In another thread, I showed how you used smear tactics while at the same time claiming that conservatives rarely do this (search for "ironic" in the motif story).
"Sometimes things are black and white"
Like what, your sig? That's usually what gets you involved in these off-topic threads. Here's a test to see how much of a party drone you are. Name one major platform issue of the republican party that you disagree with. Can you do it?
Or are you too far gone?
I never said you promoted any particular media outlet. Everthing I've posted directly applies to you and your illogical (more irony) and unsupportable claims.
I can't really waste much more time on this - you just ignore most of the points other raise anyway.
No, that is not my opinion of the political right at large, just of you (as I clearly stated). You might be surprised to learn than I agree with some of the goals and ideals of the republican platform. What I have a problem with is the deluge of caustic rhetoric from over-eager supporters like yourself and certain conservative media outlets. While I understand all conservatives don't share your black and white view of the world, those like yourself can be so vocal as to drive away people who have a more centric view on average of the issues.
I don't hope to convince you of anything; really I am just having a lot of fun baiting you.;)
"
Yeah, but was he known to anybody else beyond Texas?"
Yes, he was, and as the other replier said, unfortunately, name recognition can be more important in our nation than actual konwledge of candidates.Compare Bushes overall "unknown" factor with that of Bill Clinton at the time of his first election
"Our national press was not exactly eager to cover his state reforms in education etc..."
How did you find out about it then? Or do you live in Texas?
"I also remember that Clinton was able to win only because there was one time stunt candidate who managed to grab 19% of the national vote."
And Bush-2.0 was only able to win because of critical votes that went to Nader. Nader, a very left candidate, arguably took a higher percentage of dem votes than Perot did of rep votes.
Your problem is that when viewing symmetric situations where the only difference is the role of your particular favorite political party, you arrive at non-symmetric conclusions. Your sig is demostratably false. Was Clinton a liberal at the time of his national election? Don't hedge your bets and move the goal posts when challenged, back up your claim. Your sig doesn't say "the only way liberals can win a national election (in which a third party candidate doesn't blow my perceived validity of the election) is by pretending they're not liberal. Let's go further. Was Jimmy Carter a liberal? How about FDR? Kennedy?
If I wanted to play your partisan games, I could quip in return that "the only way conservatives win national elections is by pretending they're not conservative". But unlike you, I know both claims are wrong. Your sig, like most partisan rhetoric, may be a nice sound bite, but anyone can see after the slightest scrutiny that it doesn't hold water.
By all means keep using it, I just find it sad that so many people succumb to the us-versus-them mentality of modern american politics.
George Bush, son and namesake of former president, governor of third (population) / second (area) state in the nation, brother of governor of Florida was mostly unknown? bwahhahhahahha - where can I get some of your crack?
"Makes you wonder what will happen if they have to fight without these advantages... "
How would you rate the advantages enjoyed by Bush V. Gore against those enjoyed by Clinton V. Bush? Or does your memory not go back that far?
This article reminds me of a certain scene in a Monty Python movie. The desktop is no more dead than is has ever been. There are probably more people using Linux as a desktop and developing desktop capabilities today than say a year ago. Of course, I can't back that up with any numbers except personal experience in my place of work.
There's probably a good reason why your CS prof is teaching instead of doing. All the requirements you have outline are nice in theory, but I have rarely seen them all (or even many) used in practice on a single project. The only projects I have seen them all used on are big DoD (US) projects that over ran their already obscene budgets by 200-400% or more and at completion (where completion even happened) were all but obsolete in light of new requirements, technology, etc.
In practice, none, some, or maybe even all of those requirements might be justifiably used on a project depending on many factors (scope, criticality, complexity, etc).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, AC student person.
The difference is that there is no natural right to eat fancy food. There [b]is[/b] a natural right to freedom of expresion.
The concept "Natural Right" is an artificial construct. Ironic, no? The right to freedom of expression is no more natural than the right for others to silence you as they see fit. Don't get me wrong, freedom of speech is an important right which I fully support, just keep in mind it is only a right in the sense that society defines it to be a right.
Slashdot Mirror
I've rerun lilo, but now my computer won't boot. Is this a known bug, or should I post it to your World Wide Web site?
Thank you
Does that hurt?
Could you be any more vague? Thank you.
Thanks you for your suggestion,
General DoD
Like what, your sig? That's usually what gets you involved in these off-topic threads. Here's a test to see how much of a party drone you are. Name one major platform issue of the republican party that you disagree with. Can you do it?
Or are you too far gone?
I never said you promoted any particular media outlet. Everthing I've posted directly applies to you and your illogical (more irony) and unsupportable claims.
I can't really waste much more time on this - you just ignore most of the points other raise anyway.
I'm heading off on vacation.
HAND
I don't hope to convince you of anything; really I am just having a lot of fun baiting you. ;)
s/USE/DISTRIBUTE/
s/warmiak/fud-meister/
And the clencher:
Open your ears, the irony might be clogging them when you speak.
HAND
Yes, he was, and as the other replier said, unfortunately, name recognition can be more important in our nation than actual konwledge of candidates.Compare Bushes overall "unknown" factor with that of Bill Clinton at the time of his first election
How did you find out about it then? Or do you live in Texas?
And Bush-2.0 was only able to win because of critical votes that went to Nader. Nader, a very left candidate, arguably took a higher percentage of dem votes than Perot did of rep votes.
Your problem is that when viewing symmetric situations where the only difference is the role of your particular favorite political party, you arrive at non-symmetric conclusions. Your sig is demostratably false. Was Clinton a liberal at the time of his national election? Don't hedge your bets and move the goal posts when challenged, back up your claim. Your sig doesn't say "the only way liberals can win a national election (in which a third party candidate doesn't blow my perceived validity of the election) is by pretending they're not liberal. Let's go further. Was Jimmy Carter a liberal? How about FDR? Kennedy?
If I wanted to play your partisan games, I could quip in return that "the only way conservatives win national elections is by pretending they're not conservative". But unlike you, I know both claims are wrong. Your sig, like most partisan rhetoric, may be a nice sound bite, but anyone can see after the slightest scrutiny that it doesn't hold water.
By all means keep using it, I just find it sad that so many people succumb to the us-versus-them mentality of modern american politics.
HAND
George Bush, son and namesake of former president, governor of third (population) / second (area) state in the nation, brother of governor of Florida was mostly unknown? bwahhahhahahha - where can I get some of your crack?
How would you rate the advantages enjoyed by Bush V. Gore against those enjoyed by Clinton V. Bush? Or does your memory not go back that far?
In practice, none, some, or maybe even all of those requirements might be justifiably used on a project depending on many factors (scope, criticality, complexity, etc).
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, AC student person.
The concept "Natural Right" is an artificial construct. Ironic, no? The right to freedom of expression is no more natural than the right for others to silence you as they see fit. Don't get me wrong, freedom of speech is an important right which I fully support, just keep in mind it is only a right in the sense that society defines it to be a right.
HTH
Cut off your head
Off Topic: Am I the only one here who finds Chris Rock painfully unfunny?
That is All.
NON-geek friends? What kind of geek are you?
I second the motion.
YMMV
Better make that alleged hypocrisy, Bill.
Can you feeeeel the irony? Come on - can you?