The problem is that most Bush supporters don't know what the word "pragmatism" means. "Flip-flopping" is a 2 grade level phrase that makes it easier for the Bush supporters to understand, plus, it sounds funny!
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and flip-flopping is just flip-flopping.
What's Kerry's position on the war today? Would he still have voted for it, but not started it, or something? He's going to drastically reduce troop levels somehow without cutting and running, but he also doesn't think we're putting enough resources into it? Or was that last week?
Now if you choose Bush over Gore, why aren't you over in Iraq fighting? No excuses. If you're one of those who is in favor of my tax dollars going to invade countries who haven't threatened us, get your ass over there and fight.
I served in the US armed forces for ten years. I don't need any excuses.
The sooner you lose your head, the higher the collective IQ of the remaining populace will increase.
How charming. And literally false, if it gets down to it, but I don't suppose you were being literal.
For example, the $350 billion a year of military spending might have bought the country quite a lot of educational institutions, hospitals or whatever.
Which would make great bases of operations for Islamic militants, since there would be nobody to stop them...
But seriously (or, at least, something you might listen to) the US spends more on education than anybody (in our weight class, anyway, tiny kingdoms or whatever don't count). Some of our worst schools spend the most. Money is not the problem.
Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant.
Hmm, I doubt that you're much older than me, and I went to public school in your part of the world. Sex ed was already busily ramping up, as were teenage pregnancies. In fact, they seemed to rise in tandem (which could either mean "we need even more!" or "oops").
Question for you, rather than the candidates: Do you really think it was lack of education? How do you explain the failure of the education programs to achieve their stated aims? Wouldn't we kill for the statistics of the early to mid sixties, when these education programs were first developed and sold?
For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
Not everyone in America believes in your particular set of secular ideals either, yet you somehow feel free to hold them, express them, and act upon them.
If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush.
No, what's *really* sad is that you believe all blessings flow from the presidency.
How exactly do you think Kerry would give you "more money and job security and better healthcare"? Where exactly would this river of milk and honey come from?
And I feel a HELL of lot safer than I would had Gore been in the White House in these times. We'd probably still be having "summits" with bin Laden, trying to "understand" him and why his actions are our fault, and begging him to convince the "real" miltants to stop the attacks (a la Arafat).
Could the Internet, phones, etc. be used equally well to detect, prepare for, disrupt and otherwise mess with Flash-mobbers?
Of course that would require a sufficiently large and motivated group of people with lots of time on their hands who are interested in preventing mayhem...;)
I was gonna quote some stuff, but why bother? The subject is enough.
Have you ever visited third world countries? I don't mean just sat in the westernized zones of the capital or tourist spots, sipping drinks and loudly, snidely assuring everyone that that *you* certainly weren't an ugly American/whatever, like all of your countrymen. I mean have you *really* visited one? Lived in one, for weeks or months?
If you had, there would be no way you could even type your subject line.
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college?
Ah, the arrogance of the young... the past can hold no wisdom for us, we are so sophisticated and wise now...
For one thing, the states only agreed to join the union based on the compromises and assurances of the founding fathers. You may think that it is OK to just chuck that out once the deed was done, but it doesn't seem quite right to me ("whoops, sorry Vermont! We were just kidding about keeping huge population centers from making all the decisions. Hope you don't mind").
God does speak to all his children but I am pretty sure he did not tell Bush to invade Iraq. The God I talked about loved all his children not just the white ones. You speak of Christ yet I don't see his teachings in our president's actions.
You are implying that Bush launched a religious war against non-whites, because they are not white. This is, ahem, at the very least, false witness.
I thought religious wars were behind us, unfortunately a fundamentalist war has been brewing for awhile now and I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg.
It has indeed, and its soldiers think that they are winning glory with Allah.
I'm european, you know... in this side of the Atlantic we mark a piece of paper with an X on who we vote. And yes, a monkey can also do it, but at least we don't spend billions in tech just to keep all the monkeys voting...
Not that you're serious, but here, I'll explain it. I'll get modded flamebait like I always do, but so what.
