There is no reason to conclude that "if religion had any basis in fact we would only have one religion"; mainly because religion, like science, is subject to acceptance of multiple distinct individual humans. All you show by that statement is a very constricted understanding of religion such that your statement must be true.
Not at all. That's the point he made. If it were true, don't you think a perfect being could have come up with a way to explain it to everybody that wouldn't constantly degenerate into holy wars? Since it generally does, that's a very valid argument against its truth.
No peacable religins then?
Plenty that claim to be. Not many that live up to it.
Man, you are so far out that you haven't realized that scientific frameworks are a religion
Science has led to basically everything around you that isn't a tree, a rock, air or an animal (people included). It isn't a religion. It is a process and a method that has continually been validated. Or did God drop that computer on your desk? Which brand is it? I'm really curious about that.
You just insist on no evidence that these humans on this planet are the first, which is a fantastic claim, and you won't consider evidence to the contrary on grounds of faith.
Faith isn't evidence. If it were, then we'd only have one religion. Back to the original point you fumbled so humiliatingly.
Mormons accept that many do not view them as Christians.
As you said, they generally accept themselves as separate. Most non-Mormons accept them as separate as well. So the majority of the vote is that they're separate. That's what defines it.
Come on now, Dude. Basic reading comprehension is all I'm asking. Mormons consider themselves to be Christian, but they know that some other people do not. That doesn't mean that they are not Christians or that the fact that they are aware of an aspect of reality means that they cast their votes on that side.
Then you answer this question that he asked: "Who gets to decide who is Christian and who is not?" by saying essentially, "I do".
You might make some other good points, but this was completely deceitful.
And this is coming from a heathen who at least understands basic logic.
Hitler was an occultist. You need to watch more PBS specials.
Do we even know if Hitler actually killed anybody himself? I'm certainly not trying to exonerate him in any way, but he wasn't in the camps tossing people into gas chambers.
The Nazi regime was wholeheartedly, explicitly, and aggressively Christian. Feel free to disagree that it was "real" Christianity, whatever that means, but they most certainly talked the talk. The entire holocaust was following a script laid out by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism.
You need to look at more than PBS specials, and realise that one man acting alone could not have done that.
The whole society was culpable, which the German people realised and have done a lot of work to address since. Some would argue they went overboard on free speech issues related to that, but it's not an argument I'm prepared for.
Religion has an explanation for the origin of life and science has an explanation for the origin of life.
Dude, seriously.
Religion has a *religious* explanation and science has a *scientific* explanation. That is one of the reasons that the *religious* explanation has no place whatsoever in the *science* classroom.
Another major reason is that you would have to teach thousands of religious explanations.
Another reason is there are people out there who will go around murdering people if they give the wrong explanation.
These are just a few of the reasons that putting things that are inherently non-scientific in a scientific context will not work.
Add in the fact that teaching absolutely non-scientific explanations in a science class can only hurt education. Unless of course, you merely introduce it to rip it to shreds which is what science does to religion *if it is taught in a scientific context*.
Seriously, you're familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea? When you try to put religion into the science classroom, you have taken your religion and every other religion and put it at exactly the same level. There is no way, scientifically, to distinguish, any religion from any other or from Pastafarianism. That's the really sad and (to me ) sickening thing about these people trying to force creationism into the science classroom. They are so desperate to shove their beliefs down the throats of others ( little kids at that ) that they are willing to totally humiliate their own (supposedly) deeply held beliefs to do it.
Those are a *few* of the issues with teaching religion as science.
If you don't know, say you don't know, don't pretend you do. If you know it's a scam, tell us how you know!
I'd say the fact that throughout its history it has always been used as a scam, the fact that what to put in the book was arbitrarily decided by whichever group of bishops was running the Roman empire at the time in order to murder off their competition as heretics, the fact that every group that has ever gotten power through the use of it has been hopelessly corrupt are strong indicators that it's a scam.
Add in the fact that none of this would have been possible had god chosen not to speak in contradictory riddles. Yet apparently he did knowing full well what horror he, with malice aforethought had caused to happen by choosing to do it that way.
