Leave it alone already. The election is over. Bush is our President. Rather than try to undermine the authority rightfully granted during the election process, why not try to use the ethical, legal and accepted tools available our Democratic Republic to make lawful, meaningful changes?
Rhetorical, of course: let me answer. UC Berkeley isn't interested in knowledge or change, they're interested in the free notoriety that comes from publishing a 'study', no matter how pie-in-the-sky full-of-guesswork, that comes to a conclusion that appeals to a small, select, cognitively challenged group of people who might actually feel at home at UC Berkeley.
It really is appalling that not-quite-fictional-but-clearly-wrong crap like this gets posted to the Politics section of Slashdot, when meaningful news stories are rejected. Items like this have me visiting all areas of Slashdot less and less.
Not only that, but Best Buy is notorious for not honoring the service plan when you try to get something fixed under it. If you bring in an item that's not an easy fix, after examining your item for a week or so, they'll just push the item back across the counter and state 'we can't fix it.'
'But, I paid extra for the service plan.'
'Well, it is covered under the service plan you purchased, but we can't fix it.' Then, to add insult to injury, 'If you'd like to buy a new one, we've got some great deals over in aisle 5...'
I'd pay particular attention to all the virus, worm, spyware, adware and hacker-friendly support M$ increasingly builds into each and every version of Windows.
There are real reasons Linux is a Server OS first, and a Desktop OS second.
Oh, that's right, Political Science, sorry about that.
In the report I pointed you to, there's $21BN in Corporate taxes included - that's a problem. There's no accounting for CA's 2%-lower-than-national-average percent of retired folks - that's a bigger problem.
In a short snippet which you can understand, you have provided only incorrect sources for your claim that CA in fact does pay more to Federal Gov't than it receives back in benefits. The 'executive summary' selected excerpt which you pointed me to has numbers that are wrong. I showed you how wrong they were by pointing you to report that was based on the content of the report underlying the 'executive summary' selected excerpt you cited as your original source.
You still haven't found real numbers or real relevant studies. Both 'studies' you point to have flawed data. It is flawed, because the numbers are skewed. The numbers generated by the Tax Foundation can be used IN RELATIVE COMPARISIONS among the states, but they *SHOULD NOT* be used to say that, for example, CA only got 81 cents back for every dollar it paid the Federal Gov't in 2002. They shouldn't be used that way, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE STUDY REPORTS.
The Tax Foundation skews the numbers -- the larger taxpayer a state is, with California by far the largest Federal taxpayer, the more the numbers are out of whack with reality. If you aren't that good with numbers, ask someone to explain it to you.
http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balrpt02.htm here's a much better explanation of why CA doesn't get 100% of their Federal Tax dollars back (because they have fewer than average Senior Citizens), but it also shows if you look at the real numbers (you've got to have the ability to do addition and division, you can do that, can't you?), that in 2002 CA residents paid $256BN in Federal Tax dollars, and got back $230BN. That works out to 90 cents on the dollar, far from what the Tax Federation's 'executive summary' selected excerpt shows as 81 cents on the dollar.
As anyone with a sliver of cognitive ability knows, the way you come up with the numbers is much more important than any selected excerpts.
Furthermore, to be unaware of the famous paradox that Republican states get the most benefit from Democrat-linked "big government" programs... actually, I suppose that's the typical reality-aversion of the American electorate.
More Crap served up by someone who reads an 'Executive Summary', but fails to understand the underlying report. The 2002 Tax Year marked the first time in a decade that California received a share of Federal Grant programs that was smaller than their share of US population. CA is home to approx. 12.5% of the US population, yet even in 2002, CA received 25% of the $4 billion federal urbanized area transit formula grants, 22.7% of the Fed expenditures for TANF's (Temp Assistance for Needy Families), 14.5% of the $8.2 billion Title I Education for the Disadvantaged program. For the period from '92 thru '01, CA got more than a fair share of these 'Democrat-linked "big government" programs'.
You're reality averted, and your ignorance is still showing.
You're the dumbass, and you've got a short, selective memory to boot.
Here's the major reasons for the Iraq war this time around:
Violation of the 'No Fly Zone', continued attacks on U.S. and U.K. pilots.
Massive Organized Escalating Violation of U.N. Trade Sanctions.
Violation of the ban on Missiles of 150km+ range.
