Anyone else notice how this is their third redesign in 13 or so years...but it's their second in 5 years?
Seriously, Slashdot. Leave things the way they were. I'm all for change when it's for the better, but this is now twice you've fucked us over with a redesign.
I voted for Obama because he was -quite sadly- the lesser "evil" of everyone running. Yes, third parties included. Once they reach the national stage of a presidential election, anyone still around is going to be a "bad" choice by virtue of what's required to get that far. With that in mind, Obama seemed to, at the very least, have the best intentions, if not necessarily the best plan. He also seemed the most likely to move towards the center, should the balance of power ever split (as it did with the mid-terms...and, as evidenced by the number of Democrats pissed off with him since the mid-terms, he is doing just that.) All that being said, had I been the same person in 2008 that I am today, I likely would have just stayed home.
That's not a troll, nor is it hair splitting: that's plain honesty.
Just once, I'd love to see a President's State of the Union speech address points COMPLETELY different than what's written in the opposing party's response. That would be some quality entertainment!
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Missed that part? Republicans (and, strangely, Bachman) have been talking about their response for days. Not day: days.
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Pojut, Your problem--that you don't understand--is that you are gullible
AVT,
Your problem--that you don't understand--is that you must have missed the multiple times I explicitly said I didn't personally believe him. Like this time:
I said I thought he was genuine...as in, I believed that HE believed himself. That's not the same thing as saying that I thought he would actually accomplished(sic) everything he claimed he would.
I'm telling you that I was aware that HE thought he could do all those things...that's very different than BELIEVING he could.
My opinion of how someone thinks of themselves and my personal opinion of that person can be entirely different...and, in this case, they were/are. If you consider that splitting hairs, I don't know what to tell you.
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
How the fuck can someone respond to a speech they haven't heard yet??
Well. They do. All of them. They tell whatever lie they think they need to tell at the time to get elected. There is no fallout from it. If it starts to become an issue they either get the press on their side to ignore it or if the press is not on their side then they manufacture something to get the heat off.
Not to the point of saying they are going to COMPLETELY overhaul the healthcare system, or close a prison that houses hundreds of terrorists/war criminals. Those aren't the kinds of things they make "promises" about. They may say they will lower taxes, or enact some piece of legislation, but they don't express intentions of modifying whole chunks of the way our society or government functions.
"I did not say he would not lie. I just said he wouldn't lie that big." Come on. That is crap. There is no lie they will not tell to get elected. Once in power they will do what they need to to try and stay in power.
Which is EXACTLY my point. Someone wouldn't consciously and purposely lie about radically changing our way of life BEFORE they get elected, and then, by choice, NOT do so once they ARE elected.
That's the exact opposite of trying to stay in power.
Oh. Nevermind. You are right. Politicians do not make promises that they do not at the time intend to keep.
Do you have some kind of comprehension problem, or are you purposely being an ass? I didn't say politicians don't make promises they don't intend to keep, and I didn't say they don't lie. I said he wouldn't make that many promises, nor promises of that magnitude, if he was being purposely deceiteful.
Seriously, Dish. You need to stop responding to what you want to read, and start responding to what you actually read.
This is why you have different email addresses. My gmail address is for personal stuff only...personal communications, confirmations for bills, that sort of thing. My hotmail address is my "general use" address, used for things like forum signups and such.
He wouldn't make that many big promises knowing ahead of time that he couldn't or wouldn't actually go through with them...it would be political suicide. If there's one thing the 2008 election showed us, it's that he isn't (or at least wsasn't) politically stupid.
No professional politician believes the things he says to get elected.
I find it funny you would say that, given this post. That being said, "not believing" and "not going to follow through with" are two very different things.
How it is that you can watch an interview with him and suddenly believe that he is being honest about what he believes is beyond me.
It wasn't sudden, I meant time collectively spent. Also, as I said above, being honest about intentions and actually following through with those intentions are two very different things.
What I am not understanding here is that you state you were aware of the facts. Yet believed that he believed that he was different.
Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I EVER say that I believed he was different? I said I thought he was genuine...as in, I believed that HE believed himself. That's not the same thing as saying that I thought he would actually accomplished everything he claimed he would.
How? How do you know for a fact that the guy was brought up in the Chicago democrat factory, and voted on nothing. Yet still think that he is going to speak honestly about his "Hope and Change" of america?
Because of interviews with him. Completely ignoring his large speeches, ignoring the times when he was reading from a teleprompter, I'm talking about when it was him, an interviewer, and a camera. The guy seemed to truly believe he would do good things if he was elected, and those things seemed to be genuinely good-natured in purpose.
