Do you have any evidence to suggest that viewing child porn (or, more specifically, cg child porn) increases crimes against children?
That reminds me of Ken Thompson's argument that video game violence increases real-world violence. Screw it, I did the search anyway. You know, you can find this stuff in about 5 minutes using Google.
From HERE:
The present study examined exposure to and use of pornography in the familial, developmental and criminal histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters incarcerated at the Massachusetts Treatment Center. While both groups reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during development, child molesters indicated significantly more exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more likely both to use such materials prior to and during their offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act out. The findings are discussed with regards to the "catharsis hypothesis" and the role of pornography in the commission of sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child molesters. Again, you will find articles on both sides. For example, I saw one compelling article that pointed out that in the past 10 years, with the spread of the Internet, porn is readily available with little or no increase in the numbers of violent sexual acts. However, there is more evidence that supports that porn and violence does lead to some people to violent sexual assaults that may have been able to control themselves otherwise.
Sure do. On video games: From here:
WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers. Of course, these are psychologists, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure that/dotters know more about the human psyche than these guys.
I'm afraid you'll have to do your own googling for pornography and rape or whatever as I'm at work and don't want "Porno" showing up on my google search list on the our proxy servers.
Of course, you will find many articles showing both sides, so take with a grain of salt.
Disclaimer: I like porn and violent video games as much as the next guy, but there is research that shows that it does have negative consequences to the weak minded.
WTF jackass. Were you in a coma when Bush became president and canceled every reasonable alternative energy program in existence, and then blew smoke about Hydrogen, a technology that wouldn't be commercially viable for at least another 20 years and until gasoline hit $10 a gallon?
What reasonable alternative energy program did Bush cancel? None. Why? Because currently, there is no REASONABLE alternative energy available. We have ethanol, which didn't get canceled, although it probably would have been better if were.
Bush stopped alternative energy research.
Again, source? What got canceled? If you were interested in facts, you'd know that what you say simply isn't true. Here is something from MSNBC, which is no fan of the president, btw:
Energy conservation groups and environmentalists say they're pleased that the president, a former oil man in Texas, is stressing alternative sources of energy...
$10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution.
Does $10 BILLION dollars equal stopping alternative energy research?
And in the area of nuclear power, Bush did absolutely nothing to lead the US into clean electricity generation of any kind. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly.
Yucca mountain ring a bell? Every one of Bush's attempts to generate energy of any kind has been blocked by Democrats in congress. Here is a little quote from Democrats.com:
President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.
Here is how former gov of NY Elliot Spencer (D)sees it:
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has come out against the re-licensing of the two reactors at Indian Point, a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Manhattan.
Tell me again. WHO is stopping us from producing nuclear power? (Also, Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear engineer!)
Please elaborate on what brilliant Bush Energy Policies were stopped by the Democratic congress.
Bush, whose energy plan has been stalled in Congress for four years, is facing increased pressure from Democrats...
So, for four years...FOUR YEARS, the US had no energy policy.
And before you congratulate yourself further for "understanding supply and demand," how about reading up on what a cartel is and what it does to competition? Ever hear of OPEC? The US could strip mine Alaska and OPEC could make the whole operation a bust simply by turning its valve.
So you suggest that we do nothing? Viable alternative energy is at least 20 years away. You're OK with us being beholden to said "cartel" until then?
You were identified as a troll above, I should have taken note.
Yeah, slashdot mods think that anyone with a different view than their own is a troll. They downmod you when they can't come up with a valid response. I was also modded insightful four times to two trolls. One of the trol
Yes, the only answer to the completely incompetent energy policy that resulted in $4.50 gas in 2008 was tearing up Alaska wilderness to look for oil. Abandonment of any Investigation of reasonable alternative energy sources and spending trillions on invading a sovereign nation to create a perpetual mess in the Middle East is immaterial, and high gas prices are all the fault of environmentalists, despite the 76 cent gas under Clinton. You jackass.
First, who said anything about abandoning alternative energy research? You must have made that up since I know of no one in the world that has even suggested such a thing. It's called a straw man argument. It's where you make up some stupid bullshit argument, try to attach it to your opponent, and then shoot down your made up bullshit argument. Sorry, ass-hat, but you are the only one here suggesting abandoning alternative energy. For the record, I think we should drastically expand domestic production, tax it and use the money for alternative research (companies want to drill, environmentalists want money for research. I see a compromise in the making)... but I guess I can't really feel that way since you say that me and my kind are against all forms of alternative energy. OIL OR NOTHING! (Is that how we are supposed to say it?)
Wait, isn't nuclear considered alternative energy. It's no a fossil fuel. It releases no carbon. No porcupine caribou are harmed with it. Who was it that opposed nuclear again. It wasn't Bush or anyone else with an R behind their name. Help me out here... who is it that is preventing nuclear energy from taking off?
