Your opinions that education, technology, and transportation spending benefit the economy are all fine and dandy... The idea that you shouldn't give the military money is a joke though.
#1 You can't prosper if you don't have a nation #2 The military is an excellent educator #3 Future stability is profitable #4 Defense spending creates tech (DARPA anyone?) #5 What compensations are you talking about? Most that I know of were created in peace time.
You do realize that Bush has increased Education spending 48% (at least) right?
As far as transportation funding, the Bush administration has offered up funds and incentives for new vehicle design research. He's also had to deal with giving up funds to protect our transportation security. Defense spending often directly helps with transportation research & development as well. Not sure what you want him to do exactly or what part of transportation you're referring to.
Universities and research hospitals are getting plenty of money as it is, and there's no reason why we should give them more government welfare money while the private industry is more than happy to pour in billions.
Lastly, you still fail to address the points. You only spew random complaints about how the government should/shouldn't spend more money. This doesn't have anything to do with what the poster was saying.
The poster stated that the lowering of taxes stimulates the economy. Concentrate on that one argument for a moment.
You seem to only be using the comment so that you can spread your own agenda and complain about the war.
Ahh.. I see why you hate Bush so much now.. You say it yourself, you don't have time to keep up with things going on outside of school. In any case, many of us have "worked our asses off" in school to get that 4.0GPA and go to a good college.. many work for 15..20..35..40..50 years, but we don't go IN YOUR FACE!:P What I'm saying is.. You're still a kid, your life is your books and such... Yet you come across as someone who thinks they know everything about the world and that Bush is destroying it... Oh well..
Oh my.. You're even in denial, this is going to take more work than I thought. Ooh you're in the top high school in your state.. That's like saying I drive the best car made in Iraq. After reading your posts and your journal, it seems pretty obvious you have some weird superiority thing going on... Are you John Kerry's long lost son perhaps?
I see this as a plea for help. I understand the fact that you are young and easily influenced by what you see on television and hear from the "all knowing" hollywood crowd, but we can help you. First of all, let me suggest that you stop watching MTV. I realize that lately they have been spewing pro-Kerry "documentaries" and saying that you should get out and vote for him, but they're only giving you tiny bits of the story. The fact that you are young doesn't mean you have to be anti-republican. Once you stop watching that cra...entertainment channel, we'll move on and talk about you getting a job and perhaps even a trip overseas so you understand a little more about the real world. Perhaps by the time you are old enough to vote, you will understand more about what's going on.
First, there is no cookie cutter definition for "Republican" or "Democrat". I was only speaking about the history of the republican party. Second, you fail to define what a republican even is, and I doubt you really know. In any case, the fact is TR was a popular republican, and these sorts of actions ARE in the history of conservatives/republicans so please stop trying to take away their good politicians;) Sorry democrats... You can't change history to favor your party.
Anyway, I don't believe cable tv is necessary, but considering how many million homes have cable and use it for their primary news/entertainment/advertisement source... I'd say it's a pretty damn important part of our lives. In the end, they're just trying to give the consumer more power over what they buy/watch. This is not government control (which would conflict with the republican party's message), but rather it is more consumer control... Which is great. The government isn't taking over cable, they're just telling them they have to serve the desires of the consumer, just like any other business has to. I tend to like the analogy given about grocery shopping.
Jackson's republicans were "democrat republicans" and the plain "democrats" were on his side. The whigs and the national republicans were against him. Just a random fact that I think should be pointed out. I understand what you're saying, but anyway inviduals have to make certain decisions on their own. The fact that they weren't exactly as they are now doesn't change the history of the political party. The parties generally don't get together at the beginning of an election year and completely change their message. There is an evolution over time based on the changing conditions we face, but the history and core values are still there. Presidents especially are sometimes caught in the middle as they face various issues, and many conservative republicans have various problems with say... our current republican president, but in the end, he is still a republican and many of his plans and ideas will become part of the future republican "ways" and history. I get tired of people who try to act like republicans are evil EXCEPT this guy and that guy "oh, but they weren't really republicans." It's a joke.
