Oh, okay sure. I thought we were talking about (quoting you): "If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse".
Well, that's why -- what I said is why. You bringing up American wartime rhetoric about free peoples is sort of a non sequitur to the question, even though I don't disagree with it.
Okay. I misinterpreted what you meant by "Known to be working on nukes: Iraq". To me, that implies that they were, in fact, currently (at the time) working on nukes, AND that we knew about it. I might have phrased it as "Known to have been working on nukes, known to have stopped working on nukes, all this verified by international inspections." I would say it that way because your way implies that it is a good reason to go to war, whereas really it was a good reason not to go to war. Strangely, you put a reason not to go to war as your first item in a list of reasons to go to war. Please excuse me for being confused.
Holy shit, dude, are you dredging up stories from two Presidents ago? It is long past time for you to update your tropes. Next thing, you'll talk about how Duke Nukem Forever will never be released.
I'm not interested in rehashing the whole Iraq war, but are you saying that it is true that Saddam had a current, ongoing WMD program at the time of the invasion?
Because we believe Iran. We believe NK is pretty much full of shit. NK is a threat, but the threat is that they will sell their evil tech for cash to terrorists. We doubt NK would invade anyone. That's why.
So what you are saying is... no, he has not acted to restrict guns. Okay. Well, I encourage you to continue your vigilance for the second amendment, which I consider one of the most essential freedoms in the Constitution. At the same time, I encourage you to stop imagining things that are fake, illusory, or fantastic.
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that you referenced one piece of legislation with no support, then three opinion articles (two explicit opinions without references, and one more from FN), all amounting to a whole bunch of nothing. Basically, what I'm saying, is that no, Obama hasn't done shit with guns. And for good reason! The American people, myself included, don't want more gun control. The preferences of Americans are for more guns, and laws around the country have become more permissive for gun owners. It's politically unpopular, so he won't touch it.
That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.
If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.
No, that's not it. One of the big-party parties is full of hypocritical bigots, and the other big-government party is full of people who genuinely and honestly think that government can help solve the country's problems, and will tell you so. To equate those two things is to ignore almost all of the context of the situation.
If you do not do business with a given company, then why do you give a flying fuck at all that other people do?
Ooooh! A non-sequitur! I love those! I will answer your question with the obvious and trivial answer: because what other people do affects me. Thanks for asking!
Trying to send a political message with your wallet is fucking retarded, you will not be heard.
Thank you for agreeing with me! That is another way of saying what I said. Sometimes that approach works, but it is very rare and limited.
The rest of your post is an unhelpful and meaningless rant, so I'll ignore that.
Seriously. Don't you wish the "end result" of free market ideology had ended with the Great Depression, instead of continuing to fuck up the world and the economy to this very day?
You, sir, have just given the reason why Free Market theories are wrong: consumers do not, in fact, give a flying fuck. Flying fucks are the underlying premise of all Free Market theories -- that consumers will act to get what they want. I have always maintained that consumers do not, in fact, act to get what they want, and you have just shown me right. Thank you! Remember, markets are good, but free markets are bad!
I'm not pointing to coal because it's a shit solution, I'm pointing to it because it is the alternative to nuclear. I'm also pointing to it because it is a bigger radioactive threat than nuclear, and comes along with all the traditional pollution too.
Your original comment was this: Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident. The thing is, nuclear is safe EVEN IF you account for the risk of an accident. Even with all the nuclear accidents in history (I know of the three which were big enough to be global news), it is safer than the alternative (coal) by several orders of magnitude. Even better, we can now today build nuclear reactors which, "they say", are a couple orders of magnitude safer still. Nuclear is the best solution, until we build solar arrays in space and bean the electricity down to the planet.
Slashdot never cared about what matters for people on the street. Right at the top of the site it plainly says News For Nerds; it doesn't say All The News That's Fit To Print.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, okay sure. I thought we were talking about (quoting you): "If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse".
Well, that's why -- what I said is why. You bringing up American wartime rhetoric about free peoples is sort of a non sequitur to the question, even though I don't disagree with it.
Okay. I misinterpreted what you meant by "Known to be working on nukes: Iraq". To me, that implies that they were, in fact, currently (at the time) working on nukes, AND that we knew about it. I might have phrased it as "Known to have been working on nukes, known to have stopped working on nukes, all this verified by international inspections." I would say it that way because your way implies that it is a good reason to go to war, whereas really it was a good reason not to go to war. Strangely, you put a reason not to go to war as your first item in a list of reasons to go to war. Please excuse me for being confused.
