The game has strippers. It's Duke. If you can't handle sexist non-PC, then you have no business playing the game. I figured from the beginning that it would be a standard shoot-em-up with the non-PC parts being what makes it more fun.
It's like James Dobson of Focus on the Family reviewing a porno and complaining that it contained explicit sex scenes that made him have to go wash his eyes out and pray for a week straight. Thanks Jim, that's pretty much a positive recommendation from you.
They are when the party, using a combination of popular vote and the desires of the party elite, decide who their nominee will be. I was talking about general elections. But 2008 would still still qualify as the first primary he ever really had to fight for.
1996: Alice Palmer had the Illinois Senate seat, and had it locked, but decides to run for US Congress, appointing Obama as her successor to her seat (yes, with the politics of the area, she could effectively appoint her successor, and he would win). She does poorly in that primary so decides to keep her seat, but Obama, in a beautiful show of gratitude, stabs her in the back by having her disqualified. He also challenges and disqualifies three other opponents. He wins unopposed in the primary. Then he wins the general election unopposed. The district always goes to the Democrat, so Republicans usually don't bother to run.
1998: Unopposed in the primary, weak Republican challenger who wouldn't have had a chance even if Obama had been an axe murderer.
2000: Obama challenges incumbent Bobby Rush for the US Senate seat primary, loses badly.
2002: Unopposed in both primary and general elections for Illinois Senate.
2004: The incumbent decides to leave the US Senate, and both strong, high-profile, and very powerful Democratic challengers decide not to run. Obama is left in the primary against a bunch of nobodies. Then in the general election Obama helped expose his only competition's messy divorce, making him drop out, leaving the election free for Obama to win against a last-minute, no-chance Republican import.
2008: Finally has to fight for an election without first eliminating, or fortunately not having to fight against, the viable competition. Like I said, the Presidency is the only time he's actually had to win an election.
Interesting in having compiled that, I notice the longest he's ever spent not trying to ditch his current office for a higher one is four years. He is the classic power-hungry politician, with a view for nothing more than gaining higher office. He's exactly what's wrong with our current system, the opposite of the citizen legislator it was intended for.
But, yes, my red vinyl "official bootleg" from a Death in June concert is not likely to be on iTunes. At least I don't think so, haven't bothered looking.
But at least I attack her for what she actually says, and for the obvious meaning in context, and don't put up strawman.
Liberals like to say she is a detriment to political discourse in this country, but instances like this show me the opposite is true: Her attackers continually dig from the bottom of the outhouse in their crazed effort to discredit her in any way. It shows, your ignorance of basic things like the date of the Boston Tea Party shows. You are showing your desperation. That she has this effect is one of the very few things I like about her.
If you want to attack someone's ignorant statements, try Obama, Biden or Michelle Bachmann. They've got a ton of them, absolutely indefensible ignorance or just flat-out lies, but you mainly see only Bachmann's in the media.
If this debateable point makes Palin a "stupid twat," then how about Obama thinking Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than his own Illinois, which shares a border? How about him thinking they speak Arabic and Kurdish in Afghanistan? How about him thinking the Selma marches were before he was born?
You used a sexist label, so let's use a racist one, "dumb nigger."
Before and after the question and that statement in response, her point was consistent. She didn't take the the "do you have foreign affairs experience" bait, and kept it generalized.
But, yes, she did have more experience than Obama anyway. Any governor of Alaska must deal with the Russians over issues of oil, gas and fishing.
He wonders how to translate something into the "Austrian" language (there is none).
He gives Region 1 DVDs to the Queen as a present (need Region 2).
He thinks Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois (Illinois has a border with Kentucky, and Arkansas doesn't).
He thinks his parents got together after the Selma marches (he was three years old during the marches),
He thinks people in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly speak the same languages (mostly, Iraqis speak Arabic and Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto and Farsi).
And it doesn't help that his VP is a laugh a minute.
To the extent that they will allow. IOW, she doesn't agree with warmongering in the Bush mold.
The point is that most of the derision of Palin is unfair. Either they portray her factual statements as false, portray her speech with false motivation out of context, and even flat-out make up things.
Me, I just can't stand her voice. Although I like outdoorsy TV, I lasted through only one minute of her TV show because of it. Even Obama's stiff teleprompter recitals are easier to listen to.
The one you missed was the Army bit. She did not say they are on a direct mission from God. In the context of her son being deployed, she said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country â" that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."
She prays that it is a godly mission, does not state it is. This is pretty standard for any big undertaking made by a Christian. The translation for a non-Christian such as me would be to hope that it is a just mission.
On one hand we have the epitome of what a government leader is supposed to be in this country, the citizen legislator, someone with a regular life who decided to take on the calling of office (in her case, initially replacing a corrupt Republican mayor, then a corrupt Republican governor). Having such a person gives us a good probably that something might change instead of continuing the will of the political powers.
