Yeah. Just look out your window and gaze at the World Trade Center....oh wait.

Not pointless. More difficult -now-, but certainly still possible. Until 9/11 hijacked planes were typically used to get money or get people release from prison.

-john

And making actual scientists try and reason with all of you is an utter waste of their time, which we'd rather they spent doing their actual job.

Yeah! Doing their jobs!

Which apparently means flying off to Copenhagen, driving around in gas-guzzling limos and SUVs, and galavanting around with the free hookers.

As soon as those screaming about the Climate Crisis, start ACTING like there's a Climate Crisis, maybe I'll start to listen to them.

Instead they spew out carbon equivalent to all of that expelled by Morocco for an entire year.

Crisis my ass.

-john

James O'Keefe . Zombie (www.zombietime.com) are the first two that just jump to mind. Then there's the ACORN scandals, the Kevin Jennings scandal, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett the slum lord, Michelle Obama and her hospital's practice of shoving poor patients to other hospitals.

Like we need more fake Rush Limbaugh quotes, fact-checking of SNL skits, or another Rathergate.

-john

Israel hasnt exactly threatened to wipe Iran off the map.

No more moral equivalency BS please.

Expressing support and best wishes for the protestors gives them a boost in spirit that they need if they are to succeed.

I think its pretty insulting to the Iranian opposition, especially given the "spirit" they have demonstrated thus far, to suggest that their morale will crack if they aren't given an explicit and direct endorsement by a foreign leader, particularly the leader of a country that has pointed to their nation as an enemy for decades.

Not so. A lot of the Soviet dissident leaders took great pride in knowing that Reagan fully supported them. It gave them more hope and willingness to keep up the fight knowing that someone outside the USSR was supporting them. And we did look at the USSR as an enemy for decades (rightfully so).

Same thing with Poland the Solidarity movement. Soviets cracked down, Reagan full-heartedly supported Solidarity and the Polish people, telling the current leadership that to continue the crackdown would mean an end to "business as usual" with the US.

It's not that Obama is afraid to "take a hit" for supporting the Iranian opposition, I just don't believe that he wants them to succeed. I honestly don't believe that he believes in freedom and democracy enough to come out in support of the opposition. He wants business as usual with Iran and Ahmadinajand (sp?). A freedom and democracy uprising basically undermines his Cairo Speech To The Muslim World. I think he's too full of himself to support the opposition in Iran.

So...are you calling for a Cap and Shade tax?

"Well thats what happens when you use unconstitutional and illegal methods to obtain those secrets."

no...no...no!

That was during the campaign! Now that the buck is (more or less) stopping with him, he needs to face the reality that those methods were not actually illegal and would disclose state secrets.

I still can't believe that any of you people here actually believed anything that this guy said during the campaign.

I think you're missing the point of a "universal health care database."

The point is NOT to enable any doctor access to your health care information (as you change doctors, see a specialist, etc).

The point is to that the GOVERNMENT has access to all of your health care information. That's why this is A Bad Thing(tm).

P2P and lack of security is a diversion.

Obama wants the single format health care information so that he can, in the not to distant future, start a) taxing you on your health status (Oh, you gained 5 pounds, your insurance premium goes up); and b) "better" determine who gets access to rationed medical procedures once "universal" coverage comes into play (Let's see...two people need a bypass operation...this one smokes....give it to the other guy who's only mildly overweight).

Monopolies are not inherently bad. If MS has a monopoly on the desktop, so what?

One reason MS is despised is because they use that monopoly to force their way into other markets. Be it server, handhelds, etc.

A monopoly is always open to competition if someone decides to take it on. In MS's case that was originally(?) OS2. MS is bad because of how they have (illegally in some cases) eliminated that competition, ie thru strongarming "partners" because of the monopoly status.

If OS2 or DrDos had been allowed to fairly compete with MS, we would likely be seeing an entirely different computing landscape today. Linux would, ironically, probably not exist, because we'd all be using open source OS's & desktops from MS, IBM, Sun, etc.

And I think it was yesterday that I saw an article somewhere saying that MS would have to open source at least part of Windows if it wants to survive.

Little side step....
Before we take this guy...You ever kill a flea before, Johnson? It's not easy.

(going from memory there...)

For his next trick, to highlight the need for more concealed carry laws, Bill Gates will fire a gun into a crowd while shouting "there is no reason why only the rich and politically connected should be able to defend themselves!"

Fixed that for ya.

-john

look we've pushed it to the point it's going to happen, let's not make it even worse.

Can someone please point me to a computer model that can accurately model what happened last year? No? Hmmm.

ALso, you're aware that it was warmer back in the 1200s than it is now, yes?

Hey, at least the Obama people didn't have to deal with keyboards with the "O" key removed, unlike a previous administration that removed all the "W" keys before they left...

Any problems that the program is having ... are due to government incompetence...

And just think! This is the same government that a lot of people want to run health care!

Hmmm. All this time I thought we as a nation were at war.
Silly me, apparently.