Vitriol is the only thing that penetrates global warming deniers thick, simian skulls. Trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a brain damaged baboon. All they can do is screech and fling feces. I'm perfectly capable of reasoned debate (and you're doing such a good job demonstrating your skill, too...:-P), as long as the other party is too. But there's no getting through to these people, their minds are made up, and no amount of evidence will sway them. This is because they are fundamentally selfish, narcissistic people who refuse to be held accountable for how their actions affect others. If they were to accept the truth about global warming, they might actually have to change their selfish, wasteful ways. "Reasoned debate"? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Read my sig.
You're an arrogant little shit, aren't you? Arrogant? Yes. A shit? Yes. But not little. Glad to have ticked you off.
Vitriol is the only thing that penetrates global warming deniers thick, simian skulls. Trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a brain damaged baboon. All they can do is screech and fling feces. I'm perfectly capable of reasoned debate, as long as the other party is too. But there's no getting through to these people, their minds are made up, and no amount of evidence will sway them. This is because they are fundamentally selfish, narcissistic people who refuse to be held accountable for how their actions affect others. If they were to accept the truth about global warming, they might actually have to change their selfish, wasteful ways.
Innocuous statement my ass. That chimp was implying that global warming numbers are way off, the result of one guy, and being widely repeated by people who don't know what they are talking about. Hardly innocuous, and not just far from the truth, 180 degrees opposite of the truth. In fact, as I said, those statements apply much more accurately to global warming deniers.
No, it's just sad. An over-privileged yet insecure girl begging a douchebag guy to love her. Not only won't it get you hard, it's the kind of video that kills any hard on you might have had to begin with.
I wonder where I've heard that word before. The one guy who calculated global warming is a myth, and all the dittoheads who parrot back the misinformation without any thought in their tiny, birdlike brians?
Read what I wrote before replying, please. I spoke against the state not providing health care for the obese. I spoke in favor of taxing unhealthy consumption, such as fatty foods or cigarettes. Whoops, read your other reply (Emily Litella voice) Neeeeever mind...
In the case of the diesels, the system worked as intended. A dumb law was proposed, it was shown to be bad, and so it wasn't passed. As for the sin tax, well, it is like cigarettes. As long as the state is the HMO of last resort (you can't be turned away from an emergency room, even if you can't pay), then it is fair for the state to tax those things that are going to lead to more costs for the state. Honestly, do YOU want to pay for the health care of someone who lives an unhealthy lifestyle? I don't. But the obesity law is just unfair. Not everyone who is obese is that way through any fault of their own.
I agree that liberals have taken things too far in some regards, For instance, I was never a big Gore fan because of his & his wife's attempts at censorship. There has to be a happy medium between cradle to grave nanny statism and cold hearted, every man for himselfism.
As the AC said to the other poster, you fail economics. Why? Here's a clue: the exact same line of thinking can be applied to monetary transactions. What you get is worth exactly the amount of money you paid for it, so income (the thing) minus expenses (the cash) equals 0, so no taxes.
Basically, some crazy dude beat the crap out of Dan Rather because he thought the networks were beaming voices into his head, and he thought Dan knew the frequency.
It wasn't me that posted the original. And I knew that you meant that Jesus wasn't any of those things, but that was a stupid thing to say. You were saying the original poster had said that Jesus liked little boys, when a moment's perusal of the linked site would have shown you who had really said that. Sorry for the slap down, but you could have avoided it with ten seconds of due diligence. Next time, take the time to figure out what someone is actually saying before counter-attacking them.
You do know that, technically, you need to pay taxes on the value of anything you barter, right? Just sayin', don't be surprised if you get bit in an audit.
What is your problem? The Fishman Affidavit is a court document, that's not a good enough cite for you that L. Ron Hubbard actually said that Jesus likes little boys? Or did you not bother to read (or not comprehend) the website and assumed the poster was bashing your favorite fairy tale?
Let me be perfectly clear then: Scientology makes the claim, in their official religious literature, that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile. That is backed up by court records.
