Slashdot Mirror

We will try to convert it, and should that fail, declare it a godless heathen and wipe it off the face of existance, like a rational god-fearing man should.

(That is IRONY, a form of HUMOR, for you idiots with the mod points...)

Why spend time and money building a cruise missile [...] when you can send a suicidal maniac with a truck instead?

No reason, especially given that then you wouldn't have to do conspicuous tests of your delivery system to ensure that it'll actually reach its target.

Sounds like North America needs a zillion-dollar Truck Defense System. Just the thing for an election year.

Or maybe one could use psychological trickery:

1. Sell missiles to bad guys
2. Build zillion-dollar Missile Defense System
3. Safety and profit

This all depends on one's enemies not buying in to the concept of sunk costs, of course:

Villain: Launch missiles at our godless enemy!
Flunky: Fearless leader, the missile defense system is reportedly impenetrable.
Villain: Curses! Foiled again.
Flunky: We could send the warhead by ship.
Villain: And waste all of these perfectly good missiles!?

Sure, it's far-fetched and cartooney. But can any measure be left untried by a nation in peril? I think not.

Why are corps so much better off then people?

Many reasons.

The first reason is because they can't die. Even bankrupcy doesn't necessarily mean death to the corporation, and certainly doesn't mean death to its assets.

Corporations can outwait humans. If a human has something a corporations wants, all they have to do is wait a few decades. It's like with getting themselves declared a person. The very idea is ridiculous, but by asking for it decade after decade eventually the new humans got so used to hearing the demand their entire lives that they thought it was a reasonable one to make.

Also, corporations can more easily merge their assets. If you can do good woodwork, and a friend knows how to market woodworking products, you can't merge with that friend and become one person who knows how to market the woodwork products he made. A corporation can.

And another reason is that corporations are not slowed down by a conscience, a soul or any kind of morality. A corporation is an amoral godless soulless psychopath, and because it does not care about anything but maximizing profit it can be radically effective at what it does. Individual humans within the corporation who obstruct the aim of maximizing profit because of morality or some other silly human reason get weeded out over time. The list of CEO's who have explained that they have to make evil decisions or they get fired is long. Shareholders are generally the only ones who could enforce morality, but corporations own most of the shares, and when you trace them back to humans the humans tend to not be involved with the running of the business much, and instead just want return on investment.

In essence, the way corporations operate naturally makes them more powerful than humans. The task of government is to compensate for this and give preference to humans over corporations. But government has done the reverse, which is why the world is owned and operated by corporations.

We did it to ourselves. We designed corporations so that they would rule us. Ofcourse, we can, and will, undo this. But it will require more people to become aware of the need to radically redefine what a corporation is and does.

Does anyone here seriously doubt our capability to incinerate upwards of 90% of Arabs and Muslims this afternoon?

It's simple cost benefit. Every terrorist attack by them makes our compasion and irrational clinging to the age of enlightenment that much more expensive, and their incineration that much cheaper. It's not like there aren't side benefits either. Resources and land are a lot easier to plunder when there aren't people living on it, even if it is inhospitable and god forsaken. And Cleaning up radioactive waste, and recovering newly available resources will likely have a lot of job security.

Remember, pre-manifest destiny, Native Americans weren't "godless savages", they were "Nature's children." They didn't blow up the World Trade Center, attack the pentegon, or try to acquire nuclear or biological weapons. And they died by the tens of millions. If the Arabs have themselves a Cheif Joseph, I'd recommend they get him to Al-Jezzera right quick before the opportunity for change is past.

" ...the locals don't see why anyone would want to use one unless they were some kind of godless heathen communist."

Thanks heaps for perpetuating the myth that we're all inbred idiots in this state. And all becuase you apparently don't like the politics and faith of the people that live here.

Delta's ready when you are.

Oh they have plenty of computers in Alabama. The problem is that because most computers don't ship with TV cards hard-wired to watch football games, televangelists, and Fox News, the locals don't see why anyone would want to use one unless they were some kind of godless heathen communist.

As a godless heathen communist who studied computer science at a university in Alabama, this was just fine with me :-)

Where does everyone get this idea that you can only play DRM'd files bought from iTMS on the iPod?

You can buy an iPod and just rip your own stuff. That's what I do and it works great. I'm in Canada, so no iTMS for me, but it really hasn't bothered my music listening habits. I buy the CDs I want, then keep 'em in a wallet as high-res backups, and use the iPod for everything. It's No Big Deal. No store, no DRM, nothing. Hell, you can even turn off the store icon in iTunes so you never have to sully your eyes with that godless RIAA-0wned enterprise.

