Pangloss

Yeah that's a very unilateral view. That's his opinion and he's welcome to it, of course, but it just goes to show you how limited the ABB mantra is. The Patriot Act did (and still does) enjoy broad, bipartisan support. And more importantly to this thread (hint hint), both sides of the Net Neutrality have valid points of view and arguments that are worth consideration. Yelling "anybody but Bush" is no better than yelling "anybody but Clinton" or anything else along those lines. For that matter, I've never really understood people who faithfully adhere to the doctrines of a specific political party, but then I've never understood any kind of organized religion, which is certainly what that is. But 80% of my country does exactly that, so I guess I'm the odd one.

Sure, and you're making an important point, but I think his observation is valid when taken in that context. It's not unusual to see politicians somewhat reserved in declaring their stance with new issues. I think it was not so much an observation about what vote we're going to see as it was about the general politics of the issue. I would have thought that it would be a more mixed situation than what we've seen so far. I wonder if this is somewhat indicative of ideological corporate preferences. Republicans seem more ideologically at home with infrastructure, Democrats with content providers. Can't be a coincidence. Of course that would not bode well for NN, since Republicans are in the majority. But as you say, most of them haven't taken a stance yet. This seems like a good moment to remind folks (at least our American readers) that they can write their senators and tell them how they would like for them to vote. Here's a link to the site where people can do that: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It's an interesting point, bascule. It's not hard to see the appeal to Democrats -- it entails government regulation of the internet. The ideological fit there is obvious. I guess with Republicans they're a bit torn between SIG influence and, as with Democrats, the budgetary appeal of government regulation (not so much an ideological fit as a denial of ideology, I suppose). Of course the Net Neutrality issue should really be decided on a dispassionate, practical basis. But that's just not how things work in D.C.

If memory serves, the environment variables are very old tech, intended to give old DOS programs shortcuts to new file locations in Windows. It's just not intended for that sort of thing.

Hmm, yeah, he must want them all to die. That makes perfect sense.

This reminds me of something that happened during the Elian Gonzales affair. That was the young Cuban boy whose mother brought him to the US on a raft, but she died along the way and when he got here his relatives took him, but his father wanted him back in Cuba. Anyway, one of his relatives, a grandmother (his father's mother) if memory serves, unzipped the boy's fly and whipped out his well-you-know. It prompted a huge amount of discussion at the time, basically ranging from "it's child abuse" to "it's just a cultural thing". Most of us just kinda shook our heads in wonder, not so much at the idea of it being abusive, but at the idea that someone in a position of parental authority in this suspicious day and age would do something like that. That's how that picture strikes me -- something that can't possibly be viewed as sexual, but which you wouldn't dare do anyway just because we're so obsessed about inappropriate sexual behavior. So it's not that I go around unzipping children's flies or kissing them on the lips, but I can't help but wonder if something has been lost.

Oh please, your society is just as incomparable to theirs as mine is. Obviously I'm ridiculing Hollywood, not British history. Wow.

Exactly.

[braveheart]"Freedom to be dictated to by local Scottish lords instead of British ones from several dozen miles away!"[/braveheart]

If memory serves, you can also do this via computer policy, but it's a little cumbersome.

Unfortunately when we try to leave it alone we get criticized even more and accused of doing even more "bullying". "Leaving it alone" to the International community means continuing to send NK vast amounts of financial support and listening to them blather their ideological nonsense across a completely meaningless "negotiations" table. This is the kind of Catch-22 that really annoys American taxpayers. That having been said, annoyance and all, I'm more or less forced to agree. That's the situation and you're right in saying that it's something that South Korea has to take the leading role in working out. Perhaps it's better that we (the taxpayers) look at it as an investment in peace rather than a payment to a brutal regime. But it's still pretty annoying, not to mention risky given the ICBM developments.

ROFL! If we click on his signature at the bottom, will it bring up a list of his current warnings from the mods at ContinentalCongress.org?

