http://gamingtrend.com
October 31, 2014, 05:52:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 75
2561  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 29, 2004, 04:29:20 PM
New on Drudge:

Quote
FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...


MAJOR: WE REMOVED 200+ TONS OF EXPLOSIVES FROM FACILITY
2562  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 29, 2004, 04:00:37 PM
I read him to.  He and Kerry are both full of caca to be running with a story that doesn't hold water.  


Kerry's moved onto Haliburton today, surprise surprise.  :roll:
2563  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 29, 2004, 03:49:05 PM
You buy that lost explosive bullshit?  Even though there isn't a shred of evidence.  


Whatever, I'm done with this for the rest of the week.  I have a head ache and am sleepy so I think I'll shut my office door and get some shut eye. slywink
2564  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 29, 2004, 01:46:40 PM
You should seriously watch Farenhype 9/11.

I'll be glad when next week is over with, my blood pressure is running pretty high lately.
2565  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 09:52:13 PM
Quote from: "aussie77"

1) The job in Afghanistan was never finished. Whatever you might say, Bush pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan prematurely before the country was secure in order to invade Iraq. He did this despite his own CIA saying at the time that Saddam was not an immediate threat to the U.S. I cannot quote exactly the words, but their comments were something to the effect of "If Iraq does hold weapons of mass destruction, they are unlikely to use them unless attacked."


I don't agree.

Quote from: "General Tommy Franks"
Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May, we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.


It's also a fact that our intelligence agency wasn't the only one giving us intel which lead to the invasion.  Bush in no way intentionally misled us.

Ultimately though, the UN had a responsibility to uphold their resolution and didn't and that alone was reason enough to invade.  



Quote
2) The invasion of Iraq. I could have forgiven the Iraqi invasion if a couple of things had taken place. The first being that Afghanistan were properly secured and the job there completed first. It wasn't. The second thing being that there be a comprehensive plan of action of how to deal with the occupation of Iraq once the invasion was complete. I don't care how partisan you are or how often you watch Fox news, NOBODY can say that the occupation of Iraq was properly planned.

Now yes you have now made Iraq the centerpiece of the 'war on terror', but that isn't necessarily as good of a thing as you might think. I mean consider it for a moment. The U.S's borders are at least moderately secure. Within the U.S, your intelligence gathering abilities are a thousandfold greater than in Iraq.

In comparison Iraq is a sieve. People cross the borders practically at will, which is part of the reason you have these incredibly large numbers of terrorists in the country right now causing all this trouble. You have poor intelligence. You have limited manpower, with limited logistics. In other words, you have presented your weakest front to the enemy at their strongest point. That's like having the better football team, but isntead of playing them out on the field sending your *kicker* into their locker room before the game to piss on their lockers. All you've done is make everyone really really angry, and you're not at your strongest to fight them.

So sure, you have americans dying every day in Iraq instead of americans dying here in the U.S. But ask yourself this: how effectively do you really think the terrorists could bring the fight over here? They have to come halfway around the world, find their way into the country somehow, plan, prepare and then execute. All of this at their weakest, with you at your strongest. Imagine too if those soldiers in iraq were instead back here shoring up the borders instead of being shooting gallery ducks in iraq. Wonder how many americans would be dead from the terrorists in the last year and a half then? A lot less than you have now I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money. Because let's not forget that 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on U.S soil. You can sure bet they had opportunity before the troops landed in Afghanistan, but they didn't strike a second time. They probably have opportunity now but they aren't striking. Why would they when they can go to their own freaking locker and beat the shit out of your kicker? Except over there, random people from the stands who would otherwise be staying out of the game are joining in for the hell of it.

Anyways, my point is there is a reason that support for the U.S is waning around the world. It isn't because the french are a bunch of pansies who are afraid to fight. If you take a look around, the populations of the U.S two most stalwart allies, Brittain and Australia, are against what is happening. And both those countries are democracies. If you think their leaderships will continue to support Bush's efforts forever you're mistaken.

Now I'm not going to pretend that everything I have said here is 100% correct. I am sure I've made an error or two along the way. But I seriously challenge you to stop, take a deep breath, forget the partison rhetoric for a moment and read what I wrote with an open mind. If you can't see even ONE valid point in what I've written then I don't fruitful political discussion is even possible.


