> In fact the only way your way of life is as good as it is is because of the USD.
The value of the dollar is dependant upon how the people of the country see it. So, if it's doing well, the country is doing well. If US would be so upset about Iraq not using the US$, they would have put a stop to it. How come people claim that the U.S. is a big, bad, brawling machine and will do anything when it comes to war -- but stopping a change to the Euro? Those pathetic Americans can't stop that! haha! Please.
> When your people will be begging for food and jobs (I mean, more than you actually got) after the collapse of your debt-ridden economy, you won't find many friends around to help you, not anymore.
Guess what: I'll be long dead by then and I don't care. Roman Empire, British Empire, Persian Empire... Almost all of their conquest was by killing, and they had to keep going to keep growing. The U.S. finished killing people to expand its physical territory long ago, but some claim that we're horrible barbarians or something. In all reality, I think the U.S. would be better suited trying to take over all of N. America, but we aren't the terrifying conquerers that covered Europe a few times. I wonder if that's because we aren't completely evil. Nah, that couldn't be it...
> Besides, you can't say that the American Right blowhards are wholly accurate in their stats either.
Everyone slants their facts to suit their need, anyone who claims otherwise is lieing or being fooled. The difference in this one case is that he presented his lie-filled rant as a documentary on the scale I have never seen from the right-wing side.
> I don't follow Moore because his numbers are perfect
Absolutely great, no one's statistics are perfectly accurate, but when a speech is mangled and dates completely wrong, there is a problem.
> its 'cause he's saying things that should be said, louder then most of us can say them. And he's saying them in a way people can swallow.
Well, I find it "hard to swallow," but that's just me. The issue I have with this statement is that you assume "that [these statements] should be said." What makes you think that this needs to be said? Or are you saying they need to be said because they follow your opinion?
> The left [is] horrible at spin. > Where the right has polished charmers
That's a lie. Look at Clinton. While he may not be totally left-wing himself, the people in his administration mostly were, and his presidency was all about spin. Also, look at George W.Bush. If you call that a polished charmer, I'm going to find some snakes to charm, cuz I must be pretty damned sweet. Come on, the guy's a fucking chimp in a President suit.
> What made bowling for Columbine cool was where he took the camera > He listened to what Americans were talking about > and just walked in there with a camera and showed "well, this is how they are".
Except that some of the places he said he was, he wasn't. Some of those Americans weren't saying what he implied they were saying. He made up some of the situations and TOLD US "this is how it is."
Nevertheless, it is a very interesting movie (not a documentary).
> Probably one of the most interesting things about the site you mention is the Paypal button for donations. This is fascinating. I suspect you are the author of the website, but hey, I'm lazy, so I apologize for not giving "any thought to research".
What an insightful... err wasteful statement. Please clear one thing up for me. What is your point? That he posted a link to/. to con ppl into PayPal-ing him free money? Possibly. But if that's so bad, it's the idiots that donate that are the problem. Since you "didn't do any research," you wouldn't know if he's the author, therefore nullifying your argument. What was your argument again?
Oh, you think that while running away no one thought to bring the bombs with them? Maybe they weren't quite finished yet and they destroyed them or got the byproducts the hell out of there? Of course they would get rid of them ASAP in any way possible. Just because you haven't seen any yet doesn't mean you won't.
> Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Umm, you've got to be joking? It wasn't a blatantly obvious hack job. I applaud Mr. Moore for his very good directing skills, I couldn't come close. The problem is that they gave it to him for being a documentary, which it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being.
That's the important bit. If you reply, reply to the previous, 'cuz the following will be construed as a troll or flamebait (what the hell's the difference anyway):
Liberals, who are always up in arms about conspiracies, don't surprise me as much as they should when they don't say anything about this crap -- a "documentary" full of lies and deceit should be discredited immediately. But a strange thing: when the lies & trash follow their line of beliefs, they are noticeably quiet. Don't think I'm picking on Liberals, I'm sure Conservatives would do the same if they ran Hollywood.
You have to admit (unless you lie) that both the Oscars and especially the Cannes "Film Festival" are mostly run by extremely left-wing people. Amazing that this one slipped through the cracks, eh? And before you start attacking my as one of those bible-kissing, GWB-loving Republicans, I am not. By a long shot.
> Anyway, it doesn't remove any credit to Bowling for Colombine analysis to me
If the fact that almost the entire Chuck Heston interview was made up &/| spliced together doesn't remove any credit for you, then a sharp slice to the head with a clue isn't going to do it either. I have no problem with standing up for what you believe in -- in fact, I encourage it, but don't make yourself look like a fool in the process. If you actually read the links and processed the information, (I didn't read the one this was a reference to, as I've read enough other ones) you could not say "Bowling..." has much credit to stand on.
