So I guess that whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." thing was a misprint. How can you say that our founding fathers wanted all references to God removed from government when God is included in the friggin' Declaration of Independence? Who do you think that (capital C) Creator is referring to?
Fox News is not the devil. They report both sides an argument and act as a counter weight to CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and NBC. Compare the "coverage" the Swift Boat Vets received to the coverage Cindy Shehan is receiving. How many fake documents has Fox News reported on, and stuck with long after they were PROVEN to be fake? Maybe Fox News does have a slant, but that depends on what YOUR slant is. I think it's fairly certain that Fox is much more "Fair and Balanced" than any news outlet out there. Yes, Fox News is definitely to the right of everyone else, but that's because everyone else is so far to the left. It's a fact that 70% of reporters normally vote for Democrats. Does 70% of the general population?
This seems comparable to the nuclear race from the '50's to the '90's. It could be argued that if the US had never invented the nuclear bomb, there would have been no race. I disagree. Other countries would have built their nuclear arsenals with or without US competition, although maybe not as fast. Then you have to wonder, would the Soviets been as reluctant to use nuclear weapons if they had a monopoly on them?
Today, the Soviets are no longer our main competition. China is starting to fill that role. I believe the Chinese will field space weapons with or without the US, and if they have a monopoly on them, will gladly use them to gain an advantage in a place like Taiwan or India. While the US military is moving away from satellite surveillance and starting use terrestrial drones instead, drones will never replace the satellite for communications purposes. This is where a space or space based weapon could be useful.
In the short term, as a US taxpayer, I'd feel better knowing we are the ones with space based weapons as opposed to those that may use them. Believe it or not, the US has shown great restraint when it comes to warfare. We did not nuke Vietnam, we did not carpet bomb Baghdad, and we did stage a Soviet style takeover of Afghanistan. The US keeps the military on a tight leash and risks soldier's lives to limit collateral damage. The same can not be said of our enemies.
If the US deploys space based weapons, it will cause an acceleration of this technology on all sides. But space weapons are coming, like it or not, and like the nuclear race, it's better to have all sides with the technology than to find yourselves the only ones without it.
That's why we should've ended the sanctions years ago and invaded back when Clinton was President. At least with a Democrat as president, the press would support the war and no one would be protesting. It's OK to do war as long as a Democrat is in charge (see Bosnia).
Fact is, more people die and by slower and more painful methods when you pussy-foot around. I see people here saying that it would have been better to starve the Japanese, rather than dropping two nukes and ending it quickly. Yes, people die in war and it sux, but better to die a fiery death in a massive explosion than to wither away slowly, watching those that you love wither with you.
Using comments like "righties" and "George Shrub" give away your ideology and strip any validity from your arguments. It says to me that your are blinded by your own hatred of W or anyone that is not on your side of the aisle. Still, your points are too easy to shoot down to pass up.
First, you seem to miss one major fact. 9/11 happened before we went into Iraq. Did Osama read the future and make a pre-emptive strike?
You say: If any of the righties would bother to try to understand the terrorists, they'd realize it is the U.S. military presence in the mid east and the billions in military support to Israel, that makes the U.S. a target.
Well, us righties understand all we need to know. These people want to kill you and me. They don't care what side you are on or what your religeous beliefs are or who you voted for. They want you dead. Even if you are named Mohammed, they don't care, because you live among us infidels. They are also willing to die for their cause, which us righties are happy to oblige them. We don't try to understand them any more than we try to understand that mosquito that is sucking blood from our arm. We try to understand just enough to kill them.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to kill all jews and turn all of the Arab world into a radical islamic state before moving into Asia and Europe. Should we pull out and let them because they bomb a subway or hijack a plane? Are you suggesting that we give them what they want and say the hell with Israel, Kuwait, Turkey, India, UAE, and Saudi Arabia? If a bully hits you in the nose, do you give him your milk money? That's one hell of a strategy you got there, bub.
