> by ScrewMaster (602015)
> keep a civil tongue in your mouth
ah, irony.
Yes, gentlemen, I did it on purpose. And you can all defend copponex's crudity if you wish, but I still maintain that by insulting those with whom one disagrees, one does one's own ideas a disservice.
To the extent that "race" even exists, there is no USian race at all.
You got that right. I was born and raised here, and I've never met a single USian. I don't think they exist, except in some misguided individuals heads.
and have had to live around you disgusting people my entire life.
You're welcome. And I hope you left the country, never, ever to return. I find your bigotry and obvious self-loathing more than a little offensive as well. People suck, dude, no matter where on this planet you happen to be. That's life, get over it. And when you cop an attitude like that, well, it's no reason you had problems here. Just grow up a little, and you'll find there's plenty to enjoy in this world, both in America and elsewhere. You really sound like a very unhappy person.
I'm going to continue to use the word "American" the way most people understand it-- to mean citizens of the USA. Anything else is putting some kind of odd political agenda ahead of being understood.
Thank you. I found this whole thread hilarious: I was trying to point out that people of other countries (my own included) have the right to determine their own designation, that it's arrogant and presumptions to try and make that decision for them. Apparently, it is entirely okay for others to call Americans anything they please: would the converse be true, I wonder? Would they be so accommodating if positions were reversed?
I think not. And they call me an ass for trying to preach a little tolerance. I may be an ugly American, but at least I try to have a little respect for other peoples.
I agree that USian is stupid, but it's a response to a legitimate issue and we should find some other term that can be used instead.
What? That's silly. Now, tell you what, you go find one person from Canada or Mexico that is even remote concerned about this "issue" and we'll talk. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke: there are plenty of legitimate issues surrounding America that you can bring up, and which I will be happy to discuss as one adult to another. What we call ourselves is not one of them and is none of your business anyway. YOU don't get to decide this matter, we do. Why is that so hard to get through your collective heads?
Wake up, screwymaestro -- you are strictly lunatic fringe and certainly do not represent "the average" USian. Talk about presumptious! I suppose you prefer the nation-free term "americans"? Or does His Royal Screwiness require us to say "citizens of the U.S."?
Dolt.
Yes, because I AM an American, dimbulb. Why is it so important to you to be able to define how we Americans refer to ourselves. Does it make you feel in control? Personally, I don't care what you call yourself, although I could certainly make a few recommendations if you're having dificulty in that regard. You're in the lunatic fringe, I'm afraid... waaaay out there.
Tax and spend Democrat is the left's version of the borrow and spend Republican. You get what you deserve if you think there's a difference between these two.
You didn't say shit for two paragraphs. "Tax and spend Democrat?" You left a little Limbaugh vomit dripping from your cheek. Might want to hit that with some sanitizer.
Wow. Just wow. I didn't make a single positive statement about Bush in my comment, actually was rather derogatory, and you accuse me of... what? Dude, I don't particularly like Obama, I didn't particularly like George Bush, and you really need to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are (unfortunately) entitled to yours. Here's a friendly piece of advice: you might want to stop reading now, just as I stopped reading your missive after you chose to be unpleasant (which, as it happens, is not the way to have your views given serious consideration by those with whom you might disagree.)
Still with me? Okay, well, you were warned.
Since you opened the door to namecalling, insults and general fucktardiness, let's really get into the spirit of this: you're an asshole. You know it, and I know it. True, I'm not being civil either, but since you're obviously not interested in civil discourse, why should I bother? I might as well enjoy myself as much as you obviously did. Yes, my friend, I am attacking you, not your commentary, nor any facts you may or may not have presented because, honestly, I didn't get past the first line of flowing semi-liquid excrement. I had no reason to, since anything you said is obviously crap, and even if it's not, why should I waste time giving you a serious reply? Ad hominem for the win, dirtbag!
So, let's recap, Mr. or Mrs. Copponex. Go fuck yourself. Fuck yourself with a big rubber dick. Really, if there's a disgrace in this thread, you just defined it, you witless jerkoff. Have a nice fucking day. Oh, and don't forget to kick yourself in the ass on the way out. I hope you choke to death on that nice steak you're having for dinner. Nope, no Heimlich for stupid motherfuckers like you: as Larry Niven once said, think if it as evolution in action. Average human intelligence just went up by a fraction of a percent.
