I'm sorry. I was just teasing, I din't think you were really dyslexic, but it's obvious you are.
Let me expand that sentence so you can more clearly see the structure.
I said, "The majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, Shakrai's affronted whining, and Shakrai's fearmongering to be puerile."
There should not be a comma between "Shakrai's style of" and "petty snark" because we are discussing a certain style of petty snark, namely, Shakrai's style of petty snark. We are also discussing Shakrai's style of affronted whining and fearmongering, and conclude that his style is puerile.
Hope that helps, I'm always glad to make accommodations such as dumbing down my writing to a third grade level for those who truly need it.
You have not explained how my second question is self contradictory. I am saying, the world can have multiple empires at one time, and just becasue an empire is not all powerful does not mean it is any less an empire. How can one Empire take advantage of another? China is not part of our Empire, just as Central America was not part of the British empire.
I'm expressing my disdain for your flower child like ignorance. I could care less what you or others think.
You equated people who voted to establish Commonwealth status in Democratic elections to people living under the yoke of empire. That's utterly absurd and not deserving of a serious response.
This will be the last time I waste my energy reading or responding to your posts. Have a nice career tilting at windmills:)
Really now? If you could care less what I or others think, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. Please make your lies less transparent.
I saw Obama that way too, which is why I voted Hillary in the primaries. Now you have liberals defending Obama for the same reason Conservatives defended Bush: they do not want to admit how badly they were fooled.
Do you suffer from dyslexia? I never said liberals were in the majority, I said the majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, affronted whining, and fearmongering puerile.
China? Why should we fix things that aren't broken? Anyway, did the existence of the Ottoman, French, Spanish and Dutch empires negate the existence of the British empire? Your argument is that, because we have not visibly exploited one of the most powerful and populous nations on Earth, we are not an empire. I don't think that argument is quite as persuasive as you think it is.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among liberals. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among moderates. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
"Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering" people can exist in any social group. Please indicate yours and I'm sure we'll find plenty of "leaders" of your political party of choice who exact these same qualities.
Of course, you might convince some people you're smart by using such big words, but your post is as bad the parents in scope of ignorance. Sadly, you probably didn't even notice the hypocrisy.
Nope, I do not notice what does not exist. Calling someone out for being an asshole does not make one an assole.
What's your motivation for posting that? Are you trying to insult me? Win me over to your way of thinking? Convince others you are right? Whatever your motivations, you might want to look at your tactics. I don't think they are getting you what you want.
the roman empire netted common soldiers a nice plot of land in Gaul, the poor in Rome cheap Egyptian wheat, and the empire as a whole several hundred miles of buffer between itself and possible invaders
Okay, but aside from the Gaulish land, the cheap wheat and the defensible borders, what has the Empire ever done for us?
We give less per capita than any other first world nation, and only to countries where we have an economic interest. What did we do to protect East Timor from Suharto? You also forgot to mention the Empire we are most like: the Dutch Empire. Empires are not the same as they used to be in any case, they are primarily economic rather than military. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.
Thanks for the rhetoric, Mr. Ayers. It's a shame you didn't set off more bombs in your heyday, eh? We could have had the socialist utopia you crave without having to assume this faux image of respectability.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
We're trying to have a grown up conversation here, if you can't act like a grown up and present your thoughts in a rational manner, you should go back and sit at the kid's table.
The bases are not all there at the behest of current local governments, we have ongoing treaties dating back to WWII that they can not break without serious repercussions. As for colonies, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Marianna Islands, the US virgin Islands, American Samoa, are all official colonies, but I consider Iraq to be a colony, too, in that we have extracted billions of dollars in natural resources that remain unaccounted for.
Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.
"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security?
In what sense did I say they did increase security?
It's amusing to watch liberals fall all over themselves justifying the fact that BHO has not reversed Bush's policies on this issue. Well, not so much amusing as terribly, terribly depressing.
now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
Did empires ever?
Oddly enough, they have not. You'd think the average citizen would have learned that by now, but having a winning empire is a bit like having a winning sports team: even if you're a big fat loser who never played any sport, you can take pride in the fact that someone you identify with is kicking the ass of someone you've decided not to like.
Yes, we do have an Empire. We have colonies and military bases all over the world. We have intervened in dozens of country's internal politics. We have waged wars of aggression and toppled democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende.
A good place to start is the wiki article on American Imperialism, which is obviously horribly slanted if you think no such article should exist because no such thing exists, but you will find a lot of people all over the world strongly believe that not only does American imperialism exist, it has killed someone they know. Even if you don't think any such thing exists, it might be enlightening to you to research just what it is that all these people are calling 'American Imperialism."
Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.
"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
You're probably right. My numbers are inflated by a couple orgies I went to in my younger days, perhaps one of the best reasons for being a freaky hippie lefty activist: all the liberal women.
