I am somewhat ignorant Woz's plan, but does this not remind anyone of DVDs not being able to be played outside of specified regions? How do we know the same thing won't happen?
RTFC... that was NOT offtopic. Not the greatest comment in the history of comments, but certainly not offtopic. Unless you do not think that changing a name to Lin---s and having a hangman with the remaining letters on the webpage has anything to do with sarcasm or the question of naming practices in intellectual property. Perhaps GTTFW and see for yerself??
You may not yet be as bad as the guy that lives on the corner of my block, with the foil under his NY Yankees basball cap, but the distinction is small.
Man you hit the nail on the head with that one! As a long-time Red Sox fan, I have come to know Yankees fans are friggin nuts, but what's up with the tin foil under the caps? A new Steinbrenner (r) mandate? Sheesh...
Then this 'Pepsi' thing... Looks like I'm gonna drink Pepsi instead of Coke soon. And I mean a lot of Pepsi. Definitely a good idea for Pepsi.
Yeah, but my question is does this just apply to Pepsi or does it also apply to Pepsi- products?
This could make for an interesting match between the products and their presumable stereotypes:
Pepsi: Downloadable rock tunes.
Diet Pepsi: Britteny Spears and Boy Bands.
Mountain Dew: Speed Metal and rap-metal.
Sierra Mist: Nothing. No one likes this..
Slice: Show Tunes and Vaudeville
And the list goes on... I anxiously await the flames from the "anti-generalization-and-links-from-certain-types- of-people-to-certain-types-of-drinks-even-if-the-g eneralization-was-made-in-an-attempt-to-be-humour" peeps as well as the now enraged Sierra Mist fans...
I've always considered my skills with computers to be the Art
Well now that's true too. I once attempted to explain to a middle age drunken hippie how the engineering process, although it requires rules that have to be followed, can be quite a creative process. He would said "no, that could never be the case." I then tried to explain to him how it is somewhat analogous to the "rules" of canvass painting - you must use a brush and a canvass and paints for it to be called art. Granted, there are those who will stretch these rules (like Pollack) and that too is art, but are there not rules for all of us to follow in any process?
His answer: "now you're just reaching."
I hope to God I never become that closed minded when I'm his age.
However, I'm also terribly opposed to broad generalizations. Maybe you might want to make friends with an artist or two.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume he doesn't have any "artist friends"? Maybe he is an artist himself. I am an engineer and dabble in the arts.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking out of for() loop. As a matter of fact the following is a fairly standard way of implementing an infinite loop in C:
for(;;){/* do something and use break to terminate the loop */
}
I know this is the opinion of some, and though I am sure there are some that would disagree with me on this, I think that the proper way of doing that would be via a while-loop, if you are going to break out of it. A similar quandary would be using a while-loop to iterate, although to me this is a much better solution if you are planning on conditionally breaking from the loop than using a for-loop. Depending on how you look at it, such a small example like this is probably simply opinion, but it's still my opinion and the opinion of some of my profs that you should remain true to the form of the function of the structure. If you say you're going to break out if something happens, use a while. If you say you're going to iterate i times, do so. If you're going to iterate i times but might break out, use the while.
Of course, that particular prof, although he loved Java, hated C. He actually held up a photo of Dennis Ritchie once and said "See this class! This is the devil!" And his favorite programming language is Haskell...
Sadly enough, I've had the opposite experience. Most CS grads in the past few years have been complete idiots
Interesting post. I'm sure that it depends on the school sometimes, though. I have spoken with some from other colleges who tell me that they could turn in programming assignments that did not compile. That would never fly at my school. And while I sure did question some of the theory classes that I had to take, later on I realized their importance.
A couple of weeks ago a fellow graduate friend of mine told me of someone with whom he works (who's graduate from another college, not our program) had him look at some code he had written. One of the things he found was a for-loop in which the author had on a certain condition break out of. My friend responded to this, stating how this was not a very elegant way of writing code and was not true to the form of the fuction of a for-loop, since the idea is that before the iterations begin you state exactly how many times you will iterate. The guy's response was "Well, it still works."
