Money started creating "parties" not long after the founders were in their graves and unable to fight.
And by that you mean that most founders were themselves in political parties? George Washington is the only President the US has ever had who was not in a political party. John Adams, Federalist. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe? (not sure that Monroe counts as a "founder" though) They were Democratic-Republicans.
Maybe not. He's certainly anti-Israel though. He's undermined them at every turn.
Maybe. What if that's so? Disapproving of the politics of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite any more than disapproving of Obama's policy decisions (such as his support for the Iran deal) makes one racist against black people.
Israel is not answerable to the barking of the dogs of America or elsewhere. We take what we want because we are the stronger people. It is the way of the world, and the whinging of women will not change that.
You're serious about that? Israel would have collapsed decades ago if they hadn't been propped up by the US.
Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.
I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.
Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, because it's way too late now. This is an argument we could have made back in the 1960s. 70 years later and the Israelis have far more of a legitimate claim over the land than the Palestinians do. Now if someone was to kick them out, it would be as much of a travesty as what happened in the area after WWII.
Now the occupied territories and the settlers.... that's another matter.
Department A: We haven't broken any laws. No illegal spying. Whistleblower B: Department A spied on the American public. I reported this to Department A, but nothing changed. Department A: Ok, that spying stuff is true, but Whistleblower B didn't report it to us. Here are the records that we control that show no reports from Whistleblower B.
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
What was he supposed to talk about? Seriously, he stated he would pass a Constitutional Amendment reforming elections (somehow...) then resign. He was a single issue voter. What was he supposed to answer in a debate if someone asked him what he was going to do about ISIS? Or health care? Or religious freedom? "Well, I don't know, but let me talk about getting money out of elections." What a joke, of course he was shut out.
Obama hasn't exactly been the hope and changey sort of guy his supporters hoped he would be, but the debt ceiling is something that should never, ever be "negotiated" on. Just the idea is preposterous. Now the budget? That's where the negotiating should go. Negotiate the hell out of it, make it smaller. Curb excess, curb waste, curb entitlements, curb abuse, etcetc. But that's when we make the decisions on the amount of money to spend.
You don't spend money, then negotiate on whether to pay the creditors. That way leads to true financial ruin. There really can be no compromise on that point, so how could you have a negotiation? You can't -- it's a hostage situation rather than a negotiation.
Actually they kept him out because of how sharp he is
No, they kept him out because he was not a serious, credible Presidential candidate. By his own admission, he was not a serious contender. Anyone who says that he's going to just pass some voter reform and then resign is honestly not worth our attention and is just wasting time and money. Not when we have a few dozen people running who are actually interested in the job.
the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people)
Citation? HIstory suggests the opposite for this time period.
The second Klan, unlike the first and third, was a more urban movement with a centralized leadership structure, and were based in the West and Midwest with a smaller base in the South (specifically Alabama). While it's true that Birth of a Nation helped galvanize the second Klan in the South and gave us much of the visual imagery that we associate today with the Klan, the organization was riding the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment at the time. Don't get me wrong, they were still a completely racist and anti-black organization, but that wasn't their core focus at the time; black people were kept "in their place" in the South, and the second Klan was more concerned with external threats. Mostly Protestants, they have great distrust towards the Catholic Church and the American Jew (the Anti-Defamation League was formed as a response to the second Klan's anti-Jewish activities). They also strongly endorsed, and this was one of their greatest popular selling points, Prohibition. They burned saloons in the South and attacked bootleggers. They didn't get much foothold in the northeast due to the stronger Catholic influence there.
They were (late in the organization) strongly anti-Communist, but I'm guessing that the stated goals of the second Klan being so close to the stated goals of the Nazi Party helped kill off the second clan. Being a group that thrived on social tension, the Great Depression and World War II killed off that organization for good. They had more of a centralized organization, but they were also very secretive, so when membership lists were leaked and published, people left the Klan in droves. The Klan was already in great decline by the 1930s after some of the leaders were convicted for murder
The third Klan arose in the late 40s and 1950s as a response to the Civil Rights Movement and upward mobility in Black Americans, and as such was far more concerned with the rights (or lack thereof) of black folks. That's the group we think of as the Klan today.
Interesting reads include Kelly Baker's Gospel According to the Klan and while Wikipedia may be iffy at times, it's worthwhile to follow the references it cites.
Really, he made it too easy. He practically did my job for me. The HeadJew will be promoting me soon for sure! I guess now that this minion has served his purpose, it's time to file form JEW-WorldDom-NP-837 and have his nanoparticles activated and erase his memory.