I'm sorry, but if you think that we are paying $4.00 a gallon for gas because of Bush's energy policies... which never really got passed the democrats in congress, btw, then you are fuckin retard. May I suggest you look up "supply and demand". Go ask any economist what happens to price when you suspend production of a product for 30 years while demand continues to increase. Hell, if you don't know the answer to that by now, then you're either a fuckin retard, or you have a third grade education. Oh, wait! We already realized you were a fuckin retard because you think that decreasing production will have no affect on price.
(No offense to the truly retarded. I understand that being compared with this fuckin idiot can be quite insulting)
If you can't grasp the LAW of supply and demand, then I have nothing else to say to you until you pass middle school economics.
Well, there is one more thing I need to answer:
Your hypocrisy is so evident when you say the Bush complex "might not be fascist, but if it is, who cares, kennedys owned stocks that caused the depression." WTF, do you even believe the BS you breathe?
If you could read, you would have known that said who gives a shit what Bush's GRANDFATHER did 80 years ago. Why not look at the record of someone who is... I don't know... alive and still in government? You know, like a former KKK member, Robert Byrd. I guess I put too much confidence in your reading comprehension skills. Hell, you don't understand fifth grade economics, why would I expect that you can read beyond a third grade level?
You are a delusional idiot completely incapable of thinking for yourself. That's why I can't handle neocons. I can understand and even identify with a broad range of conservative thought, but blind propagandistic neocons with their Rapture and opposition to civil rights and support of torture and excuses for fascism and support of high crimes - you sir are simply a traitor.
And if you haven't quite lost all credibility by now, you sealed the deal with this one. I'm supposedly a neocon? Why, because I think that we should increase domestic oil production to bring prices down until some alternative solution can replace oil? Because I understand the laws of supply and demand that I automatically oppose civil r
"Those tax cuts sure helped me out." Right, and how is $4 gas and an extremely devalued dollar impacting that?
We are spending $4.00 for gas because of Democrats and environmentalists won't let the US drill for oil. Bush and Republicans have been pushing for more domestic drilling and exploration, which would have driven the price of oil down. So don't blame them!
Are you aware that your debt is now astronomical due to the Iraq war, or have you not gotten that far in your finances yet? That's economics you tit.
First, our debt is greater than the amount we have spent on Iraq, which means that our debt can not be attributed solely to Iraq. That's elementary school mathematics. Next, our government has pulled in more money since the tax cuts over the past eight years. That's the Laffer Curve, which is economics.
The ultra rich and welfare corporations are not "opening savings accounts" and investing in America, they're taking their money overseas, hiring foreigners, and selling off assets to China for a quick profit.
I keep hearing that, but no one can provide an example. From personal experience, I can tell you that exact opposite is happening. I work for a publicly traded European company that has operations in the US. They found that they do better in the US, which is why I have a job here.
And "the US has not conquered a single country since the 1800s?" You must not be aware that the US has waged attacks on a variety of countries that it did not make into new states. Hawaii was taken over in the middle of the 1900s, the Philippines were grabbed and lost, Laos was bombed without ever being annexed, and then you have Reagan's legacy of illegal attacks on sovereign countries, followed by Bush's.
Hawaii was a territory that voted to become a state, much like Puerto Rico could do if they so choose. The Philippines were never a state. They have been a sovereign nation since we liberated them from the Japanese. You mention Reagan's legacy of attacks, but conveniently left out Clinton's attack on Bosnia. Tell me, what did Milosovich do that made attacking Bosnia OK, that Saddam Hussein did not?
Bush hasn't turned Iraq into a US state, but it sure is getting more investment than any actual states.
Whats the worst thing you can do to Islamic terrorists? Provide a thriving democracy in the middle of the Mid East. Regardless of what you see on the news, it is working out quite well so far.
Speaking of whom, perhaps you're aware that Bush's grandfather along with other industrialists supported a Nazi-sympathetic fascism in the US prior to WW II. Linking the Bush family fortunes to two eras of military industrial fascism is not a stretch, it's simple reality.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany... While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.
So, it's not like the Bushes were Nazi's. And even if it were somehow true, so what? George Washington owned slaves. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was an "inside trader" that dealt with worthless stocks that led to the stock market crash in the late 20's. He also opposed helping out Great Britain during WWII stating "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here, [in the US]." I don't hear anyone bashing Ted over that. You know, Ted Kennedy? The only man in Massachusetts that takes eight hours to open the car door for a lady. I guess you are more concerned with B
"BTW, I would pay less for gas if we were allowed to produce it locally"
I bet you thought you would pay less for gas after we "accomplished the mission" in Iraq too. How did that work out? I would have thought that if we were going to Iraq to "steal" their oil. I knew that wasn't the case and it looks like I was right and all those "blood for oil" people were wrong. You won't hear any of them ever mention that they were wrong about that though.
Those tax cuts combined with deficit spending means you just enjoyed the theft of resources from future generations as well as the future you. That's how economies really work, there's no free lunch, just deferred debt.
