I was exclusively a Mac user from 1990 through 1997. From 1997 through 2000 I was a three platform user. Windows for games, Mac for art and linux for servers. Steve Jobs' return to Apple crushed the core of the spirit that made me a loyal user. My computer is not a status symbol. It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a part of my image. It's a tool. When Apple shifted back to the current "Image above all else" mode, I went to Win/Lin PCs. I don't have the time of the money to stroke Steve Jobs' ego.
Starring an asshole and a has been. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one is which. Seinfeld was a mediocre comedian and his show was the most over-rated in the history of television.
Unions have done a lot of good. 40 hour work weeks, pensions, overtime and safer working conditions for people in industry are all directly attributable to the rise of union labor. However, unions do their best work for unskilled and semi-skilled professions. Welders, truck drivers, miners, steel workers and the like are helped by unions. WHY IN THE FUCK DO TEACHER'S UNIONS EXIST? Why are government employees unionized? There are grocery stores where people are unionized.
I don't cheat on my taxes, and I have to pay more because of the people who do.
Don't lie to yourself. Let's be clear. I don't cheat on my taxes, namely because I've seen what happens to people when they get caught. But, if we could snap our fingers and stop all tax cheats, do you honestly think that your taxes would go down?
HELL NO! If the government had additional tax revenue, they'd find another way to spend it. My and your tax burden wouldn't decrease by one cent.
That's exactly what it is. Pro aborts are constantly saying that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". Have you ever wondered why it should be rare? Because they know it's wrong.
If human cells are growing inside my body and have no brain or intelligence, then why should you be the one to tell me if I can remove them?
Many aborted fetuses in fact do have brains.
Whether the cells are a tumor or a fetus, what non-religious right, within the bounds of the constitution does the government have for removing my freedom to choose?
Equal protection. The unborn child can be classified as a person and thus covered by laws preventing homicide.
Yes they have, but the law in question isn't attempting to overturn said Supreme Court decision, it is trying to ignore that decision and is thus unconstitutional.
Unless you're justice Kennedy acting undercover, you have no authority to make such a declaration.
Fine, you still haven't presented any secular grounds for such a law.
See above. Each state has the right to decide how to define personhood. If a state defines an unborn child as a person, that state has to regulate homicide as it relates to such a person.
You don't need to join a party to vote and have our vote counted.
When was the last time a President was elected without the backing of a major party?
Actually, exactly half of states currently have open primaries.
If that were true, it would mean that half of states do not. In reality only have open primaries.
I look at individuals, regardless of party affiliation, and choose from those running. I'm not a member of any party, but my vote counts exactly the same as yours (well maybe more since I'm in a swing state).
I'm in Pennsylvania, that's certainly a swing state.
Your argument is for why a politician should join a party to increase their chances of success and has nothing to do with why an individual voter should.
Because most voters are in states that do not have open primaries. If you want to increase the number of choices you have in elections, the vast majority of voters have to be a member of a party.
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims
You have never and will never see me argue against abortion from a religious perspective.
The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is.
The same court once ruled that the negro had no rights that any white man was bound to respect. Bad decisions have a way of finding themselves overturned.
You can hold whatever beliefs you want, you just can't force other people to do what your religion demands.
You don't even know what my religion demands. I do not oppose abortion on religious grounds.
Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group?
Because in a Democracy, groups are how things get done.
You don't have to join a party to vote in the primaries, at least not in my state.
Perhaps not in yours, but in most.
This is a non sequitur. How does not rooting for a "team" mean my vote counts any less?
Your inability to follow doesn't make it a non sequitur. I'll spell it out for you. Unless you are a member of a party, you have virtually no change of getting your candidate on any ballot. You have exactly zero chance of getting a President elected. Bush, Carter, Reagan and Kennedy all had/have two things in common. They won the Presidency. They won because they had the backing of a national party.
he particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
The constitution does not enshrine a right to infanticide.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive?
There are more than two parties. Third parties can often drive the agenda for the two major parties.
Why commit to voting for either party if both have many members who act unethically?
