In other news, republican leadership was questioned about the bussing of skinhead neo-nazis and KKK members into predominantly jewish and african american neighborhoods on voting day.
"Hey, it's a free country. Just because we're paying hate groups to take a free ride into Florida and giving them police immunity, clubs, megaphones, guns, and liquor doesn't mean we are encouraging them to do anything in particular. That's your democrats, always reading into everything."
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
Seriously... "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells? No? Okay, then let's bomb the only country in the middle east that isn't in bed with al Qaeda. Check? wow, we don't have enough jobs, but we're leading the world in screwing ourselves. Great, great.
that partisan supporters on both sides will wage a vicious court battle, which will be cut off halfway through by the supremes, who will say, "Didn't you hear us four years ago? Any contestation of Bush's victory could do harm to Bush's presidency. Therefore, Bush is the victor." See p152, recursion adj.
>>Whew, thats a relief... I didn't think they needed 5 significant digits to express a 2 digit integer value.
Yeah, from a CS view I see that. I was thinking of precision from chem... they know they have approximately 10 telescopes, to within.001 of a telescope; in reality there are 10.000394654(...) telescopes in use.:)
I remember in 9th grade my math/cs teacher explained to our CS class how Reagan's "missile defense" initiative was total crap. The technology to target high-speed incomings in time and with the needed accuracy just didn't exist (still largely doesn't; there's a machine that plays ping pong, that's not exactly a missile at mach>1.. yes, there've been "successful tests", which used incomings with tracking devices (aka, cheating)).
Reagan's use of the missile shield wasn't to make americans safe from russian missiles; it was to fool americans into thinking that we were safe from russian nukes, giving him latitude in that area.
BTW, rest of the world... if you want to make a difference, you need to dissuade our allies. The conservatives in this country are zombies, they have no concept of cause and effect or reality. They parrot and believe whatever they hear from their pundits, and it's worse than ever now. It doesn't matter whether it's (faith therefore p) or (faith therefore not-p), they swallow it without question. Is $complicated_political _agenda a good or bad thing? Well, they've gotta check in with Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Condi Rice and the local hate militia to find out.
The most annoying part of it sometimes is that the "faith" people use the bible as a cover for *anything*, but when it comes to actually doing what Jesus taught, that's right out the window. They've got faith... and apparently that means they don't need God anymore. Their "faith" is just a code for hating non-whites (blacks, native americans/indians/whateveritistoday, arabs, persians, asians, and - when it's not an election year - hispanic people. Not to mention gays, anyone who's not christian, anyone who thinks blue-sky science is a justifiable endeavor, and worst of all... Heretics! (non republican christians)).
I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they didn't hold that non-theists aren't people. The right to freedom of religion isn't about which flavor of judeo-christianity one gets shoehorned into.
Koizumi retracts stated support for Bush's reelection
Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 08:17 JST TOKYO -- A day after saying he hoped U.S. President George W Bush would be reelected, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Friday effectively retracted his earlier remark after drawing fire from the opposition and forcing his aides onto the defensive.
"It's not good to interfere in another country's election. Japan-U.S. relations are important and Japan will firmly develop the alliance no matter who is president," Koizumi told reporters the day after saying he wants Bush to retain the presidency. (Kyodo News)
Here is the full quote: (except, in my post, I'm actually going to post the full quote:)
TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush. [So.. they don't want Kerry.. who would you suppose they prefer? Cobb? Badnarik? Nader? Mickey Mouse?]
The Bush campaign said no thanks.
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," [If they didn't get an endorsement from Iran, what are they "not accepting here, Rayonic? -phy ] Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."
Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.
"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."
The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.
The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated. [*cough* Iran Contra *cough* - phy]
The United States supported Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea and prewar Iraq.
The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies -- the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."
And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.
Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."
Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive
Some french industrialists are sitting around smoking cigarettes. Frenchman: [takes drag] How stupid do I think ze Americans are? [takes drag] I bet we could sell zem water.
BTW, kudos to Singapore. They're dealing with the impending water crisis, which is more than I can say for my country (Florida in particular has their head up their patoot w/ regard to water usage). Yeah, I'd drink NEWater. It's cleaner than plain tap, or rainwater, so what's the big deal? No sense in getting emotional about where it's been, it's just water. It isn't going to relapse on a habit and spontaneously turn into pee. The "yuk" factor is just attention-seeking on the part of journalists. *Whap*! Bad journos!
