There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad.
Granted, it's going to be more interesting to those of us with lower slashID's (sorry if that sounds elitist) -- just like VH1's I Love the 80's is more interesting to us older folk. But... well, that's all I have to say. Just sit back, shut up, and it will all be over soon.
I bet you denied Global Cooling before Global Warming came along.
It's called climate change. Didn't you get the memo? And, this is just a wee bit off topic. Don't you think?
Now you're trying to claim Global Shaking is a good thing?!
Global? I don't know if this was an attempt at a straw man argument, or not. Regardless, if you actually read the GP's post, you'll see that his point is that maybe releasing mini earthquakes is a good thing. Just like having controlled burns in heavily wooded areas is a good measure to take to avoid wild fires later on. All he did was ask a question -- a valid question that merits an answer.
Stop hyperventilating, and attempt to have a logical, rational discussion of the potential benefits or problems of various forms of energy production. Don't be so obtuse.
It's good that you placed "Best" in quotation marks, denoting that it's not necessarily the best option. Just like not having controlled forest burns would not be the best option to avoid larger, more destructive forest fires.
With searchable transcripts, all one will have to do is search out the video in it's entirety to get full context and debunk any deceit through selective editing. More information is usually a good thing.
Whose control? I suspect this is part of what the parent was getting at. BTW, I'll bet the British would have loved to have such education and control.
His exact words: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
My exact response above: "Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business." If you want to label this "nutjobbery", so be it. Your words. I call it a simple, but consistent overestimation of the roll and importance of government in the lives of Americans. The video I posted above parallels this sentiment. Sorry you didn't notice.
1. Nice try with the strawman. I've asserted that Obama views government as the great provider. I did not call him a nutjob.
2. You can't apply Occam's razor until you've eliminated my assertion as a possibility, with your belief as the sole remainder.
See here, a snippet from a video played at the DNC tonight. "The government is the only thing we all belong to. Really? How about just a nation of people, living in sovereign states. How about the human race? We're all (or, at least, we ought to be) freedom loving people, and we certainly do not belong to the government. Quite telling.
You're making the assumption that you stand on the veritable high ground with your interpretation and application of context. You've provided nothing to fortify your position, other than repetition of the Democrats' "what he meant to say was..." back pedaling. I've argued on the evaluation of his policies. This is not the narrowest literal meaning -- it's matching the talk to the walk.
There is no irony here. I've used his own words as an accurate critique of his own actions.
I was initially scolded that "he didn't say that." I proved that he did say it, and was then accused of taking his words out of context. I acknowledged context, but as consistent with my view of his meaning. Now, I'm told my view is wrong, based on... something.
In summary: he did say it; being critical of his words is well within the scope of context; his context is consistent with his policies.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a good point, but Valve has the clout to pull this off and negate your argument.
No it isn't. The USA owns the internet.
We also own the moon -- ever since our astro men landed there and planted Old Glory firmly on the surface.
Eh? I'm calling him by his name (see who posted the story?).
And, if you think I'm a liberal dem for calling Lamer out at a lib apologist, you need to pay closer attention.
Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.
One of the funniest headlines I've read all year. Don't need TFA.
Granted, it's going to be more interesting to those of us with lower slashID's (sorry if that sounds elitist) -- just like VH1's I Love the 80's is more interesting to us older folk. But... well, that's all I have to say. Just sit back, shut up, and it will all be over soon.
Ha. Me too!
That should be Who are you.
It's called climate change. Didn't you get the memo? And, this is just a wee bit off topic. Don't you think?
Global? I don't know if this was an attempt at a straw man argument, or not. Regardless, if you actually read the GP's post, you'll see that his point is that maybe releasing mini earthquakes is a good thing. Just like having controlled burns in heavily wooded areas is a good measure to take to avoid wild fires later on. All he did was ask a question -- a valid question that merits an answer.
Stop hyperventilating, and attempt to have a logical, rational discussion of the potential benefits or problems of various forms of energy production. Don't be so obtuse.
It's good that you placed "Best" in quotation marks, denoting that it's not necessarily the best option. Just like not having controlled forest burns would not be the best option to avoid larger, more destructive forest fires.
...and, pick up that can!
Probably. If you did much coding where you aligned things horizontally, like with a list of #define's in C, you'd probably rethink your assertion.
I was performing an experiment of my own. Thank you for participating.
Try an experiment: Choose a definition, apply it to the above statements, and evaluate the result.
Dammit. "Its entirety", not "It's".
With searchable transcripts, all one will have to do is search out the video in it's entirety to get full context and debunk any deceit through selective editing. More information is usually a good thing.
Of the two drugs you mentioned, one is prescribed by a doctor and highly addictive, the other is neither prescribed nor addictive. Big difference.
Kind of different:
* Private, versus public sector
* FOI request versus Joe Shareholder's request
But, if it's a case of litigation, corporate emails are subject to subpoena.
27 or so years its senior. Wow, pretty neat, huh? Also, my Galaxy S2 is waaaaay faster than my Atari 800.
Whose control? I suspect this is part of what the parent was getting at. BTW, I'll bet the British would have loved to have such education and control.
His exact words: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
My exact response above: "Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business." If you want to label this "nutjobbery", so be it. Your words. I call it a simple, but consistent overestimation of the roll and importance of government in the lives of Americans. The video I posted above parallels this sentiment. Sorry you didn't notice.
1. Nice try with the strawman. I've asserted that Obama views government as the great provider. I did not call him a nutjob.
2. You can't apply Occam's razor until you've eliminated my assertion as a possibility, with your belief as the sole remainder.
See here, a snippet from a video played at the DNC tonight. "The government is the only thing we all belong to. Really? How about just a nation of people, living in sovereign states. How about the human race? We're all (or, at least, we ought to be) freedom loving people, and we certainly do not belong to the government. Quite telling.
You're making the assumption that you stand on the veritable high ground with your interpretation and application of context. You've provided nothing to fortify your position, other than repetition of the Democrats' "what he meant to say was..." back pedaling. I've argued on the evaluation of his policies. This is not the narrowest literal meaning -- it's matching the talk to the walk.
There is no irony here. I've used his own words as an accurate critique of his own actions.
I was initially scolded that "he didn't say that." I proved that he did say it, and was then accused of taking his words out of context. I acknowledged context, but as consistent with my view of his meaning. Now, I'm told my view is wrong, based on... something.
In summary: he did say it; being critical of his words is well within the scope of context; his context is consistent with his policies.
Thank you for making my point for me.
Wow, that's a stretch. That...that's actual contortion right there. You had to limber up good for that one.