Your next statement is pure bullshit: Remember, the U.S. and it's 'coalition of the willing' is just a sideshow, the real target is Saudi Arabia. So further military presence in Iraq is assbackwards, basically turning sentiment of the rest of the world anti-america, what with Abu-Garaib, Gitmo, and the everyday slaughter of civilians in Iraq is simply not good advertising
First the Saudi thing. If we wanted Saudi Arabia, and we made up stuff to invade Iraq, why did we not fabricate stories about Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Next, those guys at Gitmo and Abu-Garaib have it made. I've known guys who pay money to have women's underware stuck on their head. Besides, all the people bitching about Abu-Garaib and Gitmo are the same ones that sat by and said absolutely nothing when Daniel Pearl was murdered or any of those guys got their heads slowly cut off and shown on the web. Funny, but I haven't seen any US service members at Gitmo or anywhere else holding up the severed head of a terrorist yet. Finally, that whold "everyday slaughter of civilians in Iraq" thing really pisses me off. US forces have not intentionally civilians in over 30 years. Besides, take your best count of "slaughtered civilains" and compare that number to UNICEF's "number of children under 5 who died from preventable diseases under Saddam Hussein" and you will find that we actually saved a few lives, and that doesn't count the people over 5 who died under Saddam. And again, the US does not slaughter civilians. I don't care what you read on moveon.org or answer.
not outing CIA intelligence officers working on following the WMD money flow
Thought you would sneak that one in. Funny how the press let that one go as soon as it was found out that Mrs. Blaine really did send her husband to Africa even though Mr. Blaine swore that she didn't. I guess when the facts get in the way, you just omit them.
Finally, how would you suggest putting a lid on Iran and N. Korea if the military option is off the table? How much talk to you think these guys will listen to? Since 1976 there has 12 years of Democrats and 12 years of Republicans dealing with Iran and N. Korea before "Shrub" came along. He's the first of the bunch I've seen that is willing throw more than just words at the problem.
There seems to be some green on the left hand side of that "lake". Anyone care to guess what it may be? Could it be artifacts from the jpg compression, algae or something natural like some sort of green rock?
Wow!!! A non-liberal post with no America bashing and you got modded UP!??! My carma sux because I try to set the record straight when someone says something stupid. You'll have to teach me the ways of the force.
My hat is off to you!
Before I get modded down for Off Topic... Don't sell NASA short. These are the same guys who landed a probe on a friggin asteroid unplanned and without a landing gear. I can't tell you how many quarters I wasted trying to land on one of those bad boys!
I will agree, however, that NASA's future does not lie with the shuttle fleet. But scrapping the shuttle fleet right now means scrapping the space station and screwing over all those countries that didn't contribute what was promised.
I'm afraid I have to agree. I recently purchased a new home that uses Puron in the AC unit. I can keep my house a cool 60 degrees full time if I wanted and I live in Texas! It's also supposed to be "high efficient", but since this is my first home, I have nothing to compare it to. My electric bills run me about $100 a month and my AC is set on a nippy 74 degrees F. (That actually feels quite cool when it's 105 outside!)
While both of my cars (mine and the wife's) were built in the mid-90's, I assume they are both running freon and cool quite well. However, I have not heard of any "new" cars having crappy AC's.
Um... you're confused. The reason the Taliban was able to take power in Afghanistan is because we abandoned them after the Soviets left, leaving a power vacuum, which, by the way, is exactly what the likes of Ted Kennedy want to see happen in Iraq. We did not "prop up" Taliban government.
We did support Iraq, but only during their war with Iran, otherwise, Iraq would be part of a "Greater Iran". I'm sure that would also include any number of other MidEast countries such as Kuwait, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and possibly even Israel. We chose the lesser of two evils there when we should have chose neither and taken over both countries (although I'm sure the Soviets would've objected). But this was before we knew about the mass graves and rape rooms.
Finally, I don't see what political or economic advantage from Afghanistan, or even Iraq for that matter.
Now I want you to go over to Iraq, find a mass grave filled thousands with women, many of the skeletons still clinging to their infant children, and tell them how wrong we were for not finding any WMD's.
So you say: When someone wants to make a comment that is faith based - even if it isn't a diety-based-faith, then it crosses the line from being a worthwhile discussion to preaching dogma.
But talking about sex with little boys (NAMBLA) is OK? Talking about your love for molesting children is protected under the first amendment talking about your religion is not protected by the second? The ACLU lost me when they defended these guys.
I disagree that this case is based on religion. Restricting porn does not constitute and establishment of religion, especially since several religions forbid it. Can you tell me which religion restricting porn establishes? Islaam? Jewdism? Catholosism? Babtists? Which one?