Violation of mandatory UN Weapons Inspections
Cash sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
All of which add up to *MASSIVE* violations of the Terms of Surrender signed after the first Gulf War.
Here's more detail into Iraq's defiance of the UN in the years from 1991 to 2002. Take a look to refresh your memory RL31641.pdf
What about Libya?
Kahdaffi folded when he saw how serious we were with Afghanistan and Iraq. Think Saddam would've ever come around? -- Saddam was a complete madman.
What about Pakistan?
Yeah, Pakistan too. Two birds with one stone -- twice! Having US Troops on one side and angry Indians on the other gave them a new-found internationally cooperative attitude.
The UN was useless because BUSH prevented the UN from being useful...
Wrong. There are ample examples of the UN's incompetence -- let's review: Rwanda genocide, Somalia, Libya, Sudan Darfur genocide, Taliban in Afghanistan, East Timor, Cambodia, China Human Rights, Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, the list goes on and on.
In fact, the United States is the heavy lifter behind every single accomplishment the United Nations has under their belt. Without the US, the UN is little more than a yapping poodle.
Bush wanted, pleaded, begged for the UN to do something, but all he got from them was a resolution -- no action. Why, because major players at the UN were lining their pockets with Oil-For-Food money -- they didn't want Bush derailing their 'Gravy-Train.'
Your government created Bin Laden... Your government funded Saddam...
The United States used OBL and Saddam, but we didn't create them. They were there without our intervention, and completely willing to be used as they used us. Both were funded with Oil Money and the blood of Arabs and others. We put a stop to Saddam, we'll stop OBL, and anyone else who turns on us.
You appear to be yet another of the seemingly endless supply of Emptyheaded people waiting for your consciousness to be filled with propoganda. Think for yourself, man! Quit swallowing that propoganda your government controlled media calls news.
General Arab opinion has been against the US since well before Saddam came to power. Before OBL, before Khadaffi, Kim Il Sung, for as long as I've known of Arab sentiment, as a rule of thumb its been against us. I don't see *ANYTHING* that'll change that within generations, except for the eradication of The United States and The State of Isreal from the face of the earth. Trust me, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
So why should we bother to try? We're gonna do the right thing -- stamp out terrorism. The rest of the world can either sit back and watch, or go pound salt! We really don't care -- there's no point in caring what terrorists or those who defend terrorists think. No point at all.
That respect thing works both ways -- stick that up your 'stinky ass'...
Who should I believe about Osama bin Laden's ideas and intentions?
Neither. If you look at the facts objectively, you'll be able to see OBL for the opportunistist power-grabbing politician he is, not a truth-speaker by any stretch of the imagination.
Who should I believe about Arab feelings? You or the foreign minister of Iran and the King of Jordon
First, the Foreign Minister of Iran and the King of Jordan are not spokespeople for the Arab population. Neither is elected, and both are as facist as they can get away with. They are as much power-grabbing politicains as OBL, with alot more to lose. Second, I never said that Arab opinion wasn't against Isreal and the US. It clearly is. It has been for generations, and I don't see that changing regardless of what our foriegn policy is (unless that policy is to dissolve Isreal and the United States).
Current US Foreign Policy can change the mindset that says 'if you don't like what's happening, blow up lots of civilians.' With the right application of consequences, terrorism will fall out of favor.
Arabs don't like being killed...
Certain Palestinians seem to like being killed -- Palestinian Homicide bombers kill themselves (and occasionally other Palestinians) all the time. Although, much less frequently since Saddam hasn't been passing out his blood money to their families...
Certain Sunni's in Iraq seem to like being killed -- they stand up straight and shoot at armed troops seemingly begging to be shot dead...
Plenty of foreign fighters in Iraq are Arabs, and they seem to be going to alot of trouble to get into Iraq in order to get killed...
No sane person likes being killed. Most all US Citizens have the morals to not tolerate under any circumstances terrorists acts and threats from either side of the issue. Many US Citizens have the will to see those terrorists responsible jailed for their actions, and are determined their actions not effect US foriegn policy.
Honestly. That Jewish thing is completely ridiculous... fact is we're a target because we're a World Power, and in the past we haven't responded to these attacks as a World Power should.
This time, we do take it seriously. Finally, we have a leader who takes it very seriously. As serious as a Heart Attack. No more lobbing missiles at empty buildings. No more cut-and-run from terrorists.