>>Yeah, the guy that came out and tried to say that Bush, while a student there, came up to him and said something to the effect of, "My daddy got me into the guard despite the waiting list". Think he's telling the truth?
Who's got an axe to grind now? Cause so far it looks like you.
>>Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....
I'm sorry for you that you think telling the truth about the past is equivalent to "smearing". I also think it's really sad that you find something conspiratorial or contradictory in the quotes you posted, cause it's simple and true. Not to mention insightful.
I just went through this so maybe I can get it right this time.
>> Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic!
You backed up someone who is clearly trying to defend Bush any way possible. It makes it appear that you sympathize with him. The fact that what you call obvious is in fact very tenuous adds to the appearance that you are on a Bush-backing mission. There are so many Bush fanatics, and the rest of us are really getting tired of "Now before all the bush bashing starts" and "it's just liberal bias".
"Not that bad" could mean "stellar but I'm going to understate it" or "shitty but I'm going to be polite". Bush spent college boozing and snorting coke; it's not suprising he missed class. As for the freaking English language, if you can't see that Tsurumi was just being polite, then wow, I can't help you. Also, kajoob's post, "Bias?" is just an attempt to soften the blow to Bush and open up this forum to radical conservatives. Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now. Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others. We're not gonna take it anymore. And especially not in places that are considered liberal anyway!
If I posted something critical of a cardinal or priest on a church forum, it'd be no suprise if people flamed. And I get knocked plenty for being liberal, right here on slashdot, thank you very much. So don't be suprised that the teeth are out. The upcoming election is too important for this country and for the whole world for us to knuckle under to the conservative agenda.
Oh yeah, someone has a sig that says terrorists support Kerry. I heard someone recently on NPR say that they had visited the extremist muslim websites where terrorist supporters talk, and guess what? The terrorists literally are praying that Bush gets reelected, because he's a flashpoint for antiamericanism, and they expect he'll continue to fuck up in their favor (eg, Iraq). They are quite afraid of Kerry being elected, because they know he could have diplomacy with the moderate arab leaders. Terrorists for bush! Who'd have thunk it? (besides most liberals, a long time ago already).
Yeah, academics and scientists do lean left. But I highly doubt Harvard is making things up just to hurt Bush. You're right about everything being viewed through a political prism now. It seems to me that republicans always have and that liberals are just now catching up. The national discourse is going to boil over if the mainstream media keep acting as mouthpieces for the administration. Maybe even before the election.
As for a bet, I'm not rich but I'll put my money where my mouth is. How about five bucks? If Bush wins I'll mail you a fiver before I jump off a bridge. My email address is on my (lame) page.
>>"It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here."
>>Here?? At Slashdot??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Yes actually, admitting that you're liberal here can get you modded troll/flamebait/overrated real fast. It's been extreme over the past month. I'm glad you think it's funny, because it means you haven't noticed it, and so it could be worse. But from a liberal point of view, slashdot has been or is being assimilated by the far right. Conservative leaning comments are modded insightful when they are nowhere near; insightful comments that have substance but are liberal get modded way down real fast. I'm not saying that no liberal comments are modded up or that all conservative comments are modded up, but it's a running battle.
The pressure and hostility are very real. I've very recently decided that I'm going to be as loud and openly pro-democrat as I can on slashdot, to do my part to keep the liberalness alive or at least half alive. You republicans may not realize this, but your party is very very good at propaganda. And liberals in general seem to have a hard time dealing with conflict based on raw emotion; we'd rather avoid the fight. Especially on a geek site like slashdot, lots of us avoid conflict.
Aww crap, I think I just bonded a little with you, DesScorp. If only because you don't know how much propaganda and suppression of dissent is going on, right here on/. let alone across the country on mainstream media (which are one step away from being state propaganda machines). Not just Fox News, but all the players repeat what they're told by the administration without question; there is no journalism, let alone investigative journalism.
Fellow liberal slashdotters, rise and criticise! Don't let the pro-bush people push their message here! If this is a liberal site, let's take it back! To arms! *dah*doot*dah*doot*! Don't back down! We're going to be called partisan anyways, let's go ahead and be partisan! There's a lot of complaining about Bush bashing, but I don't hear any, so either let's start rebutting the partisan conservatives who think anything liberal or critical is bush bashing, or let's *gasp* Talk About Bush's failures (which are legion)!! We've got a politics section, now let's rally! There's an election to be won! To arms! To arms! The Red states are coming! The Red states are coming!!