The losers of the 2000 election didn't like the results, which were perfectly valid according to the previously established rules and regulations (and common sense tells you you can't change those after an election, just to get the results you want). So they let fly a thousand (or so) lawsuits, and turned it into the postmodern election, where you don't just count a vote, you deconstruct it.
It almost worked. But anyway, having done that, there's a problem. Unless you just want to chuck out democracy, since you claimed there were all these problems, you kind of have to propose to fix them. That's what all this was about - to pretend that the (completely fabricated) "mess" of 2000 was real, and we need to "do something" about it.
Of course we would just use paper and pencil, if we were solving real technical problems. But that's not what's happening.
Of course the results will be and ***SHOULD*** be questioned; that's the whole point of a democracy.
Well, no, not really. That's not the point at all. That's the path to postmodern madness.
The point is to have a civilized society, where we actually have enough trust in the system and each other to just engage in democracy, not endless lawsuits and absurd notions like "hanging chads". Democracy doesn't work in that environment, because as you say we would be always questioning the results.
..what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?
Government cannot avoid morality decisions. Unless you choose anarchy, there are a thousand and one things that government does that are in the sphere of morality. Your complaint seems to be that some people in government actually have a basis for their morality, beyond their whims.
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
Government has long had that role, and is not going to give it up anytime soon. It's a little hypocritical to start complaining about it *now*, when a convenient pet issue comes up.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Replacing all legal marriage with "civil unions" isn't even on the table, so it's kind of pointless to discuss, other than as a rhetorical or debating trick.
>To say my head is perfectly safe should I >decide to visit a Christian church is highly >illogical. Just the other day one of your >leaders said, if I looked at him the wrong >way, "I'm gonna kill him and tell God he >died."
My leaders? What are you talking about? Who was this, and where? I don't believe that any "leader" in the world of Christianity has said anything of the sort to you.
Tell you what, you go to a mosque, and I'll go to a Christian church. In the US, both picked at random. Then we'll both say "I spit upon your God!" I'll probably be asked to leave, or somebody may even try to talk to me. You... well, nice knowing you...
Face it; 99.9% of all "protect the children!" efforts either don't actually protect the children, seriously hurt the liberty of children and adults, and most of the time, both.
This percentage comes from where? Of course any good goal could be misused as a selling point. It doesn't invalidate the goal.
No, the "how dare you try to protect children!" theme on/. seems to come from people who are either children themselves (in age or maturity) and from those without any children.
... seeing the tone of comments to stories like these.
Yep, this may be technical difficult, impossible, misguided, or whatever. But that seems to be just a sham veneer for most of those who replied. They are clearly just offended at the very idea of trying to protect children.
>>Oh, and by the way, Islamic fundamentalists cut >>off innocent people's heads. Your head is >>perfectly safe, should you decide to visit a >>fundamentalist Christian church.
>Yeah, Christians will only shoot you walking in >to the doctor's office.
By that logic, Brentwood is as dangerous as South Central... but logic seems to take flight when your lot encounters religion.
So it's not offtopic to blather about Bush's supposed flaws being due to fundamentalism, but it is offtopic to talk about the exact same subject, from the other side. I see...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that most Bush supporters don't know what the word "pragmatism" means. "Flip-flopping" is a 2 grade level phrase that makes it easier for the Bush supporters to understand, plus, it sounds funny!
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and flip-flopping is just flip-flopping.
What's Kerry's position on the war today? Would he still have voted for it, but not started it, or something? He's going to drastically reduce troop levels somehow without cutting and running, but he also doesn't think we're putting enough resources into it? Or was that last week?
And that's just the war ...
That's cute. Way to reguritate a sound bite from our Retard-in-Chief. At least put some critical thought in before being brainwashed.
Uh ... "Retard-in-Chief"? I think you're about to implode in a puff of irony.
Hint: the Saturday Night Live guy isn't really the president. He's an actor.
Now if you choose Bush over Gore, why aren't you over in Iraq fighting? No excuses. If you're one of those who is in favor of my tax dollars going to invade countries who haven't threatened us, get your ass over there and fight.
I served in the US armed forces for ten years. I don't need any excuses.
