Exactly. That quote actuallly made me angry. If i brandished a knife and demanded your wallet, most people would call me a "mugger". This boob would use the excuse, "I didn't MAKE you hand over your wallet, it was your decision". Its not even a rational defense.
Its nice to see that someone defending his company's indefensible action is now "the new fact of Apple". This is just disgusting on so many levels.
But, but, you're not thinking of the CHILDREN! And the terrorists! what if we had good information that someone placed a nuclear bomb in downtown Toronto! Would you REALLY want us to waste time with a silly little thing like a warrant when Armageddon is upon us?
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
Sorry but when its done with FORCE its no longer "shared", its "coerced". Kinda like me deciding to "share" the contents of my wallet with a guy pointing a gun to my head. Context is everything.
1st, not everyone can afford health care. Not everyone can afford healthy food either. What is your stand on our "shared responsiblity" to make sure everyone eats well?
Your second point is an economic argument, not a moral one. If economics=morality, then you'd be hailing Exxon-Mobil as the Second Coming. If you can't defend your argument on moral grounds, then please just say so (and you cannot in any case).
3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west.
No, the right to live unmolested from snot-nosed, ignorant asshats like you is the glue that makes society work. If you were even remotely correct, then Communism would be Nirvana. Clearly, you're wrong on yet another point.
4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
Clearly not, unless my neighbor shows up at my door waving a gun, demanding money. you know, exactly like you're doing here. Then he can go die in a fire for all i care.
wow great non-answer! Nobody asked about your mom or your dad or your toe-jam infestation.
Sorry, whatever you believe, you do NOT have a right to others' labor. Since you feel so strongly about it, i would assume that you've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a medical education, and are willing to work for peanuts.
Health care is NOT a responsibility of "civilization", its a PERSONAL responsibility. I can't help it if my neighbor smokes or drinks too much or rides around on his motorcycle without a helmet.
If health care is a responsibility of civilization, isn't it also "civilization's" responsibility to make sure you DO wear a helmet at ALL times. And not smoke. And eat properly? Police state, much?
If health care is a responsibility of civilization, why not food? How much is enough for you people?
It sounds all nice and pretty, but when you actually.. you know... stop and THINK about it, your "belief" is a festering pile of shit.
No YOU'VE missed the point. PLEASE show me a link where these mythical "net.Libertarians" don't anticipate.. you know, people acting like PEOPLE.
Libertarians are NOT idealists. We're advocating the best approach that works WITH human nature, not against it.
Monopolies? Government IS a monopoly, by definition.
Sleazy stock takeovers? How about a government that can leave you bankrupt and jailed on a whim?
Bribes? Never happens in government now does it?
False Advertising? I can't think of a government program that has EVER come in on time, under budget, and completed satisfactorily. You know a politician is lying when their mouth is moving.
Imperfect knowledge of consumers? Governments THRIVE on misinformation. Its an artform with them.
Dumping pollutants? Happens all the time with government. Check Google for what's happening in Area 51 for one small example.
Sorry, but your cure is worse than the "disease" you rant so incoherently against.
And your tagline is a perfect example of the breathtaking vastness of your lack of understanding. WHO gets to decide what constitutes "too many things"? You? Hillary? Mao?
Your ridiculous "philsophy" will never work as long as human nature is what it is. If we manage to change that, then of course it will no longer be "human nature".
Please crawl back under your rock now. and for the FSM's sake, PLEASE never, ever vote.
FACT. The FBI KNEW about the bombing beforehand, and had a mole in place. They were planning to switch the explosive with a harmless powder and just *oops* messed up. They ONLY way we know this is because Emad became suspicious of his FBI handlers and started taping phone conversations. Otherwise this would have gone into the memory hole with everything else our government doesn't want us to know.
Look up "Emad Salem" on the intraweb tubes to learn what really happened. Problem. Reaction. Solution.
I know I've gone to see artists in person that I never would have heard of if not for P2P. Keb Mo, Susan Tedeschi and the Radiators all come to mind immediately. Great artists all, but they never get any airplay, being blues artists.
And according to my musician friends, artists sell albums to get people to go to the concerts, not the other way around. Live performances are where they really make their money.
