LOL. You play about as fast and loose with assumptions as Chomsky does. Matter of fact, I have read Chomsky...enough to know that his only real goal is the prostration of the U.S. using any means, fair or foul. The guy is a linguistics genius, no doubt, but his politics suck.
Sophal Ear is a remarkable young Cambodian scholar who lived to tell the world about the horrors of Pol Pot's regime. His webpage is full of information on the "Cambodian Auto-Genocide," along with studies of the Cambodian economy, some of his favorite quotations, and links to his favorite sites. But perhaps the most interesting feature on this page is Sophal's exhaustive study of Western intellectuals' response to Pol Pot's regime. Is there really a leftist double-standard that overlooks any crime committed with socialist intentions? After reading Sophal's paper, there can be little doubt. Particularly valuable is Sophal's analysis of Noam Chomsky's writings on Cambodia and the Western media. Chomsky's critics have accused him of apologizing for mass murder; his defenders have replied that Chomsky did nothing of the kind. The truth, Sophal argues, is that Chomsky was a kind of apologist-by-stealth -- who doggedly attacked any errors in Western coverage of Cambodia while refraining from commenting on the basic fact that over a million Cambodians had been murdered. Chomsky's charges of (right-wing) media bias simply don't withstand examination, Sophal notes, for numerically small human rights abuses in U.S.-allied South Korea and Chile got far more media attention than Cambodia. Careful study of this site will make you wonder not only at the capacity of the State for senseless brutality, but of the recurring capacity of Western intellectuals to defend senseless brutality as a high virtue.
I'm sorry, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so, whatever party line I'm parotting, it isn't his.
I notice you so slighly chose not to comment of American leftists who have killed Americans, or have you guys finally decided to disown the Black Panthers and the Weathermen and Ayers?
There is a difference between purposely targeting civilians for the purpose of terrorizing a population, and accidentally inflicting civilian casualties when attacking military targets.
The WTC bombings are also a scale of magnitude greater than the civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan.
There is also the consideration that generally we in the U.S. feel bad about the civilian deaths, while the Islamists have been gleefully ecstatic.
A difference? Maybe not to you, but to me there is a huge difference.
Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
In detail:
Apart from the racist overtones in parentheses, you would condemn the people living in this country to even more hardship than they are enduring now.
I don't condemn them to anything outside of the fate that they choose. Which is to say, it is not the responsibility of me nor of my country, to save the Somalis or any other similar country, from themselves. They want to overbreed and fight incessantly, don't expect the U.S. to pay for it (thats what wankers in the U.K. like yourself are for).
It seems that you believe ones right to life lasts as long as the money in one's pock
Not at all. But it does seem as if you believe it is the right of the Somalis to surf the web and eat and breed on my dime.
Lumping people together again, idiot
You might want to brush up those reading comprehension skills old chap.
I don't know, but it seems that a great many people could suffer because of this.
Oh I get it. Because you think that a great many people could suffer (from losing internet access? who is the idiot again?), we must not do this. Our enemies might suffer if we bomb them, so we must not bomb them, right? Get a grip, and don't skip your medication tomorrow like you did today.
Are you a Nazi by any chance?
Nope. Actually I'm rather fond of Israel and Jews in general.
One of the gifts of the 20th century was the defeat of these principles when they seemed ready to sweep the world. I wonder what the generation who fought in WW2 would think about your last statement.
Wow, can you make a more generally meaningless statement? I take it you are criticizing the "end justifies the means" as a moral philosophy. Fine and good, I'm not too fond of it myself. Just realize (ponder it for a few days if that is what it takes) that "good intentions" coupled with a horrible result is not a better alternative. In fact, it is a worse alternative, but one frequently advocated by do-gooders without a sound comprehension of what the final outcome will be.
Case in point:
We set out to feed the starving (and warring) masses of Somalia. As a consequence, we enrage a significant segment of their population (the ones that had been using food as a weapon and starving people in the first place), get 17 U.S. soldiers killed. Even if we were successful, at best, we would have subsidized an unsustainable population explosion (3.48% growth rate) which ultimately is not healthy for Somalia or the Horn of Africa as a whole.
If you believe so strongly plugger, there are avenues where you can contribute. Join a NGO aid organization and get your ass to Somalia. But I'm not interested in what you think me or my country should do.
Why don't you do some research on the Weathermen and the Black Panther party?
