Perhaps GP was not explicit enough about the poverty that some parts of the third world experience.......
Didn't see that story, but don't doubt it.
And they hope to someday - if they are lucky - become the guy who owns the sick ox, because he is the richest person for miles around.
That's what he's talking about though.
Changing their definition of hope. I would hope *not* to ever be where they're hoping to get to. I presume that's a big enough boat to fit all of/..
Obviously, magical fairies aren't going to spontaneously generate out of ox poop and parasites once the magical wind up boxes arrive, or at least I didn't see that story either and do doubt that one;-)
Now, if the kids are living on a dollar a day or less, say...25% of that or a quarter, then that $200 would feed them for 800 days or 3-4 years.
So how old were the kids following the ox?
I presume there were a few kids sneaking around the feeding troughs grabbing the grain firsthand. Maybe even some getting paid to plow, tend and harvest the fields the grain came from. Maybe a few fat cats and some wealthy(ish) merchants and tradesman running around the country (whichever one).
Maybe even a few of those people made it past 4;-)
So having computers available makes the availability of learning materials much easier, it provides a large potential from local interaction to global as well as the potential (down the road a bit, these things take time) to allow a very few of the most driven to develop their own applications/websites/consulting firms/ whatever.
So, while I personally think those goals would be much better realized with the machines running that Swedish Hippy OS, I'm going to take a huge stand against the groupthink here and say that I'd hope to use Windows before hoping to eat ox poop.
Many people would be open to the ideas talked about by Michael Moore if giving them a fair hearing didn't involve standing on the same side of the room as, say, Michael Moore.
Oh come on, that's a pretty bad example. Who would fit on the same side of the room as Michael Moore?
"Get things done for New Yorkers"?? You mean "trade favors with other legislators so that every legislator gets things done for their state, but the only thing that really happens is our own federal tax dollars comes back to it." I ask "why did they ever leave New York State?"
Unfortunately, it isn't even that good. New York is one of the "provider states" that get their tax dollars sucked away by the "leech states". So New York receives far less of its own money back then gets taken away.
They left the state so other states could leech off your productivity and so the federal government can hold your own money over your head to make your state do things which are against its interests.
Generally the Dem.s are the 'tax and spend' crowd. They want to raise your taxes and create an even better and more efficient wealth redistribution system. They want to, and will 'loot' your paycheck.
And the Republicans spend *much* more and "pay" for it with loans which do need to be paid back. So "taxing and spending" is an honest approach at least. Spend, spend spend and then stick us with the much increased bill later is neither sane nor honest. It's just laughable to see people like you defending the Republicans over things that they are, by far, the worst at.
Now...with that said, I gotta say, I'm VERY pissed at the current Rep. administration, they have gotten almost as bad...they are NOW the 'cut tax and spend 'party.
Wake up and please spend 5 minutes doing actual thought and research instead of repeating idiotic nonsense.
The Republicans have been hands down, no challengers in sight the leaders of government spending and increasing the size of the government since that fascist scumbag Reagan was elected. Reagan holds the record for the largest growth of the US government in history. He put FDR to shame for Christ's sake. These are simple basic facts which are publically available.
Would you please pull your head out of the ass of the Reagan death cult and think?
I long for the days of a party that was for small government, fiscal responsibility, pro individual....
It's called the Libertarian party. The Republican party has been *against* all of those things since the 50s.
It's just amazing to see people treat politics like football and just keep rooting for the same team based on idiotic shit that hasn't been true for decades. On every one of those counts the Democrats are hands down better than the Republicans. Don't take this as a defense of the Democrats, because they aren't good. They are absolutely better in every way at every point you claim to support though, so you might want to decide if you actually believe in what you say you do and then change your views to reflect what you actually stand for or decide you don't believe in anything you claim to and stick with who you're supporting.
Trying to do both just makes your entire view one giant contradiction of yourself.
Hillary Clinton is moderate in her rebuke, but she's against the Republicans on every issue I listed. Care to name one issue -- just one -- where Hillary is closer to the Republicans than to her base of moderate Democrats?
Iraq, corporate welfare, police state government, rendition, Guantanamo, Illegal searches.
I think you missed the lesson that "Actions speak louder than words".
Man...if you consider Hillary "centrist"....you must really be on the WAY far end of left.
Indeed, she's primarily fairly far to the right fringe with occasional left-fascist leanings. You'd have to go pretty far left of Hillary to hit anything approaching "centrist".
Actually the only candidate that's anything like centrist is Ron Paul. Of course, he's running for the extremist right wing/corporatist party so he's a bit confused.
