Preach it brother! What would the Spaniards do without you to tell them about their laws? Shit! Where were you when Franco was around? Forget that. We're all grateful you're here now.
Ah fuck. Now the people who insist on wrongly interpreting our Constitution have moved on to misunderstanding everyone else's.
So, good luck with that. If you yell at them enough you can tell those Spanish idiots what their constitution means. When you're done with that, maybe the Pope needs some help interpreting his holy books too.
Certainly the US can do this. That's not what worries me. We can probably keep the nuclear materials secure.
If we use breeder reactors, other countries will also want to do it. France already does, but they don't have the pull in the world that they think they do.
I wouldn't trust some other countries to enforce security protocols with these materials.
I want to agree on a personal level with you, because I hate that channel, but honestly its just wrong and I think you know it at least a little.
WTF? You're accusing me of insincerity? That's why I'm giving my reasons for my thinking. If I wanted you to only believe me because I was sincere, I wouldn't bother explaining WHY.
I'd tend to think that its his job to let everyone in.
REALLY. They would let you or me in? Really? What if we started a little paper or a website. Do you really think they would let us in then?
Come on, think about it.
Also, whether you tend to think it's his job to let everyone in or not, it's not. What you think about it doesn't affect reality.
The President doesn't need to give any press conferences at all. And in fact, through most of US history, there were no press conferences. Do you really think that John Adams went out and talked to the press that ridiculed him every day?
So what you're saying is that the singularity (I presume you're familiar with the term) will make my own "personal singularity time" a lot more fun? Cool!
You just totally lost me. I don't watch Fox News, but comparing them to child molesters is a very far stretch. Yes, I said very.
I did not compare them to child molestors. I included child molestors as another random category that I do not invite to my house, to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.
The Obama administration's attempt to exclude Fox News, arguably the most viewed news source on cable TV, was politically incorrect any way you look at it.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.
Fox News is clearly the voice of his opposition. They can speak, but Obama doesn't have to help his opposition in any way. He would be a fool to do so.
Again, I have no use for Fox News, but I respect their right to cover news events.
Obama also respects their right to cover news events too. Fox can write anything they want to write. But he has no obligation to help them write their stories.
Take Iran's president for example. Or China's administration. Or any country's leadership which protects political gain at the expense of the citizens' rights.
Not even close. You claim my post was utter ignorance, but look at yours. In the countries you mentioned, they would have shut down the opposition instantly. Fox is still on the air. And they will not be taken off the air.
The guy you're replying to is a moron. Anyone can be as much of an asshat as they want. Maybe he's talking about Belgium or Japan or someplace where there are obviously no asshats at all.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are the Al Qaeda of animal rights.
Well you are obviously the Hitler of hyperbole.
The Stalin of overstatement?
How about the Genghis Khan of excessive drama?
Scouts discriminate against atheists and homosexuals. They also take public money.
This is an organization that is clearly un-American, and should be reformed.
OK, you've humiliated me good. That doesn't happen that often.
Preach it brother! What would the Spaniards do without you to tell them about their laws? Shit! Where were you when Franco was around? Forget that. We're all grateful you're here now.
Now watch me fight this bull!
What are you talking about?
Right. You tell that Spanish motherfucker what his documents mean. Obviously, you can read English better than he can.
Ah fuck. Now the people who insist on wrongly interpreting our Constitution have moved on to misunderstanding everyone else's.
So, good luck with that. If you yell at them enough you can tell those Spanish idiots what their constitution means. When you're done with that, maybe the Pope needs some help interpreting his holy books too.
Certainly the US can do this. That's not what worries me. We can probably keep the nuclear materials secure.
If we use breeder reactors, other countries will also want to do it. France already does, but they don't have the pull in the world that they think they do.
I wouldn't trust some other countries to enforce security protocols with these materials.
Will it become a meme?
I'll answer the questions and I won't feel bad about the answers I give to stupid people.
In a few years, the rest of you will notice there's a lot fewer stupid people around, and you'll thank me.
You're welcome.
The linky doesn't work. The server is most likely run out of uranium, so nothing will load from it.
The F in FUD is for fear. Sometimes fear is justified, sometimes it is not. Most times it is not.
Breeder reactors have problematic consequences for proliferation. Nuclear weapons are a fear that should not be ignored.
I'd much prefer thorium reactors, which are far safer in that respect.
I want to agree on a personal level with you, because I hate that channel, but honestly its just wrong and I think you know it at least a little.
WTF? You're accusing me of insincerity? That's why I'm giving my reasons for my thinking. If I wanted you to only believe me because I was sincere, I wouldn't bother explaining WHY.
I'd tend to think that its his job to let everyone in.
REALLY. They would let you or me in? Really? What if we started a little paper or a website. Do you really think they would let us in then?
Come on, think about it.
Also, whether you tend to think it's his job to let everyone in or not, it's not. What you think about it doesn't affect reality.
The President doesn't need to give any press conferences at all. And in fact, through most of US history, there were no press conferences. Do you really think that John Adams went out and talked to the press that ridiculed him every day?
Building an all-new infrastructure vs. not and running out of fuel.
It's an easy decision, and a painful one too.
That is utter nonsense.
And oh yea, we should be investigating Thorium reactors. Thorium is plentiful in the Earth's crust. That's a better way to go than uranium.
Everytime nuclear fission comes up as a possible viable alternative. Peak Uranium is as real as peak oil, and it's here now.
Irrelevant. Offtopic. Wrong.
Five freedoms. Learn them. Everyone, including the Prez, has them.
I don't think someone has ever heard the term "Slippery Slope" before.
I don't think that someone has ever heard that it's a logical fallacy to rely on the slippery slope.
In fact, it's ridiculous to think that an entire government would stop talking to the press. What makes you think that would happen, or could happen?
But I do know that forcing a person to talk to someone they don't want to talk to IS a violation of rights, so why are you proposing it?
No, it doesn't. You fail the 1st Amendment.
The President is a man. He has a job, like everyone else. He has rights, like everyone else.
So what you're saying is that the singularity (I presume you're familiar with the term) will make my own "personal singularity time" a lot more fun? Cool!
You just totally lost me. I don't watch Fox News, but comparing them to child molesters is a very far stretch. Yes, I said very.
I did not compare them to child molestors. I included child molestors as another random category that I do not invite to my house, to illustrate that the right of association is an important right.
The Obama administration's attempt to exclude Fox News, arguably the most viewed news source on cable TV, was politically incorrect any way you look at it.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The President's job is to accomplish his agenda that he was elected to accomplish. To do that he needs to explain his program and counter the objections of his opponents.
Fox News is clearly the voice of his opposition. They can speak, but Obama doesn't have to help his opposition in any way. He would be a fool to do so.
Again, I have no use for Fox News, but I respect their right to cover news events.
Obama also respects their right to cover news events too. Fox can write anything they want to write. But he has no obligation to help them write their stories.
Take Iran's president for example. Or China's administration. Or any country's leadership which protects political gain at the expense of the citizens' rights.
Not even close. You claim my post was utter ignorance, but look at yours. In the countries you mentioned, they would have shut down the opposition instantly. Fox is still on the air. And they will not be taken off the air.
No, that's wrong. We do indeed have the right to be liars and asshats. Look around here for all the proof you need.
The guy you're replying to is a moron. Anyone can be as much of an asshat as they want. Maybe he's talking about Belgium or Japan or someplace where there are obviously no asshats at all.