Joining a party gives you input in the primary process. The primary is just as important as the general election. You don't seem to understand that being a member of a party doesn't oblige you to vote for that party. Had Romney or Giuliani won the Republican nomination, I would have voted third party.
This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.
Ahh that's it. You're "too smart to make a difference", you'll let all of those unsophisticated low brows run the world while you sit there being too smart to get anything done. This is not the attitude of a practical intellectual.
That doesn't mean before it goes through the courts it isn't obvious to anyone with a modicum of education that this particular law is unconstitutional, just like dozens of similar laws.
This is beside the point, you said that Democrats supported "current" abortion laws, and I just proved you wrong.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
Yeah, funny how you realized the truth and expressed it in exactly the same words as old advertisements from the political party you favor. How coincidental.
Yes, how...
Funny, it looks to me like the republicans just passed a new (unconstitutional) law regarding abortion in South Dakota. The Democrats just fought to prevent the law from being passed.
The Supreme Court decides which laws are unconstitutional, they haven't done so yet. Besides, the law in SD is a "current" law, one that the Dems don't support.
That's why it's important not to just vote by party and instead look at the actual positions of the people you're voting for.
In the last 8 years, I have voted for two Democrats. They were decent men who were better on the issues than the Republican opposition.
Who is it that is assuming blacks are intellectually inferior again?
Democrats.
The Republicans are scumbags and so are the Democrats.
Try a Google search including them and you'll find thousands of hits.
I never thought that I was the first person that realized the truth.
The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws.
Except in places like SD.
They're divided on the issue of gun control (for example the democratic representatives from my state are all pro-gun and their voting record shows it).
Pro-Second amendment Democrats still play second fiddle to Biden types.
How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black?
Crabs in a barrell.
I, personally, don't agree with either party, but you seem hopelessly biased tot he point that your statements are absurd. Lift your head from the sand and stop listening to the PR nonsense from your favorite team.
I am a Republican, because the only other real choice is far worse.
That's why I explained why the phrases you were using (phrases expressed exactly the same way as PR from the Republican party) were misleading.
I call bullshit. I have been using those exact same phrases since at least 1996. Ever since the Republicans were begging Colin Powell to be the nominee, I've said that I believed that the Republicans would elect an African-American man as President before the Democrats.
I thought perhaps you were misled by their intentional deception and would like a more accurate depiction of the Democratic party's platform.
The Democrat party platform is really easy to sum up. 1. Socialized Healthcare. 2. Legal abortion on demand. 3. Ban guns. 4. Keep the blacks dependent. 5. Raise taxes.
So when Democrats use gun control as a political issue, they're serious and must be kept out of office.
Exactly. Because when Democrats have it their way, they actually pass such laws.
Which didn't prevent him from being charged with murder and bogus gun law violations.
Weaver was charged with serious violations. He sold two illegal sawed off shotguns. There's nothing bogus about that, he did it. He was acquitted of the murder charge, obviously because he didn't shoot Agent Degan.
And again, no help from the second most powerful domestic lobby in the country.
And just who do you think was behind the congressional hearings on that matter? It sure as hell wasn't the Clinton administration.
The nice part with arguing with you wingnuts is that you are reliably wrong on...everything.
When the facts are on our side (like usual), you have to resort to personal attacks.
I'd say a Mac running OSX and Firefox is a much larger enemy to Microsoft than Linux is, given the install base, but what do I know?
Apple is no threat to Microsoft in the server arena. Linux is no threat to Microsoft in the desktop arena. Microsoft uses both markets to leverage each other. IIS supports proprietary extensions and it just so happens that IE supports them as well.
The problem with NRA type voters is that they are full of shit. Like the ones in 2004 who said they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported gun control and then went ahead and voted for Bush - who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban.
Nonsense. Bush said that he'd sign the legislation of Congress put it on his desk because he KNEW that it wouldn't pass. It was a brilliant piece of strategy. It took an election issue out of the Democrats hands.
If the NRA walked the walk, they would have breaking down the doors of Randy Weaver and Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers after they shot LEOs in self defense.