Yep...he was more of a moderate I think, but, she definitely is many more times left than him.
Yeesh. They are both slightly moderate *right* wingers. It helps to understand the terms "left" and "right", where they came from, what they mean instead of just thinking "Republican"="right" and "Democrat"="left". Since all that does is take away the useful meanings of the terms, eliminate the language needed to actually discuss politics rationally and completely eradicate the concept of a center.
I'll let you folks beat these dry horse bones. Just let me say that you have no right whatsoever to bear arms in the city of Chicago.
Sure you do have that right. You will end up arrested if you choose to exercise the right, but it's still your right.
And again, at least in the state of Illinois, you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) to own a gun.
No, you don't. I own several guns in the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois and I have no such card, nor any interest in acquiring one.
Again, if it's my right, why do I have to ask permission?
You don't. This might not actually be a case where it's *easier* to ask forgiveness than permission, but given the odds of getting caught it works out more or less the same.
I remember when being on the 'right'...meant you whole heartedly were for privacy and individual rights of the citizenship.
No, you really don't. It never meant anything of the sort.
when did being on the 'right' stop meaning smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and personal privacy and individual rights trumping the govt's rights?
It never "stopped" meaning anything of the sort because it never started meaning anything of the sort. The word you're looking for is "Liberalism". It's what the right and the left are right or left *of*.
Left and Right are both about big government and government rights trumping individual rights. The difference between them is the reasons and the ways in which they oppose Liberalism (or the center).
Liberalism is, essentially, the idea that we hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal. The Left agrees in theory, but believes they need to use the power of the state against the individual to enforce that "equality". See Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin for some extreme examples of this, da comrade?
The Right fundamentally disagrees with the idea and believes the power of the state should be used against the individual to maintain the powerful in their power. The canonical example being the pre revolutionary French Assembly where the representatives of the Crown and the Church sat on the right (and the representatives of the people sat on the left hence the origin of the terms). See also corporate welfare, and the holocaust for examples of the elitism that defines the right.
Now, both the left and right have done everything they can to subvert and/or demonize the word "Liberalism" even though it is the defining characteristic of America because neither of them like the ideas it represents. It's much easier to just redefine it out of existence.
So when you use "Right" to mean "Liberal", you're left with no term to use for the Right which makes any sort of political discussion very difficult given how far to the right this country has been dragged since WW2. We're well to the right of your definition of right, so your terms don't even make any sense in context.
For my Wii, I own Wii Sports, Zelda, Elebits, Madden 2007, Madden 2008, Red Steel, ExciteTruck, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Guitar Hero 3, Resident Evil 4, Mario Strikers Charged, and Super Monkey Ball (that's 13 Wii games, not counting the dozens of Wii virtual console games I have bought and downloaded online).
OK, to counter your anecdote: For my (and my wife's) Wii we own a total of one game. Wii Sports. That's it. I have three other games I borrowed from a friend 2 months ago (Tony Hawk, Elebits and Rayman) of which I've played 2 once and third one not at all yet.
I'm obviously not a typical gamer, but am I a typical Wii owner? I have no idea. Do you honestly know, or are you just guessing?
What about Scalix [scalix.com]? It has a very good web client, but also works with Evolution if needed. It has good calendar support and various other goodies. We're thinking of switching from Domino/Notes to save costs.
My biggest problem with Scalix when I was testing it out about a year ago was the really poor exchange migration tools. They might have come pretty far since then though.
Zimbra pretty much does it all. The web client is top notch, and makes a perfectly fine outlook replacement (Yeah, I know. Just try it, seriously), and its got some serious scaling capacitys (Its used by some of the biggest ISPs around). Yahoo now owns it, so its got some name backing. The catch is the outlook compatible one ISNT so open source, but its pretty cheap.
I've actually been exchanging emails with them today. We're looking to replace our Exchange 2000 server. Do you have any experience with their migration tool? It looks like it works pretty well, but I haven't tried it yet.
There's a difference between nailing the cheap floosy at the local dive, and meaningful long term relationship built on a strong foundation. If you've never had the latter, and only the former, you'll never know what I'm talking about.
Absolutely. Of course, if you've only had the latter and never the former then you're missing out as well;-)
I've already demonstrated a far greater understanding of things Mormon than you have, yet you call me "extremely ignorant"?
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You are, apparently, unable to grasp the simple basic idea behind why people make up religions. It's been the same for thousands of years. So when you fail to grasp a very simple concept in spite of 100% of the evidence backing it up, you demonstrate yourself to be extremely ignorant. You're the one who stated that loud and clear,. I merely pointed out that that is what you said.
