 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It actually
makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used the wrong
tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
(I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she" are
different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who she's
talking about.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Tim Cook wrote:
>>> IQ, or intelligence quotient, is determined by dividing a person's
>>> mental age, as determined by standardized tests, by chronological age.
>
>> People that believe in IQs are idiots too. lol
>
> Why? What about a basically statistical measure of relative mental age
> is problematic?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
*actually* being intelligent. I am sure Rosie O'Donald could pass a
Mensa test, but I wouldn't trust her with almost anything that didn't
involve knowing an endless mess of useless trivia. Until/unless someone
finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
arbitrary definitions of "intelligence". Yes, it can be, within a narrow
set of definition. But, ironically, *my* definitions are probably
nothing at all like the definitions used by the sort of people that Bush
surrounded himself with. In fact, I am fairly sure it wouldn't be, since
I have seen the sort he appointed when governor in Texas, the sort
around him during his presidency, and the sort of people that *continue*
to get elected in his home state, and there is nothing about these
people that doesn't smell of ignorance, general disinterest in facts,
mental incapacity to tell the difference between gibberish and facts,
*or* a real lack of capacity to even *understand* most of the stuff that
scientists, educators and even, in some cases, the general public, in
most other parts of the country, recognize is just crazy ass stupid.
There are a small number of states that are *known* for wacky, silly,
absurd, ignorance, and making things up to support ideologies, often in
direct face of facts that contradict *all* of their premises, in the
last 5-10 years, Texas has risen from like 10th on that list to #1, and
its a pretty short list to start with.
Put simply, nothing I saw of Bush, while in office, indicated to me
someone who cared about facts that contradicted him, much cared about
beliefs that differed from his, though he made the common mistake of
equation having such to being "enough like me that it doesn't matter",
while shoving everyone else into the "Well, they don't have any, even if
they do have any.", camp, and he presumed, like all such black and
whitists, that everyone with faith was on *his* side, by definition. And
things just go down hill from there, starting with his conclusion that
he didn't need actual science advice from scientists, but theologians,
or people that where theologians first, and **very poor** scientists
second, would be better, especially if they worked for some company he
trusted. Oh, and of course, if you dared try to point out how dead wrong
he was on *anything*, well.. your website would oddly be found not too
long after, replacing birth control information with abstinence
information, or you would just find yourself handed last pay check, and
someone with more "proper" ideology, i.e., clueless nonsense views,
would get appointed to replace you.
Until IQ tests can test for capacity to handle situations where the
default suppositions of the test are actually invalid, and you are
required to figure out what changed, so you can derive the *correct*
answer, all such tests will ever test is if you meet some 'standard'
which is based on the lowest common knowledge of that level of
development, and that knowledge will be *entirely* arbitrary. Given that
*many* people manage to successfully bluff their ways through degrees at
major colleges, only to then go on an write books filled with logical
fallacies, incorrect facts, unscientific thinking, pure sophistry, and
even completely **wrong** analysis of data from their own field (and
this includes insane things like Behe managing to get his own field of
mathematics so wrong that if he where calculating the direction and
speed of a bus it would be going the opposite direction, at the speed of
light, by the time he got done doing the math wrong), its fairly obvious
that possessing knowledge, an understanding of the social norms of
society, and even enough intelligence to pass college tests, never mind
IQ tests, means ***absolutely nothing***, when talking about whether or
not the person in question can think themselves out of a wet paper bag,
even if you granted them a pair of scissors, a flashlight, and an
instruction book on "how to cut things".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
>> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
>> clueless about.
>
> As for "big business", I heard that he was rather clueless about that as well...
>
Depends. Was it about making profit, or actually running one properly? lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the
>> post.
>
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
>
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she"
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who
> she's talking about.)
>
Yeah, well. Like I said, I am trying to quit. But, its like my version
of cigerettes. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
(assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
it need to be separated?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> >> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
> >> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
> >
> > I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
> > seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
> > them.
> >
> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
> work, so didn't notice the problem.