What if the ACLU decided that restrictions like murder, drug use, bigamy or stealing were religion based? Should these laws be thrown out. Of course, you could also argue that the Declaration of Independence should not be an official government document because it states that "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." These mention God, are they unconstitutional?
The good people of Utah evedently wanted this law. If you want unrestricted access to porn, don't live there (which is why I don't). Can the ACLU come to my state and tell me that I have TOO much access to porn? What's the difference?
This guy says: They are here to protect ALL of our civil rights.
And for those of us Gun lovers who want to criticize the ACLU, let me just say this: with limited resources, the best to fight is to divide the battle field. ACLU has everthing but Ammendment #2 and the NRA takes care of #2. That's the way I see it.
So basically what you are saying is that the ACLU protects ALL of our civil rights... except for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Um... I'm sorry, but when you have an exception like that, it kind of negates the ALL, you moron.
Granted, they do protect the first amendment, or part of it. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." But they skipped one little part of it, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (unless, of course, you are something other than Christian)
I think in this case, they should read Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm confused. If it's "cold fusion", where does the energy come from to make this a power source (someday). So you turn H to He... so what? You can burn Hydrogen. Helium makes ballons go up and makes you talk funny. I mean, does it just emit electricity from extra electrons or something?
Um... You can set Windows to reboot if an error like that occurs. That way you don't have to sit there and look at the error... you get to feel new hope as the machine starts to boot up, only to see your hopes dashed when the system errors out and reboots again before reaching the GUI...
Have you ever read the Constitution? Let me help you out here...
The Constitution states that the Prez (GWB) appoints judges and Congress approves or disapproves them. That's all there is to it. Judges are approved by 50 votes in the Senate By fillibustering, (faking debate until the other side gives up), the Dems in congress requiring that a judge receive 60 votes to stop the fillibuster to even get voted on. That is against the constitution.
Fillibusters are a senate rule, not a constitutional one. Republicans are voting to disallow fillibusters in the case of judicial nominations (ONLY) so that judges can get the up or down vote they are allowed by the Constitution.
So don't claim that Bush is tying to "fundamentally undo the Constitutional purpose of the Senate". Republicans are doing the opposite: They are trying to force the Senate to do their Constitutional duty.
Also, funny you should mention the "butchery in Iraq" since the US liberated/invaded Iraq, but you were completely silent on the butchery before hand. That's one of the reasons for the invasion... TO STOP THE BUTCHERY!
BTW... Before I'm modded down for being OT, look at the parent.
I'm getting very tired of tin-hat tree huggers screaming fascism everytime the government does anything less than disband the military. Wikipedia defines fascims as such: The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation
* engages in corporatism
* implements totalitarianism
Let's look at them individually:
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual Um... not really. Yes, nationalism is high, but not as high as when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you..." line. Was JFK a Fascist?
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition Nope... doesn't happen. I've been threated with violence more by "peace" protestors than I have by any government official.
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation Don't see this happening
* engages in corporatism This could be a matter of opinion. Libs are screaming that this is the case, and with the airline bailouts, they have a small case, but I'd hardly call this a Bush thing.
* implements totalitarianism Again, not happening here. Has Bush declared himself emporer when I was not looking?
In other words... hyperbole is not helping your case here. You are no better than those who claim Clinton is a traitor or Hillary wants to sell us out to the EU. I don't care how many times you say it, our society is not run by corporations, unless you count MTV (Viacom).
I mean, all we are talking about is a national ID card. So what? So you have to carry a friggin card. It's not like Big Brother is putting a camera in your bedroom. Nearly every modern country in the world requires national ID's. Are they ALL fascist?
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess that whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." thing was a misprint. How can you say that our founding fathers wanted all references to God removed from government when God is included in the friggin' Declaration of Independence? Who do you think that (capital C) Creator is referring to?
SPAM------WALL------SIG
What's so hard about that?
Oh for the love of God!!!
Fox News is not the devil. They report both sides an argument and act as a counter weight to CBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and NBC. Compare the "coverage" the Swift Boat Vets received to the coverage Cindy Shehan is receiving. How many fake documents has Fox News reported on, and stuck with long after they were PROVEN to be fake? Maybe Fox News does have a slant, but that depends on what YOUR slant is. I think it's fairly certain that Fox is much more "Fair and Balanced" than any news outlet out there. Yes, Fox News is definitely to the right of everyone else, but that's because everyone else is so far to the left. It's a fact that 70% of reporters normally vote for Democrats. Does 70% of the general population?
