Since when do the actions of a few mentally unstable individuals determine the judgment of a whole? But as far as you're concerned, Bush may as well have raped and murdered every one of them himself, right? There's no talking sense into people when they've convinced themselves of what they want to hear...
uring my formative adolescent years (12-16 or so, I guess), I bypassed the simple restrictions my parents had placed, and got unrestricted access.
We're talking about a 4 year old here. Whatever your opinions are about being a teenager and looking at porn, you had a more developed libido and at least some semblance of a worldview. A four year-old has neither.
That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.
Narcissism? Sociopathy? Not sure how you arrive at those two derisions. But again, if you actually read his book, you would read that he and his father have worked their entire lives to create opportunities for minorities, and to do the best he could with Katrina and have not just Kanye, but the media as a whole portray his handling of the incident as racially motivated was a huge blow.
Gee, what was I thinking, trying to make a Bush-hater listen to reason? Nevermind; you're right. About everything. Always. The US is nothing but an imperialist state hell-bent on imposing their values on a cowering world, and Bush is Hitler/Satan/et cetera.
And I'm sure you're going to run right out and get that book, right? Probably not; it might tamper with your carefully constructed version of reality.
With the 300 comments in this thread, is ANYBODY's mind changed about the man? What's the point in discussing him when you're so convinced you already know everything there is to know?
The real problem was not intelligence or lack thereof, but major character flaws and never having to face a real challenge in his life.
Like quitting a 20-year drinking habit cold turkey. Or starting an oil business. Or learning to fly a fighter jet. Or graduating from Yale. Or Harvard. Or starting his own oil company while living in a shack in an alley in West Texas. Or managing a major league baseball team. Or being a governor.
George W. Bush didn't exactly rise from the gutter, but he faced his share of challenges over the years.
The short version: "So why did we invade Iraq, really?" If I had an interview with him, that's what I'd ask. And I'd keep asking it until he'd exhausted his BS answers, and finally got to the truth.
Or you could just read his book. But you'll never believe anything he says anyway, so why bother asking him? You won't accept anything but what you want to hear.
There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.
If you would read the book in question, as I have, he goes into great, GREAT detail about why he did what he did. He has written thousands of letters and spent time with families of the fallen in Iraq, and he truly believed in his decision and feels the weight and responsibility of his choices. I have nothing but respect for the man. And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was an unfortunately-placed backdrop for his speech, as the "Mission Accomplished" was meant for the ship's particular mission, not the overall mission in Iraq itself.
Or are former/closet racists themselves. Let us not forget our recently departed Klan Grand Dragon Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia. Or everybody's favorite reverse racist, Attorney General Eric Holder, who doesn't think that voter intimidation laws should be applied to persons who are not white.
That study was done at a university with participants being between 18 and 28 years old...the most liberal-thinking period of most people's lifetimes. Also, 6 to 11 points is hardly significant. Schools and big media tend to tell themselves what they want to hear.
But what do I know? I'm just a stupid hillbilly. Feel free to continue looking down on me derisively from your ivory tower.
There is a world of difference between seeing porn when you're 15 or 16 and when you're 4. And "porn" is a broad classification; it can cover everything from simple boob exposure to BSDM, insertions, bestiality and coprophilia, which no one should ever have to see (unwillingly). A child with unfiltered internet access probably won't be harmed for life by seeing a pair of boobs, but it doesn't take studies or citations to figure out that anything more than that will probably at the very least give the child nightmares and at the worst will cause some long-term emotional and mental problems.
I was merely pointing out the unnecessary politicization of a father's approach to teaching his kids computers. 9 out of 10 computers out there still run Windows, so there's no point in indoctrinating your kid with messages of "big bad Microsoft" until he's old enough to form his own opinion. The rest of your post seems reasonable. I don't have kids, so I suspect you'd know better than I would.
Hate those round, static objects all you want, but the fact is many, many, MANY people have started successful careers in business and politics because those balls enabled them to attend good schools. Sitting in front of a computer might make you smarter, but success and smarts don't always go hand in hand...
the first thing that I would do is wipe the thing and put some flavor of Linux on it. Expose them at a very young age to the fact that there is more to the world of technology than Microsoft and Apple.
I think that's kind of like saying it's best to make a kid listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh before Big Bird, Barney and the rest of the liberal media can infect his mind with their deranged messages of tolerance and equality. Seriously; it's just going to confuse him when he gets to school and he has to un-learn what you've taught him about GNOME and KDE. Wait until he's old enough to recognize the difference between a computer and a television before teaching him alternative operating systems.
You're questioning why a 4-year old shouldn't be allowed to look at porn on the internet, as if it's some sort of free speech issue? What the hell is wrong with you?
