Silly me, I forgot that if you don't toe the democratic party line here, you get modded down. Thanks, Mr. Moderator, for making sure any debate here at slashdot is one sided.
You just cant stand the fact that Republicans might just kick the Dem's asses this November, can you?
It's an intellectually vapid and ridiculous notion that polling data should be the deciding factor in an election and not the actual votes cast. Yet, in favor of the polls, you ignore the fact that the majority of this country on the moderate to conservative side. You ignore the fact that Bush, both fucking times, has garnered more votes than Clinton ever did. You forget the fact that this country continues to vote in Republication houses and senates each election cycle and you forget that our economy is god damned fucking BOOMING.
You are acting like a petulant child, whining and bitching when you don't get your way and accusing everyone of being out to get you. Yes, it's obvious, with the constant daily barrage by the media telling us how fucked up this country is and how fucked up Iraq is and how angry we are all supposed to be, how could any of us vote for Republicans?
Something you are missing is that a large number of people in this country see our economy booming, we see the RECORD unemployment and the booming housing sector. We are smart enough to understand how oil is traded on commodities markets and we aren't freaking out when prices fluctuate. We understand that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will take time and that we can't just snap our fingers and wish us all to utopia.
We also see the democratic political war machine for what it is and see the Foley scandal for what it is. We see the Amendment #2 bullshit in Missouri and we see what our southern border security would be like if the Democrats control the house.
We do not want what the Democratic party is offering. It's as simple as that.
The human race has a problem with addiction. Whether it's smoking, drugs, alcohol, food, sex, tv, sports, power, money or video games. It's nothing new. There is no real difference between the story of a drug addicts downard spiral or an severely addicted MMORPG player. We were created with the need to place something as the most important thing in our life and whatever material things we choose to fill that hole with can be very destructive.
It's modded flaimbait because the typical Slashdot denizen is a socialist and worse, many are Stalinists. They regularly confuse the rights acknowledged in the 1st amendment with their own personal wishlist of behavior they think should be outlawed.
Simply put, their idea of change in society starts with government first, instead of changing peoples hearts and minds. What they don't understand is that the government is supposed to represent what's already in the people's hearts and minds, not dictate what should be there in the first place.
You cannot gather together with 75 other ignorant fucks on public land without getting permission from the government first....
I'm sorry, but this is nothing new. It's common to nearly every city and county in the US that you need a permit to assemble in groups over some arbitrary amount. Reasons range from public safety, respect for the rights of others citizens or keeping riots or mobs from taking place. i.e. You can't just take over a park or city block and deny others the right to use it without first allowing the city or county to be ready for it.
Could it be that the FS doesn't want large groups of people coming into a national park and trashing it, at least not without making someone or some group responsible for what goes on. Your right to assembly doesn't mean you can just go and squat wherever you want and do whatever you want with no reprecussions.
Maybe you have not had the diligence to see your rights being abridged, or maybe you have not had the misfortune of being among a group that was targeted by the government, but that doesn't mean everyone has been so careless or so lucky.
No, I do have the diligence and belive me, I am more than angry enough at idiotic laws that restrict my freedoms, but I don't quite see the goverment requiring a permit from 75 people wanting to have a party in the middle of a national park as something that's a restriction of freedom. At least not as it's laid out in the US constitution.
Give an example or STFU, please. This may sound like I'm trolling, but I'm dead serious. You just made the SERIOUS accusation that our rights as American citizens are being ignored, yet, I look around and I can't find that happening, anywhere.
You do still have the freedom of speech to be an ignorant fuck and say what you just said, don't you?
Why? What would this accomplish, other than government getting it's filthy hands deeper into the private sector?
From the stand point of the US, our constitution protects us from government censorship of political dissent, in the form of speech and in the right to assemble. That protection does not extend to the right for the federal goverment to tell a company what content they can and can not serve it's customers.
Google can not censor what our constitution guarantees, only the goverment can do that. It's an ignorant premise to think that google doesn't have the right to do whatever they damned well please and only allow people to search whatever damned content they please, as long as those things don't break local or federal laws.
Last I checked, the body of people who think that the internet is made from tubes has not decided that it's unlawful for a website to only show the content it wishes to show. That would be like saying McDonalds.com has to show a Wendy's or Taco Bell menu, for the sake of ending the censorship of it's competitors.
