Presidents don't create or destroy jobs. They don't raise or lower wages. At best, what they can do is create circumstances that make it possible or impossible for CORPORATIONS to do these things.
You know what caused the tech market crash? Clinton? Bush? No... YOU did! By "you" I mean every American who pissed their savings away by investing WAY too much money in an empire that (at the time) had almost nothing to offer in terms of REAL product. As a result of all the venture capital flying around, too many.coms were created, hiring way too many people for jobs that the market simply wasn't prepared to sustain for the long term.
The result? Exactly what SHOULD happen. Companies collapse, people lose their jobs (unfortunately), and the economy (not the president), along with the basic rules of supply and demand, slowly corrects our mistakes.
Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,
By implication, then, you're saying that anything that is pro-science is automatically anti-Bible. That's about as foolish as me saying that every "scientific" reference in the Quran is wrong, having never read it in it's entirety. For that matter, what many Bible-opposers latch on to as "science" today in fact is not science at all. Much of which is based not upon what we can observe, but by presumptions based upon the results of actions that supposedly took place X millions of years ago.
There are cases where modern Hollywood creates remakes that are VASTLY better movies (IMHO) than their predecessors. Oceans 11, for one; my appologies (ok maybe not) to all of you "rat pack" fans, but the original was just about the corniest thing I've ever seen. The Manchurian Candidate was also (again, IMO) a far better movie than the original.
I can't comment on this one, because I've never seen the original WOTW. However, I've listened to the original radio broadcast, which, even by today's standards, was well produced and executed, proving that Orson Wells was a man well ahead of his time.
Yep - Clinton didnt - they were placed in Somalia by GHWB, in Dec 1992, before clinton was sworn in.
Right you are. But he left them there until it became politically unpopular to do so (the massacre of October '93). Then he puts our troops in danger again in Kosovo, and Iraq. So we have two "draft-dodging" presidents (W only being suspected of doing so by the left) who have both sent our troops in to harm's way. If you're going to scrutinize Bush, you should at least be honest and put your own party under the same level of scrutiny.
Now let's assume for a moment that you guys are correct, and Bush DID dodge the draft. Well guess what? The only difference between Bush and Kerry was that Kerry tried to do the same thing, but failed.
which is more than can be said for W during his fornication & cocaine & alcohol days....
You know, if you want to get in to character assassination, there's no end to what can be dug up on either side of the fence. You surely aren't under the impression that Kerry hasn't participated in many of the same things, are you? After all, he has already admitted to playing an active role in some of the "atrocities" committed by the "baby killers" in Vietnam. Would you rather have someone run the country who had a few too many 30 years ago, or someone who admits to have participated in war crimes 30 years ago?
I don't recall the left blowing up when the draft-dodging Clinton took office, so I don't see any justification for this being a major issue now. "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say. And Clinton didn't (Somalia)? I'm more concerned with 2005 than the early 70's.
Yes, a man's history can, to some extent, define whether or not he is trustworthy. But there's plenty of stuff that has come up in very recent history that I think can be used to make a more accurate assessment of where they are today.
My point wasn't that it would be ok for the thing to hit the ocean at 100mph (I thought that would've been obvious; guess not!)... That's obviously not going to work. Obviously, this mission depended on the chuts deploying, no matter what. The only thing I'm questioning is their initial plan.
Yes, I am aware of that;). Why could they not have used a similar method here? The article does mention the fact that even hitting the ground at 9mph could damage some of the data that it collected, but wouldn't the jar of capturing this thing mid-air be very likely of doing the same thing? I dunno.
Is that someone at NASA actually thought this was a good idea. Granted, they *MIGHT* have pulled it off if the chute had deployed. But even then, it's obviously tricky. Why not just drop it in the ocean like the Apollo return capsules? Maybe someone could explain this to me.
