Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?
OK, I think I understand what our fundamental misunderstanding is.
I agree with you on most of what you said, but I think we're just disagreeing on a subtle point.
It's almost (in my head) like you're arguing about the abstract concept of "The Military", while I'm arguing about the modern US military in particular, yet most of your specifics are about individual members of the current US military.
Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's equally applied to *The first* Iraq thing. Or to Grenada. Or to Panama, or to Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Argentina, Iran ( the Shah, not next week or whenever) and the list goes on and on. Rather than that, it's not that it applies equally well to each situation. I think it's that you're applying the argument to each event in serial and I'm doing it in parallel.
If every time the same thing happens, you say that the people who were sent off to murder a bunch of people whose desire for a decent life interfered with the profiteering of US companies couldn't or didn't know that that's the sort of thing they were signing up for, then it works. But it only works in isolation from all of the previous events.
If you step back and take a larger view than that your friends had high goals and ideals and they're great people you see a much different picture.
I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about. For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.
If you, instead, look at the history of US military involvement as a whole from the present day perspective, then then you can no longer ignore the first misadventure while excusing the second. You can no longer ignore the first two while excusing the third... I assume you get the basic inductive principle?
I'm not arguing that the Iraq thing is the problem. I'm pointing out that it's the current in a long chain of events promoted primarily by those who stand to make the most profit from it. Ignoring the chain of events and excusing each event in isolation might be an interesting thought experiment, but I don't see how it could ever grant any illumination on this reality.
Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?
That's the difference between an inanimate object and a real thinking human being. The "atoms" of the "tool" in question made a conscious choice to be part of the tool. Again, this is where the analogy fails, and I think, the crux of our issue is.
Anyone can buy a hammer. You might use yours to build a beautiful gazebo, and I might use mine to gouge out my eye while trying to pull a nail out of my forehead. As far as the hammer is concerned...well hammer's aren't concerned, and that's the point.
Your serial approach to US military involvement assumes that peopl
. Maybe the Fringe nuts that call themselves the "Religious Right" who have tried repeatedly to Hijack Conservatism. but not the proper Small-Government, strong America, lower taxes, more freedom Right.
Dude, you're talking about the center or Classical Liberalism. The right is as opposed to those things as the left are, just for different reasons.
Even God's a Scientologist now? Damn, I knew they were working on recruiting famous people, but I thought they'd be stuck with just loons like Travolta and Cruise.
Maybe you're keeping just on the safe side of 'incitement to illegal violence' line but you are clearly hostile to the current constitutional system in which politicians are not generally executed by kangaroo courts on trumped up treason charges.
Wow, dude, you are so wrong in so many ways it's amazing. In the first place, how is it even rational to state that he's hostile to the current constitutional system when all he's advocating is actually following that same system.
Then you spout some nonsense about kangaroo courts when the OP was obviously referring to Congress. You know, the people given the responsibility to press such charges in that same constitution you claim that the OP is hostile towards?
The level of ignorance about the system you're calling others hostile towards that you demonstrate is truly amazing, in a freak show kind of way.
Maybe you're the real traitor in that you advocate overthrowing that system and killing your political opponents.
He's advocating working within the system using the methods laid out by that system to address issues of this nature.
Personally *I* think he's a bit naive if he thinks it's actually possible to still work within the system. I advocate open season on the President, his cabinet, Congress with the exception of Russ Feingold, Ron Paul, and possibly the freshman class, and half of the Supreme Court, but that's just me.
I'd say that's a bit more harsh than "George Bush is a noxious Prick."
No, calling for him to be put to death merely means that you are a good citizen, who values the rule of law and reveres his country's hallowed institutions and founding principles. There is nothing harsh or in any way negative about that.
Calling him a "noxious prick" could be seen as rude, even though true as well, so there is some potential for you to be viewed negatively by a decent person for that, yet no possibility of a decent person viewing you at all negatively for the other.
So it's harsher to call him a noxious prick. He knew what the laws were when he chose to violate them so he's clearly stated that he knows he deserves execution as well.
You appear to be under the impression that you are successfully refuting my points by being snide and calling me names, when in fact 'normal' people refute points by citing fact and using reason and logic.
I did use fact, reason, and logic and did entirely destroy your points. You're just too ignorant about damn near everything you've said to notice.
It is a fact that Reagan led the country to the largest growth of the US government in history. That is indisputable, and I'd be happy to give you a link to the budget numbers, but it's entirely pointless. You'll just claim that whatever link I give you is some dumb commie without even bothering to read it and we'll be back to square one. You can just look up the budget, dipshit. That's why my point about you lying about matters of the public record is so damning because you could just go look at the numbers as they are *public information*. You've clearly never done this, you clearly know nothing about Reagan's presidency and you clearly are desperate to avoid learning anything that would shatter your delusions. It's sad, it's pathetic, but it's your choice to be the liar and fool who you've *proven* yourself to be.