Ah yes, a "government report based on computer modelling". Because we all know computers never make mistakes right? Let's just not mention the boatload of assumptions necessary to pull off a weather/food/hunger/thirst/death model. It will work as perfectly as the computer 's weather model in "The Day After Tomorrow". Its just a really fancy spreadsheet.
And I love how America "refuses" to cut its emissions, yet China and India's emissions are simply growing. Why wasn't it written that they, too refuse to cut their emissions? Kyoto was a joke.
This whole thing reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote: "When in fear, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
Wow. Just wow. Such an expected non-answer answer. I'm not gonna get into a semantic mud wrestling match. It would seem you cannot define love, therefore proving or disproving its existence is an exercise in futility. We might as well debate the existence of a gakejrer. But thank you for pointing out the complete lack of logic in your position. It frightens me that people who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag can vote and drive.
Of course faith is a matter of the heart. Which makes it completely useless in the realm of science, or anything else having to do with reality for that matter.
I'm glad you caught the inherent dichotomy. Intelligent design CANNOT be either proved or disproved, as it depends on invisible sky fairies for its basis. Hardly in the same league as science on ANY level.
"Theory" is as close to a "fact" as you can get in science. That you don't understand that simple concept speaks volumes about your insight into science.
Absolutely not. Believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. But if you want to put fantasies on the same level as a scientific theory, some proof is required.
Only if you consider "God did it" as some kind of answer. Fortunately for humanity, most of us realize that's a pretty crappy answer. Has been since the 15th century or thereabouts.
If you were going to pick a "random week", I'd think you would pick a random Monday through Friday. Yet he "randomly" picked Thursday through the following Tuesday?
Can Microsoft demonstrate the simplest thing without lying outrageously?
I'm really glad the government is limiting our free speech in order to protect the "fairness" of the election process.
Because apparently we're too stupid to form our own opinions based on facts and rational thinking. Instead we just say "oooo shiny" and vote for whoever spends the most money.
We're sheep for shearing in the springtime and cannon fodder during wartime.
That is all. Go back and watch another football game. Nothing important here.
We're through the looking glass here people.
on
Election Day Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Its interesting how people get things exactly backwards.
We didn't turn our backs on the UN, the UN turned their backs on US. The "coalition of the bribed and coereced" exactly describes the United Nations, not the nations allied with us in this war. Russia, China and France are up to their ears in kickbacks and graft from our old buddy Saddam. With "friends" like this, we'd damned well better be ready to "go it alone" if the situation calls for it.
And I LOVE that people forget how Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion of freedom in the last 50 years, was portrayed by the media during his tenure.
He was a reckless cowboy loner, willing to push the Soviet Union military (and the US) into bankruptcy, risking Total Nuclear Annihilation for some idiotic notion that he could defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
He was villified by "our international friends" and hounded by the Democrats mercilessly. He was regarded as an empty headed, overly simplistic buffoon.
Those famous words "Tear Down This Wall" were almost universally decried as confrontational, dangerous and completely lacking any "nuance" in understanding our relationship with the Kremlin.
But, of course, since the Democrats, the media and the "international community" got it EXACTLY WRONG, you don't hear much about how things actually WERE back in the day. I remember. I was there. I see the parallels with today's situation. I wish that people who's knowledge of history ends with "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree" would just sit the f*ck down and shut up.
"This is made worse by a republican message machine which is decades ahead of the democrat one. You have the conservative talk radio network, the white house which blocks access to reporters who ask the tough questions, the centralised talking points distribution network on the republican side, which dupes people into thinking a story has legitimacy because "everyone" is saying it, and on and on. This is why you can credibly argue a right wing bias in the media. It's not that the media sets out to be biased, it's that the republicans have tailored their PR to exploit the biases that are built into the media as it stands."
Who's living in the fantasy land here? Anyone who thinks there you can credibly argue a right wing bias in the media for starters.
Yes the right wing has talk radio locked up, but for one reason and one reason only. Liberals (excuse me, Progressives) cannot survive in an atomosphere where honesty and truthfulness are built into the system. I've heard it tried before, and as soon as the Liberal (ahem, Progressive) host makes an asinine statement, his/her phone banks light up with people more than willing to set them straight. Their credibility is shot within a week.
