Busy bodies suck. I once had someone try to tell me I couldn't dump a wheelbarrow of weeds in a desert (I live in Arizona, and the desert is full of weeds). It was like dumping fresh water into a lake, but in their mind they were doing the world a favor somehow.
We're with you in spirit, I know how lonely it can feel when you are seriously ill. God bless, or if you prefer, may the cosmic number generator output favorably for you.
This reminds me of a car in front of me downtown recently. I was struggling to get to work on time (my fault), and I had one of those do-gooders in front of me that was afraid to go through yellows. But this was an extreme case. The light was green for a while, and they slowed when they got close to the light until it turned yellow, then they stopped. They freaking anticipated the yellow light, (zomg i'm going to run a yellow must wait it out!) and made me get stuck there. I was so pisssed.:/
If you are out there somewhere, it's ok to go through on a yellow. Especially if the light is still green when you hit the intersection.
But yeah, I only notice crap like this when i'm late:/
Erm, Cuban cigars is your one and only example I bet. And you guys sure beat the dead horse on it. Embargoes are embargoes, capitalism lives on with or without them imo. While I agree that any problems we have with Cuba are petty and should not be an issue anymore, this post strikes me as lame "we are teh better" nationalism.. If we desperately needed cuban cigars, we could, I dunno, go to Mexico and buy them.
The USA is about regulated capitalism anyway. Unbridled "pure" capitalism would lead to huge monopolies, stifled/complete lack of competition, and extreme corruption. Which would ironically be contrary to the spirit of capitalism.
Very interesting. I just looked in my mailbox (never read the spam) and it is indeed picture based. Here is an example of one. The background looks a bit obfuscated, do you think it will confuse OCR trying to read it?
Word of advice from the British Empire: things get really sticky later on down the line when outsiders draw lines on maps and tell locals how it's going to be.
I think you're missing the point. That is how things *currently* are. The idea is considering letting the region fall into a more natural division, contrary to the idea of deciding it for them. Their fighting is what is deciding this, they cannot live together, and need to be separated.
Again, the *current* implementation is the "outsider drawn lines", this idea is to let them settle naturally and homogenously, which seems to be what they are fighting for anyways.
What you're leaving out is that people with business and marketing degrees are running the show (unfortunately). I work in a company (leaving it soon) where you could redesign the back end of something and make it much more efficient but if you didn't change the way it looked and/or its name they would not understand what you did.
However, if you change the name to something new/exciting/edgey, then you are an innovator. Hence companies will change the names of products continually even if no changes were made.
Reminds me of the 60 minutes I watched where 90% of the products that say "new" on them are no different than the previously labeled one, but marketing research indicates people will buy it with the "new/improved" logo on it. As long as our businesses are dominated by people with marketing and business degreees this will remain the case. But I know the difference, and I'd rather be a real innovator than a fluff artist.
PS, please don't remind me that the theory for computation existed before computers did, this is yet another "practical" thing we are taught. Computer science as a field named "Computer science" is relatively new. I'm not saying the theory behind it is relatively new.
I'm a CS major myself, but feel the need to warn you that CS is, in fact, both practical and theoretical. The fact that much of the theory has been put to good use, does not make it non-theory. Physics helped make an atom bomb which has been successfully detonated a few times, is it practical math? I assume practical has some sort of negative connotation. But anyway, we learn from work by mathematicians such as Turing, Euclid, Euler, Chomsky, and many others which I'm sure you know, unless you want to claim they are practical math instructors, they are in fact teaching us theory.
I'd say a pretty fair view of CS is a mixture of both practical knowledge and all math theory relating to computation and computer problem solving. It's a relatively new field, since they haven't had computers for very long (compared to how long they've had math). My motivation for posting this is the assumption is that you see the value of a major based on its position in the layers of abstraction. I.e. math > physics > chemistry > biology > medicine. Or in this case math > CS > SE >.. I agree that they build on each other in this way, but I do not agree that they evaluate in this way.
Life is short, do what you find interesting. I'm ok, you're ok.
On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters:)
Clearly your one, local counter example disproves the information that this is happening all over the country.