Man, I've really been missing out! Now I really want to meet the HeadJew. I had no idea those guys got so much STUFF done! I mean, damn. They really are the Master Race.
Of course they don't have a plan! It's the government! When has the government ever been able to put a plan together and put it into action!?
I usually find it amusing that the same people who are "rah rah military" and think the US has the best, most advanced, most competent, most kick-ass military on the planet are the same people think that the US government couldn't possibly be doing anything right.
Not unlike the Occupy Wall Street people. That was a full-blown astroturf campaign.
Occupy Wall Street was not astroturf, as reflected by their lack of a coherent message, lack of any organization, outright hostility towards affecting any sort of political change, and lack of any sort of clue as to how people would react to them. Barney Frank's assessment of the occupy crowd was pretty enlightening. To say he was pessimistic would be an understatement.
The Tea Party Movement, from the start, had support from Americans for Prosperity, and the first major event, the Taxpayer March on Washington, was organized by the Heartland Institute, the aforementioned Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks, and others. They were heavily promoted by and supported by Fox News commentators, Glenn Beck in particular.
Oh, nerds do high-fives though. However, they are frequently uncoordinated and miss, and the nerds afterwards pause to push their glasses back up the ridge of the nose.
The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands. Happily, it's a club apparently on the decline.
The clan has had many rises and falls throughout history -- it hasn't been one continuous organization. This is the third Ku Klux Klan active. The first arose (and fell) during Southern Reconstruction after the Civil War, the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people), and the third arose post-World War II. Who knows if a fourth will ever arise. At first, I thought it would be more difficult in today's world of hyper-connectedness, but one of the side-effects is that it's now far easier for geographically-distant radicals to band together and enjoy their echo chamber.
When it is their problem, they will eventually realize this but because I've not been rubbing their nose in it I don't have to fix the relationship the next time something rolls around. The other option is to just shoot your coworkers full of holes, and the first time you are wrong about who's at fault it was, you are the hard nosed worker looking to get out of responsibly.
And the next time there's a problem: Gentle approach: Your calls get returned, people don't avoid you, and they're not hostile to you when you approach them. They're willing to help you out when you actually get into a problem yourself. Nasty approach: Pretty much the opposite of the above.
Everyone makes mistakes. EVERYONE. But when you make people really pay for them, they'll not want to work with you anymore. Maybe they don't cut you any slack. Maybe they just become unhelpful. Maybe they leave to find work in a different division. Maybe they badmouth bad (and you'd deserve it, but hey, if brutal honesty is the best policy, then truthful badmouthing should fit right into that philosophy).
Sometimes I wonder if this is just another "nerd/geek/etc not understanding the importance of social mannerisms, even among other nerds and geeks," or if there's something more complex going on.
It is not! I mean, entry level, casual coder getting his feet week, the home tinkerer, etc. They don't get paid.
But these days there's a lot of corporate investment in Linux, and I think most of the code that does into the Linux kernel (including Linus's) comes from people who are paid for it.
Look, in emails, and all the way through Usenet and frigging dial up BBS systems... the start of a thread IS the subject line.
Eh, in emails, Usenet, BBS, pretty much every place with separate subject and message, the subject line is the subject. A topic. Not the first half of the first sentence of the message. Those are two different things. Hell "When create the most used operating system" isn't even a full thought. It's almost meaningless without the punchline in the message.
I personally don't care as much because I read most things on Slashdot in collapsed form, but if I didn't, it'd probably get annoying and old, really fast.
I fail to see how "tolerating pot" is an inherently unconservative position. The ban on pot is government interfering in the private lives of its citizens, it's the nanny state trying to protect people from themselves, and it's a banning of a substance that does less harm than tobacco and is less addictive than nicotine.
Most of the Libertarians I've talked to feel like the outlawing of pot is an overreach that curtails personal freedom in an area that the government has no right, and no Constitutional authority, to meddle with.
Slashdot Mirror
Money started creating "parties" not long after the founders were in their graves and unable to fight.
And by that you mean that most founders were themselves in political parties? George Washington is the only President the US has ever had who was not in a political party. John Adams, Federalist. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe? (not sure that Monroe counts as a "founder" though) They were Democratic-Republicans.
Maybe not. He's certainly anti-Israel though. He's undermined them at every turn.
Maybe. What if that's so? Disapproving of the politics of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite any more than disapproving of Obama's policy decisions (such as his support for the Iran deal) makes one racist against black people.
