As I'm reading through a book on the Venona intercepts, it's probably not a good time to be arguing against anti-comunist people.
But what about the opportunistic anti-communist people who were totally full of shit?
Commie spies in England early in the war were helping the mother fucking Nazis bomb UK defense installations, and agitated heavily in the US to keep us put of Europe, and helped instigate Pearl Harbor.
I like how you throw around the term "commie" like they're all the same, and if some are spies, they must all be spies, right? There couldn't possibly be patriotic, America-loving commies like, oh, I don't know, Pete Seeger, Helen Keller, John Steinbeck, and WOODY GUTHRIE, the man who wrote one of the most patriotic American songs I know. Just as an intellectual exercise, replace the word "commie" with "German" in your paragraph (which still leaves it entirely true), and suddenly you're advocating hating on Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg because of what Hitler and company did.
So while I wouldn't say that McCarthy was a saintly or even nice individual, I would say that we've lost our focus on the evils of communism to focus just on the "Red Scare", as if the problem was all imaginary.
The problem was def. not imaginary. That doesn't change the fact that McCarthy's list was a blank sheet of paper. People who were truly fighting the problem, like President Eisenhower, who actually had civilian spies executed, came under attack from dipshits like McCarthy and the Birchers. And Coulter doesn't care because to her, the only measure of how American you are is how rabidly anti-communist, not how accurately anti-communist, you are. (in post-cold-war times, substitute Islam for communist...yes, she is anti-Islam, she actually said the solution to 9/11 was to convert all Muslims to Christianity, as if Christians never get into holy wars with each other...). Just because there were actual red spies doesn't mean there wasn't an insidious red scare as well, but Ms. Coulter will take any opportunity to attack liberals, even if she has to fudge the facts quite a bit.
By way of verification, what, pray tell, did I claim?
Aaaaaand...there's no answer. So it seems all you can do is shout at the opposition without offering an actual position of your own...juuust like the Republicans in Congress. If your goal was to prove my point, then good job.
>>As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied.
On the balance of things, I've heard Ann Coulter admit when she'd made a mistake, but I've never seen Olbermann do the same. But then again, I think Olbermann is an idiot, so I avoid watching him.
Olbermann is a wind-up noise-box. I was a fan for a while, but got sick of him pretty fast. I like Rachel Maddow, but most of the MSNBC lineup are hacks.
I'm not an especial fan of Ann Coulter, either, as she's in the wrong on a couple issues, her articles provide a good counterpoint to the left-wing bias in the mainstream media. (And it is left wing - it's silly to argue otherwise.)
Bullshit. She's a counterpoint to the mostly-accurate media, inasmuch as she's batshit crazy. This is someone that actually believes that Joe McCarthy was a good and honest man, whom we all should've listened to. She will read a column which insists we need to go after terrorists more aggressively, and if it's by a liberal she will claim the article said we should give up on fighting terrorists (if you don't believe me, check her footnotes...I mean actually read the articles she cites). She may have corrected herself on a few occasions (I'm not aware of any) but she says so many things that are baldly false that that hardly makes up for it. www.anncoulter.blogspot.com is a good place to start for fact-checking her, but beware you'll never finish.
My personal take on consuming media is to try to draw from as many sources as possible. I listen to Pacifica Communist Radio out of Berkeley as much as Fox News.
That's a good take. Most of my friends refuse to turn on Fox News, but I like to have an open mind so I check in from time to time.
Yeah I don't see that coming close to something a gamer would replace Windows with. Like it or not, Windows beats the pants off of Linux when it comes to gaming. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
Compiling a kernel is hardcore for the ubuntu crowd which my rather tongue in cheek comment was aimed at.
I'm not sure if you'd include me as part of the "ubuntu crowd" but I use Ubuntu exclusively and I don't consider compiling a kernel to be hardcore. I have compiled dozens of kernels with various options and tweaks (using Debian @ the time, this was over 10 years ago) and I don't consider myself at all hardcore. I use Ubuntu now because I reached a stage in my life where having everything "just work" is more valuable than the time it takes to become hardcore.
I see you can't support your own claims. Thanks for playing, you lose.
Perhaps you're not acquainted with how this works. Since I believe it's in everyone's best interest that we all work together to foster constructive dialog, allow me to explain the process to you. FIRST, you say something intelligent or present an argument. THEN, you tell someone "Thanks for playing, you lose." Simply telling someone they lose doesn't make it so.
