All financial bills must start in the House of Representatives. If you want to know who to blame for a particular era's problems, start there.
Yes, the President can submit a budget to Congress (the House). However, Congress can, in principle, totally disregard it and give the President something totally different.
What I have found is that the Democrats and Republicans are so often doing the same thing, that precisely which party is in control of the House doesn't matter.
You post is spot on except for that last part. Compare the difference in the economy between 2004-2007 and 2008-now. You'll see that there is a HUGE difference. For starters, the unemployment rate between 2004-2007 never reached 5%. Between 2008 and now, it has never reached BELOW 8%. The budget deficit during the 2004-2007 years never exceeded $500 billion. Between 2008 and now it has never fallen below $1200 billion.
What is the main difference between 2004-2007 and 2008-now? From 2004-2007, Republicans held Congress. In Jan 2007, Democrats took control of Congress. So, when you say that there is no difference, I beg to differ. Sure, both sides oppose fat kids and are pro apple pie, but when you look at the economic numbers, the difference is night and day... or should I say, boom and bust!
And if YOU could get away from the Soros/Think Progress/CAP/Kos talking points you might realize we aren't for 'tax cuts for the wealthy' we are for either keeping rates WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN FOR A DECADE or for a major overhaul of the tax code to reduce rates across the board in exchange for eliminating deductions, carveouts and loopholes such that it is revenue neutral on the static CBO scoring but will actually produce MORE revenue to the treasury, almost all from the 'wealkthy', from a growing economy.
Wow! The liberal mods are out today. You know, the ones that are out to mod down any comment they are unable to counter so they do whatever they can to silence it. In this case, it was labeled "Troll", even though there is absolutely nothing "trollish" about it. It's the same way that liberals will call conservatives "racist" or "only looking out for the rich".
Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.
Good thing that the president, and especially the vice president don't allocate spending. That's the job of Congress, which happens to be where Ryan is today.
So, the obvious solution to save NASA's budget would be to get Ryan out of Congress and into a position where he can not vote on funding. The quickest and easiest way to do that would be to elect him as Vice President.
is it me or did the class get it wrong, it was never about destroying an asteroid, it was about splitting it up in pieces or nudging it out of the earth direction
Exactly what I was thinking: Define "destroy". Do they mean completely vaporize or just something that will do the job?
You brought up 3 examples and shot them down yourself. Maybe your point is that the Sikh temple shooter may not be the white supremacist he's being reported as? Or that white supremacy isn't right wing? Or...?
If you want to compare the fairly clear cases of right wing vs. left wing domestic terrorism, off the top of my head we've got Oklahoma City, Centennial Olympic Park, Knoxville Unitarian and the murder of George Till versus some cases of eco-terrorism property damage.
Don't confuse anarchist with right-wing. They are not the same thing. For that matter, neither is white supremacist.
To which you said: "Um.... Looks like the same thing to me." Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
BULLSHIT! I gave links to the quotes I was referring. You pointed to something to which I was not referring. Basically, this is what you did:
Me: Dave Cathy and Obama said the exact same thing. They both said they think that marriage is between a man and a woman. You: Liar! Obama said, "Michelle, I want to stick it in your pooper and have a beer." Dave Cathy NEVER said that, they did NOT say the same thing.
See, I said they both said that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what the liberals are protesting about. If you think they are protesting about something else, like I said, you need to take it up with CNN.
Let me take you provided from me and clarify it for those that are too stupid to understand:
Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said, that marriage was between a man and a woman and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago.
From you:
Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
Wait! Now you are saying that it's "right wing homophobic hate groups." Now it's a fallacy of "moving the goal post". Earlier, you were demanding "Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage." Doesn't matter as they are both red herrings. I never said any of those things. Here, let me state it one more time and if you don't get it this time, you are too fucking stupid to post on the Internet:
BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.
Oh, and since you are so quick to call others liars and projecting, I thought I should point out that you have lied, which means you are projecting when call me a liar, especially since I have proven that I did not lie:
Here, you said:
Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
First, I never said that Obama donated to any groups at all. I said he believed a marriage is between a man and a woman (got that yet?). But since you imply that Chick-Fil-A has donated to "hate groups", I looked up what that could mean. I found that they were accused of donating to a group trying to get Uganda to outlay homosexuality. Then, I found out it was complete BULLSHIT.
But again, that is not really the subject. The fact is that BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.
