Why send money and attention to a site whose bias is the opposite of most of the readership here?
But this story is biased. It makes it seem as though there is less transparency in government now, until you dig deeper to the actual figures. It is a classic propaganda piece.
My quote indicts the right. The right simply wants the license to do whatever they please. The left knows that freedom comes at a cost. And no, I am not talking about armies.
HCR has been ANYTHING but rushed through. How long has Obama been in office? The only problem with HCR is that there won't be a public option or single payer.
Guantanamo. You can't call a change not a change. Hell, anything I say you could just say, "But that's not a real (x)!" although that's not really an argument. It's just contradiction.
Yes, that's what presidents do. They send people to do things. They don't actually, you know, go pull people from collapsed buildings themselves.
The two wars: It's a damn shame, but, it is also exactly what Obama said he'd do on the campaign trail.
Civil rights. We've stopped torture. The patriot act has been amended. We're giving trials to enemy combatants.
The economy: What more bailouts? Bush bailed the banks out, what new bailouts has Obama created?
Foreign policy: people seem to like him: right there, 180 degrees difference from Bush
Transparency: he could do better, yes.
Oh well, guess you don't have a case. I provide examples that hold up, you provide examples that show a complete lack of research.
Have you not read much fantasy and science fiction? To lump all of it from the last 100 years together is a bit silly. I say that having read, oh I don't know, 2,000 to 3,000 sci fi and fantasy books in my three plus decades of reading. There are distinct eras.
And now we are on to the next phase, where you adamantly insist that everything means what you say it means, without backing up your assertions with facts, logic, or even anecdotal evidence. You are very predictable.
If it was AP content, there's no excuse linking to Breitbart, is there?
I'm no fan of the man myself, and I agree, he could do a lot more. If only he really were the socialist some right wing loons claim he is. But he's not, he's a center-right politician.
But I am interested, what harm do you think he has done?
Wait, wait, wait. How is the free market winning a great thing in and of itself? The only way that is a great thing is if people benefit. You are asking people to give up all benefit, and calling that a win. Your self interest is pretty damn obvious here.
Your post in a nutshell: "You lazy, greedy bums, do more for me for less or I'm moving to China!" Sounds like YOU are the one who needs some competition. I can't wait until we start outsourcing managers and CEOs and people like you get shown that you are not, in fact, special and unique snowflakes. There's a million guys in China who can do a manager's job ten times better than you, for a tenth the pay.
As for me, I'm going to use whatever tools I have at hand, including political and social tools, to promote my own self interests. If the free market won't help me, fuck the free market. I'm in it for me, not the Free Market. All the parasites who want to make a buck off of me can go hang, you aren't as special, you aren't as smart, and you aren't as talented as you think you are.
True. And small children are actually more logical, and less likely to run away crying. But it was the closest I could come without resorting to insulting the mentally challenged.
Ok, so this is the point in the argument where I am forced to remind you of what you actually said. As usual.
You:
That it is from breitbart is utterly irrelevant.
Them: It is relevant. Breitbart is a political operative and completely biased.
You: Bullshit.
No one is implying that it Slashdot shouldn't print things from Breitbart. But the fact that it was printed there is relevant, just like pointing out that something came from dailykos would be relevant. It is always relevant to point out publication biases.
Speaking of which, HAS anything ever come from dailykos, or are articles here only allowed to be slanted in one direction?
Here's a plan: set up a 'research' center in China, stock it with operatives, and feed the Chinese false leads. Maybe make one or two brilliant 'breakthroughs' that actually place back doors into sensitive components.
Wait until the Chinese steal your tech and the government keeps quiet about it. You'll soon discover that reimbursements and deep discounts are peanuts.
Hello, China? I'd like a reimbursement on these deeply discounted peanuts. They appear to be made of lead, asbestos, and melamine.
Right, I thought that you were implying that AC was me, which is why I responded. If I want to call morons like you or pudge retarded, I am not going to hide behind AC, I'm fucking well known for being an outspoken asshole, you douchebag.
I've got so much karma, nobody can touch it. I can take fifty troll mods a day and come out smelling like roses. I don't need to care if people think I'm an ass, because I can get multiple +5 upmods whenever I damn well please.
Hope that clears things up for you, but based on what I've seen of your intellect, I'm not holding my fucking breath waiting for anything as complex as 'comprehension' out of you.
Idiot. The political operative in question was Breitbart, who did you think he was referring to? Or are you seriously claiming that Bretbart is not a political operative? They're about as neutral as dailykos.
The original comment used complete sentences to convey what are known as 'ideas' or 'thoughts' strung together into what is known as an 'argument.' You used one word interjections with no real meaning. Hardly the same level.