I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
> > In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
> > that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
> > what the word is saying.
> >
> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The fact that it isn't a statistical measure of relative mental ages, so
> much as a statistical representation of how much one conforms to a
> specific set of social parameters and ideas, which have jack to do with
> *actually* being intelligent.
I really think that's more a biased "political correctness" ideology
speaking than anything that has been extensively and scientifically studied.
An IQ test *does* tell something about the mental difference between
people. In some cases it might indicate natural talent, in other cases
it might indicate the result of learning and training, but nevertheless
it does indicate some differences between people.
Many PC advocates don't like the idea that some people might be truely
more intelligent than others, as they have this utopistic view of the world
where everyone is equal and any differences between people are artificial
and only lead to discrimination.
However, just because they *say* that IQ tests are BS and that IQ
differences between people are an artificial construct doesn't make it so.
Some people might not like it that others are more intelligent than them,
but that doesn't change the facts of life.
> Until/unless someone
> finds a valid means to separate measures of mental development from the
> social memes and mores of the culture they are being tested in, its not
> a valid test of anything, other than general forms of conformity to
> arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
*anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
EVERY case!".
Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
assistance due to mental disability can get it.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
I liked the analogy someone used:
In average women have bigger breasts than men. Just because *some* men
have bigger breasts than *some* women doesn't change the fact.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we "do"
>>>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>>> I hate to be a grammar nazi, but those quotation marks take most of the
>>> seriousness of your writing away. I really think you should avoid misusing
>>> them.
>>>
>> Then don't be. I typed the bloody thing five minutes before leaving for
>> work, so didn't notice the problem.
>
> I am going to sound like a jerk again, but I have always wondered if
> some people just type their message as fast and carelessly as they can,
> and only *then* they go through it and correct all the spelling and
> grammatical mistakes. That feels a bit counter-productive to me. Why not
> write it properly right away? That would save time and effort.
>
Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
the same as I used to. lol
>>> In these types of sentences putting a single word in quotes usually means
>>> that you are using euphemisms or irony, that you are not literally meaning
>>> what the word is saying.
>>>
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired of
>> people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the post.
>
> But since I'm not whining about the content of your post that means that
> I have nothing to object to it. Isn't that a good thing?-)
>
> Besides, this is exactly the second time I object about someone here
> misusing quotes in the history of the server. Hardly seems constant whining.
>
I am probably the same someone. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Until/unless someone finds a valid means to separate measures of
>> mental development from the social memes and mores of the culture they
>> are being tested in, its not a valid test of anything, other than
>> general forms of conformity to arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
>
> IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings
> of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and
> measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing
> Simon. And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no
> additional data. At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if
> (assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used
> entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does
> it need to be separated?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Yeah. Seen those. I almost always consistently fail at them. lol Problem
with those is that they are the *same* issue. If you know the *correct*
solutions, fine, you use them, and its simple. If you don't, then your
smart, thinking, mind, tries to work out the solution, and even can't
figure it out, since you don't hit on the one *correct* method, or you
come up with some solution that seems to work, but is actually *wrong*.
Such tests are not capable of deciphering *why*, or *how* you concluded
that you had a valid solution, so can't accurately determine if it was
because you a)failed to guess the right one, b) didn't learn to see that
*common* solution, for that common problem, or c) over thought the
problem. All it can say is, "you got it, or you failed to get it". That
is, less than worthless. Least favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh,
well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the
it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b)
someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place
isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure
it out.
But, yeah. To some extent you are correct. The problem is, imho, the
*valid* parts of that test shouldn't be all that useful for anyone over
the age of 9, and even then, it doesn't say why the person isn't
advanced to that point, whether or not its innate, or fixable, nor
whether they will, by age 11, manage to overcome the gap, and render the
test worthless, if you see what I mean. And, most importantly, none of
it tells you if they can really think things through critically enough
that they won't be basing their policies are 45 on their daily
horoscope, visits to a guru, or conversations with an imaginary friend,
or that they will actually understand even the "general" concepts of
most things well enough to not end up believing the exact opposite of
what the evidence points to, instead of respecting the opinions of
people that have made it their life's work to have a bloody clue what
they are talking about.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
>> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
>> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
>> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
>> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
>
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in
> EVERY case!".
