flustered he got in the debates when pressed for details or rebutted
Getting flustered when on the spot isn't necessarily due to ignorance. I think that Bush is a bit more knowledgeable than we're led to believe, just like Gore isn't quite as dishonest as we're led to believe. Those stereotypes are built up by the press and their opponents, both of whom like to focus on flaws.
sound like he has any clue what he is talking about?
Oh, I see. When a candidate uses technological terms in a "correct" and confident way, that means that he doesn't have any clue as to what he is talking about - or are you just making an ignorant statement based on a tremendous amount of bias?
Socialism increases the revenue of the government by increasing taxes on entrepreneurs, corporations, etc.
It's easy to see that by increasing that revenue, they increase their own power.
Note the utter irony when Gore talks about "Fighting for the people against the powerful". As Microsoft has learned, the US government is the most powerful entity in this nation. Al Gore's enormous spending plans would only increase the need for the government to increase its tax-generated revenue - and thus its power.
The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime;
Are there really people out there who think that this was the real issue? Sure, it's the issue that garnered the majority of the press, but the cause of that exposure was Paula Jones' sexual harrassment suit.
Laws never seem to be as important when your own guy is breaking them, huh?
Yes, I agree. You are right in saying that the US had their own unclean part in the whole thing.
I also agree that the communist people like Gorbatchev played some of the most important roles from within.
However, the original poster was blaming Reagan for his sleepless youthful nights. My only real point was that the threat of nuclear destruction and communism would have been there with or without Reagan. To blame Reagan for the fear he felt was misguided. To not acknowledge Reagan's role in speeding the end of the threat was naive.
Never heard any criticism, only bitching, what criticism did you hear?
In all likelihood, you didn't "hear" anything, you read it - I know I did.
Let's see if we can continue semantic quibbling and knee-jerk generalizations of others rather than discussing anything meaningful. I'd hate to disappoint the/. faithful.
You are aware that the 10 commandments are posted in the Supreme court building...
I know that, but there are congresspeople proposing to post the 10 commandments in lots of other places: local courts, government offices, public schools, etc. Just because they're in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that it's right.
There is a lot of christian influence in the creation of this country, reading the writings of the founders shows this. Maybe we should re-write history as it tends to offend some.
Actually, a number of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Washington) were Deists, not Christians. There's a significant difference. Besides, the founding of this country doesn't disturb me. Evolutionarily speaking, man came from the most basic of elements, why should his past bother him. No, I'm concerned about the present, and what I want is to have the government be completely neutral wrt religion. I don't want the my tax dollars sponsoring or restricting it in any way, shape, or form.
I don't work as hard any more since the IPO, but before I hit that critical level of success, I certainly didn't spend any time while awake perusing newsgroups or/. You're deceiving yourself if you think you work as hard as I did to get where I am. The proof is the fact that you're here trolling my posts.
your high paying job gets the shit taxed out of it
I think that privacy is very important. I don't want my information and habits collected without my knowledge and then shared amongst goverment agencies, corporate salespeople, or malicious information vandals. I want "opt-in" mailing, emailing, and calling lists to be the law in this country (USA), not the exception. I want encryption to be legal without restriction.
However, Chicken Littles who scream "privacy" every time some new technology surfaces make all of us concerned about privacy look like a bunch of extremist knee-jerk wackos. Extremist knee-jerk wackos tend to be ignored, and are excluded from the decision-making process because mainstream voters don't understand the issues involved and don't trust people who are always beating the same drum while yelling in a shrill voice.
Complaining about all of the possible threats is a waste of focus and a poor battle plan if you ever expect the general public to support the goals you're trying to accomplish. Instead of focusing on all of the possible privacy problems on the horizon, focus on the real ones that are here right in front of us. Be reasonable and work within the system wherever possible.
Unless you just like to complain and accomplish nothing, in which case... nevermind.
Yours is the typical pavlovian liberal's reaction. On hearing a criticism of big government, you immediately bitch about the THE CORPORATE world. What's the matter with you guys?