So you've wasted far more of your time lying about obvious things then it would have taken you to just fucking google it and come away far less ignorant than you are now. You clearly have a militant death grip on your ignorance and no amount of sanity from me is going to fix your badly broken reasoning skills when you're happier being a liar and a fool than you think you would be as a person of integrity.
I'm not arguing about their policies being "identical", I'm arguing about them being "identically disastrous".
They say that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results...
Look up "The Great Society" and be schooled.
Look up Reagan's record and learn that reality and your insistence that reality conform to your delusions are not at all the same thing.
That was one of the things that defined Reagan as the destroyer of the old Republican ideology. He put FDR to shame, yet the ignorant fools who attempt to defend him (that's you, among others) have to blatantly lie about simple basic facts which are part of the public record free for anybody (including yourself, had you ever had any interest in actually knowing what you're talking about) to peruse at their leisure. It's a fact, it's well documented, and there is no dispute whatsoever of its veracity. Although there is certainly debate, it all centers around apologetics for it, rather than people making fools of themselves by trying to deny it.
So, since you have once again proven yourself to be a delusional cult worshiper with no facts or reason at your disposal, and a willingness to lie about simple basic, *easily* researched facts, I'm done even trying to bother with you.
Grow up, learn that reality and the crap the news tells you are different concepts. Most especially, for your own benefit, if you're going to put so much faith in a human being, spend at least one minute researching them before lying about matters of the public record in the midst of your fanboygasm.
No other console maker has abandoned a console so fast.
But what "console makers" do is irrelevant to what *Microsoft* does.
They won't get another entertainment dollar from me. I couldn't have known that's how they'd do it. No one else ever had. Sure, there were people guessing that ended up being right, but that doesn't mean people "should have known."
Yes, people should have known. What do you mean no one else ever had? Microsoft does that sort of thing all the time. It seems like your not actually looking at the relevant facts and getting confused with irrelevancies. It might be true that nobody has done that *in the console market*, but that's irrelevant, because what the market in question is is irrelevant. Microsoft does that sort of thing in *every market they enter*.
So you're looking at a market as if that's relevant to the players in the market, whereas you should be looking at the players themselves and see how they behave regardless of market.
It's not a question of "fool me once", given how often they make fools of people (not that you're a fool, mind you). It seems like you're giving them the benefit to fool you once per market segment, which doesn't make any sense at all. The company is still run by the same people, so assuming that they'll not act like they've always acted just because they're selling a different type of widget doesn't make any sense either.
I was just joking with you, but if you're going to try and defend that reasoning I have no choice but to taunt you a second time;-)
The really frightening thing is that you seem to have fallen for Google's "don't be evil" marketing canard.
ROFL
Dude, seriously, I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning. I made no comment whatsoever about Google, their approach to evil or anything of the sort. My comment relies only on the text I quoted, and the definitions of the relevant words. I know you like to think you showed me after I pointed out your mistake, but you did nothing but make yourself look like a petulant brat with that nonsense.
A little advice: Next time just be honest and take the hit.
You really are a tool. How are you supposed to refute "their policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous"?
You could provide examples of real substantive differences between their policies. Given that their policies are pretty much identical, you'll fail miserably as you obviously know.
All the rest of the crap you spout is just as ignorant, and delusional as that crap. Seriously, durrr I can't even figure out the converse of a statement is the best excuse you can come up with for not being able to handle reality as it is instead of how you want it to be in your wingnut fantasy land where no government is too big, and no right to sanctified to be violated.
The really scary thing about you cowards is that you won't benefit from Bush's treason any more than I do, but you still lick his boots.
That is the sign of a true coward.
I think most of the government should be put out to pasture.
Bullshit you do, you fucking liar. You're defending Ronald Biggest growth of the US government in history Reagan for fuck's sake.
You lose the ability to claim you believe in small government when you're defending him dipshit. He's the undisputed king of big government.
To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle and forced them to take out the parts.
Bad analogy. To make it fit, after you drive the car off of the lot, the airbag has to pop out with a sign attached saying "If you don't want the power windows and AC then return them to the place of purchase for a full refund".
Add in the idea that your unwanted parts are actually still owned by the company that manufactured them and both they and your dealer refuse flat out to make good on their written word which was sprung on you after the fact.
Do you see how that makes it a completely different thing?
If it's a Cisco VoIP system, then it's likely however whatever is set up.
