That would make it harder to get to than the Secret Cow Level in Diablo II, because in Diablo II all you have to do is go through Hell, whereas with Windows 7 you have to install it successfully.
How about propping the economy up by giving money to the people who were trying to pay back the loans, so they won't foreclose, so the lender won't run into trouble in the first place?
A real argument against that: The only people who would vote on an issue in that sort of direct democracy would be those who (a) know that the vote is going on, (b) are able to cast their vote, and (c) have an ax to grind.
For an example of how well that would work, look at the recent history of obscenity enforcement by the FCC. The Parents Television Council organized a few hundred thousand people to complain, and the FCC all but has to act because no one is willing to get up and say what Tom Lehrer said: "I do have a cause: obscenity. I'm for it."
And then, as Mr Carlin pointed out so brilliantly, there are words that are perfectly fine to say in some contexts and completely indecent in others: "Nomar Garciaparra has 2 balls on him!" is fine if you're talking about baseball, but not if you're talking about anatomy.
I remember listening to an interview with an artist who had been commissioned to create a monument to free speech. This is what he came up with: A giant outdoor blackboard. Free chalk and erasers provided.
In response to the question "Won't people write obscenities? Draw porn? Offend people?", he said "Of course they will. And that's part of what free speech does."
Actually, the problem with the nuclear missile thing was simply a miscommunication: they didn't have any "nucular" missiles, so they didn't think they had to do anything differently.
Let me be the first to point out (as an Obama supporter) that John McCain decided to take what may well be his final bow on the national political stage with class, decency, and style. That he would get up there and say "I wish godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president" suggests that he might well have listened to the better angels of his own heart.
But I was saddened to hear booing from the audience when McCain started complimenting Obama. I understand why it happened, but it was really the only moment of ugliness all night.
If you were watching closely last night, you might have noticed that Obama was entirely behind bulletproof glass. The Secret Service has been keeping very tight security around him since very early on in his campaign.
Is it a real fear? Absolutely. But props should definitely go to the security around him.
That sounds like a common-sense proposal to me. Has there been any effort to push for a similar public welfare system in heavily LDS states such as Utah?
Have you ever been really truly poor? I mean so poor that you are wondering how you are going to eat and keep a roof over your head? So poor a meal at a fast-food restaurant is a big splurge?
Being on welfare isn't pleasant. Ignoring the social consequences, what you are getting while on public assistance is somewhere around the bare minimum needed to survive: the cheapest apartment available (typically 1 bedroom per 2 people), and some combination of WIC and food stamps. That's it: enough to eke out a meager existence. Any idea that you can get wealthy on public assistance is simply ludicrous.
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase.
Well, it is and it isn't. The tax cuts put in place back in 2001 included the premise that they would expire. Those who argued against them did so in part on the grounds that the costs were being hidden by pretending that the cuts would expire, but that as soon as that expiration rolled around there was going to be arguments about tax increases and the cuts would be made permanent. Lo and behold, the expiration has been coming up as a real possibility, and efforts are ongoing to make the tax cuts permanent.
So does it mean that taxes are going up? Absolutely. Does it mean that the Democrats are voting for a tax hike? Not necessarily.
Not only could the real McCain have been very strong with independents, he was, in 2000. What's quite interesting is that over the last few days I think McCain's decided he can't win, so he's starting to sound an awful lot like the real McCain.
Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.
Slashdot Mirror
My blood runs cold,
my memory has just been sold,
My angel is a centerfold!
I'm a complete slave to
Burma Shave
That would make it harder to get to than the Secret Cow Level in Diablo II, because in Diablo II all you have to do is go through Hell, whereas with Windows 7 you have to install it successfully.
Tough one. Here are my nominations that haven't been mentioned:
- The Cave Dwellers
- The Mole People
- Manos The Hands of Fate
And let's not leave out some classic short films:
- Mr B Natural
- Hired!
- A Date With Your Family
How about propping the economy up by giving money to the people who were trying to pay back the loans, so they won't foreclose, so the lender won't run into trouble in the first place?
That seems to make at least as much sense.
Furthermore, The Washington Post isn't the entire press corps.
