One very important difference is that in order to solve the "lost in the background noise" problem, you have to artificially silence the background noise, which is also censorship, isn't it?
I especially liked this one from Nancy the other day: the notion that if congress gets an even larger Democrat majority, that it will finally be more bi-partisan.
From what I can tell on Wikipedia, the Dept. of Defense gets 16.6%, 5% on the GWOT, 1.4% on the Dept. of Veteran Affairs. That adds up to far less than the 30% you recommend.
I think that part of what the Free-Marketeers are saying is that sometimes problems like this DO happen, but then the problem people are driven out of business, making it less likely to happen again.
My dad can sign his name and use a keyboard, but he finds it excessively tiring. Wednesday I called to help him buy a computer and he had difficulty entering his information, and he had to call in my mom to help him do it.
But they have to pay the guy who thought it up, the guy who drew up the plans, the secretary for the guy who drew up the plans, the guy who sweeps up Apple Inc. after hours, the guy who drives the ship full of stuff to China, the guy who drives the ship full of finished iPhones back from China, the guy who makes the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, the guy who runs the lights for the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, they guy from the Apple store who flirts with your girlfriend while you're trying to see which of those sexy cases will look best on your new iPhone, and we could go on and on.
>First, I said "those threatened" - those suffering only name calling are not being threatened. Second, I offered "aid and defense, with force if necessary" - the use of defensive force is necessary only - indeed, can only exit - if aggressive force is present.
Now I'm REALLY confused. Because before it sounded like you DIDN'T support the war in Iraq, and now here you are supporting doing battle against Saddam Hussein.
1) Well, okay, I guess. If you think Jimmy Carter did better than Ronald Reagan, or that Clinton did better than Bush I, then we have a disagreement that can't be resolved here.
2) "I just don't see him doing what I want done." How do you select candidates? Do you not pick the one that comes the closest to doing what you think should be done?
You only can say that because no used-car salesmen have been president while Bush was president.
I have to tell you, with all the problems I have with Bush, I just can't see that Gore or Kerry would have done any better. Same for Obama vs. McCain. I'd love to vote for Obama, but I just don't see him doing what I want done. McCain either, for that matter.
Now, of the reasons you cited for why Obama is qualified, the first and third are legislative, not executive.
The Bush Doctrine has 4 definitions, Palin was right to ask which one.
If by "has proven himself right on the Iraq war" you mean that he was right about the troop surge, then you are incorrect.
I am not sure how using the Internet is a qualification for POTUS, but Sarah Palin also knows how to use Yahoo! mail, at least.
Well, anything that is present in enough quantities to disrupt something can be considered pollution. Dirt can be a pollutant if it gets washed into a pond and blocks out the sunlight so the plants cant grow and the plant-eating bugs die so the fish don't have any food. Likewise, carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant.
Sure. Leaving my car unlocked with some expensive stuff in full view isn't a crime. After all, no harm is being done until it gets nicked, right ?
Wrong. If nothing else I could get a nice fine for being negligent and effectivily inviting a thief to grab it.
Are you serious? I'm gonna need chapter and verse on that one. It sounds like the dumbest law ever.
Slashdot Mirror
That actually sounds like a lot of fun to me.
If the creationist is 5000 years old, I'd probably value his opinion, too. He'd have lots of good wisdom.
One very important difference is that in order to solve the "lost in the background noise" problem, you have to artificially silence the background noise, which is also censorship, isn't it?
That was AWESOME.
Can I get a link please?
From what I can tell on Wikipedia, the Dept. of Defense gets 16.6%, 5% on the GWOT, 1.4% on the Dept. of Veteran Affairs. That adds up to far less than the 30% you recommend.
I think that part of what the Free-Marketeers are saying is that sometimes problems like this DO happen, but then the problem people are driven out of business, making it less likely to happen again.
-Saturday Night Live, 2004
Hence the longest post on media bias I've ever read.
My dad can sign his name and use a keyboard, but he finds it excessively tiring. Wednesday I called to help him buy a computer and he had difficulty entering his information, and he had to call in my mom to help him do it.
I guess it turned out they were right. They WERE backed by the government.
But they have to pay the guy who thought it up, the guy who drew up the plans, the secretary for the guy who drew up the plans, the guy who sweeps up Apple Inc. after hours, the guy who drives the ship full of stuff to China, the guy who drives the ship full of finished iPhones back from China, the guy who makes the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, the guy who runs the lights for the stupid "Hey, I'm a Mac" commercials, they guy from the Apple store who flirts with your girlfriend while you're trying to see which of those sexy cases will look best on your new iPhone, and we could go on and on.
Now I'm REALLY confused. Because before it sounded like you DIDN'T support the war in Iraq, and now here you are supporting doing battle against Saddam Hussein.
I give up.
Right there, you are kinda saying you're willing to use force to stop name-calling.
Also:
You seriously hadn't heard of the repeated attacks on US planes between 1990 and 2003?
I am rubber. You are glue.
I can see how they could have been better, I just think it was unlikely.
1) Well, okay, I guess. If you think Jimmy Carter did better than Ronald Reagan, or that Clinton did better than Bush I, then we have a disagreement that can't be resolved here. 2) "I just don't see him doing what I want done." How do you select candidates? Do you not pick the one that comes the closest to doing what you think should be done?
The President has the constitutional power to authorize the use of force. This has been shown many times: the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1...
"In what respect" means "In what respect," not "What are you talking about" anyway.
You're probably right about trying to convince each other about the levels of experience of Obama vs. Palin, though.
What makes you say I want him to wreck the country? Have I expressed glee at the problems that have come about during the Bush administration?
You only can say that because no used-car salesmen have been president while Bush was president. I have to tell you, with all the problems I have with Bush, I just can't see that Gore or Kerry would have done any better. Same for Obama vs. McCain. I'd love to vote for Obama, but I just don't see him doing what I want done. McCain either, for that matter.
Probably all they'd have needed was to believe that Kerry and Obama was/is better than the alternative.
Just sayin' that you should pick better examples.
Well, anything that is present in enough quantities to disrupt something can be considered pollution. Dirt can be a pollutant if it gets washed into a pond and blocks out the sunlight so the plants cant grow and the plant-eating bugs die so the fish don't have any food. Likewise, carbon dioxide can be considered a pollutant.
Are you serious? I'm gonna need chapter and verse on that one. It sounds like the dumbest law ever.