|
2004/10/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:33923 Activity:nil |
10/4 \_ before I answer this may I ask you what method do you use (did you use your own scripts, and what techniques did you use) to find out who posted what messages? Thanks. \_ Familiarity with paolo and deduction. Your privacy methods are powerless before the might of social engineering. \_ I doubt it is ever paolo. he's too busy working and polluting livejournal. - danh \_ HEIL social engineering guy. \_ that's not really social engineering. social engineering would be taking paolo out to a bar and him telling you all about his posting while drinking free beer. (for example) |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33924 Activity:high |
10/5 FOUR MORE WEEKS! \_ 4 more years!!! Thanks to Floridians. \_ On a more serious note.... Both parties are so entrenched and absolutely certain of victory in this election and the complete lack of qualification of the opposition and certain doom if the other guy is elected. It will be interesting to see the losing party completely implode on November 3rd. I wonder if this will be one of those rare moment in American history where a major party vanishes and is replaced by something new or is consumed by some currently tiny party. \_ This is what Nader banked on in 2000. Worked great didn't it? \_ It wasn't like this in 2000. Both parties wanted it but neither was so self certain of getting it as they are now. \_ if you live in CA or another non swing state, feel free to vote for the Green Party. Nader is NOT the green party candidate. \_ go Nader!!! \_ Ross Perot 4 EVAH! \_ The Republicans will not implode. They are used to being the minority party. They will just retrench. The Democrats might implode if they do badly. -Liberal \_ Uhm, why? I don't think this assertion is based on reality. \_ Umm the Dems have controlled Congress for a very large proportion of the 20th century... maybe 60-70%? \_ This doesn't explain anything. This is a fact. There is a significant difference between a fact and a logical argument. Kindly show your knowledge of the difference with a demonstration. thzx \_ Sigh. This motd is not large enough to contain this explaination. But to start with: the Republican Party somehow survived Watergate and losing both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for many years. It is unlikely that merely a close loss in a Presidential race will be their undoing. Especially since they are likely to hold the Senate and almost certain to hold the House, thereby having at least some say in the running of the Federal government. Kapich? The case of the Democrats is not as clearcut. I am not sure if there is a historical precedent for the Democratic Party being totally out of power for 8 years. The Democratic Party is fundamentally a populist, working class and poor party. Their base comes from people either wholely or partially dependent on government subsidy. Without controlling the levers of government, how are they going to provide the.. uh.. rewards, that being an ally of the party in power recieves? Furthermore, with a moderately educated populist base they risk losing the bulk of their support if they lose too often. Sort of like how the 49ers have lost most of their fans by losing week after week. A Conservative (the real Buckley kind, not the Dubya kind) does not really mind being in the minority. In fact, he might be kind of disturbed at being in the majority too often, since his sense of self is predicated on being "different" i.e. superior, to the commoner. A Liberal who does not "lead the masses" is kind of a sorry sight. -liberal \_ I don't know that I agree with much of what you say, but thank you for providing a more detailed explanation. \_ "populist, working class, poor party". Are you joking? Have you looked at their contributors or political platform recently? \_ This is lamer than my "GOOG will drop a lot the first week and a lot more by half a year" prediction - and that's pretty lame. \_ Props! --googler \_ What? This is totally off topic. Get over your google fetish. Links have been posted and were unrefuted by you kool aid drinkers. Go make your own thread. |
2004/10/5-6 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:33925 Activity:nil |
10/5 Is there a way to _always_ get Mozilla to open a new tab/window for links you click on outside of an actual web browser window? I hate being in the middle of writing something in a form (webmail, whatever) and getting a mail or document with a link in it, clicking on it, and having the page replace the one I was on before. This is under XP. \_ tabbrowser extensions plug-in lets you specify what opens a new tab, I've found it very helpful. \_ If I click a link with the middle mouse button it opens in a new tab. If you don't have a middle mouse button, I pity you. \_ i think you should re-read op's post. \_ Oh, sorry. I'm not on a WinXP system now, but go to about:config and see browser.tabs.opentabfor.* Might work... \_ <DEAD>bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172962<DEAD> which links to an earlier Mozilla bug... pending since 2001! Gotta love open source. You might be able to use an extension or some hack. Basically tab browsing looks like a big mess and requests for features seem to sit around forever with devs saying it's too hard. Whatever. |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33926 Activity:moderate |
