Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, I can't let this one go. You are so full of shit it's amazing.

EVERY SINGLE Scandanavian "socialist" nation, is, once again this year, in the top ten as regards such minor factors as:

per capita income
GDP
"standard of living"
life expectancy

You know, minor things like that. The U.S., if you're curious, is number 2 on the list. The "godless commie" state of Finland is number 1.

Plus the chicks there are totally hot. Not that you would or will ever know.

Thankfully, your idiotic way of thinking is fading into history, although not quickly enough, my clueless friend. Good luck with the education.

Every single one of you needs to see the movie Network. Even though it was made in 1976, the movie grows in relevance every day. The plot is about a news anchor who is fired for sinking rating and who is exploited for ratings by his network after he suffers from a mental breakdown. It is about the way that news organizations pander to the lowest forms of thrill-seeking. Howard Beale, the anchor turned madman prophet, is given a show on which he rails against the sickness of his times -- ALL of which is still relevant today. The best soliloquy of the entire movie is all about this:

"You people and sixty-two million other Americans are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books. Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome, god-damned force in the whole godless world. And woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people and that's why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communication Corporation of America. There's a new chairman of the board, a man called Frank Hackett sitting in Mr. Ruddy's office on the 20th floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what s--t will be peddled for truth on this network.

So, you listen to me! Listen to me! Television is not the truth. Television is a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, story tellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business. So if you want the truth, go to your God, go to your gurus, go to yourselves because that's the only place you're ever gonna find any real truth. But man, you're never gonna get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We like like hell! We'll tell you that Kojack always gets the killer, and nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker's house. And no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry. Just look at your watch - at the end of the hour, he's gonna win. We'll tell you any s--t you want to hear. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds - we're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube.

This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!

What makes the Daily Show so good is that they're honest about what kind of show they are. It's the "real" news sites that are too disingenuous to admit that they've made "Network" a reality.

The problem with "In GOD we trust" and "Under GOD" to me is both of those were added by McCarthyism to keep "godless commies" for going to schools and using money (and workes as well as raping a virgin cures AIDS). There is no spirituality or faith involved in money or the pledge. We need to finish dismantling the 1950's era crap that jams up our lives.

Could there not be a slightly more intelligent headline for it than "Voting against the citizens of the 8th district"? It's like they take personal affront at the outrage that is potential traveling to Cuba, though I bet most of them would gladly accept a few cigars if no one was looking. The whole website is just ridiculous, with a lot of silly claims.

So what if Fidel's mad as a hatter, the rest of Cuba seems nice enough. Say, here's an idea - why don't Bush just invade the place and get it over with? After all, there's a bunch of really dangerous terrorists there (they are all at this terrorist camp called Camp Delta and they're even color-coded orange for easy detection by US troops) - just send in the 101st Airborne and sweep the place clean of the godless terrorist commies.

And hey, I just found the reason for the travel ban: Full story at the Register. :-)

> It is not just about individual people it's also about what's best for society as a whole.

Doesn't that just sum up the differences between Democracy and Socialism? I live in the U.S., a represenative republic passed off as a democracy. So individuals' freedoms are supposed to take precedent over socialist ideals. Before you claim that that statement legitimizes murder, the victim has his right to freedom as well -- free to live, to live without being physically attacked.

You even have the right to never be offended, but to exercise it, you must never interact with anyone in any way. But if you choose to go out into the world, you do not have the right to remain unoffended -- I have the right to call your notion of morality wacky and heavyhanded. You have the right to call me a godless sinner condemned to hell. You don't have the right to tell me what I can & cannot do, unless it directly harms another person.

Claiming that pornography affects you mentally & can cause you to lash out at someone or get divorced is complete baloney. If someone is married & still feels the need to look at porn 24/7, they had other problems to begin with & probably weren't ready for marriage.

I live in a democracy so that my personal rights come first. If I wanted everyone else to worry about me & make laws based on what politicians think at the moment would benefit society, I would move to a socialist state. I don't want that. Some do. Good for them.

> I'm certain your not interested in my crazy Christian notions about morality

If your opinion is that your decision of what constitutes morality should be forcefully imposed on me, then no, I don't. That's the craziest thing of all. Absolute morality does not exist in any form other than your God. I believe God is fiction, and therefore does not exist at all. I have to live and let you live with the belief that there is. What gives you the right to say that I can't live without? I know you didn't claim that directly, but that's generally the idea behind "crazy Christian notions about morality" and trying to make them law.

Christians feel that we are the minority because our rights are being eroded away by minority interest groups.

Our basic Constitutional rights are being stripped away for sake of coddling minority interest groups due to political correctness.