Again, I'm not saying that I believed he would accomplish these things, I'm saying that I believed that he believed.
How do reconcile that within yourself?
I don't have to reconcile anything, because you seem to have some misguided preconceived notion of what goes on in my head.
Yes, both as a continuation of the first film and as a film by itself. It was really entertaining, it did a good job of putting the audience in the character's heads, it maintained consistency with the real-world representation in the computer world, and naturally it looked awesome. Basically, it was good for the same reasons the first one was good.
People seem to forget how slow-paced and badly-written/acted the original was.
Dish, come on...in this political climate, anyone that makes it far enough to be a potential presidential nominee is going to be pushing the agenda of one side over another.
Just because they have an "I" after their name doesn't make them any more trustworthy than someone with a "D" or an "R".
We are happy that you have finally come to grips with the fact that you were ignorant.
I was saying the exact same thing back during the election as the post you responded to. How would that make me ignorant if I recognized it back then...? Thanks for the assumptions though, we all know how well those work out.
That is an impressive list to be sure, but I wasn't referring strictly to the nominees...I meant in general.
I remember even just a few years ago being able to go to the movies a couple of times a month and having to DECIDE between what to see...now, there's barely anything every couple of MONTHS that I want to see:/
I'm hardly becomming jaded...I'm technically watching more movies than ever (yay 8-at-a-time Netflix!), it's just that newer stuff seems, as a whole, to be fairly weak.
...despite some of the huge names that came out last year, overall the new movie scene was a bit boring. There were some big ones that were awesome (Tron, Inception), but overall, there wasn't a lot of variety to be excited about as a moviegoer.
I still believe that he honestly thought he would be able to accomplish everything he was saying on the campaign trail in 2007-2008...but then once he was elected, he realized how impossible that would be.
Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that he did seem truly genuine back then.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone else notice how this is their third redesign in 13 or so years...but it's their second in 5 years?
Seriously, Slashdot. Leave things the way they were. I'm all for change when it's for the better, but this is now twice you've fucked us over with a redesign.
Indeed. Can't find an option to switch back to the old layout anywhere...
I voted for Obama because he was -quite sadly- the lesser "evil" of everyone running. Yes, third parties included. Once they reach the national stage of a presidential election, anyone still around is going to be a "bad" choice by virtue of what's required to get that far. With that in mind, Obama seemed to, at the very least, have the best intentions, if not necessarily the best plan. He also seemed the most likely to move towards the center, should the balance of power ever split (as it did with the mid-terms...and, as evidenced by the number of Democrats pissed off with him since the mid-terms, he is doing just that.) All that being said, had I been the same person in 2008 that I am today, I likely would have just stayed home.
That's not a troll, nor is it hair splitting: that's plain honesty.
Just once, I'd love to see a President's State of the Union speech address points COMPLETELY different than what's written in the opposing party's response. That would be some quality entertainment!
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Missed that part? Republicans (and, strangely, Bachman) have been talking about their response for days. Not day: days.
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
Missed that part?
Pojut,
Your problem--that you don't understand--is that you are gullible
AVT,
Your problem--that you don't understand--is that you must have missed the multiple times I explicitly said I didn't personally believe him. Like this time:
I said I thought he was genuine...as in, I believed that HE believed himself. That's not the same thing as saying that I thought he would actually accomplished(sic) everything he claimed he would.
And this time:
I'm telling you that I was aware that HE thought he could do all those things...that's very different than BELIEVING he could.
My opinion of how someone thinks of themselves and my personal opinion of that person can be entirely different...and, in this case, they were/are. If you consider that splitting hairs, I don't know what to tell you.
If that ends up being the case, I have a feeling it's going to be a really quiet discussion :p
Liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, I always found it funny that the State of the Union speech AND the "response" speeches by the opposing party are written simultaneously.
How the fuck can someone respond to a speech they haven't heard yet??
no.freaking.way at gmail.com*
*if this is someone's real gmail address, I'm REALLY, REALLY sorry.
Well. They do. All of them. They tell whatever lie they think they need to tell at the time to get elected. There is no fallout from it. If it starts to become an issue they either get the press on their side to ignore it or if the press is not on their side then they manufacture something to get the heat off.
Not to the point of saying they are going to COMPLETELY overhaul the healthcare system, or close a prison that houses hundreds of terrorists/war criminals. Those aren't the kinds of things they make "promises" about. They may say they will lower taxes, or enact some piece of legislation, but they don't express intentions of modifying whole chunks of the way our society or government functions.
