p.s. allow me to rephrase something: yes, you are entitled as a civil liberty to make fallacious statements and specious arguments, but the justness of your policy position does not make it right.
First of all, I was and am well aware of the content of bin Laden's October 2004 statement, including the part where he said:
Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe".
Were you aware of it? It's hardly an endorsement for either candidate.
You may not be curious, but I'll state for the record why I choose to "split hairs," as you claim: because accuracy and reason in the public discourse seems to be eroding, and this has awful consequences for the quality of our decision-making as a society. While you may fervently oppose Bush's policies, and you may believe that his actions have helped al-Qaeda, you still are not entitled to build an argument with statements that are misleading, misstated, or simply false.
Imagine how powerful and persuasive the progressive left would be in this country if we were known for rationality and integrity in our arguments. In reality, we are only marginally better than the denizens of FOX News and FreeRepublic, who don't even pretend to advance coherent arguments and who seem to have no trouble making statements they know to be false. The progressive movement in America needs more Paul Krugmans and fewer Michael Moores.
I have no idea what they teach in red states. I live in Northern California.
However, I don't think you can point to any of bin Laden's statements as an endorsement of George Bush. Construing the release of his October 2004 statement as an attempt to influence the election in his favor is, at best, conjecture - and even if true, would not have comprised an endorsement, per se.
Last but not least, I don't think your patronizing and insulting tone is appropriate, and it discredits you in this discussion.
Bin Laden endorsed Bush in the 2004 US Presidential race: true or false? The answer is false. Even assuming that bin Laden was attempting to affect the election - which is only a theory - that does not constitute an endorsement. So, you're wrong.
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks.
In the article that you referenced, there is not a single claim that spying chips exist in Lenovo ThinkPads. So yeah, I'm weeping for your lack of reading comprehension and your willingness to spread FUD.
First of all, the Book of Revelation is not a Bush policy paper, nor has the Administration referenced it in any of its policy positions, nor has any influential advisor to the Administration done so.
Second, there is a very significant difference between fundamentalists, who have little if any influence on the Bush Administration, and evangelicals, who do influence the administration.
Their breaking news graphic is of a television in South Korea tuned to CNN breaking the news of the test. Not just self-referential, but self-promotional: now that's journalism!
When you see all the irrational, self-destructive shit that the US is doing to itself in its "war on terror" the behaviour of the DPRK starts to make a little more sense.
The DPRK's hostile and irrational behavior, bordering on paranoid, far predates the "war on terror."
Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?
North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.
What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S.
Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.
However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse.
And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.
And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them
Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.
Please cite a single statement or policy paper from any Bush official, or from anyone with significant influence on administration policy, that advocates nuclear armageddon.
Or, if you want to get apocalyptic, in the case of a 90 to 99 percent death rate in the human population, it might be useful for finding other people. (Assuming you want to find them!)
Slashdot Mirror
p.s. allow me to rephrase something: yes, you are entitled as a civil liberty to make fallacious statements and specious arguments, but the justness of your policy position does not make it right.
Were you aware of it? It's hardly an endorsement for either candidate.
You may not be curious, but I'll state for the record why I choose to "split hairs," as you claim: because accuracy and reason in the public discourse seems to be eroding, and this has awful consequences for the quality of our decision-making as a society. While you may fervently oppose Bush's policies, and you may believe that his actions have helped al-Qaeda, you still are not entitled to build an argument with statements that are misleading, misstated, or simply false.
Imagine how powerful and persuasive the progressive left would be in this country if we were known for rationality and integrity in our arguments. In reality, we are only marginally better than the denizens of FOX News and FreeRepublic, who don't even pretend to advance coherent arguments and who seem to have no trouble making statements they know to be false. The progressive movement in America needs more Paul Krugmans and fewer Michael Moores.
I have no idea what they teach in red states. I live in Northern California.
However, I don't think you can point to any of bin Laden's statements as an endorsement of George Bush. Construing the release of his October 2004 statement as an attempt to influence the election in his favor is, at best, conjecture - and even if true, would not have comprised an endorsement, per se.
Last but not least, I don't think your patronizing and insulting tone is appropriate, and it discredits you in this discussion.
Bin Laden endorsed Bush in the 2004 US Presidential race: true or false? The answer is false. Even assuming that bin Laden was attempting to affect the election - which is only a theory - that does not constitute an endorsement. So, you're wrong.
Then memory doesn't serve. Bush was not endorsed by bin Laden.
Feel free to drop the racism when you're ready to join the civilized world.
The culture of "not talking about it and just getting along"
Tick, tick, tick...
established.
Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks.
All your memes are belong to us.
... except that the executives set the terms of the licensing before you even present your idea, with no possibility for negotiation.
Fuck that.
John Stewart has a chrome spinner ring.
No, 1.1 fixes bugs. 2.0 introduces new features (and new bugs).
The problem is that we never had a Web 1.1.
I live in Piedmont, very nearby. Thornhill is quite a nice place to live.
In the article that you referenced, there is not a single claim that spying chips exist in Lenovo ThinkPads. So yeah, I'm weeping for your lack of reading comprehension and your willingness to spread FUD.
The US has never claimed that Lenovo has put "spying chips" in ThinkPads. You're the one spreading FUD, pal.
First of all, the Book of Revelation is not a Bush policy paper, nor has the Administration referenced it in any of its policy positions, nor has any influential advisor to the Administration done so.
Second, there is a very significant difference between fundamentalists, who have little if any influence on the Bush Administration, and evangelicals, who do influence the administration.
Their breaking news graphic is of a television in South Korea tuned to CNN breaking the news of the test. Not just self-referential, but self-promotional: now that's journalism!
When you see all the irrational, self-destructive shit that the US is doing to itself in its "war on terror" the behaviour of the DPRK starts to make a little more sense.
The DPRK's hostile and irrational behavior, bordering on paranoid, far predates the "war on terror."
Why should NK not fear the U.S. to repeat this act?
North Korea has a massive, distributed array of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. For this reason alone, the US has no incentive to attack North Korea. They are well aware of this, as is everyone.
What NK wants more than anything is normalized economic relations with the U.S.
Wrong. What Kim Jong Il, who represents the sole will of the NK government, wants more than anything is to stay in power. And that isn't as easy as it might sound. If NK were really interested in normalized economic relations with the US, they could halt their massive counterfeiting and narcotics operations, for starters.
However, what the U.S. government appears to want is regime collapse.
And rightly so. Few regimes are as richly deserving of collapse than Kim Jong Il's.
And by policy the U.S. will not negotiate directly with North Korea, as if to do so would be somehow rewarding them
Unless you believe that the US is the sole stakeholder in the region's security, there is no reason why it should open direct bilateral talks with North Korea. Granting such talks places an undue burden on the US for addressing security issues raised by NK, without much added benefit for doing so.
Please cite a single statement or policy paper from any Bush official, or from anyone with significant influence on administration policy, that advocates nuclear armageddon.
Twinkies with DNA and reproductive ability? That's far more terrifying than any dinosaur.
No, nor should they. Those people are profiting by violating "Hollywood's" intellectual property rights.
Still, it's a bit hard to swallow that the typical MPAA lawyer or PR flack is concerned about the earning potential of some Best Buy warehouse worker.
No, cold fusion needs media containment.
Or, if you want to get apocalyptic, in the case of a 90 to 99 percent death rate in the human population, it might be useful for finding other people. (Assuming you want to find them!)
Brains.... brains...
1) Scaring other ISPs and related companies into better privacy safeguards
2) Hastening the timely demise of AOL