If I have unlimited money, and I want to spend my money endorsing a candidate, how is it not a restriction of my speech to put ANY restrictions on how I spend it?
"As you said only three of the top ten are declaritively Republican. Numbers 1, 3, and 10 are unions. If you are one of the people who believe Republicans never attempt to represent the view of the working man, then I guess unions would be Democrat in a two party system.
Number 8 is League of Conservation Voters. Environmentalists. If you are one of the people who believe Republicans never attempt to represent the view of environmental advocates, then I guess the League of Conservation Voters would be Democrat in a two party system.
Number 2, America Coming Together, and number 6, Emily's List, seems to be the only declaratively Democratic 527s."
Well, i suppose you could look at it that way.
Or, you could simply look at who those groups gave their money and endorsement to.
But, that would prove GP correct, and you wrong, so I can see why you'd avoid such an obvious and simple solution.
So, again, you are stating that playing politics are more important than voting your consicence. The Dems decided to play politics, when they should have led.
I have no idea why anyone would ever support a group of people who place their own re-election above the good of their constituents.
Yeah, but you left out the " no convictions" part. As in, the Dems (according to you) didn't want to go to war, but had to because of the potential backlash if they didn't.
So, let's see how you spin that.
Listen, it's obvious you're a partisan, who only has one goal, rewrite history so the Dems don't look complicit. How incredibly fucking sad that you continue to make excuses for a gaggle of cowards who wouldn't vote down a bad bill becuase they were afraid of how they would look to voters.
"As for the PATRIOT Act, there was no time to read the bill due to the way it was proposed."
So what you're saying is that the Democrats knowingly passed a bad bill because they were afraid of the consequences. Sounds like a great bunch of leaders.
It's nice to see you're finally figuring the Dems out.
You know, I bet if I track down all those summaries that are slanted to the extreme left (which is virtually all of them) I wouldn't see you bitching about partisanship.
The only thing that happened here is that the slant went the other way, and you don't like it.
"So its all fine and dandy that my really expensive, hydrogen burning techno-wonder isn't polluting anything but that coal power plant down the road on the otherhand..."
is VASTLY more efficient than a car, so energy produced there has fewer emissions than energy produced in a car. That's what you were going to finish with right?
"But the rating system on movies serves the purpose in this scenario of allowing the parents to make the decision based on the rating. Not because all parents are lazy."
Yeah, um, no. This is bullshit, and you know it.
The current movie rating system is a group of individuals using their subjective opinions as a standard. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY a useful tool for measuring the content of a movie. The fact that you were fooled into thinking otherwise shows it does a damned good job of clouding the truth.
As a parent, (listen closely, you're going to hate this, but that's because it's true) if your chld is playing a game you haven't vetted PERSONALLY, YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB AS A PARENT. That's it. NO parsing, NO negotiation, NO BULLSHIT EXCUSES.
You DO NOT get to make a stupid excuse when you're failing your kids. You DO NOT get to blame others if you haven't done what you were supposed to first. You DO NOT get to hire an asshat lawyer and sue because your kid played a game with content you're unhappy with. That's bad parenting, and accepting it like you have is why we're in this mess.
"The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change."
Right, because nothing better than Linux at running servers will ever come along. By the way, what OS always has the best uptimes? Linux right...
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because all of the estimates I have found place Linux desktop usage somwhere between 3 and 6%. If you need to ask now, it's because you don't understand what "niche" means.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Man, you lost that battle years ago, give it up already.
"But more importantly, it is hugely successful and I am personally offended"
And NOW, FINALLY we get to the crux of the issue. YOU are personally invested, so rather than accept honest criticism, you get "offended" because someone spoke unfavorably about your hobby, and you feel that criticizing Linux is equivalent to criticizing you.
I'm feeling snarky, so I'm tempted to say that's patheitc. But I won't.
What I will say is that of that's the best argument you have, then Linux had better have someone else arguing for it. Luckily it does.
"For a moment, I though that the fact that quite a number of people use linux on desktops was a good point."
That's because you're stupid. The fact that "quite a few people" are using it on a desktop means only that "quite a few people" are using it on the desktop.
It says nothing about whether Linux is ready for said desktop.
"Now I understand that he was a zealot, and that there's no way linux could possibly be used by computer illiterate people."
There's your stupidity again. The question is not USING Linux on the desktop (a browser is a browser, etc.) but rather, administrating the desktop.
Equating the two is extremely disingenuous, but also extremely common among you Linux zealots.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to?
Yes.
Because anyone else with a million dollars can do it too.
If I have unlimited money, and I want to spend my money endorsing a candidate, how is it not a restriction of my speech to put ANY restrictions on how I spend it?
Limiting spending is limiting speech.
Thank you, I was going to ask the same question.
Explain for me exactly how you envision this process happening.
"Look, it's a simple fact that under the House rules, the minority has no power. I challenge anyone to dispute that."
Look, I helped you with this once already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
READ IT please. You'll see that you're completely wrong.
"It is impossible for the Democrats to stop anything in the House."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Nice try though, playing the victim. You are perfect Democrat material.
"As you said only three of the top ten are declaritively Republican. Numbers 1, 3, and 10 are unions. If you are one of the people who believe Republicans never attempt to represent the view of the working man, then I guess unions would be Democrat in a two party system.