But besides those two incidents I don't really have any one night stands. I'm no Casanova with the ladies myself, which is why I wondered at the numbers, if a dork like me can get that many partners, anyone can. Mostly, I've had medium term 1-3 month relationships and longer, non-monogamous 'friends with benefits' type relationships.
Getting laid isn't that hard. First rule, lower your standards. A homely girl who is really into sex is hotter in the sack than a pretty girl who is half asleep. Second, it's a numbers game, if you were to simply stand on a street corner and ask the next fifty women who walked by if they wanted to get laid, you'd get slapped ten times but you'd get at least one who was interested.
Third, don't be a 'nice guy.' Okay, be nice (backhanded compliments are bullshit and will only help get you crazy insecure girls), but you're looking to get laid, not make friends (primarily) so let her know, and keep focused on that. That way you won't waste time with girls who aren't interested. Finally, find a hobby that girls are into as well (NOT gaming or sci-fi or computers, you know, like cooking or writing or gardening or something) and go do it where you can meet girls. It helps if your hobby attracts liberal girls, maybe go volunteer for the Green party or something.
I think number three is where most geeks lose the game, we are nice guys at heart and we don't want to be sexist assholes. But the thing is, women like sex too. Flirting is not being an asshole, if you don't come across as desperate then they will usually take it as a compliment even if they aren't interested. Smile, look her in the eyes, compliment her, touch her arm casually, and you will quickly know if she's into you or not.
You don't know anything about my sexual practices, so you can't claim I've had more exposure to HIV. Maybe I'm only into frottage. Engaging in one high risk behavior with one high risk partner puts you at hundreds of times the risk of engaging in multiple safe acts with multiple partners.
Yeah, just about everyone I know claims thirty to fifty partners by age thirty, and I don't know any pick up artists or total sluts, these are just normal people.
Wait a second. I just figured it out. You see, I was a late adopter of cell phones, I held off getting one until 2000. I've only been with one woman since then. And this poll, it was of cell phone users! Obviously, using any kind of cell phone drastically reduces your chances of getting laid.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Nixon produced some very progressive policy. Too bad he was such a paranoid asshole in other respects.
I'm sorry. I was just teasing, I din't think you were really dyslexic, but it's obvious you are.
Let me expand that sentence so you can more clearly see the structure.
I said, "The majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, Shakrai's affronted whining, and Shakrai's fearmongering to be puerile."
There should not be a comma between "Shakrai's style of" and "petty snark" because we are discussing a certain style of petty snark, namely, Shakrai's style of petty snark. We are also discussing Shakrai's style of affronted whining and fearmongering, and conclude that his style is puerile.
Hope that helps, I'm always glad to make accommodations such as dumbing down my writing to a third grade level for those who truly need it.
You have not explained how my second question is self contradictory. I am saying, the world can have multiple empires at one time, and just becasue an empire is not all powerful does not mean it is any less an empire. How can one Empire take advantage of another? China is not part of our Empire, just as Central America was not part of the British empire.
Bill Buckley was a saint compared to Republicans of today. Heck, these guys make me nostalgic for Nixon.
I'm expressing my disdain for your flower child like ignorance. I could care less what you or others think.
You equated people who voted to establish Commonwealth status in Democratic elections to people living under the yoke of empire. That's utterly absurd and not deserving of a serious response.
This will be the last time I waste my energy reading or responding to your posts. Have a nice career tilting at windmills :)
Really now? If you could care less what I or others think, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. Please make your lies less transparent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
You are exactly the opposite of correct! Can you make the sad trombone sound? "WAH Wah Waaaaaaah"
I saw Obama that way too, which is why I voted Hillary in the primaries. Now you have liberals defending Obama for the same reason Conservatives defended Bush: they do not want to admit how badly they were fooled.
Do you suffer from dyslexia? I never said liberals were in the majority, I said the majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, affronted whining, and fearmongering puerile.
China? Why should we fix things that aren't broken? Anyway, did the existence of the Ottoman, French, Spanish and Dutch empires negate the existence of the British empire? Your argument is that, because we have not visibly exploited one of the most powerful and populous nations on Earth, we are not an empire. I don't think that argument is quite as persuasive as you think it is.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among liberals. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among moderates. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
"Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering" people can exist in any social group. Please indicate yours and I'm sure we'll find plenty of "leaders" of your political party of choice who exact these same qualities.
Of course, you might convince some people you're smart by using such big words, but your post is as bad the parents in scope of ignorance. Sadly, you probably didn't even notice the hypocrisy.
Nope, I do not notice what does not exist. Calling someone out for being an asshole does not make one an assole.
Don't you have a hit to take hippie?