It's from Intertel. Luckily, the soft phones and hard phones at least seem to be screwing up the same when they do.
I gave up on Cisco after dealing with them once. When you need to pay for an account to log in and download software that only does anything if you own their hardware, then that's a level of sleaze I just won't deal with;-) We had DOA hardware that they refused to deal with until we paid extortion.
The game development for the X-Box ended pretty much on the day the 360 came out. They may have made great consoles, but after the way they abandoned the people that bought the X-Box, I'm never buying another one from them.
You hang out here and didn't *know* that's how they'd treat it? Honestly, you have nobody but yourself to blame for that one.
Matter of fact the alcoholics I know drink mostly Zemkoff Vodka. If you're not familiar with it, it runs about $11 per GALLON.
Ha! There's a Tequila called "Bandalero" that comes in that ultimate mark of quality spirits, the plastic bottle. I saw it in a store long ago. I was at a Mexican restaurant that had some deal along the lines of "If you can name a tequila we don't have, your next drink is free". I didn't see Bandalero on their list so I mentioned it. They went in the back, brought out the bottle, and said that they keep it on hand for situations like that but there's no way in hell they'd ever serve it to their customers;-)
Re:Meanwhile, I still have issues with BT...
on
Comcast Invests in P2P
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
When you have Comcast or Cox Cable, it is a good bet to blame the ISP first.
That's true, but don't fall into the trap of thinking it must be so. We recently moved to a VOIP system at my work, and we have a lot of employees who work from home. Some of them are having problems. They can make a call, it connects, but no audio. One of my first thoughts was, "Stupid ISPs blocking traffic to sell their voice service". Our tech from the company we bought the system from took a phone that worked fine connecting to our office from their office to his house where he has Comcast and it failed the same way, lending another data point on that side. I took my phone home today, plugged it in and it works fine and I'm also on Comcast in the same area. My boss did the same and we had a nice clear conversation. So I can't blame Comcast on that one. I'd like to blame my users (obvious next step), but as of right now, I think it's probably just an issue with certain brands of home firewall/routers. Of course, if more than two users had even responded to our request for issues, I might have more data upon which to base my opinion.
So, while it's good to keep in mind that they're sleazy operators and *will* lie about it, other things still fuck up;-)
As far as I can see, Google responded to a legal subpoena by the Indian authorities to hand over the information. Its not really any different than them handing over information in response to a federal subpoena here in the US.
OK,one huge problem which it's truly frightening that you do not understand:
Legal != Ethical.
There's no necessary connection between the two, and quite often the law itself is entirely unethical. Your example is great, except it doesn't seem that you actually get it. It is wrong to hand over info to the US government at times. See the recent AT&T scumbaggery for proof positive.
If you learn nothing else your entire life, please understand the vast differences between laws and ethics.
When judging morality, intent matters as much as (if not more than) results.
Except, we're talking about a corporation, therefore, all intent boils down to "make more money". So, your argument is irrelevant unless you think something wrong is ok as long as you get paid for it. They sold him out with the intent of making cash and nothing more. Believing anything else is silly, since there can be no other meaningful intent.
Of course I wish neither on myself and that's why I stay clear from posting any images online ever, otherwise his noodly appendage might reach out and get me.
You can relax a bit about that. Posting his likeness online didn't even make the list of I'd really rather you didn'ts. Heck, had it not been posted by the prophet his noodly goodness wouldn't have so many followers. YARRRR!
Also with Tivo you can get several, one for each member of the family, for less then additional MythTV boxes.
Not that it counters any of your points, but you only need one MythTV, you can just stick in more tuners;-) Then you can just watch any of it from anywhere.
Acting does not make you a "good liar" anymore than my wife and I having sex makes her a prostitute.
OK, you're obviously completely out of touch with reality. Acting is the art of portraying scenes and emotions they you aren't feeling. It has everything to do with selling a speech, and convincing people that you're doing good for them while totally selling out their future without being seen a sleazy used car salesman.
That's the only major difference between Bush and Reagan. I given many real, hard, examples yet you have yet to come up with anything demonstrating any differences except to whine how acting doesn't make you a good liar. Your example isn't in any way relevant.
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything
That's why I gave all the examples, jackass as you well know. You have yet to attempt to refute one of them.
I could say however than Clinton had a chance to go in and deal with Osama Bin Laden during his two terms as president. He decided not to go get a terrorist--and unfortunately that allowed the largest act of terrorism ever on US soil.
Wow, what delusional nutjobs you wingnuts are. You believe any idiotic sound bit put out by Fox news even when it's directly contradicted by reality.
Clinton was no prize, but he did manage to have the people who attacked us on his watch caught, tried, and convicted.