>
> Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every
> intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors
> of 'intelligence'. This doesn't mean we should look the other way
> instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably
> accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need
> assistance due to mental disability can get it.
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
"they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not
> exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure
> out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or
> "they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.
Point, but <whine>that costs money!</whine>
*Taxpayer* money, most often, being the sticking point there.
Plus you need a whole gaggle of qualified people for each individual
case, at this point in our knowledge of "why" brain things happen, to
get a decent understanding of how to not just stuff them in a proverbial
little box. And nobody wants to pay for that.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree
> that they believe him capable of anything evil. In all fairness,
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as
> well.
Never plead malice where incompetence will do.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
I don't see why. In my opinion, the Beer Summit was one of the smartest
things I've ever heard of a President doing.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a
> rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have
> made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope
> the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because
> I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type,
> the same as I used to. lol
That's why I had to give up checking this group before work ;)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.
Actually, they say "Defeat Obama for the good of America." They do
honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.
The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war
> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was
> clueless about.
I still have not seen anything like unto real evidence that Bush was
either stupider or more ignorant than anyone alleging either stupidity
or ignorance on his part. I do, however, see a boatload of
Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:24:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:
>Another good one from the same channel:
>
>http://www.colbertnation.com/home
Thanks.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2009 16:04, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e.
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
>
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )
Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation
of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All
other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one
political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience
to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
are using politics to bind the audience.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in
> Panama.
[]
> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do*
> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
On which continent was he then?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2009 5:31, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Been, there, been told that, trying to stop doing it, but also tired
>> of people whining about misused quotes, instead of the content of the
>> post.
>
> You should understand that it really distracts from your point. It
> actually makes it difficult to understand, like if you consistently used
> the wrong tense for verbs or used "he" when you meant "she".
>
> (I know when my wife gets talking fast and forgets that "he" and "she"
> are different words in English, it becomes really hard to follow who
> she's talking about.)
My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> I do, however, see a boatload of
> Monday-morning quarterbacking.
What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
challenged people?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 07:58, andrel wrote:
> to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
> the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
> Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
> a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels
> are using politics to bind the audience.
That's essentially the free market ideology at work. You end up with
lots of "specialized" channels - each presenting a certain point of
view, and most presenting things that are not true mixed in. Sure, if
you go through almost all of them, no doubt you can figure out what's
going on. But most people don't have the time, and when given a
"choice", they'll go for the station that is showing _their_ truth.
And if that's bad, the Internet as a source is even worse. When you
have disgustingly partisan sites like the Huffington Post and
FrontPageMag that make the schisms even more pronounced. People will
naturally choose the sites that give them the news they want to hear,
and those sites generally don't display news that goes against their
point of view.
A few years ago, a veteran journalist lamented this whole problem. He
said that at the very least the benefit of newspapers is that a headline
on the other page may catch your eye, and it takes less effort to read
that article than to click on it. Unfortunately, newspapers are being
abandoned for more partisan sources.
As for The Daily Show, while it _is_ good that it often highlights the
general inaneness of the main media companies, I don't see it being any
better as a _sole_ source of news.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I hate to be a grammar nazi
Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:58:21 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation
>of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All
>other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one
>political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience
>to have an political opinion.
I've only been watching for a few weeks. I can detect a little bias, I think,
but as it is similar to my own political views I heartily approve. :)
>One of the reasons for the sharp divide in
>the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels.
>Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching
>a channel with a different opinion impossible.
I thought it was more because there was a fear of being thought Un-American.
Although I think that most people tend to stick with what they are comfortable
with.
>In a way some channels are using politics to bind the audience.
Do tell ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
>(i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
>still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
>confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>
> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention.
Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to
know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>
> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
why not?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>
>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>>
>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention.
>Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to
>know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>>
If you follow properly then you would know :)
>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>
>why not?
I do the same or so my wife tells me.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
>> I do, however, see a boatload of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
> challenged people?
Claiming, with hindsight, that you know what he should have done better
than he did at the time.
American Football games are often played on Sunday night. The tendency
is for fans to talk Monday morning about what mistakes the quarterback
made during the game, claiming that they know better (having watched the
whole game). The fact that the fans are not under the same pressure as
the Quarterback, and have access to different information (views from TV
cameras, rather than being on the field) doesn't seem to matter to these
people. They just think that the QBs are idiots, and they are better.
The implication here is that, whatever mistakes Bush may have made
during office, those complaining about him aren't likely to have done
any better were they in his situation.
(I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
lots of people could have done better. Not Gore, but I'd probably even
vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print,
but I seriously doubt he was delusional.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one
> political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience
> to have an political opinion.
Also, they depend on getting press releases and access to the president, and
they find themselves snubbed if they annoy the government too much. If
you're doing comedy instead of news, it's OK to make fun of the government
two or three days after the event has been reported in all the "serious" media.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people approve
of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of Bush's policies.
The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where he's
doing the same thing as Bush.
But let's not get into a political argument here. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> I hate to be a grammar nazi
> Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?
Reminds me of one of the meetings I was in.
"Hire Carlyn. She's very good at this sort of management."
"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:16:01 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> They do
> honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.
Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
life span being something like 37th in the world.
I wonder how we rank in the cost of malpractice insurance for
doctors....certainly that's a huge part of the insane costs of health
care here in the US.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2009 18:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations
>>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is
>>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get
>>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>> yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention.
>> Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to
>> know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>
> If you follow properly then you would know :)
>
>>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>> why not?
>
> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it.
;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of
'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will
make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to
the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the
listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it
saves time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
> life span being something like 37th in the world.
Why, the cost being highest in the world is what *makes* it the best in
the world! More expensive is always better, *especially* if you get a
lower-quality product! It shows that you are affluent and have money to
waste! And *everything* in America is better than everywhere else, not
because it's *good*, but because everywhere else is so much worse, yes!
Now all we need to do is get rid of those pesky liberals, who have
their heads in their sand about reality and want to take all our
hard-earned money and give it to deadbeat minorities who just want to
suckle on the public teat, and prevent us from our God-given
constitutional right to bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the
fact that we haven't had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a
very long time, certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those
illegal immigrants, any immigrants should be illegal to keep the
American culture pure, and that's sure an invasion and we should be
allowed to shoot anybody who's different. Rawr. (and that's not even
touching the abomination that is the Federal Reserve, mockery that is
the UN, travesty of abortion under any circumstances, and whatever other
sacred cows far-right conservatives have that I can't think of off the
top of my head)
*cough*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 31-7-2009 23:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> I like how someone points out that McCain was born in Panama.
> []
>> If anything, McCain could be considered a better case, since we *do*
>> know he wasn't "physically" even on the same continent, at the time.
>
> On which continent was he then?
Ok, ok... Wasn't thinking. Panama is "technically" North America, but
its a close call. :p
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:50:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> *cough*
You should have that cough checked out, unless your insurance provider
has determined that it's not covered because it's a preexisting
condition. Make sure your doctor is in-network and that you've got your
credit card to cover the co-pay (or more if you haven't met the plan's
minimum out-of-pocket expense per annum). And if you are referred to a
specialist for help with it, your PCP doesn't know if the specialist is
in-network or not for you, so make sure you check before you make the
appointment, otherwise you have to pay the specialist completely out of
pocket. ;-)
(Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
>> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
>
> He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print,
> but I seriously doubt he was delusional.
Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
1) His own view of the available data was biased,
2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
better.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and
> lots of people could have done better. Not Gore, but I'd probably even
> vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)
>
You sure about that one?
http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/?page=entire
"Two ways third gender works in the Family: There are these very strong
wives who oftentimes are very strong-willed people. I'm just reading
Katherine Joyce's book on Quiverfull … And the other are women like
Hillary Clinton, who's just a man as far as they're concerned.