Most Americans however can't see past the upcoming quarter evidently. While I also abhor deficit spending, tax cuts have had nothing to do with. I say this because since the tax cuts in 2001, government receipts have gone through the roof, breaking many records for the amount of money that the government has received. Unfortunately, congress has increased spending at a rate greater than what the gov't has brought in. At first, that could be explained away by the surplus late in last decade (it's hard to say no to spending when there is a surplus!). Now, we can agree that there is no excuse.
Surely you jest. Have you not been paying attention? Those billions of bailouts for home loan vendors on a federal level? Direct subsidies of big box retailers on a local level? Those billions in bailouts were to help the poor who got in over their heads. What you would call a Republican ideal would be to let those poor bastards have their homes foreclosed and sold to the next poor sap.
Are you really so stupid as to think that those recent tax breaks significantly benefit anyone beyond the ultra rich in the short term? Your dollars are quickly becoming worthless and their future value is being buried in the Iraq sand in the name of neocon Crusades. Those tax cuts sure helped me out. I'm not ultra rich. My case alone disproves your point. Sure, some "ultra rich" benefited, and they took that extra money and put it into savings accounts (which were given out as loans) or directly invested by funding new companies, who in turn, hired more people. Did you not take economics in school?
Seriously, if you think you're benefitting from the move toward fascism and the expensive campaign to wage a perpetual propaganda war on Jews (ahem) Islam, then maybe you should have paid more attention to the flaws discovered in that political strategy back in the 30s. WOW! It didn't take long for you to invoke Godwin. Guess you are out of ideas. Since you obviously don't know shit about history, let me set you straight. Jews did not kill 3000+ Germans in a terrorist attack in the 1930's. To update you on modern times, the US has not killed 6,000,000+ Muslims in gas chambers. Nor has the US invaded Canada or Mexico. For that matter, the US has not conquered a single country since the 1800's. Otherwise, Japan would have been the 50th state with Hawaii being the 51st. Grenada would have been 52, Panama 53, Kuwait 54, Bosnia 55 and Iraq 56. I only see 50 stars on the American flag. So please stop trying to equate the US to Nazi Germany. I've given you several examples of how that line of reasoning (and I use the term loosely) is seriously flawed.
... but is it open source? Yes! Screenshot: http://google-gadgets-for-linux.googlecode.com/svn/images/ggl-standalone.jpg There are many reasons for me to hate Google. Their commitment to Linux and Open Source makes me look past all of them! Isn't that like a woman saying, "I know he beats me, but he bought me a nice car so I'll stay" ?
It really ought to take a little more to impress you. Actually, it's more like, "He is the political opposite of me, he pees on the toilet seat and treats our neighbors like shit, but he treats me well and buys me a nice car, so I'll stay."
And unless you can give me an example of the government taking your money and giving it directly to a CEO of a megacorp
Every penny they fiddle and fraud their way out of is stolen from the taxpayer - that's you, as well as me - just as surely as though they had dipped your wallet like any other pickpocket. I agree. However, the point is that the GP (you) didn't want his money going to the CEO of some mega corp. Right now, the government is taking... er "stealing" to use your words, less than they were eight years ago. Also the government is still taking more, both in raw numbers and a percentage, money from that CEO than they are of yours. You should be happy with the current tax scheme, or at least happier than you were in 1999.
And unless you can give me an example of the government taking your money and giving it directly to a CEO of a megacorp, you are lying.
Wow, that was easy. Easy, but not a good example. Halliburton, or more to the point, Kellogg, Brown & Root, is the only company in the US that can handle what needs to be done in Iraq. Ever wonder why no other company has sued the government over the Iraqi contracts? Because no one else can do the job. Sorry, try again.
Also, hiring a company to do a job is not the same as giving money "to the CEO of some megacorporation." If that homeless drunk could do the job that Halliburton is doing, then we'd have one homeless drunk in Iraq handling everything.
Taxes are not the only way Government causes money to move from one entity to another. Sure, I pay for gas. The tax money that goes with that is used to build and maintain the roads that I drive on. I've seen the people that are working on those roads. They don't look wealthy to me.
BTW, I would pay less for gas if we were allowed to produce it locally. Tell me, which party is outsourcing our gas and oil production?
Ummm...so you're essentially throwing EVERYTHING that makes you a republican out the window to vote for the most leftist presidential candidate from a major party EVER?
Isn't it amazing how the Republicans manage to label every single candidate that we run as the "most leftist" or "most liberal"? They did it to Al Gore and John Kerry and now they are trying to do it to Senator Obama. Hell, I suspect they'd be doing it if we had nominated Joe Libermann or Zell Miller.
It's almost enough to give you the idea that they know they can't win on the issues so they have to run a campaign of FUD.
Actually, those labels are based on their voting record, not any personal preference. However, you may be on to something. Could it be possible that a candidate, in preparation for presidential bid, would start voting the party line to secure a nomination?
Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.
