I have a friend that teaches in the New York City school district as a teaching fellow. They bring in recent college graduates and assist them in becoming teachers. Why? Because few people want to do the job.
He loves teaching. Through high school he coached younger kids in soccer. He has a rare gift for it.
He hates his job. There aren't books for the kids. There isn't paper for the copiers - unless he buys it. Basically, he has no materials for the majority of the classes he teaches.
His school is being punished by NCLB. They have reduced funding because they have not met minimum test score standards. Why haven't they? Because their students come from poverty and the school itself is underfunded. There are four computers in his classroom - no mice or keyboards, all broken and never replaced. How can you expect the students to be serious about education when you're not serious about giving them one? They know its a joke - they know rich kids go to schools with books and paper and they have nothing.
If you fail to meet minimum testing standards, you are given a bit of money, as any NCLB proponent will point out. This money is for basic math and reading courses. Funding for nearly all other programs is revoked. This means that teachers begin teaching for the test as to try to get their funding back. Teaching for tests is short sighted and ultimately doesn't teach the higher order thinking needed to advance in life.
He is not a teacher but a disciplinarian. He is forced to spend his time with problem students rather than helping and rewarding the good ones.
While NCLB has the nice ideal of encouraging better schools, it ultimate takes money away from those that need it the most. It further emphasizes the lack of access to education that the poor suffer.
This might be semi off topic, but I think people should know waht NCLB is like from the inside.
7MP might sound like a lot, but I have a hard time believing that it would look as good as a 3 MP point and shoot.
Its the lens!
While your phone can get smaller and smaller and still function as a phone - not so with a camera. Bigger lenses have better optical quality and larger sensors give better detail. Further, if I can carelessly shove it into my pocket, its unlikely the lens will even stay clean.
I don't think we'll see the day when phones are compared based on image quality. (...but I'm not betting on that...)
When NeXT was bought out by Apple, WebObjects was their star product. It has built in object persistance, transaction management, and a host of other features. Apple uses it to run their dynamic content, including their store and developer sites.
The catch? $699. (I bought my copy for about $150 on ebay.) The Developer tools are basically mac only. You can program with WO on a PC, I'm not sure about Linux - but you're giving up Apple's tools. Your application is fully cross platform for deployment.
I've been keeping my eyes open for open source replacements, but they're often very complex.
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
No, the UN does not directly provide safety, but we would be significantly better off if we were working with more allies in Iraq. We'd be suffering less of a financial loss. The Iraqi people would be less concerned that we are there for their oil. It would be the world acting, not just one nation.
The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That isn't true at all. At least not if you consider the US vs. all the countries we're pissing off. Sure, we're more powerful than France. But are we more powerful than all of Europe minus the UK? I seriously doubt it. And even if we have more military strength, we're dependent enough on them for trade that halting trade would cause us serious problems. Hell, at this point we're having trouble maintaining the peace in two very weak middle eastern countries.
Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Yes, well, we've shat on them for much longer than that. We might not remember the crusades, but they do. Then we brought imperialism. Ever wonder why Iraqi politics is always so complex? Because the UK united a few warring tribes into one unstable country. Now oil money props corrupt dictatorships. Remember where the 9-11 hijackers came from? Saudi Arabia - ruled by the Saudi royal family, which commits human rights violations but we don't say shit because we need our oil.
The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure.
Not if you consider that our military is over extended. If someone was looking to pick a fight with us now would be the time to do it. Bin Laden is still free to make his videos. The threat that Saddam was made out to be was proven false - no evidence at all of WMDs.
Bush's policy of pushing things to the brink is very dangerous. An "Us vs. Them" foreign policy does not bring peace - it merely defines someone as your enemy. Further, the threat of terror has been used to justify the removal of rights from the american people. Ashcroft is stepping down, basically speaking out against the system of checks and balances - claiming that the judges that have stood for our rights are simply getting in the way of the president. He's likely to be replaced by someone who wanted to redefine "torture" so we could expand our "tools" to extract information from people who have been held an indefinite amount of time without council or trial.