Much like the blogs around the internet. Notice which ones have a talkback function and which ones don't. Its invariably the conservative sites that invite discussion, and the Liberal ones that do not. Because they can't. Because their arguments don't stand up to simple logic. If you truly understand logical fallacies, then you'd see this every day in the liberal media.
How many news organizations have used forged documents to aid a conservative cause? How many run "news reports" filled with omissions and inaccuracies regarding the draft so that they can advance the conservative agenda? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It happens ALL the time on the other side of the aisle. Check http://www.ratherbiased.com sometime. You may actually learn something.
So let's count this up. The conservatives have Fox News and talk radio. The Liberals have ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,Rueters, the New York Times, Air America, and most of Hollywood.
And you don't think the Democrats have "talking points" !? I guess it was just a huge coincidence that the DNC was ready to run with commercials bashing Bush's ANG record on the very night CBS ran their fradulent report? I guess Kerry talking about Republicans bringing back the draft and CBS running a "news" report on the same topic at the same time was just another amazing coincidence?
If you think Republicans have somehow managed to expliot existing biases, you'll need to give some concrete examples, otherwise, like most of the laughably sad political pundits here, you're speaking from an orifice other than your mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. That quote actuallly made me angry. If i brandished a knife and demanded your wallet, most people would call me a "mugger". This boob would use the excuse, "I didn't MAKE you hand over your wallet, it was your decision". Its not even a rational defense.
Its nice to see that someone defending his company's indefensible action is now "the new fact of Apple".
This is just disgusting on so many levels.
But, but, you're not thinking of the CHILDREN!
And the terrorists! what if we had good information that someone placed a nuclear bomb in downtown Toronto! Would you REALLY want us to waste time with a silly little thing like a warrant when Armageddon is upon us?
I find your lack of faith disturbing, Comrade.
Not tyrannical, not at all. We have a society, a community, and a nation. There is an amount of shared responsibility for the good of the society, community, and nation.
Sorry but when its done with FORCE its no longer "shared", its "coerced". Kinda like me deciding to "share" the contents of my wallet with a guy pointing a gun to my head. Context is everything.
1st, not everyone can afford health care.
Not everyone can afford healthy food either. What is your stand on our "shared responsiblity" to make sure everyone eats well?
Your second point is an economic argument, not a moral one. If economics=morality, then you'd be hailing Exxon-Mobil as the Second Coming. If you can't defend your argument on moral grounds, then please just say so (and you cannot in any case).
3rd, shared responsibility is the glue that makes society work. We no longer have the wild wild west.
No, the right to live unmolested from snot-nosed, ignorant asshats like you is the glue that makes society work. If you were even remotely correct, then Communism would be Nirvana. Clearly, you're wrong on yet another point.
4th, your neighbor's sickness or ill health cost you money. What are you going to do, let them die?
Clearly not, unless my neighbor shows up at my door waving a gun, demanding money. you know, exactly like you're doing here. Then he can go die in a fire for all i care.
Wow you're batting exactly ZERO so far.
Thank you for your time
wow great non-answer! Nobody asked about your mom or your dad or your toe-jam infestation.
Sorry, whatever you believe, you do NOT have a right to others' labor. Since you feel so strongly about it, i would assume that you've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a medical education, and are willing to work for peanuts.
Health care is NOT a responsibility of "civilization", its a PERSONAL responsibility. I can't help it if my neighbor smokes or drinks too much or rides around on his motorcycle without a helmet.
If health care is a responsibility of civilization, isn't it also "civilization's" responsibility to make sure you DO wear a helmet at ALL times. And not smoke. And eat properly? Police state, much?
If health care is a responsibility of civilization, why not food? How much is enough for you people?
It sounds all nice and pretty, but when you actually.. you know... stop and THINK about it, your "belief" is a festering pile of shit.
Thank you for your time
No YOU'VE missed the point. PLEASE show me a link where these mythical "net.Libertarians" don't anticipate.. you know, people acting like PEOPLE.
Libertarians are NOT idealists. We're advocating the best approach that works WITH human nature, not against it.