Linking to Breitbart is giving attention and money to Breitbart. True or false?
The post you replied to claimed just that and only that. True or false?
A single claim in a post is the point of that post. True or false?
If these statements are all true, then that IS the issue. Morever, if that weren't the issue, you should have said, 'that isn't the issue,' to the original guy. You'd still be wrong, but you could have said it.
Instead, you are doing what you always do: trying to retcon your posts into something that makes sense, continually reinterpreting your own statements so you don't sound patently moronic, and misinterpreting others so you can attack straw men.
It's hilarious because you always get your ass handed to you and run for then hills pouting. I've never seen you come close to winning an argument, or even sticking around until the end. I mean, seriously, you are comedy gold, man. Comedy gold.
So, when a right wing source publishes something, the source doesn't matter, but when someone publishes a comment anonymously, it does?
The AC is wrong though. Pudge can read just fine. It's not that he can't understand what his opponents are saying. It's that he can't come up with any valid arguments against them. He deliberately misinterprets or dismisses what people he disagrees with say, so that his lack of a logical argument won't be patently obvious.
Pudge is the poster boy for right wing 'debate.' As with 99.999% of all right wingers, he is lost in cognitive dissonance, holding so many completely contradictory ideas in his head, he simply can not operate logically. And so he resorts to straw men, insults, ad hominems, disingenuous misinterpretation, and appeals to emotion.
Well, just doing what Bush did would not be an improvement. However, Obama has done far more good, and less harm, since he has been in office than Bush did in all his years.
This article is a crock. You did notice that there were more denials than there were requests, right? And so the total number of denials is meaningless. Digging deeper, we find much different numbers, 21K vs 20.9k. oooh! Several hundred more requests were denied, could it be because Bush never had complete loons asking for his birth certificate all the time?
See, the thing is, if Obama were only doing what Bush did, no right wingers would have a problem with him, right? But they do. So, either Obama is nothing like Bush, or all right wingers are retarded. Or both.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let the CIA waterboard you when it's mad at the army.
Why send money and attention to a site whose bias is the opposite of most of the readership here?
But this story is biased. It makes it seem as though there is less transparency in government now, until you dig deeper to the actual figures. It is a classic propaganda piece.
My quote indicts the right. The right simply wants the license to do whatever they please. The left knows that freedom comes at a cost. And no, I am not talking about armies.
Nope. Glad you asked though.
HCR has been ANYTHING but rushed through. How long has Obama been in office? The only problem with HCR is that there won't be a public option or single payer.
Guantanamo. You can't call a change not a change. Hell, anything I say you could just say, "But that's not a real (x)!" although that's not really an argument. It's just contradiction.
Yes, that's what presidents do. They send people to do things. They don't actually, you know, go pull people from collapsed buildings themselves.
The two wars: It's a damn shame, but, it is also exactly what Obama said he'd do on the campaign trail.
Civil rights. We've stopped torture. The patriot act has been amended. We're giving trials to enemy combatants.
The economy: What more bailouts? Bush bailed the banks out, what new bailouts has Obama created?
Foreign policy: people seem to like him: right there, 180 degrees difference from Bush
Transparency: he could do better, yes.
Oh well, guess you don't have a case. I provide examples that hold up, you provide examples that show a complete lack of research.
Insisting you are right convinces no one but yourself.
Hello China? You put the YUM! back in cadmium.
Have you not read much fantasy and science fiction? To lump all of it from the last 100 years together is a bit silly. I say that having read, oh I don't know, 2,000 to 3,000 sci fi and fantasy books in my three plus decades of reading. There are distinct eras.
You aren't doing the same thing. You're actually being quite polite.
If it's not Breitbart's content, why link there? That's the bias.
And now we are on to the next phase, where you adamantly insist that everything means what you say it means, without backing up your assertions with facts, logic, or even anecdotal evidence. You are very predictable.
If it was AP content, there's no excuse linking to Breitbart, is there?
Um, health care reform? Don't ask, don't tell? Closing Guantanamo? Helping Haiti quicker than Bush helped New Orleans?
here's a hufpo article on his first hundred days:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html
Here's a Media Matters article: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003
Denver post: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14226357
I'm no fan of the man myself, and I agree, he could do a lot more. If only he really were the socialist some right wing loons claim he is. But he's not, he's a center-right politician.
But I am interested, what harm do you think he has done?
Wait, wait, wait. How is the free market winning a great thing in and of itself? The only way that is a great thing is if people benefit. You are asking people to give up all benefit, and calling that a win. Your self interest is pretty damn obvious here.