I don't know.......if he was going to "suicide-insult" his career, I think he could have found a more productive way to do it.........
It's only suicide if it's not approved of by his boss.
This is a way for Netanyahu to make known what he feels without having to say it himself.
Israel is not answerable to the barking of the dogs of America or elsewhere. We take what we want because we are the stronger people. It is the way of the world, and the whinging of women will not change that.
You're serious about that? Israel would have collapsed decades ago if they hadn't been propped up by the US.
Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.
I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.
Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, because it's way too late now.
This is an argument we could have made back in the 1960s. 70 years later and the Israelis have far more of a legitimate claim over the land than the Palestinians do. Now if someone was to kick them out, it would be as much of a travesty as what happened in the area after WWII.
Now the occupied territories and the settlers.... that's another matter.
Oh swb, you've been reading The Prince again!
Let's play a little game:
Department A: We haven't broken any laws. No illegal spying.
Whistleblower B: Department A spied on the American public. I reported this to Department A, but nothing changed.
Department A: Ok, that spying stuff is true, but Whistleblower B didn't report it to us. Here are the records that we control that show no reports from Whistleblower B.
Which of those is more credible?
He can suggest laws. He can even write laws if he wants, but they still have to be introduced by a member of Congress and be voted on by Congress.
A lot more people would have known who he is if he had been allowed into the Democratic Party debates.
What was he supposed to talk about? Seriously, he stated he would pass a Constitutional Amendment reforming elections (somehow...) then resign. He was a single issue voter. What was he supposed to answer in a debate if someone asked him what he was going to do about ISIS? Or health care? Or religious freedom? "Well, I don't know, but let me talk about getting money out of elections." What a joke, of course he was shut out.
The proposition is that 'The Left in America *despises* the common folk.'
This sounds like a great topic for Intelligence Squared Debates!
Obama hasn't exactly been the hope and changey sort of guy his supporters hoped he would be, but the debt ceiling is something that should never, ever be "negotiated" on. Just the idea is preposterous. Now the budget? That's where the negotiating should go. Negotiate the hell out of it, make it smaller. Curb excess, curb waste, curb entitlements, curb abuse, etcetc. But that's when we make the decisions on the amount of money to spend.
You don't spend money, then negotiate on whether to pay the creditors. That way leads to true financial ruin. There really can be no compromise on that point, so how could you have a negotiation? You can't -- it's a hostage situation rather than a negotiation.
Actually they kept him out because of how sharp he is
No, they kept him out because he was not a serious, credible Presidential candidate. By his own admission, he was not a serious contender. Anyone who says that he's going to just pass some voter reform and then resign is honestly not worth our attention and is just wasting time and money. Not when we have a few dozen people running who are actually interested in the job.
the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people)
Citation? HIstory suggests the opposite for this time period.
The second Klan, unlike the first and third, was a more urban movement with a centralized leadership structure, and were based in the West and Midwest with a smaller base in the South (specifically Alabama). While it's true that Birth of a Nation helped galvanize the second Klan in the South and gave us much of the visual imagery that we associate today with the Klan, the organization was riding the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment at the time. Don't get me wrong, they were still a completely racist and anti-black organization, but that wasn't their core focus at the time; black people were kept "in their place" in the South, and the second Klan was more concerned with external threats. Mostly Protestants, they have great distrust towards the Catholic Church and the American Jew (the Anti-Defamation League was formed as a response to the second Klan's anti-Jewish activities). They also strongly endorsed, and this was one of their greatest popular selling points, Prohibition. They burned saloons in the South and attacked bootleggers. They didn't get much foothold in the northeast due to the stronger Catholic influence there.
They were (late in the organization) strongly anti-Communist, but I'm guessing that the stated goals of the second Klan being so close to the stated goals of the Nazi Party helped kill off the second clan. Being a group that thrived on social tension, the Great Depression and World War II killed off that organization for good. They had more of a centralized organization, but they were also very secretive, so when membership lists were leaked and published, people left the Klan in droves. The Klan was already in great decline by the 1930s after some of the leaders were convicted for murder
The third Klan arose in the late 40s and 1950s as a response to the Civil Rights Movement and upward mobility in Black Americans, and as such was far more concerned with the rights (or lack thereof) of black folks. That's the group we think of as the Klan today.
Interesting reads include Kelly Baker's Gospel According to the Klan and while Wikipedia may be iffy at times, it's worthwhile to follow the references it cites.