Perhaps you feel safer in this world, but I don't.
With photography, the original negative always has the most amount of info - most any reproduction from it will have a reduced amount of info.
Further, copying a negative to three new negatives would be tedious and expensive, not to mention actually making a print from such a system.
It would really only be viable for the most precious negatives, and then its just easier and cheaper to make a high res scan and keep it on a decent media.
Its so good to hear someone from your perspective say something like that. I'm a liberal. I'm perfectly fine with people being conservative and/or Christian. Yet so many Christians trust entirely in Bush and his administration. Bush, governor of Texas? How many capital punishments were there while he was governor? And so many people overlook the lie about WMDs to go to war....oh, and being in bed with the NRA. (We all know how much Jesus loved weaponry.)
Well, maybe you don't agree with a damn thing I said, but props to you for being critical of the party that claims to represent you!
It greatly disturbs me that so many people in this country are willing to disregard the logical inconsistancies constantly revealed in their arguments, such as you are doing now.
Have I come across your sig twice in one day? It links to this statement...
If Bush is voted out, no future president will dare attacking a vicious tyrant. The presidential staff will always be there to remind her/him of the "fate of the Bushes", who both waged and promptly won a just war against a universally hated regime, but lost the subsequent elections. And -- unlike Bush's real flaws -- this "historical lesson" will be very hard to erase. Our nation is still recovering from the loss in Vietnam -- 30 years ago.
Did we invade Iraq because Saddam is a vicious tyrant? What about North Korea? What about the Saudi Royal family? Iran isn't too friendly either. Hell, there's been more than one genocide in Africa over the past few years. Still, we invade Iraq - why is Iraq more "evil" than these other countries?
I remember the president telling us that we invaded Iraq because it was a threat to us. Why was it a threat? Its WMDs. The president didn't sell the american people on the evilness of Iraq. Bush should be held to what he told the world, not switch the justification as the situation suits him. There was no evidence of WMDs.
Why did we choose this moment to invade Iraq? It really don't make sense since we already had out hands full in Afghanistan. Bush went ahead with it because people were scared enough after 9/11 to back him.
If you're supporting the war, its for reasons that Bush didn't provide. I'm completely at a loss as to how so many people in this country can accept this behavior from our President when they wouldn't accept it from their own kid.
Finally, its not enough for someone to be "Evil" for us to justify spending $200+ billion and put thousands of American lives on the line. If that was all it took, we'd bankrupt ourselves trying to clean up the world.
The threat was that eventually he was going to a) get out from under the sanctions and resume making WMDs or b)eventually get lucky and start successfully shooting down our pilots.
So you're saying we had to quickly invade before sanctions were lifted? If sactions were lifted, it would mean that they had completed the cease fire agreements which he was a long way from doing. He was going to be kept under the sanctions for quite a while.
Shoot down our pilots with what? He had nothing sophisticated enough to do the job! You don't get lucky with that sort of thing.
We've been in a HOT war with Sadaam for over 11 years, the sanctions weren't working, the resolutions weren't working and weren't going to work.
Things might not have been getting any better, but they weren't getting any worse either. So why did we invade Iraq while we were going after bin Laden and cleaning up Afghanistan? Seems to me like it would have been a better idea to clean up one mess at a time. Bush had a check to clean up terrorism, and he decided to clean up Iraq instead. Further, you're completely silent on why we don't go and clean up a number of other countries.
Of course, that ignores the fact that just because we didn't like Saddam meant that going to war was the right way to deal with him. We found no WMDs, he basically had no meaningful weapons program. He wasn't nice....but where was the threat?
I've heard that phrase before. Let me go get my Truth Hat so I'm ready for what comes next....
and various in the media, the "real reason" we went after sadaam Hussein would have been the reason we went in originally, and that is... quite simply, he needed killing. In most of the "red" states, thats still all the justification you need, if you can prove it.
Why did he need killing? Because he is Evil?