Hall said that there was nothing to stop a company using Linux software without using the Linux name.
It's just the name. They don't want companies splattering the Linux name all over everything and releasing crap.
This seems comparable to the nuclear race from the '50's to the '90's. It could be argued that if the US had never invented the nuclear bomb, there would have been no race. I disagree. Other countries would have built their nuclear arsenals with or without US competition, although maybe not as fast. Then you have to wonder, would the Soviets been as reluctant to use nuclear weapons if they had a monopoly on them?
Today, the Soviets are no longer our main competition. China is starting to fill that role. I believe the Chinese will field space weapons with or without the US, and if they have a monopoly on them, will gladly use them to gain an advantage in a place like Taiwan or India. While the US military is moving away from satellite surveillance and starting use terrestrial drones instead, drones will never replace the satellite for communications purposes. This is where a space or space based weapon could be useful.
In the short term, as a US taxpayer, I'd feel better knowing we are the ones with space based weapons as opposed to those that may use them. Believe it or not, the US has shown great restraint when it comes to warfare. We did not nuke Vietnam, we did not carpet bomb Baghdad, and we did stage a Soviet style takeover of Afghanistan. The US keeps the military on a tight leash and risks soldier's lives to limit collateral damage. The same can not be said of our enemies.
If the US deploys space based weapons, it will cause an acceleration of this technology on all sides. But space weapons are coming, like it or not, and like the nuclear race, it's better to have all sides with the technology than to find yourselves the only ones without it.
I hear people ask if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary.
I ask, "Was Okinawa?"
That's why we should've ended the sanctions years ago and invaded back when Clinton was President. At least with a Democrat as president, the press would support the war and no one would be protesting. It's OK to do war as long as a Democrat is in charge (see Bosnia).
Fact is, more people die and by slower and more painful methods when you pussy-foot around. I see people here saying that it would have been better to starve the Japanese, rather than dropping two nukes and ending it quickly. Yes, people die in war and it sux, but better to die a fiery death in a massive explosion than to wither away slowly, watching those that you love wither with you.
Oh, the magazine! I thought they were finally going to start saying F*CK on Battlestar Galactica!
Using comments like "righties" and "George Shrub" give away your ideology and strip any validity from your arguments. It says to me that your are blinded by your own hatred of W or anyone that is not on your side of the aisle. Still, your points are too easy to shoot down to pass up.
First, you seem to miss one major fact. 9/11 happened before we went into Iraq. Did Osama read the future and make a pre-emptive strike?
You say:
If any of the righties would bother to try to understand the terrorists, they'd realize it is the U.S. military presence in the mid east and the billions in military support to Israel, that makes the U.S. a target.
Well, us righties understand all we need to know. These people want to kill you and me. They don't care what side you are on or what your religeous beliefs are or who you voted for. They want you dead. Even if you are named Mohammed, they don't care, because you live among us infidels. They are also willing to die for their cause, which us righties are happy to oblige them. We don't try to understand them any more than we try to understand that mosquito that is sucking blood from our arm. We try to understand just enough to kill them.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to kill all jews and turn all of the Arab world into a radical islamic state before moving into Asia and Europe. Should we pull out and let them because they bomb a subway or hijack a plane? Are you suggesting that we give them what they want and say the hell with Israel, Kuwait, Turkey, India, UAE, and Saudi Arabia? If a bully hits you in the nose, do you give him your milk money? That's one hell of a strategy you got there, bub.
Your next statement is pure bullshit:
Remember, the U.S. and it's 'coalition of the willing' is just a sideshow, the real target is Saudi Arabia. So further military presence in Iraq is assbackwards, basically turning sentiment of the rest of the world anti-america, what with Abu-Garaib, Gitmo, and the everyday slaughter of civilians in Iraq is simply not good advertising
First the Saudi thing. If we wanted Saudi Arabia, and we made up stuff to invade Iraq, why did we not fabricate stories about Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Next, those guys at Gitmo and Abu-Garaib have it made. I've known guys who pay money to have women's underware stuck on their head. Besides, all the people bitching about Abu-Garaib and Gitmo are the same ones that sat by and said absolutely nothing when Daniel Pearl was murdered or any of those guys got their heads slowly cut off and shown on the web. Funny, but I haven't seen any US service members at Gitmo or anywhere else holding up the severed head of a terrorist yet. Finally, that whold "everyday slaughter of civilians in Iraq" thing really pisses me off. US forces have not intentionally civilians in over 30 years. Besides, take your best count of "slaughtered civilains" and compare that number to UNICEF's "number of children under 5 who died from preventable diseases under Saddam Hussein" and you will find that we actually saved a few lives, and that doesn't count the people over 5 who died under Saddam. And again, the US does not slaughter civilians. I don't care what you read on moveon.org or answer.
