Reverse the downward spiral? That's impossible at this point; the best we can do is slow it down. Hence, voting for Kerry.
But go ahead and vote for a third party. In a few decades our country will be ruined, but hey, at least we'll be able to vote outside of Republicrat lines!
I also remember that Battlezone was little more than a critical success, and so were the first two GTAs. Anybody who disputes this is missing the point: A hardcore gamer's definition of the word "popular" is quite different from the definition that other people use. First rule of the "normal" defintion: The only PC-based games that were ever popular were The Sims, Myst, and a few FPSes. Popularity is a realm mostly exclusive to the consoles.
You don't have to declare a party affiliation (at least not where I come from), but only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary, AFAIK.
Considering how old and discredited this is (as has already been pointed out many times here), the only reason I can think of for this being posted now is as a rebuttal to the "bulge" post. (I guess pudge could've made a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that this wasn't submitted by someone a week ago.)
I don't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted a draft. How is this flip-flopping?
I said that "lowering his expectations" would be flip-flopping. It helps if you read the entire post before you reply.
Flip-flopping is more like voting yes to take action, voting no to increased funding for military equipment, then calling out the president for not providing said equipment. And who did that, pray tell?
I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me who decided against the 9/11 Commission, then decided for it; who decided against the Department of Homeland Security, then decided for it; who decided to allow the UN to do weapon inspections in Iraq, then decided to invade before they were finished; etc.
As for "calling out the President for not providing said equipment," I'd like to remind you that the resolution for increased funding passed. The equipment problem is entirely the fault of the Bush administration.
Oh, and BTW, the only reason Kerry voted against the resolution is that he wanted a version of the bill that included the removal of tax cuts on the rich to pay for it. Since it was clear that the version without the removal of tax cuts was going to pass, he voted against it as a protest.
Being able to use your hand and arm instead of your thumb to turn. This (in addition to the fact that mice instantly "recenter") makes aiming a lot more precise. For proof of this, try moving a mouse pointer with a thumbstick some time. Even with good autoaim, this makes a difference.
Better button placement. Most mice have three buttons (five if you count the wheel axis), all within easy reach of your right fingers. The rest of the buttons you need are all within easy reach of your left fingers. Compare this to the XBox controller, where there are a few buttons that aren't that easy to get to with your thumb (though I believe Bungie minimized this with Halo by putting unimportant functions on them).
More usable fingers, as I implied above. With a controller, most of your fingers are needed for stability. A keyboard requires no extra stability, while a mouse requires at most your thumb and pinky to keep it steady (leaving your most useful fingers free).
There might be others I'm forgetting, but you get my point.
Halo on XBox controlled pretty well, actually. Granted, this had a lot to do with the autoaim, but it was still by far the best experience I've had with a console FPS. I assume you were lucky enough not to have played any of the other console FPSes that are out there.
I'm saying that we shouldn't (in fact, mustn't) rely on the UN to do what is in our best interests when we have the power to do it ourselves. Protecting South Korea and Germany is almost undeniably in America's best interests. Invading Iraq, I would argue, is not.
BTW, I meant that Germany would be destroyed (or at least badly damaged) economically (you know, since you brought "local German economies" up yourself). Economic devastation in Germany, incidentally, was the prime cause of World War 2.
I realize that there was a hoax going around the Internet about it, but what I meant is that the only serious argument about the draft is that it will be required if the Bush administration "stays the course." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft (I don't think any politician in his right mind would publically support a draft today, except to make a point), but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.
Bush: We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. Kerry: [A] KerryEdwards administration will stop this administration's program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons.
Uh, what?
Rob (I seem to remember reading something about plans for bunker-busting nukes, but I'll let someone else do the research)
The grandparent is referring to the idea of supply-side economics, which states that high taxes discourage people from working and/or honestly paying their taxes, which in turn lowers government revenue. This has been thoroughly discredited in regards to the US as our tax rate isn't even close to high enough to be on the "wrong side of the curve."
The theory is trickle-down, and it works in theory. As it is, the money that finds its way into the hands of the rich ends up in their money-market / bank / wal-street accounts. This means that the money has gone back into the economy.
And from there back into the hands of the rich. It doesn't "trickle down" at all. I'm not sure what trickle-down economics has to do with what I'm talking about, anyway. I was referring to the system of nepotism that gives the families and friends of the rich more of an opportunity to succeed than everyone else.
