That you think.NET devs are script kiddies speaks volumes about you. I'm curious - what IDE do you think.NET developers should be using? The only thing that VS does for a.NET dev is run the command line for CLI when they click 'build'. Learning how to use CLI to compile from the command line takes 5 minutes to figure out, so there's that hurdle. What other "magic" is VS doing that makes.NET devs so stupid/lazy? Refactoring? Intelesence? Just because you're too ignorant to understand what an IDE is and what the.NET framework is doesn't mean can (without looking like a fool) go around and bash.NET. That you think that.NET devs are script kiddies makes me think that you don't know what.NET is or what a script kiddie is. I'll give you a hint: Script kiddies don't know how to write code - that's what makes them a script kidde.
But really, I think you've made your little story up there. Please give me the scenario where you would "take a.NET developer out of Visual Studio". Because it sounds a too me like you're fibbing.
Ya, you don't get what I'm saying?! That's $100 more than it costs to develop for android. You must sign up with Apple for no apparent reason just to get the damn API, while you don't have to do that for android. There's no reason to have to do that besides "Apple just wants you to" and there's no doubt in my mind that they do that so they can make more money from developers! That's exactly what I'm complaining about. Having to jump through a bunch of hoops for no reason, pay money for no reason.
You don't have to do anything like that for Android. I don't want to "register as a developer", in fact I'm sick of registering for anything especially when it serves no purpose. Don't you get that!? $100 > $0. One platform is totally free, the other cost $100 and they may reject your app for no reason.
http://developer.apple.com/xcode/index.php
Wow, looks like I have to log in just like I said. And if you want to publish an app you still need to sign up (as a publisher) at the cost $100, just like I said. I didn't know about the $5 charge, thanks, I'll add that to my next rant. I really can't look around the Apple developer site much because absolutely everything requires that you logon. You can still have your app rejected by Apple without explanation. The stupid part is Apple doesn't need to 1) charge $100, 2) charge $5 3) require an account. But they do. And the only legitimate reason for doing that is so they can 1) make money off struggling developers 2) track your actions on their site.
Apple is not scarry
Being charged money for no apparent reason is scary to me.
nothing I said about the android SDK is false, if you don't like it, that's another issue altogether, but don't say I'm wrong just because you don't like it.
Uhh, I did, it was pretty easy. Just download eclipse and the android API and you get not only a wonderful IDE but a full blown android emulator that can emulate any android device - all for free. I didn't have to sign anything, give my name out, pay money. I made my app and installed it on my phone. Nobody even knew I did it but me.
Apple? Well first you need to sign up, at the cost of at least $100. Then you'll have to obtain the API which is under lock and key (that's why you must sign up). Then you'll have to figure out how to make it work in whatever IDE you'll be using. Even if you get all that working and have paid Apple off, there's a chance that Apple will smugly say "Sorry, you don't get to do that." and without reason pull your app.
So ya, Android is a breeze, if they made it any easier the damn apps would write themselves. Apple wants to stick it to devs just as much as it wants to stick it to consumers. Apple is like a hydra, but instead of many heads it has many dicks that it goes around fucking everyone with, you cut off one dick and two more dicks grown in its place. Terrifying.
So the last chair of the RNC, Michael Steele is a black man, but republicans are racist. The front runner (today) in the RNC nomination for president is a black man (Cain), but republicans are racist. I show you a throng of evidence that democrats not only have a history of slavery and oppression, the very creators of the Jim Crow laws. Democrats had a actual member of the KKK in office up till 2010... but the republicans, who fought the civil war against democrats to free the slaves - they're the racists.
Somehow a misattributed quote is going to undo all of that? And now republicans are racist when they never were in the past? If republicans are so racist why would they ever have the head of the RNC be a black man? How could they allow for their presidential candidate to be a black man? Doesn't that invalidate what you're saying? And yes, this "read between the lines" bull shit about saying that "tax cuts" are racist is a conspiracy by the democrats to try and get everyone to believe that anything a republican says is inherently racist. For example:
From http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2085
Rangel, who is black, has a long history of levying charges of racism against his political and ideological adversaries. For example, when the Republican-led Congress pushed for tax relief in 1994, Rangel denounced the plan as a form of modern-day racism. "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore," he raged. "[Instead,] they say, 'Let's cut taxes.'"
-CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY)
Who's the real racist? The party trying to ignore race, one who was founded to abolish slavery? Or the party that is constantly bringing race into the equation where it does not belong? I really must ask. Do you think "cut taxes" is racist? I for one think that giving special favor to people based on the color of their skin is racist - something that democrats have championed over and over again through race based college admissions, race based hiring, race based taxation, race based everything. Democrats are very interested in the color of your skin. Republicans don't care what color your skin is. Republicans want a society that is blind to skin color.
One group is logical and righteous, the other is a group of resent building, racist demagogues. "Whitey's got it too good!", "the rich man has got it too good". Just how the fuck are you going to pick yourself up by dragging everyone else down? If the rich are taxed at a higher rate does that money go to the jobless poor? No - it goes to the federal government who can't even run a fucking lemonade stand without loosing tens of billions of dollars. It could have gone to make jobs - but instead the government will squander it as they squander all money they confiscate. Lower taxes mean employers can hire more people - higher taxes mean employers can hire fewer people, it's not racist and it's pretty fucking simple.
Be that as it may, there is still no intrinsic freedom of speech when the government can censor what they like when they like for whatever reason they make up.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada
Over the twentieth century, standards shifted from a "strong state-centred practice" done to protect the community from perceived social degradation, to a more decentralised censorship practiced by societal groups invoking state support to restrict the free speech abilities of political and ideological opponents. Subsequently, Canada is believed to have more hate crime legislation forbidding certain ideas from being promulgated than any other country in the world.
Ouch! Doesn't sound like you have freedom of speech to me! And really, that's not just the opinion of Wikipedia editors, you can browse around the comments here and see a ton of complains about the lack of free speech in Canada and the UK. I'm not a fan of Michael Savage but I hear his books and his person is banned from the UK for "hate speech", and of course there is no "hate speech". Hate speech is such a subjective thing that just about anything can be misconstrued as hate speech. Why, right now it sounds to me like either I hate Canada, I hate the fact that they have restricted speech, or I hate the government of Canada. Well, that sounds like a lot of hate and my speech could be subject to censorship under the laws of Canada.
I'm sure you're well aware that hate speech is alive and well in the U.S. and there is no such thing as "hate censorship" here. We may have Holocaust deniers but we also have freedom. Lacking a 1776 like event, I think you're going to be stuck with the British at the helm of your government.
STOP! Don't just reply. Get this shit through your head. republicans != racist. democrats == racist. Read your god damn history, and yes it is that simple. Ever hear of Robert Byrd? Democrat senator up until the day he died in 2010. And a member of the KKK. And one of the many democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. 2010! That shit is recent! Where's the republican governor who stopped black children from going to school? That's right, they were all democrats.
Maybe you can find me the 'racist republicans' or the 'racist tea party members' that you're talking about, because I'm pretty sure you just made that shit up. I've shown you (in the link provided) tons of cold hard facts that prove the democrat party has a massive history of racism. I've shown you, again facts, that prove that republicans are the champions of civil rights. If you don't get your facts right you're nothing but a tool of the democrat party, echoing exactly what they want you to say. A lie. That's nothing new for democrats though. Do you really think 90%+ of blacks would vote for the party who ran the confederacy? Do you really think they would vote for the champions of slavery? For democrats ignorance is power.
Reminds me of a saying: "Republicans are afraid you don't understand what they're talking about, Democrats are afraid you do."
Racists are not welcome in the Republican party. It was and is now a party that stands for equal rights and a color blind society. Anyone opposed to this idea isn't really a Republican at all. Read the history of the democrat party and compare it with the history of the republican party (in the link above). The republican party was founded in order to eliminate slavery. Can you honestly say that one is just as racist as the other?
Nobody can give you something they do not first poses. Therefore nobody can bestow upon you rights they didn't first take from you. It's pretty well known that the founders of this country, Jefferson, the writer of the declaration included, were big time Freemasons, so it's also useful to know about Freemasonry and what they're all about:
Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being. However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation. Thus, reference to the Supreme Being can mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. While most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term.
