Then you have your socialists, gramscian marxists, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can be collectively known as the political left. Not all self-described leftists are of course a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert with them without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."
These are people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as an assault on the American people. There is of course room for honest criticism of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight our external foes. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.
This is just the cold war all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the cold war never really ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies here in the states never threw in the towel. Those allies are still hard at work on their long march through our institutions, weakening and destroying from within. Now that a new foe has surfaced, they're working overtime. Then you have your fascists, totalitarians, dictators, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can collectively be known as the political right. Not all self-described righties are a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."
These are the people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as "necessary for the sake of security." There is, of course, room for honest praise of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight them when they assume power. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.
This is just the Cold War all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the Cold War never ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies in the states never threw in the towel. These allies are hard at work on their long march driving our country into the ground - demolishing the constitutional freedoms that set us apart from the Soviet Union and sinking us into just as much debt as the Soviet Union was in, the debt that caused them to collapse under their own weight.
Look at that, I can take every word you said and make it apply to the right! You, sir, are a tool. You're an unthinking tool for the fools who subscribe all the demons of the world to the "leftists". Does the left have their problems? Yes. Does the right? Yes. But to blame one side for all of the problems is ridiculous - no matter what side it is. I'll admit it. I'm socially and economically liberal. And yet I do not appear to be blinded by that fact, unlike yourself. You seem to be asserting that Islamofascists want America to be a communist nation. Wouldn't they rather it be a fascist nation? You're so blinded by your hate of the left that you cannot see the problems that exist on the right. Neither side is perfect.
The only interaction I want with advertising is stopping it dead in its tracks I hate advertising as much as the next guy, but isn't it a necessary evil? Without advertising, so many things that are free would now would have to be paid for. Yes, places make a lot of profits on advertisements, so they could settle for less. But they would still need to make more money.
WARNING: NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP
Say right now cable companies get $200 per person per month, with the amount you pay plus the amount they receive for ads. Say that 50% of that is pure profit, or $100 dollars. So, even if they made $0 in profits, you would still need to pay $100 per month. Would you rather that your bill is increased to that or that you need to tune out 10 minutes of ads for every 30 minutes of TV you watch? Personally, I am willing to put up with 20 minutes of ads every hour for saving that much money.
Yeah, I find it ridiculous how these people have perverted the Qur'an for their own purposes. I'm not a Muslim but I do find the Qur'an a pretty impressive work. It puts even more emphasis on compassion, tolerance, and giving than the Bible (or at least the Old Testament). Calling Al-Qaeda and their ilk fundamentalists is even worse than saying that the likes of Jerry Falwell Micah Armstrong, and the Ku Klux Klan are fundamentalists - they're radicals, pure and simple. The list of things that Micah Armstrong says send you to hell include being blond, holding hands, being fat (his beer belly is all muscle), playing sports, being associated with Hollywood, wearing earrings, listening to any music (even Christian rock), being a woman, owning a pet, or judging people (apparently he wasn't - he was just being honest).
This just reinforces what I have said in the past. We need a "-1 Not Funny" rating. Far too often things that were meant to be humor bot not found funny by the mods get moderated -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait. If we had a -1 Not Funny that did not affect Karma, things might be different.
Methinks not. You're going around telling people to read it when you probably don't even own one. There's a special word in there for Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and other religions similar to Islam. It's "dhimmi", which means People of the Book. The Qur'an says that Muslims should "not dispute with the Followers of the Book...except of those of them who act unjustly". It says that "[Muslims] believe in that which has been revealed to [them] and revealed to [the dhimmis], and [their] God and [the dhimmi's] God is One, and to Him do [they] submit."
The People of the Book were granted very similar rights to Muslims. Muslims were not told "to convert [them], subjugate [them], or KILL [them]. PERIOD."
You're wrong. I fear for the human race based on the lies sheeple like you are willing to believe. I have a bad feeling that you were homeschooled.
"And having read your analogy, you're leaving out a crucial point. In your incredibly weak analogy, you would have to give the world self determination and will, so it could DECIDE to fall. Without it, your analogy is not at all applicable, as criminals DO have free will, and so will not automatically "fall" as the world does." There are no facts there. Only your own unsubstantiated opinion.
