I don't know what Michelle Malkin is all about, but if the point that he is making (and using her as a reference for) is correct, how would that make him not a liberal? Are you only allowed to subscribe to certain sources of information to be considered a liberal? Or are you just emphasizing your own personal veiws and trying to discredit any information gathered from a site that is contrary to your ideals?
I think his point is well thought out and quite clear. You can't claim that one party has clean hands, and the other is responsible for all wrong done in our government. People need to get their head out of the sand and take a look around.
I am well versed enough on his policies to carry a lengthy conversation. If I don't know about it, I will look it up. In this particular case, the topic happens to be the iPod he presented Her Majesty, and I saw it as an opportune moment to interject about the precursor to this when he presented Prime Minister Brown with the DVDs.
How you think that the pen is not priceless, unique, and an irreplaceable piece of history is beyond me. It only takes a few moments of googling to discover that it's overrun with symbolism, and is not a trivial gift. I refuse to elaborate this matter for you, though, because I get the sense that it's lost on you. If you're so inclined, look it up, elsewise, you should refrain from commenting on subjects you've little familiarity with.
I have yet to babble on with Obama hating. I have no interest in creating dissent for the hell of it. I'm much more interested in stirring awareness than I am in stirring hatred. For example, that last thread that you found me in: Your post was useless, unless you're interested in the status quo. I couldn't care less who has and who hasn't read what laws. My concern is that these people are writing, amending, and passing laws. I expect every single bill that passes to be read and thoroughly understood. If they are not, then these politicians are not worth the salaries we pay them.
Also, when did I say anything about lipstick? Don't generalize with me. I'm not responsible for any words but my own.
Nice sig. Care to tell me how I'm exaggerating? Why don't you try and get your hands on one of those pens, in the meantime, I'll get 25 DVDs. We'll see who wins out in the end.
Ah, you follow the (R) bashing press? Sorry to tell you, you don't really get a "neutral". You get hot or cold, your best bet is to listen to both and use your own judgement. I don't play party lines.
Regardless, what I'm suggesting is that the 1500 page stimulus bill that was passed withing a matter of hours (What was it? Two days?) was not read in it's entirety by anyone , let alone Obama. Sorry to "bash" him, but I'm not going to obfuscate the facts to appease you.
I don't like any of the bailouts. I was pissed at Bush for passing the first one, and I've been pissed about each new one since. I remember a debate between Reagan and H.W. Bush where Bush was proposing new spending and new taxes, to which Reagan's response was "If you have a son who can't make ends meet with his allowance because he continually mismanages his money, do you give him a bigger allowance? No! You make him learn to be responsible with what he has." Now, that's paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact quote, but it just makes sense to me. It makes sense in government and it makes sense in business. Those banks had been mismanaged, and thus they needed to fail. Sure, it would have hurt us economically, but it's not like we're any better off now than we would be. Sometimes you have to break the bone to reset it properly. It just seems ironic to me that now they're pushing for restructuring GM through bankruptcy, and we have Government calling for the termination of private company CEOs! I don't agree with theis business practices, but I don't want govenrment to have that sort of control over our lives, either.
As far as the conspiracy theorists you talk about, I'll cede the point that we have plenty of dingbats out there. I remember seeing a video of some rednecks just saying "Oh Bahmah's a Moooslim!", and it's just ignorant. Though, some of them are worth taking into consideration, not necessarily because they're right, but because it's not an impossible outcome. One World Currency, for example. I've not heard of that, but I have heard of the North American Union, and the currency set to the Amero. Again, I'm not claiming it's true, I'm saying it's worth taking with a grain of salt and watch. Don't claim it's inevitable, but don't claim that we're completely safe from it, either.
As for the tax breaks, have you looked at the numbers? The top 5% already pays an astounding percentage of our taxes, but that top 5% are also some of the most prominent job creators. I heard it said that when Reagan cut their taxes, government revenues actually increased. Obama was asked about that in a debate with Clinton in the primaries...he dodged the question and went off about something else. It really annoyed me. Regardless, I encourage you to look it up, the numbers, that is.
Are you counting the stimulus bill as a boon or a detriment to his record? I also like how we've been hearing nothing but "We have to bail them out! We can't let them fail!", but now, when bailing them out the first time didn't work so well, they want to restructure GM through bankruptcy (something your "right wing freak show" has been calling for since the beginning). Let alone the fact that he signed this bill into law without so much as knowing what was included in said bill.