Doesn't sound like the Creator you thought they were talking about does it? You need to have a little background on the words Jefferson was using and what they mean in the sense that they were used back then before you try and pass any sort of judgement. Unalienable individual rights was a revolutionary thing at the time and is still forbidden in many "civilized" countries, Canada and the UK for example lacks freedom of speech (and have a monarchy! doh!).
Democrats love to paint the founding fathers as Christian zealots. But you have to ask yourself: Would Christian zealots allow the free practice of any religion and explicitly protect that in the Constitution? Wouldn't they have used the words "Jehovah" or "Jesus" rather than the more generic "God" and "Creator"? Sounds more like the agnostic Freemasons they were.
Please read the two books I linked earlier, they are very short, free, and in text at the links I provided and very easy to read. They were actually originally published as pamphlets just to give you an idea how short they are. They explain conservatism/libertarianism perfectly, so when you're done you'll know where in the political spectrum you are. You can be a leftist like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who's famous saying is "Property is theft", or you can be a rightist like Frédéric Bastiat who says "The Law is perverted to legalize the plunder of private property".
There stands, in stark contrast, the two political philosophies. You can't really choose half way because they are in such total contradiction of each other, but many people claim to - I think they are just deluded or ignorant of what it is they really believe in. For example the libertarian who says "We all have a right to private property" but turns around and wants to stick it to the rich guy. Or the democrat who wants more government but doesn't individually want to pay more in taxes.
I choose rightist because the arguments put forth in these two books use strong deductive reasoning and that is the only proper way to logically deduce anything. Proudhon uses endless platitudes and class warfare to define his arguments. But don't take my word for it, read yourself and decide for yourself, but for the love of god make sure you read a few books before you start forming opinions about the topic. If you don't read about this stuff I'm afraid the chances of you becoming a leftist are very good.
While the very last civil rights act was more about region, every other civil rights act up till then was down party lines, I'm sure you can navigate Wikipedia to find that too. Lincoln was not on the wrong side, and I don't want to get into a lengthily debate about the civil war, but the south wanted some unreasonable things.
They wanted to count slaves as part of their representation. They wanted to allow new states to become slave states even though the constitution explicitly prohibits that. Their only source of wealth was that of farming and we all know what that shit was built on. If I was alive back then I would do everything in my power to oppose slavery including trying to subversively legislate it out of existence with tariffs, 3/5ths laws and anything else I could bring to the fight.
That people still drone on about how unfair Lincoln was to the south is rather insensitive to the people the south held as slaves. How do you think they felt about the 3/5ths law? Or was it just the wealthy plantation owners you felt were being treated unfairly? Read this Timeline of events leading to the American Civil war. Read all the compromises that were made by Republicans to try and prevent war. Slavery is indefensible, even as a means of economic survival. You can't tell me you must enslave someone or you'll go broke, that's a fucking joke.
All the south ever really wanted was slavery in perpetuity. The constitution prohibited that. Lincoln fought to preserve the union, the south fought to preserve slavery. Which of these sides are more righteous? Well, you're offering a defense of Byrd so you may just be a little bias. So maybe ask a black friend what his opinion is.
A quote from the timeline article:
Although slavery was at the heart of the sectional impasse between the North and South in 1860, it was not the singular cause of the Civil War. Rather, it was the multitude of differences arising from the slavery issue that impelled the Southern States to secede....The new republic claimed its justification to be the protection of state rights. In truth, close reading of the states' secession proclamations and of the new Confederate Constitution reveal that it was primarily one state right that impelled their separation: the right to preserve African American slavery within their borders....Thus, the North went to war to preserve the Union, and the white South went to war for independence so that it might protect slavery.
Why am I being portrayed as a fool when you are the one who is wrong? The Queen/King whoever is 1) the head of state 2) the head of the armed forces 3) Appoints the prime ministers. What the hell are you talking about when you say that "she cannot actually do anything". Maybe you can provide a better citation than this one:
Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a king or queen acts as Head of State.
The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch.
As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics.
A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change.
The Sovereign/Monarch governs according to the constitution - that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which sets out the rights and duties of the Sovereign, they are established by conventions. These are non-statutory rules which can be just as binding as formal constitutional rules.
As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign must remain politically neutral.