I disagree. McCain is the perfect candidate for those Moderate Republicans. McCain has to be careful so that he doesn't chase the Conservative Republicans to Bob Barr. Barr would be in Perot's position in 1992. He won't win, but he will siphon enough votes from the Republican to ensure a Democrat victory.
Frankly, in the end, none of it really matters. Obama, at this point, would have to be found in bed with a dead male goat to lose the election.
You, sir are discounting the Bradley Effect. There are many Democrats who will not support a black candidate. Democrat dogma holds that black people need special help, like affirmative action and quotas. Democrats believe that black people are inherantly inferior, while they may say one thing at poll time, when they are alone in the voting booth, you're going to see more McCain votes that you'd expect.
See, the problem for your theory is that being pro-gun-control on the left has never been as important as being anti-gun-control on the right. There is, indeed, a large group of people who will not vote for pro-gun-control people...and there's not really any opposite to that group on the left.
There most certainly is, but it's much smaller and less influential. I'm talking about the Rosie O'Donnell/Million Mom type.
What I'm getting at is that there are a bunch of swing voters, the people often called Reagan Democrats, who will be easy to turn against the Obama/Biden ticket on just a few social issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I was exclusively a Mac user from 1990 through 1997. From 1997 through 2000 I was a three platform user. Windows for games, Mac for art and linux for servers. Steve Jobs' return to Apple crushed the core of the spirit that made me a loyal user. My computer is not a status symbol. It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a part of my image. It's a tool. When Apple shifted back to the current "Image above all else" mode, I went to Win/Lin PCs. I don't have the time of the money to stroke Steve Jobs' ego.
LK
After several years, you want to develop that land. Since you allowed his to park there for years he can argue that he has your permission.
You can argue that he had your permission, but you have since revoked it.
LK
That's why I was trying to get HIM to name the wrong song.
LK
The problem is that song isn't rap.
LK
I've seen this bullshit story posted again and again for years.
I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
What is "cop-killer rap"?
As awful as goatse is, lemonparty would have people vomiting in the streets and Rustina would have a very small subset of geek in tears laughing.
LK
Starring an asshole and a has been. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one is which. Seinfeld was a mediocre comedian and his show was the most over-rated in the history of television.
LK
but in IT isn't one of those places.
Unions have done a lot of good. 40 hour work weeks, pensions, overtime and safer working conditions for people in industry are all directly attributable to the rise of union labor. However, unions do their best work for unskilled and semi-skilled professions. Welders, truck drivers, miners, steel workers and the like are helped by unions. WHY IN THE FUCK DO TEACHER'S UNIONS EXIST? Why are government employees unionized? There are grocery stores where people are unionized.
LK
I remember being blown away by Marathon's audio. It's crazy to think that it's been well over 10 years, but that game was groundbreaking.
LK
I don't cheat on my taxes, and I have to pay more because of the people who do.
Don't lie to yourself. Let's be clear. I don't cheat on my taxes, namely because I've seen what happens to people when they get caught. But, if we could snap our fingers and stop all tax cheats, do you honestly think that your taxes would go down?
HELL NO! If the government had additional tax revenue, they'd find another way to spend it. My and your tax burden wouldn't decrease by one cent.
LK
Who cares what foreigners think?
LK
The term "pro-choice" is not just rhetoric.
That's exactly what it is. Pro aborts are constantly saying that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". Have you ever wondered why it should be rare? Because they know it's wrong.
If human cells are growing inside my body and have no brain or intelligence, then why should you be the one to tell me if I can remove them?
Many aborted fetuses in fact do have brains.
Whether the cells are a tumor or a fetus, what non-religious right, within the bounds of the constitution does the government have for removing my freedom to choose?
Equal protection. The unborn child can be classified as a person and thus covered by laws preventing homicide.
Yes they have, but the law in question isn't attempting to overturn said Supreme Court decision, it is trying to ignore that decision and is thus unconstitutional.
Unless you're justice Kennedy acting undercover, you have no authority to make such a declaration.
Fine, you still haven't presented any secular grounds for such a law.
