I don't really know, but anytime I bring up the heinous acts of the current administration, some idiot has to pipe up about how both sides are corrupt, as if that negates my complaint. And they never point out the crimes of both sides as you imply, reread those posts. They only pick on Democrats, as if that means there is no difference.
Maybe excuse isn't always the right word. Some times, they are just trying to make everyone feel so cynical that no one feels that anything can be done. Its as if they are saying, "all politicians are corrupt, there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up about Bush."
Who would you recommend I vote for? Libertarians are even worse than neo-cons and the Greens are ineffective. Nader is half way decent, but the only guy I really respect, Dennis Kucinich, doesn't stand a chance because he's short and weird looking.
I agree with you. I respect small government fiscal responsibility Republicans. Wouldn't vote for them myself, but I won't disrespect anyone for doing so. It's the neo-cons I can't stand.
OH, gosh, that sounds BAD! Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have, and fixing social security rather than privatizing it. I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
The other direction is corporate handouts, tax breaks for the rich, government in our bedrooms, loosening workplace safety, environmental, and other regulations, crushing organized labor, and no bid contracts for military contractors. Not the same thing at all.
I don't have any party affiliation. I'm a hard core leftist anarchist. The Democrats suck huge donkey balls, but they aren't NEARLY as bad as the Republicans. Nice try at psychological manipulation, though you have to guess the details of your opponent's psyche a little better than you just did.
What a load of condescending horse shit. What makes you think I blame everyone else or that my life is messed up? My life is probably better than yours. It is that way because I have taken responsibility for myself.
You sicken me. You excuse the abuse of power by claiming that no one can oppress others without their consent. This is true, but irrelevant. I suppose you blame rape victims for wearing purty clothing, and murder victims for not fighting back.
Why do you assume that taking responsibility for one's own actions precludes holding others responsible for their actions? You have a truly twisted sense of morality.
Look, if the choice is getting fucked dry, by surprise while being held down on a bed of broken glass, or being fucked gently with lube on a comfy couch, I'll take the latter. I may still be getting screwed but at least its more bearable until I can figure a way out of the situation.
Cynicism is a disease of the soul, it excuses inaction. It doesn't make you cool and hip and smarter than the average bear. It makes you an apathetic lump.
M. Nut Shamalamadingdong is actually God's way of punishing us for electing Bush twice. Repent now before another soul-searingly bad movie is unleashed!
Obviously, the administration that does all that shit is worse. Come on! Yeah, the democrats are bad for letting them get away with it, but that doesn't make them the same.
Even if all those stories are true, which they aren't, you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption. This isn't a game, son, this is our country and our rights. And blanket cynicism is even more pointless and harmful to our nation.
You seem to want everyone to believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. This is a disservice to your country, and a transparent attempt to excuse great crimes by pointing to petty misdemeanors.
No, that is like being somewhat sick, or somewhat poor. There is a huge difference between the actions of the President and his band of thieves, and the minimally Democratic House and Senate.
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Third, the GP wanted this story gone. He wanted us to stop talking about the crimes committed by this administration. The justice department engaged in criminal and unethical behavior, and he obviously doesn't want that talked about.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
What is insipid about people wanting some accountability from their president? Oh, you meant "insipid" as in "doesn't agree with me." Here's a quote from me that seems even more apt: "At times idiots remain faithful to a cause only because they can not admit that people they don't like were right."
Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit, and everyone loves a good 'Republocrat' joke, but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Don't forget, the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either house, and Republicans can win if they just filibuster.
Bush and company are qualitatively different from other politicians. It isn't just a matter of the amount of corruption. It is the type of corruption and the unmitigated, "What are you gonna do about it? hur hur hur," GALL of these criminal clowns.
Stealing a pack of gum and robbing a bank at gunpoint are both crimes. That does not mean they are both equally serious.
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
No. Please read up on the case and don't assume you know anything about it other than what McDonalds PR wants you to know. The reason the coffee was kept that hot was because it kept longer in the pot without turning bitter. And the material was removed from the cups, making them thinner and unable to hold their contents safely without the lid on. The woman ordered coffee from the drive through and then proceeded to do what almost everyone in that situation does: she held the coffee between her legs and removed the top to put in the cream and sugar. The cup split in half the moment she took the lid off, spilling 185 degree coffee straight onto her crotch.
Wow, McDonalds did a great job at PR in that case! You never hear about the consultant that told them to lower the coffee temperature, or how they had reduced the amount of material in the cups to the point where they would fall apart if you had the lid off and put any pressure on them. Just to save a few hundredths of a penny per cup.
This case has become the example everyone uses to prove the legal system is screwed. McDonalds corporate overlords must be laughing all the way to the bank, they've managed to turn a PR nightmare into a goldmine of free publicity.
