Your note is quite offtopic, because we talk about why US soldiers are more fond of their robotic toys than 'muslim militants'.
Maybe a bit off topic, but your parent post was talking about what was humane and inhumane and you chose to call the killing of "people on their own land with no cause" "not hypocritical".
Ok, lets talk about Al Qaeda in Iraq. How many of those guys are actually Iraqis?
Probably most. Al Qaeda is exploding in popularity there. But that's not the point. You were implicitly slandering the Iraqi Resistance as an Al Qaeda operation, thereby dismissing the Iraqi people's right to resist, which is precisely what I was responding to.
Please note, I never said the americans had any right to invade Iraq.
Just that the Iraqi people don't have the right to resist.
(You seem to considered worth to write about my spelling, so i answer that too, i'm from a country where we don't mangle written language, and that's how i heard 'Qaeda' spoken)
Spain? It strikes me as a childish way of showing disrespect (not that Al Qaeda deserves any), like insisting on calling Muslims "Muhammadans".
Well, these robots are not cylons, who are about to kill you. While i wouldn't like to run into any Al Kaida guy. It is not hypocritical. The robots are like toys or pets, not bloodthirsty terrorists.
First of all, "terrorist" is not a (correct) synonym for "Muslim militant". More importantly, are you saying that people don't have the right to attack "soldiers killing people on their own land with no cause" (as the GP put it)? Or does what's right and wrong change depending on which person is from the same country as you?
(I don't consider it even worth asking why you decided to spell "Qaeda" with a K)
It's totally acceptable. Just set up next to a spawn point and... oh, wait.
Dude, are you camping in a maternity ward with a rifle?
Re:Why make up data when you can find statistics?
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 1
Just to give you a little bit of support, I'll mention that almost every young friend or relative I can think of who's over 18 is on Myspace. The grandparent's impression is definitely mistaken.
I'm a staunch anti-Democrat (I'm a socialist) and feminist and I think she's the most likely next president for precisely the reason you imply she won't win. She's a pro-war hawk who has the respect of feminists and the anti-war. She's everything the Democratic Party is: pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-progressive and good at pretending not to be. She probably will win because she's what her party wants* and because she's not a Republican (which is, of course, the only "real" alternative to a Republican, something that's box office poison right now). Obama's not so different, but the line between his anti-war rhetoric and his actual policy is so far dangerously blurred. McCain is the Republicans' only hope because he does the Democrat thing well (pretends to go against the current).
*Ever notice how people are always *told* who the front runners are, *told* how likely they are to win the general election, *told* what their faults and strengths are? Ever you notice how Howard Dean, who's line between anti-war rhetoric and real policy was more blurred than Obama's, who's popularity came completely by surprise from the grass roots, how his candidacy was ruined by his "yeaah!" scream being played a million times followed a million times by viewers being *told* that this would ruin him?
A student at the Houston-area Clements High School was arrested, sent to an "Alternative Education Center" and banned from graduation after school officials found he created a video game map of his school.
That's horrible!
School district police arrested the teen and searched his home where they confiscated a hammer as a 'potential weapon'. "They decided he was a terroristic threat," said one source close to the district's investigation.'
That's ridiculous!
With an upcoming May 12 school board election, this issue has quickly become political
That's how it should be!
with school board members involved in the appeal accusing each other of pandering to the Chinese community in an attempt to gain votes.
Please don't let the silence discourage you. We're hard at work and appreciate the notices that help us keep our networks and services running smoothly for our customers.
Here's a thought: Might giving some sort of reply, even a thank-you form letter, not keep people like Mr. marko_ramius from being discouraged? Maybe that's something you and your ilk should consider.
Why must we have parties that are at extreme ends of the spectrum?
Why can't we have a party that has some sort of principals or program? Why can't we have parties that support things rather than bickers loudly with the other party? I'm always in shock when I hear people talk about the government being run by extremists.
Furthermore, liberalism and conservatism are by definition not extremist. They are the moderate alternatives to socialists and... well, I don't want to say fascists (a constantly abused term)... let's call them "radical reactionaries."
Keynesianism is not socialism. The size of government is not in the definition of socialism. Anarchists are socialists. Socialists HATE the Democratic party. Socialism is about the relationship of the producers of wealth to the means of production. FYI.
In case anyone's interested (probably not), we communists usually agree on the following:
The Republicans serve the interests of the ruling class in their purest and simplest and most natural forms - They promote total, unrestrained exploitation and free market.
The Democrats serve the interests of the ruling class by making sure the Republicans don't fuck up things too badly. They put restraints on the market in order to avoid the catastrophic depressions totally free markets bring, and in order to keep people out of such a sorry state that they rebel. The Democrats exist also to reign in rebelliousness and leftist sympathies and send them to the graveyard of liberal politics.
The Republicans represent the imperial interests of the ruling class in it's simplest forms. They simply try to take over the world. Democrats have a more sensible approach to foreign politics. The Republicans have manic adventurism, the Democrats have sanity.
"Intellectual property" is an absurd oxymoron. Any socioeconomic system that requires a concept of such a thing is truly twisted and outdated in the "Information Age." I expect to be modded as Overrated. But this is a sentiment I can't help but express strongly.
As people who could be identified as true "hard-core" gamers (the real ones, not the ones Microsoft tries to claim play Xbox all day) grow older, they eventually find they don't have as much time to play games.