Or you might be scared of right wing domestic terrorists murdering you... as just happened to some Sikh's today
You mean like the right winger that shot Gabrielle Giffords, the one that flew the plane into the IRS building in Austin or the one that just shot up a Batman movie.
Oh, right! None of those guys were right wingers, but they were all reported to be, just like you are trying to report this guy to be.
Chick-Fil-A wasn't attacked because of the CEO's political opinions, it was attacked because of their donations to hate groups, particularly the one that is pushing quite successfully for Uganda to make homosexuality a capital crime.
Really? Then why did they start protesting only after Cathy made his comment? And if the uproar was over donations made by Chick-Fil-A, then maybe you should notify CNN and every other news outlet that thinks this is about what Cathy said. Here is a quote from a CNN story:
The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Strange. No mention of Uganda at all.
Oh, and the whole Uganda story is bullshit anyway.
The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
The "controversy" was about what CNN quoted, not about the "God's judgment" bit. No one cared about that. They were mad at the "Biblical definition of the family unit" part. Which, if you watch the video I also linked, you'll see that Obama said the pretty much the same thing, and yet, no one protested.
Nope, it looks like you did us the favor of proving that you were lying, thanks for sparing us the effort. Nowhere in Obama's quotes did you find anything stating that 'God would be angry with us for redefining marriage'.
Then there's the matter of Chic's donations to the National Organization of Marriage, a right wing homophobic hate group. Unless you can find similar donations from Obama to similar groups, your false equivalence is even more dishonest.
Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country.
You're lying. Again. If you're trying to gain points through consistency, it's not working.
I'm not lying. You are illiterate. I never said that Obama thought that homosexuality would result in God punishing America. I said that both Obama and Cathy said that they think marriage is between a man and a woman. And guess, what: They both said that. I provided links that proved what I said, not what you wished I had said.
Now, when you learn reading comprehension at a second grade level, please look up "Strawman" and feel free to apologize.
What this may do is surprise a lot of people, who are actually secret liberals but pretend to be right-wing to avoid confrontations. (My husband does this with his parents. They're as tea party as it comes.) If people see they're not so alone, maybe they won't be so ashamed... Then again, if they see a wall of solid red around them, maybe they'll move.
Strange. I live in a very blue area of Texas (yes, they exist) and I have to lay low. I tried putting a Bush sign on my yard several years back. The sign didn't last through the evening. My house was vandalized, minor stuff, but still could be considered a warning.
For a few years, it didn't bother me, but before the next election, I had a child. Things changed quickly. I am no longer looking out for my own safety, but I have the safety of my family to look out for as well. I'm willing to risk mine, but what kind of dad would risk the safety of his little girl over politics.
So, now, I do my politicking on places like Slashdot and Facebook and make my home look as blue as the rest around me. I even voted in the Clinton/Obama Democratic Primary four years ago. It's the only primary that requires voters to vote twice. During the second vote, you must stay for the count. It was amazing to see the two Democrat camps accuse each other of cheating. I've never heard of such a thing with a Republican primary. I wonder what they know that I don't. Either way, it was very educational to see how my neighbors act towards those that disagree with them, even when they are all Democrats.
The EXACT same thing? No, he did not. You are lying.
"I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman" --President Obama
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.” --Dan Cathy
Um.... Looks like the same thing to me.
Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage.
Actually, that would be Jeremiah Wright. He was the preacher at the church Obama attended for about 20 years. Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country. I believe he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Who knew he literally meant chicken sandwiches?
Thanks for the straw man, but I'm not arguing about the policies of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and feigned outrage. And why would you protest Chick-Fil-A, which has absolutely no power over your life, and NOT protest the policies singed by Bill Clinton? Sure, there was some mention by the gay community, but NOTHING like the reaction Cathy received.
"I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman" --President Obama
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.” --Dan Cathy
Yeah... I'm not seeing much difference.
Also, I'm not talking about what Obama did recently. I'm pointing out that Obama clearly stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Cathy stated that he supports the Biblical definition of the family. These are very similar statements, only separated by a few years, yet the liberal response is night and day. Now why do you think that is? Why did liberals support Barack Obama and protest Chick-Fil-A?
It's not just the personal views of the CEO. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Chick Fil A donates a significant amount of money to anti-gay rights organizations:
And Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act". President Obama said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act.
Strange that I didn't see any kiss-ins at the White House. Strange that so many of the people protesting Chick-Fil-A today voted for both Bill Clinton AND Barack Obama after they said the same things that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A said. The difference is that these men were/are president of the United States and could put that anti-gay rights stuff into LAW!