Now, start listening to your Leaders.
That's "Dear Leaders" to you.
A real argument against that:
The only people who would vote on an issue in that sort of direct democracy would be those who (a) know that the vote is going on, (b) are able to cast their vote, and (c) have an ax to grind.
For an example of how well that would work, look at the recent history of obscenity enforcement by the FCC. The Parents Television Council organized a few hundred thousand people to complain, and the FCC all but has to act because no one is willing to get up and say what Tom Lehrer said:
"I do have a cause: obscenity. I'm for it."
On the upside, it's powered by a resource we have plenty of (especially in Washington D.C.): hot air.
Notquitecajun, will you stand up please. (gunshot)
This demonstrates the value of not being seen.
No, he could be as small as he wanted to be. And don't call me Shirley.
And then, as Mr Carlin pointed out so brilliantly, there are words that are perfectly fine to say in some contexts and completely indecent in others: "Nomar Garciaparra has 2 balls on him!" is fine if you're talking about baseball, but not if you're talking about anatomy.
A video on this very monument (I'm not intentionally karma whoring, I promise):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kV0xRcC1aA
I remember listening to an interview with an artist who had been commissioned to create a monument to free speech. This is what he came up with: A giant outdoor blackboard. Free chalk and erasers provided.
In response to the question "Won't people write obscenities? Draw porn? Offend people?", he said "Of course they will. And that's part of what free speech does."
Actually, the problem with the nuclear missile thing was simply a miscommunication: they didn't have any "nucular" missiles, so they didn't think they had to do anything differently.
Of course not, because in Soviet Russia, presidents elect YOU!
Instead he is opening a chocolate shop in Belgium, together with his wife.
Watch your language!
Let me be the first to point out (as an Obama supporter) that John McCain decided to take what may well be his final bow on the national political stage with class, decency, and style. That he would get up there and say "I wish godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president" suggests that he might well have listened to the better angels of his own heart.
But I was saddened to hear booing from the audience when McCain started complimenting Obama. I understand why it happened, but it was really the only moment of ugliness all night.
A coworker of mine described his vote very simply: "My fear with McCain is that he will do as he says. My fear with Obama is that he won't."
My response to those concerns is very simple: if he does half of what he says he'll do, that's still a big win.
If you were watching closely last night, you might have noticed that Obama was entirely behind bulletproof glass. The Secret Service has been keeping very tight security around him since very early on in his campaign.
Is it a real fear? Absolutely. But props should definitely go to the security around him.
That sounds like a common-sense proposal to me. Has there been any effort to push for a similar public welfare system in heavily LDS states such as Utah?
Did you ever consider that he was a Groucho Marxist?
It's not exactly racist, it's more classist.
Have you ever been really truly poor? I mean so poor that you are wondering how you are going to eat and keep a roof over your head? So poor a meal at a fast-food restaurant is a big splurge?
Being on welfare isn't pleasant. Ignoring the social consequences, what you are getting while on public assistance is somewhere around the bare minimum needed to survive: the cheapest apartment available (typically 1 bedroom per 2 people), and some combination of WIC and food stamps. That's it: enough to eke out a meager existence. Any idea that you can get wealthy on public assistance is simply ludicrous.
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase.
Well, it is and it isn't. The tax cuts put in place back in 2001 included the premise that they would expire. Those who argued against them did so in part on the grounds that the costs were being hidden by pretending that the cuts would expire, but that as soon as that expiration rolled around there was going to be arguments about tax increases and the cuts would be made permanent. Lo and behold, the expiration has been coming up as a real possibility, and efforts are ongoing to make the tax cuts permanent.
So does it mean that taxes are going up? Absolutely. Does it mean that the Democrats are voting for a tax hike? Not necessarily.
Not only could the real McCain have been very strong with independents, he was, in 2000. What's quite interesting is that over the last few days I think McCain's decided he can't win, so he's starting to sound an awful lot like the real McCain.
Also worth bearing in mind is that the 2 independents are completely different from each other:
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a real honest-to-goodness socialist. He's far more liberal than any Democrat.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 but now is one of John McCain's strongest supporters.