Your comment about McCain and "the Democratic candidate" made little sense. Who calls "the Democratic candidate" too "conservative"? Sounds like an idiot to me. Unless "the Democratic candidate" isn't John Kerry, the most leftist voter of anyone in the senate. Maybe the "many" you speak of are just diehard Kucinich fans or something like that. This argument is useless, some imaginary conservative democrat makes John McCain look like a leftist? Better write him a letter, I bet he didn't know he should change his political affiliation.
Anyway, I don't see what MLB teams have to do with this. Does the league force you to pay them money whenever they play games or something? Do you have to buy tickets to games you don't want to see? I don't get it... Cable makes me buy stations I don't want... MLB doesn't charge me anything... They even generally let me see the games I want because all the channels pick up the various games... and I can go to the games I want without having to pay for all the others...
Though, you know I'd rather watch more NHL games, something that could become a possibility if I could pick my channels instead of having to shell out another $50 to get 500 more channels I don't want to get 1 I do...
I'm glad you survive without cable, most of that crap will rot your brain. I however, do not think I should have to pay for all the crap just to get the few stations I enjoy watching from time to time.
True about the uptight parents not being able to bear the thought of their kids being told how to use a condom. However, that really has nothing to do with the way sex is portrayed in the movies and television. I remember a few years ago someone was half jokingly talking about how porn production companies were starting to make their actors use protection to advocate safe sex. Anyway, the thing is... You rarely even see that in the most sexually explicit movies out there, let alone the "pseudo smut." Anyway... You're saying our life is unbalanced and advocates violence, but seriously... I'll bet you that 99% of the parents out there who don't want their kids to learn about safe sex don't want them to be shooting people either. I don't know... I really have never met someone that would let their kids watch, say... Pulp Fiction or something, but then say oh my god, I'm not going to let you watch Basic Instinct! Hell, for that matter most parents don't *care* if their kids watch porn or have playboy... It's generally not something you have out in public in our culture, but it's still generally "accepted" provided the child is >12 or something.. In the end, most parents (uptight especially) don't want their kids exposed to either sexually explicit material OR extreme violence. There is a good reason for that too. Even when you take all the "necessary precautions" there is still a HIGH possibility of getting an STD and [though slightly less of one] you can still get pregnant. This is not something to be taken lightly... Even if you disregard the health risks, some parents want their kids to... stay kids... And in an age where kids are doing less other grown up things (full time job.. marriage.. etc) until later in life.. Why not try to let them concentrate on what really matters? I mean, I'm not going to go tell my kid sex must be avoided at all costs... but.. I don't want him/her obsessed with sex and such like I've seen in many of my friends... They usually end up pregnant or dying before they even realize there is more to life. There are A LOT of measures we need to take to better educate the younger people in our world, but you cannot simply say that because you think violence is more acceptable in our society that X and Y happen more often, or that because children don't know what cunnilingus means (actually, I learned this word in the 1st grade and I lived in a pretty sheltered/rural area at the time..) that more kids will get pregnant.
I still really think the idea that kids are uneducated about sex is overrated though, to tell you the truth... Most kids these days know more about sex at age 10 than I did at 16.. It actually amazes me..
I blame it on TV and the hormones in our food (just kidding)
History... Terrorists have been around for thousands of years
Don't Learn... We have only just now started seeking out the terrorists on their own territory
Doomed... Idiots claim the war on terror is based on money and politics, and if we succumb to those thoughts we may actually give up on the war and allow ourselves to be annihilated. Exactly what they've been planning for well over 2000 years.
When will you idiots wake up and realize that where blood and death is allowed, sex is too. There is a line to be drawn at every point. In a world where STDs are killing millions and high schools are filled with pregnant juniors and sophomores, I don't think "sex is bad" is being heard. What? You think most high school kids are virgins just because you are? Sorry.. wrong.. Someone NEEDS to tell people that sex CAN be a bad thing instead of pushing it on all 500 channels;P
They didn't give a damn before and they still don't. What's your point?
I mean seriously, do you think you're the bigger man because you enjoy seeing women and children being killed by terrorists? If a cop gave you a speeding ticket today and then you saw him getting beat by a gang tomorrow, would you just stop and laugh?