The sooner you lose your head, the higher the collective IQ of the remaining populace will increase.
How charming. And literally false, if it gets down to it, but I don't suppose you were being literal.
Or is their Save button subject to Slashdoting? It sure looks like /. changes have been made in OneMinuteWiki ... but I can't add mine ;)
For example, the $350 billion a year of military spending might have bought the country quite a lot of educational institutions, hospitals or whatever.
Which would make great bases of operations for Islamic militants, since there would be nobody to stop them ...
But seriously (or, at least, something you might listen to) the US spends more on education than anybody (in our weight class, anyway, tiny kingdoms or whatever don't count). Some of our worst schools spend the most. Money is not the problem.
Having gone to high school in a very conservative area, where parents refused to teach their children proper sex education, I watched 20 of my classmates leave due to teenage pregnancy. Some knew about sex while others had no idea how to get pregnant.
Hmm, I doubt that you're much older than me, and I went to public school in your part of the world. Sex ed was already busily ramping up, as were teenage pregnancies. In fact, they seemed to rise in tandem (which could either mean "we need even more!" or "oops").
Question for you, rather than the candidates: Do you really think it was lack of education? How do you explain the failure of the education programs to achieve their stated aims? Wouldn't we kill for the statistics of the early to mid sixties, when these education programs were first developed and sold?
For the candidates, is it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity (such as abortion and gay marriage) when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?
Not everyone in America believes in your particular set of secular ideals either, yet you somehow feel free to hold them, express them, and act upon them.
If you feel safer, more secure, live more comfortably, have more money and job security and better healthcare, then vote for GW Bush.
No, what's *really* sad is that you believe all blessings flow from the presidency.
How exactly do you think Kerry would give you "more money and job security and better healthcare"? Where exactly would this river of milk and honey come from?
And I feel a HELL of lot safer than I would had Gore been in the White House in these times. We'd probably still be having "summits" with bin Laden, trying to "understand" him and why his actions are our fault, and begging him to convince the "real" miltants to stop the attacks (a la Arafat).
There are fundamentalists on both sides of this conflict, and neither side is free from blame.
Ah, moral equivalance. Nobody anywhere is "free from blame", but that's not much of a guide for (wordly) action.
If only there were people whose job it was to prevent mayhem... We can dream, can't we?
Cute ... but my point was that the "power" of the Flash-mobbers doubtless lies in their decentralized nature, flexibility, speed, motivation, etc.
Although the same technology is available to those who would foil them, I was wondering if those other factors might be missing.
Could the Internet, phones, etc. be used equally well to detect, prepare for, disrupt and otherwise mess with Flash-mobbers?
Of course that would require a sufficiently large and motivated group of people with lots of time on their hands who are interested in preventing mayhem ... ;)
I was gonna quote some stuff, but why bother? The subject is enough.
Have you ever visited third world countries? I don't mean just sat in the westernized zones of the capital or tourist spots, sipping drinks and loudly, snidely assuring everyone that that *you* certainly weren't an ugly American/whatever, like all of your countrymen. I mean have you *really* visited one? Lived in one, for weeks or months?
If you had, there would be no way you could even type your subject line.
So you think it OK for the US to monitor elections in Iraq or Bosnia, but other countries can't monitor US elections?
Well, of course.
Moral equivalence is nonsense. It may give you a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but it provides absolutely no guidance about how to act.
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college?
Ah, the arrogance of the young ... the past can hold no wisdom for us, we are so sophisticated and wise now ...
For one thing, the states only agreed to join the union based on the compromises and assurances of the founding fathers. You may think that it is OK to just chuck that out once the deed was done, but it doesn't seem quite right to me ("whoops, sorry Vermont! We were just kidding about keeping huge population centers from making all the decisions. Hope you don't mind").
God does speak to all his children but I am pretty sure he did not tell Bush to invade Iraq. The God I talked about loved all his children not just the white ones. You speak of Christ yet I don't see his teachings in our president's actions.
You are implying that Bush launched a religious war against non-whites, because they are not white. This is, ahem, at the very least, false witness.