Don't think this is freaky yet? Check out this article and realize the strategic use of patents in influencing a market. They have all the money to do this too, which is the scariest part. Patents aren't about protection any more, it's about CONTROL.

you fucking COMMUNIST. don't you realize that questioning the concentration of virtually unlimited power in the hands of huge corporations puts you in the same category as that godless red Stalin, who KILLED a bunch of people?

take your hippy class-warfare mentality somewhere else, like FRANCE!

1. You're not preserved and cryonics doesn't work.
You're dead.
2. You're not preserved and cryonics does work.
You're dead.
3. You're preserved and cryonics doesn't work.
You're dead.
4. You're preserved and cryonics does work.
You're alive

Ergo, cryonics is true. Of course, if Pascal's wager is also a useful guide to decision making as it was originally formulated, then we might desire a more complex matrix, so as to include the possibility that God exists and would be pissed off at you for having your brain vitrified upon death, clinging to some vain hope of a godless resurrection.

Well, while decimal has it's advantages because it is aligned with base ten which is the most commonly used numbering system, units of measure using other bases like 12 and 60 have advantages as well in that they have more factors. 60, for example has factors of 2,3,4,5,6,10,15,20 and 30.

For example, if an hour was 10 minutes, a quarter hour would be a fractional number of minutes. Not so in the base 60 system. Likewise, the foot, being 12 inches can be divided into more parts than a decimal foot could be.

We might want to consider getting rid of decimal numbering and going to duodecimal, and then adopting a self consistent set of units in the new numbering system as a superiour alternative to that crazy scheme developed by the cheese eating, wine drinking, unbathed, Godless French.

You dumb souless bastard. Ever hear of 7AM mass. Guess not, you godless fool.

Where are you? If you're in certain parts of the USA, I think so. There are few things scarier on TV here at the moment than the frothing-at-the-mouth US christian fundamentalists. The US fundies are scarier than the Muslims, because the US is/was an advanced industrial nation and _definitely_ has lots of "weapons of mass destruction".

I thought it was just more anti-US propaganda until I met some american tourists who seemed to be completely unable to understand why every ordinary Irish person they met hated Bush and particularly Ashcroft. I'm in Ireland, which if you were to believe the hollywood propaganda, is full of devout godfearing catholics and, uh, leprechauns. I believe that it is that propaganda that left the americans apparently wandering about in a state of shock at the materialistic godlessness of the Irish people. Was probably good for them in the long run to have their expectations so roundly smashed.

There a rich [sic] irony in Kerry complaining that the Republicans should take the splinter out of their eye before trying to take the plank out of his :-)

Consider the Democrat's continual harping on the Bush administration's ties to Haliburton and some other corporations. Now remind me again who Kerry is married to? If Bush is evil because of Haliburton which is evil because it's a godless corporation, then why isn't Kerry equally evil because of Heinz which is evil because it's a godless corporation?

Now before you respond that Mrs. Kerry is no longer involved in the management of Heinz, the same can be said of Bush and Cheney with regards to Haliburton.

p.s. The Republicans complaining that a Democrat candidate is rich? Of course! Democrats have traditionally fielded wealthier politicians than the Republicans. Just rank the current members of congress by personal net worth to see the proof of it.

For your information all coutries are terrorist targets. The US just happens to have the highest profile because other that Israel and Russia very few countries are actively trying to combat terrorism.

European nations have been the target of modern-day terrorism for decades. It's just that many Americans (you are an example) have been living in such ignorance that they never noticed that, either domestic or elsewhere. Only when terrorists struck a bunch of iconic buildings did the general US population finally notice, and the reaction has been paranoid and ineffective so far. It's been paranoid because, despite all the fear mongering by politicians, terrorism remains a negligible cause of death in the US.

As for why the US is the target of Islamic terrorism, that shouldn't be a mystery to anybody: it's because of US middle-east policies, foremost support of Israel. Those policies may or may not be justified, but whether they are doesn't change the fact that they are the cause of terrorism.

If other nations had done to the US what the US has done to a country like Iran, Americans like you would be literally up in arms: you'd be the terrorists. Those people are pretty much of the same mindset as you.

The US is a terrorist target because our way of life threatens their way of life.

That is true, but not in the way you intended. The US way of life threatens "their" way of life because of the voracious American appetite for natural resources and military influence. If the US stopped engaging in the Middle East, there would be no Middle Eastern terrorism against the US. Oh, sure, those people would still not like the US, but they wouldn't bother coming here to bomb us.

In other words, we seek freedom for ourselves and believe others should have the same choice.

Nations like Switzerland and Sweden are highly tolerant, open, and free societies, far more liberal socially and far less religious than the US. If terrorists acted because they felt threatened by political freedoms, sexuality, and godlessness, as you suggest, they'd pick Switzerland and Sweden as their primary targets. But, in reality, those countries are largely being left alone by terrorists.

Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear).