See above. Each state has the right to decide how to define personhood. If a state defines an unborn child as a person, that state has to regulate homicide as it relates to such a person.
You don't need to join a party to vote and have our vote counted.
When was the last time a President was elected without the backing of a major party?
Actually, exactly half of states currently have open primaries.
If that were true, it would mean that half of states do not. In reality only have open primaries.
I look at individuals, regardless of party affiliation, and choose from those running. I'm not a member of any party, but my vote counts exactly the same as yours (well maybe more since I'm in a swing state).
I'm in Pennsylvania, that's certainly a swing state.
Your argument is for why a politician should join a party to increase their chances of success and has nothing to do with why an individual voter should.
Because most voters are in states that do not have open primaries. If you want to increase the number of choices you have in elections, the vast majority of voters have to be a member of a party.
LK
No, but it does enshrine the separation of church and state such that if some religion claims
You have never and will never see me argue against abortion from a religious perspective.
The courts have already ruled that the fetuses in question are not people with rights any more than a sperm is.
The same court once ruled that the negro had no rights that any white man was bound to respect. Bad decisions have a way of finding themselves overturned.
You can hold whatever beliefs you want, you just can't force other people to do what your religion demands.
You don't even know what my religion demands. I do not oppose abortion on religious grounds.
Why should someone pick one team made up of people you both agree with and don't agree with? Why are you so fixated upon joining a group?
Because in a Democracy, groups are how things get done.
You don't have to join a party to vote in the primaries, at least not in my state.
Perhaps not in yours, but in most.
This is a non sequitur. How does not rooting for a "team" mean my vote counts any less?
Your inability to follow doesn't make it a non sequitur. I'll spell it out for you. Unless you are a member of a party, you have virtually no change of getting your candidate on any ballot. You have exactly zero chance of getting a President elected. Bush, Carter, Reagan and Kennedy all had/have two things in common. They won the Presidency. They won because they had the backing of a national party.
LK
he particular exception you did mention is not even supported by many Republicans and shouldn't be supported by any patriot who believes in the constitution.
The constitution does not enshrine a right to infanticide.
How so? What kind of an idiot thinks not choosing one of two equally wrongheaded organizations is indecisive?
There are more than two parties. Third parties can often drive the agenda for the two major parties.
Why commit to voting for either party if both have many members who act unethically?
Joining a party gives you input in the primary process. The primary is just as important as the general election. You don't seem to understand that being a member of a party doesn't oblige you to vote for that party. Had Romney or Giuliani won the Republican nomination, I would have voted third party.
This "ra ra!" sports team attitude of divisive politics is simply another sign of the decline of intellectualism in the US.
Ahh that's it. You're "too smart to make a difference", you'll let all of those unsophisticated low brows run the world while you sit there being too smart to get anything done. This is not the attitude of a practical intellectual.
LK
That doesn't mean before it goes through the courts it isn't obvious to anyone with a modicum of education that this particular law is unconstitutional, just like dozens of similar laws.
This is beside the point, you said that Democrats supported "current" abortion laws, and I just proved you wrong.
I have no political affiliation and never plan to.
That makes you indecisive, not independent.
LK
Yeah, funny how you realized the truth and expressed it in exactly the same words as old advertisements from the political party you favor. How coincidental.
Yes, how...
Funny, it looks to me like the republicans just passed a new (unconstitutional) law regarding abortion in South Dakota. The Democrats just fought to prevent the law from being passed.
The Supreme Court decides which laws are unconstitutional, they haven't done so yet. Besides, the law in SD is a "current" law, one that the Dems don't support.
That's why it's important not to just vote by party and instead look at the actual positions of the people you're voting for.
In the last 8 years, I have voted for two Democrats. They were decent men who were better on the issues than the Republican opposition.
Who is it that is assuming blacks are intellectually inferior again?
Democrats.
The Republicans are scumbags and so are the Democrats.
And your affiliation?
LK
Try a Google search including them and you'll find thousands of hits.
I never thought that I was the first person that realized the truth.
The Democrats seem happy with the current abortion laws.
Except in places like SD.