No more keeping our head down and hoping the terrorists stop killing us.
That's why we deposed the terrorist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
That's why we toppled terrorist Saddam and his regime in Iraq.
That's why we're working to prevent the extremist regime in Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
That's why we're working to contain the nuclear threat in paranoid and war-ready North Korea.
That's why we're working with ex-terrorist Libya's newfound willingness to play by the rules.
That's why we've got much of the world working with us to capture international terrorists. No more do regimes look the other way in hopes of not being a target -- Every Nation is a target in this deadly game.
Fact is, OBL is aligning his groups despicable acts with history long after the attacks occur. He's not fighting a war -- he's a political power-broker buying followers with rhetoric. He's not aspiring to high ideals -- he's looking to gain political clout via any means available.
There's no justification for his, nor his followers actions. He's a murderer. He's a criminal. He's a pile of dung, and one day he'll be dead. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
... we devote all that wasted energy and wealth to more worthwhile pursuits, such as medical research to lenghten our own lives...
You're not living in the real world. What you and others who think like you fail to realize is that 'a more logical and rational world' requires everyone to cooperate. Criminals do not cooperate -- that's why they're criminals. More worthwhile pursuits like research and development are secondary when criminals are pointing weapons at your family, and dedicating their lives to kill them. As long as you and those as mistaken as you allow others to care for your security and keep quiet, that's fine by me.
Don't have the nuts to fight for you own personal security? Well, that's what you pay taxes for. Let the government do their job and protect your sorry butt so you can sit at home and read/. Fine.
Open your mouth against my security, and you're gonna get a reaction. Security and stability is essential to pursuits like research. The capital for research and development is not available if its getting flushed out of the economy by criminals. The ability for research and development for better quality of life isn't available if its getting spent for research into murder prevention and criminal apprehension.
... abdicate our powers of logic...
BAH! The resultant war on terrorism is a totally logical conclusion to the attacks of foreign terrorists.
Sit back, relax if you want, and watch as the world becomes a safer place for everyone, while the Federal, State and Local gov'ts in the US and their International allies take the stand and make the sacrifices that lesser nations of lesser people are not willing to make.
We make these sacrifices so that in the future the world has the possibility of being '... a world where we all do not have to strive so hard, where we would not have to stress ourselves so much just to survive, a world where we devote all that wasted energy and wealth to more worthwhile pursuits, such as medical research to lenghten our own lives.'
Al-Qaeda has been working to kill Americans around the world for decades. The intelligence briefing of August 6th wasn't ignored -- it was so vague that is was almost meaningless.
... cut back on our energy usage with rationing... Ridiculous! No one is gonna go for rationing, our economy would've suffered and it wouldn't stop Saddam. We purchased only a fraction of our oil from Iraq -- Saddam had no trouble finding buyers for his oil.
Unproven at best. Laughable at worst Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda via his circumvention of the UN Oil-For-Food program. Look it up. Saddam killed Sunni's as well as other Muslims.
How absurd! Bankruptcy is not downright criminal. You obviously have little knowledge of economics, business, or bankruptcy law.
... God is speaking through him...Utter crap. Point me to any real quote where GW says 'God is speaking through me'.
... shut down the borders, confiscated the private businesses... There are plenty of countries that practice socialism and provide universal healthcare... don't want your socialism here.
... made sure our people were taken care of FIRST... you mean those that aren't killed by terrorists?
... people like me are left with jobs that pay half as much as they did 4 years ago... Lots of people are finding jobs that pay twice as much as they did four years ago. That's life. If you can't deal with competition, then you either need to be good at what you do, or you're gonna have a real tough time of it.
You're a dangerous kind of looney; one that figures they ought to spread the dementia to anyone who'll listen. All the accounting scandals now coming to light happened during the Clinton Administration. Before Bush took office, before the attack of 9/11/01. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126704&cid=106 34595
... you'd rather send your own children into battle for a wrong decision...
Toppling a brutal anti-human-rights regime in Afghanistan which was sheltering Al-Qaeda was a wrong decision?
Toppling a brutal terrorist regime in Iraq responsible for the deaths of millions of muslims was a wrong decision? A terrorist regime with funding links to Al-Qaeda -- that was a wrong decision?
... this guy has a record of wrong decisions...
Provide real examples please. The bankruptcy thing is ridiculous: Corporate bankruptcies happen all the time in America...