If Google should be forced to never censor it's pages, that means link and adword spammers should stay at the top of search results and Google should never have the right to even rank a page, as they are censoring those pages that are only somewhat relevant to a search keyword. Exactly where does your idiotic idea end?
You are wrapping your self-righteous crusade to end censorship in your own little version of it. You have the right to do what you want and be free, but Google doesn't?
Here's a suggestion, why don't we work within the law and do what has been done for over 200 years in this country. If a company is doing something you do not like, or their level of service is subpar to your standards, DON'T USE THEIR SERVICES.
That's right, stop using Google. Tell your friends that Google is in bed with the Chi-comms and they oppress the Chinese people. Tell them of the Evils(tm) of Google and start a movement to educate the world. Just stop expecting the government to wipe your ass.
So? This is a non sequitur. People interested in a hobby, sport or common idea often develop phrases and acronyms unique to the topic and there is generally always a learning curve involved. Ever try to really talk to a serious sports fan about their favorite sport?
Our constitution DOES NOT, and IMHO should not, protect the rights of non-citizens, outside of those given guest status. What really is the problem here? Bush *is* upholding the law and just because a lower court has an agenda doesn't mean that the Bush administration doesn't have the right to an appeal process. Or, does your version of the constitution not apply to Bush, only the moonbat wacko-left in this country that thinks Bush is nightly, wacking off to our phone conversations about where to eat dinner and what time the kids soccer practice is?
That's right, Jesus would have been right there with the liberals.
Jesus would have attacked those he hated and called them morons, wrote books and created movies about their assasination, drummed up patently false acusations and belittled them for reading a book about goats while he was crucified. And better yet, Jesus would be the first in line to make fun of someone's public speaking skills, boy that's the Jesus I know.
Jesus would have been the first to criticize his president for hating blacks so much and not even bothering to stop Katrina from destroying New Orleans. I mean, Jesus could have stopped that storm, had he had been president. (Btw, did you know that Jesus served in Vietnam?)
Jesus would have been right there with Barney Frank, running that gay prostitution ring from the Hill.
Jesus would be an integral part of Green Peace, helping organize their terrorist activities.
Jesus would be right there with the rest of the white, American liberals demanding that we pull out of Iraq and leave those brown, arab savages to fend for themselves. Jesus sure as hell wouldn't have the arrogance to believe that an arab nation steeped in tribal traditions could possibly handle a democratic government. Only American's know how to do that.
Jesus would have been right there with Hugo Chavez at the UN. If anyone KNOWS the Devil, it's Jesus!
I'm hoping you are starting to see how ridiculously idiotic your statement is, but if not, I can go on...
Just to clarify something, here. The issue of "School Prayer" is the fight that parents are attempting to bring to the political landscape to guarantee 1st amendment rights of children to pray in a school setting if they wish. "School Prayer" is not forcing students to pray themselves, nor forcing teachers to pray, nor forcing children to accept any religion as their own. It's protecting the right of an individual to practice his own religion in a school setting where appropriate. That being, of his own volition, during a time when he has the freedom to choose what he can do. (Meaning during lunch, a pep-rally, during a sports activity or a student function outside of a directed environment like a classroom.)
See, people like you want to ban any religion and any prayer simply because you disagree with it and in many cases despise it. You aren't concered with protecting constitutional rights. You are most concerned with squashing and destroying anything to do with Christianity, 1st amendment rigts be-damned and in reality, that makes you nothing more than a Stalinist. To you, our constitution seems to offer freedom to every citizen... unless, of course, you are a Christian.
I'm sure that last paragraph automatically earns me lots of negative mod points here at slashdot, but someone has to point out that the dictators have no clothes.
An opinion that isn't supported by facts shouldn't be given anywhere near the same weight as an opinion that is supported by facts.
What weight? Remember, 2 million at *peak* out of the now 300 million people in the country. The fact that they actually have so little viewership compared to the traditional media, but have people like you are so afraid of every little thing they say, is amazing.
You mean like when he compared the dems to Ewoks? Sure, that's a resounding recommendation. Sorry, but your post is nonsense. Do you even watch TDS?
