Whatever happened to letting the parents do their job and parent?
This isn't about parenting.
It's about politicians who know they can get votes by appearing to be "pro-family", while simultaneously getting money from a whole bunch of lobbyists and gaining all sorts of power over everyone.
This has nothing at all to do with parenting or children.
I love the way you keep on quoting one part of your sentence, and ignoring the end of it, and also ignoring the post where you claimed that this was all just partisan nonsense.
Go fuck yourself with a jagged glass dildo, you idiotic, racist, fascist troll. I hope you almost die in a fire.
l. I said nothing remotely similar to anything you've ascribed to me!
You clearly and distinctly stated your opinion that complaints about Bush are nothing more than "but it's the OTHER guy this time" whining, and that while Bush is bad, he is not that bad in a historical context.
As such, you either don't believe those claims (and were making them solely to be inflammatory), or you don't believe what you wrote later.
Either way, you were lying at least part of the time.
The British routinely complained that Americans did not fight "fair".
They did ungentlemanly things, like fire on marching troops from behind trees, instead of lining up to shoot each other in the face, as was the British custom.
Asymmetrical warfare is not new. The larger force always calls it evil, but the smaller force knows it is the only way to fight.
Nice attack, asshole.
You said exactly what I claimed you did.
I love when assholes who can't back up their own arguments simply try to claim falsehood, knowing that lazy, ignorant readers will believe them some of the time. And that only lazy, ignorant readers would agree with your position that Bush is not a notably bad President.
No, you made the exact opposite clear by claiming his behaviour is not particularly different than that of other Presidents.
You made it clear that you feel he's only *slightly* worse than other Presidents in your lifetime, and that you feel that most of this is simple "oh the other guy won, so I am complaining."
It is hilarious to hear somebody like you (a right-wing shit, if ever there was one) claiming that you think Bush is bad, when you have barely acknowledged that, and have repeatedly asserted that he's not really *that* bad, and that you believe most of it is just partisan complaining.
You're out of touch with reality. Stop listening to Rush and Hannity, stop watching O'Reilly, stop reading Drudge, and maybe in a year or two you'll have enough independent brain cells active to recognize that your claims about Bush are asinine, and could ONLY be made by a GOP party lackey.
I love it when right-wingers try to pretend they are all neutral, but in reality they have listened to so much Rush Limbaugh that they have been convinced "Liberals" are destroying America.
When reality is that both major parties suck. One just prefers to slaughter foreigners while they waste money.
I didn't use it extensively, but I did use it. I tried to figure out how to type on it for a good 30 minutes, and I was never able to get above maybe 70% accuracy. That said, I really liked the way everything else worked, and how fast and easy it was to launch and switch applications.
Maybe I could learn to use the iPhone in time, but out of the box, I couldn't type on it at all. I assume my fingers were too large.
That said, I loved the way everything except typing works on the iPhone. Everything is faster and easier than it is on my BlackBerry. Right up until the point where I want to use the keyboard.
I know. If only the other guys would say that more often, since they are always wrong.
Expecting our side to say that? Well, that's just plain ignorant!
Clearly this is an implication that this is just politics as usual, no better or worse than anything else that normally happens in history.
Then he wrote:
Look, Bush is pretty bad and the least favorite President I've seen (and that's saying a lot), but he's nothing particularly special, sorry.
Where he acknowledges some minor wrongdoing, but the (and that's saying a lot) implies that there are other presidents who he felt were horrifically bad. Given the average age on slashdot (what is it, 30-something?), that basically means that he hated Clinton. Nobody really hates the original Bush... they might not like him, but he's not hated. Most slashdotters are too young to remember anything else.
So as such, he's basically saying "Clinton was a horrible fucking president, but Bush edged him out, barely... but historically speaking, he's not that bad."
Sure, if you don't bother to parse his words, you can pretend he's objective, but if you take the time to understand what he's saying, it's fucking obvious that he's just a right-wing shit.
Anyway, have fun defending your Fox News buddy. You guys can grow old talking about how evil Clinton was, and how Carter was the worst president in history, as the dollar continues to plummet, the debt continues to soar and the US continues to execute horrifically expensive and pointless wars, that accomplish nothing, except to earn the ire of the rest of the world.
If you don't think that's historically significant, then you are clearly disconnected from reality.
Trying to pretend that the guy you've supported for the past 6 years isn't a complete and total fuckup, only a little one.