So does Rightism. I'd rather my money went to the homeless alcoholic living under a railway bridge than the CEO of some megacorporation who has just wangled himself a massive tax break. You mean that you didn't get a tax break? Why not take that money and give it the poor drunk under the bridge and let me do what I want with mine? And unless you can give me an example of the government taking your money and giving it directly to a CEO of a megacorp, you are lying.
Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.
Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy. "Not taking" is not the same as "giving'. I'm not wealthy by any stretch and I got a tax cut. Fortunately, the owners of the company I work for, some of which are wealthy, got a tax cut, which enabled them to hire me! Our customers got a tax cut, which made them be able to afford to hire my company. Our customer's customers got a tax cut which made them be able to give more money to our customers, who in turn, hired us...
And modern conservatism is good because it takes from those who don't have much and gives to those who are already rich... Source, please. I'm a "have not" and the government is taking less from me than it did 8 years ago.
you must live in an alternate reality where the republican party stands for saner government and a balanced budget.
what's the price of gas over there? And you must live in an alternate reality where Democrats understand that the laws of supply and demand regulate gas prices and allow for increased production in addition to increased efficiency to bring the cost of oil down.
In the real world that I live in, I've heard Republicans screaming for increased domestic production and Democrats screaming, "NO!"
Perry has signed bills on evangelical church property, ratifying laws that evangelical conservative religious groups have been desperately campaigning for. Which is no surprise. Perry has openly supported and courted these religious political groups.
The issue here is not that the press has intruded on the Governor's private life and hounded him for being a good Christian. The issue is that Perry has intentionally mixed politics and religion. He has placed conservative Christian values on the political pulpit. He has made religion a political issue. Any political issue is open to scrutiny. Perry tried to force through a law that would require all little girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that could eventually lead to cervical cancer. Not exactly an evangelical, "abstinence only" ideal.
If you believe such scrutiny is religious persecution, you should take a moment to consider the source of the issue. It is not the press. It is individuals such as Governor Perry, Rev. Lawrence White, and Rick Scarborough and the political entities they lead and support. I looked at TFA. It wasn't written by Governor Perry, Rev White or Rick Scarborough.
Speaking of Scarborough, what did he have to say about Rick Perry's attempt to mandate those vaccinations I mentioned earlier:
"Nor we can not [sic] overlook the moral dimension. The governor's action seems to signify that God's moral law regarding sex outside of marriage can be transgressed without consequence."
That's exactly the point: You pick and choose the parts you like and discard everything else, while at the same time claiming that the whole work is the word of your god. Jesus said, "You who are without sin, cast the first stone." (at which point, Jesus picked up a rock and drilled that woman in the head... Joke! That last part is a joke!) That kinda makes the whole "stoning witches and adulterers to death" obsolete and forbidden in Christianity.
You must have been thinking of Islam, where stoning is still an approved method of justice. Please educate yourself on which religions believe what. Otherwise, you are just being ignorant as you are spouting off about things you know very little about. I'm being serious. This Sunday morning, I want you to go to a church and meet the people there. Attend a Sunday School class and ask about the whole stoning of witches thing.
The problem is supply and demand. The oil companies want to produce more supply, but environmentalists won't let them. They are trying to control your behavior via prices. To them, caribou in Alaska are more important that people in Ohio.
They are. The caribou in Alaska have no choices. The people in Ohio do. It's just too "difficult", or "inconvenient" to exercise them, or explore alternatives and other solutions.
But go ahead, continue blaming the environmentalists. The Alaskan oil reserves have a maximum of two years supply for US gas at its current use rate. "Fuck the animals, that's two years more gas for my Expedition/Explorer/Escalade".
Well, the caribou are doing exceptionally well. For that matter, they are doing ever BETTER since the drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the corresponding pipeline. In other words, drilling in Alaska has HELPED the caribou. So, if it's not the caribou, then what is it? Why did those environmentalists lie to us all those years when they said it would kill off the non-endangered caribou? Seriously, if they lied then, why should we trust them now?
As for the people in Ohio and the other 49 states, this isn't about them changing their behavior, unless you want them to do things like stop eating, driving to work and heating their homes. You see, food has to be transported from the farms around the country (and world) to the local grocery store. That takes fuel. When fuel goes up, so does the cost of transporting food, and the food itself.
So, NO. The people in Ohio don't have choices when it comes to eating. Hell, the non-farmers can't even farm their own food since the ground is frozen up there for several months out of the year. Of course, I'm not even going to get started on heating their homes, driving to work, mowing their lawns or, God Forbid, go boating or ride an ATV!
And the sad part is that people like you keep blaming those that drive an Expedition/Explorer/Escalade as if they are the only ones that use fuel. Sorry, but as I've shown, that's not the case. But go ahead and say, "Fuck the people who can't afford to eat. Let's those poor bastards starve to death. Maybe those hippies should get another job or stop having so many kids!" Oh, and unless you are using a uber efficient Via processor to post that post, you really need to STFU! How much energy does your PC use? How can you sit there and criticize people who drive an Expedition/Explorer/Escalade, and you are not using the most efficient processor possible? How can you bitch about people joy riding when you are using valuable energy to post on slashdot? Fuckin hypocrite!