On almost all matters the Sovereign acts on the advice of ministers. However, the Sovereign retains an important political role as Head of State, formally appointing prime ministers, approving certain legislation and bestowing honours.
The Sovereign has other official roles to play such as Head of the Armed Forces.
And that's just what was on their summary page, I'm sure there are other powers that your unelected monarchs have as well. You must admit that their power is massive when compared to an ordanary citizen, which is what they would be in the U.S.. For example, Bush has no power to do anything at all. And unlike when you claim it, he really doesn't have any power. His children will not inherit his presidency. If in the middle of his presidency the people decided we didn't like him we can throw him out of office. So yes, there is a great deal of difference and yes, the queen of Canada has a great deal of power.
Actually, I believe he would argue that some things don't need a "right".
He would say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These unalienable rights are called "Natural Law" and there is quite a bit written about it already.
Start with Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Very short, easy to read. Then move on to: The Law by Frederic Bastiat again, very short, very simple read. Both books are very old (>100 years old) and both books transcend time - when you read them you'll think they were written about today's events. It sounds like you're on the razors edge, I hope these books help bring you over to the light side.
I always think of the crown as a referee rather than an active participant in our politics.
One whom you cannot vote to remove. One whom lives on the tit of the government in perpetuity and apparently by divine right. According to your law, the queen is not your equal. You are less than the queen. You are less than anyone of royal blood. Don't agree? Than you agree with me. If the queen was a tyrant would you still feel as happy? Do you think then you would be given a choice? Do you like your new king? If you don't, too bad. He is your king and your better by mere accident of birth. But you must submit to the whim of the king! You are his subject!
Nobody has "rank" over anyone in the U.S. Nobody can tell anyone what they must or can do or say. It's freedom. I know this is an alien concept to you, so let me explain it how people in my country understand it: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I'm not trying to be all patriotic or anything, I'm trying to illustrate the difference between you and me. I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it best, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have Democracy in America with me:
The biggest difference I see in the democracies of America and the democracies of Europe is that in Europe the government cedes a portion of their power to the people, while in America the people cedes a portion of their power to the government.
And yes, Canada is a European [style] democracy before you argue that point.
Nope! Byrd won the democrat primary, which is a closed selection made only by top democrat leaders, not even necessarily elected democrats either! It is not the voters who choose Byrd. The voters simply approved of who the DNC choose. The democrats appealed to the "good 'ol boy" attitude in the south because they will do anything to win an election. What better way to get a bunch of red neck racists to vote for you than by running a KKK member!
Never forget! This is who they are today.
Too bad the democrats don't have primaries like republicans where anyone can vote. Of course this leaves open the chance that democrats will infiltrate the primaries (and often do) and choose poor candidates, but republicans are willing to take that chance so everyone can vote. Some democrats have the nerve to call this racist too. Of course democrats call anything anyone does that they don't agree with a racist.
Really? You can vote for the queen?! Maybe you don't know what you're talking about. I put a link to Law of succession just in case you didn't know what I was talking about. Do you now?
I was with you for most of that rant, but there are Republicans (admittedly not as many as there should be) who want to shrink the size of government. There are a lot of RINOs. But at least Republicans have the 'conservative principal' that is written down in so many great books by giants like Locke, Smith, Paine, Bastiat, Freedman and many others. We can look at the actions of Republicans and compare them to what they should behave like and decide if they are Republicans or RINOs. Democrats on the other hand are stuck with "Democrat principals" like Proudhon (Property is Theft!) or Marx. And all democrats share one goal: grow the size and power of government.
Sometimes the socialists have more control than the libertarians, but there is no getting away from the diametrical nature of government.
One thing that I think is intentionally obfuscated by democrats is that they have always been on the wrong side. After the revolution they were for keeping the law of succession, they were the "south" during the civil war, indeed the Republican party was created as an abolitionist party. North vs. South was also Republican vs. Democrat. Democrats were for Jim Crow laws, and many democrat governors stood in doorways of schools to prevent black children from entering. No republican governors did that! Republicans voted for every civil rights act, and democrats voted against every civil rights act, down party lines. All of these are cold hard facts, you can look them up if you don't believe me, that they are even called into question shows how effective the democrat "ignorance machine" is.