G.W. Bush has a record of RIGHT decisions while he was holding a public office. He's not right all the time, but his right decisions far outweigh the wrong ones. People like you are just to short-sighted and cognitively challenged to realize they're the right decision.
As you say, it was a historic economic impact. We're still feeling the consequences of it today.
The United States isn't a huge social welfare program. President's don't create jobs. If you'd quit swallowing that Leftist Damnocratic Propoganda long enough to take a look at what's really going on, you might not be so ignorant of the facts.
Fact is we're coming out of a recession which was brought about by bad Clinton Economic Policies, and then exacerbated by the attack of 9/11/01, which flushed upwards of 500 billion dollars out of our Economy.
This post is especially ignorant...
Yes, your post is especially ignorant. Take the time to read the links and do some discovery for yourself, and quit swallowing propaganda, and even you too can learn the truth about our current Clinton Inspired economic woes.
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense. In other words this study is nothing short of complete crapola. People posting keep sighting facts, but this study contains almost no factual information of any kind.
There is one thing that we can learn from this study though: The fact that Kerry supporters jump all over this crap and take the study at face value without thinking or questioning is evidence that Kerry supporters are a bunch of empty heads waiting to be duped by propoganda.
Examples please. Provide examples of how this system hasn't worked well to provide us with the best presidential candidate. I mean, that is what we're having the election for.
I will grant you that these are all examples of the electoral college in action, working exactly as it was intended, but what I'm arguing is this: is that a good thing?
You're typing these posts, so I think you're reading them... you're arguing that the system works fine, but you'd like to change it? What kind of argument is that? Its ridiculous! You want to change it so some people get a warm fuzzy feeling after they vote? Its just plain ridiculous! The process of voting isn't intended to give warm fuzzies... if you want that just volunteer to give out hugs at poll exits...
People harbor animosity over the 2000 Election because their candidate lost, and then proceeded to act very unpresidential. If Gore had done the right thing and not retracted his concession, if he had done the right thing and not dragged the US Election process through the courts, or if he had done the right thing and explained how wrong he was after all that, there wouldn't have been near the animosity for the last four years. Other losing Presidential Candidates have done less in the past -- Gore is simply not Presidential material.
Instead, he fell apart, ruined his political career, left the Election process in the mud where he was done with it, and left a whole lot of people with the impression that something was wrong with the process.
Fact is, there's nothing wrong with the Electoral College system we use to select a President, its one of the best systems in the world, it consistently produces results that are agreeable to a majority of the population of the United States, it does so with a minimum of fuss and effort, and it consistently provides a good President. This isn't the first time there've been losers that try to change the process, I'm sure it won't be the last.
Anyone who undertakes the responsibility to do something is going to create the opportunity for enemies. Its far too easy to sit back and criticize a doer, as there's plenty of opportunity for second-guessing any decisions made, even the right ones.
Being a do-nothing is the hallmark of any career politician.
A do-nothing like Clinton, who found it difficult to do anything without a public opinion poll, had relatively few criticisms of his foreign or domestic policy while in office. Of course, his morals got him into trouble time and again.
And, Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 20 years, survives by not doing anything worthwhile (except the Iran-Contra thing), and thereby not creating opportunities for his enemies.
I'd much rather have a doer working for me. Do-nothing career politicians make me ill.
The federal government is a drain for all but a few lucky populous states with lots-o-representatives. I vote for less-Federal-more-State every chance I get, but I guess you and I are the only ones with enough smarts to do so...
I think you're really confused because our Electoral College can select a President other than what the Popular Vote selects. Guess What, *THAT'S EXACTLY AS INTENDED*. You see, it gives small states with less population a voice. Get it. That's how we do things in the US. Its mandated by our Constitution, its Right, its Just, and it Makes Sense. Quit whining about it! Its our Election Process, its not 'Winner-Take-All'.
If the purpose of our Presidential Election was to show how everyone eligible to vote supported the democratic process, then a high voter turnout would be a good thing.
However, the purpose of our Presidential Election is to select the best President we can, from the list of those willing to take the job. As long as turnout is reasonable (say above 50% of eligible voters) turnout is not particularly relevant. There is an argument that high voter turnout has more to do with selecting the wrong candidate. We've got 160 million eligible voters here in the US. Its not necessary for all 160 million people to cast a vote to end up with a good President.
