When you say you believe in something, you should be able to explain what it is you believe in, whether it be atoms, Pamela Anderson, komodo dragons, gravity, or dark matter; when people say they believe in "god", nobody really knows what "god" is supposed to be. Maybe throw in meaningless terms like "omniscient" and "omnipotent", without justification (of course), or some such, but that doesn't take us very far.
The most charitable I can be is "mysterious cosmic intelligence" and of course to believe in such a thing stretches way past any benchmark for reasonable, justified belief.
And laughably, the only reason he knows his conclusion was right is because these so-called "group-think"ing scientists have amassed a lot of evidence for it and know it's the case.
He's probably one of those religious or alternative medicine buggers, or worse, a crank.
Look buddy, I don't really care how many people believe in your fantasy creations of vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless abstractions like "God" is often portrayed (I doubt you can even coherently define what "God" is).
The ones earning a Nobel probably won't, party because there's a lot of things you can't do if you want a Nobel -- you won't have time for your family, and if you were the kind of person who puts family (or God) ahead of a career then you weren't going to do what it takes to get that Nobel Prize.
What is this nonsense? Trying to equate loving your family with loving a nebulously defined "thing"? And then trying to use it to bash people that got a Nobel prize...? Jealous much?
There's some very confused, vocal people that have made the issue rather annoying. My religion says nothing about the physical world, and my science says nothing about the supernatural.
We're not talking about the Phelps crew. We're actually talking about you and others like you.
There is no evidence or observation of a supernatural world. There is no reason to conclude such a "world" exists, and if it does, it is outside of our knowledge and we could not even begin to speculate on what it consists of; and here, you have not and almost certainly will not define exactly what the differences between the "supernatural" and "physical" world are. A meaningless, arbitrary distinction made by you in order to justify an idea you can't get out of your head--religion, or "God", or whatever.
Some people have no need for religion or spirituality. Some do. Some people have no need to understand the science behind the things around them. Some do. They're orthogonal issues.
If you need fantasy, magic, ghosts & goblins, and other unsubstantiated nonsense to get you through your life, I pity you, because you must have a really bad life to need to escape from reality and invent things that probably aren't there.
"Reality" as we know it is what we observe. If we did not observe it in some measure, whether it be directly or indirectly, then it's just another idea on the heap with no backing. You can wax on about gremlins and unicorns and disembodied cosmic intelligences with strangely anthropomorphic, human qualities, but unless you can show that they are a reality then belief, let alone action, in such things is completely unwarrented.
Now, maybe that is true of Paul, I don't know; he does lean somewhat socially conservative and is far from perfect but his exact views on this are unclear.
However, if you are for a limited federal government--and the reason one would be would be so that the individual has more say as more decisions are made locally--then you must acknowledge that other places "should" be able to pass bad laws, as that would require the large monolithic government small-government conservatives disapprove of.
It's not a judgment on whether such laws are right or not; you simply have to recognize the fact that a much smaller federal government means other places will have laws you may find abhorrent.
Let me paint a picture for you: does the fact that women are oppressed in many Middle Eastern countries mean we should take them over and govern them or establish a one-world government to correct these problems...? You probably think "no", and for the same reasons I reject your argument that some big government should protect us from more local bad laws. You can't keep praying to god for only good things to happen and not expect god to smite you on occasion, either...
Yes, and not that I agree with HIS point, but you must look at context in order to establish meaning, at times; looking at things "literally" fails when definitions or meanings of terms shift or change.
The second amendment is a prime example of this; read it in context of the times and the meanings of the words (regulate, militia) and it's definitely saying that the federal government cannot take your guns away.
It's listed in there as a reason, not so much as defining the second amendment to simply refer to militia; additionally, the militia back then basically consisted of any able-bodied male.
All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights and the federal government, and the second is no exception no matter how much you wish it was. Simply look up quotes of the founding fathers to see how MOST of them felt...:
I never said the government wouldn't exist, nor did I say the police would not exist, etc. I think you are very confused.
You are going to be coerced anyway. If it's the government being pushy, at least I get to push back with my vote. Just like the kid on the playground that beats up others so he won't get beaten up:)
May I ask what those "few things" are? Roads and stuff, I suppose?