Number 8 is League of Conservation Voters. Environmentalists. If you are one of the people who believe Republicans never attempt to represent the view of environmental advocates, then I guess the League of Conservation Voters would be Democrat in a two party system.
Number 2, America Coming Together, and number 6, Emily's List, seems to be the only declaratively Democratic 527s."
Well, i suppose you could look at it that way.
Or, you could simply look at who those groups gave their money and endorsement to.
But, that would prove GP correct, and you wrong, so I can see why you'd avoid such an obvious and simple solution.
"Umm, fiscal responsibility has nothing to do with federalism vs. states' rights."
Umm, yes it does. Does the federal governement COLLECT money from the states? YES.
Does the federal government GIVE money to the states? YES.
See now why you're completely wrong?
So, again, you are stating that playing politics are more important than voting your consicence. The Dems decided to play politics, when they should have led.
I have no idea why anyone would ever support a group of people who place their own re-election above the good of their constituents.
But apparently you would.
Yeah, but you left out the " no convictions" part. As in, the Dems (according to you) didn't want to go to war, but had to because of the potential backlash if they didn't.
So, let's see how you spin that.
Listen, it's obvious you're a partisan, who only has one goal, rewrite history so the Dems don't look complicit. How incredibly fucking sad that you continue to make excuses for a gaggle of cowards who wouldn't vote down a bad bill becuase they were afraid of how they would look to voters.
"As for the PATRIOT Act, there was no time to read the bill due to the way it was proposed."
So what you're saying is that the Democrats knowingly passed a bad bill because they were afraid of the consequences. Sounds like a great bunch of leaders.
It's nice to see you're finally figuring the Dems out.
You are
You know, I bet if I track down all those summaries that are slanted to the extreme left (which is virtually all of them) I wouldn't see you bitching about partisanship.
The only thing that happened here is that the slant went the other way, and you don't like it.
"you don't understand what "niche" means."
You should re-read this part.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/2 0/1440228&from=rss
There you go.
"Gasoline engines will combust ethanol just as easily as fossil fuels."
Wonderful. Now if you can just figure out a way to get ethanol without using more fossil fuels than you save.
What? You didn't know that? Then why are you commenting?
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=1020 55
Please let those who aren't ignorant discuss this.
The worst part is, I got that link from the post directly above yours, and it preceded your post by 20 minutes.
"So its all fine and dandy that my really expensive, hydrogen burning techno-wonder isn't polluting anything but that coal power plant down the road on the otherhand..."
is VASTLY more efficient than a car, so energy produced there has fewer emissions than energy produced in a car. That's what you were going to finish with right?
RTFA
NO, don't respond, don't type another uniformed, obviously ignorant comment. Just RTFA.
Ah mods!
How can something be
"(Score:2, Informative)"
when THE INFORMATION IS WRONG!
There should be some way to revoke that mod's points permanently.
"These things don't work worth a [beep] in Minnesota, or Winnipeg, or anywhere else cold."
0 05/200521_e.htm
http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newsreleases/2
"But the rating system on movies serves the purpose in this scenario of allowing the parents to make the decision based on the rating. Not because all parents are lazy."
Yeah, um, no. This is bullshit, and you know it.
The current movie rating system is a group of individuals using their subjective opinions as a standard. It IS NOT IN ANY WAY a useful tool for measuring the content of a movie. The fact that you were fooled into thinking otherwise shows it does a damned good job of clouding the truth.
As a parent, (listen closely, you're going to hate this, but that's because it's true) if your chld is playing a game you haven't vetted PERSONALLY, YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB AS A PARENT. That's it. NO parsing, NO negotiation, NO BULLSHIT EXCUSES.
You DO NOT get to make a stupid excuse when you're failing your kids. You DO NOT get to blame others if you haven't done what you were supposed to first. You DO NOT get to hire an asshat lawyer and sue because your kid played a game with content you're unhappy with. That's bad parenting, and accepting it like you have is why we're in this mess.
"The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change."
Right, because nothing better than Linux at running servers will ever come along. By the way, what OS always has the best uptimes? Linux right...
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because all of the estimates I have found place Linux desktop usage somwhere between 3 and 6%. If you need to ask now, it's because you don't understand what "niche" means.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Man, you lost that battle years ago, give it up already.
"But more importantly, it is hugely successful and I am personally offended"
And NOW, FINALLY we get to the crux of the issue. YOU are personally invested, so rather than accept honest criticism, you get "offended" because someone spoke unfavorably about your hobby, and you feel that criticizing Linux is equivalent to criticizing you.
I'm feeling snarky, so I'm tempted to say that's patheitc. But I won't.
What I will say is that of that's the best argument you have, then Linux had better have someone else arguing for it. Luckily it does.
"For a moment, I though that the fact that quite a number of people use linux on desktops was a good point."
That's because you're stupid. The fact that "quite a few people" are using it on a desktop means only that "quite a few people" are using it on the desktop.
It says nothing about whether Linux is ready for said desktop.
"Now I understand that he was a zealot, and that there's no way linux could possibly be used by computer illiterate people."
There's your stupidity again. The question is not USING Linux on the desktop (a browser is a browser, etc.) but rather, administrating the desktop.
Equating the two is extremely disingenuous, but also extremely common among you Linux zealots.
Which one?