Why is it that most Christians do their best to jump to conclusions so that they can cry "bigot bigot!"? Uh, because people are pissed that the governor of Texas is speaking at E3. Not because he's governor, or Republican, or any thing else, but because he's a Christian. He's not there to give a sermon. He's there to be keynote speaker. The only reason these people mention for getting all bent out of shape is that Rich Perry is a Christian.
I think that is one of the finest example of bigotry I've seen in my life time!
A key question here is why don't you know about the religious beliefs of these people? And why do you know about the religious beliefs of the Governor? Uh, because he's governor and the press follows him around everywhere he goes. The whole point of church is the ol' Meet-&-Greet. Otherwise, we would all just sing hymns in our bedrooms. It's hard to do he "Meet-&-Greet" if you are hiding.
Religion is a personal issue. Once you start to make anything private a part of your public life, you invite scrutiny. Sorry, but like it or not, once you enter politics your religion, like the rest of your private life, falls under public scrutiny.
The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itself (and not very good for getting elected).
Oddly enough, given how much whining there is from the Christian contingent on this one, it turns out that indeed, you are allowed to have a nativity scene in your privately owned store. If your customers don't like it, they're free to go elsewhere. Even the ACLU agrees with this, and has defended it in court.
What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.
Amazing the not so subtle distinction the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims. You say that, and I would agree if the story was not about a bunch of people pissed off because the keynote speaker is Christian. Is that not a prime example of "Christians being persecuted"? Do you think that this is the best story to state the Christian persecution doesn't happen?
Do you think it would be different if they were all pissed because a Jew was speaking?
The question's more why did they invite a Texas Senator to speak at a video game event anyway. Um... Rick Perry is the governor of Texas. He took over after George W. Bush moved to Washington for a job promotion.
The Senators from Texas are Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. Both senators and governor are Republicans.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of Ken Thompson's argument that video game violence increases real-world violence. Screw it, I did the search anyway. You know, you can find this stuff in about 5 minutes using Google.
From HERE: The present study examined exposure to and use of pornography in the familial, developmental and criminal histories of 38 rapists and 26 child molesters incarcerated at the Massachusetts Treatment Center. While both groups reported similar exposure to pornography in the home and during development, child molesters indicated significantly more exposure than rapists in adulthood and were significantly more likely both to use such materials prior to and during their offenses and to employ pornography to relieve an impulse to act out. The findings are discussed with regards to the "catharsis hypothesis" and the role of pornography in the commission of sexual offenses for certain types of rapists and child molesters. Again, you will find articles on both sides. For example, I saw one compelling article that pointed out that in the past 10 years, with the spread of the Internet, porn is readily available with little or no increase in the numbers of violent sexual acts. However, there is more evidence that supports that porn and violence does lead to some people to violent sexual assaults that may have been able to control themselves otherwise.
On video games:
From here: WASHINGTON - Playing violent video games like Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Kombat can increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life, according to two studies appearing in the April issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Furthermore, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor, say the researchers. Of course, these are psychologists, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure that
I'm afraid you'll have to do your own googling for pornography and rape or whatever as I'm at work and don't want "Porno" showing up on my google search list on the our proxy servers.
Of course, you will find many articles showing both sides, so take with a grain of salt.
Disclaimer: I like porn and violent video games as much as the next guy, but there is research that shows that it does have negative consequences to the weak minded.
WTF jackass. Were you in a coma when Bush became president and canceled every reasonable alternative energy program in existence, and then blew smoke about Hydrogen, a technology that wouldn't be commercially viable for at least another 20 years and until gasoline hit $10 a gallon?
What reasonable alternative energy program did Bush cancel? None. Why? Because currently, there is no REASONABLE alternative energy available. We have ethanol, which didn't get canceled, although it probably would have been better if were.
Bush stopped alternative energy research.
Again, source? What got canceled? If you were interested in facts, you'd know that what you say simply isn't true. Here is something from MSNBC, which is no fan of the president, btw:
Energy conservation groups and environmentalists say they're pleased that the president, a former oil man in Texas, is stressing alternative sources of energy...
Also, from HERE:
$10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution.
Does $10 BILLION dollars equal stopping alternative energy research?
And in the area of nuclear power, Bush did absolutely nothing to lead the US into clean electricity generation of any kind. He can't even pronounce the word nuclear correctly.
Yucca mountain ring a bell? Every one of Bush's attempts to generate energy of any kind has been blocked by Democrats in congress.
Here is a little quote from Democrats.com:
President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.
Here is how former gov of NY Elliot Spencer (D) sees it:
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has come out against the re-licensing of the two reactors at Indian Point, a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Manhattan.
Tell me again. WHO is stopping us from producing nuclear power? (Also, Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear engineer!)
Please elaborate on what brilliant Bush Energy Policies were stopped by the Democratic congress.
Uh, all of them. From HERE:
Bush, whose energy plan has been stalled in Congress for four years, is facing increased pressure from Democrats...