As I said, I feel the War in Iraq is a just war.  I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that.  I do agree that we were not as prepared for Iraq, after the fall of Saddam as we should have been.  

It's 10 minutes till closing time at work and I have to lock up so I have to go, I will try and add more thoughts later smile

*oh, by the way, I think we get along ok, we just don't agree smile
2566  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 09:33:34 PM
Quote from: "SuperHiro"
I find it disturbing that you didn't find the fact that an article calling democrats a bunch of anti-semites distressing.

How can that article possibly generate any sort of friendly debate with that kind of hateful rhetoric?

Edited to add:
I also find it disturbing that you only said "I don't believe in that stuff... but he makes good points" after it was pointed out.

This stuff can be avoided rather easily by saying

Quote
"Yeah he makes a lot of crazy attacks, but there's a few tasty nuggets of corn in that shit."



Point taken smile

That is basically the only paragraph I have an issue with though.


or

Quote
He makes a lot of unfounded attacks, but here are the passages I believe in.
2567  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 09:23:50 PM
Quote from: "aussie77"
Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Which I'm sure you realize you started.  

Whatever though, this is silly.


Check again bucko. I did a regular smiley face. You were the one who started with the rolleyes! Nice try though you communist bastard biggrin

(For the humor impaired, this was not a serious post!)


Ah, but when I posted the first one it was 100% appropriate.  See below:

Quote from: "aussie77"
As was pointed out when you posted this over at OO Eco, all evidence suggests that John Hospers in fact had absolutely nothing to do with this letter. Which I guess shows that you really are just posting any random crap you find on the internet that supports your cause biggrin


Yea, cause I knew it wasn't actually written by John Hospers when I wrote it... :roll:
2568  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote

We're continuously going after them though. How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?

That's only one dimension.  Going after the terrorists is well and good, but at what point do we recognize what turns a young man into a terrorist and actually try to attack that problem?  That is what needs to be a focus, not perpetuating the violence, but finding a way to end it.

Quote

How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.

Hmm... a war started under questionable circumstances, against a well equiped, well motivated group of ideological guerillas.  Hmm, yeah, I can't think of any past wars in southeast Asia that sound like that. smile  While war against large groups of muslim terrorists is new, clandestine wars against insurgents have been going on since the beginning of time.

Quote

Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists? Do you think the military tactics would change?

My point is that is irrelevent.  It doesn't matter how many more we kill under any president.  That's not going to win this "war".

s


And Bush has made it clear that he understand the threat, and that this is a war that will take a long time to win.  I don't think dimplomacy is even an option in this war as it's their hatred that has been around sine the beginning of time.

Falator, no sane person should believe that Bush intentionally mislead anyone.  The simple fact that the top intellegence agencies in the world all came to the same conclusion regarding Iraq pretty much flies in the face of that entire argument.
2569  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 07:51:31 PM
Which I'm sure you realize you started.  

Whatever though, this is silly.
2570  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 07:43:18 PM
Quote from: "aussie77"
Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Quote from: "aussie77"
As was pointed out when you posted this over at OO Eco, all evidence suggests that John Hospers in fact had absolutely nothing to do with this letter. Which I guess shows that you really are just posting any random crap you find on the internet that supports your cause biggrin


Yea, cause I knew it wasn't actually written by John Hospers when I wrote it... :roll:


Yea and once someone pointed out to you it was in all likelihood a fake, you rushed right over here to make note of it in this thread too  :roll:


I had forgotten I even posted it here as well...   :roll:
2571  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 06:16:15 PM
Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.

I agree with Farley on this one, your definition of disruption must be far different than mine.  Taking out a few terrorist cells is just a drop in the bucket.  The problem with fighting a terrorist organization is that it's cells are able to operate independantly, and as long as they have an excess of manpower, losses can be replaced at staggering rates.

It's simply not enough to just disrupt them, and it's that one dimensional aspect of Bush's war, and his inability to recognize it, that is one of his biggest failings.

s


We're continuously going after them though.  How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?  How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.  Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists?  Do you think the military tactics would change?  

I don't get your logic at all.
2572  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 04:29:56 PM
Farley, I understand the numbers have grown which is a natural occurrence when you're at war.

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.
2573  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
To think we haven't disrupted their network at all is ignorant.

Allow me to requote myself. smile
Quote from: "Sepiche"

I mean, temporarily disrupting terrorist activities is one thing, and yes, that has been done, but when their losses are being replaced 10 fold, how is that winning?