On the other hand you have the career politician, groomed from early on to punch all the right tickets for a career in politics, such as the Ivy League education (In which he migh have gotten all Cs as far as we know, he won't let the records be released). Such a person guarantees the status quo who will obey the will of his party's elite.
I'll take the citizen legislator any day, even if I don't like her.
"And excuse me , unopposed? You may have heard of the Clinton family before, he had to run against Hilary "
Obama opposed Hillary Clinton in his run for President? Interesting.
"Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along."
animal who was groomed for the spot. What did Palin have over Obama before the election? Actual experience being a government executive, and having fairly won at least one election as a non-incumbent. Yes, the presidency was the first non-incumbent election Obama ever won without first having the viable competition eliminated (Alice Palmer, Jack Ryan), letting him run effectively unopposed.
And then he basically spent his only two years in the US Senate running for President.
As ill-qualified as Palin is, she's still far better than Obama.
She said Paul Revere on that night warned the British that an armed militia was forming, and to back off. The leftist media slammed her as ignorant. Then it turns out that yes, Paul Revere did warn the British that night, it's right there in his memoirs.
Just like recently she said not to "party like its 1773" just yet. She was slammed for her ignorance that the revolution happened in 1776, one well-known blogger writing "WTF happened in 1773?!" But she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which indeed happened in 1773.
They want to nail her so bad they show their own ignorance in trying. They are just trying to hard to perpetuate the "Palin is dumb" meme. This is almost as bad as them deriding her for saying she can see Russia from her house, which she never even said.
Not that I like Palin, I could never vote for a religious fundamentalist Intelligent Designer, but it's funny to see this rabidly mad group trying to show its superiority, and in the process showing its inferiority -- to her no less.
They did the Canadian side such as getting us evidence in Canada (like lying about his relationship with a known terrorist's brother), and we caught him and shipped him off to Syria.
Nope, none, just a lie to get us to support a war.
"will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days"
Absolutely within his power as President to unilaterally accomplish, no compromising necessary. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was non-emergency and Obama decided to sign it two days after passing with no posting on the White House web site.
"Letâ(TM)s look at the number 1. Number 1, thatâ(TM)s the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office."
That's Michelle Bachmann. The Obama administration had approved 276 permits by the time she said that.
"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"
Another Bachmann classic. Maybe she's not lying, maybe she's just plain crazy.
And I could fill a small book with the various lies politicians say about guns in order to further their agendas.
I'm not talking about promises they couldn't fulfill due to realities, I'm talking about lies.
Well, they definitely did that when they denied all the tobacco industry studies showing smoking isn't bad for you. And why do they continue to deny all the "scientific" research done by the Intelligent Design crowd?
There is a difference here. One is science for the sake of science, which is then used by governments to set policy, and (even better) people to help them make better decisions. I think that's great.
Another is "science" for the goal of influencing policy in a certain direction, exactly as the tobacco industry did, exactly as the IDers do, and to a large extent the environmental movement is quite guilty. The person in the article flat-out admitted that he is of the latter type, believing in agenda-driven (and thus in my opinion biased) "science."
to others. Not a personal act such as smoking or eating fatty, salty or sugary foods. There are many totalitarians who would like to ban those things. Funny, these same people probably protested against the PATRIOT Act, not seeing their own hypocrisy.
Even then, that's a government value judgment. Science can say "X has Y effect." It is the government's job to decide whether "Y effect" is a good or bad thing. Arctic ice is breaking up, is it good or bad? I'm being told it's bad. But will be the first time in modern history shipping will be able to go through there, saving time and energy. So maybe it's good. That's a value judgment, not for science to decide.
If we discover A is poisonous, then it is a good thing to report that to the government.
If we are trying to convince people A is poisonous, then our science is suspect because we have a big incentive to make sure the conclusion is what we desired.
"so that what is good is pushed forward and what is not is forbidden"
That is a VERY scary authoritarian attitude. Science doesn't make the value judgment of "good" or "bad." Second, it's not the government's place to forbid "bad" things to me, Mr. Orwell.
Slashdot Mirror
The game has strippers. It's Duke. If you can't handle sexist non-PC, then you have no business playing the game. I figured from the beginning that it would be a standard shoot-em-up with the non-PC parts being what makes it more fun.
It's like James Dobson of Focus on the Family reviewing a porno and complaining that it contained explicit sex scenes that made him have to go wash his eyes out and pray for a week straight. Thanks Jim, that's pretty much a positive recommendation from you.
They are when the party, using a combination of popular vote and the desires of the party elite, decide who their nominee will be. I was talking about general elections. But 2008 would still still qualify as the first primary he ever really had to fight for.
