tend to be better for the economy.
We have had both democratic and republican presidents and congress in the last few decades and all the data I have seen indicates that the economy does better under democrat control of the white house (no matter who is in congress). In fact the economy does worst when republicans control both the white house and congress.
Look at bush for a perfect example. The lasrgest exapnsion of the govt ever, creation of the biggest new govt agency ever, running record deficits, slow to no growth, waste, cronyism, bungling of virutally every economic factor etc.
"f the election was fixed, perhaps it was fixed by Hillary Clinton."
LOL, it's always the fault of Hitlery with you guys isn't it?
LOL it looks like you are one smoking the weed.
"The Republicans tend to be better for the economy,"
you have any empirical evidence for this? The data I have seen shows the opposite.
Fuck that. Lets just presume that half the people in the govt are imcompetent. Bush gave metal to the guy responsible for the largest failure of american intelligence ever!. Me, I would have fired him.
"You seem to have entirely missed the point of my message. No one will ever listen to your version of the truth if you can't package it coherently, regardless of how correct you are or how important the topic is. Even if it's justified, foaming at the mouth is a huge turn-off to the vast body of the population."
What? Where the hell have you been? Have you listened to right wing radio? Have seen fox news?
Yelling, screaming, lying, cheating, calling your enemies godawful things works very well. Kerry was called a coward for going to war meanwhile bush was called a hero for dodging it.
WOW you just confirmed every stereotype of the idiot republican I have.
Those ports belonged to the UK company, a foreign company is silling to port to another foreign company.
And you really thought bush was doing a good job during the first term? 9/11 was the largest failure of american inteligence in history (except maybe pearl harbor) and bush gave the head of the cia a metal?
i don't think either israel or us gives a shit about what the rest of the world thinks. By the same token the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about what happens to palestenians.
The cartoon protests caused the burning of a half a dozen buildings and the death of a dozen protesters and the world threw a fit. During the same time israel destroyed more building in palestine and killed more palestenians and nobody even noticed.
Tommorrow ISrael could fly a crop duster full of anthrax over palestine and nobody would even notice. They have been killing palestenians by the thousands every year (as well as having a sate policy of torture), they have run an apartheid regime for 20 years. The only people who complain are the palestenians themsevles who have a silly notion that they deserve to be free and have their own country.
"I voted for Bush for various reasons, but I would probably stand alongside you if a recall vote were held today. The time for partisan sniping is over. We need to work together if we want to make a difference."
Said the rapist to the repee.
In the rest of the world when the US or the UN monitors elections in some far off land they rely mainly on exit polling. They compare their exit polls numbers to the actual vote to see is they match up within statistical significance.
Errr. Nevermind. That too points to a couple of rigged elections.
Except that the SCO case isn't about patents. In fact nobody really knows what it is really about because the US legal system allows a company to make non specific allegations for two or three years.
"Hasn't this dispute been going on forever? The sad irony is that if you add up all the legal resources consumed by this case and divert them to pure technology you could completely reinvent and develop the entire system."
yes but then what would the lawyers do? They need to eat too you know.
Anyway it's called the US legal system. It's the biggest joke in the world. Look at how long the SCO case has been going on. Following that case taught me that the US legal system is a like a hot dog factory. You don't want to know how it works.
"Honestly, as someone who's not worked with large linux networks, I'm not sure what the alternative would be. However, lack of a viable alternative, or even lack of a popular alternative, doesn't make Microsoft wrong for packaging Active Directory with their product"
There are lots of alternatives both open source and commercial. By far the best one is NDS by Novell which makes AD look like joke.
I don't understand your "lack of a viable alternative" FUD there. Clearly there are viable alternatives and even popular alternatives (see LDAP and kerberos).
The polifiration of licenses is due to the open source movement, not the free software movement. The FSF prefers that you use the GPL or the LGPL. The open source movement created or approved all the other licenses as an appeasement to various businesses who didn't want to comply with the terms of the GPL or the LGPL.
Then I suggest that google work to embed a lisp interpreter in firefox. That way we can ditch HTML altogether and just go with lisp. Lets face it, there was no need to invent XML or HTML both are poorly thought out s-expressions.
Excel was just a rip off of quattro pro. Quattro was much better then excel but it cost more after excel was bundled with office.