For the second time, I did not mention personal attacks in my post - not even once. Read it again. I did not denounce personal attacks. I did not praise them. I did not say that they are good with ice cream. I said absolutely nothing at all with regard to personal attacks. I did not mention them in a box. I did not mention them with a fox. There is not a shred of insinuation of making the slightest reference to personal attacks in that post. The post may have contained a personal attack, but the fact of it was not related in any way to the subject matter of said post.
Idle curiosity: Do you think a smart-assed remark about how you, unlike the other guy, are too good for personal attacks is something other than a personal attack?
You're confused. I didn't mention personal attacks in my post at all. I mentioned insulting generalizations. I do believe I refrained from making an insulting generalization, which would have been in poor taste. Was that not clear from my post?
You don't know what 'circumstantial' and 'Ad Hominem' mean. And you might be surprised how many politicians are motivated by greed. They want us to think that they're purely altruistic, but that's hardly ever the truth. Call me cynical.
If accuracy is your aim then you should have listed Bush, Blair, and Sharon. I think Putin was on board for a while too. I'll leave it as an exercise to determine what each one of them stood to gain from the invasion.
Let's get this straight. Are you saying that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at the time of the invasion? I'd like to see your citation for that. Last I checked, only conspiracy nuts and Fox News viewers still believe that.
Anyone looking just at the inspectors' reports would not believe that Saddam had "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" as was claimed by some. You don't get stockpiles from "losing track of the actual truth". you don't get mass destruction from a few ancient chemical weapons.
Using the advantage of hindsight, the answer is obvious; just follow the money. The Bush administration had a significant financial motivation for the invasion, so they hyped it in any way they could. (Example: Nigerian yellowcake scandal) It appears that the systematic distortions caused you to lose track of the actual truth.
But I don't expect you to learn any life lessons from this. People like stories with comic book villains and if seeing Saddam as evil, omnipotent, and omniscient makes your universe make sense, whatever. [Here's where I make some insulting generalization about you, but even I have too much good taste for that.]
What about injury due to birth complications? The mother knew the risk but decided to get pregnant anyway. What about injury in a car accident? The risks of driving are well-known, but someone chose to drive anyway. What about sports injuries? Anyone who plays football clearly understands the risk of injury. What about problems resulting from high blood pressure? The patient clearly should have been eating healthier food.
At some point, we have to decide who is responsible for judging and delivering punishment for self-destructive behavior. In the meantime, it seems logical to pursue the highest standard of health possible.
Even worse, they support the barbaric practice of having women put children in their bellies! That's cannibalism, folks. Furthermore, these children are completely naked. Those liberal child-consuming pedophiles must be stopped!
Yes, but those supposedly confusing voting cards in Florida were designed by...wait for it....the Democrats.
It was not designed by the Democrats. That's your confusion right there. It was designed by one politician, who switched her party based on which gave her the best chance of being elected. If you insist on drawing the parallel out that far, it would make most sense if the name of OOXML was originally submitted by a former Microsoft employee, and approved by Microsoft's board. I have no knowledge of the creation of the name, but the parallel holds anyway. No matter how it originated, it serves to confuse people and skew results.
I cannot think of one single Republican who lives up to the Platonic ideal of small government. This includes the darling of Slashdot, Ron Paul. Face it, anyone idealistic enough to believe in small government left the party ages ago.
If you can't identify liberals' stances on the issues then you need to go back to grade school. This is really basic stuff. I'm not even asking you to analyze the arguments, just identify them. I promise, you will not become an "intellectual elite" just by having basic comprehension skills. You can have these skills and still believe in God. You can still support Bush. You can still oppose Global Warming and Evolution. But for the sake of us all, figure out what the other side is saying. You might just find that it makes sense.
The Real ID act passed the house in 2005. 95% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats voted for it. Assuming the same percentages, the bill would pass the house today.
Interestingly, both of New Hampshire's representatives (both Republicans) voted for the Real ID act. Both men lost the 2006 election to Democratic rivals.
In the Senate the Real ID act was passed as a rider, which is a different issue entirely.
I remember back in 2000 when people like you were saying that Bush was such a wonderful guy. They would rave about how Bush would clean up the culture in both parties. Now you've come back and are saying the same thing about Ron Paul. Another Texas Republican, another teary evangelist. Why should anyone believe you?
That's the problem with this country: too many lawyers defending the little guys and not enough defending the big corporations. Honest industry groups like the RIAA don't stand a chance against the litigious masses. No wonder slashdot is such a staunch supporter of the RIAA and an enemy of the individual.
Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples).
Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."
France's speech laws have nothing at all to do with ISPs taking down websites without any due process. There is not even the slightest logical connection between the two. Who modded this up, anyway?
You've completely ignored the point. In fact, you've done even worse than that by providing evidence that destroys your argument.
Read up on Echelon... Hardly a Bush-time invention, but one for exactly the kind of espionage, that the French are concerned about.
Then why are the French so upset now, and not then?
Read up on the first President of the France's current republic, and his nationalist (often anti-American) stand.
Then why has it been just recently that the relationship between France and the US has gotten so bad?
It's foolish to argue that Bush has no control over international relations. In your opinion, is there anything that has happened over the last six years that Bush *can* be held responsible for? I'm just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
For the second time, I did not mention personal attacks in my post - not even once. Read it again. I did not denounce personal attacks. I did not praise them. I did not say that they are good with ice cream. I said absolutely nothing at all with regard to personal attacks. I did not mention them in a box. I did not mention them with a fox. There is not a shred of insinuation of making the slightest reference to personal attacks in that post. The post may have contained a personal attack, but the fact of it was not related in any way to the subject matter of said post.
