Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started.
It is very similar, but it isn't exactly the same. I don't know how the universe came into being in terms of what caused the big bang (assuming there actually was such a thing). So there is no loss of ignorance implied or otherwise. All of the evidence available indicates that everything was at the same place some time ago, so it's reasonable to assume that to be the case until contradictory evidence comes to light. So there is some loss of ignorance in terms of the mechanisms and what happened since then.
I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.
Absolutely. Those who do are about 8 beers short of a 6 pack. Physics itself says (AFAIK) that there is no way currently (maybe even ever) possible to know what happened prior to the big bang. Anybody who believes in a being so powerful as to be able to create everything, but won't allow that he might have chosen his own way to do that is calling their own god pretty lame.
You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
What sort of falsifiable theory of a creator exists?
Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.
I guess this ties in with the above. I'm not aware of any actual theory of creation. I have never heard of such an animal and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my first issue of the newsletter;-)
Then perhaps you ought to amend your "offer". Heck, $5 for any Microsoft employee would mean that the janitor who cleans the bathrooms in the evening would fall into that category -- hardly someone who has any moral or ethical interest in the company.
This is designed as a "scorched earth" policy to make sure that *nobody* will choose to work there. Even the janitor's paycheck is drawn on funds "earned" based on criminal activity.
Of course, I'd rather encourage you to think of alternate means of resolving this rather than through violence. Lawmakers can be persuaded if enough people express their opinions as it puts the next election on the line for them.
My point is that I have thought long and hard about this issue and I am completely at a loss as to how to resolve this outside of violent means. If a lawmaker loses their job over it, then they will simply go to work lobbying for MS or similar scummy company for a huge salary increase negating any deterrent effect.
You said you had several ideas that would work, yet you still aren't responding with them.
I hope it's not because you're planning on patenting them;-)
How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist?
It's not even this complicated for me.
I have never formed a "belief" that god does not exist. I didn't have to. I never formed the belief that he did in the first place.
There is a fairly large difference. Your comment pre assumes that there is some sort of legitimacy to the whole god thing in the first place (otherwise, there is no need to form any sort of belief about it in the first place) which is not something I have ever seen any reason to accept.
How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.
The problem I have with that is simply that it is an utterly empty statement that adds nothing at all to the conversation.
I'm not referring to your comment, but to the idea that since everything is here something must have created it.
All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator". It's an endless progression with nothing gained. By taking that step, it can seem like you have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started with an extra lair of useless cruft.
The only truly honest answer to the question of where the universe came from is, "I don't know". It is entirely possible that this will remain the only possible honest answer to this question forever. Postulating some god merely pushes "I don't know" back as the answer to the question of where god came from.
An extra lair that adds nothing in terms of actual knowledge..
Now, some people seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling by choosing to believe that they have the answer which they are certainly more than welcome to do. The problem is when they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.
That can never be allowed in any form whatsoever in any society that cares in the least about freedom.
Well, my point was that the law has utterly failed to have any positive affect. It is more profitable to violate the law and buy their way out of it than it is to comply with the law. Our lawmakers have no real interest in fixing this issue, and if they did, they would be bought off to give up that interest.
So given the reality that we are living in, the fact that my suggestion is illegal is not merely true, it is a fundamental requirement for any meaningful change.
The fact that nobody at MS (well, there are a lot of people there and statistics being what they are maybe somebody, but not as a matter of company policy) has killed anybody is likewise irrelevant. They are supporting the actions of the company, and if their ethics are that tarnished then I see it as a necessary sacrifice to the greater good since as far as I can see nothing else has a snowball's chance in hell of working.
I'm certainly interested in hearing your ideas, but if they involve working through the system which created and supports this activity, I really don't put much faith in their effectiveness.
You have cherry picked a few secondary and tertiary traits or tactics used by the Nazis and drawn parallels to Bush - coincidentally, ones that are often used by ALL governments.
No, I haven't. That has pretty much zero to do with what this discussion was about. The original poster who is not me picked several of the major traits and tactics used by the Nazis and demonstrated the parallels. Your response was to cry like a little bitch about gassing jews.
The issue under discussion was the *fact* that a number of members of the Bush administration studied under and were *influenced* by a major proponent of Nazi philosophy.
That's it.
The fact is that when presented with that information, which if you had a scrap of partriotism you would already have known, you went into typical right wing pundit attack mode and tried to turn the conversation into being about somebody saying that Bush=Hitler. You are the only one who tried to create that statement out of somebody else's words which did not say that.
The scale of the negative things done by Bush is several orders of magnatude less evil than what the Nazis did. It's not even close. This is why comparisons to the Nazis is ridiculous.
That is an idiotic statement. Comparisons to the holocaust would be. Comparisons to the philosophy when many members of his administration took their doctorates under one of the main proponents of that philosophy are entirely relevant, and completely reasonable.
Turning the conversation away from that and toward the holocaust is the act of a scumbag afraid to discuss the facts for whatever fucked up reason you have.
Another fact is that there are parallels between the methods used by the Nazis and those used by the Bush administration. For example, calling anybody "un patriotic" if they take the patriotic step of questioning their government. This has been your entire contribution to this discussion. Thanks for trying to stop meaningful discussion. The holocaust is irrlevant in this discussion and was only brought into the discussion by you in an attempt to derail the conversation. Of course, setting up a concentration camp off of US soil for the purpose of torturing people with no evidence of any guilt is not gassing jews, so, of course, there is no similarity at all.
Shall I label you a Stalinist? I could dig up probably more evidence for than than you could to connect Bush to Naziism.
Oh, good lord. You could not dig up a single such thing because there are not any. The connections between Bush and the Nazis are clear and indisputable. His Grandfather was a huge admirer to the point that he commited treason to deal with them while we were at war wioth them. His administration was trained by a huge proponent of their philosophy.
Those are the facts which are relevant to the discussion. Other atrocities commited by the Nazis are not relevant. The fact that that's the only thing you bring to the table and you alone brought it shows a total contempt on your part for intellectual honesty as well as frank and open discussion.
You even agree, point by point, but you're so hateful you can't apply any reason. The only attempt to address what I said was effectively
1. Republicans (allegedly) hate Gays 2. Nazis hate Jews 3. Republicans are Nazis (QED)
You are apparently completely incapable of reading.
Nazi philosophy is marked by several things. One of them is creating an "enemy" group within your own country to distract from real issues.
That is exactly what the current administration has done.
The fact that the mechanisms are different is totally irrelevant. The fact that they are merely trying to destroy the fundamental founding principle of this country rather than gassing people is likewise irrelevant to that fact.
'Promoting hatred' is not lethal. That's not even what they're doing anyways.
Good lord, I'm intrigued as to how the fuck you would attempt to justify those utterly moronic statements.
The fact is that the original posting laid out the parallels between the current administration quite clearly, and in an absolutely factual manner.
The fact that your only response is to say that they aren't gassing jews so no comparison is possible is the sign of a truly deranged psyche.
Go read it. Don't stop at the first mention of Hitler like you did before whining like a little bitch that "oh, no it can't be true whaaa whaaa whaaa."
Read the fucking post. Do some fucking research rather than spout out nonsense. They are not hiding any of the facts in the original post. They are quite proud of them.
It's scum like you who are too cowardly to look the truth in the eye when it is uncomfortable that are the primary problem the world is facing today.
I suppose in your proportionless hyperbolic world, that would qualify as a 'hate crime.'
What a fucking moron. Let's make up some random hot button item and pretend that the person you're arguing with believes in it rather than addressing the actual issues.
Somehow, when Nixon died, he was "remembered" as a great American. How can we stand for this?
Same with Reagan, Dude. His legacy is Osama bin Laden as well as various other terrorist groups, torture schools and 100s of thousands murdered in Central America. Also, let's not forget the CIA involvement in the cocaine trade.
Which particular racial/ethnic/religious American mix of international mutt is the 'master race?'
That would be straight people
When do we start rounding up the Jews?
That would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to formally create a class of second class citizens.
You make the mistake of assuming that gas chambers are a requirement. The influence is in promoting hatred of a specific group to distract attention from real issues.
When does Bush do a complete 180 and start nationalizing everything instead of the current push to privatize things more and more?
Extreme right wing and extreme left wing are so similar in their results as to be different only philosophically.
When do we round up all the guns from private citizens?
Irrelevant. There is no longer a need for this given modern weaponry, and the sycophantic attitude of the current administration's supporters.
When do the book burnings start?
When a higher priority is given to censoring dirty words on the radio then to terrorism leading to a successful attack on America.
When do we start taking over other countries?
Fucking moron.
Does anyone every study unrevised history any more? Does anyone actually remember what the Nazis did, beyond 'bad stuff and like Bush is like totally doing bad stuff too so he's like totally a Nazi, dude?'
Sure, that's why the original post that you were responding to was so well thought out and researched. What you are doing is saying "He's nopt exactly like Hitler in every last detail so there is no point in drawing any comparison lalalalalalal"
IBM did business with Nazi Germany. Does that have any bearing on them or the management's relatives in this day and age?
This is the only statement you made that actually even addressed my point, and then only tangentially. The fact that the influence is there is indisputable. It's relevance is debatable as I said twice.
Not that we could read your loony rant because we're illiterate.
How about you actually try looking it up. Those are very well established facts. You might not think it matters, but the facts are what they are.
The rest of your rant was as inane and ignorant.
The indisputable fact is that the current cabal in power is extensively influenced by Nazi philosophy. The President's grandfather was in business with the Nazis while we were at war with them.
These are all facts.
Whether or not they matter is certainly open to debate, but to dismiss absolute fact as "loony rants" merely serves to make you look like a fool.
And this here is leftism discrediting rightism. You are guilty of the crime you are advocating against.
Funny that you assume that I'm left of center. I'm a fiscal conservative and registered Republican, and I feel betrayed by the criminals that have taken over the Republican party.
Neat how he gave a blatant example of what you were talking about though.
You stated a few very obvious absolutely true *facts* and he attacked you because you aren't goose stepping in time.
It's the same type of attitude that allows those cowards to viciously attack a war hero (McCain) and then claim to have a shred of patriotism.
. Some pointy headed nitwit has spouted some politicaly correct nonsense to them and they swallow it and spew it back out without processing it at all. They are true believers and get downright hostile if you challange their beliefs with logic. Forget having a rational argument with them.
What you have just described is Rush Limbaugh and those who listen to him. They do call themselves "Dittoheads".
As soon as you make a valid point they start insulting GW instead of attacking your point. (Side note: This insulting GW is the standard noise they make when they are together in a herd and need the comfort of knowing that the herd is there around them, kind of like the way a flock of sheep will bleat to each other.
And other than the fact that you misspelled "Bill Clinton" as "GW", you have described the same people. The fact that Clinton has not been President for 5 years makes no difference.
They can not believe that their guy lost because of those stupid trailer park people. I find this attitude really ugly.
No, we can't believe that Republicans would piss right in the face of everything they have always claimed to believe in most strongly (State's Rights) for the sole purpose of setting up a group of Americans as second class citizens. Then you have the audacity to claim that other people have "ugly attitudes"?!?
I'm sorry, but a lot of us are not even capable of that insane ridiculous Orwellian doublethink. Thanks for playing though.
Of course, that'll also have the effect of putting more people on the internet, which will result in Googles having to have to beef up their search indices on "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bears", "Ditka", and "Polish Sausage".
This is the one city in the country where nobody will ever have to look those words up;-)
I'm just starting on a MythTV box and I got a pvr 350 for my birthday for it. Is that a waste over the 250 as well? Also, how low can I go on my lying around machines (would a 400mhz work?)
I was in Louisiana last week and the wife of one of my Father-in-Law's Coworkers cooked. This little Mexican lady made something AWESOME. Fish Tacos! Instead of beef, it was Tilapia (whitefish) deep fried in a seasoned batter.
In any case I have heard, and beliced that all US Mexican food tastes the same. After experiencing the real thisg, I KNOW all US Mexican food tastes the same!
Dude, that's a San Felipe thing. They've had fast food restaurants in San Diego (Rubio's) serving them for well over a decade.
Just because you're behind the times doesn't mean the rest of us are.
It's seems to me the only national leader who immediately came to the US to offer help was Tony Blair.
Then you're a fucking ignorant moron.
The whole world with very few exceptions was more supportive of us than at almost any other time in our history. The fact that he pissed all of this good will away is one of the major reasons a lot of Americans hate Bush.
Thanks for asking, as I prefer that over leaving you with the impression you've already formed (which seems to have been derived from, I don't know, episodes of The Dukes of Hazard or something).
Not from the Dukes of Hazard. We actually used to do that in college. No dynamite arrows though;-)
Once the AC pointed it out, it was obvious, I was just having a brain fart I suppose. Anyhow, thanks for responding. Those look like some great dogs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.
Fair enough. I guess where I was coming from is that for the sake of brevity, I generally just say that I'm an atheist if it's necessary to even address the topic. I understand that there are some "atheist groups" or something that get together and "be atheists" or something. I'm not into any of that, but sometimes I guess I just think when other people use that word I feel like they're trying to speak for me. Your approach seems to be more of a whatever when that happens, which is probably better.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough.
;-)
If we managed to create our own universe, then that would certainly indicate it is possible
Which is exactly the same with the Big Bang theory. It offers no explanation of what caused or created the singularity. You have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started.
;-)
It is very similar, but it isn't exactly the same.
I don't know how the universe came into being in terms of what caused the big bang (assuming there actually was such a thing). So there is no loss of ignorance implied or otherwise. All of the evidence available indicates that everything was at the same place some time ago, so it's reasonable to assume that to be the case until contradictory evidence comes to light.
So there is some loss of ignorance in terms of the mechanisms and what happened since then.
I don't see the Big Bang as incompatible with a creator, for this reason.
Absolutely. Those who do are about 8 beers short of a 6 pack.
Physics itself says (AFAIK) that there is no way currently (maybe even ever) possible to know what happened prior to the big bang. Anybody who believes in a being so powerful as to be able to create everything, but won't allow that he might have chosen his own way to do that is calling their own god pretty lame.
You see, when I talk of a creator, I'm not pointing to the Bible or anything of that sort. My creator is falsifiable, experimental data that shows contradiction can be taken into account, and the theory modified accordingly.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
What sort of falsifiable theory of a creator exists?
Don't let them shape your philosophy. Keep an open mind, even if a big group of the people that believe in a theory are obnoxious facists, that doesn't mean the theory should be dismissed out of hand.
I guess this ties in with the above. I'm not aware of any actual theory of creation. I have never heard of such an animal and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my first issue of the newsletter
This site would be boring as hell if everyone thought exactly the same way.
No it wouldn't!
Yeah, but how do we work out the Natalie Portman time sharing?
Before I moved into a Carriage House, I lived in a 3 flat. In Chicago.
You need to get out more.
Then perhaps you ought to amend your "offer". Heck, $5 for any Microsoft employee would mean that the janitor who cleans the bathrooms in the evening would fall into that category -- hardly someone who has any moral or ethical interest in the company.
;-)
This is designed as a "scorched earth" policy to make sure that *nobody* will choose to work there.
Even the janitor's paycheck is drawn on funds "earned" based on criminal activity.
Of course, I'd rather encourage you to think of alternate means of resolving this rather than through violence. Lawmakers can be persuaded if enough people express their opinions as it puts the next election on the line for them.
My point is that I have thought long and hard about this issue and I am completely at a loss as to how to resolve this outside of violent means.
If a lawmaker loses their job over it, then they will simply go to work lobbying for MS or similar scummy company for a huge salary increase negating any deterrent effect.
You said you had several ideas that would work, yet you still aren't responding with them.
I hope it's not because you're planning on patenting them
How can an Atheist form a belief that God does not exist if there is not proof that God does not exist?
It's not even this complicated for me.
I have never formed a "belief" that god does not exist.
I didn't have to.
I never formed the belief that he did in the first place.
There is a fairly large difference. Your comment pre assumes that there is some sort of legitimacy to the whole god thing in the first place (otherwise, there is no need to form any sort of belief about it in the first place) which is not something I have ever seen any reason to accept.
How can you say there is no evidence of God? Surely the existance of highly organized life could lead a rational person to a theory that something created it.
The problem I have with that is simply that it is an utterly empty statement that adds nothing at all to the conversation.
I'm not referring to your comment, but to the idea that since everything is here something must have created it.
All it does is create the new essentially identical question, "Well who made the creator". It's an endless progression with nothing gained. By taking that step, it can seem like you have done away with the ignorance of not knowing the universe's origin, but in reality you're right back where you started with an extra lair of useless cruft.
The only truly honest answer to the question of where the universe came from is, "I don't know". It is entirely possible that this will remain the only possible honest answer to this question forever.
Postulating some god merely pushes "I don't know" back as the answer to the question of where god came from.
An extra lair that adds nothing in terms of actual knowledge..
Now, some people seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling by choosing to believe that they have the answer which they are certainly more than welcome to do. The problem is when they try to make laws based on their belief or force others into it.
That can never be allowed in any form whatsoever in any society that cares in the least about freedom.
Well, my point was that the law has utterly failed to have any positive affect.
It is more profitable to violate the law and buy their way out of it than it is to comply with the law.
Our lawmakers have no real interest in fixing this issue, and if they did, they would be bought off to give up that interest.
So given the reality that we are living in, the fact that my suggestion is illegal is not merely true, it is a fundamental requirement for any meaningful change.
The fact that nobody at MS (well, there are a lot of people there and statistics being what they are maybe somebody, but not as a matter of company policy) has killed anybody is likewise irrelevant. They are supporting the actions of the company, and if their ethics are that tarnished then I see it as a necessary sacrifice to the greater good since as far as I can see nothing else has a snowball's chance in hell of working.
I'm certainly interested in hearing your ideas, but if they involve working through the system which created and supports this activity, I really don't put much faith in their effectiveness.
So what you are saying is that you have no better solution to offer?
You have cherry picked a few secondary and tertiary traits or tactics used by the Nazis and drawn parallels to Bush - coincidentally, ones that are often used by ALL governments.
No, I haven't.
That has pretty much zero to do with what this discussion was about.
The original poster who is not me picked several of the major traits and tactics used by the Nazis and demonstrated the parallels.
Your response was to cry like a little bitch about gassing jews.
The issue under discussion was the *fact* that a number of members of the Bush administration studied under and were *influenced* by a major proponent of Nazi philosophy.
That's it.
The fact is that when presented with that information, which if you had a scrap of partriotism you would already have known, you went into typical right wing pundit attack mode and tried to turn the conversation into being about somebody saying that Bush=Hitler.
You are the only one who tried to create that statement out of somebody else's words which did not say that.
The scale of the negative things done by Bush is several orders of magnatude less evil than what the Nazis did. It's not even close. This is why comparisons to the Nazis is ridiculous.
That is an idiotic statement. Comparisons to the holocaust would be. Comparisons to the philosophy when many members of his administration took their doctorates under one of the main proponents of that philosophy are entirely relevant, and completely reasonable.
Turning the conversation away from that and toward the holocaust is the act of a scumbag afraid to discuss the facts for whatever fucked up reason you have.
Another fact is that there are parallels between the methods used by the Nazis and those used by the Bush administration. For example, calling anybody "un patriotic" if they take the patriotic step of questioning their government. This has been your entire contribution to this discussion. Thanks for trying to stop meaningful discussion.
The holocaust is irrlevant in this discussion and was only brought into the discussion by you in an attempt to derail the conversation. Of course, setting up a concentration camp off of US soil for the purpose of torturing people with no evidence of any guilt is not gassing jews, so, of course, there is no similarity at all.
Shall I label you a Stalinist? I could dig up probably more evidence for than than you could to connect Bush to Naziism.
Oh, good lord.
You could not dig up a single such thing because there are not any.
The connections between Bush and the Nazis are clear and indisputable.
His Grandfather was a huge admirer to the point that he commited treason to deal with them while we were at war wioth them.
His administration was trained by a huge proponent of their philosophy.
Those are the facts which are relevant to the discussion. Other atrocities commited by the Nazis are not relevant. The fact that that's the only thing you bring to the table and you alone brought it shows a total contempt on your part for intellectual honesty as well as frank and open discussion.
Not shure if I should offer sympathy or applause.
;-)
I'd say a little of both.
Of, course, I'm not sure which of the 50%s would get which
You even agree, point by point, but you're so hateful you can't apply any reason. The only attempt to address what I said was effectively
1. Republicans (allegedly) hate Gays
2. Nazis hate Jews
3. Republicans are Nazis (QED)
You are apparently completely incapable of reading.
Nazi philosophy is marked by several things. One of them is creating an "enemy" group within your own country to distract from real issues.
That is exactly what the current administration has done.
The fact that the mechanisms are different is totally irrelevant.
The fact that they are merely trying to destroy the fundamental founding principle of this country rather than gassing people is likewise irrelevant to that fact.
'Promoting hatred' is not lethal. That's not even what they're doing anyways.
Good lord, I'm intrigued as to how the fuck you would attempt to justify those utterly moronic statements.
The fact is that the original posting laid out the parallels between the current administration quite clearly, and in an absolutely factual manner.
The fact that your only response is to say that they aren't gassing jews so no comparison is possible is the sign of a truly deranged psyche.
Go read it. Don't stop at the first mention of Hitler like you did before whining like a little bitch that "oh, no it can't be true whaaa whaaa whaaa."
Read the fucking post.
Do some fucking research rather than spout out nonsense. They are not hiding any of the facts in the original post. They are quite proud of them.
It's scum like you who are too cowardly to look the truth in the eye when it is uncomfortable that are the primary problem the world is facing today.
I suppose in your proportionless hyperbolic world, that would qualify as a 'hate crime.'
What a fucking moron.
Let's make up some random hot button item and pretend that the person you're arguing with believes in it rather than addressing the actual issues.
Pull your head out of your ass and look around.
Somehow, when Nixon died, he was "remembered" as a great American. How can we stand for this?
Same with Reagan, Dude.
His legacy is Osama bin Laden as well as various other terrorist groups, torture schools and 100s of thousands murdered in Central America. Also, let's not forget the CIA involvement in the cocaine trade.
People are very fucking stupid.
This case had all the indications that MS workers would finally be found guilty of perjury and sent to jail.
Well, it just ain't gonna happen.
Something needs to be done, and it's damn sure our fucked up (both teams) government isn't going to do it.
I propose to put my money where my mouth is.
I'll offer $5.00 to anybody who kills a Microsoft employee. $10.00 if they're in management.
Like it or not, I defy anybody to come up with another solution that actually has a chance in hell of working.
Which particular racial/ethnic/religious American mix of international mutt is the 'master race?'
That would be straight people
When do we start rounding up the Jews?
That would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to formally create a class of second class citizens.
You make the mistake of assuming that gas chambers are a requirement. The influence is in promoting hatred of a specific group to distract attention from real issues.
When does Bush do a complete 180 and start nationalizing everything instead of the current push to privatize things more and more?
Extreme right wing and extreme left wing are so similar in their results as to be different only philosophically.
When do we round up all the guns from private citizens?
Irrelevant. There is no longer a need for this given modern weaponry, and the sycophantic attitude of the current administration's supporters.
When do the book burnings start?
When a higher priority is given to censoring dirty words on the radio then to terrorism leading to a successful attack on America.
When do we start taking over other countries?
Fucking moron.
Does anyone every study unrevised history any more? Does anyone actually remember what the Nazis did, beyond 'bad stuff and like Bush is like totally doing bad stuff too so he's like totally a Nazi, dude?'
Sure, that's why the original post that you were responding to was so well thought out and researched. What you are doing is saying "He's nopt exactly like Hitler in every last detail so there is no point in drawing any comparison lalalalalalal"
IBM did business with Nazi Germany. Does that have any bearing on them or the management's relatives in this day and age?
This is the only statement you made that actually even addressed my point, and then only tangentially.
The fact that the influence is there is indisputable. It's relevance is debatable as I said twice.
Not that we could read your loony rant because we're illiterate.
How about you actually try looking it up.
Those are very well established facts.
You might not think it matters, but the facts are what they are.
The rest of your rant was as inane and ignorant.
The indisputable fact is that the current cabal in power is extensively influenced by Nazi philosophy. The President's grandfather was in business with the Nazis while we were at war with them.
These are all facts.
Whether or not they matter is certainly open to debate, but to dismiss absolute fact as "loony rants" merely serves to make you look like a fool.
And this here is leftism discrediting rightism. You are guilty of the crime you are advocating against.
Funny that you assume that I'm left of center. I'm a fiscal conservative and registered Republican, and I feel betrayed by the criminals that have taken over the Republican party.
Neat how he gave a blatant example of what you were talking about though.
You stated a few very obvious absolutely true *facts* and he attacked you because you aren't goose stepping in time.
It's the same type of attitude that allows those cowards to viciously attack a war hero (McCain) and then claim to have a shred of patriotism.
. Some pointy headed nitwit has spouted some politicaly correct nonsense to them and they swallow it and spew it back out without processing it at all. They are true believers and get downright hostile if you challange their beliefs with logic. Forget having a rational argument with them.
What you have just described is Rush Limbaugh and those who listen to him. They do call themselves "Dittoheads".
As soon as you make a valid point they start insulting GW instead of attacking your point. (Side note: This insulting GW is the standard noise they make when they are together in a herd and need the comfort of knowing that the herd is there around them, kind of like the way a flock of sheep will bleat to each other.
And other than the fact that you misspelled "Bill Clinton" as "GW", you have described the same people. The fact that Clinton has not been President for 5 years makes no difference.
They can not believe that their guy lost because of those stupid trailer park people. I find this attitude really ugly.
No, we can't believe that Republicans would piss right in the face of everything they have always claimed to believe in most strongly (State's Rights) for the sole purpose of setting up a group of Americans as second class citizens.
Then you have the audacity to claim that other people have "ugly attitudes"?!?
I'm sorry, but a lot of us are not even capable of that insane ridiculous Orwellian doublethink.
Thanks for playing though.
Of course, that'll also have the effect of putting more people on the internet, which will result in Googles having to have to beef up their search indices on "Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bears", "Ditka", and "Polish Sausage".
;-)
This is the one city in the country where nobody will ever have to look those words up
I'm just starting on a MythTV box and I got a pvr 350 for my birthday for it.
Is that a waste over the 250 as well?
Also, how low can I go on my lying around machines (would a 400mhz work?)
I was in Louisiana last week and the wife of one of my Father-in-Law's Coworkers cooked. This little Mexican lady made something AWESOME. Fish Tacos! Instead of beef, it was Tilapia (whitefish) deep fried in a seasoned batter.
In any case I have heard, and beliced that all US Mexican food tastes the same. After experiencing the real thisg, I KNOW all US Mexican food tastes the same!
Dude, that's a San Felipe thing.
They've had fast food restaurants in San Diego (Rubio's) serving them for well over a decade.
Just because you're behind the times doesn't mean the rest of us are.
It's seems to me the only national leader who immediately came to the US to offer help was Tony Blair.
Then you're a fucking ignorant moron.
The whole world with very few exceptions was more supportive of us than at almost any other time in our history.
The fact that he pissed all of this good will away is one of the major reasons a lot of Americans hate Bush.
Thanks for asking, as I prefer that over leaving you with the impression you've already formed (which seems to have been derived from, I don't know, episodes of The Dukes of Hazard or something).
;-)
Not from the Dukes of Hazard. We actually used to do that in college.
No dynamite arrows though
Once the AC pointed it out, it was obvious, I was just having a brain fart I suppose.
Anyhow, thanks for responding.
Those look like some great dogs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it gets sort of pointless to chuck yourself in a group just because it has a word to describe it, and to spend too much time defining them is pointless, since not everyone will ever see each group in the same light.
Fair enough.
I guess where I was coming from is that for the sake of brevity, I generally just say that I'm an atheist if it's necessary to even address the topic.
I understand that there are some "atheist groups" or something that get together and "be atheists" or something.
I'm not into any of that, but sometimes I guess I just think when other people use that word I feel like they're trying to speak for me.
Your approach seems to be more of a whatever when that happens, which is probably better.