Posts Made By: Forrest Heinle

Rod Kaufman said:

Anybody watch "60 Minutes" this evening? It was reported, apparently for the first time, that the US suffered a major cyber attack by an unknown foreign power in 2007. Multiple defense system computers were hacked as well as others throughout various systems in our government. "Terabytes" of information were systematically conquered and taken as spoils of war. A deliberate act of domestic terrorism visited upon America by a foreign power. Why didn't you hear about it? The Bush administration suppressed it. As explained by government officials present at the time, when things aren't going to well at home, you don't divulge that kind of thing. So the next time someone exclaims there weren't any attacks on the continental US after 9/11 while Bush was in office, you can tell them horse pucky...

I'm not saying this isn't important, because any cyber attack is a bad thing, when they actually break through.

The point i'd like to make is this: "terabytes" worth of information could be a decent amount, but without any true figure being given, that could be a whole lot less than you're trying to imply. I have several terabytes of information stored across several harddrives at home. And that's just me. That means someone could hack my PC, steal all my musical files, all my video downloads, all my gaming information, all my picture and 3d graphic files and it would fit the description of what your just described because they got "terabytes" worth of information.

I know to many that seems like a large number, but really, when you consider how much info our government probably has, terabytes is actually a small number.

Besides, what's really important here isn't HOW MUCH they took, it's WHAT they took. From your statement, i gather they didn't divulge that information, so there's no real way to know just how bad, or benign, this really was. It doesn't excuse that it happened, but lets face it, your main emphasis here isn't that we need to up our cyber security badly (which we do), it was to take a pot shot at GWB.

I can't really say i'm all that surprised. What career politician doesn't do this?? You're acting, and so is the writer of the article, as if she is setting some precedent here by being the first politician in history to bend the truth or out right lie about issues and facts.

I don't think she's much of a choice for a presidential candidate, but then again, neither was Barack Obama. He had virtually zero experience, and a horrible voting record, with a checkered past tying him to all sorts of persona non grata types yet won using the buzzword "Change" millions of times and a liberal left wing media who refused to do any fact checking. Funny how they now want to fact check Palin, isn't it?

The more things "change" the more they stay the same.

Yes yes, because God forbid we should be tough on countries known to sponsor terrorism.

Rod, if you, and other liberals like you, are so worried about these individuals without healthcare, why don't all of you get together and setup a fund to help pay for healthcare for them? If you're so full of compassion that you can't stand to see people die uninsured, pony up your disposable income and do the "right" thing.

Oh...wait...i forgot, because this ISN'T about doing the right thing, it's about forcing rich people, whom you loath and despise, to pay for what you think they should, against their will. So why don't we drop the charade of caring about uninsured, shall we? If you were really worried about it, you and all the other liberals would DO something about it on your own dime instead of trying to force others to do it for you. It's all about power and control. Nothing more, nothing less.

She's a bit off base here, it's not as if the cover showed her in a bikini, now THAT would have been rather sexist. Yes, the picture shows off her legs (rather nice, aren't they?) but perhaps that's the whole point? Unlike most politicians who end up being a good bit older by the time they get this sort of prominence and notoriety, she's young enough to still look very appealing to most men. I don't recall her trying to play up her sexuality, but it's brought up often, so it IS a part of her allure, mystique whatever you want to call it. I wonder how much the press would enjoy it if she were blonde??

That aside, i just found this article, which is very interesting, and shows just how polarizing she is. The fact that the AP would go to such lengths to fact check and discredit her book, while never doing that for others (Republican or Democrat) shows that there probably is some truth to the Palin Derangement Syndrome moniker that some have started throwing about.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/

You know, normally we're on the opposite side of just about everything, but i really agree with this sort of regulation, and not just because it will help our hobby.

There are so many business and other locations that burn their lights 24/7 when they don't need to. It creates light pollution AND wastes copious amounts of electricity. While i want to say i am surprised no one has stepped forward in the government to mention how much carbon emissions could be reduced by enacting light pollution reform, i'm not surprised at all. Why? Because for most politicians, reducing emissions really means very little to them. They really don't care one iota about carbon emissions, wasting energy or "saving" our planet. It's an agenda to run on to pick up votes so you can get elected or re-elected. It's a platform to line your pockets by capitulating to companies who are lobbying for Congress votes so they can sell their "green" alternatives. In the end, it's all about power and money. Which is funny, because that's what Dems and Libs love to throw at Republicans and conservatives that they only care about that and nothing else.

Jeff, the Babcock implication aside, i'm so glad to hear you say that. We don't agree on a lot, but i'm glad that some left leaning individuals are smart enough to realize that Jackson and Sharpton ARE the race hustlers that Limbaugh accuses them of being.

They see things SO black and white, literally, that when someone within their own race has a difference of opinion, they turn them into a veritable pariah. And for what? Because they don't agree on a few issues. Inner city blacks continue to tear each other to pieces, and yet Jackson feels it's more important to "Uncle Tom" black politicians rather then solve real issues. Racism isn't totally gone and never will be, but you aren't ever going to get ANY sympathy from me when you treat members of your own race as outcasts simply because they don't toe the party line and accept the borg like assimilation you have mandated for them.

God help me for doing this, but i'm siding with Rod on this one. You're making entirely too much out of this, David.

While i dislike just about everything Obama does, this was simply an attempt to inject a bit of humor into the occasion. Now making this sort of joke while overseeing the unloading of caskets, THAT would have been detestable. But he didn't do that, he did it in front of a crowd to make them laugh, or that's how i see it.

CNN comes up with a poll showing support for Obama? Wow, big surprise. Results that contradict other major poll sources? Another big surprise. Sorry, Rod. Can't go with you on this one.

I AM happy he's sending more troops, i just wish he would have consented to send more, and sooner.

Rod Kaufman said:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_on_re_us/iran_nuclear
It looks like the Obama administration has drawn a line in the sand and the Iranians don't seem to get it.
On the positive side, another one of Iran's top nuclear scientists reportedly went missing the other day. Looks like the Bro's have been busy again. (The boys are back in town!)(Thump, thump! splat!). So the Iranians have been pushed back a bit behind that line, giving the world a wee bit more time...

I will take a wait and see approach on this. I'm not sure Obama is going to actually backup this "line in the sand" that they've drawn. That's the problem with drawing a line. If someone crosses it, then you are FORCED to take swift action and make the consequences brutal, or else your authority becomes nil and your power diminishes to nothing as people start believing you don't have the guts to back up your words. We shall see where this goes. It was predictable that Iran would have this reaction, the question is, will Obama have the predictable reaction of more words after the deadline has been reached, or will there actually be action?

As to the scientist disappearing...i would be more willing to believe the Israeli's had something to do with that then us. Then again, one never ever knows what goes on behind closed doors. Obama could very easily be setting himself up as a verbal blow hard to the media and Iran while behind the doors telling the "boys" to get ready to put on a show. Misdirection IS a primary military tactic, after all. Make everyone think you're all talk and no walk so when you start walking, everyone is shocked, including the enemies you're walking over.

I won't hold my breath, but we'll see.