One could say that the liberals don't really want equality of opportunity, because they coddle the poor.
Never disagreed with that. I personally believe that a lot of liberals want equality of opportunity, but are going about it in entirely the wrong way (partially by equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome).
They hate us for how relaxed our country's values are, they hate us for our commercial success, they are jealous of our freedom, etc. etc. etc.
How do you know? While I agree that the fundamentalists are like that, I think that the vast majority of Middle Easterners are mad at us right now because we say that we care about them when our actions suggest differently, because we tend to dismiss them as irredeemable savages, because we paint them all with the same brush (as you just did), etc., etc., etc.
And yes, we have had a lot of unsuccessful summits, but that's beside the point. A big reason why most of the Middle East hates us today is because of our recent alienation of the rest of the world. Just because France was unlikely to support a war against Iraq no matter how many nukes Saddam had doesn't mean that we should alienate the whole world by suggesting that we don't care about the arguments of anyone outside of the US.
Perhaps they won't hate us so much in the future, and perhaps we won't be so arrogant as to think that we can change them.
Isn't it possible that they hate us because we want to change them?
So by extension, you are saying that it should be legal to abort today and not in the future?
Depends on if (a) it is indeed possible for zygotes to be viable in the future and (b) the method used to make them viable is available and affordable to the general public.
That said, I don't see how the idea that something can be accepted today and unaccepted in the future necessarily conflicts with moral absolutism (not that I even agree with the idea of moral absolutism, but I digress). Even under absolutism, humans are imperfect and as such do not have a perfect understanding of morality. Do you think that doctors who performed bloodletting in the Middle Ages were purposefully immoral, or just ignorant of proper medicine?
I don't get why what I'm saying is an example of moral relativism, anyway. Isn't it possible that it could be moral (or at least morally-neutral) to perform abortions in societies where technology is not advanced enough to allow for zygotes viable outside of the womb, but immoral to do so in societies that are advanced enough? Another analogy: Assuming that the death penalty is moral and causing needless suffering is immoral, wouldn't it be OK to hang a person if and only if there was not a more humane way to execute him (e.g. lethal injection)?
Keep in mind that the fact that something is alive doesn't necessarily mean that it should or must be protected. We each kill billions of organisms over the course of a day just by existing.
As for "viability becoming earlier and earlier," it may be possible for a zygote to grow into a baby outside of a woman's womb in the future, but not today.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
The fact that equality of outcome is anti-conservative doesn't make equality of opportunity pro-conservative. Conservatives seem to act like equality of opportunity already exists even when it clearly doesn't; I tend to believe that this is because conservatives don't really want equality of opportunity (as seen with their implicit endorsement of the "good ol' boy" system that rich people enjoy). FTR, I think that equality of opportunity is mostly valued by centrists.
There's no way a conservative could ever look at John Kerry and see anything other than the opposite of all that.
Are you seriously trying to equate blastocysts to anything remotely resembling a human baby?
For those Slashdotters who don't know, a blastocyst is a ball of undifferentiated cells. That's it. A blastocyst is barely any different than a zygote from a moral standpoint, since neither of them have any organs or tissues at all, much less viable lungs, hearts, or brains.
Where do you think the leftover embryos from artificial insemination go? If they aren't used for stem-cell research, they get thrown away. The only solution is to ban artificial insemination.
The question you should be asking is "How many right-wing stories have been submitted?" It's not like there's absolutely no one in the/. editorial staff that will post any of those submissions; that's what pudge is here for.
If you haven't formally submitted that Lowell Sun editorial yet, you should do so. That's the only way right-wing articles will get posted.
I'm not a Bush supporter myself, but I've read a number of ardent ones, and it seems that they like how Bush has been killing a lot of brown people, and believe that that somehow makes us safer.
Slashdot Mirror
...but doesn't anyone else think that it looks bad when the only anti-Kerry submission on /. in the past week or so is a humor piece?
Rob
Reverse the downward spiral? That's impossible at this point; the best we can do is slow it down. Hence, voting for Kerry.
But go ahead and vote for a third party. In a few decades our country will be ruined, but hey, at least we'll be able to vote outside of Republicrat lines!
Rob
I also remember that Battlezone was little more than a critical success, and so were the first two GTAs. Anybody who disputes this is missing the point: A hardcore gamer's definition of the word "popular" is quite different from the definition that other people use. First rule of the "normal" defintion: The only PC-based games that were ever popular were The Sims, Myst, and a few FPSes. Popularity is a realm mostly exclusive to the consoles.