I'm sorry if you don't like having your actions and statements put in a clear, accurate and honest context, but that's your problem, not mine.
I mean, seriously, when you have a "religion" that changes the rules based on profit making deals it signs with corporations ( you do know that's why you can drink Coke now, right? You did not use to be able to do that.) then it's a (scam ) business, not a religion, and pretending otherwise makes you look really stupid.
Again, the stupidity of that action is obvious, and it's not my fault that you qualify for that description. It's entirely yours.
I just love when Americans (who know I am foreigner from the other side of the ocean) ask me whether I went back home for Thanksgiving, and I study in one of the top 25 universities in the USA.
It *is* a vacation in this country for most people *regardless of your origin or citizenship*. You could have gone any number of places without even thinking about doing anything "Thanksgivingish", so it's not really a dumb question. It's just like asking, "What did you do over the weekend".
Now, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical or scientific, which purpose is not impacted remotely by the (gasp!) notion of cross-Bering migration (which is far from news).
No, the purpose is financial pure and simple. Joseph Smith wanted to get rich duping fools, so following a long line of tradition he made up a religion for that express purpose.
Now if you can't even grasp something as simple as *why* the religion was made up, you really shouldn't attempt to discuss it because you're clearly extremely ignorant (or possibly even deluded).
No, we are not. We're slowly moving in that direction. Personally, at the end of the day, I think we'll be able to thank Republicans for implementing the framework to crush internal dissidents, and Democrats for actually using it.
Well, in 7 years we've dismantled several amendments in the bill of rights, instituted torture of innocents at the whim of the executive (think they're guilty of anything? Prove it. The fact that you can't (not through any fault of yourself but due to the laws) is all the proof you need) That's pretty fast in my book. As far as which part will actually take it farther, well that depends entirely on who is next in line. If a Repug gets elected president again, then that's a clear mandate to go ahead with their treasonous policies. If a Dem gets elected, they'll have a clear mandate to execute the entire current administration for treason which they will ignore in favor of moving ahead with the Republican's current fascist policies. So who takes the next step only depends on who's in.
You do me an injustice, sir. That's not my argument. My argument is that the original poster's idea that Russia was great because they don't have Fox news is moronic and insipid, the type of statement the left makes reflexively the same way Pavlov's dog salivated at the ringing of a dinner bell.
OK, your stance on that argument (the original) is fair enough. Your argument that choices, even when *all* of them are lying propoganda is a poor one as well though.
Right. Which is why the media overwhelmingly votes Democrat in the national elections.
You seem to think that that is in any way relevant. The talking heads do not set editorial policy. That is done by the heads of the major multinational corporations who own the networks. What the worker bees believe is meaningless to the discussion.
This idea btw, namely that there is a pretty distinct Democratic bias in the US media, predates Fox news by about a decade.
Just because a false idea has been around doesn't make it any more correct. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing radio hate squad were talking about it, sure, but that just makes it even more irrational to buy into given the demonstrated complete lack of integrity of those scum.
Nice non sequitur.
No, it wasn't. It was an example, using current events, demonstrating the falsehood of your statement.
It's the same thing when pork barrel spending comes up. Everyone is all for getting rid of everyone else's pork barrel spending.
Sure, and I'd be happy to see it all go since I pay for it and receive nothing. I live in Illinois, so we, like most of the "blue" states, actually pay income tax the vast majority of which goes to the leech states. i.e. the Republican Socialists ( which is the majority of the voting base). So, again, I'm not in the same position as the masses. I know where the money goes and where it comes from, and I'd be happy to see it all stop.
The bottom line is it's real easy to point out everyone else's self-delusions, it's much harder to spot your own.
Certainly. That's why I'm very careful to keep rechecking my assumptions and my logic. You haven't actually pointed out and self-delusions I hold though.
As for myself, I try to be fair minded and rational and intelligent, but like everyone else, biases, even if it's just selection bias, inevitably filters in. You're a fool if you think that you are somehow immune, that you are the only intelligent person left in a sea of idiots, etc, etc.
I likewise try to be fair minded, rational, and intelligent. That does not, in any way, mean that I have to treat the idiotic rantings of lunatics as if they were sane. I am not the only intelligent person in a sea of idiots, but the intelligent, informed citizen is a very small and dying breed. Pretending that that is not obviously true would make you a fool given the current state of affairs.
Faith is when religion prompts people to do the right thing and live their lives in pure and wholesome ways.
No it isn't.
Faith is blind belief in the unprovable with no evidence or reason.