There, I feel MUCH better now. Was it as good for you as it was for me?
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing.
So you are saying he's a Republican?
Explain to me the effective differences in terms of actual fiscal policy between modern Democrats and Republicans. Which will be better for the long-term health of the country, and who is the most responsible with our tax dollars, and the money we borrow to keep our government operating.
He is what he is, another tax-and-spend Democrat with delusions of grandeur like all the rest of the Washington crowd, and we're getting precisely the leadership for which we cast our votes. I did my research, and had a pretty good idea how he was going to turn out, and alas, I was not wrong.
You sure did your research. For the past 30 years every Republican president has increased the debt while every Democrat has decreased it. Damn those tax and spending Democrats and their lowering of the national debt. Here's a clue: stop repeating unfounded talking points.
Stop trying to make an argument where there isn't any. And my research included a number of other topics besides what passes for fiscal policy in Washington, as should yours. I didn't like what I saw, and at least I went well past what Fox News and the rest were presenting as "information" about our Presidential candidates. Did you?
And to me, so far as damage to the economic fabric of the country is concerned, whether he is "taxing and spending" or "borrowing and spending" they are activities that we can't really afford for much longer. Both are irresponsible, and while Congress is responsible for appropriations, the President has considerable influence as to how those appropriations are made, and for what purpose. I would expect better from the man elected to the highest office in the land. You may defend him if you wish, but he is not proving to be what everyone hoped, believed, he would be.
Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return?
Nope, you were talking about specifics. Nice try though!
Nope, that was one line taken out of context. And since I pointed out that I hadn't RTFA, it's pretty hard to pin me down to specifics. Nice try though.
This because they are voting with emotion, not reasoning. http://www.euprofiler.eu/ [euprofiler.eu] as an example and in English
Yes. And not always just with emotion. For example, when Clinton was first up for election, my girlfriend at the time explained why she voted for the man (now, mind you, this was a girl with very high native intelligence and a Master's degree.) It was because, during the debate between the elder Bush and Bill Clinton, she felt that Clinton "looked the most Presidential" and had "much better hair."
I spent the next several minutes cleaning my beverage off the carpet, and trying not to cry.
Obama is an ex-Chicago politician,
Obama is a politician.
I put it that way for a reason, because anyone with half a brain would have taken him down a few notches in their estimation simply because of his background.
You lost me at "tax and spend". We should get past bumper-sticker assertions, especially when they're not even right. I guess "tax less but spend more" isn't as catchy, but it seems to work for the Republicans.
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing. Is that an improvement over "tax and spend"? The reality is he's doing both.
Worth ten billion dollars to whom, Mr. President. Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return?
[...]
What? What's that you say? I may not ask those questions?
Reading comprehension fail.
The 10 billion is the money is coming from India to the US. How it gets distributed within the US depends on how you vote in elections.
Not at all. You can't be accused of not comprehending that which you didn't read in the first place. As I explained to jo_ham, I prefer to go on a good rant first. That gives all of you a chance to feel haughty and superior, leaving you thoroughly disarmed before I eviscerate you with my sharp logic and rapier wit.
Sure you can ask those questions. You'll just look stupid, because the answers are in the fucking article.
Why would I want to to read the article? It's much more fun to just go on a rant. That's a Slashdot privilege which I happen to enjoy, and since I'm not particularly concerned about "looking stupid" I will continue to enjoy it. Besides, nobody says you have to read anything I write.
And I was really talking about Obama's policies in general, not just these specific deals.
Actually, the Founders put the Establishment clause in partly to assure everyone that the Federal Government would not establish a particular Church in conflict with the established Church of the several states, which would have happened if the Federal government established a Church since various states had different state Churches.
Yes, I wasn't too clear. I meant a State Church as in "The Church of England" or something similar. I wasn't referring to individual states.
Several weeks ago I remember hearing a negro professor on the radio mention that even the black community recognized he was not dramatically different from other politicians on issues of civil rights and bringing our jobs home. Too many put their hope and faith in a man that didn't deserve it.
