Teh Ricer Civic!

Vista 32bit can theoretically handle 4gigs, but its a pain in the ass to make it work right. XP is likely the same. Vista 64bit and XP 64bit of course can handle what is essentially infinite ram (given today technology its impossible to get that much ram in a PC).

Windows ME crashed on me AT LEAST once a day, even after reformatting. XP usually would go at least a month before it crashed on me. Vista has only crashed on me 4 times in the last year, but i still dont like it better than XP. It was well accepted fact that Windows 98SE was infinitely superior in every way shape and form than Windows ME, there was very very little that ME could do better than 98SE.

Did a bit of updating to my Vote McCain thing.

WINDOWS ME (roughly 2x as worse as Vista)

It can't be, if it was Obama would not have gotten nearly as many votes.

Well thats just... weird.

What charges were they arrested on??? was the graveyard private property?

Vote for McCain. Why? Because as he has grown older he has seen the need to put others before himself. As a result he will probably be more inclined to disregard his own party in order to get things done because what the hell, he probably wont have to run for re-election (and hell if he ends up being really popular he can probably just run as an independent and still win if the republicans wont have him on a ticket). Think of your grandparents, in their old age they probably don't spend a whole lot or do too much, they end up thinking of their families more and helping them out. Well think of McCain as this nations grandfather, a man who will think of other before himself. His stance on the surge proves this, everyone said this would kill any chances he had of being a presidential nominee, that he would be committing political suicide by backing such an unpopular thing. But here we are now, the Surge has for all intents and purposes been an success. It is through this that i believe McCain will truly put the interests of our nation before any personal or Republican interest of his own. He is a strong supporter of Capitalism and deregulation, he has also seen how deregulation can go wrong and i believe McCain is the type who learns from him mistakes, so you can expect him to walk the fine line between economic freedom and government regulations. McCain's ideas for educational reform seem like they may actually have some merit behind them. McCain's ideas would foster an air of competition between schools, his proponetism of school vouchers is rather odd cause thats usually against republican stance on that issue, however the way he has portrayed it as being a tool to increase overall educational value does seem like it may very well prove to be effective. This seems to be a better plan than has been carried out under the last 2 presidencies, which is essentially just to keep throwing money at the education system which, since this is still a problem, clearly has not worked. McCain has said that he would install constructionist judges into the supreme court. These selections are vital if we wish to remain being ruled under our constitution. McCain would offer plenty of experience in the realm of foreign relations. Despite how the media has portrayed him, he is not a warmonger. He will ensure that we leave Iraq honorably and victoriously. I HIGHLY doubt he would seek a war with Iran unilaterally. He would likely considerably step up efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and to go after Osama through somewhat more legal means than just barging into Pakistan uninvited. McCain has seen war, he knows how devastating it is to both soldiers and their families. He will work to ensure that our military remains the strongest in the world, able to confront any problem that is needed. This military, of course, never actually needs to see conflict, but the mere presence of it is enough to have leverage in foreign policy. McCain brings to the presidency the ability to work between parties. Now you may say that his record when it comes to passing bills that he has worked with democrats with is poor, well that is true, but the legislature was also dominated by Republicans at that time who would have nothing to do with anything that wasn't strictly on their agenda. McCain will take into consideration good ideas from both Democrats, Republicans and Independents. McCain may not be an economic genius, but he did point out 2 or so years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would cause havoc on the financial industry if regulations weren't enforced and if nothing was done about them. Well here we are 2 years later with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac on the taxpayers dime, maybe someone should have listened to the committee he was on. Additionally McCains tax plan would pave the way to increased investing, something that will be greatly needed in the upcoming months and years. Lower tax rates on capital investments equals more people investing. Of course, this investing needs to be carefully monitored least we end up with another housing/energy bubble. McCain's tax cuts will promote increased job growth as those with money tend to be the ones that spearhead new businesses. In 1980, when the top tax bracket was 70%, the top 1% of Americans contributed a mere 20% of our governments total revenue. Now that same top 1% contributes 60% of our governments total revenue with a top tax bracket of 39% i believe. Although in all honestly, i cant see McCain giving any more tax cuts, he will probably just re-instate the Bush tax cuts in order to start lowering the debt. Since Alternative energy and sustainable fuels seems to be a hot topic this year, McCain is rather odd in that he is a republican that would like to preserve our planet, i wouldn't say he is so much an environmentalist as he is a naturalist. He, like Obama, calls for a Cap and trade system to reduce our emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and a further goal of 60% below 1990 emissions by 2050. McCain is an "all of the above" type when it comes to energy, he is a supporter of Nuclear energy as we transition ourselves (or perhaps develop better nuclear power) to a sustainable, clean energy system. Additionally, McCain has promised to increase government investment into creating Clean Coal power plants, while they may not be quite as clean as other alternative energy types, they will help to preserve America's use of our most abundant energy source in a clean and somewhat environmentally fashion. Finally, McCain is committed to the free market. Although he has seen first hand the problems that deregulation can cause, he is still committed to creating an efficient marketplace with the minimum possible regulations in order to protect America's citizens. McCain realizes that government bailouts does nothing but encourage inefficient business practices (although it has come to my attention that he apparently supports giving the Big 3 loans??) and as such does not believe that the government should be bailing out any more failed financial systems. McCain believes that Americans should be more active within our nation, whether that means community service, joining the army, peace core, etc. However, he believes that these programs should be created by the citizenry as private insitutions, because anything the government can do, the private sector can likely do better. As such he would help foster the creation of these programs, but not as a direct government program. These would be programs that are driven by volunteers and private donations, not programs that are created by coercing citizens to pay for them (in the form of tax dollars). Country First. There you go Satty, a purely positive post on what i find some of McCains strong points. I could probably come up with more, but seeing as how this is basically the first positive post in this entire thread (that directly related to one of the candidates) i find this a sufficient start.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ob...nfanticide.html Eh its sorta vague, but its there. and yes, i did screw up describing the bill.

