I fail to see your point. At least three of those tags have Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century as it's top pick in that category. With not one neo-con book in the list. Speaking of neo-com I typed in 'fud' to search the tags and only came across one book, and a search on 'lies' seemed to be Ann (happy widow) Coulter's featured page. Interestingly enough, 'truth' had a similar list as 'lies'. Fairly useless for simple common words, but it does allow people to express themselves, how could that be a bad thing? Eventually I see it as a way to flag certain categories like 'controversial', 'pop-culture' even if those words aren't common tags for the item, as 'controversial' items would often have both 'lies' and 'truth' as tags.
Why on earth would we revert to an obscure technical term rather than a common vernacular term when... ? How on earth did you get the impression that "the objective is to make something easily understood to the masses". Perhaps it is 'your objective', but I find that I get paid better when they don't quite understand:)
The ACLU was against the bill. Are the ACLU a group of Republicans?
Funny I thought that the ACLU was associated with the Klan, wait, most of those guys are just Republicans, so yes they are.
All kidding aside, I don't always agree with their positions, but I am alway glad that they take an interest. "Conservative" talking heads like to complain about the "liberal" ACLU (as if there is something wrong with having a liberal viewpoint), but really they are libertarian in nature.
bacon, eggs, and sometimes sausage. Usually washed down with some lightly or un-sweetened iced tea. Lately, I've been stopping by the local quickiemart for a 24oz eye opener, and a banana for a mid-morning snack. if I'm pressed for time I get a sausage, egg, and cheese bagel from Wawa (Convenience store/deli).
I agree mostly, but when one can clearly define a boundary, such as apartheid, or ties to a ruthless regime, it can be a tool, if people 'gang up' on this boundary. However that is rarely the case, you might have noticed that people rarely agree in such great numbers.
Personally I'm an 'armchair environmentalist' but I believe that we/they need better laws to regulate pollution, so that all companies operate from a similar waste management cost structure and that responsible companies don't suffer a competitive disadvantage when competing against more ruthless competition.
playboy.xxx
penhouse.xxx
sex.xxx
movie.xxx
and of course
whitehouse.xxx
Seriously, talk about a gold rush. A legimate porn tld would have users practically driven to it. I wonder if what they are going to do about the 'land grab'.
At $60 a pop for every word in the dictionary, they stand to make some serious money right off the bat.
I see this happening on CSI all the time Yea, and I see time and space travel on TV all the time too. CSI doesn't pretend to be anything more than fiction and expecting a TV show to be more realistic just because it's popular is like expecting blog writers to be accurate, it's nice when it happens, but I don't expect it.
Sure the fight may last only 2 hours, but after spending much of that time in heavy acceleration, I wonder how long it would take to recover.
Also, wouldn't passengers need to be in really good health to endure such a journey, and would they need to wear flight suits like fighter pilots just to keep from blacking out?
I suspect that regular passenger use may be out of the question if these problems aren't solved by altitude/weightlessness.
Scram jets might be able to accelerate from approximately Mach 5-7 to around somewhere between half of orbital velocity and orbital velocity (X-30 research suggested that Mach 17 might be the limit compared to an orbital speed of Mach 25, and other studies put the upper speed limit for a pure scram jet engine between Mach 10 and 25, depending on the assumptions made
As the company claims a top speed of Mach 25, could this be the 'cheap' way to get to low Earth orbit?
If one opposes minimum wage, wouldn't that be compassionate, understanding, and acknowledging society's ills? After all, minimum wage leaves society's youngest and weakest members unemployed. It understands that 10 hours of work at $5/hour might be better than 0 hours of work at $7/hour. It acknowledges that we can't compare society to an ideal (in which everyone has a well-paying job), but only to the alternatives that we have.
First of all 71% of all people affected by a minimum wage increase are over 20, so it's not just for 'young people'. People who oppose raising the minimum wage, fail to recognize the burden low income workers place on charitable giving, domestic programs, and the courts. I don't know the exact numbers, but many(if not most) adults living on minimum wage salaries live in government supported apartments, get food stamps, and they typically are dead-beats to the local emergency rooms. As these people work full time some would call them 'productive members of society', not me. However I don't see it as their fault, it's market conditions affected by the welfare state. In the perfect free market world, people would starve in the streets, homelessness would be rampant, and hospitals would turn back those that cannot pay. Just to be able to show up for work, in something less than a disheveled state workers would make far more than the current minimum wage, as society wouldn't be helping. Some see those conditions as preferable, but most of us rightfully horror at the thought of a country like that, it would have to a police state just to keep order. We could choose to eliminate all social programs for those who work full time, but then you get the problem of people who find that it is better not to work than to work.