All of this incessant whining about how Bush supposedly "stole" the election just blows me away. You act as though Gore won the election, then Bush challenged it and took it away from him; when in fact it was Bush who was the winner EVERY SINGLE TIME. He won the first count, he won the machine recount, AND he won the hand count which came after. Who demanded these recounts? The LOSER, Al Gore and Co.
So who was trying to steal the election from whom, hm? People speak of Florida like it's a special case; as if no other states suffered from hanging chads and other voting anomalies. So why Florida? Why not Iowa, or California, or any other state? Because Florida was the closest, and Al Gore knew that if he was going to STEAL the election, that would be his best chance!
There's a margin of error in every state, at every election. It's not a right-wing or even left-wing conspiracy, so put your tin foil hats away, stop complaining, and don't forget to vote.
I guess the big question on everyone's mind is what MS's motives are. MS is acting more and more like "Big Brother" every day, it seems. Now they want to "contribute" to the OSS community under the guise of doing us a favor. They'll have to forgive me if I don't say "Thank you!" right away. Hundreds of billions of dollars in assets tell me another story, not to mention their top execs, and their many snarlings against everything open.
If they're going to jump on the OSS bandwagon, the only reason I can think of would be to control it. The government does this all the time. If they want to control an organization, they throw some money at it. If they want to control a country, they throw some money at them. Eventually, the entity becomes so dependent on the income, all the government has to do is say "ok, now you're going to do things our way, or you're going to face sanctions".
MS is already accomplishing this in the commercial arena buy buying a significant number shares of many major corporations (or buying their vendors), and in turn, putting the muscle on them to do things their way.
The less dependent we are on anything MS (or anything that hog-ties it's customers with EULAs the size of an encyclopedia), the better.
That IS a disappointing list. When I opened it, I was half-expecting a list of trends in game design (which it *kinda* touches on in a couple of points). I wouldn't call "bump-mapping" a trend. I'd call first-person shooters a trend, if not a grossly worn-out one (IMHO). If you want to come up with a new trend, then please bring an original game concept to the table, not just a new way of making the same-old-same-old look better.
But I guess games are like movies. Eventually all of the truly original concepts are used. Somewhere I read that there are only like 15-20 truly original movie plots, and that every movie is a derivative of one of them. So it goes with games as well, I suppose.
On the surface, I suppose it seems harmless. I have no problem with game ratings, though I am leary of the government mandating such things. I am especially leary of the bill they tried to attach to it, which is a common tactic; pair a radical bill with a "reasonable" one that will make the governor/president look bad if he vetos it. Every "reasonable" step that the goverment takes under the guise of "protecting" our children advances their ultimate goal, which is to basically raise our children for us.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time before playing Doom 3 in front of your kids will be considered child abuse, and you'll have the DCFS busting down your door to take them away (I'm not advocating playing Doom 3 in front of your 6-yr-old, by the way).
Just remember, these bills may seem harmless right now by themselves, but eventually, they'll really start to add up.
In Majesco's Jaws, players assume the role of a Great White shark driven to a predacious frenzy by the sonic emanations of underwater oil drilling equipment.
Why doesn't this surprise me? Wait, I have an idea. Why not "Majesco's Cockroach"? We've killed billions more of them, and we've done it intentionally!
You are a complete tool. Democrats pushing socialism? Did O'Reilly tell you that? Do you even know what socialism is without consulting a dictionary?
I'm going to take your advice right now! Here we go, the official dictionary definition of the word "socialism":
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Now who is one of the biggest proponents of a national healthcare system (which falls right in to this definition) but one of the biggest guns of the democratic party; Hillary Clinton!
They get away with those acts by keeping their citizen under FEAR and IGNORANCE.
A typical political tool, yes. Do you not think that the left uses these same tools? The right says "The terrorist are going to kill us!", while the left says "we're all going to get sick and die because we won't be able to afford healthcare!". Whether it's fear of terror, or fear of health problems, or fear of economic woes, or fear of what France or Germany will think of us, just about everyone in power, whether on the left or right, finds a use for this tool at some point. Yes, Hitler as well, just at the article you referenced points out.
