this is pretty cool. however, i am sure most people here will immediatly claime "the usa cyber-psychological warfare caused the ability for insurgents!!" that may be....but... whatever.
oh yeah... 2nd post, b-otch.
homosexuality is not moral, good, right, or equal. it is a deviation. The argument "but we're just born this way," can be equally applied to paedophiles. Does this mean we should "tollerate" and "accept" child molesters? no. the comparison to the civil rights struggle degrades the civil rights struggle. someone cannot just stop being black (except michael jackson), however one can choose not to do gayness. Like the yahhoos in 'Gullivers Travels,' gays reject reason and social responsibility in order to give in to base animal passion which has no chance of reproduction, which not only was God's "first commandment" (go forth and multiply), it is also the reason for sex. it feels good so that people bother doing it. It's sloppy and messy, and these days expensive (dating and marriage and shit). Gays cannot produce children. Therefor, there is no reason for them to be married because they do not need to make a legitimate child as they cannot make an illigitimate one no matter how hard they try. They may not/want/ to help it, but they can. I don't care if they don't like it. There is no right to be a deviant. Most deviations are illegal. Rapists are devients. Molesters are devients. Murderers are too. Gayness can and should be illegal. It should be kept far out of the public eye. I should not be shown on TV. it should not be accepted. It is harmful, whether it is 'sinful' or not. Children especially should not be told that it is acceptable. It will merely contribute to the spread of aids and the decline in birthrate. not to mention, it is generally vile and repulsive. Continuing to allow shows like 'will and grace' will serve to make our society week and we will crumble. It was not accepted in Rome durring the Republic and most of the Empire. Greek wrestlers were made to wear clothes, even! Rome became more and more Greek and became week and fell. Homosexuality is the hallmark of the Greeks. It is a subversive, unpatriotic practice, unclean, and wicked.
One must serve at least 2 years in order to become a citizen. Anyone who wishes to serve can, and cannot be turned away (unless they're in like, a wheel chair or something, in which case give them a desk job and screw basic training). Anyone can quit for any reason. You cannot vote while you serve, only after your service. If you do not serve (and you do not have to), you do not become a citizen. Only those who are willing to stand up to defend rights get to exercise the authority of the ballot. Whinging hippies who are not willing to defend their country should not have say in how it's run. I should say that in order to hold office, you apparantly must be a service officer of high rank, such as a colonel or field marshal.
I have another year of university left and then i'm joining the Air Force to put my money where my mouth is. I really, honestly, do not believe that anybody who can serve but does not is a traitor and a coward and not fit to be an American, nor to live. Yes, this includes Bush and Cheny. My prefered candidate would have been Stormin' Normin' Schwartzkoff (I'll never vote for a Democrat even if he won the bloody Medle of Honour until the Democratic party embraces Authoratarian Corporatism). Hence, I abstained from voting in the last election. It's not like it was a surprise Bush was going to win my State anyway.
if you have no property, you pay no property tax. You therefor pay for less and should have less say. I would couple this with the elimination of the income tax. Therefor, non-property owners would have no vote as they pay no taxes. Only land is taxable. The weight of the vote is in perportion to the amount of property held. Therefor, my great grandfather who had a 300 acre plantation (born 1859) would have a vote worth more than my grandfather's who had 80 acres, which would be worth more than mine. If you're not going to be paying, then shut up about it. I hate the city, and most of the inhabitants therein. Most people in the city would not own taxable property. I like this.
The test should be a citizenship test. There is no reason why being born here means you should automagically get rights when most natives know less than people who had to study the citizenship test. People should also have to know latin and greek. these languages should be the official languages of government business, and all debate should be conducted in one or the other. This ensures only people with Classical educations, and thus people who know anything worth knowing, can hold office. This more or less extends office only to the landed aristocracy who can afford to just sit around and read Cicero, Horace, and Ovid instead of whatever the hell else you people do.
'citizenship' should be extended to all, but not necessarily the vote. I'd probably have a military requirment for the vote as well.