Instead of placing the burden on society to care for their basic needs it should go to those who benefit from their labors. Increasing the minimum wage would be a net gain for society, as the need for social programs would be reduced, and I believe it would even reduce crime. At what cost, burger costing an extra quarter, maybe fifty five dollars, hell, even most fast food workers now make more than even the highest proposed minimum wage.
A person who works more than full time should not need social programs or charities for subsistence, but they do.
What that really means to an economist is that you're taking labor and capital out of the market (by reducing a bank account balance), and you're allocating it so that unemployed people can use it to consume. The result is that the unemployed person doesn't employ themselves as quickly, and someone else loses their job because there is less money in the market to be used for labor and capital.
Well, first of all, I never mentioned 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor' like as in Robin Hood. However, consumer spending in general is Good for the economy, particularly spending for local services. No one buys more local services for every 'extra dollar' than the poor. Also, the argument that giving tax breaks to the rich because they will 'trickle down' with raises and more hiring is bunk. Businessmen will only give raises and have new hiring if the business 'needs it' not just because they find 'extra' money in their pocket. Some business 'may' feel like they can afford to expand, but most will just pocket the money into some form of savings. Poor people are MUCH more efficient at circulating money than rich.
But don't pretend like "compassion" and a desire for the unfortunate to be successful are traits unique to liberals.
I never said that it is an exclusive trait, 'we' just have more of it. But the real problem is the you believe that this is some kinda 'pissing contest' between Conservative and Liberal, as if these are two opposing camps, constantly at odds with each other, and with little common ground. First of all, I may 'l
You don't have to look hard on the left to find... It might surprise, you but the world is a big place, many different viewpoints are represented, however those on the right tend to follow their idealogs more carefully, and often without questioning them, nor conceding their errors. Some are even farther to the 'right' like Sterilizing the mentally retarded (a quick 'fact' from the link: -only 5% of retards go to church on Sunday, mostly because they are too stupid to follow the sermon)
Slashdot has a strong Libertarian trend, and the Left is well represented as well, especially when the Europeans and expatriates start chiming in.
Your not the only one whom I've seen tonight who seems to confuse 'left' and 'right' with the notion of a batch of ideas typically represented by a political party. Sure the Republicans generally represent the 'right' and us Democrats the 'left', but Libertarians are typically given the distinction of being 'between' them in the political spectrum. I said in a different comment in this same thread that:
The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" And it is overly simple, but I like it, as I have often described myself as such (not simple, but the "Fiscally conservative..", just to be clear). It completely blows my mind that that Republicans have so totally destroyed the budget with tax breaks, and spending, while their minions spread lies, slander, and filth to their eager base. But what amazes me more is that they have managed to make "liberal" and "left" seem like such dirty words, that when people finally start to move away from the Republican side they insist that they aren't going left, but Libertarian, like it is some kinda 'z axis' on the political spectrum. It seems that many have learn their corrupted messages so well, that some people still cling to the belief that 'Fox News channel' and their ilk represents some kind of balance against the 'liberal media'.
Compassion and acknowledging society's ills are hardly limited to liberals.
The link points to a writer on some random site, who pulls quotes from Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.
The statistical analyst in me screams so loudly that without reading the book, I'll wonder out loud: How did he judge if his respondents were 'conservative', did he include 'tithing', and weekly contributions to one's own church?. Churches are considered charitable organizations, and they are, but most of the money goes to fund 'the club house', and not to directly rectify social ills (some even have gyms, schools, and daycare), unlike say, the United Way, who's club houses it's givers do not directly benefit from.
Except that people who are compassionate AND understand society's ills are conservative, not liberal. But I would hope that most geeks are smart enough not to just adopt the politics of whatever science fiction writer they read.
Really, like feeding/clothing/housing the poor, like Jesus? Sure you "Social Conservatives" talk a good game, but when it comes to real action, you're just political players. Even your charities are only provided with strings attached.
Frankly you'all need to come to the conclusion that the neo-cons have fucked you like a back street whore, and paid you with counterfeit money.
