It's only an 'obvious' right-wing spin if you completely discount the part about the guy being hired by the current DEMOCRATIC President.
And you obviously can't be relied upon for anything useful since you can't tell the difference between political ideologies (Left, Right and Liberal) and political parties (Republicans: far lunatic fringe right wing Democrats: More moderate right wing, but still pretty far to the right of anything allowable in a free society.)
So, yes, almost anything the Dems or Repugs do is right-wing. Please pay a little bit of attention, try and learn a little about politics before opening your mouth and adding more ignorant noise to the signal.' Cripes I hope you've never voted. You're obviously far too ignorant to be capable of even understanding the issues let alone being capable of making an informed decision.
. He feels a thrill going up his leg when Obama speaks. Is Obama not a liberal, at least by the standards of American politicians?
Of course not. Where would you get an idea that completely insane? Obama has been tirelessly pushing the fringe right wing Republican agenda while occasionally pretending for a second to actually support alternatives before caving completely.
So, yeah, your assessment is complete crap because you based it entirely on your complete lack of understanding of even the rudiments of the modern American political reality.
I can't imagine how they're going to find tools that can function at that temperature.
But just think...if they do manage to build such tools then we'll finally be able to make pizza which has been a dream of humanity since time immemorial.
In US, though, it seems to be some weird kind of shibboleth - especially interesting that I mostly notice it being used by less moderate conservatives and libertarians. Non-political people are perfectly happy with using "democracy" in its everyday, sane meaning.
Well we tend to do that because we have groups like the Mormons who think that just because they are ignorant bigots that if they get enough votes that somehow they are allowed to piss all over groups they hate as they did with Prop8 in California. In spite of the fact that their base is in Utah and they have no right to pay for any legislation in other states and under no circumstances have any right to enact religious hatred based legislation. In a Democracy, they'd be right. In a constitutional Republic, they are specifically banned from being allowed to do any such thing no matter how many votes they get for their vile anti-American Nazi bullshit. That's why religion was specifically forbidden any role at all in government under any circumstances. You can't have a free country that's a Democracy as long as you have hate groups like the Mormons pissing all over the decent people.
*That* is why it's a big deal to distinguish between them, although since this is the Mormons doing it, it's just yet another attempt by those fucking scum to destroy any decent thing this country ever used to claim to stand for rather than anything promoting honest teaching about our government. They fucking despise that with a passion as it's what's in place to stop them.
Whether you like it or not, religions have usually striven to lessen the impact of random violence in society. At least the founders of the religions have usually been quite against violence. It is usually the followers that are the problem;)
Wow, "usually" WTF?!?
Hell, name one.
Judiasm is all about racial hatred and murdering outsiders. Christianity is the same (until you add in crap like throwing the first stone and the good samaritan which weren't even written until hundreds of years after the time of the fictional Jesus hence has nothing to do with the founder, Paul). Islam, same brutally evil thug of a god as the other two. Greek, Egyptian and Roman religions?!? LOL.
Seriously, "usually" that's some seriously good shit you're smoking there, brother.
One word: Control. If they can control your most basic instinct and force you to suppress it to satisfy their whims, then you've completely lost any independence or real humanity. Once they've managed to destroy you that utterly then they've achieved their goal of owning you and you'll pretty do whatever crazy vile crap they want you to (murder, loot pillage, suppress the "other"...gays,blacks, pick your boogie man).
I wish that every critic of Global Warming would be forced to clearly state their true identity in a public manner for a permanent record.
The Koch brothers. Primary funders of global warming denialism. Primary funders of the tea baggers. Creators and major funders of the Libertarian party.
Basically anybody you hear promoting any of those sociopathic views are parroting the views of a pair of overprivileged billionaires who believe that since they were born rich that they should own the world and that if you don't like it you deserve to starve to death.
So yes, anybody buying into that bullshit should be held up as an example of cowardice, ignorance and stupidity, but if you're going to take any sort of moral action, make sure to save your bullets for those two sociopathic monsters.
3) actually shows that the sum is 10, since it's not 1/1-r, it's a/1-r where a=9 in this case.
That formula works for series starting at 0, so you need to subtract the 0 term from your series which is 9*(10^-0), or 9. 10-9=1 and that's the answer;-)
0.999... is not a equation or sum approaching a limit, it is a single number.