You do remember that he softball interviewed Kerry during his campaign, don't you? But, if you think my point was to indict Stewart about his beliefs, you are wrong. He, himself, admits his political bent. My point was a disagreement with the OP's post and what I thought was his mistaken belief that Stewart was somehow a comedic hero to average Americans.
To answer you accusation, I do not regularly watch TDS. I've caught it from time to time and there is some funny shit to be found there, but in the end, I get tired of Stewart's political bent. It goes beyond the satire of deserving fools in our political system and leans closer to outright hatred of traditional American values and anyone in flyover country.
I'd say you're projecting. If you think that opposition to Bush stems only from dems or liberals, then I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. I never thougth Stewart's hatred of Bush was some how exclusive. He was just the topic on hand.
Do you realize that Fox news only gets a few million viewers at it's highest peak in the evening? This is compared to the 40 million or more that network news gets.
Why are you people so afraid of Fox News? Is it because they don't toe the same line that NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC and the national newspapers toe? Exactly what is it about dissenting political opinion has you so frightened and angry for? Is it not a function of this Representative Republic that we live in, that we have the ability and right to have opinions that differ from the establishment?
It isn't a real solution because it's narrowly focused on a specific target audience. That being young, politically liberal minded people. If you aren't a political liberal, the Daily Show is only mildly entertaining for it's great cleverness and wit, but the political ranting and (admitedly) overly pervasive liberal slant to everything being said begins to grate on your nerves.
How many times do we really need to hear that Bush is a dumbfuck, or see Stewart shilling for the latest Democratic candidate?
Look... for a struggling company with barely any IT or telco budget, this sort of creative frugal thinking can be a lifesaver. Believe me, I've been there before.
But, for an established company with money budgeted for expenses like this, the only thing you are doing is making yourself feel superior than others by not "wasting" the money. The OP is correct, your penny-wise pound foolish solution just makes it a pain in the ass for others to deal with.
I'm sorry, but what part of the article mentioned anything about a theocracy? Better yet, what part of this wiretapping legislation has anything to do with building a fascist theocracy? I'll give you the fascist comment, but a fascist theocracy? That's just sycophantic demagoguing and pandering to the crowd here with fun political buzzwords.
Is this a news site, or a propaganda wing of the Democratic party?
Who says PS3 games will be shit? Great gameplay and great visuals are not mutually exclusive
I say it. What do we have to look forward on the PS3? Riiiiiidge racer and a 1,000 more titles that are simply rehashes of games gone by with larger version numbers. Games will look amazing, but will also be boring as fuck. Sadly, I'm only looking forward to two games on the PS3... MGS4 and FFVIII. Notice something there?
To me, PS3 and Xbox360 represent progress. Releasing an old console in a new casing (Wii) is not progress. Ask any developer what they would like to improve on the platform they are developing for and the most likely answer is "more memory, more storage, faster CPU and better graphics".
And what would they do with it? Graphics. You don't need more memory or a faster CPU to come up with solid game mechanics, engaging story, good control and solid gameplay, just prettier graphics, modeling and animation.
Do you know how many times developers have said to themselves "we would have loved to do that, but PS2/Xbox/Gamecube couldn't handle it"?
Yes, I've heard this said many times, but the context has *always* been graphics, not gameplay.
Expect to see lots of "multiplatform" games released for both PS3 and Xbox 360, but not for Wii because making compromises isn't worth it.
Are you saying that Wii owners won't be subjected to AMAZING multiplatform hits like Naruto, King Kong, Under the Hedge, Monster House, Cars, One Piece, et. al? Thank GOD, I was worried about that.
Advances in technology have made games like Oblivion possible. Is Oblivion better than the RPG games we had ten years ago? Yes, it definitely is. Similar examples can be found in any genre.
NO, it most definitely is not better. You seem to only be able to equate quality games with high-end graphics, but you are sadly mistaken. There are a lot of high quality RPGs out there covering different creative genres, styles and systems that are far better than Oblivion.
Worse, your flagship example here runs like crap on the 360 and it requires a pretty damned powerful PC to boot. Why? Because the damned graphics are so fucking over the top. The story sucks and the premise of wandering around the country like some homeless hippie drunk might be liberating to some, but it makes for a game that quickly loses it's appeal.