There was nothing subtle intended nor implied. I wasn't there when Clinton made the decision not to do anything in Rwanda, and even if I were, I can't read people's minds. Because of those two reasons alone, I could only guess why he didn't do anything.

I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses.

So what? Precedence has to start somewhere. The US Supreme Court had absolutely no precedence when they decided that prayer didn't belong in school in 1963 (in fact, for a hundred years, the Supremes were on record stating that the Bible should be taught in school). Just because there's no precedence for something doesn't mean it's not right to do it.

The human rights issues you continue to cite as justification are not the case that was presented to the American people and the world and never have been the primary justification for any U.S. or U.N. military action.

You asked how -I- justify Bush's actions. It doesn't really matter what Bush said to justify his actions, since you don't believe him anyway. If I were to get a book from Dub-yuh explaining the whole line of reasoning he had in invading Iraq and present it to you with a pretty ribbon on it, I seriously doubt that you'd look at it as anything more than fire fodder. It's kind of like the way I see Moore's movie: it's just a movie, and as such, it shouldn't be taken very seriously. The boy cried wolf too many times in the past. Why should I believe him now?

What about China?

Think about what you're suggesting. China has enough soldiers in their army so that if the world were to try to go against her, they could surrender and STILL have people left over to fight, if one assumes one soldier could guard 500 prisoners of war. Trying anything (conventional) against China, for any reason, is folly.

I wasn't aware that Palestinian suicide bombers were a threat to the U.S., directly or indirectly

There are US citizens in Israel all the time. When the suicide bombers kill (or "just" injure) innocents, sometimes some of the victims are American. That makes it a threat to the US. Violence does not need to occur directly on American soil to be deemed a threat to our security.

It's not left-wing spin to point out the fact that almost all of the Al-Queda terrorists were Saudi and none of them were Iraqi.

This just came out on Yahoo!/UK, and I thought it was interesting (albeit marginally relevant to the point). As for the tie I was referring to, I set out to get a name (I'm thinking about someone that was about four levels down on the chain of command). I didn't find that name, unfortunately, but I did find this, which I think you might appreciate. It's got a lot of information that seems to support what you've been telling me, and I'm going to read through this. It may not shift me completely to your side, but (judging from what I've glossed over) it might bring me a bit closer.

I supported the idea of threatening Hussein with military action to get the inspections program back on track.

So what's the problem? Saddam balked on his responsibilities to his people with regard to the terms of the end of Desert Storm. The threat was there, and the UN was sitting around doing nothing. A few members of the UN (US, UK, Australia, to name a few) decided to do something about

(By the way... You do notice the date lines on your sources before you post them, right? I noticed just now that one link of yours to USA Today is from March, before the UN found anything in Jordan. Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information. Of course, having read it, I wonder: if Iraq did not have WMDs, what did they do with their work into the matter? Surely, one doesn't spend the time and money into researching this sort of weaponry, just to stop and say, "Yeah. That was interesting. What's next on our plate?")

"May have been superceeded"? No, the findings of weapons inspectors in Iraq have not been superseded. The SA-2 rocket parts discovered as scrap metal in Jordan weren't exactly a big surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. I haven't yet heard anyone make the case that this finding contradicts the massive and detailed 13+ years of evidence assembled by weapons inspectors in Iraq. If you are trying to make that case, then you'll have to be quite a bit more specific than the vague statement "Although this does not necessarily discredit this information, it may have been superceeded by other information (what other information?)." Personally, I look to the Bush administration to make this case as it is their integrity which is on the line. I haven't heard them even attempt to do so, have you?

Regarding your second point about Iraq researching WMD and voluntarily ceasing such activity, please point out where I or any of the numerous sources I have linked to ever made such a claim. The point made by David Kay and the other weapons inspectors was that the inspection program had worked and was continuing to work - not that Iraq voluntarily gave up the pursuit of WMD. Let me be frank, do you think the weapons inspectors are complete idiots? Do you believe that your observation that Saddam wouldn't voluntarily decide to give up the pursuit of WMD represents the kind of original thinking of which U.N. weapons inspectors, or anyone with a high school diploma for that matter, are incapable? There's a word for that type of broadside attack on the critical thinking abilities of "everyone else", it's hubris.