Enlightened minds do not think in terms of Republican/Democrat. Enlightened minds think in terms of ideology--a rotten word to many, yes, but a consistent viewpoint, a moral framework, in my opinion is the more intelligent approach to how people should interact, not the patchwork inconsistent Frankenstein monsters that are the Republican/Democrat parties.
In APPROACH, despite the different rhetoric, the Republicans and Democrats are not too far off. They just few the government needing to do different things; the Republicans just tend to have a bigotry against poor people and the democrats, often (not always or even most of the time, but...) against rich/middle class people.
Government is not society, and the fact that libertarians recognize this is why I'm attracted to their philosophy. Government is as much society as a chain gang are a family or a group of friends--being stuck together does not mean you need to provide for others, and certainly doesn't mean they have the right to tell you how to provide for them.
I'm not talking about political parties and the unassociated dogmas they hold, I was simply talking morally. Straddling the fence as a moral and political dogma is ridiculous. It sounds nice to those that think "moderation" is always the best policy but I think the more enlightened mind will realize that sometimes, if not often, extremism is a good thing--extremism, after all, is not a really a reaction to current times and beliefs, like Moderatism is, but contains an actual moral position. I don't believe you have to appeal to everyone, that it's not a good thing to straddle the fence and try to please the bigots as well as the non-bigots and so forth.
Had the states split apart, I really don't care; history would just have branched in a different direction, no better or worse than our current situation; we did, however, get rid of slavery so that's a big plus.
...Because you say so? "Social investment", by itself, certainly doesn't mean less freedom, but the methods to "socially invest" can certainly be anathema to freedom, if by freedom you mean individual freedom of choice and action. When one group of people makes another do something against their will (when it's not restitution or similar) it is not "freedom" in any real sense of the word.
I'm not saying we should go all commie or socialist over here, but a balanced struggle between socialist and capitalist (and many other!) points of view in our government is what keeps it healthy. Falling in the trap of a single party (even a dual party like we have now) reduces our government's health.
Okay, to illustrate how tired this cliche is...:
Should we have peopele in absolute slavery, or absolutely no slavery? It's a trap to stick with either, so let's have a moderate form of regulated slavery.
And you can have people being told to march in line and to obey "for a productive society".
Some of us still believe in freedom for freedom's sake, even if freedom can be messy at times and sub-optimal in some areas. It's like sometimes security and freedom are in opposition--the left has a similar choice, but it's not freedom they are favoring in this instance.
Leftists have forsaken some freedom in the name of economic equality.
I don't at all agree with "..gives to those that don't deserve", but I don't agree with your equally childish rant, either.
I suppose we are a society--but so what? Does that mean "community standards" is only what should be allowed to be expressed? Must everything be an appeal to conforming and obeying the people around you? Far-Leftists, for all their talk of "anarchism" and "sticking it to the man" (well, you get the sentiment), are extremely conformist and demanding of state obedience. The further left you go, the more totalitarian you get as the state controls more aspects of life "for the greater good".
The many being forced to serve the few, in any instance, is wrong; but then again, so is the few being forced to serve the many, as well.
Government exists to serve and protect people, but you are equivocating as "wealth redistribution" is not what has been meant as "serve", not to mention that equalizing things is not equally serving people in society.
Despite the fact that you can label our social aggregate a "society" does not change the fact there are individuals within that society and they each should have a right to make their own decisions without Upper-middle classes telling them how much they owe to other people.
Leftists, if they want to be intellectually honest, need to just come out and say they want to control some people for the "greater good", instead of disguising themselves as being for absolute freedom. You've got freedom on one hand and use of government to carry out your agendas on the other, and it's obvious which hand you favor more.
Human beings are assholes, but you greatly exaggerate and, not to mention, seem perfectly fine with letting the assholes set the parameters of these programs.
If humans are assholes, and don't believe in helping others, then your idea of government is coercing others against their will to bow to your will. Right or wrong, is this a proper application of government?
Most true conservatives (a dying breed, to be sure) would not have a single problem and want these things, too, however, they don't believe in losing sight of what government is--not a vehicle to fix all the problems in the world or to have people bow down to the will of others, but to simply protect rights--essentially, protect people from other people.
Leftism is greed. It's belief that the government, or society, or some entity, has the right to dictate how much property moves from entity A to entity B without A's consent. Playing Robin Hood is greed whether you like it or not.
