As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.
Well, he did say that the domain in question is his own last name. So unless he changed his last name recently, I would think the Dutch company would have a hard time demonstrating that he was domain-name squatting.
I would suspect a reasonable person would see that both the poster and the company have reasonable claims on the domain - however the poster purchased the.com iteration first. If he was to respond to them and say "I might be interested, if you meet criteria ABC for a price of XYZ or better", I don't see how that could really be taken as domain-name squatting.
After all, we are talking about his last name, here.
If you really want to have fun, you could ask them to pay for you (and your family) to all change your last name legally as well.
Everyone makes jokes about the McCain housing thing
Actually, I specifically picked McCain because of the phrase
maverick billionaire
From the article here. We can pick on both sides for being wealthy if we want, but only one side has one (or two?) candidate(s?) running as a "maverick".
Feel free to pick something out of there to pick on Obama or Biden if you like.
I have firefox. I'm just not running adblock right now. The ads don't usually bother me that much, though the barrage of McCain attack ads gets annoying quickly.
But its nice to know that at least he isn't running a negative campaign or anything...
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting
I never refused it. I asked where this law was that you kept referring to. You never provided it. You eventually could not find it and opted instead to throw expletives at me.
And without knowing what law this is, we have don't know any of the following:
Who is responsible for its enforcement?
What are the consequences of breaking the law?
What are the meeting requirements?
Where did the law originate?
Where does it have jurisdiction?
And in the context of this "law", the answer to the first question may be the most important for this situation. Unless you believe that the people responsible for enforcement of this "law" are so hell-bent on making the NRA look bad that they would be unwilling to be flexible with the "law" in light of a nearby tragedy, that is.
In short, I don't have all the information on this. And if you do, you certainly haven't shown it, in spite of my having asked about it numerous times.
You have said you can do it, but you have not yet done it.
since I'm not Republican
This is absolutely counter to everything you have said so far. I have seen more blind GOP talking points from you than from anyone else in a long time:
You place all the economic blame of the current situation on Clinton
You cannot discuss Clinton without bringing up Lewinski
You complain about the "liberal bias" in the media:
You claim that CNN is liberal (in spite of Glenn Beck)
You claim that ABC is liberal (in spite of George Stephanopolous)
You try to make CBS look liberal by posting an article from cbsnews.com (which was a politico.com reprint)
You attack Michael Moore incessantly, even when it had nothing to do with the original conversation
You called his movies "faux documentaries"
You said he had "academy award winning movies" - when he has won only one academy award
You said (more than once) that his movies were "full of lies"
You tried to make controversy out of the difference between a city and its suburb - and blew it way out of proportion
You tried to induce comparisons in movies you haven't seen that simply were not there
When I asked you for a straight answer regarding one of your assertions, you responded by swearing at me
Frankly, your conservative streak and temperament at best place you in the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Though the fact that you use your same repetition tactic to try to assert that you are not just another republican actually gives you more resemblance to conservative hack Glenn Beck.
Either way you certainly haven't given any reason to believe your assertion of not being a republican. Though you haven't let the facts get in your way so far, so I guess I wouldn't expect you to start now.
Your own blind ideology is what ended the conversation. It is what lead you to swear at me, rather than answer the question I posed to you. The issues you brought up against Moore - which wasn't even how the conversation started - are classic neocon talking points. They have been addressed and you refused to acknowledge that.
If it makes you feel better inside to accuse me of lying, great. Obviously I cannot stop you from being blinded and coerced by your own beliefs.
But to believe that you don't hate Moore, or that you did not approach his films with a prejudice against them, is insanity. More than once you said they were "full of lies". You even went so far as to call them "faux documentaries". Those phrases are in your own comments, go back and read them. Frankly I am surprised you aren't trying to allege him of lying about his own name.
If you are willing to lower yourself to swearing, rather than addressing a question posed to you, then you have sacrificed all civility and credibility. There is no reason for me to continue talking to you if you feel that this is a reasonable course of action for you to take.
Bush was not in long enough to cause a recession since the economy usually lags government action by longer than that.
That's funny, because its only been in the past year that there has been talk of recession. So just how far out into the future does the economic influence of a presidential administration extend? At what point can we start to consider that the shitty decisions from Bush & company are helping to drive the US economy into the shitter?
Though based on how you paint the Bush administration, I'd expect your answer to that will be never. At least when it comes to explaining the economic problems we are currently facing. I fully expect next year you will find a way to pre-emptively blame it on Obama's administration.
Did I say it was a CBS article? Or did you not realize Slashdot automatically puts the domain name after a link?
You were trying to demonstrate bias from the mainstream media against McCain. You had earlier led off with your claim of CBS, NBC, ABC, et al being tools of the liberal satan. And if you knew that it wasn't a CBS article, why then did you post it through CBS news? Why didn't you find the original through politico.com and post it instead?
Oh yeah, because it wouldn't have agreed with your agenda to use that one.
Despite what Moore would have you think, the Saudis have been close to every president WAY back, including Clinton.
Funny though, the Clintons never reaped anywhere near the magnitude of profit and campaign contributions from the Saudis and their companies as did the Bushes. The Clintons invested in Carlyle investments, but not in individual Saudi companies as the Bushes did.