Enjoyed your review and the spoiler review for which you provided a link. From that review, it is stated:
When the Oracle gives Neo a candy, he takes it, but does not eat it. She takes a matching candy out of her purse and throws it in her mouth. It is identical to the red pill that Neo took in the first place
I noted this when it happened. and thought nothing of it. But after reading this review, I began to wonder if maybe in the third film he finds the candy in his pocket, unwraps it and finally notices it's just like the red pill (a hot tamale perhaps;)?, eats it, and holy mindfuck, batmat, even more things are revealed, mainly about who/what the Oracle's role is. Hmmm...
Also if you watched really close you would've noticed them using something like "ssh v1 exploit (something)" to haxx0r into the computer.
Interestingly, yesterday someone posted a comment with a link to an "exclusive shot from the movie", but no one save an AC responded. In fact, it was modded down offtopic. I bit, however, and to my surprise while watching to movie, I discovered it was real!
Anyway, the shot is the same as the ssh exploit as you were mentioning...
Good morning, my friend:-). Glad to see you responded. I've thoroughly enjoyed this little debate, although I question whether it's truly pragmatic or not, since the original thread was political in nature, not about writing style.
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence
Since when are there only two political positions? For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
Oh here we go again with your projections about "what I'm 'really' saying". It appears that you want so desperatly to find a 'problem' with my statements that you will attempt to read into my statements. Since when did I imply that there are only two political positions? Fools on both sides of the fence refers to the phenomenon that extremes exist sometimes in argumentative viewpoints.
For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
I don't believe that it is, and that's why I said: I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case.
And you were vitriolic towards that poster's political ideals; the very thing you were accusing him/her (or by the wordage of your post, that entire political ideology) of:
and are you not being vitriolic towards my statements as well, by sheer action of scrutinizing my words? If not vitriolic, perhaps defensive? If you reach far enough that my original statement was indeed vitriolic, then under that same rationale you are doing the same thing.
I think it's very interesting that you are criticizing someone's choice of writing style. Should one not be allowed a creative license to anthropomorphize? I don't think so, especially if one had made specific observations about the object in which they seek to give action. Do I find one person's statements 'stupid' because they chose to generalize? Should one stick to only terse, exacting, and mundane ways of writing, as to make sure not to offend someone because of the way that the other person might perceive their ramblings? I don't really believe that's very prudent. Is generalizing stupid? Sure, in a statistical plot, outliers can skew data such that means are not what they appear to be, and data in any ongoing statistical collection need to be regarded as dynamic, provided that more data will be collected. When arriving at conclusions, the most seasoned scientist knows this, and will make valued decisions regarding the data according to subject size, existence of outliers, etc. If you see the metaphor here (note I didn't say 'forgive';) ), we all do the same thing with politics, but there are some who don't scrutinize the data before making such generalizations. I am not saying my opinion is better or more correct than others, hell I could be completely wrong, in which case I would love to know, because such is the only way in which to learn. I would say though, that I think a bit more carefully than the average joe about such matters, and that generalizations, on the wings of opinion, should not be attempted to be banished at every available opportunity. And that's exactly what they should be - informed opinions. Of course political outliers exist that can make one group appear in a single way. Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond both come to mind on that one. Comments that they make may thwart people's opinions about the ideology to which they cling into a certain direction. But are they not a part of that ideology because of such statements? How exactly did they get outside the group of their belonging alignment by virtue of their statements? No, they still belong to that group, but there are some that are quick to point out that they are outliers and they do not "truly belong" into the group.
However, to go back to the original statement: Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew
Both you and the poster you originally replied to, actually.
Wow, with that kind of reasoning, your comments are hateful as well, as long as we're reaching.
I might add that you don't even know what my political position is, though you seem to have made an assumption.