Agreed, and they seem to be working hard to alienate those users as fast as possible. I was recently helping an older woman get her computer feet back under her after a couple of years off. She was already familiar with AOL and wanted to keep using it. The problem was that the home page must have had 200 different links/buttons/pictures on it. Just finding her email or favorites etc was like some sick version of "Where's Waldo". It certainly wasn't easy. Add to that the fact that they seem to have moved all their support people over to India and I don't see any reason why even a beginner would want to use their service.
His post was actually a perfect example of why you should do some research before throwing a big rant. He said that the only thing keeping AOL afloat were people's attachments to email addresses and such, when those email addresses are now free. How does that keep them afloat exactly? Same goes for little old ladies, they can use AOL for free in conjunction with any other service, and still retain their "training wheels." What it does prove is that their business strategy has shifted to other venues, not making people dependent on their ISP.
I'm no fan of AOL, but have a low tolerance for misinformation. I've seen people say that AOL still uses 8 character email addresses in similar rants. Times change, what is true in 1995 doesn't hold forever.
The only, ONLY thing holding AOL still together are people who are less internet savvy and those who cling to AOL email addresses for their lives (certain professionals, businesspeople, et al). Creating a successful and large advertising group sounds like it'd be tricky in such a large market. Most people think of AOL the ISP or the portal than the advertising giant.
If people won't cancel the service because of their email address they're pretty dumb, considering you get to keep it free now even if you cancel. The service is free if you have another Internet provider. Switching to free status is seamless. So no there is no reason to stay if they don't want to. People who aren't Internet savvy can switch to highspeed and still keep AOL. Companies like Netzero are advertising "switch to Netzero and get AOL free." They are truly switching to an advertising based approach.
Not sure if it makes a difference, but they run on both compressed air and fuel. I believe when they run on fuel they actually efill the air tanks at the same time, and then run on the air later. They seem to have a pretty innovative system that reuses energy. Not a phsyics or chemistry major though so I can't make a fair judgement, though at first glance at the site it appears to be a bit more involved than your post indicates.
You are what you do. Only Christians and other orthodox religious wingnuts believe that there is a difference between the so-called "sin" and "sinner". We all make our own decisions in life and are ultimately responsible for them. Orthopraxy all the way
I'm pretty sure they believe sinners will be judged, just not by people. And while that may not be sufficient to you, it doesn't have to be; there is still a government to punish crimes. Best of both worlds. Happy to be a wingnut.
When someone points out my mistakes they're doing me a favour - I never accuse them of being touchy.
No-one mentioned `intelligent design`, so I'm not sure where that came from.
You didn't correct one of my mistakes, I was responding to your response. I guess my point was you seem to indicate intolerance at the mere suggestion that something in the Bible could be historically accurate. Even if you think the Bible is a myth (and it's obvious you do), you might have shown a more level response than you did. A myth is what? A natural phenomenom deitized by people who could not scientifically explain it at the time. What he was suggesting was that the Bible described natural phenonem that could have scientifically happened but been unexplainable at the time.
Rather than take it at face value you became caustic, asserting that nothing in the Bible could be true (saying its all a bunch of bullcrap). Just because you don't believe in the Christian God (or any, I don't care) does not mean you have to discount everything in the Bible. I don't "believe" in Greek mythology, but I think it is wonderful literature, and (gasp) has some overlap with reality. I don't feel the need to call it crap. This is the type of vibe I got from your post. I'd apologize but I don't think I'm far off.
As far as Intelligent design, your response was a knee-jerk reaction to a man's post, as if he was proselytizing. Hence I mentioned Intelligent design as an example of what he was not doing. You seem to have taken a quite literal reading of both his post and mine. GG
Slackware is for hardcore folks, Suse is for business, Red Hat is for... uhh... Well, K/Ubuntu is the supposed to be the new user-friendly, so what's Mandriva's niche?
Looks like they are competing for the user-friendly niche. God bless competition.
Guess which one of these things are illegal? I bet you can't guess which one.
Guess what he lied about? Something that was completely unrelated to his case. So you're on trial for petty theft in 2000, and the prosecutor, to be a dick, says "in 2005 did you cheat on your wife?" Lets say you did, do you admit it? Keep in mind it has nothing to do with their case and the guy is just getting you back for picking on him high school. Do you admit it? You act like Clinton was under oath for Monica lewinsky, he was never charged for that. She was willing. Come up with a new excuse for this President being the worst president ever. Preferably one that doesnt have to refer to previous presidents petty crimes.
