Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
> "Microsoft is not the patent threat Linux and open source developers should be worried about"
Of course! SCO is the REAL threat!
Those godless, marauding mancubi will feel no remorse prying your $699 from your cold, dead, chips/pretzel/pizza/popcorn/nacho/cheetos/Neal mix stained hands...
Done already:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
Mind you, that t-rex was a vegetarian, and children had them as pets. The animatronics must prove it...
don't start me on xenu, you godless heathens. Monkies evolved from the bible!
While I applaud the science, I doubt this is the "hydrogen revolution". It seems to be that we're suddenly talking about powering our cars with water (cheaply available) and massive blocks of a aluminium/gallium alloy. The article seemed to put forward the view that water was the fuel and the alloy acted as a catalyst. While this is indeed CHEMICALLY what is happening it's the cost of the catalyst driving (no pun intended) the reaction that's going to keep this off shelves for a while.
When/if they come up with a method for reactivating the alloy which is a) cheap and b) simple, then you can colour me interested.
omg!!1! lol, u r soooo scrued!
Tell you what, you tell me the query to type in and I'll do it.
Ya sarcastic bastard.
Yeah, I willon on-have spoken in the Present Ultraconditional Subinverted Semi-active Past Subjunctive Deponent Aorist all the time.
Fermions spin? Half integer. Bosons spin? Full integer. Arguing about quantum physics on /.? Priceless.
A pretty good story actually - if anybody recalls the author or the collection it was in, I'd love to know.
Let's face it, if we were willing to compromise quality/quantity for no DRM, VHS would not have died.
Bull. The founding fathers from George to Jefferson were wise men, religious, but not born-again Christians. Jefferson was Unitarian, like me. He had serious doubts about the literal truth of the King James translation of the Bible, so he wrote is own (a great translation). On his gravestone, he states only three accomplishments, of which he is most proud. One was crafting America's separation of Church and State.
1.) You obviously missed the part where I mentioned the trumped up charges, meaning, he lied, people believed him, and voted to go to war based on the lied. Where were the WMDs?
2.) The old, "Yeah, well, other people did it too!" argument, a staple of any six-year-old's argumentation, and on par for most right wing "debaters."
3.) Remember when the top tax bracket was 90% and the economy was booming? You know, greatest generation and all that? Thought not. The rich unjustly reap the lion's share of the country's wealth, they should pay the majority of taxes.
4.) WTF? Taliban? Where did I mention them? If I recall, it was Al Qaeda that attacked us. What happened to them, where's Osama, why don't you address the real issue rather than a straw man?
5.) Fuck you. That is all the response that that statement warrants.
6.) Washington was a Deist, look it up. The left is not Godless, we just don't believe in your fire-and-brimstone, psychopathic God.
7.) Got any numbers on that, some comparisons maybe? Thought not.
It must suck being stuck worshiping a failed ideology and making excuses for a pack of con artists and incompetent charlatans because you are too proud to admit you were conned.
1. You mean "invading a sovereign nation that invaded a sovereign nation, and then signed a surrender agreement with us after we kicked them out of that sovereign nation." One of the agreements was to show the world that they had dismantled their weapons programs. Twelve UN resolutions were passed and ignored. Bill Clinton had even ordered an air attack on Iraq prior to leaving office. Most Democrats signed the war resolution. Hillary Clinton was recorded saying to Code Pink that "she had done 10 years of research and that invading Iraq was the right thing to do." John Kerry, during the 2004 election run, said that he would have voted for the war even knowing what he knows now.
2. Democrats signed on to the Patriot Act. The Echelon spy program was a Clinton program. FDR had people's mail read during WWII, put Japanese in camps, etc. Al Qaeda beheads its prisoners, yet you don't seem to mind that they do not apply the Geneva conventions to our soldiers. Nobody seems to care if our borders are secure.
3. Tax relief was the only reason why the excesses of Clinton's dot com and Enron boom did not kill our economy. The government has been gaining tax revenue as a result. The top 1% foot over 60% of the bill, how much do you feel they should be footing?
4. The Taliban were defeated in days without the need for foot soldiers. It was brilliant. Kudos to Bush.
5. You mean "alienating socialist so-called allies that want to weaken us using the UN and EU."
6. George Washington was more religious than George Bush. If anything, others pander to the godless left, not the other way around.
7. The democrats are spending like drunken sailors now. Are you happy?
No, what is happening is that kids whether naturally in belief of their deity or brainwashed by their parents choosing are being told they cannot pay homage with like people before they start the school day off.
Bullshit. This is not happening.
And I think you better take another look at the undergod and why it was inserted. It really has little to do with religion.
