If you bottle up all of your fundraising into two days, and get a bunch of wealthy donors, those statistics will look somewhat impressive, no matter how meaningless they actually are. It was about half of his Q4 total raised. But I disagree, I think it's more impressive because it was NOT from wealthy donors.
On the same note, he's gotten enough press to be considered "fair", especially considering his non-celebrity status. So you're suggesting that the press should only cover celebrities running for president in depth? The whole newsletter fiasco certainly didn't do him any favors. Yes, I do realize that he didn't write them, although he's done a fine job of skirting around the issue that he damn well knew about them. The fact that he knew about those newsletters and continued to fund them makes him every bit as guilty as if he wrote them himself. If he held a press conference about it and explained it all, would you hear about it? I'm pretty sure that the press only covers the bad news. And I'm pretty sure you're not representing the situation truthfully, anyways.
Paul's an extremist. I don't understand why his supporters keep trying to spin him as being a moderate mainstream candidate. Cause the American people are calling for a change in leadership, and none of the other candidates constitute any REAL change?
I support him because none of the other candidates have a CLUE about our financial situation. He's the only candidate that GETS IT when it comes to monetary policies destroying our future. And I'm willing to fight pretty hard for his candidacy, because he represents something that this country sorely needs, even if this country doesn't know it.
I'm not exactly a betting man, but I did put $2,000 down on my man already, as a campaign contribution.
If Ron Paul is elected and does what he says he wants to do, I'll have my $2,000 back and much more.
I can't afford to lose this bet. I have no faith in this country unless we make a serious change in direction. Politics as usual will leave us desolate. Ron Paul is the only one that represents a serious change in direction.
Regardless of the party he's running for -- he's not a mainstream candidate, which can easily be seen from his views. If we ever got to see him given a fair shot, we could actually test that theory as to why he's not main-stream. For now, he's not main-stream because the main-stream doesn't mention him. And the better he does, the less he seems to be mentioned. For instance, second place in Nevada was reported as McCain, who actually came in third. Ron Paul was not mentioned, and he took second place.
Not to mention the lack of news when it comes to Ron Paul's fundraising. The day he raked in $6 million was a very quiet day in the media. The day he raked in $4.2 million was almost as quiet. Pretty big numbers for a nobody.
I think the problem is you forgot to remove your head from your ass this morning. You seem to have missed something. Like what I said. I was replying to someone who said the money used on the war could have been used for other efforts. Actually, what I should have said is that we shouldn't have spent that money at all.
Deficit spending is driving this country into the ground, and fast. People are always talking about the terrible debt, but so few people actually take it seriously. Free health care is the answer. Yeah.
We will soon be an impoverished nation. As the dollar drops and wages remain steady, the federal poverty line creeps up a few thousand dollars every year, and it's not even keeping up with inflation!
It's not true that, when the tide rises, all ships rise with it. The ones sitting on the bottom just find themselves further under.
No, but it does take money away from other efforts. Other efforts, like planning on having a future? Like giving our children a prosperous country to live in?
While I can agree that any research that gives us information is a good thing, I think that our research time might have been better spent elsewhere, since it appears to have confirmed what the experts have been saying all along. Would I welcome a study that shows that good oral hygiene doesn't lead to cancer? I suppose so. Would it be a good thing if a bunch of panicked lay people forced the medical research community to do it in lieu of useful research? Probably not. You seem to be under the impression that so-called "experts" are always or highly accurate about subjects that have not been tested. If you want to trust them, that's fine with me.
And I'm sure you could find a whole lot more subjects of research that are far more useless to complain about wasting time.
It would be a better comparison to say, research about tooth-whitening creams leading to cancer.
And have you forgotten about human radiation experiments? With so many "experts" these days talking about diminishing the world's population, how much SHOULD you trust them?
Yeah, it's personal. Parents should rightly take it personal. I really don't give a damn what researchers say. If I really believe something to be a greater threat than utility, then it's gone, period.
The rate of deadly infectious diseases is far below the rate of autism. That's plenty of reason to make "radical" choices. A child can be vaccinated later if circumstances change, and the likelihood of the child developing autism goes down drastically with age. But a child's brain is very delicate in the first 4 years. I may get my children vaccinated at age 8.
And yes, I don't think that vaccinations are likely to be the greatest factor. The fluorination of city water supplies is something I consider an even greater factor.
As much as researchers, well-intentioned doctors, pushy friends and neighbors and jackass strangers try to tell me I have nothing to fear from vaccinations and that I'm killing my children by refusing to vaccinate them, I'm going to make my own decisions. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum, or a in test-tube. A parent's instincts may not always be right, but as long as this is still a free country (I expect at least another year or so), these are my choices and no one else's to make.