As for Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, they both employ a rhetorical mechanism that liberals are apparently incapable of comprehending.
Rhetoric, the undue use of exaggeration or display. Perhaps I need to explain "undue" as well. The thing that pisses 'us' off the most about them is that most do not know their game, and it is a game. The loser is society, and the first casualty is the truth.
8 "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor." --
This commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in relations with others. This also forbids lying.
You clearly indicate that you understand that they are lying/ misrepresenting themselves, and you see nothing wrong with it, as a 'balance' for the 'lies from the left'. Bullshit, you better hope that God doesn't have a conspiracy clause for the eight Commandment or you'll be roasting in hell with the rest of them. That's our basic problem on the American left we just can lie like you'all. When someone talks about global warming I need to see proof, not the hyperbole, slander, and smear, so often 'employed' by those you venerate. Sure there are some who are 'too left' for me, and I will openly disagree with them, I have. Unlike you and others like you, I DO NOT BLINDLY SUBMIT TO ANY MAN, and those few whom I choose to follow know my disagreements, even if I choose to table them. Also, I do not believe that I can force others to bend to my will, besides, those who 'bend too easily' have little for me and do not significantly add to my understanding of the world; Unlike Rush and Anne I have no proper use for worshipers such as yourself.
You are very right as to seeing that these self-proclaimed "libertarians" tend not to know of what the subcribe to. While some are 'real' libertarians, that designation is often been miss used by ashamed Republicans. If you need proof just take spin on any crowded highway, keep an eye out for "W" campaign stickers, I'll bet even money that you won't see one. I live in the northeast, and up until about a year ago, one could still see stickers for "W" often on the road, some even from the 2000 campaign, but not any longer. I started seeing this about 6 months ago, only because I have alway looked out for 'those idiots who voted for that bastard'.
There is a deserved, deep distrust with the Republican party these days, and many of them are trying to find a new political stand to lean on. The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is very appealing to intelligent men who fear a burdening deficit may erode our economic health, and talk of 'Christian Values' from leadership which believe that the poor should be forgotten. Years of training by the Water boy and others of his ilk, have colored their arguments 'Red', but I suspect that as they, for the first time in their lives, start considering 'not being a Republican', will take a hard look at the issues and find more carefully considered arguments, than the hyperbole they have accepted as fact for so long. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we may be seeing some big changes of the political landscape. Admittedly, it's a small chance, but I believe that in 2008 we will start seeing Libertarian candidates 'do well' and perhaps even win in some red states (maybe even taking some of the new blue house seats too).
I do believe that Slashdot does have a 'liberal bias' Shoot -- then I must be one-of-a-kind. I'm a software engineer but also a Conservative / Libertarian (because I find the logic of free will and free markets compelling.
Yes, you're special, just like everyone else:). Aside from that, bias doesn't mean everyone, it means enough hold 'liberal' ideas that this site tends to lead that way. Not that most here would call themselves 'liberal' (as in "tax and spend liberal', or 'liberal weenie'), just that if you really looked at their values you'd be surprised. And I don't mean things like "Family Values", I mean where differences really present themselves, like pollution, hate crimes, gun control, patent reform, copyright issues and others. You can't even do a Ben Franklin Close, and attempt to weigh them equally, you need to understand what really matters to you, and what you would post on.
I also find the lucid arguments of Rousseau's The Social Contract and Bastiat's The Law appealing.)
Sure, it's 'nice' that you fondly remember your high school readings of whining 18th and 19th century liberals, dreaming of a world in which they could not live, while trying to be sure not end up on the same streets they feared. However, one cannot balance that out with the daily 'Master serving' rants of Rush Limbaugh or Bill Oreilly, or for that matter Fox News in general. Personally, I watch Keith Olbermann for the bulk of my 'hard news' and John Stewart for the fun stuff. Stephen Colbert does a great lampoon on conservative talk show host in general (and Bill'O specifically), but sometimes I wonder 'how is going to keep it fresh?', of course then another 'WORD' segment and I know that it is still there.
I just wanted you to know that some members of the Slashdot audience are right-wing conservatives who don't have a knee-jerk need to mod down liberals and Democrats. I actually look forward to reading articulate arguments from the "other" side as they help me to clarify my own opinions.
