likearock

5%, actually. Um, link to back that up please? FWIW, 25% is an accurate number if we're talking about oil.

That's the bottom line. Hillary's biggest rap is that she bends the truth according to her political needs. The fact that she represents her "wins" in Michigan and Florida completely devoid of their context just feeds into that. It's interesting that many of her "supporters" in this argument are Republicans who are gleeful at the prospect of the Democratic party self-destructing. Did anyone see O'Reilly last night? He actually got into a debate with Newt Gingrich over this. Newt was spouting the pro-Hillary line about how democracy is imperiled by not seating the two conventions. O'Reilly, to his credit, was taking the pro-Obama position: "you don't change the rules in the middle of the game". Newt was actually shocked that O'Reilly was calling him on his bullshit.

"white male. That is the typical profile of an assasin (SIC)in the U.S." Straight off of most every TV show that deals with the subject. The profile of a murderer of any pres candidate would have to be based on the type of murder, where it occurred, the evidence at hand, etc. It's sheer idiocy to try to hypothesize a situation that has no facts to it. It only serves to feed certain people's personal biases and need to call others names. The thread is "How racist is America?". The irony is that some people are so consumed with white against black racism that their beliefs can become racist themselves (cf. Jeremiah Wright). Racism, like hatred, infects both sides of the fence.

And why exactly isn't your statement itself an example of racism? profiling is NOT racism - there is no devious or harmful intent in objectively using statistics to id the most likely suspect And statistically, black on black murder is much more likely than white on black. If his statement was based on a statistical analysis, he should have made that clear. I don't know of any statistics that would support the proposition that a potential murderer of Obama would be more likely to be white. Do you?

And why exactly isn't your statement itself an example of racism?

Of course, that was never in question. What I've been driving at is your refusal to acknowledge that one of the fundamental purposes of religion for a very, very long time (and for many people still) has been to explain things that should fall squarely within the realm of science. I would say that is a secondary purpose of religion. The primary purpose of religion, especially if you break out of the narrow view of Judeo-Christianity-Islam, is to provide human beings with a transcendent experience. That's what draws the billions of people who are attracted to religion. And it's essentially the same thing that draws people to drugs, gambling, and skydiving.

That's true. The trials of Copernicus and Galileo come to mind as counter-examples. However, I think you are wrong to equate spirituality with religion. The common definition of spirituality is not necessarily aligned with religion. It can be linked to other activities that provide a transcendent experience such as running, listening to Pink Floyd, and even skydiving.

If I continue to keep bailing one of my children out of jail for breaking laws, then WHAT is it that I am teaching that child? If we continue to act, speak out that He does not EXSIST, then how is He suppose to be a Father to us, as a teacher, a guide in our lives. How can HE be "nice" to me if I or others do not or will not believe in He? Why not? Lots of human benefactors prefer to remain anonymous. Are you suggesting that God is not up to their level of selflessness?

Thanks for proving my point.

And that translates to a universal right to health care, how? Obviously modern health care is a product of our society, and all in our society should share what it has to offer. Lot's of things are products of our society. That doesn't give us a right to them. You could use that logic to say that liberty gives you the right to personally address Congress every day. After all, Congress is a product of our society, right? Health care is not a liberty, it's a commodity that we need to keep us alive and healthy. There may or may not be a "right" to health care, but you're twisting the language so ridiculously that even someone who might agree with you can see it's not worth the effort.

And that translates to a universal right to health care, how?

There are no less than four definitions for liberty in the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and I think you will find one that fits my usage of the word.

David Shuster, isn't he that esteemed reporter who got suspended for saying that Hillary "pimped out" Chelsea to the superdelegates?

Yeah, but he had a better subject line.

Hate speech is just that. No amount of military service or other "character" references excuses it, whether it comes from Jeremiah Wright or Pat Robertson (who also served as a marine).