I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.
Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago. The difference is that the CEO for Chick-Fil-A can do nothing about it. Obama is the most powerful man in the free world and very well COULD do something about it.
So, the more you bitch and moan about Chick-Fil-A and the worse the things are you say about them and accuse them of being, the more you show that this is nothing more than feigned outrage bullshit. You don't hate Chick-Fil-A because of the CEO's views. You pretend to hate Chick-Fil-A because you think it's cool and hating Chick-Fil-A is in fashion. You are the worst kind of bigot.
Rates of voter fraud are extremely low. Rates of voter disenfrachisement under id laws are very high. I suppose it's vaguely possible for someone to think that the first is worse than the second... but... it boggles my imagination.
My links named people committing voter fraud. Can you give me the names of people who have been disenfranchised due to voter ID laws?
Forgive the offtopicness, but I couldn't let this one fly:
Debt problem: real problem, but caused by Bush policies. At least things are headed in a better direction.
Wrong! Under the Bush presidency, the deficit never reached the $502 billion mark. Since 2009, the deficit has never reached BELOW the $1300 billion mark. I don't think it's Bush's policies that are the problem. Also note that the President does not write policy. Congress does. In Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. Since 2009, it has not been below 8%. What changed in Jan 2007? Democrats took control of Congress.
Not sure what your point is about the racist in the Justice dept, haven't heard anything to make me think that's remotely true.
Black Panthers harassed voters in front of a polling place. The justice department did nothing. If that were a Klan member doing the exact same thing, don't you think the Justice Department would have prosecuted?
If you can't see you're on the wrong (morally) side of the photo id laws... that's just sad.
They should just use a light instead of sound. Even at school we waved a flag to start because if we went by sound it would introduce an error into the timing.
Back in my track days, we were taught to go by the smoke of the pistol, not the bang. When did this change?
I'll take Logitech over MS any day of the week, especially considering the differences in warranty policies. Heck, even Logitech pays both ways for shipping. That is if they even want the product back at all for warranty.
I can't speak for Logitech's warranty policies, but I've had to deal with MS once. I had one of the first laser mice (ball less?) that broke on me. I remember it came with a 5-year warranty. I called MS's support and the girl asked me when I purchased the mouse. I told her I wasn't sure, but it came with a 5 yr warranty and that type of mouse had not existed for 5 years. She laughed, took my address and sent me a brand new mouse. No questions asked. No sending my old mouse back. No receipt. No registration (who registers a mouse?). Nothing. Just here's your mouse. Thanks for playing... Love Microsoft.
I agree with Linux Mint, and I'd specifically go for the KDE variety -- Despite all the hate that was generated for it, KDE4 is now a very good desktop, plus makes for a good transition experience for a Windows user.
I can sort of second that. I put my 65 year old step dad on my Ubuntu 12.04 with KDE installed*, and he grabbed the mouse and took right off. No issues whatsoever. He didn't need to ask any questions and just did his work.
* Not Kubuntu. I haven't tried that yet. I'll probably go with that next or "pure" Debian. I've had issues with Mint not booting the last time I ran it. Every time the system rebooted, I would get the busybox prompt. After four or five reboots, it would finally come up. No other distro had those problems on that system. Don't know if they ever got that ironed out or if I'd have the same issue on my new system, but the fact that it happened keeps me from trying Mint again. Well, that and I want to be as close to "real" Linux as possible. Mint has too many customizations for my taste. Not configuration costomizations, but actual binary replacements of applications. Oh, and the browser search hijacking bothers me as well.
Slashdot Mirror
All financial bills must start in the House of Representatives. If you want to know who to blame for a particular era's problems, start there.
Yes, the President can submit a budget to Congress (the House). However, Congress can, in principle, totally disregard it and give the President something totally different.
What I have found is that the Democrats and Republicans are so often doing the same thing, that precisely which party is in control of the House doesn't matter.
You post is spot on except for that last part. Compare the difference in the economy between 2004-2007 and 2008-now. You'll see that there is a HUGE difference. For starters, the unemployment rate between 2004-2007 never reached 5%. Between 2008 and now, it has never reached BELOW 8%. The budget deficit during the 2004-2007 years never exceeded $500 billion. Between 2008 and now it has never fallen below $1200 billion.
What is the main difference between 2004-2007 and 2008-now? From 2004-2007, Republicans held Congress. In Jan 2007, Democrats took control of Congress. So, when you say that there is no difference, I beg to differ. Sure, both sides oppose fat kids and are pro apple pie, but when you look at the economic numbers, the difference is night and day... or should I say, boom and bust!