Lastly, while this is entirely my personal opinion, wtf is up with the character models in Oblivion? I know that in the real world not everyone is beautiful, but neither is everyone as butt fucking ugly as they are in Oblivion. Does the Bethesda team have a fetish for the morbidly ugly?
"First off, I doubt most disabled people chose to be disabled. Secondly, it's not hard or expensive to be compliant with accessibility standards, as the summary states. Lastly, I think it's more shameful that people can't be bothered to show a little empathy or consideration towards the disabled community."
So says the fool who does nothing himself to help the disabled he admonishes us for not caring enough for. It's shameful to me that people find it so easy to find fault in others, but are unwilling to do anything themselves.
If you feel so strongly for the disabled, quit your job, and volunteer your time to Target to help them make their web site compliant. After that, start at the A's on the list of non-compliant companies and go down the list until you get to Z. After all, the disabled don't choose to be that way and the least you could do with your perfect health is to spend your time making sure their lives are the best they can be.
But, we know it would be a cold day in hell before the likes of you would actually lift a finger to help another person. It's just too easy to use words, attacking others and demanding that they are ultimately responsible for the well being of any disabled individual in this country. You fool yourself into thinking you actually make a difference, when in reality your words are just empty sophistry.
Why is it that is seems that common sense and reason is rarely practiced in our judical system? Better yet, why does a single person, via a judicial fiat, have the ability to force their will on the entire American population?
Idiocy like this should be pursued all the way to the federal supreme court, but I certainly don't imagine we'll see any weak-spined American corporations fighting something as outrageous as this.
I'll never understand why such tiny minorities in this country have such amazing power over the rest of us.
I'm sorry, but you are making an asshole generalization. Of the many millions of children that have been aborted so far here in America, how many abortion doctors have been killed and how many of the mothers have been killed? Few. In 1994 the number was 30 million to 7,700 acts of violence and disruption, one murder and one attempt. Mind you, that includes sit-ins and people attempting block mothers from being able to enter clinics. So you have a 2 in 30 million chance of being shot at by an "angry Christian".
Well now, that is a different story. I'm all for the removal or reduction of goverment subsidies.
But, as we are all aware, the windfall taxes weren't proposed to fix an economic problem, they were punishment for the oil companies being successful and having the balls to make profit while we are paying *market* prices for gas. Windfall taxes would have never lowered the price of gas at the pump, created less demand for oil or created new sources of oil. In reality, the taxes would have raised the price of gas, since those taxes would have been passed along to the consumer, as all taxes to businesses are. As I stated before, windfall taxes on the oil industry have been tried in the past during the Carter administration and have had disastrous results.
I know I'm feeding a troll here, but Nintendo has never stated that they think scores of non-gamers are out there wating with bated breath for a console made just for them. They have repeatedly stated that modern console systems are tough to get into if you are ouside of the gamer group. They have repeatedly stated that they hope the familiar "remote" shape of the controller and the intuitive control will help make non-gamers feel comfortable. Whether this works out the way they would like, is to be decided starting this fall.
The question I wanted to defend after reading your post was, "When is something in the process of becoming a human a person?" I say birth and I'd wager that you'd say or are arguing on the side of conception.
Yes, you are correct.
The parent was saying a little heavy handedly that it seems that the majority of pro-life believers come from a religious standpoint and the majority of pro-choice believers come from a science standpoint. Wouldn't you agree with that in the majority of cases?
I won't argue with you that a large number of the pro-life crowd are strongly influenced by their religious views, but it's unfair and a bit bigoted to discount the argument that a child's right to life is more important than a parent's convenience simply because the person making that argument isn't an atheist or agnostic. Maybe you aren't doing that, but I encounter many people who do. It's the idea that anyone with religious views are intellectual dirt and it's fostered and cultivated here at slashdot.
Furthermore, I disagree that the pro-abortion crowd's argument is steeped in science. It's a well documented fact that children, well within the timeframe to be legally aborted, can survive ouside of the womb with medical assistance and there are documented cases of unborn children responding to physcal contact during surgery and crying due to ouside stimulus.
Currently, science can hardly prove one way or another when an unborn baby becomes a sentient being. So, when it comes down to it, it's just a strong belief for both sides of the argument, whether it's religious or not.