Rob
You don't have to declare a party affiliation (at least not where I come from), but only registered members of a party can vote in that party's primary, AFAIK.
Rob
Considering how old and discredited this is (as has already been pointed out many times here), the only reason I can think of for this being posted now is as a rebuttal to the "bulge" post. (I guess pudge could've made a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that this wasn't submitted by someone a week ago.)
Rob
I don't recall Bush ever saying that he wanted a draft. How is this flip-flopping?
I said that "lowering his expectations" would be flip-flopping. It helps if you read the entire post before you reply.
Flip-flopping is more like voting yes to take action, voting no to increased funding for military equipment, then calling out the president for not providing said equipment. And who did that, pray tell?
I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me who decided against the 9/11 Commission, then decided for it; who decided against the Department of Homeland Security, then decided for it; who decided to allow the UN to do weapon inspections in Iraq, then decided to invade before they were finished; etc.
As for "calling out the President for not providing said equipment," I'd like to remind you that the resolution for increased funding passed. The equipment problem is entirely the fault of the Bush administration.
Oh, and BTW, the only reason Kerry voted against the resolution is that he wanted a version of the bill that included the removal of tax cuts on the rich to pay for it. Since it was clear that the version without the removal of tax cuts was going to pass, he voted against it as a protest.
Rob
- Being able to use your hand and arm instead of your thumb to turn. This (in addition to the fact that mice instantly "recenter") makes aiming a lot more precise. For proof of this, try moving a mouse pointer with a thumbstick some time. Even with good autoaim, this makes a difference.
- Better button placement. Most mice have three buttons (five if you count the wheel axis), all within easy reach of your right fingers. The rest of the buttons you need are all within easy reach of your left fingers. Compare this to the XBox controller, where there are a few buttons that aren't that easy to get to with your thumb (though I believe Bungie minimized this with Halo by putting unimportant functions on them).
- More usable fingers, as I implied above. With a controller, most of your fingers are needed for stability. A keyboard requires no extra stability, while a mouse requires at most your thumb and pinky to keep it steady (leaving your most useful fingers free).
There might be others I'm forgetting, but you get my point.Rob
Halo on XBox controlled pretty well, actually. Granted, this had a lot to do with the autoaim, but it was still by far the best experience I've had with a console FPS. I assume you were lucky enough not to have played any of the other console FPSes that are out there.
Rob
I'm saying that we shouldn't (in fact, mustn't) rely on the UN to do what is in our best interests when we have the power to do it ourselves. Protecting South Korea and Germany is almost undeniably in America's best interests. Invading Iraq, I would argue, is not.
BTW, I meant that Germany would be destroyed (or at least badly damaged) economically (you know, since you brought "local German economies" up yourself). Economic devastation in Germany, incidentally, was the prime cause of World War 2.
Rob
Who is trying to frighten college kids with stories of how they will be drafted if Bush is re-elected? The democrats.
It's not "the Democrats," just "Democrats." There's a difference. Unless you care to provide proof that the DNC is behind this little hoax?
Rob
I would dispute the idea that Bush would "have to revive the draft" - it's far more likely that he'd be forced to lower his expectations instead.
But that would be flip-flopping, not staying the course!
Rob
So you're saying that we should destroy two of our closest, strongest allies so we can fight a needless war. Sadly, Bush probably agrees with you.
Rob
I realize that there was a hoax going around the Internet about it, but what I meant is that the only serious argument about the draft is that it will be required if the Bush administration "stays the course." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Rob
The argument isn't that Republicans favor a draft (I don't think any politician in his right mind would publically support a draft today, except to make a point), but that there is no way to get enough troops to do everything that the Bush administration wants to do without either reinstating the draft or restoring the confidence of our allies and our citizens.
Rob
Bush: We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons.
Kerry: [A] KerryEdwards administration will stop this administration's program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons.
Uh, what?
Rob (I seem to remember reading something about plans for bunker-busting nukes, but I'll let someone else do the research)
The grandparent is referring to the idea of supply-side economics, which states that high taxes discourage people from working and/or honestly paying their taxes, which in turn lowers government revenue. This has been thoroughly discredited in regards to the US as our tax rate isn't even close to high enough to be on the "wrong side of the curve."