I disagree with the tone of this article. When picking an article, I'm sure you get multiple submissions on the same topic; try to refrain from picking articles worded as "the government horsewhipped the destitute and needy for the enrichment and amusement of the rich and evil" and instead just report the facts.
In my opinion, if these tax exemptions cause a few of the working Irish to keep their jobs instead of losing them, they're better off as a whole.
Yes, they gave them support during the Iran/Iraq conflict in the early 1980s, as we are constantly reminded by liberal anti-American critics the world over from now until kingdom come. All we knew is that a failed Iraqi state occupied by Iran would be a very, very bad thing.
It's an the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend type situation. They may be on opposite sides of the Islamic conflict but that doesn't mean they don't have similar end goals in mind.
Is this another of those "WMDs in Iraq" things you people pull to justify the failed attempts at neo-colonialism?
Ahem. Fuck you. Call it what you will, America will put the interests of its people first and foremost in deciding on courses of action when it comes to judgment of foreign nations based on credible intelligence. I stand by former President Bush's actions 100%, and think that the invasion was justified even without the consideration of WMDs. America is the leader of the free world and has a moral responsibility to take care of unstable, evil dictators like Saddam Hussein. Deal with it.
I wonder how the DHS would like it if, say, Iran decided to start killing people in America who violate Sharia law.
Start? You do realize the Iranian government funds Islamic fundamentalist groups (who will kill Americans at any opportunity) like Hamas, Hezbollah, and a little-known organization called al-Qaeda, right?
Wake up, man. The rights of the individual are not a partisan issue. Progressives will stand behind you if you want to shit on the Bible or burn the flag, sure, but they'll be the first to sign a bill to keep you from smoking or eating French Fries.
So how does this relate? Neither side really cares about individual rights except when it relates to their talking points or agenda, so don't expect either to be free of the influence of the entertainment industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when do the actions of a few mentally unstable individuals determine the judgment of a whole? But as far as you're concerned, Bush may as well have raped and murdered every one of them himself, right? There's no talking sense into people when they've convinced themselves of what they want to hear...
uring my formative adolescent years (12-16 or so, I guess), I bypassed the simple restrictions my parents had placed, and got unrestricted access.
We're talking about a 4 year old here. Whatever your opinions are about being a teenager and looking at porn, you had a more developed libido and at least some semblance of a worldview. A four year-old has neither.
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED.]
Even if he did, the banner was for the ship, not for him.
That says everything about what a narcissistic, sociopathic egotist the man is.
Narcissism? Sociopathy? Not sure how you arrive at those two derisions. But again, if you actually read his book, you would read that he and his father have worked their entire lives to create opportunities for minorities, and to do the best he could with Katrina and have not just Kanye, but the media as a whole portray his handling of the incident as racially motivated was a huge blow.
But like I'm going to change your mind, anyway.
Gee, what was I thinking, trying to make a Bush-hater listen to reason? Nevermind; you're right. About everything. Always. The US is nothing but an imperialist state hell-bent on imposing their values on a cowering world, and Bush is Hitler/Satan/et cetera.
And I'm sure you're going to run right out and get that book, right? Probably not; it might tamper with your carefully constructed version of reality.
With the 300 comments in this thread, is ANYBODY's mind changed about the man? What's the point in discussing him when you're so convinced you already know everything there is to know?
The real problem was not intelligence or lack thereof, but major character flaws and never having to face a real challenge in his life.
Like quitting a 20-year drinking habit cold turkey. Or starting an oil business. Or learning to fly a fighter jet. Or graduating from Yale. Or Harvard. Or starting his own oil company while living in a shack in an alley in West Texas. Or managing a major league baseball team. Or being a governor.
George W. Bush didn't exactly rise from the gutter, but he faced his share of challenges over the years.
The short version: "So why did we invade Iraq, really?" If I had an interview with him, that's what I'd ask. And I'd keep asking it until he'd exhausted his BS answers, and finally got to the truth.
Or you could just read his book. But you'll never believe anything he says anyway, so why bother asking him? You won't accept anything but what you want to hear.
Call it what you will, but we need screening to keep the questions balanced between softballs and hateful, belligerent attacks.
I've always been puzzled by the Marines use of the word "honor." As the phrase goes, I do not think that word means what they think it means.
And I have a couple of words for you: Unbridled disrespect.
There's a lot of dead Americans that will never come back from Iraq and he's never been able to tell us why apart from his dance on the deck of a carrier in a clown suit.
If you would read the book in question, as I have, he goes into great, GREAT detail about why he did what he did. He has written thousands of letters and spent time with families of the fallen in Iraq, and he truly believed in his decision and feels the weight and responsibility of his choices. I have nothing but respect for the man. And the "Mission Accomplished" banner was an unfortunately-placed backdrop for his speech, as the "Mission Accomplished" was meant for the ship's particular mission, not the overall mission in Iraq itself.
