I'm glad to hear about the changes. I should have mentioned that all of my information is about five years out of date. From what you and other posters are saying, the message has improved since my time and there are a few more original sounds out there. I'm afraid that at this point my taste has gone too far into mellow electronica to give CCM a fair shake, but it's good to know that listeners will be getting more lyrical and musical depth.
You're absolutely correct. Ditching the "Christian Music" label (as well as Christian music labels!) frees artists to really explore the complexities, the heights and depths of being Christian and being human. The band I used to play in did this, and even though we were pretty local and rarely played anything but Christian events it made a difference in how we felt about our music.
I knew that more of these folks must be out there, but I'm not familiar with them so I couldn't provide any names. Thanks for the list.
Sadly, they broke up due to poor management decisions - the band members were all sorry to see the band dissolve. I know nothing about the other members, but the singer Steven Delopoulos has released a solo album. There are a few tracks on there that are reminiscent of Burlap, although much of it is singer-songwriter a-la James Taylor. It's definitely worth previewing, and is entitled "Me Died Blue."
I was lucky enough to see one of Burlap to Cashmere's last shows (at Messiah College in 2000 or 2001, apparently they played only twice after that) and they were still on top of their game. Steven came back a few years later and played his solo stuff at a coffeehouse, which was one of my favorite musical experiences to date. There were maybe 15 or 20 of us listening to him, and he played a good mix of old and new, including Digee Dime, the song with "I ride my bus!" in it. He took requests (even when he couldn't remember them; it was pretty funny) and stayed an extra half hour or so chatting with us, which is how I heard that the breakup was amicable.
Rumor had it that some or all members of the band were going to re-form, but that was 3 or 4 years ago now so I doubt anything will come of it.
You chose an interesting earworm, given the topic.
Wikipedia:
In 1990, two secretive British record producers remixed "Tom's Diner" without Suzanne Vega's permission, grafting her vocals onto an infectious dance beat from Soul II Soul, and turning her simple ad-libbed outro into the song's driving hook.
Vega's record company of the time, A&M, decided to buy the single and release it themselves rather than taking DNA to court for copyright infringement after consultation with Vega, who liked the interpretation, and DNA, who conducted the whole deal through intermediaries in order to hide their true identities. The remix became a much larger hit than Vega had with the song originally.
It's not clear from my quotation that the original song "Tom's Diner" was a capella, just Vega's voice. The version most of us are familiar with is a mashup.
Unfortunately, it often seems that Christian musicians put all of the time and effort into the message, and aren't particularly concerned about the musical wrapper, thereby creating music that is often, well, bland.
That is because most CCM that gets picked up only gets picked up because it sounds like whatever is being played on mainstream radio. You get an imitation of already bland music with s/(girl|woman|baby)/Jesus/g
There's some good stuff out there. One of my favorite bands, even after ditching CCM and most of Christianity, is Burlap to Cashmere, a Mediterranean-flavored group with very poetic lyrics and great arrangements. Even DC Talk turned into something special, albeit very much a studio product, with the albums Jesus Freak and Supernatural.
The primary reason CCM sucks is precisely because it is mostly imitative: it's a microcosm where the barrier for entry is set low because if it were up to mainstream standards (which doesn't set the bar very high to begin with) there wouldn't be enough acts to sustain the industry. Christian artists (which really means "artists on Christian labels") are also subject to "The Jesus Quota," wherein an album won't be released unless it mentions Jesus at least five times or what have you. Additionally, since Christian music is viewed as a reversal of mainstream music, very few artists are willing to talk about the negative experiences that they have as Christians: being friendless at a church, feeling hopeless due to an external situation, doubting God or some aspect of God, etc. These are things that nearly every Christian has to deal with at one time or another but they are not often represented in music, hence the shallowness of the lyrical content.
