"You got beer in my coffee!"
"You got coffee in my beer!"
You know, I've always felt a hole inside of me, some need I could not fill. At now at last, I know what it is.
But I do know that anybody who claims that the Bush government doesn't lie and manipulate on a regular basis is not in the business of viewing the world at all.
"Lie" implies knowingly distorting the truth. It's not entirely clear whether this is the case or not. Yes, Bush and company are unquestionably guilty of decieving the American public, but they may actually buy into all the nonsense that they are selling. Hell, why the hell else would they go into Iraq with 100,000 troops instead of 300,000 unless they really believed that it would work, that we would be showered with flowers? Yes, I'm sure the money to be made rebuilding the country was a major factor, as was the strategic control of the Gulf region, but these guys are probably so deluded they believe they really are working for truth, liberty, and the Ameri
can way.
They were more than likely hiding something; be it plans for a renewed weapons programs in chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or leftover samples for use in those revived programs. I don't think anyone truely believed that Iraq was clean. We found out later that they weren't.
Hans Blix has said that he did believe they had weapons... until later in the inspections process when the various locations given to them by intelligence turned out not to have anything in there. In other words, the inspections process did exactly what it was supposed to- see whether Iraq had arms or not- but Bush and company did not want to listen. It's just more of the same thing with these guys- when facts and their beliefs collide, they choose their beliefs every single time.
These questions have a HUGE slant to them! They are not neutral nor are they informative. It seems that most of them are accusatory toward the President, and are 'softball' questions for the Democratic candidate.
I wholeheartedly agree. We really need to be less partisan: it is just so unfair to ask questions which are aimed towards the strengths of John Kerry and the weaknesses of George W. Bush. For example, the question, "what is six plus seven?". That's just completely biased against W.
Just how much crack are you smoking, that you'd be willing to risk subjecting the nation and the world to another four more years of the policies of George W. Bush?
(Same question for George W.)
I think it's more likely that the Middle East nations would either cut production or keep it the same. Support for the Bush administration isn't exactly at an all-time high in the Middle East. He's humiliated the Islamic world by invading Iraq, probably scared the hell out of them by turning the place into huge guerilla war, and he hasn't exactly been sympathetic to the Palestinians.
I thought Bush's repeated use of the phrase "it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" was really stupid- I mean, it's an absolutely wonderful description of the Iraq misadventure, so it's a nice piece of rhetorical ammo to hand the democrats. He must have used it four or five times.
It's this same idiotic, naive-but-I-think-I'm-insightful kind of attitude that helped get Bush elected in the first place. The candidates have to appeal to the center in order to get elected, thus Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" "uniter not a divider" line when he's a radical right wing religious nut. Everyone said Bush and Gore were the same, but once Bush got in power he pushed his right-wing agenda of tax cuts for people who don't need them, favoring huge corporations like Halliburton, invading Iraq no matter the cost or justification, and guarding against nonexistent nuclear threats (the National Missile Defense) instead of spending a moment of his time worrying about Al Qaeda. Democrats have their failings, but you have to be brain dead not to see a difference this time around.
Kerry gutted Bush like a fish. If you were lucky enough to catch this on C-SPAN, you got to see each candidate while the other spoke. Kerry came across as commanding and presidential. Bush looked like a small child lost in the mall, looking for his mother. Kerry was calm, confident, even smiling broadly- he owned that debate and he knew it. Bush was agitated, nervous, and uncomfortable. Kerry showed that he knew his facts, and Bush didn't.
Afterwards, C-SPAN took calls. The Bush callers claimed Bush had won- they were clearly in whatever fantasy land Bush inhabits. One of them said, rather defensively, that Bush looked disoriented and agitated only because he was confused by all of Kerry's flip-flopping. That one had me howling.
Let's not forget the imprisonment, torture, and killings done by Americans at Abu Graib.
Also, Al Qaeda is just one element we're fighting over there. There are also Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, the Saddam regime "dead-enders", common criminals, and, one would assume, people from the intelligence services of nations hostile to the US.
