This is all old news, but I thought I'd reply anyway.
So no UN == no international support? Because France and Germany aren't involved we don't have support? That's an interesting point of view.
Kerry isn't for the war or against it, he is for him being president and will take any position on any issue that he thinks will get him there.
He was all for the war until he saw one of his fellow wannabe presidents making headway on an anti-war platform. Within the week he was against the war too. Kerry is floating adrift without a plan, fanatically clinging to the political view-du-jour; whatever that may be.
In the first "debate" between Kerry and Bush (and I use the term loosely - more a political farce if you ask me) Kerry said he was for the troops. He declared that President Bush sent the troops over there ill prepared; without body armor, armored vehicles, etc. If true, it would have been a huge slap in the face of George W. Bush, however, it was Kerry who voted against financing the war. Of the two men, it was him, if anyone, who denied the troops the resources they need(ed).
Well, we can agree on the last half of your post. I don't think much of either candidate, and I agree with you on Nader.
Under Bush, we have not seen a repeat of September 11th on American soil (at least not yet). I don't think Kerry has the wherewithall to accomplish the same. I take umbrage at his political prostituting; especially in regards to the U.N.
I don't like Kerry at all and I will not vote for him. He comes across as a self-serving ass who will say and believe whatever it takes to get into office. I don't think he has a plan or a platform other than verbally abusing Bush, and that's not going to cut it for me.
Just to make it clear, I do not plan on voting for Bush because of what he is saying or doing. I'm voting for him because of what John Kerry is saying and the things he has done (or not done) during his political career.
Well, the one "dumber than your dog" graduated from a better university than you did I'll bet.
I think people that judge someone's intelligence by their ability to speak comfortably in front of large groups are clinging to an unstable measuring stick and opening themselves up to all manner of chicanery, fraud, and sorrow.
Perhaps they are the sort of people who used to buy snake oil, or invest heavily in the tremendous bank accounts of dead African leaders.
Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism. That's what a good leader is supposed to do.
Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm against the war, I'm shopping at Pottery Barn...)
I hope you can see the difference and realize why your position here is fundametally unstable.
I remember watching T.V. on September 11th and seeing people faced with the decision to stay in the building and burn to death, or to leap from the building to their death. I want a leader who will do everything in his power to make sure nobody on US soil will ever have to make a decision like that again. John Kerry is NOT that leader.
I have seen this argument floating around, and quite frankly it doesn't hold any water with me.
When you go to the bank or credit union to get a car loan, you are suggesting to them that you want to buy a car. The bank or credit union's board then meets and decides whether or not they want to let you buy a car. The likelihood that you will get the loan and then not buy the car is very small, so that is not even a consideration. When the bank makes their decision, they do so based on the assumption that you are indeed going to buy the car.
When President Bush presented this to congress, they all knew and expected that the president wanted to go to war with Iraq. John Kerry's vote to grant President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq is a vote by John Kerry to go to war in Iraq.
To suggest that John Kerry voted to give the president authority to make war in Iraq because he really didn't think the president would follow through with it is asinine.
Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web sight in another post. I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why they are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
The truth of the matter is that I could type and type from now until I die and fill Slashdot with post after post after post and still Kerry supporters would nitpick what I said and I would not convince most people to take a step back and view this election with an objective mentality instead a televised sports one.
I'm voting for Bush or Nader (I haven't decided which yet). I don't agree with some of their policies and beliefs, but at least I know what they are.
Bush and Kerry had the same information presented to them before this all started and they both chose to go ahead with military action. If Bush lied, Kerry lied. Period.
Mistakes may have been made, but if so they were made by both candidates. Now, one opportunistic candidate is pretending that he had nothing to do with it and using his own mistake (if one was made at all) against his opponent. Shameful really.
To be honest, I am quite disappointed in the cognative skills of most Slashdot posters regarding this topic. I thought this particular community of people were smarter than many posts suggest.
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.
By Joe six-pack I assume you are referring to the uneducated masses who are swayed to vote for candidates who go wind-surfing with plumbers and electricians instead of focusing on the real issues.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Those rubes are sure to think Kerry won.
I have a question regarding GPL code distribution.