Wait, you just said that they were already committing crimes. So, apparently SOMETHING has to change about their free will, or else they would commit exactly the same amount of crime in both cases. It's kind of hard to commit a crime when you've been thrown in jail after the first crime.;)
Actually, I think you need to be the one to enter adulthood. Things have consequences. You need to learn that. And I don't see you using facts. All you've done is insult people. Your point fails. You have free will and by knowingly removing an obstacle to something happening, you are letting it happen. The criminals free will does not enter into it because their will has not changed. They ARE committing crimes. Only, the police are stopping them. When you remove the police, you remove their obstacle. I'm not saying it's not their fault at all, I'm just saying not all of the blame rests with them.
The SAT should do something like that, you know how successful that was. I see the SAT and ACT taking a lot of flak but, from everything I have seen, it's a pretty good judge of how intelligent a person is. Granted, it doesn't do a lot of good for extenuating circumstances (stayed up late the night before because you're working to support your parents/brothers/sisters or your family is really wealthy so you take a $10000 three-week program). However, for the normal person, it has correlated pretty well to how intelligent people are in my experience. Note that I am not trying to claim it is a measure of intelligence. Rather, it is a measure of something that is directly affected by intelligence: ability to retain, use, and understand information.
I have a friend of mine who is a very good English student and not the greatest math student. His brain just functions that way, he does not understand math as well as he does English. As I had expected, he scored well on the English (32) and extremely well on the Reading portions of the ACT (35) and not nearly so well on the Math section (21). He also scored above average on the Science section (25) and this came out to a composite score of 28. Another friend of mine scored a 33, which was again about what I would expect based on his level of intelligence - slightly lower but still pretty near. Myself, I had expected that I would score higher on the Math and Science sections than the English and Reading and that is, as I had expected, the way it worked out. I had a 34 on both the English and Reading sections and a 36 on both the Math and Science sections, for a composite of 35.
While not perfect, from my experience they are a pretty good measure of things directly affected by intelligence. (Note that I used the ACT because, being from the Midwest, that is what I am most familiar with)
So if x kills y and y was preventing z, it's not x's fault that z happens? Not in the slightest? Let's take an analogy from Greek mythology. Atlas is holding up the world. Let's pretend that Zeus decides to kill Atlas. It's not at all Zeus's fault when the world is no longer supported and it falls down and we all die?
I got that, thanks. But that says nothing about whether it is statistically significant. I'd check myself but I remember far too little of my Statistics class.:/
Should someone who is living in the US illegally who is trying to cause harm to it's citizens have that right? No. Well, duh. But that falls under whole different laws... like, say, those regarding homicide.
Of the sixth amendment which deals with a public trial. Should a terrorist have a public trial? It's debatable. What if during the trial they cough up sensitive information that could harm the safety of our military personnel engaged in active operations? The SCOTUS disagrees with you - see New York Times v. United States, where they ruled that the possibility of censoring for the cause of "national security" is unconstitutional.
Again, you are bringing up a straw man. He NEVER said we should not be clear about what Iran is doing and he only brought up one issue. Read his post, please:
Yes, because it was Iran that destroyed that country's infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, museums, everything except the oil infrastructure), disbanded its military and police, and wrote their new constitution so its mercenary army is above the law and no court in the country can touch them.
It's all Iran's fault. They were the one! Get them! Boo the current boogyman! Boo! That was the entirety of it. There is nothing else there. Did he ever mention Saddam? Did he ever mention Iran, besides saying that they were not the ones responsible for Iraq's infrastructure (or lack thereof)?
And I don't think it's Iran that's preventing Iraq from being a Western-friendly democracy; I think that has a little bit more to do with how they perceive our actions over there.
I understood perfectly what you meant. Maybe you did not understand what I meant. His comment sounded far too much like something from Fox and not the actual truth. His post gave the impression that the U.S. has had no part in destabilizing Iraq. Though it was not our intent, it is demonstrably true.
Incidentally, that's not what he said. You said that Iran was destabilizing Iraq:
a country that is being actively destabilized by Iran
He (in a satirical style) pointed out that it wasn't Iran who was doing that:
Yes, because it was Iran that destroyed that country's infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, museums, everything except the oil infrastructure), disbanded its military and police, and wrote their new constitution so its mercenary army is above the law and no court in the country can touch them.
You used a straw man saying that he said Iraq was peachy before we got there:
You really think that the previous military and law enforcement regimes were bastions of just, and even-handed peacekeeping?
I did not reply to you, I replied to someone who replied to you. You may have missed that (otherwise your comment doesn't make a lot of sense).
Someone replied to you thanking you for getting your information from "intelligent places" and not "the mass media" and it was to that which I was replying.