> because some facts or assumptions may be off. Not because they are off, but because they are lies. BIG difference.
> Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I have no reason to think otherwise, except that he lied to the viewers. He said his film was a documentary. A documentary is a film (or other medium) that shows ACTUAL EVENTS, or talks about actual events. Moore, OTOH, spliced parts of speeches together to get the speech he thought they should say. He lied about the dates and locations of interviews and events that were fed to the viewer AS THE TRUTH. If "He's ideas," as you say, are correct, he either 1) should not have claimed it was a documentary, or 2) told the truth -- if the truth is so horrible, why lie about it?
> it's best to try and discredit them But in this case it's so easy that it is hard not to laugh at him.
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax". Maybe it's a joke - a parody of the acronym. Whether it is a GOOD joke is an exercise for the humor-laden.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax". There is a federal income tax, Federal, national, same damned thing in this case.
> Your grammar, spelling, and grasp of basic economic theory seem to validate your comment about your services being cut... so I guess one point for you. If you are going to cut on him because he accidentally said "our" again instead of "are," I suggest you look at these:
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax". Assuming that is a complete sentence, the period should go inside of the quotation marks. That, of course, is assuming it is a complete sentence, which it is not, instead of a part of a list, which does not have a period at the end.
> b) GST is 7%, not 15%. Same here, as well as every other item.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax". Again, period inside the quotes.
> There is a federal income tax, and a provincial income tax There is no need for a comma there at all.
Your grammar, spelling, and lack of a grasp of the English language seem to validate the assumption that you are a pompous jerk. As for the details, the only ones that you got right are "a," obviously, and "b" and "c," on which I must assume you are correct, as I have no knowledge of Canadian Tax code. As for your rebuttal meaning anything, (c) he never claimed that GST was an income tax, just that he paid it, which, I assume, is true. Item "d" appears to be nothing more than a nitpick on choice of words. "National Canadian Tax" == "Federal Income Tax," except for the words used. He also mentioned the provincial income tax as being separate from Federal (or National, in his words) taxes, so you are wasting your breath. Item "e" deserves no response, since it is flamebait, but I'm a flamefighter and it's the only thing that enticed me to respond to your sporadic idiocy.
Well, ideally, yes, it would. But then we have no government, and what would the foreigners complain about then? That we have no laws to keep us in check: repeat vicious cycle.
> Sorry, it's all factual. You do not live in the world's #1 country. You're around #10 or so.
Gee, you were probably (I can't prove it) factual until you said that. Factually, there is no #1 country, there is no #10 country, there is no worst country.
> Which is of course mostly nonsense - they ["want", I assume] american troops out of their countries.
If that was the case, then countries who had no American troops in them would have no problem with us. What, they still hate us? You must be wrong (maybe not entirely wrong, but definitely not complete).
> look at your past.... look at the indians and what you did to their culture
That can't be remotely applied to anything unless we were invading a country to live in. Not to mention that there's a considerable time & culture difference between now & WAY WAY back then.
> because the use of force will not change their opinion
No, and the lack of force will not change it either, it'll just make the U.S. more of a target
> the relatives of every person your army kills are potentional terrorists
And people who have never had anyone they know die are potential terrorists.
> i think if you look at israel and palestina this is a "good" preview to where bush policy will lead you
Israel & the Palestinians are so fucked that it hardly compares to US/Canada in any way.
christ, Man, look at a fucking grammar checker. There wasn't one completely correct sentence in that whole post.
> shouldn't we worry about interplanetary TRAVEL first?
Not necessarily. If we just drop a large variety of internet-connected hardware (hopefully mobile & wireless) onto a planet (before we get there in person) individuals can learn a whole lot and do their own observing and find all sorts of interesting things. Let's say you like looking at stars through your 50x telescope. Now imagine being able to use the Hubble (well, maybe one that works better) to look at the "same things."
I realize that this equipment would not be available to the public to control, but it's the thought that counts (when doesn't it).
> More likely, they'd start sending really big Instant Messages
I think this is more insightful than you or the moderators realize. Email, for most purposes, is basically just a slow IM. If EMail were to be taxed, I bet you'd see a huge jump in corporate Instant Messaging agents.
Unfortunately, more UCE would eventually be sent that way, but at least there's time to get a heads-up on that before it is a huge problem.