Sadly, this diverts attention from actually doing reseach into real autism causes without some conspiracy-theory group breathing down your neck. I doubt we'd even be having this research without this "conspiracy-theory group". Last time I tried to find information about it, I couldn't find any exhaustive studies on the relationship between autism and vaccinations.
Another problem is that once you signed up with the RIAA, you can't really go back. Everything released from then on is their property and if you leave then you can't take your own work with you. I don't think this is entirely true. The label may own the recorded work, but I believe the artist still owns the rights to the song.
Yeah, there may be a legal battle over that. To say that an artist cannot re-record a song on another label is like saying the artist cannot perform that song in concert if they're not currently signed to the label. Whether or not someone is recording it is irrelevant if the label owns the rights to the song. I think if that went to court we'd see a victory for artist's rights.
Once again this Christmas I'll be looking forward to the compilation CDs the kids make most of all. Didn't one of Bush's kids do that? Why didn't the RIAA go after her?
I have 2 copies of Half-Life, Team Fortress, Opposing Force, Counter-Strike, Episode One and one copy of Blue shift.
People with a median income can easily spare $20 more than what they originally expected to pay for a product, and I'd say most of them would do that rather than sitting around bitching about the 20 bucks, irrationally boycotting the company, and not enjoying some of the year's best games. There's a sickness in this country where people (gifted by their short attention span) do not hold grudges. I call that a sickness because I believe it's the leading cause to the degeneration of customer service in this world, which I remember was alive and well 10 years ago, but is dying off quickly today. I may be a dying breed, but when I draw a line, it's final. Valve disposing of the Black Box was the signal that they have ultimately stopped serving customers and started serving themselves, exclusively.
Yes, I could spare $20. I could spare $20 here, and $20 there. Hey, I could let everyone overcharge me. But then I'd be completely broke. And then every single merchant thinks they can overcharge $20, or push for $30.
There are several reasons not to over-pay for something like this. People who go along with it are just enabling it further.
Gee, you must be a real hit at your local shops. Maybe you're just dense, so I'll explain.
It's fine if you want to tell me how much you think your product is worth. But the moment you presume you can tell me what you think it's worth to ME, you're addressing me in a familiar way. If you are not actually familiar with me, that is quite disrespectful. You have no idea how much time I have to play video games or how much I enjoy a particular type of game. You can't tell me that it's worth $90 to me (which is what the analogy suggested by "$3 per [new] song"). That is condescending.
You poor dear. Here in Australia we pay USD$86 and up for the same crap. And if you're happy paying that much for it, that's fine with me. Eat it up. I have higher standards, and I don't really care if you think my complaints are not justified.
given how much quality listening time you get out of them, they really should be charging $3 for each! Sounds like you work for the RIAA or something. But I'll be the judge of that when it comes to my own money. The idea that you can dictate to me how much your product is worth to me is the dictionary definition of condescending, and it is insulting.
I just remember the days when this kind of content was called an expansion pack, and was sold separately for a significantly lower price. Valve was set to do that, and then they changed their minds.
You think they were justified? Fine. It's their product, and they can take it with them to hell as far as I'm concerned.
From the reviews, TF2 is not much different than TF, just with new skins and new maps. That doesn't sound like it's worth $50. And Portal is more like a mini-game. And Episode 2, itself, is already a mini-game. $50 for what I already have plus that? Go to hell. Most of my LAN gaming friends have the same attitude towards such a purchase, which is about the only time I'd even play the game.
Most people who live on their own with a median income have far better purposes for their money, especially when it comes to buying $50 games. You can buy the same stuff you already have with a little bit of new stuff for $50? Or all new games?
If you want to base some argument on the fact that I shouldn't be upset because the thing was never released, just move on. I'm saying I'm sore that they didn't release it. So you're not really saying anything new.
Let me make an analysis you might understand. Britney Spears records 2 new songs. The producer announces a release having the 2 songs, for only $5. Then instead they make a compilation of so-called "greatest hits" and include the 2 new songs on that release, for $15. I can understand that you, as a Britney Spears fan, are upset that you have to spend $15 to get the 2 new songs plus 10 you already have, when you were told you could get just the 2 songs for $5 purchase. And your allowance is only $2 per week.
Oh yeah, and it seems that several dick-heads have the new Britney songs on their ipod and are telling you how great it is, how it was worth the $15 for the two songs alone. And then they give you shit about how you're upset that it'd costs you $15.