You asked about Rwanda. All I can say is that this happened under Bill Clinton, and (according to one of your articles that I am reading now) he realized his mistake. Should something have been done? Certainly. All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try, so I won't go into that here. For Sudan, I think that the UN needs to get off their duff and do something about the problem there, before it's too late. From the article at the SundayTimes (that you quoted):

Well, you did "go into it" and managed to weaken your position by betraying a highly partisan opinion (e.g. "All I can do is guess why Clinton didn't try" - gee, maybe he was getting a blow job, or busy being the victim of a Republican witch hunt, or just an evil, Godless man. Your "subtle" inference is blindingly clear). I could play the same game by saying that the U.N. should have done something about Rwanda while Bush is solely to blame for doing nothing in Sudan. But I'm not saying that or even suggesting it - just making a broader point. I brought up Rwanda and Sudan to support the fact that there exists no clear precedent for declaring war based on the prevention of human rights abuses. By contrast, the concept of preemptive war, as expressed by Bush, is a rational one IMO. The problem is that a preemptive war (this is according to the definition I'm familiar with and is in contrast to "preventive" war which entails embarking on military conflict just because you think something might happen - other people reverse the definitions, I have no idea which is "correct") is launched in response t

> What do you think research says about porn and how it has effected a porn-lovin culture's view of women?

I think it puts things in terms of "Good vs. Evil," when in fact there is no such thing. Just actions. The same goes for morality. The only reason you see morality disappearing is because the "new morality" does not fit in exactly with your narrow view of how things should be.

> Is porn good for our culture?

Nope, it's not bad either.

> the defining moments that stand out have everything to do with sacrifice, selfless service, and a consideration for some higher cause that is more important than self.

That's only because the moments that stand out to you already fit into your view of a higher cause. I don't believe in any higher cause, so your argument, to me, is nullified.

> What is better for a person [...] watching porn or taking a nap?

Considering the calories you would burn "jerkin' it," porn. (please note, I'm kinda' joking there)

You keep comparing porn to other things you could be doing. YOU CAN STILL DO THOSE THINGS. What about porn versus watching four hours of mindless television. With porn, you get at least a little exercise. Granted, that's not the point, but it's not like you can't meditate on your life's dreams AFTER watching some porn.

> Mature people, however, understand that nothing of value comes without pain.

That is complete bullshit. My life has been enhanced manyfold by meditating. There is no pain in that -- well, except trying the full-lotus position, but that's justa technicality. That is not maturity, that is either ignorance or making shit up to push your own views (ie, "if you don't believe what I say, I'll call you a child and laugh at you."). Nice.

> good sex is about putting someone elses desire before our own.

That is your opinion. It happens to be mine as well, but please stop mixing up opinion with truth. You do not know that, you have not been a part of or heard of every -- hell, even a majority -- sexual act to ever take place, so you cannot speak with any authority on this.

> 'I'm a better person because of porn!' Nice.

No one seriously claims they are a better person for watching porn. Or at least, anyone I've met. HOWEVER, no one claims they are a better person for watching TV for hours on end, and you don't seem to be screaming about that. It's even more prevalent than porn!

Unless you speak out against TV and all other useless pursuits with the same vigor you do with porn, you are merely pushing an agenda, not trying to protect or help anyone.

Go on, call me a godless sinner for believing in actual freedom -- not just the freedom to do whatever you happen to agree with.

"There is a big difference between liberals and conservatives. We're not talking apples and oranges, folks, but apples and orgies. In her latest book, "Treason", Ann Coulter puts it clearly:

"Conservatives believe man was created in God's image, while liberals believe they are gods. All of the behavioral tics of the liberals proceed from their godless belief that they can murder the unborn because they, the liberals, are themselves gods. They try to forcibly create 'equality' through affirmative action and wealth redistribution because they are gods. They flat-out lie, with no higher power to constrain them, because they are gods. They adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods. They revere the U.N. and not the U.S. because they aren't Americans--they are gods."

It-s hard for salt of the earth, hard working, hard playing pro-American types to wrap their minds around why their liberal neighbors hate the U.S. so much. But liberals do, and it's a staple of their worldview's diet. They reflexively root for that which will undo our great land.

As far as the liberals are concerned, the battle is joined ... the war is on. We must recognize the primal nature of the contest, the fundamental loathing the left has for virtually everything that conservatives cherish.

Concerned citizens of our amazing country need to be aware of the fear and loathing of the liberals and meet them head on at the polls, through the media and in the public square.

Options:

1) They're punishing you for being godless commies.

2) We protected you from the red menace for so long, this is our payoff.

3) English is just a naturally superior language; as a result, English speakers don't deserve DRM.

4) French people. Enough said.

5) George W Bush threatened to nuke EMI if they didn't keep "those godless Eurotrash from pirating our hard-earned American IP".

6) Barbara Boxer threatened to sue EMI if they didn't keep "those wonderful European scamps from pirating the music industries rightfully earned profits".

7) Orrin Hatch's head exploded; as a result, the US no longer has to deal with stupid copy protection efforts.

8) French people.

9) Specifically to piss off the Europeans; I mean, that's what American corporations live for, right?

10) They think if they make the scheme illogical enough, all the computer nerds who pirate their music will have their brains ignite in a collective bonfire of confusion.

(laugh, its supposed to be funny)

Don't forget evil-doer. Mustn't forget that one.