I love that you called the black President "my boy"? Do you even realize you're doing it? Is it completely unconscious?
But anyway, Afghanistan was an inherited war. I'd explain the dynamics involving Pakistan, our nightmare "ally", but even if you understood, you wouldn't converse, you'd use another slur and ignore the point.
This is exactly it. Nothing will ever satisfy people like you. If you could live stream video, then you'd say, "but I'm not really looking at it, I'm looking at a monitor. That's not making it available to me. I need to touch it."
Then if you could touch it, you'd say, "but it's not really available to me. It would really be available if I could take it with me for... tests. Yeah, that's the ticket, I need to test it."
This is a dishonest tactic, plain and simple. And you think we don't see through that?
I have no idea about his ancestry but he's one shitty, vacillating Chief Executive. It's like reliving the Carter years.
Yeah, I hate how he declined to invade and rebuild Libya. And Syria. Doesn't he know his job is to start wars that make the right wing rich while providing subjects to help improve prosthetics?
You might actually want to look up that McCain claim as you are wrong on it.
Of course if you did that, you might appear as if you know what you are talking about. But then your racism argument falls apart until you invent something else.
Here is a hint, McCain's eligability was challenged at the same time Obama's was by a hillary supporter.
The first hint was that you posted no citation backing up your claim - are you just repeating the talking points? Here's a citation, about two people who filed lawsuits - one's an idiot who says he "just wanted to get into the mix". The other, Hollander, is a REPUBLICAN, and says he did it to forestall suits challenging McCain's legitimacy after he won the election. http://www.azcentral.com/news/...
"Hillary supporter" - that's rich. Even if either lawsuit were filed by someone who supported Hillary Clinton, private citizens can do whatever dumb shit they want. And McCain's case is a matter of law, not of fact, and the law is ambiguous, as you would know if you had looked at it. A case could be made that McCain was ineligible. Not so with Obama.
So, no serious challenge to McCain by Democrats, years and years of racist shit by the loony right. I have to say, you certainly earned your handle with that one. Got anything better to show than I posted?
Oh, one more thing: "In 2008, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent declaring John McCain to be a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to run for President. Ironically, this bill was co-sponsored by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
I love to see how people who still think "there's something fishy there" have painted themselves into this corner you just repeated, and are arguing over the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He requested his own birth certificate. He posted it online. It was available to examine.
If you mean that Donald Trump wasn't allowed to fondle the certificate with his grubby mitts, then sure, that's true. But arguing this point is so blatantly trolling that anyone but a rabid freak should be embarrassed to repeat it.
Yes, people were denied healthcare they couldn't pay for. Some homeless mentally ill person could feign chest pains and get a full workup and warm bed. Not to mention an ambulance ride. Then skip out on the bill.
Actually, no. I worked for a recovery audit contractor, which gets 3-5% of each claim recovered for miscoding, not medically justified, technically wrong, etc. That money is snatched back from the hospital, private practice, whatever medical establishment provided the Medicare or Medicaid service.
What do you think the hospital is going to tell its ER staff - the next time someone shows up who's iffy, turn them away.
Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?
Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)
I'm curious - can you site one instance in which you "heard of" a judge not being disciplined because "he was acting to support the local politicos". It seems unlikely you actually have such knowledge. My guess is that you are generalizing, or guessing, or just wildly speculating.
Yeah, I see that argument a lot. I am a heterosexual man in a 28 year marriage in which we have not, and never intended, to "produce children".
So by your logic, my marriage is no better than that of two men.
Yes, indeed, your "marriage" is a fraud — had you honestly declared your intentions to whoever issued you the marriage-license, they would not (or should not) have issued one to you.
You are entirely full of shit. I think you live in some fantasy world in which everyone hews to your odd views of marriage and other civil institutions. You DID notice that your lazy Wikipedia article citation made NO mention of an obligation to procreate, didn't you? Did you read your own citation?