Now, that all depends on how you write it;-)
For example lim n-> inf( SUM(9*(10^-n))) is another way of writing the same number. It's just a series of partial sums, so.9 +.09 +.009 +... And since it's a geometric series, we know the sum (if we started from 0 instead of 1) is a/(1-r) where a=9 in this case and r =1/10.
This yields 10. Now remembering that we need to subtract the 0th term, 9*(10^0) = 9*1=9 10-9 = 1. So you get the same answer even when it explicitly *is* the limit of a sequence of partial sums.
The words "citizen" and "subject" are just as misleading as you have pointed out the words "liberal" and "conservative" to be.
Not really, although I didn't give my definitions, so my presentation of the idea could easily be called misleading.
A citizen, in my usage, is an *informed* member of a Republic or similar society who has the integrity to take the time demanded to be informed enough about the issues to be *capable* of making an informed vote. A subject can be exemplified by the sorts of modern Americans who say things such as: "America is a Democracy", or "America was based on Christianity", or some garbage boiling down to "Free Markets == Unregulated Markets", or "Reagan was a decent (or better) president.
In America, citizenship merely requires having been born here (or naturalized), hence the class of "citizens" in that definition includes members of both citizens and subjects as I used the terms.
You see, in the first case you're talking about people whose voice *can* make a positive difference. In the second you're talking about those who do nothing but repeat the ridiculous lies of the right wing media hate machine. No rational debate is possible in the society engineered by the likes of Limbaugh, Murdoch, Cheney, Beck, their like and their masters. Loving the lies of those who seek to own you makes one a subject in my view.
I didn't say I don't vote. I just don't believe the solutions will come from which party is in power.
You misunderstood me. I meant that given how ridiculously uninformed you are about simple basic facts which are nothing but a repeat of history for the umpteenth time, so much so that they have names and clear characteristics for the groups who act in such ways and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself of even the proper language, that it is an insult to anybody who ever did give a shit about maintaining a civil, secular, Liberal (that is to say what is commonly known as a "Free") Society if you *do* vote.
It's the fact that people like you keep voting in the fringe right wing while telling themselves that they are "Conservatives" while claiming to be supporters of a combination of *Liberal* economic policies (which they call conservative economic policies) and Nazi (far Right) social policies, which inevitably lead to far fringe right wing lunacy as we're seeing in America today.
The power that has to be used is our power to not enable the corporatocracy.
Certainly, which at this point is the power of superior weaponry which we do not have. The fact that we are at this point is entirely the fault of Republican policy and specifically the modern "Conservatives" who are the same as the old conservatives, who defined themselves by their opposition to Liberalism, which is the philosophy of individual liberty. Don't for one second pretend that "conservatives" in America have been anything but *the* driving force to corporatocracy/plutocracy. The crime of the Dems is one of failure to do anything to oppose it (by acts such as taking impeachment of Bush off of the table when he actually deserved that *and* execution for treason unlike the whole blow job thing the conservatives spent 10s of millions of our money to uncover anything at all and that was the best they could do and still fucking lost) rather than one of driving it. Don't kid yourself, it is criminal of the Dems, but their disease is necessarily of a different nature due to the fact that they have a much higher percentage of citizens to subjects than the Repugs who are entirely subjects with the exception of the very few people who actually benefit from conservative policies by means of crashing the economy. That is to say the neo-feudalist multi-billionaires who now own the world.
"Liberal" is taken as being equivalent to "left" although that's primarily the fringe right saying that.
"Conservative" means in America today exactly what it has always meant. That's why we're in the situation we are. Ever since the "conservative" Reagan revolution, we have been a plutocracy. The massive wealth disparity we've seen since Reagan took over in America was directly caused by his "conservative" economic policies. The current economic crisis is also caused primarily by the Reagan economic policies which have been followed since Reagan's day. Yet, you'll note, that the wealthy are not experiencing any sort of crisis. They're richer than ever due to "conservative" economic policies. This is because conservatism in America means *exactly* what it has always meant.