How is this off-topic? The discussion is about President Obama and his policies.
It's ironic that people like you voice dissent at the Indian off shoring situation when you had no problem off shoring our manufacturing jobs to China by lining up at Walmart's feeding trough.
Go to Northeast Ohio, and you'll find out how job losses to foreign countries are handled.
Actually, I haven't a single transaction at that store post-NAFTA. Walking in Wal-Mart is like walking in a foreign land.
Yes. A specific foreign land at this point. Name starts with a "C".
Several weeks ago I remember hearing a negro professor on the radio mention that even the black community recognized he was not dramatically different from other politicians on issues of civil rights and bringing our jobs home. Too many put their hope and faith in a man that didn't deserve it.
When Obama got elected, I remember speaking about it to a friend of mine who emigrated to Europe some years ago. People there were ecstatic about Obama being our new President-elect. I asked him why. "Is it because Obama is going to make a wonderful President in their view?" His answer? "No. It's because he isn't George Bush." They were far more rational in their appraisal of Obama than we were.
Obama is an ex-Chicago politician, with all that that implies to anyone who knows that fine city. Expecting him to be some kind of messiah, some kind of prophet ringing in a new era of prosperity for America was just ignorant. He is what he is, another tax-and-spend Democrat with delusions of grandeur like all the rest of the Washington crowd, and we're getting precisely the leadership for which we cast our votes. I did my research, and had a pretty good idea how he was going to turn out, and alas, I was not wrong. That many refused to exercise their power wisely, especially in the Internet Age where everything about everyone is online for the taking, and had literally deluded themselves into believing otherwise in no way affects who and what the man represents.
President Obama, who is in India on a three-day visit, said that more than 20 deals worth about $10 billion were announced on the first day of his visit.
Worth ten billion dollars to whom, Mr. President. Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return? And no, transferring wealth, knowledge, and manufacturing capability from the United States to other countries, which serves as a particularly expensive and short-sighted form of foreign aid, simply does not count. Nor does the wholesale firing and replacement of large sectors of the U.S. workforce. So... what precisely are you doing to advance our interests, Mr. President! That's what we need to know, since it's what we pay you to do.
What? What's that you say? I may not ask those questions?
Outsourcing firms are much better with the English these days.
But not any better with actual customer service. If I can't get my point across in about ten seconds I hang up and call back. And I'll keep doing that until I get someone that can deal with my problem. Sooner or later you'll get someone that can: oddly enough, they all seem to be from New Jersey.
I mean, should I call the French "Frenchians"? The Germans "Germanians"? How about "Greenies" for people from Greenland? No?
Of course not. It'd be like calling Britons "Brits".
Is it? I think you're being presumptuous. Do they consider it to be a retarded term? Do they object to it? That's the question: doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Not you, not me. I just don't see any reason to insult and/or annoy people from other places just for fun. Kinda pointless.
If your computer or television lacks necessary hardware, and was purchased in the last decade, GTFO/. (GTFO my lawn, too; I remember when most personal computers only had some flavor of tv-out for display, and now that computers can finally provide all your visual entertainment, and lossless digital cabling is the norm, everyone's internalized that late-'90s notion that a computer only hooks to a computer monitor.
Not me. First thing I did after getting a big-screen TV was build an HTPC to put in the entertainment center. Found a nice black media computer enclosure on Newegg: everyone thinks it's a DVD player until there's some reason to Google something and I put the media player up in the corner and bring up Chrome. Odd: nobody seems to pay any attention to the wireless keyboard and mouse on the coffee table until then. So, not only did I get the benefits of having a huge output device for an Internet-connected computer system, but it's given me endless geek-hours of joy fiddling around with it and trying different software and hardware. Haven't got around to fooling with MythTV yet.
Slashdot Mirror
> by ScrewMaster (602015) > keep a civil tongue in your mouth
ah, irony.
Yes, gentlemen, I did it on purpose. And you can all defend copponex's crudity if you wish, but I still maintain that by insulting those with whom one disagrees, one does one's own ideas a disservice.