Am I a Bush supporter? Sure, but not because I agree with everything he does (that's expecting way too much). Neither because I'm afraid of a bunch of overly-zealous religious radical whackos on the other side of the world. Does something need to be done about it? 9/11 says "yes". Do we need to be cowering in fear, latching on to the leg of a president ONLY because he's decided to do something about it? No. But it is a factor, nonetheless.
He's only the right person for the job if he believes strongly in the right side of the right issues. I didn't specify what issues I had in mind when I made my post. I think you're reading way too much in to what I'm saying.
A person that is asked if he can think of any mistake he has done while in office, and can not think of anything he's done wrong is not the right person for the job.
Ok, how many times has Kerry admitted to being wrong about something? They're both politicians, and they're NEVER going to admit fault unless there's absolutely no way out of it (example: Bill Clinton, and others). On the same note, admitting fault for every little thing that goes wrong can also weaken support, and can be devastating, not only to your political career, but to the nation as well.
If I wanted a dictator for a president, I'd vote for someone who stands for everything that I'm against, and someone who stands against everything that I stand for.
To accuse me of simply wanting someone who believes strongly in something is an entirely innaccurate assumption. For example; I don't care how strongly someone believes in socialism; I won't vote for them, pure and simple. Your assertation of my preference in leadership is based upon an entirely false premise.
I think your analogy comparing the President to a woods guide is a bit too simplistic. There is not one absolutely correct path to take in international politics, such as there is in the woods.
I agree. And I was being simplistic intentionally. There may, and often is more than one legitimate path. In my analogy, perhaps North AND East are viable options; but it would be wrong to for someone to refrain from choosing one because they're worried about what those in the South and West camps might think of them. That was my only point.
The implication being that Kerry would NOT make decisions? Seriously, WTF? I doubt that the man will get in office and do nothing.
In certain situations, yes. Sure, he would do many things covering a broad range of issues, but I have reason to suspect that he would refrain from taking action on some issues that may be controversial, even if it's in the best interests of the country. But then that's just what I believe. Take it for what it's worth.
Well, Hitler too did things because he had "clear" beliefs... and he stuck to them. So what is your point? He is not the president to stick to his beliefs, but to work for the American people.
Would you have voted for Hitler? Me either. So what's the problem?
According to you then, a lemming would be the ideal democratic leader, right? I have newsflash for you a democracy means that there are many different beliefs, a president has to be able to accomodate most of them, w/o having to impose his own. You want a dictator, not a president...
I want someone who will STAND FOR THE THINGS THAT I VOTED HIM IN TO ACHEIVE, and not for what he thinks that most voters are thinking on any given day.
And please don't come up with the whole "moral clarity vs. flip/flopping" crap, not like Dubya has ever flip/flopped, no siree bob:
Every president has flip-flopped on something. Both Bush and Kerry have, and will continue to do so, regardless of who's in the White House. I'm not even going to waste time debating that. I've already mentioned that both Bush and Kerry have made their share of mistakes, so your barrage of points are moot. I wouldn't vote for Bush because I think he's the perfect president (far from it), but because I believe he's the lesser of two evils. Isn't that the way every election has been, though?
What I find interesting is how neither party actually represents what their names imply any more. Originally, this country was a republic, thus the term "Republican". Eventually, the country shifted over to a democracy, thus the term "Democrat". Nowadays, it's the Republicans pushing democracy, and the Democrats pushing socialism. Eventually, it'll be the Republicans pushing socialism (they're damn near there now), and the Democrats pushing communism.
Slashdot Mirror
Authorities in Chicago, Illinois have ordered the evacuation of the north shore after an iPod meltdown.
Presidents don't create or destroy jobs. They don't raise or lower wages. At best, what they can do is create circumstances that make it possible or impossible for CORPORATIONS to do these things.
.coms were created, hiring way too many people for jobs that the market simply wasn't prepared to sustain for the long term.