"When I was your age, a hardcore gamer wouldn't be caught dead on one of your consoles. We spent thousands of dollars and dozens of hours to squeeze out every frame we could and thats the we we liked it!"?
Why do we care about someone's drunken ramblings on his blog (redundant?)? If we didn't care to make a controversy out of online versus in-person multiplayer ten years ago, why would we care to now?
I fear I'm becoming a typical cranky Slashdot reading.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe a bit off topic, but your parent post was talking about what was humane and inhumane and you chose to call the killing of "people on their own land with no cause" "not hypocritical".
Probably most. Al Qaeda is exploding in popularity there. But that's not the point. You were implicitly slandering the Iraqi Resistance as an Al Qaeda operation, thereby dismissing the Iraqi people's right to resist, which is precisely what I was responding to.
Just that the Iraqi people don't have the right to resist.
Spain? It strikes me as a childish way of showing disrespect (not that Al Qaeda deserves any), like insisting on calling Muslims "Muhammadans".
What does "10" represent in base 10? It's not 9.
First of all, "terrorist" is not a (correct) synonym for "Muslim militant". More importantly, are you saying that people don't have the right to attack "soldiers killing people on their own land with no cause" (as the GP put it)? Or does what's right and wrong change depending on which person is from the same country as you?
(I don't consider it even worth asking why you decided to spell "Qaeda" with a K)
Dude, are you camping in a maternity ward with a rifle?
Just to give you a little bit of support, I'll mention that almost every young friend or relative I can think of who's over 18 is on Myspace. The grandparent's impression is definitely mistaken.
I meant to say that a Democrat is the only "real" alternative, in case I confused anyone.
I'm a staunch anti-Democrat (I'm a socialist) and feminist and I think she's the most likely next president for precisely the reason you imply she won't win. She's a pro-war hawk who has the respect of feminists and the anti-war. She's everything the Democratic Party is: pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-progressive and good at pretending not to be. She probably will win because she's what her party wants* and because she's not a Republican (which is, of course, the only "real" alternative to a Republican, something that's box office poison right now). Obama's not so different, but the line between his anti-war rhetoric and his actual policy is so far dangerously blurred. McCain is the Republicans' only hope because he does the Democrat thing well (pretends to go against the current).
*Ever notice how people are always *told* who the front runners are, *told* how likely they are to win the general election, *told* what their faults and strengths are? Ever you notice how Howard Dean, who's line between anti-war rhetoric and real policy was more blurred than Obama's, who's popularity came completely by surprise from the grass roots, how his candidacy was ruined by his "yeaah!" scream being played a million times followed a million times by viewers being *told* that this would ruin him?
I have mod points. I really, really want to mod you down as flamebait right now. But I'd probably be the only one to laugh.
That's horrible!
That's ridiculous!
That's how it should be!
That's... Wait, what?
Here's a thought: Might giving some sort of reply, even a thank-you form letter, not keep people like Mr. marko_ramius from being discouraged? Maybe that's something you and your ilk should consider.
(P.S. there was no hostility in the above)
You're drinking chocohol? I'll have a swig!
Dude, is this school seriously from a place called HEMPfield? Far out!
I take exception to your sig.
Sorry for being off topic and stating the obvious, but HOW is running a copy of OS X you bought on non-Apple hardware stealing?
Why can't we have a party that has some sort of principals or program? Why can't we have parties that support things rather than bickers loudly with the other party? I'm always in shock when I hear people talk about the government being run by extremists.
Furthermore, liberalism and conservatism are by definition not extremist. They are the moderate alternatives to socialists and... well, I don't want to say fascists (a constantly abused term)... let's call them "radical reactionaries."
Keynesianism is not socialism. The size of government is not in the definition of socialism. Anarchists are socialists. Socialists HATE the Democratic party. Socialism is about the relationship of the producers of wealth to the means of production. FYI.
In case anyone's interested (probably not), we communists usually agree on the following:
The Republicans serve the interests of the ruling class in their purest and simplest and most natural forms - They promote total, unrestrained exploitation and free market.
The Democrats serve the interests of the ruling class by making sure the Republicans don't fuck up things too badly. They put restraints on the market in order to avoid the catastrophic depressions totally free markets bring, and in order to keep people out of such a sorry state that they rebel. The Democrats exist also to reign in rebelliousness and leftist sympathies and send them to the graveyard of liberal politics.
The Republicans represent the imperial interests of the ruling class in it's simplest forms. They simply try to take over the world. Democrats have a more sensible approach to foreign politics. The Republicans have manic adventurism, the Democrats have sanity.
"Intellectual property" is an absurd oxymoron. Any socioeconomic system that requires a concept of such a thing is truly twisted and outdated in the "Information Age."
I expect to be modded as Overrated. But this is a sentiment I can't help but express strongly.
In Soviet Russia, maybe.
That's what Lieutenant L.T. Smash calls "superliminal."
Cat's can be dangerous to your mental health.
None?
"When I was your age, a hardcore gamer wouldn't be caught dead on one of your consoles. We spent thousands of dollars and dozens of hours to squeeze out every frame we could and thats the we we liked it!"?
You, sir, have completely missed the point of the article.
Why do we care about someone's drunken ramblings on his blog (redundant?)? If we didn't care to make a controversy out of online versus in-person multiplayer ten years ago, why would we care to now?
I fear I'm becoming a typical cranky Slashdot reading.