You can't get in if you are under 18 without an adult. You also can't get in if you're over 18 without a kid. I guess this is to keep out creepy weirdo molesters. Doesn't anybody think that it might be a similarly good idea to keep weird adults out of kid movies? When does it stop being OK to watch cartoons?
i didn't say I don't like Jesus. I said he's a fucking hippie. And he is. I admire him. He's a far better man than I. But i'm willing to kill to get where I need to go. Michael Collins was a lot more effective than Ghandi.
Franco was a Catholic. However, it was very clearly Franco in charge of Spain, not the Pope. While Franco's Catholic beliefes may or may not have influened the policy of his government, that is irrelevent. The Church was not running Spain. Franco and the falangists were running Spain. Having government policy founded in a religion is not the same thing as having the Church run the State. Clearly, you do not know what a theocracy is. Plus, fuck what Jesus said. he was a god damned hippie. I'm Catholic, but whatever. Jesus also hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and terrorists. No gays tho'. And the Old Testiment said gays were bad. It boils down to this, IMHO: Sex is for reproduction. Marraige is to make legitimate children. Gays can not have children, thus have no issue of legimimacy. Therefor, gay marraige is pointless. Also, gay sex, as it can produce no chidlren, and thus is not a benefit to society in any way, is merely throwing off reason and become a desent into base animal passion, and is selfish and inhuman. This is what makes it a "sin" -- also the ass is for out only, please thankyou. Further, here is the definition of theocarcy. You don't seem to be useing it correctly:
\The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.] 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.
I'm not sure it's generational. However, I do have the utmost respect for Francisco Franco and Juan Peron. I fully agree with Mussolini in principle, however he personally was ineffective. We can totally be the new Rome. We have the manpower. We have the technology to augment the manpower so that we do not need the sheer numbers of say, China. I truely believe that no one can beat us.
Now, before you say 'look at Iraq!' -- that is a fallacy. We aren't actually fighting in Iraq. We could have leveled Najaf or Faluja in a matter of minutes without even using nuclear weapons. It looks like a bunch of rag-tag "insurgents" are beating us because we are fighting with the gloves on. Two pares, even. Being "cultrually sensitive" to your enemy is stupid. Everything must be done to break the backbone of the enemy. Their will to fight must be eliminated. Their ability to wage war must be eliminated. The first two Punic Wars were merely army-to-army. This left a festering enemy that kept coming back for more. Wounded animals are dangerous. Dead animals are not. Carthage was burned. The survivors were forced to mine the salt which was used to make sure crops could never grow again. They were then sold into slavery. The men were killed, the women raped in order to bread them out. There was no fourth Punic war.
Total war makes sure there is no 'wounded animal.' Total war ensures absolute victory. As Sherman said, 'war is hell and the more hellish it is the less they'll want of it.'
First, I advocate unification of the Western hemisphere -- a total American empire. Those who serve 20 years in the military are granted citizenship and can then vote. This worked for Rome for over 1,000 years from foundation, through Republican empire, the Principate (from Augustus on), and the Dominate (Diocletian on). There is enough petrolium in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Venesuala, et cetera, that to have total control over it would almost eliminate our need for mid-eastern oil. Shared traditions of Christianity and other European customs and traditions are more than enough to work with in building a cohesive cultural entitity. More than 25% of the United States is Catholic, from the massive immigrations of Irish and Italians in the 1800s and of Hispanics now. One can pretty much catigorically label Central and South America Catholic. That's a good base for common heritage right here.
We may never fight against Europe, or we may. However, Christmas-eve cease-fires to sing Christmas Carols like we had in World War I and II were the products of fighting an enemy with a similar herritage. We do not have that with the Islamic Terrorists or the Atheist Communists. Therefor, not bombing the mosque is stupid because they cannot be trusted to not bomb churches. Respect and boundaries must be mutual. The enemies we are fighting now, and will fight, are not like us. We cannot expect them to act like us. We must therefor pull no punches.
