btw, if you think my comments are going to get 'modded into the stratosphere' let me introduce you to a feature of slashdot. Visit my user page. You can see where instead I am modded down for not agreeing with every peurile whinefest posted on slashdot. Some people agree with me, and mod me up, some people agree with the people with whom I disagree, and mod me down. Sometimes I'll have a comment moderated 20 or 30 times, but that's ok. It appears that slightly more than half of the people who use mod points on my posts agree with me. It's not anything like 'into the stratosphere', but it works. I don't worry about burning karma, because there's too much PC tippy-toe bullshit in this world as it is. I call it like I see it and if you can't handle that, I'm not sorry. I'll not apologize for defending my beliefs any more than I would ask you to apologize for defending yours. I do, however, ask that you defend them with more than ad hominem attacks, tautologies and irrelevant, baseless assertions. I mean, you can use the above...just have more than them. Don't appeal to pathos at the expense of logos.
Again, some anonymous person does not respond to my arguments, but to my sense of humor. If you truly think this is a low, for slashdot or anywhere else, you must be the lonliest person on Earth. Cheer up, pal, someone somewhere is bound to like you eventually.
We don't control the oil. Also, as a result of our action, OPEC raised the rates we pay for the oil we *do* get from that region. I'd say, if the war truly was fought for control of oil, not only has it failed but it could never have succeeded. I truly hope that it wasn't the unstated reason we went to war, because that level of stupidity would unsettle me far greater than the 'we are the world's police force' stupidity that I believe actually precipitated this war.
Because he says his government is doing bad things and he feels powerless to stop it, you say he isn't contributing much? What is enough in your mind? A one man armed revolt?
No, because he is doing nothing to change what he doesn't like. That's why he isn't contributing much.
There is prescription medication that can treat your malady. If your HMO covers it your psychiatrist can recommend one to you.
Yes, you're just like many other fools, you believe you can diagnose what you're unfamiliar with.
His point is actually quite insightful. Cooperation was the original foundation of civilization. It began at the tribal level. It has continued through the rise of every civilization from Egypt to the present. This is generally not disputed among sociologists or historians except maybe among USians.
You're being intentionally obtuse here, I hope. Tribes cooperating? Have you ever actually umm....studied history? Cooperation did not build the Greek civilazation nor did it build the Roman nor the Egyptian. That was conquest, slavery, and tyranny that did that. (Sure, the Greeks became so enlightened. Of course, then they got run over by the Romans.) Egypt did not get 'cooperation' from surrounding lands. They got tribute and slaves. They were not beneficent masters. You picked a poor example. How can you say 'it is not disputed' when history is full of violence, cruelty, racism, inequity, and tyranny? I know, you personally surveyed all historians and sociologists before posting...right?
It has been argued by people who know far more than you or I that civilizations fall when levels of cooperation drop below a particular threshold.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Hardly a laughing matter to anyone watching current events unfold.
Yes. War is very new. Violence is very new. Actually, violence on the world level is lower now, with the 'war' on, than it has been in a very long time. You *did* know that, right?
He said he empathised with the original poster. He didn't say he agreed. In fact, he made it clear he disagreed and is not leaving his country.
No, he said he isn't leaving right now, but if he loses his job, he's gone. That's not the way you are presenting it.
Might be a mistake for him, but his stance seems a lot more rational than yours.
Yes, people we agree with are usually accorded rational status, no matter the content of their argument. Likewise, people who do not agree are irrational. Well done, sir.
As for the rest, knowing when its time to fold is as much a part of getting through as knowing when to hold on. I have plenty of neighbors from North Africa and the Balkens who will testify to that.
Immigration to the US has exceeded emmigration since this country was founded, apart from a few times in history which coincide with major world events. Apparently the rest of the world does not hate us as much as is commonly said. Either that, or they are masochists.
I have no responsibility to this country beyond that which is forced upon me by neccesity.
I gather a lot of ungrateful people feel this way. I suppose you educated yourself, did you? Built the roads you drive on every day? Deliver your own mail? Fought for your freedom from tyranny? Died so that others could cavalierly disregard your sacrifice and declare themselves to have 'no responsibility to this country'? I may not agree with everything this government does (or most of it, even) but I will never forget that I have civic duties that are every bit as important as the privileges I receive along with them. I will work to decrease the size and scope of government legally. I know that it is a difficult task, but people such as yourself make it no easier. Instead of being afraid of the challenge, I am doing my best to step up to it. I realize that concept may be foreign to you. So you can't add value to your life here? Then go away. But don't tell me that you aren't ducking your responsibility because you have none. That's just not true.