Unfounded assertion

This country was founded on God-believing values and Christian values,

Unfounded assertion

The Constitution states specifically that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]"

Yep

yet we cannot legally pray in school, we cannot share our faith in schools or at work,

Bullshit, you can pray at school. What you can't do is force prayer to be part of the agenda at school, or have the school lead the prayers such that all students are unwilling participants, or have prayer be part of the curriculum. You're being dishonest, the constitution prohibits actions which tend to establish religion. Prayer-as-curriculum tends to establish religion. You can put your head down and pray at your desk, or you and the others of the deluded majority can get together and speak in tongues during down-time during the day. No one is stopping you for the most part, liar.

abortions are legally permitted

WTF does this have to do with your rights being eroded?

many devient sexual behaviors is now legally permissive

Other people are allowed to do things that they want to do, yet this erodes your rights? LOL you selfish lying deluded fuck. HAND.

Yes it does qualify in the case of the pledge. If you read the writings of the founding fathers it becomes obvious that many of them - specifically the ones that got the 1st amendment included in the constitution - did not want any preference to be shown to one religion over another when it comes to creating and enforcing laws. "Under God" was added to the pledge specifically because Congress wanted to show those godless commies that we were a Christian nation. At that point the pledge changed from being just about loyalty to country to being also about faith in a particular god, one that you may not believe in. It didn't help that children in public schools were forced to say the pledge every day up until the 1970's, if I remember correctly, when the SCOTUS ruled that such practice violated the childrens' 1st amendment rights.

The phrase on the currency is obviously a different matter, though, since using the money for transactions does not imply a faith in any god.

Having said all of that, as a Christian, I'm not particularly torn up about the phrase in the pledge, on the money, or whatever. But judging these things by the principles that our country was founded on I can see why they are wrong.

Is America safer now? Heck yes.

Is America safer now? Hell no.

This unjustified war is going to be a rallying cry for countless jihads and actions against the U.S. for generations to come. These are people that became super pissed when the president used the word crusade to describe U.S. intent in Iraq.

Using this terminology (either through incompetence or stupidity) set the tone for this whole war in Iraq. The middle eastern people do not easily forget godless infidels (to their eyes) invading their holy lands.

Arabs not being able to handle democracy

While Bush supporters try to twist this into a racist card, the simple reality is that you can't walk into an oppressed land and drop in a crate of democracy and expect it to take (especially in a place surrounded by countries that really want to see freedom fail, and a society and religion that has a historical precedent of assigning leadership [government] roles to religious figures). Historically oppressed people are basically pushovers, and the moment the chance comes up a corrupt government will sit on them and a democracy becomes a dictatorship. We're seeing that happen in Russia. It is brutally idealistic to think that democracy can be seeded so easily.

noone (and certianly not Kerry or Edwards) believing that there were WMD in Iraq before 2003

Bush and friends controlled the CIA at that point, and the CIA was saying whatever they wanted to hear, including "Iraq has WMDs!". Most reports point to the fact that the administration basically asked the intelligence agency "Does Iraq have WMDs? [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] Probably"

pre-war Iraq and Afghanistan being idyllic paradises

Ah...Afghanistan. A war that almost no one contends with, but Republican boosters try to shoehorn in to try to prop up Iraq. Afghanistan != Iraq. Understand? Saddam != Osama. It is absolutely frighteningly astounding how difficult this is for Bush boosters to comprehend.

Now speaking of Iraq, who said it was a pardise? I think everyone agreed that it was a brutal dictatorship, but they also believed that it was a fragile house of cards that you can't unbalance without serious consequences. Furthermore if given the choice "potentially make Iraq a better place for 25,000,000 Iraqis, but it'll cost you $400 billion+ and 1100 soldiers lives, as well as devastating your international credibility", few would mark yes on the ballot box. This was not the war that Americans were sold.

However all of the humanitarian talk about making Iraq a better place is a startling display of denial - the war was never, ever about making Iraq a better place for Iraqis. In fact Bush gave speeches early in his term specifically saying that he does not believe in nation building (perhaps it was an earlier moment of clarity).

America safer with Saddam in power

Saddam ruled Iraq as a police state and held tight control over the entire country. As it currently stands, with several hundred thousand heavily armed American troops, much of the country is completely lawless, and regional tribes run the show. Saddam was known to execute international terrorists (basically because he was a selfish man - he wanted the West to hurt, but he wanted to keep himself from hurt even more. Note that Saddam did have chemical weapons in Gulf War I, but he declined to use them even in `self-defense' out of personal fear). Now Al Queda can basically set up a several thousand square mile training camp. Consider also that Osama used the invited American presence in Saudi Arabia to fuel the rage of his followers -- now how do you think they'll do for material with the US occupation of Iraq (occupation is the term the Bush administration gave it).

America safer with Saddam in power, less people dying from the next X amount of years under Bathist rule than under a war which will spread freedom and liberty into the middle east

How utterly naive. Several years back I worked with a very intelligent woman from Iran who moved over here, and of course I envisioned that she must be overwhelmed with the freedoms we have in the West, and she must be ready to boil over with rage at the evil tyranny of Iran. How surprizing when she basically defended it, criticized the godlessness of North America, and has actually gone back several times to visit family. Many of these people actually believe in the merits and importants of a theocracy, and a belief that government is left to a strata of society. Of course democracy could eventually take hold over a natural evolution, but it is a very, very long road. The internet does more to spread democracy than American troops ever will.