The problem with "WWCBND?" is that it's just not a terribly useful guiding philosophy. For instance, imagine you're in a situation where you're having trouble getting along with your coworkers, and so you ask yourself, "WWCBND?" The answer is that CowboyNeal would sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games. So, as you can see, "WWCBND?" has two major problems:
First, the solution is *always* to sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games because that's all we know about CowboyNeal. "WWCBND?" dictates that you sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games in any situation, whether it's marital problems, dealing with the poor, or feeling frustrated that you dropped your grilled cheese sandwich: just sit on a couch, eat some Pringles, and play video games. It's just not very flexible as a philosophy.
The second issue with the "WWCBND?" philosophy is more practical. CowboyNeal is a fat slob. As a fat slob, he already has the resources to follow through with this plan, in particular, he has a couch, lots of Pringles, and plenty of video games to play. Unless you have access to similar resources, "WWCBND?" is just not practical to apply to your everyday life. Although I admit, when I think of how to deal with the fact that I too am a fat slob, and then ask "WWCBND?", I have to admit that the philosophy does have some appeal.
That's okay, the word 'liberal' used to mean someone who was for personal freedom, with maybe a hand-up from society if you really needed it. Not someone who wanted to tell you how to live your life, and who supports welfare for bureaucrats. I wish Hillary and Obama both didn't look so much like neo-cons themselves, or that Kucinich stood a chance.
Calling me a Windows fanboy is about the worst insult I can imagine. Am I coming down on Linux? Am I touting Windows or Photoshop? No, damn it, I am bringing up an issue. I've been using and contributing to open source since 1995, when did you come on board? I work almost exclusively with Linux, have gotten friends and business clients to switch, contribute patches, post advice on message boards, and basically do far more for Linux than an antisocial twit like yourself ever will for the cause of open source.
Whatever intelligence and knowledge you possess is vastly overshadowed by your fanatical tone and boorish behavior. I am done discussing anything of import with an intransigent asshole such as yourself.
Pollution impacts everyone. By saying, "I have the right to drive whatever I like, no matter how much it pollutes," you are really saying, "I have the right to shit in your lungs and there's not a damned thing you can do about it." As for the McDonalds thing, if true, that's idiotic. People should take responsibility for what they put in their own bodies, and no one has the right to tell them what they can and can't do to themselves.
But I've noticed something. Both sides tend to exaggerate and take out of context what the other side does. If you have some references for either of those things, I'll be happy to believe you, otherwise, I hope you understand I have to take it with a grain of salt. As for the 'trying to make us perfect human beings' thing, that is vague, completely unsourced, and another appeal to emotion. Not to mention, it applies at least as much to conservatives and their moralizing as it does to liberals.
I've got no beef with the use of the phrase 'fiscally conservative.' We all know what it means, and quite frankly, I like you guys. Don't always agree that your policies are the best, but I know you've got the country's best interest at heart, and if you manage to take power, I'm not going to be worried the country will go to hell in a hand-basket. It's the use of the word, "Conservative," by itself with no modifiers that I have a problem with. It's come to mean something very different than it used to. I think we both know that it generally means socially authoritarian borrow-and-spend.
That's the breadth of our choice nowadays, isn't it? Socially authoritarian (one way or another) and either borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend.
Bravo! If all conservatives thought like you, I would have no issues with you folks. I hope people like you manage to take back your party from the bandits and thugs who've taken it over. I'll be over here trying to take back my party from the authoritarian nannies.
Telling someone what you'd like them to do is different than forcing them to do something against their will. We both know there's no comparison. You've taken my at least semi-reasonable statement that very few modern conservatives act in a fiscally responsible manner, and trumped it with a Nazi card. All you've done is show that you have no rebuttal except to appeal to irrational emotions. Thanks for making it that much harder for liberals and conservatives to come together to fix what's wrong with our country.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar who obviously has the country's best interests at heart, and in no way treats politics as if it were a competition between sports teams where the only important facet is wining and rubbing your opponent's nose in that fact. Well done!
Slashdot Mirror
The OP was me, and what I was saying, the guy who calculated global warming is a myth is WRONG. So yeah, I am on the same side as me.