Now in very rare situations it actually works out the way you say, but that's the exception, not the rule. If that weren't true, then there would be a lot of good and little evil done for religion instead of reality which is the opposite.
Zealotry is when you tell everyone else what they should be thinking and doing, while simultaneously thinking and doing the things you're speaking out against.
No, that would be hypocrisy. That is also the rule with few exceptions among those of faith, but it's a different thing.
Obviously, the solution then is to have government step in and make sure that the news media accurately presents the truth, because we all know that the government has a monopoly on that sort of thing...
Yes, because that's exactly what I said.
Look, the reality is that news is a market driven affair. If you think there is a market for the "accurate truth", and that market is not being met by current news providers, nothing is stopping you from starting your own news company and competing with the bullshit propoganda organizations trumpeting themselves as news channels.
It is market driven, but there is no way to get a worthwhile news channel through market forces. Market forces drive it inevitably in the opposite direction. Actually there is something stopping me from doing exactly that. It's called the FCC. I can't start a broadcast news station since they refuse to yank the broadcast licenses of those news organizations which are not serving the needs of the public (all of them) to free them up for those that will which is their primary purpose.
Don't tell me it can't be done, Matt Drudge started off in his bedroom.
And that's an example of what exactly? That idiotic nonsense isn't restricted to the main stream media?
And, roundabout to my original point, the difference between the US and Russia is you will not be put in jail, or beaten to death, or poisoned, or shot in the head at close range with a suppressed weapon by government agents for doing so.
That's true, but we are heading rapidly in that direction. The argument that "we're still not as bad as one of the worst and so things are fine" is a poor one. We should be comparing ourselves with our stated values and our ideals, not with the worst of the worst. That only leads to a race to the bottom.
All in all, people bitching about the news is not unlike people bitching about crappy political candidates. If your ideas are so great, why don't you run?
Because good ideas do not get people elected. Lies, bribery, fear mongering and hate mongering are all that have for a long time in this country. I have integrity, so I am automatically excluded from national politics in this country. I'm an honest man, therefore completely unelectable.
Absurd statement. The FCC is concerned with people saying "fuck" on TV,
That's actually not the original purpose of the FCC. It is concerned with distributing the broadcast spectrum to those who will serve the interests of the American public. Therefore, their job is actually to pull the broadcast licenses from all of the major networks. They will never actually do their job though.
Having choices is great. Having fewer choices or no choices is not great.
It really depends. That is in no way an absolutely true statement. Having many choices of shit to be fed is not good in any way.
Look, for every person like you that thinks Fox News is Faux News, there are two or three people in flyover country that thinks it is great.
Yes, but the difference is that they are demonstrably wrong. They will choose to watch it because it tells them the idiotic lies they love to hear. That is in no way an argument that allowing Fox news to exist is in any way reasonable or even sane.
Personally, it causes a near epileptic fit when I watch it...my ADD hasn't progressed enough for me to tolerate it yet, but I at least acknowledge that there are people who don't really like watching the democratic talking points every night on CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC news.
Except that the idea that those networks do nothing but spout Democratic talking points is just one of the many blatantly false ideas which Fox news tries to promote as real. What you actually have is people who are ignorant delusional fools who cling desperately to their ignorant foolishness and *that* is all that they get from Fox news. Given that Fox freely admitted that they make shit up and it's been shown that People who
But the great thing about our country IS Fox news, or rather, if you don't like Fox news, you don't have to watch it. There are other media outlets to satisfy your progressive tastes. And if you are the type that likes Fox news or the 700 Club, well, that's available for you as well.
Except having a variety of choices about what sort of bullshit propaganda you watch isn't at all a good thing, let alone great. Having news media that actually tried to present the truth as accurately as possible would be a good thing, but we don't have anything of the sort any longer.
We don't have some government autocrat dictating what's allowed and what isn't allowed
Sure we do, they're called the FCC.
So, holding up Russia as something admirable because of the real life oppression that is there the way you do is stupid. Really stupid.
I certainly agree with that, but claiming that having different lies and propaganda to choose from, as opposed to having a media that helps promote an informed electorate, makes America great is just as stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes real world skills to move from a 3rd world to a 2nd world economy.
Indeed it does. First you must adopt Soviet style Communism, and then time travel.
Pedantry rules!
Perhaps GP was not explicit enough about the poverty that some parts of the third world experience.......
/..
;-)
;-)
Didn't see that story, but don't doubt it.
And they hope to someday - if they are lucky - become the guy who owns the sick ox, because he is the richest person for miles around.
That's what he's talking about though.
Changing their definition of hope.