I know what the message is
Certainly debatable.
I see your point of view. We are allowed to lie our asses off, because that doesn't matter, only the larger message does.
Those are your assumptions. You are welcomed to hold on to them, even though they are inaccurate. But then again so is most of your argument thus far, so this is par for the course.
Then why the tie with Columbine if it was just about general gun culture?
That's pretty simple, really. He made that choice because people were blaming Columbine on all sorts of other things (video games, music, etc...) when really they needed to look at themselves.
That's because we're not talking about Flint, we're talking about where Moore is really from, Davison, which is doing well.
You're splitting hairs on the Flint-Davison "controversy". I've already shown the centers of the two cities to be around 10 miles apart (if you bothered to verify that). Davison is listed as a suburb of Flint, and Flint is where Moore attended University of Michigan (amongst other things).
Its a non-issue. He isn't the first person who spent his childhood in a suburb that considers himself to be from the larger city.
Watch Michael Moore Hates America
Yeah, that won't have any anti-Moore bias. I'm sure we can trust that movie to be accurate.
contrary to what Michael Moore portrayed, that bank does not hand out guns on the premises.
If you had watched the movie, you would know that he didn't walk out with the gun. He stood in front of the bank with the gun. He never said they handed it to him in the bank.
he could have walked out with a gun without lying.
Except he didn't walk out of the bank with the gun in hand. But thanks for playing.
Now back to you saying I've hated Moore "from square one" and that I haven't seen the films.
In the context of this conversation, you have. You brought up Moore first by discarding his "faux documentaries". And you have repeatedly mis-stated w
That is an interesting idea. I am in a blue state (very blue). I was going to try from a system at my alma mater, but that is also a blue state. It would be interesting to know how it assigns ads.
Though really I suspect that as much as McCain's group would love to pick up the state I live in (and perhaps part of what they were thinking with their VP pick), they don't have a chance here. I'd be astonished if he even came here to campaign.
You are following the classic liberal strategy, Clinton can do no wrong, the Republicans are responsible for all the evils in the world.
I have said nothing of the sort. You, however, insist that the economic crash under Bush is 100% the fault of Clinton. You haven't even shown willingness to consider that the boom before the bust could have been related to the economic decisions from the Clinton administration, for that matter.
deflecting from Clinton by bringing up Bush.
Turning that statement around would be an accurate assessment of what you have said thus far.
You'll never find "McCain is 72 years old and too old to lead".
You are too easy [cbsnews.com].
Did you actually read that article, or did you just borrow it from a critique from newsmax.com?
Because if you actually read it - actually, if you even read the line before it begins - you'll see it was not a CBS article. They were just re-running an article from politico.com - it says so right here:
(The Politico) By The Politico's Roger Simon.
But I shouldn't hold you responsible for reading that far.
He was following links between Bush and the Saudis. But that link was not there.
Really? Not there at all? So the footage then of a young GWB visiting the Saudis is forged? He never had any trade relations with them prior to being appointed president?
That meeting was required by law
Required by law? I'd be interested in knowing how a private organization could be required by law to hold a meeting at a given place and time. Perhaps they were contractually obligated to pay for the space they had reserved - but I've never heard of a private organization being required to hold a meeting.
was cut to mean "we barged in and it's too late to keep us out"
Only someone with an agenda would see it that way. Again, you are ignoring the fact that Bowling for Columbine was about gun culture, not gun owners or guns themselves. The meeting was included to show how much gun culture has permeated the country.
You're free to turn it into whatever you like, but you are simply wrong to claim that what you said is the message he is trying to convey.
He shows footage of a practically destroyed Flint, saying he's from there, when his town is actually pretty nice, solid white middle-class, doing quite well.
I don't know what part of Flint you think is "pretty nice" "doing quite well". You probably never watched Roger & Me, either. If you had, you would have known that GM had large manufacturing operations in and near Flint. The jobs are gone. Many of the people have left there, as well.
I guess if you want to buy cheap real estate, then Flint might be "pretty nice", since there is abandoned property to be found where there once were factory workers and their families.
Smearing the NRA with the KKK even though the NRA was against the KKK.
That is an outright lie, and if you had watched Bowling for Columbine you would know it to be true. He never claimed the NRA to be in cahoots with the KKK as you claim. After all, he would have had to smear himself to do that - he showed his NRA membership card in the film.
Because I have seen the movie
Still doubtful, but moving on...
and the interviews with the bank personnel
Which interviews are you referring to? I just checked the extras from the disc, and there were no additional bank employee interviews.
He walked in and within 15 minutes of filling the form walked out with a gun.
Contrary to Moore's representation, anyone else could not
The summary says CD players were seized in the raid. This leaves me with a question:
Why?
If it is a CD player, what harm could it really do? Are they CD players that they suspect were made to play counterfeit playstation games or something? I'm not familiar with this "sisvel" company - how could they hold patents on CD players?
I get the impression that there are a lot of Obama supporters who don't have solid reasons for supporting him.
Odd, I thought the same about McCain supporters. Which leaves me to wonder which camp is more sway-able. There has been plenty of coverage on how the christian conservatives worry McCain isn't conservative (or christian) enough.