My point on comparing the EU with the US is that the EU has population, cultural and geologic diversity similar to the US. That's what leads to differences between states, just as it leads to differences between 'sovereign nations' in Europe. Get it? But, due to our superior political system, we get a whole lot done in the US, while the EU is so democratic... we'll leave the 'european arse' discussion for another time.
And finally, if your elected officials only serve the popular interest, then why go to the trouble to elect them? Just have polls every week or so and have the government act accordingly. I don't expect my President to carry out the whims of the people, but rather to act in the people's best interest. Many times there's quite a big difference between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
... is a bastion of biased bullshit.
Leave it alone already. The election is over. Bush is our President. Rather than try to undermine the authority rightfully granted during the election process, why not try to use the ethical, legal and accepted tools available our Democratic Republic to make lawful, meaningful changes?
Rhetorical, of course: let me answer. UC Berkeley isn't interested in knowledge or change, they're interested in the free notoriety that comes from publishing a 'study', no matter how pie-in-the-sky full-of-guesswork, that comes to a conclusion that appeals to a small, select, cognitively challenged group of people who might actually feel at home at UC Berkeley.
It really is appalling that not-quite-fictional-but-clearly-wrong crap like this gets posted to the Politics section of Slashdot, when meaningful news stories are rejected. Items like this have me visiting all areas of Slashdot less and less.
'But, I paid extra for the service plan.'
'Well, it is covered under the service plan you purchased, but we can't fix it.' Then, to add insult to injury, 'If you'd like to buy a new one, we've got some great deals over in aisle 5 ...'
They've got a well-known rep for this practice. They've been sued by several State Attorney Generals http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/best_buy_ohi o.html because of the volume, consistency and recurrence of the complaints and other shady dealings http://www.engadget.com/entry/5103212665587422 of exactly the kind that sunk Sun Electronics here in Central Ohio years ago.
Give them 5 or 6 years, and they'll be closing stores and 'consolidating', before the final, merciful act of closing their doors forever.
I don't care how many Barrys, Jills and Buzzs they have as customers -- people with money just aren't *THAT* dumb!
As a search tool, Google sucks. Period.
There are real reasons Linux is a Server OS first, and a Desktop OS second.
Yet, even a socially retarded cognitively challenged individual such as yourself was able to get Slashdot to work ... as evidenced by your post.
Hmmm. I should give Linux a try if its that easy.
In the report I pointed you to, there's $21BN in Corporate taxes included - that's a problem. There's no accounting for CA's 2%-lower-than-national-average percent of retired folks - that's a bigger problem.
In a short snippet which you can understand, you have provided only incorrect sources for your claim that CA in fact does pay more to Federal Gov't than it receives back in benefits. The 'executive summary' selected excerpt which you pointed me to has numbers that are wrong. I showed you how wrong they were by pointing you to report that was based on the content of the report underlying the 'executive summary' selected excerpt you cited as your original source.
That's all there is to it.
The Tax Foundation skews the numbers -- the larger taxpayer a state is, with California by far the largest Federal taxpayer, the more the numbers are out of whack with reality. If you aren't that good with numbers, ask someone to explain it to you.
http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balrpt02.htm here's a much better explanation of why CA doesn't get 100% of their Federal Tax dollars back (because they have fewer than average Senior Citizens), but it also shows if you look at the real numbers (you've got to have the ability to do addition and division, you can do that, can't you?), that in 2002 CA residents paid $256BN in Federal Tax dollars, and got back $230BN. That works out to 90 cents on the dollar, far from what the Tax Federation's 'executive summary' selected excerpt shows as 81 cents on the dollar.
As anyone with a sliver of cognitive ability knows, the way you come up with the numbers is much more important than any selected excerpts.
Furthermore, to be unaware of the famous paradox that Republican states get the most benefit from Democrat-linked "big government" programs... actually, I suppose that's the typical reality-aversion of the American electorate.
More Crap served up by someone who reads an 'Executive Summary', but fails to understand the underlying report. The 2002 Tax Year marked the first time in a decade that California received a share of Federal Grant programs that was smaller than their share of US population. CA is home to approx. 12.5% of the US population, yet even in 2002, CA received 25% of the $4 billion federal urbanized area transit formula grants, 22.7% of the Fed expenditures for TANF's (Temp Assistance for Needy Families), 14.5% of the $8.2 billion Title I Education for the Disadvantaged program. For the period from '92 thru '01, CA got more than a fair share of these 'Democrat-linked "big government" programs'.
