There is really hardly anything to distinguish either US political party other than paying lip service to some ineffable ideology like "family values."
(snip)
The Democrats and Republicans just have different masters. There is very little real difference.
But I'm still voting Democrat.
How does your head not explode from the force of the contradictions inside it?
What you might be thinking of is the mechanical wheel that was on the first iPods. That indeed did suck.
I liked the mechanical wheel better. I didn't have to worry about accidentally hitting any buttons while it was in my shirt pocket. Now whenever I put my new 'Pod in my shirt pocket I have to slide the hold switch on because even the slightest touch triggers the thing. If I want to pause it or switch tracks I have to take it out of my pocket, slide the hold switch, then press the appropriate buttons. Before, I could just hit the buttons through my shirt. No fuss, no muss.
I could just use the remote extenision but that just makes the already (in my opinion) overlong headphone cable even longer.
Of course, my old 'Pod didn't have the music quiz game on it so I guess it all evens out.
Of course, the current atheist revisionist historians will swear up and down that "America wasn't founded on Christianity", but it isn't true
Of course America was founded on Christianity. That's why there's so many instances of the word "Jesus" in the Constitution. Oh wait. Well at least the Bill of Rights closely follows the Ten Commandments. Oh wait.
Compare:
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Versus:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the first amendment is anything, it's anti-Christian due to the fact that it contradicts the first Commandment. If the founders of our country wanted to have a Christian country they certainly would not have included such an amendment. Also, check this out:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (emphasis mine)
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States
And:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""
Article II Section I of the Constitution of the United States
Notice that "so help me God" is not included?
Again, if the founders wanted to make a Christian nation (or even a religous nation) they did a piss-poor job of it.
I've said this before, if the TSA wanted to prevent another 9/11 put armored cockpit doors on all airplanes which I think they've done. It doesn't cost much, no more 9/11's and at a fraction of the cost of current TSA measures, no intrusion of personal liberties, no damage to the economic health of airlines.
Ah, but then the TSA would no longer be needed. As we all know, the primary goal of government agencies is to ensure their own survival. Why do you think we still have the CIA around a decade after the end of the Cold War?
Kerry deserves some credit for serving in Vietnam...
Why? I'll never understand why attacking a country that never attacked the United States is worthy of credit. If Kerry had any character he would have been against the war from the start, not when he figured out that the war was becoming unpopular. Bush shouldn't have ducked out by serving in the Guard, he should have dodged the draft in a more direct way. But at least he didn't kill any Vietnamese. (Not that he's compassionate. Just look at all the executions he's presided over.)
Both candidates have endorsed invading Iraq, the only policy difference they have was the HOWTO.
Which makes all the anti-war "liberals" who endorse Kerry all the more sad and pathetic. Every day I feel more and more like I'm living in the Bizzaro World.
I just don't find Smiths movies to be all that good, despite all the hype and worship. I never did.
And I find them to be really good, really funny movies, despite all of the hype and worship. If hype and worship ever surrounded his movies, which they don't. In fact, whenever I hear anything about Smith's movies I always hear how awful they are. Perhaps you are confusing people saying that they *gasp* liked his movies (I know, it's a sin!) with hype.
Kill Bill was beyond retarded.
Don't you mean, "in my opinion Kill Bill was beyond retarded." Or are you some sort of movie deity who's word is law? In my opinion, Kill Bill was highly entertaining and enjoyable. It captured the feel of all those old Kung-Fu movies and made me want to watch a bunch of them, marathon-style. Perhaps you just have an aversion to entertainment? Or are you one of those people that only like things that aren't popular? It could suck ass but as long as no-one knows about it it's cool, right? I bet you liked N*SYNC when they were still underground.
...but the problem is that the Republicans would be happy for you to vote your idealism...
And the Dems would be happy for you not to vote your idealism. So what if the Dems win? It's not like they're liberal.
When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate?
Paul Weyrich, a Christian conservative organizer recently said of the line-up of moderate Republicans (all of whom oppose a Constitutional gay-marriage ban) given high-profile roles at the upcoming Convention: "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."
Contrast this with the vilification of any liberal who dares criticize the quick march to the right that plages the Democratic party.
A vote for Nader (or any other third party candidate) doesn't siphon votes away from Kerry. Those voting for Nader would probably not vote for anyone if he wasn't running. (I know I wouldn't.) If the Democrats are tired of losing then perhaps they could try, I don't know, offering an actual alternative to the Republicans?
What strikes me funny as the "outrage for having to pay for music" story goes another round on/. is that we really have come to wrongly (sic) view music as a non-economic good, like air. Why?
Maybe because music has been a non-economic good for thousands of years?
Without Dean, Kerry would still be using the "I'm more centrist than you are" strategy.
Unfortunately, Kerry is now using the "I'm more to the right than you are" strategy. He's attempting to out-Bush Bush. And he's succeding. And so-called "liberals" are supporting him.
For example, Kerry is hailed as a war hero because he murdered Vietnamese who were trying to defend their homes from an American invasion. Bush is decried as a coward because he didn't.