You're not bringing up good points in the defence of your stance with that one.
Actually, I was. As RaymondKurzweil pointed out, those where rhetorical questions.
{sigh}
To the extent that "race" even exists, there is no USian race at all.
You got that right. I was born and raised here, and I've never met a single USian. I don't think they exist, except in some misguided individuals heads.
and have had to live around you disgusting people my entire life.
You're welcome. And I hope you left the country, never, ever to return. I find your bigotry and obvious self-loathing more than a little offensive as well. People suck, dude, no matter where on this planet you happen to be. That's life, get over it. And when you cop an attitude like that, well, it's no reason you had problems here. Just grow up a little, and you'll find there's plenty to enjoy in this world, both in America and elsewhere. You really sound like a very unhappy person.
I'm going to continue to use the word "American" the way most people understand it-- to mean citizens of the USA. Anything else is putting some kind of odd political agenda ahead of being understood.
Thank you. I found this whole thread hilarious: I was trying to point out that people of other countries (my own included) have the right to determine their own designation, that it's arrogant and presumptions to try and make that decision for them. Apparently, it is entirely okay for others to call Americans anything they please: would the converse be true, I wonder? Would they be so accommodating if positions were reversed?
I think not. And they call me an ass for trying to preach a little tolerance. I may be an ugly American, but at least I try to have a little respect for other peoples.
I agree that USian is stupid, but it's a response to a legitimate issue and we should find some other term that can be used instead.
What? That's silly. Now, tell you what, you go find one person from Canada or Mexico that is even remote concerned about this "issue" and we'll talk. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke: there are plenty of legitimate issues surrounding America that you can bring up, and which I will be happy to discuss as one adult to another. What we call ourselves is not one of them and is none of your business anyway. YOU don't get to decide this matter, we do. Why is that so hard to get through your collective heads?
Wake up, screwymaestro -- you are strictly lunatic fringe and certainly do not represent "the average" USian. Talk about presumptious! I suppose you prefer the nation-free term "americans"? Or does His Royal Screwiness require us to say "citizens of the U.S."? Dolt.
Yes, because I AM an American, dimbulb. Why is it so important to you to be able to define how we Americans refer to ourselves. Does it make you feel in control? Personally, I don't care what you call yourself, although I could certainly make a few recommendations if you're having dificulty in that regard. You're in the lunatic fringe, I'm afraid ... waaaay out there.
Tax and spend Democrat is the left's version of the borrow and spend Republican. You get what you deserve if you think there's a difference between these two.
Yes. Please explain that to nloop.
You didn't say shit for two paragraphs. "Tax and spend Democrat?" You left a little Limbaugh vomit dripping from your cheek. Might want to hit that with some sanitizer.
Wow. Just wow. I didn't make a single positive statement about Bush in my comment, actually was rather derogatory, and you accuse me of ... what? Dude, I don't particularly like Obama, I didn't particularly like George Bush, and you really need to keep a civil tongue in your mouth. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are (unfortunately) entitled to yours. Here's a friendly piece of advice: you might want to stop reading now, just as I stopped reading your missive after you chose to be unpleasant (which, as it happens, is not the way to have your views given serious consideration by those with whom you might disagree.)
Still with me? Okay, well, you were warned.
Since you opened the door to namecalling, insults and general fucktardiness, let's really get into the spirit of this: you're an asshole. You know it, and I know it. True, I'm not being civil either, but since you're obviously not interested in civil discourse, why should I bother? I might as well enjoy myself as much as you obviously did. Yes, my friend, I am attacking you, not your commentary, nor any facts you may or may not have presented because, honestly, I didn't get past the first line of flowing semi-liquid excrement. I had no reason to, since anything you said is obviously crap, and even if it's not, why should I waste time giving you a serious reply? Ad hominem for the win, dirtbag!
So, let's recap, Mr. or Mrs. Copponex. Go fuck yourself . Fuck yourself with a big rubber dick. Really, if there's a disgrace in this thread, you just defined it, you witless jerkoff. Have a nice fucking day. Oh, and don't forget to kick yourself in the ass on the way out. I hope you choke to death on that nice steak you're having for dinner. Nope, no Heimlich for stupid motherfuckers like you: as Larry Niven once said, think if it as evolution in action. Average human intelligence just went up by a fraction of a percent.