Motivating those to give and to help others, that is not greed; if that is what you mean by "leftism", that is a good thing, but wealth redistribution under the guise of "social responsibility" and such is as moral and applicable as censoring material on TV because it's "socially unacceptable". What society thinks should not dictate what (barring circumstances like being misled and so forth) consenting individuals do, nor should the government take because they think one person is far too well off compared to another.
In fact, much of left-wing wealth redistribution isn't over true levels of poverty or such, it's simply that one group has far more than another, as poverty is usually given as a relative benchmark than an objectively defined one.
When a far left-winger talks about equality, it's not simply equality under the law (which we don't have today, our justice system is biased in favor of big money and I will happily concede that) but equality in terms of property as well.
You want things like social security and healthcare for society? That's great, so do I, but I believe I should have a choice in the matter first of all, and secondly, I don't want to be locked in completely to what others feel; I want a real say in what I give. Motivate people and start charity; if charity isn't enough, then perhaps you've got to work for social change first.
More Obamist tripe. A pretty face does not solve all or even most problems; people have vastly differing views and are often offended by other views. The pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps are not going to suddenly resolve their differences through YOUR LEADER.
And your fantasy scenario is unlikely to occur because the Republicans sure as hell don't like Obama, anyway.
I don't like Obama because of much of where he will take the country. How is he supposed to unite me when I don't like his politics... magic?
Very good observations. I didn't really ignore them--I set them aside so someone else would, which you did. 1) Organizing millions of people to give is hard.
So is getting people to even watch TV, to even vote, or to even care. You're saying we need a strong central authority to make people do what is "right" (and by "right" I mean, of course, your opinion)?
2) Getting people to commit to funding an organization at predictable levels over functional timescales is even harder.
Again, your answer is to force them to do what you want...?
People are so willing to help others that they'd vote to support it, yet aren't willing to give when the time comes...? 3) There's a game theory problem of being at a financial disadvantage to people who don't give.
And once again, the answer is to control the people who won't step in line and bow to your will?
You'd have to be pretty stupid or pretty ignorant if you think controlling people is better than letting people make their own choices.
Maybe the idea of a central authority taking things from people "in the name of the greater good" to hopefully be spent on "good things" is your cup of tea, but I don't have that much faith and I don't find it particularly moral at all. Charity is a good thing but theft by democracy/authority is not.
What's interesting to me is that, if the socialist ideals are so popular, so desirable, why they cannot simply live by them without government--refuse to buy from corporations, organize a charity to give handouts...
of course, they then say charity is not enough, but then, what does that say about individuals and how much they want to give? Right or wrong, it shows that possibly people do not immediately agree with them (although people are not nearly that logical and thoughtful).
Many left-wingers I've met think of themselves as anarchists but strangely they are very comfortable with government forwarding their principles.
Well that applies to most of the Republicans too; of course, I doubt you'd be happy to be lumped in with that group, either.
Whatever you want to say about Obama, the whole "unite the country" nonsense is the silliest, most naive thing I've heard from his followers. Unless Obama plans to becoming a dictator or brainwashing people, there will be a lot of people that disagree with him. The only way he could "unite" would be to either be so bad that everyone hates him (Bush is a uniter in this regard!) or be a complete moderate and not change anything (and of course his campaign is built on "CHANGE", another empty word).
You cannot unite people in politics when politics is by nature divisive.
Some of the retarded Paul spam (I generally give the Paul and Kuchinich stories a pass because they were stories about non-mainstream politicians and they deserve a voice since the media won't give them one) is nothing compared to the Obama spam.
Yes, you can go back to digg if that annoyed you. But, unless you are an Obamunist like much of them, you'll be unhappy to discover that the Ron Paul stories were nothing compared to what is going on now.
Browse Digg and see what I mean. Obama could fart and it'd be a top story. They'd probably say he was setting himself apart from the other candidates by demonstrating how he is like the common man and does, indeed fart just like all of us; they would then talk about how Hillary and McCain's lack of public flatulence shows how elitist and out of touch with the country they are.
Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too? The Obama campaign is looking for people with server and programming experience. Big deal.
Sounds extreme, but you have to keep in mind that when DNF comes out, all those cards and such will be stored in our closets or will be being used as spare equipment for our silly home Linux servers.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say "spirituality". I said "god".
When you say you believe in something, you should be able to explain what it is you believe in, whether it be atoms, Pamela Anderson, komodo dragons, gravity, or dark matter; when people say they believe in "god", nobody really knows what "god" is supposed to be. Maybe throw in meaningless terms like "omniscient" and "omnipotent", without justification (of course), or some such, but that doesn't take us very far.