Trying to pretend that it was just one guy who screwed up a little, not an entire party that lined up and marched right the fuck into harms way and lied about it the whole way.
No, your post clearly indicates that you're nothing more than a propagandist.
I guess there's some small chance that you don't think it's a big deal to double the national debt while claiming to be a fiscal conservative, or to start a war that has killed thousands of our troops, injured tens of thousands more, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and destroyed the lives and welfare of millions more.
But no, I don't think that's true. I think you're a right-wing apologist, trying to get stupid fucks to believe that Bush was acting alone, and it wasn't really that bad. That or you're a fucking idiot.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume that some minor amount of thought occurred prior to your decision to post one of the dumbest strings of words I have ever seen in print. Perhaps you really are just slightly dumber than dirt.
If Tivo really gave customers what they wanted, they wouldn't be collecting and selling clickstreams,
This complaint goes into the paranoia file. I like that TiVo sells my anonymized clickstreams. The way I see it, they'll be telling a bunch of network executives that a member of a really good demographic (30s, wealthy neighborhood, owns some expensive toys, like an HD DirecTV TiVo) likes the following shows, movies and sports.
Hopefully this will help keep those shows, movies and sports broadcasts alive, just a little bit longer. And it could do so without any negative effects on me, at all.
they wouldn't be pushing ads into the UI,
I'd agree on this one, if I had the foggiest clue what you're talking about. Maybe the HD DirecTiVo lacks this or something. The closest thing I've seen to an "ad" is an occasional promotional item on the first menu. It's certainly never bothered me any.
they'd have a 30-second skip (without a hack)
I also have a Hughes HD DVR. It has 30 second skip. I can skip 'em more reliably with TiVo, triple-speed FF, then hit play. With the Hughes 30 second skip, i end up doing 6 30 second skips, then seeing if there are more ads, and if so, hitting it another time or two, and then having to use the 8 second back button to fix everything.
It's way more annoying than the TiVo stock FF.
and auto commercial skipping.
If they added this, they'd spend all of their money fighting the networks, the advertisers and such. It'd be great, but realistically, no commercially viable product can contain this feature today.
P.S. Thanks in advance for your reply in which you address my lack of civility, and ignore the fact that you are an enormous partisan asshole, parading around and pretending to be neutral, when in reality you have a pH of about 0.1.
Your posts seem to indicate that you won't dismiss something if it comes from a right-wing source.
You clearly have two standards of evidence, depending on whether or not one agrees with your idealogy.
Your claim that Bush is acting normally, no different or worse than any other President is asinine. It could only be made by somebody who has let go of all truth, fact and reason, probably via a heavy diet of confirmation bias (made easy by skimming right-wing news sites) and cognitive dissonance.
That said, there is no point in arguing with somebody who is so fucking far gone down the road wacko that they believe Bush isn't a standout in history.
He's overseen the collapse of the dollar, the doubling of the debt, and a ludicrously expensive war that has not met any of the claimed objectives. And yet you claim he is normal.
I am glad the Internet exists. Because without it, I would not believe that the world includes people as incredibly fucking stupid, useless and awful as you.
and brings to light the fact that both traditional political parties would logically oppose what is being done to our country
This is so sadly accurate.
It amazes me that there are fiscal conservatives who can still look me in the eye, and claim that the GOP is deserving of their support. I've stopped arguing with those people, because it has become far too obvious that they long ago lost interest in truth.
As such, there's nothing to do but to let them get more partisan, more radicalized, and more dangerous, and hope that they alienate themselves before they can make things even worse.
Cars, beers and TVs all work in roughly the same way.
SUSE Linux is a fine example of why choice is confusing and bad. In a modern version of SUSE, you can install software via RPM, YaST, apt, rug, zypper and yum.
Depending on what you read, you will find directives to use one or another, or some combination thereof, but it's all very confusing and difficult to understand what is different about them, and why the user should care.
The user would have been vastly better served with a single, slightly less advanced option. But no, Linux users insist that choice is good, when reality is that choice is expensive, inefficient and a pain in the ass.
If some parents prefer a religious school, is it that big of a deal?
Yes, and if you don't understand why, you should give up your citizenship.
the drug trafficking, the weapon smuggling and the flood of humans coming over the border
Wow, that's some sensationalist verbiage you spewed there. You should work in news, and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Drug trafficking is unrelated to illegal immigration. People sometimes conflate them to try to create an emotional issue, or to try to create a false dilemma. The guy walking through the desert to try to build a life that can sustain his family is not carrying drugs or guns. He's carrying a bottle of water. Even ignoring the debate about the efficacy or intelligence of the "War on Drugs", you made a pointless argument because they are two separate groups of people.