Interesting sentiment. If Kerry had won, i'm certain we would have lost. But i believe were on track to fully turn over control to the Iraqi government. I don't know how you define victory, but i would consider that to be a success. Although i suppose you could argue that republicans poorly handled the Vietnam war when Nixon pulled us out of it... And yes, FDR did try to pack the court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing In fact, if this had succeeded, we would be likely be living in a Socialistic society rather than a capitalistic one, not terribly unlike what Obama wants.

Oh i agree with you that on a utilitarian level the far right wing makes no sense either, but there is still room for debate in between. However, Obama takes a very far left view of it, as he has routinely signed bills that do NOT protect the lives of aborted babies who are aborted alive. Since the baby is out of the body and is technically viable, it should theoretically constitute a viable human being, however obama has supported bills that deny these babies medical treatment and are thus left to die. So, we have 2 extremes (granted obama is no where near as extreme as the aforementioned blogger).

% of GDP is whats important, as it decides how easily it can be refinanced and carried forward (charts that just show the monetary amounts are completely worthless because there's more money floating around now than 5 years ago). a government with a good GDP can, in theory, roll over its debt infinitely. The theory is similar to if you have 100 friends. You go to friend A and ask if you can borrow $5, he lends it to you. A week later you ask friend B if you can borrow $5, you use that $5 to repay friend A. A week after that you go to friend C and ask to borrow $5 which you use to repay friend B and so on. Eventually you can go back to Friend A and borrow another $5 in order to repay your 100th friend and the cycle continues. Of course in real life the government has to pay interest on this borrowing. But yes, reducing it is good because thats less taxpayer money that's tied up in interest costs. And as the war cools off and as spending on the war falls, we should begin to see reductions in the deficit so long as we dont go starting another war regardless of who is president. Additionally, charts that show TOTAL debt, which includes medicare etc, are rather unfair to look at too because of the different structural makeup of our society now. Those old Depression era programs are no longer sustainable in their current forms and contribute to skyrocketing debt.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/p...nd-right-to.htm left wing bloggers confound me (actually its probably just this guy and not all the rest of the lefties). According to this guy/girl (whatever didnt look at the name) it is a mothers moral obligation to abort a fetus that has downs syndrome. Well you know what? its the governments moral obligation to kill all the homeless people, to kill hippies that dont contribute to the economy, and to kill people when they break the law. Nice logic there buddy. I hope this isn't a sentiment that is shared by too many people (especially since its essentially Hitlers idea).

Yawn: this presidential race only has 2 important issues. 1. The national debt, which neither candidate effectively has a solution to (McCain cuts taxes with little to no reduction in government spending). Obama moderately increases revenue through taxes, somewhat stifles the economy, and vastly increases government spending. 2. Enforcing the constitution. Neither candidate has very good records when it comes to the first amendment when it comes to the patriot act, and obama is of course good at attempting to keep people who write negative books about him off of radiowaves, and im quite sure that the McCain camp has done a few things in violation of the 1st amendment too. However, Obama is far more prone to appoint supreme court judges who are not constructionists. Point 2 is actually why i had made the gun right argument. Because in Heller, the winning opinion only barely won, and the reason they stated for choosing it was wrong. The dissenting opinion, MISSTATES history in decisions. But the main point is, that the dissenting opinion obviously has no regard for the constitution the case, while controversial for sure, should have EASILY passed in the supreme court as it deals with an issue thats STATED rather clearly in the document... and that sort of behavior from the supreme court scares me far more than what a president can do by himself. And i know your probably thinking, well what about abortion? but the point is abortion isn't something that's actually stated in the constitution and thus is at the very least up for debate. I leave out the economy because honestly regardless of whoever is president, the economy will drag itself out of this and im sure they will slap a few regulations on it, spin off the national holdings as quickly as possible and hope it never happens again like they always do.

found this on another board Not sure if its true or not, but if it is that's pretty bad to lie about something like that.

