No, you have no idea what I'm talking about do you? The food we export is below market price, they could not export to keep a profit, they can only grow food for themselves. If our farmers were willing to compete with the rest of the world, third world nations would be in better shape. Moron.
What you have to understand is that there is an unlimited number of jobs available at any given time. Unemployment rates only reflect a workers unwillingness to work. You producing something for less resources is a good thing. If, some day, there are NO blue collar jobs available, machines build everything and machines build machines, then life will be good, assuming there is no oppressive force controlling everything, i.e. that there is a strong middle class.
Apparently I understand the topic better than you. You see, inhibiting outsourcing is undermining an entire class of people, we call them "the rest of the world". Look what agricultural subsidies have done to third world nations.
Oh my god, you are completely ignorant. In a couple decades the entire world will be a entirely different than you know it now. You seem to think that the only thing that will ever change for you is your job will be performed by an Indian. Why don't you make yourself a more competitive asset if things are so dire for you.
Bigger question to be asking is whether using any method to prevent outsourcing would have hurt our economy, which is what these economists predicted.
Funny, I see the same scare tactics, overinflated gross job losses (as opposed to net job losses) and what not, being used with this latest Dubai port deal scare. "Oh noes! The terrorists are taking over our ports!"
What does that say about Bush, who says things far dumber on almost a weekly basis?
Why don't you cite some examples. It seems your true colors are showing. I know you've been saying your not a liberal, but the evidence to support that has been sparse. I'm guessing you don't like the way he talks, so you think he sounds "dumb". Careful here, don't fall into a trap, remember, you're not a liberal.
It applies perfectly: it is a collection of big businesses in the pockets of Democrats (as well as Republicans). It is exactly the counterexample to your point. For you to shrug it off by saying you don't "follow" it seems strange (given that this most recent message, on the whole, doesn't sound trollish). There's nothing to "follow," except to know that they still exist, still make boatloads of money, and are supported by people (Liberals) that you claim hate them. Liberals obviously do not hate ALL big businesses. Just the ones for which hate give them some advantage (political or financial). Same as Conservatives.
Without doing any research, I will hand you this point, based on what I know about Hollywood (it's nearly 100% liberal). Still, it is a judicial matter, an issue of intellectual property rights, you could say it is really the artists being affected here not the recording industry. There are certainly better examples of "big business", like the oil industry, which supports conservatives (especially texas conservatives).
I believe you seriously overestimate the thinking ability of the general public.
Whoa now! That is not a conservative viewpoint! You are reading from the liberal bible here, "People can't take care of themselves"???? I don't know where that bullshit originated from, the new deal? People can take care of themselves just fine. I've argued this point many times, there is no such thing as poverty in America. If you think there is, you need to look around a bit. People take care of themselves just fine, even when there is no money at all. What you're saying really boils down to this idea that people making a lot more money than other people somehow isn't FAIR. Fairness is totally skewed by the liberals. In an effort to make things more fair, the liberals have encouraged money transfers from the rich to the poor, and this has a devastating effect on the lower class, and on the economy as a whole. Most of the welfare recipients, the "soap opera watchers", would go out and get jobs if the government wasn't handing money to them, and their life would be better. People are starting to realize this.
As for the private accounts, you apparently don't know anything about them. It wouldn't require that they be managed by people, hell it wouldn't even be required that they USE them! The option to use them would be up to you, and if you wanted you could have it all managed automatically. When you're old enough to set up an investment account, you'll see how easy it is, go talk to an investment consultant, they'll be salivating over your stash, you don't have to know a damn thing about the stock market to get involved. Go check out health savings accounts. You're not allowed to dump your health savings into one high-risk stock, the indexes are pre-selected for you, and the broker will be happy to walk you through the selection process (FOR FREE). It is not possible to lose money over anything more than say 5 years of time, given stock market trends over the last 50 years. If your work is offering a 401k plan, with a somewhat decent contribution, you'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. This is such an incoherent argument, I can hardly believe you don't call yourself an outright liberal. This is a strongly liberal position.
If there were to be a retirement system suggested that was easy enough to understand and use by the less intelligent adults but manageable enough to be useful for those that DO understand, I would support it. Bush's SS changes are not.
This makes no sense. I don't think you even know what the Bush plan entailed. Your just an anti-Bush liberal. Goodbye.