We could totally have run over that Mosque and won within an hour. However, we did not. That shows weakness and cowardace. We must not forget that: 1) civilians form the industrial base. That makes civilians part of country's war effort, and therefor combatants. 2) this enemy does not respect our cultures and traditions. They do not hate out freedom. They hate that we do not believe what they believe and will stop at nothing until we do. Therefor, we should not respect their beliefes. 3) Even if the enemy is "right," they are wrong because they are the enemy. We must always believe we are right, otherwise we give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is called treason. People are hung for treason. 4) ideology should not be a basis for war, only a propaganda tool to sway the masses. Showing how they are different illustrates the futility of peace. War, however, should be for material gain -- teasure, land, and resources. Ideology should only be used to say why the enemy shouldn't have it, but not the reason for going to war which
for all intents and purposes, we have a de-facto cold war with China, North Korea, et cetera. I would expect it to go hot withing 10-15 years. That is why when I graduate from university (I'm a Junior right now), I am going into the Air Force (degree -> OTS -> big, fat officer's pay and snappy uniform chicks like (jane austin said so(English major))). We have other enemies other than terrorists. Terrorists are just a diversion for right now. There is no reason to expect that we will not engage in a massive clash of armies like those envisoned in the 50s, only this time it will be China, not the Soviet Union. This system will help us fight China. Sure, UBL doesn't have satilites. The Chinese could. Now, we can thwart their satilites. or anyone's satlites. Some day when there is a federal Europe, they could quite easily become militarily hostile. We will then whip their ass like we did in WW1 and WW2. This will help us keep the technological edge that we had then.
The world is going to end up like 'Star Ship Troopers' some day. Just assume it's cool, go along with it, and you'll make out fine.
how any of these are "iPod Killers"... first of all, none of them have killed the iPod. Secondly, some do more, such as playing video, and probably put themselves into a different catigory. Thirdly, a gold played mp3 player is dumb.
Also, they don't have iTunes or iTMS. Nothing is going to kill the iPod without the whole package.
my dad accidently punched Richard Nixon in the face one time. People were reaching in for handshakes. My dad kind of missed and nocked him in the nose. Of course, those were simpler times when a kid punching the president was laughed off.
soldiers did not have to be roman citizens. they could become roman citizens after 20 years, with a plot of land and a good chuck of booty. their children then became citizens. Yes, Senators had to be Citizens, but DUH. As for "strict ethnic requirments," you'll notice that there really aren't many, if any, mentions of skin colour or anything like that. While yes, groups like Gauls, Britons, Germanii, were mentioned, that is because they were dealing with the groups. The groups were distinct. However, individually, they really didn't care. It's not like they only used black slaves or anything. Just anyone they could nail in battle. Anyone could be a citizen if they were qualified, which means, being born a citizen (being born to a citizen or a freedman) or doing service and earning it. Personally, I think that if people from other countries want to be American citizens, they should have to serve in the Army for 20 years and only then do their children become citizens. Being a citizen based on being born in the USA is utter bullshit.
1000 dead is less than it took to win nearly any field in any war in history. 1000 dead is 2 weeks worth at the height Vietnam. 1000 dead is less than half of D-Day or Pearl Harbour. As for 15,000 Iraqis, I don't care. I don't like Iraqis. In fact, I do not like Muslims. I believe the Crusades were justified. I believe the Inquisition was justified. I do not like the way the 30-years war ended. That's right -- I don't like Protestants either.
separation of church and state means merely that the government cannot force you to attend the Church of Virginia. This is a restriction that applies only to the Federal Government.
Article 16 of the Virginia constitution, written by Thomas Jefferson, and, used as the basis for Madison's 1st amendment to the Constitution he also wrote, states that people are free to worship God as they see fit, but also acknowledges that people have basic "christian duties" to one another.
the 14th amendment does not extend the 1st amendment to the states. Therefor, we can have the Church of the Commonwealth of Virginia and make everyone go to it all we want to.
it does not matter if you do not like it. This is the way it is. This is what the language in the doccuments actually says. Try not to believe the hype perpetuated by the atheist communist media, because they are liars in general, and about this in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
this is pretty cool. however, i am sure most people here will immediatly claime "the usa cyber-psychological warfare caused the ability for insurgents!!" that may be....but... whatever. oh yeah... 2nd post, b-otch.