You're a joke. Get your stuff together and realize we live in a hostile world. You think you aren't a target for terrorists just because you're against America? Think again.
Yeah, I mean... All Iraqi women are rich and can go see a US senator right? No wait... Most Iraqi women:
1) Can't afford to fly or call Barbara Boxer
2) Don't know who the hell Barbara Boxer is
3) Wouldn't give a damn about who she is anyway
4) Raped/Killed by Saddam & Co.
TV will not be forced to innovate or die just because some people who probably don't watch tv much anyway cancel their tv subscriptions. Face it, not many people who actually watch are going to want to do that.
We can however force them to change and innovate by telling them what we want! Look at it this way... You think MTV has become a pile of trash, but you like what's on [random channel]? You tell your cable company you don't want it. Enough people do that and MTV realizes they have to innovate, yet you still get to watch your shows on [random channel]. Actually, not only do you get to watch them, but the owners of that network realize they have a good thing going and are less apt to change their shows.
As things are now, the networks don't give a care about what you think. They can pretty much put up whatever they want and still get paid. The ratings systems in place now don't cut it... What's wrong with giving the consumer more control over what's on?
This is hardly leftist. Pissing off companies that hold a monopoly goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the most liked republican behind President Lincoln and President Reagan. McCain is more of a centrist, but he's obviously republican...
Now, if the story had said that McCain wanted this and a pony... You might have something to your theory of the leftist bent... But of course, no silly obvious bias would be allowed to be put in story here... No.. Of course not!
This looks more like someone wrote a satire of how an extreme leftist slashdotter thinks than something that actually deserves any serious consideration.
The poster's opinions are correct, and the attitude is warranted. Terrorists and such want to kill Americans anyway, it has nothing to do with the attitudes of Americans. It only has to do with the fact that terrorists hate our general way of life, religion, and so on... The same reason they hate people all over the world. I cannot even think of a developed country that does not have it's own terrorists, regardless of how the people think/talk.
By the way... I don't know if you're too young to remember, if you're just a troll, or what, but there was a HUGE marketing campaign for Betamax and it still failed due to various problems.
Imagine how easily it would be to market something like this, it practically sells itself. The best advertising these days is word of mouth, NOT pretty commercials and boxes. If something like this gets developed, then people all over the tech community will be talking about it. Betamax is an extremely poor example, besides the fact that it's a totally different kind of product, they had many more problems than just marketing.
Interesting thing though is that the homophobes are trying to figure out why homosexuals are supposed to be accepted without a second thought, and believe that they'd be better off it wasn't the case.
Exit polls are not even close to 100% reliable... They do not rely on any hard facts, and we are only *lucky* that so many voters are willing to participate in the polls and not purposely attempt to throw them off. You act as if they're actual counts of ballots or something. The people taking the polls are definitely going to run into cases where various people aren't going to take the poll, and in some cases you'll even have voters purposely setting them off.
Teaching your kids about love and sex has nothing to do with exposing them to graphic sex scenes in games and movies though. Banning The Sims might be going a little too far, but anyway... There are only a couple (and I can't even think of the names) R rated movies, and no games that I know of.. That actually show love and SAFE sex. In most R rated movies, the characters know eachother for like 5 minutes before jumping into bed together and of course they rarely even hint at using protection. If you want to teach your kids to 1) Not get pregnant at a young age and 2) Not be afraid of the opposite sex... You're going to have to do something other than sit them down infront of sexually explicit movies.
Drawn, quartered, and the remaining parts keel-hauled? Geeze... Okay, I'm going to start conducting a study here. Did you live more of a sheltered life when you were younger, or were you heavily exposed to graphic violence as a young child?
It's not. People like you just see some strange conspiracy. The majority of americans against showing their kids sexually explicit material are also against showing them graphic violence. If you read what the person asked, they want to see "G" rated games, not "Anything non-sexually explicit."
Slashdot Mirror
Your opinions that education, technology, and transportation spending benefit the economy are all fine and dandy... The idea that you shouldn't give the military money is a joke though.
#1 You can't prosper if you don't have a nation
#2 The military is an excellent educator
#3 Future stability is profitable
#4 Defense spending creates tech (DARPA anyone?)
