stop being so indignant. if EA employees are so unhappy, they can work somehwere else. why should i care? i am aware that some jobs are harder than others, and some suck. how about some stories about cool gadgets or somethin.
to make claims like this that are no more than a guess. a bit of abuse of your slashdot position, to mobilize people to be indignant over something that isnt even happening.
has anyone actually posted the patriot act affected them, or has everyone decided to babble about how they dont like it?
i think we tend to get a little nuts about our civil liberties, and pretend like we are being violated, when in reality, basically none of us has even slightly been affected by it.
right. so when slashdot says "And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow", they dont really mean that. what they really mean is "we realize you are mostly kerry voters, so go vote".
or possibly they are saying "we at slashdot are too dumb to favor one candidate over another, so we inexplicably only care about high turnout".
my only point is that saying "no matter who you vote for , go vote" is either a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
right, but by being selective about who you say it to, you are effectively no longer saying "regardless of who you support", because you already know who your listeners support and you want them to vote. my whole point is that nobody ever really means that, and that it would not be smart to mean it, unless you care about big turnout over actually electing the correct candidate. and that wouldnt make much sense.
slashdot even said it: "And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow."
that makes no sense. what value is there in turnout? what does turnout accomplish? why bother saying that?
why does everyone always pretend like they care if everyone votes? they should only care if their candidate wins. i hope everyone who supports the candidate i oppose does not vote.
saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless. isnt it most important to elect the better candidate than to just have better turnout? what good is turnout if they elect the guy who enacts bad policy?
unless of course you believe more turnout is good for your candidate, which i suspect many of these people who are saying this believe.
if you relly care about electing a better candidate, shouldnt you dissuade people from voting, if they support the wrong guy?
i am not disputing that they are partisan hacks. i am disputing that partisan hacks are bad for america. you still have google right? you are able to get the information you want. so you believe one particular source of information is inferior. what of it? that hurts america?
there are so many information sources that no one source should bear any responsibility to provide anything. besides, the information the press provides is a reflection of what consumers want.
doesnt the responsibility to be informed fall on the shoulders of the individual who chooses to inform themselves? isnt laying responsibility on partisan hacks just a misdirection of blame? besides, i like partisan hacks, if they lie in order to get the candidate i prefer elected. people lie, so what. nobody has a gun to my head forcing me to believe them. nobody closed down whever noble source you use for your "real" information. where is the problem?
i think stewart's comments are based on the flawed assumption that crossfire has some noble responsibility to be anything other than a arguing show for political hacks. of course they are dishonest spinmeisters, that is the whole premise of the show. they are not "hurting america" any more than any other show that doesnt dole out real useful political information. it is an individual's responsibility to gather information to use to make decisions with, not cnn. carlson and begala have a responsibility to their bosses to get ratings, not inform us. "stop hurting america"? please. america isnt so weak that a couple arguing dudes is a problem.
why not just use linux if you dont want to pay MS anything?
you people act like you have no choice. you have a better and free option, and you still whine.
the marketplace has not failed. you have options.
fact: you do not have to use MS products, you have a free (and by many estimates better) option. yet you continue to hope to waste my tax dollars prosecuting MS.
if MS has such a monopoly, then where did i get thunderbird and firefox? it is ludicrous to claim there is a monopoly and anyone us forced to do anything.
Slashdot Mirror
stop being so indignant. if EA employees are so unhappy, they can work somehwere else. why should i care? i am aware that some jobs are harder than others, and some suck. how about some stories about cool gadgets or somethin.
to make claims like this that are no more than a guess. a bit of abuse of your slashdot position, to mobilize people to be indignant over something that isnt even happening.
has anyone actually posted the patriot act affected them, or has everyone decided to babble about how they dont like it? i think we tend to get a little nuts about our civil liberties, and pretend like we are being violated, when in reality, basically none of us has even slightly been affected by it.
right. so when slashdot says "And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow", they dont really mean that. what they really mean is "we realize you are mostly kerry voters, so go vote". or possibly they are saying "we at slashdot are too dumb to favor one candidate over another, so we inexplicably only care about high turnout". my only point is that saying "no matter who you vote for , go vote" is either a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
right, but by being selective about who you say it to, you are effectively no longer saying "regardless of who you support", because you already know who your listeners support and you want them to vote. my whole point is that nobody ever really means that, and that it would not be smart to mean it, unless you care about big turnout over actually electing the correct candidate. and that wouldnt make much sense. slashdot even said it: "And no matter what you decide, if you can, just get out and vote tomorrow." that makes no sense. what value is there in turnout? what does turnout accomplish? why bother saying that?
why does everyone always pretend like they care if everyone votes? they should only care if their candidate wins. i hope everyone who supports the candidate i oppose does not vote. saying "regardless of who you support, get out and vote" seems pointless. isnt it most important to elect the better candidate than to just have better turnout? what good is turnout if they elect the guy who enacts bad policy? unless of course you believe more turnout is good for your candidate, which i suspect many of these people who are saying this believe. if you relly care about electing a better candidate, shouldnt you dissuade people from voting, if they support the wrong guy?
i am not disputing that they are partisan hacks. i am disputing that partisan hacks are bad for america. you still have google right? you are able to get the information you want. so you believe one particular source of information is inferior. what of it? that hurts america? there are so many information sources that no one source should bear any responsibility to provide anything. besides, the information the press provides is a reflection of what consumers want. doesnt the responsibility to be informed fall on the shoulders of the individual who chooses to inform themselves? isnt laying responsibility on partisan hacks just a misdirection of blame? besides, i like partisan hacks, if they lie in order to get the candidate i prefer elected. people lie, so what. nobody has a gun to my head forcing me to believe them. nobody closed down whever noble source you use for your "real" information. where is the problem?
i think stewart's comments are based on the flawed assumption that crossfire has some noble responsibility to be anything other than a arguing show for political hacks. of course they are dishonest spinmeisters, that is the whole premise of the show. they are not "hurting america" any more than any other show that doesnt dole out real useful political information. it is an individual's responsibility to gather information to use to make decisions with, not cnn. carlson and begala have a responsibility to their bosses to get ratings, not inform us. "stop hurting america"? please. america isnt so weak that a couple arguing dudes is a problem.
maybe you could just only eat half the burger. then that would be less calories. you are aware you dont have to eat every item you own?
why not just use linux if you dont want to pay MS anything? you people act like you have no choice. you have a better and free option, and you still whine. the marketplace has not failed. you have options. fact: you do not have to use MS products, you have a free (and by many estimates better) option. yet you continue to hope to waste my tax dollars prosecuting MS. if MS has such a monopoly, then where did i get thunderbird and firefox? it is ludicrous to claim there is a monopoly and anyone us forced to do anything.