10/5 Truth: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two [al Qaeda and Saddam] ... I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way ... Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was" - Rumsfeld, Monday afternoon Dubya's truth: "A question I answered today ... regrettably was misunderstood ... I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq" - Rumsfeld, Monday night, via web site \_ Yoo-hoo, hello? Bush defenders, where are you now? Neo-cons? \_ There are no "neo-cons" on the motd. It's a mde up term of the left to make a word that sounds like "neo-nazi". Get over it. No one is eating that bait. |
2004/10/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:33928 Activity:low |
10/5 My dad has a lot of LPs and an analog turntable from the old days. Recently he bought a home theatre system that doesn't have analog input. Is there something he can use to connect the turntable to the home theatre? Some kind of A to D converter, I suppose. Thanks. \_ There's NO analog input? Not even for say a microphone? \_ Let me get this right. You have a system that doesn't have a single RCA-jack input? \_ Is Apple making stereos now? \_ what's the brand and model of the new system? \_ "No analog input" -- This seems really unlikely, it's more likely that there is no phono input, and you get get a phono preamp that will raise the signal to a line-level signal. \_ after 10 years there will only be 802 and bluetooth as interfaces \_ after 10 years if the RIAA has its way there will only be speakers as outputs and a credit card slot as input. |
2004/10/5-6 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:33929 Activity:moderate |
10/5 Just read in an article in today's WSJ that 10-15% of new mortgages today are interest only ARM, and the percentages are even higher in regions where housing prices have soared. After say 5 years, these people would suddenly face much higher payments due to the principle payments kicking in and potentially higher interest rates. It uses an example of a $350k loan where the home owner currently pays about $1900 monthly but would have to pay about $3700 when the principle kicks in and assuming a higher interest rate of 7%. Historically, the percentage of these interest only loan is about 2% of total number of loans, and most of it is used by very well-off people for tax / invesment purposes, but now it is often used to entice people to buy a bigger house than they can afford. \_ And in the Bay Area the precentage is quite a bit higher, like 30% and even higher in The City, like 60% \_ And in California the precentage is quite a bit higher, like 50% and even higher in The City, like 60% \_ Overall in the Bay Area it's about 65% for ARM, but I do not know what percentage of that is interest-only. \_ Oops, misread it. I thought you meant all ARMs. \_ Statistically, the average stay of a first house is about 3.5 yrs. Getting a ARM for your first house makes sense. There's no point of paying more interest for a 15 yr loan when you know you won't stay for more than 5 years on your first house. \_ with big bubbles and its aftermath, you can throw history out the window. the window. there's this thing called negative equity. \_ Most people keep their house for 7 years before selling. \_ If that's the case a 5yr ARM and a 15 year fixed are same. \_ First time home buyers keep theirs shorter, especially those who buy condos and townhouses. \_ Can these people refinance after 5yrs and get a new interest-only ARM? \_ Yes. \_ I get a 15yr fixed mortgage when I bought my first home 4yrs ago. I guess I'm conservative compared to the average Bay Area homeowner. \_ I got a 30yr fixed when I bought our first house last year (and am Bay Area). I guess I'm more conservative than you. Well... poorer, I guess. \_ I got a 30 year fixed too when I bought my house 2 years ago in the south bay. Often loan agents advocate ARM because if everyone gets 15/30 year fixed, then they will have less business. \_ the problem with this is if housing prices collapse, these people will be completely and royally screwed as they wont even be able to sell the house to recover the mortgage debt. \_ I recently met a dude from HK who said he still has a condo in HK with negative equity. The price got halved after they bought it a few years ago. HK with negative equity. The price got halved after he and his wife bought it a few years ago. \_ And if he bought in Bumfuck, Arkansas, it would have cost 1/20th as much, been 5x larger and the price wouldn't have changed at all. So? \_ that's not the point. the point is he and his wife would rather have bought after the price came down. |