It has everything to do with shoving religion into politics. The "godless communists" were the excuse the nutjob extremists needed.
I have to ask, did some bible thumper kick your ass or something? Did one of these religious people look down on you and hit you with the bible or something?
No, they have stated their goal of eliminating the constitution and replacing it with a theocracy. If they get their way, I will be murdered by them. There is nothing the least unclear about that. There is nothing you can point to in history to indicate that if they get their way there will be massive atrocities.
This is saying that the government isn't controlled by the church and the government doesn't control the church. It doesn't say the government cannot give the church money to perform services it would be paying someone else.
Money *is* control. When it is *my* money going to people whose faith demands that they stone me to death that is a far more serious violation than anything you are talking about by orders of magnitude.
The only hate I am seeing it coming from you.
Then you haven't paid a damn bit of attention to what these scumbags have been doing. An amendment to the constitution for the first time in our history to discriminate against a group of people whose only crime is being born as something they blindly hate?
Seriously, what happened here, did some catholic priest abuse you? Did a nun smack you with a ruler too many times?
You're either a troll or entirely ignorant of history.
They have a 2000 year history of slowly burning people alive for the "crime" of using their brains.
The separation of church and state is the *only* thing that has kept them at bay this long and they are systematically dismantling the only protections that I have from them apart from my own personal arsenal.
That is the reality of that religion.
You would imagine i it meant that much, it would have been specifically included. It wasn't and even if a few people thought that way, the weren't "the founding principles", they were of a minority of opinion that didn't make the cut.
That's the same thing that they said about the constitution itself *before* they added the bill of rights. It was perfectly clear that the government had no powers to infringe any of them, yet some stubborn people insisted that they be put in. Since then we've fallen so far that most people think that those are an exclusive list of our rights rather than an emphasis.
It's the exact same situation with the separation of Church and state. That is absolutely clear when you read the Treaty of Tripoli and note that it was approved *unanimously* and then consider that anyone in Congress voting to approve something with that wording would be run out of town on a rail by religious extremists.
That is a clear demonstration that the attitude toward religious belief in government has undergone a significant shift for the worse in the intervening years and we are seeing the exact same attitude toward it as evidenced by *your* claims here, as we see in all the various entitlement programs toward the rest of the constitution.
If your insinuating the church as an official function advocated harming you, then your boldly mistaken.
Oh really? I'm mistaken? If so, then explain how that is consistent with the fact that the Bible, according to them *the word of god himself* and the only and entire source of orthodoxy states in no uncertain terms that since I'm a heretic according to them that I must be stoned to death. There is nothing in the
Soon to be mandated for all federal employees. "US ASCII not good enough for you? Perhaps you prefer the godless, communist ISO-8859-1 ?"
I wasn't surprised. This person has heard the arguments and such before and just wants to show off at how uninformed he is. I never mentioned anything about liberal or conservative yet he jumped right at it assuming one or the other. I was hoping to just make the point that the make up of the courts have changed fundamentally and such action that were set before might not hold out now with the current make up and then give a few example of some of the opinionated rulings.
I would take issue if it was forced too. When I was in school, I had the option to not say anything on the pledge or remove words as in a mock recital or I could just leave the room while it was being said. This was in the 70's in Ohio. I don't know what has changed and the impression I'm getting is that nothing has changed except the people complaining about it. They are even complaining about the in god we trust (all other pay cash) on the money we use.
The corruption you see with the pledge, I don't see it outside anything but historical. Under god could mean any god or no god but the significance of it was from a time when we were in an almost war with the big evil communists which rejected religion to a certain extent in order to control the people. Or at least thats what we thought at the time. It was inserted only to make the statement to the soviet union that we would never be a godless country were we saw their attacks on freedom of religion as their primary way to control the people. Historically and fundamentally, The process and reasons why it was added are far more important then what it might represent if you let it. To me, it just means we basically gave another country the middle finger when we saw a need to. I'm not a real religious person, I believe in a god, Probably not your god and I like to take the devils advocate position whenever I am pulled into a discussion about religion. But even after disclaiming all that, I want you to believe that I view it's inclusion specifically as a historical nature and not pushing any religion. I think the purpose of including "under god" was specifically done to make a statement to communist countries and not to push some religious view.
I can see where your coming from on this. Some times people need to be reminded of the other parts to the clauses in the same amendment. But I have no problem with the courthouse lawn letting a church set up a manger display or a menorah. And I have no problem with letting them do this to the exclusion of other religions either. If it is a first come first served and a limited space, it is fine with me. But we have had people petiton the county to remove the big wooden crosses that sit on private property in all four corners of the county claiming the violated their freedom from r