You're reality averted, and your ignorance is still showing.
Here's the major reasons for the Iraq war this time around:
Here's more detail into Iraq's defiance of the UN in the years from 1991 to 2002. Take a look to refresh your memory RL31641.pdf
What about Libya?
Kahdaffi folded when he saw how serious we were with Afghanistan and Iraq. Think Saddam would've ever come around? -- Saddam was a complete madman.
What about Pakistan?
Yeah, Pakistan too. Two birds with one stone -- twice! Having US Troops on one side and angry Indians on the other gave them a new-found internationally cooperative attitude.
The UN was useless because BUSH prevented the UN from being useful ...
Wrong. There are ample examples of the UN's incompetence -- let's review: Rwanda genocide, Somalia, Libya, Sudan Darfur genocide, Taliban in Afghanistan, East Timor, Cambodia, China Human Rights, Palestinian/Isreali conflict, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, the list goes on and on.
In fact, the United States is the heavy lifter behind every single accomplishment the United Nations has under their belt. Without the US, the UN is little more than a yapping poodle.
Bush wanted, pleaded, begged for the UN to do something, but all he got from them was a resolution -- no action. Why, because major players at the UN were lining their pockets with Oil-For-Food money -- they didn't want Bush derailing their 'Gravy-Train.'
Your government created Bin Laden ... Your government funded Saddam ...
The United States used OBL and Saddam, but we didn't create them. They were there without our intervention, and completely willing to be used as they used us. Both were funded with Oil Money and the blood of Arabs and others. We put a stop to Saddam, we'll stop OBL, and anyone else who turns on us.
You appear to be yet another of the seemingly endless supply of Emptyheaded people waiting for your consciousness to be filled with propoganda. Think for yourself, man! Quit swallowing that propoganda your government controlled media calls news.
General Arab opinion has been against the US since well before Saddam came to power. Before OBL, before Khadaffi, Kim Il Sung, for as long as I've known of Arab sentiment, as a rule of thumb its been against us. I don't see *ANYTHING* that'll change that within generations, except for the eradication of The United States and The State of Isreal from the face of the earth. Trust me, that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
So why should we bother to try? We're gonna do the right thing -- stamp out terrorism. The rest of the world can either sit back and watch, or go pound salt! We really don't care -- there's no point in caring what terrorists or those who defend terrorists think. No point at all.
That respect thing works both ways -- stick that up your 'stinky ass' ...
There's no evidence to support this other than ancedotal stories from questionable sources.
There is, however, evidence to refute this:
Terrorists were killed in number in Afghanistan, and continue to be hunted and captured or killed.
Terrorists are being killed in number in Iraq, and continue to be captured or killed.
Terrorists around the world are being killed or captured.
The United States has not suffered a direct terrorist attack other than in the Afghani or Iraqi theatres since 9/11.
The Afghan elections were carried out with barely a whimper from terrorists.
Neither. If you look at the facts objectively, you'll be able to see OBL for the opportunistist power-grabbing politician he is, not a truth-speaker by any stretch of the imagination.
Who should I believe about Arab feelings? You or the foreign minister of Iran and the King of Jordon
First, the Foreign Minister of Iran and the King of Jordan are not spokespeople for the Arab population. Neither is elected, and both are as facist as they can get away with. They are as much power-grabbing politicains as OBL, with alot more to lose. Second, I never said that Arab opinion wasn't against Isreal and the US. It clearly is. It has been for generations, and I don't see that changing regardless of what our foriegn policy is (unless that policy is to dissolve Isreal and the United States).
Current US Foreign Policy can change the mindset that says 'if you don't like what's happening, blow up lots of civilians.' With the right application of consequences, terrorism will fall out of favor.
Arabs don't like being killed ...
Certain Palestinians seem to like being killed -- Palestinian Homicide bombers kill themselves (and occasionally other Palestinians) all the time. Although, much less frequently since Saddam hasn't been passing out his blood money to their families ...
Certain Sunni's in Iraq seem to like being killed -- they stand up straight and shoot at armed troops seemingly begging to be shot dead ...
Plenty of foreign fighters in Iraq are Arabs, and they seem to be going to alot of trouble to get into Iraq in order to get killed ...