The president and an entire administration couldn't present the American people with TRUE case as to why Saddam needed to be removed. So, the president lied to us. Apparently this is okay because Saddam is Evil. What about the Saudi royal family - who's family has such strong ties to the Bush family? We don't like Iran either. Or North Korea. What about the genocide that has been occurring in Africa? Seems like there is a lot of Evil in the world. So, out of all the Evil, why did we pick Saddam?
Any point that movie was trying to make is completely lost because you know that if Moore had found evidence to the contrary of what he wants to believe, he wouldn't show it. How could any sane person trust someone like that as a source of information.
Has Bush been open with the American people about his failure to find the WMDs? Hell no. He just repeats that there was a certain threat. Based on what? He won't talk about it. Now why should people trust our president if he doesn't show us the other side of the argument?
I've read the rebuttals on F911 and the only points I can concede are based on tone. I think a lot of people didn't want to hear that the president did something wrong - after all, America only stands for good things. Now, if people write it off because its too far from what they want to believe, I'm not sure what the right thing to do it. Say the president only lied a little bit? Billion dollar no bid contracts to the VP's former company are okay?
Its absolutely silly to say that F911 "is the most blatant display of propaganda they have ever seen in their lives". How many americans have ever come across Rush Limbaugh? Ever read the New York Post?
Unlike your North Korea Korean war museum example, you CAN do research to find the truth about Micheal Moore's assertions. Perhaps too many Americans are too lazy to do it, but even the most anti-Moore people haven't be able to counter the claims I've made in my previous post.
If Americans are too lazy to find the truth, we're all fucked.
I think you're forgetting about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - hell, and anyone else who spoke about against Kerry's stellar war record. They're the same people that tore into McCain in the 2000 primary.
I'll admit that Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't unbiased. But it does expose the ugly connections that currently exist at the highest levels of our government. Is it okay to have a president with family ties to the Saudi Royal family, ruling over the people who made 9/11? Is it okay for the VP's former country to get such huge government handouts - and even get caught over billing only to be told to give it back! Is it okay for the present to make a case for war which is untrue? You might not like Moore's editing, but the points I've made in this paragraph are all very true.
I'm really not even sure who you're refering to as a rabid democratic zealot, besides Micheal Moore. I don't even agree with you on Micheal Moore, because he can and does speak out against Democrats as well.
Maybe I'm a zealot. I believe its wrong that the president sold the country on a justification for war that simply wasn't true. I believe it is wrong that the president tells scientists that they can't study embryonic stem cells. I believe the prisoner abuse that occurred was a result of values expressed at the highest levels of government about the treatment of our enemy.
so basically what youre saying is that hes gonna fck up the private sector. thanks but no thanks whens the last time u ever got a job from a poor person
yeah, taxes fck up the private sector. thats why the euro is kicking the dollar's ass lately. why do you think rich people are going to provide AMERICAN jobs?
Translation, cower to foriegn intereses even if its against us interests
thats right, who needs allies. We won WWI and WWII on our own. hell, its not like we need to trade with these countries.
Why should the govt be funding any research nilly willy, let the private sector do it. Use your own goddam money.
We provide funding for other medical research. Actually, government funding is instrumental in a lot of medical research. The debate over whether or not we should provide the funding is one thing, but why should the president say precisely where it should go? Scientists know what would be most effective.
FYI the 'hydrogen economey' that everyones been talking about for the last four years was driven by republican initiatves. But fine, give me more controll over my money and I'll go solar.
I'm not talking about hydrogen....and what do tax rates have to do with your car?
I don't care, I'm a man. ok fine - i don't think the govt should be microregulating pregnant womens lives, but give me back my economic freedoms first and I'll work on it.
Excellent, place women's rights before your pocket book. Get many dates?
Translation, socaialize medicine and other stuff. No thanks. We need less govt not more. It never ceases to amaze me - the people who don't think we have enough.
The way the current system works, health insurance companies make a 20-30% profit and can basically charge whatever they care for coverage. Who can opt out of the system? Apparently you think this is fair.
wtc, corporate scandals, stock market crash were all ready and waiting to happen before he got in. You need to do better than that, and apparently the voters agree.
he's had four years to recover from it, how many more does he need?