Holy crap, are you keeping track of everything I say? That was an entirely different thread! OK, yes I did. I am sorry. Didn't realize that was you and forgot I said it. The point of that post was to show the hypocrisy, not to correct spelling. Regardless, I did do it.
There was no hypocrisy there, I'm not the one running for president, making dumb ass remarks in the public sphere. John Kerry is. He's a loud mouth bafoon. Anybody care to argue that? Hah!
I don't believe that was "their big argument," and I think it's B.S. anyway. There are better arguments than that kind of scaremongering. But because some people who fall under a certain label believe something, it does not automatically follow that everyone with that label believes it. It could be said that they are scared of people willing to do that kind of thing, and not the business itself (I don't believe it, but it could be said).
I don't follow the RIAA, I don't think it's a big deal and doesn't really apply, more of a judicial matter if you ask me. I'm talking about how republicans get more funding from big business, and democrats get more funding from labor unions. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle =2004
Here's a quote from the DNC chairman at the time, Terry McAuliffe:
The President wants to turn Social Security into Social Insecurity, by pursuing a privatization plan that would cut benefits and expose our retirement savings to the whims of a volatile stock market. Anyone who thinks private retirement accounts are a good idea should talk to Enron employees.
Here's another little interesting tidbit I found on the net, the source is judicial watch:
So why has the Democratic Party's most spotlight hungry mouthpiece faded from view? Two words. Global Crossing.
While the SEC and FBI begin to probe the questionable accounting practices of telecommunications giant Global Crossing, Ltd., which went belly up on January 28, Judicial Watch has launched a full investigation into Terry McAuliffe's ties to the company.
In what is an unprecedented case of political profiteering, McAuliffe turned a $100,000 initial investment in the company into $18 million in less than a year and a half--a nifty 18,000% profit. According to the New York Times, McAuliffe made millions more trading the stock and options after the company went public in 1998.
I've got my retirement account invested in 100% stocks and I'm doing pretty well. Of course, you're supposed to go into lower risk investments the closer you get to retirement. The presidents plan wouldn't allow any high risk investments, only broad indexed funds (so that no one company got a huge piece of the pie). I think it's pretty sad the anti-capitalists in this country have such a say in things, people would be much better off if they managed their own money instead of the government doing it for them.
And you said "Liberals hate business." How does my statement support that in any way? Not wanting everything under the sun privatized doesn't mean you hate business. You still haven't shown how I was wrong.
You said liberals were for big government as opposed to conservatives. Then you went on to say that this is not really the case any more. That's contradicting yourself.
Liberals do hate business, they are afraid of big business. Look at social security, their big argument was "Look what happened at ENRON! That could be your social security check going out with the trash!" That demonstrates a FEAR of big business, and I have agreed with many liberals on this subject. Tax and spend vs. Reaganomics. It appears your afraid to take a position against this statement, but yet you would still like to argue about something. OK!
Please point out where I did that and I will apologize.
Apologize away, it's really not necessary. You implied I was an imbecil for spelling mistakes. I don't sit here with dictionary.com up on my screen, and I don't use that word very often. Then you went on to imply that I don't know the definition of the words I use. I wouldn't be using them if I didn't know what they mean.
So, for instance, saying that you fuck your mother is not the same as calling you a mother fucker? Even more interesting. While me grammar may not be perfect, it has nothing to do with anything said in this thread. At all. As I said before, I did not correct your grammar, you are retaliating against something I did not do. Hence the new "troll" label for you. Are you even trying to make sense?
I didn't say you corrected my grammar. You did correct my spelling, and all I did was correct your implication that I was calling you a name by demanding you stop trolling. It is pretty unequivocal whether or not I am actually humping my mother or not, but once you use the F word you're name calling.
I'm calling you a fool because you're a fool. Were I to call you a pig, or poopy-pants, that's name calling, unless of course you had poopy-pants, but if you tag a Mister Poopy-pants onto it, that would still be name calling. Take a few courses in logic, fool.
As for liberals and conservatives, you pretty much stated and invalidated your point in one short paragraph. Most liberals are for bigger government, there are still some conservatives who are for smaller government. I used to vote libertarian, but these days I see things through the lense of war, so I vote R. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals would like to see things managed by the government, like health care, retirement, and various forms of social security, while the conservatives would like to privatize them. By far the biggest difference. You seem to be posturing, trying to make me look stupid, but I don't have to try very hard to defend myself, do I? If you had anything useful to say, you wouldn't be correcting my spelling. Who has time for that?