Seriously, what's more likely? That scam artists took their people's natural curiousity as to their origins and fear of the unknown and used it against them as people always have and do, or that a perfect being could screw up on such a collosal level? Further, that that same perfect, all-powerful being has as his sole interest in regard to us that we should blindly accept his existence (and the evil asshats he personally chose to rule over us) without proof?!?
One idea takes merely basic knowledge of human nature, the other takes accepting extremely complex, illogical, and contradictory ideas.
But there is God, and he does exist.
No, you have chosen to believe that. That is the only statement you can make and maintain honesty, credibility, or integrity. Not a dig at your beliefs, but that is exactly what they are. Beliefs. Were it actually something that could honestly be described as truth, you, or anybody else throughout the entire history of our species would be able to provide some scrap of actual evidence, no matter how small.
But others haven't have the experiences I have (naturally, they are not me) and people are just guessing when they try to dismiss them which, is sooo obvious.
Well, you can certainly claim that god loves you much more than he does everybody else so he came and put on a magic show for you or whatever this magic revelation that you declined to talk about... presumably we're to accept the proof you have on faith;-). Yet if he actually wanted what you claim he wants, all he has to do is offer some proof, Yet he refuses.
Seriously, how is an all powerful being with the personality of a petulant child even the least bit reasonable?!?
It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.
Damn, dude. You really need to learn reading comprehension.
Let's take this very slowly.
"The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
The subject of the sentence is "IP quest" What the IP quest is doing is becoming more and more ridiculous. Are you denying this?
"american" is an adjective modifying the subject. It is there to describe which IP quest we are talking about.
Are you denying that America is the one doing more than anybody else to push their own laws to ridiculous extents? Are you denying that America is the one trying to shove our ridiculous IP laws down the throats of every country we deal with?
I doubt you'd try to deny those basic facts, so what could your issue possibly be?
Maybe you think that all Americans as part of our national values are just chomping at the bit for more oppressive IP laws? No, you already flatly denied that that is a national value.
OK, so we have ridiculous laws passed by and for a few major corporations against our national values and when someone calls this ridiculous then according to you that is by definition anti-American.
Does the insanity of your point stand out to you yet? I'm sorry, but if you do not see the fundamental contradiction in your position at this point, then seriously, your brain is broken. You need to get it looked at. Get some meds or something. If you already are on them, then talk to your shrink about upping your dosage. See, when you are capable of believing two contradictory things at the same time, that is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong with you.
I don't even get why you're exploding about this.
Let's see... Somebody made an obvious statement of fact which was anti ridiculous IP laws. Rather than adding anything to the discussion or just keeping your mouth shut, you felt it necessary to leap up and defend the people pushing these fucked up laws as being good Americans and anybody who disagrees with them as anti-American. So you flat out called every single citizen of this country who actually gives a shit about it anti-American.
I am sick to death of hearing that idiotic shit spouted from every major media organization. I am absofuckinglutely sick of hearing it bleated out by cowards like yourself who defend the people who are betraying this country against those with the balls to stand up for it.
So unless you can address the fundamental contradiction inherent in your position, I will continue to treat you in the manner you have shown yourself to deserve. As an idiotic, cowardly, petulant little child.
OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.
Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.
If the FBI were a corp they'd be out of business right now or at least have paid out billions in settlements.
I agree with your point up to this point.
You have far more faith in our justice system than I do. If they had billions to pay in settlements, then they would simply buy their way out of trouble. Sure, you can point to a few examples where the justice system worked recently, but those where it doesn't far outweigh them and it's only going to get worse. For those who doubt that, I challenge you to come up with a sane, rational, mechanism which has even a feeble possibility of working by which it could get better.
The FBI and various other federal agencies have long, sordid histories of being used against the American public and their abilities to do this are getting better all the time.
We're already well on the road past 1984.
There is a feeble chance that the next election could be a pivotal point which could bring some sanity back, but it's over with 100% certainty if another Republican gets elected. It's equally 100% certain if another Democrat gets elected.