What about people who run listservs? Would they be charged once to send a mail to 500 thousand others, or would they have to pay $5,000 every time they sent a mailing?
How did the Internet become the property of one government or organization? It didn't. Taxes on Email in any way bastardizes what the 'net is; even if it removes one problem, it just creates another. Plus, if the originating spam server is out of the country, or untraceable, the tax does nothing but cost honest people money.
I think Spam is one of those problems that will eventually run its course and become a non-issue. After enough ISPs and gateways put in good enough Spam protection and actually follow through on their claims to not harbor spammers, it will no longer make money and disappear. I'm not claiming it will happen in the next year or 3, but it might.
> more than 5,000 email's a year. Perhaps setting that as a top limit
What about people who run listservs? Would they be charged once to send a mail to 500 thousand others, or would they have to pay $5,000 every time they sent a mailing?
No, taxes on Email in any way bastardizes what the 'net is, even if it removes one problem -- it just creates another. Plus, if the originating server is out of the country, or untraceable, the tax does nothing but cost honest people money. It's a terrible idea any way you cut it.
> We've raised what sometimes appears to be an entire generation of young adults who seem to think that it's perfectly fine and dandy to take things without the permission of their owners.
IMNSHO (My opinion is never humble, nor is just about anyone else's) the problem isn't that we've raised anything. We have (not everyone, I realize) let the television raise children for us. Now look at how TV presents the "facts" and presents "morals." 'nuff said.
What is even more interesting is why anyone even cares. I'm not trying to demean anyone here, but seriously, it's TV show, meant to entertain. If it doesn't follow every single detail to a 'T' it's not that big of a deal. If they cared that much about continuity the stories would probably be longer (read: multi-episode) like most Jap-Anime I have seen so far.
Slashdot Mirror
> In fact the only way your way of life is as good as it is is because of the USD.
The value of the dollar is dependant upon how the people of the country see it. So, if it's doing well, the country is doing well. If US would be so upset about Iraq not using the US$, they would have put a stop to it. How come people claim that the U.S. is a big, bad, brawling machine and will do anything when it comes to war -- but stopping a change to the Euro? Those pathetic Americans can't stop that! haha! Please.
> When your people will be begging for food and jobs (I mean, more than you actually got) after the collapse of your debt-ridden economy, you won't find many friends around to help you, not anymore.
Guess what: I'll be long dead by then and I don't care. Roman Empire, British Empire, Persian Empire... Almost all of their conquest was by killing, and they had to keep going to keep growing. The U.S. finished killing people to expand its physical territory long ago, but some claim that we're horrible barbarians or something. In all reality, I think the U.S. would be better suited trying to take over all of N. America, but we aren't the terrifying conquerers that covered Europe a few times. I wonder if that's because we aren't completely evil. Nah, that couldn't be it...
> Besides, you can't say that the American Right blowhards are wholly accurate in their stats either.
Everyone slants their facts to suit their need, anyone who claims otherwise is lieing or being fooled. The difference in this one case is that he presented his lie-filled rant as a documentary on the scale I have never seen from the right-wing side.
> I don't follow Moore because his numbers are perfect
Absolutely great, no one's statistics are perfectly accurate, but when a speech is mangled and dates completely wrong, there is a problem.
> its 'cause he's saying things that should be said, louder then most of us can say them. And he's saying them in a way people can swallow.
Well, I find it "hard to swallow," but that's just me. The issue I have with this statement is that you assume "that [these statements] should be said." What makes you think that this needs to be said? Or are you saying they need to be said because they follow your opinion?
> The left [is] horrible at spin.
> Where the right has polished charmers
That's a lie. Look at Clinton. While he may not be totally left-wing himself, the people in his administration mostly were, and his presidency was all about spin. Also, look at George W.Bush. If you call that a polished charmer, I'm going to find some snakes to charm, cuz I must be pretty damned sweet. Come on, the guy's a fucking chimp in a President suit.
> What made bowling for Columbine cool was where he took the camera
> He listened to what Americans were talking about
> and just walked in there with a camera and showed "well, this is how they are".
Except that some of the places he said he was, he wasn't.
Some of those Americans weren't saying what he implied they were saying.
He made up some of the situations and TOLD US "this is how it is."
Nevertheless, it is a very interesting movie (not a documentary).
> Probably one of the most interesting things about the site you mention is the Paypal button for donations. This is fascinating. I suspect you are the author of the website, but hey, I'm lazy, so I apologize for not giving "any thought to research".