Trying to blame Clinton for Bush's failures is just disgusting though, of course you can't be a right wing nut without being a disgusting person and deeply ignorant. You might have noticed Bush's systematic dismantling of our anti terrorism aparatus, his refusal to allow the head of the team investigating the Cole bombing back into Yemen where a joint FBI CIA taskforce (you know, the things that could never happen demanding removing the demonstrably necessary separation between intelligence groups and creating the gestapo bullshit DHS) was on their trail.
Seriously, give your idiotic repeating of moronic lies a rest and try and act like a citizen instead of a subject.
Of course, given his massive support for terrorism, Reagan owns that one maybe more than Bush. Obviously they both own it far more than Clinton as he isn't in business with them.
What is the contempt for the law and the constitution you are talking about?
Gee illegal warantless wiretaps? Third world death camps "extrodinary rendition", selling a war based on well known lies?
If you're that far outside reality, it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you about anything. You've bought into lies designed to make you piss away your rights and freedoms for the benefit of scum, and unlike a citizen who speaks out against such disgusting lies, and acts of treason, you lick the boots of your masters like a good little dog.
Obama--all he has is a catch phrase "change!" and a few 'disastrous' policies like wanting to meet with leaders of terrorist states, drink the cool-aide, and try to get along.
Ahh, so opening lines of communication is "disasterous", yet pretending that we've never done anything to anybody and therefore anybody who doesn't like having their families murdered to make us a buck must just hate our freedom. It's no surprise that only the bottom of the barrel of our society is still on board with your insane mouthings of the propaganda you've been fed.
Seriously, you're laughable. Using communication to solve problems is "disasterous" making up lies to justify pissing away trillions for no possible good benefit is a winning strategy. Of course, following your scumbag policy for so long is *why* people are perfectly justified in wanting to kill us. It's a pity that they can't differentiate between the weak willed ignorant fools like yourself whose refusal to stand up and take their responsibilities as citizens seriously allows our leaders to go nuts assassinating democratically elected lead
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Where did you get that crazy idea? The *only* major difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was an actor and therefore a good liar. Their policies are pretty much identical and identically disasterous. In Reagan's day there was more actual value still in this country so when him and his cronies leached it off the system could still handle it. Other than that though, we have the same policies, same people, and same contempt for the law and the constitution. McCain is just a me too.
I mean, we have illegal wars started solely for profit, death camps, massive deficit spending on top of tax cuts, a steam of high sounding lies while proving to be the most immoral and unethical administrations we're ever had. Sexing up of intelligence to drum up fear and spending. Right, no similarities at all. You clearly don't even have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Like my Bush/McCain vs Reagan statement. No facts, just an opinion. As far as your statement, it's not even an opinion. It's a blatantly false delusion without any facts backing it up at all. You're obviously one of the delusional Reagan cultists, who refuse to think at all about the topic because "he inspired you" or some similar stupid non reasoning. He was one of if not the worst presidents we're ever had and good luck finding anything to refute that statement apart from the lies of the Reagan cultists.
...and what jail is he in now? What judge sentenced him?
That would have involved integrity on the part of our government. He avoided execution for his many acts of treason the same way Bush has. Through the cowardice and dishonesty of Congress and their supporters, that includes you, of course.
And I'm not oblivious to the argument going the other way--who sentenced Bill Clinton for lying to congress? No one.
Hell, they brought impeachment proceedings over a fucking blowjob and flat out refused to do that in the case of real actual treason.
If you're trying to get me to logically defend the integrity of Congress you're crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that is exactly the point of the topic. I have a big problem with those who say that the military is at fault for the current situation we are in while white washing the responsibilities of civilian leaders. Sure, there is lip service about what bastards Bush, Chaney and Company are, but one seems to accept that as an unchangable fact of life while the men and women in uniform have done some horrible sin in one of many parts of the world where they are active. What's up with that? When you have flimsy furniture, do you blame the carpenter or his tools?
OK, I think I understand what our fundamental misunderstanding is.
I agree with you on most of what you said, but I think we're just disagreeing on a subtle point.
It's almost (in my head) like you're arguing about the abstract concept of "The Military", while I'm arguing about the modern US military in particular, yet most of your specifics are about individual members of the current US military.
Which is why I say bring up Iraq side tracks the discussion. The *Iraq* thing is the problem, not the military. The military just unfortunately happens to be the monkey wrench that fucked the whole thing up. Given the incompetent "tool user" at hand, it could easily have been something else.
The problem with this reasoning is that it's equally applied to *The first* Iraq thing. Or to Grenada. Or to Panama, or to Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Argentina, Iran ( the Shah, not next week or whenever) and the list goes on and on.