Liberal, Conservative, my side, their side, those labels don't really matter. What we really need to look at is what is best for our families, our communities, our countries, and our world. Most people hold too dear 'their side', they clutch tightly to the shreds of former beliefs long before they let go. Not me, a while back I used to call myself a 'Conservative Republican', until I realized that many of the 'Conservative' leaders were snake-oil salesmen (some of them who made the strategic move from 'Democrat' to 'Republican', as they saw the tide changing). At that point I realized that the environment mattered to me, human rights mattered to me, living wages mattered to me, access to healthcare mattered to me, freedom mattered to me and I became a Democrat, rather than rely the deaf ears of the Republican Party to listen to even the most common sense reforms, as ideology has set in firmly with them.
Slashdot is made up to a large extent of fairly conservative types--engineers and corporate IT folks
I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal, perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills. As a progressive (read by some as 'raving liberal') myself, I do believe that Slashdot does have a 'liberal bias', otherwise I'd have lots and lots of more 'troll' and 'overrated' hits for many of my comments. Hell my old sig was a flat out insult to neo-cons, if your assertion was correct, I would never have been able to maintain my excellent karma. Also, I work in a corporation, and I'd say that most of the people I know well tend to hold 'liberal' beliefs, even if they would never label themselves as such, as the neo-cons have successfully changed the word to seem an insult rather than a category of political leaning.
That being said I do see a difference between 'true' conservatives who hold to steadfast 'old fashioned' conservative values, and those who play 'lip-service' to those values in an attempt to gain power and control (like Rush 'water boy' Limbaugh, and Anne 'happy widow' Coulter). If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.
Personally, I bought a Wii for a Christmas gift, I waited 4 hours in freezing weather, but I got it, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Reasonably priced system including a good game, innovative controllers, and games no more expensive than last year, have pushed Nintendo to the front in this generation of game systems. If I had an HDTV I would consider a PS3, as I saw a blu-ray movie on one the other day and WOW what a picture, but I don't intend on buying one until next year, and I cringe about having to buy $75 games for birthday presents.
Well it was 'just' a Beta, but then again so is gmail, Google maps, and every other neat Google application. Of course as a gmail user it does give me pause, as to what I'm really doing.
It's an American thing...You wanna talk standards compliance with a culture that swaps linguistic meaning for no good reason?
If it was truly an "American thing" as you say then , we'd still be Old English, the Latin spoken in Roman times, or perhaps cave man style grunts. However I have heard the phrase "I could care less", and I asked "how could you care less?". I guess the best answer is "To care so little I wouldn't bother posting my opinion on it in the first place".
The real trouble is IE compatibility forces people to figure out how to make things work like ":hover" would if you could use it like "div#myMenuItem:hover {...}", as it doesn't properly implement it. BTW I haven't tried the linked technique, but it looks interesting.
Clinton commited perjury in a federal court, which is a federal felony.
No, Clinton did not lie to a federal grand jury. In pre-testimony documents, he was given a definition for 'sex' which did not include 'blow job', and correctly stated on the stand that he did not have sex. However most people include a 'blow job' as sex, so when he repeated his assertion on TV, he was wrong to do so, but certainly not under oath. It is true that they not yet caught Bush or any of his Administration lying under oath, as they have never testified under oath, the Republican congress has never required it.
Was the most 'reasonable' reason I have ever heard that Bush has given for our invasion of Iraq. Perhaps congress will make the distinction that leading us into a disastrous war for a personal grudge, or to shovel money at 'loyal' contractors would be a bribery, or other 'high-crime', since the Constitution is clearly vague as to the definition of every crime except for treason. Speaking of teason, it might be hard to get them on it, unless we can prove that they knew that their buddies in Saudi Arabia where involved in the 9/11 attacks. However, since it isn't "treason, bribery, and other high crimes", two out of three will work just as well.
I suspect the impeachment will involve influence peddling, and almost certainly also involving Halliburton and Saudi Arabia.
About 15 years ago we used to laugh at "government conspiracy" theorists and call them crackpots. Now I am not so sure anymore. Perhaps they were just foresighted.
Well, the vast majority of them are funny, but the one that says 'the Republican Party will attempt to control science to meet political needs' deserves a prize. How about a 'Medal of Freedom', I hear they are going pretty cheapthese days.