I also believe that people's lives are equally important. I'm against most current wars and the death penalty but I simply do not believe that life begins when you believe it does.
That's rather convenient for you to selectively believe when and what shares the right to live and it ties in nicely with my last point. It's simply a matter of belief on both sides of the argument and for the original poster to make the claim that only the pro-life side is rife with dogma is simply ludicrous.
The question that I could like to ask you is that since it's really an argument about the very orthogonal belief that both of us share, would it not be more prudent to err on the side of caution and side with the right of the child to live until real conclusive information is known?
>>Pro-life people are driven by dogma rather than science and logic.
This is such a ridiculous statement. Since when, in normal society, does the convenience of one person supersede the right to life of another? What logic or science could you possibly espouse that would justify the death of one person simply to statisfy the convenience of another?
Slashdot Mirror
Silly me, I forgot that if you don't toe the democratic party line here, you get modded down. Thanks, Mr. Moderator, for making sure any debate here at slashdot is one sided.
You just cant stand the fact that Republicans might just kick the Dem's asses this November, can you?
It's an intellectually vapid and ridiculous notion that polling data should be the deciding factor in an election and not the actual votes cast. Yet, in favor of the polls, you ignore the fact that the majority of this country on the moderate to conservative side. You ignore the fact that Bush, both fucking times, has garnered more votes than Clinton ever did. You forget the fact that this country continues to vote in Republication houses and senates each election cycle and you forget that our economy is god damned fucking BOOMING.
You are acting like a petulant child, whining and bitching when you don't get your way and accusing everyone of being out to get you. Yes, it's obvious, with the constant daily barrage by the media telling us how fucked up this country is and how fucked up Iraq is and how angry we are all supposed to be, how could any of us vote for Republicans?
Something you are missing is that a large number of people in this country see our economy booming, we see the RECORD unemployment and the booming housing sector. We are smart enough to understand how oil is traded on commodities markets and we aren't freaking out when prices fluctuate. We understand that the war in Iraq and the war on terror will take time and that we can't just snap our fingers and wish us all to utopia.
We also see the democratic political war machine for what it is and see the Foley scandal for what it is. We see the Amendment #2 bullshit in Missouri and we see what our southern border security would be like if the Democrats control the house.
We do not want what the Democratic party is offering. It's as simple as that.
The human race has a problem with addiction. Whether it's smoking, drugs, alcohol, food, sex, tv, sports, power, money or video games. It's nothing new. There is no real difference between the story of a drug addicts downard spiral or an severely addicted MMORPG player. We were created with the need to place something as the most important thing in our life and whatever material things we choose to fill that hole with can be very destructive.
It's modded flaimbait because the typical Slashdot denizen is a socialist and worse, many are Stalinists. They regularly confuse the rights acknowledged in the 1st amendment with their own personal wishlist of behavior they think should be outlawed.
Simply put, their idea of change in society starts with government first, instead of changing peoples hearts and minds. What they don't understand is that the government is supposed to represent what's already in the people's hearts and minds, not dictate what should be there in the first place.
I'm sorry, but this is nothing new. It's common to nearly every city and county in the US that you need a permit to assemble in groups over some arbitrary amount. Reasons range from public safety, respect for the rights of others citizens or keeping riots or mobs from taking place. i.e. You can't just take over a park or city block and deny others the right to use it without first allowing the city or county to be ready for it.
Could it be that the FS doesn't want large groups of people coming into a national park and trashing it, at least not without making someone or some group responsible for what goes on. Your right to assembly doesn't mean you can just go and squat wherever you want and do whatever you want with no reprecussions.
Read up on it someday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly
No, I do have the diligence and belive me, I am more than angry enough at idiotic laws that restrict my freedoms, but I don't quite see the goverment requiring a permit from 75 people wanting to have a party in the middle of a national park as something that's a restriction of freedom. At least not as it's laid out in the US constitution.
Give an example or STFU, please. This may sound like I'm trolling, but I'm dead serious. You just made the SERIOUS accusation that our rights as American citizens are being ignored, yet, I look around and I can't find that happening, anywhere.
You do still have the freedom of speech to be an ignorant fuck and say what you just said, don't you?
Why? What would this accomplish, other than government getting it's filthy hands deeper into the private sector?