Holy shit, dude, are you dredging up stories from two Presidents ago? It is long past time for you to update your tropes. Next thing, you'll talk about how Duke Nukem Forever will never be released.
The difference between 1:1 and 1:0.005 is the same as the difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Who else around here is claiming to make Myopic decisions?
Known to be working on nukes: Iraq
I'm not interested in rehashing the whole Iraq war, but are you saying that it is true that Saddam had a current, ongoing WMD program at the time of the invasion?
Because we believe Iran. We believe NK is pretty much full of shit. NK is a threat, but the threat is that they will sell their evil tech for cash to terrorists. We doubt NK would invade anyone. That's why.
Dude, screw you, I'm already RandomInternetGuy23038908343! You have to be RandomInternetGuy23038908344!
Yeah, like I said, fake fantasies. Give those up, they don't help our shared cause of firearm freedom.
So what you are saying is... no, he has not acted to restrict guns. Okay. Well, I encourage you to continue your vigilance for the second amendment, which I consider one of the most essential freedoms in the Constitution. At the same time, I encourage you to stop imagining things that are fake, illusory, or fantastic.
Fair enough, but I'd like to point out that you referenced one piece of legislation with no support, then three opinion articles (two explicit opinions without references, and one more from FN), all amounting to a whole bunch of nothing. Basically, what I'm saying, is that no, Obama hasn't done shit with guns. And for good reason! The American people, myself included, don't want more gun control. The preferences of Americans are for more guns, and laws around the country have become more permissive for gun owners. It's politically unpopular, so he won't touch it.
start running candidates who campaign on being evil while performing evil
His name is Ron Paul and he's run quite famously a few times recently and also a while back. Google his name if you've never heard of him.
Has Obama done even one single thing about guns during his entire administration?
Ha ha ha, of course GWB had F&F. He (his admin) invented it!
That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.
If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.
No, that's not it. One of the big-party parties is full of hypocritical bigots, and the other big-government party is full of people who genuinely and honestly think that government can help solve the country's problems, and will tell you so. To equate those two things is to ignore almost all of the context of the situation.
That's a circular argument. ("They work for it because it is better, and it is better, which is why they work for it.") Do you have any other reasons?
If you do not do business with a given company, then why do you give a flying fuck at all that other people do?
Ooooh! A non-sequitur! I love those! I will answer your question with the obvious and trivial answer: because what other people do affects me. Thanks for asking!
Trying to send a political message with your wallet is fucking retarded, you will not be heard.
Thank you for agreeing with me! That is another way of saying what I said. Sometimes that approach works, but it is very rare and limited.
The rest of your post is an unhelpful and meaningless rant, so I'll ignore that.
Seriously. Don't you wish the "end result" of free market ideology had ended with the Great Depression, instead of continuing to fuck up the world and the economy to this very day?
You, sir, have just given the reason why Free Market theories are wrong: consumers do not, in fact, give a flying fuck. Flying fucks are the underlying premise of all Free Market theories -- that consumers will act to get what they want. I have always maintained that consumers do not, in fact, act to get what they want, and you have just shown me right. Thank you! Remember, markets are good, but free markets are bad!
What I don't understand is what was the business case in favor of SOPA from GD's perspective?
I think it would be awesome to turn it into a torrent tracker.
I'm not pointing to coal because it's a shit solution, I'm pointing to it because it is the alternative to nuclear. I'm also pointing to it because it is a bigger radioactive threat than nuclear, and comes along with all the traditional pollution too.
Your original comment was this: Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident. The thing is, nuclear is safe EVEN IF you account for the risk of an accident. Even with all the nuclear accidents in history (I know of the three which were big enough to be global news), it is safer than the alternative (coal) by several orders of magnitude. Even better, we can now today build nuclear reactors which, "they say", are a couple orders of magnitude safer still. Nuclear is the best solution, until we build solar arrays in space and bean the electricity down to the planet.
Slashdot never cared about what matters for people on the street. Right at the top of the site it plainly says News For Nerds; it doesn't say All The News That's Fit To Print.
Good thing you're here to waggishly and preposterously suggest that people don't get almost all of their ideas from other people whom they respect.