Windows?
homosexuality is not moral, good, right, or equal. it is a deviation. The argument "but we're just born this way," can be equally applied to paedophiles. Does this mean we should "tollerate" and "accept" child molesters? no. the comparison to the civil rights struggle degrades the civil rights struggle. someone cannot just stop being black (except michael jackson), however one can choose not to do gayness. Like the yahhoos in 'Gullivers Travels,' gays reject reason and social responsibility in order to give in to base animal passion which has no chance of reproduction, which not only was God's "first commandment" (go forth and multiply), it is also the reason for sex. it feels good so that people bother doing it. It's sloppy and messy, and these days expensive (dating and marriage and shit). Gays cannot produce children. Therefor, there is no reason for them to be married because they do not need to make a legitimate child as they cannot make an illigitimate one no matter how hard they try. They may not /want/ to help it, but they can. I don't care if they don't like it. There is no right to be a deviant. Most deviations are illegal. Rapists are devients. Molesters are devients. Murderers are too. Gayness can and should be illegal. It should be kept far out of the public eye. I should not be shown on TV. it should not be accepted. It is harmful, whether it is 'sinful' or not. Children especially should not be told that it is acceptable. It will merely contribute to the spread of aids and the decline in birthrate. not to mention, it is generally vile and repulsive. Continuing to allow shows like 'will and grace' will serve to make our society week and we will crumble. It was not accepted in Rome durring the Republic and most of the Empire. Greek wrestlers were made to wear clothes, even! Rome became more and more Greek and became week and fell. Homosexuality is the hallmark of the Greeks. It is a subversive, unpatriotic practice, unclean, and wicked.
One must serve at least 2 years in order to become a citizen. Anyone who wishes to serve can, and cannot be turned away (unless they're in like, a wheel chair or something, in which case give them a desk job and screw basic training). Anyone can quit for any reason. You cannot vote while you serve, only after your service. If you do not serve (and you do not have to), you do not become a citizen. Only those who are willing to stand up to defend rights get to exercise the authority of the ballot. Whinging hippies who are not willing to defend their country should not have say in how it's run. I should say that in order to hold office, you apparantly must be a service officer of high rank, such as a colonel or field marshal.
I have another year of university left and then i'm joining the Air Force to put my money where my mouth is. I really, honestly, do not believe that anybody who can serve but does not is a traitor and a coward and not fit to be an American, nor to live. Yes, this includes Bush and Cheny. My prefered candidate would have been Stormin' Normin' Schwartzkoff (I'll never vote for a Democrat even if he won the bloody Medle of Honour until the Democratic party embraces Authoratarian Corporatism). Hence, I abstained from voting in the last election. It's not like it was a surprise Bush was going to win my State anyway.
if you have no property, you pay no property tax. You therefor pay for less and should have less say. I would couple this with the elimination of the income tax. Therefor, non-property owners would have no vote as they pay no taxes. Only land is taxable. The weight of the vote is in perportion to the amount of property held. Therefor, my great grandfather who had a 300 acre plantation (born 1859) would have a vote worth more than my grandfather's who had 80 acres, which would be worth more than mine. If you're not going to be paying, then shut up about it. I hate the city, and most of the inhabitants therein. Most people in the city would not own taxable property. I like this. The test should be a citizenship test. There is no reason why being born here means you should automagically get rights when most natives know less than people who had to study the citizenship test. People should also have to know latin and greek. these languages should be the official languages of government business, and all debate should be conducted in one or the other. This ensures only people with Classical educations, and thus people who know anything worth knowing, can hold office. This more or less extends office only to the landed aristocracy who can afford to just sit around and read Cicero, Horace, and Ovid instead of whatever the hell else you people do. 'citizenship' should be extended to all, but not necessarily the vote. I'd probably have a military requirment for the vote as well.
yeah... some are extermist communist nutbars.
You can't get in if you are under 18 without an adult. You also can't get in if you're over 18 without a kid. I guess this is to keep out creepy weirdo molesters. Doesn't anybody think that it might be a similarly good idea to keep weird adults out of kid movies? When does it stop being OK to watch cartoons?
i didn't say I don't like Jesus. I said he's a fucking hippie. And he is. I admire him. He's a far better man than I. But i'm willing to kill to get where I need to go. Michael Collins was a lot more effective than Ghandi.