From the stand point of the US, our constitution protects us from government censorship of political dissent, in the form of speech and in the right to assemble. That protection does not extend to the right for the federal goverment to tell a company what content they can and can not serve it's customers.
Google can not censor what our constitution guarantees, only the goverment can do that. It's an ignorant premise to think that google doesn't have the right to do whatever they damned well please and only allow people to search whatever damned content they please, as long as those things don't break local or federal laws.
Last I checked, the body of people who think that the internet is made from tubes has not decided that it's unlawful for a website to only show the content it wishes to show. That would be like saying McDonalds.com has to show a Wendy's or Taco Bell menu, for the sake of ending the censorship of it's competitors.
If Google should be forced to never censor it's pages, that means link and adword spammers should stay at the top of search results and Google should never have the right to even rank a page, as they are censoring those pages that are only somewhat relevant to a search keyword. Exactly where does your idiotic idea end?
You are wrapping your self-righteous crusade to end censorship in your own little version of it. You have the right to do what you want and be free, but Google doesn't?
Here's a suggestion, why don't we work within the law and do what has been done for over 200 years in this country. If a company is doing something you do not like, or their level of service is subpar to your standards, DON'T USE THEIR SERVICES.
That's right, stop using Google. Tell your friends that Google is in bed with the Chi-comms and they oppress the Chinese people. Tell them of the Evils(tm) of Google and start a movement to educate the world. Just stop expecting the government to wipe your ass.
So? This is a non sequitur. People interested in a hobby, sport or common idea often develop phrases and acronyms unique to the topic and there is generally always a learning curve involved. Ever try to really talk to a serious sports fan about their favorite sport?
Our constitution DOES NOT, and IMHO should not, protect the rights of non-citizens, outside of those given guest status. What really is the problem here? Bush *is* upholding the law and just because a lower court has an agenda doesn't mean that the Bush administration doesn't have the right to an appeal process. Or, does your version of the constitution not apply to Bush, only the moonbat wacko-left in this country that thinks Bush is nightly, wacking off to our phone conversations about where to eat dinner and what time the kids soccer practice is?
I'll bite, troll:
That's right, Jesus would have been right there with the liberals.
Jesus would have attacked those he hated and called them morons, wrote books and created movies about their assasination, drummed up patently false acusations and belittled them for reading a book about goats while he was crucified. And better yet, Jesus would be the first in line to make fun of someone's public speaking skills, boy that's the Jesus I know.
Jesus would have been the first to criticize his president for hating blacks so much and not even bothering to stop Katrina from destroying New Orleans. I mean, Jesus could have stopped that storm, had he had been president. (Btw, did you know that Jesus served in Vietnam?)
Jesus would have been right there with Barney Frank, running that gay prostitution ring from the Hill.
Jesus would be an integral part of Green Peace, helping organize their terrorist activities.
Jesus would be right there with the rest of the white, American liberals demanding that we pull out of Iraq and leave those brown, arab savages to fend for themselves. Jesus sure as hell wouldn't have the arrogance to believe that an arab nation steeped in tribal traditions could possibly handle a democratic government. Only American's know how to do that.
Jesus would have been right there with Hugo Chavez at the UN. If anyone KNOWS the Devil, it's Jesus!
I'm hoping you are starting to see how ridiculously idiotic your statement is, but if not, I can go on...
Just to clarify something, here. The issue of "School Prayer" is the fight that parents are attempting to bring to the political landscape to guarantee 1st amendment rights of children to pray in a school setting if they wish. "School Prayer" is not forcing students to pray themselves, nor forcing teachers to pray, nor forcing children to accept any religion as their own. It's protecting the right of an individual to practice his own religion in a school setting where appropriate. That being, of his own volition, during a time when he has the freedom to choose what he can do. (Meaning during lunch, a pep-rally, during a sports activity or a student function outside of a directed environment like a classroom.)
See, people like you want to ban any religion and any prayer simply because you disagree with it and in many cases despise it. You aren't concered with protecting constitutional rights. You are most concerned with squashing and destroying anything to do with Christianity, 1st amendment rigts be-damned and in reality, that makes you nothing more than a Stalinist. To you, our constitution seems to offer freedom to every citizen... unless, of course, you are a Christian.
I'm sure that last paragraph automatically earns me lots of negative mod points here at slashdot, but someone has to point out that the dictators have no clothes.
