So he has boldly announced he still regards himself as above the law. Any law. What a travesty.

They are pretty sure he has already made up his mind, he has indicated it several times in the past. By denying it and several other things, he gives the impression that he is only saying what he thinks they want to hear. Which brings up character issues, if nothing else.

Is that most are done at universities with the population at hand, i.e. 18-22 year olds. While many of them are insightful, others just reflect the maturity of the population.

We do need a new party. I set up a board for this, but the people who it attracted wanted to argue more than anything else...

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=55750

At least we got some guiding principles and proposals together.

In Shockwave Rider. "First we had the foot race, then the arms race. Now we have the brain race. Hopefully, in the end, we will have the human race". Or at least words to that extent, it has been a couple of decades since I read it.

No. To make such an assessment, certain assumptions need to be made. Assumptions that have no realistic scientific basis. In other words, guesses and opinions. For example, there is no real reason to believe that those as of yet unknown processes were strictly random. Or that they were sequential. Or that our form of life is the only viable model. The latter point is pretty important, if there are many possible paths to lead to something we recognize as 'life', the odds of purely random processes(assuming they are random) turning one up get better. Sure, particular type might be extremely unlikely, but that doesn't mean that some form of life turning up in a given time period with a particular set of conditions is also unlikely. It may be that all you are quibbling about is the exact flavor, which becomes the luck of the draw. The fact of the matter is we just don't know.

If you are in a panic, choose something and stick with it for a few years. If it doesn't pan out, choose something else. The worst thing is to be paralyzed about it, that leads to regrets. You are 23. You have decades of life ahead of you. Maybe a century, even more. You will be reinventing yourself many times over that time period. Me, I am 49 and a grad student in a field that is totally different than my BS. Life throws you curves. There is no way to choose the optimal path because there is no way to have perfect information. Accept that. A line out of a novel I like. "The mark of a good officer is the ability to make quick decisions. If they turn out to be the right ones, so much the better." The point is that sometimes you just have to decide and live with it. Trying to decide the best course is a luxury, sometimes you just have to decide. A wrong choice will not lead to you eating dog food and sleeping on sidewalks. So just do it.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Bush lied. Old news.

No. They will just take the stance that Bush, in his role as Commander in Chief, has the power to do what ever it takes to fight terrorism. If it takes outing covert agents working on the proliferation of WMDs, then so be it...

No. They will just take the stance that Bush, as Commander in Chief, can take what ever action he deems necessary to fight terrorism. If it requires outing a covert agent specializing in the proliferation of WMD's, then so be it.

If so, why did everybody lie about it? Unless, of course, lying is just the way they reflexively respond. I am having a hard time coming up with alternatives.

While he has a point about capital being fluid, the rest is just nuts. He wants to bomb most wages in the first world to third world levels to assuage his guilt on being rich among the world's poor. If he felt it was so horrible, why not pay more than competitive wages? Why not Western norm wages? True, he wouldn't have had such a large staff, but he would be putting those he did retain on the road to getting out of their economic hole.

There is something pretty disgusting about someone who is benefitting from the inequalities of a system who proposes that it is only morally "right" to extend those inequalities to a larger group.

This doesn't just affect the unskilled. It affects everyone who doesn't have a substantial investment income. What is being discussed here is dragging everyone who gets a paycheck down to $5 an hour range. Including professionals. No one is safe.

It is yet another round of Social Darwinism disguised as "fairness" and "moral justice". Basically, unless you are rich, you don't deserve to live a decent life. Because it isn't "fair".

When he was governor, one of his friends had a refinery that kept exceeding pollution standards. So Dubya line item vetoed funds for pollution monitoring. Problem solved!

Ann's words need to be thrown in the face of every Republican out there. Let's see how far they will back her. And if they don't, how will Ann's fans react?