not outing CIA intelligence officers working on following the WMD money flow
Thought you would sneak that one in. Funny how the press let that one go as soon as it was found out that Mrs. Blaine really did send her husband to Africa even though Mr. Blaine swore that she didn't. I guess when the facts get in the way, you just omit them.
Finally, how would you suggest putting a lid on Iran and N. Korea if the military option is off the table? How much talk to you think these guys will listen to? Since 1976 there has 12 years of Democrats and 12 years of Republicans dealing with Iran and N. Korea before "Shrub" came along. He's the first of the bunch I've seen that is willing throw more than just words at the problem.
When you or anyone else is picked up for googling "jihad", I'll be the first one protesting.
Until then, can it. Don't make this a "mistaken identity" issue until it becomes one.
There seems to be some green on the left hand side of that "lake". Anyone care to guess what it may be? Could it be artifacts from the jpg compression, algae or something natural like some sort of green rock?
Wow!!! A non-liberal post with no America bashing and you got modded UP!??! My carma sux because I try to set the record straight when someone says something stupid. You'll have to teach me the ways of the force.
My hat is off to you!
Before I get modded down for Off Topic...
Don't sell NASA short. These are the same guys who landed a probe on a friggin asteroid unplanned and without a landing gear. I can't tell you how many quarters I wasted trying to land on one of those bad boys!
I will agree, however, that NASA's future does not lie with the shuttle fleet. But scrapping the shuttle fleet right now means scrapping the space station and screwing over all those countries that didn't contribute what was promised.
I'm afraid I have to agree. I recently purchased a new home that uses Puron in the AC unit. I can keep my house a cool 60 degrees full time if I wanted and I live in Texas! It's also supposed to be "high efficient", but since this is my first home, I have nothing to compare it to. My electric bills run me about $100 a month and my AC is set on a nippy 74 degrees F. (That actually feels quite cool when it's 105 outside!)
While both of my cars (mine and the wife's) were built in the mid-90's, I assume they are both running freon and cool quite well. However, I have not heard of any "new" cars having crappy AC's.
One of the few scenes I enjoyed from Voyager was B'Elanna Torres saying to Janeway:
"No ma'am. When I say it will take four hours, it will take four hours"
(or something to that effect.
without AMD we'd almost certainly all be on IA64 today
No, without AMD, we'd all be running Pentium II's at 300 Mhz and paying $800 a pop!
Um... you're confused.
The reason the Taliban was able to take power in Afghanistan is because we abandoned them after the Soviets left, leaving a power vacuum, which, by the way, is exactly what the likes of Ted Kennedy want to see happen in Iraq. We did not "prop up" Taliban government.
We did support Iraq, but only during their war with Iran, otherwise, Iraq would be part of a "Greater Iran". I'm sure that would also include any number of other MidEast countries such as Kuwait, UAE, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and possibly even Israel. We chose the lesser of two evils there when we should have chose neither and taken over both countries (although I'm sure the Soviets would've objected). But this was before we knew about the mass graves and rape rooms.
Finally, I don't see what political or economic advantage from Afghanistan, or even Iraq for that matter.
Now I want you to go over to Iraq, find a mass grave filled thousands with women, many of the skeletons still clinging to their infant children, and tell them how wrong we were for not finding any WMD's.
So you say:
When someone wants to make a comment that is faith based - even if it isn't a diety-based-faith, then it crosses the line from being a worthwhile discussion to preaching dogma.
But talking about sex with little boys (NAMBLA) is OK? Talking about your love for molesting children is protected under the first amendment talking about your religion is not protected by the second? The ACLU lost me when they defended these guys.
I disagree that this case is based on religion. Restricting porn does not constitute and establishment of religion, especially since several religions forbid it. Can you tell me which religion restricting porn establishes? Islaam? Jewdism? Catholosism? Babtists? Which one?