You'll certainly hear people claiming to both be conservative while claiming to believe in what are properly referred to as Liberal economic policies, but what you'd have noticed if you'd ever paid any attention is that all of the people making such claims are lying, stupid, or deeply deluded with no exceptions whatsoever. How could there be? If they want what they claim they want then they obviously couldn't possibly do worse than vote Republican, yet they keep doing so, hence either were lying or are too fucking idiotic to understand the blatantly obvious consequences of their actions.
Think it through. Which presidents drove the largest expansions of government growth and spending? Well Reagan shattered FDR's record. Bush II shattered Reagan's. These are the conservative heroes, and they are precisely defined by my use of conservative and have nothing in common with yours. Now we have the next class of conservative trash led by Palin. A rabidly anti-American Fascist dipshit who goes around to all the welfare states, calling the welfare leeches the real Americans while slagging the ones who actually pay their own way. This is all perfectly in keeping with what I said, and completely contradicts what you said. There are a lot of people like you. That's why scum like this keep getting elected in spite of the fact that they are absolutely and obviously the primary source of our problems.
I wish you'd start giving enough of a shit to be a citizen rather than a subject, but your response surely does nothing to make me hopeful on that, given that you're merely repeating the lies of those crushing their boots down on all of us.
How did this get modded +3? Criminal hiding of income by US citizens from the IRS has NOTHING to do with supply side economics or trickle down theories.
Huh?!? That's almost all that there is to it. The only bit of trickle down theory that isn't all about the rich being given everybody else's money tax free or nearly so, is the idiotic lies they tell morons to get them to vote for it.
Oh, damn, looks like you're one of the morons who thought that idiotic nonsense about money trickling down was the actual plan. Doh!.. If you have any integrity at all you feel really really stupid now. I'm betting you'll just get mad and pretend you must magically still be right in spite of the state of our economy which we're in due almost entirely to Reagan's cancerous voodoo economics.
I think this martyrdom is rather undeserved in her case, since there are far more dangerous authors Rand isn't dangerous, she's just ignorant inane and stupid. It's scary that there are people who take her recharacterization of Liberalism as a religion instead of a philosophy and adding in a big dose of sociopathy as if it had any value or meaning to the real world, but it's tough to cure militant ignorance.
You are trying to create a moral equivalency between despotic governments and major corporations, which suggests yokiu have no sense of the scale at which these very different organisations operate.
Indeed. Governments only operate on the single nation scale while the corporations operate on a global scale. There's no comparison, corporations are the greatest threat by far, no question.
Duh. I'm obviously quite aware of the small details as I've demonstrated mastery of the complicated ones. Had you any insight at all, you might have noticed that Hitler Blitzed straight through Poland and into the Russians. That means that his deals with them were...get this Sparky...lies. Wow, you've really proved something with your deep insight, Nitwit.
The USSR was only marginally better than Hitler in the eyes of the US
Agreed, but I think Python is even better for that purpose
Fuck no!!!
Python treats whitespace as syntax. That was demonstrated to be absolutely stupid 30 years ago. Guido thought it was "cool" to ignore 30 years of people a metric assload smarter than he is and created disaster after disaster. At least the FORTRAN fucks had an excuse with punchcards, but there is no excuse for python and its failure to deal with decades of superior knowledge. That's why python will never even pass perl in installed code...let alone ruby that has more of a future.
Seriously, python is only for idiots too stupid to learn from their predecessors. No offense, but take a breath and read up on things before you promote disgusting atrocities. Have some self respect, seriously.
No shit. They wanted to differentiate their brand of socialism (National Socialism) from the International Socialism based in the USSR. Look up the COMINTERN and so forth and educate yourself.
Umm...Dipshit, you do know that anybody with leftist leanings were sent to the concentration camps along with the gays, the cripples, the unionists and, of course, the jews.
You do know that Hitler defined Nazism as rabid opposition to Liberalism and the Left, right? You do realise that the sides in WW2 were fairly clearly drawn between Liberalism (America, France, etc) and the Left (USSR etc) versus the Right: Fascism (Italy) Nazism (Germany) and Hereditary Monarchy (Imperial Japan).
