Take your anti-American flag-burning attitude somewhere else and start supporting the troops. You must be a Saddam sympathizer. You bleeding heart, hand-wringing conservatives apparently don't have the stomach to do what it takes to defend this country. Go hide under your bed and cry about all the bad bad things in the world while we liberals roll up our sleeves and do something about it.
I would say Donald Rumsfeld, but he would have used the term "Microsoft-Hating Nazis" or perhaps "Macintosh Fascists" instead.
Re:Just like there will never be another Doom
on
Can Anyone Beat WoW?
·
· Score: 1
i have too much invested in my Wow character(s)
If playing a game feels like making an investment then you should quit immediately and either (1) start playing something fun or (2) start investing your time in activities that will actually reap rewards.
Had Clinton taken ANY action in 8 years to answer Saddam's obvious disregard for international law, if not opinion....
Like when Clinton bombed Baghdad, for example? All the Republicans were screaming bloody murder, as I recall. How convenient that you've forgotten. But don't let that distract you from your partisan rant.
According to your logic, it's perfectly fine to abuse human rights. After all, human rights laws have exactly zero jurisdiction in totalitarian states. Anyone protecting human rights in such a state is very bad, right?
I don't understand the issue here. Are you saying that the US should pass laws prohibiting its citizens from abiding by foreign laws? Or are you just saying that it's wrong?
I'm sure Catholics would be very interested in this, since following foreign laws is a part of their religion.
However, I suppose there would be a difference, since the guy gave permission to have his organ removed, and the embryo did not.
That's an amusing line of thought. Could someone sue their parents for creating them without permission? You could prove that the parents knew they had lousy genes but had a kid anyway. It's impossible for the kid to sign away the right to nonexistence, so if potential humans do have such rights then the parents would have to be held liable.
Yes, Kerry would have been better. The warning signs that tipped us off that Bush is a nasty fellow are not present in Kerry. Kerry was right that Iraq has been mismanaged from the start. He had a sensible plan for fixing up the mess, at least a little. I don't know how making Iraq an UN effort translates to them "making all our decisions for us". You probably pulled that from a Bush campaign ad.
No really, there was a primary election in Connecticut. I suppose you could be suggesting that the vote was rigged by the evil Democratic masters (Hitler!) but I've seen no evidence of this and you haven't presented any.
I applaud Connecticut for sending a stern message to Lieberman; maybe he'll think twice before joining Bush's rubber stamp brigade again. If Jim Jeffords can become an independent to protest the Republican failures of leadership, Lieberman can be forced out of the Democratic party for failing to recognize said failures.
So you think that marginalizing the constitution isn't really that bad. It looks like Bush was right to take your vote for granted. What a terrible message you've sent to politicians everywhere.
The problem with candidates is that you have to research them. So many Democrats have come up with specific plans, and even brought bills before congress. You need to pay more attention.
the way the Dems went after Liberman was more reminicent of Hitler and Stalin than anything in recent political history, you vill not contradict the party!
That's something we call 'democracy' over here in the US. Calling every Connecticut voter "Hitler" or "Stalin" just makes you sound like an idiot.
Any theory of the universe must be either inconsistent (i.e. we can prove that a statement is both true and false) or incomplete (i.e. there must be true statements that cannot be proved).
That only applies to formal systems, which are wacky idealized models of logic.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Bush admitted before the nation that he didn't find the stockpiles of WMD he claimed Iraq had. His inspector's report indicates that the stockpiles were never found. He joked (in very poor taste) on national television about not being able to find the WMD. What is Bush's motive to lie about this? The WMD issue has been a major humiliation for Bush, his administration, and the nation.
I often foil terrorist plots over the internet. If one of the nefarious fellows ever found out who I am, I would be found dead. These guys are the nastiest scum in the world by far. The fates of freedom, liberty, truth, justice, and patriotic euphemisms all hang in the balance.
You don't support the terrorists, do you? DO YOU? WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING???
I guess the framers of the US Constitution should be ok with an article that states that congress has the final authority to declare someone gay. After all, they did the same thing with war and it would be hypocritical of them to say that congress shouldn't be allowed to declare things other than war. So no one should be allowed to be gay unless they have permission from congress.