You know what caused the tech market crash? Clinton? Bush? No... YOU did! By "you" I mean every American who pissed their savings away by investing WAY too much money in an empire that (at the time) had almost nothing to offer in terms of REAL product. As a result of all the venture capital flying around, too many
The result? Exactly what SHOULD happen. Companies collapse, people lose their jobs (unfortunately), and the economy (not the president), along with the basic rules of supply and demand, slowly corrects our mistakes.
MS will soon implement support for this product in Windows where clicking and dragging involves closing both of your eyes and tipping your head.
Personally, I've learned everything I'll ever need to know about medicine by playing Operation
Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,
By implication, then, you're saying that anything that is pro-science is automatically anti-Bible. That's about as foolish as me saying that every "scientific" reference in the Quran is wrong, having never read it in it's entirety. For that matter, what many Bible-opposers latch on to as "science" today in fact is not science at all. Much of which is based not upon what we can observe, but by presumptions based upon the results of actions that supposedly took place X millions of years ago.
Currently, everything on the radio has the "talk radio host righteous indignation" tone of voice instead.
"We are being invaded by a left-wing alien force from the planet Mars! I'm telling you people, I'm right about this!"
There are cases where modern Hollywood creates remakes that are VASTLY better movies (IMHO) than their predecessors. Oceans 11, for one; my appologies (ok maybe not) to all of you "rat pack" fans, but the original was just about the corniest thing I've ever seen. The Manchurian Candidate was also (again, IMO) a far better movie than the original.
I can't comment on this one, because I've never seen the original WOTW. However, I've listened to the original radio broadcast, which, even by today's standards, was well produced and executed, proving that Orson Wells was a man well ahead of his time.
Well, I guess you could say you answered your own question earlier in the post:
I know that the only sure way out of the War on Terror at this point is genocide- shouldn't we have somebody in office who has actually done it?
That's why this war is not "winnable" in the traditional sense; because we're fighting a movement (a radical religion, really), rather than a nation.
Right you are. But he left them there until it became politically unpopular to do so (the massacre of October '93). Then he puts our troops in danger again in Kosovo, and Iraq. So we have two "draft-dodging" presidents (W only being suspected of doing so by the left) who have both sent our troops in to harm's way. If you're going to scrutinize Bush, you should at least be honest and put your own party under the same level of scrutiny.
Now let's assume for a moment that you guys are correct, and Bush DID dodge the draft. Well guess what? The only difference between Bush and Kerry was that Kerry tried to do the same thing, but failed.
which is more than can be said for W during his fornication & cocaine & alcohol days....
You know, if you want to get in to character assassination, there's no end to what can be dug up on either side of the fence. You surely aren't under the impression that Kerry hasn't participated in many of the same things, are you? After all, he has already admitted to playing an active role in some of the "atrocities" committed by the "baby killers" in Vietnam. Would you rather have someone run the country who had a few too many 30 years ago, or someone who admits to have participated in war crimes 30 years ago?
I don't recall the left blowing up when the draft-dodging Clinton took office, so I don't see any justification for this being a major issue now. "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say. And Clinton didn't (Somalia)? I'm more concerned with 2005 than the early 70's.
Yes, a man's history can, to some extent, define whether or not he is trustworthy. But there's plenty of stuff that has come up in very recent history that I think can be used to make a more accurate assessment of where they are today.
My point wasn't that it would be ok for the thing to hit the ocean at 100mph (I thought that would've been obvious; guess not!)... That's obviously not going to work. Obviously, this mission depended on the chuts deploying, no matter what. The only thing I'm questioning is their initial plan.
Yes, I am aware of that ;). Why could they not have used a similar method here? The article does mention the fact that even hitting the ground at 9mph could damage some of the data that it collected, but wouldn't the jar of capturing this thing mid-air be very likely of doing the same thing? I dunno.
Is that someone at NASA actually thought this was a good idea. Granted, they *MIGHT* have pulled it off if the chute had deployed. But even then, it's obviously tricky. Why not just drop it in the ocean like the Apollo return capsules? Maybe someone could explain this to me.