I suppose groups form spontaneously? Every cause and every group starts with one person. Either that person seeks out like-minded individuals or that person acts in such a way that like-minded individuals seek them out. *shrug* Point the second: some small groups make everyone listen to them. Do you think all lobbyists represent huge demographics? Do you think all demographics have equal representation?
That's cool. I actually had to reread my post because sometimes things I say don't come out the way I intend:) I know that I don't feel superior to non-Americans, nor do I feel inferior. It's good to check yourself every now and then to make sure you're conveying what's intended.
So have many other companies. Seems like those bastards are trying to do that all the time. How dare any company ever make money? Dammit, that's not what they exist for!
Does Cuba have a system in place whereby normal people can introduce changes to their government? Fleeing a dictatorship is not the same as fleeing a representative republic. Of course, you knew that when you chose your example; your appeal to pathos is weakened by your disregard for logos.
Um, I never said anything about superiority. I *did* say that the interest level in other countries was so low that their talented players already play over here. I also noted that many players are of non-US origin. Please tell me how that leads you to believe that I am asserting the superiority of any nation over another. I recognize the humorous intent of your post, however it is the same as the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' interview question. It relies on a premise which did not occur.
Look, I am for the handing over of Iraq to the Iraqis. I am an anachronism: an isolationist. However, just because I don't think we should be in Iraq does not mean that I think we're there for oil. Just because I also do not agree with our reasons for being there does not mean that I will encourage the spread of fallacies. Sorry.
I'm tired of fighting a losing battle against mindlessly nationalistic, irrationally religious idealogues, and other right wing zealots like yourself.
I see. I advocate working within the system as opposed to fleeing the nation and that somehow makes me right-wing? Moron. Not everyone that holds a different opinion from yours is right-wing. Dur dur dur. Any more knee-jerk responses you'd like to throw out? Of course!
'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.
Apparently you are not contributing much.
I'm tired of living among people whose politics and philosophies I have learned over the years and decades to despise.
Where do you live? I live among mostly decent people whose politics and philosophies vary, but who at least respect each other and attempt to work together. Maybe you aren't lucky in that way, to which I would say 'move somewhere else in the country'.
I'm sick of seeing a country I love destroy itself from within so profoundly and so completely.
So of course, rather than fight harder, the answer must be 'flee', is that it?
I'm sick of a culture that has chosen, systematically, and with ever more zeal, to sell out its basic ideals (freedom, human rights, free expression, and so on) in exchange for short term profits and greed.
Hmm. Sounds like you have the freedom to express your opinions. Weird. I thought that was all destroyed and stuff.
Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.
Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha.
In short, I'm sick and tired of being a part of an ever less civilized society, and I am deeply ashamed of what idealogues such as yourself, and the complacent and cowardly fools who follow you, have made America into.
I see. I advocate exercising Constitutional rights to change the system legally, as opposed to fleeing the country, even though I have noted that it takes sacrifice and persistence, yet *I* am the coward? Truly funny.
I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon
Of course not. You don't want the responsibilities of living in our society, but you aren't giving up the benefits either. Quite the paradox, isn't it?
I have a job I like and work with good people
What, even though you despise their politics and philosophies?
but I fully empathize with the poster who has had enough and is leaving, and feel nothing but the deepest contempt and disgust for the toxic politics and philosophies of people like yourself that have made it necessary.
Firstly, you have not proved that it is necessary to leave. Secondly, you obviously know nothing of my philosophies. Please tell me exactly which philosophies I have which you hate. Obviously the philosophy that you must work to achieve goals, and that things are not and should not be simply handed out is one you find objectionable. Which others?
And should I lose my job like so many millions of others have (most of whome conviniently no longer appear in the unemployment statistic now that their benefits have expired) I probably will emigrate, assuming any country on the planet will have anything to do with displaced citizens of a toxic, militaristic, and irresponsible superpower as it fades from prominence, probably with similiar results but none of the grace, of Russia.