I thought religious wars were behind us, unfortunately a fundamentalist war has been brewing for awhile now and I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg.
It has indeed, and its soldiers think that they are winning glory with Allah.
I'm european, you know... in this side of the Atlantic we mark a piece of paper with an X on who we vote. And yes, a monkey can also do it, but at least we don't spend billions in tech just to keep all the monkeys voting...
Not that you're serious, but here, I'll explain it. I'll get modded flamebait like I always do, but so what.
The losers of the 2000 election didn't like the results, which were perfectly valid according to the previously established rules and regulations (and common sense tells you you can't change those after an election, just to get the results you want). So they let fly a thousand (or so) lawsuits, and turned it into the postmodern election, where you don't just count a vote, you deconstruct it.
It almost worked. But anyway, having done that, there's a problem. Unless you just want to chuck out democracy, since you claimed there were all these problems, you kind of have to propose to fix them. That's what all this was about - to pretend that the (completely fabricated) "mess" of 2000 was real, and we need to "do something" about it.
Of course we would just use paper and pencil, if we were solving real technical problems. But that's not what's happening.
Of course the results will be and ***SHOULD*** be questioned; that's the whole point of a democracy.
Well, no, not really. That's not the point at all. That's the path to postmodern madness.
The point is to have a civilized society, where we actually have enough trust in the system and each other to just engage in democracy, not endless lawsuits and absurd notions like "hanging chads". Democracy doesn't work in that environment, because as you say we would be always questioning the results.
What, you mean like the Bible?
Whee! Such hilarious, sophisticated humor :) And so original; nothing like it on /. or in pop culture ...
But seriously, have a read. You might rethink things:
The Bible (NIV)
Government cannot avoid morality decisions. Unless you choose anarchy, there are a thousand and one things that government does that are in the sphere of morality. Your complaint seems to be that some people in government actually have a basis for their morality, beyond their whims.
The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.
Government has long had that role, and is not going to give it up anytime soon. It's a little hypocritical to start complaining about it *now*, when a convenient pet issue comes up.
If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.
Replacing all legal marriage with "civil unions" isn't even on the table, so it's kind of pointless to discuss, other than as a rhetorical or debating trick.
>To say my head is perfectly safe should I
... well, nice knowing you ...
>decide to visit a Christian church is highly
>illogical. Just the other day one of your
>leaders said, if I looked at him the wrong
>way, "I'm gonna kill him and tell God he
>died."
My leaders? What are you talking about?
Who was this, and where? I don't believe
that any "leader" in the world of Christianity
has said anything of the sort to you.
Tell you what, you go to a mosque, and I'll
go to a Christian church. In the US, both
picked at random. Then we'll both say "I
spit upon your God!" I'll probably be asked
to leave, or somebody may even try to talk
to me. You
Face it; 99.9% of all "protect the children!" efforts either don't actually protect the children, seriously hurt the liberty of children and adults, and most of the time, both.
This percentage comes from where? Of course any good goal could be misused as a selling point. It doesn't invalidate the goal.
No, the "how dare you try to protect children!" theme on /. seems to come from people who are either children themselves (in age or maturity) and from those without any children.
... seeing the tone of comments to stories like these.
Yep, this may be technical difficult, impossible, misguided, or whatever. But that seems to be just a sham veneer for most of those who replied. They are clearly just offended at the very idea of trying to protect children.
Maybe those feelings are caused by our soulless consumer culture and the Internet is just a way for people to avoid dealing with them.
Maybe ... but anytime somebody mentions the alternative to that culture on /., they get attacked by ravening hordes of athiests ;)
>>Oh, and by the way, Islamic fundamentalists cut
... but logic seems to take flight when
>>off innocent people's heads. Your head is
>>perfectly safe, should you decide to visit a
>>fundamentalist Christian church.
>Yeah, Christians will only shoot you walking in
>to the doctor's office.
By that logic, Brentwood is as dangerous as South
Central
your lot encounters religion.
So it's not offtopic to blather about Bush's supposed flaws being due to fundamentalism, but it is offtopic to talk about the exact same subject, from the other side. I see ...