There, I feel MUCH better now. Was it as good for you as it was for me?
"Are we learning yet?"
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing.
So you are saying he's a Republican?
Explain to me the effective differences in terms of actual fiscal policy between modern Democrats and Republicans. Which will be better for the long-term health of the country, and who is the most responsible with our tax dollars, and the money we borrow to keep our government operating.
He is what he is, another tax-and-spend Democrat with delusions of grandeur like all the rest of the Washington crowd, and we're getting precisely the leadership for which we cast our votes. I did my research, and had a pretty good idea how he was going to turn out, and alas, I was not wrong.
You sure did your research. For the past 30 years every Republican president has increased the debt while every Democrat has decreased it. Damn those tax and spending Democrats and their lowering of the national debt. Here's a clue: stop repeating unfounded talking points.
Stop trying to make an argument where there isn't any. And my research included a number of other topics besides what passes for fiscal policy in Washington, as should yours. I didn't like what I saw, and at least I went well past what Fox News and the rest were presenting as "information" about our Presidential candidates. Did you?
And to me, so far as damage to the economic fabric of the country is concerned, whether he is "taxing and spending" or "borrowing and spending" they are activities that we can't really afford for much longer. Both are irresponsible, and while Congress is responsible for appropriations, the President has considerable influence as to how those appropriations are made, and for what purpose. I would expect better from the man elected to the highest office in the land. You may defend him if you wish, but he is not proving to be what everyone hoped, believed, he would be.
Shame on us.
exactly. you're not an idiot, you're just an asshole.
at least the GNAA is honest about what they're up to.
What does that make you? I don't recall calling you any names, although if you keep it up I may change my mind.
Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return?
Nope, you were talking about specifics. Nice try though!
Nope, that was one line taken out of context. And since I pointed out that I hadn't RTFA, it's pretty hard to pin me down to specifics. Nice try though.
This because they are voting with emotion, not reasoning. http://www.euprofiler.eu/ [euprofiler.eu] as an example and in English
Yes. And not always just with emotion. For example, when Clinton was first up for election, my girlfriend at the time explained why she voted for the man (now, mind you, this was a girl with very high native intelligence and a Master's degree.) It was because, during the debate between the elder Bush and Bill Clinton, she felt that Clinton "looked the most Presidential" and had "much better hair."
I spent the next several minutes cleaning my beverage off the carpet, and trying not to cry.
Obama is an ex-Chicago politician, Obama is a politician.
I put it that way for a reason, because anyone with half a brain would have taken him down a few notches in their estimation simply because of his background.
You lost me at "tax and spend". We should get past bumper-sticker assertions, especially when they're not even right. I guess "tax less but spend more" isn't as catchy, but it seems to work for the Republicans.
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing. Is that an improvement over "tax and spend"? The reality is he's doing both.
Worth ten billion dollars to whom, Mr. President. Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return? [...] What? What's that you say? I may not ask those questions?
Reading comprehension fail.
The 10 billion is the money is coming from India to the US. How it gets distributed within the US depends on how you vote in elections.
Not at all. You can't be accused of not comprehending that which you didn't read in the first place. As I explained to jo_ham, I prefer to go on a good rant first. That gives all of you a chance to feel haughty and superior, leaving you thoroughly disarmed before I eviscerate you with my sharp logic and rapier wit.
Sure you can ask those questions. You'll just look stupid, because the answers are in the fucking article.
Why would I want to to read the article? It's much more fun to just go on a rant. That's a Slashdot privilege which I happen to enjoy, and since I'm not particularly concerned about "looking stupid" I will continue to enjoy it. Besides, nobody says you have to read anything I write.
And I was really talking about Obama's policies in general, not just these specific deals.
Actually, the Founders put the Establishment clause in partly to assure everyone that the Federal Government would not establish a particular Church in conflict with the established Church of the several states, which would have happened if the Federal government established a Church since various states had different state Churches.