Rather than that, it's not that it applies equally well to each situation. I think it's that you're applying the argument to each event in serial and I'm doing it in parallel.
If every time the same thing happens, you say that the people who were sent off to murder a bunch of people whose desire for a decent life interfered with the profiteering of US companies couldn't or didn't know that that's the sort of thing they were signing up for, then it works. But it only works in isolation from all of the previous events.
If you step back and take a larger view than that your friends had high goals and ideals and they're great people you see a much different picture.
I'm not talking about the motivations, goals and desires of the people you're talking about. For the sake of this entire discussion, we can assume that they're motivated by nothing but love for their fellow people, have not a scrap of anything unpleasant within themselves, and fart dusts of pure crystalized love if you'd like.
If you, instead, look at the history of US military involvement as a whole from the present day perspective, then then you can no longer ignore the first misadventure while excusing the second. You can no longer ignore the first two while excusing the third... I assume you get the basic inductive principle?
I'm not arguing that the Iraq thing is the problem. I'm pointing out that it's the current in a long chain of events promoted primarily by those who stand to make the most profit from it.
Ignoring the chain of events and excusing each event in isolation might be an interesting thought experiment, but I don't see how it could ever grant any illumination on this reality.
Ahh! There, you've said it yourself. I'm glad I don't need to explain this point any further. "The military was used *AS A TOOL*". The tool didn't use itself, did it? Is it a bad tool because it was misused?
That's the difference between an inanimate object and a real thinking human being.
The "atoms" of the "tool" in question made a conscious choice to be part of the tool.
Again, this is where the analogy fails, and I think, the crux of our issue is.
Anyone can buy a hammer. You might use yours to build a beautiful gazebo, and I might use mine to gouge out my eye while trying to pull a nail out of my forehead. As far as the hammer is concerned...well hammer's aren't concerned, and that's the point.
Your serial approach to US military involvement assumes that peopl
. Maybe the Fringe nuts that call themselves the "Religious Right" who have tried repeatedly to Hijack Conservatism. but not the proper Small-Government, strong America, lower taxes, more freedom Right.
Dude, you're talking about the center or Classical Liberalism. The right is as opposed to those things as the left are, just for different reasons.
OT God would have smote him real good.
Even God's a Scientologist now? Damn, I knew they were working on recruiting famous people, but I thought they'd be stuck with just loons like Travolta and Cruise.
Maybe you're keeping just on the safe side of 'incitement to illegal violence' line but you are clearly hostile to the current constitutional system in which politicians are not generally executed by kangaroo courts on trumped up treason charges.
Wow, dude, you are so wrong in so many ways it's amazing.
In the first place, how is it even rational to state that he's hostile to the current constitutional system when all he's advocating is actually following that same system.
Then you spout some nonsense about kangaroo courts when the OP was obviously referring to Congress. You know, the people given the responsibility to press such charges in that same constitution you claim that the OP is hostile towards?
The level of ignorance about the system you're calling others hostile towards that you demonstrate is truly amazing, in a freak show kind of way.
Maybe you're the real traitor in that you advocate overthrowing that system and killing your political opponents.
He's advocating working within the system using the methods laid out by that system to address issues of this nature.
Personally *I* think he's a bit naive if he thinks it's actually possible to still work within the system. I advocate open season on the President, his cabinet, Congress with the exception of Russ Feingold, Ron Paul, and possibly the freshman class, and half of the Supreme Court, but that's just me.
I'd say that's a bit more harsh than "George Bush is a noxious Prick."
No, calling for him to be put to death merely means that you are a good citizen, who values the rule of law and reveres his country's hallowed institutions and founding principles. There is nothing harsh or in any way negative about that.
Calling him a "noxious prick" could be seen as rude, even though true as well, so there is some potential for you to be viewed negatively by a decent person for that, yet no possibility of a decent person viewing you at all negatively for the other.
So it's harsher to call him a noxious prick. He knew what the laws were when he chose to violate them so he's clearly stated that he knows he deserves execution as well.
You appear to be under the impression that you are successfully refuting my points by being snide and calling me names, when in fact 'normal' people refute points by citing fact and using reason and logic.
I did use fact, reason, and logic and did entirely destroy your points. You're just too ignorant about damn near everything you've said to notice.
It is a fact that Reagan led the country to the largest growth of the US government in history.
That is indisputable, and I'd be happy to give you a link to the budget numbers, but it's entirely pointless. You'll just claim that whatever link I give you is some dumb commie without even bothering to read it and we'll be back to square one.