So, for four years...FOUR YEARS, the US had no energy policy.
And before you congratulate yourself further for "understanding supply and demand," how about reading up on what a cartel is and what it does to competition? Ever hear of OPEC? The US could strip mine Alaska and OPEC could make the whole operation a bust simply by turning its valve.
So you suggest that we do nothing? Viable alternative energy is at least 20 years away. You're OK with us being beholden to said "cartel" until then?
You were identified as a troll above, I should have taken note.
Yeah, slashdot mods think that anyone with a different view than their own is a troll. They downmod you when they can't come up with a valid response. I was also modded insightful four times to two trolls. One of the trol
Yes, the only answer to the completely incompetent energy policy that resulted in $4.50 gas in 2008 was tearing up Alaska wilderness to look for oil. Abandonment of any Investigation of reasonable alternative energy sources and spending trillions on invading a sovereign nation to create a perpetual mess in the Middle East is immaterial, and high gas prices are all the fault of environmentalists, despite the 76 cent gas under Clinton. You jackass.
First, who said anything about abandoning alternative energy research? You must have made that up since I know of no one in the world that has even suggested such a thing. It's called a straw man argument. It's where you make up some stupid bullshit argument, try to attach it to your opponent, and then shoot down your made up bullshit argument. Sorry, ass-hat, but you are the only one here suggesting abandoning alternative energy. For the record, I think we should drastically expand domestic production, tax it and use the money for alternative research (companies want to drill, environmentalists want money for research. I see a compromise in the making)... but I guess I can't really feel that way since you say that me and my kind are against all forms of alternative energy. OIL OR NOTHING! (Is that how we are supposed to say it?)
Wait, isn't nuclear considered alternative energy. It's no a fossil fuel. It releases no carbon. No porcupine caribou are harmed with it. Who was it that opposed nuclear again. It wasn't Bush or anyone else with an R behind their name. Help me out here... who is it that is preventing nuclear energy from taking off?
I'm sorry, but if you think that we are paying $4.00 a gallon for gas because of Bush's energy policies... which never really got passed the democrats in congress, btw, then you are fuckin retard. May I suggest you look up "supply and demand". Go ask any economist what happens to price when you suspend production of a product for 30 years while demand continues to increase. Hell, if you don't know the answer to that by now, then you're either a fuckin retard, or you have a third grade education. Oh, wait! We already realized you were a fuckin retard because you think that decreasing production will have no affect on price.
(No offense to the truly retarded. I understand that being compared with this fuckin idiot can be quite insulting)
If you can't grasp the LAW of supply and demand, then I have nothing else to say to you until you pass middle school economics.
Well, there is one more thing I need to answer:
Your hypocrisy is so evident when you say the Bush complex "might not be fascist, but if it is, who cares, kennedys owned stocks that caused the depression." WTF, do you even believe the BS you breathe?
If you could read, you would have known that said who gives a shit what Bush's GRANDFATHER did 80 years ago. Why not look at the record of someone who is... I don't know... alive and still in government? You know, like a former KKK member, Robert Byrd. I guess I put too much confidence in your reading comprehension skills. Hell, you don't understand fifth grade economics, why would I expect that you can read beyond a third grade level?
You are a delusional idiot completely incapable of thinking for yourself. That's why I can't handle neocons. I can understand and even identify with a broad range of conservative thought, but blind propagandistic neocons with their Rapture and opposition to civil rights and support of torture and excuses for fascism and support of high crimes - you sir are simply a traitor.
And if you haven't quite lost all credibility by now, you sealed the deal with this one. I'm supposedly a neocon? Why, because I think that we should increase domestic oil production to bring prices down until some alternative solution can replace oil? Because I understand the laws of supply and demand that I automatically oppose civil r
"Those tax cuts sure helped me out." Right, and how is $4 gas and an extremely devalued dollar impacting that?
We are spending $4.00 for gas because of Democrats and environmentalists won't let the US drill for oil. Bush and Republicans have been pushing for more domestic drilling and exploration, which would have driven the price of oil down. So don't blame them!
Are you aware that your debt is now astronomical due to the Iraq war, or have you not gotten that far in your finances yet? That's economics you tit.
First, our debt is greater than the amount we have spent on Iraq, which means that our debt can not be attributed solely to Iraq. That's elementary school mathematics. Next, our government has pulled in more money since the tax cuts over the past eight years. That's the Laffer Curve, which is economics.
The ultra rich and welfare corporations are not "opening savings accounts" and investing in America, they're taking their money overseas, hiring foreigners, and selling off assets to China for a quick profit.
I keep hearing that, but no one can provide an example. From personal experience, I can tell you that exact opposite is happening. I work for a publicly traded European company that has operations in the US. They found that they do better in the US, which is why I have a job here.