The only possible thing that could save this country and the world from complete totalitarianism is if a person with actual integrity gets elected president and appeals to the people to immediately yank all of their congresspeople (with the possible exception of Russ Feingold) and replace them with honest citizens with no ties to either party and further take all of this big brother bullshit they've been pushing and mandate that it all only be used against the members of congress. "With great power comes great responsibility."
What the fuck did ANYTHING you just typed have to do with what I said?
You leapt up to defend exactly what I was talking about.
Corporate greed is not an American value.
Then why do you call decrying it "anti-American"?
That's the entire point of my post. Somebody talks bad about corporate greed, which is all that the OP did, and you jump right up whining about how it's anti-American. I am well aware that corporate greed is not an American value, hence my post. You are obviously very confused about this issue since the whole point of what you said was to defend corporate greed as being a defining American value how else could you possibly justify equating anti corporate greed with anti Americanism?!?
Dude, seriously, you need to pull your head out of whatever orifice you have it crammed up and start using your brain. I mean seriously "Corporate greed is not an American value" + being anti corporate greed == being anti American?!?! It would be tough to come up with a more pure Orwellian doublethinking line of bullshit.
You keep on proving my point.
You wanna meet up somewhere and discuss this with me?
Not so much. I can get plenty of the anti American drivel you're spouting by turning on my TV, radio or any other corporate media propaganda tool. I'm sick to death of having that same crap spouted by regular people. I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.
I'd love for you to talk to me like this in person.
I seriously doubt that little man. I'll meet you behind the bike racks after school.
Dude, if you are an American, please stop trying to defend America. You're an idiot and you make the rest of us look bad when you do it. Sorry, that was ad hominem. Your demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend basic written English and the concepts that were conveyed in the posting is astounding in its idiocy. There, much better. I attacked your ideas. Now to explain.
Then why would you say something like this: "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
It's not OK to attack you, but it's totally OK to make an anti-American comment, even though it's completely irrelevant to your argument.
There are any number of reasons he might say that. The most likely is the simple fact that it's true. Are you claiming that the DMCA, constantly increasing copyright terms, continually greater erosion of individual rights and liberties in the interest of a few major IP holders, and the continually increasing efforts to shove the same thing down the throats of every other country we deal with are not ridiculous? Obviously, you aren't saying that is not what is happening because that would demonstrate your total ignorance of recent events.
So, his comment was clearly factual, but what's this? You're claiming that the statement was Anti-American.
WTF?!? Damn you are a good little corporate lapdog. I hate to break it to you, but I am an American, and I take my responsibilities as a citizen seriously enough to pay attention to my country once in a while. The only thing the statement was anti was fascist asshats who buy congress to pass laws that fuck Americans. Do you begin to understand why decent Americans want deeply ignorant people like you to STFU?
I hate to break it to you, but Disney, Adobe, and other major IP abusing douchebag companies do not need you leaping to their defense pulling out the old "if it's anti-fascist, it's anti-American" bullshit arguments. They will not give you a pat on the head or whatever the fuck else stupid merit badge you're hoping for, and you are doing nothing to help your country by defending those who are fucking it over.
America needs people who are willing to think, not reactionary sycophants who will defend her attackers by pulling Orwellian doublethinking mental gymnastics which is all that you managed to do in that post.
Congratulations.
Oh, and:
So, pardon the personal attack, but get your facts straight before you act like an asshole.
Doesn't double thinking *that fucking hard* ever make your head hurt? Even a little?
Did anybody know that Halo would be so frickin awesome when the xbox launched?
Let me see... It was about the most anticipated game for years, especially since it was scheduled for a simultaneous Mac/PC release as was typical of Bungie who Microsoft bought for the sole purpose of ensuring that Halo would be XBox only at launch.
So, no.. Nobody had any clue about or intererst in that game.
It's dishonest because they are trying to create the false impression that their console is so popular that it sold out whereas the truth is that they are planning on making it sell out by artificially restricting the supply and then making a big deal in the press under false pretenses. That is clearly and obviously dishonest. It is their premeditated intent to deceive people as to the popularity of their system regardless of whether it might actually be that popular.