Oh, that's easy. Jack is a decent enough guitarist to pull it off, and there's no way in hell that Meg could ever sync to a click track. I shuddered in horror when I heard their first album, but the beat was still more unsteady than I.
Oh I agree with you there - I wasn't trying to paint you as a selfish bastard or anything =) It's just not the place of government to fund things like that, and it's made even more onerous for being deficit spending. It may have a greater benefit to the collective knowledge than giving CEO bonuses, but there is still a net loss even if it's hidden behind taxes, debt, and/or inflation.
I keep posting the link in my sig when I feel it is appropriate, and while I fear I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, now is one of those times.
The Crash Course is a 20-part video series, most chapters under 7 minutes long, that explores the various issues that are all coming to a head, including peak oil, world population, global warming, the money supply, and a few others. It's full of exponential curves that would be exciting except for the ceilings they are approaching at an increasingly alarming rate.
It's pretty well put together and highly informative. If you're skeptical about all the gloom and doom because it's usually spouted by ACs, you owe it to yourself to get the information from a source far less shrill and far more credible. IMO you'll be pretty convinced after watching, and even if you're not you will certainly be better informed.
the question is: did YOU achieve something, or did your modification achieve something?
what happens is we develop a poverty of self-perception. you begin to think: without various crutches, i cannot achieve what i achieved. such that you have no confidence, and you have no real self-regard. you begin to think of yourself as just a piece of meat channeling some sort of technology or drug. that you yourself are not the key to your own performance
This is a questionable assumption, at least if you are speaking in terms of everyone feeling this way. Using your chess match example, and assuming my opponent is formidable, in order for me to win I must have a lot of experience with chess. No amount of a concentration-enhancing drug is going to help me if I am not familiar with winning strategies or don't know enough to spot my crafty foe's subtle positioning or, for that matter, didn't know until sitting down to play that bishops only move diagonally. The same goes for acing an exam: if I haven't studied up on it, a drug that helps me concentrate isn't going to help much.
It's entirely plausible for people to feel that their achievements are not their own, that they are the results of the drug, but I do not see it as a necessary conclusion. I know that I don't feel that way about any of my "enhanced" achievements (which mainly consist of music I've written that other people enjoy, admittedly not as cut-and-dry as winning a chess match) and I honestly can't imagine doing so. It's really a question of how much emphasis you place on the contribution of the drug versus the contribution of your experience. I lean pretty far towards the latter; others may not.
some will say radical modifications are no different philosophically from simple sustenance in terms of contributing to performance. but hydrating before an exam is absolutely nothing like taking a cognition enhancer in terms of contributing something to your performance, really
And yet when a sibling poster mentioned coffee, which contains caffeine, a substance known to enhance cognition, you claim to have already addressed it in your post. Coffee falls far closer to the "enhancement drug" side than the "square meal" side. You have also failed to explain why you view these drugs as a different in kind instead of degree. You're certainly entitled to believe as much (especially if you can back it up), and the problems you have pointed out are certainly real for some number of individuals, but not everyone views these drugs the same way you do and not everyone will be affected by the problems associated with your viewpoint.
You and an AC have equal credibility, thus my indirect point. The OP indicated that somehow an AC comment means less (i.e. has no weight) when in reality, hardly anyone ever takes into account who said something, just what was said.
Oh, I don't know about that. I can speak only for myself, but I certainly attach varying amounts of credibility to the different pseudonyms I recognize. I'm more likely to consider a viewpoint that I disagree with or haven't really thought about before if it is posted by someone on my friends list, for example, because they've said something else in the past that gained my respect. The opposite does not apply to my foes list. They get the same consideration an AC or someone I don't recognize, which means I will generally read the comment if it is highly rated.
In other words, if I don't recognize you, then yes, you have credibility equal to an anonymous poster, but if I recognize you as someone who has shown wisdom or wit in the past, you get a credibility boost. This isn't so much a contradiction of your point as an extension of it and has no bearing on your conclusion about the Maryland decision, with which I agree fully.