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence, and I'd love to know how you arrived at the conclusion that I've made an assumption. I've given so such indication. I simply observed that there doesn't seem to be much tolerance on your side, as was apparent from the "don't be stupid" remark.
The Soviet Russia joke wouldn't have quite fit in this case.
which is why comparing Iraq and Kosovo is foolish.
You've made some decent points, but I still think it's reaching a bit to try to say that comparing the two is foolish. I'm certainly not saying this war had just as much of a clear cut case as Kosovo, or as international support as did the first Gulf war or Kosovo (although I believe Clinton circumvented the UN and went through NATO on that one, correct?). The majority of the antiwar proponents out there from my experience at least just cite "No blood for oil" or "Don't kill babies." In that sense, the two can certainly be compared and hardly discernable, because although innocent people did die on both occasions, it was prophilactic against future deaths. When one gets to take it a step further, certainly I will be the first to admit the Kosovo situation more effectivly warranted military action.
Where I think we differ is that I don't think the difference between the two in urgency, be they different reasons, is as profound as the case that you are trying to build here. But for those who are putting up the argument that war is bad because it kills people, the two are quite comparable because it shows sheer bipartisanship. It makes me wonder why there is not more outspokenness against Liebermann (who I plan to vote for!) and Edwards for supporting the president, but of course we all know it's politics. As someone who leans completely in the middle politically, that infuriates me.
"The US is messing with the Middle East again? Probably just more oil politics. Just like the US, to do whatever's best for themselves without thinking about the rest of the world."
I agree, and I'm a bit afraid of the lack of diplomacy we've had lately. I fear the "other" Osama's that could be running around now. But much of this is perception. How can we change those people's perceptions of us, provided we are not immediatly involved in machinations against their people? If we ARE, they are justified, and yes, there have been times where we have been wrong. But should we stop doing what we feel is right because of what others THINK of us? It is difficult to balance diplomacy with firmness, indeed.
If you believe the US, then Iraq would have been happy to get rid of him,
I'm not sure if it can be that simplistic. Remember, the guy had a 100% unanimous election in his favor. That screams of a terror-run regime. Vote against Saddam means off with your head. Rising up against him is certainly not any easier.
That evidence just never materialized (and still hasn't).
I think it would be wise to afford the same patience to finding the weapons now after the war that was so desperatly asked for the inspectors to "do their job", since intellegence points to weapons being moved in mobile laboratories. Iraq's a big country, I wouldn't jump the gun.
Lastly, when people start to condemn only the wars that republican presidents were a part of, it makes their credibility crumble into a conglomerated mess of bipartisanship. I have to question people's motives just as others question Bush's. As a centrist, I have both fiercly questioned Clinton's enemies (that whole thing with the Lewinsky scandel was damn near entrapment for the guy, although he really irked me when he lied to the people, and entrapment or not it does not excuse lying) as well as Bush's now. I do not like it when people jump the gun to the "oil" argument. Perhaps an independent counsel should be sought to clear up the matter on Bush's intentions. I'm all for that one, partially because that whole concept sounds like paranoia gone rampant in the minds of those who can't stand loosing an election, but if the IS wrongdoing, I would like to know personally.
It's hard to take you seriously when you acuse an abstract concept of vitriol, and in a rather venomous tone at that.
WOW you REALLY turned the tables on me there! Boy I really look like the hateful one NOW, don't I?
How funny. You might as well have said "In SOVIET RUSSIA, YOU are the one who spews vitriol!"
Even if you were to correct yourself in that you refer to people who follow an ideology, it's still a baseless generalization.
Fortunatly, I think most people have the ability to reason through my statement. My apologies for offending you. The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification?
Right-wingers are no better in this country than muslim extremists are in other countries. Just as they wish to kill all Americans, your average conservative townie doesn't distinguish between the Sikh guy (not even the same religion) walking down the street and the extemist with an AK47.
This essentially is the problem though isn't it? When people are so blinded by their faith/convictions/political leanings that they have been brough up on that they cannot see the other side for what it really is. For you to stereotype "the average conservative" is so ridiculuously prejudicial it frightens me. Try listening to the other side to see what they say, don't just write them off as a single group.