You can just look up the budget, dipshit. That's why my point about you lying about matters of the public record is so damning because you could just go look at the numbers as they are *public information*. You've clearly never done this, you clearly know nothing about Reagan's presidency and you clearly are desperate to avoid learning anything that would shatter your delusions. It's sad, it's pathetic, but it's your choice to be the liar and fool who you've *proven* yourself to be.
So you've wasted far more of your time lying about obvious things then it would have taken you to just fucking google it and come away far less ignorant than you are now. You clearly have a militant death grip on your ignorance and no amount of sanity from me is going to fix your badly broken reasoning skills when you're happier being a liar and a fool than you think you would be as a person of integrity.
I'm not arguing about their policies being "identical", I'm arguing about them being "identically disastrous".
They say that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results...
Look up "The Great Society" and be schooled.
Look up Reagan's record and learn that reality and your insistence that reality conform to your delusions are not at all the same thing.
That was one of the things that defined Reagan as the destroyer of the old Republican ideology. He put FDR to shame, yet the ignorant fools who attempt to defend him (that's you, among others) have to blatantly lie about simple basic facts which are part of the public record free for anybody (including yourself, had you ever had any interest in actually knowing what you're talking about) to peruse at their leisure.
It's a fact, it's well documented, and there is no dispute whatsoever of its veracity. Although there is certainly debate, it all centers around apologetics for it, rather than people making fools of themselves by trying to deny it.
So, since you have once again proven yourself to be a delusional cult worshiper with no facts or reason at your disposal, and a willingness to lie about simple basic, *easily* researched facts, I'm done even trying to bother with you.
Grow up, learn that reality and the crap the news tells you are different concepts. Most especially, for your own benefit, if you're going to put so much faith in a human being, spend at least one minute researching them before lying about matters of the public record in the midst of your fanboygasm.
No other console maker has abandoned a console so fast.
But what "console makers" do is irrelevant to what *Microsoft* does.
They won't get another entertainment dollar from me. I couldn't have known that's how they'd do it. No one else ever had. Sure, there were people guessing that ended up being right, but that doesn't mean people "should have known."
Yes, people should have known. What do you mean no one else ever had? Microsoft does that sort of thing all the time. It seems like your not actually looking at the relevant facts and getting confused with irrelevancies. It might be true that nobody has done that *in the console market*, but that's irrelevant, because what the market in question is is irrelevant.
Microsoft does that sort of thing in *every market they enter*.
So you're looking at a market as if that's relevant to the players in the market, whereas you should be looking at the players themselves and see how they behave regardless of market.
It's not a question of "fool me once", given how often they make fools of people (not that you're a fool, mind you). It seems like you're giving them the benefit to fool you once per market segment, which doesn't make any sense at all. The company is still run by the same people, so assuming that they'll not act like they've always acted just because they're selling a different type of widget doesn't make any sense either.
I was just joking with you, but if you're going to try and defend that reasoning I have no choice but to taunt you a second time
The really frightening thing is that you seem to have fallen for Google's "don't be evil" marketing canard.
ROFL
Dude, seriously, I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning. I made no comment whatsoever about Google, their approach to evil or anything of the sort. My comment relies only on the text I quoted, and the definitions of the relevant words.
I know you like to think you showed me after I pointed out your mistake, but you did nothing but make yourself look like a petulant brat with that nonsense.
A little advice: Next time just be honest and take the hit.
You really are a tool. How are you supposed to refute "their policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous"?
You could provide examples of real substantive differences between their policies. Given that their policies are pretty much identical, you'll fail miserably as you obviously know.
All the rest of the crap you spout is just as ignorant, and delusional as that crap. Seriously, durrr I can't even figure out the converse of a statement is the best excuse you can come up with for not being able to handle reality as it is instead of how you want it to be in your wingnut fantasy land where no government is too big, and no right to sanctified to be violated.
The really scary thing about you cowards is that you won't benefit from Bush's treason any more than I do, but you still lick his boots.
That is the sign of a true coward.
I think most of the government should be put out to pasture.
Bullshit you do, you fucking liar. You're defending Ronald Biggest growth of the US government in history Reagan for fuck's sake.
You lose the ability to claim you believe in small government when you're defending him dipshit. He's the undisputed king of big government.
To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle and forced them to take out the parts.
Bad analogy. To make it fit, after you drive the car off of the lot, the airbag has to pop out with a sign attached saying "If you don't want the power windows and AC then return them to the place of purchase for a full refund".
Add in the idea that your unwanted parts are actually still owned by the company that manufactured them and both they and your dealer refuse flat out to make good on their written word which was sprung on you after the fact.
Do you see how that makes it a completely different thing?
I know, holy shit, different people have different experiences and opinions about things.