I would hope *not* to ever be where they're hoping to get to. I presume that's a big enough boat to fit all of
Obviously, magical fairies aren't going to spontaneously generate out of ox poop and parasites once the magical wind up boxes arrive, or at least I didn't see that story either and do doubt that one
Now, if the kids are living on a dollar a day or less, say...25% of that or a quarter, then that $200 would feed them for 800 days or
3-4 years.
So how old were the kids following the ox?
I presume there were a few kids sneaking around the feeding troughs grabbing the grain firsthand. Maybe even some getting paid to plow, tend and harvest the fields the grain came from. Maybe a few fat cats and some wealthy(ish) merchants and tradesman running around the country (whichever one).
Maybe even a few of those people made it past 4
So having computers available makes the availability of learning materials much easier, it provides a large potential from local interaction to global as well as the potential (down the road a bit, these things take time) to allow a very few of the most driven to develop their own applications/websites/consulting firms/ whatever.
So, while I personally think those goals would be much better realized with the machines running that Swedish Hippy OS, I'm going to take a huge stand against the groupthink here and say that I'd hope to use Windows before hoping to eat ox poop.
Many people would be open to the ideas talked about by Michael Moore if giving them a fair hearing didn't involve standing on the same side of the room as, say, Michael Moore.
Oh come on, that's a pretty bad example.
Who would fit on the same side of the room as Michael Moore?
"Get things done for New Yorkers"?? You mean "trade favors with other legislators so that every legislator gets things done for their state, but the only thing that really happens is our own federal tax dollars comes back to it." I ask "why did they ever leave New York State?"
Unfortunately, it isn't even that good.
New York is one of the "provider states" that get their tax dollars sucked away by the "leech states". So New York receives far less of its own money back then gets taken away.
They left the state so other states could leech off your productivity and so the federal government can hold your own money over your head to make your state do things which are against its interests.
Generally the Dem.s are the 'tax and spend' crowd. They want to raise your taxes and create an even better and more efficient wealth redistribution system. They want to, and will 'loot' your paycheck.
And the Republicans spend *much* more and "pay" for it with loans which do need to be paid back. So "taxing and spending" is an honest approach at least. Spend, spend spend and then stick us with the much increased bill later is neither sane nor honest. It's just laughable to see people like you defending the Republicans over things that they are, by far, the worst at.
Now...with that said, I gotta say, I'm VERY pissed at the current Rep. administration, they have gotten almost as bad...they are NOW the 'cut tax and spend 'party.
Dude, "current" administration? "have gotten" "almost"?!?!?!
Wake up and please spend 5 minutes doing actual thought and research instead of repeating idiotic nonsense.
The Republicans have been hands down, no challengers in sight the leaders of government spending and increasing the size of the government since that fascist scumbag Reagan was elected. Reagan holds the record for the largest growth of the US government in history. He put FDR to shame for Christ's sake.
These are simple basic facts which are publically available.
Would you please pull your head out of the ass of the Reagan death cult and think?
I long for the days of a party that was for small government, fiscal responsibility, pro individual....
It's called the Libertarian party. The Republican party has been *against* all of those things since the 50s.
It's just amazing to see people treat politics like football and just keep rooting for the same team based on idiotic shit that hasn't been true for decades. On every one of those counts the Democrats are hands down better than the Republicans.
Don't take this as a defense of the Democrats, because they aren't good. They are absolutely better in every way at every point you claim to support though, so you might want to decide if you actually believe in what you say you do and then change your views to reflect what you actually stand for or decide you don't believe in anything you claim to and stick with who you're supporting.
Trying to do both just makes your entire view one giant contradiction of yourself.
Hillary Clinton is moderate in her rebuke, but she's against the Republicans on every issue I listed. Care to name one issue -- just one -- where Hillary is closer to the Republicans than to her base of moderate Democrats?
Iraq, corporate welfare, police state government, rendition, Guantanamo, Illegal searches.
I think you missed the lesson that "Actions speak louder than words".
Man...if you consider Hillary "centrist"....you must really be on the WAY far end of left.
Indeed, she's primarily fairly far to the right fringe with occasional left-fascist leanings. You'd have to go pretty far left of Hillary to hit anything approaching "centrist".
Actually the only candidate that's anything like centrist is Ron Paul. Of course, he's running for the extremist right wing/corporatist party so he's a bit confused.
Yep...he was more of a moderate I think, but, she definitely is many more times left than him.