Don't count on 150,000 unemployed people voting their conscience? Probably not for Bush? Sorry, I think I will count on it. And so will the ballot counters. Grandparent is much more insightful than your implication that unemployed=unmotivated.
Damn, that was easier to come up with than I thought. Sorry, N3WBI3. Hey leftie, N3WBI3 isn't pro Bush!:) Hey b-baggins, Harvard says Bush is screwing the economy. And there's still no WMD:O
Sorry N3WBI3, you're not a troll. I take it back. I still take issue with b-baggins, and I still stand with leftie. But you weren't trolling or baiting... although I don't see things the way you do. But you're not a troll and I'm sorry I called you one.
Harvard? Isn't that where republicans go before they climb the republican ladder to world domination? Real liberal. But you're right about one thing... conservative professors would have said bush's policies are fine. Of course, they'd have said he was 6'10 and had walked on Venus too, if bush asked them to.
As for the partisan age, all that's happened is liberals are finally catching up to conservatives in terms of being "energized". All those times republicans said liberals should "get over" the 2000 florida debacle just gave us party cohesion.
Bush's federal budget was full of numbers that didn't add up... He counted some money twice, slating the same money for Iraq and Social Security. There was lots of stuff anyone could see was the worst kind of deceitful trickery. We're not talking about little mistakes either, we're talking systematic abuse.
If you cut it in half or burned it you'd destroy it, which I don't really think could be illegal. But just removing some information without destroying it, I believe counts as alteration, in NY anyway. I'm thinking that removing the RFID would be like blacking out the barcode on the back or covering up the picture. It's part of the document, it's supposed to be there. I really think one would be playing with fire to have a de-RFID'ed license. And that's just today. With security concerns being what they are, I don't think you'd have a lot of luck at the airport if these things became widely used and commonly checked.
Garcia's been on a lot longer that either of us. It makes sense that he has more enemies.
Thanks for telling me about haxalot. I've never seen so many -1's. I laughed my ass off especially because of his latest comment. Lol:) But I have to say, garcia usually has a point, and gets knocked for expressing an actual opinion, as compared to haxalot, who just seems to exist for trolling and flaming. Although looking at Haxalot's -1's made me laugh, I think I'd rather cast my lot with garcia. He's cool.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hey, it's a free country. Just because we're paying hate groups to take a free ride into Florida and giving them police immunity, clubs, megaphones, guns, and liquor doesn't mean we are encouraging them to do anything in particular. That's your democrats, always reading into everything."
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
Seriously... "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells? No? Okay, then let's bomb the only country in the middle east that isn't in bed with al Qaeda. Check? wow, we don't have enough jobs, but we're leading the world in screwing ourselves. Great, great.
Venkman: Egon, do you remember the time you tried to drill a hole in your head?
Spengler: That would've worked if you hadn't stopped me.
Bruce Lee?
that partisan supporters on both sides will wage a vicious court battle, which will be cut off halfway through by the supremes, who will say, "Didn't you hear us four years ago? Any contestation of Bush's victory could do harm to Bush's presidency. Therefore, Bush is the victor." See p152, recursion adj.
Yeah, from a CS view I see that. I was thinking of precision from chem... they know they have approximately 10 telescopes, to within .001 of a telescope; in reality there are 10.000394654(...) telescopes in use. :)
Ok, this horse is dead, anyone need the flog?
Reagan's use of the missile shield wasn't to make americans safe from russian missiles; it was to fool americans into thinking that we were safe from russian nukes, giving him latitude in that area.
BTW, rest of the world... if you want to make a difference, you need to dissuade our allies. The conservatives in this country are zombies, they have no concept of cause and effect or reality. They parrot and believe whatever they hear from their pundits, and it's worse than ever now. It doesn't matter whether it's (faith therefore p) or (faith therefore not-p), they swallow it without question. Is $complicated_political _agenda a good or bad thing? Well, they've gotta check in with Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Condi Rice and the local hate militia to find out.
The most annoying part of it sometimes is that the "faith" people use the bible as a cover for *anything*, but when it comes to actually doing what Jesus taught, that's right out the window. They've got faith... and apparently that means they don't need God anymore. Their "faith" is just a code for hating non-whites (blacks, native americans/indians/whateveritistoday, arabs, persians, asians, and - when it's not an election year - hispanic people. Not to mention gays, anyone who's not christian, anyone who thinks blue-sky science is a justifiable endeavor, and worst of all ... Heretics! (non republican christians)).
