>bush's tax cuts and utterly irresponsible fiscal policy ensured >that we will be feeling the sting of his tax cuts for many,/ >many/ years to come
You mean the tax cuts that immediately followed a long-term upward trend in unemployment that turned into a steady downward trend in unemployment? You mean the tax cuts that immediately predated an upward trend in tax revenues as well as a steady increase in both the number and size of dividend payments by US corporations? Tax cuts after which followed increased entrepreneurial ventures, an increase in the number of IPOs, as well as a return to a bullish stock market?
Oh, woe be us!
Criticize Bush's spending if you will, but the tax cuts have been a boon to our economy.
Indeed I have. But you kind of missed my point, didn't you? I'll restate it for you:
People claim that the 2nd Amendment reference to "the people" means the organized militia, when "the people" clearly refers to individual rights in the four other amendments I referenced. What is so special about the 2nd that it is interpreted differently from the others?
Under U.S. Code (Title 10, Section 311), the "militia" is made up of two halves: the "organized militia," which is the National Guard; and the "unorganized militia," which is every male citizen between ages 17 and 45.
And I wonder why the framers of the Constitution would have used the phrase "the people" to refer to individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but not in the 2nd.
From your argument, so long as things have changed, we can ignore our Bill of Rights. That's a very dangerous road to go down.
The movie is grisly and gory. You come away shaken by the horror of what these soldiers went through. And that's the point.
Bowden meticulously researched his book, and collaborated on the screenplay. He interviewed every single survivor of the battle he could find, spent time in Mogadishu himself, and based much of the book on interviews with one of the Deltas who was there. It's as historically accurate as a Hollywood movie can be.
One poster above claims this was part of a humanitarian mission, and that is pure bunk. Bush (Sr.) started a humanitarian mission; Clinton turned it into "Nation Building". We were trying to build a nation in our image from the ruins of a continuing civil war. The humanitarian mission was run by the UN and based at the stadium. This was a pure special operations mission, based separately at the airfield. This mission had far less to do with famine relief than it had to do with the grandiose schemes of a president who had no clue how and when to use the military.
Earlier that year the CIA sent the White House a report that Aidid was spoiling for a large battle which would bring him wanted publicity, warning of the threat to Task Force Ranger The White House ignored it. The ground commander requested heavier equipment as a result of "mission creep" (the mission had turned from famine relief to combat). The Clinton White House denied it. There are proper uses for the military, and "nation building" is not one of them.
Go see the movie. Be horrified by the death and destruction visited on our troops that night. Then think about that every time you see U.S. troops committed overseas. (Our current involvement in the southern Philippines is a perfect example from which you can draw strong similarities to Mogadishu.)
Re:Unix is an alternative to NT! Since when?
on
IBM takes aim at Sun
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that one got me, too!
UNIX and NT are considered alternatives only to those without a clue - and without experience working with both.
I bought a laser printer last week. It took me over an hour to get NT configured to use it. It took less than 2 minutes to configure Linux (RH6) to do the same.
But NT is so much easier to administer! Yeah, right.
This may be a slick new RS/6000, but it still runs AIX. This o/s consistently rates below NT in sys admin satisfaction surveys.
I'll stick with Sun for high end systems, thank you.
Either way the company has brought in someone to get a job done. In one case this is a f/t employee. In the other case it's a contractor. The only real difference is the legal employment status.
I have been a f/t employee and have had contracts that ran from 2 days to 2 years. The quality of my work is no different no matter what my employment status. If the quality of your work changes when you contract, this is a reflection on *you*, not on contractors in general.
I find contracting to be a very free market approach to work. If you want time off, and your manager agrees, and you can afford it, you take it. You don't have to worry about accrued vacation days or any of that rot.
Almost every place I've ever contracted has offered me f/t employment. I prefer the freedom and flexibility of contracting. I am, however, a professional. The quality of my work is the best I can do, no matter what employment status I work under.
Slashdot Mirror
>bush's tax cuts and utterly irresponsible fiscal policy ensured /
>that we will be feeling the sting of his tax cuts for many,
>many/ years to come
You mean the tax cuts that immediately followed a long-term upward trend in unemployment that turned into a steady downward trend in unemployment? You mean the tax cuts that immediately predated an upward trend in tax revenues as well as a steady increase in both the number and size of dividend payments by US corporations? Tax cuts after which followed increased entrepreneurial ventures, an increase in the number of IPOs, as well as a return to a bullish stock market?
Oh, woe be us!
Criticize Bush's spending if you will, but the tax cuts have been a boon to our economy.
People claim that the 2nd Amendment reference to "the people" means the organized militia, when "the people" clearly refers to individual rights in the four other amendments I referenced. What is so special about the 2nd that it is interpreted differently from the others?
Did you read my post?
Under U.S. Code (Title 10, Section 311), the "militia" is made up of two halves: the "organized militia," which is the National Guard; and the "unorganized militia," which is every male citizen between ages 17 and 45.
And I wonder why the framers of the Constitution would have used the phrase "the people" to refer to individuals in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but not in the 2nd.
From your argument, so long as things have changed, we can ignore our Bill of Rights. That's a very dangerous road to go down.
The movie is grisly and gory. You come away shaken by the horror of what these soldiers went through. And that's the point.
Bowden meticulously researched his book, and collaborated on the screenplay. He interviewed every single survivor of the battle he could find, spent time in Mogadishu himself, and based much of the book on interviews with one of the Deltas who was there. It's as historically accurate as a Hollywood movie can be.
One poster above claims this was part of a humanitarian mission, and that is pure bunk. Bush (Sr.) started a humanitarian mission; Clinton turned it into "Nation Building". We were trying to build a nation in our image from the ruins of a continuing civil war. The humanitarian mission was run by the UN and based at the stadium. This was a pure special operations mission, based separately at the airfield. This mission had far less to do with famine relief than it had to do with the grandiose schemes of a president who had no clue how and when to use the military.
Earlier that year the CIA sent the White House a report that Aidid was spoiling for a large battle which would bring him wanted publicity, warning of the threat to Task Force Ranger The White House ignored it. The ground commander requested heavier equipment as a result of "mission creep" (the mission had turned from famine relief to combat). The Clinton White House denied it. There are proper uses for the military, and "nation building" is not one of them.
Go see the movie. Be horrified by the death and destruction visited on our troops that night. Then think about that every time you see U.S. troops committed overseas. (Our current involvement in the southern Philippines is a perfect example from which you can draw strong similarities to Mogadishu.)
UNIX and NT are considered alternatives only to those without a clue - and without experience working with both.
I bought a laser printer last week. It took me over an hour to get NT configured to use it. It took less than 2 minutes to configure Linux (RH6) to do the same.
But NT is so much easier to administer! Yeah, right.
This may be a slick new RS/6000, but it still runs AIX. This o/s consistently rates below NT in sys admin satisfaction surveys.
I'll stick with Sun for high end systems, thank you.
Either way the company has brought in someone to get a job done. In one case this is a f/t employee. In the other case it's a contractor. The only real difference is the legal employment status.
I have been a f/t employee and have had contracts that ran from 2 days to 2 years. The quality of my work is no different no matter what my employment status. If the quality of your work changes when you contract, this is a reflection on *you*, not on contractors in general.
I find contracting to be a very free market approach to work. If you want time off, and your manager agrees, and you can afford it, you take it. You don't have to worry about accrued vacation days or any of that rot.
Almost every place I've ever contracted has offered me f/t employment. I prefer the freedom and flexibility of contracting. I am, however, a professional. The quality of my work is the best I can do, no matter what employment status I work under.