I donated some GPL'd code to my employer. They didn't like the language it was written in (Python) so they ported the code to C# and the database to MSSQL (they still use a little bit of the Python code though).
They recently distributed the product (minus the code) to a 3rd party vendor that does translation work for us. My question is, does this qualify as distributing the code? If a company distributes modified GPL'd code to a vendor they are paying to do a certain task for them has the code been redistributed or is it still considered an in-house modification?
I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII.
Nearly all English speakers pronounce the word wrong. They say KamEEkazEE (like chEEze) instead of the proper KamEE (EE as in chEEze) kazE (E as in Egg).
Offering a statement such as that is a far cry different than what you suggested; that they tell their members how to vote.
Many religious, tax-exempt groups offer similar statements. It is the job of religion to offer it's members a moral compass, isn't it? The Pope of the Catholic church issued a similar statement not too long ago too. Does that mean that the Catholic church is also telling its members how to vote? Are you equally disgusted by the Catholic church's statement and their ability to retain their tax-exempt status?
As for your final statement, I think you are still wrong. If Hatch were a democrat, he wouldn't win. The LDS church has never asked its members to vote for Hatch or anybody else. He simply wins because he is the "conservative" candidate (and I use the term loosely) in a conservative state. It is as simple as that.
I am a member of the LDS church, but I hate Orrin Hatch as a senator, and I want him out. However, if I can't get him out prior to the final election, and my only choices are him or a democrat, I will vote for Hatch.
The liberals are for gay rights, abortion, high taxes, and large government. I am very much against all of these things, so if my choice is between Hatch and a democrat, I will vote for Hatch. It has absolutely nothing to do with the LDS church, and I am disgusted that you would suggest so.
You are incorrect regarding the LDS church. While they do encourage their members to vote, they have never in my lifetime offered any political directives regarding candidates whatsoever. To blame them for is as ugly and dishonest as Hatch himself.
The problem in Utah is that the people are very conservative so they vote the republican candidate most of the time (SLC being the exception) but they only vote during the final election. If Utah is going to oust Hatch, it needs to be done prior to the final voting stage so he isn't even on the ballot. A republican will always win. We, as Utahns need to make sure there is a different republican to vote for in the final election.
"When Apple rips off features from Windows XP. ..disk encryption. .."
Sorry, but Windows XP ripped disk encryption off from Linux and BSD, who probably ripped it off from somebody else. Apple probably got it through their BSD roots and not from Microsoft.
I disagree with you. Television drives the morals of our nation to a large degree, and as such, it should abide by a certain degree of morality; either willingly, or under government mandate.
Also, how could anyone in their right mind consider verbal vulgarities "educational"?
I think it's interesting that instead of Seagate competing with a quality 1" drive of their own (maybe they do, I just couldn't find one), they try to compete through litigation. Reminds me of somebody else I know.
I set up my own Jabber server for this reason; among others. I was also tired of MNS and Yahoo changing their protocols and leaving me with no way to contact friends (neither have a native client that runs on my platform of choice).
No offense, but it must be nice to be able to inexorably believe something even when there's plenty of evidence to suggest quite the contrary is true. Russian President Vladimir Putin's statement springs readily to mind. Here is a portion of it as quoted on CNN for those of us who don't have time for Google:
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations,"
Another point that shouldn't be missed is that the world knew that Iraq had WMDs. It was a non-Bush, non-US documented fact. Saddam used them on his own people in the 90s; remember?
The problem I see with liberals now is that many of them view American politics like a televised sporting event. Conservatives stole the game from us last season, so we want to crush them at any cost this season. I've seen any number of news stories spun or exploited to that end (prisoners with panties on their heads = torture, for example).
The dangerous side effect of this behavior is that liberals are so caught up in placing one of their own into the Whitehouse, that they are asking the wrong questions and neglecting things that are much more important. We know Iraq had weapons, so the question we should be asking is where did they go, not whether they exist or not. That question has already been answered.
There's a lot of "Bush lied" crap being shoveled about lately. It seems when common sense and research fail to comply with our political alignments, a bone-headed refusal to accept hindering truths will see us through. I don't think Bush is a perfect man or a perfect president, but I believe he is sincere is his efforts to make the citizens he serves safe from the atrocites that others in the world would like to inflict upon us. Since that is his job, I can't find fault with him regarding these efforts.