After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.
That's funny, considering that once upon a time, Fox was about the only major network that would air garbage like this.
All of this incessant whining about how Bush supposedly "stole" the election just blows me away. You act as though Gore won the election, then Bush challenged it and took it away from him; when in fact it was Bush who was the winner EVERY SINGLE TIME. He won the first count, he won the machine recount, AND he won the hand count which came after. Who demanded these recounts? The LOSER, Al Gore and Co.
So who was trying to steal the election from whom, hm? People speak of Florida like it's a special case; as if no other states suffered from hanging chads and other voting anomalies. So why Florida? Why not Iowa, or California, or any other state? Because Florida was the closest, and Al Gore knew that if he was going to STEAL the election, that would be his best chance!
There's a margin of error in every state, at every election. It's not a right-wing or even left-wing conspiracy, so put your tin foil hats away, stop complaining, and don't forget to vote.
... A 15 pound backpack, carrying a 12V battery that will allow you to use all of these wonderful features for more than 15 minutes at a time!
I guess the big question on everyone's mind is what MS's motives are. MS is acting more and more like "Big Brother" every day, it seems. Now they want to "contribute" to the OSS community under the guise of doing us a favor. They'll have to forgive me if I don't say "Thank you!" right away. Hundreds of billions of dollars in assets tell me another story, not to mention their top execs, and their many snarlings against everything open.
If they're going to jump on the OSS bandwagon, the only reason I can think of would be to control it. The government does this all the time. If they want to control an organization, they throw some money at it. If they want to control a country, they throw some money at them. Eventually, the entity becomes so dependent on the income, all the government has to do is say "ok, now you're going to do things our way, or you're going to face sanctions".
MS is already accomplishing this in the commercial arena buy buying a significant number shares of many major corporations (or buying their vendors), and in turn, putting the muscle on them to do things their way.
The less dependent we are on anything MS (or anything that hog-ties it's customers with EULAs the size of an encyclopedia), the better.
That IS a disappointing list. When I opened it, I was half-expecting a list of trends in game design (which it *kinda* touches on in a couple of points). I wouldn't call "bump-mapping" a trend. I'd call first-person shooters a trend, if not a grossly worn-out one (IMHO). If you want to come up with a new trend, then please bring an original game concept to the table, not just a new way of making the same-old-same-old look better.
But I guess games are like movies. Eventually all of the truly original concepts are used. Somewhere I read that there are only like 15-20 truly original movie plots, and that every movie is a derivative of one of them. So it goes with games as well, I suppose.
On the surface, I suppose it seems harmless. I have no problem with game ratings, though I am leary of the government mandating such things. I am especially leary of the bill they tried to attach to it, which is a common tactic; pair a radical bill with a "reasonable" one that will make the governor/president look bad if he vetos it. Every "reasonable" step that the goverment takes under the guise of "protecting" our children advances their ultimate goal, which is to basically raise our children for us.
At this rate, it's only a matter of time before playing Doom 3 in front of your kids will be considered child abuse, and you'll have the DCFS busting down your door to take them away (I'm not advocating playing Doom 3 in front of your 6-yr-old, by the way).
Just remember, these bills may seem harmless right now by themselves, but eventually, they'll really start to add up.
In Majesco's Jaws, players assume the role of a Great White shark driven to a predacious frenzy by the sonic emanations of underwater oil drilling equipment.
Why doesn't this surprise me? Wait, I have an idea. Why not "Majesco's Cockroach"? We've killed billions more of them, and we've done it intentionally!
You are a complete tool. Democrats pushing socialism? Did O'Reilly tell you that? Do you even know what socialism is without consulting a dictionary?
I'm going to take your advice right now! Here we go, the official dictionary definition of the word "socialism":
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Now who is one of the biggest proponents of a national healthcare system (which falls right in to this definition) but one of the biggest guns of the democratic party; Hillary Clinton!
