I don't like MSNBC, but what study says it's "worse" than fox news?? The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view. Fox news will literally change or ignore the facts. I'm not being partisan, just trying to keep it real.
Comments like yours make progressives look bad. Racists will always vote republican, and the GOP courts them from a distance (esp. for House or local elections), but by and large most republicans are not racist. I would argue, on the other hand, that conservative's drive to maintain the status quo, to take money from the poor and give it to the wealthy, leads to policy designed to keep particular ethnicities at an unfair disadvantage. It's as bad for poor whites as it is for poor blacks or latinos, it's just that there are more poor blacks and latinos, so it's a) easy to label the policies as racist, b) easy to maintain the status quo by implementing policies that specifically target these ethnicities. The problem is distinguishing (a) from (b).
Someone is getting rich off it, otherwise McCain wouldn't be doing this. Right now the major channels like Comedy Central, MTV, Fox News/Sports are drawing people to cable, then 'lesser' channels might have one show that you might watch, like Seinfeld re-runs, that you wouldn't necessarily pay for if it weren't there already. I'm guessing this will give the major channels a bigger slice of the pie, and a lot of the channels that show syndication or old movies will die away. So if McCain's bill is forcing cable providers to offer a la carte with no 'packaged' groups of channels, then this is essentially just helping the successful channels to be even more successful, and make it harder for startup channels.
On top of that, racists generally don't form their prejudices based on researching wikipedia, they make presumptions based on skin color. Likely if an anti-muslim guy encountered an indonesian muslim, he wouldn't know that he was supposed to hate them too.
Yes, but when random violance against muslims happens, it happens toward people who 'look like' muslims. A sikh (not muslim) temple was attacked by an anti-muslim crusader recently presumably because they looked muslim.
I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize. I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.
If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.
Through constant so-called 'leftist' education, we've overcome much of the irrational intolerance practiced in our own ancient religion, and we can do the same with Islam. The answer isn't to attack them, either literally or with provocative legislation, but to integrate the best of our western values-- namely tolerance and integration.
You can find examples of members of most religions cheerleading terrorist acts. Timothy McVey remains a hero in some right-wing militia-type circles. You think the mindset of McVey's celebrators is any different from these Boston-bomber celebrators? It's the same thing, different narrow, uneducated ideology.
The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument. Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant. The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to. Impoverished people are more prone to fear and religious zealotry and some of them will strike out. Their wealthy leaders manipulate this to take advantage of them and maintain their own wealth and power. Kim Jung Un is (unsuccessfully) following this same playbook right now. If we return his threats, he'll just use them to his own benefits, to scare his people and keep them loyal. So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims, they've learned to fear Christians and Americans. The tools their leaders use to gin up this fear and hatred are the words and writings of people like you, Koran-burners, and on and on.
Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.
As for racism (or religionism, if you prefer), recent laws against illegal immigrants have sparked waves of racism against latinos in general. It's the same dynamic. There've already been attacks on mosques and muslims by right-wing maniacs. Muslim kids get bullied all the time by other kids who've listened too much to people like you.
Spreading fear, intolerance and racism toward a group of people is generally counterproductive. Note that we don't know who's responsible for this yet, but I'm guessing the percentage of American muslims that would actually do something like this is extremely low, way less than one percent. You think forcing the entire muslim-american population into conditions of a police state is going to shrink that number? No. There'd be a backlash, something else just like this, and the condition would spiral for the worse.
(which is not stopping the government from pushing assault rifle bans)
Why should it stop them? If he'd had a more powerful weapon, couldn't the tragedy have been worse? Do you think an assault weapons ban isn't strong enough?
But, to the point of the story in Boston, if everyone had explosives then we wouldn't have this problem. The only rational solution is legalize IEDs and other explosive devices so that we can all protect ourselves.
Imagine you go into McDonald's and there's no onions on your hamburger. When you explain to the cashier that you'd like onions on your hamburger, the cashier says 'I think everybody should get a hamburger with no onions. deal with it.' Annoying, but not a big deal and the employee might even get fired or a stern warning over it.
Now, take that scenario and multiply it by tens of thousands of customers, and multiply the amount of each purchase by about 200 or 300 dollars.
In a sense, he's correct. People like Bush and Bin Laden, and even Hitler, only have power by the legitimacy given them by their supporters. If we all decide to obey the crazy guy living in the alley behind my office building, and he orders us to carpet bomb, say, New Zealand, does that make him responsible for the resulting devastation? Just food for thought.