Monopolies? Government IS a monopoly, by definition.
Sleazy stock takeovers? How about a government that can leave you bankrupt and jailed on a whim?
Bribes? Never happens in government now does it?
False Advertising? I can't think of a government program that has EVER come in on time, under budget, and completed satisfactorily. You know a politician is lying when their mouth is moving.
Imperfect knowledge of consumers? Governments THRIVE on misinformation. Its an artform with them.
Dumping pollutants? Happens all the time with government. Check Google for what's happening in Area 51 for one small example.
Sorry, but your cure is worse than the "disease" you rant so incoherently against.
And your tagline is a perfect example of the breathtaking vastness of your lack of understanding. WHO gets to decide what constitutes "too many things"? You? Hillary? Mao?
Your ridiculous "philsophy" will never work as long as human nature is what it is. If we manage to change that, then of course it will no longer be "human nature".
Please crawl back under your rock now. and for the FSM's sake, PLEASE never, ever vote.
So will they have to change the name to GNU/Sparc?
Hardly,
You seem as ill-informed as most Americans.
FACT. The FBI KNEW about the bombing beforehand, and had a mole in place. They were planning to switch the explosive with a harmless powder and just *oops* messed up. They ONLY way we know this is because Emad became suspicious of his FBI handlers and started taping phone conversations. Otherwise this would have gone into the memory hole with everything else our government doesn't want us to know.
Look up "Emad Salem" on the intraweb tubes to learn what really happened. Problem. Reaction. Solution.
Reader's Digest doesn't seem to think so. They just paid some Big Bucks buying jumptheshark.com.
More important things like prosecuting Martha Stewart? You'd think they could find the time to prosecute the real criminals.
After all, he said that the original galactic confederation was around for some 80 trillion years. Give or take a few, I'd guess.
The falling number of pirates since the mid 1800's is the direct cause of rising ticket prices. Scientists have proven the correlation.
I know I've gone to see artists in person that I never would have heard of if not for P2P. Keb Mo, Susan Tedeschi and the Radiators all come to mind immediately. Great artists all, but they never get any airplay, being blues artists.
And according to my musician friends, artists sell albums to get people to go to the concerts, not the other way around. Live performances are where they really make their money.
Ah yes, a "government report based on computer modelling". Because we all know computers never make mistakes right? Let's just not mention the boatload of assumptions necessary to pull off a weather/food/hunger/thirst/death model. It will work as perfectly as the computer 's weather model in "The Day After Tomorrow". Its just a really fancy spreadsheet.
And I love how America "refuses" to cut its emissions, yet China and India's emissions are simply growing. Why wasn't it written that they, too refuse to cut their emissions? Kyoto was a joke.
This whole thing reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote: "When in fear, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
Wow. Just wow. Such an expected non-answer answer. I'm not gonna get into a semantic mud wrestling match. It would seem you cannot define love, therefore proving or disproving its existence is an exercise in futility. We might as well debate the existence of a gakejrer. But thank you for pointing out the complete lack of logic in your position. It frightens me that people who can't think their way out of a wet paper bag can vote and drive.
First define "love", then we can decide if it exists or not. Until then its just a mouth noise.
And "God created scientists" is simply circular reasoning. Something I've noticed subjectivists are particularly good at.
Of course faith is a matter of the heart. Which makes it completely useless in the realm of science, or anything else having to do with reality for that matter.
I'm glad you caught the inherent dichotomy. Intelligent design CANNOT be either proved or disproved, as it depends on invisible sky fairies for its basis. Hardly in the same league as science on ANY level.
"Theory" is as close to a "fact" as you can get in science. That you don't understand that simple concept speaks volumes about your insight into science.
Absolutely not. Believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. But if you want to put fantasies on the same level as a scientific theory, some proof is required.
Only if you consider "God did it" as some kind of answer. Fortunately for humanity, most of us realize that's a pretty crappy answer. Has been since the 15th century or thereabouts.
Great idea. But how exactly would you "prove" intelligent design?
If you were going to pick a "random week", I'd think you would pick a random Monday through Friday. Yet he "randomly" picked Thursday through the following Tuesday?