The most charitable I can be is "mysterious cosmic intelligence" and of course to believe in such a thing stretches way past any benchmark for reasonable, justified belief.
And laughably, the only reason he knows his conclusion was right is because these so-called "group-think"ing scientists have amassed a lot of evidence for it and know it's the case.
He's probably one of those religious or alternative medicine buggers, or worse, a crank.
Look buddy, I don't really care how many people believe in your fantasy creations of vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless abstractions like "God" is often portrayed (I doubt you can even coherently define what "God" is).
The ones earning a Nobel probably won't, party because there's a lot of things you can't do if you want a Nobel -- you won't have time for your family, and if you were the kind of person who puts family (or God) ahead of a career then you weren't going to do what it takes to get that Nobel Prize.
What is this nonsense? Trying to equate loving your family with loving a nebulously defined "thing"? And then trying to use it to bash people that got a Nobel prize...? Jealous much?
There's some very confused, vocal people that have made the issue rather annoying. My religion says nothing about the physical world, and my science says nothing about the supernatural.
We're not talking about the Phelps crew. We're actually talking about you and others like you.
There is no evidence or observation of a supernatural world. There is no reason to conclude such a "world" exists, and if it does, it is outside of our knowledge and we could not even begin to speculate on what it consists of; and here, you have not and almost certainly will not define exactly what the differences between the "supernatural" and "physical" world are. A meaningless, arbitrary distinction made by you in order to justify an idea you can't get out of your head--religion, or "God", or whatever.
Some people have no need for religion or spirituality. Some do. Some people have no need to understand the science behind the things around them. Some do. They're orthogonal issues.
If you need fantasy, magic, ghosts & goblins, and other unsubstantiated nonsense to get you through your life, I pity you, because you must have a really bad life to need to escape from reality and invent things that probably aren't there.
"Reality" as we know it is what we observe. If we did not observe it in some measure, whether it be directly or indirectly, then it's just another idea on the heap with no backing. You can wax on about gremlins and unicorns and disembodied cosmic intelligences with strangely anthropomorphic, human qualities, but unless you can show that they are a reality then belief, let alone action, in such things is completely unwarrented.
Why can't you believe in both...?
Now, maybe that is true of Paul, I don't know; he does lean somewhat socially conservative and is far from perfect but his exact views on this are unclear.
However, if you are for a limited federal government--and the reason one would be would be so that the individual has more say as more decisions are made locally--then you must acknowledge that other places "should" be able to pass bad laws, as that would require the large monolithic government small-government conservatives disapprove of.
It's not a judgment on whether such laws are right or not; you simply have to recognize the fact that a much smaller federal government means other places will have laws you may find abhorrent.
Let me paint a picture for you: does the fact that women are oppressed in many Middle Eastern countries mean we should take them over and govern them or establish a one-world government to correct these problems...? You probably think "no", and for the same reasons I reject your argument that some big government should protect us from more local bad laws. You can't keep praying to god for only good things to happen and not expect god to smite you on occasion, either...
Here, I can give you that for free:
(WARNING!!!)
http://image.nuclearmayhem.com/happyfunsmile.jpg
Yes, and not that I agree with HIS point, but you must look at context in order to establish meaning, at times; looking at things "literally" fails when definitions or meanings of terms shift or change.
The second amendment is a prime example of this; read it in context of the times and the meanings of the words (regulate, militia) and it's definitely saying that the federal government cannot take your guns away.
That part doesn't even matter.
It's listed in there as a reason, not so much as defining the second amendment to simply refer to militia; additionally, the militia back then basically consisted of any able-bodied male.
All the Amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights and the federal government, and the second is no exception no matter how much you wish it was. Simply look up quotes of the founding fathers to see how MOST of them felt...:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
The second amendment did not refer only to the militia and your liberal high school government class teacher's bias is in fact not reality.
I never said the government wouldn't exist, nor did I say the police would not exist, etc. I think you are very confused.
:)
You are going to be coerced anyway. If it's the government being pushy, at least I get to push back with my vote.
Just like the kid on the playground that beats up others so he won't get beaten up
May I ask what those "few things" are? Roads and stuff, I suppose?