And now democrats want to say "well this party has changed. The democrat party of today is different!" Well then why did you vote Robert Bird, a member of the KKK into the senate every election until he died in 2010!? A god damn genuine "rode around in a white hood and strung up blacks for being black" KKK member. That should be all you need to know about the "democrat party of today".
People say the republicans are the racists - Well, I need a citation for that.
I only wish I was as naive as you were. 9 out of 10 deaths are attributable to some sort of bullying early in life. There's been correlation between an increase in bullying and a proportional increase in the average temperature of the earth leading to cyclic global warming. Bullying kills more than cancer, smoking, car accidents and Chuck Norris combined. I for one think we should dedicate a larger portion of our GDP towards trying to stomp out bullying rather than stupid things like national defense and education. It should break down like this:
So how's it feel to subjugated rather than free? Call the U.S. what you will, at least we have universal suffrage. I don't know how you feel about it, but if I knew that some of these people in my government would be able to stay in positions of power regardless of public opinion and would pass their positions onto their children (law of succession) it would make be want to start a revolution. Err. I guess I'm a little late to that little party, but I think you get my point. If God had to choose, I'd rather he bless America, Canada included than save the queen. No offense.
Slashdot Mirror
Please read the comments as well as the mia copa at the top of the link you provided.
.NET devs are script kiddies speaks volumes about you. I'm curious - what IDE do you think .NET developers should be using? The only thing that VS does for a .NET dev is run the command line for CLI when they click 'build'. Learning how to use CLI to compile from the command line takes 5 minutes to figure out, so there's that hurdle. What other "magic" is VS doing that makes .NET devs so stupid/lazy? Refactoring? Intelesence? Just because you're too ignorant to understand what an IDE is and what the .NET framework is doesn't mean can (without looking like a fool) go around and bash .NET. That you think that .NET devs are script kiddies makes me think that you don't know what .NET is or what a script kiddie is. I'll give you a hint: Script kiddies don't know how to write code - that's what makes them a script kidde.
.NET developer out of Visual Studio". Because it sounds a too me like you're fibbing.
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-programmers/
That you think
But really, I think you've made your little story up there. Please give me the scenario where you would "take a
I don't trust these contractors - they've been using electric drills instead of screwdrivers, I don't think they really know what they're doing.
Ya, you don't get what I'm saying?! That's $100 more than it costs to develop for android. You must sign up with Apple for no apparent reason just to get the damn API, while you don't have to do that for android. There's no reason to have to do that besides "Apple just wants you to" and there's no doubt in my mind that they do that so they can make more money from developers! That's exactly what I'm complaining about. Having to jump through a bunch of hoops for no reason, pay money for no reason.
You don't have to do anything like that for Android. I don't want to "register as a developer", in fact I'm sick of registering for anything especially when it serves no purpose. Don't you get that!? $100 > $0. One platform is totally free, the other cost $100 and they may reject your app for no reason.
Wow, looks like I have to log in just like I said. And if you want to publish an app you still need to sign up (as a publisher) at the cost $100, just like I said. I didn't know about the $5 charge, thanks, I'll add that to my next rant. I really can't look around the Apple developer site much because absolutely everything requires that you logon. You can still have your app rejected by Apple without explanation. The stupid part is Apple doesn't need to 1) charge $100, 2) charge $5 3) require an account. But they do. And the only legitimate reason for doing that is so they can 1) make money off struggling developers 2) track your actions on their site.
Being charged money for no apparent reason is scary to me.
nothing I said about the android SDK is false, if you don't like it, that's another issue altogether, but don't say I'm wrong just because you don't like it.
Also, android doesn't have this stupid shit:
http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html
$105 > $0
The camera button shows up on the reference (emulator) phone in the android API so I'm pretty sure it's a standard part.
Uhh, I did, it was pretty easy. Just download eclipse and the android API and you get not only a wonderful IDE but a full blown android emulator that can emulate any android device - all for free. I didn't have to sign anything, give my name out, pay money. I made my app and installed it on my phone. Nobody even knew I did it but me.
Apple? Well first you need to sign up, at the cost of at least $100. Then you'll have to obtain the API which is under lock and key (that's why you must sign up). Then you'll have to figure out how to make it work in whatever IDE you'll be using. Even if you get all that working and have paid Apple off, there's a chance that Apple will smugly say "Sorry, you don't get to do that." and without reason pull your app.