What we have today wasn't the result of some master-plan hatched in a secret lair in the lower recesses of an evil University by bleeding heart liberals or whatever you've been told. No, our entire employer based healthcare system is the result of special interest pork legislation written by the industry and pushed upon the public by a Republican administration. It's the DMCA of 1971.
I fail to see how this is relevant. Or did the GP touch a nerve when he (gasp!) criticized Obama's plan in favor of McCain's? Are you implying that the Republican party is responsible for this mess so a Republican cannot possibly have a plan to improve the situation because that would be, what, some kind of hypocrisy? That the 40 years of experience on this system count for nothing?
As far as I can tell, the reason you took a ridiculing tone in the quoted paragraph comes from either the fact that GP supports a Republican policy or because of the line, "Self-employed? Sho-sho-shoo, we don't like these people -- they are harder to corral." In the latter case, you shouldn't assume that GP was thinking "Democrats!" when he wrote that sentence--a lot of people, myself included, know that the Republicans are just as manipulative and authoritarian.
Excellent, excellent post. A lot of the costs in health care exist because we have already delegated too much responsibility to our insurers.
If auto insurance were like health insurance, you would have to go to a repair shop within your "network" and you would see prices rise as in the health sector due to nothing more than mechanics dealing primarily with insurance corporations instead of individual customers. If your customers pay a maximum of $50 and the rest comes from their insurance company, you have an incentive to jack the prices of anything already close to or above the $50 mark because you know you will be paid with no arguments by the insurance company and because you no longer have to worry very much about being competitive on price. This in turn causes insurance rates to rise because the insurance company makes less profit: they're paying more for things, and they're also paying for more things.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who would like to switch auto insurance to the HMO model, and it continually surprises me just how resistant people are to moving the health sector away from it.
Erm...Robotron wasn't analog, it was 8-way, and the move/aim mechanic for Goldeneye (FPS) differs greatly from Robotron (2D shooter). If you are only considering "that punch" to be "two sticks," then you're right of course. In that case, Williams even beat Nintendo on their own console with Smash TV.
Incidentally, if you like Robotron or Smash TV as well as beat-em-ups like Streets of Rage or TMNT, there's a PS2 game worth cheking out called The Red Star. It is, as you can guess, a hybrid beat-em-up and shooter featuring ranked levels (giving you credits to buy upgrades) and a co-op mode. It's $10 new at Gamestop and tons of fun to play with a decent difficulty curve. I must have spent close to 15 hours playing it with buddies since picking it up a few weeks ago--best game buy I've made in a long time.
You've obviously formed your opinion and aren't going to change it. You are simply unwilling to even examine the notion that not all Americans are like the ones you see on TV, or that there wouldn't have been a debate on torture if we were all gung-ho for it as you suppose.
You are a hate-filled, bile-spewing bigot, and I for one am thankful that you will never bring your malaise to the shores of my country. We have more important problems to deal with than the likes of you.
The central point is that Foreigners from around the world have entered the United States then summarily been kidnapped by the CIA, and thrown on jets to countries that torture, then tortured. I'm not going to a country that does that to people. It might happen to me.
Okay. Fair enough. If I didn't already live here I would probably feel the same way.
And look at these responses. You'd think throwing people on planes to be tortured for months is some great moral deed, the way people are going on about how great America is. How do you argue the amorality of a society while defending atrocities?
Where did I defend the atrocities? Where did I even disagree with your assessment of extraordinary rendition or this weakening of the 5th amendment? Where did I start playing the nationalist's tune? I'm disgusted by the case and disgusted by the way people are treated by security at our airports. I don't fly anymore and I avoid visiting national landmarks because of bullshit security checkpoints. I'm not happy with it, and neither are most American slashdotters, so where do you get off calling all of us terrifying and amoral bastards? We aren't all members of the CIA or Homeland Security any more than all Canadians are mounties or all Colombians are drug lords.