You're absolutely right, to think we haven't done any damage is completely ignorant, and I don't argue the fact we have captured a lot of terrorists (and a lot of innocent Iraq's, but I digress), but to look at all the facts is to realize we only driving more and more men to the terrorists. Those men previously had no reason no fight us, but now they have a reason: We attacked their country on false pretenses and killed their friends and family.

s


OK, sorry for my tone.

I don't agree though.  The War on Terror as a whole energized the terrorists just as the War with Iraq did.  Personally, I would much rather the terrorists congregate in Iraq with our forces than elsewhere, not to say they're not elsewhere as well.  Also, who gives a shit if we're driving more men to become terrorists?  I think they pretty much showed what they're capable of on September 11, and any retaliation by us would naturally lead to an increase in their numbers.
2574  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 03:40:48 PM
To think we haven't disrupted their network at all is ignorant.
2575  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 02:59:26 PM
Quote from: "aussie77"
As was pointed out when you posted this over at OO Eco, all evidence suggests that John Hospers in fact had absolutely nothing to do with this letter. Which I guess shows that you really are just posting any random crap you find on the internet that supports your cause biggrin


Yea, cause I knew it wasn't actually written by John Hospers when I wrote it... :roll:
2576  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 28, 2004, 02:58:31 PM
First of all Farley, what I bolded isn't a fact...  To say we haven't disrupted their network very much is asinine.  We've caught 75% of their known leaders, numerous attacks have been stopped and we're still pursuing them.  


Quote from: "dfs"
I know where you are coming from Farly. I apologize for puttine inflamatory langauge into your thread and promise to cease and dissest after this post.

I'm honestly flabergasted at the naivete of the American public. When I listen to the my friends who are Bush supporters, it''s like they live on a different planet or something where Bush is given tremendous credit for things he deserves horrific blame for.

This administration has publicly admitted to lying to congress and the public in order to bring my country into an unjust war. How can anybody turn around and vote for that? How can anybody claim that voting for that "supports the troops?" Now that we've marched off to war based on a lie told from the white house, where are all the people who were morally outraged that Bill Clinton lied?


No one buys the lying thing anymore.  Incorrect intellegence brought to us by the top intellegence agencies in the world, yes, but outright lying, not even close.
2577  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Longhorn on: October 28, 2004, 02:23:44 PM
Have any of you used Longhorn?  What do you think of it?  I would like to try it out so I was just curious.
2578  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Network/Workgroup Password Help on: October 28, 2004, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: "egrudzin"
If you have XP Home I don't think you get a Security tab or anything.  You have to have XP Pro to set permissions on a per file/folder basis.

You may also have to turn off Simple file sharing in XP Pro to get security to work.  Go to Folder Options under the Control Panel and click the View tab.  Scroll to the bottom of the list and uncheck the box "Use simple file sharing" and click OK.  You should then get a security tab on file and folder property windows.


Awesome.  That opened up the security tab.  Thanks a ton for the info.  Now I just have to figure out what to do smile
2579  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Network/Workgroup Password Help on: October 28, 2004, 02:08:17 PM
We're all running Windows XP Professional and all drives are NTSF.
2580  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / LOST - 10/27/04 on: October 28, 2004, 01:02:50 PM
Liked the episode as well.  I believe I would have stayed on the beach though.  At least for a little while longer.
2581  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 28, 2004, 12:55:54 PM
4 more years smile biggrin
2582  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror on: October 27, 2004, 09:53:49 PM
Quote from: "farley2k"
I mean that seriously.  

Here is what I see.


We are attacked on 9/11 and Bush responds by attacking Afgahnistan.  Ok, fine but it was actually Al Queda who were in Afgahnistan with the permission of the Taliban who attacked the US.  As far as I can tell Al Queda is still going strong.  We haven't captured their leader, we haven't disrupted their network very much, nor have we stopped (or even slowed) world support of them.  



That is mind boggling to me, with all due respect.

I stopped reading there actually.
2583  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Network/Workgroup Password Help on: October 27, 2004, 09:38:15 PM
Actually, that doesn't work for me.

The only thing I see about security is under sharing and it's for local sharing.  