Why do Clinton fans always try to reduce it to 'a blow job?'
What Clinton did was lie while under oath in a case where he was identified as the serial sexual harassment predator he is. I thought after 'Clarence Thomas' that Sexual Harassment was a serious issue for the Democrats.
The fact that Clinton was soliciting blow jobs from a young White House intern (a few years older than his daughter) is symtomatic, but not a central issue in the case
I think you can safely say that sexual harrassment is a bipartisan issue, while the war on Iraq is not. I'm willing to bet that Monica came on to him, wrong or not. That's how well liked he was, unlike this President. I'm also willing to bet that the Republican Congressman who solicited a teenage boy for cyber sex was the aggressor.
Additionally, Clinton lied under oath while in a trial for a completely unrelated event, the Flowers sexual harrassment claim (that never got very far did it?). Anyway, prosecutors tried to squeeze the (willing) Monica Lewinsky dirt out of the President, which had no relevance as it happened after the events he was under oath about, in order to embarrass him politically. Not seeing the relevance, he denied it. Wrong from a moral standpoint, but I'm not sure of the illegality of it as it was not related to his case in any way other than to stir up trouble for him. Republicans certainly have no moral high ground so nothing to worry about here. He was an excellent president, the fact that you didn't like him or considered him immoral is irrelevant, his approval ratings dwarfed that of Bush, and will continue to do so.
However, why are we talking about clinton in 2006. Can you guys come up with one defense of President Turd Bush without bringing up Clinton? Didn't your mother ever tell you "Two wrongs don't make a right?", you were raised with morals.. I presume. Regardless, its hard to convince people that Bush can do whatever he wants with thousands of lives, because of a sexual misdeed by Clinton. Not going to work with this critical thinker, sorry.
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch." This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
So if this information (paraphrasing) wasn't significant and did not deserve followup, how come Bush raised the terror alerts (particularly before the elections) for incredibly vague and insignificant "events" every month (some say when his approval raitings took a dump). So you are left with:
a) He pulled his head out of his butt and started acknowledging threats after 9/11. Which implies that he failed to protect us from 9/11. b) He needlessly sounded the alarms.
Pick your poison. And as far as "left wing propaganda", I think you (Bush apologists) cannot get away from Bush criticisms, because most of America (and certainly the world) does not like him or approve of him. This is a symptom of being in the minority. Although you may keep telling yourself that you are encountering random zealots on these issues. I think you'll be worn out and disillusioned soon.
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming.
Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch."
This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda?
So if this information (paraphrasing) wasn't significant and did not deserve followup, how come Bush raised the terror alerts (particularly before the elections) for incredibly vague and insignificant "events" every month (some say when his approval raitings took a dump). So you are left with:
a) He pulled his head out of his butt and started acknowledging threats after 9/11. Which implies that he failed to protect us from 9/11.
b) He needlessly sounded the alarms.
Pick your poison.
And as far as "left wing propaganda", I think you (Bush apologists) cannot get away from Bush criticisms, because most of America (and certainly the world) does not like him or approve of him. This is a symptom of being in the minority. Although you may keep telling yourself that you are encountering random zealots on these issues. I think you'll be worn out and disillusioned soon.
I'm sorry but to me, a blowjob will never, ever compare to the value of thousands of American lives, or 100s of thousands of foreign lives. If "slick" implies good at pulling the wool over people's eyes, I think Bush has succeeded Clinton in every way imaginable.
Slashdot Mirror
Busy bodies suck. I once had someone try to tell me I couldn't dump a wheelbarrow of weeds in a desert (I live in Arizona, and the desert is full of weeds). It was like dumping fresh water into a lake, but in their mind they were doing the world a favor somehow.
We're with you in spirit, I know how lonely it can feel when you are seriously ill. God bless, or if you prefer, may the cosmic number generator output favorably for you.