When I have been laid off in the past, I went out and found another job. Shocking, I know, but it can be done. Of course, in your mind those who have become unemployed will never find another job, so they should just check out now. Interesting. It's funny how with all the anti-American sentiment I see in places like slashdot, there are still very few countries which do not
What will I do? The same thing I do now. I will canvass and stump for Libertarian candidates such as Michael Badnarik and I will volunteer my time and money to support causes with which I agree. I will not turn tail and run when things are not going my way. There may be nothing I can do to stop Bush from getting elected again, but I certainly won't have to worry about a third term. Think long term, act short term. That's what I do. What I don't do is cry and run away when things get tough. I suggested nothing? I wasn't asked for suggestions. I said 'if you want change, work for it and don't run away'. That is what I suggested. I don't know exactly what kind of change the OP wanted, therefore I cannot supply specific suggestions on how to accomplish it, nor do I know that I would care to. However, whatever kind of change you want to effect in this country, it will not be accomplished from another country.
Bye! Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, you spineless worm. If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it. Running is the coward's way out, and only removes support from others attempting to change the system the legal way. Fuck you and every spineless jerk that thinks running away will solve anything. You don't think that if the defenders of liberty in this country all move to Canada that the resultant tyranny here will leave Canada alone, do you? Only then the chance to reform the system will be gone, thanks in part to deserters like you running from your responsibilities as a citizen of this country. I'm sorry if you're offended, ok, I don't really care if you are. What are you doing to FIX the problem, here and now? Run away, keep running, and don't ever stop. Others will make the sacrifices so that people like you can enjoy the benefits, just like always in this country.
The notion that the United States went to war for oil is ridiculous. If we truly wanted to go to war for oil, there are much closer targets than Iraq. We could take South America much more easily than Iraq. Also, we don't have the oil. If we went to war for oil, why don't we have it? We control the regions around the oil fields, but Iraq controls the fields and their output. However, opposition to the war, especially from France and Russia, was centered around oil. France overtly circumvented the UN Oil for Food program, dealing directly with the Saddam government to purchase oil. What I don't understand is why the same people who shout 'no war for oil' also hold France up as a role model. You know, just because things aren't perfect in the US does not automatically make them so everywhere else.
Why? Is there some other professional American-football league in the world? If not, then what is incorrect about that statement? I mean, sure, there's NFL Europe, but considering that that is the NFL's minor-league system, I doubt they would compete with the real NFL. It's not like American-style football attracts huge crowds outside the USA anyhow. Why push for other countries to be included when the interest level clearly isn't there? Bad analogy: Were I to hold a professional watermelon-seed spitting league, and have a championship, the winner would be the world champion of watermelon-seed spitting. If some other country started holding professional watermelon-seed spitting leagues, then there would be an argument against my winner being the world champion. However, as no one else in the world cares enough to host a professional American-style football league (forcing us to host our own minor league overseas) then they shouldn't complain about not getting a chance at the 'world championship'.
Yes, it would be so very interesting to watch baseball teams from other nations compete with baseball teams here. eheheh. You know, back in 1903 (when the first 'world series' was held) every professional baseball team in the world was eligible. If there are now professional baseball teams outside north america (because it isn't just US teams, you dipshits, don't forget the Canadians like you people who trot out the tired old 'world series' blast always do) that want to compete, maybe they should...I dunno...get popular and good enough to do so. Then, perhaps, they'd be invited to attend. However, much like basketball, any player from outside the US (which many, many US ballplayers are, something which is almost always left out of the same old anti-US bullshit you're spewing here) who has real talent has already moved to the US to play. Ichiro comes to mind. Hey, but once someone moves to the US, they're immediately US-centric jerks just like the rest of us apparently are. If the world series were opened to the rest of the world, it would still be two American teams facing each other in the finals, unless that was expressly prohibited, in which case the one American team would win each game by 15 runs or so. Nice try, though, it sure sounded good when you typed it out, I bet. Perhaps you should have realized that people have been throwing variations on your comment out since 1903. Find a new (and, if it isn't too much to ask, relevant) aspect of American society to ride, dillhole.
We hate you too.:) That's a big flaw with the 'as much as the next guy' argument, one of two. The first is that 'the next guy' may very well not agree with you. If I am 'the next guy', I don't hate libertarians at all. Therefore the meaning of your statement changes based on a variable beyond your control. Can you discover the second glaring flaw with your argument? I'll leave it as a reader exercise.
Really wow, thanks for that had you not told me I'd never had know...
You'd never had know if I didn't tell you? Eheheheh. Anyway. You're the one who was apparently 'forced' to read someting relating to *shudder* America. I had to presume you were not aware of the option to go back, because a reasonably intelligent person would just do that instead of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently I was incorrect to do so.