Franco was a Catholic. However, it was very clearly Franco in charge of Spain, not the Pope. While Franco's Catholic beliefes may or may not have influened the policy of his government, that is irrelevent. The Church was not running Spain. Franco and the falangists were running Spain. Having government policy founded in a religion is not the same thing as having the Church run the State. Clearly, you do not know what a theocracy is. Plus, fuck what Jesus said. he was a god damned hippie. I'm Catholic, but whatever. Jesus also hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and terrorists. No gays tho'. And the Old Testiment said gays were bad. It boils down to this, IMHO: Sex is for reproduction. Marraige is to make legitimate children. Gays can not have children, thus have no issue of legimimacy. Therefor, gay marraige is pointless. Also, gay sex, as it can produce no chidlren, and thus is not a benefit to society in any way, is merely throwing off reason and become a desent into base animal passion, and is selfish and inhuman. This is what makes it a "sin" -- also the ass is for out only, please thankyou. Further, here is the definition of theocarcy. You don't seem to be useing it correctly:
\The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.] 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.
no...there is always fire.
life is all about getting ripped off by women. of course, the average slashdotter wouldn't have any experience with them...
I'm not sure it's generational. However, I do have the utmost respect for Francisco Franco and Juan Peron. I fully agree with Mussolini in principle, however he personally was ineffective. We can totally be the new Rome. We have the manpower. We have the technology to augment the manpower so that we do not need the sheer numbers of say, China. I truely believe that no one can beat us.
Now, before you say 'look at Iraq!' -- that is a fallacy. We aren't actually fighting in Iraq. We could have leveled Najaf or Faluja in a matter of minutes without even using nuclear weapons. It looks like a bunch of rag-tag "insurgents" are beating us because we are fighting with the gloves on. Two pares, even. Being "cultrually sensitive" to your enemy is stupid. Everything must be done to break the backbone of the enemy. Their will to fight must be eliminated. Their ability to wage war must be eliminated. The first two Punic Wars were merely army-to-army. This left a festering enemy that kept coming back for more. Wounded animals are dangerous. Dead animals are not. Carthage was burned. The survivors were forced to mine the salt which was used to make sure crops could never grow again. They were then sold into slavery. The men were killed, the women raped in order to bread them out. There was no fourth Punic war.
Total war makes sure there is no 'wounded animal.' Total war ensures absolute victory. As Sherman said, 'war is hell and the more hellish it is the less they'll want of it.'
First, I advocate unification of the Western hemisphere -- a total American empire. Those who serve 20 years in the military are granted citizenship and can then vote. This worked for Rome for over 1,000 years from foundation, through Republican empire, the Principate (from Augustus on), and the Dominate (Diocletian on). There is enough petrolium in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Venesuala, et cetera, that to have total control over it would almost eliminate our need for mid-eastern oil. Shared traditions of Christianity and other European customs and traditions are more than enough to work with in building a cohesive cultural entitity. More than 25% of the United States is Catholic, from the massive immigrations of Irish and Italians in the 1800s and of Hispanics now. One can pretty much catigorically label Central and South America Catholic. That's a good base for common heritage right here.
We may never fight against Europe, or we may. However, Christmas-eve cease-fires to sing Christmas Carols like we had in World War I and II were the products of fighting an enemy with a similar herritage. We do not have that with the Islamic Terrorists or the Atheist Communists. Therefor, not bombing the mosque is stupid because they cannot be trusted to not bomb churches. Respect and boundaries must be mutual. The enemies we are fighting now, and will fight, are not like us. We cannot expect them to act like us. We must therefor pull no punches.
We could totally have run over that Mosque and won within an hour. However, we did not. That shows weakness and cowardace. We must not forget that:
1) civilians form the industrial base. That makes civilians part of
country's war effort, and therefor combatants.
2) this enemy does not respect our cultures and traditions. They do not hate out freedom. They hate that we do not believe what they believe and will stop at nothing until we do. Therefor, we should not respect their beliefes.
3) Even if the enemy is "right," they are wrong because they are the enemy. We must always believe we are right, otherwise we give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is called treason. People are hung for treason.