It is within the rights of the manufacturing company to release its products in whatever fashion it sees fit.
Non sequitor. Whether or not it is within their rights has nothing at all to do with honesty. Those are two totally different, yet occasionally intersecting concepts.
Let the lighter there, spewing butane into the cavity, for several seconds and then, quickly, move your hand out of the way and simultaneously strike the lighter to ignite the gas which has collected.
Heck Dude, you can light it, leave your hand there for a second with visible flame just sitting at the hole and then pull your hand off. You can even skip the middleman and leave your pants out of it. Just fill up your hand.*
You can even do it in your mouth, although when I tried that one I hadn't shaved in like a week and I burned all the stubble off**
*Note, I accept no responsibility if you're too retarded to pull this off successfully without hurting yourself.
**Note, I accepted full responsibility for having been too retarded to pull this off successfully.
no one should claim that they weren't told about possible software being installed on their computer, when they clearly were.
Fair enough, but I would argue that while they clearly were told, they weren't told clearly. I think they shouldn't have just buried the information in a secondary link off of a click through EULA. It's just a question of integrity really. An extra dialog popping up saying that this update will install spyware that works in such and such a way, collecting such and such information for these particular purposes would have prevented the appearance of shady behavior. Given Blizzard's previous major asshattedness with regard to bnetd and the like, I really don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to expect.
If you don't understand the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it.
I have never in my life signed a EULA for a game. I doubt you or anyone else here has either. I have signed contracts for services, support, and even software but clicking ok is not a signature and the legal status of EULAs is still up in the air.
Argue your point as you like, but please don't lend them legitimacy they neither have nor (IMHO) deserve.
look at Rather and CBS's attempts to pawn documents off on the people to change an election,
Oh holy shit dude. You are part of the fucking problem. Dan Rather presented an entirely factually accurate, extremely important story which had one piece of supporting evidence which wasn't the actual document in question. Every word on it was accurate as backed up by the person who typed the real original document as were all other aspects of the story.
The right wing spin machine went into overdrive to turn the story from an entirely accurate story which was damning to Bush to being about the document.
These are the sorts of problems which are destroying public discourse and honest discussion in this country. Go ahead and keep ignoring reality, burying your head in the sand and working to be a good little lapdog.
Hate to break it to you, but we all know about the UN problems because they have been well covered.
Nice try to spin the whole thing as some evil liberal media plot to discredit the good, honest, holy administration. Too bad there isn't a singl fact backing up the idiotic swill you're trying to keep alive.
Seriously, dude. Grow up and start acting like a decent citizen instead of a boot licking tool.
I ended up voting for Badnarik, even though I was staunchly opposed to most of his economic agenda.
Heck, I did too. I don't know about "staunchly" but I really don't have any idea what the effects of eliminating the federal reserve would be but I'm sure there would be some negative ones. I haven't seen him address those negative consequences at all. Nor anybody else for that matter. Any interesting links about that that aren't too horrifically slanted?
I totally agree. I'd rather live next door to a libertarian than a Republican (who would be busy peering into my windows to see how and who I fuck or what evil things I like to do in my leisure time) or a Democrat (who would be busy making sure I am not thinking bad thoughts or whatever the heck the generalized Democrat slam of the week is)
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason to conclude that "if religion had any basis in fact we would only have one religion"; mainly because religion, like science, is subject to acceptance of multiple distinct individual humans. All you show by that statement is a very constricted understanding of religion such that your statement must be true.
Not at all. That's the point he made.
If it were true, don't you think a perfect being could have come up with a way to explain it to everybody that wouldn't constantly degenerate into holy wars?
Since it generally does, that's a very valid argument against its truth.
No peacable religins then?
Plenty that claim to be. Not many that live up to it.
Man, you are so far out that you haven't realized that scientific frameworks are a religion
Science has led to basically everything around you that isn't a tree, a rock, air or an animal (people included). It isn't a religion. It is a process and a method that has continually been validated.
Or did God drop that computer on your desk? Which brand is it? I'm really curious about that.