I suspect that's why they cancelled the Black Box; they would have been charging the same for it as the Orange Box, while delivering less. I doubt it. Episode One + Deathmatch is $20 now (I bought it for $10 on sale). If they just had the Episode 2/Portal/Team Fortress content I believe MSRP was supposed to be $30, instead of having a starting price of $50.
So if you're a PC player, buy Team Fortress and Portal individually. Through Steam, you can. Having 9 people downloading game content is a GREAT way to kill a LAN party. I bought 9 copies of Episode 1 for $10 each on sale and resold them at a LAN party pretty well and we all enjoyed the game. Not even an option if the game is $50 a shot.
Valve would have a great LAN party product if they could keep it $30 or less per episode including multi-player content. We were talking about organizing another LAN party on the release of Episode 2. The fate of that LAN party was tied to the fate of the Black Box.
If the boxed version of Episode 17 includes Episodes 16, 15, 14... etc AND the original Half-Life 2, then my kids won't likely be able to afford to play Half-Life as the box will cost $390.
Yes. I'm still sore about Valve dropping the black box. I was excited about Team Fortress and Portal. But then they canceled the black box, so I would have to pay an added premium for the orange box for content I already have. After I heard that I swore it off. And with swearing.
The failure of our current representative democracy is that of education. In part, I would agree. But I'd like to point out that it's likely that the failure is the direct result of letting every Tom, Dick and Harry vote. It was not always so.
If voting were limited once again to landowners (or real estate), people who are educated enough to have and keep a home, things would turn around pretty quick for the better.
Not against women voting, or "men of color", but it'd be nice if there were a responsibility requirement.
This is exactly the reason I am guessing that Ron Paul said he will not run as Independent if not selected as the Republican runner. No. The reason he won't run as an independent is because the Commission on Presidential Debates is an establishment of the Republican and Democratic parties, which eliminate any added competition. The Republican and Democratic parties forged a deal that nearly guarantees them shared power.
Ron Paul has stated time and time again that an independent or third-party run is not something he would like to do because the system is set up against other parties.
In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter".
At least the players on the team really want the whole team to win. Members of political parties just use the team as a means of getting elected. Ok. How about a professional football team?
Your point of view seems to be a bit unpopular in Slashdot, but there are many who agree. Passing through the birth canal seems to be an arbitrary time to define the start of personhood. I assume you don't mean to be talking to me. I was saying just that. That a child's personality begins to develop before birth is something I would have said, as well, but I didn't believe that our friend was interested in hearing that. People who struggle to justify abortion usually aren't interested in hearing that sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I support him because none of the other candidates have a CLUE about our financial situation. He's the only candidate that GETS IT when it comes to monetary policies destroying our future. And I'm willing to fight pretty hard for his candidacy, because he represents something that this country sorely needs, even if this country doesn't know it.
Nobody said he was moderate.
I'm not exactly a betting man, but I did put $2,000 down on my man already, as a campaign contribution.
If Ron Paul is elected and does what he says he wants to do, I'll have my $2,000 back and much more.
I can't afford to lose this bet. I have no faith in this country unless we make a serious change in direction. Politics as usual will leave us desolate. Ron Paul is the only one that represents a serious change in direction.
Not to mention the lack of news when it comes to Ron Paul's fundraising. The day he raked in $6 million was a very quiet day in the media. The day he raked in $4.2 million was almost as quiet. Pretty big numbers for a nobody.
Deficit spending is driving this country into the ground, and fast. People are always talking about the terrible debt, but so few people actually take it seriously. Free health care is the answer. Yeah.
We will soon be an impoverished nation. As the dollar drops and wages remain steady, the federal poverty line creeps up a few thousand dollars every year, and it's not even keeping up with inflation!
It's not true that, when the tide rises, all ships rise with it. The ones sitting on the bottom just find themselves further under.
*Sigh*
Yeah, those things are about gone now.
And I'm sure you could find a whole lot more subjects of research that are far more useless to complain about wasting time.
It would be a better comparison to say, research about tooth-whitening creams leading to cancer.
And have you forgotten about human radiation experiments? With so many "experts" these days talking about diminishing the world's population, how much SHOULD you trust them?
The rate of deadly infectious diseases is far below the rate of autism. That's plenty of reason to make "radical" choices. A child can be vaccinated later if circumstances change, and the likelihood of the child developing autism goes down drastically with age. But a child's brain is very delicate in the first 4 years. I may get my children vaccinated at age 8.
And yes, I don't think that vaccinations are likely to be the greatest factor. The fluorination of city water supplies is something I consider an even greater factor.