Enlightened minds do not think in terms of Republican/Democrat. Enlightened minds think in terms of ideology--a rotten word to many, yes, but a consistent viewpoint, a moral framework, in my opinion is the more intelligent approach to how people should interact, not the patchwork inconsistent Frankenstein monsters that are the Republican/Democrat parties.
In APPROACH, despite the different rhetoric, the Republicans and Democrats are not too far off. They just few the government needing to do different things; the Republicans just tend to have a bigotry against poor people and the democrats, often (not always or even most of the time, but...) against rich/middle class people.
Government is not society, and the fact that libertarians recognize this is why I'm attracted to their philosophy. Government is as much society as a chain gang are a family or a group of friends--being stuck together does not mean you need to provide for others, and certainly doesn't mean they have the right to tell you how to provide for them.
I'm not talking about political parties and the unassociated dogmas they hold, I was simply talking morally. Straddling the fence as a moral and political dogma is ridiculous. It sounds nice to those that think "moderation" is always the best policy but I think the more enlightened mind will realize that sometimes, if not often, extremism is a good thing--extremism, after all, is not a really a reaction to current times and beliefs, like Moderatism is, but contains an actual moral position. I don't believe you have to appeal to everyone, that it's not a good thing to straddle the fence and try to please the bigots as well as the non-bigots and so forth.
Had the states split apart, I really don't care; history would just have branched in a different direction, no better or worse than our current situation; we did, however, get rid of slavery so that's a big plus.
You're absolutely right that Bush is a symptom.
...Because you say so? "Social investment", by itself, certainly doesn't mean less freedom, but the methods to "socially invest" can certainly be anathema to freedom, if by freedom you mean individual freedom of choice and action. When one group of people makes another do something against their will (when it's not restitution or similar) it is not "freedom" in any real sense of the word.
I'm not saying we should go all commie or socialist over here, but a balanced struggle between socialist and capitalist (and many other!) points of view in our government is what keeps it healthy. Falling in the trap of a single party (even a dual party like we have now) reduces our government's health.
Okay, to illustrate how tired this cliche is...:
Should we have peopele in absolute slavery, or absolutely no slavery? It's a trap to stick with either, so let's have a moderate form of regulated slavery.
And you can have people being told to march in line and to obey "for a productive society".
Some of us still believe in freedom for freedom's sake, even if freedom can be messy at times and sub-optimal in some areas. It's like sometimes security and freedom are in opposition--the left has a similar choice, but it's not freedom they are favoring in this instance.
Leftists have forsaken some freedom in the name of economic equality.
I don't at all agree with "..gives to those that don't deserve", but I don't agree with your equally childish rant, either.
I suppose we are a society--but so what? Does that mean "community standards" is only what should be allowed to be expressed? Must everything be an appeal to conforming and obeying the people around you? Far-Leftists, for all their talk of "anarchism" and "sticking it to the man" (well, you get the sentiment), are extremely conformist and demanding of state obedience. The further left you go, the more totalitarian you get as the state controls more aspects of life "for the greater good".
The many being forced to serve the few, in any instance, is wrong; but then again, so is the few being forced to serve the many, as well.
Government exists to serve and protect people, but you are equivocating as "wealth redistribution" is not what has been meant as "serve", not to mention that equalizing things is not equally serving people in society.
Despite the fact that you can label our social aggregate a "society" does not change the fact there are individuals within that society and they each should have a right to make their own decisions without Upper-middle classes telling them how much they owe to other people.
Leftists, if they want to be intellectually honest, need to just come out and say they want to control some people for the "greater good", instead of disguising themselves as being for absolute freedom. You've got freedom on one hand and use of government to carry out your agendas on the other, and it's obvious which hand you favor more.
Human beings are assholes, but you greatly exaggerate and, not to mention, seem perfectly fine with letting the assholes set the parameters of these programs.
If humans are assholes, and don't believe in helping others, then your idea of government is coercing others against their will to bow to your will. Right or wrong, is this a proper application of government?
Most true conservatives (a dying breed, to be sure) would not have a single problem and want these things, too, however, they don't believe in losing sight of what government is--not a vehicle to fix all the problems in the world or to have people bow down to the will of others, but to simply protect rights--essentially, protect people from other people.
Leftism is greed. It's belief that the government, or society, or some entity, has the right to dictate how much property moves from entity A to entity B without A's consent. Playing Robin Hood is greed whether you like it or not.