1996: Alice Palmer had the Illinois Senate seat, and had it locked, but decides to run for US Congress, appointing Obama as her successor to her seat (yes, with the politics of the area, she could effectively appoint her successor, and he would win). She does poorly in that primary so decides to keep her seat, but Obama, in a beautiful show of gratitude, stabs her in the back by having her disqualified. He also challenges and disqualifies three other opponents. He wins unopposed in the primary. Then he wins the general election unopposed. The district always goes to the Democrat, so Republicans usually don't bother to run.
1998: Unopposed in the primary, weak Republican challenger who wouldn't have had a chance even if Obama had been an axe murderer.
2000: Obama challenges incumbent Bobby Rush for the US Senate seat primary, loses badly.
2002: Unopposed in both primary and general elections for Illinois Senate.
2004: The incumbent decides to leave the US Senate, and both strong, high-profile, and very powerful Democratic challengers decide not to run. Obama is left in the primary against a bunch of nobodies. Then in the general election Obama helped expose his only competition's messy divorce, making him drop out, leaving the election free for Obama to win against a last-minute, no-chance Republican import.
2008: Finally has to fight for an election without first eliminating, or fortunately not having to fight against, the viable competition. Like I said, the Presidency is the only time he's actually had to win an election.
Interesting in having compiled that, I notice the longest he's ever spent not trying to ditch his current office for a higher one is four years. He is the classic power-hungry politician, with a view for nothing more than gaining higher office. He's exactly what's wrong with our current system, the opposite of the citizen legislator it was intended for.
And I understand the concept. They have already determined that they think it is just. They then pray they have made a decision that pleases God.
You're just showing me more attack from ignorance.
Albums I never expected to find.
But, yes, my red vinyl "official bootleg" from a Death in June concert is not likely to be on iTunes. At least I don't think so, haven't bothered looking.
I've done it here.
But at least I attack her for what she actually says, and for the obvious meaning in context, and don't put up strawman.
Liberals like to say she is a detriment to political discourse in this country, but instances like this show me the opposite is true: Her attackers continually dig from the bottom of the outhouse in their crazed effort to discredit her in any way. It shows, your ignorance of basic things like the date of the Boston Tea Party shows. You are showing your desperation. That she has this effect is one of the very few things I like about her.
If you want to attack someone's ignorant statements, try Obama, Biden or Michelle Bachmann. They've got a ton of them, absolutely indefensible ignorance or just flat-out lies, but you mainly see only Bachmann's in the media.
If this debateable point makes Palin a "stupid twat," then how about Obama thinking Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than his own Illinois, which shares a border? How about him thinking they speak Arabic and Kurdish in Afghanistan? How about him thinking the Selma marches were before he was born?
You used a sexist label, so let's use a racist one, "dumb nigger."
In that state, even the meanings of plain words and context can't get through.
Read what she actually said.
Before and after the question and that statement in response, her point was consistent. She didn't take the the "do you have foreign affairs experience" bait, and kept it generalized.
But, yes, she did have more experience than Obama anyway. Any governor of Alaska must deal with the Russians over issues of oil, gas and fishing.
Look at your own guy:
He wonders how to translate something into the "Austrian" language (there is none).
He gives Region 1 DVDs to the Queen as a present (need Region 2).
He thinks Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois (Illinois has a border with Kentucky, and Arkansas doesn't).
He thinks his parents got together after the Selma marches (he was three years old during the marches),
He thinks people in Iraq and Afghanistan mostly speak the same languages (mostly, Iraqis speak Arabic and Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto and Farsi).
And it doesn't help that his VP is a laugh a minute.
To the extent that they will allow. IOW, she doesn't agree with warmongering in the Bush mold.
The point is that most of the derision of Palin is unfair. Either they portray her factual statements as false, portray her speech with false motivation out of context, and even flat-out make up things.
Me, I just can't stand her voice. Although I like outdoorsy TV, I lasted through only one minute of her TV show because of it. Even Obama's stiff teleprompter recitals are easier to listen to.
That's better than most Palin smears.
The one you missed was the Army bit. She did not say they are on a direct mission from God. In the context of her son being deployed, she said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do also what is right for this country â" that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God."
She prays that it is a godly mission, does not state it is. This is pretty standard for any big undertaking made by a Christian. The translation for a non-Christian such as me would be to hope that it is a just mission.
On one hand we have the epitome of what a government leader is supposed to be in this country, the citizen legislator, someone with a regular life who decided to take on the calling of office (in her case, initially replacing a corrupt Republican mayor, then a corrupt Republican governor). Having such a person gives us a good probably that something might change instead of continuing the will of the political powers.
