So do you and you "friends" take things from each other by force? Strange definition of friendship.
"As for medical care, do you really prefer to see people die because the do not have enough money?"
Loaded questions with emotional blackmail don't work on me. If the only way a person can live is by robbing me, then yes, I'd rather that they died, and the sooner the better. If you are worried about the poor's health care, you have the right to contribute as much of your money to assist them as you wish to. You have the right to start a charity that cares for them, and ask others to contribute to it. If you ask me to contribute, and your charity is well run, you will likely get a donation. If you want to use force to get me to contribute, then you can go to Hell. Do you understand the diferance between requesting aid and demanding aid at gunpoint?
I Also think you have a very low opinion of your fellow human beings if you think the only way you can get them to assist each other is by force and imtimadation.
If you were logical you would notice a self serving site that practices scare tatics to gain funds from the people it frightens.
The UFO's are comming to INVADE Earth!!!! Send your contribution to me so I can develop my Photon Torpedo defense system that will save the planet from destruction !!!!!
Prior to the 1960s a majority of the people in the Southeastern US agreed with the Racist laws of that era. The early phases of the US Civil rights movement were a battle of Rights vs Majority rule. Are you going to argue that the laws that discriminated against 25% of the people in the region were just because a majority supported them?
An Unlimited democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The power of your vote ends where my rights begain.
Yes, It was utterly boring. I rally don't care if you accept the MM's self definition of "Christian" or not. Granting the Government the power to inforce morality is dangrous as hell because you have no way of insuring that your flavor of morality will agree with whoever is in power this year. When you grant them the power to enforce some fuzzy "social morality" you are also giving them the power to enforce a different "morality" than the one you originally had in mind. Sometimes radically different.
ROFLMAO, Whine and cry all you want, it dosen't give you the "right" to force your amoral system on me. However your iniation of force DOES give me the right to implant several grams of hot lead into your brain while defending myself. (Yes I can even hit a dime sized target like that one.)
Rights are NOT earned by agreeing to some arbitary "obligations" that somebody imposed. They are endowded by your creator (Natural law or devine being, whichever you beleave in), not the whims of whatever pack of politicians managed to bribe the largest mob into handing them power. The idea that you have to "earn" something that you allready pocess is rather bizare.
The Only "employee" rights I have is to seek employment, to accept or reject an offer of employment, and to end the term of employment whenever I wish. The only rights an employer has is to seek employees, to hire them with the mutal consent of the employee, and to end the term of employment whenever he wishes.
As for the other things that governments label as employee "rights", I can have Billionaire tattoed on my ass, but it won't make me one. Labels are not reality.
Of course I have to "abide" by those rules, because you statists are running a protection racket like any common gangster, demanding money from a business, and using the ill gotten gains to buy the votes that keep you in power.
The fact that you have deprived your victims of a legal recouse to your racket does not change the amoral nature of it.
The slaves in the old south had to "abide" the rules your ideological twins in the concept of forcing your will on others set up for them, Massa' ManitobaMoose.
" And finally, US law violates my right to shoot you for having no social morality."
You just can't get away from the concept that you have a "right" to force your "morality" on others, but I bet you scream bloody murder when the so called "Moral Majority" attempts to force it's "morality" on you. If you have the "right" to force your social(ist) morality on me, then the MM has the "right" to force their Christian moraility on you.
Frankly, the minute you decided to use force you lost all claim to the term morality.
ROFLMAO, Ever hear of the Chopper shortage early in the War? McNamera came up with the lame brain idea that the Army didn't need them and ordered a halt in orders. So the crafty LBJ lets his Sec Def halt production of the resource he's waging the war to make $$$$ off of?
LBJ was one of the biggest liars that ever set foot in the White House, but America's Far Leftists make him look like a pillar of honesty. Is the far Left shameless liars, amazingly gulible, or perhaps a mixture of the two?
Yeah go ahead and mark it flamebait, lib Modarators, I have karma to burn, and modding it down has no effect on the truthfulness of the statements.
Can I trust this software? Not fully if it's just a Binary, but in the Windows world often a Binary is the only option, and I'd put more trust in a Binary from the Federal Government than in some "Secure Win" Binary I downloaded off a free beer software site or even bought from a company that I hadn't checked out throughly.
I Disagree. The extremists are a convient strawman that the RIAA and the MPAA can point at, claiming that is the kind of nuts that oppose this reasonable legislation. All we are asking for is protection from those people.