Yeesh. They are both slightly moderate *right* wingers. It helps to understand the terms "left" and "right", where they came from, what they mean instead of just thinking "Republican"="right" and "Democrat"="left". Since all that does is take away the useful meanings of the terms, eliminate the language needed to actually discuss politics rationally and completely eradicate the concept of a center.
Sleeping with a sitting president qualifies her above such as Obama, etc?
Hillary/Monica 08?
I'll let you folks beat these dry horse bones. Just let me say that you have no right whatsoever to bear arms in the city of Chicago.
Sure you do have that right. You will end up arrested if you choose to exercise the right, but it's still your right.
And again, at least in the state of Illinois, you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) to own a gun.
No, you don't. I own several guns in the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois and I have no such card, nor any interest in acquiring one.
Again, if it's my right, why do I have to ask permission?
You don't.
This might not actually be a case where it's *easier* to ask forgiveness than permission, but given the odds of getting caught it works out more or less the same.
I remember when being on the 'right'...meant you whole heartedly were for privacy and individual rights of the citizenship.
No, you really don't. It never meant anything of the sort.
when did being on the 'right' stop meaning smaller government, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and personal privacy and individual rights trumping the govt's rights?
It never "stopped" meaning anything of the sort because it never started meaning anything of the sort.
The word you're looking for is "Liberalism". It's what the right and the left are right or left *of*.
Left and Right are both about big government and government rights trumping individual rights. The difference between them is the reasons and the ways in which they oppose Liberalism (or the center).
Liberalism is, essentially, the idea that we hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal.
The Left agrees in theory, but believes they need to use the power of the state against the individual to enforce that "equality". See Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin for some extreme examples of this, da comrade?
The Right fundamentally disagrees with the idea and believes the power of the state should be used against the individual to maintain the powerful in their power. The canonical example being the pre revolutionary French Assembly where the representatives of the Crown and the Church sat on the right (and the representatives of the people sat on the left hence the origin of the terms). See also corporate welfare, and the holocaust for examples of the elitism that defines the right.
Now, both the left and right have done everything they can to subvert and/or demonize the word "Liberalism" even though it is the defining characteristic of America because neither of them like the ideas it represents.
It's much easier to just redefine it out of existence.
So when you use "Right" to mean "Liberal", you're left with no term to use for the Right which makes any sort of political discussion very difficult given how far to the right this country has been dragged since WW2.
We're well to the right of your definition of right, so your terms don't even make any sense in context.
Schizophrenia is not Multiple Personality Disorder...
The voices in my head say it is...
For my Wii, I own Wii Sports, Zelda, Elebits, Madden 2007, Madden 2008, Red Steel, ExciteTruck, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Guitar Hero 3, Resident Evil 4, Mario Strikers Charged, and Super Monkey Ball (that's 13 Wii games, not counting the dozens of Wii virtual console games I have bought and downloaded online).
OK, to counter your anecdote:
For my (and my wife's) Wii we own a total of one game. Wii Sports. That's it.
I have three other games I borrowed from a friend 2 months ago (Tony Hawk, Elebits and Rayman) of which I've played 2 once and third one not at all yet.
I'm obviously not a typical gamer, but am I a typical Wii owner? I have no idea. Do you honestly know, or are you just guessing?
What about Scalix [scalix.com]? It has a very good web client, but also works with Evolution if needed. It has good calendar support and various other goodies. We're thinking of switching from Domino/Notes to save costs.
My biggest problem with Scalix when I was testing it out about a year ago was the really poor exchange migration tools. They might have come pretty far since then though.
Zimbra pretty much does it all. The web client is top notch, and makes a perfectly fine outlook replacement (Yeah, I know. Just try it, seriously), and its got some serious scaling capacitys (Its used by some of the biggest ISPs around). Yahoo now owns it, so its got some name backing. The catch is the outlook compatible one ISNT so open source, but its pretty cheap.
I've actually been exchanging emails with them today. We're looking to replace our Exchange 2000 server. Do you have any experience with their migration tool? It looks like it works pretty well, but I haven't tried it yet.
There's a difference between nailing the cheap floosy at the local dive, and meaningful long term relationship built on a strong foundation. If you've never had the latter, and only the former, you'll never know what I'm talking about.
Absolutely. Of course, if you've only had the latter and never the former then you're missing out as well
I've already demonstrated a far greater understanding of things Mormon than you have, yet you call me "extremely ignorant"?
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You are, apparently, unable to grasp the simple basic idea behind why people make up religions. It's been the same for thousands of years. So when you fail to grasp a very simple concept in spite of 100% of the evidence backing it up, you demonstrate yourself to be extremely ignorant. You're the one who stated that loud and clear,. I merely pointed out that that is what you said.