And if YOU could get away from the Soros/Think Progress/CAP/Kos talking points you might realize we aren't for 'tax cuts for the wealthy' we are for either keeping rates WHERE THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN FOR A DECADE or for a major overhaul of the tax code to reduce rates across the board in exchange for eliminating deductions, carveouts and loopholes such that it is revenue neutral on the static CBO scoring but will actually produce MORE revenue to the treasury, almost all from the 'wealkthy', from a growing economy.
Wow! The liberal mods are out today. You know, the ones that are out to mod down any comment they are unable to counter so they do whatever they can to silence it. In this case, it was labeled "Troll", even though there is absolutely nothing "trollish" about it. It's the same way that liberals will call conservatives "racist" or "only looking out for the rich".
If he was, I think Ryan has decided to not being him back.
Paul Ryan proposed an additional 6% budget cut for NASA in the Ryan Budget so that he could increase DOD spending.
Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.
Good thing that the president, and especially the vice president don't allocate spending. That's the job of Congress, which happens to be where Ryan is today.
So, the obvious solution to save NASA's budget would be to get Ryan out of Congress and into a position where he can not vote on funding. The quickest and easiest way to do that would be to elect him as Vice President.
is it me or did the class get it wrong, it was never about destroying an asteroid, it was about splitting it up in pieces or nudging it out of the earth direction
Exactly what I was thinking: Define "destroy". Do they mean completely vaporize or just something that will do the job?
You brought up 3 examples and shot them down yourself. Maybe your point is that the Sikh temple shooter may not be the white supremacist he's being reported as? Or that white supremacy isn't right wing? Or...?
If you want to compare the fairly clear cases of right wing vs. left wing domestic terrorism, off the top of my head we've got Oklahoma City, Centennial Olympic Park, Knoxville Unitarian and the murder of George Till versus some cases of eco-terrorism property damage.
Don't confuse anarchist with right-wing. They are not the same thing. For that matter, neither is white supremacist.
The guy who flew into the IRS building was a right-wing nutjob. The other two didn't have any wing views, to my knowledge.
The guy that flew the plane into the IRS building quoted Marx in his little online rant. That's not something a "right-winger" would do.
To which you said: "Um.... Looks like the same thing to me." Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
BULLSHIT! I gave links to the quotes I was referring. You pointed to something to which I was not referring. Basically, this is what you did:
Me: Dave Cathy and Obama said the exact same thing. They both said they think that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You: Liar! Obama said, "Michelle, I want to stick it in your pooper and have a beer." Dave Cathy NEVER said that, they did NOT say the same thing.
See, I said they both said that marriage is between a man and a woman because that is what the liberals are protesting about. If you think they are protesting about something else, like I said, you need to take it up with CNN.
Let me take you provided from me and clarify it for those that are too stupid to understand:
Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said, that marriage was between a man and a woman and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago.
From you:
Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
Wait! Now you are saying that it's "right wing homophobic hate groups." Now it's a fallacy of "moving the goal post". Earlier, you were demanding "Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage." Doesn't matter as they are both red herrings. I never said any of those things. Here, let me state it one more time and if you don't get it this time, you are too fucking stupid to post on the Internet:
BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.
Oh, and since you are so quick to call others liars and projecting, I thought I should point out that you have lied, which means you are projecting when call me a liar, especially since I have proven that I did not lie:
Here, you said:
Which of course is complete sophistry, since you never bothered to find equivalent statements from Obama or show how's he's donated to right wing homophobic hate groups.
First, I never said that Obama donated to any groups at all. I said he believed a marriage is between a man and a woman (got that yet?). But since you imply that Chick-Fil-A has donated to "hate groups", I looked up what that could mean. I found that they were accused of donating to a group trying to get Uganda to outlay homosexuality. Then, I found out it was complete BULLSHIT.
But again, that is not really the subject. The fact is that BOTH CATHY AND OBAMA SAID THEY BELIEVED THAT MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. When Obama said it, liberals voted for him. When Cathy said it, they called him hateful and protested his business.
Or you might be scared of right wing domestic terrorists murdering you... as just happened to some Sikh's today
You mean like the right winger that shot Gabrielle Giffords, the one that flew the plane into the IRS building in Austin or the one that just shot up a Batman movie.
Oh, right! None of those guys were right wingers, but they were all reported to be, just like you are trying to report this guy to be.