4) ideology should not be a basis for war, only a propaganda tool to sway the masses. Showing how they are different illustrates the futility of peace. War, however, should be for material gain -- teasure, land, and resources. Ideology should only be used to say why the enemy shouldn't have it, but not the reason for going to war which
for all intents and purposes, we have a de-facto cold war with China, North Korea, et cetera. I would expect it to go hot withing 10-15 years. That is why when I graduate from university (I'm a Junior right now), I am going into the Air Force (degree -> OTS -> big, fat officer's pay and snappy uniform chicks like (jane austin said so(English major))). We have other enemies other than terrorists. Terrorists are just a diversion for right now. There is no reason to expect that we will not engage in a massive clash of armies like those envisoned in the 50s, only this time it will be China, not the Soviet Union. This system will help us fight China. Sure, UBL doesn't have satilites. The Chinese could. Now, we can thwart their satilites. or anyone's satlites. Some day when there is a federal Europe, they could quite easily become militarily hostile. We will then whip their ass like we did in WW1 and WW2. This will help us keep the technological edge that we had then.
The world is going to end up like 'Star Ship Troopers' some day. Just assume it's cool, go along with it, and you'll make out fine.
this is slashdot. and that's a sport.
how any of these are "iPod Killers"... first of all, none of them have killed the iPod. Secondly, some do more, such as playing video, and probably put themselves into a different catigory. Thirdly, a gold played mp3 player is dumb.
Also, they don't have iTunes or iTMS. Nothing is going to kill the iPod without the whole package.
and f.p. b-otch.
my dad accidently punched Richard Nixon in the face one time. People were reaching in for handshakes. My dad kind of missed and nocked him in the nose. Of course, those were simpler times when a kid punching the president was laughed off.
they also named one after Eunuchs. What is your point?
soldiers did not have to be roman citizens. they could become roman citizens after 20 years, with a plot of land and a good chuck of booty. their children then became citizens. Yes, Senators had to be Citizens, but DUH. As for "strict ethnic requirments," you'll notice that there really aren't many, if any, mentions of skin colour or anything like that. While yes, groups like Gauls, Britons, Germanii, were mentioned, that is because they were dealing with the groups. The groups were distinct. However, individually, they really didn't care. It's not like they only used black slaves or anything. Just anyone they could nail in battle. Anyone could be a citizen if they were qualified, which means, being born a citizen (being born to a citizen or a freedman) or doing service and earning it. Personally, I think that if people from other countries want to be American citizens, they should have to serve in the Army for 20 years and only then do their children become citizens. Being a citizen based on being born in the USA is utter bullshit.
then they can get out of Northern Ireland and take the their scotties with them.
1000 dead is less than it took to win nearly any field in any war in history. 1000 dead is 2 weeks worth at the height Vietnam. 1000 dead is less than half of D-Day or Pearl Harbour. As for 15,000 Iraqis, I don't care. I don't like Iraqis. In fact, I do not like Muslims. I believe the Crusades were justified. I believe the Inquisition was justified. I do not like the way the 30-years war ended. That's right -- I don't like Protestants either.
what do you expect from a guy who's name is "son of my ass" as in pogue mahon ('kiss my ass')? Duh.
a lack of hubris is a good thing. It means he does not believe he is more important than God.
they shot and killed 14, not 13. Although, one is bad enough.
separation of church and state means merely that the government cannot force you to attend the Church of Virginia. This is a restriction that applies only to the Federal Government.
Article 16 of the Virginia constitution, written by Thomas Jefferson, and, used as the basis for Madison's 1st amendment to the Constitution he also wrote, states that people are free to worship God as they see fit, but also acknowledges that people have basic "christian duties" to one another.
the 14th amendment does not extend the 1st amendment to the states. Therefor, we can have the Church of the Commonwealth of Virginia and make everyone go to it all we want to.
it does not matter if you do not like it. This is the way it is. This is what the language in the doccuments actually says. Try not to believe the hype perpetuated by the atheist communist media, because they are liars in general, and about this in particular.
if i see one at my polling precint, i'm kicking his ass. 'nuff said.