What weight? Remember, 2 million at *peak* out of the now 300 million people in the country. The fact that they actually have so little viewership compared to the traditional media, but have people like you are so afraid of every little thing they say, is amazing.
You do remember that he softball interviewed Kerry during his campaign, don't you? But, if you think my point was to indict Stewart about his beliefs, you are wrong. He, himself, admits his political bent. My point was a disagreement with the OP's post and what I thought was his mistaken belief that Stewart was somehow a comedic hero to average Americans.
To answer you accusation, I do not regularly watch TDS. I've caught it from time to time and there is some funny shit to be found there, but in the end, I get tired of Stewart's political bent. It goes beyond the satire of deserving fools in our political system and leans closer to outright hatred of traditional American values and anyone in flyover country.
I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. I never thougth Stewart's hatred of Bush was some how exclusive. He was just the topic on hand.
Do you realize that Fox news only gets a few million viewers at it's highest peak in the evening? This is compared to the 40 million or more that network news gets.
Why are you people so afraid of Fox News? Is it because they don't toe the same line that NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC and the national newspapers toe? Exactly what is it about dissenting political opinion has you so frightened and angry for? Is it not a function of this Representative Republic that we live in, that we have the ability and right to have opinions that differ from the establishment?
It isn't a real solution because it's narrowly focused on a specific target audience. That being young, politically liberal minded people. If you aren't a political liberal, the Daily Show is only mildly entertaining for it's great cleverness and wit, but the political ranting and (admitedly) overly pervasive liberal slant to everything being said begins to grate on your nerves.
How many times do we really need to hear that Bush is a dumbfuck, or see Stewart shilling for the latest Democratic candidate?
Look... for a struggling company with barely any IT or telco budget, this sort of creative frugal thinking can be a lifesaver. Believe me, I've been there before.
But, for an established company with money budgeted for expenses like this, the only thing you are doing is making yourself feel superior than others by not "wasting" the money. The OP is correct, your penny-wise pound foolish solution just makes it a pain in the ass for others to deal with.
LividBlivet,
I'm sorry, but what part of the article mentioned anything about a theocracy? Better yet, what part of this wiretapping legislation has anything to do with building a fascist theocracy? I'll give you the fascist comment, but a fascist theocracy? That's just sycophantic demagoguing and pandering to the crowd here with fun political buzzwords.
Is this a news site, or a propaganda wing of the Democratic party?
And what would they do with it? Graphics. You don't need more memory or a faster CPU to come up with solid game mechanics, engaging story, good control and solid gameplay, just prettier graphics, modeling and animation.
Yes, I've heard this said many times, but the context has *always* been graphics, not gameplay.
Are you saying that Wii owners won't be subjected to AMAZING multiplatform hits like Naruto, King Kong, Under the Hedge, Monster House, Cars, One Piece, et. al? Thank GOD, I was worried about that.
NO, it most definitely is not better. You seem to only be able to equate quality games with high-end graphics, but you are sadly mistaken. There are a lot of high quality RPGs out there covering different creative genres, styles and systems that are far better than Oblivion.
Worse, your flagship example here runs like crap on the 360 and it requires a pretty damned powerful PC to boot. Why? Because the damned graphics are so fucking over the top. The story sucks and the premise of wandering around the country like some homeless hippie drunk might be liberating to some, but it makes for a game that quickly loses it's appeal.
Lastly, while this is entirely my personal opinion, wtf is up with the character models in Oblivion? I know that in the real world not everyone is beautiful, but neither is everyone as butt fucking ugly as they are in Oblivion. Does the Bethesda team have a fetish for the morbidly ugly?
"First off, I doubt most disabled people chose to be disabled. Secondly, it's not hard or expensive to be compliant with accessibility standards, as the summary states. Lastly, I think it's more shameful that people can't be bothered to show a little empathy or consideration towards the disabled community."
So says the fool who does nothing himself to help the disabled he admonishes us for not caring enough for. It's shameful to me that people find it so easy to find fault in others, but are unwilling to do anything themselves.
If you feel so strongly for the disabled, quit your job, and volunteer your time to Target to help them make their web site compliant. After that, start at the A's on the list of non-compliant companies and go down the list until you get to Z. After all, the disabled don't choose to be that way and the least you could do with your perfect health is to spend your time making sure their lives are the best they can be.