How "amateur" these groups are is open to debate considering that they are currently winning the war (their failure to win any battles notwithstanding).
We put airports outside of cities for a reason- well, actually several reasons. One is noise. It's bad enough with cars, but can you imagine the racket from several thousand small aircraft zipping around a major urban area? Another huge issue is safety- aircraft obviously try to avoid inhabited areas. Think of how dangerous an air car crash will be to the street traffic below: like, imagine a Volkswagen catapulted forward at 150mph... from atop the Empire State Building.
Um... no. If by "biosphere-killing" you mean something along the lines of the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, then (1) it's not "soon", since this scale of impact probably occurs on the order of every 100 million years or more, which is a fairly long time even to a geologist, and (2) it's survivable (for the species). The Cretaceous mass extinction took out the larger mammals but a lot of smaller ones made it through. Presumably, whatever advantages they had over the dinosaurs (ability to hide underground, ability to stash food, ability to get by without minimal food since they were rat-sized) we could make up for with technology (digging bomb shelters, storing massive caches of food). If critters like possums made it through the Cretaceous asteroid impact, we could make it through something as bad or worse (3) as long as we're talking survival of the species, it's probably worth considering how diverting energy, raw materials and manpower to colonizing Mars will affect our survival when resources may be getting a bit scarce- after all, we've gotten involved in two full-scale wars in as many decades over access to the petrochemical reserves of the Gulf region.
So if I have relatives in Australia, does it mean that my family must come from Australia? I mean, it could be that the Australians come from my home country, or that we both come from some third place.
It's possible (and probably simpler to assume) that these tribes came from Eurasia and then colonized Japan (the Ainu have long been recognized as relatives of the Australian aborigines), then migrated south into Australia, and finally East to North America.
Presumably, these people must have once been pretty good with boats or rafts of some sort. It's hard to figure out how else they could get to islands like Australia and Japan, and may explain how they were able to get to North America- possibly by boat rather than the Bering land bridge, which was mostly covered up by glaciers 10,000 years ago if I recall.
Slashdot Mirror
"You got beer in my coffee!" "You got coffee in my beer!" You know, I've always felt a hole inside of me, some need I could not fill. At now at last, I know what it is.
"Lie" implies knowingly distorting the truth. It's not entirely clear whether this is the case or not. Yes, Bush and company are unquestionably guilty of decieving the American public, but they may actually buy into all the nonsense that they are selling. Hell, why the hell else would they go into Iraq with 100,000 troops instead of 300,000 unless they really believed that it would work, that we would be showered with flowers? Yes, I'm sure the money to be made rebuilding the country was a major factor, as was the strategic control of the Gulf region, but these guys are probably so deluded they believe they really are working for truth, liberty, and the Ameri can way.
Hans Blix has said that he did believe they had weapons... until later in the inspections process when the various locations given to them by intelligence turned out not to have anything in there. In other words, the inspections process did exactly what it was supposed to- see whether Iraq had arms or not- but Bush and company did not want to listen. It's just more of the same thing with these guys- when facts and their beliefs collide, they choose their beliefs every single time.
Isn't it obvious? It's so you can find the location of the nearest red base, run in, steal their flag, and then take it back to the blue base.
I wholeheartedly agree. We really need to be less partisan: it is just so unfair to ask questions which are aimed towards the strengths of John Kerry and the weaknesses of George W. Bush. For example, the question, "what is six plus seven?". That's just completely biased against W.
Damn liberals.
Just how much crack are you smoking, that you'd be willing to risk subjecting the nation and the world to another four more years of the policies of George W. Bush? (Same question for George W.)
I think it's more likely that the Middle East nations would either cut production or keep it the same. Support for the Bush administration isn't exactly at an all-time high in the Middle East. He's humiliated the Islamic world by invading Iraq, probably scared the hell out of them by turning the place into huge guerilla war, and he hasn't exactly been sympathetic to the Palestinians.