A typical political tool, yes. Do you not think that the left uses these same tools? The right says "The terrorist are going to kill us!", while the left says "we're all going to get sick and die because we won't be able to afford healthcare!". Whether it's fear of terror, or fear of health problems, or fear of economic woes, or fear of what France or Germany will think of us, just about everyone in power, whether on the left or right, finds a use for this tool at some point. Yes, Hitler as well, just at the article you referenced points out.
Am I a Bush supporter? Sure, but not because I agree with everything he does (that's expecting way too much). Neither because I'm afraid of a bunch of overly-zealous religious radical whackos on the other side of the world. Does something need to be done about it? 9/11 says "yes". Do we need to be cowering in fear, latching on to the leg of a president ONLY because he's decided to do something about it? No. But it is a factor, nonetheless.
He's only the right person for the job if he believes strongly in the right side of the right issues. I didn't specify what issues I had in mind when I made my post. I think you're reading way too much in to what I'm saying.
A person that is asked if he can think of any mistake he has done while in office, and can not think of anything he's done wrong is not the right person for the job.
Ok, how many times has Kerry admitted to being wrong about something? They're both politicians, and they're NEVER going to admit fault unless there's absolutely no way out of it (example: Bill Clinton, and others). On the same note, admitting fault for every little thing that goes wrong can also weaken support, and can be devastating, not only to your political career, but to the nation as well.
If I wanted a dictator for a president, I'd vote for someone who stands for everything that I'm against, and someone who stands against everything that I stand for.
To accuse me of simply wanting someone who believes strongly in something is an entirely innaccurate assumption. For example; I don't care how strongly someone believes in socialism; I won't vote for them, pure and simple. Your assertation of my preference in leadership is based upon an entirely false premise.
I think your analogy comparing the President to a woods guide is a bit too simplistic. There is not one absolutely correct path to take in international politics, such as there is in the woods.
I agree. And I was being simplistic intentionally. There may, and often is more than one legitimate path. In my analogy, perhaps North AND East are viable options; but it would be wrong to for someone to refrain from choosing one because they're worried about what those in the South and West camps might think of them. That was my only point.
The implication being that Kerry would NOT make decisions? Seriously, WTF? I doubt that the man will get in office and do nothing.
In certain situations, yes. Sure, he would do many things covering a broad range of issues, but I have reason to suspect that he would refrain from taking action on some issues that may be controversial, even if it's in the best interests of the country. But then that's just what I believe. Take it for what it's worth.
Well, Hitler too did things because he had "clear" beliefs... and he stuck to them. So what is your point? He is not the president to stick to his beliefs, but to work for the American people.
Would you have voted for Hitler? Me either. So what's the problem?
According to you then, a lemming would be the ideal democratic leader, right? I have newsflash for you a democracy means that there are many different beliefs, a president has to be able to accomodate most of them, w/o having to impose his own. You want a dictator, not a president...I want someone who will STAND FOR THE THINGS THAT I VOTED HIM IN TO ACHEIVE, and not for what he thinks that most voters are thinking on any given day.
And please don't come up with the whole "moral clarity vs. flip/flopping" crap, not like Dubya has ever flip/flopped, no siree bob:Every president has flip-flopped on something. Both Bush and Kerry have, and will continue to do so, regardless of who's in the White House. I'm not even going to waste time debating that. I've already mentioned that both Bush and Kerry have made their share of mistakes, so your barrage of points are moot. I wouldn't vote for Bush because I think he's the perfect president (far from it), but because I believe he's the lesser of two evils. Isn't that the way every election has been, though?
What I find interesting is how neither party actually represents what their names imply any more. Originally, this country was a republic, thus the term "Republican". Eventually, the country shifted over to a democracy, thus the term "Democrat". Nowadays, it's the Republicans pushing democracy, and the Democrats pushing socialism. Eventually, it'll be the Republicans pushing socialism (they're damn near there now), and the Democrats pushing communism.