Motivating those to give and to help others, that is not greed; if that is what you mean by "leftism", that is a good thing, but wealth redistribution under the guise of "social responsibility" and such is as moral and applicable as censoring material on TV because it's "socially unacceptable". What society thinks should not dictate what (barring circumstances like being misled and so forth) consenting individuals do, nor should the government take because they think one person is far too well off compared to another.
In fact, much of left-wing wealth redistribution isn't over true levels of poverty or such, it's simply that one group has far more than another, as poverty is usually given as a relative benchmark than an objectively defined one.
When a far left-winger talks about equality, it's not simply equality under the law (which we don't have today, our justice system is biased in favor of big money and I will happily concede that) but equality in terms of property as well.
You want things like social security and healthcare for society? That's great, so do I, but I believe I should have a choice in the matter first of all, and secondly, I don't want to be locked in completely to what others feel; I want a real say in what I give. Motivate people and start charity; if charity isn't enough, then perhaps you've got to work for social change first.
More Obamist tripe. A pretty face does not solve all or even most problems; people have vastly differing views and are often offended by other views. The pro-abortion and anti-abortion camps are not going to suddenly resolve their differences through YOUR LEADER.
And your fantasy scenario is unlikely to occur because the Republicans sure as hell don't like Obama, anyway.
I don't like Obama because of much of where he will take the country. How is he supposed to unite me when I don't like his politics... magic?
Very good observations. I didn't really ignore them--I set them aside so someone else would, which you did.
1) Organizing millions of people to give is hard.
So is getting people to even watch TV, to even vote, or to even care. You're saying we need a strong central authority to make people do what is "right" (and by "right" I mean, of course, your opinion)?
2) Getting people to commit to funding an organization at predictable levels over functional timescales is even harder.
Again, your answer is to force them to do what you want...?
People are so willing to help others that they'd vote to support it, yet aren't willing to give when the time comes...?
3) There's a game theory problem of being at a financial disadvantage to people who don't give.
And once again, the answer is to control the people who won't step in line and bow to your will?
You'd have to be pretty stupid or pretty ignorant if you think controlling people is better than letting people make their own choices.
Maybe the idea of a central authority taking things from people "in the name of the greater good" to hopefully be spent on "good things" is your cup of tea, but I don't have that much faith and I don't find it particularly moral at all. Charity is a good thing but theft by democracy/authority is not.
What's interesting to me is that, if the socialist ideals are so popular, so desirable, why they cannot simply live by them without government--refuse to buy from corporations, organize a charity to give handouts...
of course, they then say charity is not enough, but then, what does that say about individuals and how much they want to give? Right or wrong, it shows that possibly people do not immediately agree with them (although people are not nearly that logical and thoughtful).
Many left-wingers I've met think of themselves as anarchists but strangely they are very comfortable with government forwarding their principles.
Well that applies to most of the Republicans too; of course, I doubt you'd be happy to be lumped in with that group, either.
Whatever you want to say about Obama, the whole "unite the country" nonsense is the silliest, most naive thing I've heard from his followers. Unless Obama plans to becoming a dictator or brainwashing people, there will be a lot of people that disagree with him. The only way he could "unite" would be to either be so bad that everyone hates him (Bush is a uniter in this regard!) or be a complete moderate and not change anything (and of course his campaign is built on "CHANGE", another empty word).
You cannot unite people in politics when politics is by nature divisive.
Some of the retarded Paul spam (I generally give the Paul and Kuchinich stories a pass because they were stories about non-mainstream politicians and they deserve a voice since the media won't give them one) is nothing compared to the Obama spam.
Yes, you can go back to digg if that annoyed you. But, unless you are an Obamunist like much of them, you'll be unhappy to discover that the Ron Paul stories were nothing compared to what is going on now.
Browse Digg and see what I mean. Obama could fart and it'd be a top story. They'd probably say he was setting himself apart from the other candidates by demonstrating how he is like the common man and does, indeed fart just like all of us; they would then talk about how Hillary and McCain's lack of public flatulence shows how elitist and out of touch with the country they are.
A true patriot. *salutes*
Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too? The Obama campaign is looking for people with server and programming experience. Big deal.
Sounds extreme, but you have to keep in mind that when DNF comes out, all those cards and such will be stored in our closets or will be being used as spare equipment for our silly home Linux servers.