"I did not say he would not lie. I just said he wouldn't lie that big." Come on. That is crap. There is no lie they will not tell to get elected. Once in power they will do what they need to to try and stay in power.
Which is EXACTLY my point. Someone wouldn't consciously and purposely lie about radically changing our way of life BEFORE they get elected, and then, by choice, NOT do so once they ARE elected.
That's the exact opposite of trying to stay in power.
Oh. Nevermind. You are right. Politicians do not make promises that they do not at the time intend to keep.
Do you have some kind of comprehension problem, or are you purposely being an ass? I didn't say politicians don't make promises they don't intend to keep, and I didn't say they don't lie. I said he wouldn't make that many promises, nor promises of that magnitude, if he was being purposely deceiteful.
Seriously, Dish. You need to stop responding to what you want to read, and start responding to what you actually read.
This is why you have different email addresses. My gmail address is for personal stuff only...personal communications, confirmations for bills, that sort of thing. My hotmail address is my "general use" address, used for things like forum signups and such.
Yes, I did.
He wouldn't make that many big promises knowing ahead of time that he couldn't or wouldn't actually go through with them...it would be political suicide. If there's one thing the 2008 election showed us, it's that he isn't (or at least wsasn't) politically stupid.
No professional politician believes the things he says to get elected.
I find it funny you would say that, given this post. That being said, "not believing" and "not going to follow through with" are two very different things.
How it is that you can watch an interview with him and suddenly believe that he is being honest about what he believes is beyond me.
It wasn't sudden, I meant time collectively spent. Also, as I said above, being honest about intentions and actually following through with those intentions are two very different things.
That's why you go with a place like Demonoid.
What I am not understanding here is that you state you were aware of the facts. Yet believed that he believed that he was different.
Whoa whoa whoa. Where did I EVER say that I believed he was different? I said I thought he was genuine...as in, I believed that HE believed himself. That's not the same thing as saying that I thought he would actually accomplished everything he claimed he would.
How? How do you know for a fact that the guy was brought up in the Chicago democrat factory, and voted on nothing. Yet still think that he is going to speak honestly about his "Hope and Change" of america?
Because of interviews with him. Completely ignoring his large speeches, ignoring the times when he was reading from a teleprompter, I'm talking about when it was him, an interviewer, and a camera. The guy seemed to truly believe he would do good things if he was elected, and those things seemed to be genuinely good-natured in purpose.
Again, I'm not saying that I believed he would accomplish these things, I'm saying that I believed that he believed.
How do reconcile that within yourself?
I don't have to reconcile anything, because you seem to have some misguided preconceived notion of what goes on in my head.
Yes, both as a continuation of the first film and as a film by itself. It was really entertaining, it did a good job of putting the audience in the character's heads, it maintained consistency with the real-world representation in the computer world, and naturally it looked awesome. Basically, it was good for the same reasons the first one was good.
People seem to forget how slow-paced and badly-written/acted the original was.
Dish, come on...in this political climate, anyone that makes it far enough to be a potential presidential nominee is going to be pushing the agenda of one side over another.
Just because they have an "I" after their name doesn't make them any more trustworthy than someone with a "D" or an "R".
No, I'm telling you that I was aware that HE thought he could do all those things...that's very different than BELIEVING he could.
You don't have to be an asshole, dish...it's possible to have a civil discussion.
or diluting the Christian message to achieve popularity.
Who dilutes the Christian message more than the Vatican?
We are happy that you have finally come to grips with the fact that you were ignorant.
I was saying the exact same thing back during the election as the post you responded to. How would that make me ignorant if I recognized it back then...? Thanks for the assumptions though, we all know how well those work out.
That is an impressive list to be sure, but I wasn't referring strictly to the nominees...I meant in general.
I remember even just a few years ago being able to go to the movies a couple of times a month and having to DECIDE between what to see...now, there's barely anything every couple of MONTHS that I want to see :/
I'm hardly becomming jaded...I'm technically watching more movies than ever (yay 8-at-a-time Netflix!), it's just that newer stuff seems, as a whole, to be fairly weak.
...despite some of the huge names that came out last year, overall the new movie scene was a bit boring. There were some big ones that were awesome (Tron, Inception), but overall, there wasn't a lot of variety to be excited about as a moviegoer.
I still believe that he honestly thought he would be able to accomplish everything he was saying on the campaign trail in 2007-2008...but then once he was elected, he realized how impossible that would be.
Not saying that's right, I'm just saying that he did seem truly genuine back then.