Instead, watch how a few oil companies have used greed to transform earstwhile areas of disaster such as Sudan and Nigeria into florishing democracies and bastions of freedom and prosperity.
The Sudan and Nigeria weren't exactly bastions of democracy before the oil companies arrived. All things considered, conditions are better in Nigeria than they are in neighboring Chad...largely because of a few greedy oil companies.
So when you say lefties, you mean Pol Pot and Stalin...What...does Chomsky or any other American lefty has in common with them
Simple. Chomsky and other "American lefties" as you call them have made their careers as apologists for Pol Pot (Chomsky in particular) and Stalin and Lenin and Mao. They scream quite loudly whenever there is even so much the prospect of some innocent person dying somewhere because of the United States, but are quite mute or lie outright, whenever the crimes and atrocities of socialism or plain anti-Americanism come in to play.
Osama bin Laden was trained and supplied by the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi government.
Over 60% of the financing for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan came from the Saudis...not the United States.
The U.S. did funnel significant amounts of cash and hardware into the effort, mainly through the Pakistanis, who subsequently funneled the money and hardware into radical Islamist movements and groups.
Blameless? Hardly. But it is a far cry from pretending that Bin Laden was our golden boy. The CIA never had direct contact with him, and in fact he really did not start to gain any sort of prominence until after the Russians withdrew.
The lesson of the day is don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I'm not condemning the "entire populace" to anything except the fate which they have chosen.
The United States isn't obligated to go and feed and bring peace to every third world area that can't control its breeding and can't control its fighting.
Somalia '93 is a hard lesson on what happens when we try.
We went in back in '91 to feed the bastards, and they responded by dragging our dead troops through the streets.
Let them starve. The world doesn't need another 14 year old Somali gunman strung out on kat riding in a technical.
If they can't grow enough food to support their 4% growth rate and exploding population, too damn bad. It's not my problem, and they lost all sympathy from me in '93.
I think more than a few people here are having trouble distinguishing between "rights" and "privileges".
Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).
The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.
Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid. And to short circuit the leftist Chomsky idiots, we went after Adid because his forces massacred 24 Pakistani peacekeepers.
The fact that Somalis were starving because of a 4% growth rate and systemic civil warfare does not give them the "right" to U.S. food aid, especially when they turn around and start shoot the people giving out the food.
In places like this and Afghanistan, a shallow grave is the place where leftist idealism meets the real world. For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day. Your intentions may be pure, but your effects are disasterous.
Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.
Aliasing is a visual artifact you get in raster images where you get false and/or jagged lines in images ("banding").
Anti-aliasing is simply correcting this so it is more pleasing and realistic to the eye. Real time anti-aliasing, especially on raster images tends to be computationally intensive because it involves averaging the weight of neighboring pixels for a given pixel. Factor in a 1280x1024 screen, and you have a lot of ops to anti-alias one frame.
Correction, if a person makes 5 phone calls a week, and 4 are personal, they are getting fired.
Well, I guess when you graduate from managing a general retail mall outlet, you'll develop some sense of perspective. I've never been fired. I'm under 30, I make over $100k a year, drive my own car, live under my own roof and pay my own bills. Bottom line is the productivity I provide justifies my salary and justifies 5 minutes of non-work phone calls a day. And I grew up in a lower middle class family, so spoiled white surbanite slashbot really doesn't apply here. But then we get back to the subject of you being a presumptious asshole.
Are you really that dense as to not be able to figure it out on your own?
If so, get a dictionary. Look up "irony", or, in this case, "satire". These definitions may point you in the right direction, and further may explain why you hope of a retraction is about as realistic as peace in the Middle East.
Your use of irony is weak at best. If 90% of phone calls in my office were not work related, I would fire people. Calling a daycare once is not a problem. Calling your friends all day is.
Subjective oppinion. My use of irony, in my instance, was particularly apt. 90% of my phone calls in the office are probably personal. That is, I make about 5 calls a week on my office phone, and 4 aren't for work, but involve things I'd have to take off work to resolve otherwise. If I need to talk to a person in the office, I walk on over.
The person's use of percentages as indicating rampant abuse of the system means nothing, because he didn't mention any volume associated with it. If the average time spent is 30 minutes, and 90% of that is non-business, then we aren't, statistically speaking, talking about a lot of time. On an average day, I routinely spend twice this amount of time waiting on coworkers. However, if we're talking 4+ hours, then yes it is a problem.
