Text 48009, 242 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 02:30:58 av Jay Talbot (1059.fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 47994 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Re: World's view of USA from bad to worse :(
====================================================
 > 01 Feb 07 02:56, Jay Talbot wrote to Roy Witt:


 >> 30 Jan 07 05:39, Jay Talbot wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>> 29 Jan 07 03:24, Jay Talbot wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:


 >>>> Hello All!

 >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286755.stm


 >>>> Cheers, Michiel

 >>>  JT> I would say it's a direct reflection on our current
 >>>  JT> administration's abuse of power,
 >>>
 >>> What abuse of power would that be?


 >>  JT> Hmmm.... Where to begin. First, he lied to everyone to start the
 >>  JT> war in Iraq.
 >>
 >> It has previously been established that this isn't true. At least two
 >> years ago.


 >  JT> So when were WMD's found? Never was last I heard.
 > 
 > That shouldn't be the question. The question is, who supplied the world 
 > with false information? It wasn't GWB...


I call bullshit. GWB didn't look for any other excuses not to go in. He used 
the excuse that he "suspected" WMD's, but none ever showed up.

 >  >>  JT> Second, Bush has signed quite a few Presidential Signing
 >>  JT> Statements, including giving himself a license to ignore Congress
 >>  JT> (look it up).
 >>
 >> Generally any executive statement made with the signing of a law can
 >> be said to be a signing statement. There are three categories of
 >> 'signing statements'.


 >  JT> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
 > 
 >>  JT> Third, he also installed an illegal spying program against
 >>  JT> American
 >>  JT> >  JT> citizens.
 >>
 >> Apparently it's not illegal as the legislative body in DC hasn't shot
 >> it
 >> > down. Nor has any court. And in fact the Congress has renewed it
 >> before it was to expire.


 >  JT> Actually, it was illegal. Congress had nothing to do with the spying 
 >  JT> program until it came under fire by civil rights groups. Now, the 
 >  JT> Administration is transferring the oversight to a secret court to make 
 >  JT> it more legal, but it still doesn't make it right.
 > 
 > Who created Homeland Security?


Homeland Security had nothing to do with the illegal wiretaps. Bush signed a 
decree for the NSA to do it.

 >  >>  JT> Need I go on?
 >>
 >> Only if you have something that hasn't come to light yet.

 >>>  JT> and the prez's total incompetence with foreign policy.
 >>>
 >>> You should look at it from a different perspective. The incompetence
 >>> and
 >>> > unreliability of the foreigners plays into the equation more than
 >>> > US
 >>> foreign policy has gone bad.

 >>  JT> I differ in opinion. In essence, our foreign policy in the
 >>  JT> current Administration has been all about oil.
 >>
 >> So, 911 was because of oil? Where did we benefit from that?


 >  JT> Ummm.... No, you took things out of context. 9/11 was caused by some 
 >  JT> Muslim radicals who hate the US because they consider us unclean 
 >  JT> infidels. The war on Iraq was mostly caused by revenge (not good in my 
 >  JT> book either) but also the hopes that the US would benefit greatly by 
 >  JT> controlling Iraqi oil after the war.
 > 
 >  JT> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html
 > 
 > Oh? Left wing radicals from Britain know this, how?


News knows no bounds these days.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/

 >  >>  JT> When politics and greed mix, it's not a good combo, ya know?
 >>
 >> Yeah, I've been seeing it in the Demoratic led congress for decades.


 >  JT> Ah yes, but the last couple of decades has been run by Republicans who 
 >  JT> proved they couldn't do much better.
 > 
 > Actually, they proved that the Democrats aren't as good as their word. 
 > Bi-partisan politics is their cry, but they never practice what they 
 > preach.


Where is that coming from? The Democrats have done more since this Congress 
started than the Republicans did the last two terms.

 > 
 >>  JT> IMHO, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 >>
 >> You're not alone there.

 >>>  JT> But if you haven't looked lately, he's not exactly popular here
 >>>  JT> at home either.
 >>>
 >>> Neither was Jesus Christ, but he was and still is your only savior.

 >>  JT> If I could ever claim to be a Christian, I'd call that statement
 >>  JT> blasphemous.
 >>
 >> And then I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.