What's your motivation for posting that? Are you trying to insult me? Win me over to your way of thinking? Convince others you are right? Whatever your motivations, you might want to look at your tactics. I don't think they are getting you what you want.
You are an idiot. Plenty of countries have 'voluntarily' accepted the yoke of empire, but that doesn't mean it's any less of an empire.
the roman empire netted common soldiers a nice plot of land in Gaul, the poor in Rome cheap Egyptian wheat, and the empire as a whole several hundred miles of buffer between itself and possible invaders
Okay, but aside from the Gaulish land, the cheap wheat and the defensible borders, what has the Empire ever done for us?
We give less per capita than any other first world nation, and only to countries where we have an economic interest. What did we do to protect East Timor from Suharto? You also forgot to mention the Empire we are most like: the Dutch Empire. Empires are not the same as they used to be in any case, they are primarily economic rather than military. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.
Thanks for the rhetoric, Mr. Ayers. It's a shame you didn't set off more bombs in your heyday, eh? We could have had the socialist utopia you crave without having to assume this faux image of respectability.
I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.
We're trying to have a grown up conversation here, if you can't act like a grown up and present your thoughts in a rational manner, you should go back and sit at the kid's table.
The bases are not all there at the behest of current local governments, we have ongoing treaties dating back to WWII that they can not break without serious repercussions. As for colonies, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Marianna Islands, the US virgin Islands, American Samoa, are all official colonies, but I consider Iraq to be a colony, too, in that we have extracted billions of dollars in natural resources that remain unaccounted for.
Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.
"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security?
In what sense did I say they did increase security?
It's amusing to watch liberals fall all over themselves justifying the fact that BHO has not reversed Bush's policies on this issue. Well, not so much amusing as terribly, terribly depressing.
now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
Did empires ever?
Oddly enough, they have not. You'd think the average citizen would have learned that by now, but having a winning empire is a bit like having a winning sports team: even if you're a big fat loser who never played any sport, you can take pride in the fact that someone you identify with is kicking the ass of someone you've decided not to like.
Despite what you may have learned in junior high, "Put the bong down and step away slowly," is not a cogent counter argument.
Yes, we do have an Empire. We have colonies and military bases all over the world. We have intervened in dozens of country's internal politics. We have waged wars of aggression and toppled democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende.
A good place to start is the wiki article on American Imperialism, which is obviously horribly slanted if you think no such article should exist because no such thing exists, but you will find a lot of people all over the world strongly believe that not only does American imperialism exist, it has killed someone they know. Even if you don't think any such thing exists, it might be enlightening to you to research just what it is that all these people are calling 'American Imperialism."
Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.
"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
You're probably right. My numbers are inflated by a couple orgies I went to in my younger days, perhaps one of the best reasons for being a freaky hippie lefty activist: all the liberal women.
But besides those two incidents I don't really have any one night stands. I'm no Casanova with the ladies myself, which is why I wondered at the numbers, if a dork like me can get that many partners, anyone can. Mostly, I've had medium term 1-3 month relationships and longer, non-monogamous 'friends with benefits' type relationships.
Getting laid isn't that hard. First rule, lower your standards. A homely girl who is really into sex is hotter in the sack than a pretty girl who is half asleep. Second, it's a numbers game, if you were to simply stand on a street corner and ask the next fifty women who walked by if they wanted to get laid, you'd get slapped ten times but you'd get at least one who was interested.
Third, don't be a 'nice guy.' Okay, be nice (backhanded compliments are bullshit and will only help get you crazy insecure girls), but you're looking to get laid, not make friends (primarily) so let her know, and keep focused on that. That way you won't waste time with girls who aren't interested. Finally, find a hobby that girls are into as well (NOT gaming or sci-fi or computers, you know, like cooking or writing or gardening or something) and go do it where you can meet girls. It helps if your hobby attracts liberal girls, maybe go volunteer for the Green party or something.
I think number three is where most geeks lose the game, we are nice guys at heart and we don't want to be sexist assholes. But the thing is, women like sex too. Flirting is not being an asshole, if you don't come across as desperate then they will usually take it as a compliment even if they aren't interested. Smile, look her in the eyes, compliment her, touch her arm casually, and you will quickly know if she's into you or not.
You don't know anything about my sexual practices, so you can't claim I've had more exposure to HIV. Maybe I'm only into frottage. Engaging in one high risk behavior with one high risk partner puts you at hundreds of times the risk of engaging in multiple safe acts with multiple partners.
Yeah, just about everyone I know claims thirty to fifty partners by age thirty, and I don't know any pick up artists or total sluts, these are just normal people.
Wait a second. I just figured it out. You see, I was a late adopter of cell phones, I held off getting one until 2000. I've only been with one woman since then. And this poll, it was of cell phone users! Obviously, using any kind of cell phone drastically reduces your chances of getting laid.