What if the ACLU decided that restrictions like murder, drug use, bigamy or stealing were religion based? Should these laws be thrown out. Of course, you could also argue that the Declaration of Independence should not be an official government document because it states that "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." and "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." These mention God, are they unconstitutional?
The good people of Utah evedently wanted this law. If you want unrestricted access to porn, don't live there (which is why I don't). Can the ACLU come to my state and tell me that I have TOO much access to porn? What's the difference?
This guy says:
They are here to protect ALL of our civil rights.
And for those of us Gun lovers who want to criticize the ACLU, let me just say this: with limited resources, the best to fight is to divide the battle field. ACLU has everthing but Ammendment #2 and the NRA takes care of #2. That's the way I see it.
So basically what you are saying is that the ACLU protects ALL of our civil rights... except for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Um... I'm sorry, but when you have an exception like that, it kind of negates the ALL, you moron.
Granted, they do protect the first amendment, or part of it. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." But they skipped one little part of it, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (unless, of course, you are something other than Christian)
I think in this case, they should read Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm confused. If it's "cold fusion", where does the energy come from to make this a power source (someday). So you turn H to He... so what? You can burn Hydrogen. Helium makes ballons go up and makes you talk funny. I mean, does it just emit electricity from extra electrons or something?
Wah! Wah! WAHHHHHH!
When I go to the doctor, not only does he make me get naked, but he touches me in an inappropriate manner!
MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!
It's all George Bush's fault.
WAH!
I see someone else recognized Calculon's cameo appearance.
Calculon
Um... You can set Windows to reboot if an error like that occurs. That way you don't have to sit there and look at the error... you get to feel new hope as the machine starts to boot up, only to see your hopes dashed when the system errors out and reboots again before reaching the GUI...
Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
OK, you can take your tinfoil hat off now.
Have you ever read the Constitution? Let me help you out here...
The Constitution states that the Prez (GWB) appoints judges and Congress approves or disapproves them. That's all there is to it. Judges are approved by 50 votes in the Senate
By fillibustering, (faking debate until the other side gives up), the Dems in congress requiring that a judge receive 60 votes to stop the fillibuster to even get voted on. That is against the constitution.
Fillibusters are a senate rule, not a constitutional one.
Republicans are voting to disallow fillibusters in the case of judicial nominations (ONLY) so that judges can get the up or down vote they are allowed by the Constitution.
So don't claim that Bush is tying to "fundamentally undo the Constitutional purpose of the Senate". Republicans are doing the opposite: They are trying to force the Senate to do their Constitutional duty.
Also, funny you should mention the "butchery in Iraq" since the US liberated/invaded Iraq, but you were completely silent on the butchery before hand. That's one of the reasons for the invasion... TO STOP THE BUTCHERY!
BTW... Before I'm modded down for being OT, look at the parent.
I'm getting very tired of tin-hat tree huggers screaming fascism everytime the government does anything less than disband the military.
Wikipedia defines fascims as such:
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation
* engages in corporatism
* implements totalitarianism
Let's look at them individually:
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
Um... not really. Yes, nationalism is high, but not as high as when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you..." line. Was JFK a Fascist?
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
Nope... doesn't happen. I've been threated with violence more by "peace" protestors than I have by any government official.
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation
Don't see this happening
* engages in corporatism
This could be a matter of opinion. Libs are screaming that this is the case, and with the airline bailouts, they have a small case, but I'd hardly call this a Bush thing.
* implements totalitarianism
Again, not happening here. Has Bush declared himself emporer when I was not looking?
In other words... hyperbole is not helping your case here. You are no better than those who claim Clinton is a traitor or Hillary wants to sell us out to the EU. I don't care how many times you say it, our society is not run by corporations, unless you count MTV (Viacom).
I mean, all we are talking about is a national ID card. So what? So you have to carry a friggin card. It's not like Big Brother is putting a camera in your bedroom. Nearly every modern country in the world requires national ID's. Are they ALL fascist?
Show some education.
Off Topic!!??!!
The title of TFA is "AMD's Dual-core Athlon 64 X2 reviewed"
I'm stating that Tom's Hardware Guide has no review. Why not?
You modders suck! Go ahead and mod this down because THIS post is off topic. I hope this helps you loosers see the difference.
I still don't see this chip, or any other AMD dual core chip mentioned at TomShardware. Are they under some sort of Intel Only agreement?