Chick-Fil-A wasn't attacked because of the CEO's political opinions, it was attacked because of their donations to hate groups, particularly the one that is pushing quite successfully for Uganda to make homosexuality a capital crime.
Really? Then why did they start protesting only after Cathy made his comment? And if the uproar was over donations made by Chick-Fil-A, then maybe you should notify CNN and every other news outlet that thinks this is about what Cathy said. Here is a quote from a CNN story:
The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
Strange. No mention of Uganda at all.
Oh, and the whole Uganda story is bullshit anyway.
(sigh)
Read the response I posted to the other two morons.
Here is the quote from the CNN article I linked:
The controversy came about after an interview with the fast food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16 and he weighed in with his views on family.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
The "controversy" was about what CNN quoted, not about the "God's judgment" bit. No one cared about that. They were mad at the "Biblical definition of the family unit" part. Which, if you watch the video I also linked, you'll see that Obama said the pretty much the same thing, and yet, no one protested.
Nope, it looks like you did us the favor of proving that you were lying, thanks for sparing us the effort. Nowhere in Obama's quotes did you find anything stating that 'God would be angry with us for redefining marriage'.
Then there's the matter of Chic's donations to the National Organization of Marriage, a right wing homophobic hate group. Unless you can find similar donations from Obama to similar groups, your false equivalence is even more dishonest.
You're lying. Again. If you're trying to gain points through consistency, it's not working.
I'm not lying. You are illiterate. I never said that Obama thought that homosexuality would result in God punishing America. I said that both Obama and Cathy said that they think marriage is between a man and a woman. And guess, what: They both said that. I provided links that proved what I said, not what you wished I had said.
Now, when you learn reading comprehension at a second grade level, please look up "Strawman" and feel free to apologize.
What this may do is surprise a lot of people, who are actually secret liberals but pretend to be right-wing to avoid confrontations. (My husband does this with his parents. They're as tea party as it comes.) If people see they're not so alone, maybe they won't be so ashamed... Then again, if they see a wall of solid red around them, maybe they'll move.
Strange. I live in a very blue area of Texas (yes, they exist) and I have to lay low. I tried putting a Bush sign on my yard several years back. The sign didn't last through the evening. My house was vandalized, minor stuff, but still could be considered a warning.
For a few years, it didn't bother me, but before the next election, I had a child. Things changed quickly. I am no longer looking out for my own safety, but I have the safety of my family to look out for as well. I'm willing to risk mine, but what kind of dad would risk the safety of his little girl over politics.
So, now, I do my politicking on places like Slashdot and Facebook and make my home look as blue as the rest around me. I even voted in the Clinton/Obama Democratic Primary four years ago. It's the only primary that requires voters to vote twice. During the second vote, you must stay for the count. It was amazing to see the two Democrat camps accuse each other of cheating. I've never heard of such a thing with a Republican primary. I wonder what they know that I don't. Either way, it was very educational to see how my neighbors act towards those that disagree with them, even when they are all Democrats.
The EXACT same thing? No, he did not. You are lying.
"I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman"
--President Obama
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.”
--Dan Cathy
Um.... Looks like the same thing to me.
Unless you can find a source saying that Obama believed that God would be angry with us for redefining marriage.
Actually, that would be Jeremiah Wright. He was the preacher at the church Obama attended for about 20 years. Actually, he took it step further and claimed that 9-11 was God's reaction to the sins of the country. I believe he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Who knew he literally meant chicken sandwiches?
Link failure! Here is Obama quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w
Thanks for the straw man, but I'm not arguing about the policies of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and feigned outrage. And why would you protest Chick-Fil-A, which has absolutely no power over your life, and NOT protest the policies singed by Bill Clinton? Sure, there was some mention by the gay community, but NOTHING like the reaction Cathy received.
"I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman"
--President Obama
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.”
--Dan Cathy
Yeah... I'm not seeing much difference.
Also, I'm not talking about what Obama did recently. I'm pointing out that Obama clearly stated that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Cathy stated that he supports the Biblical definition of the family. These are very similar statements, only separated by a few years, yet the liberal response is night and day. Now why do you think that is? Why did liberals support Barack Obama and protest Chick-Fil-A?
It's not just the personal views of the CEO. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Chick Fil A donates a significant amount of money to anti-gay rights organizations:
And Bill Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act". President Obama said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act.