On a separate note, Saddam and his sons were monsters. That is also a well documented fact. For all the ad nauseam liberal whinging about human rights, I find the liberal camp's arguments that we shouldn't have unseated Saddam and his sons to be hypocritical to the extreme.
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
It isn't satire. If anything it's sophistry and equivocality at its finest.
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
I don't know about disgussing, but I certainly find it disgusting. Moore's intent is not to be satirical, but rather to influence weak-minded individuals with his home-grown dose of intellectual buggery. The sad thing is that the things portrayed in Moore's film are pretty much the whole of John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush is a liar, Bush is evil, Bush is a moron, blah, blah, blah.
If puerile name calling is the best platform the liberals can come up with to lead this country, then heaven help us should Kerry win.
I can understand Amazon's complaint. Every time I have set foot in a Toys-R-Us retail store to buy something for one of my kids, I have left empty-handed because they didn't have what I was looking for in stock. Of course, if you wanted a Polly Potty with life-like urine, then you were in luck.
I guess that's just how they choose to do business.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all old news, but I thought I'd reply anyway.
So no UN == no international support? Because France and Germany aren't involved we don't have support? That's an interesting point of view.
Kerry isn't for the war or against it, he is for him being president and will take any position on any issue that he thinks will get him there.
He was all for the war until he saw one of his fellow wannabe presidents making headway on an anti-war platform. Within the week he was against the war too. Kerry is floating adrift without a plan, fanatically clinging to the political view-du-jour; whatever that may be.
In the first "debate" between Kerry and Bush (and I use the term loosely - more a political farce if you ask me) Kerry said he was for the troops. He declared that President Bush sent the troops over there ill prepared; without body armor, armored vehicles, etc. If true, it would have been a huge slap in the face of George W. Bush, however, it was Kerry who voted against financing the war. Of the two men, it was him, if anyone, who denied the troops the resources they need(ed).
Well, we can agree on the last half of your post. I don't think much of either candidate, and I agree with you on Nader.
Under Bush, we have not seen a repeat of September 11th on American soil (at least not yet). I don't think Kerry has the wherewithall to accomplish the same. I take umbrage at his political prostituting; especially in regards to the U.N.
I don't like Kerry at all and I will not vote for him. He comes across as a self-serving ass who will say and believe whatever it takes to get into office. I don't think he has a plan or a platform other than verbally abusing Bush, and that's not going to cut it for me.
Just to make it clear, I do not plan on voting for Bush because of what he is saying or doing. I'm voting for him because of what John Kerry is saying and the things he has done (or not done) during his political career.
Well, neither of us can spell cognitive correctly and that's a common ground from which all further discussions can proceed.
Well, the one "dumber than your dog" graduated from a better university than you did I'll bet.
I think people that judge someone's intelligence by their ability to speak comfortably in front of large groups are clinging to an unstable measuring stick and opening themselves up to all manner of chicanery, fraud, and sorrow.
Perhaps they are the sort of people who used to buy snake oil, or invest heavily in the tremendous bank accounts of dead African leaders.
No, I'm saying Kerry lied because he made a decision and is now trying to blame his opponent for it and pretend he didn't have anything to do with it.
If the man can't take responsibility for his own actions, then why should I vote for him?
Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism. That's what a good leader is supposed to do.
Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm against the war, I'm shopping at Pottery Barn...)
I hope you can see the difference and realize why your position here is fundametally unstable.
I remember watching T.V. on September 11th and seeing people faced with the decision to stay in the building and burn to death, or to leap from the building to their death. I want a leader who will do everything in his power to make sure nobody on US soil will ever have to make a decision like that again. John Kerry is NOT that leader.
I have seen this argument floating around, and quite frankly it doesn't hold any water with me.
When you go to the bank or credit union to get a car loan, you are suggesting to them that you want to buy a car. The bank or credit union's board then meets and decides whether or not they want to let you buy a car. The likelihood that you will get the loan and then not buy the car is very small, so that is not even a consideration. When the bank makes their decision, they do so based on the assumption that you are indeed going to buy the car.