Sure, you can say marriage is the public commit process of your love.
You can tell this is Slashdot by the use of the phrase "commit process" where "commitment" might do just fine. Good luck ever finding that kind of love in your source tree, buddy.
So do you believe it is always OK for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, or only do so when it favors homosexuals? I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite and would be protesting any stated policy that advocated paying homosexuals less than straights rather than more.
Actually, if there were a government tax on being straight, I would be all for companies paying more to offset the tax.
My point was then that anyone who believes that probably does not agree with this:
if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
...(and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).
AND where and when you should pray and how you should pray and how inviolable the sabbath is and who is allowed in the kingdom and whether you need to get circumcised and oh, by the way, 8 of the 10 commandments are now just redundant clarification...but other than that, yeah, they didn't change anything!
Christianity is a dumb one to mention, seeing as the bible is clearly anti-asspounding. You might as well complain about the government not giving special tax breaks for all the other "sins" too.
Do you have any supporting evidence that Republicans are the reason?
You're right, it's not Republicans' fault that all their actual talking points these days are incoherent. I'm sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are forcing them to suggest chicken-based economies, take credit for TARP funds they voted against, and vote against policies they themselves suggested in an effort to prevent any governing from getting done. The Republicans have no fault in their own behavior whatsoever. I don't know how those progressive infiltrators managed to get to the top of the opposing party, but man are they good.
But if you read between the lines and "cherry pick", there are usually hidden gems about a software package, a piece of advice or something truly fascinating.
...but when I talk to the evangelists on the street corners, they tell me all cherry-picking can get me is eternal damnation!
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, these are the same people who think an unloaded gun is just as dangerous as a loaded gun, so...
Well, failing to drop either one will get you shot by the police, so....
As I'm reading through a book on the Venona intercepts, it's probably not a good time to be arguing against anti-comunist people.
But what about the opportunistic anti-communist people who were totally full of shit?
Commie spies in England early in the war were helping the mother fucking Nazis bomb UK defense installations, and agitated heavily in the US to keep us put of Europe, and helped instigate Pearl Harbor.
I like how you throw around the term "commie" like they're all the same, and if some are spies, they must all be spies, right? There couldn't possibly be patriotic, America-loving commies like, oh, I don't know, Pete Seeger, Helen Keller, John Steinbeck, and WOODY GUTHRIE, the man who wrote one of the most patriotic American songs I know. Just as an intellectual exercise, replace the word "commie" with "German" in your paragraph (which still leaves it entirely true), and suddenly you're advocating hating on Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg because of what Hitler and company did.
So while I wouldn't say that McCarthy was a saintly or even nice individual, I would say that we've lost our focus on the evils of communism to focus just on the "Red Scare", as if the problem was all imaginary.
The problem was def. not imaginary. That doesn't change the fact that McCarthy's list was a blank sheet of paper. People who were truly fighting the problem, like President Eisenhower, who actually had civilian spies executed, came under attack from dipshits like McCarthy and the Birchers. And Coulter doesn't care because to her, the only measure of how American you are is how rabidly anti-communist, not how accurately anti-communist, you are. (in post-cold-war times, substitute Islam for communist...yes, she is anti-Islam, she actually said the solution to 9/11 was to convert all Muslims to Christianity, as if Christians never get into holy wars with each other...). Just because there were actual red spies doesn't mean there wasn't an insidious red scare as well, but Ms. Coulter will take any opportunity to attack liberals, even if she has to fudge the facts quite a bit.
I did understand your claims.
By way of verification, what, pray tell, did I claim?
Aaaaaand...there's no answer. So it seems all you can do is shout at the opposition without offering an actual position of your own...juuust like the Republicans in Congress. If your goal was to prove my point, then good job.
>>As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied.
On the balance of things, I've heard Ann Coulter admit when she'd made a mistake, but I've never seen Olbermann do the same. But then again, I think Olbermann is an idiot, so I avoid watching him.
Olbermann is a wind-up noise-box. I was a fan for a while, but got sick of him pretty fast. I like Rachel Maddow, but most of the MSNBC lineup are hacks.
I'm not an especial fan of Ann Coulter, either, as she's in the wrong on a couple issues, her articles provide a good counterpoint to the left-wing bias in the mainstream media. (And it is left wing - it's silly to argue otherwise.)