You just insist on no evidence that these humans on this planet are the first, which is a fantastic claim, and you won't consider evidence to the contrary on grounds of faith.
Faith isn't evidence. If it were, then we'd only have one religion. Back to the original point you fumbled so humiliatingly.
Mormons accept that many do not view them as Christians.
As you said, they generally accept themselves as separate. Most non-Mormons accept them as separate as well. So the majority of the vote is that they're separate. That's what defines it.
Come on now, Dude. Basic reading comprehension is all I'm asking.
Mormons consider themselves to be Christian, but they know that some other people do not. That doesn't mean that they are not Christians or that the fact that they are aware of an aspect of reality means that they cast their votes on that side.
Then you answer this question that he asked: "Who gets to decide who is Christian and who is not?" by saying essentially, "I do".
You might make some other good points, but this was completely deceitful.
And this is coming from a heathen who at least understands basic logic.
As for your other points, I can quote scripture too. :)
;-)
Oh can you really? Then prove it.
Dude, those aren't quotes, they're references
Hitler was an occultist. You need to watch more PBS specials.
Do we even know if Hitler actually killed anybody himself?
I'm certainly not trying to exonerate him in any way, but he wasn't in the camps tossing people into gas chambers.
The Nazi regime was wholeheartedly, explicitly, and aggressively Christian. Feel free to disagree that it was "real" Christianity, whatever that means, but they most certainly talked the talk.
The entire holocaust was following a script laid out by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism.
Linky
You need to look at more than PBS specials, and realise that one man acting alone could not have done that.
The whole society was culpable, which the German people realised and have done a lot of work to address since. Some would argue they went overboard on free speech issues related to that, but it's not an argument I'm prepared for.
Religion has an explanation for the origin of life and science has an explanation for the origin of life.
Dude, seriously.
Religion has a *religious* explanation and science has a *scientific* explanation.
That is one of the reasons that the *religious* explanation has no place whatsoever in the *science* classroom.
Another major reason is that you would have to teach thousands of religious explanations.
Another reason is there are people out there who will go around murdering people if they give the wrong explanation.
These are just a few of the reasons that putting things that are inherently non-scientific in a scientific context will not work.
Add in the fact that teaching absolutely non-scientific explanations in a science class can only hurt education. Unless of course, you merely introduce it to rip it to shreds which is what science does to religion *if it is taught in a scientific context*.
Seriously, you're familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea?
When you try to put religion into the science classroom, you have taken your religion and every other religion and put it at exactly the same level. There is no way, scientifically, to distinguish, any religion from any other or from Pastafarianism.
That's the really sad and (to me ) sickening thing about these people trying to force creationism into the science classroom. They are so desperate to shove their beliefs down the throats of others ( little kids at that ) that they are willing to totally humiliate their own (supposedly) deeply held beliefs to do it.
Those are a *few* of the issues with teaching religion as science.
If you don't know, say you don't know, don't pretend you do. If you know it's a scam, tell us how you know!
;-).
I'd say the fact that throughout its history it has always been used as a scam, the fact that what to put in the book was arbitrarily decided by whichever group of bishops was running the Roman empire at the time in order to murder off their competition as heretics, the fact that every group that has ever gotten power through the use of it has been hopelessly corrupt are strong indicators that it's a scam.
Add in the fact that none of this would have been possible had god chosen not to speak in contradictory riddles. Yet apparently he did knowing full well what horror he, with malice aforethought had caused to happen by choosing to do it that way.
Seriously, what's more likely? That scam artists took their people's natural curiousity as to their origins and fear of the unknown and used it against them as people always have and do, or that a perfect being could screw up on such a collosal level? Further, that that same perfect, all-powerful being has as his sole interest in regard to us that we should blindly accept his existence (and the evil asshats he personally chose to rule over us) without proof?!?
One idea takes merely basic knowledge of human nature, the other takes accepting extremely complex, illogical, and contradictory ideas.
But there is God, and he does exist.
No, you have chosen to believe that. That is the only statement you can make and maintain honesty, credibility, or integrity.
Not a dig at your beliefs, but that is exactly what they are. Beliefs.
