Yaktivistdotcom

The HP website says "internet connection required" but mini netbooks seem to have enough resources to hold quite a few applications that can be used offline. Could you use one to edit an html page, edit photos, and then upload the files to a server using FTP or the hosting company's control panel?

http://www.lifenews.com/state4410.html

Will it?

Sit silently, Son, so Stanacio Squeezley's special story shall sound sensible. Stanacio Squeezley served Santa's Sentry Service superbly starting September 7th, 1777. Santa's steadfast sentry, Stanacio Squeezley, stalwartly secured Santa's shop 16 snowy seasons.

Standing stiffly straight, Sentry Squeezley saluted superiors so sharply Stanacio's sanest superior, Sargent Spiffy, suggested Santa's Supreme Sentry select Squeezley Special Saluting Sargent, saying "Should sloppy saluters study Squeezley's splendid saluting style, surely such substandard saluters shall salute similarly, Sir." Santa's Supreme Sentry surmised Spiffy's suggestion seemed sensible, so Santa's Supreme Sentry selected Stanacio Squeezley Special Saluting Sargent.

Subsequently, substandard saluters started studying Sargent Squeezley's splendid saluting style. Some sloppy saluters started saluting satisfactorily. Stanacio's sharpest saluting students significantly surpassed Santa's Sentry Service's strictest saluting standards. Stanacio's superiors seemed satisfied. Stanacio's special sargent status seemed secure.

Sadly, Stanacio's silliest saluting student, Sentry Slovenly, saluted Stanacio's strictest superior, Sargent Stern, sloppily.

Stern summoned Sargent Squeezley. Sargent Stern screeched, "Squeezley, Sentinel Slovenly still salutes sloppily!"

Stern's shouting stunned Stanacio. Stanacio stammered, "s s s sorry sir!"

Stern started stamping severely; Stanacio started shaking.

Stern seethed; Squeezley shuddered.

Sorriness seldom satisfied Stern. So, Stern suggested Santa's Supreme Sentry sever Stanacio's stipend, saying "Sir, Squeezley should stop serving Santa's Sentinel Service since some sentinels still salute sloppily."

Santa's Supreme Sentry sorrowfully said Stern's suggestion seemed sensible. Santa's Supreme Sentry suspended Stanacio saying "sorry, Sargent." Sure, scrapping Squeezley's services seemed sane; still, severing Squeezley's stipend significantly saddened Santa's Supreme Sentry. Since Santa's senior sentinels sensed Stanacio served Santa sincerely, several sentinels suggested Stanacio should still serve Santa somehow.

Santa's sentinels' sadness subsequently softened Sargent Stern's severe scorn. Seeking solace, Stern suggested Stanacio should serve Santa shoveling snow. "Stanacio should sand slippery sidewalks," Stern said.

So, Stanacio shoveled Santa's sidewalks several snowy seasons. Santa's sidewalks stayed safely sanded.

Snowless sidewalks satisfied Santa significantly. "Such sincere service should secure Stanacio special status," Santa stated.

Some subsequent stormy sunday squalls started scattering sidewalk sand. Swirlling sand scratched Santa's shiny sled. Santa's smartest servant saw Stanacio swiftly shelter Santa's sled. Said servant saw Stanacio shine Santa's sled so Santa's sled sparkled!

Santa's smartest servant suggested Santa select Stanacio Squeezley Special Sled Shiner.

"Stupendous suggestion," Santa shouted!

Soon Santa's sled shined spectacularly! Such shinyness startled Santa's sentinels, sending sentinels' spirits soaring! Slouchy sentinels started standing straighter. Sloppy sentinels started starching saggy slacks. Substandard saluters started saluting sharply. Sentinel Slovenly soon started saluting satisfactorily.

Santa seemed substantially satisfied.

Satisfying Santa started Stanacio Squeezley savoring success.

Copyright 2008 by Bernie Bacon.

I have seen women wrapped in towels and it would take some "additional effort" to determine that they were wearing nothing else. I think the allegation says more about the accusers than about Palin.

I hope Palin and McCain quickly stop their supporters from fighting among themselves and get back to the task of reforming the GOP. As a 3rd party voter, I didn't vote for them, but a two party system is limiting enough; let's not go to a 1 party system. We have that in MA and it is not all joy here.