There is no security option under Network Sharing and Security frown
2584  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Network/Workgroup Password Help on: October 27, 2004, 09:35:59 PM
Looks like I may have just found the info I need:

"To set, view, change, or remove file and folder permissions
Open Windows Explorer, and then locate the file or folder for which you want to set permissions.
Right-click the file or folder, click Properties, and then click the Security tab.
Do one of the following:
To set permissions for a group or user that does not appear in the Group or user names box, click Add. Type the name of the group or user you want to set permissions for and then click OK.
To change or remove permissions from an existing group or user, click the name of the group or user.
Do one of the following:
To allow or deny a permission, in the Permissions for User or Group box, select the Allow or Deny check box.
To remove the group or user from the Group or user names box, click Remove.
 Important

If you are not joined to a domain and want to view the Security tab, see To display the Security tab.
 Notes

To open Windows Explorer, click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, and then click Windows Explorer.
In Windows XP Professional, the Everyone group no longer includes Anonymous Logon.
You can set file and folder permissions only on drives formatted to use NTFS.
To change permissions, you must be the owner or have been granted permission to do so by the owner.
Groups or users granted Full Control for a folder can delete files and subfolders within that folder regardless of the permissions protecting the files and subfolders.
If the check boxes under Permissions for user or group are shaded or if the Remove button is unavailable, then the file or folder has inherited permissions from the parent folder. For more information on how inheritance affects files and folders, see Related Topics.
When adding a new user or group, by default, this user or group will have Read & Execute, List Folder Contents, and Read permissions.
For more information about permissions on other objects, see Permissions.

Related Topics
"
2585  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Network/Workgroup Password Help on: October 27, 2004, 09:33:42 PM
Here at my work we have a medium sized network.  We all share a T1 connection and have access to a Copier/Printer.  

My team has 5 computers, with my computer having the only CDRW.  We use a backup program that has a template given to us by the home office.  I need to run backups bi-weekly for all the computers on our team.  I understand that the way to accomplish this is to share the C drive on the other 4 computers, map to them on my computer, re-create a template for each of the drives and run each template bi-weekly.  My problem is I have no idea how to make the drive secure once I share it.  For example, I shared the financial analyst's C drive just now by right clicking on C and clicking the sharing tab, selecting "share this folder on the network" & "Allow Network Users to Change my Files".

I came back to my computer and mapped her drive just fine.  I don't know where the option to put a password on it would be and I haven't had much luck with windows help.  It talks about a Strong Password, but doesn't really tell how to go about doing it.  She does have to enter a password when she logs onto the computer.  Also, even though I shared her entire C drive, when I click on the program files within her C Drive it tells me I don't have permission to access that drive.  Any idea what is going on or how to fix it?  Thanks in advance for any help.
2586  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 27, 2004, 03:14:48 PM
Quote from: "Sepiche"
Let me get this straight... you're hoping that by posting this you can sway LIBERTARIANS to vote REPUBLICAN?!?

LOL :lol:

Maybe the Libertarians of old need to take a long hard took at why many collage age youths come to the Libertarians.  I guarentee there is one issue above all they are interested in. smile

But seriously... do you actually believe this stuff?

Quote

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property

I mean... seriously?  SERIOUSLY?  Does anyone actually buy this?

To me, this is just more of the inflamitory rhetoric used by both sides that I think is killing our political process... oh, and  John Hospers is a nut... can't forget that. smile

s


I don't believe in what you quoted no.  I do believe in a lot of the letter though.

Especially this:

Quote
When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a ‘minor party’ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to “get the word out” and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.
2587  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Nation States! on: October 27, 2004, 02:54:32 PM
Thanks, I just joined smile

The Republic of True Conservatism
2588  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P] An Open Letter to Libertarians on: October 27, 2004, 02:35:00 PM
John Hospers (born 9 June 1918) was the first presidential candidate of the United States Libertarian Party, running in the 1972 presidential election. He and his vice-presidential running mate, Theodora Nathan, received one electoral vote from Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia. He has written an open letter to libertarians regarding next weeks election. It compliments My Thoughts, as a Conservative, on our President really well and should be read by everyone.



Quote
An Open Letter To Libertarians
by John Hospers

Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year — more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party — I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that’s common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties — between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today’s Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech – witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry’s threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact “hate speech” and “hate crime” laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it “defending human rights.” This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is an ominous sign of worse things to come.

Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.

His wife’s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration.

Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos — possibly for months — and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.