;-)
I don't know anything about that sort of thing, but it sounds like crap to me
If it's a Cisco VoIP system, then it's likely however whatever is set up.
;-)
It's from Intertel. Luckily, the soft phones and hard phones at least seem to be screwing up the same when they do.
I gave up on Cisco after dealing with them once. When you need to pay for an account to log in and download software that only does anything if you own their hardware, then that's a level of sleaze I just won't deal with
We had DOA hardware that they refused to deal with until we paid extortion.
Fuck Cisco.
The game development for the X-Box ended pretty much on the day the 360 came out. They may have made great consoles, but after the way they abandoned the people that bought the X-Box, I'm never buying another one from them.
You hang out here and didn't *know* that's how they'd treat it?
Honestly, you have nobody but yourself to blame for that one.
Matter of fact the alcoholics I know drink mostly Zemkoff Vodka. If you're not familiar with it, it runs about $11 per GALLON.
;-)
Ha! There's a Tequila called "Bandalero" that comes in that ultimate mark of quality spirits, the plastic bottle. I saw it in a store long ago. I was at a Mexican restaurant that had some deal along the lines of "If you can name a tequila we don't have, your next drink is free". I didn't see Bandalero on their list so I mentioned it. They went in the back, brought out the bottle, and said that they keep it on hand for situations like that but there's no way in hell they'd ever serve it to their customers
When you have Comcast or Cox Cable, it is a good bet to blame the ISP first.
;-)
That's true, but don't fall into the trap of thinking it must be so.
We recently moved to a VOIP system at my work, and we have a lot of employees who work from home. Some of them are having problems. They can make a call, it connects, but no audio. One of my first thoughts was, "Stupid ISPs blocking traffic to sell their voice service". Our tech from the company we bought the system from took a phone that worked fine connecting to our office from their office to his house where he has Comcast and it failed the same way, lending another data point on that side.
I took my phone home today, plugged it in and it works fine and I'm also on Comcast in the same area.
My boss did the same and we had a nice clear conversation.
So I can't blame Comcast on that one. I'd like to blame my users (obvious next step), but as of right now, I think it's probably just an issue with certain brands of home firewall/routers. Of course, if more than two
users had even responded to our request for issues, I might have more data upon which to base my opinion.
So, while it's good to keep in mind that they're sleazy operators and *will* lie about it, other things still fuck up
As far as I can see, Google responded to a legal subpoena by the Indian authorities to hand over the information. Its not really any different than them handing over information in response to a federal subpoena here in the US.
OK,one huge problem which it's truly frightening that you do not understand:
Legal != Ethical.
There's no necessary connection between the two, and quite often the law itself is entirely unethical.
Your example is great, except it doesn't seem that you actually get it. It is wrong to hand over info to the US government at times. See the recent AT&T scumbaggery for proof positive.
If you learn nothing else your entire life, please understand the vast differences between laws and ethics.
When judging morality, intent matters as much as (if not more than) results.
Except, we're talking about a corporation, therefore, all intent boils down to "make more money". So, your argument is irrelevant unless you think something wrong is ok as long as you get paid for it. They sold him out with the intent of making cash and nothing more. Believing anything else is silly, since there can be no other meaningful intent.
Put your money where your mouth is: post your name and adress here.
Dude, his name's ShieldW0lf and he lives in his mom's basement. What more do you need to know?
Of course I wish neither on myself and that's why I stay clear from posting any images online ever, otherwise his noodly appendage might reach out and get me.
You can relax a bit about that. Posting his likeness online didn't even make the list of I'd really rather you didn'ts. Heck, had it not been posted by the prophet his noodly goodness wouldn't have so many followers. YARRRR!
Also with Tivo you can get several, one for each member of the family, for less then additional MythTV boxes.
;-)
Not that it counters any of your points, but you only need one MythTV, you can just stick in more tuners
Then you can just watch any of it from anywhere.
Acting does not make you a "good liar" anymore than my wife and I having sex makes her a prostitute.
OK, you're obviously completely out of touch with reality.
Acting is the art of portraying scenes and emotions they you aren't feeling. It has everything to do with selling a speech, and convincing people that you're doing good for them while totally selling out their future without being seen a sleazy used car salesman.
That's the only major difference between Bush and Reagan. I given many real, hard, examples yet you have yet to come up with anything demonstrating any differences except to whine how acting doesn't make you a good liar. Your example isn't in any way relevant.
Giving a blanket statement that their "policies are pretty much identical and identically disastrous" doesn't convince me of anything
That's why I gave all the examples, jackass as you well know. You have yet to attempt to refute one of them.
I could say however than Clinton had a chance to go in and deal with Osama Bin Laden during his two terms as president. He decided not to go get a terrorist--and unfortunately that allowed the largest act of terrorism ever on US soil.