And for those that say socialism doesn't/can't work, has anyone taken a look at our military lately? I'd say that's a pretty successful slightly-modified-exercise-in-socialism
Uh, maybe if the military paid for its own existence you might have begun to make a point, but the military could not survive without an external source of funding.
I could pay a group of people to run around in a circle shouting "ooga booga" all day, when I wasn't paying for them to eat and sleep. Just because they continued to do so as long as I paid them would hardly mean that I'd modeled a societal framework like socialism.
You may disagree with Bush on various issues, but at least he doesn't issue meaningless babble like this:
I support Bush's election, but to pretend that his religious beliefs are any more sane than the next guy's is funny, to say the least. Bush believes that about 2000 years ago, his all-powerful creator was in the form of a man who was killed and rotted for three days (actually two, must be fuzzy religious math), then rose from the dead.
Funny how all of the really amazing shit happened before we had scientific inquiry and camcorders.
1. a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
This is one of those semantic games that you can play with lots of words that have very general sub-meanings. The Internet Infidels have a thorough well thought out response to the: Isn't atheism a religion? question.
Basically, they argue quite well, that given your definition of "religion", many things are religions, like: science, politics, and watching TV.
I think that the original poster was responding to recent pro-religion stances by those like
Joe Lieberman.
Sorry, but it says God on our dollers
But that happened in the 1950's as an overreaction to the scare of Russian atheism. That's when "under God" was added to the Pledge of allegiance as well - hardly framers' intent there.
ten commandments in the supreme court
Even that is a pretty quirky bit of influence from the religious right that's just loaded with absurdities.
Kid: (yours)But mommy, president Bush drank and drove, why can't I drink and drive? Why mommy?
Mommy: Because, sweetheart, President Bush was arrested for doing so, and that was back in 1976 when drinking and driving wasn't viewed with the vehement disdain that it is now. He made a mistake like many people do, but at least he had the courage to change his life to prevent future similar errors in judgement.
Kid: (mine) But mommy, president Clinton lied under oath after sexually harrassing his employee. After lying under oath, he was never really punished like you and I would be. Does that mean that I need to gain power and make friends with the news media in order to be above the law?
Mommy: Yes, dear. That will work as long as people continue to mostly be stupid.
if some Christians would just make a wholescale reassesment of what thier faith
It's an utter damnation of Christianity that its followers are all over the scale when it comes to actually displaying the virtues of Christ. If there were really some unifying force greater than humanity driving Christianity, it would have some type of real cohesion. After all, the Bible promises that Christians' hearts will be guided by the hand of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Christianity is riddled with all-too-human characteristics of lust, war, and hate.
Don't think that Christians have any supernatural philosophical resource that they can bring forth to rise above themselves. Christians are human like all of the rest of us. Expecting them to be more than that is sheer folly.
Not convinced? Their own holy book promises that the followers of Christ will have miraculous powers. I've got a bottle of Drano(TM) for any of you Christians willing to prove me wrong.
Mark 16:
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
The James Randi Educational Foundation will give you a million US dollars if you demonstrate some type of supernatural ability - with or without the help of Jesus Christ.
I always applaud people who support conservative ideas despite the persecution they've received from the "religious right". IMO, they've been the real downfall of the conservative movement. They alienate people who might otherwise support conservative core beliefs of smaller government.
As an atheist, it really pisses me off when Republicans want to do stupid shit like posting the ten commandments.
However, it pisses me off more when Democrats try to take more of my hard-earned money.
Although I'm hoping that Bush is elected and I support the smaller-government ideas of the Republican party, I could really do without all of the religious crap from my fellow Conservatives.
It's too bad that the libertarians have no real popular support.