I'm sorry if you don't like having your actions and statements put in a clear, accurate and honest context, but that's your problem, not mine.
I mean, seriously, when you have a "religion" that changes the rules based on profit making deals it signs with corporations ( you do know that's why you can drink Coke now, right? You did not use to be able to do that.) then it's a (scam ) business, not a religion, and pretending otherwise makes you look really stupid.
Again, the stupidity of that action is obvious, and it's not my fault that you qualify for that description. It's entirely yours.
In fact, I would not make jokes about any other thousand-year-old elf either, as they likely have powers beyond our imagination.
Oh come on. Do you have any evidence that he's actually that old?
Even elves are young at some point.
I just love when Americans (who know I am foreigner from the other side of the ocean) ask me whether I went back home for Thanksgiving, and I study in one of the top 25 universities in the USA.
It *is* a vacation in this country for most people *regardless of your origin or citizenship*.
You could have gone any number of places without even thinking about doing anything "Thanksgivingish", so it's not really a dumb question. It's just like asking, "What did you do over the weekend".
It's a lovely day out! Let's keep it that way.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do not live in Chicago.
Now, the purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not historical or scientific, which purpose is not impacted remotely by the (gasp!) notion of cross-Bering migration (which is far from news).
No, the purpose is financial pure and simple. Joseph Smith wanted to get rich duping fools, so following a long line of tradition he made up a religion for that express purpose.
Now if you can't even grasp something as simple as *why* the religion was made up, you really shouldn't attempt to discuss it because you're clearly extremely ignorant (or possibly even deluded).
They were Norsemen, a Germanic Tribe, and they never *ever* wore horned Helmets.
So not once did one of the Norsemen decide to dress up like a Viking for Halloween?!?
No, we are not. We're slowly moving in that direction. Personally, at the end of the day, I think we'll be able to thank Republicans for implementing the framework to crush internal dissidents, and Democrats for actually using it.
Well, in 7 years we've dismantled several amendments in the bill of rights, instituted torture of innocents at the whim of the executive
(think they're guilty of anything? Prove it. The fact that you can't (not through any fault of yourself but due to the laws) is all the proof you need) That's pretty fast in my book.
As far as which part will actually take it farther, well that depends entirely on who is next in line. If a Repug gets elected president again, then that's a clear mandate to go ahead with their treasonous policies. If a Dem gets elected, they'll have a clear mandate to execute the entire current administration for treason which they will ignore in favor of moving ahead with the Republican's current fascist policies. So who takes the next step only depends on who's in.
You do me an injustice, sir. That's not my argument. My argument is that the original poster's idea that Russia was great because they don't have Fox news is moronic and insipid, the type of statement the left makes reflexively the same way Pavlov's dog salivated at the ringing of a dinner bell.
OK, your stance on that argument (the original) is fair enough. Your argument that choices, even when *all* of them are lying propoganda is a poor one as well though.
Right. Which is why the media overwhelmingly votes Democrat in the national elections.
You seem to think that that is in any way relevant.
The talking heads do not set editorial policy. That is done by the heads of the major multinational corporations who own the networks.
What the worker bees believe is meaningless to the discussion.
This idea btw, namely that there is a pretty distinct Democratic bias in the US media, predates Fox news by about a decade.
Just because a false idea has been around doesn't make it any more correct. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing radio hate squad were talking about it, sure, but that just makes it even more irrational to buy into given the demonstrated complete lack of integrity of those scum.
Nice non sequitur.
No, it wasn't. It was an example, using current events, demonstrating the falsehood of your statement.
It's the same thing when pork barrel spending comes up. Everyone is all for getting rid of everyone else's pork barrel spending.
Sure, and I'd be happy to see it all go since I pay for it and receive nothing. I live in Illinois, so we, like most of the "blue" states, actually pay income tax the vast majority of which goes to the leech states. i.e. the Republican Socialists ( which is the majority of the voting base).
So, again, I'm not in the same position as the masses. I know where the money goes and where it comes from, and I'd be happy to see it all stop.
The bottom line is it's real easy to point out everyone else's self-delusions, it's much harder to spot your own.
Certainly. That's why I'm very careful to keep rechecking my assumptions and my logic. You haven't actually pointed out and self-delusions I hold though.
As for myself, I try to be fair minded and rational and intelligent, but like everyone else, biases, even if it's just selection bias, inevitably filters in. You're a fool if you think that you are somehow immune, that you are the only intelligent person left in a sea of idiots, etc, etc.