Yes, I wasn't too clear. I meant a State Church as in "The Church of England" or something similar. I wasn't referring to individual states.
Several weeks ago I remember hearing a negro professor on the radio mention that even the black community recognized he was not dramatically different from other politicians on issues of civil rights and bringing our jobs home. Too many put their hope and faith in a man that didn't deserve it.
How is this off-topic? The discussion is about President Obama and his policies.
It's ironic that people like you voice dissent at the Indian off shoring situation when you had no problem off shoring our manufacturing jobs to China by lining up at Walmart's feeding trough.
Go to Northeast Ohio, and you'll find out how job losses to foreign countries are handled.
Actually, I haven't a single transaction at that store post-NAFTA. Walking in Wal-Mart is like walking in a foreign land.
Yes. A specific foreign land at this point. Name starts with a "C".
Several weeks ago I remember hearing a negro professor on the radio mention that even the black community recognized he was not dramatically different from other politicians on issues of civil rights and bringing our jobs home. Too many put their hope and faith in a man that didn't deserve it.
When Obama got elected, I remember speaking about it to a friend of mine who emigrated to Europe some years ago. People there were ecstatic about Obama being our new President-elect. I asked him why. "Is it because Obama is going to make a wonderful President in their view?" His answer? "No. It's because he isn't George Bush." They were far more rational in their appraisal of Obama than we were.
Obama is an ex-Chicago politician, with all that that implies to anyone who knows that fine city. Expecting him to be some kind of messiah, some kind of prophet ringing in a new era of prosperity for America was just ignorant. He is what he is, another tax-and-spend Democrat with delusions of grandeur like all the rest of the Washington crowd, and we're getting precisely the leadership for which we cast our votes. I did my research, and had a pretty good idea how he was going to turn out, and alas, I was not wrong. That many refused to exercise their power wisely, especially in the Internet Age where everything about everyone is online for the taking, and had literally deluded themselves into believing otherwise in no way affects who and what the man represents.
President Obama, who is in India on a three-day visit, said that more than 20 deals worth about $10 billion were announced on the first day of his visit.
Worth ten billion dollars to whom, Mr. President. Is that ten billion leaving the U.S., never to been seen again, or are we getting something worthwhile in return? And no, transferring wealth, knowledge, and manufacturing capability from the United States to other countries, which serves as a particularly expensive and short-sighted form of foreign aid, simply does not count. Nor does the wholesale firing and replacement of large sectors of the U.S. workforce. So ... what precisely are you doing to advance our interests, Mr. President! That's what we need to know, since it's what we pay you to do.
What? What's that you say? I may not ask those questions?
Outsourcing firms are much better with the English these days.
But not any better with actual customer service. If I can't get my point across in about ten seconds I hang up and call back. And I'll keep doing that until I get someone that can deal with my problem. Sooner or later you'll get someone that can: oddly enough, they all seem to be from New Jersey.
I mean, should I call the French "Frenchians"? The Germans "Germanians"? How about "Greenies" for people from Greenland? No?
Of course not. It'd be like calling Britons "Brits".
Is it? I think you're being presumptuous. Do they consider it to be a retarded term? Do they object to it? That's the question: doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Not you, not me. I just don't see any reason to insult and/or annoy people from other places just for fun. Kinda pointless.
Hook your computer to your television.
If your computer or television lacks necessary hardware, and was purchased in the last decade, GTFO /. (GTFO my lawn, too; I remember when most personal computers only had some flavor of tv-out for display, and now that computers can finally provide all your visual entertainment, and lossless digital cabling is the norm, everyone's internalized that late-'90s notion that a computer only hooks to a computer monitor.
Not me. First thing I did after getting a big-screen TV was build an HTPC to put in the entertainment center. Found a nice black media computer enclosure on Newegg: everyone thinks it's a DVD player until there's some reason to Google something and I put the media player up in the corner and bring up Chrome. Odd: nobody seems to pay any attention to the wireless keyboard and mouse on the coffee table until then. So, not only did I get the benefits of having a huge output device for an Internet-connected computer system, but it's given me endless geek-hours of joy fiddling around with it and trying different software and hardware. Haven't got around to fooling with MythTV yet.