There's plenty of justification, WMDs were just the cheapest easiest sounding excuse. I thought he should have used others at the time, but either way.
You don't get to pick and choose justification for war as is convenient at a given moment. Maybe you think another reason was better, but he sold the american people on a lie.
So? I haven't seen any compelling evidence of wrongdoing, but if so - whose to say they didn't bribe him to do the right thing anyhow?
well, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing on haliburton's part - overcharging and simply being told to give it back! no bid contracts to the VP's former employer....you think thats a coincedince? Yes, clinton used haliburton, on a tenth the scale.
Name one period in the last 200 years where we haven't pissed off half the world.
The previous eight years under clinton
minor compaired to what they're doing to us
Excellent! You side with the court martialed abusers in this case! I'll just let your statement stand.
Considering your absurd moments of "gimme my money, then come rights and a planet to live on" i think you've expressed what is most important to you. I'll let you return to swimming in your money bin.
Why shouldn't Bush allow scientists to choose where the money will be most effective? Scientists typically don't like wasting their time on projects that don't get results. Do they need the president to tell them when something doesn't work?
The special interests just want embryonic research to forward cloning research.
Thats a new one. I'll write that down. There. Bizzare theory #29958.
Slashdot Mirror
Software is nice, but professionals use hardware devices for monitor calibration, such as the ColorVision Spyder.
? id=341">Spyder2Pro
http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp
Yes, you can do it visually, but its not as accurate and a lot more work.
damn, thats an interesting use for a really expensive piece of equipment.
The first step to seriously using a computer for photography is to calibrate your monitor. Is this possible under linux?
After that we can start worrying about scanner and digital camera drivers...
SELECT fldDatabase FROM tblPEOPLE WHERE fldAGE = "OLD" AND fldKOREAN = TRUE;
RESULT (1 row)
MySQL
I have a friend that teaches in the New York City school district as a teaching fellow. They bring in recent college graduates and assist them in becoming teachers. Why? Because few people want to do the job.
He loves teaching. Through high school he coached younger kids in soccer. He has a rare gift for it.
He hates his job. There aren't books for the kids. There isn't paper for the copiers - unless he buys it. Basically, he has no materials for the majority of the classes he teaches.
His school is being punished by NCLB. They have reduced funding because they have not met minimum test score standards. Why haven't they? Because their students come from poverty and the school itself is underfunded. There are four computers in his classroom - no mice or keyboards, all broken and never replaced. How can you expect the students to be serious about education when you're not serious about giving them one? They know its a joke - they know rich kids go to schools with books and paper and they have nothing.
If you fail to meet minimum testing standards, you are given a bit of money, as any NCLB proponent will point out. This money is for basic math and reading courses. Funding for nearly all other programs is revoked. This means that teachers begin teaching for the test as to try to get their funding back. Teaching for tests is short sighted and ultimately doesn't teach the higher order thinking needed to advance in life.
He is not a teacher but a disciplinarian. He is forced to spend his time with problem students rather than helping and rewarding the good ones.
While NCLB has the nice ideal of encouraging better schools, it ultimate takes money away from those that need it the most. It further emphasizes the lack of access to education that the poor suffer.
This might be semi off topic, but I think people should know waht NCLB is like from the inside.
7MP might sound like a lot, but I have a hard time believing that it would look as good as a 3 MP point and shoot.
Its the lens!
While your phone can get smaller and smaller and still function as a phone - not so with a camera. Bigger lenses have better optical quality and larger sensors give better detail. Further, if I can carelessly shove it into my pocket, its unlikely the lens will even stay clean.
I don't think we'll see the day when phones are compared based on image quality. (...but I'm not betting on that...)
...but another 20% are logging into open wireless access points.
I want a decent middle ware, that is cross platform, fast, and well documented, free as in beer (and preferably as in speech also).
Someday we'll get there. Until then, I'd take a close look at Apple's WebObjects.
http://www.apple.com/webobjects/
When NeXT was bought out by Apple, WebObjects was their star product. It has built in object persistance, transaction management, and a host of other features. Apple uses it to run their dynamic content, including their store and developer sites.