Firstly you are assuming I am male, secondly i realise not *every* story on/. is for me but there is zero context to this story and ANYONE outside the us (approx 6 BILLION people) have NO idea what this story is about.
Actually, I was assuming you were NOT male, thus you would need to "grow a pair of balls." I do not know nor care if I get your gender correct. Rather than bothering to research the affected online persona of every person I respond to, I simply respond. If you get offended by that, there is nothing I can do for you. It's interesting that you find the unintentional implication that you might either be or need to become male more offensive than my intended implication that you lacked a spine. I'm not going to draw any conclusions, it's just funny.
Good point (the only one in your comments to be accurate). But misses the point that/. is a global brand, and so the stories shouldn't be insular, and put stories non-americans MAY be interested in, into context.
Firstly, does your browser not have both a 'back' and a 'home' button? Because if it does, then that point of mine was also accurate. You *do* know what the word accurate means, don't you?
So, rather than simply point out that editors should put more context into their posts, a point which can be defended, you simply noted that this story is not of interest to non-Americans. That isn't the same thing. Surely you don't presume to say that it is?
Infact when I posted a story about a Tidel energy farm I stated that "Lynmonth in North Devon (in the south west of the UK)". This helps people not from devon and the UK to know where a) devon is and b) where Lynmonth is.... This is what I mean by context.
How exemplary of you. It's too bad you simply didn't say this to begin with, instead of merely referring to the interest level outside of the US.
*sigh* An expression involving the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. Let me explain the points to the, shall we say, americans
Really? I failed to excercise discretion by pointing out your anti-American (as opposed to anti-contextless posts) post? I see, if I don't agree with you, I must be a hypocrite. Makes perfect sense.
Here's the headline for the linked article: "Has Ken Jennings ended his 'Jeopardy!' run?" In that short article are references to 'the quiz show,' 'taping,' 'TV,' and 'winnings.' The byline is Los Angeles, which tells you the story took place in America (if you don't know what Los Angeles is, a cursory internet search will tell you). They name the show several times. They talk about its 20 year history. They mention the show "TV Week" which should tell you it is a television program. They speak of 'taping' which should tell you it isn't live. So, from that article, we learn that 'Jeopardy!' is a 20-year old quiz show which is taped and then shown later. We know that unlike previous years, this year winners can go beyond five straight wins. How much more context do you need? If this is your idea of 'no context,' you are stupid. Sorry. Now, the post on the front page of slashdot did not have context. However, the very short article had plenty, contrary to your statement. Perhaps you meant that the post did not have context, but the article did. That, however, is not what you said. I cannot rely on what you meant, because I do not possess ESP. I must go by what you actually said.
c) who the hell "ken" is d) what's so special about his/her feet
You are absolutely correct. I don't 'known' how to use initial caps. Fucktard.
Re:I've seen some unworthy stories on Slashdot bef
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 1
I mean, it was posted at around 5am US time, sheesh. Why post it then, why not post it at a time when Americans will be up and browsing Slashdot at work?
Yes. It is commonly known that no American ever gets to work by 5am. Also, no American would ever browse slashdot from home. I'm sorry it took you a few minutes to be able to tell what the story was about. I am an American who doesn't happen to watch Jeopardy! and so I didn't know what it was about either. However, it only took me about 4 comments to figure it out. I'm still not sure why you compounded your wasted time reading the thread with wasted time commenting about it, specifically about the fact that it is America-related.
That's why there are "back" and "home" buttons on your browser. Grow a fucking pair of balls and realize that not every single story on/. is going to be posted specifically for *you*. Sometimes, they're going to interest a group of people known as "not you."/. has not failed, in this event. It is working properly, you have failed to excercise discretion.
Re:I've seen some unworthy stories on Slashdot bef
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 1
Hi! Here's an idea: If you don't like America and don't want to read about American things...don't. I know it's a terribly radical concept, but one has the ability to "click" on the "back button" as soon as one discovers that the topic in question is one of the dreaded "American" topics. Then, you are saved from needing to post snotty comments that make you look like a complete jackass. Of course, I'm sure you were forced to both read and post in this thread. You had no choice. Hello international audience, welcome to "the Internet."