/. to con ppl into PayPal-ing him free money? Possibly. But if that's so bad, it's the idiots that donate that are the problem. Since you "didn't do any research," you wouldn't know if he's the author, therefore nullifying your argument. What was your argument again?
What an insightful... err wasteful statement. Please clear one thing up for me. What is your point? That he posted a link to
> where are the WMDs again
Oh, you think that while running away no one thought to bring the bombs with them? Maybe they weren't quite finished yet and they destroyed them or got the byproducts the hell out of there? Of course they would get rid of them ASAP in any way possible. Just because you haven't seen any yet doesn't mean you won't.
> Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Umm, you've got to be joking? It wasn't a blatantly obvious hack job. I applaud Mr. Moore for his very good directing skills, I couldn't come close. The problem is that they gave it to him for being a documentary, which it is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being.
That's the important bit. If you reply, reply to the previous, 'cuz the following will be construed as a troll or flamebait (what the hell's the difference anyway):
Liberals, who are always up in arms about conspiracies, don't surprise me as much as they should when they don't say anything about this crap -- a "documentary" full of lies and deceit should be discredited immediately. But a strange thing: when the lies & trash follow their line of beliefs, they are noticeably quiet. Don't think I'm picking on Liberals, I'm sure Conservatives would do the same if they ran Hollywood.
You have to admit (unless you lie) that both the Oscars and especially the Cannes "Film Festival" are mostly run by extremely left-wing people. Amazing that this one slipped through the cracks, eh? And before you start attacking my as one of those bible-kissing, GWB-loving Republicans, I am not. By a long shot.
> Anyway, it doesn't remove any credit to Bowling for Colombine analysis to me
If the fact that almost the entire Chuck Heston interview was made up &/| spliced together doesn't remove any credit for you, then a sharp slice to the head with a clue isn't going to do it either. I have no problem with standing up for what you believe in -- in fact, I encourage it, but don't make yourself look like a fool in the process. If you actually read the links and processed the information, (I didn't read the one this was a reference to, as I've read enough other ones) you could not say "Bowling..." has much credit to stand on.
> because some facts or assumptions may be off.
Not because they are off, but because they are lies. BIG difference.
> Seriously, Moore is a nice guy, who just asks tough questions.
I have no reason to think otherwise, except that he lied to the viewers. He said his film was a documentary. A documentary is a film (or other medium) that shows ACTUAL EVENTS, or talks about actual events. Moore, OTOH, spliced parts of speeches together to get the speech he thought they should say. He lied about the dates and locations of interviews and events that were fed to the viewer AS THE TRUTH. If "He's ideas," as you say, are correct, he either 1) should not have claimed it was a documentary, or 2) told the truth -- if the truth is so horrible, why lie about it?
> it's best to try and discredit them
But in this case it's so easy that it is hard not to laugh at him.
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax".
... so I guess one point for you.
Maybe it's a joke - a parody of the acronym. Whether it is a GOOD joke is an exercise for the humor-laden.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax". There is a federal income tax,
Federal, national, same damned thing in this case.
> Your grammar, spelling, and grasp of basic economic theory seem to validate your comment about your services being cut
If you are going to cut on him because he accidentally said "our" again instead of "are," I suggest you look at these:
> a) It's Goods and Services Tax, not "global sales tax".
Assuming that is a complete sentence, the period should go inside of the quotation marks. That, of course, is assuming it is a complete sentence, which it is not, instead of a part of a list, which does not have a period at the end.
> b) GST is 7%, not 15%.
Same here, as well as every other item.
> d) There is no "national Canadian tax".
Again, period inside the quotes.
> There is a federal income tax, and a provincial income tax
There is no need for a comma there at all.
Your grammar, spelling, and lack of a grasp of the English language seem to validate the assumption that you are a pompous jerk. As for the details, the only ones that you got right are "a," obviously, and "b" and "c," on which I must assume you are correct, as I have no knowledge of Canadian Tax code. As for your rebuttal meaning anything, (c) he never claimed that GST was an income tax, just that he paid it, which, I assume, is true. Item "d" appears to be nothing more than a nitpick on choice of words. "National Canadian Tax" == "Federal Income Tax," except for the words used. He also mentioned the provincial income tax as being separate from Federal (or National, in his words) taxes, so you are wasting your breath.
Item "e" deserves no response, since it is flamebait, but I'm a flamefighter and it's the only thing that enticed me to respond to your sporadic idiocy.
> and bush has to rent out the white house
Well, at least he's not renting out the Lincoln Bedroom.
> No taxes would of course be the best then?