Weapon smuggling: see above. Additionally, there is no significant problem with weapons being smuggled from foreign countries. There's no domestic shortage of weapons. There are problems with straw buyers, stolen guns, and all sorts of under the table nonsense. But none of that has anything to do with immigration.
Flood of humans: They're here because there are jobs for them. If anybody was serious about it, they'd just crack down on employers and it'd be problem solved in a year flat. No fences, no debates, no sanctimonious speeches. Just put some big fines on the existing laws and enforce them. Done.
As such, I am thoroughly convinced that illegal immigration as a topic of debate exists solely so that jackasses like you will try to pretend it's worth discussion, when the reality is that there are dozens of problems far more pressing, that will affect our children far more deeply, and that will affect our lives in more significant ways.
But we wouldn't want a candidate talk about America's *real* problems, now would we. Easier to just rile up retards like you about illegal immigration.
All of the studies I have seen about the net economic of undocumented workers is that it is either slightly positive, or slightly negative. The economists seem to agree that whichever way it goes, the figure is small.
As such, any significant expenditures to deal with the "problem" hurt me far more than the initial problem.
--
That said, we live in a time where there are so many problems that are vastly more important, the expanding authoritarianism of the government, the mess in Iraq, issues with foreign policy, the plummeting dollar the whole question of what one should do with American military might.
These are important questions that should be debated. But instead they bring up illegal immigration, because it's a tiny, unimportant issue that idiots like you can buy into. Or argue against.
Either way, only a fucking retard would bother arguing that illegal immigration is a problem worthy of first place in our current national discussion. Congratulations sir, you are that retard.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever happened to letting the parents do their job and parent?
This isn't about parenting.
It's about politicians who know they can get votes by appearing to be "pro-family", while simultaneously getting money from a whole bunch of lobbyists and gaining all sorts of power over everyone.
This has nothing at all to do with parenting or children.
I love the way you keep on quoting one part of your sentence, and ignoring the end of it, and also ignoring the post where you claimed that this was all just partisan nonsense.
Go fuck yourself with a jagged glass dildo, you idiotic, racist, fascist troll. I hope you almost die in a fire.
l. I said nothing remotely similar to anything you've ascribed to me!
You clearly and distinctly stated your opinion that complaints about Bush are nothing more than "but it's the OTHER guy this time" whining, and that while Bush is bad, he is not that bad in a historical context.
As such, you either don't believe those claims (and were making them solely to be inflammatory), or you don't believe what you wrote later.
Either way, you were lying at least part of the time.
The British routinely complained that Americans did not fight "fair".
They did ungentlemanly things, like fire on marching troops from behind trees, instead of lining up to shoot each other in the face, as was the British custom.
Asymmetrical warfare is not new. The larger force always calls it evil, but the smaller force knows it is the only way to fight.
Nice attack, asshole. You said exactly what I claimed you did. I love when assholes who can't back up their own arguments simply try to claim falsehood, knowing that lazy, ignorant readers will believe them some of the time. And that only lazy, ignorant readers would agree with your position that Bush is not a notably bad President.
I've made it clear I think Bush is very bad,
No, you made the exact opposite clear by claiming his behaviour is not particularly different than that of other Presidents.
You made it clear that you feel he's only *slightly* worse than other Presidents in your lifetime, and that you feel that most of this is simple "oh the other guy won, so I am complaining."
It is hilarious to hear somebody like you (a right-wing shit, if ever there was one) claiming that you think Bush is bad, when you have barely acknowledged that, and have repeatedly asserted that he's not really *that* bad, and that you believe most of it is just partisan complaining.
You're out of touch with reality. Stop listening to Rush and Hannity, stop watching O'Reilly, stop reading Drudge, and maybe in a year or two you'll have enough independent brain cells active to recognize that your claims about Bush are asinine, and could ONLY be made by a GOP party lackey.
I never denied acting like an asshole, but your post is hilariously hypocritical.
Go fuck yourself with a Nazi salute, you right-wing shit.
It amuses me how many liberal say....
Ha! I knew you were a right-wing shit.
I love it when right-wingers try to pretend they are all neutral, but in reality they have listened to so much Rush Limbaugh that they have been convinced "Liberals" are destroying America.