That's exactly the kind of person who these ads could potentially influence.
I guess I would hope that the people who read slashdot are intelligent enough to not be swayed by mere attack ads, and would want actual substance before changing position.
At least I would expect that people who are technologically savvy (which should be most of the slashdot audience) would not be likely to vote for someone just because that person's camp compared the opponent to Paris Hilton.
They certainly don't influence me to vote for anybody, just to make me continually more disgusted with politicians in general.
I'm pretty sure we share that opinion.
Hell I wouldn't even be as annoyed by the McCain attack ads if they were being run by someone else (like the good ol' swift boaters) - but these attack ads say McCain right on them.
There are a lot of far-out libertarians on here, but I figure that population probably isn't voting for one of the major parties anyway, so they're kind of pointless.
I guess I figured they'd all vote GOP, since a lot of them seem convinced that Obama == Satan.
argued that political ads are useless on the whole.
Not necessarily on the whole, but certainly in a lot of places. I would be surprised if there were really many slashdot readers who haven't already made up their minds about who they will vote for (if at all). And within what I would expect to be a very small percentage of slashdot readers who will vote and are currently undecided, I would be really surprised if an attack ad would push them in favor of the attacker.
However, I think there are plenty of places where political ads could be very useful in getting a message out and perhaps swaying undecided voters. I just don't think slashdot falls in that category.
Given how much people think that money influences the vote
I don't disagree on the importance of money in the vote. You can't reach millions with a message for free.
However, there are smart places to run political ads, and I don't think this is one of them. I don't think that McCain will gain votes on slashdot by passing around talking points in ads here.
As I type this reply, I see yet again the "world's biggest celebrity" attack ad from McCain. It sure as hell isn't influencing me - I already had no interest in voting for McCain, regardless of how he attacks Obama.
It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.
I'm not sure how accurate that is. There is no shortage of so-called "libertarians" here on slashdot, arguing for the virtues of "the invisible hand of the market". Just look at all the chatter that comes up anytime Ron Paul is mentioned in a story here...
And besides, if the bulk of the slashdot reader population was liberal, why would it be even worthwhile for McCain to run Obama attack ads here? I don't know of many liberals who want to ignore foreign diplomacy opportunities or chastise Obama as "the world's biggest celebrity".
And then if you check the slashdot list of stories tagged "slashkos" you'll see how many stories have been assaulted by readers for being too liberal. So clearly there are plenty of conservative / libertarian readers here who feel that slashdot is too liberal. Yet I don't see a "drudgedot" or anything of that nature used to tag stories that are too conservative (as well there ought to be)...
Noticed just how many McCain ads are attack ads focused on how "bad" the other side's position is, but with little to no explanation as to what he'd do instead?
Very true. Right now I have the "world's biggest celebrity" attack ad. When I wrote the earlier response I was looking at the "unconditionally talking to other leaders" attack ad.
I haven't even started on the Bush administration yet. But here we're talking about the Clinton administration and how every liberal thinks it was just perfect
You seem to hold the Bush administration as being quite perfect, considering how you aren't willing to fault them for anything. You are following the classic neocon strategy of blaming everything you can grasp at on Bill Clinton. You even brought up the Lewisnski case, which only furthers that argument.
Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't yet tried to credit the economic boom under Clinton to Reagan - or was that going to be in your next reply?
I challenge you to find anything in the mainstream media that criticized McCain.
They're all over his age.
First of all, that hasn't even been used by the media as a criticism. It's always come up as "McCain is 72 years old and a Vietnam POW" or "McCain is 72 years old and has been in the Senate for over 30 years". You'll never find "McCain is 72 years old and too old to lead".
But yet there have been many, many iterations of "Obama is 47 and hasn't finished a full term in the Senate". If anyone has the media in their pocket, it is McCain, not Obama.
The two are not even in the same league. Clinton was running for president. Palin was selected for VP.
Time headlined Ferraro with "A Historic Event." Not seeing it here.
I'll presume you are talking about Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first female VP nominee on a major party ticket - 24 years ago. And on top of that, since the McCain announcement of Palin as his running mate, there hasn't even been a full news cycle for weekly news magazines (of which Time is one). Unless you can see the future, you cannot possibly know what is on the cover of the next issue of Time.
Perhaps they will put her on the cover and say "first GOP VP nominee". We don't know that yet.
However, we do know that she is simply not the first female VP candidate. So what are you trying to accomplish by comparing her to Ferraro again?
We have never heard anything of what was asked in the FBI interview.
Strike one.
Do you for some reason have access to what was asked of them? All we know is that the FBI met with the Bin Laden family, unless you have access to something that I don't.
Even better since Clinton's pack has FAR MORE connections. But the point in the movie was the Saudi connection, which was false at the time.
It appears you have again allowed your faulty assumptions about Michael Moore to cloud your judgment. If you actually followed his political beliefs, you would know that he is more concerned with the industry connections than the Saudi connections. He was following the money, which in the case of the Bush administration, went straight from the federal government to the pockets of CEOs that were intimately close to the Bush administration.
I challenge you to find a case of the same happening under the Clintons. No friend of the Clintons profited on anywhere near the same magnitude under the Clinton administration as have the friends of Bush and Cheney.