I likewise try to be fair minded, rational, and intelligent. That does not, in any way, mean that I have to treat the idiotic rantings of lunatics as if they were sane.
I am not the only intelligent person in a sea of idiots, but the intelligent, informed citizen is a very small and dying breed. Pretending that that is not obviously true would make you a fool given the current state of affairs.
Sure it does. The US i
Faith is when religion prompts people to do the right thing and live their lives in pure and wholesome ways.
No it isn't.
Faith is blind belief in the unprovable with no evidence or reason.
Now in very rare situations it actually works out the way you say, but that's the exception, not the rule.
If that weren't true, then there would be a lot of good and little evil done for religion instead of reality which is the opposite.
Zealotry is when you tell everyone else what they should be thinking and doing, while simultaneously thinking and doing the things you're speaking out against.
No, that would be hypocrisy.
That is also the rule with few exceptions among those of faith, but it's a different thing.
Obviously, the solution then is to have government step in and make sure that the news media accurately presents the truth, because we all know that the government has a monopoly on that sort of thing...
Yes, because that's exactly what I said.
Look, the reality is that news is a market driven affair. If you think there is a market for the "accurate truth", and that market is not being met by current news providers, nothing is stopping you from starting your own news company and competing with the bullshit propoganda organizations trumpeting themselves as news channels.
It is market driven, but there is no way to get a worthwhile news channel through market forces. Market forces drive it inevitably in the opposite direction. Actually there is something stopping me from doing exactly that. It's called the FCC. I can't start a broadcast news station since they refuse to yank the broadcast licenses of those news organizations which are not serving the needs of the public (all of them) to free them up for those that will which is their primary purpose.
Don't tell me it can't be done, Matt Drudge started off in his bedroom.
And that's an example of what exactly? That idiotic nonsense isn't restricted to the main stream media?
And, roundabout to my original point, the difference between the US and Russia is you will not be put in jail, or beaten to death, or poisoned, or shot in the head at close range with a suppressed weapon by government agents for doing so.
That's true, but we are heading rapidly in that direction. The argument that "we're still not as bad as one of the worst and so things are fine" is a poor one. We should be comparing ourselves with our stated values and our ideals, not with the worst of the worst. That only leads to a race to the bottom.
All in all, people bitching about the news is not unlike people bitching about crappy political candidates. If your ideas are so great, why don't you run?
Because good ideas do not get people elected. Lies, bribery, fear mongering and hate mongering are all that have for a long time in this country. I have integrity, so I am automatically excluded from national politics in this country. I'm an honest man, therefore completely unelectable.
Absurd statement. The FCC is concerned with people saying "fuck" on TV,
That's actually not the original purpose of the FCC. It is concerned with distributing the broadcast spectrum to those who will serve the interests of the American public. Therefore, their job is actually to pull the broadcast licenses from all of the major networks. They will never actually do their job though.
Having choices is great. Having fewer choices or no choices is not great.
It really depends. That is in no way an absolutely true statement. Having many choices of shit to be fed is not good in any way.
Look, for every person like you that thinks Fox News is Faux News, there are two or three people in flyover country that thinks it is great.
Yes, but the difference is that they are demonstrably wrong. They will choose to watch it because it tells them the idiotic lies they love to hear. That is in no way an argument that allowing Fox news to exist is in any way reasonable or even sane.
Personally, it causes a near epileptic fit when I watch it...my ADD hasn't progressed enough for me to tolerate it yet, but I at least acknowledge that there are people who don't really like watching the democratic talking points every night on CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC news.
Except that the idea that those networks do nothing but spout Democratic talking points is just one of the many blatantly false ideas which Fox news tries to promote as real. What you actually have is people who are ignorant delusional fools who cling desperately to their ignorant foolishness and *that* is all that they get from Fox news. Given that Fox freely admitted that they make shit up and it's been shown that People who
But the great thing about our country IS Fox news, or rather, if you don't like Fox news, you don't have to watch it. There are other media outlets to satisfy your progressive tastes. And if you are the type that likes Fox news or the 700 Club, well, that's available for you as well.
Except having a variety of choices about what sort of bullshit propaganda you watch isn't at all a good thing, let alone great. Having news media that actually tried to present the truth as accurately as possible would be a good thing, but we don't have anything of the sort any longer.
We don't have some government autocrat dictating what's allowed and what isn't allowed
Sure we do, they're called the FCC.
So, holding up Russia as something admirable because of the real life oppression that is there the way you do is stupid. Really stupid.
I certainly agree with that, but claiming that having different lies and propaganda to choose from, as opposed to having a media that helps promote an informed electorate, makes America great is just as stupid.