I was scared at night as a teenager about nuclear war
Reagan and the tough mutual destruction guys were completely vindicated! The communist philosophy was one of world domination - proven again and again in Poland, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Look at poor Taiwan and what they have to put up with even today. You want to talk about being "scared at night"? People in Taiwan have a neighbor (that lacks the conscience of democracy coupled with freedom of speech) just itching to take them over. Compare and contrast that with a country within our direct influence, like Puerto Rico that has received tens of millions of our tax dollars with no real strings attached.
If it wouldn't have been for leaders with strength like Reagan, communist Russia would still be a threat today, and you'd be going to bed a scared 33-year-old.
Nader=unlikely (but I'm voting for him)
Yes, every American's income should be limited to $100,000. I worked my ass off my whole life to achieve financial success so some idiot like Nader can take away everything. When my friends chided me for working so hard, bragging about how they took three-hour lunches to play basketball, I guess they were right. I should have gone the easy route. Tough shit to all of the people I employed. Maybe we all could have had good government jobs?
No kidding. The very idea that such a thing is necessary shows complete last-minute desperation on the part of the Democratic party and their friends in the media. I guess that he should also give us some kind of schedule of every time he ever masturbated as well. How about those times when he broke the speed limit. Jay walked?
Keep in mind: Not only was it a long time ago, but it also happened in a time when drunk driving was how you got home after a party, not the great evil that it is today. Studies show that driving while talking on the cell phone is as bad as driving drunk. Should he mention when he's done that too?
although i would guess that laura knew somehow er another
I think that she was in the car with him, so I would imagine she did.
Yeah, yeah, we all know that the great evil Bush has screwed up in the eyes of/. again.
Damnit, why can't politicians craft their every word to tell their audience exactly what they want to hear? Oh shit, I forgot that I hate it when politicians don't just give a straight answer.
Most of the answers were perfectly in line with what I've heard him say before. I really liked what he had to say about privacy.
there's a very good defense of the electoral college system available on the washingtonpost.com site
Is anybody really worried about the whole way that the electoral college system ratchets down the voting power of more popular states? That really seems to be the complaint that Mr. Will is addressing.
My concern is that the current voting system discourages people from voting for like-ideology alternatives to the "big party" candidate. Vote for Nader and you take away your vote from Gore whom you'd probably want to win if Nader doesn't.
If anything, you'd think that the major party candidates would want to change the system. Nader may end up costing Gore the election. Perot cost Bush the election in '92. The major parties are losing elections because of these challengers. Doesn't that concern them?
How can I refute a one-sided anecdote where an AC claims to have debunked a well-known physicist? Maybe you should use bold HTML tags to point out where you actually formed an argument worthy of refutation.
All that's left is for me is to ridicule your post, your technique of citing your brilliance of debunking a well-known physicist, and your obvious pride despite being ignorant of the subject at hand.
You continue your folly by characterizing the physicist as "trying to mislead a group of students". What, we should just take your word on it?
You still haven't managed to form an argument. What exactly did the physicist say? What theory was he trying to support? What were your brilliant debunking questions? Where can we see his side of the "argument"?
Without any real argument on your part, all I can do is to make sure to voice my criticism of your piss-poor attitude. QM physicists have been producing valuable mathematics and experimental confirmation of their theories for the last fifty years. Yes, it's hard to get your mind around those theories. Yes, application of those theories in the macroscopic world is extraordinarily difficult. Yes, the effort thus far has taken a great amount of time, money, and effort.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to let you anonymously malign those physicists' motives with impugnity.
With enough computing power, we can do real world simulations on weather patterns
Well, our simulations will improve with improved computing power, but computing power is only one half of the equation. Accurate measurement of existing conditions is the other half. If you figure out a way to strap some sensors on all of the butterflies causing all of our weather problems, then you're talking!
Slashdot Mirror
flustered he got in the debates when pressed for details or rebutted
Getting flustered when on the spot isn't necessarily due to ignorance. I think that Bush is a bit more knowledgeable than we're led to believe, just like Gore isn't quite as dishonest as we're led to believe. Those stereotypes are built up by the press and their opponents, both of whom like to focus on flaws.
sound like he has any clue what he is talking about?