And the straw man is simply the statement your post supports("THANK YOU, I was hoping someone would say this"), that instead of not wanting to VISIT america, I really want to disregard everything about america, and therefore I am a hypocrite.
Reading my original comment again I can see why you would think that. I was intending only to agree with AC's sentiment that you were painting a broad and unfavorable generalization of all American people based on the actions of very few. Unfortunately that was only the last word in the sentence and I probably should have given more consideration to the rest or simply responded to your comment directly. My bad.
Your parenthetical statement was still far more incendiary, unnecessary, and simply wrong.
Show me how what I wrote is a straw man (or flamebait, for that matter) and I'll concede the point, though I'm not sure exactly what the original point was. What I saw was a gross generalization, "Americans are terrifying and amoral bastards," followed by two posts calling you on it. Explain to me what your central point was, and why you felt the need to cheapen it by slighting every individual American based on the actions of our government. I feel slighted by the mods and by you, and I've got the karma to burn if the hate keeps flowing, so let's go.
Here's a hint: just because the powerful public people of a country do something bad doesn't mean that the entire population or even a significant portion of it share the same values or act the same way.
Though with such an attitude as exhibited by the GP, he's probably right to be terrified to come here.
And how exactly will it be repealed without another constitutional amendment? And how exactly do you propose that support for such a repeal would be obtained? The "think of the children!" argument will get you a decent amount, sure, but nowhere near enough to pass an amendment.
No, what will more likely happen is that it'll continue to be slowly and unconstitutionally eroded just like...well, like the rest of the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to hear about the changes. I should have mentioned that all of my information is about five years out of date. From what you and other posters are saying, the message has improved since my time and there are a few more original sounds out there. I'm afraid that at this point my taste has gone too far into mellow electronica to give CCM a fair shake, but it's good to know that listeners will be getting more lyrical and musical depth.
Erm...somehow I screwed up and replied to myself instead of you. Short answer: no, they're not around. Long answer: see this post below.
You're absolutely correct. Ditching the "Christian Music" label (as well as Christian music labels!) frees artists to really explore the complexities, the heights and depths of being Christian and being human. The band I used to play in did this, and even though we were pretty local and rarely played anything but Christian events it made a difference in how we felt about our music.
I knew that more of these folks must be out there, but I'm not familiar with them so I couldn't provide any names. Thanks for the list.
Sadly, they broke up due to poor management decisions - the band members were all sorry to see the band dissolve. I know nothing about the other members, but the singer Steven Delopoulos has released a solo album. There are a few tracks on there that are reminiscent of Burlap, although much of it is singer-songwriter a-la James Taylor. It's definitely worth previewing, and is entitled "Me Died Blue."
I was lucky enough to see one of Burlap to Cashmere's last shows (at Messiah College in 2000 or 2001, apparently they played only twice after that) and they were still on top of their game. Steven came back a few years later and played his solo stuff at a coffeehouse, which was one of my favorite musical experiences to date. There were maybe 15 or 20 of us listening to him, and he played a good mix of old and new, including Digee Dime, the song with "I ride my bus!" in it. He took requests (even when he couldn't remember them; it was pretty funny) and stayed an extra half hour or so chatting with us, which is how I heard that the breakup was amicable.
Rumor had it that some or all members of the band were going to re-form, but that was 3 or 4 years ago now so I doubt anything will come of it.
You chose an interesting earworm, given the topic.
Wikipedia:
In 1990, two secretive British record producers remixed "Tom's Diner" without Suzanne Vega's permission, grafting her vocals onto an infectious dance beat from Soul II Soul, and turning her simple ad-libbed outro into the song's driving hook.
Vega's record company of the time, A&M, decided to buy the single and release it themselves rather than taking DNA to court for copyright infringement after consultation with Vega, who liked the interpretation, and DNA, who conducted the whole deal through intermediaries in order to hide their true identities. The remix became a much larger hit than Vega had with the song originally.