I wouldn't mind conservatives so much if they didn't hold that non-theists aren't people. The right to freedom of religion isn't about which flavor of judeo-christianity one gets shoehorned into.
note to mods, someone else already posted what I posted... just fyi.. dern.
Koizumi retracts stated support for Bush's reelection
Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 08:17 JST
TOKYO -- A day after saying he hoped U.S. President George W Bush would be reelected, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Friday effectively retracted his earlier remark after drawing fire from the opposition and forcing his aides onto the defensive.
"It's not good to interfere in another country's election. Japan-U.S. relations are important and Japan will firmly develop the alliance no matter who is president," Koizumi told reporters the day after saying he wants Bush to retain the presidency. (Kyodo News)
TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.
Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry against Bush. [So.. they don't want Kerry.. who would you suppose they prefer? Cobb? Badnarik? Nader? Mickey Mouse?]
The Bush campaign said no thanks.
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," [If they didn't get an endorsement from Iran, what are they "not accepting here, Rayonic? -phy ] Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."
Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.
"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."
The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.
The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated. [*cough* Iran Contra *cough* - phy]
The United States supported Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea and prewar Iraq.
The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies -- the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."
And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.
"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.
Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."
Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive
"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday the re-election of President George W. Bush would be in Tehran's best interests
"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran is supporting Democratic Senator John Kerry against Bush.
The Bush campaign said "No thanks."
"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said."
So yes, Iran endorsed Bush. It's not suprising that Bush didn't "accept" the endorsement, but that doesn't mean Iran wouldn't prefer to see Bush win.
BTW, your post is ironically humorous considering how unglued from reality the republican line has become.
Thank you, drive through :)
See you in the global water crisis! (Just add... er.... nameless liquids)
Some french industrialists are sitting around smoking cigarettes.
Frenchman: [takes drag] How stupid do I think ze Americans are? [takes drag] I bet we could sell zem water.
BTW, kudos to Singapore. They're dealing with the impending water crisis, which is more than I can say for my country (Florida in particular has their head up their patoot w/ regard to water usage). Yeah, I'd drink NEWater. It's cleaner than plain tap, or rainwater, so what's the big deal? No sense in getting emotional about where it's been, it's just water. It isn't going to relapse on a habit and spontaneously turn into pee. The "yuk" factor is just attention-seeking on the part of journalists. *Whap*! Bad journos!
Think he's telling the truth?
Who's got an axe to grind now? Cause so far it looks like you.
>>Well he went on Air America to further smear the President and got caught in other lies....
I'm sorry for you that you think telling the truth about the past is equivalent to "smearing". I also think it's really sad that you find something conspiratorial or contradictory in the quotes you posted, cause it's simple and true. Not to mention insightful.
>> Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic!
You backed up someone who is clearly trying to defend Bush any way possible. It makes it appear that you sympathize with him. The fact that what you call obvious is in fact very tenuous adds to the appearance that you are on a Bush-backing mission. There are so many Bush fanatics, and the rest of us are really getting tired of "Now before all the bush bashing starts" and "it's just liberal bias".
"Not that bad" could mean "stellar but I'm going to understate it" or "shitty but I'm going to be polite". Bush spent college boozing and snorting coke; it's not suprising he missed class. As for the freaking English language, if you can't see that Tsurumi was just being polite, then wow, I can't help you. Also, kajoob's post, "Bias?" is just an attempt to soften the blow to Bush and open up this forum to radical conservatives. Conservatives are quick to label any liberal view as "partisan" but even absurdly partisan conservative views are bandied about as "patriotic". Liberals are going to fight back now. Don't be suprised that we're pissed off, we've held our peace a long time, since 2000 for some, since Iraq or Patriot for others. We're not gonna take it anymore. And especially not in places that are considered liberal anyway!
If I posted something critical of a cardinal or priest on a church forum, it'd be no suprise if people flamed. And I get knocked plenty for being liberal, right here on slashdot, thank you very much. So don't be suprised that the teeth are out. The upcoming election is too important for this country and for the whole world for us to knuckle under to the conservative agenda.