I defy you to find a civil authority in the United States which would dare to suggest that I am forbidden to marry if I don't intend to procreate.
You are a loon. It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you are so far off the beacon you're not qualified to hold forth your fantastical viewpoints.
You're just engaging in verbal gymnastics. Your arguments are empty, and you cannot defend your sanctimony. That's the correct word, you are terribly sanctimonious. Also self-righteous. You're also dishonest, because you're just looking for an opportunity to spout off your judgments.
Which is fine. Rock on. Take the last word, which I will decline to read.
It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that Service Pack 3 for Windows XP finally made the OS a somewhat finished product. Service Pack 3 of Windows XP was released on May 6, 2008. By that measure, Windows XP is 6 years old.
This is just nutty. And please, tell us again about how your article makes all the crazy seem reasonable.
Saying that you're judging actions and not people is sophistry. Few situations can be identified as a "moral" issue because there are so many subjective opinions, cloaked in "morality". This is one of them. The protesters thought his donation was immoral, he thought that gay marriage was immoral. You have no basis for judging morality in this situation. You can choose to do so, and I can lump you in with the Westboro Church people, shake my head, and get on with my life.
Aside from that, consider the actual situation. Eich was wealthy before he won (and lost) that job. He'll be wealthy the rest of his life. Losing this job is no more than the equivalent of a "time out". He's clearly at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If someone who did the same thing he did was at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, I'd consider the morality of depriving that person and their family of the basics of life. I have little sympathy for Eich's plight. Oh, and I don't have a "tech job". I am a senior manager. If I represented my company and our clients found out I did something they consider reprehensible, I wouldn't be surprised or especially outraged at being canned.
Please stop saying this is not the society "we" want. You don't speak for me. I like the rough and tumble nature of our society.
If you want to look for something actually worthy of wagging your finger at, complain about what the wealthy are doing to literally steal the future of the majority and their children. It's rather unseemly to express such sanctimony in public as you are doing here.
You misunderstand. I wasn't even addressing whether these kinds of boycotts are legal, they unquestionably are.
My point was that while it might annoy me to see a group with which I disagree stage a boycott, I wouldn't start throwing around accusations using the loaded word "morality". In a situation where people choose to express their opinions by withholding business I don't think you have the "moral" high ground to judge them. Though you are perfectly within your rights, and I won't judge you to be "immoral" to scold them for defending their positions.
However, you have also made the same mistake as others in this discussion by using the word "McCarthyism". You know perfectly well that McCarthy was a Senator, and that he used the power of the federal government to persecute alleged and actual communists. You cannot in good conscience claim that private citizens expressing themselves are engaging in McCarthyism. But again, if you insist on it, while I might believe you are being disingenuous, perhaps even dishonest, I would not call you immoral.
no one in modern times (in a western world) would think its ok to underpay women just because they are women. no one would think its ok to pay less based on skin color.
Yow, really? Plenty of people publicly say there is no gender pay inequity in the U.S. Why do you think the R's are against fair pay laws, and why do you think right wing talk radio fulminates about it?
I personally believe many of these same people would gladly advocate paying people less based on the color of their skin... if they thought they could get away with it.
He wasn't fired, he chose to resign as it was in the best interests of Mozilla. As CEO he was the figurehead of the company, and he simply cannot distinguish his private beliefs from those of the company in the same way as a rank-and-file employee can. No one cared that he worked at Mozilla - they cared that he _led_ Mozilla.
Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?
I might disagree with the people who led the boycott, but would accept it as one of the attributes of this still relatively free society. Remember when Focus on the Family led a Disney boycott over "gay days"? Meh - I think they're unevolved dopes, but I would defend their right to be as dopey as they like.
Call me crazy... but it was a whole slew of people voting for Democrats back in 2008 which caused me to lose my very high quality health insurance policy thanks to their unilateral passage of the so called 'Affordable Care Act'
Now then... which party is seeking to harm me again?