Read my sig.
You're an arrogant little shit, aren't you? Arrogant? Yes. A shit? Yes. But not little. Glad to have ticked you off.
Vitriol is the only thing that penetrates global warming deniers thick, simian skulls. Trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a brain damaged baboon. All they can do is screech and fling feces. I'm perfectly capable of reasoned debate, as long as the other party is too. But there's no getting through to these people, their minds are made up, and no amount of evidence will sway them. This is because they are fundamentally selfish, narcissistic people who refuse to be held accountable for how their actions affect others. If they were to accept the truth about global warming, they might actually have to change their selfish, wasteful ways.
Innocuous statement my ass. That chimp was implying that global warming numbers are way off, the result of one guy, and being widely repeated by people who don't know what they are talking about. Hardly innocuous, and not just far from the truth, 180 degrees opposite of the truth. In fact, as I said, those statements apply much more accurately to global warming deniers.
No, it's just sad. An over-privileged yet insecure girl begging a douchebag guy to love her. Not only won't it get you hard, it's the kind of video that kills any hard on you might have had to begin with.
Cringely, you pretentious twit. You're just not going to have a menage a trois, no matter how much you fantasize about it.
Read what I wrote before replying, please. I spoke against the state not providing health care for the obese. I spoke in favor of taxing unhealthy consumption, such as fatty foods or cigarettes. Whoops, read your other reply (Emily Litella voice) Neeeeever mind...
In the case of the diesels, the system worked as intended. A dumb law was proposed, it was shown to be bad, and so it wasn't passed. As for the sin tax, well, it is like cigarettes. As long as the state is the HMO of last resort (you can't be turned away from an emergency room, even if you can't pay), then it is fair for the state to tax those things that are going to lead to more costs for the state. Honestly, do YOU want to pay for the health care of someone who lives an unhealthy lifestyle? I don't. But the obesity law is just unfair. Not everyone who is obese is that way through any fault of their own.
I agree that liberals have taken things too far in some regards, For instance, I was never a big Gore fan because of his & his wife's attempts at censorship. There has to be a happy medium between cradle to grave nanny statism and cold hearted, every man for himselfism.
As the AC said to the other poster, you fail economics. Why? Here's a clue: the exact same line of thinking can be applied to monetary transactions. What you get is worth exactly the amount of money you paid for it, so income (the thing) minus expenses (the cash) equals 0, so no taxes.
For those who don't know, or those who think it's just a reference to an R.E.M. song, read the story behind the song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Frequency,_Kenneth%3F
Basically, some crazy dude beat the crap out of Dan Rather because he thought the networks were beaming voices into his head, and he thought Dan knew the frequency.
It wasn't me that posted the original. And I knew that you meant that Jesus wasn't any of those things, but that was a stupid thing to say. You were saying the original poster had said that Jesus liked little boys, when a moment's perusal of the linked site would have shown you who had really said that. Sorry for the slap down, but you could have avoided it with ten seconds of due diligence. Next time, take the time to figure out what someone is actually saying before counter-attacking them.
The Slashdot posters make.
You do know that, technically, you need to pay taxes on the value of anything you barter, right? Just sayin', don't be surprised if you get bit in an audit.
What is your problem? The Fishman Affidavit is a court document, that's not a good enough cite for you that L. Ron Hubbard actually said that Jesus likes little boys? Or did you not bother to read (or not comprehend) the website and assumed the poster was bashing your favorite fairy tale?
Let me be perfectly clear then: Scientology makes the claim, in their official religious literature, that Jesus was a homosexual pedophile. That is backed up by court records.
The problem with "WWCBND?" is that it's just not a terribly useful guiding philosophy. For instance, imagine you're in a situation where you're having trouble getting along with your coworkers, and so you ask yourself, "WWCBND?" The answer is that CowboyNeal would sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games. So, as you can see, "WWCBND?" has two major problems:
First, the solution is *always* to sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games because that's all we know about CowboyNeal. "WWCBND?" dictates that you sit on a couch, eat Pringles, and play video games in any situation, whether it's marital problems, dealing with the poor, or feeling frustrated that you dropped your grilled cheese sandwich: just sit on a couch, eat some Pringles, and play video games. It's just not very flexible as a philosophy.