Oh, I see. When a candidate uses technological terms in a "correct" and confident way, that means that he doesn't have any clue as to what he is talking about - or are you just making an ignorant statement based on a tremendous amount of bias?
Socialism increases the revenue of the government by increasing taxes on entrepreneurs, corporations, etc.
It's easy to see that by increasing that revenue, they increase their own power.
Note the utter irony when Gore talks about "Fighting for the people against the powerful". As Microsoft has learned, the US government is the most powerful entity in this nation. Al Gore's enormous spending plans would only increase the need for the government to increase its tax-generated revenue - and thus its power.
The fact that had f*cked in the white house is not a crime;
Are there really people out there who think that this was the real issue? Sure, it's the issue that garnered the majority of the press, but the cause of that exposure was Paula Jones' sexual harrassment suit.
Laws never seem to be as important when your own guy is breaking them, huh?
Yes, I agree. You are right in saying that the US had their own unclean part in the whole thing.
I also agree that the communist people like Gorbatchev played some of the most important roles from within.
However, the original poster was blaming Reagan for his sleepless youthful nights. My only real point was that the threat of nuclear destruction and communism would have been there with or without Reagan. To blame Reagan for the fear he felt was misguided. To not acknowledge Reagan's role in speeding the end of the threat was naive.
Never heard any criticism, only bitching, what criticism did you hear?
/. faithful.
In all likelihood, you didn't "hear" anything, you read it - I know I did.
Let's see if we can continue semantic quibbling and knee-jerk generalizations of others rather than discussing anything meaningful. I'd hate to disappoint the
You are aware that the 10 commandments are posted in the Supreme court building...
I know that, but there are congresspeople proposing to post the 10 commandments in lots of other places: local courts, government offices, public schools, etc. Just because they're in the Supreme Court doesn't mean that it's right.
There is a lot of christian influence in the creation of this country, reading the writings of the founders shows this. Maybe we should re-write history as it tends to offend some.
Actually, a number of the founding fathers (Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Washington) were Deists, not Christians. There's a significant difference. Besides, the founding of this country doesn't disturb me. Evolutionarily speaking, man came from the most basic of elements, why should his past bother him. No, I'm concerned about the present, and what I want is to have the government be completely neutral wrt religion. I don't want the my tax dollars sponsoring or restricting it in any way, shape, or form.
I work as hard or harder than you.
/. You're deceiving yourself if you think you work as hard as I did to get where I am. The proof is the fact that you're here trolling my posts.
I don't work as hard any more since the IPO, but before I hit that critical level of success, I certainly didn't spend any time while awake perusing newsgroups or
your high paying job gets the shit taxed out of it
Yeah, you're going places, man.
Why should we not complain about it?
I think that privacy is very important. I don't want my information and habits collected without my knowledge and then shared amongst goverment agencies, corporate salespeople, or malicious information vandals. I want "opt-in" mailing, emailing, and calling lists to be the law in this country (USA), not the exception. I want encryption to be legal without restriction.
However, Chicken Littles who scream "privacy" every time some new technology surfaces make all of us concerned about privacy look like a bunch of extremist knee-jerk wackos. Extremist knee-jerk wackos tend to be ignored, and are excluded from the decision-making process because mainstream voters don't understand the issues involved and don't trust people who are always beating the same drum while yelling in a shrill voice.
Complaining about all of the possible threats is a waste of focus and a poor battle plan if you ever expect the general public to support the goals you're trying to accomplish. Instead of focusing on all of the possible privacy problems on the horizon, focus on the real ones that are here right in front of us. Be reasonable and work within the system wherever possible.
Unless you just like to complain and accomplish nothing, in which case... nevermind.
Yours is the typical pavlovian liberal's reaction. On hearing a criticism of big government, you immediately bitch about the THE CORPORATE world. What's the matter with you guys?