Yeah, really, it's everyone else in the world who needs to read and learn...not you oh glorious one who is so clearly repeating the same bullshit Fox and Rush spew all day and they're rich so why would they ever do anything but look out for your best interests after all.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
But that is entirely irrelevant. Nobody really gives a crap about making churches perform gay marriages if they don't want to. That is the only possible way that could be relevant. All the decent people want to do is tell them to go fuck themselves when they try and fuck things up for the decent folk as is their wont. So, no changes from the religious nutters are required to make it work.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Again, irrelevant. All you have to change is the civil institution, since the only meaningful part of the marriage is the civil part. Other than that it's just religious nonsense and completely irrelevant to the law.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on "marriage",
Nobody cares if religious nutters won't give up their claim on marriage. It's a false claim and utter crap, so they have no claim. Again it comes back to *your* point. They can be ignored since they have no legal standing whatsoever to impose their delusional religious hatred of fine and decent folk.
and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you'll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name.
It's only one institution. A civil one. That's the only thing which is relevant in law and hence the only thing which is in any way relevant to the government.
It's confusing.
It's not confusing. That's an idiotic point. No offence intended, but you really should be ashamed of yourself for hitting submit on something that stupid. We currently have both civil marriages as my wife and I had and religious marriages. The religious marriage currently requires crossing over to the civil side...marriage license etc. The civil side has no such requirements. We didn't have to ask any church for permission to marry. Nor would we have. So, it's the exact same system we already have and therefore less confusing that completely changing everything to cater to the hatred of ignorant bigots. Your "point" should be taken out back and shot.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
Now that's the meat of the matter. This is, of course, true. It's also, of course, exactly the desired outcome. Equality under the law. It's the entire basis of a free society. It's also the religious nutters' main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally. Hopefully you're just as confused on this as you were on the last point and not actually trying to push their crap.
if the church says that they can't have the paper that should equally have no legal weight. And then nobody really has to even care what the church says anyway.
Your entire post is much better expressed as just that sentence. Marriage is a civil institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it, so it makes no sense at all to create a new institution to do that same thing when we could much more easily do it by merely extending the existing system to gay people. This will obviously not cause any actual problems for anybody. The religious scum will scream, cry, and whine that they're not allowed to shove their ignorant hatred onto decent people, but like you said all the religious based hatred in the world can't have any legal weight in America since the fundamental defining characteristic of America at it's founding was the explicit rejection of any role at all for religion in government. Further as you also say, nobody has to care about their hate-based screeching.
There's no need for any of the rest of the extra work you're proposing whose only purpose would be catering to the very hate-mongering scum you already pointed out can't have any legal weight and shouldn't be listened to.
So what is it about Feudal Theocracies, Nazism, and Fascism that you find so wonderful? These are the examples of right wing governments that have existed. If you do so hate Liberalism, which as a right winger you do by definition, why would you choose to live in a country like America that is entirely defined by Liberalism? Why wouldn't you move somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia or some other place that already shares your right wing values?
Or are you like most of the rest of the idiots in America who describe themselves as right wing in spite of the fact that our grandparents fought 2 world wars against right wing ideology and you can't be bothered to take the 5 minutes it would take to inform yourself even slightly on the issue?
I mean seriously, if you weren't so deeply ignorant, you might have the decency to be a bit embarrassed about your support of totalitarianism.
PETA is one such group. They just want people to not kill animals. They don't really care why you don't kill animals, they just want you to not kill animals.
Not true. PETA wants to stop what they define as unethical treatment. The problem is that their definition includes things like enslaving animals, which includes my wife and I keeping two cats as pets. They're as happy and healthy as can be, but in PETA's eyes they're abused slaves who would be better off dead.
Seriously, PETA thinks all housepets should be slaughtered and if you give them pets in the hope that they'll find homes for them they kill them as a matter of policy. In 2009, PETA killed 97.3% of the pets they were entrusted with.
I used to think they were just a bit overboard, but at least generally on the right side, but then I learned a bit more about them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's only an 'obvious' right-wing spin if you completely discount the part about the guy being hired by the current DEMOCRATIC President.
And you obviously can't be relied upon for anything useful since you can't tell the difference between political ideologies (Left, Right and Liberal) and political parties (Republicans: far lunatic fringe right wing Democrats: More moderate right wing, but still pretty far to the right of anything allowable in a free society.)