Vist an AIDS patient and then maybe you'll know what suffering is.
Ok, what are you trying to do here, hmm? Where did that come from? Maybe I'm not as compassionate are you'd like me to be because I haven't been to do such a thing, though I'm sure I will at some point. I know one person who does care - apparently the current president, because he asked congress for $15 billion in Affrican aids refief during the last state of the union address.
Oh WAIT - he's a republican! That means he's just pandering...
Actually, it's not. The arguement is that innocent people will die from the bombs. This happens in either case, Iraq or Kosovo. You say the purpose was to eliminate ethnic cleansing. If war is bad because it kills people, then your Kosovo war is just as bad. Selling it as a way to end ethnic cleansing is pretty much on the same level as ending Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and the torture of innocent civilians. Tell, why would you care only about people in Kosovo dying, but not the people dead at the hand of Saddam Hussein? Are you a racist? I don't think so, maybe just a bit politically biased towards leftist politicians, and not necessarily their actions. Personally I supported both presidents, because it was the right thing to do in both cases.
Bush just wants some dough for himself and his buddies out of the Iraqi oil.
I love this one. Unfortunatly, I live in the real world and would like to see some proof about "the buddies" - I can't just unobjectivly accept "theories" that my political team throws at me, I try to think with an open mind.Oh, and the one about "We're going to war so you can drive an SUV." I actually saw a sign in San Francisco that said "No blood for Jews."
than to a right wing christian ayatollah - the republican right is NO DIFFERENT from the extremist muslims.
Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically.
It is really difficult after being lied to to believe anything the man says.
I agree. I'm glad Clinton is out of office. And that whole Kosovo/Milosevic regime change thing, and all the innocent people bombed in that country because of him... glad that's all over.
Ok , using a left-winged extremist source (this article actually has the nuts to call Newsweek "Clinton haters". This, the same mag whose cover once featured Newt Gingrich with the huge caption "Loser".) like americanpolitics.com does not help credibility in proving a point.
If that were the case, I could do the same with Al Gore's grades
I don't have it up, but I'll be happy to send it to anyone who wants it if you email me at "dccolema@edisto.cofc.edu" (this is my "junk email" address from school - I don't care if it gets spammed so that's why i'm posting it)
Slashdot Mirror
I am somewhat ignorant Woz's plan, but does this not remind anyone of DVDs not being able to be played outside of specified regions? How do we know the same thing won't happen?
Sadly, my slashdot user id is not.
Your /. user id is SOOO totally 16-bit - get with the times, buddy!
Hilarious ... another great moment in sarcasm history, and yet rather thought-provoking on the question of intellectual property.
Man you hit the nail on the head with that one! As a long-time Red Sox fan, I have come to know Yankees fans are friggin nuts, but what's up with the tin foil under the caps? A new Steinbrenner (r) mandate? Sheesh ...
Yeah, but my question is does this just apply to Pepsi or does it also apply to Pepsi- products?
This could make for an interesting match between the products and their presumable stereotypes:
Pepsi: Downloadable rock tunes.
Diet Pepsi: Britteny Spears and Boy Bands.
Mountain Dew: Speed Metal and rap-metal.
Sierra Mist: Nothing. No one likes this..
Slice: Show Tunes and Vaudeville
And the list goes on ... I anxiously await the flames from the "anti-generalization-and-links-from-certain-types- of-people-to-certain-types-of-drinks-even-if-the-g eneralization-was-made-in-an-attempt-to-be-humour" peeps as well as the now enraged Sierra Mist fans ...
Well now that's true too. I once attempted to explain to a middle age drunken hippie how the engineering process, although it requires rules that have to be followed, can be quite a creative process. He would said "no, that could never be the case." I then tried to explain to him how it is somewhat analogous to the "rules" of canvass painting - you must use a brush and a canvass and paints for it to be called art. Granted, there are those who will stretch these rules (like Pollack) and that too is art, but are there not rules for all of us to follow in any process?