Really, he made it too easy. He practically did my job for me. The HeadJew will be promoting me soon for sure! I guess now that this minion has served his purpose, it's time to file form JEW-WorldDom-NP-837 and have his nanoparticles activated and erase his memory.
Man, I've really been missing out! Now I really want to meet the HeadJew. I had no idea those guys got so much STUFF done! I mean, damn. They really are the Master Race.
Of course they don't have a plan! It's the government! When has the government ever been able to put a plan together and put it into action!?
I usually find it amusing that the same people who are "rah rah military" and think the US has the best, most advanced, most competent, most kick-ass military on the planet are the same people think that the US government couldn't possibly be doing anything right.
You did it! You got him to post ALL the conspiracy theories (even contrails, lol) AND tie them all to jews.
Not unlike the Occupy Wall Street people. That was a full-blown astroturf campaign.
Occupy Wall Street was not astroturf, as reflected by their lack of a coherent message, lack of any organization, outright hostility towards affecting any sort of political change, and lack of any sort of clue as to how people would react to them. Barney Frank's assessment of the occupy crowd was pretty enlightening. To say he was pessimistic would be an understatement.
The Tea Party Movement, from the start, had support from Americans for Prosperity, and the first major event, the Taxpayer March on Washington, was organized by the Heartland Institute, the aforementioned Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks, and others. They were heavily promoted by and supported by Fox News commentators, Glenn Beck in particular.
And only rednecks do high-fives...
Oh, nerds do high-fives though. However, they are frequently uncoordinated and miss, and the nerds afterwards pause to push their glasses back up the ridge of the nose.
The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands. Happily, it's a club apparently on the decline.
The clan has had many rises and falls throughout history -- it hasn't been one continuous organization. This is the third Ku Klux Klan active. The first arose (and fell) during Southern Reconstruction after the Civil War, the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people), and the third arose post-World War II. Who knows if a fourth will ever arise. At first, I thought it would be more difficult in today's world of hyper-connectedness, but one of the side-effects is that it's now far easier for geographically-distant radicals to band together and enjoy their echo chamber.
When it is their problem, they will eventually realize this but because I've not been rubbing their nose in it I don't have to fix the relationship the next time something rolls around. The other option is to just shoot your coworkers full of holes, and the first time you are wrong about who's at fault it was, you are the hard nosed worker looking to get out of responsibly.
And the next time there's a problem:
Gentle approach: Your calls get returned, people don't avoid you, and they're not hostile to you when you approach them. They're willing to help you out when you actually get into a problem yourself.
Nasty approach: Pretty much the opposite of the above.
Everyone makes mistakes. EVERYONE. But when you make people really pay for them, they'll not want to work with you anymore. Maybe they don't cut you any slack. Maybe they just become unhelpful. Maybe they leave to find work in a different division. Maybe they badmouth bad (and you'd deserve it, but hey, if brutal honesty is the best policy, then truthful badmouthing should fit right into that philosophy).
Sometimes I wonder if this is just another "nerd/geek/etc not understanding the importance of social mannerisms, even among other nerds and geeks," or if there's something more complex going on.
And Linux coding is an unpaid job, is it not?
It is not! I mean, entry level, casual coder getting his feet week, the home tinkerer, etc. They don't get paid.
But these days there's a lot of corporate investment in Linux, and I think most of the code that does into the Linux kernel (including Linus's) comes from people who are paid for it.
Look, in emails, and all the way through Usenet and frigging dial up BBS systems ... the start of a thread IS the subject line.
Eh, in emails, Usenet, BBS, pretty much every place with separate subject and message, the subject line is the subject. A topic. Not the first half of the first sentence of the message. Those are two different things. Hell "When create the most used operating system" isn't even a full thought. It's almost meaningless without the punchline in the message.
I personally don't care as much because I read most things on Slashdot in collapsed form, but if I didn't, it'd probably get annoying and old, really fast.
Wow, I never knew that Hollywood and Marin County were so packed with libertarians!
Definitely not libertarians. But both left and right are packed with folks who believe they know better than everyone else.
I fail to see how "tolerating pot" is an inherently unconservative position. The ban on pot is government interfering in the private lives of its citizens, it's the nanny state trying to protect people from themselves, and it's a banning of a substance that does less harm than tobacco and is less addictive than nicotine.
Most of the Libertarians I've talked to feel like the outlawing of pot is an overreach that curtails personal freedom in an area that the government has no right, and no Constitutional authority, to meddle with.