So, yes, almost anything the Dems or Repugs do is right-wing. Please pay a little bit of attention, try and learn a little about politics before opening your mouth and adding more ignorant noise to the signal.'
Cripes I hope you've never voted. You're obviously far too ignorant to be capable of even understanding the issues let alone being capable of making an informed decision.
. He feels a thrill going up his leg when Obama speaks. Is Obama not a liberal, at least by the standards of American politicians?
Of course not. Where would you get an idea that completely insane?
Obama has been tirelessly pushing the fringe right wing Republican agenda while occasionally pretending for a second to actually support alternatives before caving completely.
So, yeah, your assessment is complete crap because you based it entirely on your complete lack of understanding of even the rudiments of the modern American political reality.
I can't imagine how they're going to find tools that can function at that temperature.
But just think...if they do manage to build such tools then we'll finally be able to make pizza which has been a dream of humanity since time immemorial.
In US, though, it seems to be some weird kind of shibboleth - especially interesting that I mostly notice it being used by less moderate conservatives and libertarians. Non-political people are perfectly happy with using "democracy" in its everyday, sane meaning.
Well we tend to do that because we have groups like the Mormons who think that just because they are ignorant bigots that if they get enough votes that somehow they are allowed to piss all over groups they hate as they did with Prop8 in California. In spite of the fact that their base is in Utah and they have no right to pay for any legislation in other states and under no circumstances have any right to enact religious hatred based legislation.
In a Democracy, they'd be right. In a constitutional Republic, they are specifically banned from being allowed to do any such thing no matter how many votes they get for their vile anti-American Nazi bullshit. That's why religion was specifically forbidden any role at all in government under any circumstances. You can't have a free country that's a Democracy as long as you have hate groups like the Mormons pissing all over the decent people.
*That* is why it's a big deal to distinguish between them, although since this is the Mormons doing it, it's just yet another attempt by those fucking scum to destroy any decent thing this country ever used to claim to stand for rather than anything promoting honest teaching about our government. They fucking despise that with a passion as it's what's in place to stop them.
Whether you like it or not, religions have usually striven to lessen the impact of random violence in society. At least the founders of the religions have usually been quite against violence. It is usually the followers that are the problem ;)
Wow, "usually" WTF?!?
Hell, name one.
Judiasm is all about racial hatred and murdering outsiders.
Christianity is the same (until you add in crap like throwing the first stone and the good samaritan which weren't even written until hundreds of years after the time of the fictional Jesus hence has nothing to do with the founder, Paul).
Islam, same brutally evil thug of a god as the other two.
Greek, Egyptian and Roman religions?!? LOL.
Seriously, "usually" that's some seriously good shit you're smoking there, brother.
One word: Control.
If they can control your most basic instinct and force you to suppress it to satisfy their whims, then you've completely lost any independence or real humanity. Once they've managed to destroy you that utterly then they've achieved their goal of owning you and you'll pretty do whatever crazy vile crap they want you to (murder, loot pillage, suppress the "other"...gays,blacks, pick your boogie man).
I wish that every critic of Global Warming would be forced to clearly state their true identity in a public manner for a permanent record.
The Koch brothers.
Primary funders of global warming denialism.
Primary funders of the tea baggers.
Creators and major funders of the Libertarian party.
Basically anybody you hear promoting any of those sociopathic views are parroting the views of a pair of overprivileged billionaires who believe that since they were born rich that they should own the world and that if you don't like it you deserve to starve to death.
So yes, anybody buying into that bullshit should be held up as an example of cowardice, ignorance and stupidity, but if you're going to take any sort of moral action, make sure to save your bullets for those two sociopathic monsters.
3) actually shows that the sum is 10, since it's not 1/1-r, it's a/1-r where a=9 in this case.
That formula works for series starting at 0, so you need to subtract the 0 term from your series which is 9*(10^-0), or 9. 10-9=1 and that's the answer ;-)
0.999... is not a equation or sum approaching a limit, it is a single number.
Now, that all depends on how you write it ;-)
For example lim n-> inf( SUM(9*(10^-n))) is another way of writing the same number. It's just a series of partial sums, so .9 + .09 + .009 + ...
And since it's a geometric series, we know the sum (if we started from 0 instead of 1) is a/(1-r) where a=9 in this case and r =1/10.