Well, ideally, yes, it would. But then we have no government, and what would the foreigners complain about then? That we have no laws to keep us in check: repeat vicious cycle.
> Sorry, it's all factual. You do not live in the world's #1 country. You're around #10 or so.
Gee, you were probably (I can't prove it) factual until you said that. Factually, there is no #1 country, there is no #10 country, there is no worst country.
> Which is of course mostly nonsense - they ["want", I assume] american troops out of their countries.
If that was the case, then countries who had no American troops in them would have no problem with us. What, they still hate us? You must be wrong (maybe not entirely wrong, but definitely not complete).
> look at your past .... look at the indians and what you did to their culture
That can't be remotely applied to anything unless we were invading a country to live in. Not to mention that there's a considerable time & culture difference between now & WAY WAY back then.
> because the use of force will not change their opinion
No, and the lack of force will not change it either, it'll just make the U.S. more of a target
> the relatives of every person your army kills are potentional terrorists
And people who have never had anyone they know die are potential terrorists.
> i think if you look at israel and palestina this is a "good" preview to where bush policy will lead you
Israel & the Palestinians are so fucked that it hardly compares to US/Canada in any way.
christ, Man, look at a fucking grammar checker. There wasn't one completely correct sentence in that whole post.
> shouldn't we worry about interplanetary TRAVEL first?
Not necessarily. If we just drop a large variety of internet-connected hardware (hopefully mobile & wireless) onto a planet (before we get there in person) individuals can learn a whole lot and do their own observing and find all sorts of interesting things. Let's say you like looking at stars through your 50x telescope. Now imagine being able to use the Hubble (well, maybe one that works better) to look at the "same things."
I realize that this equipment would not be available to the public to control, but it's the thought that counts (when doesn't it).
> More likely, they'd start sending really big Instant Messages
I think this is more insightful than you or the moderators realize. Email, for most purposes, is basically just a slow IM. If EMail were to be taxed, I bet you'd see a huge jump in corporate Instant Messaging agents.
Unfortunately, more UCE would eventually be sent that way, but at least there's time to get a heads-up on that before it is a huge problem.
Taxes or fees on Email is a terrible idea.
What about people who run listservs? Would they be charged once to send a mail to 500 thousand others, or would they have to pay $5,000 every time they sent a mailing?
How did the Internet become the property of one government or organization? It didn't. Taxes on Email in any way bastardizes what the 'net is; even if it removes one problem, it just creates another. Plus, if the originating spam server is out of the country, or untraceable, the tax does nothing but cost honest people money.
I think Spam is one of those problems that will eventually run its course and become a non-issue. After enough ISPs and gateways put in good enough Spam protection and actually follow through on their claims to not harbor spammers, it will no longer make money and disappear. I'm not claiming it will happen in the next year or 3, but it might.
> more than 5,000 email's a year. Perhaps setting that as a top limit
What about people who run listservs? Would they be charged once to send a mail to 500 thousand others, or would they have to pay $5,000 every time they sent a mailing?
No, taxes on Email in any way bastardizes what the 'net is, even if it removes one problem -- it just creates another. Plus, if the originating server is out of the country, or untraceable, the tax does nothing but cost honest people money. It's a terrible idea any way you cut it.
> we really do tax marijuana and if you pay the tax, it's legal to possess it.
Do you have any reliable references to this?
> How do we say 'the plane crash landed in the sea'?
Well as far as airlines are concerned... "In the event of a water landing, [etc]"
> We've raised what sometimes appears to be an entire generation of young adults who seem to think that it's perfectly fine and dandy to take things without the permission of their owners.
IMNSHO (My opinion is never humble, nor is just about anyone else's) the problem isn't that we've raised anything. We have (not everyone, I realize) let the television raise children for us. Now look at how TV presents the "facts" and presents "morals." 'nuff said.
> I don't want this guy on my side.
Well, I do, as long as he's informed as to when I'm coming over to his house.
But the great thing about "Democracy" is that you don't have to have him on "your side," whatever you interpret that to mean.
What is even more interesting is why anyone even cares. I'm not trying to demean anyone here, but seriously, it's TV show, meant to entertain. If it doesn't follow every single detail to a 'T' it's not that big of a deal. If they cared that much about continuity the stories would probably be longer (read: multi-episode) like most Jap-Anime I have seen so far.
> I guess I just see the world differently.
Everyone sees the world differently, that's why it's so fucked up & confusing.
> It's the DMCA, not DCMA. (DCMA would be Digital Copyright Millennium Act)
Well, maybe it was more right the first time -- It's not a digital millenium, but a copyright millenium.