With plurality all effects are either "good" or "bad" for a particular side. Anything bad for my opponent is good for me to an equal extent. In fact things that are bad for me but worse for my opponent are actually good for me overall (like attack ads...they might make me look mean-spirited, but if it makes my opponent look like a terrorist-loving commie pinko godless child molestor, they benefit my campain.). This only works because there are only two candidates. Throw 20 candidates in the mix, and an attack ad hurts the target the worst and hurts attacker somewhat, benefitting the most the other 18 uninvolved candidates.

Heck even without the "negative ramifications" (let's say for example that McCain-Feingold is repealed and I'm allowed to put out a vicious attack ad without having to take credit for it) attack ads would be less effective with more candidates. The attacker still has to foot the bill for an ad whose benefit is effectively spread equally among all the non-attacked candidates. If I can earn 5 votes per dollar spent with a self-promoting ad or cost someone 10 votes per dollar spent with an attack ad, an attack ad is more cost effective than a self-promoting ad with one opponent, an equal effective with two opponents, and less effective with any more than two.

This all of course assumes there are a multitude of valid candidates. If we passed one of these alternate voting schemes that makes third parties more realistic and found that 95% of Americans still voted for the top two parties, attack ads would be just as effective as ever, as the top two could safely ignore the fringe parties and hammer each other. And conversely everything I said would be equally valid with our current system if he had more than two parties with a realistic chance of winning, but it's pretty well accepted that our current voting system will always favor a trend towards two parties.

Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.

As is yours.

What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?

No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own. You make the pompous fat-headed decision that if you don't believe it, then it's wrong. If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now. Otherwise, face the fact that in spite of your delusions, you might actually be wrong. Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?

Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.

Funny... You've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I expect no less from a godless agnostic. (I don't think there's any such thing as an atheist. Something is a higher power to people like you, even if it's Human.)

"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.

There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory. That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.

PETA is a bunch of lunatics

I'm glad I was sitting down for this. We actually found something we agree on!

These people are fascists and need to be marginalized.

"Godless" communism really was a clever way to turn as many people against the communists as possible. If it wasn't bad enough that they suppressed free speech/press, and had unelected officials running the whole show for the powerful to stay powerful and the powerless to stay that way (as opposed to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer...), these folks also didn't believe in God. This added another degree of evilness to them.

But what utopian communism was really striving for was not atheism, but a freedom from the church, which was another form of power. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone believing in a higher being in a communistic society. The problem is organized religion with a hierarchy and special rules. It would be foolish to think that no one in the Soviet Union believed in God.

So the real leftists, the ones who want state control of everything (yet, strangely, no state at all), actually want to do away with all systems of power. Since religion is a system of power, it needs to be done away with. Granted, a lack of churchgoing will make people less likely to believe in God, but that is not necessarily the goal of the leftwingers.

Perhaps Pascal's Wager has merit for the godless but risk averse?

We um, actually out-spend many foreign nations, per student, on education as well.

Didn't any of your highschool teachers try to give you a back-handed insult by telling you how much brighter students were in [insert Warsaw pact nation here], even though many of them were stuck using nothing but slide-rules, second-rate calculators, and limited supplies of books? I got that line from teachers on several occasions(and no, it wasn't directed solely at me). That line was used, of course, to shock/jolt the class into realizing that, in the end, one's ability to learn was limited chiefly by one's commitment to learn. An impoverished child from an impoverished nation full of GODLESS COMMUNISTS(*cough*) could run circles around some of our best math students just because they tried harder.

I can't say for certain what is harming education in the US, but I don't think we can blame funding. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Washington, DC school system as a prime, if not overly cited, example. Compare the spending per student to their performance in standardized testing. It ain't pretty.

If you actually had religion that you truly believed in, you would be quite humorless about such topics too. But since you are a godless turd, you can afford to be Mr. Funnyman about it. Eternal agony awaits you either way. *smile*

Bin Ladin's grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda's answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: "It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind." If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda's leaders said "desires death more than you desire life."

Are you sure about that? The US shutting down several Iraqi media outlets was a top item on Google News.

but, but, goldstein IS a godless communist oppressor who is a traitor and the enemy. we all hate him.

Given China's behaviour with respect to Tibet and Taiwan, I would say that any company that specifically re-enforces the policy of the government through censorship has no more right to claim to not be evil than Fox News has to claim to be fair and balanced.

So consider the case of underage pornography (something that the US government does censor). Should Google not censor it?

All governments that I know of do *some* censorship -- the question is just to what degree.

I mean, I think that the people running China are a bunch of shortsighted assholes, but they aren't qualitatively different from other governments -- just, perhaps, quantitatively. Given that we listen to US media, we hear a lot about how awful China is doing.

On the other hand, the US Iraq occupational authority did not allow freedom of press, and in fact shut down a number of media sources for criticizing them (newspapers and the only Arab-language news network). Naturally *that* didn't get much air time -- but godless communist oppressors censoring critical media is acceptable and *required* content for us to hear about.