2004/10/5-6 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:33930 Activity:very high |
10/5 Republican Car vs Democrat Car: Hummer: Republican Prius: Democrat M1 Abrams Tank: Libertarian Bulldozer: Likud Lowered VW bus with Porsche Engine and big stereo: non-voter \_ Bug? Public transportation: America hating libuhral Bike: Green Others? \_ This is stupid. --aaron \_ BWM 525i \_With an "I'd rather be smashing imperialism" bumpersticker. \_ Huh? \_ Don't you drive a BMW 525i aaron? \_ Don't you drive a BMW 525i? \_ no sense of humour \_ this is your idea of wit? i've got some archives of 1993 internet humor that could keep you in stitches. --aaron \_ please forgive aaron. He's one of those people who like to say things like "when I was your age the computer lab was in W.E.B. (workstations in Evan's basement) and a bit was ye big and I programmed in registers but then I got into politics and stopped being funny." \_ Back in my day, we didn't have no electricity, we used gas, and dagnabit, we liked it! Back then we used to clack numbers together. We didn't have none of these digital computers. \_ You had numbers? We could only dream that someone would invent the zero in my day.... Nazi: Mercedes \_ VW. \_ Porsche. \_ Dodge (but really, VW bug. Ein Volk! Ein Wagen!) |
2004/10/5-6 [Consumer/TV] UID:33931 Activity:moderate |
10/5 DVD quality < HDTV quality. Are DVDs obsolete? \_ DSL bandwidth < Fiber bandwidth. Is DSL obsolete? \_ Vagina < Penis. Is vagina obsolete? \_ Anus < vagina. Is anus obsolete? \_ Anus < vagina. Is anus obsolete? No! Some people prefer anus for its tightness. \_ Dude. How do you guys handle the issue with anal fissures? They're a pain in the butt, literally. \_ I use lubricant and go gentle on my gal when doing her anal. \_ hi danh \_ the above doesn't sound like me at all. - danh \_ the above doesn't sound like me at all. - danh \_ BUGGERY IS THE STANDARD! \_i asked for head.. not more or less \_ PEGGING! PEGGING IS THE STANDARD! \_ It only has one ass, it's of no use to me! \_ cassette quality < CD quality. Cassettes are obsolete. \_ bullshit. there are different kinds of quality. I'd rather have inferior audio quality, but still be able to play the goddamn thing after 10 years, and have something that might start to show some age in parts but won't catestrophically fail. fuck optical data storage media. cassetes will be obsolete when technology comes out with the sound quality of CD and the general robustness of tapes. not before. same for VHS vs DVD. \_ Chill down. Some people do agree with you. See the link below. \_ one key difference: with digital media you can have bit- perfect backup copies. Or rip to mp3 and stop risking your originals. Analog tapes are failure prone besides being noisy. CD/DVD could have been designed in a cassette format like a floppy disk to protect against scratching, but I guess they were too cheap. \_ Cassettes and VHS tapes are re-recordable. \_ So are CDRWs and DVD+-RWs. \_ http://homepage.mac.com/danielturek/PhotoAlbum50.html \_ They will be, once blu-ray and HD-DVD come out. But those aren't out, and the existing DVD base will force it to be supported for a relatively long time. By 2005 the HD stuff should be out (as in hollywood movies out on the format). \_ If blu-ray AND HD-DVD come out, it will be Betamax/VHS all over again. Note that SACD/DVD-Audio hasn't taken off for that exact same reason. \_ Yep. Sony is trying to use it's clout as a movie company (Sony and they bought MGM, plus Fox signed on for Blu-ray) and plan to put Blu-ray in the PS3. Blu-ray is superior but HD-DVD is similar to DVD and therefore cheap. MS's choice for Xbox2 will be interesting. |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33932 Activity:high |
10/5 "Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field. That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory." -Bush spokesman, today \_ adding, "Any commander wishing to go into early retirement should feel free to request more troops" \_ bremer was too busy implementing free market fantasy land laws too do a good job in iraq. - danh \_ [I will fill in his unspoken thoughts in parentheses.] Bremer says we should have had more troops early on to prevent looting (to stabilize Iraq and to crush the insurgents). He says currently we have the appropriate troop levels (because Iraqis would be pissed to see more U.S. troops flying in to occupy them). -liberal [BTW, Lt. Gen. Sanchez was the lead "commander on the ground" prior to the Allawi handover, and we know all about what was going on with him. Today, I can't think of any lead "commander on the ground" to request additional troops. Is there one?] \_ Dubya, some commander in chief. Why didn't he give the troops a good plan to begin with? \_ We're making progress. It's hard. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief who says that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed messages. We're making progress. It's hard. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief who says that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. You can't have a Commander-in-Chief that gives mixed messages. We're making progress. \_ Don't forget Poland! \_ Like Kerry did? \_ Tell us how much great Poland has contributed. |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33933 Activity:high |