Bullshit. She's a counterpoint to the mostly-accurate media, inasmuch as she's batshit crazy. This is someone that actually believes that Joe McCarthy was a good and honest man, whom we all should've listened to. She will read a column which insists we need to go after terrorists more aggressively, and if it's by a liberal she will claim the article said we should give up on fighting terrorists (if you don't believe me, check her footnotes...I mean actually read the articles she cites). She may have corrected herself on a few occasions (I'm not aware of any) but she says so many things that are baldly false that that hardly makes up for it. www.anncoulter.blogspot.com is a good place to start for fact-checking her, but beware you'll never finish.
My personal take on consuming media is to try to draw from as many sources as possible. I listen to Pacifica Communist Radio out of Berkeley as much as Fox News.
That's a good take. Most of my friends refuse to turn on Fox News, but I like to have an open mind so I check in from time to time.
Yeah I don't see that coming close to something a gamer would replace Windows with. Like it or not, Windows beats the pants off of Linux when it comes to gaming. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
But...but...but we have Nethack!
No woman is impressed when your phone starts beeping, when you're having an X rated adult moment.
Unless it also starts vibrating, and it was being used in an X-rated manner at the time. I think there's a lesson in this...
Compiling a kernel is hardcore for the ubuntu crowd which my rather tongue in cheek comment was aimed at.
I'm not sure if you'd include me as part of the "ubuntu crowd" but I use Ubuntu exclusively and I don't consider compiling a kernel to be hardcore. I have compiled dozens of kernels with various options and tweaks (using Debian @ the time, this was over 10 years ago) and I don't consider myself at all hardcore. I use Ubuntu now because I reached a stage in my life where having everything "just work" is more valuable than the time it takes to become hardcore.
I see you can't support your own claims. Thanks for playing, you lose.
Perhaps you're not acquainted with how this works. Since I believe it's in everyone's best interest that we all work together to foster constructive dialog, allow me to explain the process to you. FIRST, you say something intelligent or present an argument. THEN, you tell someone "Thanks for playing, you lose." Simply telling someone they lose doesn't make it so.
Is this because that's the retail price for the public at large...?
Yes.
I did understand your claims.
By way of verification, what, pray tell, did I claim?
I see you can't support your own claims. Thanks for playing, you lose.
I don't think you understood what my claim was.
Bromance, now pays better than expected.
But then you have to go on mandates...
...I'm also one of those people that doesn't agree with marriage but support the idea of civil unions...
I don't think anybody should get married, either. Civil unions for all!
Sure, you can say marriage is the public commit process of your love.
You can tell this is Slashdot by the use of the phrase "commit process" where "commitment" might do just fine. Good luck ever finding that kind of love in your source tree, buddy.
So do you believe it is always OK for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, or only do so when it favors homosexuals? I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite and would be protesting any stated policy that advocated paying homosexuals less than straights rather than more.
Actually, if there were a government tax on being straight, I would be all for companies paying more to offset the tax.
My point was then that anyone who believes that probably does not agree with this:
if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
I agree!
I blame Alexander Haig.
Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians)...
But what about anal-abusing females and group-masturbating males?
I should also note that many gay or lesbian couples do adopt children, or undergo fertility treatment to have children.
Not if the Texas Republicans have anything to say about it...
You can try to twist it all you want, but Sodomy has that name for a reason.
Because people are gullible and ignorant?
And this is why the heads of BP and Halliburton should be charged with sodomy.
...(and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).
AND where and when you should pray and how you should pray and how inviolable the sabbath is and who is allowed in the kingdom and whether you need to get circumcised and oh, by the way, 8 of the 10 commandments are now just redundant clarification...but other than that, yeah, they didn't change anything!
Christianity is a dumb one to mention, seeing as the bible is clearly anti-asspounding. You might as well complain about the government not giving special tax breaks for all the other "sins" too.
I, for one, call for a 100% tax on Avarice.
Do you have any supporting evidence that Republicans are the reason?
You're right, it's not Republicans' fault that all their actual talking points these days are incoherent. I'm sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are forcing them to suggest chicken-based economies, take credit for TARP funds they voted against, and vote against policies they themselves suggested in an effort to prevent any governing from getting done. The Republicans have no fault in their own behavior whatsoever. I don't know how those progressive infiltrators managed to get to the top of the opposing party, but man are they good.
But if you read between the lines and "cherry pick", there are usually hidden gems about a software package, a piece of advice or something truly fascinating.
...but when I talk to the evangelists on the street corners, they tell me all cherry-picking can get me is eternal damnation!