I'm no supporter of Bush but Kerry is the greater of the two evils.
Re:Why do Slashdotters like TMBG so much?
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Ever notice that shitty bands are the only ones in love with the idea of giving their music away free? (as if it'd make me listen to it)
Then how come Metallica, Brittney Spears, Madonna (or whatever she's calling herself these days), etc. are against giving their music away for free?
I'd rather give Kerry a chance to f-k it up in his own special way than let Bush to CONTINUE f-king it up in his spectacularly inept, lack of statesmanship, idiotic, 3 year old finger pointing way.
How is this insightful? If you've been beaten up by a bully for four years and are given a choice between having the current bully beat you up for four more years or having a brand new bully beat you up for a potential of eight more years, is choosing the new bully insightful? To me it's more like stupidity.
It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos run for president. "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
My life has been affected by explorers that came to this country (USA), and by those who have gone into space. Both war/killing and exploration provide an idiology for rustling up resources to get a common goal accomplished, but I kinda prefer the latter.
You do realize, I hope, that the European explorers who came to the "New World" did more than their fair share of killing?
Kurt Vonnegut said it best in "Breakfast of Champions":
"For example, teachers of children in the United States of America wrote this date on the blackboard again and again, and asked the children to memorize it with pride and joy:
1492
The teachers told the children that this was when the continent was discovered by human beings. Actually, millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them."
the government space program would have been a lot better off if it had been purely military rather than "civilian".
At least if it was purely military it would have had unlimited funding. Hell, Congress would have been giving them *more* money than they requested if it was purely military. Of course, they would have been spending the funding on five-thousand dollar BRTLSUs (Battle Ready Tactical Light Shielding Units ("lamp shades" to us civies)).
I found a mistake in your post. I've corrected it at no charge.
It is an article of faith on slashdot that "everybody" lies on registrations. My own data shows under one percent falsification. Perhaps most people are not as dishonest as slashdotters.:-)
Perhaps most people are not as smart as slashdotters.:-)
Rob Enderle's logic is amusing: "If SCO has no evidence and is in the wrong, why is the company being so viciously attacked?"
Yes, if a company has done something wrong like make groundless acusations against people, then why should it be attacked? If someone robs a bank (is in the wrong) then why should they be denounced by the community and thrown in jail. This guy should be a high-priced defense attorney to the stars.
Then there's this old chesnut: "In the process, the Linux community, in support of IBM, has been duped into using illegal means to attack SCO in the nastiest release of viruses the world has ever seen."
Then there's this howler: "After assessing the following, you can only conclude that SCO should prevail. To take it further, I'd say that, for our common good, SCO must prevail."
Slashdot Mirror
That, my friend, is an opinion and not a fact.
(snip)
The Democrats and Republicans just have different masters. There is very little real difference.
But I'm still voting Democrat.
How does your head not explode from the force of the contradictions inside it?
Yes. And Clinton was a conservative. Remember, Democrat != liberal.
I liked the mechanical wheel better. I didn't have to worry about accidentally hitting any buttons while it was in my shirt pocket. Now whenever I put my new 'Pod in my shirt pocket I have to slide the hold switch on because even the slightest touch triggers the thing. If I want to pause it or switch tracks I have to take it out of my pocket, slide the hold switch, then press the appropriate buttons. Before, I could just hit the buttons through my shirt. No fuss, no muss.
I could just use the remote extenision but that just makes the already (in my opinion) overlong headphone cable even longer.
Of course, my old 'Pod didn't have the music quiz game on it so I guess it all evens out.
Of course America was founded on Christianity. That's why there's so many instances of the word "Jesus" in the Constitution. Oh wait. Well at least the Bill of Rights closely follows the Ten Commandments. Oh wait.
Compare:
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Versus:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the first amendment is anything, it's anti-Christian due to the fact that it contradicts the first Commandment. If the founders of our country wanted to have a Christian country they certainly would not have included such an amendment. Also, check this out:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (emphasis mine)
Article VI of the Constitution of the United States
And:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""
Article II Section I of the Constitution of the United States
Notice that "so help me God" is not included?
Again, if the founders wanted to make a Christian nation (or even a religous nation) they did a piss-poor job of it.
Ah, but then the TSA would no longer be needed. As we all know, the primary goal of government agencies is to ensure their own survival. Why do you think we still have the CIA around a decade after the end of the Cold War?
Why? I'll never understand why attacking a country that never attacked the United States is worthy of credit. If Kerry had any character he would have been against the war from the start, not when he figured out that the war was becoming unpopular. Bush shouldn't have ducked out by serving in the Guard, he should have dodged the draft in a more direct way. But at least he didn't kill any Vietnamese. (Not that he's compassionate. Just look at all the executions he's presided over.)
Both candidates have endorsed invading Iraq, the only policy difference they have was the HOWTO.
Which makes all the anti-war "liberals" who endorse Kerry all the more sad and pathetic. Every day I feel more and more like I'm living in the Bizzaro World.