This yields 10. Now remembering that we need to subtract the 0th term, 9*(10^0) = 9*1=9
10-9 = 1.
So you get the same answer even when it explicitly *is* the limit of a sequence of partial sums.
The words "citizen" and "subject" are just as misleading as you have pointed out the words "liberal" and "conservative" to be.
Not really, although I didn't give my definitions, so my presentation of the idea could easily be called misleading.
A citizen, in my usage, is an *informed* member of a Republic or similar society who has the integrity to take the time demanded to be informed enough about the issues to be *capable* of making an informed vote. A subject can be exemplified by the sorts of modern Americans who say things such as:
"America is a Democracy", or "America was based on Christianity", or some garbage boiling down to "Free Markets == Unregulated Markets", or "Reagan was a decent (or better) president.
In America, citizenship merely requires having been born here (or naturalized), hence the class of "citizens" in that definition includes members of both citizens and subjects as I used the terms.
You see, in the first case you're talking about people whose voice *can* make a positive difference. In the second you're talking about those who do nothing but repeat the ridiculous lies of the right wing media hate machine. No rational debate is possible in the society engineered by the likes of Limbaugh, Murdoch, Cheney, Beck, their like and their masters. Loving the lies of those who seek to own you makes one a subject in my view.
I didn't say I don't vote. I just don't believe the solutions will come from which party is in power.
You misunderstood me. I meant that given how ridiculously uninformed you are about simple basic facts which are nothing but a repeat of history for the umpteenth time, so much so that they have names and clear characteristics for the groups who act in such ways and you can't even be bothered to inform yourself of even the proper language, that it is an insult to anybody who ever did give a shit about maintaining a civil, secular, Liberal (that is to say what is commonly known as a "Free") Society if you *do* vote.
It's the fact that people like you keep voting in the fringe right wing while telling themselves that they are "Conservatives" while claiming to be supporters of a combination of *Liberal* economic policies (which they call conservative economic policies) and Nazi (far Right) social policies, which inevitably lead to far fringe right wing lunacy as we're seeing in America today.
The power that has to be used is our power to not enable the corporatocracy.
Certainly, which at this point is the power of superior weaponry which we do not have. The fact that we are at this point is entirely the fault of Republican policy and specifically the modern "Conservatives" who are the same as the old conservatives, who defined themselves by their opposition to Liberalism, which is the philosophy of individual liberty.
Don't for one second pretend that "conservatives" in America have been anything but *the* driving force to corporatocracy/plutocracy. The crime of the Dems is one of failure to do anything to oppose it (by acts such as taking impeachment of Bush off of the table when he actually deserved that *and* execution for treason unlike the whole blow job thing the conservatives spent 10s of millions of our money to uncover anything at all and that was the best they could do and still fucking lost) rather than one of driving it. Don't kid yourself, it is criminal of the Dems, but their disease is necessarily of a different nature due to the fact that they have a much higher percentage of citizens to subjects than the Repugs who are entirely subjects with the exception of the very few people who actually benefit from conservative policies by means of crashing the economy. That is to say the neo-feudalist multi-billionaires who now own the world.
"Liberal" is taken as being equivalent to "left" although that's primarily the fringe right saying that.
"Conservative" means in America today exactly what it has always meant. That's why we're in the situation we are. Ever since the "conservative" Reagan revolution, we have been a plutocracy. The massive wealth disparity we've seen since Reagan took over in America was directly caused by his "conservative" economic policies. The current economic crisis is also caused primarily by the Reagan economic policies which have been followed since Reagan's day.
Yet, you'll note, that the wealthy are not experiencing any sort of crisis. They're richer than ever due to "conservative" economic policies. This is because conservatism in America means *exactly* what it has always meant.
You'll certainly hear people claiming to both be conservative while claiming to believe in what are properly referred to as Liberal economic policies, but what you'd have noticed if you'd ever paid any attention is that all of the people making such claims are lying, stupid, or deeply deluded with no exceptions whatsoever. How could there be? If they want what they claim they want then they obviously couldn't possibly do worse than vote Republican, yet they keep doing so, hence either were lying or are too fucking idiotic to understand the blatantly obvious consequences of their actions.
