Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal. I was not aware of that fact. All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal.
Almost 50,000,000 disagree with you and your views. What's your damn point exactly?
As everyone who's taken them knows, the SAT can in no way be used as a measure of intelligence. Basically your point about the SAT is inconsequential.
Bush is a charismatic. I found myself liking the guy even though I disagree with most of what he stands for. That doesn't qualify him to run the country.
You accuse Gore of lacking Bush's intelligence. By your logic, that means you are lacking it upstairs as well. If you're going to make a generalization like that, it must be applied to both sides.
You're right. I never claimed to be better, but I'd like to see how an English professor would grade Bush's speeches (I've never had any problems).
As for the economy, the economy tends to follow a cycle. If you look at the cycle and apply it to the U.S. economy, we're about due for at least a minor downturn. I've heard it from economists (give me a little time and I'll find specific sources) and my father. Why do I cite my father, you ask? He works at the corporate level for a company. A company that has been preparing for a slide in the economy.
I can't remember where I heard this quote, but it sums up how I feel about the candidates.
"Evertime Al Gore speaks, part of me falls into a deep slumber. Everytime George W. Bush speaks, a part of me dies."
Politics is all about spin. Just wait till Bush takes office. If you think he's above such tactics, you're fooling yourself. A politician is a politician, no matter what image you put forward to fool the people.
Harvard and Yale are schools for people with more money than intelligence. From what I've read, the only parts of either with any prestige are the law schools.
If Bush can graduate without having learned how to speak english properly, it doesn't exactly speak well of those scholls.
I love how Gore's being painted as a horrible villian in all this. Can you honestly say any politician would act any differently given the circumstances? No, you cannot. If the situation were reversed Bush would do the exact same thing.
This election we had a choice between a scum of the earth liar and an idiot that hasn't even mastered the English language (listen to his speeches, he can't even use the verbs of being correctly 90% of the time). Either way half the country will hate them, the economy's due for a downturn anyway, whoever's in office will take the blame, and that person won't get re-elected, thank God.
It's not necessarily completely over and done with. Let's assume all of Gore's legal attempts fail (which they will). All that means is that the choice of electors voting will favor Bush. You could have a case of rogue electors (electors voting contrary to how the state went). The electors are not bound to vote for who won the popular vote in the state (I know this is true in many cases, I can't remember if it's universal though). I heard somewhere that the experts wouldn't be surprised if some electors from states that went to Bush voted for Gore.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hack..cough cough cough cough. Now that I'm done with that, tell me what exactly you mean by innovation. Most of their software have been alterations or blatant ripoffs of other people's work. Microsoft is a marketing genius, I will give them that. They've been able to sell their last two operating systems, despite being bugridden and unstable. Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit, they will sadly continue to dominate the market. They have proven they can market anything and they made an operating system any moron can use. That's why Linux and the numerous other OS's will never make much ground, they haven't been dumbed down enough for the average computer user. Let's face it, the average leisure computer user is dumb.
It's just an example of the fact that people in our culture need a conveniant scapegoat for societal ills. God forbid people take any kind of responsibility for themselves and their children, someone else is always at fault. In this case FPS and Sims are being blamed for violent behavior. In this case, if it's not FPS games, it's Sims. A game will only inspire violent behavior if a person is unstable and prone to violence to begin with. For me FPS games are more of a release of pent up aggression then anything else, an aspect of them that shouldn't be overlooked. If a teenager is unable to handle it, their parents should be dealing with it.
Murphy also has two more important laws to remember in a situation like this: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." and "If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway." No matter how much meticulous planning and calculation you go through, it's a given fact that something somewhere won't work out as planned. Even rocket scientists aren't infallible.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. He dislikes Bush, so he must be a liberal. I was not aware of that fact. All this time I thought I was a moderate, but according to you I must be a liberal. Almost 50,000,000 disagree with you and your views. What's your damn point exactly?
As everyone who's taken them knows, the SAT can in no way be used as a measure of intelligence. Basically your point about the SAT is inconsequential. Bush is a charismatic. I found myself liking the guy even though I disagree with most of what he stands for. That doesn't qualify him to run the country. You accuse Gore of lacking Bush's intelligence. By your logic, that means you are lacking it upstairs as well. If you're going to make a generalization like that, it must be applied to both sides.
You're right. I never claimed to be better, but I'd like to see how an English professor would grade Bush's speeches (I've never had any problems). As for the economy, the economy tends to follow a cycle. If you look at the cycle and apply it to the U.S. economy, we're about due for at least a minor downturn. I've heard it from economists (give me a little time and I'll find specific sources) and my father. Why do I cite my father, you ask? He works at the corporate level for a company. A company that has been preparing for a slide in the economy.
I can't remember where I heard this quote, but it sums up how I feel about the candidates. "Evertime Al Gore speaks, part of me falls into a deep slumber. Everytime George W. Bush speaks, a part of me dies."
Politics is all about spin. Just wait till Bush takes office. If you think he's above such tactics, you're fooling yourself. A politician is a politician, no matter what image you put forward to fool the people.
Harvard and Yale are schools for people with more money than intelligence. From what I've read, the only parts of either with any prestige are the law schools. If Bush can graduate without having learned how to speak english properly, it doesn't exactly speak well of those scholls.
I love how Gore's being painted as a horrible villian in all this. Can you honestly say any politician would act any differently given the circumstances? No, you cannot. If the situation were reversed Bush would do the exact same thing. This election we had a choice between a scum of the earth liar and an idiot that hasn't even mastered the English language (listen to his speeches, he can't even use the verbs of being correctly 90% of the time). Either way half the country will hate them, the economy's due for a downturn anyway, whoever's in office will take the blame, and that person won't get re-elected, thank God.
It's not necessarily completely over and done with. Let's assume all of Gore's legal attempts fail (which they will). All that means is that the choice of electors voting will favor Bush. You could have a case of rogue electors (electors voting contrary to how the state went). The electors are not bound to vote for who won the popular vote in the state (I know this is true in many cases, I can't remember if it's universal though). I heard somewhere that the experts wouldn't be surprised if some electors from states that went to Bush voted for Gore.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hack..cough cough cough cough. Now that I'm done with that, tell me what exactly you mean by innovation. Most of their software have been alterations or blatant ripoffs of other people's work. Microsoft is a marketing genius, I will give them that. They've been able to sell their last two operating systems, despite being bugridden and unstable. Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit, they will sadly continue to dominate the market. They have proven they can market anything and they made an operating system any moron can use. That's why Linux and the numerous other OS's will never make much ground, they haven't been dumbed down enough for the average computer user. Let's face it, the average leisure computer user is dumb.
It's just an example of the fact that people in our culture need a conveniant scapegoat for societal ills. God forbid people take any kind of responsibility for themselves and their children, someone else is always at fault. In this case FPS and Sims are being blamed for violent behavior. In this case, if it's not FPS games, it's Sims. A game will only inspire violent behavior if a person is unstable and prone to violence to begin with. For me FPS games are more of a release of pent up aggression then anything else, an aspect of them that shouldn't be overlooked. If a teenager is unable to handle it, their parents should be dealing with it.
Murphy also has two more important laws to remember in a situation like this: "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." and "If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway." No matter how much meticulous planning and calculation you go through, it's a given fact that something somewhere won't work out as planned. Even rocket scientists aren't infallible.