During the Viet Nam war the peace movement was set back by the tatics of the wackos. People who were close to deciding that the war wasn't a good idea were so turned off by things like burning American Flags, waving Viet Cong flags, foul language, and Attacks on US Servicemen that they recoiled from being associated with that pack of losers and returned to a public sentiment of "Support our boys in Viet Nam" and kept their concerns about the war private. The extreamists actually prolonged the war.
Most people don't want to be associated with a pack of fanatics, certainly not loudmouth boorish geek fanatics. There is nothing that the RIAA and the MPAA would like more than convincing most people that the fair use movement consists of nothing but a rag tag bunch of loudmouth louts looking to steal music, movies and software.
An excellant example of "double plus duckspeak" from a poster with Orwell in his sig line.
Was there a point hidden among all the slogans? I saw was a lot of loaded words aimed at stirring up prejudace against corparations, a few wild accusations, and allmost no content. The fact that you hate and fear corparations is apparant, but if you have a logical reason for feeling this way, it was lost in the emotionalisic tone of your post.
After years of using Telespammers as fodder for mind games I got crossed off the call lists and ran out of victims. I Was worried I'd have to quit paying some bills to get calls from collectors, but the telecos are saving the day by providing me with freash meat.
A Car that ran on Any desktop OS rather than run of the mill embeded chips would make it into a "news for nerds" site.
There are a bunch of stale old jokes about how unreliable a car running Windows anything would be, so yes it's funny as hell to see old jokes turn into an actual product. If it'll make you feel better, an equal time joke. They tried a Linux car but changing the sparkplugs created dependancy problems that forced you upgrade to a new Fuel Injection system. (rimshot)
The funniest part of the whole thing however isn't the predictable jokes, it's the predictable behaviour of the Microsofties who whine about the jokes about their favorite OS instead of bitching to MS about not fixing the problems that led to the jokes.
An AC wrote: "Of course it is. That's what a (civil) right is: a constraint on other people's behavior as it relates to you. This is distinct from a liberty, which is your freedom to do various things as you please."
Your definition of a "right" is in fact a negation of the concept of rights. just because the government abitrally gives someone a privellege and calls it a "right" dosen't make it one. 50 years ago the state I live in assigned Whites the privillege of constraning the behavior of minorities, and defended this injustice under the banner of states rights. Those laws were just a big a violation of real rights as the so called civil rights laws are.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Notice the source of rights, "endowed by their Creator"?. It dosen't matter if you consider the "creator" to be a devine power, or natural laws, rights are NOT the creation of governments, which only exist to protect rights. The US government could no more magicly create a "right" not to be discriminated against in 1964, than the slave states could magicly create a "right" to own another human being between 1776 and 1865.
Allowing the government to assume the power to create "rights" is very dangrous, because at the same time you are giving them the power to repeal rights, real ones like "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" one of which you have allready claimed can be constrained by the arbitary civil "rights" created in 1964.
Orwell's understanding of the nature of Statism shown in 1984, and his belief of a Statist system like Socalism only shows that realizing that doublethink exists does not make you immune to practicing it.
Actually it was an example of the modern definition of Sophistry, selecting an alternitve meaning to a phrase used by an opponent in order to discredit his argument by taking it out of context, rather than it's original meaning a school of philosphy that practiced arguing both sides of a postion as a mental exercise.
Call it an object lesson in the central idea behind newspeak, which was controlling the definition of words is a way of limiting the thought process to terms you consider correct.
Slashdot Mirror
So do you and you "friends" take things from each other by force? Strange definition of friendship.
"As for medical care, do you really prefer to see people die because the do not have enough money?"
Loaded questions with emotional blackmail don't work on me. If the only way a person can live is by robbing me, then yes, I'd rather that they died, and the sooner the better. If you are worried about the poor's health care, you have the right to contribute as much of your money to assist them as you wish to. You have the right to start a charity that cares for them, and ask others to contribute to it. If you ask me to contribute, and your charity is well run, you will likely get a donation. If you want to use force to get me to contribute, then you can go to Hell. Do you understand the diferance between requesting aid and demanding aid at gunpoint?
I Also think you have a very low opinion of your fellow human beings if you think the only way you can get them to assist each other is by force and imtimadation.
The UFO's are comming to INVADE Earth!!!! Send your contribution to me so I can develop my Photon Torpedo defense system that will save the planet from destruction !!!!!
See it isn't hard to come up with a similar scam.