It's not clear from my quotation that the original song "Tom's Diner" was a capella, just Vega's voice. The version most of us are familiar with is a mashup.
Unfortunately, it often seems that Christian musicians put all of the time and effort into the message, and aren't particularly concerned about the musical wrapper, thereby creating music that is often, well, bland.
That is because most CCM that gets picked up only gets picked up because it sounds like whatever is being played on mainstream radio. You get an imitation of already bland music with
s/(girl|woman|baby)/Jesus/g
There's some good stuff out there. One of my favorite bands, even after ditching CCM and most of Christianity, is Burlap to Cashmere, a Mediterranean-flavored group with very poetic lyrics and great arrangements. Even DC Talk turned into something special, albeit very much a studio product, with the albums Jesus Freak and Supernatural.
The primary reason CCM sucks is precisely because it is mostly imitative: it's a microcosm where the barrier for entry is set low because if it were up to mainstream standards (which doesn't set the bar very high to begin with) there wouldn't be enough acts to sustain the industry. Christian artists (which really means "artists on Christian labels") are also subject to "The Jesus Quota," wherein an album won't be released unless it mentions Jesus at least five times or what have you. Additionally, since Christian music is viewed as a reversal of mainstream music, very few artists are willing to talk about the negative experiences that they have as Christians: being friendless at a church, feeling hopeless due to an external situation, doubting God or some aspect of God, etc. These are things that nearly every Christian has to deal with at one time or another but they are not often represented in music, hence the shallowness of the lyrical content.
They could also be typing or writing, or in some instances nodding.
What's the difference between a Coors and having sex in a canoe?
Nothing, they're both fucking close to water!
why does this suddenly make me want to cry?
Because you misspelled "pedant"?
We must calulate in a safety factor for annihlating the entire world.
This is the most absurd sentence I have seen yet this week. Not that I disagree with you, but damn that's twisted.
Oh, that's easy. Just hard-code it to answer "mu" to anything it doesn't understand!
Oh, that's easy. Jack is a decent enough guitarist to pull it off, and there's no way in hell that Meg could ever sync to a click track. I shuddered in horror when I heard their first album, but the beat was still more unsteady than I.
Oh I agree with you there - I wasn't trying to paint you as a selfish bastard or anything =) It's just not the place of government to fund things like that, and it's made even more onerous for being deficit spending. It may have a greater benefit to the collective knowledge than giving CEO bonuses, but there is still a net loss even if it's hidden behind taxes, debt, and/or inflation.
I keep posting the link in my sig when I feel it is appropriate, and while I fear I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, now is one of those times.
The Crash Course is a 20-part video series, most chapters under 7 minutes long, that explores the various issues that are all coming to a head, including peak oil, world population, global warming, the money supply, and a few others. It's full of exponential curves that would be exciting except for the ceilings they are approaching at an increasingly alarming rate.
It's pretty well put together and highly informative. If you're skeptical about all the gloom and doom because it's usually spouted by ACs, you owe it to yourself to get the information from a source far less shrill and far more credible. IMO you'll be pretty convinced after watching, and even if you're not you will certainly be better informed.
the question is: did YOU achieve something, or did your modification achieve something?
what happens is we develop a poverty of self-perception. you begin to think: without various crutches, i cannot achieve what i achieved. such that you have no confidence, and you have no real self-regard. you begin to think of yourself as just a piece of meat channeling some sort of technology or drug. that you yourself are not the key to your own performance
This is a questionable assumption, at least if you are speaking in terms of everyone feeling this way. Using your chess match example, and assuming my opponent is formidable, in order for me to win I must have a lot of experience with chess. No amount of a concentration-enhancing drug is going to help me if I am not familiar with winning strategies or don't know enough to spot my crafty foe's subtle positioning or, for that matter, didn't know until sitting down to play that bishops only move diagonally. The same goes for acing an exam: if I haven't studied up on it, a drug that helps me concentrate isn't going to help much.