And for those that say socialism doesn't/can't work, has anyone taken a look at our military lately? I'd say that's a pretty successful slightly-modified-exercise-in-socialism
Uh, maybe if the military paid for its own existence you might have begun to make a point, but the military could not survive without an external source of funding.
I could pay a group of people to run around in a circle shouting "ooga booga" all day, when I wasn't paying for them to eat and sleep. Just because they continued to do so as long as I paid them would hardly mean that I'd modeled a societal framework like socialism.
You may disagree with Bush on various issues, but at least he doesn't issue meaningless babble like this:
I support Bush's election, but to pretend that his religious beliefs are any more sane than the next guy's is funny, to say the least. Bush believes that about 2000 years ago, his all-powerful creator was in the form of a man who was killed and rotted for three days (actually two, must be fuzzy religious math), then rose from the dead.
Funny how all of the really amazing shit happened before we had scientific inquiry and camcorders.
Notice that you ignored definitions 1-3:
1. a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
This is one of those semantic games that you can play with lots of words that have very general sub-meanings. The Internet Infidels have a thorough well thought out response to the: Isn't atheism a religion? question.
Basically, they argue quite well, that given your definition of "religion", many things are religions, like: science, politics, and watching TV.
What freedom from religion sounds like
I think that the original poster was responding to recent pro-religion stances by those like Joe Lieberman.
Sorry, but it says God on our dollers
But that happened in the 1950's as an overreaction to the scare of Russian atheism. That's when "under God" was added to the Pledge of allegiance as well - hardly framers' intent there.
ten commandments in the supreme court
Even that is a pretty quirky bit of influence from the religious right that's just loaded with absurdities.
Kid: (yours)But mommy, president Bush drank and drove, why can't I drink and drive? Why mommy?
Mommy: Because, sweetheart, President Bush was arrested for doing so, and that was back in 1976 when drinking and driving wasn't viewed with the vehement disdain that it is now. He made a mistake like many people do, but at least he had the courage to change his life to prevent future similar errors in judgement.
Kid: (mine) But mommy, president Clinton lied under oath after sexually harrassing his employee. After lying under oath, he was never really punished like you and I would be. Does that mean that I need to gain power and make friends with the news media in order to be above the law?
Mommy: Yes, dear. That will work as long as people continue to mostly be stupid.
if some Christians would just make a wholescale reassesment of what thier faith
It's an utter damnation of Christianity that its followers are all over the scale when it comes to actually displaying the virtues of Christ. If there were really some unifying force greater than humanity driving Christianity, it would have some type of real cohesion. After all, the Bible promises that Christians' hearts will be guided by the hand of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Christianity is riddled with all-too-human characteristics of lust, war, and hate.
Don't think that Christians have any supernatural philosophical resource that they can bring forth to rise above themselves. Christians are human like all of the rest of us. Expecting them to be more than that is sheer folly.
Not convinced? Their own holy book promises that the followers of Christ will have miraculous powers. I've got a bottle of Drano(TM) for any of you Christians willing to prove me wrong.
Mark 16:
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
The James Randi Educational Foundation will give you a million US dollars if you demonstrate some type of supernatural ability - with or without the help of Jesus Christ.
I encourage you to STUDY the Bible (not read)
I encourage everyone to study the Bible too. If more Christians studied the Bible, there'd be less Christians.
but he is a pretty conservative gay
I always applaud people who support conservative ideas despite the persecution they've received from the "religious right". IMO, they've been the real downfall of the conservative movement. They alienate people who might otherwise support conservative core beliefs of smaller government.
As an atheist, it really pisses me off when Republicans want to do stupid shit like posting the ten commandments.
However, it pisses me off more when Democrats try to take more of my hard-earned money.
Although I'm hoping that Bush is elected and I support the smaller-government ideas of the Republican party, I could really do without all of the religious crap from my fellow Conservatives.
It's too bad that the libertarians have no real popular support.
Bible-thumpers are a lesser evil to higher taxes.