And "the US has not conquered a single country since the 1800s?" You must not be aware that the US has waged attacks on a variety of countries that it did not make into new states. Hawaii was taken over in the middle of the 1900s, the Philippines were grabbed and lost, Laos was bombed without ever being annexed, and then you have Reagan's legacy of illegal attacks on sovereign countries, followed by Bush's.
Hawaii was a territory that voted to become a state, much like Puerto Rico could do if they so choose. The Philippines were never a state. They have been a sovereign nation since we liberated them from the Japanese. You mention Reagan's legacy of attacks, but conveniently left out Clinton's attack on Bosnia. Tell me, what did Milosovich do that made attacking Bosnia OK, that Saddam Hussein did not?
Bush hasn't turned Iraq into a US state, but it sure is getting more investment than any actual states.
Whats the worst thing you can do to Islamic terrorists? Provide a thriving democracy in the middle of the Mid East. Regardless of what you see on the news, it is working out quite well so far.
Speaking of whom, perhaps you're aware that Bush's grandfather along with other industrialists supported a Nazi-sympathetic fascism in the US prior to WW II. Linking the Bush family fortunes to two eras of military industrial fascism is not a stretch, it's simple reality.
First, that's quite a stretch.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany...
While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.
So, it's not like the Bushes were Nazi's. And even if it were somehow true, so what? George Washington owned slaves. Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. was an "inside trader" that dealt with worthless stocks that led to the stock market crash in the late 20's. He also opposed helping out Great Britain during WWII stating "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here, [in the US]." I don't hear anyone bashing Ted over that. You know, Ted Kennedy? The only man in Massachusetts that takes eight hours to open the car door for a lady. I guess you are more concerned with B
I bet you thought you would pay less for gas after we "accomplished the mission" in Iraq too. How did that work out? I would have thought that if we were going to Iraq to "steal" their oil. I knew that wasn't the case and it looks like I was right and all those "blood for oil" people were wrong. You won't hear any of them ever mention that they were wrong about that though.
Most Americans however can't see past the upcoming quarter evidently. While I also abhor deficit spending, tax cuts have had nothing to do with. I say this because since the tax cuts in 2001, government receipts have gone through the roof, breaking many records for the amount of money that the government has received. Unfortunately, congress has increased spending at a rate greater than what the gov't has brought in. At first, that could be explained away by the surplus late in last decade (it's hard to say no to spending when there is a surplus!). Now, we can agree that there is no excuse.
... but is it open source? Yes! Screenshot: http://google-gadgets-for-linux.googlecode.com/svn/images/ggl-standalone.jpg There are many reasons for me to hate Google. Their commitment to Linux and Open Source makes me look past all of them! Isn't that like a woman saying, "I know he beats me, but he bought me a nice car so I'll stay" ?It really ought to take a little more to impress you. Actually, it's more like, "He is the political opposite of me, he pees on the toilet seat and treats our neighbors like shit, but he treats me well and buys me a nice car, so I'll stay."
Every penny they fiddle and fraud their way out of is stolen from the taxpayer - that's you, as well as me - just as surely as though they had dipped your wallet like any other pickpocket. I agree. However, the point is that the GP (you) didn't want his money going to the CEO of some mega corp. Right now, the government is taking... er "stealing" to use your words, less than they were eight years ago. Also the government is still taking more, both in raw numbers and a percentage, money from that CEO than they are of yours. You should be happy with the current tax scheme, or at least happier than you were in 1999.
Wow, that was easy. Easy, but not a good example. Halliburton, or more to the point, Kellogg, Brown & Root, is the only company in the US that can handle what needs to be done in Iraq. Ever wonder why no other company has sued the government over the Iraqi contracts? Because no one else can do the job. Sorry, try again.
Also, hiring a company to do a job is not the same as giving money "to the CEO of some megacorporation." If that homeless drunk could do the job that Halliburton is doing, then we'd have one homeless drunk in Iraq handling everything.
... but is it open source? Yes! Screenshot: http://google-gadgets-for-linux.googlecode.com/svn/images/ggl-standalone.jpg There are many reasons for me to hate Google. Their commitment to Linux and Open Source makes me look past all of them!Taxes are not the only way Government causes money to move from one entity to another. Sure, I pay for gas. The tax money that goes with that is used to build and maintain the roads that I drive on. I've seen the people that are working on those roads. They don't look wealthy to me.
BTW, I would pay less for gas if we were allowed to produce it locally. Tell me, which party is outsourcing our gas and oil production?
Isn't it amazing how the Republicans manage to label every single candidate that we run as the "most leftist" or "most liberal"? They did it to Al Gore and John Kerry and now they are trying to do it to Senator Obama. Hell, I suspect they'd be doing it if we had nominated Joe Libermann or Zell Miller.
It's almost enough to give you the idea that they know they can't win on the issues so they have to run a campaign of FUD.
Actually, those labels are based on their voting record, not any personal preference. However, you may be on to something. Could it be possible that a candidate, in preparation for presidential bid, would start voting the party line to secure a nomination?So does Rightism. I'd rather my money went to the homeless alcoholic living under a railway bridge than the CEO of some megacorporation who has just wangled himself a massive tax break. You mean that you didn't get a tax break? Why not take that money and give it the poor drunk under the bridge and let me do what I want with mine? And unless you can give me an example of the government taking your money and giving it directly to a CEO of a megacorp, you are lying.
Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy. "Not taking" is not the same as "giving'. I'm not wealthy by any stretch and I got a tax cut. Fortunately, the owners of the company I work for, some of which are wealthy, got a tax cut, which enabled them to hire me! Our customers got a tax cut, which made them be able to afford to hire my company. Our customer's customers got a tax cut which made them be able to give more money to our customers, who in turn, hired us...
See how economies work?
what's the price of gas over there? And you must live in an alternate reality where Democrats understand that the laws of supply and demand regulate gas prices and allow for increased production in addition to increased efficiency to bring the cost of oil down.
In the real world that I live in, I've heard Republicans screaming for increased domestic production and Democrats screaming, "NO!"
The issue here is not that the press has intruded on the Governor's private life and hounded him for being a good Christian. The issue is that Perry has intentionally mixed politics and religion. He has placed conservative Christian values on the political pulpit. He has made religion a political issue. Any political issue is open to scrutiny. Perry tried to force through a law that would require all little girls to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease that could eventually lead to cervical cancer. Not exactly an evangelical, "abstinence only" ideal. If you believe such scrutiny is religious persecution, you should take a moment to consider the source of the issue. It is not the press. It is individuals such as Governor Perry, Rev. Lawrence White, and Rick Scarborough and the political entities they lead and support. I looked at TFA. It wasn't written by Governor Perry, Rev White or Rick Scarborough.
Speaking of Scarborough, what did he have to say about Rick Perry's attempt to mandate those vaccinations I mentioned earlier: "Nor we can not [sic] overlook the moral dimension. The governor's action seems to signify that God's moral law regarding sex outside of marriage can be transgressed without consequence."
You must have been thinking of Islam, where stoning is still an approved method of justice. Please educate yourself on which religions believe what. Otherwise, you are just being ignorant as you are spouting off about things you know very little about. I'm being serious. This Sunday morning, I want you to go to a church and meet the people there. Attend a Sunday School class and ask about the whole stoning of witches thing.
They are. The caribou in Alaska have no choices. The people in Ohio do. It's just too "difficult", or "inconvenient" to exercise them, or explore alternatives and other solutions.
Well, the caribou are doing exceptionally well. For that matter, they are doing ever BETTER since the drilling in Prudhoe Bay and the corresponding pipeline. In other words, drilling in Alaska has HELPED the caribou. So, if it's not the caribou, then what is it? Why did those environmentalists lie to us all those years when they said it would kill off the non-endangered caribou? Seriously, if they lied then, why should we trust them now?But go ahead, continue blaming the environmentalists. The Alaskan oil reserves have a maximum of two years supply for US gas at its current use rate. "Fuck the animals, that's two years more gas for my Expedition/Explorer/Escalade".
As for the people in Ohio and the other 49 states, this isn't about them changing their behavior, unless you want them to do things like stop eating, driving to work and heating their homes. You see, food has to be transported from the farms around the country (and world) to the local grocery store. That takes fuel. When fuel goes up, so does the cost of transporting food, and the food itself.
So, NO. The people in Ohio don't have choices when it comes to eating. Hell, the non-farmers can't even farm their own food since the ground is frozen up there for several months out of the year. Of course, I'm not even going to get started on heating their homes, driving to work, mowing their lawns or, God Forbid, go boating or ride an ATV!
And the sad part is that people like you keep blaming those that drive an Expedition/Explorer/Escalade as if they are the only ones that use fuel. Sorry, but as I've shown, that's not the case. But go ahead and say, "Fuck the people who can't afford to eat. Let's those poor bastards starve to death. Maybe those hippies should get another job or stop having so many kids!" Oh, and unless you are using a uber efficient Via processor to post that post, you really need to STFU! How much energy does your PC use? How can you sit there and criticize people who drive an Expedition/Explorer/Escalade, and you are not using the most efficient processor possible? How can you bitch about people joy riding when you are using valuable energy to post on slashdot? Fuckin hypocrite!
I think that is one of the finest example of bigotry I've seen in my life time!
The only way for Perry to get around it would be to flat out deny being a Christian, which is kinda forbidden by the religion itself (and not very good for getting elected).
What you aren't allowed to do is put one in, for example, city hall. Because that's public space, intended to be used by and represent all people, even those who don't happen to share your religion.
Amazing the not so subtle distinction the "Christians are being persecuted" crowd likes to plaster over to try to come off as victims. You say that, and I would agree if the story was not about a bunch of people pissed off because the keynote speaker is Christian. Is that not a prime example of "Christians being persecuted"? Do you think that this is the best story to state the Christian persecution doesn't happen?
Do you think it would be different if they were all pissed because a Jew was speaking?
The Senators from Texas are Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. Both senators and governor are Republicans.