There are winners and losers in any change to public policy. If you actually lost a "very high quality" policy, that is unfortunate, but the aggregate value of this change in the long run is a good tradeoff.
The ACA also raised my taxes for some stock sales last year, but I'm not complaining.
Prop 8 was never against people. It was against the self-contradicting phenomenon called "gay marriage". Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.
Yeah, I see that argument a lot. I am a heterosexual man in a 28 year marriage in which we have not, and never intended, to "produce children".
So by your logic, my marriage is no better than that of two men. Nice logic. And there's a WORLD of flawed reasoning behind your use of the word, "regular" to describe heterosexual marriage in the modern world, which is quite recent. Go read about the origins of marriage, which is more like slavery and men's property rights than modern marriage, which you apparently regard as some eternal social construct when it's anything but.
Never mind either that we still haven't gotten to the bottom to the GP's post about the IRS directly targeting conservative groups. And that Lerner's probably going to end up in prison over it to protect whatever political master she's serving higher up in the chain. 5th not applying in her case.
You do know that the R's are only citing her for contempt of congress to keep this issue alive until the midterm elections, don't you? Benghazi can't shoulder the load all by itself. If they were even a *little* bit serious about getting to the bottom of this heinous (by which I mean "bogus") scandal, in order to get to the nefarious and shadowy "political master she's serving higher up in the chain", they'd offer her immunity to get to that person.
That person doesn't exist. You fell for it. Again.
How was this modded insightful? No one made shit up about Eich.
If you insist on obfuscating the actual events with a diner-based analogy, it's like tell the restaurant owner you and your friends won't patronize his establishment because the cook yelled, "Hey fags! You shouldn't have the right to get married!" at them on his way to work.
You can debate whether that's "fair", but at least you'd be closer to what actually happened.
If by "calling it as you see it", you mean my alleged "attack", then your judgment is just as poor about what I wrote as it is about the actual subject of the article. And don't take my word for your poor judgment, just ask... yourself. You admitted you were wrong.
And again, you were wrong, about the law being discussed, and about whether I attacked you. I did not.
Since you won't let it go, I'll tell you that your original post annoyed me because it was absolutist and insensitive to the victims. If fact, yours was quite a dickish post. But I responded politely, suggested what you could consider to change your mind, and you got all butt hurt over it.
I'm done educating you. Feel free to natter on over this, but I won't read or respond to this thread again.
But if you post something on another topic that is *also* thoughtless, insensitive, and well, dickish in the future, I may respond.
I said that I believed you hadn't really thought about the issue. If you think that's an attack, then you're too delicate a flower to post your opinions in a public forum, especially when you choose to state your opinions as categorical conclusions on closed subjects. "Period." is how you stated it. No gray area, no room for discussion, or thought, for that matter.
As for "attackable flaws", I didn't "attack" the "flaws" in your argument, I described why I thought the weak relief afforded victims of these crimes is not sufficient, and invited you to consider whether your position would change if you knew one of those victims. Again, not an attack, and I did advance my own argument, instead of simply attacking you. Which I did not do.
It's not me. It's you. Oh, and I don't give a shit if you like me or not. I don't respect your opinions.
And the current law provides more than adequate means to pursue your ex when he or she posts those photos or videos. We don't need a new law for this. Period.
I don't agree. I think the current laws (which vary by state) allow for civil penalties. I don't think that's sufficient given the emotional and reputational damage revenge porn inflicts.
But your absolute certainty about this is the best clue that you haven't really thought about it. Maybe you just don't care - probably this has never happened to you or someone close to you. Ask yourself, if someone did this to your sister, or your mom, would you think a few thousand dollars in compensation was sufficient?
Slashdot Mirror
I love that you called the black President "my boy"? Do you even realize you're doing it? Is it completely unconscious?
But anyway, Afghanistan was an inherited war. I'd explain the dynamics involving Pakistan, our nightmare "ally", but even if you understood, you wouldn't converse, you'd use another slur and ignore the point.