On the other hand you have the career politician, groomed from early on to punch all the right tickets for a career in politics, such as the Ivy League education (In which he migh have gotten all Cs as far as we know, he won't let the records be released). Such a person guarantees the status quo who will obey the will of his party's elite.
I'll take the citizen legislator any day, even if I don't like her.
"And excuse me , unopposed? You may have heard of the Clinton family before, he had to run against Hilary "
Obama opposed Hillary Clinton in his run for President? Interesting.
Pick apart regular speech as if you are opposite someone defending a thesis so you can ignore the larger truth.
For some reason, partisans never seem to do it with the speech of their own.
Been to the 57th state lately?
If you're 20 and conservative, you don't have a heart.
If you're 40 and liberal, you don't have a brain.
Her next statement
"Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along."
Do you disagree with that?
animal who was groomed for the spot. What did Palin have over Obama before the election? Actual experience being a government executive, and having fairly won at least one election as a non-incumbent. Yes, the presidency was the first non-incumbent election Obama ever won without first having the viable competition eliminated (Alice Palmer, Jack Ryan), letting him run effectively unopposed.
And then he basically spent his only two years in the US Senate running for President.
As ill-qualified as Palin is, she's still far better than Obama.
She said Paul Revere on that night warned the British that an armed militia was forming, and to back off. The leftist media slammed her as ignorant. Then it turns out that yes, Paul Revere did warn the British that night, it's right there in his memoirs.
Just like recently she said not to "party like its 1773" just yet. She was slammed for her ignorance that the revolution happened in 1776, one well-known blogger writing "WTF happened in 1773?!" But she was referencing the Boston Tea Party, which indeed happened in 1773.
They want to nail her so bad they show their own ignorance in trying. They are just trying to hard to perpetuate the "Palin is dumb" meme. This is almost as bad as them deriding her for saying she can see Russia from her house, which she never even said.
Not that I like Palin, I could never vote for a religious fundamentalist Intelligent Designer, but it's funny to see this rabidly mad group trying to show its superiority, and in the process showing its inferiority -- to her no less.
They did the Canadian side such as getting us evidence in Canada (like lying about his relationship with a known terrorist's brother), and we caught him and shipped him off to Syria.
Remember the Leonard Peltier extradition?
"I did not have sex with that woman"
Nope, he did it.
"There are WMDs in Iraq"
Nope, none, just a lie to get us to support a war.
"will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days"
Absolutely within his power as President to unilaterally accomplish, no compromising necessary. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was non-emergency and Obama decided to sign it two days after passing with no posting on the White House web site.
"Letâ(TM)s look at the number 1. Number 1, thatâ(TM)s the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office."
That's Michelle Bachmann. The Obama administration had approved 276 permits by the time she said that.
"They're advocating net neutrality, which is essentially censorship of the Internet!"
Another Bachmann classic. Maybe she's not lying, maybe she's just plain crazy.
And I could fill a small book with the various lies politicians say about guns in order to further their agendas.
I'm not talking about promises they couldn't fulfill due to realities, I'm talking about lies.
"Isn't exactly that attitude the source of all our problems"
No, the lying is the source of the problems. Talk about blaming the victim.
Well, they definitely did that when they denied all the tobacco industry studies showing smoking isn't bad for you. And why do they continue to deny all the "scientific" research done by the Intelligent Design crowd?
There is a difference here. One is science for the sake of science, which is then used by governments to set policy, and (even better) people to help them make better decisions. I think that's great.
Another is "science" for the goal of influencing policy in a certain direction, exactly as the tobacco industry did, exactly as the IDers do, and to a large extent the environmental movement is quite guilty. The person in the article flat-out admitted that he is of the latter type, believing in agenda-driven (and thus in my opinion biased) "science."
to others. Not a personal act such as smoking or eating fatty, salty or sugary foods. There are many totalitarians who would like to ban those things. Funny, these same people probably protested against the PATRIOT Act, not seeing their own hypocrisy.
Even then, that's a government value judgment. Science can say "X has Y effect." It is the government's job to decide whether "Y effect" is a good or bad thing. Arctic ice is breaking up, is it good or bad? I'm being told it's bad. But will be the first time in modern history shipping will be able to go through there, saving time and energy. So maybe it's good. That's a value judgment, not for science to decide.
Doesn't that pretty much define most of our politicians anyway?
If we discover A is poisonous, then it is a good thing to report that to the government.
If we are trying to convince people A is poisonous, then our science is suspect because we have a big incentive to make sure the conclusion is what we desired.
"so that what is good is pushed forward and what is not is forbidden"
That is a VERY scary authoritarian attitude. Science doesn't make the value judgment of "good" or "bad." Second, it's not the government's place to forbid "bad" things to me, Mr. Orwell.
But don't mind an agenda from others?
Probably only if they're liberal, right?