Can Microsoft demonstrate the simplest thing without lying outrageously?
I'm really glad the government is limiting our free speech in order to protect the "fairness" of the election process.
Because apparently we're too stupid to form our own opinions based on facts and rational thinking. Instead we just say "oooo shiny" and vote for whoever spends the most money.
We're sheep for shearing in the springtime and cannon fodder during wartime.
That is all. Go back and watch another football game. Nothing important here.
Its interesting how people get things exactly backwards.
We didn't turn our backs on the UN, the UN turned their backs on US. The "coalition of the bribed and coereced" exactly describes the United Nations, not the nations allied with us in this war. Russia, China and France are up to their ears in kickbacks and graft from our old buddy Saddam. With "friends" like this, we'd damned well better be ready to "go it alone" if the situation calls for it.
And I LOVE that people forget how Ronald Reagan, the greatest champion of freedom in the last 50 years, was portrayed by the media during his tenure.
He was a reckless cowboy loner, willing to push the Soviet Union military (and the US) into bankruptcy, risking Total Nuclear Annihilation for some idiotic notion that he could defeat the Soviet Union without firing a shot.
He was villified by "our international friends" and hounded by the Democrats mercilessly. He was regarded as an empty headed, overly simplistic buffoon.
Those famous words "Tear Down This Wall" were almost universally decried as confrontational, dangerous and completely lacking any "nuance" in understanding our relationship with the Kremlin.
But, of course, since the Democrats, the media and the "international community" got it EXACTLY WRONG, you don't hear much about how things actually WERE back in the day. I remember. I was there. I see the parallels with today's situation. I wish that people who's knowledge of history ends with "George Washington chopped down a cherry tree" would just sit the f*ck down and shut up.
"This is made worse by a republican message machine which is decades ahead of the democrat one. You have the conservative talk radio network, the white house which blocks access to reporters who ask the tough questions, the centralised talking points distribution network on the republican side, which dupes people into thinking a story has legitimacy because "everyone" is saying it, and on and on. This is why you can credibly argue a right wing bias in the media. It's not that the media sets out to be biased, it's that the republicans have tailored their PR to exploit the biases that are built into the media as it stands."
Who's living in the fantasy land here? Anyone who thinks there you can credibly argue a right wing bias in the media for starters.
Yes the right wing has talk radio locked up, but for one reason and one reason only. Liberals (excuse me, Progressives) cannot survive in an atomosphere where honesty and truthfulness are built into the system. I've heard it tried before, and as soon as the Liberal (ahem, Progressive) host makes an asinine statement, his/her phone banks light up with people more than willing to set them straight. Their credibility is shot within a week.
Much like the blogs around the internet. Notice which ones have a talkback function and which ones don't. Its invariably the conservative sites that invite discussion, and the Liberal ones that do not. Because they can't. Because their arguments don't stand up to simple logic. If you truly understand logical fallacies, then you'd see this every day in the liberal media.
How many news organizations have used forged documents to aid a conservative cause? How many run "news reports" filled with omissions and inaccuracies regarding the draft so that they can advance the conservative agenda? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It happens ALL the time on the other side of the aisle. Check http://www.ratherbiased.com sometime. You may actually learn something.
So let's count this up. The conservatives have Fox News and talk radio. The Liberals have ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,Rueters, the New York Times, Air America, and most of Hollywood.
And you don't think the Democrats have "talking points" !? I guess it was just a huge coincidence that the DNC was ready to run with commercials bashing Bush's ANG record on the very night CBS ran their fradulent report? I guess Kerry talking about Republicans bringing back the draft and CBS running a "news" report on the same topic at the same time was just another amazing coincidence?
If you think Republicans have somehow managed to expliot existing biases, you'll need to give some concrete examples, otherwise, like most of the laughably sad political pundits here, you're speaking from an orifice other than your mouth.
It sure seems like Joan is a Harley Davidson freak. It looks like she's completely outfitted for a week of sun and fun..
Leather Jacket.. Check
Swim Suit.. Check
Necklace.. Check
Gold dress.. Check
Bras.. Check
Shoes.. Check
Panties.. Umm. hmm. Not Check.
I think I'm in love.