They aren't United States Citizens, so they get no protection under our founding documents. My memory must be failing me. I seem to recall that the framers of the Bill of Rights never used the word "citizen," but rather "people." Can you show me where it says that only citizens get freedom of speech, etc.?
This post is so ridiculous that it's funny. In summary:
[person A lists complaints a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k] [person B quotes source out of context] [person B takes source and says k is wrong, therefore person A is an ideological hack (ignoring a through j)]
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone.
That's why it's partisan: Democrats did NOT do this. The House Judiciary Committee did. And, in case you weren't aware, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats - we have no idea who actually was responsible.
In summary, you are an ignorant asshat (to use your word).
I'm glad you get your information from intelligent places instead of sticking to what bias you hear in mass media. Fox News still counts as the mass media and does NOT count as an intelligent place.
I seriously doubt that. As much as I'd like to believe that the federal government may be coming to some sense regarding patent decisions, I can't help but believe that that will change - and for the worse.
Really, I think any present break in the insanity is merely the eye of the storm, if you will. From here it will probably just go back to how things used to be.
Slashdot Mirror
These are people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as an assault on the American people. There is of course room for honest criticism of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight our external foes. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.
This is just the cold war all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the cold war never really ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies here in the states never threw in the towel. Those allies are still hard at work on their long march through our institutions, weakening and destroying from within. Now that a new foe has surfaced, they're working overtime. Then you have your fascists, totalitarians, dictators, and a whole slew of other groups and ideologies that can collectively be known as the political right. Not all self-described righties are a part of this swarm, but the majority are. Others are unconsciously working in concert without understanding their intentions. These are generally known as "useful idiots."
These are the people who attempt to color everything that the president and his administration are doing as "necessary for the sake of security." There is, of course, room for honest praise of this administration, but that isn't what these people are about. They're about weakening our nation from within so that we will be less able to fight them when they assume power. No nation is ever conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, and that is exactly what their game plan is.
This is just the Cold War all over again in many ways. In fact it would be more honest to say that the Cold War never ended. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, but its allies in the states never threw in the towel. These allies are hard at work on their long march driving our country into the ground - demolishing the constitutional freedoms that set us apart from the Soviet Union and sinking us into just as much debt as the Soviet Union was in, the debt that caused them to collapse under their own weight.
Look at that, I can take every word you said and make it apply to the right! You, sir, are a tool. You're an unthinking tool for the fools who subscribe all the demons of the world to the "leftists". Does the left have their problems? Yes. Does the right? Yes. But to blame one side for all of the problems is ridiculous - no matter what side it is. I'll admit it. I'm socially and economically liberal. And yet I do not appear to be blinded by that fact, unlike yourself. You seem to be asserting that Islamofascists want America to be a communist nation. Wouldn't they rather it be a fascist nation? You're so blinded by your hate of the left that you cannot see the problems that exist on the right. Neither side is perfect.
think of the giant superconducting magnets?
WARNING: NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY MADE UP
Say right now cable companies get $200 per person per month, with the amount you pay plus the amount they receive for ads. Say that 50% of that is pure profit, or $100 dollars. So, even if they made $0 in profits, you would still need to pay $100 per month. Would you rather that your bill is increased to that or that you need to tune out 10 minutes of ads for every 30 minutes of TV you watch? Personally, I am willing to put up with 20 minutes of ads every hour for saving that much money.
Yeah, I find it ridiculous how these people have perverted the Qur'an for their own purposes. I'm not a Muslim but I do find the Qur'an a pretty impressive work. It puts even more emphasis on compassion, tolerance, and giving than the Bible (or at least the Old Testament). Calling Al-Qaeda and their ilk fundamentalists is even worse than saying that the likes of Jerry Falwell Micah Armstrong, and the Ku Klux Klan are fundamentalists - they're radicals, pure and simple. The list of things that Micah Armstrong says send you to hell include being blond, holding hands, being fat (his beer belly is all muscle), playing sports, being associated with Hollywood, wearing earrings, listening to any music (even Christian rock), being a woman, owning a pet, or judging people (apparently he wasn't - he was just being honest).
This just reinforces what I have said in the past. We need a "-1 Not Funny" rating. Far too often things that were meant to be humor bot not found funny by the mods get moderated -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait. If we had a -1 Not Funny that did not affect Karma, things might be different.
On a side note, I thought it was funny.
Have you read any of the Qur'an?