#5 What compensations are you talking about? Most that I know of were created in peace time.
You do realize that Bush has increased Education spending 48% (at least) right?
As far as transportation funding, the Bush administration has offered up funds and incentives for new vehicle design research. He's also had to deal with giving up funds to protect our transportation security. Defense spending often directly helps with transportation research & development as well. Not sure what you want him to do exactly or what part of transportation you're referring to.
Universities and research hospitals are getting plenty of money as it is, and there's no reason why we should give them more government welfare money while the private industry is more than happy to pour in billions.
Lastly, you still fail to address the points. You only spew random complaints about how the government should/shouldn't spend more money. This doesn't have anything to do with what the poster was saying.
The poster stated that the lowering of taxes stimulates the economy. Concentrate on that one argument for a moment.
You seem to only be using the comment so that you can spread your own agenda and complain about the war.
Ahh.. I see why you hate Bush so much now.. You say it yourself, you don't have time to keep up with things going on outside of school. In any case, many of us have "worked our asses off" in school to get that 4.0GPA and go to a good college.. many work for 15..20..35..40..50 years, but we don't go IN YOUR FACE! :P What I'm saying is.. You're still a kid, your life is your books and such... Yet you come across as someone who thinks they know everything about the world and that Bush is destroying it... Oh well..
Good luck with trying to reach your dreams.
Oh my.. You're even in denial, this is going to take more work than I thought. Ooh you're in the top high school in your state.. That's like saying I drive the best car made in Iraq. After reading your posts and your journal, it seems pretty obvious you have some weird superiority thing going on... Are you John Kerry's long lost son perhaps?
I see this as a plea for help. I understand the fact that you are young and easily influenced by what you see on television and hear from the "all knowing" hollywood crowd, but we can help you. First of all, let me suggest that you stop watching MTV. I realize that lately they have been spewing pro-Kerry "documentaries" and saying that you should get out and vote for him, but they're only giving you tiny bits of the story. The fact that you are young doesn't mean you have to be anti-republican. Once you stop watching that cra...entertainment channel, we'll move on and talk about you getting a job and perhaps even a trip overseas so you understand a little more about the real world. Perhaps by the time you are old enough to vote, you will understand more about what's going on.
First, there is no cookie cutter definition for "Republican" or "Democrat". I was only speaking about the history of the republican party. Second, you fail to define what a republican even is, and I doubt you really know. In any case, the fact is TR was a popular republican, and these sorts of actions ARE in the history of conservatives/republicans so please stop trying to take away their good politicians ;) Sorry democrats... You can't change history to favor your party.
Anyway, I don't believe cable tv is necessary, but considering how many million homes have cable and use it for their primary news/entertainment/advertisement source... I'd say it's a pretty damn important part of our lives. In the end, they're just trying to give the consumer more power over what they buy/watch. This is not government control (which would conflict with the republican party's message), but rather it is more consumer control... Which is great. The government isn't taking over cable, they're just telling them they have to serve the desires of the consumer, just like any other business has to. I tend to like the analogy given about grocery shopping.
Jackson's republicans were "democrat republicans" and the plain "democrats" were on his side. The whigs and the national republicans were against him. Just a random fact that I think should be pointed out. I understand what you're saying, but anyway inviduals have to make certain decisions on their own. The fact that they weren't exactly as they are now doesn't change the history of the political party. The parties generally don't get together at the beginning of an election year and completely change their message. There is an evolution over time based on the changing conditions we face, but the history and core values are still there. Presidents especially are sometimes caught in the middle as they face various issues, and many conservative republicans have various problems with say... our current republican president, but in the end, he is still a republican and many of his plans and ideas will become part of the future republican "ways" and history. I get tired of people who try to act like republicans are evil EXCEPT this guy and that guy "oh, but they weren't really republicans." It's a joke.
Your comment about McCain and "the Democratic candidate" made little sense. Who calls "the Democratic candidate" too "conservative"? Sounds like an idiot to me. Unless "the Democratic candidate" isn't John Kerry, the most leftist voter of anyone in the senate. Maybe the "many" you speak of are just diehard Kucinich fans or something like that. This argument is useless, some imaginary conservative democrat makes John McCain look like a leftist? Better write him a letter, I bet he didn't know he should change his political affiliation.