When reality is that both major parties suck. One just prefers to slaughter foreigners while they waste money.
I didn't use it extensively, but I did use it. I tried to figure out how to type on it for a good 30 minutes, and I was never able to get above maybe 70% accuracy. That said, I really liked the way everything else worked, and how fast and easy it was to launch and switch applications.
Maybe I could learn to use the iPhone in time, but out of the box, I couldn't type on it at all. I assume my fingers were too large.
That said, I loved the way everything except typing works on the iPhone. Everything is faster and easier than it is on my BlackBerry. Right up until the point where I want to use the keyboard.
The OP first wrote:
Clearly this is an implication that this is just politics as usual, no better or worse than anything else that normally happens in history.
Then he wrote:
Where he acknowledges some minor wrongdoing, but the (and that's saying a lot) implies that there are other presidents who he felt were horrifically bad. Given the average age on slashdot (what is it, 30-something?), that basically means that he hated Clinton. Nobody really hates the original Bush... they might not like him, but he's not hated. Most slashdotters are too young to remember anything else.
So as such, he's basically saying "Clinton was a horrible fucking president, but Bush edged him out, barely... but historically speaking, he's not that bad."
Sure, if you don't bother to parse his words, you can pretend he's objective, but if you take the time to understand what he's saying, it's fucking obvious that he's just a right-wing shit.
Anyway, have fun defending your Fox News buddy. You guys can grow old talking about how evil Clinton was, and how Carter was the worst president in history, as the dollar continues to plummet, the debt continues to soar and the US continues to execute horrifically expensive and pointless wars, that accomplish nothing, except to earn the ire of the rest of the world.
If you don't think that's historically significant, then you are clearly disconnected from reality.
You're just a right-wing shit in apologist mode.
Trying to pretend that the guy you've supported for the past 6 years isn't a complete and total fuckup, only a little one.
Trying to pretend that it was just one guy who screwed up a little, not an entire party that lined up and marched right the fuck into harms way and lied about it the whole way.
No, your post clearly indicates that you're nothing more than a propagandist.
I guess there's some small chance that you don't think it's a big deal to double the national debt while claiming to be a fiscal conservative, or to start a war that has killed thousands of our troops, injured tens of thousands more, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and destroyed the lives and welfare of millions more.
But no, I don't think that's true. I think you're a right-wing apologist, trying to get stupid fucks to believe that Bush was acting alone, and it wasn't really that bad. That or you're a fucking idiot.
Perhaps I was wrong to assume that some minor amount of thought occurred prior to your decision to post one of the dumbest strings of words I have ever seen in print. Perhaps you really are just slightly dumber than dirt.
I hope you nearly die in a grease fire, you idiotic fascist fuck.
If Tivo really gave customers what they wanted, they wouldn't be collecting and selling clickstreams,
This complaint goes into the paranoia file. I like that TiVo sells my anonymized clickstreams. The way I see it, they'll be telling a bunch of network executives that a member of a really good demographic (30s, wealthy neighborhood, owns some expensive toys, like an HD DirecTV TiVo) likes the following shows, movies and sports.
Hopefully this will help keep those shows, movies and sports broadcasts alive, just a little bit longer. And it could do so without any negative effects on me, at all.
they wouldn't be pushing ads into the UI,
I'd agree on this one, if I had the foggiest clue what you're talking about. Maybe the HD DirecTiVo lacks this or something. The closest thing I've seen to an "ad" is an occasional promotional item on the first menu. It's certainly never bothered me any.
they'd have a 30-second skip (without a hack)
I also have a Hughes HD DVR. It has 30 second skip. I can skip 'em more reliably with TiVo, triple-speed FF, then hit play. With the Hughes 30 second skip, i end up doing 6 30 second skips, then seeing if there are more ads, and if so, hitting it another time or two, and then having to use the 8 second back button to fix everything.
It's way more annoying than the TiVo stock FF.
and auto commercial skipping.
If they added this, they'd spend all of their money fighting the networks, the advertisers and such. It'd be great, but realistically, no commercially viable product can contain this feature today.
P.S. Thanks in advance for your reply in which you address my lack of civility, and ignore the fact that you are an enormous partisan asshole, parading around and pretending to be neutral, when in reality you have a pH of about 0.1.
Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of cunts.
Your posts seem to indicate that you won't dismiss something if it comes from a right-wing source.
You clearly have two standards of evidence, depending on whether or not one agrees with your idealogy.