She didn't get any farther than US Rep. Shirley Chisholm did in seeking the Democratic Nomination in the 70's. A few folks here seem to think no woman has ever tried to win the GOP Nomination, so I wanted to let you know that. I don't think either party has a monopoly on sexism.

I can understand if some folks think former US Rep Cynthia McKinney was right in leaving the Democrats and running for President as an independent, and that some people think Clinton should do the same. They both have more experience than Obama but have received less support from their party or the media. I don't know how much sexism has to do with it, but it is understandable that it may seem that way to them or their supporters.

Voting for McCain would be more likely to defeat Obama so Hillary can run in 2012, but would Hillary be resented as the cause of defeat or be in a position to say "I told you so?"

Since McKinney, like Clinton, has more experience in Congress than Obama, votes for her could be protests against what some say is the media and Democratic Party's unfair treatment of women candidates.

I don't see any sense in not voting at all, as that gives no one any idea of what you want; it just makes you seem apathetic or happy with the system as it is.

My guess is most "Clinton Supporters Count Too" advocates will end up voting for Obama if he is the nominee after Obama uses his vast campaign funds to warn voters about McCain's positions that Clinton fans won't like.

What do you think?

What Percent will think she is a good second choice in spite of gaining the nomination thorugh super delegates and vote for her anyway? _______

What percent will see such a great difference between her and McCain that they will cast a vote for her out of fear? ______

What percent will just stay home? _____

What percentage will vote for Nader or former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney out of protest?

What percentage will vote for McCain because he would be their second choice? ____

What percentage will vote for McCain just to keep Clinton from winning? ____

Check out McKinney's campaign: http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

It is unfair that so many folks think Obama surely agrees with Wright on political issues while not assuming liberal Catholic politicians agree with their pastors on gay rights and abortion. Never the less, would Wright be truer to his own beliefs and actually help Obama by switching his support to McKinney (see link below for more about former congresswoman McKinney's 3rd party campaign)?

I'm not sure Wright agrees with McKinney more on the issues, but I get that impression from my limited info about them.

Would he cost Obama more votes by endorsing Cynthia McKinney, or help Obama keep more votes by distancing himself from Obama?

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

They need a new argument that isn't too negative if they want to survive past tuesday. Former congresswoman and Green Presidential Candidate McKinney has more experience in Congress than Obama, supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of Bush. Nader has similar views and lots of name recognition on the left.

Both Clinton and Obama seem to think (probably correctly) that Nader and McKinney won't take a significant number of votes from the Democratic Party candidate. But could Clinton argue that they would take more votes away from Obama than Clinton in the general election, and therefore increase the risk of losing another close contest?

Is there time to conduct a poll of voters that is carefully worded to produce a result that indicates Obama would lose more votes to Nader & McKinney and then use it as a scare tactic that isn't negative against Obama?

which Democrat would McKinney and Nader take more votes from?

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Theory 1: The Democrats victory didn't really mean voters wanted immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment, both of which McKinney supports and Lieberman opposes. That's why funding wasn't cut off and Obama & Clinton don't promise immediate withdrawal; focus groups told them voters want fewer deaths, not withdrawal.

Theory 2: Voters do want immediate withdrawal and impeachment and McKinney was railroaded out of the Democratic nomination and thus unable to keep her congressional seat. She should be a contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination, rather than seeking a third party Presidential nomination (see link below). When voters learn there is a candidate (her) with more time in Congress than Obama and who supports impeachment and immediate withdrawal voters will give her more votes than a third party candidate has received since '88.

Neither theory seems exactly right to me; any better ones?

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

Cynthia McKinney served a few terms in congress and supported immediate withdrawal from iraq and impeachment. If those are the things all those voters really wanted in '06, why isn't she still in Congress and a contender for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination instead of seeking a third party nomination? Why did Clinton and Obama decide not to support immediate withdrawal or impeachment unless they learned through polling and focus groups that that wasn't what the voters were demanding.

Could it be that they learned that voters really wanted a war policy that results in fewer deaths and more success and were more angry at Bush's tactical mistakes than his decision to oust Saddam?