The Saudis own 7% of FOREIGN investment along with dozens of other countries. This foreign capital is a small percent of the TOTAL investment, which is majority American
Again you are allowing your prejudice against Moore to cloud your view of the issue that he is raising. You are not following the money. You're failing to see the kind of power that the Saudi friendship has brought them in times of need.
You might like to know that Clinton did a study of hospitals that showed $1 million a day waste due to many old and underused hospitals
... until I see an ad on slashdot that tells me his position. Considering I'm looking at a McCain ad on this very page right now that is attacking Obama's foreign policy proposal, it shouldn't be long until the McCain camp launches online ads to tell us his plans for science as well.
Yes, I know its past time for me to install adblock. I do find it interesting how far the number of McCain ads exceed the Obama ads here, though. I'd say at least a 3-to-1 margin on slashdot.
Considering how hard McCain has been working to pander to the evangelical right, I would have a hard time expecting him to keep religion out of politics. And of course religion wants to regulate science, so feel free to connect the dots.
Add to that his new hard-core anti-abortion VP candidate, and it shouldn't be hard to predict his stance on stem cell research.
You clearly view the Bush administration through unbelievably rose-tinted glasses. There is no purpose in debating the economy under Bush so long as you refuse to even consider the possibility that any aspect of the administration's policies were detrimental to the economy.
Media: I guess you haven't noticed them fawning over Obama
They've been fawning just as much over McCain as Obama. There has been ample coverage of his war experience and his years in the Senate.
Meanwhile, there has been ample criticism in the media of Obama not having "enough experience". I challenge you to find anything in the mainstream media that criticized McCain.
calling Hillary's run for president historic
Can you find a major-party female candidate for president in history before her? There aren't any. It was historic for at least that if nothing else.
(that's not happening much for Palin)
The two are not even in the same league. Clinton was running for president. Palin was selected for VP. Palin never launched a campaign.
And on top of that, Palin was announced less than 72 hours ago as McCain's running mate. You haven't given the media time for coverage. By contrast, Clinton was running for over a year for the presidential nomination.
painting the Iraq war in a bad light,
There has been ample media coverage on how the murder rates in Iraq have come down this year. How is that "a bad light"?
Are you actually watching the news, or just taking talking points and using them to complain about the news?
McCain went overseas several times with little press coverage
McCain said he was there as a Senator. Obama announced that trip as a presidential candidate. Obama visited several of the largest countries in Western Europe. McCain went to Iraq, and then where?
They didn't go on the same trip.
while the big news outlets sent their best people with Obama to Europe
Not sure where you came up with that. The network anchors were still in the states. Granted, in the countries Obama visited, he was greeted by heads of state, thousands of foreign citizens, and press agents from those countries. But the US media didn't exactly flee the states to follow him around as you imply.
You don't need to look for lies. You need to look for bias
Come on, I've asked you to demonstrate the bias. You have yet to show a real example. You keep stating it is there and you seem to expect us to take it as fact just by your repetition.
Get ready for a long read:
I'm ready to watch you repeat talking points on movies you haven't watched, yes.
Thankfully, I have watched the movies you are about to demonstrate your hatred of, so I can point out where you are wrong.
The Saudi family leaving: Moore gives the impression they were just allowed to leave with no scrutiny before airspace opened. They were interviewed by the FBI and allowed to leave after airspace opened.
We have never heard anything of what was asked in the FBI interview. Or even heard of who performed the FBI interview or under what aims.
And more importantly, why were they allowed to leave before US citizens were able to fly? That is the kind of power and influence that not only is beyond anything US citizens could hope for, it wreaks of cronyism.
Bush Sr. came in after the Saudis dumped their Carlyle investment. Plus, many of Clinton's confidants are highly placed in the Carlyle Group, and George Soros is a major investor.
The importance of the Carlyle group isn't the Saudi connection, it is the industry connections. Look at the companies that
Your comment is probably marked overrated because pretty much every phone sold in the last five years comes with a cable for backing it up
Maybe I'm crazy, but I would say there has been a trend of my un-moderated comments being hit with the "overrated" tag. And being as the "overrated" tag seldom (if ever?) comes up for meta-moderation, it is a pretty bullet-proof way for someone with an ax to grind to knock down the comments of someone they don't like.
You could be right. It may be that someone honestly felt that this product is irrelevant and nobody cares where it is sold or how much it costs. And I wish I could believe that is the case. However, this trend suggests otherwise.
And on top of that, how often do you actually see the "overrated" tags applied in general contexts around here? I've seen plenty of posts of questionable merit moderated up to +5. Yet somehow my posts are being knocked down as "overrated" - sometimes while they are still just at their starting score of +2.
Who have I pissed off enough to warrant their following me around and moderating my posts down "overrated"? I even had a unmoderated comment hit with "overrated".
The overrated tag is not an appropriate way to show you disagree with a person or posting. Stop being a coward, and post your beef with me here.
just plug it into your pc, this is just an automated gadget that speeds up the process.
Not all phones support all functions by plugging into the PC. Some barely even support charging through USB. If this gadget is as great as the summary claims, then it would be worthwhile for those phones that don't cooperate as well through USB.