Rob
The theory is trickle-down, and it works in theory. As it is, the money that finds its way into the hands of the rich ends up in their money-market / bank / wal-street accounts. This means that the money has gone back into the economy.
And from there back into the hands of the rich. It doesn't "trickle down" at all. I'm not sure what trickle-down economics has to do with what I'm talking about, anyway. I was referring to the system of nepotism that gives the families and friends of the rich more of an opportunity to succeed than everyone else.
One could say that the liberals don't really want equality of opportunity, because they coddle the poor.
Never disagreed with that. I personally believe that a lot of liberals want equality of opportunity, but are going about it in entirely the wrong way (partially by equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome).
They hate us for how relaxed our country's values are, they hate us for our commercial success, they are jealous of our freedom, etc. etc. etc.
How do you know? While I agree that the fundamentalists are like that, I think that the vast majority of Middle Easterners are mad at us right now because we say that we care about them when our actions suggest differently, because we tend to dismiss them as irredeemable savages, because we paint them all with the same brush (as you just did), etc., etc., etc.
And yes, we have had a lot of unsuccessful summits, but that's beside the point. A big reason why most of the Middle East hates us today is because of our recent alienation of the rest of the world. Just because France was unlikely to support a war against Iraq no matter how many nukes Saddam had doesn't mean that we should alienate the whole world by suggesting that we don't care about the arguments of anyone outside of the US.
Perhaps they won't hate us so much in the future, and perhaps we won't be so arrogant as to think that we can change them.
Isn't it possible that they hate us because we want to change them?
Rob
So by extension, you are saying that it should be legal to abort today and not in the future?
Depends on if (a) it is indeed possible for zygotes to be viable in the future and (b) the method used to make them viable is available and affordable to the general public.
That said, I don't see how the idea that something can be accepted today and unaccepted in the future necessarily conflicts with moral absolutism (not that I even agree with the idea of moral absolutism, but I digress). Even under absolutism, humans are imperfect and as such do not have a perfect understanding of morality. Do you think that doctors who performed bloodletting in the Middle Ages were purposefully immoral, or just ignorant of proper medicine?
I don't get why what I'm saying is an example of moral relativism, anyway. Isn't it possible that it could be moral (or at least morally-neutral) to perform abortions in societies where technology is not advanced enough to allow for zygotes viable outside of the womb, but immoral to do so in societies that are advanced enough? Another analogy: Assuming that the death penalty is moral and causing needless suffering is immoral, wouldn't it be OK to hang a person if and only if there was not a more humane way to execute him (e.g. lethal injection)?
Rob
Keep in mind that the fact that something is alive doesn't necessarily mean that it should or must be protected. We each kill billions of organisms over the course of a day just by existing.
As for "viability becoming earlier and earlier," it may be possible for a zygote to grow into a baby outside of a woman's womb in the future, but not today.
Rob
I'm still trying to determine how an estate tax is fair at ALL.
Because it helps to ensure that those who are rich are those who earned their wealth?
Rob
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
The fact that equality of outcome is anti-conservative doesn't make equality of opportunity pro-conservative. Conservatives seem to act like equality of opportunity already exists even when it clearly doesn't; I tend to believe that this is because conservatives don't really want equality of opportunity (as seen with their implicit endorsement of the "good ol' boy" system that rich people enjoy). FTR, I think that equality of opportunity is mostly valued by centrists.
There's no way a conservative could ever look at John Kerry and see anything other than the opposite of all that.
You could say the same about George W. Bush.
Rob
Are you seriously trying to equate blastocysts to anything remotely resembling a human baby?
For those Slashdotters who don't know, a blastocyst is a ball of undifferentiated cells. That's it. A blastocyst is barely any different than a zygote from a moral standpoint, since neither of them have any organs or tissues at all, much less viable lungs, hearts, or brains.
Rob
Where do you think the leftover embryos from artificial insemination go? If they aren't used for stem-cell research, they get thrown away. The only solution is to ban artificial insemination.
Rob
The question you should be asking is "How many right-wing stories have been submitted?" It's not like there's absolutely no one in the /. editorial staff that will post any of those submissions; that's what pudge is here for.
If you haven't formally submitted that Lowell Sun editorial yet, you should do so. That's the only way right-wing articles will get posted.
Rob
I'm not a Bush supporter myself, but I've read a number of ardent ones, and it seems that they like how Bush has been killing a lot of brown people, and believe that that somehow makes us safer.
Rob