I was scared at night as a teenager about nuclear war
Reagan and the tough mutual destruction guys were completely vindicated! The communist philosophy was one of world domination - proven again and again in Poland, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. Look at poor Taiwan and what they have to put up with even today. You want to talk about being "scared at night"? People in Taiwan have a neighbor (that lacks the conscience of democracy coupled with freedom of speech) just itching to take them over. Compare and contrast that with a country within our direct influence, like Puerto Rico that has received tens of millions of our tax dollars with no real strings attached.
If it wouldn't have been for leaders with strength like Reagan, communist Russia would still be a threat today, and you'd be going to bed a scared 33-year-old.
Nader=unlikely (but I'm voting for him)
Yes, every American's income should be limited to $100,000. I worked my ass off my whole life to achieve financial success so some idiot like Nader can take away everything. When my friends chided me for working so hard, bragging about how they took three-hour lunches to play basketball, I guess they were right. I should have gone the easy route. Tough shit to all of the people I employed. Maybe we all could have had good government jobs?
there's no obligation to reveal *everything*
No kidding. The very idea that such a thing is necessary shows complete last-minute desperation on the part of the Democratic party and their friends in the media. I guess that he should also give us some kind of schedule of every time he ever masturbated as well. How about those times when he broke the speed limit. Jay walked?
Keep in mind: Not only was it a long time ago, but it also happened in a time when drunk driving was how you got home after a party, not the great evil that it is today. Studies show that driving while talking on the cell phone is as bad as driving drunk. Should he mention when he's done that too?
although i would guess that laura knew somehow er another
I think that she was in the car with him, so I would imagine she did.
If he ends up deserving the title, sure. You sound as though Clinton wasn't deserving of his moniker.
but the Shrub especially
/. again.
Yeah, yeah, we all know that the great evil Bush has screwed up in the eyes of
Damnit, why can't politicians craft their every word to tell their audience exactly what they want to hear? Oh shit, I forgot that I hate it when politicians don't just give a straight answer.
Most of the answers were perfectly in line with what I've heard him say before. I really liked what he had to say about privacy.
there's a very good defense of the electoral college system available on the washingtonpost.com site
Is anybody really worried about the whole way that the electoral college system ratchets down the voting power of more popular states? That really seems to be the complaint that Mr. Will is addressing.
My concern is that the current voting system discourages people from voting for like-ideology alternatives to the "big party" candidate. Vote for Nader and you take away your vote from Gore whom you'd probably want to win if Nader doesn't.
If anything, you'd think that the major party candidates would want to change the system. Nader may end up costing Gore the election. Perot cost Bush the election in '92. The major parties are losing elections because of these challengers. Doesn't that concern them?
How can I refute a one-sided anecdote where an AC claims to have debunked a well-known physicist? Maybe you should use bold HTML tags to point out where you actually formed an argument worthy of refutation.
All that's left is for me is to ridicule your post, your technique of citing your brilliance of debunking a well-known physicist, and your obvious pride despite being ignorant of the subject at hand.
You continue your folly by characterizing the physicist as "trying to mislead a group of students". What, we should just take your word on it?
You still haven't managed to form an argument. What exactly did the physicist say? What theory was he trying to support? What were your brilliant debunking questions? Where can we see his side of the "argument"?
Without any real argument on your part, all I can do is to make sure to voice my criticism of your piss-poor attitude. QM physicists have been producing valuable mathematics and experimental confirmation of their theories for the last fifty years. Yes, it's hard to get your mind around those theories. Yes, application of those theories in the macroscopic world is extraordinarily difficult. Yes, the effort thus far has taken a great amount of time, money, and effort.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to let you anonymously malign those physicists' motives with impugnity.
With enough computing power, we can do real world simulations on weather patterns
Well, our simulations will improve with improved computing power, but computing power is only one half of the equation. Accurate measurement of existing conditions is the other half. If you figure out a way to strap some sensors on all of the butterflies causing all of our weather problems, then you're talking!