Slashdot Mirror
btw, if you think my comments are going to get 'modded into the stratosphere' let me introduce you to a feature of slashdot. Visit my user page. You can see where instead I am modded down for not agreeing with every peurile whinefest posted on slashdot. Some people agree with me, and mod me up, some people agree with the people with whom I disagree, and mod me down. Sometimes I'll have a comment moderated 20 or 30 times, but that's ok. It appears that slightly more than half of the people who use mod points on my posts agree with me. It's not anything like 'into the stratosphere', but it works. I don't worry about burning karma, because there's too much PC tippy-toe bullshit in this world as it is. I call it like I see it and if you can't handle that, I'm not sorry. I'll not apologize for defending my beliefs any more than I would ask you to apologize for defending yours. I do, however, ask that you defend them with more than ad hominem attacks, tautologies and irrelevant, baseless assertions. I mean, you can use the above...just have more than them. Don't appeal to pathos at the expense of logos.
Again, some anonymous person does not respond to my arguments, but to my sense of humor. If you truly think this is a low, for slashdot or anywhere else, you must be the lonliest person on Earth. Cheer up, pal, someone somewhere is bound to like you eventually.
We don't control the oil. Also, as a result of our action, OPEC raised the rates we pay for the oil we *do* get from that region. I'd say, if the war truly was fought for control of oil, not only has it failed but it could never have succeeded. I truly hope that it wasn't the unstated reason we went to war, because that level of stupidity would unsettle me far greater than the 'we are the world's police force' stupidity that I believe actually precipitated this war.
Sure, follow the pattern. When anyone responds to you, ignore what they said and respew the same garbage. Nice going.
Because he says his government is doing bad things and he feels powerless to stop it, you say he isn't contributing much? What is enough in your mind? A one man armed revolt?
No, because he is doing nothing to change what he doesn't like. That's why he isn't contributing much.
There is prescription medication that can treat your malady. If your HMO covers it your psychiatrist can recommend one to you.
Yes, you're just like many other fools, you believe you can diagnose what you're unfamiliar with.
His point is actually quite insightful. Cooperation was the original foundation of civilization. It began at the tribal level. It has continued through the rise of every civilization from Egypt to the present. This is generally not disputed among sociologists or historians except maybe among USians.
You're being intentionally obtuse here, I hope. Tribes cooperating? Have you ever actually umm....studied history? Cooperation did not build the Greek civilazation nor did it build the Roman nor the Egyptian. That was conquest, slavery, and tyranny that did that. (Sure, the Greeks became so enlightened. Of course, then they got run over by the Romans.) Egypt did not get 'cooperation' from surrounding lands. They got tribute and slaves. They were not beneficent masters. You picked a poor example. How can you say 'it is not disputed' when history is full of violence, cruelty, racism, inequity, and tyranny? I know, you personally surveyed all historians and sociologists before posting...right?
It has been argued by people who know far more than you or I that civilizations fall when levels of cooperation drop below a particular threshold.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Hardly a laughing matter to anyone watching current events unfold.
Yes. War is very new. Violence is very new. Actually, violence on the world level is lower now, with the 'war' on, than it has been in a very long time. You *did* know that, right?
He said he empathised with the original poster. He didn't say he agreed. In fact, he made it clear he disagreed and is not leaving his country.
No, he said he isn't leaving right now, but if he loses his job, he's gone. That's not the way you are presenting it.
Might be a mistake for him, but his stance seems a lot more rational than yours.
Yes, people we agree with are usually accorded rational status, no matter the content of their argument. Likewise, people who do not agree are irrational. Well done, sir.
As for the rest, knowing when its time to fold is as much a part of getting through as knowing when to hold on. I have plenty of neighbors from North Africa and the Balkens who will testify to that.
Immigration to the US has exceeded emmigration since this country was founded, apart from a few times in history which coincide with major world events. Apparently the rest of the world does not hate us as much as is commonly said. Either that, or they are masochists.
I have no responsibility to this country beyond that which is forced upon me by neccesity.
I gather a lot of ungrateful people feel this way. I suppose you educated yourself, did you? Built the roads you drive on every day? Deliver your own mail? Fought for your freedom from tyranny? Died so that others could cavalierly disregard your sacrifice and declare themselves to have 'no responsibility to this country'?
I may not agree with everything this government does (or most of it, even) but I will never forget that I have civic duties that are every bit as important as the privileges I receive along with them. I will work to decrease the size and scope of government legally. I know that it is a difficult task, but people such as yourself make it no easier. Instead of being afraid of the challenge, I am doing my best to step up to it. I realize that concept may be foreign to you. So you can't add value to your life here? Then go away. But don't tell me that you aren't ducking your responsibility because you have none. That's just not true.