I don't know how you're extrapolating from Orwell to 9/11, but I'll play along. You seem to believe that the president has announced a war on Al Qaeda. This is not the case. He has suggested a War on Terror, which is a descendent of the War on Drugs. Neither one is really a war in the strict sense, but a set of policies. The War on Terror is marked by increased presidental power, an expanded government, and arbitrary military actions abroad.
Second, no one needs to convince the president to bring troops back from overseas. He himself promised to do just that in his 2000 campaign. I don't know whether you're calling our president a liar or a fool for saying this, but the people who voted for him apparently agreed. Can I assume that you were praying for Gore to win in 2000? Or did you prefer Nader?
Finally, your fear of isolation is unfounded. Most reasonable people (including pacifists) don't want to turn our backs on the world at large. What we'd like is a real plan to achieve a stable, peaceful, humanitarian, global environment. What we're getting is a grab for short-term profits at the expense of the future. Evaluate what went wrong in Iran in the last century. It wasn't that the US wasn't violent enough; it was that the US installed an unpopular dictator. It did this so we'd be safe from Communism. Did it work? Is Iran no longer a threat?
No, no, no. Pacifism in this sense is not simple opposition to a nation's strategic interests. Was Martin Luther King pro-USSR for being a pacifist in America during the Cold War? Was Gandhi pro-Germany for being a pacifist in India during WWII? By misappropriating Orwell, you seem to think that both of these people support totalitarianism.
Nothing in the modified GPL says that nations should not engage in war. It says that this software should not be used for that purpose. If you don't want your book to be used in a cartoon, does that make you opposed to cartoons?
Before you throw Gandhi to the wolves, consider that the lesser of two evils (eating Bambi instead of starving) is not always desirable if there is a third alternative available. There are situations in which you'd break every one of your moral imperatives, but that's not the point. Those who have the means to effect change -- even a personal change -- are morally obligated to do so. Assuming that it's everyone else's problem is a lousy excuse and an abdication of responsibility that would make any slashdotter cringe.
Slashdot Mirror
But Bush invented the iPod, so would Gore have to pay him royalties from the lockbox?
Take your anti-American flag-burning attitude somewhere else and start supporting the troops. You must be a Saddam sympathizer. You bleeding heart, hand-wringing conservatives apparently don't have the stomach to do what it takes to defend this country. Go hide under your bed and cry about all the bad bad things in the world while we liberals roll up our sleeves and do something about it.
(Yes, that was sarcasm.)
I would say Donald Rumsfeld, but he would have used the term "Microsoft-Hating Nazis" or perhaps "Macintosh Fascists" instead.
If playing a game feels like making an investment then you should quit immediately and either (1) start playing something fun or (2) start investing your time in activities that will actually reap rewards.
Like when Clinton bombed Baghdad, for example? All the Republicans were screaming bloody murder, as I recall. How convenient that you've forgotten. But don't let that distract you from your partisan rant.
According to your logic, it's perfectly fine to abuse human rights. After all, human rights laws have exactly zero jurisdiction in totalitarian states. Anyone protecting human rights in such a state is very bad, right?
I don't understand the issue here. Are you saying that the US should pass laws prohibiting its citizens from abiding by foreign laws? Or are you just saying that it's wrong?
I'm sure Catholics would be very interested in this, since following foreign laws is a part of their religion.
They've publicly stated that it was a mistake. They are obviously going to fix it. The point is that this list may have been intentionally sabotaged.
That's an amusing line of thought. Could someone sue their parents for creating them without permission? You could prove that the parents knew they had lousy genes but had a kid anyway. It's impossible for the kid to sign away the right to nonexistence, so if potential humans do have such rights then the parents would have to be held liable.
Most non-materialists are opposed to the death penalty? Most are opposed to war? Please cite your source.
No, it doesn't. It invites those questions. The slashdot poster raised the questions.
raise versus invite
Carter managed to go through his whole presidency without restricting rights as much as Nixon. Kerry would have similarly improved on Bush.
Yes, Kerry would have been better. The warning signs that tipped us off that Bush is a nasty fellow are not present in Kerry. Kerry was right that Iraq has been mismanaged from the start. He had a sensible plan for fixing up the mess, at least a little. I don't know how making Iraq an UN effort translates to them "making all our decisions for us". You probably pulled that from a Bush campaign ad.