Lindsay Beyerstein: What's Hillary's involvement with the Family? What
is she getting out of it?
Jeff Sharlet: As I was researching the book, I knew Hillary had this
strange connection. I didn't think much of it until I was reporting on
Sen. Sam Brownback. Everyone knew I was a reporter from "Rolling Stone,"
probably more liberal than they were. So, a way that a lot of Family
people would reach out to be friendly was to tell me that Hillary
Clinton was OK with them. They'd tell me that HRC was going for regular
spiritual counseling with Doug Coe.
Lindsay Beyerstein: Is she still getting counseling from him?
Jeff Sharlet: This was in 2005, and she refused to say anything about
this. When NBC questioned her about this, her only answer was that
(she's) not a member and (she) has never given Doug Coe money -- which
was a strangely parsed kind of answer."
So... Not necessarily a member of the neo-almost-fascist elite, but
willing to listen to them for advice, even while Bill was President,
according to an earlier bit...
BTW, the three congress critters recently in trouble over adultery, one
went to these people for help, when caught, the other two are members,
and live, tax free, in what is classed as a church, in Washington DC.
Their philosophy seems to be a) divine right to rule, since its god that
*gives* people such power, and b) Christianity has been screwed up for
the last 2,000 years, by trying to help poor people, instead of bringing
about a world worthy of Christ's return.
Yeah.. Really love the idea of voting for Hillery, given her
connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
*Spock-like* Indeed.
I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to
Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket
(metaphorically). ^_^
Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced
over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first
dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he
retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I
moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest
and greatest, so I was impressed)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 12:47, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.
>
> I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people
> approve of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of
> Bush's policies. The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are
Somewhat disagree. A lot of that 70-80% disagreement with Bush was
towards the end. If you look at, say, Iraq war support it was mostly in
the 40-60% range.
There may have been some policies that the country was 70-80% in
disagreement with, but then you'd get the same "some" disclaimer that
you put with Obama.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are
> the ones where he's doing the same thing as Bush.
What, you mean like members of the military who claim Obama doesn't have
the right to be Commander in Chief, so they try not to get deployed?
Never mind the fact that Bush is the reason we're in the Middle East to
begin with...
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:17:49 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Yes, I believe I've correctly recognised your sarcasm. ;-) )
>
> *Spock-like* Indeed.
>
> I don't have insurance, the only doctor bills I've paid since moving to
> Florida have been dentist, and those were out-of-pocket
> (metaphorically). ^_^
>
> Side-note, it's really impressive how much dental medicine has advanced
> over the years, even since when I was a wee lad ('course, the first
> dentist I had growing up used equipment from the '60s, and when he
> retired the new dentist had significantly more modern gear, but when I
> moved to FL, the dentist I ended up going to has pretty much the latest
> and greatest, so I was impressed)
It's funny you mention that, because the situation I sorta described in
my reply two above is one I've run into - my main dentist referred me to
a periodontist for cleaning because my gums were in really bad shape.
I've been to the periodontist 4 times and had to pay it all out of
pocket. Why? Because my plan doesn't cover periodontal care unless I've
had periodontal *surgery* first. In other words, I have to have let my
gums get *so* bad that it required surgery (which they would cover), and
then they'd also let the periodontist do my cleanings.
Of course my regular dentist didn't know that Aetna had this precondition
on getting periodontal care. I've spent the better part of a year
fighting with them about whether or not it should be covered, and it's
like talking to a brick wall. The specialists at Aetna seem to think
that it'd be better for me to have things deteriorate further before they
should have to pay out for coverage. Never mind the fact that the
cleanings are $114 each visit and surgery would cost a LOT more than
that, so they'd end up paying out more if I did have surgery.
And some people think this is the best system in the world.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal
The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external
purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 13:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average
> life span being something like 37th in the world.