I assume you mean, who is watching the movie? No one is. Look inside your mind for the watcher, you will not find it. All there are are sense impressions. Who is having them? No one is, they just exist. Thoughts, feelings, intuitions, the sense of self: these are all just kinds of sense impressions. The only difference between those internally generated sense impressions and ones generated from external sources is that your mind has privileged access to the internally generated ones. Other people can see what you are looking at, but no one else can sense your thoughts (that I know of.)
I know this is a hard concept to wrap one's head around, it goes against common sense, perception OF something must be BY something, right? Well, in some sense that is true, but the thing doing the sensing is an emergent phenomenon, it is just a kind of feedback loop in the brain. There is no central locus of consciousness, at least this is what I understand from talking with my friends in neuroscience. (Though they admit the matter is far from settled with certainty)
The way I understand it, the brain has a mental model of the universe that generates the same type of output stream that the senses themselves create. The output from the model is compared with the actual sense data, and when there is a discrepancy, the sense impression is raised to the level of conscious processing. At that level it becomes important for the system to model itself as well, and it is from this mental model of the self that the sense of self comes, but it is as I said, just another sense impression that the system can act on.
You ARE the movie, there is no one watching it.
I get what you mean when you say we are more evolved, and I agree with what I think you mean. If you mean, more capable of quick adaptation, better at sensing and representing external reality, and so forth. However, evolution is not a heirarchy, there are no 'more' or 'less' evolved creatures. There are creatures that are currently well adapted to their environment, and those that are not.
If you want to judge the level of evolution of a creature, what criteria do you use? For instance, some would say ants are the most evolved creatures. They are certainly the most successful in terms of shear biomass: ants make up ten percent of all living things on earth, by weight.
But we are arguing fine points here, I think we agree on the basics:)
Wow, that is such a stereotype of the male gender. Let me guess, that is YOUR learning style, and you are male, therefore, that must be all male's learning style. I'm a guy and I never had those problems in school. I could sit still, and deal with changing subjects fairly easily. I think the problem you saw was with you, specifically.
Did I say anything about college in general, or you specifically? No, I did not. Just because you did not receive any unfair advantages does not mean that white males, in general, do not. I hope you can recognize the fact that your anecdote is simply that, and not in any way indicative of conditions in general.
So sad, wanting to make people question their assumptions. People should obviously be allowed to live in their own illusions without ever being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really know, but anytime I bring up the heinous acts of the current administration, some idiot has to pipe up about how both sides are corrupt, as if that negates my complaint. And they never point out the crimes of both sides as you imply, reread those posts. They only pick on Democrats, as if that means there is no difference.
Maybe excuse isn't always the right word. Some times, they are just trying to make everyone feel so cynical that no one feels that anything can be done. Its as if they are saying, "all politicians are corrupt, there's nothing you can do about it, so shut up about Bush."
Who would you recommend I vote for? Libertarians are even worse than neo-cons and the Greens are ineffective. Nader is half way decent, but the only guy I really respect, Dennis Kucinich, doesn't stand a chance because he's short and weird looking.
I agree with you. I respect small government fiscal responsibility Republicans. Wouldn't vote for them myself, but I won't disrespect anyone for doing so. It's the neo-cons I can't stand.
OH, gosh, that sounds BAD! Wait, one direction means helping the little guy, reining in corporate power, universal health care like all other first world countries have, and fixing social security rather than privatizing it. I can get behind that kind of increased government power.
The other direction is corporate handouts, tax breaks for the rich, government in our bedrooms, loosening workplace safety, environmental, and other regulations, crushing organized labor, and no bid contracts for military contractors. Not the same thing at all.
I don't have any party affiliation. I'm a hard core leftist anarchist. The Democrats suck huge donkey balls, but they aren't NEARLY as bad as the Republicans. Nice try at psychological manipulation, though you have to guess the details of your opponent's psyche a little better than you just did.
What a load of condescending horse shit. What makes you think I blame everyone else or that my life is messed up? My life is probably better than yours. It is that way because I have taken responsibility for myself.
You sicken me. You excuse the abuse of power by claiming that no one can oppress others without their consent. This is true, but irrelevant. I suppose you blame rape victims for wearing purty clothing, and murder victims for not fighting back.
Why do you assume that taking responsibility for one's own actions precludes holding others responsible for their actions? You have a truly twisted sense of morality.
Look, if the choice is getting fucked dry, by surprise while being held down on a bed of broken glass, or being fucked gently with lube on a comfy couch, I'll take the latter. I may still be getting screwed but at least its more bearable until I can figure a way out of the situation.
Cynicism is a disease of the soul, it excuses inaction. It doesn't make you cool and hip and smarter than the average bear. It makes you an apathetic lump.
Keep waiting, or better yet, go look it up yourself. I'll wait.
M. Nut Shamalamadingdong is actually God's way of punishing us for electing Bush twice. Repent now before another soul-searingly bad movie is unleashed!
Did it set your mind in motion or just stain your lips?