Slashdot Mirror
As you probably noticed yourself, it's likely a legal trap; if you show that you're interested in taking money for the domain name, they will then use that as an argument during legal proceedings that you're a domain name squatter.
Well, he did say that the domain in question is his own last name. So unless he changed his last name recently, I would think the Dutch company would have a hard time demonstrating that he was domain-name squatting.
.com iteration first. If he was to respond to them and say "I might be interested, if you meet criteria ABC for a price of XYZ or better", I don't see how that could really be taken as domain-name squatting.
I would suspect a reasonable person would see that both the poster and the company have reasonable claims on the domain - however the poster purchased the
After all, we are talking about his last name, here.
If you really want to have fun, you could ask them to pay for you (and your family) to all change your last name legally as well.
Everyone makes jokes about the McCain housing thing
Actually, I specifically picked McCain because of the phrase
maverick billionaire
From the article here. We can pick on both sides for being wealthy if we want, but only one side has one (or two?) candidate(s?) running as a "maverick".
Feel free to pick something out of there to pick on Obama or Biden if you like.
ad? get firefox.
I have firefox. I'm just not running adblock right now. The ads don't usually bother me that much, though the barrage of McCain attack ads gets annoying quickly.
But its nice to know that at least he isn't running a negative campaign or anything...
Am I the only one not seeing this text properly set for the quote tag?
This other, non-quoted, text looks exactly the same as the quoted text above!
maverick billionaires
That must be a McCain endorsement, right? That might explain why I can't click on anything without seeing a McCain ad on slashdot anymore...
Notice how you refused to believe the NRA could be required to hold that meeting
I never refused it. I asked where this law was that you kept referring to. You never provided it. You eventually could not find it and opted instead to throw expletives at me.
And without knowing what law this is, we have don't know any of the following:
And in the context of this "law", the answer to the first question may be the most important for this situation. Unless you believe that the people responsible for enforcement of this "law" are so hell-bent on making the NRA look bad that they would be unwilling to be flexible with the "law" in light of a nearby tragedy, that is.
In short, I don't have all the information on this. And if you do, you certainly haven't shown it, in spite of my having asked about it numerous times.
I can admit that Bush does wrong,
You have said you can do it, but you have not yet done it.
since I'm not Republican
This is absolutely counter to everything you have said so far. I have seen more blind GOP talking points from you than from anyone else in a long time:
Frankly, your conservative streak and temperament at best place you in the likes of Bill O'Reilly. Though the fact that you use your same repetition tactic to try to assert that you are not just another republican actually gives you more resemblance to conservative hack Glenn Beck.
Either way you certainly haven't given any reason to believe your assertion of not being a republican. Though you haven't let the facts get in your way so far, so I guess I wouldn't expect you to start now.
Your own blind ideology is what ended the conversation. It is what lead you to swear at me, rather than answer the question I posed to you. The issues you brought up against Moore - which wasn't even how the conversation started - are classic neocon talking points. They have been addressed and you refused to acknowledge that.
If it makes you feel better inside to accuse me of lying, great. Obviously I cannot stop you from being blinded and coerced by your own beliefs.
But to believe that you don't hate Moore, or that you did not approach his films with a prejudice against them, is insanity. More than once you said they were "full of lies". You even went so far as to call them "faux documentaries". Those phrases are in your own comments, go back and read them. Frankly I am surprised you aren't trying to allege him of lying about his own name.
NEW YORK FUCKING STATE LAW YOU ASSHOLE!
Sir
If you are willing to lower yourself to swearing, rather than addressing a question posed to you, then you have sacrificed all civility and credibility. There is no reason for me to continue talking to you if you feel that this is a reasonable course of action for you to take.
This conversation is over.
Bush was not in long enough to cause a recession since the economy usually lags government action by longer than that.
That's funny, because its only been in the past year that there has been talk of recession. So just how far out into the future does the economic influence of a presidential administration extend? At what point can we start to consider that the shitty decisions from Bush & company are helping to drive the US economy into the shitter?
Though based on how you paint the Bush administration, I'd expect your answer to that will be never. At least when it comes to explaining the economic problems we are currently facing. I fully expect next year you will find a way to pre-emptively blame it on Obama's administration.
Did I say it was a CBS article? Or did you not realize Slashdot automatically puts the domain name after a link?
You were trying to demonstrate bias from the mainstream media against McCain. You had earlier led off with your claim of CBS, NBC, ABC, et al being tools of the liberal satan. And if you knew that it wasn't a CBS article, why then did you post it through CBS news? Why didn't you find the original through politico.com and post it instead?
Oh yeah, because it wouldn't have agreed with your agenda to use that one.
Despite what Moore would have you think, the Saudis have been close to every president WAY back, including Clinton.
Funny though, the Clintons never reaped anywhere near the magnitude of profit and campaign contributions from the Saudis and their companies as did the Bushes. The Clintons invested in Carlyle investments, but not in individual Saudi companies as the Bushes did.
I know what the message is
Certainly debatable.
I see your point of view. We are allowed to lie our asses off, because that doesn't matter, only the larger message does.