They're divided on the issue of gun control (for example the democratic representatives from my state are all pro-gun and their voting record shows it).
Pro-Second amendment Democrats still play second fiddle to Biden types.
How do you reconcile the view that democrats want blacks to be dependent when a huge number of them are black?
Crabs in a barrell.
I, personally, don't agree with either party, but you seem hopelessly biased tot he point that your statements are absurd. Lift your head from the sand and stop listening to the PR nonsense from your favorite team.
I am a Republican, because the only other real choice is far worse.
LK
That's why I explained why the phrases you were using (phrases expressed exactly the same way as PR from the Republican party) were misleading.
I call bullshit. I have been using those exact same phrases since at least 1996. Ever since the Republicans were begging Colin Powell to be the nominee, I've said that I believed that the Republicans would elect an African-American man as President before the Democrats.
I thought perhaps you were misled by their intentional deception and would like a more accurate depiction of the Democratic party's platform.
The Democrat party platform is really easy to sum up. 1. Socialized Healthcare. 2. Legal abortion on demand. 3. Ban guns. 4. Keep the blacks dependent. 5. Raise taxes.
LK
So when Democrats use gun control as a political issue, they're serious and must be kept out of office.
Exactly. Because when Democrats have it their way, they actually pass such laws.
Which didn't prevent him from being charged with murder and bogus gun law violations.
Weaver was charged with serious violations. He sold two illegal sawed off shotguns. There's nothing bogus about that, he did it. He was acquitted of the murder charge, obviously because he didn't shoot Agent Degan.
And again, no help from the second most powerful domestic lobby in the country.
And just who do you think was behind the congressional hearings on that matter? It sure as hell wasn't the Clinton administration.
The nice part with arguing with you wingnuts is that you are reliably wrong on...everything.
When the facts are on our side (like usual), you have to resort to personal attacks.
LK
I'd say a Mac running OSX and Firefox is a much larger enemy to Microsoft than Linux is, given the install base, but what do I know?
Apple is no threat to Microsoft in the server arena. Linux is no threat to Microsoft in the desktop arena. Microsoft uses both markets to leverage each other. IIS supports proprietary extensions and it just so happens that IE supports them as well.
LK
Your characterization of the Democratic party platform, however, is just Republican party taking points.
There is a difference between talking points and a different point of view.
LK
The problem with NRA type voters is that they are full of shit. Like the ones in 2004 who said they couldn't vote for Kerry because he supported gun control and then went ahead and voted for Bush - who said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban.
Nonsense. Bush said that he'd sign the legislation of Congress put it on his desk because he KNEW that it wouldn't pass. It was a brilliant piece of strategy. It took an election issue out of the Democrats hands.
If the NRA walked the walk, they would have breaking down the doors of Randy Weaver and Cory Maye with $10,000 an hour lawyers after they shot LEOs in self defense.
Randy Weaver didn't shoot anyone.
LK
I disagree. McCain is the perfect candidate for those Moderate Republicans. McCain has to be careful so that he doesn't chase the Conservative Republicans to Bob Barr. Barr would be in Perot's position in 1992. He won't win, but he will siphon enough votes from the Republican to ensure a Democrat victory.
LK
Frankly, in the end, none of it really matters. Obama, at this point, would have to be found in bed with a dead male goat to lose the election.
You, sir are discounting the Bradley Effect. There are many Democrats who will not support a black candidate. Democrat dogma holds that black people need special help, like affirmative action and quotas. Democrats believe that black people are inherantly inferior, while they may say one thing at poll time, when they are alone in the voting booth, you're going to see more McCain votes that you'd expect.
LK
See, the problem for your theory is that being pro-gun-control on the left has never been as important as being anti-gun-control on the right. There is, indeed, a large group of people who will not vote for pro-gun-control people...and there's not really any opposite to that group on the left.
There most certainly is, but it's much smaller and less influential. I'm talking about the Rosie O'Donnell/Million Mom type.
What I'm getting at is that there are a bunch of swing voters, the people often called Reagan Democrats, who will be easy to turn against the Obama/Biden ticket on just a few social issues.
LK