His answer: "now you're just reaching."
I hope to God I never become that closed minded when I'm his age.However, I'm also terribly opposed to broad generalizations. Maybe you might want to make friends with an artist or two. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to assume he doesn't have any "artist friends"? Maybe he is an artist himself. I am an engineer and dabble in the arts.
...and we wonder why Engineering students have a bad reputation and can't get laid...
...
And we wonder why arts students can't get a job and wonder how they're going to retire on 25k in life savings
for(;;){ /* do something and use break to terminate the loop */
}
I know this is the opinion of some, and though I am sure there are some that would disagree with me on this, I think that the proper way of doing that would be via a while-loop, if you are going to break out of it. A similar quandary would be using a while-loop to iterate, although to me this is a much better solution if you are planning on conditionally breaking from the loop than using a for-loop. Depending on how you look at it, such a small example like this is probably simply opinion, but it's still my opinion and the opinion of some of my profs that you should remain true to the form of the function of the structure. If you say you're going to break out if something happens, use a while. If you say you're going to iterate i times, do so. If you're going to iterate i times but might break out, use the while.
Of course, that particular prof, although he loved Java, hated C. He actually held up a photo of Dennis Ritchie once and said "See this class! This is the devil!" And his favorite programming language is Haskell ...
Interesting post. I'm sure that it depends on the school sometimes, though. I have spoken with some from other colleges who tell me that they could turn in programming assignments that did not compile. That would never fly at my school. And while I sure did question some of the theory classes that I had to take, later on I realized their importance.
A couple of weeks ago a fellow graduate friend of mine told me of someone with whom he works (who's graduate from another college, not our program) had him look at some code he had written. One of the things he found was a for-loop in which the author had on a certain condition break out of. My friend responded to this, stating how this was not a very elegant way of writing code and was not true to the form of the fuction of a for-loop, since the idea is that before the iterations begin you state exactly how many times you will iterate. The guy's response was "Well, it still works."
When the Oracle gives Neo a candy, he takes it, but does not eat it. She takes a matching candy out of her purse and throws it in her mouth. It is identical to the red pill that Neo took in the first place
I noted this when it happened. and thought nothing of it. But after reading this review, I began to wonder if maybe in the third film he finds the candy in his pocket, unwraps it and finally notices it's just like the red pill (a hot tamale perhaps ;)?, eats it, and holy mindfuck, batmat, even more things are revealed, mainly about who/what the Oracle's role is. Hmmm ...
Interestingly, yesterday someone posted a comment with a link to an "exclusive shot from the movie", but no one save an AC responded. In fact, it was modded down offtopic. I bit, however, and to my surprise while watching to movie, I discovered it was real!
Anyway, the shot is the same as the ssh exploit as you were mentioning ...
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence
Since when are there only two political positions? For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
Oh here we go again with your projections about "what I'm 'really' saying". It appears that you want so desperatly to find a 'problem' with my statements that you will attempt to read into my statements. Since when did I imply that there are only two political positions? Fools on both sides of the fence refers to the phenomenon that extremes exist sometimes in argumentative viewpoints.
For that matter, how is it relevent to the poorly-chosent statement I'm chastizing you about?
I don't believe that it is, and that's why I said: I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case.
And you were vitriolic towards that poster's political ideals; the very thing you were accusing him/her (or by the wordage of your post, that entire political ideology) of:
and are you not being vitriolic towards my statements as well, by sheer action of scrutinizing my words? If not vitriolic, perhaps defensive? If you reach far enough that my original statement was indeed vitriolic, then under that same rationale you are doing the same thing.