That's what I get for doing a Google search on my best guess, I ended up getting someone else's mispelling. However, I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi has seen many misspellings of her name.
I can't wait, for the congressional hearings to start. Actions like this scream for the congressional oversight which has been sorely lacking over the last 6 years.
Polowski has insisted that she won't press for impeachment, but I'm guessing that she is waiting for the evidence to come to light.
The real question is where to start, the Energy policy dictated by energy companies, Halliburton corruption and it's 'loyalty tests' to get government work, or torpedoing the careers of military men who are unwilling to tow the party line.
However, the squashing of 'liberal' scientific opinion is as good as any place to start, I suspect that hundreds of them would be willing to come forth.
Slashdot Mirror
No fewer people voted many, many, more times, over the entire season. It hardly translates into a good match against a real political poll.
I fail to see your point. At least three of those tags have Worldchanging: A User's Guide for the 21st Century as it's top pick in that category. With not one neo-con book in the list. Speaking of neo-com I typed in 'fud' to search the tags and only came across one book, and a search on 'lies' seemed to be Ann (happy widow) Coulter's featured page. Interestingly enough, 'truth' had a similar list as 'lies'. Fairly useless for simple common words, but it does allow people to express themselves, how could that be a bad thing? Eventually I see it as a way to flag certain categories like 'controversial', 'pop-culture' even if those words aren't common tags for the item, as 'controversial' items would often have both 'lies' and 'truth' as tags.
Funny I thought that the ACLU was associated with the Klan, wait, most of those guys are just Republicans, so yes they are.
All kidding aside, I don't always agree with their positions, but I am alway glad that they take an interest. "Conservative" talking heads like to complain about the "liberal" ACLU (as if there is something wrong with having a liberal viewpoint), but really they are libertarian in nature.
bacon, eggs, and sometimes sausage. Usually washed down with some lightly or un-sweetened iced tea. Lately, I've been stopping by the local quickiemart for a 24oz eye opener, and a banana for a mid-morning snack. if I'm pressed for time I get a sausage, egg, and cheese bagel from Wawa (Convenience store/deli).
I agree mostly, but when one can clearly define a boundary, such as apartheid, or ties to a ruthless regime, it can be a tool, if people 'gang up' on this boundary. However that is rarely the case, you might have noticed that people rarely agree in such great numbers.
Personally I'm an 'armchair environmentalist' but I believe that we/they need better laws to regulate pollution, so that all companies operate from a similar waste management cost structure and that responsible companies don't suffer a competitive disadvantage when competing against more ruthless competition.
playboy.xxx
penhouse.xxx
sex.xxx
movie.xxx
and of course
whitehouse.xxx
Seriously, talk about a gold rush. A legimate porn tld would have users practically driven to it. I wonder if what they are going to do about the 'land grab'. At $60 a pop for every word in the dictionary, they stand to make some serious money right off the bat.
Sure the fight may last only 2 hours, but after spending much of that time in heavy acceleration, I wonder how long it would take to recover. Also, wouldn't passengers need to be in really good health to endure such a journey, and would they need to wear flight suits like fighter pilots just to keep from blacking out? I suspect that regular passenger use may be out of the question if these problems aren't solved by altitude/weightlessness.
Wikipedia's entry for Scramjet mentions
Scram jets might be able to accelerate from approximately Mach 5-7 to around somewhere between half of orbital velocity and orbital velocity (X-30 research suggested that Mach 17 might be the limit compared to an orbital speed of Mach 25, and other studies put the upper speed limit for a pure scram jet engine between Mach 10 and 25, depending on the assumptions madeAs the company claims a top speed of Mach 25, could this be the 'cheap' way to get to low Earth orbit?
If one opposes minimum wage, wouldn't that be compassionate, understanding, and acknowledging society's ills? After all, minimum wage leaves society's youngest and weakest members unemployed. It understands that 10 hours of work at $5/hour might be better than 0 hours of work at $7/hour. It acknowledges that we can't compare society to an ideal (in which everyone has a well-paying job), but only to the alternatives that we have.