This reminds me of a car in front of me downtown recently. I was struggling to get to work on time (my fault), and I had one of those do-gooders in front of me that was afraid to go through yellows. But this was an extreme case. The light was green for a while, and they slowed when they got close to the light until it turned yellow, then they stopped. They freaking anticipated the yellow light, (zomg i'm going to run a yellow must wait it out!) and made me get stuck there. I was so pisssed. :/
:/
If you are out there somewhere, it's ok to go through on a yellow. Especially if the light is still green when you hit the intersection.
But yeah, I only notice crap like this when i'm late
Good stuff. But From what I understand, the FCC didn't want people knowing about outages in case it was sabotage, because that would help them know:
a) How successful they were.
b) Where the weaknesses were (if any) in our communications system.
And disrupting communications after a disaster would make that disaster much worse.
Granted, this is all terrorism hysteria, but seems somewhat logical if it were to happen.
Which underscores the need for regulation..
Erm, Cuban cigars is your one and only example I bet. And you guys sure beat the dead horse on it. Embargoes are embargoes, capitalism lives on with or without them imo. While I agree that any problems we have with Cuba are petty and should not be an issue anymore, this post strikes me as lame "we are teh better" nationalism.. If we desperately needed cuban cigars, we could, I dunno, go to Mexico and buy them.
The USA is about regulated capitalism anyway. Unbridled "pure" capitalism would lead to huge monopolies, stifled/complete lack of competition, and extreme corruption. Which would ironically be contrary to the spirit of capitalism.
Very interesting. I just looked in my mailbox (never read the spam) and it is indeed picture based. Here is an example of one. The background looks a bit obfuscated, do you think it will confuse OCR trying to read it?
http://www.members.cox.net/pnawltrs/spam.gif
Word of advice from the British Empire: things get really sticky later on down the line when outsiders draw lines on maps and tell locals how it's going to be.
I think you're missing the point. That is how things *currently* are. The idea is considering letting the region fall into a more natural division, contrary to the idea of deciding it for them. Their fighting is what is deciding this, they cannot live together, and need to be separated.
Again, the *current* implementation is the "outsider drawn lines", this idea is to let them settle naturally and homogenously, which seems to be what they are fighting for anyways.
What you're leaving out is that people with business and marketing degrees are running the show (unfortunately). I work in a company (leaving it soon) where you could redesign the back end of something and make it much more efficient but if you didn't change the way it looked and/or its name they would not understand what you did.
However, if you change the name to something new/exciting/edgey, then you are an innovator. Hence companies will change the names of products continually even if no changes were made.
Reminds me of the 60 minutes I watched where 90% of the products that say "new" on them are no different than the previously labeled one, but marketing research indicates people will buy it with the "new/improved" logo on it. As long as our businesses are dominated by people with marketing and business degreees this will remain the case. But I know the difference, and I'd rather be a real innovator than a fluff artist.
PS, please don't remind me that the theory for computation existed before computers did, this is yet another "practical" thing we are taught. Computer science as a field named "Computer science" is relatively new. I'm not saying the theory behind it is relatively new.
I'm a CS major myself, but feel the need to warn you that CS is, in fact, both practical and theoretical. The fact that much of the theory has been put to good use, does not make it non-theory. Physics helped make an atom bomb which has been successfully detonated a few times, is it practical math? I assume practical has some sort of negative connotation. But anyway, we learn from work by mathematicians such as Turing, Euclid, Euler, Chomsky, and many others which I'm sure you know, unless you want to claim they are practical math instructors, they are in fact teaching us theory. I'd say a pretty fair view of CS is a mixture of both practical knowledge and all math theory relating to computation and computer problem solving. It's a relatively new field, since they haven't had computers for very long (compared to how long they've had math). My motivation for posting this is the assumption is that you see the value of a major based on its position in the layers of abstraction. I.e. math > physics > chemistry > biology > medicine. Or in this case math > CS > SE > .. I agree that they build on each other in this way, but I do not agree that they evaluate in this way.
Life is short, do what you find interesting. I'm ok, you're ok.
On the subject of the article, I keep getting messages from Bill Clinton telling me how great the Dem candidate for governor is. I'm pretty sure he's not a Republican scheme, and I've deleted the same message four times so far. The Dems don't need any help on annoying voters
Clearly your one, local counter example disproves the information that this is happening all over the country.