You people are very silly!
Because he has no self-interest in getting deposed.
You're confused. I didn't mention personal attacks in my post at all. I mentioned insulting generalizations. I do believe I refrained from making an insulting generalization, which would have been in poor taste. Was that not clear from my post?
You don't know what 'circumstantial' and 'Ad Hominem' mean. And you might be surprised how many politicians are motivated by greed. They want us to think that they're purely altruistic, but that's hardly ever the truth. Call me cynical.
Tax legislation? That makes no sense. The rest of your post is even worse.
If accuracy is your aim then you should have listed Bush, Blair, and Sharon. I think Putin was on board for a while too. I'll leave it as an exercise to determine what each one of them stood to gain from the invasion.
It's not a Straw Man unless they misrepresented someone's argument in order to attack it. The term you're looking for is "government propaganda".
Let's get this straight. Are you saying that Saddam Hussein had WMDs at the time of the invasion? I'd like to see your citation for that. Last I checked, only conspiracy nuts and Fox News viewers still believe that.
Anyone looking just at the inspectors' reports would not believe that Saddam had "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" as was claimed by some. You don't get stockpiles from "losing track of the actual truth". you don't get mass destruction from a few ancient chemical weapons.
Using the advantage of hindsight, the answer is obvious; just follow the money. The Bush administration had a significant financial motivation for the invasion, so they hyped it in any way they could. (Example: Nigerian yellowcake scandal) It appears that the systematic distortions caused you to lose track of the actual truth.
But I don't expect you to learn any life lessons from this. People like stories with comic book villains and if seeing Saddam as evil, omnipotent, and omniscient makes your universe make sense, whatever. [Here's where I make some insulting generalization about you, but even I have too much good taste for that.]
Corollary: There should be a law that punished with death penalty any attempts to raise prices.
What about injury due to birth complications? The mother knew the risk but decided to get pregnant anyway. What about injury in a car accident? The risks of driving are well-known, but someone chose to drive anyway. What about sports injuries? Anyone who plays football clearly understands the risk of injury. What about problems resulting from high blood pressure? The patient clearly should have been eating healthier food.
At some point, we have to decide who is responsible for judging and delivering punishment for self-destructive behavior. In the meantime, it seems logical to pursue the highest standard of health possible.
You can't rebut the GP's point and have to resort to personal attacks. Not surprising.
Even worse, they support the barbaric practice of having women put children in their bellies! That's cannibalism, folks. Furthermore, these children are completely naked. Those liberal child-consuming pedophiles must be stopped!
It was not designed by the Democrats. That's your confusion right there. It was designed by one politician, who switched her party based on which gave her the best chance of being elected. If you insist on drawing the parallel out that far, it would make most sense if the name of OOXML was originally submitted by a former Microsoft employee, and approved by Microsoft's board. I have no knowledge of the creation of the name, but the parallel holds anyway. No matter how it originated, it serves to confuse people and skew results.
I cannot think of one single Republican who lives up to the Platonic ideal of small government. This includes the darling of Slashdot, Ron Paul. Face it, anyone idealistic enough to believe in small government left the party ages ago.
If you can't identify liberals' stances on the issues then you need to go back to grade school. This is really basic stuff. I'm not even asking you to analyze the arguments, just identify them. I promise, you will not become an "intellectual elite" just by having basic comprehension skills. You can have these skills and still believe in God. You can still support Bush. You can still oppose Global Warming and Evolution. But for the sake of us all, figure out what the other side is saying. You might just find that it makes sense.
The Real ID act passed the house in 2005. 95% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats voted for it. Assuming the same percentages, the bill would pass the house today.
Interestingly, both of New Hampshire's representatives (both Republicans) voted for the Real ID act. Both men lost the 2006 election to Democratic rivals.
In the Senate the Real ID act was passed as a rider, which is a different issue entirely.
Of course we liberals believe in the Constitution. We're the ones who wrote it.
I remember back in 2000 when people like you were saying that Bush was such a wonderful guy. They would rave about how Bush would clean up the culture in both parties. Now you've come back and are saying the same thing about Ron Paul. Another Texas Republican, another teary evangelist. Why should anyone believe you?
That's the problem with this country: too many lawyers defending the little guys and not enough defending the big corporations. Honest industry groups like the RIAA don't stand a chance against the litigious masses. No wonder slashdot is such a staunch supporter of the RIAA and an enemy of the individual.
Yeah, that's sarcasm.
Here's another example: "It just shows the absurd claims emacs cult members will make in order to feel self righteous."
Hmmm... that looks somehow familiar.
Is that any worse than posting rants on slashdot to feel self-righteous? Just curious.
France's speech laws have nothing at all to do with ISPs taking down websites without any due process. There is not even the slightest logical connection between the two. Who modded this up, anyway?
You've completely ignored the point. In fact, you've done even worse than that by providing evidence that destroys your argument.
Then why are the French so upset now, and not then?
Then why has it been just recently that the relationship between France and the US has gotten so bad?
It's foolish to argue that Bush has no control over international relations. In your opinion, is there anything that has happened over the last six years that Bush *can* be held responsible for? I'm just curious.
"He served honorably, ma'am. I'm sorry for your loss"
"I just can't believe he's gone...."
"I'm afraid we received confirmation from netcraft just this morning."