That's my gripe with google. It ignores a lot of programming syntax, while I typically use google for all my programming woes, I have to figure out clever ways of searching for words to get what I'm after.
Hey I didn't understand the last part of your post at first:
Anecdotes of non-adoption from PHP/Perl/Java/C++ programmers I have read, typically tried using rails.
It looks to me like you aught to give ruby a whirl, if it's getting all these good reactions. Steep learning curve though. I picked up PHP in a day, ruby took much longer to master, unless maybe you're familiar with all the nifty features like iterators, singleton classes, continuations and all that. Pretty much everything an OO programmer could dream up.
I actually was checking out python/zope and ruby/rails, I wanted a framework that incorporated ORM into it. I had nothing in PHP5, I actually made my own framework built around Propel ORM, but there was no meta-programming like there is in ruby, which is way cool. When I use PHP I always end up looking up silly functions to do what I want to do in ruby or perl, like the list() function. Everything is a silly function, it's just a bit ridiculous to me, like it is trying to conform to Java programmers and dynamic languages like perl.
I do all my shell scripts in Ruby now, used to do them with Perl, php never made sense for shell programming. By shell script, I mean a replacement for the tired BASH script.
LOL. Name calling? Nobody's name calling here. Get a hold of yourself. Liberals are anti-capitalism. They fear big business. That's the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in this country, fool.
I have no idea where you extrapolated the rest of your spiel (why don't you look that word up at dictionary.com to make sure I spelled it right!)
I always poke fun at Darby's sig when I argue with him;) We've crossed paths many-a-time, so go troll someone else.
Well if you're one of these types that just throws books around telling people to read them, hell people have been trying to get me to read the bible forever, aint' gonna do it. Someday you'll realize it's a stupid thing to request of people. Time is money, friend.
I was following PHP5 development until the RC1 deployment, and I was disappointed. There wasn't really much, I yearned for a new, truly OO language. Luckily, about the same time, Ruby on Rails was getting a lot of attention and I checked that out, now I couldn't be happier. I do some contract work in PHP4 and PHP5 sometimes, and I just get this sick feeling. Honestly I'd much rather program in Perl than PHP.
Oh sure, there are more cases of subsidies than just the steel industry, like recent dispute over corporate subsidies in the commercial airline manufacturers, but none the less, free trade is something we encourage. Personally, I think the farm subsidies are the worst, and these third world countries would be much better off if we eliminated our farm subsidies, they would be able to export food at a net gain, but the Europeans would have to eliminate theirs also.
An interesting turn of events is that a lot of farms in the U.S. are switching over to fuel production instead of food, which is an unexpected benefit of rising oil costs.
Well what country are you living in? I find it funny you're shrugging me off, telling me to "educate myself", you obviously have no scope outside of your own dilemma, whatever it is. I bet I could talk some sense into you. The former Yugoslavia? There is more going on in the world than these few instances where we installed a dictator. We do it to initiate free trade in a country we want to trade with. Similar to what we're doing in Iraq, but cheaper and less reliable.
You look at the facts and you find that the countries that suffer far, far worse than any others are the one's with economic embargo's and other sanctions from the United States, and sometimes these dictators ignore the welfare of the people for their own pride, which is truly a shame. Countries that participate in trade, free or otherwise, with the United States fare far, far, FAR better than the one's who don't, as they live in SQUALOR! Some countries don't have any resources we're interested in. We send free aid into these countries, at our own cost!
You apparently have no position. Saying things like "may", "maybe", and "seem" offers very weak support in this argument. You certainly have no solution. You read a book with a very anti-american aspect, try reading the history of each instance of this, and further educating yourself on economics and the benefits of free trade.
I think the Hamas thing has been sensationalized. Look at what happened. The Palestinians got to choose between Fatah (translation: "conquest"), which was flagged as a supporter of terrorism by the United States, and Hamas (translation: "islamic resistance movement"). They're both terrorists! And from the reports I've read, Hamas does a better job governing (in terms of social welfare and other domestic issues). I really think it's a shame but Palestine wasn't ready for an election, and we will have an equally hard time negotiating with either party.