Those are your assumptions. You are welcomed to hold on to them, even though they are inaccurate. But then again so is most of your argument thus far, so this is par for the course.
Then why the tie with Columbine if it was just about general gun culture?
That's pretty simple, really. He made that choice because people were blaming Columbine on all sorts of other things (video games, music, etc...) when really they needed to look at themselves.
That's because we're not talking about Flint, we're talking about where Moore is really from, Davison, which is doing well.
You're splitting hairs on the Flint-Davison "controversy". I've already shown the centers of the two cities to be around 10 miles apart (if you bothered to verify that). Davison is listed as a suburb of Flint, and Flint is where Moore attended University of Michigan (amongst other things).
Its a non-issue. He isn't the first person who spent his childhood in a suburb that considers himself to be from the larger city.
Watch Michael Moore Hates America
Yeah, that won't have any anti-Moore bias. I'm sure we can trust that movie to be accurate.
contrary to what Michael Moore portrayed, that bank does not hand out guns on the premises.
If you had watched the movie, you would know that he didn't walk out with the gun. He stood in front of the bank with the gun. He never said they handed it to him in the bank.
he could have walked out with a gun without lying.
Except he didn't walk out of the bank with the gun in hand. But thanks for playing.
Now back to you saying I've hated Moore "from square one" and that I haven't seen the films.
In the context of this conversation, you have. You brought up Moore first by discarding his "faux documentaries". And you have repeatedly mis-stated w
stems cells come from very early abortions (preimplantation)
If one follows that route of logic too far, pretty soon a woman's uterus becomes a crime scene if she has a miscarriage.
That is an interesting idea. I am in a blue state (very blue). I was going to try from a system at my alma mater, but that is also a blue state. It would be interesting to know how it assigns ads.
Though really I suspect that as much as McCain's group would love to pick up the state I live in (and perhaps part of what they were thinking with their VP pick), they don't have a chance here. I'd be astonished if he even came here to campaign.
You are following the classic liberal strategy, Clinton can do no wrong, the Republicans are responsible for all the evils in the world.
I have said nothing of the sort. You, however, insist that the economic crash under Bush is 100% the fault of Clinton. You haven't even shown willingness to consider that the boom before the bust could have been related to the economic decisions from the Clinton administration, for that matter.
deflecting from Clinton by bringing up Bush.
Turning that statement around would be an accurate assessment of what you have said thus far.
You'll never find "McCain is 72 years old and too old to lead".
You are too easy [cbsnews.com].
Did you actually read that article, or did you just borrow it from a critique from newsmax.com?
Because if you actually read it - actually, if you even read the line before it begins - you'll see it was not a CBS article. They were just re-running an article from politico.com - it says so right here:
(The Politico) By The Politico's Roger Simon.
But I shouldn't hold you responsible for reading that far.
He was following links between Bush and the Saudis. But that link was not there.
Really? Not there at all? So the footage then of a young GWB visiting the Saudis is forged? He never had any trade relations with them prior to being appointed president?
That meeting was required by law
Required by law? I'd be interested in knowing how a private organization could be required by law to hold a meeting at a given place and time. Perhaps they were contractually obligated to pay for the space they had reserved - but I've never heard of a private organization being required to hold a meeting.
was cut to mean "we barged in and it's too late to keep us out"
Only someone with an agenda would see it that way. Again, you are ignoring the fact that Bowling for Columbine was about gun culture, not gun owners or guns themselves. The meeting was included to show how much gun culture has permeated the country.
You're free to turn it into whatever you like, but you are simply wrong to claim that what you said is the message he is trying to convey.
He shows footage of a practically destroyed Flint, saying he's from there, when his town is actually pretty nice, solid white middle-class, doing quite well.
I don't know what part of Flint you think is "pretty nice" "doing quite well". You probably never watched Roger & Me, either. If you had, you would have known that GM had large manufacturing operations in and near Flint. The jobs are gone. Many of the people have left there, as well.
I guess if you want to buy cheap real estate, then Flint might be "pretty nice", since there is abandoned property to be found where there once were factory workers and their families.
Smearing the NRA with the KKK even though the NRA was against the KKK.
That is an outright lie, and if you had watched Bowling for Columbine you would know it to be true. He never claimed the NRA to be in cahoots with the KKK as you claim. After all, he would have had to smear himself to do that - he showed his NRA membership card in the film.
Because I have seen the movie
Still doubtful, but moving on...
and the interviews with the bank personnel
Which interviews are you referring to? I just checked the extras from the disc, and there were no additional bank employee interviews.
He walked in and within 15 minutes of filling the form walked out with a gun.
Contrary to Moore's representation, anyone else could not
The summary says CD players were seized in the raid. This leaves me with a question:
Why?
If it is a CD player, what harm could it really do? Are they CD players that they suspect were made to play counterfeit playstation games or something? I'm not familiar with this "sisvel" company - how could they hold patents on CD players?
I get the impression that there are a lot of Obama supporters who don't have solid reasons for supporting him.
Odd, I thought the same about McCain supporters. Which leaves me to wonder which camp is more sway-able. There has been plenty of coverage on how the christian conservatives worry McCain isn't conservative (or christian) enough.
That's exactly the kind of person who these ads could potentially influence.