First of all 71% of all people affected by a minimum wage increase are over 20, so it's not just for 'young people'. People who oppose raising the minimum wage, fail to recognize the burden low income workers place on charitable giving, domestic programs, and the courts. I don't know the exact numbers, but many(if not most) adults living on minimum wage salaries live in government supported apartments, get food stamps, and they typically are dead-beats to the local emergency rooms. As these people work full time some would call them 'productive members of society', not me. However I don't see it as their fault, it's market conditions affected by the welfare state. In the perfect free market world, people would starve in the streets, homelessness would be rampant, and hospitals would turn back those that cannot pay. Just to be able to show up for work, in something less than a disheveled state workers would make far more than the current minimum wage, as society wouldn't be helping. Some see those conditions as preferable, but most of us rightfully horror at the thought of a country like that, it would have to a police state just to keep order. We could choose to eliminate all social programs for those who work full time, but then you get the problem of people who find that it is better not to work than to work.
Instead of placing the burden on society to care for their basic needs it should go to those who benefit from their labors. Increasing the minimum wage would be a net gain for society, as the need for social programs would be reduced, and I believe it would even reduce crime. At what cost, burger costing an extra quarter, maybe fifty five dollars, hell, even most fast food workers now make more than even the highest proposed minimum wage.
A person who works more than full time should not need social programs or charities for subsistence, but they do.
What that really means to an economist is that you're taking labor and capital out of the market (by reducing a bank account balance), and you're allocating it so that unemployed people can use it to consume. The result is that the unemployed person doesn't employ themselves as quickly, and someone else loses their job because there is less money in the market to be used for labor and capital.
Well, first of all, I never mentioned 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor' like as in Robin Hood. However, consumer spending in general is Good for the economy, particularly spending for local services. No one buys more local services for every 'extra dollar' than the poor. Also, the argument that giving tax breaks to the rich because they will 'trickle down' with raises and more hiring is bunk. Businessmen will only give raises and have new hiring if the business 'needs it' not just because they find 'extra' money in their pocket. Some business 'may' feel like they can afford to expand, but most will just pocket the money into some form of savings. Poor people are MUCH more efficient at circulating money than rich.
But don't pretend like "compassion" and a desire for the unfortunate to be successful are traits unique to liberals.
I never said that it is an exclusive trait, 'we' just have more of it. But the real problem is the you believe that this is some kinda 'pissing contest' between Conservative and Liberal, as if these are two opposing camps, constantly at odds with each other, and with little common ground. First of all, I may 'l
Your not the only one whom I've seen tonight who seems to confuse 'left' and 'right' with the notion of a batch of ideas typically represented by a political party. Sure the Republicans generally represent the 'right' and us Democrats the 'left', but Libertarians are typically given the distinction of being 'between' them in the political spectrum. I said in a different comment in this same thread that:
The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" And it is overly simple, but I like it, as I have often described myself as such (not simple, but the "Fiscally conservative..", just to be clear). It completely blows my mind that that Republicans have so totally destroyed the budget with tax breaks, and spending, while their minions spread lies, slander, and filth to their eager base. But what amazes me more is that they have managed to make "liberal" and "left" seem like such dirty words, that when people finally start to move away from the Republican side they insist that they aren't going left, but Libertarian, like it is some kinda 'z axis' on the political spectrum. It seems that many have learn their corrupted messages so well, that some people still cling to the belief that 'Fox News channel' and their ilk represents some kind of balance against the 'liberal media'. Compassion and acknowledging society's ills are hardly limited to liberals.The link points to a writer on some random site, who pulls quotes from Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. The statistical analyst in me screams so loudly that without reading the book, I'll wonder out loud: How did he judge if his respondents were 'conservative', did he include 'tithing', and weekly contributions to one's own church?. Churches are considered charitable organizations, and they are, but most of the money goes to fund 'the club house', and not to directly rectify social ills (some even have gyms, schools, and daycare), unlike say, the United Way, who's club houses it's givers do not directly benefit from.
Really, like feeding/clothing/housing the poor, like Jesus? Sure you "Social Conservatives" talk a good game, but when it comes to real action, you're just political players. Even your charities are only provided with strings attached.
Frankly you'all need to come to the conclusion that the neo-cons have fucked you like a back street whore, and paid you with counterfeit money.
As for Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, they both employ a rhetorical mechanism that liberals are apparently incapable of comprehending.Rhetoric, the undue use of exaggeration or display. Perhaps I need to explain "undue" as well. The thing that pisses 'us' off the most about them is that most do not know their game, and it is a game. The loser is society, and the first casualty is the truth.