The catch? $699. (I bought my copy for about $150 on ebay.) The Developer tools are basically mac only. You can program with WO on a PC, I'm not sure about Linux - but you're giving up Apple's tools. Your application is fully cross platform for deployment.
I've been keeping my eyes open for open source replacements, but they're often very complex.
If you think the UN is going to provide you safety you are very close to totally wrong.
No, the UN does not directly provide safety, but we would be significantly better off if we were working with more allies in Iraq. We'd be suffering less of a financial loss. The Iraqi people would be less concerned that we are there for their oil. It would be the world acting, not just one nation.The majority of the planet is weaker than the US, dependent on the US, or desperately in need of the US for protection or stability.
That isn't true at all. At least not if you consider the US vs. all the countries we're pissing off. Sure, we're more powerful than France. But are we more powerful than all of Europe minus the UK? I seriously doubt it. And even if we have more military strength, we're dependent enough on them for trade that halting trade would cause us serious problems. Hell, at this point we're having trouble maintaining the peace in two very weak middle eastern countries.Yeah, well, that entire religion has hated us for the better part of 150 years. And in earnet since the end of World War II.
Yes, well, we've shat on them for much longer than that. We might not remember the crusades, but they do. Then we brought imperialism. Ever wonder why Iraqi politics is always so complex? Because the UK united a few warring tribes into one unstable country. Now oil money props corrupt dictatorships. Remember where the 9-11 hijackers came from? Saudi Arabia - ruled by the Saudi royal family, which commits human rights violations but we don't say shit because we need our oil.The US is significantly safer in many, many ways. However, it is clearly not secure.
Not if you consider that our military is over extended. If someone was looking to pick a fight with us now would be the time to do it. Bin Laden is still free to make his videos. The threat that Saddam was made out to be was proven false - no evidence at all of WMDs. Bush's policy of pushing things to the brink is very dangerous. An "Us vs. Them" foreign policy does not bring peace - it merely defines someone as your enemy. Further, the threat of terror has been used to justify the removal of rights from the american people. Ashcroft is stepping down, basically speaking out against the system of checks and balances - claiming that the judges that have stood for our rights are simply getting in the way of the president. He's likely to be replaced by someone who wanted to redefine "torture" so we could expand our "tools" to extract information from people who have been held an indefinite amount of time without council or trial. Perhaps you feel safer in this world, but I don't.do share....put up a torrent! i'd love a copy...
my slashdot account name at gmail.com
Aside from the expense and effort, it was also a lower quality method than scanning.
With photography, the original negative always has the most amount of info - most any reproduction from it will have a reduced amount of info.
Further, copying a negative to three new negatives would be tedious and expensive, not to mention actually making a print from such a system.
It would really only be viable for the most precious negatives, and then its just easier and cheaper to make a high res scan and keep it on a decent media.
The submitter lets his mother run windows!
Really, what kind of son are you??
AMEN!
Its so good to hear someone from your perspective say something like that. I'm a liberal. I'm perfectly fine with people being conservative and/or Christian. Yet so many Christians trust entirely in Bush and his administration. Bush, governor of Texas? How many capital punishments were there while he was governor? And so many people overlook the lie about WMDs to go to war....oh, and being in bed with the NRA. (We all know how much Jesus loved weaponry.)
Well, maybe you don't agree with a damn thing I said, but props to you for being critical of the party that claims to represent you!
It greatly disturbs me that so many people in this country are willing to disregard the logical inconsistancies constantly revealed in their arguments, such as you are doing now.
Have I come across your sig twice in one day? It links to this statement...
If Bush is voted out, no future president will dare attacking a vicious tyrant. The presidential staff will always be there to remind her/him of the "fate of the Bushes", who both waged and promptly won a just war against a universally hated regime, but lost the subsequent elections. And -- unlike Bush's real flaws -- this "historical lesson" will be very hard to erase. Our nation is still recovering from the loss in Vietnam -- 30 years ago.