Yep, there you go. Keep repeating the lie, never back down. You'd make a fine tea bagger.
You have convinced yourself using a completely false narrative.
There's no talking to you.
You are a fool. Take the last word, which I will not read.
This is exactly it. Nothing will ever satisfy people like you. If you could live stream video, then you'd say, "but I'm not really looking at it, I'm looking at a monitor. That's not making it available to me. I need to touch it."
Then if you could touch it, you'd say, "but it's not really available to me. It would really be available if I could take it with me for... tests. Yeah, that's the ticket, I need to test it."
This is a dishonest tactic, plain and simple. And you think we don't see through that?
I have no idea about his ancestry but he's one shitty, vacillating Chief Executive. It's like reliving the Carter years.
Yeah, I hate how he declined to invade and rebuild Libya. And Syria. Doesn't he know his job is to start wars that make the right wing rich while providing subjects to help improve prosthetics?
You might actually want to look up that McCain claim as you are wrong on it.
Of course if you did that, you might appear as if you know what you are talking about. But then your racism argument falls apart until you invent something else.
Here is a hint, McCain's eligability was challenged at the same time Obama's was by a hillary supporter.
The first hint was that you posted no citation backing up your claim - are you just repeating the talking points? Here's a citation, about two people who filed lawsuits - one's an idiot who says he "just wanted to get into the mix". The other, Hollander, is a REPUBLICAN, and says he did it to forestall suits challenging McCain's legitimacy after he won the election.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/...
"Hillary supporter" - that's rich. Even if either lawsuit were filed by someone who supported Hillary Clinton, private citizens can do whatever dumb shit they want. And McCain's case is a matter of law, not of fact, and the law is ambiguous, as you would know if you had looked at it. A case could be made that McCain was ineligible. Not so with Obama.
So, no serious challenge to McCain by Democrats, years and years of racist shit by the loony right. I have to say, you certainly earned your handle with that one. Got anything better to show than I posted?
Oh, one more thing: "In 2008, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent declaring John McCain to be a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to run for President. Ironically, this bill was co-sponsored by both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Could you look any "dummer"?
I love to see how people who still think "there's something fishy there" have painted themselves into this corner you just repeated, and are arguing over the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. He requested his own birth certificate. He posted it online. It was available to examine.
If you mean that Donald Trump wasn't allowed to fondle the certificate with his grubby mitts, then sure, that's true. But arguing this point is so blatantly trolling that anyone but a rabid freak should be embarrassed to repeat it.
Yes, people were denied healthcare they couldn't pay for. Some homeless mentally ill person could feign chest pains and get a full workup and warm bed. Not to mention an ambulance ride. Then skip out on the bill.
Actually, no. I worked for a recovery audit contractor, which gets 3-5% of each claim recovered for miscoding, not medically justified, technically wrong, etc. That money is snatched back from the hospital, private practice, whatever medical establishment provided the Medicare or Medicaid service.
What do you think the hospital is going to tell its ER staff - the next time someone shows up who's iffy, turn them away.
I had to quit; it was eroding my soul.
Who's going to tell the judge no? Who's going to enforce it?
Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos. (And even then the "discipline" is generally trivial in comparison to the offense.)
I'm curious - can you site one instance in which you "heard of" a judge not being disciplined because "he was acting to support the local politicos". It seems unlikely you actually have such knowledge. My guess is that you are generalizing, or guessing, or just wildly speculating.
Yes, indeed, your "marriage" is a fraud — had you honestly declared your intentions to whoever issued you the marriage-license, they would not (or should not) have issued one to you.
You are entirely full of shit. I think you live in some fantasy world in which everyone hews to your odd views of marriage and other civil institutions. You DID notice that your lazy Wikipedia article citation made NO mention of an obligation to procreate, didn't you? Did you read your own citation?