An Unlimited democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The power of your vote ends where my rights begain.
Whine and cry all you want, it dosen't give you the "right" to force your amoral system on me. However your iniation of force DOES give me the right to implant several grams of hot lead into your brain while defending myself. (Yes I can even hit a dime sized target like that one.)
The Only "employee" rights I have is to seek employment, to accept or reject an offer of employment, and to end the term of employment whenever I wish. The only rights an employer has is to seek employees, to hire them with the mutal consent of the employee, and to end the term of employment whenever he wishes.
As for the other things that governments label as employee "rights", I can have Billionaire tattoed on my ass, but it won't make me one. Labels are not reality.
The fact that you have deprived your victims of a legal recouse to your racket does not change the amoral nature of it.
The slaves in the old south had to "abide" the rules your ideological twins in the concept of forcing your will on others set up for them, Massa'
ManitobaMoose.
You just can't get away from the concept that you have a "right" to force your "morality" on others, but I bet you scream bloody murder when the so called "Moral Majority" attempts to force it's "morality" on you. If you have the "right" to force your social(ist) morality on me, then the MM has the "right" to force their Christian moraility on you.
Frankly, the minute you decided to use force you lost all claim to the term morality.
Ever hear of the Chopper shortage early in the War? McNamera came up with the lame brain idea that the Army didn't need them and ordered a halt in orders. So the crafty LBJ lets his Sec Def halt production of the resource he's waging the war to make $$$$ off of?
LBJ was one of the biggest liars that ever set foot in the White House, but America's Far Leftists make him look like a pillar of honesty. Is the far Left shameless liars, amazingly gulible, or perhaps a mixture of the two?
Yeah go ahead and mark it flamebait, lib Modarators, I have karma to burn, and modding it down has no effect on the truthfulness of the statements.
Not fully if it's just a Binary, but in the Windows world often a Binary is the only option, and I'd put more trust in a Binary from the Federal Government than in some "Secure Win" Binary I downloaded off a free beer software site or even bought from a company that I hadn't checked out throughly.
Most people don't want to be associated with a pack of fanatics, certainly not loudmouth boorish geek fanatics. There is nothing that the RIAA and the MPAA would like more than convincing most people that the fair use movement consists of nothing but a rag tag bunch of loudmouth louts looking to steal music, movies and software.
Was there a point hidden among all the slogans? I saw was a lot of loaded words aimed at stirring up prejudace against corparations, a few wild accusations, and allmost no content. The fact that you hate and fear corparations is apparant, but if you have a logical reason for feeling this way, it was lost in the emotionalisic tone of your post.
OK, then we'll write virus jokes, license jokes, security jokes, monopoly jokes, and of course this one has to be posted....
Is The Hood Welded Shut?
There are a bunch of stale old jokes about how unreliable a car running Windows anything would be, so yes it's funny as hell to see old jokes turn into an actual product. If it'll make you feel better, an equal time joke. They tried a Linux car but changing the sparkplugs created dependancy problems that forced you upgrade to a new Fuel Injection system. (rimshot)
The funniest part of the whole thing however isn't the predictable jokes, it's the predictable behaviour of the Microsofties who whine about the jokes about their favorite OS instead of bitching to MS about not fixing the problems that led to the jokes.
"Of course it is. That's what a (civil) right is: a constraint on other people's behavior as it relates to you. This is distinct from a liberty, which is your freedom to do various things as you please."
Your definition of a "right" is in fact a negation of the concept of rights. just because the government abitrally gives someone a privellege and calls it a "right" dosen't make it one. 50 years ago the state I live in assigned Whites the privillege of constraning the behavior of minorities, and defended this injustice under the banner of states rights. Those laws were just a big a violation of real rights as the so called civil rights laws are.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
Notice the source of rights, "endowed by their Creator"?. It dosen't matter if you consider the "creator" to be a devine power, or natural laws, rights are NOT the creation of governments, which only exist to protect rights. The US government could no more magicly create a "right" not to be discriminated against in 1964, than the slave states could magicly create a "right" to own another human being between 1776 and 1865.
Allowing the government to assume the power to create "rights" is very dangrous, because at the same time you are giving them the power to repeal rights, real ones like "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" one of which you have allready claimed can be constrained by the arbitary civil "rights" created in 1964.
Call it an object lesson in the central idea behind newspeak, which was controlling the definition of words is a way of limiting the thought process to terms you consider correct.