I'm inclined to agree that you are not a dumbass. What separates you from the dumbass is that you addressed the meat of the argument instead of responding to the real dumbass statement (the "shut up!") like Detritus did.
I tend to agree more with fmaxwell (except the flame-ish parts) but i think you're getting in some good points.
I don't think he was saying agree or shut up. I think he was saying "don't be a dumbass or shut up." Better to argue that you're not a dumbass than to argue that he's a meanie.
You whippersnappers with your fancy Angelina Jolie-la-di-da and Jude Law-la-di-doo! Back in my day, all we had was Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner in neon jumpsuits. And we liked it!
I'm really talking tangentially to the article: mandating the way delegates are selected rather than how they cast their votes.
Anyway, you may be right about the letter of the law, but i think we have precedence for the US Supreme Court interfering with the way an election is handled (Florida? 2000?) so i don't think it's out of the question. Whether or not that would be a good thing ultimately? Well, that's a separate question.
I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment, but not with the specifics of these cases.
The documentary evidence indicates that Kerry is telling the truth and the Swifties are lying, whereas the documentary evidence in Bush's case indicates that he's the one doing the lying (or at least the question-dodging). I'm no fan of Kerry, but it looks like he's getting a bad rap on this one.
Perhaps neither of these sets of allegations should matter, but they do sway voters and therefore do need to be addressed.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~Emerson
Standing up for what you believe is right is indeed an admirable trait. Doggedly maintaining those opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong is no virtue - it's a sign of stupidity, stubbornness, or arrogance.
In fact, to see this, go find the chart for the election results by county from 2000 (I can't find a link, but I remember roughly what it looked like). It looked almost exactly like a photograph of the US at night from space. All the really dark areas won Bush, all the really light areas were for Gore. It was an absolute landslide in for Bush in those terms.
The problem with such a picture (and system) is that it attributes power to geographic regions rather than demographic ones. The power is distributed to places rather than people. It can help prevent tyranny of the majority, but it makes your individual vote less meaningful, which is the #1 reason people give for not voting.
I'd be ok with the system if all states distributed their electors in proportion with the popular vote, but with a winner-take-all methodology, it sucks. (IE, if my state is winner-take-all then in my state all votes for losing candidates are effectively discarded, but in states with proportional representation they are counted.)
I wonder if a lawsuit based on equal protection could get the Supreme Court to mandate proportional representation for all states? Has any such argument been brought before the court in the past?
Sorry, wrong. It's assigned by Representatives plus Senators. Representatives are determined by population, but Senators are +2 for everyone, regardless of population.
Let's look at the numbers of our extreme states in terms of population: California and Wyoming. First off, the source: thegreenpapers.com
Population: California 33,930,798 Wyoming 495,304
Electors: California 55 Wyoming 3
Population/Electors: California 616924 Wyoming 165101
Look at those last numbers. That means that there is 1 electoral college vote for every 616924 people in the state of California and 1 electoral college vote for every 165101 people in Wyoming.
So if you live in Wyoming, your individual vote is worth roughly 4 Californians' votes.
The small (in terms of population) states actually have a much higher proportional representation in the electoral college.
I think you mean ethically questionable, unless you're suggesting he's comitting a sin by doing this. At any rate, that's just semantics....
I agree, but it's also ethically questionable for him to put his votes in for someone whom he believes is unfit for the job. I don't know if it's possible for him to be replaced as an elector, but by coming out beforehand and stating his intention openly, it seems like he's trying to do his best to resolve a moral conundrum. He's chosing what he perceives to be the lesser of two evils - something that's far too common in our elections.
If i'm a professional, then you must be in the fuckwit hall of fame. Let's cut to the chase and end this.
You make it sound like you were deceived, like you were tricked into giving your consent. You were not asked. Got it?
Got it. That must be my mistake - i thought this was a democratic republic. I thought i was being asked in 2000 when i and the majority of other voters didn't vote for Bush, but the Supreme Court told us that we were wrong. I thought i was going to be asked again this year.
2,792 dead on 9-11 despite numerous warnings, including the Aug. 6 briefing. Record deficits. CEO salaries still rising while average income shrinks. 1.3 million more people below the poverty line this year. 1.4 million more people without health insurance. Afghanistan falling back into chaos. More fighting happening in Iraq today than during the invasion. 1000 US soldiers dead and more on the way. Al Qaeda still a threat. Bin Laden's whereabouts still unknown.