Remember a few months, maybe a year or two ago the new Fatah leader to replace Yassir Arafat was making anti-israel comments and everybody in the west shrugged it off? It's because he was placed there by pro-western interests, and things looked so unordinary that he had to start saying things like that so the people would trust him. It's really no wonder they elected someone else, as bad as the opposition was. It's similar to the our 2004 election here in the United States. I usually vote Republican, but I would have voted for a respectable democrat, Joe Lieberman would have had my vote. I'd never vote for an imbasil like John Kerry, but look, he almost won! You gotta put that Hamas thing in context.
I think the moderate muslims aught to be just as worried as the rest of the world. I'm sitting here watching events unfold, and I'm thinking a lot more muslims are going to find sympathy for terrorists and corrupt dictatorships. For example, if we bomb Iran things could get pretty ugly. Here we're ready to blow up half of Iran, we're so worried. I've heard some muslims organizations on the news, but they don't get much mass-media coverage. Don't you Muslims have a Pope or something? A few words could turn over Iran.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you have no idea what I'm talking about do you? The food we export is below market price, they could not export to keep a profit, they can only grow food for themselves. If our farmers were willing to compete with the rest of the world, third world nations would be in better shape. Moron.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83301 -p0/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.html
So we're basically eating our children. There's no future in entry level jobs for the US tech worker
You're looking at it all wrong. Were you to go to India where all the jobs supposedly are, you would struggle harder to make a living.
20 years from now we'll be as dependent upon foreign tech workers as we are today on foreign oil.
This is just insanity. There are few things more unpredictable than the labor supply. I could give you many counter-points, but Drezner says it best:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay833 01-p0/daniel-w-drezner/the-outsourcing-bogeyman.ht ml
What you have to understand is that there is an unlimited number of jobs available at any given time. Unemployment rates only reflect a workers unwillingness to work. You producing something for less resources is a good thing. If, some day, there are NO blue collar jobs available, machines build everything and machines build machines, then life will be good, assuming there is no oppressive force controlling everything, i.e. that there is a strong middle class.
Apparently I understand the topic better than you. You see, inhibiting outsourcing is undermining an entire class of people, we call them "the rest of the world". Look what agricultural subsidies have done to third world nations.
Yeah, I was just making a connection between the public's unsusceptibility to reason in both cases.
Oh my god, you are completely ignorant. In a couple decades the entire world will be a entirely different than you know it now. You seem to think that the only thing that will ever change for you is your job will be performed by an Indian. Why don't you make yourself a more competitive asset if things are so dire for you.
Funny, I see the same scare tactics, overinflated gross job losses (as opposed to net job losses) and what not, being used with this latest Dubai port deal scare. "Oh noes! The terrorists are taking over our ports!"
What does that say about Bush, who says things far dumber on almost a weekly basis?
Why don't you cite some examples. It seems your true colors are showing. I know you've been saying your not a liberal, but the evidence to support that has been sparse. I'm guessing you don't like the way he talks, so you think he sounds "dumb". Careful here, don't fall into a trap, remember, you're not a liberal.
It applies perfectly: it is a collection of big businesses in the pockets of Democrats (as well as Republicans). It is exactly the counterexample to your point. For you to shrug it off by saying you don't "follow" it seems strange (given that this most recent message, on the whole, doesn't sound trollish). There's nothing to "follow," except to know that they still exist, still make boatloads of money, and are supported by people (Liberals) that you claim hate them. Liberals obviously do not hate ALL big businesses. Just the ones for which hate give them some advantage (political or financial). Same as Conservatives.
Without doing any research, I will hand you this point, based on what I know about Hollywood (it's nearly 100% liberal). Still, it is a judicial matter, an issue of intellectual property rights, you could say it is really the artists being affected here not the recording industry. There are certainly better examples of "big business", like the oil industry, which supports conservatives (especially texas conservatives).
I believe you seriously overestimate the thinking ability of the general public.
Whoa now! That is not a conservative viewpoint! You are reading from the liberal bible here, "People can't take care of themselves"???? I don't know where that bullshit originated from, the new deal? People can take care of themselves just fine. I've argued this point many times, there is no such thing as poverty in America. If you think there is, you need to look around a bit. People take care of themselves just fine, even when there is no money at all. What you're saying really boils down to this idea that people making a lot more money than other people somehow isn't FAIR. Fairness is totally skewed by the liberals. In an effort to make things more fair, the liberals have encouraged money transfers from the rich to the poor, and this has a devastating effect on the lower class, and on the economy as a whole. Most of the welfare recipients, the "soap opera watchers", would go out and get jobs if the government wasn't handing money to them, and their life would be better. People are starting to realize this.