Methinks not. You're going around telling people to read it when you probably don't even own one. There's a special word in there for Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and other religions similar to Islam. It's "dhimmi", which means People of the Book. The Qur'an says that Muslims should "not dispute with the Followers of the Book...except of those of them who act unjustly". It says that "[Muslims] believe in that which has been revealed to [them] and revealed to [the dhimmis], and [their] God and [the dhimmi's] God is One, and to Him do [they] submit."
The People of the Book were granted very similar rights to Muslims. Muslims were not told "to convert [them], subjugate [them], or KILL [them]. PERIOD."
You're wrong. I fear for the human race based on the lies sheeple like you are willing to believe. I have a bad feeling that you were homeschooled.
Actually, I think you need to be the one to enter adulthood. Things have consequences. You need to learn that. And I don't see you using facts. All you've done is insult people. Your point fails. You have free will and by knowingly removing an obstacle to something happening, you are letting it happen. The criminals free will does not enter into it because their will has not changed. They ARE committing crimes. Only, the police are stopping them. When you remove the police, you remove their obstacle. I'm not saying it's not their fault at all, I'm just saying not all of the blame rests with them.
I have a friend of mine who is a very good English student and not the greatest math student. His brain just functions that way, he does not understand math as well as he does English. As I had expected, he scored well on the English (32) and extremely well on the Reading portions of the ACT (35) and not nearly so well on the Math section (21). He also scored above average on the Science section (25) and this came out to a composite score of 28. Another friend of mine scored a 33, which was again about what I would expect based on his level of intelligence - slightly lower but still pretty near. Myself, I had expected that I would score higher on the Math and Science sections than the English and Reading and that is, as I had expected, the way it worked out. I had a 34 on both the English and Reading sections and a 36 on both the Math and Science sections, for a composite of 35.
While not perfect, from my experience they are a pretty good measure of things directly affected by intelligence. (Note that I used the ACT because, being from the Midwest, that is what I am most familiar with)
So if x kills y and y was preventing z, it's not x's fault that z happens? Not in the slightest? Let's take an analogy from Greek mythology. Atlas is holding up the world. Let's pretend that Zeus decides to kill Atlas. It's not at all Zeus's fault when the world is no longer supported and it falls down and we all die?
I like Styx, you insensitive clod!
I got that, thanks. But that says nothing about whether it is statistically significant. I'd check myself but I remember far too little of my Statistics class. :/
I have to ask: is that much of a difference statistically significant? 700,000 on 10 million?
That made me laugh harder than I have in a while.
Thank you.
Of the sixth amendment which deals with a public trial. Should a terrorist have a public trial? It's debatable. What if during the trial they cough up sensitive information that could harm the safety of our military personnel engaged in active operations? The SCOTUS disagrees with you - see New York Times v. United States, where they ruled that the possibility of censoring for the cause of "national security" is unconstitutional.
And I don't think it's Iran that's preventing Iraq from being a Western-friendly democracy; I think that has a little bit more to do with how they perceive our actions over there.
I understood perfectly what you meant. Maybe you did not understand what I meant. His comment sounded far too much like something from Fox and not the actual truth. His post gave the impression that the U.S. has had no part in destabilizing Iraq. Though it was not our intent, it is demonstrably true.
He (in a satirical style) pointed out that it wasn't Iran who was doing that: Yes, because it was Iran that destroyed that country's infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, bridges, airports, hospitals, museums, everything except the oil infrastructure), disbanded its military and police, and wrote their new constitution so its mercenary army is above the law and no court in the country can touch them.
You used a straw man saying that he said Iraq was peachy before we got there: You really think that the previous military and law enforcement regimes were bastions of just, and even-handed peacekeeping?
I did not reply to you, I replied to someone who replied to you. You may have missed that (otherwise your comment doesn't make a lot of sense).
Someone replied to you thanking you for getting your information from "intelligent places" and not "the mass media" and it was to that which I was replying.
[person A lists complaints a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k] [person B quotes source out of context] [person B takes source and says k is wrong, therefore person A is an ideological hack (ignoring a through j)]
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone.
Someone did not RTFA. ;)
That's why it's partisan: Democrats did NOT do this. The House Judiciary Committee did. And, in case you weren't aware, the House Judiciary Committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats - we have no idea who actually was responsible.
In summary, you are an ignorant asshat (to use your word).
He's got quite an eclectic taste in music.
I seriously doubt that. As much as I'd like to believe that the federal government may be coming to some sense regarding patent decisions, I can't help but believe that that will change - and for the worse.
Really, I think any present break in the insanity is merely the eye of the storm, if you will. From here it will probably just go back to how things used to be.