You're ignoring what stackoverflow is usually used for, which is to ask specific questions that aren't clear or aren't available in the documentation. For example, if you ask 'How do you use Bash?' or 'What does the -F option for ls do?' your question will most likely get deleted by a moderator or get downvoted out of existence, along with several angry comments that say 'read the f*&^ing documentation.'
Iraq was in a civil war, so lots of people were heavily armed to protect their own families and territories. It was not clear at all they intended to do harm to americans. In part of the video, the survivors are lying on the ground in a gesture of surrender. They were shot anyway. And now that we know (a lot of us were pretty sure even before the invasion) that even if they were intending to kill americans, it was only because they were trying to protect themselves against unjust invaders (the U.S). It's sickening. Hundreds of thousands died simply because they were born in a country that had oil in the ground.
So if that's the case, which I don't believe it is, then remind me again why the U.S. is prosecuting Manning and not those responsible for the war crimes?
We already knew about the waterboarding which our best intelligence indicates will get people to admit to anything we want them to admit (such as erroneous links between Iraq and 9/11 in one famous case). Manning did leak the video (search for 'Collateral murder Iraq video') of u.s. soldiers firing on a truck of civialians as well as people coming to help them in the aftermath, including killing two AP reporters. There were also leaked cables that confirmed thousands of accidental civilian casualties as well as standard modes of torture that were previously only hearsay or not considered widespread (involving sexual abuse, power drills and/or hanging people from the ceiling, forcing them in stress positions for long durations, etc). Additionally there was evidence of specific shady dealings with foreign gov'ts.
right... A lot of people here are curiously disgusted by supporters of Bradley Manning, but there wasn't a single prosecution of anyone responsible for the war crimes Manning exposed. What do these people say to that? Do they support the double-standard?
Can't you understand that the US doesn't give a shit about Assange?
This is wrong. One of the U.S's goals in the Bradley Manning trial is to show that Assange encouraged Manning to provide the leaks, which would make Assange a collaborator and not just a journalist. For whatever reason, even though wikileaks is nearly dead, they still want Assange locked up.
It's worth noting that a good percentage, if not a majority, of Papa John's workforce is under 25 and so eligible (by Obamacare) to remain on their parent's healthcare.
Slashdot Mirror
It's friday, have a sense of humor : )
what's a derp?
I don't like MSNBC, but what study says it's "worse" than fox news?? The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view. Fox news will literally change or ignore the facts. I'm not being partisan, just trying to keep it real.
Comments like yours make progressives look bad. Racists will always vote republican, and the GOP courts them from a distance (esp. for House or local elections), but by and large most republicans are not racist. I would argue, on the other hand, that conservative's drive to maintain the status quo, to take money from the poor and give it to the wealthy, leads to policy designed to keep particular ethnicities at an unfair disadvantage. It's as bad for poor whites as it is for poor blacks or latinos, it's just that there are more poor blacks and latinos, so it's a) easy to label the policies as racist, b) easy to maintain the status quo by implementing policies that specifically target these ethnicities. The problem is distinguishing (a) from (b).
Someone is getting rich off it, otherwise McCain wouldn't be doing this. Right now the major channels like Comedy Central, MTV, Fox News/Sports are drawing people to cable, then 'lesser' channels might have one show that you might watch, like Seinfeld re-runs, that you wouldn't necessarily pay for if it weren't there already. I'm guessing this will give the major channels a bigger slice of the pie, and a lot of the channels that show syndication or old movies will die away. So if McCain's bill is forcing cable providers to offer a la carte with no 'packaged' groups of channels, then this is essentially just helping the successful channels to be even more successful, and make it harder for startup channels.
On top of that, racists generally don't form their prejudices based on researching wikipedia, they make presumptions based on skin color. Likely if an anti-muslim guy encountered an indonesian muslim, he wouldn't know that he was supposed to hate them too.
Yes, but when random violance against muslims happens, it happens toward people who 'look like' muslims. A sikh (not muslim) temple was attacked by an anti-muslim crusader recently presumably because they looked muslim.
I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize. I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.
If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.
Through constant so-called 'leftist' education, we've overcome much of the irrational intolerance practiced in our own ancient religion, and we can do the same with Islam. The answer isn't to attack them, either literally or with provocative legislation, but to integrate the best of our western values-- namely tolerance and integration.
You can find examples of members of most religions cheerleading terrorist acts. Timothy McVey remains a hero in some right-wing militia-type circles. You think the mindset of McVey's celebrators is any different from these Boston-bomber celebrators? It's the same thing, different narrow, uneducated ideology.