Think it through. Which presidents drove the largest expansions of government growth and spending? Well Reagan shattered FDR's record. Bush II shattered Reagan's. These are the conservative heroes, and they are precisely defined by my use of conservative and have nothing in common with yours. Now we have the next class of conservative trash led by Palin. A rabidly anti-American Fascist dipshit who goes around to all the welfare states, calling the welfare leeches the real Americans while slagging the ones who actually pay their own way.
This is all perfectly in keeping with what I said, and completely contradicts what you said.
There are a lot of people like you. That's why scum like this keep getting elected in spite of the fact that they are absolutely and obviously the primary source of our problems.
I wish you'd start giving enough of a shit to be a citizen rather than a subject, but your response surely does nothing to make me hopeful on that, given that you're merely repeating the lies of those crushing their boots down on all of us.
How did this get modded +3? Criminal hiding of income by US citizens from the IRS has NOTHING to do with supply side economics or trickle down theories.
Huh?!? That's almost all that there is to it. The only bit of trickle down theory that isn't all about the rich being given everybody else's money tax free or nearly so, is the idiotic lies they tell morons to get them to vote for it.
Oh, damn, looks like you're one of the morons who thought that idiotic nonsense about money trickling down was the actual plan. Doh!.. If you have any integrity at all you feel really really stupid now. I'm betting you'll just get mad and pretend you must magically still be right in spite of the state of our economy which we're in due almost entirely to Reagan's cancerous voodoo economics.
Ah how you must want the BBC.
UK Nova works fine ;-)
I think this martyrdom is rather undeserved in her case, since there are far more dangerous authors
Rand isn't dangerous, she's just ignorant inane and stupid. It's scary that there are people who take her recharacterization of Liberalism as a religion instead of a philosophy and adding in a big dose of sociopathy as if it had any value or meaning to the real world, but it's tough to cure militant ignorance.
You are trying to create a moral equivalency between despotic governments and major corporations, which suggests yokiu have no sense of the scale at which these very different organisations operate.
Indeed. Governments only operate on the single nation scale while the corporations operate on a global scale. There's no comparison, corporations are the greatest threat by far, no question.
And let's not forget to kill the poor via chemical warfare or maybe a plastic surgery disaster.
dividing Poland up between them?
Duh. I'm obviously quite aware of the small details as I've demonstrated mastery of the complicated ones. Had you any insight at all, you might have noticed that Hitler Blitzed straight through Poland and into the Russians. That means that his deals with them were...get this Sparky...lies. Wow, you've really proved something with your deep insight, Nitwit.
The USSR was only marginally better than Hitler in the eyes of the US
Yet better nonetheless. I accept your apology.
Agreed, but I think Python is even better for that purpose
Fuck no!!!
Python treats whitespace as syntax. That was demonstrated to be absolutely stupid 30 years ago.
Guido thought it was "cool" to ignore 30 years of people a metric assload smarter than he is and created disaster after disaster.
At least the FORTRAN fucks had an excuse with punchcards, but there is no excuse for python and its failure to deal with decades of superior knowledge. That's why python will never even pass perl in installed code...let alone ruby that has more of a future.
Seriously, python is only for idiots too stupid to learn from their predecessors. No offense, but take a breath and read up on things before you promote disgusting atrocities. Have some self respect, seriously.
No shit. They wanted to differentiate their brand of socialism (National Socialism) from the International Socialism based in the USSR. Look up the COMINTERN and so forth and educate yourself.
Umm...Dipshit, you do know that anybody with leftist leanings were sent to the concentration camps along with the gays, the cripples, the unionists and, of course, the jews.
You do know that Hitler defined Nazism as rabid opposition to Liberalism and the Left, right?
You do realise that the sides in WW2 were fairly clearly drawn between Liberalism (America, France, etc) and the Left (USSR etc) versus the Right: Fascism (Italy) Nazism (Germany) and Hereditary Monarchy (Imperial Japan).
Yeah, really, it's everyone else in the world who needs to read and learn...not you oh glorious one who is so clearly repeating the same bullshit Fox and Rush spew all day and they're rich so why would they ever do anything but look out for your best interests after all.