I guess I would hope that the people who read slashdot are intelligent enough to not be swayed by mere attack ads, and would want actual substance before changing position.
At least I would expect that people who are technologically savvy (which should be most of the slashdot audience) would not be likely to vote for someone just because that person's camp compared the opponent to Paris Hilton.
They certainly don't influence me to vote for anybody, just to make me continually more disgusted with politicians in general.
I'm pretty sure we share that opinion.
Hell I wouldn't even be as annoyed by the McCain attack ads if they were being run by someone else (like the good ol' swift boaters) - but these attack ads say McCain right on them.
There are a lot of far-out libertarians on here, but I figure that population probably isn't voting for one of the major parties anyway, so they're kind of pointless.
I guess I figured they'd all vote GOP, since a lot of them seem convinced that Obama == Satan.
argued that political ads are useless on the whole.
Not necessarily on the whole, but certainly in a lot of places. I would be surprised if there were really many slashdot readers who haven't already made up their minds about who they will vote for (if at all). And within what I would expect to be a very small percentage of slashdot readers who will vote and are currently undecided, I would be really surprised if an attack ad would push them in favor of the attacker.
However, I think there are plenty of places where political ads could be very useful in getting a message out and perhaps swaying undecided voters. I just don't think slashdot falls in that category.
Given how much people think that money influences the vote
I don't disagree on the importance of money in the vote. You can't reach millions with a message for free.
However, there are smart places to run political ads, and I don't think this is one of them. I don't think that McCain will gain votes on slashdot by passing around talking points in ads here.
As I type this reply, I see yet again the "world's biggest celebrity" attack ad from McCain. It sure as hell isn't influencing me - I already had no interest in voting for McCain, regardless of how he attacks Obama.
It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.
I'm not sure how accurate that is. There is no shortage of so-called "libertarians" here on slashdot, arguing for the virtues of "the invisible hand of the market". Just look at all the chatter that comes up anytime Ron Paul is mentioned in a story here...
And besides, if the bulk of the slashdot reader population was liberal, why would it be even worthwhile for McCain to run Obama attack ads here? I don't know of many liberals who want to ignore foreign diplomacy opportunities or chastise Obama as "the world's biggest celebrity".
And then if you check the slashdot list of stories tagged "slashkos" you'll see how many stories have been assaulted by readers for being too liberal. So clearly there are plenty of conservative / libertarian readers here who feel that slashdot is too liberal. Yet I don't see a "drudgedot" or anything of that nature used to tag stories that are too conservative (as well there ought to be)...
Noticed just how many McCain ads are attack ads focused on how "bad" the other side's position is, but with little to no explanation as to what he'd do instead?
Very true. Right now I have the "world's biggest celebrity" attack ad. When I wrote the earlier response I was looking at the "unconditionally talking to other leaders" attack ad.
I haven't even started on the Bush administration yet. But here we're talking about the Clinton administration and how every liberal thinks it was just perfect
You seem to hold the Bush administration as being quite perfect, considering how you aren't willing to fault them for anything. You are following the classic neocon strategy of blaming everything you can grasp at on Bill Clinton. You even brought up the Lewisnski case, which only furthers that argument.
Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't yet tried to credit the economic boom under Clinton to Reagan - or was that going to be in your next reply?
I challenge you to find anything in the mainstream media that criticized McCain.
They're all over his age.
First of all, that hasn't even been used by the media as a criticism. It's always come up as "McCain is 72 years old and a Vietnam POW" or "McCain is 72 years old and has been in the Senate for over 30 years". You'll never find "McCain is 72 years old and too old to lead".
But yet there have been many, many iterations of "Obama is 47 and hasn't finished a full term in the Senate". If anyone has the media in their pocket, it is McCain, not Obama.
The two are not even in the same league. Clinton was running for president. Palin was selected for VP.
Time headlined Ferraro with "A Historic Event." Not seeing it here.
I'll presume you are talking about Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first female VP nominee on a major party ticket - 24 years ago. And on top of that, since the McCain announcement of Palin as his running mate, there hasn't even been a full news cycle for weekly news magazines (of which Time is one). Unless you can see the future, you cannot possibly know what is on the cover of the next issue of Time.
Perhaps they will put her on the cover and say "first GOP VP nominee". We don't know that yet.
However, we do know that she is simply not the first female VP candidate. So what are you trying to accomplish by comparing her to Ferraro again?
We have never heard anything of what was asked in the FBI interview.
Strike one.
Do you for some reason have access to what was asked of them? All we know is that the FBI met with the Bin Laden family, unless you have access to something that I don't.
Even better since Clinton's pack has FAR MORE connections. But the point in the movie was the Saudi connection, which was false at the time.
It appears you have again allowed your faulty assumptions about Michael Moore to cloud your judgment. If you actually followed his political beliefs, you would know that he is more concerned with the industry connections than the Saudi connections. He was following the money, which in the case of the Bush administration, went straight from the federal government to the pockets of CEOs that were intimately close to the Bush administration.
I challenge you to find a case of the same happening under the Clintons. No friend of the Clintons profited on anywhere near the same magnitude under the Clinton administration as have the friends of Bush and Cheney.