Were it actually something that could honestly be described as truth, you, or anybody else throughout the entire history of our species would be able to provide some scrap of actual evidence, no matter how small.
But others haven't have the experiences I have (naturally, they are not me) and people are just guessing when they try to dismiss them which, is sooo obvious.
Well, you can certainly claim that god loves you much more than he does everybody else so he came and put on a magic show for you or whatever this magic revelation that you declined to talk about... presumably we're to accept the proof you have on faith
Yet if he actually wanted what you claim he wants, all he has to do is offer some proof, Yet he refuses.
Seriously, how is an all powerful being with the personality of a petulant child even the least bit reasonable?!?
Maybe I should just get them both together and let them fight it out.
;-)
Don't forget to sell tickets.
In the interest of integrity though, just don't try to claim that you (or I ) invented the idea of retard fights
It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.
Damn, dude. You really need to learn reading comprehension.
Let's take this very slowly.
"The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
The subject of the sentence is "IP quest"
What the IP quest is doing is becoming more and more ridiculous.
Are you denying this?
"american" is an adjective modifying the subject. It is there to describe which IP quest we are talking about.
Are you denying that America is the one doing more than anybody else to push their own laws to ridiculous extents?
Are you denying that America is the one trying to shove our ridiculous IP laws down the throats of every country we deal with?
I doubt you'd try to deny those basic facts, so what could your issue possibly be?
Maybe you think that all Americans as part of our national values are just chomping at the bit for more oppressive IP laws?
No, you already flatly denied that that is a national value.
OK, so we have ridiculous laws passed by and for a few major corporations against our national values and when someone calls this ridiculous then according to you that is by definition anti-American.
Does the insanity of your point stand out to you yet?
I'm sorry, but if you do not see the fundamental contradiction in your position at this point, then seriously, your brain is broken. You need to get it looked at. Get some meds or something. If you already are on them, then talk to your shrink about upping your dosage.
See, when you are capable of believing two contradictory things at the same time, that is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong with you.
I don't even get why you're exploding about this.
Let's see... Somebody made an obvious statement of fact which was anti ridiculous IP laws. Rather than adding anything to the discussion or just keeping your mouth shut, you felt it necessary to leap up and defend the people pushing these fucked up laws as being good Americans and anybody who disagrees with them as anti-American.
So you flat out called every single citizen of this country who actually gives a shit about it anti-American.
I am sick to death of hearing that idiotic shit spouted from every major media organization. I am absofuckinglutely sick of hearing it bleated out by cowards like yourself who defend the people who are betraying this country against those with the balls to stand up for it.
So unless you can address the fundamental contradiction inherent in your position, I will continue to treat you in the manner you have shown yourself to deserve. As an idiotic, cowardly, petulant little child.
OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.
Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.
BUT - at least the companys have an interest in getting it right. Don't want to miss an opportunity ya' know.
And that opportunity is called selling your info to the government who isn't allowed to collect it themselves.
That is why it is so important to have the public and private sectors divided as much as church and state (is supposed to be).
We fought a big war a while back against exactly what is happening here. It's called Fascism, and it is where America has been for some time now.
If the FBI were a corp they'd be out of business right now or at least have paid out billions in settlements.
I agree with your point up to this point.
You have far more faith in our justice system than I do.
If they had billions to pay in settlements, then they would simply buy their way out of trouble.
Sure, you can point to a few examples where the justice system worked recently, but those where it doesn't far outweigh them and it's only going to get worse.
For those who doubt that, I challenge you to come up with a sane, rational, mechanism which has even a feeble possibility of working by which it could get better.
The FBI and various other federal agencies have long, sordid histories of being used against the American public and their abilities to do this are getting better all the time.
We're already well on the road past 1984.
There is a feeble chance that the next election could be a pivotal point which could bring some sanity back, but it's over with 100% certainty if another Republican gets elected.
It's equally 100% certain if another Democrat gets elected.