Oh yeah, someone has a sig that says terrorists support Kerry. I heard someone recently on NPR say that they had visited the extremist muslim websites where terrorist supporters talk, and guess what? The terrorists literally are praying that Bush gets reelected, because he's a flashpoint for antiamericanism, and they expect he'll continue to fuck up in their favor (eg, Iraq). They are quite afraid of Kerry being elected, because they know he could have diplomacy with the moderate arab leaders. Terrorists for bush! Who'd have thunk it? (besides most liberals, a long time ago already).
As for a bet, I'm not rich but I'll put my money where my mouth is. How about five bucks? If Bush wins I'll mail you a fiver before I jump off a bridge. My email address is on my (lame) page.
>>Here?? At Slashdot??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Yes actually, admitting that you're liberal here can get you modded troll/flamebait/overrated real fast. It's been extreme over the past month. I'm glad you think it's funny, because it means you haven't noticed it, and so it could be worse. But from a liberal point of view, slashdot has been or is being assimilated by the far right. Conservative leaning comments are modded insightful when they are nowhere near; insightful comments that have substance but are liberal get modded way down real fast. I'm not saying that no liberal comments are modded up or that all conservative comments are modded up, but it's a running battle.
The pressure and hostility are very real. I've very recently decided that I'm going to be as loud and openly pro-democrat as I can on slashdot, to do my part to keep the liberalness alive or at least half alive. You republicans may not realize this, but your party is very very good at propaganda. And liberals in general seem to have a hard time dealing with conflict based on raw emotion; we'd rather avoid the fight. Especially on a geek site like slashdot, lots of us avoid conflict.
Aww crap, I think I just bonded a little with you, DesScorp. If only because you don't know how much propaganda and suppression of dissent is going on, right here on /. let alone across the country on mainstream media (which are one step away from being state propaganda machines). Not just Fox News, but all the players repeat what they're told by the administration without question; there is no journalism, let alone investigative journalism.
Fellow liberal slashdotters, rise and criticise! Don't let the pro-bush people push their message here! If this is a liberal site, let's take it back! To arms! *dah*doot*dah*doot*! Don't back down! We're going to be called partisan anyways, let's go ahead and be partisan! There's a lot of complaining about Bush bashing, but I don't hear any, so either let's start rebutting the partisan conservatives who think anything liberal or critical is bush bashing, or let's *gasp* Talk About Bush's failures (which are legion)!! We've got a politics section, now let's rally! There's an election to be won! To arms! To arms! The Red states are coming! The Red states are coming!!
Damn, that was easier to come up with than I thought. Sorry, N3WBI3. Hey leftie, N3WBI3 isn't pro Bush! :) Hey b-baggins, Harvard says Bush is screwing the economy. And there's still no WMD :O
Sorry N3WBI3, you're not a troll. I take it back. I still take issue with b-baggins, and I still stand with leftie. But you weren't trolling or baiting... although I don't see things the way you do. But you're not a troll and I'm sorry I called you one.
As for the partisan age, all that's happened is liberals are finally catching up to conservatives in terms of being "energized". All those times republicans said liberals should "get over" the 2000 florida debacle just gave us party cohesion.
Bush is going down like a clown in a dunk tank.
Bush's federal budget was full of numbers that didn't add up... He counted some money twice, slating the same money for Iraq and Social Security. There was lots of stuff anyone could see was the worst kind of deceitful trickery. We're not talking about little mistakes either, we're talking systematic abuse.
You fail the partisan test.
Harvard's economists say Bush sucks. Isn't Harvard like, where all the really smart people go?
If you cut it in half or burned it you'd destroy it, which I don't really think could be illegal. But just removing some information without destroying it, I believe counts as alteration, in NY anyway. I'm thinking that removing the RFID would be like blacking out the barcode on the back or covering up the picture. It's part of the document, it's supposed to be there. I really think one would be playing with fire to have a de-RFID'ed license. And that's just today. With security concerns being what they are, I don't think you'd have a lot of luck at the airport if these things became widely used and commonly checked.
Thanks for telling me about haxalot. I've never seen so many -1's. I laughed my ass off especially because of his latest comment. Lol :) But I have to say, garcia usually has a point, and gets knocked for expressing an actual opinion, as compared to haxalot, who just seems to exist for trolling and flaming. Although looking at Haxalot's -1's made me laugh, I think I'd rather cast my lot with garcia. He's cool.