The second issue with the "WWCBND?" philosophy is more practical. CowboyNeal is a fat slob. As a fat slob, he already has the resources to follow through with this plan, in particular, he has a couch, lots of Pringles, and plenty of video games to play. Unless you have access to similar resources, "WWCBND?" is just not practical to apply to your everyday life. Although I admit, when I think of how to deal with the fact that I too am a fat slob, and then ask "WWCBND?", I have to admit that the philosophy does have some appeal.
Science and sci-fi fans know LRH was the biggest piece of crap writer ever. Battlefield Earth? Come on.
That's okay, the word 'liberal' used to mean someone who was for personal freedom, with maybe a hand-up from society if you really needed it. Not someone who wanted to tell you how to live your life, and who supports welfare for bureaucrats. I wish Hillary and Obama both didn't look so much like neo-cons themselves, or that Kucinich stood a chance.
"The only consistent feature of all your unsatisfying relationships is you."
:P
Sorry, I had to use that somewhere in this story, and you happened to be the first post that fit.
...so that's what they call it these days...
(Cupping hands to mouth) Hello, you over there! Could you give the end a shake for me? Much obliged!I mean, what would you even do with such an appendage? Keep it coiled up on a garden hose reel?
Calling me a Windows fanboy is about the worst insult I can imagine. Am I coming down on Linux? Am I touting Windows or Photoshop? No, damn it, I am bringing up an issue. I've been using and contributing to open source since 1995, when did you come on board? I work almost exclusively with Linux, have gotten friends and business clients to switch, contribute patches, post advice on message boards, and basically do far more for Linux than an antisocial twit like yourself ever will for the cause of open source.
Whatever intelligence and knowledge you possess is vastly overshadowed by your fanatical tone and boorish behavior. I am done discussing anything of import with an intransigent asshole such as yourself.
Pollution impacts everyone. By saying, "I have the right to drive whatever I like, no matter how much it pollutes," you are really saying, "I have the right to shit in your lungs and there's not a damned thing you can do about it." As for the McDonalds thing, if true, that's idiotic. People should take responsibility for what they put in their own bodies, and no one has the right to tell them what they can and can't do to themselves.
But I've noticed something. Both sides tend to exaggerate and take out of context what the other side does. If you have some references for either of those things, I'll be happy to believe you, otherwise, I hope you understand I have to take it with a grain of salt. As for the 'trying to make us perfect human beings' thing, that is vague, completely unsourced, and another appeal to emotion. Not to mention, it applies at least as much to conservatives and their moralizing as it does to liberals.
I've got no beef with the use of the phrase 'fiscally conservative.' We all know what it means, and quite frankly, I like you guys. Don't always agree that your policies are the best, but I know you've got the country's best interest at heart, and if you manage to take power, I'm not going to be worried the country will go to hell in a hand-basket. It's the use of the word, "Conservative," by itself with no modifiers that I have a problem with. It's come to mean something very different than it used to. I think we both know that it generally means socially authoritarian borrow-and-spend.
That's the breadth of our choice nowadays, isn't it? Socially authoritarian (one way or another) and either borrow-and-spend or tax-and-spend.
Bravo! If all conservatives thought like you, I would have no issues with you folks. I hope people like you manage to take back your party from the bandits and thugs who've taken it over. I'll be over here trying to take back my party from the authoritarian nannies.
Telling someone what you'd like them to do is different than forcing them to do something against their will. We both know there's no comparison. You've taken my at least semi-reasonable statement that very few modern conservatives act in a fiscally responsible manner, and trumped it with a Nazi card. All you've done is show that you have no rebuttal except to appeal to irrational emotions. Thanks for making it that much harder for liberals and conservatives to come together to fix what's wrong with our country.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar who obviously has the country's best interests at heart, and in no way treats politics as if it were a competition between sports teams where the only important facet is wining and rubbing your opponent's nose in that fact. Well done!