I defy you to find a civil authority in the United States which would dare to suggest that I am forbidden to marry if I don't intend to procreate.
You are a loon. It's not that I disagree with you, it's that you are so far off the beacon you're not qualified to hold forth your fantastical viewpoints.
You're just engaging in verbal gymnastics. Your arguments are empty, and you cannot defend your sanctimony. That's the correct word, you are terribly sanctimonious. Also self-righteous. You're also dishonest, because you're just looking for an opportunity to spout off your judgments.
Which is fine. Rock on. Take the last word, which I will decline to read.
It seems to me that it is reasonable to say that Service Pack 3 for Windows XP finally made the OS a somewhat finished product. Service Pack 3 of Windows XP was released on May 6, 2008. By that measure, Windows XP is 6 years old.
This is just nutty. And please, tell us again about how your article makes all the crazy seem reasonable.
Saying that you're judging actions and not people is sophistry. Few situations can be identified as a "moral" issue because there are so many subjective opinions, cloaked in "morality". This is one of them. The protesters thought his donation was immoral, he thought that gay marriage was immoral. You have no basis for judging morality in this situation. You can choose to do so, and I can lump you in with the Westboro Church people, shake my head, and get on with my life.
Aside from that, consider the actual situation. Eich was wealthy before he won (and lost) that job. He'll be wealthy the rest of his life. Losing this job is no more than the equivalent of a "time out". He's clearly at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If someone who did the same thing he did was at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, I'd consider the morality of depriving that person and their family of the basics of life. I have little sympathy for Eich's plight. Oh, and I don't have a "tech job". I am a senior manager. If I represented my company and our clients found out I did something they consider reprehensible, I wouldn't be surprised or especially outraged at being canned.
Please stop saying this is not the society "we" want. You don't speak for me. I like the rough and tumble nature of our society.
If you want to look for something actually worthy of wagging your finger at, complain about what the wealthy are doing to literally steal the future of the majority and their children. It's rather unseemly to express such sanctimony in public as you are doing here.
You misunderstand. I wasn't even addressing whether these kinds of boycotts are legal, they unquestionably are.
My point was that while it might annoy me to see a group with which I disagree stage a boycott, I wouldn't start throwing around accusations using the loaded word "morality". In a situation where people choose to express their opinions by withholding business I don't think you have the "moral" high ground to judge them. Though you are perfectly within your rights, and I won't judge you to be "immoral" to scold them for defending their positions.
However, you have also made the same mistake as others in this discussion by using the word "McCarthyism". You know perfectly well that McCarthy was a Senator, and that he used the power of the federal government to persecute alleged and actual communists. You cannot in good conscience claim that private citizens expressing themselves are engaging in McCarthyism. But again, if you insist on it, while I might believe you are being disingenuous, perhaps even dishonest, I would not call you immoral.
no one in modern times (in a western world) would think its ok to underpay women just because they are women. no one would think its ok to pay less based on skin color.
Yow, really? Plenty of people publicly say there is no gender pay inequity in the U.S. Why do you think the R's are against fair pay laws, and why do you think right wing talk radio fulminates about it?
I personally believe many of these same people would gladly advocate paying people less based on the color of their skin... if they thought they could get away with it.
Would you think it OK if the figurehead of a technological organization had to resign after boycots from those who objected to a $1000 donation, 5 years ago, to some side of the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue?
I might disagree with the people who led the boycott, but would accept it as one of the attributes of this still relatively free society. Remember when Focus on the Family led a Disney boycott over "gay days"? Meh - I think they're unevolved dopes, but I would defend their right to be as dopey as they like.
Call me crazy... but it was a whole slew of people voting for Democrats back in 2008 which caused me to lose my very high quality health insurance policy thanks to their unilateral passage of the so called 'Affordable Care Act'
Now then... which party is seeking to harm me again?
There are winners and losers in any change to public policy. If you actually lost a "very high quality" policy, that is unfortunate, but the aggregate value of this change in the long run is a good tradeoff.