8 "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor." -- This commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in relations with others. This also forbids lying.You clearly indicate that you understand that they are lying/ misrepresenting themselves, and you see nothing wrong with it, as a 'balance' for the 'lies from the left'. Bullshit, you better hope that God doesn't have a conspiracy clause for the eight Commandment or you'll be roasting in hell with the rest of them. That's our basic problem on the American left we just can lie like you'all. When someone talks about global warming I need to see proof, not the hyperbole, slander, and smear, so often 'employed' by those you venerate. Sure there are some who are 'too left' for me, and I will openly disagree with them, I have. Unlike you and others like you, I DO NOT BLINDLY SUBMIT TO ANY MAN, and those few whom I choose to follow know my disagreements, even if I choose to table them. Also, I do not believe that I can force others to bend to my will, besides, those who 'bend too easily' have little for me and do not significantly add to my understanding of the world; Unlike Rush and Anne I have no proper use for worshipers such as yourself.
You are very right as to seeing that these self-proclaimed "libertarians" tend not to know of what the subcribe to. While some are 'real' libertarians, that designation is often been miss used by ashamed Republicans. If you need proof just take spin on any crowded highway, keep an eye out for "W" campaign stickers, I'll bet even money that you won't see one. I live in the northeast, and up until about a year ago, one could still see stickers for "W" often on the road, some even from the 2000 campaign, but not any longer. I started seeing this about 6 months ago, only because I have alway looked out for 'those idiots who voted for that bastard'.
There is a deserved, deep distrust with the Republican party these days, and many of them are trying to find a new political stand to lean on. The simple definition of Libertarianism as "Fiscally conservative and socially liberal" is very appealing to intelligent men who fear a burdening deficit may erode our economic health, and talk of 'Christian Values' from leadership which believe that the poor should be forgotten. Years of training by the Water boy and others of his ilk, have colored their arguments 'Red', but I suspect that as they, for the first time in their lives, start considering 'not being a Republican', will take a hard look at the issues and find more carefully considered arguments, than the hyperbole they have accepted as fact for so long. I'll even go out on a limb and say that we may be seeing some big changes of the political landscape. Admittedly, it's a small chance, but I believe that in 2008 we will start seeing Libertarian candidates 'do well' and perhaps even win in some red states (maybe even taking some of the new blue house seats too).
Yes, you're special, just like everyone else :). Aside from that, bias doesn't mean everyone, it means enough hold 'liberal' ideas that this site tends to lead that way. Not that most here would call themselves 'liberal' (as in "tax and spend liberal', or 'liberal weenie'), just that if you really looked at their values you'd be surprised. And I don't mean things like "Family Values", I mean where differences really present themselves, like pollution, hate crimes, gun control, patent reform, copyright issues and others. You can't even do a Ben Franklin Close, and attempt to weigh them equally, you need to understand what really matters to you, and what you would post on.
I also find the lucid arguments of Rousseau's The Social Contract and Bastiat's The Law appealing.)Sure, it's 'nice' that you fondly remember your high school readings of whining 18th and 19th century liberals, dreaming of a world in which they could not live, while trying to be sure not end up on the same streets they feared. However, one cannot balance that out with the daily 'Master serving' rants of Rush Limbaugh or Bill Oreilly, or for that matter Fox News in general. Personally, I watch Keith Olbermann for the bulk of my 'hard news' and John Stewart for the fun stuff. Stephen Colbert does a great lampoon on conservative talk show host in general (and Bill'O specifically), but sometimes I wonder 'how is going to keep it fresh?', of course then another 'WORD' segment and I know that it is still there.
I just wanted you to know that some members of the Slashdot audience are right-wing conservatives who don't have a knee-jerk need to mod down liberals and Democrats. I actually look forward to reading articulate arguments from the "other" side as they help me to clarify my own opinions.Liberal, Conservative, my side, their side, those labels don't really matter. What we really need to look at is what is best for our families, our communities, our countries, and our world. Most people hold too dear 'their side', they clutch tightly to the shreds of former beliefs long before they let go. Not me, a while back I used to call myself a 'Conservative Republican', until I realized that many of the 'Conservative' leaders were snake-oil salesmen (some of them who made the strategic move from 'Democrat' to 'Republican', as they saw the tide changing). At that point I realized that the environment mattered to me, human rights mattered to me, living wages mattered to me, access to healthcare mattered to me, freedom mattered to me and I became a Democrat, rather than rely the deaf ears of the Republican Party to listen to even the most common sense reforms, as ideology has set in firmly with them.
