Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!"
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time.
Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power.
Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it.
This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties.
Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion.
I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.
It's true that a know-nothing doughboy who fancies himself computer savvy can ruin a system. It's also true there's no shortage of scam artists and other hucksters in the computer tech field.
But nobody can fuck up a computer like a user!
If I had a dollar for every dingwit admin-type who downloaded Kazaa and a near-infinite variety of spyware onto their machine, plus another dollar for every manager who though s/he knew what s/he was doing when s/he installed that neat shareware program, or opened that attachment from that total stranger, then I'd be a rich man. We'd all be rich, I tell ya, because I'd have so much money I'd have to give it to my fellow Slashdotters in order to avoid becoming one of those Rich Assholes. (I'm already an asshole, so giving me money is just going to compound the problem.)
I've admin'd a lot of places, and at every one of them I suggest user education. New toilet seats are a higher priority at most businesses. Most companies would rather undergo a external audit by Satan and his accountants than actually spend money on employee training. "They should already know how to do that stuff," is the attitude and answer I encounter the most, though at no point during the hire process are they assessing computer skills. (I guess the temp agency is supposed to take care of that!)
Additionally, if users were certified, we certified techs could refuse to work with uncertified users. "Can you help me with my email?" "Let me see your certs." At least then they might know the difference between SMTP and POP!
(Some of this was parody. Some of it was satire. Some of it was real. I can't tell the difference anymore.)
The price of freedom is paid here at home, by the citizens of this country, not by going overseas and killing citizens of other countries. How does going to Kuwait and killing Iraqis protect the freedom of US citizens?
Answer: it doesn't. In fact, ALL of our wars for "freedom" have seen the curtailment of the liberties of US citizens. Even the Bush Administration admits this, and of course uses it to justify their continuing annulment of civil liberties. The ACLU has done more for freedom than any number of military brigades.
The military is nothing more than the arm of the government that enforces the policies of the current administration. Anyone who tries to get you to believe otherwise is a liar - or a military recruiter. (Same thing, really.) No one in the military is standing up for our freedom: how can someone who is sworn to take orders without question defend freedom? It's laughable.
I do not speak from lack of experience or knowledge. Anyone telling you to join up does not have your best interests in mind. They are merely justifying their own craven boot-licking which caused them to toady up and follow the orders of fools. Or they are know-nothing armchair warriors, much like the boneheads who are pushing us into the next war(s).
Join the military and find out about yourself? More like, join the military and get programmed to fit a pre-defined role for X number of years, then get out and find your military service does you no good in a civilian world. THEN you will find out about yourself, "who you are." I assure you of that. But you could get to the same place by taking a job pumping gas, where at least you would never be ordered to bomb civilians.
Well, we already have one unqualified candidate in 2004 - unless Shrub is qualified now that he's (mis)handled the job for a while. I don't know how Gore could have been more qualified for hte office: Wartime military service, Senator for decades, VP for 8 years.
The miscarriage of justice was not in the intentions or actions of the two parties. Indeed, one would expect them to do everything legally possible to win. The miscarriage of justice was the Supreme Court making the decision, rather than following the Constitution and remanding it back to Florida courts. But the majority of the court wasn't sure enough of the outcome to trust the process. Had the court been majority Democrats, we'd no doubt have Gore in the White House.
So what should I get over exactly? A coup d'etat? An unelected body of politicos presiding over the dismantling of Democracy? The presence of boneheads on Slashdot? (I definitely better get over that last one!)
I note that only ANONYMOUS COWARDS will come out and say things like this.
There were scenarios in the recount where Gore would have won. Had the recount been pursued *according to Florida law* (i.e. a hand recount), it was found Gore would likely have won. Additionally, the hand recounts required by Florida law were never completed. Ironically, had the recount been pursued in accordance with the Gore campaign's wishes, recounting only those counties they selected, Gore would have lost.
Further, we were electing a President of the United States - not the president of Florida. Gore tallied more votes nationwide than Bush by a margin of voer half a million.
You don't need to tell me about the electoral college or the Constitution - I'm certain I know them better than you anyway. And I am not too chicken to put my name to this, because I am right.
But I suppose if I did support Bush, or the travesty of the Supreme Court decision that installed the Bush-Cheney hegemon, then I'd want to hide behind cowardly anonymity myself, if only to alleviate the shame.
As for "get over it" sentiments, there is not a single Republican in this land who would "get over it" had Gore ascended to the office. Repubs cannot seem to "get over" the Clintons. It makes a lot more sense to be upset by a current perceived injustice than one that's years old.
But why am I arguing with cowards?
You dumbasses are all hell-bent on arguing the virtues of ENTERPRISE which, however bad it may be, is better than no STAR TREK at all.
What about Twilight Zone? Absent all these years, re-tooled back to original style with a walking host, the always superb Forrest Whitaker, with his creepy lazy-eye. This is a bigger piece of cultural history than even STAR TREK.
I'll watch the new ENTERPRISE - I'll record the new TWILIGHT ZONE.
Slashdot Mirror
No we know why YOU'RE not working for AT&T!
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia? Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!" Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City? Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time. Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties. Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion. I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.