Anyway, I don't see what MLB teams have to do with this. Does the league force you to pay them money whenever they play games or something? Do you have to buy tickets to games you don't want to see? I don't get it... Cable makes me buy stations I don't want... MLB doesn't charge me anything... They even generally let me see the games I want because all the channels pick up the various games... and I can go to the games I want without having to pay for all the others...
Though, you know I'd rather watch more NHL games, something that could become a possibility if I could pick my channels instead of having to shell out another $50 to get 500 more channels I don't want to get 1 I do...
I'm glad you survive without cable, most of that crap will rot your brain. I however, do not think I should have to pay for all the crap just to get the few stations I enjoy watching from time to time.
True about the uptight parents not being able to bear the thought of their kids being told how to use a condom. However, that really has nothing to do with the way sex is portrayed in the movies and television. I remember a few years ago someone was half jokingly talking about how porn production companies were starting to make their actors use protection to advocate safe sex. Anyway, the thing is... You rarely even see that in the most sexually explicit movies out there, let alone the "pseudo smut." Anyway... You're saying our life is unbalanced and advocates violence, but seriously... I'll bet you that 99% of the parents out there who don't want their kids to learn about safe sex don't want them to be shooting people either. I don't know... I really have never met someone that would let their kids watch, say... Pulp Fiction or something, but then say oh my god, I'm not going to let you watch Basic Instinct! Hell, for that matter most parents don't *care* if their kids watch porn or have playboy... It's generally not something you have out in public in our culture, but it's still generally "accepted" provided the child is >12 or something.. In the end, most parents (uptight especially) don't want their kids exposed to either sexually explicit material OR extreme violence. There is a good reason for that too. Even when you take all the "necessary precautions" there is still a HIGH possibility of getting an STD and [though slightly less of one] you can still get pregnant. This is not something to be taken lightly... Even if you disregard the health risks, some parents want their kids to... stay kids... And in an age where kids are doing less other grown up things (full time job.. marriage.. etc) until later in life.. Why not try to let them concentrate on what really matters? I mean, I'm not going to go tell my kid sex must be avoided at all costs... but.. I don't want him/her obsessed with sex and such like I've seen in many of my friends... They usually end up pregnant or dying before they even realize there is more to life. There are A LOT of measures we need to take to better educate the younger people in our world, but you cannot simply say that because you think violence is more acceptable in our society that X and Y happen more often, or that because children don't know what cunnilingus means (actually, I learned this word in the 1st grade and I lived in a pretty sheltered/rural area at the time..) that more kids will get pregnant.
I still really think the idea that kids are uneducated about sex is overrated though, to tell you the truth... Most kids these days know more about sex at age 10 than I did at 16.. It actually amazes me..
I blame it on TV and the hormones in our food (just kidding)
Hmm.. That's pretty sweet. Even though most of my friends can speak at least 2 languages pretty fluently, despite being raised in public education.
Anyway, can exceptions run for office and stuff? I want to be the first Exception President.
History...
Terrorists have been around for thousands of years
Don't Learn...
We have only just now started seeking out the terrorists on their own territory
Doomed...
Idiots claim the war on terror is based on money and politics, and if we succumb to those thoughts we may actually give up on the war and allow ourselves to be annihilated. Exactly what they've been planning for well over 2000 years.
When will you idiots wake up and realize that where blood and death is allowed, sex is too. There is a line to be drawn at every point. In a world where STDs are killing millions and high schools are filled with pregnant juniors and sophomores, I don't think "sex is bad" is being heard. ;P
What? You think most high school kids are virgins just because you are? Sorry.. wrong..
Someone NEEDS to tell people that sex CAN be a bad thing instead of pushing it on all 500 channels
They didn't give a damn before and they still don't. What's your point?
I mean seriously, do you think you're the bigger man because you enjoy seeing women and children being killed by terrorists? If a cop gave you a speeding ticket today and then you saw him getting beat by a gang tomorrow, would you just stop and laugh?