No really, there was a primary election in Connecticut. I suppose you could be suggesting that the vote was rigged by the evil Democratic masters (Hitler!) but I've seen no evidence of this and you haven't presented any.
I applaud Connecticut for sending a stern message to Lieberman; maybe he'll think twice before joining Bush's rubber stamp brigade again. If Jim Jeffords can become an independent to protest the Republican failures of leadership, Lieberman can be forced out of the Democratic party for failing to recognize said failures.
So you think that marginalizing the constitution isn't really that bad. It looks like Bush was right to take your vote for granted. What a terrible message you've sent to politicians everywhere.
The problem with candidates is that you have to research them. So many Democrats have come up with specific plans, and even brought bills before congress. You need to pay more attention.
That's something we call 'democracy' over here in the US. Calling every Connecticut voter "Hitler" or "Stalin" just makes you sound like an idiot.
That only applies to formal systems, which are wacky idealized models of logic.
That's semantic sophistry. (Perhaps it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.) In reference to the Iraq war, WMD means stockpiles.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Bush admitted before the nation that he didn't find the stockpiles of WMD he claimed Iraq had. His inspector's report indicates that the stockpiles were never found. He joked (in very poor taste) on national television about not being able to find the WMD. What is Bush's motive to lie about this? The WMD issue has been a major humiliation for Bush, his administration, and the nation.
I often foil terrorist plots over the internet. If one of the nefarious fellows ever found out who I am, I would be found dead. These guys are the nastiest scum in the world by far. The fates of freedom, liberty, truth, justice, and patriotic euphemisms all hang in the balance.
You don't support the terrorists, do you? DO YOU? WHY AREN'T YOU ANSWERING???
I guess the framers of the US Constitution should be ok with an article that states that congress has the final authority to declare someone gay. After all, they did the same thing with war and it would be hypocritical of them to say that congress shouldn't be allowed to declare things other than war. So no one should be allowed to be gay unless they have permission from congress.
You're okay with that, then - right?
I don't know how you're extrapolating from Orwell to 9/11, but I'll play along. You seem to believe that the president has announced a war on Al Qaeda. This is not the case. He has suggested a War on Terror, which is a descendent of the War on Drugs. Neither one is really a war in the strict sense, but a set of policies. The War on Terror is marked by increased presidental power, an expanded government, and arbitrary military actions abroad.
Second, no one needs to convince the president to bring troops back from overseas. He himself promised to do just that in his 2000 campaign. I don't know whether you're calling our president a liar or a fool for saying this, but the people who voted for him apparently agreed. Can I assume that you were praying for Gore to win in 2000? Or did you prefer Nader?
Finally, your fear of isolation is unfounded. Most reasonable people (including pacifists) don't want to turn our backs on the world at large. What we'd like is a real plan to achieve a stable, peaceful, humanitarian, global environment. What we're getting is a grab for short-term profits at the expense of the future. Evaluate what went wrong in Iran in the last century. It wasn't that the US wasn't violent enough; it was that the US installed an unpopular dictator. It did this so we'd be safe from Communism. Did it work? Is Iran no longer a threat?
No, no, no. Pacifism in this sense is not simple opposition to a nation's strategic interests. Was Martin Luther King pro-USSR for being a pacifist in America during the Cold War? Was Gandhi pro-Germany for being a pacifist in India during WWII? By misappropriating Orwell, you seem to think that both of these people support totalitarianism.
Nothing in the modified GPL says that nations should not engage in war. It says that this software should not be used for that purpose. If you don't want your book to be used in a cartoon, does that make you opposed to cartoons?
One pacifist response to Hitler was The White Rose. I believe that the world would have benefited greatly from pacifism on the part of Hitler.
Before you throw Gandhi to the wolves, consider that the lesser of two evils (eating Bambi instead of starving) is not always desirable if there is a third alternative available. There are situations in which you'd break every one of your moral imperatives, but that's not the point. Those who have the means to effect change -- even a personal change -- are morally obligated to do so. Assuming that it's everyone else's problem is a lousy excuse and an abdication of responsibility that would make any slashdotter cringe.