So ya, Android is a breeze, if they made it any easier the damn apps would write themselves. Apple wants to stick it to devs just as much as it wants to stick it to consumers. Apple is like a hydra, but instead of many heads it has many dicks that it goes around fucking everyone with, you cut off one dick and two more dicks grown in its place. Terrifying.
Somehow a misattributed quote is going to undo all of that? And now republicans are racist when they never were in the past? If republicans are so racist why would they ever have the head of the RNC be a black man? How could they allow for their presidential candidate to be a black man? Doesn't that invalidate what you're saying? And yes, this "read between the lines" bull shit about saying that "tax cuts" are racist is a conspiracy by the democrats to try and get everyone to believe that anything a republican says is inherently racist. For example: From http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2085
-CHARLES RANGEL (D-NY)
Who's the real racist? The party trying to ignore race, one who was founded to abolish slavery? Or the party that is constantly bringing race into the equation where it does not belong? I really must ask. Do you think "cut taxes" is racist? I for one think that giving special favor to people based on the color of their skin is racist - something that democrats have championed over and over again through race based college admissions, race based hiring, race based taxation, race based everything. Democrats are very interested in the color of your skin. Republicans don't care what color your skin is. Republicans want a society that is blind to skin color.
One group is logical and righteous, the other is a group of resent building, racist demagogues. "Whitey's got it too good!", "the rich man has got it too good". Just how the fuck are you going to pick yourself up by dragging everyone else down? If the rich are taxed at a higher rate does that money go to the jobless poor? No - it goes to the federal government who can't even run a fucking lemonade stand without loosing tens of billions of dollars. It could have gone to make jobs - but instead the government will squander it as they squander all money they confiscate. Lower taxes mean employers can hire more people - higher taxes mean employers can hire fewer people, it's not racist and it's pretty fucking simple.
Ouch! Doesn't sound like you have freedom of speech to me! And really, that's not just the opinion of Wikipedia editors, you can browse around the comments here and see a ton of complains about the lack of free speech in Canada and the UK. I'm not a fan of Michael Savage but I hear his books and his person is banned from the UK for "hate speech", and of course there is no "hate speech". Hate speech is such a subjective thing that just about anything can be misconstrued as hate speech. Why, right now it sounds to me like either I hate Canada, I hate the fact that they have restricted speech, or I hate the government of Canada. Well, that sounds like a lot of hate and my speech could be subject to censorship under the laws of Canada.
I'm sure you're well aware that hate speech is alive and well in the U.S. and there is no such thing as "hate censorship" here. We may have Holocaust deniers but we also have freedom. Lacking a 1776 like event, I think you're going to be stuck with the British at the helm of your government.
I would like to know exactly when all the racists switched from the slave owning democrat's side to the abolitionist republican's side.
Maybe read a little history before you make such a giant ass of yourself
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
STOP! Don't just reply. Get this shit through your head. republicans != racist. democrats == racist. Read your god damn history, and yes it is that simple. Ever hear of Robert Byrd? Democrat senator up until the day he died in 2010. And a member of the KKK. And one of the many democrats who filibustered the civil rights act. 2010! That shit is recent! Where's the republican governor who stopped black children from going to school? That's right, they were all democrats.
Maybe you can find me the 'racist republicans' or the 'racist tea party members' that you're talking about, because I'm pretty sure you just made that shit up. I've shown you (in the link provided) tons of cold hard facts that prove the democrat party has a massive history of racism. I've shown you, again facts, that prove that republicans are the champions of civil rights. If you don't get your facts right you're nothing but a tool of the democrat party, echoing exactly what they want you to say. A lie. That's nothing new for democrats though. Do you really think 90%+ of blacks would vote for the party who ran the confederacy? Do you really think they would vote for the champions of slavery? For democrats ignorance is power.
Reminds me of a saying: "Republicans are afraid you don't understand what they're talking about, Democrats are afraid you do."