Did we invade Iraq because Saddam is a vicious tyrant? What about North Korea? What about the Saudi Royal family? Iran isn't too friendly either. Hell, there's been more than one genocide in Africa over the past few years. Still, we invade Iraq - why is Iraq more "evil" than these other countries?
I remember the president telling us that we invaded Iraq because it was a threat to us. Why was it a threat? Its WMDs. The president didn't sell the american people on the evilness of Iraq. Bush should be held to what he told the world, not switch the justification as the situation suits him. There was no evidence of WMDs.
Why did we choose this moment to invade Iraq? It really don't make sense since we already had out hands full in Afghanistan. Bush went ahead with it because people were scared enough after 9/11 to back him.
If you're supporting the war, its for reasons that Bush didn't provide. I'm completely at a loss as to how so many people in this country can accept this behavior from our President when they wouldn't accept it from their own kid.
Finally, its not enough for someone to be "Evil" for us to justify spending $200+ billion and put thousands of American lives on the line. If that was all it took, we'd bankrupt ourselves trying to clean up the world.
successfully shot AT our pilots?
any idiot can successfully shoot a weapon, that doesn't mean shit. hitting the target? MUCH HARDER
....flip floppers get twice the press!
The threat was that eventually he was going to a) get out from under the sanctions and resume making WMDs or b)eventually get lucky and start successfully shooting down our pilots.
So you're saying we had to quickly invade before sanctions were lifted? If sactions were lifted, it would mean that they had completed the cease fire agreements which he was a long way from doing. He was going to be kept under the sanctions for quite a while.
Shoot down our pilots with what? He had nothing sophisticated enough to do the job! You don't get lucky with that sort of thing.
THERE WAS NO THREAT.
We've been in a HOT war with Sadaam for over 11 years, the sanctions weren't working, the resolutions weren't working and weren't going to work.
Things might not have been getting any better, but they weren't getting any worse either. So why did we invade Iraq while we were going after bin Laden and cleaning up Afghanistan? Seems to me like it would have been a better idea to clean up one mess at a time. Bush had a check to clean up terrorism, and he decided to clean up Iraq instead. Further, you're completely silent on why we don't go and clean up a number of other countries.
Of course, that ignores the fact that just because we didn't like Saddam meant that going to war was the right way to deal with him. We found no WMDs, he basically had no meaningful weapons program. He wasn't nice....but where was the threat?
If it wasn't for the democrats
I've heard that phrase before. Let me go get my Truth Hat so I'm ready for what comes next....
and various in the media, the "real reason" we went after sadaam Hussein would have been the reason we went in originally, and that is ... quite simply, he needed killing. In most of the "red" states, thats still all the justification you need, if you can prove it.
Why did he need killing? Because he is Evil?
The president and an entire administration couldn't present the American people with TRUE case as to why Saddam needed to be removed. So, the president lied to us. Apparently this is okay because Saddam is Evil. What about the Saudi royal family - who's family has such strong ties to the Bush family? We don't like Iran either. Or North Korea. What about the genocide that has been occurring in Africa? Seems like there is a lot of Evil in the world. So, out of all the Evil, why did we pick Saddam?
Oil?
Any point that movie was trying to make is completely lost because you know that if Moore had found evidence to the contrary of what he wants to believe, he wouldn't show it. How could any sane person trust someone like that as a source of information.
Has Bush been open with the American people about his failure to find the WMDs? Hell no. He just repeats that there was a certain threat. Based on what? He won't talk about it. Now why should people trust our president if he doesn't show us the other side of the argument?
I've read the rebuttals on F911 and the only points I can concede are based on tone. I think a lot of people didn't want to hear that the president did something wrong - after all, America only stands for good things. Now, if people write it off because its too far from what they want to believe, I'm not sure what the right thing to do it. Say the president only lied a little bit? Billion dollar no bid contracts to the VP's former company are okay?
Its absolutely silly to say that F911 "is the most blatant display of propaganda they have ever seen in their lives". How many americans have ever come across Rush Limbaugh? Ever read the New York Post?