You left out the rest of the conclusion. There was communication and contact between Iraq and al-Qaida. The reason we went into Iraq when we did was to prevent the emergence of collaboration.
You're putting the cart before the horse. The conclusion was that even though there was communication and contact, nothing came of it and nothing was likely to come of it given their opposing ideologies.
Besides, even if Iraq had never heard of al-Qaida, there's still the little matter of the Abu Nidal Organization, or Jund al Islam, of HAMAS, and so on and so on and so on.
So where's the proof that any of these other organizations were plotting with Saddam against the US? You have none - you're just trying to draw attention away from the real issue, although i must admit you're better at it than Bush & Co.
Your argument seems to be "But Saddam never actually participated in an attack carried out by these particular terrorists." Which should make you so deeply ashamed that you crawl under your bed and never, ever come out.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth - you suck at it. My argument is that the administration built its case for war on the false premises that there was a collaborative link between Iraq and al Qaida (including hinting that Iraq had something to do with 9-11) and that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had stockpiles of WMDs. Neither of these is true, so now you and the administration look stupid.
There were lots of good reasons to go after Saddam, but those aren't the reasons that Bush used to persuade the world that war was necessary. Now over 1000 of our soldiers are dead and we have nothing to show for it except increased instability in the Middle East and a reputation for being bullies who can't get their facts straight because not only did Bush use the wrong reasons for going to war, he had no real plan for the aftermath of the blitzkrieg.
But hey - Halliburton got billions of dollars out of the deal, so i guess it's not all bad, right?
He and the rest of his administration routinely lies or states incorrect information as fact in order to manipulate the country into doing what the most extreme elements of his party wants. Which is better anyway - the idea that they are liars, or that they're incompetent? Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible for the failures of this administration? Even if you agree with 100% of his stated values, how could you vote for someone who operates this way?
I'm not trying to argue it. I'm pointing it out as a fact, one that you should have known already.
See, right there is the big difference between you and me: I offered a citation - proof to back up my claims. You just made a claim and declared it to be a fact. That's a problem a lot of Republicans seem to have.
Please don't try and argue that a Saddam-al Qaeda connection is not the same as a Saddam-Osama connection. It only makes you guys look stupid. If you'd like to argue that the President is not in a position of authority, then you may be on to something.
no better than 20 percent of nothing, but hey, i suspect it's the 31 million that's really doing the talking here. I suspect that as soon as that money is used up we're going to hear a lot less noise from SCO's lawyers.
They decided to gamble on a long-shot payout in the hundreds of millions and had to settle for 31 million. Those poor bastards.
Extreme arrogance is also a characteristic of great hackers.
Great hackers may tend to be arrogant pricks, but not all arrogant pricks are great hackers. To rephrase: acting like an asshole isn't going to fool us into thinking you're a great hacker. If you are a great hacker, there's nothing that says you have to act like an asshole.
Either way, the conclusion remains the same: quit acting like an asshole, you arrogant prick! (And by you, i mean all the arrogant pricks out there, including Graham.)
The world needs more great humanitarians more than it needs more great hackers.
You forgot Man-Spider, Of Spiders and Men, The Spider-Man Follies, The Man who was a Spider, The Hyperbolic Spider-Man, Uber-Fantastic Mega-Cool Hella Bitchin' So-Cool-It-Hurts Spider-Man, and Homo-Arachne (A very limited run that was written by Dan Quayle in an attempt to appeal to Latino comic-book readers.)
I couldn't care less about Janet Jackson's breast, so let's just drop that from the conversation, ok? I'm interested in the more general phenomenon of the FCC as moral authority.
"The point I was making was that calling it censorship is incorrect. It's a restriction. Simple."
Restricting the content of speech or publication (including broadcasting) is the very definition of censorship. I fail to see the "simple" distinction you are trying to make, so please explain further if you can.
I will allow that sometimes censorship is warranted (kiddie porn) but that should not be the FCC's job. Let the FBI and the police take care of that.
"In order to avoid the content, you have to watch the content. Therefore, you're still watching objectionable content."
The first time it happens i see 20 seconds of stuff i don't like before i hit the switch. Next time it's 15 seconds. Third time it's 10 seconds, and there is no 4th because i stopped tuning in to that station/program. (Of course, there's also a small chance that i'm not a fucking moron who can't tell by the tv guide description of the program that there's going to be stuff i don't like in it.)