This is a great rundown of the history of the democrats in their relationship with minorities, blacks in particular:
http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
Racists are not welcome in the Republican party. It was and is now a party that stands for equal rights and a color blind society. Anyone opposed to this idea isn't really a Republican at all. Read the history of the democrat party and compare it with the history of the republican party (in the link above). The republican party was founded in order to eliminate slavery. Can you honestly say that one is just as racist as the other?
It's the only way to win when you know you are a looser.
That cognitive dissonance you have is a bitch huh!
Doesn't sound like the Creator you thought they were talking about does it? You need to have a little background on the words Jefferson was using and what they mean in the sense that they were used back then before you try and pass any sort of judgement. Unalienable individual rights was a revolutionary thing at the time and is still forbidden in many "civilized" countries, Canada and the UK for example lacks freedom of speech (and have a monarchy! doh!).
Democrats love to paint the founding fathers as Christian zealots. But you have to ask yourself: Would Christian zealots allow the free practice of any religion and explicitly protect that in the Constitution? Wouldn't they have used the words "Jehovah" or "Jesus" rather than the more generic "God" and "Creator"? Sounds more like the agnostic Freemasons they were.
Please read the two books I linked earlier, they are very short, free, and in text at the links I provided and very easy to read. They were actually originally published as pamphlets just to give you an idea how short they are. They explain conservatism/libertarianism perfectly, so when you're done you'll know where in the political spectrum you are. You can be a leftist like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who's famous saying is "Property is theft", or you can be a rightist like Frédéric Bastiat who says "The Law is perverted to legalize the plunder of private property".
There stands, in stark contrast, the two political philosophies. You can't really choose half way because they are in such total contradiction of each other, but many people claim to - I think they are just deluded or ignorant of what it is they really believe in. For example the libertarian who says "We all have a right to private property" but turns around and wants to stick it to the rich guy. Or the democrat who wants more government but doesn't individually want to pay more in taxes.
I choose rightist because the arguments put forth in these two books use strong deductive reasoning and that is the only proper way to logically deduce anything. Proudhon uses endless platitudes and class warfare to define his arguments. But don't take my word for it, read yourself and decide for yourself, but for the love of god make sure you read a few books before you start forming opinions about the topic. If you don't read about this stuff I'm afraid the chances of you becoming a leftist are very good.
They wanted to count slaves as part of their representation. They wanted to allow new states to become slave states even though the constitution explicitly prohibits that. Their only source of wealth was that of farming and we all know what that shit was built on. If I was alive back then I would do everything in my power to oppose slavery including trying to subversively legislate it out of existence with tariffs, 3/5ths laws and anything else I could bring to the fight.
That people still drone on about how unfair Lincoln was to the south is rather insensitive to the people the south held as slaves. How do you think they felt about the 3/5ths law? Or was it just the wealthy plantation owners you felt were being treated unfairly? Read this Timeline of events leading to the American Civil war. Read all the compromises that were made by Republicans to try and prevent war. Slavery is indefensible, even as a means of economic survival. You can't tell me you must enslave someone or you'll go broke, that's a fucking joke.
All the south ever really wanted was slavery in perpetuity. The constitution prohibited that. Lincoln fought to preserve the union, the south fought to preserve slavery. Which of these sides are more righteous? Well, you're offering a defense of Byrd so you may just be a little bias. So maybe ask a black friend what his opinion is.
A quote from the timeline article:
From www.royal.gov.uk > How The Monarchy Works > What is Constitutional Monarchy?
And that's just what was on their summary page, I'm sure there are other powers that your unelected monarchs have as well. You must admit that their power is massive when compared to an ordanary citizen, which is what they would be in the U.S.. For example, Bush has no power to do anything at all. And unlike when you claim it, he really doesn't have any power. His children will not inherit his presidency. If in the middle of his presidency the people decided we didn't like him we can throw him out of office. So yes, there is a great deal of difference and yes, the queen of Canada has a great deal of power.
He would say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
These unalienable rights are called "Natural Law" and there is quite a bit written about it already.
Start with Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Very short, easy to read. Then move on to: The Law by Frederic Bastiat again, very short, very simple read. Both books are very old (>100 years old) and both books transcend time - when you read them you'll think they were written about today's events. It sounds like you're on the razors edge, I hope these books help bring you over to the light side.