1. Cost of health care being high doesn't negate it being the best.
2. To be fair, it all depends on what ranking you look at. Not all place
the US that low. The usual ranking people invoke is the WHO, which puts
it just a bit below 30th - nowhere near 50th.
3. Most of the people I hear from who are against universal health care
don't claim the US is near the "best". They claim that people who "work
hard and earn a lot" should get some sort of priority over deadbeats who
don't. (Not my view, but thought I'd point out that it's not about being
the best). Effectively, the argument is that access to health care is
not a human right (although they'll never put it in those terms).
4. To be fair, among industrialized countries, the US _does_ rank near
the top for the treatment of certain conditions (e.g. certain cancers,
etc). I don't know if they include people who just don't get care
because they can't afford it. To be even fairer, the same study shows
that the US is worse and in some cases really bad for a number of other
common serious ailments.
I haven't deeply looked at Obama's plan. I don't know if it's
particularly good. It's not what most advocates of universal health care
want. I don't know of any country that actually uses his plan as a
model. The countries that do come close (Switzerland?) and have a system
of private insurance actually enforce limits on the amount of profit
insurance companies make. That doesn't seem to be in his plan.
I think what a lot of UHC advocates have to understand is that just
because it's government run doesn't mean it will work at all well. There
are a lot of issues and concerns that simply are not being addressed.
It's a long article, but you should read:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
It's purely discussing government run care, and how in some cases it
can be really abused, without the guilty party even consciously _trying_
to abuse it. If they don't address this kind of stuff, UHC won't work
that well.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:19:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 13:50, Tim Cook wrote:
>> public teat, and prevent us from our God-given constitutional right to
>> bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the fact that we haven't
>> had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a very long time,
>> certainly not within living memory. Well, there's those illegal
>
> The right to bear arms is meant for both internal and external
> purposes. It's not just about foreign invasions.
The right to bear arms also is specifically with regard to "a well-
regulated militia". My read of the 2nd amendment is not that it allows
homeowners to own guns for self-defense, but that it is limited
specifically and explicitly to that "well regulated militia".
The text reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
I do recognize that my interpretation differs from that of the US Supreme
Court, but hey, there's nothing that says I have to agree with the
court's decisions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 14:04, Chambers wrote:
> Not delusional, but deluded. From what I've seen, I think he wanted the
> war in Iraq badly enough that two things happened:
>
> 1) His own view of the available data was biased,
That makes sense only if you assume he invaded for his stated reasons.
> 2) His staff, knowing what he wanted, either consciously or
> unconsciously colored the information they gave him.
It actually seems that some in his staff wanted it more than he did. In
a case or two (perhaps unrelated to Iraq), he had to overrule some of
his staff in order to be a bit "saner". Rumsfeld, for example, did not
want federal agencies involved in Katrina. Bush finally overruled.
> Combined, I'm sure that he was convinced he was doing the right thing.
Perhaps, but "right" is a very slippery term. From a certain
perspective, destroying a country to get a strategic advantage in the
reason is the right thing to do. Or so I keep being told.
> I'm also certain that he's much more intelligent than people give him
> credit for, and that if he'd had access to better (read: less biased)
> information, he would have made more intelligent choices. He was still
> biased himself, so he wouldn't be perfect, but he would have done a lot
> better.
Less biased information?
The intelligence information he received was mostly correct. The CIA
warned him that the connections were quite tenuous. They even made him
remove the Niger link from his speech (or that of someone in his
cabinet). It was common practice to have a speech vetted by the CIA.
When Colin Powell finally gave that speech, he did so without the CIA's
knowledge.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/02/09 14:06, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> connections. But, it does make me wonder, given the politics and
> background of the people around Bush *and* their idea of how to solve
> some foreign policy issues (including continuing to support dictators
> and work with places like Sandia Arabia), whether or not digging in
> Bush's connections would land him with these people too.
The "unholy" alliance with the Saudis goes back decades. It's silly to
put it on Clinton or Bush's lap.
And yes, I really do think they should shut down Sandia National Labs.
--
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it
a bit."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