I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal, perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills. As a progressive (read by some as 'raving liberal') myself, I do believe that Slashdot does have a 'liberal bias', otherwise I'd have lots and lots of more 'troll' and 'overrated' hits for many of my comments. Hell my old sig was a flat out insult to neo-cons, if your assertion was correct, I would never have been able to maintain my excellent karma. Also, I work in a corporation, and I'd say that most of the people I know well tend to hold 'liberal' beliefs, even if they would never label themselves as such, as the neo-cons have successfully changed the word to seem an insult rather than a category of political leaning.
That being said I do see a difference between 'true' conservatives who hold to steadfast 'old fashioned' conservative values, and those who play 'lip-service' to those values in an attempt to gain power and control (like Rush 'water boy' Limbaugh, and Anne 'happy widow' Coulter). If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.
The declared 'you', not 'it' or 'everything', and the salute was mainly to bloggers, and others who make content to be shared on the internet.
In 2006, the World Wide Web became a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matterPersonally, I bought a Wii for a Christmas gift, I waited 4 hours in freezing weather, but I got it, and I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Reasonably priced system including a good game, innovative controllers, and games no more expensive than last year, have pushed Nintendo to the front in this generation of game systems. If I had an HDTV I would consider a PS3, as I saw a blu-ray movie on one the other day and WOW what a picture, but I don't intend on buying one until next year, and I cringe about having to buy $75 games for birthday presents.
Well it was 'just' a Beta, but then again so is gmail, Google maps, and every other neat Google application. Of course as a gmail user it does give me pause, as to what I'm really doing.
If it was truly an "American thing" as you say then , we'd still be Old English, the Latin spoken in Roman times, or perhaps cave man style grunts. However I have heard the phrase "I could care less", and I asked "how could you care less?". I guess the best answer is "To care so little I wouldn't bother posting my opinion on it in the first place".
The real trouble is IE compatibility forces people to figure out how to make things work like ":hover" would if you could use it like "div#myMenuItem:hover {...}", as it doesn't properly implement it. BTW I haven't tried the linked technique, but it looks interesting.
Tell that to Gerald Ford our only President not elected to national office.
No, Clinton did not lie to a federal grand jury. In pre-testimony documents, he was given a definition for 'sex' which did not include 'blow job', and correctly stated on the stand that he did not have sex. However most people include a 'blow job' as sex, so when he repeated his assertion on TV, he was wrong to do so, but certainly not under oath. It is true that they not yet caught Bush or any of his Administration lying under oath, as they have never testified under oath, the Republican congress has never required it.
After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dadWas the most 'reasonable' reason I have ever heard that Bush has given for our invasion of Iraq. Perhaps congress will make the distinction that leading us into a disastrous war for a personal grudge, or to shovel money at 'loyal' contractors would be a bribery, or other 'high-crime', since the Constitution is clearly vague as to the definition of every crime except for treason. Speaking of teason, it might be hard to get them on it, unless we can prove that they knew that their buddies in Saudi Arabia where involved in the 9/11 attacks. However, since it isn't "treason, bribery, and other high crimes", two out of three will work just as well. I suspect the impeachment will involve influence peddling, and almost certainly also involving Halliburton and Saudi Arabia.
So then you agree, that how the Bush Administration has been running to our government is wrong, and all of them should be impeached.
Well, the vast majority of them are funny, but the one that says 'the Republican Party will attempt to control science to meet political needs' deserves a prize. How about a 'Medal of Freedom', I hear they are going pretty cheap these days.
That's what I get for doing a Google search on my best guess, I ended up getting someone else's mispelling. However, I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi has seen many misspellings of her name.
I can't wait, for the congressional hearings to start. Actions like this scream for the congressional oversight which has been sorely lacking over the last 6 years. Polowski has insisted that she won't press for impeachment, but I'm guessing that she is waiting for the evidence to come to light. The real question is where to start, the Energy policy dictated by energy companies, Halliburton corruption and it's 'loyalty tests' to get government work, or torpedoing the careers of military men who are unwilling to tow the party line. However, the squashing of 'liberal' scientific opinion is as good as any place to start, I suspect that hundreds of them would be willing to come forth.