One whom you cannot vote to remove. One whom lives on the tit of the government in perpetuity and apparently by divine right. According to your law, the queen is not your equal. You are less than the queen. You are less than anyone of royal blood. Don't agree? Than you agree with me. If the queen was a tyrant would you still feel as happy? Do you think then you would be given a choice? Do you like your new king? If you don't, too bad. He is your king and your better by mere accident of birth. But you must submit to the whim of the king! You are his subject!
Nobody has "rank" over anyone in the U.S. Nobody can tell anyone what they must or can do or say. It's freedom. I know this is an alien concept to you, so let me explain it how people in my country understand it: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I'm not trying to be all patriotic or anything, I'm trying to illustrate the difference between you and me. I think Alexis de Tocqueville said it best, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have Democracy in America with me:
And yes, Canada is a European [style] democracy before you argue that point.
Citation needed.
Nope! Byrd won the democrat primary, which is a closed selection made only by top democrat leaders, not even necessarily elected democrats either! It is not the voters who choose Byrd. The voters simply approved of who the DNC choose. The democrats appealed to the "good 'ol boy" attitude in the south because they will do anything to win an election. What better way to get a bunch of red neck racists to vote for you than by running a KKK member! Never forget! This is who they are today.
Too bad the democrats don't have primaries like republicans where anyone can vote. Of course this leaves open the chance that democrats will infiltrate the primaries (and often do) and choose poor candidates, but republicans are willing to take that chance so everyone can vote. Some democrats have the nerve to call this racist too. Of course democrats call anything anyone does that they don't agree with a racist.
Really? You can vote for the queen?! Maybe you don't know what you're talking about. I put a link to Law of succession just in case you didn't know what I was talking about. Do you now?
I was with you for most of that rant, but there are Republicans (admittedly not as many as there should be) who want to shrink the size of government. There are a lot of RINOs. But at least Republicans have the 'conservative principal' that is written down in so many great books by giants like Locke, Smith, Paine, Bastiat, Freedman and many others. We can look at the actions of Republicans and compare them to what they should behave like and decide if they are Republicans or RINOs. Democrats on the other hand are stuck with "Democrat principals" like Proudhon (Property is Theft!) or Marx. And all democrats share one goal: grow the size and power of government.
Sometimes the socialists have more control than the libertarians, but there is no getting away from the diametrical nature of government.
One thing that I think is intentionally obfuscated by democrats is that they have always been on the wrong side. After the revolution they were for keeping the law of succession, they were the "south" during the civil war, indeed the Republican party was created as an abolitionist party. North vs. South was also Republican vs. Democrat. Democrats were for Jim Crow laws, and many democrat governors stood in doorways of schools to prevent black children from entering. No republican governors did that! Republicans voted for every civil rights act, and democrats voted against every civil rights act, down party lines. All of these are cold hard facts, you can look them up if you don't believe me, that they are even called into question shows how effective the democrat "ignorance machine" is.
And now democrats want to say "well this party has changed. The democrat party of today is different!" Well then why did you vote Robert Bird, a member of the KKK into the senate every election until he died in 2010!? A god damn genuine "rode around in a white hood and strung up blacks for being black" KKK member. That should be all you need to know about the "democrat party of today".
People say the republicans are the racists - Well, I need a citation for that.
...
I only wish I was as naive as you were. 9 out of 10 deaths are attributable to some sort of bullying early in life. There's been correlation between an increase in bullying and a proportional increase in the average temperature of the earth leading to cyclic global warming. Bullying kills more than cancer, smoking, car accidents and Chuck Norris combined. I for one think we should dedicate a larger portion of our GDP towards trying to stomp out bullying rather than stupid things like national defense and education. It should break down like this:
Bullying
Austerity
Silly Walks
Education
Defense
Housing
Right on! These people need to read some Locke, Paine or Bastiat!
So how's it feel to subjugated rather than free? Call the U.S. what you will, at least we have universal suffrage. I don't know how you feel about it, but if I knew that some of these people in my government would be able to stay in positions of power regardless of public opinion and would pass their positions onto their children (law of succession) it would make be want to start a revolution. Err. I guess I'm a little late to that little party, but I think you get my point. If God had to choose, I'd rather he bless America, Canada included than save the queen. No offense.