I suppose groups form spontaneously?
Every cause and every group starts with one person. Either that person seeks out like-minded individuals or that person acts in such a way that like-minded individuals seek them out. *shrug*
Point the second: some small groups make everyone listen to them. Do you think all lobbyists represent huge demographics? Do you think all demographics have equal representation?
That's cool. I actually had to reread my post because sometimes things I say don't come out the way I intend :) I know that I don't feel superior to non-Americans, nor do I feel inferior. It's good to check yourself every now and then to make sure you're conveying what's intended.
So have many other companies. Seems like those bastards are trying to do that all the time. How dare any company ever make money? Dammit, that's not what they exist for!
Does Cuba have a system in place whereby normal people can introduce changes to their government?
Fleeing a dictatorship is not the same as fleeing a representative republic. Of course, you knew that when you chose your example; your appeal to pathos is weakened by your disregard for logos.
Um, I never said anything about superiority. I *did* say that the interest level in other countries was so low that their talented players already play over here. I also noted that many players are of non-US origin. Please tell me how that leads you to believe that I am asserting the superiority of any nation over another. I recognize the humorous intent of your post, however it is the same as the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' interview question. It relies on a premise which did not occur.
Look, I am for the handing over of Iraq to the Iraqis. I am an anachronism: an isolationist. However, just because I don't think we should be in Iraq does not mean that I think we're there for oil. Just because I also do not agree with our reasons for being there does not mean that I will encourage the spread of fallacies. Sorry.
I'm tired of fighting a losing battle against mindlessly nationalistic, irrationally religious idealogues, and other right wing zealots like yourself.
I see. I advocate working within the system as opposed to fleeing the nation and that somehow makes me right-wing? Moron. Not everyone that holds a different opinion from yours is right-wing. Dur dur dur. Any more knee-jerk responses you'd like to throw out? Of course!
'm tired of contributing to a society whose international agenda can only be described as toxic and deeply irresponsible.
Apparently you are not contributing much.
I'm tired of living among people whose politics and philosophies I have learned over the years and decades to despise.
Where do you live? I live among mostly decent people whose politics and philosophies vary, but who at least respect each other and attempt to work together. Maybe you aren't lucky in that way, to which I would say 'move somewhere else in the country'.
I'm sick of seeing a country I love destroy itself from within so profoundly and so completely.
So of course, rather than fight harder, the answer must be 'flee', is that it?
I'm sick of a culture that has chosen, systematically, and with ever more zeal, to sell out its basic ideals (freedom, human rights, free expression, and so on) in exchange for short term profits and greed.
Hmm. Sounds like you have the freedom to express your opinions. Weird. I thought that was all destroyed and stuff.
Indeed, I'm sick of being a part of a culture that has deified greed and disregarded basic human cooperation and caring, having forgotten that it is cooperation, not competition, that is the foundation of civilization.
Ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahaha.
In short, I'm sick and tired of being a part of an ever less civilized society, and I am deeply ashamed of what idealogues such as yourself, and the complacent and cowardly fools who follow you, have made America into.
I see. I advocate exercising Constitutional rights to change the system legally, as opposed to fleeing the country, even though I have noted that it takes sacrifice and persistence, yet *I* am the coward? Truly funny.
I'm not planning to emigrate anytime soon
Of course not. You don't want the responsibilities of living in our society, but you aren't giving up the benefits either. Quite the paradox, isn't it?
I have a job I like and work with good people
What, even though you despise their politics and philosophies?
but I fully empathize with the poster who has had enough and is leaving, and feel nothing but the deepest contempt and disgust for the toxic politics and philosophies of people like yourself that have made it necessary.
Firstly, you have not proved that it is necessary to leave. Secondly, you obviously know nothing of my philosophies. Please tell me exactly which philosophies I have which you hate. Obviously the philosophy that you must work to achieve goals, and that things are not and should not be simply handed out is one you find objectionable. Which others?
And should I lose my job like so many millions of others have (most of whome conviniently no longer appear in the unemployment statistic now that their benefits have expired) I probably will emigrate, assuming any country on the planet will have anything to do with displaced citizens of a toxic, militaristic, and irresponsible superpower as it fades from prominence, probably with similiar results but none of the grace, of Russia.