No sane person likes being killed. Most all US Citizens have the morals to not tolerate under any circumstances terrorists acts and threats from either side of the issue. Many US Citizens have the will to see those terrorists responsible jailed for their actions, and are determined their actions not effect US foriegn policy.
It's not a video game ...
No kidding, Dumbass!
This time, we do take it seriously. Finally, we have a leader who takes it very seriously. As serious as a Heart Attack. No more lobbing missiles at empty buildings. No more cut-and-run from terrorists. No more keeping our head down and hoping the terrorists stop killing us.
That's why we deposed the terrorist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
That's why we toppled terrorist Saddam and his regime in Iraq.
That's why we're working to prevent the extremist regime in Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
That's why we're working to contain the nuclear threat in paranoid and war-ready North Korea.
That's why we're working with ex-terrorist Libya's newfound willingness to play by the rules.
That's why we've got much of the world working with us to capture international terrorists. No more do regimes look the other way in hopes of not being a target -- Every Nation is a target in this deadly game.
Fact is, OBL is aligning his groups despicable acts with history long after the attacks occur. He's not fighting a war -- he's a political power-broker buying followers with rhetoric. He's not aspiring to high ideals -- he's looking to gain political clout via any means available.
There's no justification for his, nor his followers actions. He's a murderer. He's a criminal. He's a pile of dung, and one day he'll be dead. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.
You're not living in the real world. What you and others who think like you fail to realize is that 'a more logical and rational world' requires everyone to cooperate. Criminals do not cooperate -- that's why they're criminals. More worthwhile pursuits like research and development are secondary when criminals are pointing weapons at your family, and dedicating their lives to kill them. As long as you and those as mistaken as you allow others to care for your security and keep quiet, that's fine by me.
Don't have the nuts to fight for you own personal security? Well, that's what you pay taxes for. Let the government do their job and protect your sorry butt so you can sit at home and read /. Fine.
Open your mouth against my security, and you're gonna get a reaction. Security and stability is essential to pursuits like research. The capital for research and development is not available if its getting flushed out of the economy by criminals. The ability for research and development for better quality of life isn't available if its getting spent for research into murder prevention and criminal apprehension.
BAH! The resultant war on terrorism is a totally logical conclusion to the attacks of foreign terrorists.
Sit back, relax if you want, and watch as the world becomes a safer place for everyone, while the Federal, State and Local gov'ts in the US and their International allies take the stand and make the sacrifices that lesser nations of lesser people are not willing to make.
We make these sacrifices so that in the future the world has the possibility of being '... a world where we all do not have to strive so hard, where we would not have to stress ourselves so much just to survive, a world where we devote all that wasted energy and wealth to more worthwhile pursuits, such as medical research to lenghten our own lives.'
You poor mistaken Bastard.
What you found was *selected excerpts* from a study that isn't available yet on the web.
How can you trust results from a study where you can't examine the numbers behind the conclusions? I don't -- neither should you.
Unproven at best. Laughable at worst Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda via his circumvention of the UN Oil-For-Food program. Look it up. Saddam killed Sunni's as well as other Muslims.
How absurd! Bankruptcy is not downright criminal. You obviously have little knowledge of economics, business, or bankruptcy law.
You're a dangerous kind of looney; one that figures they ought to spread the dementia to anyone who'll listen. All the accounting scandals now coming to light happened during the Clinton Administration. Before Bush took office, before the attack of 9/11/01. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126704&cid=106 34595
Sources?
Toppling a brutal anti-human-rights regime in Afghanistan which was sheltering Al-Qaeda was a wrong decision?
Toppling a brutal terrorist regime in Iraq responsible for the deaths of millions of muslims was a wrong decision? A terrorist regime with funding links to Al-Qaeda -- that was a wrong decision?
Provide real examples please. The bankruptcy thing is ridiculous: Corporate bankruptcies happen all the time in America ...
G.W. Bush has a record of RIGHT decisions while he was holding a public office. He's not right all the time, but his right decisions far outweigh the wrong ones. People like you are just to short-sighted and cognitively challenged to realize they're the right decision.
Yes, let's review:
As you say, it was a historic economic impact. We're still feeling the consequences of it today.
The United States isn't a huge social welfare program. President's don't create jobs. If you'd quit swallowing that Leftist Damnocratic Propoganda long enough to take a look at what's really going on, you might not be so ignorant of the facts.