At any rate, i'd rather have 45 seconds of objectionable material in my memory than let the censors make that decision for me. The cost of being an informed decision-maker is a price i'm willing to pay for a little more freedom.
But oh my - think of the children! Heaven forbid their parents should have to pay attention to what their kids watch or explain stuff to them if they see something naughty!
"The FCC is only doing it on broadcast TV. Go get cable. You can really screw the big bad mean ol gov't that way."
So the government is only censoring the free media? So in order to get uncensored information you have to have money? Good policy - really top notch there.
Let the people who are terrified of having their minds broadened beyond their narrow puritanical worldview turn off the tv or subscribe to "The Happy Republican Christian Family Channel" - don't make that the only channel that's available to people who can't afford cable.
Remember that just because you agree with the censor today doesn't mean you're going to agree with the one that's in charge tomorrow. It's best to leave them out of it entirely.
Americans have freedom of speech, and the right to change the channel or turn off the tv. That's all we need when it comes to the content of broadcast tv.
I'm not convinced that the FCC isn't needed to regulate the spectrum, but i'm absolutely certain we don't need them to regulate the content.
Elegant my ass - it's a junky hack that should be replaced with a system of real elegance. The electoral college exists because the technological problems of the time prevented the timely and accurate counting of every vote. We may not have improved on the accuracy (cough-Florida-cough) but we can certainly do it in a timely manner now.
I don't know about yours, but my tv has several buttons that halt the broadcast service - input source, channel select, and if all else fails - power.
If i find the content of a broadcast tv program to be objectionable, i can watch a tape or dvd, change the channel, or turn the damn thing off. I don't need the FCC to do it for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew that! Only a dumbass would think i didn't! Dumbasses like you should shut up! ;-)
Carai al caldazar! Al caldazar!
Damn that Robert Jordan! He needs to finish that fucking series! And make the last few better than the most recent ones!
And...oh yeah...i was not knocking Tron. Tron is the MAN...er...PROGRAM and Flynn can back me up any day!
I'm inclined to agree that you are not a dumbass. What separates you from the dumbass is that you addressed the meat of the argument instead of responding to the real dumbass statement (the "shut up!") like Detritus did.
I tend to agree more with fmaxwell (except the flame-ish parts) but i think you're getting in some good points.
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
I don't think he was saying agree or shut up. I think he was saying "don't be a dumbass or shut up." Better to argue that you're not a dumbass than to argue that he's a meanie.
Looks like a review to me! Don't be such a curmudgeon!
all the way back to "The Last Starfighter"
all the way back to 1984?
Never heard of Tron? 1982? CG all over the place?
You whippersnappers with your fancy Angelina Jolie-la-di-da and Jude Law-la-di-doo! Back in my day, all we had was Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner in neon jumpsuits. And we liked it!
Interesting series of articles on Slate regarding this:
"America's Worst College"
Let's choose our president by popular vote.
Why the "50 Floridas" argument is wrong.
Why the "no more majorities" argument is wrong.
I'm really talking tangentially to the article: mandating the way delegates are selected rather than how they cast their votes.
Anyway, you may be right about the letter of the law, but i think we have precedence for the US Supreme Court interfering with the way an election is handled (Florida? 2000?) so i don't think it's out of the question. Whether or not that would be a good thing ultimately? Well, that's a separate question.
I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment, but not with the specifics of these cases.
The documentary evidence indicates that Kerry is telling the truth and the Swifties are lying, whereas the documentary evidence in Bush's case indicates that he's the one doing the lying (or at least the question-dodging). I'm no fan of Kerry, but it looks like he's getting a bad rap on this one.
Perhaps neither of these sets of allegations should matter, but they do sway voters and therefore do need to be addressed.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~Emerson
Standing up for what you believe is right is indeed an admirable trait. Doggedly maintaining those opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong is no virtue - it's a sign of stupidity, stubbornness, or arrogance.
In fact, to see this, go find the chart for the election results by county from 2000 (I can't find a link, but I remember roughly what it looked like). It looked almost exactly like a photograph of the US at night from space. All the really dark areas won Bush, all the really light areas were for Gore. It was an absolute landslide in for Bush in those terms.
The problem with such a picture (and system) is that it attributes power to geographic regions rather than demographic ones. The power is distributed to places rather than people. It can help prevent tyranny of the majority, but it makes your individual vote less meaningful, which is the #1 reason people give for not voting.