The ACA also raised my taxes for some stock sales last year, but I'm not complaining.
Prop 8 was never against people. It was against the self-contradicting phenomenon called "gay marriage". Even if the government should recognize marriage at all (an assumption I, as a Libertarian, doubt strongly), there is no justification for equating the regular, children-producing marriage and gay-unions.
Yeah, I see that argument a lot. I am a heterosexual man in a 28 year marriage in which we have not, and never intended, to "produce children".
So by your logic, my marriage is no better than that of two men. Nice logic. And there's a WORLD of flawed reasoning behind your use of the word, "regular" to describe heterosexual marriage in the modern world, which is quite recent. Go read about the origins of marriage, which is more like slavery and men's property rights than modern marriage, which you apparently regard as some eternal social construct when it's anything but.
Never mind either that we still haven't gotten to the bottom to the GP's post about the IRS directly targeting conservative groups. And that Lerner's probably going to end up in prison over it to protect whatever political master she's serving higher up in the chain. 5th not applying in her case.
You do know that the R's are only citing her for contempt of congress to keep this issue alive until the midterm elections, don't you? Benghazi can't shoulder the load all by itself. If they were even a *little* bit serious about getting to the bottom of this heinous (by which I mean "bogus") scandal, in order to get to the nefarious and shadowy "political master she's serving higher up in the chain", they'd offer her immunity to get to that person.
That person doesn't exist. You fell for it. Again.
Yes, I agree, it's despicable of them to use freedom of speech to espouse a point of view with which you don't agree.
Wait a minute...
How was this modded insightful? No one made shit up about Eich.
If you insist on obfuscating the actual events with a diner-based analogy, it's like tell the restaurant owner you and your friends won't patronize his establishment because the cook yelled, "Hey fags! You shouldn't have the right to get married!" at them on his way to work.
You can debate whether that's "fair", but at least you'd be closer to what actually happened.
If by "calling it as you see it", you mean my alleged "attack", then your judgment is just as poor about what I wrote as it is about the actual subject of the article. And don't take my word for your poor judgment, just ask... yourself. You admitted you were wrong.
And again, you were wrong, about the law being discussed, and about whether I attacked you. I did not.
Since you won't let it go, I'll tell you that your original post annoyed me because it was absolutist and insensitive to the victims. If fact, yours was quite a dickish post. But I responded politely, suggested what you could consider to change your mind, and you got all butt hurt over it.
I'm done educating you. Feel free to natter on over this, but I won't read or respond to this thread again.
But if you post something on another topic that is *also* thoughtless, insensitive, and well, dickish in the future, I may respond.
I said that I believed you hadn't really thought about the issue. If you think that's an attack, then you're too delicate a flower to post your opinions in a public forum, especially when you choose to state your opinions as categorical conclusions on closed subjects. "Period." is how you stated it. No gray area, no room for discussion, or thought, for that matter.
As for "attackable flaws", I didn't "attack" the "flaws" in your argument, I described why I thought the weak relief afforded victims of these crimes is not sufficient, and invited you to consider whether your position would change if you knew one of those victims. Again, not an attack, and I did advance my own argument, instead of simply attacking you. Which I did not do.
It's not me. It's you. Oh, and I don't give a shit if you like me or not. I don't respect your opinions.
This is true. Also, Jesus hunted the mammoth with humans, riding his velociraptor, while wearing a Che shirt.
And the current law provides more than adequate means to pursue your ex when he or she posts those photos or videos. We don't need a new law for this. Period.
I don't agree. I think the current laws (which vary by state) allow for civil penalties. I don't think that's sufficient given the emotional and reputational damage revenge porn inflicts.
But your absolute certainty about this is the best clue that you haven't really thought about it. Maybe you just don't care - probably this has never happened to you or someone close to you. Ask yourself, if someone did this to your sister, or your mom, would you think a few thousand dollars in compensation was sufficient?