Fact is we're coming out of a recession which was brought about by bad Clinton Economic Policies, and then exacerbated by the attack of 9/11/01, which flushed upwards of 500 billion dollars out of our Economy.
This post is especially ignorant ...
Yes, your post is especially ignorant. Take the time to read the links and do some discovery for yourself, and quit swallowing propaganda, and even you too can learn the truth about our current Clinton Inspired economic woes.
What's that got to do with my post?
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense. In other words this study is nothing short of complete crapola. People posting keep sighting facts, but this study contains almost no factual information of any kind.
There is one thing that we can learn from this study though: The fact that Kerry supporters jump all over this crap and take the study at face value without thinking or questioning is evidence that Kerry supporters are a bunch of empty heads waiting to be duped by propoganda.
JESUS H CHRIST!
Examples please. Provide examples of how this system hasn't worked well to provide us with the best presidential candidate. I mean, that is what we're having the election for.
I will grant you that these are all examples of the electoral college in action, working exactly as it was intended, but what I'm arguing is this: is that a good thing?
You're typing these posts, so I think you're reading them
People harbor animosity over the 2000 Election because their candidate lost, and then proceeded to act very unpresidential. If Gore had done the right thing and not retracted his concession, if he had done the right thing and not dragged the US Election process through the courts, or if he had done the right thing and explained how wrong he was after all that, there wouldn't have been near the animosity for the last four years. Other losing Presidential Candidates have done less in the past -- Gore is simply not Presidential material.
Instead, he fell apart, ruined his political career, left the Election process in the mud where he was done with it, and left a whole lot of people with the impression that something was wrong with the process.
Fact is, there's nothing wrong with the Electoral College system we use to select a President, its one of the best systems in the world, it consistently produces results that are agreeable to a majority of the population of the United States, it does so with a minimum of fuss and effort, and it consistently provides a good President. This isn't the first time there've been losers that try to change the process, I'm sure it won't be the last.
... stupid enough to be both ...
Its not stupidity. Its the fact that he's a doer.
Anyone who undertakes the responsibility to do something is going to create the opportunity for enemies. Its far too easy to sit back and criticize a doer, as there's plenty of opportunity for second-guessing any decisions made, even the right ones.
Being a do-nothing is the hallmark of any career politician.
A do-nothing like Clinton, who found it difficult to do anything without a public opinion poll, had relatively few criticisms of his foreign or domestic policy while in office. Of course, his morals got him into trouble time and again.
And, Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 20 years, survives by not doing anything worthwhile (except the Iran-Contra thing), and thereby not creating opportunities for his enemies.
I'd much rather have a doer working for me. Do-nothing career politicians make me ill.
Excellent!
You lost me.
The federal government is a drain for all but a few lucky populous states with lots-o-representatives. I vote for less-Federal-more-State every chance I get, but I guess you and I are the only ones with enough smarts to do so ...
As did Iraq. Saddam Hussein won every election he was a candidate in.
I think you're really confused because our Electoral College can select a President other than what the Popular Vote selects. Guess What, *THAT'S EXACTLY AS INTENDED*. You see, it gives small states with less population a voice. Get it. That's how we do things in the US. Its mandated by our Constitution, its Right, its Just, and it Makes Sense. Quit whining about it! Its our Election Process, its not 'Winner-Take-All'.
If the purpose of our Presidential Election was to show how everyone eligible to vote supported the democratic process, then a high voter turnout would be a good thing.
However, the purpose of our Presidential Election is to select the best President we can, from the list of those willing to take the job. As long as turnout is reasonable (say above 50% of eligible voters) turnout is not particularly relevant. There is an argument that high voter turnout has more to do with selecting the wrong candidate. We've got 160 million eligible voters here in the US. Its not necessary for all 160 million people to cast a vote to end up with a good President.
My point on comparing the EU with the US is that the EU has population, cultural and geologic diversity similar to the US. That's what leads to differences between states, just as it leads to differences between 'sovereign nations' in Europe. Get it? But, due to our superior political system, we get a whole lot done in the US, while the EU is so democratic ... we'll leave the 'european arse' discussion for another time.
And finally, if your elected officials only serve the popular interest, then why go to the trouble to elect them? Just have polls every week or so and have the government act accordingly. I don't expect my President to carry out the whims of the people, but rather to act in the people's best interest. Many times there's quite a big difference between the two.