When President Bush presented this to congress, they all knew and expected that the president wanted to go to war with Iraq. John Kerry's vote to grant President Bush authority to go to war in Iraq is a vote by John Kerry to go to war in Iraq.
To suggest that John Kerry voted to give the president authority to make war in Iraq because he really didn't think the president would follow through with it is asinine.
You have made a good point.
Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web sight in another post. I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why they are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
The truth of the matter is that I could type and type from now until I die and fill Slashdot with post after post after post and still Kerry supporters would nitpick what I said and I would not convince most people to take a step back and view this election with an objective mentality instead a televised sports one.
I'm voting for Bush or Nader (I haven't decided which yet). I don't agree with some of their policies and beliefs, but at least I know what they are.
Bush and Kerry had the same information presented to them before this all started and they both chose to go ahead with military action. If Bush lied, Kerry lied. Period.
Mistakes may have been made, but if so they were made by both candidates. Now, one opportunistic candidate is pretending that he had nothing to do with it and using his own mistake (if one was made at all) against his opponent. Shameful really.
To be honest, I am quite disappointed in the cognative skills of most Slashdot posters regarding this topic. I thought this particular community of people were smarter than many posts suggest.
Kerry hasn't told you one thing that he is going to do. He has proffered nebulous lists, buzzwords, and catchy quotes, but nothing substantial or concrete. Most of you that are planning to vote for him have no other reasons in mind than he isn't Bush and he isn't a republican, and that is really pathetic.
Why would the US want to sign the Kyoto Accords? If I was the sane leader, or wannabe leader, of a sovereign nation I wouldn't sign it either.
That's probably because I'm contrary and because I think environmentalists are insane.
By Joe six-pack I assume you are referring to the uneducated masses who are swayed to vote for candidates who go wind-surfing with plumbers and electricians instead of focusing on the real issues.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Those rubes are sure to think Kerry won.
I have a question regarding GPL code distribution.
I donated some GPL'd code to my employer. They didn't like the language it was written in (Python) so they ported the code to C# and the database to MSSQL (they still use a little bit of the Python code though).
They recently distributed the product (minus the code) to a 3rd party vendor that does translation work for us. My question is, does this qualify as distributing the code? If a company distributes modified GPL'd code to a vendor they are paying to do a certain task for them has the code been redistributed or is it still considered an in-house modification?
I saw a documentary on WWII where Harry Truman referred to kamikaze pilots as "cammie-kayzees" (to get close to the phonetics of it). He's considered to be one of the better presidents, even if he wasn't able to pronounce the name of the threat to our fleet at the end of WWII.
Nearly all English speakers pronounce the word wrong. They say KamEEkazEE (like chEEze) instead of the proper KamEE (EE as in chEEze) kazE (E as in Egg).
The Musketeer (2001)
Dead Ringers (1988)
I'm sure there are worse movies, but I still want my money back for these two.
I only got 8 out of 10 correct, and the two I missed were both from PayPal. The grammar on both of them seemed odd, and therefore suspect.
I was glad to find I erred on the side of caution though.
Offering a statement such as that is a far cry different than what you suggested; that they tell their members how to vote.
Many religious, tax-exempt groups offer similar statements. It is the job of religion to offer it's members a moral compass, isn't it? The Pope of the Catholic church issued a similar statement not too long ago too. Does that mean that the Catholic church is also telling its members how to vote? Are you equally disgusted by the Catholic church's statement and their ability to retain their tax-exempt status?
As for your final statement, I think you are still wrong. If Hatch were a democrat, he wouldn't win. The LDS church has never asked its members to vote for Hatch or anybody else. He simply wins because he is the "conservative" candidate (and I use the term loosely) in a conservative state. It is as simple as that.
I am a member of the LDS church, but I hate Orrin Hatch as a senator, and I want him out. However, if I can't get him out prior to the final election, and my only choices are him or a democrat, I will vote for Hatch.
The liberals are for gay rights, abortion, high taxes, and large government. I am very much against all of these things, so if my choice is between Hatch and a democrat, I will vote for Hatch. It has absolutely nothing to do with the LDS church, and I am disgusted that you would suggest so.