Your post in a nutshell: "You lazy, greedy bums, do more for me for less or I'm moving to China!" Sounds like YOU are the one who needs some competition. I can't wait until we start outsourcing managers and CEOs and people like you get shown that you are not, in fact, special and unique snowflakes. There's a million guys in China who can do a manager's job ten times better than you, for a tenth the pay.
As for me, I'm going to use whatever tools I have at hand, including political and social tools, to promote my own self interests. If the free market won't help me, fuck the free market. I'm in it for me, not the Free Market. All the parasites who want to make a buck off of me can go hang, you aren't as special, you aren't as smart, and you aren't as talented as you think you are.
True. And small children are actually more logical, and less likely to run away crying. But it was the closest I could come without resorting to insulting the mentally challenged.
Ok, so this is the point in the argument where I am forced to remind you of what you actually said. As usual.
You:
That it is from breitbart is utterly irrelevant.
Them: It is relevant. Breitbart is a political operative and completely biased.
You: Bullshit.
No one is implying that it Slashdot shouldn't print things from Breitbart. But the fact that it was printed there is relevant, just like pointing out that something came from dailykos would be relevant. It is always relevant to point out publication biases.
Speaking of which, HAS anything ever come from dailykos, or are articles here only allowed to be slanted in one direction?
Here's a plan: set up a 'research' center in China, stock it with operatives, and feed the Chinese false leads. Maybe make one or two brilliant 'breakthroughs' that actually place back doors into sensitive components.
Wait until the Chinese steal your tech and the government keeps quiet about it. You'll soon discover that reimbursements and deep discounts are peanuts.
Hello, China? I'd like a reimbursement on these deeply discounted peanuts. They appear to be made of lead, asbestos, and melamine.
Arguing with pudge about anything is remarkably like arguing with a four year about bed-time.
I'm so glad you took that in the humorous light in which it was intended. :)
Right, I thought that you were implying that AC was me, which is why I responded. If I want to call morons like you or pudge retarded, I am not going to hide behind AC, I'm fucking well known for being an outspoken asshole, you douchebag.
I've got so much karma, nobody can touch it. I can take fifty troll mods a day and come out smelling like roses. I don't need to care if people think I'm an ass, because I can get multiple +5 upmods whenever I damn well please.
Hope that clears things up for you, but based on what I've seen of your intellect, I'm not holding my fucking breath waiting for anything as complex as 'comprehension' out of you.
Idiot. The political operative in question was Breitbart, who did you think he was referring to? Or are you seriously claiming that Bretbart is not a political operative? They're about as neutral as dailykos.
The original comment used complete sentences to convey what are known as 'ideas' or 'thoughts' strung together into what is known as an 'argument.' You used one word interjections with no real meaning. Hardly the same level.
Linking to Breitbart is giving attention and money to Breitbart. True or false?
The post you replied to claimed just that and only that. True or false?
A single claim in a post is the point of that post. True or false?
If these statements are all true, then that IS the issue. Morever, if that weren't the issue, you should have said, 'that isn't the issue,' to the original guy. You'd still be wrong, but you could have said it.
Instead, you are doing what you always do: trying to retcon your posts into something that makes sense, continually reinterpreting your own statements so you don't sound patently moronic, and misinterpreting others so you can attack straw men.
It's hilarious because you always get your ass handed to you and run for then hills pouting. I've never seen you come close to winning an argument, or even sticking around until the end. I mean, seriously, you are comedy gold, man. Comedy gold.
So, when a right wing source publishes something, the source doesn't matter, but when someone publishes a comment anonymously, it does?
The AC is wrong though. Pudge can read just fine. It's not that he can't understand what his opponents are saying. It's that he can't come up with any valid arguments against them. He deliberately misinterprets or dismisses what people he disagrees with say, so that his lack of a logical argument won't be patently obvious.
Pudge is the poster boy for right wing 'debate.' As with 99.999% of all right wingers, he is lost in cognitive dissonance, holding so many completely contradictory ideas in his head, he simply can not operate logically. And so he resorts to straw men, insults, ad hominems, disingenuous misinterpretation, and appeals to emotion.
Well, just doing what Bush did would not be an improvement. However, Obama has done far more good, and less harm, since he has been in office than Bush did in all his years.
This article is a crock. You did notice that there were more denials than there were requests, right? And so the total number of denials is meaningless. Digging deeper, we find much different numbers, 21K vs 20.9k. oooh! Several hundred more requests were denied, could it be because Bush never had complete loons asking for his birth certificate all the time?
See, the thing is, if Obama were only doing what Bush did, no right wingers would have a problem with him, right? But they do. So, either Obama is nothing like Bush, or all right wingers are retarded. Or both.
Did you look at it? It's HUGE. Like, orders of magnitude larger than a reprap. Bigger print heads mean faster printing.