You're a joke. Get your stuff together and realize we live in a hostile world. You think you aren't a target for terrorists just because you're against America? Think again.
Yeah, I mean... All Iraqi women are rich and can go see a US senator right? No wait... Most Iraqi women:
1) Can't afford to fly or call Barbara Boxer
2) Don't know who the hell Barbara Boxer is
3) Wouldn't give a damn about who she is anyway
4) Raped/Killed by Saddam & Co.
Will do. Your link however, is a little unconvincing... You could have at least found some actual quotes from Falwell and Robertson.
TV will not be forced to innovate or die just because some people who probably don't watch tv much anyway cancel their tv subscriptions. Face it, not many people who actually watch are going to want to do that.
We can however force them to change and innovate by telling them what we want! Look at it this way... You think MTV has become a pile of trash, but you like what's on [random channel]? You tell your cable company you don't want it. Enough people do that and MTV realizes they have to innovate, yet you still get to watch your shows on [random channel]. Actually, not only do you get to watch them, but the owners of that network realize they have a good thing going and are less apt to change their shows.
As things are now, the networks don't give a care about what you think. They can pretty much put up whatever they want and still get paid. The ratings systems in place now don't cut it... What's wrong with giving the consumer more control over what's on?
This is hardly leftist. Pissing off companies that hold a monopoly goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, arguably the most liked republican behind President Lincoln and President Reagan. McCain is more of a centrist, but he's obviously republican...
Now, if the story had said that McCain wanted this and a pony... You might have something to your theory of the leftist bent... But of course, no silly obvious bias would be allowed to be put in story here... No.. Of course not!
I know quite a few languages... but I live in America... So what does that make me? =(
This looks more like someone wrote a satire of how an extreme leftist slashdotter thinks than something that actually deserves any serious consideration.
In your best dreams maybe.
The poster's opinions are correct, and the attitude is warranted. Terrorists and such want to kill Americans anyway, it has nothing to do with the attitudes of Americans. It only has to do with the fact that terrorists hate our general way of life, religion, and so on... The same reason they hate people all over the world. I cannot even think of a developed country that does not have it's own terrorists, regardless of how the people think/talk.
Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.
By the way... I don't know if you're too young to remember, if you're just a troll, or what, but there was a HUGE marketing campaign for Betamax and it still failed due to various problems.
Imagine how easily it would be to market something like this, it practically sells itself. The best advertising these days is word of mouth, NOT pretty commercials and boxes. If something like this gets developed, then people all over the tech community will be talking about it. Betamax is an extremely poor example, besides the fact that it's a totally different kind of product, they had many more problems than just marketing.
Interesting thing though is that the homophobes are trying to figure out why homosexuals are supposed to be accepted without a second thought, and believe that they'd be better off it wasn't the case.
Exit polls are not even close to 100% reliable... They do not rely on any hard facts, and we are only *lucky* that so many voters are willing to participate in the polls and not purposely attempt to throw them off. You act as if they're actual counts of ballots or something. The people taking the polls are definitely going to run into cases where various people aren't going to take the poll, and in some cases you'll even have voters purposely setting them off.
Teaching your kids about love and sex has nothing to do with exposing them to graphic sex scenes in games and movies though. Banning The Sims might be going a little too far, but anyway... There are only a couple (and I can't even think of the names) R rated movies, and no games that I know of.. That actually show love and SAFE sex. In most R rated movies, the characters know eachother for like 5 minutes before jumping into bed together and of course they rarely even hint at using protection. If you want to teach your kids to 1) Not get pregnant at a young age and 2) Not be afraid of the opposite sex... You're going to have to do something other than sit them down infront of sexually explicit movies.
The superbowl? ROFL Actually, it doesn't!
Drawn, quartered, and the remaining parts keel-hauled? Geeze... Okay, I'm going to start conducting a study here. Did you live more of a sheltered life when you were younger, or were you heavily exposed to graphic violence as a young child?
Just kidding of course..
It's not. People like you just see some strange conspiracy. The majority of americans against showing their kids sexually explicit material are also against showing them graphic violence. If you read what the person asked, they want to see "G" rated games, not "Anything non-sexually explicit."