Not only is it counter-productive, but it/costs money/. Most Businesses pay on a per/call basis, even for local calls.
Please come join the real world before you go spouting your know-nothing high-school garbage.
Thanks for the offer. Can you list the benefits so that I might adequately compare my opportunities? Since you seem to be a presumptious asshole, I already know some of the negatives.
Interesting! At a company I was consulting for, we did a very similar thing, except this time with the phones. We began monitoring phone calls, and the results were startling. 90% of the phone calls were not work related. Several people actually lost their job because they were taking care of personal business while on the phone. One person actually had the audacity to call her kid's daycare center. She was subsequently terminated. Following our initial audit, I suggested and it was decided to authorize outside calls only with a keycode. I like to feel I made a positive difference, and can sleep better at night knowing that employees at that company are only doing what they are being paid to do.
Ask anyone who has attended a protest what the police are like. I am a responsible, educated, citizen (if i do say so myself)- who happens to also have some *very* 'liberal' ideals.(some people consider them Communist - which I would accept). I generally abhor the the ruling classes (for many reasons) - so I am pretty biased.But I am also capable of some objectivity.
The problem with liberal educated communists such as yourself is they tend to be disconnected from reality.
First of all, you can't really be biased (as you admit to being) and objective at the same time.
Secondly, accepting the label of a Communist, you essentially put yourself in a diametrically opposite position with the current powers that be. And then you whine when the system doesn't coddle to your whims.
Maybe the Seattle protestors were treated a little heavy handed and roughed up. Look what happens to protestors in that communist utopia China. Or the communist utopia of North Korea. No protestors there because life is great right? Maybe you should be glad that the ruling powers here where you live are so patronizing to your 'liberal' ideals.
Complaining about police abuses while screaming in their faces is akin to crying when you stick your finger in a wall electric socket and get shocked. For one thing its credibly naive, and whatever the merits or lack thereof of your cause, no large social change can occur free of cost. There are lots of people (probably a majority, and definitely a plurality) who have a considerable vested interest in the status quo, and they will fight when you try to take it away from there.
There is a group of people, and it's a pretty big group, known as the working poor. I know, I've been a member of that group for many years. These are people who work just to get by. These are people who have no health benefits, no pension, no vacation, no security. Their wages barely cover necessities, and there is little or nothing left for savings.
And its a group that, demographically, isn't very bright. Most poor people are poor because they aren't as smart as other people. Example, I grew up in a single mother household, lower middle class at best. At times, worse than that. I made over $110,000 last year at the tender age of 25, all legally. If you are working poor in this market, you're either dumb or lazy. And if you are poor because you have five kids to feed, you're still dumb. Very few adults are poor simply as result of being a victim of circumstance. Sure, there are those whose parents died and left them with several siblings to raise and provide for. But don't talk to me about this growing poor deprived underclass thats mercilessly exploited by the industrial robber barons because its a figment of your fucking imagination. If you are being exploited by your workplace, it is your own fault for taking it.
E-mail & postal mail spammers and telephone solicitors should all be PUT TO DEATH. There is nothing more obnoxious, nothing more wasteful of everyone else's time and resources, than having to receive and dispose of unsolicited advertisements.
Are you fuckin kidding me? Spammers don't even come close to comparing to assholes that drive 50 miles per hour in the fast lane on the freeway. Hint you fuckheads, the left lane is for people who know where the gas pedal is. FUCK! Where's my gun?
Re:Hmmm...the average murderer serves 137 months
on
Spammer Pleads Guilty
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm...I read that 46% of all statistics are made up...where did you get your info?
Mine came from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/met h.htm
in jail, but hey, lets sentence a spammer to over half that because fuck it, I hate spammers.
Folks our criminal justice system is seriously fucked up when I can go out and shoot someone dead, and get out of jail after 6 years for 2nd degree murder, but if I get busted on a federal charges with no loss of life or personal injury I'm looking at 20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL. You play about as fast and loose with assumptions as Chomsky does. Matter of fact, I have read Chomsky...enough to know that his only real goal is the prostration of the U.S. using any means, fair or foul. The guy is a linguistics genius, no doubt, but his politics suck.