I think it's very interesting that you are criticizing someone's choice of writing style. Should one not be allowed a creative license to anthropomorphize? I don't think so, especially if one had made specific observations about the object in which they seek to give action. Do I find one person's statements 'stupid' because they chose to generalize? Should one stick to only terse, exacting, and mundane ways of writing, as to make sure not to offend someone because of the way that the other person might perceive their ramblings? I don't really believe that's very prudent. Is generalizing stupid? Sure, in a statistical plot, outliers can skew data such that means are not what they appear to be, and data in any ongoing statistical collection need to be regarded as dynamic, provided that more data will be collected. When arriving at conclusions, the most seasoned scientist knows this, and will make valued decisions regarding the data according to subject size, existence of outliers, etc. If you see the metaphor here (note I didn't say 'forgive' ;) ), we all do the same thing with politics, but there are some who don't scrutinize the data before making such generalizations. I am not saying my opinion is better or more correct than others, hell I could be completely wrong, in which case I would love to know, because such is the only way in which to learn. I would say though, that I think a bit more carefully than the average joe about such matters, and that generalizations, on the wings of opinion, should not be attempted to be banished at every available opportunity. And that's exactly what they should be - informed opinions. Of course political outliers exist that can make one group appear in a single way. Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond both come to mind on that one. Comments that they make may thwart people's opinions about the ideology to which they cling into a certain direction. But are they not a part of that ideology because of such statements? How exactly did they get outside the group of their belonging alignment by virtue of their statements? No, they still belong to that group, but there are some that are quick to point out that they are outliers and they do not "truly belong" into the group.
However, to go back to the original statement: Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew
Wow, with that kind of reasoning, your comments are hateful as well, as long as we're reaching.
I might add that you don't even know what my political position is, though you seem to have made an assumption.
I'm not sure that a specific political position applies in this case; there are fools of both sides of the fence, and I'd love to know how you arrived at the conclusion that I've made an assumption. I've given so such indication. I simply observed that there doesn't seem to be much tolerance on your side, as was apparent from the "don't be stupid" remark.
The Soviet Russia joke wouldn't have quite fit in this case.
Actually it would, if you're reaching.
I thought it worked quite well, personally.
You've made some decent points, but I still think it's reaching a bit to try to say that comparing the two is foolish. I'm certainly not saying this war had just as much of a clear cut case as Kosovo, or as international support as did the first Gulf war or Kosovo (although I believe Clinton circumvented the UN and went through NATO on that one, correct?). The majority of the antiwar proponents out there from my experience at least just cite "No blood for oil" or "Don't kill babies." In that sense, the two can certainly be compared and hardly discernable, because although innocent people did die on both occasions, it was prophilactic against future deaths. When one gets to take it a step further, certainly I will be the first to admit the Kosovo situation more effectivly warranted military action.
Where I think we differ is that I don't think the difference between the two in urgency, be they different reasons, is as profound as the case that you are trying to build here. But for those who are putting up the argument that war is bad because it kills people, the two are quite comparable because it shows sheer bipartisanship. It makes me wonder why there is not more outspokenness against Liebermann (who I plan to vote for!) and Edwards for supporting the president, but of course we all know it's politics. As someone who leans completely in the middle politically, that infuriates me.
"The US is messing with the Middle East again? Probably just more oil politics. Just like the US, to do whatever's best for themselves without thinking about the rest of the world."
I agree, and I'm a bit afraid of the lack of diplomacy we've had lately. I fear the "other" Osama's that could be running around now. But much of this is perception. How can we change those people's perceptions of us, provided we are not immediatly involved in machinations against their people? If we ARE, they are justified, and yes, there have been times where we have been wrong. But should we stop doing what we feel is right because of what others THINK of us? It is difficult to balance diplomacy with firmness, indeed.
If you believe the US, then Iraq would have been happy to get rid of him,
I'm not sure if it can be that simplistic. Remember, the guy had a 100% unanimous election in his favor. That screams of a terror-run regime. Vote against Saddam means off with your head. Rising up against him is certainly not any easier.
That evidence just never materialized (and still hasn't).