I want to give the guy a fair shake, after all...he's my president. However, as of yet, there are only two words I can give his administration:
Finally, someone who gets it. It's not about having the right to take photographs in a public place, I don't care if my neighbors take a picture and my property, person, or relatives are in that picture. I don't care if they then go and post that on their flickr or what-have-you.
I DO, however, have a big problem with a company who aims to make that information available to the general public who would otherwise have no business anywhere near my home. Take this story as an example: I could very easiy, from the comfort of my home in the U.S., scope out these homes in a very detailed way (Look at the streets around it, terrain, obstacles), make a more or less educated judgement of whether or not it would be worth investing money that I would not otherwise invest into taking a trip down there, just for the sake of robbery.
I don't disagree with these people, not even a little. Good for them.
B.S., P.M. Brown presented Obama with a priceless, unique, and irreplaceable piece of the U.K.'s history. Obama gave him some DVDs. I doesn't matter how you try and justify that one, it's just disrespectful.
Her Majesty's gift wasn't as commanding as the P.M.'s, but it's at very least more unique and not something you might expect to receive for having the highest number of sales at work. Perhaps the pictures vindicate it, but just barely.
I don't know if I'm the only one who read it this way, but the summary makes it seem like these servers have a bit of a job on their hands as it is, what with hosting the site and doing their web-crawling/archiving...and we slashdotted this thing? We're going to blow that little metal building up.
Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.
As far as legislation goes, you're absolutely right; the problem with having a president who supports such an idea is that he will be appointing supreme court justices. More than likely, he'll appoint ones who share like-minded views. That's what's troubling, I mean, just look at how many posts there are on/. where the outcome of a common-sensical issue is left to a judge.
For those who say that who he has associated with in the past doesn't come into play at this point, I just told you exactly why is is important to call into question who he has associations with. Chances are, you look at who he has surrounded himself with in the past, you'll be looking at who will be surrounding him in the white house. Just sayin'.
I've actually noticed the exact opposite here. People can talk trash all they like about another candidate, but if you don't sell a platform, you aren't giving the people anything to vote for. Smear tactics like that are going to be the downfall of any candidate who chooses to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what Michelle Malkin is all about, but if the point that he is making (and using her as a reference for) is correct, how would that make him not a liberal? Are you only allowed to subscribe to certain sources of information to be considered a liberal? Or are you just emphasizing your own personal veiws and trying to discredit any information gathered from a site that is contrary to your ideals?
I think his point is well thought out and quite clear. You can't claim that one party has clean hands, and the other is responsible for all wrong done in our government. People need to get their head out of the sand and take a look around.
I am well versed enough on his policies to carry a lengthy conversation. If I don't know about it, I will look it up. In this particular case, the topic happens to be the iPod he presented Her Majesty, and I saw it as an opportune moment to interject about the precursor to this when he presented Prime Minister Brown with the DVDs.
How you think that the pen is not priceless, unique, and an irreplaceable piece of history is beyond me. It only takes a few moments of googling to discover that it's overrun with symbolism, and is not a trivial gift. I refuse to elaborate this matter for you, though, because I get the sense that it's lost on you. If you're so inclined, look it up, elsewise, you should refrain from commenting on subjects you've little familiarity with.
I have yet to babble on with Obama hating. I have no interest in creating dissent for the hell of it. I'm much more interested in stirring awareness than I am in stirring hatred. For example, that last thread that you found me in: Your post was useless, unless you're interested in the status quo. I couldn't care less who has and who hasn't read what laws. My concern is that these people are writing, amending, and passing laws. I expect every single bill that passes to be read and thoroughly understood. If they are not, then these politicians are not worth the salaries we pay them.
Also, when did I say anything about lipstick? Don't generalize with me. I'm not responsible for any words but my own.
Nice sig. Care to tell me how I'm exaggerating? Why don't you try and get your hands on one of those pens, in the meantime, I'll get 25 DVDs. We'll see who wins out in the end.
Ah, you follow the (R) bashing press? Sorry to tell you, you don't really get a "neutral". You get hot or cold, your best bet is to listen to both and use your own judgement. I don't play party lines.
Regardless, what I'm suggesting is that the 1500 page stimulus bill that was passed withing a matter of hours (What was it? Two days?) was not read in it's entirety by anyone , let alone Obama. Sorry to "bash" him, but I'm not going to obfuscate the facts to appease you.