The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument. Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant. The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to. Impoverished people are more prone to fear and religious zealotry and some of them will strike out. Their wealthy leaders manipulate this to take advantage of them and maintain their own wealth and power. Kim Jung Un is (unsuccessfully) following this same playbook right now. If we return his threats, he'll just use them to his own benefits, to scare his people and keep them loyal. So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims, they've learned to fear Christians and Americans. The tools their leaders use to gin up this fear and hatred are the words and writings of people like you, Koran-burners, and on and on.
Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.
As for racism (or religionism, if you prefer), recent laws against illegal immigrants have sparked waves of racism against latinos in general. It's the same dynamic. There've already been attacks on mosques and muslims by right-wing maniacs. Muslim kids get bullied all the time by other kids who've listened too much to people like you.
Spreading fear, intolerance and racism toward a group of people is generally counterproductive. Note that we don't know who's responsible for this yet, but I'm guessing the percentage of American muslims that would actually do something like this is extremely low, way less than one percent. You think forcing the entire muslim-american population into conditions of a police state is going to shrink that number? No. There'd be a backlash, something else just like this, and the condition would spiral for the worse.
Why should it stop them? If he'd had a more powerful weapon, couldn't the tragedy have been worse? Do you think an assault weapons ban isn't strong enough?
But, to the point of the story in Boston, if everyone had explosives then we wouldn't have this problem. The only rational solution is legalize IEDs and other explosive devices so that we can all protect ourselves.
Imagine you go into McDonald's and there's no onions on your hamburger. When you explain to the cashier that you'd like onions on your hamburger, the cashier says 'I think everybody should get a hamburger with no onions. deal with it.' Annoying, but not a big deal and the employee might even get fired or a stern warning over it.
Now, take that scenario and multiply it by tens of thousands of customers, and multiply the amount of each purchase by about 200 or 300 dollars.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Now that we all have guns, we have peace.
In a sense, he's correct. People like Bush and Bin Laden, and even Hitler, only have power by the legitimacy given them by their supporters. If we all decide to obey the crazy guy living in the alley behind my office building, and he orders us to carpet bomb, say, New Zealand, does that make him responsible for the resulting devastation? Just food for thought.
You're ignoring what stackoverflow is usually used for, which is to ask specific questions that aren't clear or aren't available in the documentation. For example, if you ask 'How do you use Bash?' or 'What does the -F option for ls do?' your question will most likely get deleted by a moderator or get downvoted out of existence, along with several angry comments that say 'read the f*&^ing documentation.'
Iraq was in a civil war, so lots of people were heavily armed to protect their own families and territories. It was not clear at all they intended to do harm to americans. In part of the video, the survivors are lying on the ground in a gesture of surrender. They were shot anyway. And now that we know (a lot of us were pretty sure even before the invasion) that even if they were intending to kill americans, it was only because they were trying to protect themselves against unjust invaders (the U.S). It's sickening. Hundreds of thousands died simply because they were born in a country that had oil in the ground.
So if that's the case, which I don't believe it is, then remind me again why the U.S. is prosecuting Manning and not those responsible for the war crimes?
We already knew about the waterboarding which our best intelligence indicates will get people to admit to anything we want them to admit (such as erroneous links between Iraq and 9/11 in one famous case). Manning did leak the video (search for 'Collateral murder Iraq video') of u.s. soldiers firing on a truck of civialians as well as people coming to help them in the aftermath, including killing two AP reporters. There were also leaked cables that confirmed thousands of accidental civilian casualties as well as standard modes of torture that were previously only hearsay or not considered widespread (involving sexual abuse, power drills and/or hanging people from the ceiling, forcing them in stress positions for long durations, etc). Additionally there was evidence of specific shady dealings with foreign gov'ts.
right... A lot of people here are curiously disgusted by supporters of Bradley Manning, but there wasn't a single prosecution of anyone responsible for the war crimes Manning exposed. What do these people say to that? Do they support the double-standard?
Yes, it's much easier to run from cynicism and live in a bubble . Also, do you gauge all humor by what was and wasn't funny in the early 2000's?
Probably less than 0.1% of the cost of developing a new fighter jet that people like you aren't complaining about.
This is wrong. One of the U.S's goals in the Bradley Manning trial is to show that Assange encouraged Manning to provide the leaks, which would make Assange a collaborator and not just a journalist. For whatever reason, even though wikileaks is nearly dead, they still want Assange locked up.
The same far-left that's pro-women's rights and religious freedom? Sharia law is so right-wing it makes Paul Ryan look like Jerry Garcia.
It's worth noting that a good percentage, if not a majority, of Papa John's workforce is under 25 and so eligible (by Obamacare) to remain on their parent's healthcare.
it's only forcible when you don't want to do it