10/5 Mexico refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurancew http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/1070556.html \_ INVADE AND CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY! \_ America refuses to treat american citizen without medical insurance too. \_ Not true. By Federal law emergency rooms can not refuse patients. Duh. \_ Oh, it's illegal? Then I'm sure compliance is perfect and they adhere to the spirit of the law. Pah. Talk to anyone who works in an ER sometime. \_ So emergency rooms are breaking Fed law and denying patients service? I have never seen reports of this, ever. \_ You don't need facts to spew on the motd. Let him be. \_ Emergency rooms cannot refuse to treat emergencies. If it is not an emergency, they just refer you to the county hospital. -used to work in an ER |
2004/10/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:33934 Activity:high |
10/4 bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start: \_ Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites \_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck) \_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer, limousine liberal \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days? \_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs, Soros gleefully excepted. \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's from drugs or what. \_ you're a right wing nut job! \_ you're a liberal weiner! |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33935 Activity:high |
10/4 bipartisan name calling contest. I'll start: Republican: red-neck, suv lovers, blue-blooded deficit-spending elites \_ motherfucker (implied by red-neck) \_ spend and spend, free-labor conservative \_ trigger happy bible thumping earth rapers \_ drunk driving, draft dodging, bible-thumping morons Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer, limousine liberal \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days? \_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs, Soros gleefully excepted. \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's from drugs or what. \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts \_ Lying piece of sack of shit slut trashcan scummest dirtbag... Bitchhhh! Democrat: hippy, tree-hugger, tax-and-spend liberal, baby killer, limousine liberal \_ Aren't more "blue-bloods" Democrat these days? \_ No. They're actually pretty evenly split. The nouveau-riche, however, are almost exclusively Repubs, Soros gleefully excepted. \_ We don't know where he gets his money, whether it's from drugs or what. \_ pot smoking, draft dodging, free loving dropouts \_ sounds good to me \_ you're a right wing nut job! \_ you're a liberal weiner! \_ communist treehugging homosexual godless traitors! \_ Republican: fag haters Democrats: fag lovers \_ This whole thread is stupid. |
2004/10/5-6 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:33936 Activity:nil |
10/4 OS X for XBox: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~ranma1/mac_install.html |
2004/10/5-6 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:33937 Activity:very high |
10/4 Vegas bubble pops. Can CA be far behind? http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041005/vegas_pulte_2.html \_ Your schaudenfreude is unseemly. I feel pity for you that your \_ Wow, a Simpsons fan trying to sound smart. \_ You nailed it perfectly. Now just read that paragraph in the tone of "the comic store guy." life is so hollow and empty that triumphalism about housing prices is one of your high points. Enjoy your glee. \_ An admirable effort, but still Worst. Troll. Ever. \_ Uhm, having housing prices drop is a GOOD thing. We pay less for the house, the property tax goes down, responsible people can afford to buy a house again. This artificial atmosphere of low interest rates/high housing prices is not healthy in the long run. Look at what happened to Tokyo, look at what happened to LA during the early ninties. The market is way overdue for a correction. \_ Lest we forget potentially massive fraud at Fannie Mae, home of the Democrat sinecure. It could get very very ugly. \_ Housing prices drop will have cascading effects on the economy. You may be paying lower prop tax or rents, but those who lost their equity will spend less. This will cause stores and companies to make less and start laying off workers. \_ Not to mention some companies own their office buildings. Now they'll have less capital to work with. \_ I'm with him. It sounds evil but watching a housing market crash would please me quite a bit. I don't actually think it will happen anytime soon though. This Vegas pop isn't yet a pop so