I thought Bush's repeated use of the phrase "it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" was really stupid- I mean, it's an absolutely wonderful description of the Iraq misadventure, so it's a nice piece of rhetorical ammo to hand the democrats. He must have used it four or five times.
It's this same idiotic, naive-but-I-think-I'm-insightful kind of attitude that helped get Bush elected in the first place. The candidates have to appeal to the center in order to get elected, thus Bush's whole "compassionate conservative" "uniter not a divider" line when he's a radical right wing religious nut. Everyone said Bush and Gore were the same, but once Bush got in power he pushed his right-wing agenda of tax cuts for people who don't need them, favoring huge corporations like Halliburton, invading Iraq no matter the cost or justification, and guarding against nonexistent nuclear threats (the National Missile Defense) instead of spending a moment of his time worrying about Al Qaeda. Democrats have their failings, but you have to be brain dead not to see a difference this time around.
Kerry gutted Bush like a fish. If you were lucky enough to catch this on C-SPAN, you got to see each candidate while the other spoke. Kerry came across as commanding and presidential. Bush looked like a small child lost in the mall, looking for his mother. Kerry was calm, confident, even smiling broadly- he owned that debate and he knew it. Bush was agitated, nervous, and uncomfortable. Kerry showed that he knew his facts, and Bush didn't. Afterwards, C-SPAN took calls. The Bush callers claimed Bush had won- they were clearly in whatever fantasy land Bush inhabits. One of them said, rather defensively, that Bush looked disoriented and agitated only because he was confused by all of Kerry's flip-flopping. That one had me howling.
Let's not forget the imprisonment, torture, and killings done by Americans at Abu Graib. Also, Al Qaeda is just one element we're fighting over there. There are also Shiite militias, Sunni insurgents, the Saddam regime "dead-enders", common criminals, and, one would assume, people from the intelligence services of nations hostile to the US. How "amateur" these groups are is open to debate considering that they are currently winning the war (their failure to win any battles notwithstanding).
We put airports outside of cities for a reason- well, actually several reasons. One is noise. It's bad enough with cars, but can you imagine the racket from several thousand small aircraft zipping around a major urban area? Another huge issue is safety- aircraft obviously try to avoid inhabited areas. Think of how dangerous an air car crash will be to the street traffic below: like, imagine a Volkswagen catapulted forward at 150mph... from atop the Empire State Building.
Um... no. If by "biosphere-killing" you mean something along the lines of the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, then (1) it's not "soon", since this scale of impact probably occurs on the order of every 100 million years or more, which is a fairly long time even to a geologist, and (2) it's survivable (for the species). The Cretaceous mass extinction took out the larger mammals but a lot of smaller ones made it through. Presumably, whatever advantages they had over the dinosaurs (ability to hide underground, ability to stash food, ability to get by without minimal food since they were rat-sized) we could make up for with technology (digging bomb shelters, storing massive caches of food). If critters like possums made it through the Cretaceous asteroid impact, we could make it through something as bad or worse (3) as long as we're talking survival of the species, it's probably worth considering how diverting energy, raw materials and manpower to colonizing Mars will affect our survival when resources may be getting a bit scarce- after all, we've gotten involved in two full-scale wars in as many decades over access to the petrochemical reserves of the Gulf region.
So if I have relatives in Australia, does it mean that my family must come from Australia? I mean, it could be that the Australians come from my home country, or that we both come from some third place. It's possible (and probably simpler to assume) that these tribes came from Eurasia and then colonized Japan (the Ainu have long been recognized as relatives of the Australian aborigines), then migrated south into Australia, and finally East to North America. Presumably, these people must have once been pretty good with boats or rafts of some sort. It's hard to figure out how else they could get to islands like Australia and Japan, and may explain how they were able to get to North America- possibly by boat rather than the Bering land bridge, which was mostly covered up by glaciers 10,000 years ago if I recall.