As for the private accounts, you apparently don't know anything about them. It wouldn't require that they be managed by people, hell it wouldn't even be required that they USE them! The option to use them would be up to you, and if you wanted you could have it all managed automatically. When you're old enough to set up an investment account, you'll see how easy it is, go talk to an investment consultant, they'll be salivating over your stash, you don't have to know a damn thing about the stock market to get involved. Go check out health savings accounts. You're not allowed to dump your health savings into one high-risk stock, the indexes are pre-selected for you, and the broker will be happy to walk you through the selection process (FOR FREE). It is not possible to lose money over anything more than say 5 years of time, given stock market trends over the last 50 years. If your work is offering a 401k plan, with a somewhat decent contribution, you'd be an idiot not to take advantage of it. This is such an incoherent argument, I can hardly believe you don't call yourself an outright liberal. This is a strongly liberal position.
If there were to be a retirement system suggested that was easy enough to understand and use by the less intelligent adults but manageable enough to be useful for those that DO understand, I would support it. Bush's SS changes are not.
This makes no sense. I don't think you even know what the Bush plan entailed. Your just an anti-Bush liberal. Goodbye.
Holy crap, are you keeping track of everything I say? That was an entirely different thread! OK, yes I did. I am sorry. Didn't realize that was you and forgot I said it. The point of that post was to show the hypocrisy, not to correct spelling. Regardless, I did do it.
There was no hypocrisy there, I'm not the one running for president, making dumb ass remarks in the public sphere. John Kerry is. He's a loud mouth bafoon. Anybody care to argue that? Hah!
I don't believe that was "their big argument," and I think it's B.S. anyway. There are better arguments than that kind of scaremongering. But because some people who fall under a certain label believe something, it does not automatically follow that everyone with that label believes it. It could be said that they are scared of people willing to do that kind of thing, and not the business itself (I don't believe it, but it could be said).
I don't follow the RIAA, I don't think it's a big deal and doesn't really apply, more of a judicial matter if you ask me. I'm talking about how republicans get more funding from big business, and democrats get more funding from labor unions. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle =2004
Here's a quote from the DNC chairman at the time, Terry McAuliffe:
Here's another little interesting tidbit I found on the net, the source is judicial watch:
I've got my retirement account invested in 100% stocks and I'm doing pretty well. Of course, you're supposed to go into lower risk investments the closer you get to retirement. The presidents plan wouldn't allow any high risk investments, only broad indexed funds (so that no one company got a huge piece of the pie). I think it's pretty sad the anti-capitalists in this country have such a say in things, people would be much better off if they managed their own money instead of the government doing it for them.
And you said "Liberals hate business." How does my statement support that in any way? Not wanting everything under the sun privatized doesn't mean you hate business. You still haven't shown how I was wrong.
You said liberals were for big government as opposed to conservatives. Then you went on to say that this is not really the case any more. That's contradicting yourself.
Liberals do hate business, they are afraid of big business. Look at social security, their big argument was "Look what happened at ENRON! That could be your social security check going out with the trash!" That demonstrates a FEAR of big business, and I have agreed with many liberals on this subject. Tax and spend vs. Reaganomics. It appears your afraid to take a position against this statement, but yet you would still like to argue about something. OK!
Please point out where I did that and I will apologize.
Apologize away, it's really not necessary. You implied I was an imbecil for spelling mistakes. I don't sit here with dictionary.com up on my screen, and I don't use that word very often. Then you went on to imply that I don't know the definition of the words I use. I wouldn't be using them if I didn't know what they mean.
So, for instance, saying that you fuck your mother is not the same as calling you a mother fucker? Even more interesting. While me grammar may not be perfect, it has nothing to do with anything said in this thread. At all. As I said before, I did not correct your grammar, you are retaliating against something I did not do. Hence the new "troll" label for you. Are you even trying to make sense?
I didn't say you corrected my grammar. You did correct my spelling, and all I did was correct your implication that I was calling you a name by demanding you stop trolling. It is pretty unequivocal whether or not I am actually humping my mother or not, but once you use the F word you're name calling.