Agreed, and they seem to be working hard to alienate those users as fast as possible. I was recently helping an older woman get her computer feet back under her after a couple of years off. She was already familiar with AOL and wanted to keep using it. The problem was that the home page must have had 200 different links/buttons/pictures on it. Just finding her email or favorites etc was like some sick version of "Where's Waldo". It certainly wasn't easy. Add to that the fact that they seem to have moved all their support people over to India and I don't see any reason why even a beginner would want to use their service.
His post was actually a perfect example of why you should do some research before throwing a big rant. He said that the only thing keeping AOL afloat were people's attachments to email addresses and such, when those email addresses are now free. How does that keep them afloat exactly? Same goes for little old ladies, they can use AOL for free in conjunction with any other service, and still retain their "training wheels." What it does prove is that their business strategy has shifted to other venues, not making people dependent on their ISP.
I'm no fan of AOL, but have a low tolerance for misinformation. I've seen people say that AOL still uses 8 character email addresses in similar rants. Times change, what is true in 1995 doesn't hold forever.
The only, ONLY thing holding AOL still together are people who are less internet savvy and those who cling to AOL email addresses for their lives (certain professionals, businesspeople, et al). Creating a successful and large advertising group sounds like it'd be tricky in such a large market. Most people think of AOL the ISP or the portal than the advertising giant.
If people won't cancel the service because of their email address they're pretty dumb, considering you get to keep it free now even if you cancel. The service is free if you have another Internet provider. Switching to free status is seamless. So no there is no reason to stay if they don't want to. People who aren't Internet savvy can switch to highspeed and still keep AOL. Companies like Netzero are advertising "switch to Netzero and get AOL free." They are truly switching to an advertising based approach.
Well, they had to make up a question (no matter how vague) to get this article on slashdot.
Not sure if it makes a difference, but they run on both compressed air and fuel. I believe when they run on fuel they actually efill the air tanks at the same time, and then run on the air later. They seem to have a pretty innovative system that reuses energy. Not a phsyics or chemistry major though so I can't make a fair judgement, though at first glance at the site it appears to be a bit more involved than your post indicates.
http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html
You are what you do. Only Christians and other orthodox religious wingnuts believe that there is a difference between the so-called "sin" and "sinner". We all make our own decisions in life and are ultimately responsible for them. Orthopraxy all the way I'm pretty sure they believe sinners will be judged, just not by people. And while that may not be sufficient to you, it doesn't have to be; there is still a government to punish crimes. Best of both worlds. Happy to be a wingnut.
When someone points out my mistakes they're doing me a favour - I never accuse them of being touchy.
No-one mentioned `intelligent design`, so I'm not sure where that came from.
You didn't correct one of my mistakes, I was responding to your response. I guess my point was you seem to indicate intolerance at the mere suggestion that something in the Bible could be historically accurate. Even if you think the Bible is a myth (and it's obvious you do), you might have shown a more level response than you did. A myth is what? A natural phenomenom deitized by people who could not scientifically explain it at the time. What he was suggesting was that the Bible described natural phenonem that could have scientifically happened but been unexplainable at the time.
Rather than take it at face value you became caustic, asserting that nothing in the Bible could be true (saying its all a bunch of bullcrap). Just because you don't believe in the Christian God (or any, I don't care) does not mean you have to discount everything in the Bible. I don't "believe" in Greek mythology, but I think it is wonderful literature, and (gasp) has some overlap with reality. I don't feel the need to call it crap. This is the type of vibe I got from your post. I'd apologize but I don't think I'm far off.
As far as Intelligent design, your response was a knee-jerk reaction to a man's post, as if he was proselytizing. Hence I mentioned Intelligent design as an example of what he was not doing. You seem to have taken a quite literal reading of both his post and mine. GG
> A lot of "far fetched" things in the bible are now explained
No, they're not.
>; even the parting of the red sea (tsunami caused by the volcano that
> wiped out the Minoans, according to an art history class I took).
Especially not that one. A tsunami wouldn't part the sea.
> Of course, having physical explanations kinda takes some of the magic out.
You mean `utterly disproves the medieval nonsense`? I guess it does.
You seem a bit touchy. I don't think he's pushing intelligent design. And the Bible was written well before medieval times.
Slackware is for hardcore folks, Suse is for business, Red Hat is for... uhh... Well, K/Ubuntu is the supposed to be the new user-friendly, so what's Mandriva's niche?