If voters really agreed with McKinney, will she be a factor in the this years Presidential election? When will she start to get noticed?

see http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ for more info.

She is seeking the Green Nomination and wants an immediate US pull out from Iraq and supported impeachment before losing her seat in Congress.

I doubt there are many agreements between her and Congressman Paul other than their opposition to the war, but check her out at http://www.runcynthiarun.org/ and see if she is your second choice before answering.

Both Cynthia McKinney, who served as many years in congress as Clinton, and Nader are seeking the Green Party nomination. If they combine forces and run as a ticket, would that take as many votes from Clinton (or even Obama) as a far right revolt against McCain or Romney will take from the GOP?

Sure, Nader is considered old news to most folks, but he is well known and still commands attention from the press. McKinney has been very controversial also, and might grab headlines and support from those who want American troops ordered out of Iraq the instant the next President is sworn in (even Obama doesn't promise that).

If a McKinney/Nader Green ticket is blamed for a GOP victory in November, do you think the Democrats would finally get behind run-off elections? You'd think the Bush win in Florida in 2000 would have done that already, but maybe this time?

I'm probably not going to vote for her, but if you want more info, here's the link.

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

This might seem strange if you think that only religious folks are prolife. I got an unexpected response to my yahoo group ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternative... ) in which I hope to share ideas with people who feel the unborn are worth the effort of developing nonlethal pregnancy termination technology and their mothers are worth the effort of providing a better solution than killing their unborn. I figured any religious arguments would be from those who think women should have to carry a pregnancy full term because they believe that's what God decided.

Instead the only religious argument I got was from someone who says the soul doesn't enter the body until birth when God breaths the breath of life into the person.

I need an assist from any secular prolifer who can respond in the same polite/friendly tone the religious prochoicer used . Thanks for any help you can offer.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nonlethalalternative...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

Sad to see someone I respect as much as Carter overstate his anti-war case. His comments fail to aknowledge the accomplishments of the anti-Vietnam War movement. Here are examples of policy changes brought on at least partly by awareness raised by anti-war activists in 60's & 70's:

1) In Vietnam whole villages were carpet bombed with napalm to get a few vietcong. In Iraq, precision bombing of one house is used to target enemy leaders.

2) In Vietnam the government was replaced whenever it disagreed with us. In Iraq, leaders have ties to people who have shot at our soldiers, and those elected were not Bush's first choice. Few believed elections were fair in Vietnam; even critics admit the Iraq elections were fair.

3) Anti American demonstrations here and abroad were massive during Vietnam compared to today.

I'd never vote for Bush (I almost voted for carter in '80), but the Johnson & Nixon policies in Vietnam were worse.

bernie,

http://www.yaktivist.com/

In over 100 yr. only Bush Sr. was elected Pres. WHILE SERVING as VP (he changed positions on issues he had disagreed with Reagan on like "voodoo economics".) Other VPs who became President did so due to death of the prior Pres. (Truman and LBJ for example) or lost for Pres. & came back years later (Nixon lost in '60 & won in '68 for example ... something for Gore to think about.)

What happens when a Presidential nominee from one faction of a party broadens his/her base by choosing a VP from another faction? Seems to me the VP's faction is actually sacrificing its interests rather than being rewarded for party loyalty. By the time the VP is ready to run for Pres., he has supported the President's policies for 8 years, so no one believes him when he campaigns for President on his own beliefs that differ from the President's.

Should Obama fans risk that if Clinton is nominated, or vote for the Green Party Nominee or Joe Schriner (www.voteforjoe.com) in '08 & save obama for 2012?

Abortion has been legal nationwide for 33+ years. Is it rational to figure that prochoice liberals have reduced their political clout over those years by killing a relatively high percentage of thier unborn compared to the religious right which raised a higer percentage of their unborn to be voting members of the religious right?

Please check out www.consistent-life.org . Many polls have shown that prolifers are more likely to oppose capital punishment than the population in general. The fact that the media pays attention to mostly right wing prolifers does not mean that liberal prolifers don't exist. You may note that the consistent ethic organization is an umbrella group, meaning they are composed of many groups.