Why are both candidates still talking about soaring energy costs? They are hardly soaring, they are tumbling. We've actually had DEFLATION through last quarter of -0.1% thanks to the falling costs of energy. As it pertains to the economy, it is beneficial for lenders and if this trend continues it will greatly help our financial institutions get back on track. HOWEVER, its terrible for borrowers. Its bad for our government in our efforts to reduce debts (although it may become possible to refinance our debt to lower interest rates). The economy will correct itself in time as it always does. Deflation should help to contribute to a strengthening of the dollar. All in all we have decent conditions for an economic recovery in my opinion. Perhaps this time around we can do something novel like keeping very tight controls on money supply to keep inflation very low.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_..._clinton_backer Top hillary fundraiser throws her support behing McCain.

Those crazy brits crack me up. Hey thanks curchill for somehow managing to stave off Germany. You were the only man who was able to keep his European country safe from Germany. But uh, the wars over so were voting you out of office. GEE talk about gratitude.

Well you know, Obama is also a proponent of attacking Al Quaeda in Pakistan without their governments permission. Now Bush has gone along and done just this, and now we face a Pakistani army that has shoot on sight orders on US troops. So clearly Obama is no better than Bush in making bad foreign policy decisions

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/posto...awal_129150.htm Apparently Obama was trying to delay our troops withdrawal from Iraq. Not sure why, seems odd.

Yeah but a lot of the regulations do jack for crime as a total (perhaps slightly for gun related crimes, but given that criminals don't usually follow regulations...). The real solutions are solving the problems behind the crimes in the first place. Its like if you have an emo kid, they will cut themselves with a knife, so you take the knife away, but they will just find other things to cut themselves with. IMO underlying problems are the problem, not things on the surface.

Then why am i always reading about the US not recycling its nuclear fuels? Did we seriously invent it, and then ignore it and sell the technology off to France?

speaking of uranium, we need to go over to France and buy/copy/steal their nuclear fuel recycling abilities. Those guys recycle 90% of their nuclear fuel! Thats a hell of a lot better than what we do with our waste (which is essentially non recycled and just buried). I dont know if its related to the fact that they have more advanced reactors or what, but that's something we seriously need to invest in as we switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy. And for the record, if someone comes up with a very potent alternative energy (such as 99% efficiency Solar panels) then i would be 100% behind eliminating nuclear power. Ive read that given current known supplies at current consumption levels, we have enough fuel for 100 years. They believe there is about 2x what is currently known that exists. With 90% recycling of the materials that dramatically increases the longevity of this fuel source. Additionally, Thorium is even more abundant than Uranium and can be used to create viable reactor fuel, although at this time it is rather cost prohibitive but it adds to the fuel reserves we have for this technology as we establish other sources of power. Of course, waste management is definitely the hallmark problem of this energy source, which is why im all for eliminating it once other energies are able to completely satisfy our needs.

So as i casually peruse the US constitution, i found a few interesting things. Article I (powers of the legislative branch) Section 8: So the legislative branch is responsible for the militia (what is now the National Guard). This is established in our Constitution. Article II (presidential powers) Section 2: The president, as commander in chief, obviously can call upon these people (once again national guard) OR in times of war during a draft, he can call upon the great unorganized militia (aka draft). And finally, the Second Amendment: Now, since the creating of the militias is defined by the Constitution itself the second Amendment would seem rather repetitive and thus useless to your typical anti-gun person. However, since it IS defined in the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment DOES exist, one could only logically conclude that they were referring to individuals rights to bear arms. As such, the first half of the sentance can basically be ignored since that part is already covered in the Constitution. Therefore the only logical way to read the 2nd Amendment in this context is to believe that the government cannot infringe upon their right to either keep firearms (which Heller v. DC provides for), but also to bear them which suggests open carry and concealed carry rights. Of course this is all within reason, a convicted felon or other convicted criminal is stripped of their rights upon being found guilty (as they have breached the social contract) as such, by my interpretation of it, it is fully constitutional for these people to have their right to keep and bear arms deprived. However, to deprive law abiding citizens of this right is unconstitutional by this reading of the Amendment. There is no good reason for me to post it, but I'm interested in how good my argumentative skills are when it comes to things like this. So feel free to harshly criticize me if you want

Well a stronger dollar will help through rough economic times. It makes all that Chineese made junk at Wal*Mart more affordable. on the other hand its bad for our exports.