George Bush has been criticized for many things – and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up — knowingly at grave risk to his political viability — to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with “the big one”: 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including “suitcase” nuclear devices.

Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazi fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.

The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam’s regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.

National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that “taxes are too high” (then 20%), “Pay 80% if you need it for defense.” It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is “too much.” And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:

(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.

(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.

The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Most of all, it will require the American people — including many libertarians – to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left – a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-wide Fascism.

Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a ‘minor party’ candidate who cannot possibly win, just to “get the word out” and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.

John Hospers
Los Angeles, CA
2589  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / DOA Ultimate? on: October 26, 2004, 09:03:14 PM
A router is your best bet.
2590  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Not up on lingo. Is this being "pwned"? on: October 26, 2004, 08:34:10 PM
Quote from: "Siljanus"


This is being pwned...on national TV no less!

LOL
2591  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / From time to time I wish I was Master Chief on: October 26, 2004, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: "Devil"
I thought you were MC?


Nah, that was just a front.  I'm actually

 frown
2592  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / From time to time I wish I was Master Chief on: October 26, 2004, 02:43:25 PM
2593  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / IGN: San Andreas is the best PlayStation 2 game ever made on: October 26, 2004, 01:34:20 PM
Wow.

I'll get the Xbox version for sure.
2594  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / HALO 2 OXM Review on: October 25, 2004, 09:10:35 PM
I heard Phantom Dust is oustanding.  Let us know if you figure it out any more.  I don't have the demo disc so I really can't check.
2595  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [P]Global Test on: October 25, 2004, 03:22:14 PM
2596  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Music] Jem! on: October 24, 2004, 05:19:35 AM
Quote from: "Ypmur"
Not bad at all. If  you like her, you'd probably like Catie Curtis


Thanks!  I will check her out.  I ordered Jem's CD from her website for $10 tonight (Media Play doesn't have it).

I also heard her on the OC (can't wait till it starts back in Nov.)  I just never thought about checking her out.  

Glad I did.
2597  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Music] Jem! on: October 23, 2004, 04:40:07 PM
Quote from: "Blackadar"
Good find...sounds excellent!


Glad ya like it.  I'm heading out to pick it up right now smile
2598  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Music] Jem! on: October 23, 2004, 04:55:32 AM
And I just found out she is coming to Nashville soon!  

http://www.mercylounge.com/

I'm going to buy tickets for my gf and I tomorrow. smilesmile
2599  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / [Music] Jem! on: October 23, 2004, 04:52:15 AM
Tonight I was checking my email using comcast's webmail and they had a link to a new album from someone I haven't ever heard of, Jem


http://www.jem-music.net/flash/jem.htm

Wow, I'm completely impressed.  I can't really describe her sound and I'm nowhere near as talented as rmorton or trigger at eloquently describing music so I guess you'll just have to check it out for yourself.  

A little more about her from http://www.jeffk.net/index2.html

Quote
Billed as a 'Welsh songstress' Jem Griffiths released a 5 song EP last year and garnered critical acclaim. Born in Wales, Jem started writing songs at age 11 and got her first mini studio at 13. While in school, Jem pursued her musical interests by working on production at UK festivals and promoting Skint Records acts such as Fatboy Slim and Lo-Fi Allstars. She then hooked up with DJ Adam Freeland and helped set up and manage the specialist underground breakbeat imprint, Marine Parade. On top of this, Jem started DJ'ing and promoting DJ nights in Brighton and London. After a series of twists and turns, Jem knew it was time to exit the behind-the-scenes side of the industry and follow her dreams of becoming a singer. Her successes during the last two years have shown that she's made the right decision. Jem also co-wrote the track "Nothing Fails" with Guy Sigsworth and Madonna, which Madonna recorded for her American Life album. This new album has become the soundtrack for the FOX network. The album's lead single, "They," is one of several cuts used in the new Friday night series, Wonderfalls, while another song, "Just a Ride," will be featured both on The O.C. and the show's upcoming soundtrack.



I can say that I will without a doubt purchase her CD tomorrow.  Heck, I
would go get it tonight if somewhere was open. smile
2600  Non-Gaming / Hardware / Software Hell / Building a PC - where to start? on: October 22, 2004, 09:32:55 PM
Charlatan, are you set on the P4?

You should get an AMD 64 instead.
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 [65] 66 67 ... 75
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.126 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.037s, 1q)