much as a "stop growing so fucking fast". \_ Why would it please you? Still renting and missed the boat? \_ No. I am more "nervous homeowner" than showingFreud. -op \_ Nervous about what? If you truly believe what you're saying then the only smart thing to do is sell now and buy back after this coming catastrophe in the housing market. \_ Nervous about a drop in the housing market of course. Isn't that what I said? Nervous about something happening isn't the same thing as being certain that it will happen. \_ Well, look at it this way. There's no way that housing prices will go up. $500,000 for a crap house isn't going to last when interest rates hit 7-8% by next year. Remember, this has been THE LOWEST rates have been for the past 40 plus years. You're not likely to see rates like this again in your lifetime. So, although they might not go down, it's unlikely that they will go up. In other words, you shouldn't rush into a housing market. (Boy, where did you hear that one before, oh yeah, a couple years ago when everyone was buying internet stocks, har har har). Plus, historically house prices track inflation, so it seems like that there is a very high probability that there will be a major adjustment coming in the next 12 months. My family has personally seen this happen with real-estate in SoCal during the early ninties. Housing prices dropped 25-33% from peaks. \_ That could be kind of a weird situation. Homeowners' loans would not be 'underwater', but housing prices could still fall in real dollars. Hmm... So if inflation was a cumulative 200% and housing prices went up 100%, then your house fell 33% in real dollars, but if you sell you gained 100% in book value. Thinking about it a bit more, since houses are generally a heavily-levereged investment, the homeowner could come out way ahead in this scenario. If you put $100K down on a $500K house and a few years later you sell for $1M, you've increased your equity by 500%, which in real dollars might still mean doubling your money. \_ like all heavily-leveraged investments, you can come out way ahead or way behind. As leveraged investments go, a house ain't bad in terms of volatility. In the current market, it's hard to say ... \_ I guess just about any heavily-levereged investment will do well in inflation if you have fixed-rate interest. \_ you seem to be talking about really drastic inflation though. But how did housing prices go during the 70s, when inflation was very high? \_ I just picked big numbers to make the math easy. \_ They rose a lot in CA. One thing not to miss is that this money is tax-free. \_ Your HOUSE is so BIG and TAX FREE! What does this mean? Basically it means that your downpayment for your house is basically wiped out. So, there is reason to be nervous... Let's just hope the next quake isn't too big.... \_ Actually there is a really easy way for housing prices to go up: inflation shoots up. I am starting to believe this is how it will play out. \_ when inflation shoots up, doesn't it mean that the fed would be forced to raise the interest rate more? would not that cause a decrease in home prices? I am confused on this one. Anyone? \_ Sure, they would raise interest rates. Sure this would tend to cause a crimp in home prices. But inflation could still force nominal prices up. \_ I think the effect of a interest rate rise would be more drastic and immediate. \_ I don't think this is going to happen in Bay Area anytime soon. I can understand it happening in Vegas. LV has land to meet the demand. But here, there's no more land. There's always a big demand. Another reason for the Vegas bubble is very similar to Japan and HK. People in Vegas buy houses in hope of making money out them. But here people buy houses because they need a place to live and start a family. Thirdly, there are still people who can buy houses with all cash regardless of the interest rates. \_ Oh, it will happen in the Bay Area and relatively soon, too. The irony is that the renters still won't be able to afford a house owing to higher rates and the homeowners will still have a place to live that they can afford. After that, the prices will go up again. There is a high demand and a lot of wealth, but demand will fall and take prices with it. Prices will still be expensive relative to elsewhere, but less than they are now. All the factors you cite are already in play. |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33938 Activity:insanely high |