Troll is used as a verb in this instance. You're very keen on spelling, but could use a few lessons in grammar. You're trolling, TROLL :)
As for liberals and conservatives, you pretty much stated and invalidated your point in one short paragraph. Most liberals are for bigger government, there are still some conservatives who are for smaller government. I used to vote libertarian, but these days I see things through the lense of war, so I vote R. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals would like to see things managed by the government, like health care, retirement, and various forms of social security, while the conservatives would like to privatize them. By far the biggest difference. You seem to be posturing, trying to make me look stupid, but I don't have to try very hard to defend myself, do I? If you had anything useful to say, you wouldn't be correcting my spelling. Who has time for that?
That's my gripe with google. It ignores a lot of programming syntax, while I typically use google for all my programming woes, I have to figure out clever ways of searching for words to get what I'm after.
Anecdotes of non-adoption from PHP/Perl/Java/C++ programmers I have read, typically tried using rails.
It looks to me like you aught to give ruby a whirl, if it's getting all these good reactions. Steep learning curve though. I picked up PHP in a day, ruby took much longer to master, unless maybe you're familiar with all the nifty features like iterators, singleton classes, continuations and all that. Pretty much everything an OO programmer could dream up.
I do all my shell scripts in Ruby now, used to do them with Perl, php never made sense for shell programming. By shell script, I mean a replacement for the tired BASH script.
I'm no fanboi, I make my living programming.
I have no idea where you extrapolated the rest of your spiel (why don't you look that word up at dictionary.com to make sure I spelled it right!)
I always poke fun at Darby's sig when I argue with him ;) We've crossed paths many-a-time, so go troll someone else.
Well if you're one of these types that just throws books around telling people to read them, hell people have been trying to get me to read the bible forever, aint' gonna do it. Someday you'll realize it's a stupid thing to request of people. Time is money, friend.
I was following PHP5 development until the RC1 deployment, and I was disappointed. There wasn't really much, I yearned for a new, truly OO language. Luckily, about the same time, Ruby on Rails was getting a lot of attention and I checked that out, now I couldn't be happier. I do some contract work in PHP4 and PHP5 sometimes, and I just get this sick feeling. Honestly I'd much rather program in Perl than PHP.
Ahhh, anti-capitalism. A sign of a true liberal.
An interesting turn of events is that a lot of farms in the U.S. are switching over to fuel production instead of food, which is an unexpected benefit of rising oil costs.
You look at the facts and you find that the countries that suffer far, far worse than any others are the one's with economic embargo's and other sanctions from the United States, and sometimes these dictators ignore the welfare of the people for their own pride, which is truly a shame. Countries that participate in trade, free or otherwise, with the United States fare far, far, FAR better than the one's who don't, as they live in SQUALOR! Some countries don't have any resources we're interested in. We send free aid into these countries, at our own cost!
You apparently have no position. Saying things like "may", "maybe", and "seem" offers very weak support in this argument. You certainly have no solution. You read a book with a very anti-american aspect, try reading the history of each instance of this, and further educating yourself on economics and the benefits of free trade.
I think the Hamas thing has been sensationalized. Look at what happened. The Palestinians got to choose between Fatah (translation: "conquest"), which was flagged as a supporter of terrorism by the United States, and Hamas (translation: "islamic resistance movement"). They're both terrorists! And from the reports I've read, Hamas does a better job governing (in terms of social welfare and other domestic issues). I really think it's a shame but Palestine wasn't ready for an election, and we will have an equally hard time negotiating with either party.
Remember a few months, maybe a year or two ago the new Fatah leader to replace Yassir Arafat was making anti-israel comments and everybody in the west shrugged it off? It's because he was placed there by pro-western interests, and things looked so unordinary that he had to start saying things like that so the people would trust him. It's really no wonder they elected someone else, as bad as the opposition was. It's similar to the our 2004 election here in the United States. I usually vote Republican, but I would have voted for a respectable democrat, Joe Lieberman would have had my vote. I'd never vote for an imbasil like John Kerry, but look, he almost won! You gotta put that Hamas thing in context.
Ahhh, more moral ambiguity from Darby, the guy with the nutty sig. Keep us updated on "the undeground", dude.
I think the moderate muslims aught to be just as worried as the rest of the world. I'm sitting here watching events unfold, and I'm thinking a lot more muslims are going to find sympathy for terrorists and corrupt dictatorships. For example, if we bomb Iran things could get pretty ugly. Here we're ready to blow up half of Iran, we're so worried. I've heard some muslims organizations on the news, but they don't get much mass-media coverage. Don't you Muslims have a Pope or something? A few words could turn over Iran.