 >  JT> Let me put it this way: Bush is no Jesus Christ.
 > 
 > No one ever said that he was...


Then why bring it up at all? Equating GWB to Jesus is about the same thing.

 >  >>  JT> But since I don't, I'll call it a bad comparison.
 >>
 >> Good choice.

 >>  JT> Jesus didn't send thousands off to die and kill,
 >>
 >> But because of him and his teachings, many millions have fought and
 >> died. And that was only in the 1st millennium after he died.


 >  JT> Right, but it didn't have to be that way. Religious lunatics should 
 >  JT> stay out of politics and positions of power and influence.
 > 
 > Religion has spawned more wars and killed more people since the dawn of the 
 > first idle than anything else. Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc..


Yeah, I know this. More have died at the hands of Christians than any other 
religion in history.

 >  >>  JT> his followers did much later on. Huge difference.
 >>
 >> So far, George has only lost 3000...


 >  JT> Right, but how many more thousands have come back severely wounded? 
 >  JT> And to each of the "only" 3000+ families who have to deal with it 
 >  JT> every day, what would you say?
 > 
 > What do you suppose was said to the 3000 who died on 9/11? Sorry, that's 
 > the way it goes?


A lot of people died that day, I know this. I will tell you what some things 
that were promised though that didn't happen. The tribute memorial hasn't been 
built yet, no construction started either. The Freedom Tower wasn't even 
started until Dec. 19th, 2006. Osama Bin shithead hasn't been found/killed 
yet.

 >  JT> Personally, I know of one young woman who's without her husband now. 
 >  JT> He was only 21 and died right before x-mas by a roadside bomb. I can't 
 >  JT> imagine a more painful way to go. Neither she nor he deserved it, and 
 >  JT> I can say the same for the 3000+ as well.
 > 
 > You do know that the US military is an all volunteer military, right? By 
 > joining up, you know what may lie ahead of you come peace or war and you 
 > take an oath to do your duty. I'd say that they knew what they were doing 
 > and took their chances, just like every civilian in Iraq and other 
 > countries where life is in danger on a daily basis. Fortunately we have a 
 > leader who has vowed that it won't happen in our country as long as he's 
 > the President. What the Dems do with the WH after he's gone is beyond his 
 > control and I fret on a daily basis that the Dems never regain the WH as 
 > long as there's a threat to this country out there, for as long as they 
 > maintain abandoning an ally in time of need.


I realize the US military is volunteer at this time. But no, they had no idea 
he was heading off to war until the orders came. He took the oath, did his 
duty, and died. Why should it happen here? Iraqis and terrorists have plenty 
Americans over there to shoot at and bomb.

The "Dems" as you put it are going to put the reigns on a President who's 
whole premus has been that he has absolute power and answers to no one. The 
President isn't above the law, and it's time he faces the blind lady of 
justice.

 >  >>  >>  JT> Other than that, I agree with others. Try some happy news for
 >>  >>  JT> a
 >>>  JT> change. :)
 >>>
 >>> In all of the years that I've known Michiel, he's never had anything
 >>> happy to say. Oh, I'll take that back; just once he was happy that I
 >>> agreed with him on one issue.

 >>  JT> lol! Well, I can't argue with you on that. I haven't been around
 >>  JT> in
 >>  JT> >  JT> quite some time. I'll tell ya though, the whole Intel and
 >>  JT> IBM solving the power leaks in processor chips made me smile. :)
 >>
 >> You mean my processor has a leak?!


 >  JT> lol! Yes, it does. Where do you think all that heat comes from? The 
 >  JT> micro-transistors, when they get smaller, had a horrible power leak 
 >  JT> and caused a ton of over heating.
 > 
 > Is that why they made the processor chip bigger and mounted it to a big 
 > heatsink with a fan blowing over it?


Sort of. The ship is still very small in the casing you see, which allows for 
easier heat dissipation. What this break through will allow is the chip to get 
smaller, but still keep power consumption and heat low enough that a heatsink 
and fan still work. Also, the smaller the chip, the more "cores" you can put 
on a processor die. Intel seems to think they wanna put hundreds of cores in a 
puter.

Jay
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin:  (1:124/2700)