Your claim that Bush is acting normally, no different or worse than any other President is asinine. It could only be made by somebody who has let go of all truth, fact and reason, probably via a heavy diet of confirmation bias (made easy by skimming right-wing news sites) and cognitive dissonance.
That said, there is no point in arguing with somebody who is so fucking far gone down the road wacko that they believe Bush isn't a standout in history.
He's overseen the collapse of the dollar, the doubling of the debt, and a ludicrously expensive war that has not met any of the claimed objectives. And yet you claim he is normal.
I am glad the Internet exists. Because without it, I would not believe that the world includes people as incredibly fucking stupid, useless and awful as you.
and brings to light the fact that both traditional political parties would logically oppose what is being done to our country
This is so sadly accurate.
It amazes me that there are fiscal conservatives who can still look me in the eye, and claim that the GOP is deserving of their support. I've stopped arguing with those people, because it has become far too obvious that they long ago lost interest in truth.
As such, there's nothing to do but to let them get more partisan, more radicalized, and more dangerous, and hope that they alienate themselves before they can make things even worse.
I'm sorry, I'll still look at things objectively.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Your mistake was in thinking that a slashdot user has interest in debate.
They do not. They exist to confirm the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, and to spew their beliefs.
They do not come to gain insight or understanding. Your optimism is misplaced.
I really, really wish I could say no.
I wonder if this guy thinks that the Tata Indica (great name for a car, isn't it?) is a roadblock for McLaren and Ferrari.
Cars, beers and TVs all work in roughly the same way.
SUSE Linux is a fine example of why choice is confusing and bad. In a modern version of SUSE, you can install software via RPM, YaST, apt, rug, zypper and yum.
Depending on what you read, you will find directives to use one or another, or some combination thereof, but it's all very confusing and difficult to understand what is different about them, and why the user should care.
The user would have been vastly better served with a single, slightly less advanced option. But no, Linux users insist that choice is good, when reality is that choice is expensive, inefficient and a pain in the ass.
That's a very good solution, assuming you hate money, are extraordinarily careless, or you plan to commit large amounts of insurance fraud.
If one of those isn't true, you'd be better off skipping the insurance, and just replacing the stuff yourself, occasionally.
If some parents prefer a religious school, is it that big of a deal?
Yes, and if you don't understand why, you should give up your citizenship.
the drug trafficking, the weapon smuggling and the flood of humans coming over the border
Wow, that's some sensationalist verbiage you spewed there. You should work in news, and I mean that in the worst possible way.
Drug trafficking is unrelated to illegal immigration. People sometimes conflate them to try to create an emotional issue, or to try to create a false dilemma. The guy walking through the desert to try to build a life that can sustain his family is not carrying drugs or guns. He's carrying a bottle of water. Even ignoring the debate about the efficacy or intelligence of the "War on Drugs", you made a pointless argument because they are two separate groups of people.
Weapon smuggling: see above. Additionally, there is no significant problem with weapons being smuggled from foreign countries. There's no domestic shortage of weapons. There are problems with straw buyers, stolen guns, and all sorts of under the table nonsense. But none of that has anything to do with immigration.
Flood of humans: They're here because there are jobs for them. If anybody was serious about it, they'd just crack down on employers and it'd be problem solved in a year flat. No fences, no debates, no sanctimonious speeches. Just put some big fines on the existing laws and enforce them. Done.
As such, I am thoroughly convinced that illegal immigration as a topic of debate exists solely so that jackasses like you will try to pretend it's worth discussion, when the reality is that there are dozens of problems far more pressing, that will affect our children far more deeply, and that will affect our lives in more significant ways.
But we wouldn't want a candidate talk about America's *real* problems, now would we. Easier to just rile up retards like you about illegal immigration.
Do you have any citations?
All of the studies I have seen about the net economic of undocumented workers is that it is either slightly positive, or slightly negative. The economists seem to agree that whichever way it goes, the figure is small.
As such, any significant expenditures to deal with the "problem" hurt me far more than the initial problem.
--
That said, we live in a time where there are so many problems that are vastly more important, the expanding authoritarianism of the government, the mess in Iraq, issues with foreign policy, the plummeting dollar the whole question of what one should do with American military might.
These are important questions that should be debated. But instead they bring up illegal immigration, because it's a tiny, unimportant issue that idiots like you can buy into. Or argue against.
Either way, only a fucking retard would bother arguing that illegal immigration is a problem worthy of first place in our current national discussion. Congratulations sir, you are that retard.