Sophal's Place (no longer available)
Sophal Ear is a remarkable young Cambodian scholar who lived to tell the world about the horrors of Pol Pot's regime. His webpage is full of information on the "Cambodian Auto-Genocide," along with studies of the Cambodian economy, some of his favorite quotations, and links to his favorite sites. But perhaps the most interesting feature on this page is Sophal's exhaustive study of Western intellectuals' response to Pol Pot's regime. Is there really a leftist double-standard that overlooks any crime committed with socialist intentions? After reading Sophal's paper, there can be little doubt. Particularly valuable is Sophal's analysis of Noam Chomsky's writings on Cambodia and the Western media. Chomsky's critics have accused him of apologizing for mass murder; his defenders have replied that Chomsky did nothing of the kind. The truth, Sophal argues, is that Chomsky was a kind of apologist-by-stealth -- who doggedly attacked any errors in Western coverage of Cambodia while refraining from commenting on the basic fact that over a million Cambodians had been murdered. Chomsky's charges of (right-wing) media bias simply don't withstand examination, Sophal notes, for numerically small human rights abuses in U.S.-allied South Korea and Chile got far more media attention than Cambodia. Careful study of this site will make you wonder not only at the capacity of the State for senseless brutality, but of the recurring capacity of Western intellectuals to defend senseless brutality as a high virtue.
I'm sorry, I don't listen to Limbaugh, so, whatever party line I'm parotting, it isn't his.
I notice you so slighly chose not to comment of American leftists who have killed Americans, or have you guys finally decided to disown the Black Panthers and the Weathermen and Ayers?
Sigh. Standard racist horseshit. Move along, nothing to see here.
Um, truth != standard racist horeshit. You don't agree with what I said? Try refuting it with something other than an ad hominem attack.
Like, give an example of the fine products coming out of Somalia.
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. I already know the answer.
Read it slow so it sinks in:
There is a difference between purposely targeting civilians for the purpose of terrorizing a population, and accidentally inflicting civilian casualties when attacking military targets.
The WTC bombings are also a scale of magnitude greater than the civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan.
There is also the consideration that generally we in the U.S. feel bad about the civilian deaths, while the Islamists have been gleefully ecstatic.
A difference? Maybe not to you, but to me there is a huge difference.
Plus, there is the incy bitty point of that we were attacked, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
In both cases, the company might be involved and complicit, or they might not be. This is a dicision (sic) for a court system.
What court system? The one in Somalia? There is none.
In detail: Apart from the racist overtones in parentheses, you would condemn the people living in this country to even more hardship than they are enduring now.
I don't condemn them to anything outside of the fate that they choose. Which is to say, it is not the responsibility of me nor of my country, to save the Somalis or any other similar country, from themselves. They want to overbreed and fight incessantly, don't expect the U.S. to pay for it (thats what wankers in the U.K. like yourself are for).
It seems that you believe ones right to life lasts as long as the money in one's pock
Not at all. But it does seem as if you believe it is the right of the Somalis to surf the web and eat and breed on my dime.
Lumping people together again, idiot
You might want to brush up those reading comprehension skills old chap.
I don't know, but it seems that a great many people could suffer because of this.
Oh I get it. Because you think that a great many people could suffer (from losing internet access? who is the idiot again?), we must not do this. Our enemies might suffer if we bomb them, so we must not bomb them, right? Get a grip, and don't skip your medication tomorrow like you did today.
Are you a Nazi by any chance?
Nope. Actually I'm rather fond of Israel and Jews in general.
One of the gifts of the 20th century was the defeat of these principles when they seemed ready to sweep the world. I wonder what the generation who fought in WW2 would think about your last statement.
Wow, can you make a more generally meaningless statement? I take it you are criticizing the "end justifies the means" as a moral philosophy. Fine and good, I'm not too fond of it myself. Just realize (ponder it for a few days if that is what it takes) that "good intentions" coupled with a horrible result is not a better alternative. In fact, it is a worse alternative, but one frequently advocated by do-gooders without a sound comprehension of what the final outcome will be.
Case in point: We set out to feed the starving (and warring) masses of Somalia. As a consequence, we enrage a significant segment of their population (the ones that had been using food as a weapon and starving people in the first place), get 17 U.S. soldiers killed. Even if we were successful, at best, we would have subsidized an unsustainable population explosion (3.48% growth rate) which ultimately is not healthy for Somalia or the Horn of Africa as a whole.
If you believe so strongly plugger, there are avenues where you can contribute. Join a NGO aid organization and get your ass to Somalia. But I'm not interested in what you think me or my country should do.