I'd be ok with the system if all states distributed their electors in proportion with the popular vote, but with a winner-take-all methodology, it sucks. (IE, if my state is winner-take-all then in my state all votes for losing candidates are effectively discarded, but in states with proportional representation they are counted.)
I wonder if a lawsuit based on equal protection could get the Supreme Court to mandate proportional representation for all states? Has any such argument been brought before the court in the past?
Sorry, wrong. It's assigned by Representatives plus Senators. Representatives are determined by population, but Senators are +2 for everyone, regardless of population.
Let's look at the numbers of our extreme states in terms of population: California and Wyoming.
First off, the source: thegreenpapers.com
Population:
California 33,930,798
Wyoming 495,304
Electors:
California 55
Wyoming 3
Population/Electors:
California 616924
Wyoming 165101
Look at those last numbers. That means that there is 1 electoral college vote for every 616924 people in the state of California and 1 electoral college vote for every 165101 people in Wyoming.
So if you live in Wyoming, your individual vote is worth roughly 4 Californians' votes.
The small (in terms of population) states actually have a much higher proportional representation in the electoral college.
Doing what he proposes is morally questionable
I think you mean ethically questionable, unless you're suggesting he's comitting a sin by doing this. At any rate, that's just semantics....
I agree, but it's also ethically questionable for him to put his votes in for someone whom he believes is unfit for the job. I don't know if it's possible for him to be replaced as an elector, but by coming out beforehand and stating his intention openly, it seems like he's trying to do his best to resolve a moral conundrum. He's chosing what he perceives to be the lesser of two evils - something that's far too common in our elections.
If i'm a professional, then you must be in the fuckwit hall of fame. Let's cut to the chase and end this.
You make it sound like you were deceived, like you were tricked into giving your consent. You were not asked. Got it?
Got it. That must be my mistake - i thought this was a democratic republic. I thought i was being asked in 2000 when i and the majority of other voters didn't vote for Bush, but the Supreme Court told us that we were wrong. I thought i was going to be asked again this year.
2,792 dead on 9-11 despite numerous warnings, including the Aug. 6 briefing.
Record deficits.
CEO salaries still rising while average income shrinks.
1.3 million more people below the poverty line this year.
1.4 million more people without health insurance.
Afghanistan falling back into chaos.
More fighting happening in Iraq today than during the invasion. 1000 US soldiers dead and more on the way.
Al Qaeda still a threat. Bin Laden's whereabouts still unknown.
Who wants 4 more years of that?
You left out the rest of the conclusion. There was communication and contact between Iraq and al-Qaida. The reason we went into Iraq when we did was to prevent the emergence of collaboration.
You're putting the cart before the horse. The conclusion was that even though there was communication and contact, nothing came of it and nothing was likely to come of it given their opposing ideologies.
Besides, even if Iraq had never heard of al-Qaida, there's still the little matter of the Abu Nidal Organization, or Jund al Islam, of HAMAS, and so on and so on and so on.
So where's the proof that any of these other organizations were plotting with Saddam against the US? You have none - you're just trying to draw attention away from the real issue, although i must admit you're better at it than Bush & Co.
Your argument seems to be "But Saddam never actually participated in an attack carried out by these particular terrorists." Which should make you so deeply ashamed that you crawl under your bed and never, ever come out.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth - you suck at it. My argument is that the administration built its case for war on the false premises that there was a collaborative link between Iraq and al Qaida (including hinting that Iraq had something to do with 9-11) and that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had stockpiles of WMDs. Neither of these is true, so now you and the administration look stupid.
There were lots of good reasons to go after Saddam, but those aren't the reasons that Bush used to persuade the world that war was necessary. Now over 1000 of our soldiers are dead and we have nothing to show for it except increased instability in the Middle East and a reputation for being bullies who can't get their facts straight because not only did Bush use the wrong reasons for going to war, he had no real plan for the aftermath of the blitzkrieg.
But hey - Halliburton got billions of dollars out of the deal, so i guess it's not all bad, right?
He and the rest of his administration routinely lies or states incorrect information as fact in order to manipulate the country into doing what the most extreme elements of his party wants. Which is better anyway - the idea that they are liars, or that they're incompetent? Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible for the failures of this administration? Even if you agree with 100% of his stated values, how could you vote for someone who operates this way?
See there...i warned you. Now you just look stupid.
Let me diagram the alleged connection for you:
Saddam-Iraq-Al Qaeda-Osama
And the 9-11 Commission's Finding: "No 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and [al Qaeda]"
I'm not trying to argue it. I'm pointing it out as a fact, one that you should have known already.