And liberals never associate with open racists?
Or are former/closet racists themselves. Let us not forget our recently departed Klan Grand Dragon Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia. Or everybody's favorite reverse racist, Attorney General Eric Holder, who doesn't think that voter intimidation laws should be applied to persons who are not white.
Yeah, it's odd how people feel strongly when someone starts a war which hundreds of thousands of people. What's up with that?
Simplistic platitudes make the world go 'round, i.e. "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
That study was done at a university with participants being between 18 and 28 years old...the most liberal-thinking period of most people's lifetimes. Also, 6 to 11 points is hardly significant. Schools and big media tend to tell themselves what they want to hear.
But what do I know? I'm just a stupid hillbilly. Feel free to continue looking down on me derisively from your ivory tower.
There is a world of difference between seeing porn when you're 15 or 16 and when you're 4. And "porn" is a broad classification; it can cover everything from simple boob exposure to BSDM, insertions, bestiality and coprophilia, which no one should ever have to see (unwillingly).
A child with unfiltered internet access probably won't be harmed for life by seeing a pair of boobs, but it doesn't take studies or citations to figure out that anything more than that will probably at the very least give the child nightmares and at the worst will cause some long-term emotional and mental problems.
Ignoring the unnecessary politics in your post,
I was merely pointing out the unnecessary politicization of a father's approach to teaching his kids computers. 9 out of 10 computers out there still run Windows, so there's no point in indoctrinating your kid with messages of "big bad Microsoft" until he's old enough to form his own opinion. The rest of your post seems reasonable. I don't have kids, so I suspect you'd know better than I would.
Hate those round, static objects all you want, but the fact is many, many, MANY people have started successful careers in business and politics because those balls enabled them to attend good schools. Sitting in front of a computer might make you smarter, but success and smarts don't always go hand in hand...
the first thing that I would do is wipe the thing and put some flavor of Linux on it. Expose them at a very young age to the fact that there is more to the world of technology than Microsoft and Apple.
I think that's kind of like saying it's best to make a kid listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh before Big Bird, Barney and the rest of the liberal media can infect his mind with their deranged messages of tolerance and equality. Seriously; it's just going to confuse him when he gets to school and he has to un-learn what you've taught him about GNOME and KDE. Wait until he's old enough to recognize the difference between a computer and a television before teaching him alternative operating systems.
Exactly, why the censorship?
You're questioning why a 4-year old shouldn't be allowed to look at porn on the internet, as if it's some sort of free speech issue? What the hell is wrong with you?
I disagree with the tone of this article. When picking an article, I'm sure you get multiple submissions on the same topic; try to refrain from picking articles worded as "the government horsewhipped the destitute and needy for the enrichment and amusement of the rich and evil" and instead just report the facts.
In my opinion, if these tax exemptions cause a few of the working Irish to keep their jobs instead of losing them, they're better off as a whole.
See below.
Yes, they gave them support during the Iran/Iraq conflict in the early 1980s, as we are constantly reminded by liberal anti-American critics the world over from now until kingdom come. All we knew is that a failed Iraqi state occupied by Iran would be a very, very bad thing.
Where is there any connection between the Shia Iranian government, and the sternly (as in "we hate the Shia") sunni terrorists of Al-Qaeda?
I read about it in a book last year the name of which name escapes me, but a simple Google search yields the following results:
http://www.meforum.org/670/irans-link-to-al-qaeda-the-9-11-commissions
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
It's an the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend type situation. They may be on opposite sides of the Islamic conflict but that doesn't mean they don't have similar end goals in mind.
Is this another of those "WMDs in Iraq" things you people pull to justify the failed attempts at neo-colonialism?
Ahem. Fuck you. Call it what you will, America will put the interests of its people first and foremost in deciding on courses of action when it comes to judgment of foreign nations based on credible intelligence. I stand by former President Bush's actions 100%, and think that the invasion was justified even without the consideration of WMDs. America is the leader of the free world and has a moral responsibility to take care of unstable, evil dictators like Saddam Hussein. Deal with it.
I wonder how the DHS would like it if, say, Iran decided to start killing people in America who violate Sharia law.
Start? You do realize the Iranian government funds Islamic fundamentalist groups (who will kill Americans at any opportunity) like Hamas, Hezbollah, and a little-known organization called al-Qaeda, right?
Wake up, man. The rights of the individual are not a partisan issue. Progressives will stand behind you if you want to shit on the Bible or burn the flag, sure, but they'll be the first to sign a bill to keep you from smoking or eating French Fries.
So how does this relate? Neither side really cares about individual rights except when it relates to their talking points or agenda, so don't expect either to be free of the influence of the entertainment industry.