Looks like they are competing for the user-friendly niche. God bless competition.
Guess which one of these things are illegal? I bet you can't guess which one. Guess what he lied about? Something that was completely unrelated to his case. So you're on trial for petty theft in 2000, and the prosecutor, to be a dick, says "in 2005 did you cheat on your wife?" Lets say you did, do you admit it? Keep in mind it has nothing to do with their case and the guy is just getting you back for picking on him high school. Do you admit it? You act like Clinton was under oath for Monica lewinsky, he was never charged for that. She was willing. Come up with a new excuse for this President being the worst president ever. Preferably one that doesnt have to refer to previous presidents petty crimes.
Why do Clinton fans always try to reduce it to 'a blow job?' What Clinton did was lie while under oath in a case where he was identified as the serial sexual harassment predator he is. I thought after 'Clarence Thomas' that Sexual Harassment was a serious issue for the Democrats. The fact that Clinton was soliciting blow jobs from a young White House intern (a few years older than his daughter) is symtomatic, but not a central issue in the case I think you can safely say that sexual harrassment is a bipartisan issue, while the war on Iraq is not. I'm willing to bet that Monica came on to him, wrong or not. That's how well liked he was, unlike this President. I'm also willing to bet that the Republican Congressman who solicited a teenage boy for cyber sex was the aggressor. Additionally, Clinton lied under oath while in a trial for a completely unrelated event, the Flowers sexual harrassment claim (that never got very far did it?). Anyway, prosecutors tried to squeeze the (willing) Monica Lewinsky dirt out of the President, which had no relevance as it happened after the events he was under oath about, in order to embarrass him politically. Not seeing the relevance, he denied it. Wrong from a moral standpoint, but I'm not sure of the illegality of it as it was not related to his case in any way other than to stir up trouble for him. Republicans certainly have no moral high ground so nothing to worry about here. He was an excellent president, the fact that you didn't like him or considered him immoral is irrelevant, his approval ratings dwarfed that of Bush, and will continue to do so. However, why are we talking about clinton in 2006. Can you guys come up with one defense of President Turd Bush without bringing up Clinton? Didn't your mother ever tell you "Two wrongs don't make a right?", you were raised with morals.. I presume. Regardless, its hard to convince people that Bush can do whatever he wants with thousands of lives, because of a sexual misdeed by Clinton. Not going to work with this critical thinker, sorry.
So if this information (paraphrasing) wasn't significant and did not deserve followup, how come Bush raised the terror alerts (particularly before the elections) for incredibly vague and insignificant "events" every month (some say when his approval raitings took a dump). So you are left with:
(Resubmitted due to formattting)a) He pulled his head out of his butt and started acknowledging threats after 9/11. Which implies that he failed to protect us from 9/11.
b) He needlessly sounded the alarms.
Pick your poison. And as far as "left wing propaganda", I think you (Bush apologists) cannot get away from Bush criticisms, because most of America (and certainly the world) does not like him or approve of him. This is a symptom of being in the minority. Although you may keep telling yourself that you are encountering random zealots on these issues. I think you'll be worn out and disillusioned soon.
There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer's instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. Sound to me something like, "we don't _really_ have any proof, but I have a hunch." This is non-news. Why are the only political stories on Slashdot left-wing propaganda? So if this information (paraphrasing) wasn't significant and did not deserve followup, how come Bush raised the terror alerts (particularly before the elections) for incredibly vague and insignificant "events" every month (some say when his approval raitings took a dump). So you are left with: a) He pulled his head out of his butt and started acknowledging threats after 9/11. Which implies that he failed to protect us from 9/11. b) He needlessly sounded the alarms. Pick your poison. And as far as "left wing propaganda", I think you (Bush apologists) cannot get away from Bush criticisms, because most of America (and certainly the world) does not like him or approve of him. This is a symptom of being in the minority. Although you may keep telling yourself that you are encountering random zealots on these issues. I think you'll be worn out and disillusioned soon.
I'm sorry but to me, a blowjob will never, ever compare to the value of thousands of American lives, or 100s of thousands of foreign lives. If "slick" implies good at pulling the wool over people's eyes, I think Bush has succeeded Clinton in every way imaginable.