And I find them to be really good, really funny movies, despite all of the hype and worship. If hype and worship ever surrounded his movies, which they don't. In fact, whenever I hear anything about Smith's movies I always hear how awful they are. Perhaps you are confusing people saying that they *gasp* liked his movies (I know, it's a sin!) with hype.
Kill Bill was beyond retarded.
Don't you mean, "in my opinion Kill Bill was beyond retarded." Or are you some sort of movie deity who's word is law? In my opinion, Kill Bill was highly entertaining and enjoyable. It captured the feel of all those old Kung-Fu movies and made me want to watch a bunch of them, marathon-style. Perhaps you just have an aversion to entertainment? Or are you one of those people that only like things that aren't popular? It could suck ass but as long as no-one knows about it it's cool, right? I bet you liked N*SYNC when they were still underground.
How so? Or are you just repeating what the government tells you because we all know that the government doesn't lie?
And all the children burned alive by the FBI & ATF were 'bad guys' too?
For more info on the raid go here. I warn you that some of the pictures are not for the faint of heart.
Huh? I doubt the lawyers in this case are acting on politics. Like most lawyers they just do whatever they can to get more money for themselves.
Besides, which "left-winger" lawyer would represent a giant corporation?
And the Dems would be happy for you not to vote your idealism. So what if the Dems win? It's not like they're liberal.
When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate?
Paul Weyrich, a Christian conservative organizer recently said of the line-up of moderate Republicans (all of whom oppose a Constitutional gay-marriage ban) given high-profile roles at the upcoming Convention: "If the president is embarrassed to be seen with conservatives at the convention, maybe conservatives will be embarrassed to be seen with the president on Election Day."
Contrast this with the vilification of any liberal who dares criticize the quick march to the right that plages the Democratic party.
A vote for Nader (or any other third party candidate) doesn't siphon votes away from Kerry. Those voting for Nader would probably not vote for anyone if he wasn't running. (I know I wouldn't.) If the Democrats are tired of losing then perhaps they could try, I don't know, offering an actual alternative to the Republicans?
Maybe because music has been a non-economic good for thousands of years?
Unfortunately, Kerry is now using the "I'm more to the right than you are" strategy. He's attempting to out-Bush Bush. And he's succeding. And so-called "liberals" are supporting him.
For example, Kerry is hailed as a war hero because he murdered Vietnamese who were trying to defend their homes from an American invasion. Bush is decried as a coward because he didn't.
I'm no supporter of Bush but Kerry is the greater of the two evils.
Then how come Metallica, Brittney Spears, Madonna (or whatever she's calling herself these days), etc. are against giving their music away for free?
How is this insightful? If you've been beaten up by a bully for four years and are given a choice between having the current bully beat you up for four more years or having a brand new bully beat you up for a potential of eight more years, is choosing the new bully insightful? To me it's more like stupidity.
It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos run for president. "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
I think Spinal Tap is working on an all black movie. How much more black could it get? None. None more black.
Perhaps you should look up "humor".
I think the industry is doing a great job of demonizing itself.
If I don't buy Van Helsing when it comes out on DVD I'm depriving them of revenue. Does that make me a criminal?
What happened to right and wrong? Following the law?
Sometimes things that are illegal are still right and things that are legal are still wrong. I hope one day you will learn this.
You do realise that this was signed into law in 1998? Who was president then?
Shouldn't that be "Keeping yourself presentable to the X-Treem!"
The 1990s called, they want their Internet legislation to Protect the Children(tm) back.
You do realize, I hope, that the European explorers who came to the "New World" did more than their fair share of killing?
Kurt Vonnegut said it best in "Breakfast of Champions":
"For example, teachers of children in the United States of America wrote this date on the blackboard again and again, and asked the children to memorize it with pride and joy:
1492
The teachers told the children that this was when the continent was discovered by human beings. Actually, millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them."
At least if it was purely military it would have had unlimited funding. Hell, Congress would have been giving them *more* money than they requested if it was purely military.
Of course, they would have been spending the funding on five-thousand dollar BRTLSUs (Battle Ready Tactical Light Shielding Units ("lamp shades" to us civies)).
It is an article of faith on slashdot that "everybody" lies on registrations. My own data shows under one percent falsification. Perhaps most people are not as dishonest as slashdotters. :-)
Perhaps most people are not as smart as slashdotters. :-)
Rob Enderle's logic is amusing: "If SCO has no evidence and is in the wrong, why is the company being so viciously attacked?"
Yes, if a company has done something wrong like make groundless acusations against people, then why should it be attacked? If someone robs a bank (is in the wrong) then why should they be denounced by the community and thrown in jail. This guy should be a high-priced defense attorney to the stars.
Then there's this old chesnut: "In the process, the Linux community, in support of IBM, has been duped into using illegal means to attack SCO in the nastiest release of viruses the world has ever seen."
Then there's this howler: "After assessing the following, you can only conclude that SCO should prevail. To take it further, I'd say that, for our common good, SCO must prevail."
And all of this is only on the front page!
I think it's a combination of drugs and payoff.