What people are killed by American lefties
Why don't you do some research on the Weathermen and the Black Panther party?
Instead, watch how a few oil companies have used greed to transform earstwhile areas of disaster such as Sudan and Nigeria into florishing democracies and bastions of freedom and prosperity.
The Sudan and Nigeria weren't exactly bastions of democracy before the oil companies arrived. All things considered, conditions are better in Nigeria than they are in neighboring Chad...largely because of a few greedy oil companies.
So when you say lefties, you mean Pol Pot and Stalin...What...does Chomsky or any other American lefty has in common with them
Simple. Chomsky and other "American lefties" as you call them have made their careers as apologists for Pol Pot (Chomsky in particular) and Stalin and Lenin and Mao. They scream quite loudly whenever there is even so much the prospect of some innocent person dying somewhere because of the United States, but are quite mute or lie outright, whenever the crimes and atrocities of socialism or plain anti-Americanism come in to play.
The one that says that Jews kidnap babies to murder and suck their blood?
The one that says America is the stooge for the Israeli Jews?
The one that says we are glad that America has been attacked, it makes us happy?
Osama bin Laden was trained and supplied by the Pakistani ISI and the Saudi government.
Over 60% of the financing for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan came from the Saudis...not the United States.
The U.S. did funnel significant amounts of cash and hardware into the effort, mainly through the Pakistanis, who subsequently funneled the money and hardware into radical Islamist movements and groups.
Blameless? Hardly. But it is a far cry from pretending that Bin Laden was our golden boy. The CIA never had direct contact with him, and in fact he really did not start to gain any sort of prominence until after the Russians withdrew.
The lesson of the day is don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I'm not condemning the "entire populace" to anything except the fate which they have chosen.
The United States isn't obligated to go and feed and bring peace to every third world area that can't control its breeding and can't control its fighting.
Somalia '93 is a hard lesson on what happens when we try.
We went in back in '91 to feed the bastards, and they responded by dragging our dead troops through the streets.
Let them starve. The world doesn't need another 14 year old Somali gunman strung out on kat riding in a technical.
If they can't grow enough food to support their 4% growth rate and exploding population, too damn bad. It's not my problem, and they lost all sympathy from me in '93.
I think more than a few people here are having trouble distinguishing between "rights" and "privileges".
Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).
The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.
Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid. And to short circuit the leftist Chomsky idiots, we went after Adid because his forces massacred 24 Pakistani peacekeepers.
The fact that Somalis were starving because of a 4% growth rate and systemic civil warfare does not give them the "right" to U.S. food aid, especially when they turn around and start shoot the people giving out the food.
In places like this and Afghanistan, a shallow grave is the place where leftist idealism meets the real world. For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day. Your intentions may be pure, but your effects are disasterous.
Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.
Aliasing is a visual artifact you get in raster images where you get false and/or jagged lines in images ("banding").
Anti-aliasing is simply correcting this so it is more pleasing and realistic to the eye. Real time anti-aliasing, especially on raster images tends to be computationally intensive because it involves averaging the weight of neighboring pixels for a given pixel. Factor in a 1280x1024 screen, and you have a lot of ops to anti-alias one frame.
Correction, if a person makes 5 phone calls a week, and 4 are personal, they are getting fired.
Well, I guess when you graduate from managing a general retail mall outlet, you'll develop some sense of perspective. I've never been fired. I'm under 30, I make over $100k a year, drive my own car, live under my own roof and pay my own bills. Bottom line is the productivity I provide justifies my salary and justifies 5 minutes of non-work phone calls a day. And I grew up in a lower middle class family, so spoiled white surbanite slashbot really doesn't apply here. But then we get back to the subject of you being a presumptious asshole.
Are you really that dense as to not be able to figure it out on your own?
If so, get a dictionary. Look up "irony", or, in this case, "satire". These definitions may point you in the right direction, and further may explain why you hope of a retraction is about as realistic as peace in the Middle East.
Correction: 4 out 5 = 80%.
Your use of irony is weak at best. If 90% of phone calls in my office were not work related, I would fire people. Calling a daycare once is not a problem. Calling your friends all day is.
/costs money/. Most Businesses pay on a per/call basis, even for local calls.
Please come join the real world before you go spouting your know-nothing high-school garbage.