I don't like any of the bailouts. I was pissed at Bush for passing the first one, and I've been pissed about each new one since. I remember a debate between Reagan and H.W. Bush where Bush was proposing new spending and new taxes, to which Reagan's response was "If you have a son who can't make ends meet with his allowance because he continually mismanages his money, do you give him a bigger allowance? No! You make him learn to be responsible with what he has." Now, that's paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact quote, but it just makes sense to me. It makes sense in government and it makes sense in business. Those banks had been mismanaged, and thus they needed to fail. Sure, it would have hurt us economically, but it's not like we're any better off now than we would be. Sometimes you have to break the bone to reset it properly. It just seems ironic to me that now they're pushing for restructuring GM through bankruptcy, and we have Government calling for the termination of private company CEOs! I don't agree with theis business practices, but I don't want govenrment to have that sort of control over our lives, either.
As far as the conspiracy theorists you talk about, I'll cede the point that we have plenty of dingbats out there. I remember seeing a video of some rednecks just saying "Oh Bahmah's a Moooslim!", and it's just ignorant. Though, some of them are worth taking into consideration, not necessarily because they're right, but because it's not an impossible outcome. One World Currency, for example. I've not heard of that, but I have heard of the North American Union, and the currency set to the Amero. Again, I'm not claiming it's true, I'm saying it's worth taking with a grain of salt and watch. Don't claim it's inevitable, but don't claim that we're completely safe from it, either.
As for the tax breaks, have you looked at the numbers? The top 5% already pays an astounding percentage of our taxes, but that top 5% are also some of the most prominent job creators. I heard it said that when Reagan cut their taxes, government revenues actually increased. Obama was asked about that in a debate with Clinton in the primaries...he dodged the question and went off about something else. It really annoyed me. Regardless, I encourage you to look it up, the numbers, that is.
Are you counting the stimulus bill as a boon or a detriment to his record? I also like how we've been hearing nothing but "We have to bail them out! We can't let them fail!", but now, when bailing them out the first time didn't work so well, they want to restructure GM through bankruptcy (something your "right wing freak show" has been calling for since the beginning). Let alone the fact that he signed this bill into law without so much as knowing what was included in said bill.
I want to give the guy a fair shake, after all...he's my president. However, as of yet, there are only two words I can give his administration:
Epic Fail.
We'll have to wait and see if it gets any better.
Finally, someone who gets it. It's not about having the right to take photographs in a public place, I don't care if my neighbors take a picture and my property, person, or relatives are in that picture. I don't care if they then go and post that on their flickr or what-have-you.
I DO, however, have a big problem with a company who aims to make that information available to the general public who would otherwise have no business anywhere near my home. Take this story as an example: I could very easiy, from the comfort of my home in the U.S., scope out these homes in a very detailed way (Look at the streets around it, terrain, obstacles), make a more or less educated judgement of whether or not it would be worth investing money that I would not otherwise invest into taking a trip down there, just for the sake of robbery.
I don't disagree with these people, not even a little. Good for them.
B.S., P.M. Brown presented Obama with a priceless, unique, and irreplaceable piece of the U.K.'s history. Obama gave him some DVDs. I doesn't matter how you try and justify that one, it's just disrespectful.
Her Majesty's gift wasn't as commanding as the P.M.'s, but it's at very least more unique and not something you might expect to receive for having the highest number of sales at work. Perhaps the pictures vindicate it, but just barely.
Intent is the difference. Lousy analogy. I want my 2-seconds-it-took-to-read-and-solve-the-riddle back.
The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents.
Really? An environment where two out of every three molecules is Oxygen will alleviate that pesky Oxygen problem just like that, eh?
I don't know if I'm the only one who read it this way, but the summary makes it seem like these servers have a bit of a job on their hands as it is, what with hosting the site and doing their web-crawling/archiving...and we slashdotted this thing? We're going to blow that little metal building up.
Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.
/. where the outcome of a common-sensical issue is left to a judge.
As far as legislation goes, you're absolutely right; the problem with having a president who supports such an idea is that he will be appointing supreme court justices. More than likely, he'll appoint ones who share like-minded views. That's what's troubling, I mean, just look at how many posts there are on
For those who say that who he has associated with in the past doesn't come into play at this point, I just told you exactly why is is important to call into question who he has associations with. Chances are, you look at who he has surrounded himself with in the past, you'll be looking at who will be surrounding him in the white house. Just sayin'.
That seems slightly ironic in this particular case, simply because these protocells were "created" by this Jack fellow. I don't believe in Jack.
I've actually noticed the exact opposite here. People can talk trash all they like about another candidate, but if you don't sell a platform, you aren't giving the people anything to vote for. Smear tactics like that are going to be the downfall of any candidate who chooses to use them.