Strange that I didn't see any kiss-ins at the White House. Strange that so many of the people protesting Chick-Fil-A today voted for both Bill Clinton AND Barack Obama after they said the same things that the CEO of Chick-Fil-A said. The difference is that these men were/are president of the United States and could put that anti-gay rights stuff into LAW!
I personally don't want to give my money to hate-mongers and bigots. Thats why. And I generally advocate that no one else should support assholes as well.
Did you vote for Obama in 2008? Remember, he said the EXACT same thing that the Chick-Fil-A CEO said and the same people protesting Chick-Fil-A today were falling all over themselves to campaign and vote for Obama just four years ago. The difference is that the CEO for Chick-Fil-A can do nothing about it. Obama is the most powerful man in the free world and very well COULD do something about it.
So, the more you bitch and moan about Chick-Fil-A and the worse the things are you say about them and accuse them of being, the more you show that this is nothing more than feigned outrage bullshit. You don't hate Chick-Fil-A because of the CEO's views. You pretend to hate Chick-Fil-A because you think it's cool and hating Chick-Fil-A is in fashion. You are the worst kind of bigot.
Rates of voter fraud are extremely low. Rates of voter disenfrachisement under id laws are very high. I suppose it's vaguely possible for someone to think that the first is worse than the second ... but ... it boggles my imagination.
My links named people committing voter fraud. Can you give me the names of people who have been disenfranchised due to voter ID laws?
Forgive the offtopicness, but I couldn't let this one fly:
Debt problem: real problem, but caused by Bush policies. At least things are headed in a better direction.
Wrong! Under the Bush presidency, the deficit never reached the $502 billion mark. Since 2009, the deficit has never reached BELOW the $1300 billion mark. I don't think it's Bush's policies that are the problem. Also note that the President does not write policy. Congress does. In Jan 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. Since 2009, it has not been below 8%. What changed in Jan 2007? Democrats took control of Congress.
Source
Not sure what your point is about the racist in the Justice dept, haven't heard anything to make me think that's remotely true.
Black Panthers harassed voters in front of a polling place. The justice department did nothing. If that were a Klan member doing the exact same thing, don't you think the Justice Department would have prosecuted?
If you can't see you're on the wrong (morally) side of the photo id laws ... that's just sad.
If you can't see that without ID laws that it's REALLY easy to vote for other people and almost impossible to catch... that's just dumb.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-16/metro/31062045_1_voter-fraud-absentee-ballot-application-absentee-voting-laws
http://www.wtoc.com/story/16571904/south-carolinas-attorney-general-detects-voter-fraud-for-primaries
http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/
Appropriate, for once...
You must have been waiting for the sound.
They should just use a light instead of sound.
Even at school we waved a flag to start because if we went by sound it would introduce an error into the timing.
Back in my track days, we were taught to go by the smoke of the pistol, not the bang. When did this change?
I'll take Logitech over MS any day of the week, especially considering the differences in warranty policies. Heck, even Logitech pays both ways for shipping. That is if they even want the product back at all for warranty.
I can't speak for Logitech's warranty policies, but I've had to deal with MS once. I had one of the first laser mice (ball less?) that broke on me. I remember it came with a 5-year warranty. I called MS's support and the girl asked me when I purchased the mouse. I told her I wasn't sure, but it came with a 5 yr warranty and that type of mouse had not existed for 5 years. She laughed, took my address and sent me a brand new mouse. No questions asked. No sending my old mouse back. No receipt. No registration (who registers a mouse?). Nothing. Just here's your mouse. Thanks for playing... Love Microsoft.
I agree with Linux Mint, and I'd specifically go for the KDE variety -- Despite all the hate that was generated for it, KDE4 is now a very good desktop, plus makes for a good transition experience for a Windows user.
I can sort of second that. I put my 65 year old step dad on my Ubuntu 12.04 with KDE installed*, and he grabbed the mouse and took right off. No issues whatsoever. He didn't need to ask any questions and just did his work.
* Not Kubuntu. I haven't tried that yet. I'll probably go with that next or "pure" Debian. I've had issues with Mint not booting the last time I ran it. Every time the system rebooted, I would get the busybox prompt. After four or five reboots, it would finally come up. No other distro had those problems on that system. Don't know if they ever got that ironed out or if I'd have the same issue on my new system, but the fact that it happened keeps me from trying Mint again. Well, that and I want to be as close to "real" Linux as possible. Mint has too many customizations for my taste. Not configuration costomizations, but actual binary replacements of applications. Oh, and the browser search hijacking bothers me as well.
So... I'd say NO to Mint.