I think it would be wise to afford the same patience to finding the weapons now after the war that was so desperatly asked for the inspectors to "do their job", since intellegence points to weapons being moved in mobile laboratories. Iraq's a big country, I wouldn't jump the gun.
Lastly, when people start to condemn only the wars that republican presidents were a part of, it makes their credibility crumble into a conglomerated mess of bipartisanship. I have to question people's motives just as others question Bush's. As a centrist, I have both fiercly questioned Clinton's enemies (that whole thing with the Lewinsky scandel was damn near entrapment for the guy, although he really irked me when he lied to the people, and entrapment or not it does not excuse lying) as well as Bush's now. I do not like it when people jump the gun to the "oil" argument. Perhaps an independent counsel should be sought to clear up the matter on Bush's intentions. I'm all for that one, partially because that whole concept sounds like paranoia gone rampant in the minds of those who can't stand loosing an election, but if the IS wrongdoing, I would like to know personally.
WOW you REALLY turned the tables on me there! Boy I really look like the hateful one NOW, don't I? How funny. You might as well have said "In SOVIET RUSSIA, YOU are the one who spews vitriol!"
Even if you were to correct yourself in that you refer to people who follow an ideology, it's still a baseless generalization.
Fortunatly, I think most people have the ability to reason through my statement. My apologies for offending you. The question is, would you afford others whose political positions are not in alignment with your own the same dignification?
This essentially is the problem though isn't it? When people are so blinded by their faith/convictions/political leanings that they have been brough up on that they cannot see the other side for what it really is. For you to stereotype "the average conservative" is so ridiculuously prejudicial it frightens me. Try listening to the other side to see what they say, don't just write them off as a single group.
Vist an AIDS patient and then maybe you'll know what suffering is.
Ok, what are you trying to do here, hmm? Where did that come from? Maybe I'm not as compassionate are you'd like me to be because I haven't been to do such a thing, though I'm sure I will at some point. I know one person who does care - apparently the current president, because he asked congress for $15 billion in Affrican aids refief during the last state of the union address.
Oh WAIT - he's a republican! That means he's just pandering ...
Actually, it's not. The arguement is that innocent people will die from the bombs. This happens in either case, Iraq or Kosovo. You say the purpose was to eliminate ethnic cleansing. If war is bad because it kills people, then your Kosovo war is just as bad. Selling it as a way to end ethnic cleansing is pretty much on the same level as ending Saddam's gassing of the Kurds and the torture of innocent civilians. Tell, why would you care only about people in Kosovo dying, but not the people dead at the hand of Saddam Hussein? Are you a racist? I don't think so, maybe just a bit politically biased towards leftist politicians, and not necessarily their actions. Personally I supported both presidents, because it was the right thing to do in both cases.
Bush just wants some dough for himself and his buddies out of the Iraqi oil.
I love this one. Unfortunatly, I live in the real world and would like to see some proof about "the buddies" - I can't just unobjectivly accept "theories" that my political team throws at me, I try to think with an open mind .Oh, and the one about "We're going to war so you can drive an SUV." I actually saw a sign in San Francisco that said "No blood for Jews."
than to a right wing christian ayatollah - the republican right is NO DIFFERENT from the extremist muslims.
Amazing how a political ideology can try to cloak itself in an all-inclusive and peaceful shroud only to spew vitriolic hate about those who are different from them politically.
It is really difficult after being lied to to believe anything the man says.
I agree. I'm glad Clinton is out of office. And that whole Kosovo/Milosevic regime change thing, and all the innocent people bombed in that country because of him ... glad that's all over.
Ok , using a left-winged extremist source (this article actually has the nuts to call Newsweek "Clinton haters". This, the same mag whose cover once featured Newt Gingrich with the huge caption "Loser".) like americanpolitics.com does not help credibility in proving a point.
If that were the case, I could do the same with Al Gore's grades
I don't have it up, but I'll be happy to send it to anyone who wants it if you email me at "dccolema@edisto.cofc.edu" (this is my "junk email" address from school - I don't care if it gets spammed so that's why i'm posting it)