The Saudis own 7% of FOREIGN investment along with dozens of other countries. This foreign capital is a small percent of the TOTAL investment, which is majority American
Again you are allowing your prejudice against Moore to cloud your view of the issue that he is raising. You are not following the money. You're failing to see the kind of power that the Saudi friendship has brought them in times of need.
You might like to know that Clinton did a study of hospitals that showed $1 million a day waste due to many old and underused hospitals
... until I see an ad on slashdot that tells me his position. Considering I'm looking at a McCain ad on this very page right now that is attacking Obama's foreign policy proposal, it shouldn't be long until the McCain camp launches online ads to tell us his plans for science as well.
Yes, I know its past time for me to install adblock. I do find it interesting how far the number of McCain ads exceed the Obama ads here, though. I'd say at least a 3-to-1 margin on slashdot.
Considering how hard McCain has been working to pander to the evangelical right, I would have a hard time expecting him to keep religion out of politics. And of course religion wants to regulate science, so feel free to connect the dots.
Add to that his new hard-core anti-abortion VP candidate, and it shouldn't be hard to predict his stance on stem cell research.
Economy: Yes, Bush inherited the dot com bust.
You clearly view the Bush administration through unbelievably rose-tinted glasses. There is no purpose in debating the economy under Bush so long as you refuse to even consider the possibility that any aspect of the administration's policies were detrimental to the economy.
Media: I guess you haven't noticed them fawning over Obama
They've been fawning just as much over McCain as Obama. There has been ample coverage of his war experience and his years in the Senate.
Meanwhile, there has been ample criticism in the media of Obama not having "enough experience". I challenge you to find anything in the mainstream media that criticized McCain.
calling Hillary's run for president historic
Can you find a major-party female candidate for president in history before her? There aren't any. It was historic for at least that if nothing else.
(that's not happening much for Palin)
The two are not even in the same league. Clinton was running for president. Palin was selected for VP. Palin never launched a campaign.
And on top of that, Palin was announced less than 72 hours ago as McCain's running mate. You haven't given the media time for coverage. By contrast, Clinton was running for over a year for the presidential nomination.
painting the Iraq war in a bad light,
There has been ample media coverage on how the murder rates in Iraq have come down this year. How is that "a bad light"?
Are you actually watching the news, or just taking talking points and using them to complain about the news?
McCain went overseas several times with little press coverage
McCain said he was there as a Senator. Obama announced that trip as a presidential candidate. Obama visited several of the largest countries in Western Europe. McCain went to Iraq, and then where?
They didn't go on the same trip.
while the big news outlets sent their best people with Obama to Europe
Not sure where you came up with that. The network anchors were still in the states. Granted, in the countries Obama visited, he was greeted by heads of state, thousands of foreign citizens, and press agents from those countries. But the US media didn't exactly flee the states to follow him around as you imply.
You don't need to look for lies. You need to look for bias
Come on, I've asked you to demonstrate the bias. You have yet to show a real example. You keep stating it is there and you seem to expect us to take it as fact just by your repetition.
Get ready for a long read:
I'm ready to watch you repeat talking points on movies you haven't watched, yes.
Thankfully, I have watched the movies you are about to demonstrate your hatred of, so I can point out where you are wrong.
The Saudi family leaving: Moore gives the impression they were just allowed to leave with no scrutiny before airspace opened. They were interviewed by the FBI and allowed to leave after airspace opened.
We have never heard anything of what was asked in the FBI interview. Or even heard of who performed the FBI interview or under what aims.
And more importantly, why were they allowed to leave before US citizens were able to fly? That is the kind of power and influence that not only is beyond anything US citizens could hope for, it wreaks of cronyism.
Bush Sr. came in after the Saudis dumped their Carlyle investment. Plus, many of Clinton's confidants are highly placed in the Carlyle Group, and George Soros is a major investor.
The importance of the Carlyle group isn't the Saudi connection, it is the industry connections. Look at the companies that
Your comment is probably marked overrated because pretty much every phone sold in the last five years comes with a cable for backing it up
Maybe I'm crazy, but I would say there has been a trend of my un-moderated comments being hit with the "overrated" tag. And being as the "overrated" tag seldom (if ever?) comes up for meta-moderation, it is a pretty bullet-proof way for someone with an ax to grind to knock down the comments of someone they don't like.
You could be right. It may be that someone honestly felt that this product is irrelevant and nobody cares where it is sold or how much it costs. And I wish I could believe that is the case. However, this trend suggests otherwise.
And on top of that, how often do you actually see the "overrated" tags applied in general contexts around here? I've seen plenty of posts of questionable merit moderated up to +5. Yet somehow my posts are being knocked down as "overrated" - sometimes while they are still just at their starting score of +2.
Who have I pissed off enough to warrant their following me around and moderating my posts down "overrated"? I even had a unmoderated comment hit with "overrated".
The overrated tag is not an appropriate way to show you disagree with a person or posting. Stop being a coward, and post your beef with me here.
just plug it into your pc, this is just an automated gadget that speeds up the process.
Not all phones support all functions by plugging into the PC. Some barely even support charging through USB. If this gadget is as great as the summary claims, then it would be worthwhile for those phones that don't cooperate as well through USB.