The stupid is strong with this one.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
But that is entirely irrelevant. Nobody really gives a crap about making churches perform gay marriages if they don't want to. That is the only possible way that could be relevant. All the decent people want to do is tell them to go fuck themselves when they try and fuck things up for the decent folk as is their wont. So, no changes from the religious nutters are required to make it work.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Again, irrelevant. All you have to change is the civil institution, since the only meaningful part of the marriage is the civil part. Other than that it's just religious nonsense and completely irrelevant to the law.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on "marriage",
Nobody cares if religious nutters won't give up their claim on marriage. It's a false claim and utter crap, so they have no claim. Again it comes back to *your* point. They can be ignored since they have no legal standing whatsoever to impose their delusional religious hatred of fine and decent folk.
and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you'll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name.
It's only one institution. A civil one. That's the only thing which is relevant in law and hence the only thing which is in any way relevant to the government.
It's confusing.
It's not confusing. That's an idiotic point. No offence intended, but you really should be ashamed of yourself for hitting submit on something that stupid. We currently have both civil marriages as my wife and I had and religious marriages. The religious marriage currently requires crossing over to the civil side...marriage license etc. The civil side has no such requirements. We didn't have to ask any church for permission to marry. Nor would we have. So, it's the exact same system we already have and therefore less confusing that completely changing everything to cater to the hatred of ignorant bigots. Your "point" should be taken out back and shot.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
Now that's the meat of the matter. This is, of course, true. It's also, of course, exactly the desired outcome. Equality under the law. It's the entire basis of a free society. It's also the religious nutters' main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally. Hopefully you're just as confused on this as you were on the last point and not actually trying to push their crap.
Congratulations, on a page full of paranoid nut jobs, you are the craziest.
One might be inclined to think that about him, but that's only because that's what they want you to think!!!!!onehundredeleven!!1!!
No doubt. The ignorant twat must think that East Germany was actually a Democratic Republic as they made sure to put that in the name.
if the church says that they can't have the paper that should equally have no legal weight. And then nobody really has to even care what the church says anyway.
Your entire post is much better expressed as just that sentence. Marriage is a civil institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it,
so it makes no sense at all to create a new institution to do that same thing when we could much more easily do it by merely extending the existing system to gay people.
This will obviously not cause any actual problems for anybody. The religious scum will scream, cry, and whine that they're not allowed to shove their ignorant hatred onto decent people, but like you said all the religious based hatred in the world can't have any legal weight in America since the fundamental defining characteristic of America at it's founding was the explicit rejection of any role at all for religion in government. Further as you also say, nobody has to care about their hate-based screeching.
There's no need for any of the rest of the extra work you're proposing whose only purpose would be catering to the very hate-mongering scum you already pointed out can't have any legal weight and shouldn't be listened to.
I'm pretty right-wing
So what is it about Feudal Theocracies, Nazism, and Fascism that you find so wonderful? These are the examples of right wing governments that have existed. If you do so hate Liberalism, which as a right winger you do by definition, why would you choose to live in a country like America that is entirely defined by Liberalism? Why wouldn't you move somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia or some other place that already shares your right wing values?
Or are you like most of the rest of the idiots in America who describe themselves as right wing in spite of the fact that our grandparents fought 2 world wars against right wing ideology and you can't be bothered to take the 5 minutes it would take to inform yourself even slightly on the issue?
I mean seriously, if you weren't so deeply ignorant, you might have the decency to be a bit embarrassed about your support of totalitarianism.
PETA is one such group. They just want people to not kill animals. They don't really care why you don't kill animals, they just want you to not kill animals.
Not true. PETA wants to stop what they define as unethical treatment. The problem is that their definition includes things like enslaving animals, which includes my wife and I keeping two cats as pets. They're as happy and healthy as can be, but in PETA's eyes they're abused slaves who would be better off dead.
Seriously, PETA thinks all housepets should be slaughtered and if you give them pets in the hope that they'll find homes for them they kill them as a matter of policy.
In 2009, PETA killed 97.3% of the pets they were entrusted with.
I used to think they were just a bit overboard, but at least generally on the right side, but then I learned
a bit more about them.
Therefore, EULAs are hokum, people are dumbasses, companies are shitheads and the law is morally wrong. Merry Christmas!
LOL, and to you :-)