It's entirely plausible for people to feel that their achievements are not their own, that they are the results of the drug, but I do not see it as a necessary conclusion. I know that I don't feel that way about any of my "enhanced" achievements (which mainly consist of music I've written that other people enjoy, admittedly not as cut-and-dry as winning a chess match) and I honestly can't imagine doing so. It's really a question of how much emphasis you place on the contribution of the drug versus the contribution of your experience. I lean pretty far towards the latter; others may not.
some will say radical modifications are no different philosophically from simple sustenance in terms of contributing to performance. but hydrating before an exam is absolutely nothing like taking a cognition enhancer in terms of contributing something to your performance, really
And yet when a sibling poster mentioned coffee, which contains caffeine, a substance known to enhance cognition, you claim to have already addressed it in your post. Coffee falls far closer to the "enhancement drug" side than the "square meal" side. You have also failed to explain why you view these drugs as a different in kind instead of degree. You're certainly entitled to believe as much (especially if you can back it up), and the problems you have pointed out are certainly real for some number of individuals, but not everyone views these drugs the same way you do and not everyone will be affected by the problems associated with your viewpoint.
You and an AC have equal credibility, thus my indirect point. The OP indicated that somehow an AC comment means less (i.e. has no weight) when in reality, hardly anyone ever takes into account who said something, just what was said.
Oh, I don't know about that. I can speak only for myself, but I certainly attach varying amounts of credibility to the different pseudonyms I recognize. I'm more likely to consider a viewpoint that I disagree with or haven't really thought about before if it is posted by someone on my friends list, for example, because they've said something else in the past that gained my respect. The opposite does not apply to my foes list. They get the same consideration an AC or someone I don't recognize, which means I will generally read the comment if it is highly rated.
In other words, if I don't recognize you, then yes, you have credibility equal to an anonymous poster, but if I recognize you as someone who has shown wisdom or wit in the past, you get a credibility boost. This isn't so much a contradiction of your point as an extension of it and has no bearing on your conclusion about the Maryland decision, with which I agree fully.
What we have today wasn't the result of some master-plan hatched in a secret lair in the lower recesses of an evil University by bleeding heart liberals or whatever you've been told. No, our entire employer based healthcare system is the result of special interest pork legislation written by the industry and pushed upon the public by a Republican administration. It's the DMCA of 1971.
I fail to see how this is relevant. Or did the GP touch a nerve when he (gasp!) criticized Obama's plan in favor of McCain's? Are you implying that the Republican party is responsible for this mess so a Republican cannot possibly have a plan to improve the situation because that would be, what, some kind of hypocrisy? That the 40 years of experience on this system count for nothing?
As far as I can tell, the reason you took a ridiculing tone in the quoted paragraph comes from either the fact that GP supports a Republican policy or because of the line, "Self-employed? Sho-sho-shoo, we don't like these people -- they are harder to corral." In the latter case, you shouldn't assume that GP was thinking "Democrats!" when he wrote that sentence--a lot of people, myself included, know that the Republicans are just as manipulative and authoritarian.
Excellent, excellent post. A lot of the costs in health care exist because we have already delegated too much responsibility to our insurers.
If auto insurance were like health insurance, you would have to go to a repair shop within your "network" and you would see prices rise as in the health sector due to nothing more than mechanics dealing primarily with insurance corporations instead of individual customers. If your customers pay a maximum of $50 and the rest comes from their insurance company, you have an incentive to jack the prices of anything already close to or above the $50 mark because you know you will be paid with no arguments by the insurance company and because you no longer have to worry very much about being competitive on price. This in turn causes insurance rates to rise because the insurance company makes less profit: they're paying more for things, and they're also paying for more things.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who would like to switch auto insurance to the HMO model, and it continually surprises me just how resistant people are to moving the health sector away from it.