Obviously, the administration that does all that shit is worse. Come on! Yeah, the democrats are bad for letting them get away with it, but that doesn't make them the same.
Even if all those stories are true, which they aren't, you can't excuse corruption by pointing to corruption. This isn't a game, son, this is our country and our rights. And blanket cynicism is even more pointless and harmful to our nation.
You seem to want everyone to believe that all politicians are equally corrupt. This is a disservice to your country, and a transparent attempt to excuse great crimes by pointing to petty misdemeanors.
No, that is like being somewhat sick, or somewhat poor. There is a huge difference between the actions of the President and his band of thieves, and the minimally Democratic House and Senate.
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Third, the GP wanted this story gone. He wanted us to stop talking about the crimes committed by this administration. The justice department engaged in criminal and unethical behavior, and he obviously doesn't want that talked about.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
What is insipid about people wanting some accountability from their president? Oh, you meant "insipid" as in "doesn't agree with me." Here's a quote from me that seems even more apt: "At times idiots remain faithful to a cause only because they can not admit that people they don't like were right."
Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit, and everyone loves a good 'Republocrat' joke, but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Don't forget, the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either house, and Republicans can win if they just filibuster.
Bush and company are qualitatively different from other politicians. It isn't just a matter of the amount of corruption. It is the type of corruption and the unmitigated, "What are you gonna do about it? hur hur hur," GALL of these criminal clowns.
Stealing a pack of gum and robbing a bank at gunpoint are both crimes. That does not mean they are both equally serious.
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
No. Please read up on the case and don't assume you know anything about it other than what McDonalds PR wants you to know. The reason the coffee was kept that hot was because it kept longer in the pot without turning bitter. And the material was removed from the cups, making them thinner and unable to hold their contents safely without the lid on. The woman ordered coffee from the drive through and then proceeded to do what almost everyone in that situation does: she held the coffee between her legs and removed the top to put in the cream and sugar. The cup split in half the moment she took the lid off, spilling 185 degree coffee straight onto her crotch.
Wow, McDonalds did a great job at PR in that case! You never hear about the consultant that told them to lower the coffee temperature, or how they had reduced the amount of material in the cups to the point where they would fall apart if you had the lid off and put any pressure on them. Just to save a few hundredths of a penny per cup.
This case has become the example everyone uses to prove the legal system is screwed. McDonalds corporate overlords must be laughing all the way to the bank, they've managed to turn a PR nightmare into a goldmine of free publicity.
I assume you mean, who is watching the movie? No one is. Look inside your mind for the watcher, you will not find it. All there are are sense impressions. Who is having them? No one is, they just exist. Thoughts, feelings, intuitions, the sense of self: these are all just kinds of sense impressions. The only difference between those internally generated sense impressions and ones generated from external sources is that your mind has privileged access to the internally generated ones. Other people can see what you are looking at, but no one else can sense your thoughts (that I know of.)
I know this is a hard concept to wrap one's head around, it goes against common sense, perception OF something must be BY something, right? Well, in some sense that is true, but the thing doing the sensing is an emergent phenomenon, it is just a kind of feedback loop in the brain. There is no central locus of consciousness, at least this is what I understand from talking with my friends in neuroscience. (Though they admit the matter is far from settled with certainty)
The way I understand it, the brain has a mental model of the universe that generates the same type of output stream that the senses themselves create. The output from the model is compared with the actual sense data, and when there is a discrepancy, the sense impression is raised to the level of conscious processing. At that level it becomes important for the system to model itself as well, and it is from this mental model of the self that the sense of self comes, but it is as I said, just another sense impression that the system can act on.
You ARE the movie, there is no one watching it.
I get what you mean when you say we are more evolved, and I agree with what I think you mean. If you mean, more capable of quick adaptation, better at sensing and representing external reality, and so forth. However, evolution is not a heirarchy, there are no 'more' or 'less' evolved creatures. There are creatures that are currently well adapted to their environment, and those that are not.
If you want to judge the level of evolution of a creature, what criteria do you use? For instance, some would say ants are the most evolved creatures. They are certainly the most successful in terms of shear biomass: ants make up ten percent of all living things on earth, by weight.
But we are arguing fine points here, I think we agree on the basics :)
Wow, that is such a stereotype of the male gender. Let me guess, that is YOUR learning style, and you are male, therefore, that must be all male's learning style. I'm a guy and I never had those problems in school. I could sit still, and deal with changing subjects fairly easily. I think the problem you saw was with you, specifically.
Did I say anything about college in general, or you specifically? No, I did not. Just because you did not receive any unfair advantages does not mean that white males, in general, do not. I hope you can recognize the fact that your anecdote is simply that, and not in any way indicative of conditions in general.
I don't hate white men. I am one. I hate whiners, including Jessie and Al.
So sad, wanting to make people question their assumptions. People should obviously be allowed to live in their own illusions without ever being challenged or made to feel uncomfortable.