See, right there is the big difference between you and me: I offered a citation - proof to back up my claims. You just made a claim and declared it to be a fact. That's a problem a lot of Republicans seem to have.
And yet, the exact same methods were used to claim the Saddam-Osama connection.
By whom? Nobody in a position of authority ever said there was a Saddam-Osama connection.
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda."
Please don't try and argue that a Saddam-al Qaeda connection is not the same as a Saddam-Osama connection. It only makes you guys look stupid. If you'd like to argue that the President is not in a position of authority, then you may be on to something.
no better than 20 percent of nothing, but hey, i suspect it's the 31 million that's really doing the talking here. I suspect that as soon as that money is used up we're going to hear a lot less noise from SCO's lawyers.
They decided to gamble on a long-shot payout in the hundreds of millions and had to settle for 31 million. Those poor bastards.
Extreme arrogance is also a characteristic of great hackers.
Great hackers may tend to be arrogant pricks, but not all arrogant pricks are great hackers. To rephrase: acting like an asshole isn't going to fool us into thinking you're a great hacker. If you are a great hacker, there's nothing that says you have to act like an asshole.
Either way, the conclusion remains the same: quit acting like an asshole, you arrogant prick! (And by you, i mean all the arrogant pricks out there, including Graham.)
The world needs more great humanitarians more than it needs more great hackers.
You forgot Man-Spider, Of Spiders and Men, The Spider-Man Follies, The Man who was a Spider, The Hyperbolic Spider-Man, Uber-Fantastic Mega-Cool Hella Bitchin' So-Cool-It-Hurts Spider-Man, and Homo-Arachne (A very limited run that was written by Dan Quayle in an attempt to appeal to Latino comic-book readers.)
And let's not forget James Byrd Jr.
I couldn't care less about Janet Jackson's breast, so let's just drop that from the conversation, ok? I'm interested in the more general phenomenon of the FCC as moral authority.
"The point I was making was that calling it censorship is incorrect. It's a restriction. Simple."
Restricting the content of speech or publication (including broadcasting) is the very definition of censorship. I fail to see the "simple" distinction you are trying to make, so please explain further if you can.
I will allow that sometimes censorship is warranted (kiddie porn) but that should not be the FCC's job. Let the FBI and the police take care of that.
"In order to avoid the content, you have to watch the content. Therefore, you're still watching objectionable content."
The first time it happens i see 20 seconds of stuff i don't like before i hit the switch. Next time it's 15 seconds. Third time it's 10 seconds, and there is no 4th because i stopped tuning in to that station/program. (Of course, there's also a small chance that i'm not a fucking moron who can't tell by the tv guide description of the program that there's going to be stuff i don't like in it.)
At any rate, i'd rather have 45 seconds of objectionable material in my memory than let the censors make that decision for me. The cost of being an informed decision-maker is a price i'm willing to pay for a little more freedom.
But oh my - think of the children! Heaven forbid their parents should have to pay attention to what their kids watch or explain stuff to them if they see something naughty!
"The FCC is only doing it on broadcast TV. Go get cable. You can really screw the big bad mean ol gov't that way."
So the government is only censoring the free media? So in order to get uncensored information you have to have money? Good policy - really top notch there.
Let the people who are terrified of having their minds broadened beyond their narrow puritanical worldview turn off the tv or subscribe to "The Happy Republican Christian Family Channel" - don't make that the only channel that's available to people who can't afford cable.
Remember that just because you agree with the censor today doesn't mean you're going to agree with the one that's in charge tomorrow. It's best to leave them out of it entirely.
Americans have freedom of speech, and the right to change the channel or turn off the tv. That's all we need when it comes to the content of broadcast tv.
I'm not convinced that the FCC isn't needed to regulate the spectrum, but i'm absolutely certain we don't need them to regulate the content.
Elegant my ass - it's a junky hack that should be replaced with a system of real elegance. The electoral college exists because the technological problems of the time prevented the timely and accurate counting of every vote. We may not have improved on the accuracy (cough-Florida-cough) but we can certainly do it in a timely manner now.
What we need is a truly elegant system - instant runoff voting.
I don't know about yours, but my tv has several buttons that halt the broadcast service - input source, channel select, and if all else fails - power.
If i find the content of a broadcast tv program to be objectionable, i can watch a tape or dvd, change the channel, or turn the damn thing off. I don't need the FCC to do it for me.