...which just goes to show you exactly why horrible ideas like bailouts & stimulus can survive. "Well, as long as I might get a slice..."
Erm...Robotron wasn't analog, it was 8-way, and the move/aim mechanic for Goldeneye (FPS) differs greatly from Robotron (2D shooter). If you are only considering "that punch" to be "two sticks," then you're right of course. In that case, Williams even beat Nintendo on their own console with Smash TV.
Incidentally, if you like Robotron or Smash TV as well as beat-em-ups like Streets of Rage or TMNT, there's a PS2 game worth cheking out called The Red Star. It is, as you can guess, a hybrid beat-em-up and shooter featuring ranked levels (giving you credits to buy upgrades) and a co-op mode. It's $10 new at Gamestop and tons of fun to play with a decent difficulty curve. I must have spent close to 15 hours playing it with buddies since picking it up a few weeks ago--best game buy I've made in a long time.
You've obviously formed your opinion and aren't going to change it. You are simply unwilling to even examine the notion that not all Americans are like the ones you see on TV, or that there wouldn't have been a debate on torture if we were all gung-ho for it as you suppose.
You are a hate-filled, bile-spewing bigot, and I for one am thankful that you will never bring your malaise to the shores of my country. We have more important problems to deal with than the likes of you.
Good day.
The central point is that Foreigners from around the world have entered the United States then summarily been kidnapped by the CIA, and thrown on jets to countries that torture, then tortured. I'm not going to a country that does that to people. It might happen to me.
Okay. Fair enough. If I didn't already live here I would probably feel the same way.
And look at these responses. You'd think throwing people on planes to be tortured for months is some great moral deed, the way people are going on about how great America is. How do you argue the amorality of a society while defending atrocities?
Where did I defend the atrocities? Where did I even disagree with your assessment of extraordinary rendition or this weakening of the 5th amendment? Where did I start playing the nationalist's tune? I'm disgusted by the case and disgusted by the way people are treated by security at our airports. I don't fly anymore and I avoid visiting national landmarks because of bullshit security checkpoints. I'm not happy with it, and neither are most American slashdotters, so where do you get off calling all of us terrifying and amoral bastards? We aren't all members of the CIA or Homeland Security any more than all Canadians are mounties or all Colombians are drug lords.
And the straw man is simply the statement your post supports("THANK YOU, I was hoping someone would say this"), that instead of not wanting to VISIT america, I really want to disregard everything about america, and therefore I am a hypocrite.
Reading my original comment again I can see why you would think that. I was intending only to agree with AC's sentiment that you were painting a broad and unfavorable generalization of all American people based on the actions of very few. Unfortunately that was only the last word in the sentence and I probably should have given more consideration to the rest or simply responded to your comment directly. My bad.
Your parenthetical statement was still far more incendiary, unnecessary, and simply wrong.
Show me how what I wrote is a straw man (or flamebait, for that matter) and I'll concede the point, though I'm not sure exactly what the original point was. What I saw was a gross generalization, "Americans are terrifying and amoral bastards," followed by two posts calling you on it. Explain to me what your central point was, and why you felt the need to cheapen it by slighting every individual American based on the actions of our government. I feel slighted by the mods and by you, and I've got the karma to burn if the hate keeps flowing, so let's go.
Seriously. You beat me to it.
Here's a hint: just because the powerful public people of a country do something bad doesn't mean that the entire population or even a significant portion of it share the same values or act the same way.
Though with such an attitude as exhibited by the GP, he's probably right to be terrified to come here.
And how exactly will it be repealed without another constitutional amendment? And how exactly do you propose that support for such a repeal would be obtained? The "think of the children!" argument will get you a decent amount, sure, but nowhere near enough to pass an amendment.
No, what will more likely happen is that it'll continue to be slowly and unconstitutionally eroded just like...well, like the rest of the constitution.