You are incorrect regarding the LDS church. While they do encourage their members to vote, they have never in my lifetime offered any political directives regarding candidates whatsoever. To blame them for is as ugly and dishonest as Hatch himself.
The problem in Utah is that the people are very conservative so they vote the republican candidate most of the time (SLC being the exception) but they only vote during the final election. If Utah is going to oust Hatch, it needs to be done prior to the final voting stage so he isn't even on the ballot. A republican will always win. We, as Utahns need to make sure there is a different republican to vote for in the final election.
"When Apple rips off features from Windows XP. . .disk encryption. . ."
Sorry, but Windows XP ripped disk encryption off from Linux and BSD, who probably ripped it off from somebody else. Apple probably got it through their BSD roots and not from Microsoft.
I disagree with you. Television drives the morals of our nation to a large degree, and as such, it should abide by a certain degree of morality; either willingly, or under government mandate.
Also, how could anyone in their right mind consider verbal vulgarities "educational"?
I think it's interesting that instead of Seagate competing with a quality 1" drive of their own (maybe they do, I just couldn't find one), they try to compete through litigation. Reminds me of somebody else I know.
I set up my own Jabber server for this reason; among others. I was also tired of MNS and Yahoo changing their protocols and leaving me with no way to contact friends (neither have a native client that runs on my platform of choice).
How can you tell they had a thyroid imbalance while forming in the womb and a low basal metabolism just by their posts? Amazing!
No offense, but it must be nice to be able to inexorably believe something even when there's plenty of evidence to suggest quite the contrary is true. Russian President Vladimir Putin's statement springs readily to mind. Here is a portion of it as quoted on CNN for those of us who don't have time for Google:
... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations,"
"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received
Another point that shouldn't be missed is that the world knew that Iraq had WMDs. It was a non-Bush, non-US documented fact. Saddam used them on his own people in the 90s; remember?
The problem I see with liberals now is that many of them view American politics like a televised sporting event. Conservatives stole the game from us last season, so we want to crush them at any cost this season. I've seen any number of news stories spun or exploited to that end (prisoners with panties on their heads = torture, for example).
The dangerous side effect of this behavior is that liberals are so caught up in placing one of their own into the Whitehouse, that they are asking the wrong questions and neglecting things that are much more important. We know Iraq had weapons, so the question we should be asking is where did they go, not whether they exist or not. That question has already been answered.
There's a lot of "Bush lied" crap being shoveled about lately. It seems when common sense and research fail to comply with our political alignments, a bone-headed refusal to accept hindering truths will see us through. I don't think Bush is a perfect man or a perfect president, but I believe he is sincere is his efforts to make the citizens he serves safe from the atrocites that others in the world would like to inflict upon us. Since that is his job, I can't find fault with him regarding these efforts.
On a separate note, Saddam and his sons were monsters. That is also a well documented fact. For all the ad nauseam liberal whinging about human rights, I find the liberal camp's arguments that we shouldn't have unseated Saddam and his sons to be hypocritical to the extreme.
"For instance, Michael Moore has consistently insisted that at least a significant portion of his film is satire and not meant to be taken seriously, but he won't tell us which parts or what makes them untrue. "
It isn't satire. If anything it's sophistry and equivocality at its finest.
Which means that you have to think for yourself and search where is the truth in what you've been told ! What a disgussing concept !
I don't know about disgussing, but I certainly find it disgusting. Moore's intent is not to be satirical, but rather to influence weak-minded individuals with his home-grown dose of intellectual buggery. The sad thing is that the things portrayed in Moore's film are pretty much the whole of John Kerry's presidential campaign. Bush is a liar, Bush is evil, Bush is a moron, blah, blah, blah.
If puerile name calling is the best platform the liberals can come up with to lead this country, then heaven help us should Kerry win.
I can understand Amazon's complaint. Every time I have set foot in a Toys-R-Us retail store to buy something for one of my kids, I have left empty-handed because they didn't have what I was looking for in stock. Of course, if you wanted a Polly Potty with life-like urine, then you were in luck.
I guess that's just how they choose to do business.