When I have been laid off in the past, I went out and found another job. Shocking, I know, but it can be done. Of course, in your mind those who have become unemployed will never find another job, so they should just check out now. Interesting. It's funny how with all the anti-American sentiment I see in places like slashdot, there are still very few countries which do not
What will I do? The same thing I do now. I will canvass and stump for Libertarian candidates such as Michael Badnarik and I will volunteer my time and money to support causes with which I agree. I will not turn tail and run when things are not going my way. There may be nothing I can do to stop Bush from getting elected again, but I certainly won't have to worry about a third term. Think long term, act short term. That's what I do. What I don't do is cry and run away when things get tough. I suggested nothing? I wasn't asked for suggestions. I said 'if you want change, work for it and don't run away'. That is what I suggested. I don't know exactly what kind of change the OP wanted, therefore I cannot supply specific suggestions on how to accomplish it, nor do I know that I would care to. However, whatever kind of change you want to effect in this country, it will not be accomplished from another country.
Bye! Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out, you spineless worm. If you don't like something in your country, take a stand and try to change it. Running is the coward's way out, and only removes support from others attempting to change the system the legal way. Fuck you and every spineless jerk that thinks running away will solve anything. You don't think that if the defenders of liberty in this country all move to Canada that the resultant tyranny here will leave Canada alone, do you? Only then the chance to reform the system will be gone, thanks in part to deserters like you running from your responsibilities as a citizen of this country. I'm sorry if you're offended, ok, I don't really care if you are. What are you doing to FIX the problem, here and now? Run away, keep running, and don't ever stop. Others will make the sacrifices so that people like you can enjoy the benefits, just like always in this country.
The notion that the United States went to war for oil is ridiculous. If we truly wanted to go to war for oil, there are much closer targets than Iraq. We could take South America much more easily than Iraq. Also, we don't have the oil. If we went to war for oil, why don't we have it? We control the regions around the oil fields, but Iraq controls the fields and their output.
However, opposition to the war, especially from France and Russia, was centered around oil. France overtly circumvented the UN Oil for Food program, dealing directly with the Saddam government to purchase oil. What I don't understand is why the same people who shout 'no war for oil' also hold France up as a role model. You know, just because things aren't perfect in the US does not automatically make them so everywhere else.
Why? Is there some other professional American-football league in the world? If not, then what is incorrect about that statement? I mean, sure, there's NFL Europe, but considering that that is the NFL's minor-league system, I doubt they would compete with the real NFL. It's not like American-style football attracts huge crowds outside the USA anyhow. Why push for other countries to be included when the interest level clearly isn't there? Bad analogy: Were I to hold a professional watermelon-seed spitting league, and have a championship, the winner would be the world champion of watermelon-seed spitting. If some other country started holding professional watermelon-seed spitting leagues, then there would be an argument against my winner being the world champion. However, as no one else in the world cares enough to host a professional American-style football league (forcing us to host our own minor league overseas) then they shouldn't complain about not getting a chance at the 'world championship'.
Yes, it would be so very interesting to watch baseball teams from other nations compete with baseball teams here. eheheh. You know, back in 1903 (when the first 'world series' was held) every professional baseball team in the world was eligible. If there are now professional baseball teams outside north america (because it isn't just US teams, you dipshits, don't forget the Canadians like you people who trot out the tired old 'world series' blast always do) that want to compete, maybe they should...I dunno...get popular and good enough to do so. Then, perhaps, they'd be invited to attend. However, much like basketball, any player from outside the US (which many, many US ballplayers are, something which is almost always left out of the same old anti-US bullshit you're spewing here) who has real talent has already moved to the US to play. Ichiro comes to mind. Hey, but once someone moves to the US, they're immediately US-centric jerks just like the rest of us apparently are. If the world series were opened to the rest of the world, it would still be two American teams facing each other in the finals, unless that was expressly prohibited, in which case the one American team would win each game by 15 runs or so. Nice try, though, it sure sounded good when you typed it out, I bet. Perhaps you should have realized that people have been throwing variations on your comment out since 1903. Find a new (and, if it isn't too much to ask, relevant) aspect of American society to ride, dillhole.
I hate libertarians as much as the next guy
:)
We hate you too.
That's a big flaw with the 'as much as the next guy' argument, one of two. The first is that 'the next guy' may very well not agree with you. If I am 'the next guy', I don't hate libertarians at all. Therefore the meaning of your statement changes based on a variable beyond your control. Can you discover the second glaring flaw with your argument? I'll leave it as a reader exercise.
WUBRG, of course.