Who, the Indians or the Brits?! (grin) BTW, have you ever noticed how most of that document is kind of the 18th Century equivalent of a flame war?

I thought it was interesting the way they kept shooting off scuds after the two-stager flopped. It seemed like a PR move, so they could say "we shot off a bunch of missiles yesterday and most of them worked". Obviously irrelevent internally -- they can just tell their own people whatever they want. But externally that might carry some weight in some quarters. Whatever the case may be, I took great joy in the fact that on the Fourth of July, their missile failed completely, and our "missile" (the shuttle) went off like clockwork.

Cap'n's right, we're going around in circles now, so I think I'm done here. I thought you might be able to help me find some common ground, but you seem to be too annoyed with me to go there. No biggie, it happens to the best of us, and I apologize if I contributed to that. I'm happy to let you have the last word on the subject, and I think you've done an excellent job making your case in general. You have a very thoughtful approach to posting which I think is interesting (when you're not annoyed!). As I mentioned earlier in the thread I look forward to reading the materials that were posted for me, which I greatly appreciate. Thanks all.

Was that a metaphor?

Sure, if you are unwilling to consider that there are different types of "public buildings", and refuse any further discussion of the issue. That sounds perfectly fine to me. How come you're not screaming about the trapped single moms who have to work in those "private clubs"?

(shrug) Okay' date=' fine, but why doesn't the same standard apply to me? I made a statement about [b']one aspect[/b] of the larger debate and its political overtones. I never said it was the sum total of the debate or that the only aspect of the drive for public smoking bans was entirely driven by the far left. That is an unfair characterization of my point. That is incorrect. I simply made a distinction that you're not willing to make. This is a line of garbage designed to divert the issue. Nonsense. Do you deny making the following statement: That is clearly an ideological argument, and it indicates your personal ideology and directly addresses how you feel about this issue with respect to that ideology. Notice I haven't said that you don't have a valid point of view, however. I certainly haven't called your argument, for example, a "farce". You know, I've been trying to point it out for several pages now that we agree more than disagree, but you're so busy holding me up as an example of the entire opposition to smoking that you can't see it. (At least you're not alone, the good Cap'n actually thinks I must be a smoker!) If you really want a "for once and for all" on this, then how about helping me find some common ground here?

And so it is with smoking. What's the problem? I've not once suggested or stated that smoking should not be regulated in any way. Let's review the quote you responded to: I'm saying that it concerns me when we run screaming to the nearest regulatory agency every time someone stubs their toe. That's not the same thing as saying that I disapprove of regulation in all cases, and you're now guilty of the exact same transgression you accused me of earlier. Congratulations.

That's a mischaracterization of my argument, explicitly refuted by previous replies.

I understand that you haven't made that distinction' date=' I'm saying that [i']I[/i] have. Because they don't have to work there, and they knew about the danger when they went to work there in the first place. No it's not, because they knew the danger when they went to work there. They made a choice. Since you're deliberately painting me as a Republican, I feel at liberty to point out that this is a typical socialist argument -- that business owners cease being human beings with any rights or freedoms whatsoever. Even though their employees still have choices and options, we're going to take those AWAY from the business owners. So much for your statements that you carry no ideological baggage in this argument. Yes indeed, there have. But I've indicated the difference, and you are a very long way from Upton Sinclair territory. For example, those laws protect people from dangers unknown to employer or employee, and protect people from deliberate exploitation as well. Neither is the case in the second-hand smoking issue. Incidentally, your efforts to paint me as a Republican will fall on deaf ears here. Most of these folks have been around long enough to know that I'm almost as far from the ideological-right as I am from the ideological-left. I disagree. All restaurants and bars are very open about whether or not they allow smoking, and it's always immediately obvious when you walk in the door. Travellers are just as capable of eating elsewhere (or getting take-out) when travelling as they are anywhere else.

You can choose not to be in the area designated for smokers. Because it was designated as a smoking area, and you knew that when you sat down.