The only possible thing that could save this country and the world from complete totalitarianism is if a person with actual integrity gets elected president and appeals to the people to immediately yank all of their congresspeople (with the possible exception of Russ Feingold) and replace them with honest citizens with no ties to either party and further take all of this big brother bullshit they've been pushing and mandate that it all only be used against the members of congress.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
Of course, who watches the watchers.
We are well and truly fucked at this point.
What the fuck did ANYTHING you just typed have to do with what I said?
You leapt up to defend exactly what I was talking about.
Corporate greed is not an American value.
Then why do you call decrying it "anti-American"?
That's the entire point of my post. Somebody talks bad about corporate greed, which is all that the OP did, and you jump right up whining about how it's anti-American. I am well aware that corporate greed is not an American value, hence my post. You are obviously very confused about this issue since the whole point of what you said was to defend corporate greed as being a defining American value how else could you possibly justify equating anti corporate greed with anti Americanism?!?
Dude, seriously, you need to pull your head out of whatever orifice you have it crammed up and start using your brain.
I mean seriously "Corporate greed is not an American value" + being anti corporate greed == being anti American?!?!
It would be tough to come up with a more pure Orwellian doublethinking line of bullshit.
You keep on proving my point.
You wanna meet up somewhere and discuss this with me?
Not so much. I can get plenty of the anti American drivel you're spouting by turning on my TV, radio or any other corporate media propaganda tool. I'm sick to death of having that same crap spouted by regular people. I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.
I'd love for you to talk to me like this in person.
I seriously doubt that little man. I'll meet you behind the bike racks after school.
Dude, if you are an American, please stop trying to defend America.
You're an idiot and you make the rest of us look bad when you do it.
Sorry, that was ad hominem.
Your demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend basic written English and the concepts that were conveyed in the posting is astounding in its idiocy. There, much better. I attacked your ideas. Now to explain.
Then why would you say something like this: "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."
It's not OK to attack you, but it's totally OK to make an anti-American comment, even though it's completely irrelevant to your argument.
There are any number of reasons he might say that. The most likely is the simple fact that it's true.
Are you claiming that the DMCA, constantly increasing copyright terms, continually greater erosion of individual rights and liberties in the interest of a few major IP holders, and the continually increasing efforts to shove the same thing down the throats of every other country we deal with are not ridiculous?
Obviously, you aren't saying that is not what is happening because that would demonstrate your total ignorance of recent events.
So, his comment was clearly factual, but what's this? You're claiming that the statement was Anti-American.
WTF?!? Damn you are a good little corporate lapdog.
I hate to break it to you, but I am an American, and I take my responsibilities as a citizen seriously enough to pay attention to my country once in a while. The only thing the statement was anti was fascist asshats who buy congress to pass laws that fuck Americans. Do you begin to understand why decent Americans want deeply ignorant people like you to STFU?
I hate to break it to you, but Disney, Adobe, and other major IP abusing douchebag companies do not need you leaping to their defense pulling out the old "if it's anti-fascist, it's anti-American" bullshit arguments. They will not give you a pat on the head or whatever the fuck else stupid merit badge you're hoping for, and you are doing nothing to help your country by defending those who are fucking it over.
America needs people who are willing to think, not reactionary sycophants who will defend her attackers by pulling Orwellian doublethinking mental gymnastics which is all that you managed to do in that post.
Congratulations.
Oh, and:
So, pardon the personal attack, but get your facts straight before you act like an asshole.
Doesn't double thinking *that fucking hard* ever make your head hurt? Even a little?
First thing I thought of when I saw the title.
Did anybody know that Halo would be so frickin awesome when the xbox launched?
Let me see... It was about the most anticipated game for years, especially since it was scheduled for a simultaneous Mac/PC release as was typical of Bungie who Microsoft bought for the sole purpose of ensuring that Halo would be XBox only at launch.
So, no.. Nobody had any clue about or intererst in that game.
Damn dude.
How is this dishonesty?
It's dishonest because they are trying to create the false impression that their console is so popular that it sold out whereas the truth is that they are planning on making it sell out by artificially restricting the supply and then making a big deal in the press under false pretenses. That is clearly and obviously dishonest. It is their premeditated intent to deceive people as to the popularity of their system regardless of whether it might actually be that popular.
It is within the rights of the manufacturing company to release its products in whatever fashion it sees fit.
Non sequitor.
Whether or not it is within their rights has nothing at all to do with honesty. Those are two totally different, yet occasionally intersecting concepts.
.for example if some guy in Finland SSHs in to NY to work on a project. He owes NY taxes
So what if he does all his coding and testing at home and then just uploads the final version?
True enough.
I guess you're talking more about what's legal or illegal whereas I'm talking more about what's right or wrong.
Cheers
Let the lighter there, spewing butane into the cavity, for several seconds and then, quickly, move your hand out of the way and simultaneously strike the lighter to ignite the gas which has collected.
Heck Dude, you can light it, leave your hand there for a second with visible flame just sitting at the hole and then pull your hand off. You can even skip the middleman and leave your pants out of it. Just fill up your hand.*
You can even do it in your mouth, although when I tried that one I hadn't shaved in like a week and I burned all the stubble off**
*Note, I accept no responsibility if you're too retarded to pull this off successfully without hurting yourself.
**Note, I accepted full responsibility for having been too retarded to pull this off successfully.
no one should claim that they weren't told about possible software being installed on their computer, when they clearly were.
Fair enough, but I would argue that while they clearly were told, they weren't told clearly.
I think they shouldn't have just buried the information in a secondary link off of a click through EULA. It's just a question of integrity really. An extra dialog popping up saying that this update will install spyware that works in such and such a way, collecting such and such information for these particular purposes would have prevented the appearance of shady behavior.
Given Blizzard's previous major asshattedness with regard to bnetd and the like, I really don't think it's the least bit unreasonable to expect.
If you don't understand the terms of the EULA, then don't sign it.
I have never in my life signed a EULA for a game. I doubt you or anyone else here has either.
I have signed contracts for services, support, and even software but clicking ok is not a signature and the legal status of EULAs is still up in the air.
Argue your point as you like, but please don't lend them legitimacy they neither have nor (IMHO) deserve.
look at Rather and CBS's attempts to pawn documents off on the people to change an election,
Oh holy shit dude. You are part of the fucking problem.
Dan Rather presented an entirely factually accurate, extremely important story which had one piece of supporting evidence which wasn't the actual document in question. Every word on it was accurate as backed up by the person who typed the real original document as were all other aspects of the story.
The right wing spin machine went into overdrive to turn the story from an entirely accurate story which was damning to Bush to being about the document.
These are the sorts of problems which are destroying public discourse and honest discussion in this country.
Go ahead and keep ignoring reality, burying your head in the sand and working to be a good little lapdog.
Hate to break it to you, but we all know about the UN problems because they have been well covered.
Nice try to spin the whole thing as some evil liberal media plot to discredit the good, honest, holy administration.
Too bad there isn't a singl fact backing up the idiotic swill you're trying to keep alive.
Seriously, dude. Grow up and start acting like a decent citizen instead of a boot licking tool.
Ah, but actions do, in fact, speak far louder than words. That's the point.
(WHERE IS CIV IV?! It came out yesterday to rave reviews!
;-)
Well, in my area, MicroCenter was sold out by the time I got there and Best Buy didn't get their shipment.
Any other questions?
You're a childish fuck! You're a childish fuck!
Dude, he isn't that at all.
You made fun of Taco's spelling, and then he posted the obligatory dupe. Get it now?
I ended up voting for Badnarik, even though I was staunchly opposed to most of his economic agenda.
Heck, I did too. I don't know about "staunchly" but I really don't have any idea what the effects of eliminating the federal reserve would be but I'm sure there would be some negative ones. I haven't seen him address those negative consequences at all. Nor anybody else for that matter. Any interesting links about that that aren't too horrifically slanted?
I totally agree. I'd rather live next door to a libertarian than a Republican (who would be busy peering into my windows to see how and who I fuck or what evil things I like to do in my leisure time) or a Democrat (who would be busy making sure I am not thinking bad thoughts or whatever the heck the generalized Democrat slam of the week is)