Wow, what delusional nutjobs you wingnuts are. You believe any idiotic sound bit put out by Fox news even when it's directly contradicted by reality.
Clinton was no prize, but he did manage to have the people who attacked us on his watch caught, tried, and convicted.
Trying to blame Clinton for Bush's failures is just disgusting though, of course you can't be a right wing nut without being a disgusting person and deeply ignorant.
You might have noticed Bush's systematic dismantling of our anti terrorism aparatus, his refusal to allow the head of the team investigating the Cole bombing back into Yemen where a joint FBI CIA taskforce (you know, the things that could never happen demanding removing the demonstrably necessary separation between intelligence groups and creating the gestapo bullshit DHS) was on their trail.
Seriously, give your idiotic repeating of moronic lies a rest and try and act like a citizen instead of a subject.
Of course, given his massive support for terrorism, Reagan owns that one maybe more than Bush. Obviously they both own it far more than Clinton as he isn't in business with them.
What is the contempt for the law and the constitution you are talking about?
Gee illegal warantless wiretaps? Third world death camps "extrodinary rendition", selling a war based on well known lies?
If you're that far outside reality, it's a waste of my time trying to talk to you about anything. You've bought into lies designed to make you piss away your rights and freedoms for the benefit of scum, and unlike a citizen who speaks out against such disgusting lies, and acts of treason, you lick the boots of your masters like a good little dog.
Obama--all he has is a catch phrase "change!" and a few 'disastrous' policies like wanting to meet with leaders of terrorist states, drink the cool-aide, and try to get along.
Ahh, so opening lines of communication is "disasterous", yet pretending that we've never done anything to anybody and therefore anybody who doesn't like having their families murdered to make us a buck must just hate our freedom. It's no surprise that only the bottom of the barrel of our society is still on board with your insane mouthings of the propaganda you've been fed.
Seriously, you're laughable. Using communication to solve problems is "disasterous" making up lies to justify pissing away trillions for no possible good benefit is a winning strategy. Of course, following your scumbag policy for so long is *why* people are perfectly justified in wanting to kill us. It's a pity that they can't differentiate between the weak willed ignorant fools like yourself whose refusal to stand up and take their responsibilities as citizens seriously allows our leaders to go nuts assassinating democratically elected lead
Bush and McCain are not even in the same ballpark as Reagan.
Where did you get that crazy idea?
The *only* major difference between Bush and Reagan is that Reagan was an actor and therefore a good liar.
Their policies are pretty much identical and identically disasterous. In Reagan's day there was more actual value still in this country so when him and his cronies leached it off the system could still handle it.
Other than that though, we have the same policies, same people, and same contempt for the law and the constitution.
McCain is just a me too.
I mean, we have illegal wars started solely for profit, death camps, massive deficit spending on top of tax cuts, a steam of high sounding lies while proving to be the most immoral and unethical administrations we're ever had. Sexing up of intelligence to drum up fear and spending.
Right, no similarities at all. You clearly don't even have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Like my Bush/McCain vs Reagan statement. No facts, just an opinion.
As far as your statement, it's not even an opinion. It's a blatantly false delusion without any facts backing it up at all.
You're obviously one of the delusional Reagan cultists, who refuse to think at all about the topic because "he inspired you" or some similar stupid non reasoning.
He was one of if not the worst presidents we're ever had and good luck finding anything to refute that statement apart from the lies of the Reagan cultists.
That would have involved integrity on the part of our government. He avoided execution for his many acts of treason the same way Bush has. Through the cowardice and dishonesty of Congress and their supporters, that includes you, of course.
And I'm not oblivious to the argument going the other way--who sentenced Bill Clinton for lying to congress? No one.
Hell, they brought impeachment proceedings over a fucking blowjob and flat out refused to do that in the case of real actual treason.
If you're trying to get me to logically defend the integrity of Congress you're crazy.
Thanks for that diatribe. I see the Mahdi Army has trained you well in PsyOps.
Obviously you find it much more fulfilling to spout meaningless sound bites than to think.
I pity you.
Oh--now I get it. You're one of those liberal nut jobs.
Right, I pay attention and therefore I'm both "liberal" and a "nut job". Interesting line of reasoning, but I'm a bit concerned about its validity.
You think it's good that the Republican part is becoming a bunch of liberal pansies like McCain...
No, I don't like the Reagan style Republicans like Bushes and McCain. That was my point. You seem really confused.
Care to tell me how Reagan was a traitor?
How did he betray his country by committing treason?
Selling crack to buy guns for terrorists in direct violation of Congress? Where were you in the 80s?