10/4 Ok so who won the debate today? \_ Edwards won. He has better hair, a better smile, and whiter teeth. \_ actually this works really well especially with undecided women voters. Case in point, Kennedy, Reagan and *Clinton* \_ I am a master debater! \_ can i master debate you? \_ Don't think anyone did, although the fact checkers are going to have their work cut out for them with Cheney...VP debate is fairly meaningless anyway, Lloyd Bentsen wiped the floor with Quayle but look what happened to him... \- 1. it's not a debate so in a sense it isnt totally zero sum. 2. edwards agenda was "i am a non-stupid shallow inexperienced stuffed shirt" ... accomplished, i think. 3. cheney was ok ... he didnt explode or have vast regions of silence ... which would be sort of reassuring after the unambigious bush failure last time. --psb \_ I learned three very important things. The most important thing I learned is that Cheney is so smart, but so wrong - and this scares me. The second most important thing I saw was that Edwards and Cheney's performances make Kerry look really good. The last thing is that all three make Dubya look very dumb, and I don't want a dumb guy "who knows how to be tough", as president, surrounded by a bunch of really smart people who all are wrong. \_ I just want an explaination of 'global test', nukes to Iran, \_ On why basis do you determine that Cheney or Edwards is 'smart'? Because they communicate stylishly or slickly, or on the merit of their ideas? \_ Wait I am confused... how can you determine if someone's smart using either the former OR the latter? The former is just rhetoric skill, the latter could well be subjective beliefs, independent of any meaningful notion of 'smart.' -- ilyas \_ The latter of course. \_ I have met Gore, Cheney, and Kerry. Of them, Cheney seemed the most polished, smooth, and professional. Gore seemed smart in a bookish way. Kerry was kind of dopey but friendly. Based only on meeting them I would say Cheney is the smartest and most well-spoken. This is probably true since he actually had a very successful career outside of politics and has served on more than one cabinet. I am not sure what it means, though. \_ Like I said: So smart, and so wrong - and this scares me. \_ I don't think you got the memo, buddy. Conservative = redneck, hick, gunrack, pickup truck, etc. Liberal = college educated, progressive, intellectual. \_ While I'm serious, you're horsing around, "buddy". \_ I just want an explanation of 'global test', bribing Iran by effectively giving them nuclear weapons, and the humanitarian need in Sudan but not Iraq. \_ Ugh, drop it. He for once (count the number of times bush does it) chose his words poorly. And that's the best thing the repubs can grasp onto? \_ This was not an accident, it is central to his platform. Please, an explanation. Building 1000's of nuclear ICBMs is a good idea, but building an ABM technology is bad idea - I don't understand. BTW, why do you delude yourself into thinking Kerry is something he is not?? Its like leftists pretending not to be Marxists. \_ That's certainly misleading of you. Where has Kerry said we should build 1000s of ICBMs? In the 1st debate when what is most important for America's safety he said 'non-proliferation' and opposing Star Wars II seems quite consistant with this. \_ No. Kerry slipped and said what he's been saying for 30 years in public... until he ran for President... but has been trying to hide since declaring. He's a pro-UN, one-worlder, get permission from other countries kind of guy. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is not ok for the PotUS to be that way, IMO. He erred by revealing what he really thinks with that comment. It was not a simple slip or a poor word choice in the sense you imply. It was a poor word choice for a man running for President. You want it dropped because you know it will kill your guy if he has to answer it for real, which he hasn't. Edwards flubbed it again tonight. The only answer is that he means what he said and that is not an acceptable answer for the PotUS. \_ You offer little of substance to support your partisan conclusion. It's what you would *like* to be true. \_ He specifically said it doesn't mean "permission from other countries". In other news, when bush says "it's hard" the only answer is that he means his penis. On the permission point, the underlying implication of course is that these other countries and the UN are denying permission to protect ourselves, i.e. they are enemies. Of course it ignores the fact that the case for Iraq being any kind of real threat and needing a prompt invasion was never made. But no, Kerry is a French homo Saddam lover. \_ Another interesting fact is that pro-Kerry/Edwards people jammed up any available online poll. CNN quickly changed their question when it had been 84% Edwards, and http://latimes.com took it down when it was 97% Edwards. http://msnbc.com still shows 70% Edwards. Thanks goes to the DNC e-mail list I suppose. \_ Republicans-- older, more mature, less tech saavy. Democrats-- younger, less mature, more tech saavy, more likely to be young hippies who write script/loops to vote on the web sites. |
2004/10/5-6 [Uncategorized] UID:33939 Activity:nil |
10/4 RIP Rodney Dangerfield. |
2004/10/5 [Recreation/Media] UID:33940 Activity:nil |
10/4 Okay, Rove isn't Darth Vader, Cheney is. Whoa.... |
2004/10/5-6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:33941 Activity:high |
10/4 Sinister Republicans strike again Rangel votes against own draft measure http://www.thehill.com/news/100604/rangel.aspx |
3/15 |