As much as researchers, well-intentioned doctors, pushy friends and neighbors and jackass strangers try to tell me I have nothing to fear from vaccinations and that I'm killing my children by refusing to vaccinate them, I'm going to make my own decisions. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum, or a in test-tube. A parent's instincts may not always be right, but as long as this is still a free country (I expect at least another year or so), these are my choices and no one else's to make. Sadly, this diverts attention from actually doing reseach into real autism causes without some conspiracy-theory group breathing down your neck. I doubt we'd even be having this research without this "conspiracy-theory group". Last time I tried to find information about it, I couldn't find any exhaustive studies on the relationship between autism and vaccinations.
Yeah, there may be a legal battle over that. To say that an artist cannot re-record a song on another label is like saying the artist cannot perform that song in concert if they're not currently signed to the label. Whether or not someone is recording it is irrelevant if the label owns the rights to the song. I think if that went to court we'd see a victory for artist's rights.
Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.
What I meant to do was marginalize Diebold's software, as a prototype/demo.
I'm actually a bit horrified if this shit is going to be used in a serious election processes.
Access/Jet is still quite a useful tool.... for throwing together a quick prototype/demo application.
Yes, I could spare $20. I could spare $20 here, and $20 there. Hey, I could let everyone overcharge me. But then I'd be completely broke. And then every single merchant thinks they can overcharge $20, or push for $30.
There are several reasons not to over-pay for something like this. People who go along with it are just enabling it further.
It's fine if you want to tell me how much you think your product is worth. But the moment you presume you can tell me what you think it's worth to ME, you're addressing me in a familiar way. If you are not actually familiar with me, that is quite disrespectful. You have no idea how much time I have to play video games or how much I enjoy a particular type of game. You can't tell me that it's worth $90 to me (which is what the analogy suggested by "$3 per [new] song"). That is condescending. You poor dear. Here in Australia we pay USD$86 and up for the same crap. And if you're happy paying that much for it, that's fine with me. Eat it up. I have higher standards, and I don't really care if you think my complaints are not justified.
I just remember the days when this kind of content was called an expansion pack, and was sold separately for a significantly lower price. Valve was set to do that, and then they changed their minds.
You think they were justified? Fine. It's their product, and they can take it with them to hell as far as I'm concerned.
From the reviews, TF2 is not much different than TF, just with new skins and new maps. That doesn't sound like it's worth $50. And Portal is more like a mini-game. And Episode 2, itself, is already a mini-game. $50 for what I already have plus that? Go to hell. Most of my LAN gaming friends have the same attitude towards such a purchase, which is about the only time I'd even play the game.
Most people who live on their own with a median income have far better purposes for their money, especially when it comes to buying $50 games. You can buy the same stuff you already have with a little bit of new stuff for $50? Or all new games?
If you want to base some argument on the fact that I shouldn't be upset because the thing was never released, just move on. I'm saying I'm sore that they didn't release it. So you're not really saying anything new.
Let me make an analysis you might understand. Britney Spears records 2 new songs. The producer announces a release having the 2 songs, for only $5. Then instead they make a compilation of so-called "greatest hits" and include the 2 new songs on that release, for $15. I can understand that you, as a Britney Spears fan, are upset that you have to spend $15 to get the 2 new songs plus 10 you already have, when you were told you could get just the 2 songs for $5 purchase. And your allowance is only $2 per week.
Oh yeah, and it seems that several dick-heads have the new Britney songs on their ipod and are telling you how great it is, how it was worth the $15 for the two songs alone. And then they give you shit about how you're upset that it'd costs you $15.
Sorry, what's retarded?
Well congrats, man. If you're happy spending $20 more than the MSRP for the same thing, then enjoy it yourself.
Valve would have a great LAN party product if they could keep it $30 or less per episode including multi-player content. We were talking about organizing another LAN party on the release of Episode 2. The fate of that LAN party was tied to the fate of the Black Box.
If the boxed version of Episode 17 includes Episodes 16, 15, 14... etc AND the original Half-Life 2, then my kids won't likely be able to afford to play Half-Life as the box will cost $390.
Yes. I'm still sore about Valve dropping the black box. I was excited about Team Fortress and Portal. But then they canceled the black box, so I would have to pay an added premium for the orange box for content I already have. After I heard that I swore it off. And with swearing.
Fuck you, Valve.
If voting were limited once again to landowners (or real estate), people who are educated enough to have and keep a home, things would turn around pretty quick for the better.
Not against women voting, or "men of color", but it'd be nice if there were a responsibility requirement.
On the other hand, I'm sure that time for you just slows to a crawl between highs, so your results may appear exactly the opposite.
Nobody challenged it when "drug dealers" were deprived of their money and belongings, without due process.
This is just the next chapter.
Ron Paul has stated time and time again that an independent or third-party run is not something he would like to do because the system is set up against other parties. In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter".