DTV looks gorgeous on my TV. But it drives me up the wall that my PBS station doesn't come in, because it got shafted over to the tail end of the spectrum, and power in the tens of kilowatts, rather than hundreds of kilowatts. I will finally get PBS back when the damned cutover FINALLY takes effect!
Funny, PBS is about the only station I can rely on picking up. ABC and NBC are hit or miss. The really annoying thing is when one of those isn't there, none of their stations are there. Either I can pick up HD and 3 other transmissions from them or I get nothing. This is right in the middle of Chicago too, so all of the transmitters are under 3 miles away.
Hope they fix it by Sunday. It's my turn to host the superbowl party and I'm not paying Comcast for HD;-)
Not saying I'm a fan of Superman or that I've even sat down and watched Smallville, but the guy looked like he was chosen for his appearance rather than any dramatic fit or resemblance to any previous rendition of Superman.
Huh?!?
Never watched it either and don't necessarily disagree with you for the most part, but not picked for resemblance?!? (among the other reasons) Really?
if they pay more, then the state has to charge more in tax, so what do you want? Higher taxes, so ISPs can charge more? Or that CEOP tries to save money while still doing their job?
What I want is the real cost of government to be reflected in what it charges (taxes), so the people have a really big fucking price tag to look at when assessing the value of yet another increase in government scope and power.
By rolling the cost of nearly worthless* witch hunts like online predators and the like into ISP service, it's hidden from the people paying for it. I want the true cost of law enforcement to be paid by direct taxation, so that we can have sane discussions about scaling it down to reasonable levels.
* Yes, damn near worthless. If you really care so much about saving the children, take all children away from their parents at birth and have the state raise them. The overwhelming majority of abused children are abused by relatives. If you're not willing to take this step, you are *not* interested in addressing the "problem" and obviously have some ulterior motive.
We might start thinking about what sort of precedent this sets for subsequent American administrations.
The precedent that the President is above the law was set in stone with Ford's Folly. Following that, Reagan sold cocaine to buy weapons for terrorists and is the patron saint of the Republican party still for the love of anything holy.
This is just more of the same, not a new precedent.
Why would it be a good idea to go to a partisan journalist? If you're going to blow the whistle on something and you want to be taken seriously, then doesn't it make sense to take it to a journalist who is generally respected regardless of one's political leanings?
No, it doesn't make sense. Think about it. Given the nature of these crimes, which most sane people were already pretty certain were going on, if one's political leanings are in support of the Bush administration, then they're either a fool, or a traitor. So a journalist that they would respect is clearly an extreme partisan hack. As more and more facts like this have continued to come out, it just demonstrates that Olberman and the like aren't actually partisan, they are both correct and relatively neutral.
Wanting Bush and his administration hung for treason is a completely neutral and unbiased position. Trying to play assinine games with "balance' and pretending that supporting criminal treason and standing against it are just opposite sides of neutrality is utter insanity.
That is the clear problem with your position. You don't even seem to understand what bias, partisanship, or neutrality even are.
You look at the government as liars out to get you. Your forgetting that there are honest people working for it and the only reason you know about the bad things the government has done is because they spoke up
Yes, but it's the scumbags you keep defending that keep doing the bad things, and the very few honest people who you keep attacking as mindless crybabies and chicken littles who are the ones speaking up in spite of the rabid attacks by anti-American scum like yourself.
You don't get to keep talking shit about patriots and then act like their defiance of your cowardice is a point in favor of your deluded positions, you ignorant piece of shit.
I've taken an oath to defend the people and Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to the best of my ability I will continue to do exactly that.
Huh, Bush is still alive after committing many acts of treason and assaults on the constitution. I guess your oath doesn't actually mean shit to you. Give up that nonsense. You have failed utterly to defend either the people of this nation or its constitution.
Bush's administration is the only credible threat our nation or our constitution has faced in many years and you've clearly done nothing. Well, it seems likely that you collaborated with the traitors at best, but don't you fucking dare pretend you've done shit for this country.
How about just appreciating the fact that some MS employees work hard to support a platform that competes directly with their own?
Because that's not what happened? The "platform" in question is Silverlight. That competes with Flash, so they worked hard to support their platform *against* the competition. This has nothing at all to do with Linux as a platform versus Windows as a platform.
So there is nothing at all here to appreciate. It was obviously a completely self-serving action.
Pay just a little bit of attention and you won't look so dumb in the future.
Sorry bub, but if you voted for Republicans in any presidential election, I'll vote for Obama in 2012. But I am not worried that I will have to do that.
Wow, you don't actually realize that you're only proving my point quite clearly. Of course, I've never voted for a Republican. That doesn't make me a "liberal". All it makes me is "not a complete fucking idiot". I've never voted for a Democrat either. I don't like big government and I don't like wasteful spending. If I was a single issue voter on that ground, then obviously, I'd vote for the Democrats as they're the small government party out of the two, but I don't go for the lesser of two evils. If you don't realize that the Democrats are the small government fiscally responsible party out of the two, then you're an ignorant fool. all you have to do is run the numbers and quit swallowing propaganda. Put another way, all you'd have to do is think. You've made it abundantly clear that that isn't your strong point though.
There is a huge amount of space there. Everything except "extremist right wing nutjob" in fact. That's everything from the left fringe, through moderate left through the entire center, Classical Liberalism, you know the founding principles of this nation through the moderate right. That's, again, everyone except the lunatic fringe. That shows a very tenuous grip on reality, Sparky, so it's not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Reason is clearly outside you capabilities as you have proven here. Again, that's a logical conclusion, not part of the argument.
Liberals, especially the hard-left, do talk that way, at least from reading the two iconic left-wing Websites
LOL, when you lump Liberals and the hard left together it demonstrates complete ignorance of the political spectrum, which ignorance is typical of the far right fringe which is the realm of the Republican party.
2009 America is a lot of good things, but laissez-faire and small government it is decidedly not. And with Obama as POTUS and 58 or 59 senators and a majority in the House on his side, I doubt it's going to get more Classically Liberal any time soon.
You seem very confused. laissez-faire and small government is liberalism which is the center position between the big government left and the big government right. The Republican party is far right fringe, for the most part which is inherently anti classical liberal. It's corporatist rather than hands off. You really should learn what words mean before spouting ignorant swill. I mean when you have no knowledge of political systems apart from the ravings of fascist propaganda mouthpieces like O'Reilly and Hannity you should just shut up. Your idiocy is way to obvious otherwise.
Calling someone stupid and saying they have bad parents and being anti-American and a scumbag - merely because they have the nerve to disagree with you -
It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with me". It's spouting idiotic propaganda and lies which have been thoroughly refuted time and time again. You know damn well you're lying, or you're too stupid to pay attention to the world around you and merely spout nonsense that you wish were true in the face of every single scrap of evidence bar none.
If you don't believe me, go read redstate.org's or NRO.com's forums.
Then go read moveon.org's and huffingtonpost.com's forums and read the vitriol.
It's reasonable that sane, rational people would be the most pissed off given that the mainstream media and the government have conspired to spout little besides fascist propaganda while creating a police state and pissing in the face of everything good this country was once based upon. When the current president is, without a doubt, the worst traitor in the history of the nation and it looks like he'll get the same treatment as Nixon and Reagan, that is pardon for treason, it's perfectly reasonable to be pissed off. Obviously you think somehow you benefit for the biggest increase i
So all of you out there who just rant and whine about "evil Republicans" I suggest you actually read up on some of them and realize that this new breed of psychotic right wing religious bastards don't even begin to resemble one of the greatest Republicans ever.
Maybe you should quit whining about people who pay attention to how the world has been for, what, like pushing 50 years now? Most of aren't that old, Gramps, so we've never lived in a time when Republicans weren't psychotic right wing anti-American religious bastards.
Once upon a time they had some good ideas. Those days are long gone, so when people are talking about the evil Republicans they're actually talking about the real current evil Republicans who are actively working to fuck our country and every decent thing it ever stood for.
Do you seriously think people are talking about Ike when they say those things? No, they're talking about Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush crime family. You know the last near half century of what that party has long since become?
"Republican" no longer means what it did when Ike ran on that party's ticket. Not even close, so there's no point in trying to pretend that Ike has anything in common with modern Republicans. It just gives the shitbags undeserved credibility by association and slings mud all over Ike's memory. Of course, while you point out that Ike warned about the growth of the military industrial complex, he waited until he was safely out of office before doing so and did nothing to stop it while he was in a position to do so.
Oh and last time I checked "under God" was not the establishment of a state religion by a LONG LONG LONG damned stretch,
It's arguable that it's not establishing a state religion, but it's not even one lower case "long" stretch away. It's putting the country, its government and everything in it under the dominion of a creature of religious fantasy. Not in any real legally binding sense, which is where the arguability comes in, but to rational people it is still a tremendously frightening leap backwards given the near universally evil behavior of almost every god ever conceived, especially the dominant one in this country, and the especially radical, ignorant, and extremist followers of said god who make up the majority of the religious people here.
After all, using an IR or Radio telescope is different than using an optical one.
Most of the differences are in how they're built though, and using them is pretty much the same, right?
I mean once they're built, you just point the big end around the sky. With the optical ones you look through the little end, with the radio ones, you put your ear on the little end, and with the IR ones, you put..I dunno, something you want to warm up.... a TV dinner or something on the little end. Astrology isn't so hard.
Argue with a liberal, he eventually will 1) call you names (dumb, racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy), or 2) walk away indignantly.
Disagree with a wingnut and he will insist that you must be a "liberal" because he has no actual arguments and must demonize anyone who disagrees disregarding the fact that the disagreement with your insane anti-American positions come from all over the political spectrum.
I am sorry you are so cynical that you think all politicians are evil, but I think Cheney has tried to do the best he can to protect this country
See, when you're that far out of touch with reality, and so utterly stupid as to not notice anything that Cheney did while in office, how none of it helped America and how it would have been impossible for him to do as poorly as he did by accident, it's no surprise that you're limited to bleating "liberal" as if that has anything to do with anything I said or any of the objections people from all over the political spectrum have with the crimes and acts of treason committed quite willfully by Cheney.
Ask yourself, what you've gained by the criminally treasonous actions of the Bush administration and you will find nothing there, unless you consider bringing gay hatred to the forefront of political discussion to be a positive thing as that's the only thing they worked to do which could be considered a success even if all ethical people consider it an entirely negative thing to have even attempted.
The mainstream media's eight years of character assassination notwithstanding, yes I do believe he is a decent man who tried to do the right thing.
You mean 6 years of ass licking followed by 2 years of half-assedly pretending to be somewhat objective. If you honestly believe that, then explain how he could have failed so utterly? Good luck with that. Flipping a coin would have given far better results.
And I guess you'd prefer that presidents with little or no national experience (Bush, Obama) not seek the assistance of seasoned Washington insiders to counsel them (Cheney, Biden).
Given that Washington is run poorly by the revolving door policy, absolutely. I don't want somebody who's only experience is being a scumbag. Why you would is beyond me. Personally, I like keeping what I earn. You apparently think all I earn and all you earn should be pissed away. No other way you could be defending that piece of shit.
Just once, I'd like to meet and debate with a liberal who won't run to the gutter and make personal attacks, and could just disagree without being disagreeable. Just once.
I love your typical wingnut ad hominem while whining about ad hominens. It's laughable.
You see, when your entire position has been utterly destroyed multiple times over a period of years, when you have nothing to back up your "position" but lies and delusion, then it's not an ad hominem to call your learning into question. That's clear as you obviously don't even know what an ad hominem is. Something can only be an ad hominem when its part of the argument. My questioning of your failure to learn basic facts before reaching your current age was part of the *conclusion*. You know, the thing that the facts point to rather than something use to reach a conclusion?
But, yeah, that much have been a wonderful law school you went to if you didn't even learn that. Let me guess, they tried to teach you that but you were told to believe it was something else so called the professor a "liberal" and assumed you'd made a point? Seems likely given your single argument style.
I don't disagree with you at all. Having an all powerful god who refuses to give any evidence for himself and demands that you worship him based solely on the statements of the person who stands to profit the most from you believing his nonsense is such an obvious scam that it's no surprise the religious sheep so often get fleeced.
So am I the only one who wonders what cool interference patterns we might be able to see if we hang onto our old analog TVs after the switchover, and try tuning in some of the new wireless network data they're going to be transmitting on the same frequencies?
I will not rest until I rickroll you on your tv that way;-)
I mean, because it's political, it _has_ to be so someone or some company can game the system and reap megabucks?
It's really odd. It almost seems like you're trying to be sarcastic, but it's such an obviously correct statement....
So just in case you, for some bizarre reason, do think that was sarcastic:
It wasn't. That is the state of the nation and has been for decades (and really, more or less for the world forever). Please recognize that fact, internalize it, and learn to apply it by default to every situation you see. Getting everyone to deal with reality is the only possible way we'll ever end up in a position where what you said *isn't* actually true. This is basic common sense and the only rational position.
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology.
Well, it's laughable to pretend that you are anything but an extremist partisan nutter when you describe Cheney as a "live-long" (sic) public servant as if that's somehow a positive description. Cheney used the public sphere to serve himself even more so than almost any of the other scum out there doing the same thing. But even his specific case aside, a lifelong leech on the public tit is a bad thing, Sparky. What the hell is wrong with your parents, your educational institutions and yourself that you never managed to figure out such a simple basic fact?
How do you think you actually benefit from the biggest of big government, fascism, and Nazi policies?
I'm honestly curious how somebody could describe themselves as a rabid right winger. It's bizarre, the right wing gives the examples of the most hated and disgusting systems in the history of the world from theocracy and feudalism to the Nazis with not one single positive example of a right wing government that you could point at.
Do you really think you'll be the king rather than a peasant? Do you think you'll get to be pope?
I mean, Classical Liberalism is the center, that has America to point to as the crown jewel of that philosophy. The extremes of the left are obviously bad, but moderate left wing policies have lead to many decent societies like most of modern Europe. But the right by its very definition has nothing going for it unless you're part of the select elite group that gets all of the benefit of the system by design, and even then the guillotine eventually awaits once the vast majority of the people get sick of being the slaves of the elite, so it's not even a good long term strategy for them.
So I ask you quite seriously, why would you describe yourself as a rabid follower of a system that has never led to anything but massive failure?
Do you just not understand what the right wing is? Do you just hate Jews/Blacks/Gays/$HATED_GROUP so much that you're willing to piss away your future as long as you can keep them down? Do you just love to see your and everyone else's money pissed away to enrich a few already rich scumbags?
I'm just at a loss to understand how somebody could bring themselves to describe themselves with such a disgusting and insulting term....usually it's the kind of epithet you'd throw at some hated enemy rather than take upon oneself.
I have to wonder what a modern Christian would think when they read about their great loving God sending his angel of death to kill every innocent first-born child of Egypt just because some Pharaoh was a dickhead;
It's even worse than that. Pharaoh wanted to relent, but god hardened his heart and forced him to keep being a dick, just so god could murder all the innocent children.
Completely throws away free will, and the idea that god is anything but an evil asshole. That's why sane and decent people are very nervous around any human sick and diseased enough to worship such pure unadulterated evil.
My country guarantees me several freedoms that other countries (or even the UN Declaration of Human Rights) don't provide for.
Not strictly true. The constitution of our country guarantees such. Said constitution is regularly slid back and forth between the ass cheeks of our rulers, meaning that our country guarantees no such thing. It's not as dead as it will be soon, but the very existence of the "patriot act" and "free speech zones" as well as drug laws and the massive collateral constitutional damage therefrom make your statement pretty naive, even approaching laughable:-(
Slashdot Mirror
But is it not also true to say that there is news available on the TV over the airwaves?
It is not true to say that. There's no news, only bullshit propaganda and I for one don't feel like paying dipshits to sit around watching it.
DTV looks gorgeous on my TV. But it drives me up the wall that my PBS station doesn't come in, because it got shafted over to the tail end of the spectrum, and power in the tens of kilowatts, rather than hundreds of kilowatts. I will finally get PBS back when the damned cutover FINALLY takes effect!
Funny, PBS is about the only station I can rely on picking up. ABC and NBC are hit or miss. The really annoying thing is when one of those isn't there, none of their stations are there. Either I can pick up HD and 3 other transmissions from them or I get nothing. This is right in the middle of Chicago too, so all of the transmitters are under 3 miles away.
Hope they fix it by Sunday. It's my turn to host the superbowl party and I'm not paying Comcast for HD ;-)
Not saying I'm a fan of Superman or that I've even sat down and watched Smallville, but the guy looked like he was chosen for his appearance rather than any dramatic fit or resemblance to any previous rendition of Superman.
Huh?!?
Never watched it either and don't necessarily disagree with you for the most part, but not picked for resemblance?!? (among the other reasons) Really?
would you then say "well since we're going to hit it anyway we don't need to brake at all"?
Of course not, that would be silly. I'd say, "Punch it and let's test out the airbags."
So, do you want to join my carpool?
Not only does it perfectly illustrate the point, but it is also one of the cleverest and funniest shows I think I've ever seen. Chris Morris is a God.
Sounds like something somebody on cake would say ;-)
There is a discrepancy here
No there isn't.
if they pay more, then the state has to charge more in tax, so what do you want? Higher taxes, so ISPs can charge more? Or that CEOP tries to save money while still doing their job?
What I want is the real cost of government to be reflected in what it charges (taxes), so the people have a really big fucking price tag to look at when assessing the value of yet another increase in government scope and power.
By rolling the cost of nearly worthless* witch hunts like online predators and the like into ISP service, it's hidden from the people paying for it. I want the true cost of law enforcement to be paid by direct taxation, so that we can have sane discussions about scaling it down to reasonable levels.
* Yes, damn near worthless. If you really care so much about saving the children, take all children away from their parents at birth and have the state raise them. The overwhelming majority of abused children are abused by relatives. If you're not willing to take this step, you are *not* interested in addressing the "problem" and obviously have some ulterior motive.
We might start thinking about what sort of precedent this sets for subsequent American administrations.
The precedent that the President is above the law was set in stone with Ford's Folly.
Following that, Reagan sold cocaine to buy weapons for terrorists and is the patron saint of the Republican party still for the love of anything holy.
This is just more of the same, not a new precedent.
Why would it be a good idea to go to a partisan journalist? If you're going to blow the whistle on something and you want to be taken seriously, then doesn't it make sense to take it to a journalist who is generally respected regardless of one's political leanings?
No, it doesn't make sense.
Think about it. Given the nature of these crimes, which most sane people were already pretty certain were going on, if one's political leanings are in support of the Bush administration, then they're either a fool, or a traitor. So a journalist that they would respect is clearly an extreme partisan hack. As more and more facts like this have continued to come out, it just demonstrates that Olberman and the like aren't actually partisan, they are both correct and relatively neutral.
Wanting Bush and his administration hung for treason is a completely neutral and unbiased position. Trying to play assinine games with "balance' and pretending that supporting criminal treason and standing against it are just opposite sides of neutrality is utter insanity.
That is the clear problem with your position. You don't even seem to understand what bias, partisanship, or neutrality even are.
You look at the government as liars out to get you. Your forgetting that there are honest people working for it and the only reason you know about the bad things the government has done is because they spoke up
Yes, but it's the scumbags you keep defending that keep doing the bad things, and the very few honest people who you keep attacking as mindless crybabies and chicken littles who are the ones speaking up in spite of the rabid attacks by anti-American scum like yourself.
You don't get to keep talking shit about patriots and then act like their defiance of your cowardice is a point in favor of your deluded positions, you ignorant piece of shit.
I've taken an oath to defend the people and Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to the best of my ability I will continue to do exactly that.
Huh, Bush is still alive after committing many acts of treason and assaults on the constitution. I guess your oath doesn't actually mean shit to you. Give up that nonsense. You have failed utterly to defend either the people of this nation or its constitution.
Bush's administration is the only credible threat our nation or our constitution has faced in many years and you've clearly done nothing. Well, it seems likely that you collaborated with the traitors at best, but don't you fucking dare pretend you've done shit for this country.
How about just appreciating the fact that some MS employees work hard to support a platform that competes directly with their own?
Because that's not what happened? The "platform" in question is Silverlight. That competes with Flash, so they worked hard to support their platform *against* the competition. This has nothing at all to do with Linux as a platform versus Windows as a platform.
So there is nothing at all here to appreciate. It was obviously a completely self-serving action.
Pay just a little bit of attention and you won't look so dumb in the future.
I am?!? This is some very startling news. I didn't even know my mother was seeing someone!
If she's not, then you damn well better keep an eye on your uncle.
Sorry bub, but if you voted for Republicans in any presidential election, I'll vote for Obama in 2012. But I am not worried that I will have to do that.
Wow, you don't actually realize that you're only proving my point quite clearly. Of course, I've never voted for a Republican. That doesn't make me a "liberal". All it makes me is "not a complete fucking idiot". I've never voted for a Democrat either. I don't like big government and I don't like wasteful spending. If I was a single issue voter on that ground, then obviously, I'd vote for the Democrats as they're the small government party out of the two, but I don't go for the lesser of two evils. If you don't realize that the Democrats are the small government fiscally responsible party out of the two, then you're an ignorant fool. all you have to do is run the numbers and quit swallowing propaganda. Put another way, all you'd have to do is think. You've made it abundantly clear that that isn't your strong point though.
There is a huge amount of space there. Everything except "extremist right wing nutjob" in fact. That's everything from the left fringe, through moderate left through the entire center, Classical Liberalism, you know the founding principles of this nation through the moderate right. That's, again, everyone except the lunatic fringe. That shows a very tenuous grip on reality, Sparky, so it's not worth trying to have a reasonable discussion with you. Reason is clearly outside you capabilities as you have proven here. Again, that's a logical conclusion, not part of the argument.
Liberals, especially the hard-left, do talk that way, at least from reading the two iconic left-wing Websites
LOL, when you lump Liberals and the hard left together it demonstrates complete ignorance of the political spectrum, which ignorance is typical of the far right fringe which is the realm of the Republican party.
2009 America is a lot of good things, but laissez-faire and small government it is decidedly not. And with Obama as POTUS and 58 or 59 senators and a majority in the House on his side, I doubt it's going to get more Classically Liberal any time soon.
You seem very confused. laissez-faire and small government is liberalism which is the center position between the big government left and the big government right. The Republican party is far right fringe, for the most part which is inherently anti classical liberal. It's corporatist rather than hands off. You really should learn what words mean before spouting ignorant swill. I mean when you have no knowledge of political systems apart from the ravings of fascist propaganda mouthpieces like O'Reilly and Hannity you should just shut up. Your idiocy is way to obvious otherwise.
Calling someone stupid and saying they have bad parents and being anti-American and a scumbag - merely because they have the nerve to disagree with you -
It has nothing to do with "disagreeing with me". It's spouting idiotic propaganda and lies which have been thoroughly refuted time and time again. You know damn well you're lying, or you're too stupid to pay attention to the world around you and merely spout nonsense that you wish were true in the face of every single scrap of evidence bar none.
If you don't believe me, go read redstate.org's or NRO.com's forums.
Then go read moveon.org's and huffingtonpost.com's forums and read the vitriol.
It's reasonable that sane, rational people would be the most pissed off given that the mainstream media and the government have conspired to spout little besides fascist propaganda while creating a police state and pissing in the face of everything good this country was once based upon. When the current president is, without a doubt, the worst traitor in the history of the nation and it looks like he'll get the same treatment as Nixon and Reagan, that is pardon for treason, it's perfectly reasonable to be pissed off. Obviously you think somehow you benefit for the biggest increase i
So all of you out there who just rant and whine about "evil Republicans" I suggest you actually read up on some of them and realize that this new breed of psychotic right wing religious bastards don't even begin to resemble one of the greatest Republicans ever.
Maybe you should quit whining about people who pay attention to how the world has been for, what, like pushing 50 years now? Most of aren't that old, Gramps, so we've never lived in a time when Republicans weren't psychotic right wing anti-American religious bastards.
Once upon a time they had some good ideas. Those days are long gone, so when people are talking about the evil Republicans they're actually talking about the real current evil Republicans who are actively working to fuck our country and every decent thing it ever stood for.
Do you seriously think people are talking about Ike when they say those things? No, they're talking about Nixon, Reagan, and the Bush crime family. You know the last near half century of what that party has long since become?
"Republican" no longer means what it did when Ike ran on that party's ticket. Not even close, so there's no point in trying to pretend that Ike has anything in common with modern Republicans. It just gives the shitbags undeserved credibility by association and slings mud all over Ike's memory. Of course, while you point out that Ike warned about the growth of the military industrial complex, he waited until he was safely out of office before doing so and did nothing to stop it while he was in a position to do so.
Oh and last time I checked "under God" was not the establishment of a state religion by a LONG LONG LONG damned stretch,
It's arguable that it's not establishing a state religion, but it's not even one lower case "long" stretch away. It's putting the country, its government and everything in it under the dominion of a creature of religious fantasy. Not in any real legally binding sense, which is where the arguability comes in, but to rational people it is still a tremendously frightening leap backwards given the near universally evil behavior of almost every god ever conceived, especially the dominant one in this country, and the especially radical, ignorant, and extremist followers of said god who make up the majority of the religious people here.
After all, using an IR or Radio telescope is different than using an optical one.
Most of the differences are in how they're built though, and using them is pretty much the same, right?
I mean once they're built, you just point the big end around the sky. With the optical ones you look through the little end, with the radio ones, you put your ear on the little end, and with the IR ones, you put..I dunno, something you want to warm up.... a TV dinner or something on the little end. Astrology isn't so hard.
Argue with a liberal, he eventually will 1) call you names (dumb, racist, sexist, homophobe, greedy), or 2) walk away indignantly.
Disagree with a wingnut and he will insist that you must be a "liberal" because he has no actual arguments and must demonize anyone who disagrees disregarding the fact that the disagreement with your insane anti-American positions come from all over the political spectrum.
I am sorry you are so cynical that you think all politicians are evil, but I think Cheney has tried to do the best he can to protect this country
See, when you're that far out of touch with reality, and so utterly stupid as to not notice anything that Cheney did while in office, how none of it helped America and how it would have been impossible for him to do as poorly as he did by accident, it's no surprise that you're limited to bleating "liberal" as if that has anything to do with anything I said or any of the objections people from all over the political spectrum have with the crimes and acts of treason committed quite willfully by Cheney.
Ask yourself, what you've gained by the criminally treasonous actions of the Bush administration and you will find nothing there, unless you consider bringing gay hatred to the forefront of political discussion to be a positive thing as that's the only thing they worked to do which could be considered a success even if all ethical people consider it an entirely negative thing to have even attempted.
The mainstream media's eight years of character assassination notwithstanding, yes I do believe he is a decent man who tried to do the right thing.
You mean 6 years of ass licking followed by 2 years of half-assedly pretending to be somewhat objective. If you honestly believe that, then explain how he could have failed so utterly? Good luck with that. Flipping a coin would have given far better results.
And I guess you'd prefer that presidents with little or no national experience (Bush, Obama) not seek the assistance of seasoned Washington insiders to counsel them (Cheney, Biden).
Given that Washington is run poorly by the revolving door policy, absolutely. I don't want somebody who's only experience is being a scumbag. Why you would is beyond me. Personally, I like keeping what I earn. You apparently think all I earn and all you earn should be pissed away. No other way you could be defending that piece of shit.
Just once, I'd like to meet and debate with a liberal who won't run to the gutter and make personal attacks, and could just disagree without being disagreeable. Just once.
I love your typical wingnut ad hominem while whining about ad hominens. It's laughable.
You see, when your entire position has been utterly destroyed multiple times over a period of years, when you have nothing to back up your "position" but lies and delusion, then it's not an ad hominem to call your learning into question. That's clear as you obviously don't even know what an ad hominem is. Something can only be an ad hominem when its part of the argument. My questioning of your failure to learn basic facts before reaching your current age was part of the *conclusion*. You know, the thing that the facts point to rather than something use to reach a conclusion?
But, yeah, that much have been a wonderful law school you went to if you didn't even learn that. Let me guess, they tried to teach you that but you were told to believe it was something else so called the professor a "liberal" and assumed you'd made a point? Seems likely given your single argument style.
I don't disagree with you at all. Having an all powerful god who refuses to give any evidence for himself and demands that you worship him based solely on the statements of the person who stands to profit the most from you believing his nonsense is such an obvious scam that it's no surprise the religious sheep so often get fleeced.
So am I the only one who wonders what cool interference patterns we might be able to see if we hang onto our old analog TVs after the switchover, and try tuning in some of the new wireless network data they're going to be transmitting on the same frequencies?
I will not rest until I rickroll you on your tv that way ;-)
I mean, because it's political, it _has_ to be so someone or some company can game the system and reap megabucks?
It's really odd. It almost seems like you're trying to be sarcastic, but it's such an obviously correct statement....
So just in case you, for some bizarre reason, do think that was sarcastic:
It wasn't. That is the state of the nation and has been for decades (and really, more or less for the world forever). Please recognize that fact, internalize it, and learn to apply it by default to every situation you see. Getting everyone to deal with reality is the only possible way we'll ever end up in a position where what you said *isn't* actually true. This is basic common sense and the only rational position.
The fuckers that stole my HDTV sure know there is a switch coming; they left all the analog sets behind
Sorry that happened to you, but damn was that funny ;-)
And I find it hard to believe that you are some fair-minded guy concerned about government propriety, who isn't trying to besmirch a live-long public servant simply because of ideology.
Well, it's laughable to pretend that you are anything but an extremist partisan nutter when you describe Cheney as a "live-long" (sic) public servant as if that's somehow a positive description. Cheney used the public sphere to serve himself even more so than almost any of the other scum out there doing the same thing. But even his specific case aside, a lifelong leech on the public tit is a bad thing, Sparky. What the hell is wrong with your parents, your educational institutions and yourself that you never managed to figure out such a simple basic fact?
As a rabid right-winger
How do you think you actually benefit from the biggest of big government, fascism, and Nazi policies?
I'm honestly curious how somebody could describe themselves as a rabid right winger. It's bizarre, the right wing gives the examples of the most hated and disgusting systems in the history of the world from theocracy and feudalism to the Nazis with not one single positive example of a right wing government that you could point at.
Do you really think you'll be the king rather than a peasant? Do you think you'll get to be pope?
I mean, Classical Liberalism is the center, that has America to point to as the crown jewel of that philosophy. The extremes of the left are obviously bad, but moderate left wing policies have lead to many decent societies like most of modern Europe. But the right by its very definition has nothing going for it unless you're part of the select elite group that gets all of the benefit of the system by design, and even then the guillotine eventually awaits once the vast majority of the people get sick of being the slaves of the elite, so it's not even a good long term strategy for them.
So I ask you quite seriously, why would you describe yourself as a rabid follower of a system that has never led to anything but massive failure?
Do you just not understand what the right wing is? Do you just hate Jews/Blacks/Gays/$HATED_GROUP so much that you're willing to piss away your future as long as you can keep them down? Do you just love to see your and everyone else's money pissed away to enrich a few already rich scumbags?
I'm just at a loss to understand how somebody could bring themselves to describe themselves with such a disgusting and insulting term....usually it's the kind of epithet you'd throw at some hated enemy rather than take upon oneself.
So, why would you do that?
I have to wonder what a modern Christian would think when they read about their great loving God sending his angel of death to kill every innocent first-born child of Egypt just because some Pharaoh was a dickhead;
It's even worse than that. Pharaoh wanted to relent, but god hardened his heart and forced him to keep being a dick, just so god could murder all the innocent children.
Completely throws away free will, and the idea that god is anything but an evil asshole. That's why sane and decent people are very nervous around any human sick and diseased enough to worship such pure unadulterated evil.
shouldn't the new guy taking over the spot make it his business to contact the companies he represents and say "Hi, I'm Bob, you're new rep".
I'd expect it, while hoping to use it as an excuse to management to fire them; all the while knowing they wouldn't understand.
My country guarantees me several freedoms that other countries (or even the UN Declaration of Human Rights) don't provide for.
Not strictly true. The constitution of our country guarantees such. Said constitution is regularly slid back and forth between the ass cheeks of our rulers, meaning that our country guarantees no such thing. It's not as dead as it will be soon, but the very existence of the "patriot act" and "free speech zones" as well as drug laws and the massive collateral constitutional damage therefrom make your statement pretty naive, even approaching laughable :-(