Unlike your North Korea Korean war museum example, you CAN do research to find the truth about Micheal Moore's assertions. Perhaps too many Americans are too lazy to do it, but even the most anti-Moore people haven't be able to counter the claims I've made in my previous post.
If Americans are too lazy to find the truth, we're all fucked.
I think you're forgetting about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - hell, and anyone else who spoke about against Kerry's stellar war record. They're the same people that tore into McCain in the 2000 primary.
I'll admit that Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't unbiased. But it does expose the ugly connections that currently exist at the highest levels of our government. Is it okay to have a president with family ties to the Saudi Royal family, ruling over the people who made 9/11? Is it okay for the VP's former country to get such huge government handouts - and even get caught over billing only to be told to give it back! Is it okay for the present to make a case for war which is untrue? You might not like Moore's editing, but the points I've made in this paragraph are all very true.
I'm really not even sure who you're refering to as a rabid democratic zealot, besides Micheal Moore. I don't even agree with you on Micheal Moore, because he can and does speak out against Democrats as well.
Maybe I'm a zealot. I believe its wrong that the president sold the country on a justification for war that simply wasn't true. I believe it is wrong that the president tells scientists that they can't study embryonic stem cells. I believe the prisoner abuse that occurred was a result of values expressed at the highest levels of government about the treatment of our enemy.
so basically what youre saying is that hes gonna fck up the private sector. thanks but no thanks whens the last time u ever got a job from a poor person
yeah, taxes fck up the private sector. thats why the euro is kicking the dollar's ass lately. why do you think rich people are going to provide AMERICAN jobs?
Translation, cower to foriegn intereses even if its against us interests
thats right, who needs allies. We won WWI and WWII on our own. hell, its not like we need to trade with these countries.
Why should the govt be funding any research nilly willy, let the private sector do it. Use your own goddam money.
We provide funding for other medical research. Actually, government funding is instrumental in a lot of medical research. The debate over whether or not we should provide the funding is one thing, but why should the president say precisely where it should go? Scientists know what would be most effective.
FYI the 'hydrogen economey' that everyones been talking about for the last four years was driven by republican initiatves. But fine, give me more controll over my money and I'll go solar.
I'm not talking about hydrogen....and what do tax rates have to do with your car?
I don't care, I'm a man. ok fine - i don't think the govt should be microregulating pregnant womens lives, but give me back my economic freedoms first and I'll work on it.
Excellent, place women's rights before your pocket book. Get many dates?
Translation, socaialize medicine and other stuff. No thanks. We need less govt not more. It never ceases to amaze me - the people who don't think we have enough.
The way the current system works, health insurance companies make a 20-30% profit and can basically charge whatever they care for coverage. Who can opt out of the system? Apparently you think this is fair.
wtc, corporate scandals, stock market crash were all ready and waiting to happen before he got in. You need to do better than that, and apparently the voters agree.
he's had four years to recover from it, how many more does he need?
There's plenty of justification, WMDs were just the cheapest easiest sounding excuse. I thought he should have used others at the time, but either way.
You don't get to pick and choose justification for war as is convenient at a given moment. Maybe you think another reason was better, but he sold the american people on a lie.
So? I haven't seen any compelling evidence of wrongdoing, but if so - whose to say they didn't bribe him to do the right thing anyhow?
well, there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing on haliburton's part - overcharging and simply being told to give it back! no bid contracts to the VP's former employer....you think thats a coincedince? Yes, clinton used haliburton, on a tenth the scale.
Name one period in the last 200 years where we haven't pissed off half the world.
The previous eight years under clinton
minor compaired to what they're doing to us
Excellent! You side with the court martialed abusers in this case! I'll just let your statement stand.
Considering your absurd moments of "gimme my money, then come rights and a planet to live on" i think you've expressed what is most important to you. I'll let you return to swimming in your money bin.
Why shouldn't Bush allow scientists to choose where the money will be most effective? Scientists typically don't like wasting their time on projects that don't get results. Do they need the president to tell them when something doesn't work?
The special interests just want embryonic research to forward cloning research.
Thats a new one. I'll write that down. There. Bizzare theory #29958.
I'll let you get back to Rush.