Subjective oppinion. My use of irony, in my instance, was particularly apt. 90% of my phone calls in the office are probably personal. That is, I make about 5 calls a week on my office phone, and 4 aren't for work, but involve things I'd have to take off work to resolve otherwise. If I need to talk to a person in the office, I walk on over.
The person's use of percentages as indicating rampant abuse of the system means nothing, because he didn't mention any volume associated with it. If the average time spent is 30 minutes, and 90% of that is non-business, then we aren't, statistically speaking, talking about a lot of time. On an average day, I routinely spend twice this amount of time waiting on coworkers. However, if we're talking 4+ hours, then yes it is a problem. Not only is it counter-productive, but it
Thanks for the offer. Can you list the benefits so that I might adequately compare my opportunities? Since you seem to be a presumptious asshole, I already know some of the negatives.
Interesting! At a company I was consulting for, we did a very similar thing, except this time with the phones. We began monitoring phone calls, and the results were startling. 90% of the phone calls were not work related. Several people actually lost their job because they were taking care of personal business while on the phone. One person actually had the audacity to call her kid's daycare center. She was subsequently terminated. Following our initial audit, I suggested and it was decided to authorize outside calls only with a keycode. I like to feel I made a positive difference, and can sleep better at night knowing that employees at that company are only doing what they are being paid to do.
Ask anyone who has attended a protest what the police are like. I am a responsible, educated, citizen (if i do say so myself)- who happens to also have some *very* 'liberal' ideals.(some people consider them Communist - which I would accept). I generally abhor the the ruling classes (for many reasons) - so I am pretty biased.But I am also capable of some objectivity.
The problem with liberal educated communists such as yourself is they tend to be disconnected from reality.
First of all, you can't really be biased (as you admit to being) and objective at the same time.
Secondly, accepting the label of a Communist, you essentially put yourself in a diametrically opposite position with the current powers that be. And then you whine when the system doesn't coddle to your whims.
Maybe the Seattle protestors were treated a little heavy handed and roughed up. Look what happens to protestors in that communist utopia China. Or the communist utopia of North Korea. No protestors there because life is great right? Maybe you should be glad that the ruling powers here where you live are so patronizing to your 'liberal' ideals.
Complaining about police abuses while screaming in their faces is akin to crying when you stick your finger in a wall electric socket and get shocked. For one thing its credibly naive, and whatever the merits or lack thereof of your cause, no large social change can occur free of cost. There are lots of people (probably a majority, and definitely a plurality) who have a considerable vested interest in the status quo, and they will fight when you try to take it away from there.
There is a group of people, and it's a pretty big group, known as the working poor. I know, I've been a member of that group for many years. These are people who work just to get by. These are people who have no health benefits, no pension, no vacation, no security. Their wages barely cover necessities, and there is little or nothing left for savings.
And its a group that, demographically, isn't very bright. Most poor people are poor because they aren't as smart as other people. Example, I grew up in a single mother household, lower middle class at best. At times, worse than that. I made over $110,000 last year at the tender age of 25, all legally. If you are working poor in this market, you're either dumb or lazy. And if you are poor because you have five kids to feed, you're still dumb. Very few adults are poor simply as result of being a victim of circumstance. Sure, there are those whose parents died and left them with several siblings to raise and provide for. But don't talk to me about this growing poor deprived underclass thats mercilessly exploited by the industrial robber barons because its a figment of your fucking imagination. If you are being exploited by your workplace, it is your own fault for taking it.
Shit, you just discoverd us liberals are just a bunch of screaming hypocrits. Somebody find this conservative asshole and lynch his ass.
E-mail & postal mail spammers and telephone solicitors should all be PUT TO DEATH. There is nothing more obnoxious, nothing more wasteful of everyone else's time and resources, than having to receive and dispose of unsolicited advertisements.
Are you fuckin kidding me? Spammers don't even come close to comparing to assholes that drive 50 miles per hour in the fast lane on the freeway. Hint you fuckheads, the left lane is for people who know where the gas pedal is. FUCK! Where's my gun?
Hmmm...I read that 46% of all statistics are made up...where did you get your info? Mine came from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/met h.htm
in jail, but hey, lets sentence a spammer to over half that because fuck it, I hate spammers. Folks our criminal justice system is seriously fucked up when I can go out and shoot someone dead, and get out of jail after 6 years for 2nd degree murder, but if I get busted on a federal charges with no loss of life or personal injury I'm looking at 20 years.