But what is the cause of the litigious society?
A. Greedy corporations
B. Dishonest lawyers
C. Stupid consumers
D. Weak politicians
E. All of the above
It's true that a know-nothing doughboy who fancies himself computer savvy can ruin a system. It's also true there's no shortage of scam artists and other hucksters in the computer tech field. But nobody can fuck up a computer like a user! If I had a dollar for every dingwit admin-type who downloaded Kazaa and a near-infinite variety of spyware onto their machine, plus another dollar for every manager who though s/he knew what s/he was doing when s/he installed that neat shareware program, or opened that attachment from that total stranger, then I'd be a rich man. We'd all be rich, I tell ya, because I'd have so much money I'd have to give it to my fellow Slashdotters in order to avoid becoming one of those Rich Assholes. (I'm already an asshole, so giving me money is just going to compound the problem.) I've admin'd a lot of places, and at every one of them I suggest user education. New toilet seats are a higher priority at most businesses. Most companies would rather undergo a external audit by Satan and his accountants than actually spend money on employee training. "They should already know how to do that stuff," is the attitude and answer I encounter the most, though at no point during the hire process are they assessing computer skills. (I guess the temp agency is supposed to take care of that!) Additionally, if users were certified, we certified techs could refuse to work with uncertified users. "Can you help me with my email?" "Let me see your certs." At least then they might know the difference between SMTP and POP! (Some of this was parody. Some of it was satire. Some of it was real. I can't tell the difference anymore.)
The price of freedom is paid here at home, by the citizens of this country, not by going overseas and killing citizens of other countries. How does going to Kuwait and killing Iraqis protect the freedom of US citizens?
Answer: it doesn't. In fact, ALL of our wars for "freedom" have seen the curtailment of the liberties of US citizens. Even the Bush Administration admits this, and of course uses it to justify their continuing annulment of civil liberties. The ACLU has done more for freedom than any number of military brigades.
The military is nothing more than the arm of the government that enforces the policies of the current administration. Anyone who tries to get you to believe otherwise is a liar - or a military recruiter. (Same thing, really.) No one in the military is standing up for our freedom: how can someone who is sworn to take orders without question defend freedom? It's laughable.
I do not speak from lack of experience or knowledge. Anyone telling you to join up does not have your best interests in mind. They are merely justifying their own craven boot-licking which caused them to toady up and follow the orders of fools. Or they are know-nothing armchair warriors, much like the boneheads who are pushing us into the next war(s).
Join the military and find out about yourself? More like, join the military and get programmed to fit a pre-defined role for X number of years, then get out and find your military service does you no good in a civilian world. THEN you will find out about yourself, "who you are." I assure you of that. But you could get to the same place by taking a job pumping gas, where at least you would never be ordered to bomb civilians.
Well, we already have one unqualified candidate in 2004 - unless Shrub is qualified now that he's (mis)handled the job for a while. I don't know how Gore could have been more qualified for hte office: Wartime military service, Senator for decades, VP for 8 years.
The miscarriage of justice was not in the intentions or actions of the two parties. Indeed, one would expect them to do everything legally possible to win. The miscarriage of justice was the Supreme Court making the decision, rather than following the Constitution and remanding it back to Florida courts. But the majority of the court wasn't sure enough of the outcome to trust the process. Had the court been majority Democrats, we'd no doubt have Gore in the White House.
So what should I get over exactly? A coup d'etat? An unelected body of politicos presiding over the dismantling of Democracy? The presence of boneheads on Slashdot? (I definitely better get over that last one!)
I note that only ANONYMOUS COWARDS will come out and say things like this. There were scenarios in the recount where Gore would have won. Had the recount been pursued *according to Florida law* (i.e. a hand recount), it was found Gore would likely have won. Additionally, the hand recounts required by Florida law were never completed. Ironically, had the recount been pursued in accordance with the Gore campaign's wishes, recounting only those counties they selected, Gore would have lost. Further, we were electing a President of the United States - not the president of Florida. Gore tallied more votes nationwide than Bush by a margin of voer half a million. You don't need to tell me about the electoral college or the Constitution - I'm certain I know them better than you anyway. And I am not too chicken to put my name to this, because I am right. But I suppose if I did support Bush, or the travesty of the Supreme Court decision that installed the Bush-Cheney hegemon, then I'd want to hide behind cowardly anonymity myself, if only to alleviate the shame. As for "get over it" sentiments, there is not a single Republican in this land who would "get over it" had Gore ascended to the office. Repubs cannot seem to "get over" the Clintons. It makes a lot more sense to be upset by a current perceived injustice than one that's years old. But why am I arguing with cowards?
You dumbasses are all hell-bent on arguing the virtues of ENTERPRISE which, however bad it may be, is better than no STAR TREK at all. What about Twilight Zone? Absent all these years, re-tooled back to original style with a walking host, the always superb Forrest Whitaker, with his creepy lazy-eye. This is a bigger piece of cultural history than even STAR TREK. I'll watch the new ENTERPRISE - I'll record the new TWILIGHT ZONE.
What the hell do you do now? Wait for Europe to bail obnoxious America out this time, I guess.