Really wow, thanks for that had you not told me I'd never had know...
/. is for me but there is zero context to this story and ANYONE outside the us (approx 6 BILLION people) have NO idea what this story is about.
/. is a global brand, and so the stories shouldn't be insular, and put stories non-americans MAY be interested in, into context.
You'd never had know if I didn't tell you? Eheheheh. Anyway. You're the one who was apparently 'forced' to read someting relating to *shudder* America. I had to presume you were not aware of the option to go back, because a reasonably intelligent person would just do that instead of trolling. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Apparently I was incorrect to do so.
Firstly you are assuming I am male, secondly i realise not *every* story on
Actually, I was assuming you were NOT male, thus you would need to "grow a pair of balls." I do not know nor care if I get your gender correct. Rather than bothering to research the affected online persona of every person I respond to, I simply respond. If you get offended by that, there is nothing I can do for you. It's interesting that you find the unintentional implication that you might either be or need to become male more offensive than my intended implication that you lacked a spine. I'm not going to draw any conclusions, it's just funny.
Good point (the only one in your comments to be accurate). But misses the point that
Firstly, does your browser not have both a 'back' and a 'home' button? Because if it does, then that point of mine was also accurate. You *do* know what the word accurate means, don't you?
So, rather than simply point out that editors should put more context into their posts, a point which can be defended, you simply noted that this story is not of interest to non-Americans. That isn't the same thing. Surely you don't presume to say that it is?
Infact when I posted a story about a Tidel energy farm I stated that "Lynmonth in North Devon (in the south west of the UK)". This helps people not from devon and the UK to know where a) devon is and b) where Lynmonth is.... This is what I mean by context.
How exemplary of you. It's too bad you simply didn't say this to begin with, instead of merely referring to the interest level outside of the US.
*sigh* An expression involving the words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind. Let me explain the points to the, shall we say, americans
Really? I failed to excercise discretion by pointing out your anti-American (as opposed to anti-contextless posts) post? I see, if I don't agree with you, I must be a hypocrite. Makes perfect sense.
Here's the headline for the linked article: "Has Ken Jennings ended his 'Jeopardy!' run?"
In that short article are references to 'the quiz show,' 'taping,' 'TV,' and 'winnings.' The byline is Los Angeles, which tells you the story took place in America (if you don't know what Los Angeles is, a cursory internet search will tell you). They name the show several times. They talk about its 20 year history. They mention the show "TV Week" which should tell you it is a television program. They speak of 'taping' which should tell you it isn't live. So, from that article, we learn that 'Jeopardy!' is a 20-year old quiz show which is taped and then shown later. We know that unlike previous years, this year winners can go beyond five straight wins. How much more context do you need? If this is your idea of 'no context,' you are stupid. Sorry. Now, the post on the front page of slashdot did not have context. However, the very short article had plenty, contrary to your statement. Perhaps you meant that the post did not have context, but the article did. That, however, is not what you said. I cannot rely on what you meant, because I do not possess ESP. I must go by what you actually said.
c) who the hell "ken" is d) what's so special about his/her feet
As far as I know, there is not
You are absolutely correct. I don't 'known' how to use initial caps. Fucktard.
I mean, it was posted at around 5am US time, sheesh. Why post it then, why not post it at a time when Americans will be up and browsing Slashdot at work?
Yes. It is commonly known that no American ever gets to work by 5am. Also, no American would ever browse slashdot from home. I'm sorry it took you a few minutes to be able to tell what the story was about. I am an American who doesn't happen to watch Jeopardy! and so I didn't know what it was about either. However, it only took me about 4 comments to figure it out. I'm still not sure why you compounded your wasted time reading the thread with wasted time commenting about it, specifically about the fact that it is America-related.
That's why there are "back" and "home" buttons on your browser. Grow a fucking pair of balls and realize that not every single story on /. is going to be posted specifically for *you*. Sometimes, they're going to interest a group of people known as "not you." /. has not failed, in this event. It is working properly, you have failed to excercise discretion.
Hi! Here's an idea: If you don't like America and don't want to read about American things...don't.
I know it's a terribly radical concept, but one has the ability to "click" on the "back button" as soon as one discovers that the topic in question is one of the dreaded "American" topics. Then, you are saved from needing to post snotty comments that make you look like a complete jackass. Of course, I'm sure you were forced to both read and post in this thread. You had no choice. Hello international audience, welcome to "the Internet."