But, we know it would be a cold day in hell before the likes of you would actually lift a finger to help another person. It's just too easy to use words, attacking others and demanding that they are ultimately responsible for the well being of any disabled individual in this country. You fool yourself into thinking you actually make a difference, when in reality your words are just empty sophistry.
Why is it that is seems that common sense and reason is rarely practiced in our judical system? Better yet, why does a single person, via a judicial fiat, have the ability to force their will on the entire American population?
Idiocy like this should be pursued all the way to the federal supreme court, but I certainly don't imagine we'll see any weak-spined American corporations fighting something as outrageous as this.
I'll never understand why such tiny minorities in this country have such amazing power over the rest of us.
I'm sorry, but you are making an asshole generalization. Of the many millions of children that have been aborted so far here in America, how many abortion doctors have been killed and how many of the mothers have been killed? Few. In 1994 the number was 30 million to 7,700 acts of violence and disruption, one murder and one attempt. Mind you, that includes sit-ins and people attempting block mothers from being able to enter clinics. So you have a 2 in 30 million chance of being shot at by an "angry Christian".
Take your bigoted stereotypes elsewhere.
Well now, that is a different story. I'm all for the removal or reduction of goverment subsidies.
But, as we are all aware, the windfall taxes weren't proposed to fix an economic problem, they were punishment for the oil companies being successful and having the balls to make profit while we are paying *market* prices for gas. Windfall taxes would have never lowered the price of gas at the pump, created less demand for oil or created new sources of oil. In reality, the taxes would have raised the price of gas, since those taxes would have been passed along to the consumer, as all taxes to businesses are. As I stated before, windfall taxes on the oil industry have been tried in the past during the Carter administration and have had disastrous results.
I know I'm feeding a troll here, but Nintendo has never stated that they think scores of non-gamers are out there wating with bated breath for a console made just for them. They have repeatedly stated that modern console systems are tough to get into if you are ouside of the gamer group. They have repeatedly stated that they hope the familiar "remote" shape of the controller and the intuitive control will help make non-gamers feel comfortable. Whether this works out the way they would like, is to be decided starting this fall.
The question I wanted to defend after reading your post was, "When is something in the process of becoming a human a person?" I say birth and I'd wager that you'd say or are arguing on the side of conception.
Yes, you are correct.
The parent was saying a little heavy handedly that it seems that the majority of pro-life believers come from a religious standpoint and the majority of pro-choice believers come from a science standpoint. Wouldn't you agree with that in the majority of cases?
I won't argue with you that a large number of the pro-life crowd are strongly influenced by their religious views, but it's unfair and a bit bigoted to discount the argument that a child's right to life is more important than a parent's convenience simply because the person making that argument isn't an atheist or agnostic. Maybe you aren't doing that, but I encounter many people who do. It's the idea that anyone with religious views are intellectual dirt and it's fostered and cultivated here at slashdot.
Furthermore, I disagree that the pro-abortion crowd's argument is steeped in science. It's a well documented fact that children, well within the timeframe to be legally aborted, can survive ouside of the womb with medical assistance and there are documented cases of unborn children responding to physcal contact during surgery and crying due to ouside stimulus.
Currently, science can hardly prove one way or another when an unborn baby becomes a sentient being. So, when it comes down to it, it's just a strong belief for both sides of the argument, whether it's religious or not.
I also believe that people's lives are equally important. I'm against most current wars and the death penalty but I simply do not believe that life begins when you believe it does.
That's rather convenient for you to selectively believe when and what shares the right to live and it ties in nicely with my last point. It's simply a matter of belief on both sides of the argument and for the original poster to make the claim that only the pro-life side is rife with dogma is simply ludicrous.
The question that I could like to ask you is that since it's really an argument about the very orthogonal belief that both of us share, would it not be more prudent to err on the side of caution and side with the right of the child to live until real conclusive information is known?
>>Pro-life people are driven by dogma rather than science and logic.
This is such a ridiculous statement. Since when, in normal society, does the convenience of one person supersede the right to life of another? What logic or science could you possibly espouse that would justify the death of one person simply to statisfy the convenience of another?