Never. You are allowed to have associations with people even if you don't agree with them. Besides, he can't be any worse of a fundie than Bush has been, and the very White Congress isn't going to let him do anything on such a platform. Well, then you're not as much of an independent as I thought you were. The thing that most disturbs people who are outside of your two "camps" is not just the fact that his preacher uttered those bigoted statements and it's taken till now for Obama to resolutely condemn them. It's also the spectacle of all the people in the congregation who roundly cheered when he blamed all the world's troubles on white people and when he said 9/11 was "chickens coming home to roost". Sure, Obama has made it clear he condemns those remarks and would have spoken up had he been present during them. But up to now he has said very little about the sizable congregation who were there and were very much in favor of them. That congregation was exhibiting the same kind of narrow-minded bigotry generated out of frustration as the bigotry Obama talks about in the disenfranchised areas of PA. And it's a fair perception on our part that if he only speaks out about the people affected by one wave of intolerance but not those affected by the other, Obama is condoning the bigotry he is quiet about. I realize that the pundits have framed Obama's "clinging to religion" remarks as evidence of elitism and being out of touch. But there is a deeper reality to them that will have to be addressed at some point in time. By the way, he has just apologized for those remarks as I said he would. It's not an easy message and he may not be able to get America's full confidence and attention until he's elected. But an open and honest debate on bigotry, free from the need to be politically correct, is essential if he's serious about healing the racial divide.

I agree. The scary part for me (and this is why I call him arrogant and out of touch) is he beleves it. I don't think we do agree actually. You see I do see a lot of truth in what he said. In spite of that, it was a serious political gaffe that will hurt him among independents. There are many people, white and black, who take out their frustrations in bigotry and hatred. We've seen that bigotry in the Wright tapes, and I'm not just talking about Wright himself, but also how enthusiastically the congregation embraced those sentiments. And a very similar thing is going on among whites, especially those with a stronger reason to be frustrated. Now if Obama could start a dialog about both these types of bigotry...

What about the Rev Wright situation? Did that never concern you at all?

Yes, it bothers me and up to now he's been my first choice. I definitely would not see myself in either of your two groups. Do you?

I agree that the same sentiments are as strong in black culture as white, I don't agree that Obama needs to apologize for a lecture given by someone else. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was talking about Obama apologizing for his own remarks, not Wright's. However, if he wants to talk about frustration leading to an anti-social mindset, he should be even-handed in who he singles out.

The biggest problem as I see it is in conjunction with the Wright mess. How can Obama talk about white frustration leading them to "cling to guns and religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them", while at the same time not seeing that you can say much the same thing (except for the guns part) about the congregation at the Wright church? It's a double standard that I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on. This was a bad gaffe by Obama and it will continue to hurt him until he addresses it directly, probably with an apology.

A benchmark (at least the one to which you linked) is an anecdote. Either you find them acceptable, or you don't. Bullshit. As you well know, a benchmarked test is more than just an anecdote. In fact, any kind of structured test is better than an anecdote. You may find this particular test unacceptable, fine. Provide one of your own.

You will notice that at idle, Fedora used the least power, although the difference was less than I would have expected. The other test is rather meaningless, since they don't even mention what applications are running. They only compared Windows with two *nix operating systems, a tiny fraction of what is available. Given the similarity they found between XPSP2 and Vista, I can't help but to wonder just how unscientific their admittedly unscientific testing was. Why do I get this sense of deja vu? Just as when we debated the about the influence of Muslim radicals, you pick apart my supporting documents but offer none of your own. How can you reasonably expect to have any credibility when, in your posts regarding ID and GW, you insist on having peer-reviewed studies? Forget peer-reviewed, just show me one benchmarked set of tests supporting the premise that Unix has better power consumption than Windows. And for the record, Windows != Vista. If all you have is anecdotes, I rest my case.

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research? Touché. No, I don't have any peer reviewed research supporting the assertion. I only have (multiple) anecdotal observations of significant differences in resource usage on the same or very similar machines. My observations are consistent with literally thousands of internet forum posts with people complaining about Vista's speed and high processor usage at idle. Then how come a 5 second google search brought up an actual benchmarked test, which shows just the opposite of your assertion? The difference in power consumption between the OSs is negligible at best and can even be seen to favor Windows in the linked study.

I assume from your previous posts, you're able to back up that assertion with a reference to peer-reviewed research?