Scion Of Faith

Pop Quiz! Who said this? "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." Or this? "I don't know where he is. I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Or this? "Deep in my heart I know the man's on the run, if he's alive at all...I just don't spend much time on it, really, to be honest with you." And who disbanded the CIA unit dedicated to finding bin Laden? Hint: It wasn't Bill Clinton.

Copied and pasted from a board i am a member on As most of us are aware, Bill Clinton this last Sunday did an interview on FOX. We had a big thread about it. In the interview, a fair amount of monologue (or "ranting", as you like) on Clinton's part was dedicated to the situation in Somalia, which is currently one of the largest talking points about how Clinton is responsible for Bin Laden's 9/11 attacks. Clinton claims it isn't true. He claims that after Black Hawk Down, he was pressured to leave Somalia immediately, and he was the one who wanted to stay. This claim was met with skepticism yesterday, but I found it hard to believe he'd have the stones to say that if there wasn't any truth to it, so I went digging. The record says he's right, and not just because of Representative Dornan's comments which DR found yesterday. (Referenced in a Salon article here). GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993 I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993 Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home. GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993 I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993: All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December. But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now. President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . . If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . . So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . . So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right. Okay then. So Clinton was NOT the one who wanted to "cut and run" from Somalia; indeed, he argued against those who did. Ironically, thanks to FOX, the record for such is now readily sourced. So, seeing as how our retreat from Somalia is now the PRIMARY talking point for how Bin Laden became emboldened to carry out the 9/11 attacks, somebody explain to me how faulting Clinton for it works out again?

I love this song by Demon Hunter a Christian Metal band -Undying- Ever since the day that I was made I?ve been deciding the end And I was made of wood and stone that won?t diminish or burn So when the heavy hand of death is here to take me away I?ll be the solid grip of time, forever holding my stay Nobody ever made a force that took a beating like me I call the earth and every scum to come and try to fight me Cus when I made the choice to live beyond the dirt that we tread I felt the curse of mortal limit fall before it was said Pre-chorus: When this season ends? Chorus: One final heart-break And blinding lights will guide our way Free us of blood stains They will call us by our name Undying Tearing through these days I find the tolerance to strive and push on I know what lies beyond this life for me is already won No one can take away the blood that covers over my fall Without the blood of perfect life I know I?m nothing at all So now I reign forever hallowed in eternity?s hand No man can shake me from the everlasting ground that I stand (Pre-chorus) (Chorus) We are the ones who will still remain when all is laid to waste We are the ones who, when angels cry, will see them face to face We are the ones (Pre-Chorus) (Chorus) Undying So now i am considering my next tattoo any suggestion?

from Sean Corfields site

ripped from the wikipedia article on design patterns. I wa s doing some reading trying to stay up to date on cfmx communities buzz words. whatcha think design patterns just another name for bad design? The concept of design patterns has been criticized by some in the field of computer science. [edit] Targets the wrong problem The need for patterns results from using computer languages or techniques with insufficient abstraction ability. Under ideal factoring, a concept should not be copied, but merely referenced. But if something is referenced instead of copied, then there is no "pattern" to label and catalog. Paul Graham writes in the essay Revenge of the Nerds[3]. This practice is not only common, but institutionalized. For example, in the OO world you hear a good deal about "patterns". I wonder if these patterns are not sometimes evidence of case (c), the human compiler, at work. When I see patterns in my programs, I consider it a sign of trouble. The shape of a program should reflect only the problem it needs to solve. Any other regularity in the code is a sign, to me at least, that I'm using abstractions that aren't powerful enough? often that I'm generating by hand the expansions of some macro that I need to write. Peter Norvig provides a similar argument - he demonstrates that 16 out of the 23 patterns in the Design Patterns book (which is primarily focused on C++) are simplified or eliminated (via direct language support) in Lisp or Dylan[4]. Further arguments along this line are discussed on Portland Pattern Repository's wiki.[5][6] [edit] Lacks formal foundations The study of design patterns has been excessively ad hoc, and some have argued that the concept sorely needs to be put on a more formal footing. At OOPSLA 1999, the Gang of Four were (with their full cooperation) subjected to a show trial[7], in which they were "charged" with numerous crimes against computer science. They were "convicted" by 2/3 of the "jurors" who attended the trial[8]. [edit] Leads to inefficient solutions The idea of a design pattern is an attempt to standardize what are already accepted best practices. In principle this might appear to be beneficial, but in practice it often results in the unnecessary duplication of code. It is almost always a more efficient solution to use a well-factored implementation rather than a "just barely good enough" design pattern.[citation needed] [edit] Does not differ significantly from other abstractions Some authors allege that design patterns don't differ significantly from other forms of abstraction[9], and that the use of new terminology (borrowed from the architecture community) to describe existing phenomena in the field of programming is unnecessary. The Model-View-Controller paradigm is touted as an example of a "pattern" which predates the concept of "design patterns" by several years.[10] It is further argued by some that the primary contribution of the Design Patterns community (and the Gang of Four book) was the use of Alexandar's pattern language as a form of documentation; a practice which is often ignored in the literature. [citation needed]