You and me both, but really it was hard to forsee.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
It was trivially easy to forsee. All you had to do was your god damned duty as a citizen.
Hell, all you had to do was read some of the papers put out by PNAC which were written primarilly by the members of Bush's first administration.
Back in 2000, they said that they wanted to invade Iraq, that they knew that the American people would not go along and that they would have to use an attack on our country as an excuse to carry out their plans.
That is the single biggest peice of information about Bush and his administration that was available in order to make your decision and it is still publically available.
So, no, it was *not* hard to forsee. It was fucking easy.
Your failure to do so is a deep personal failure on your part.
Learn to deal with that fact and quit lying about how hard it was to pay any god damned attention when it quite obviously isn't.
Until you can honestly deal with your failings and take responsibility for them you will continue to fall for the same stupid shit designed to fool idiots.
Maybe you should actually look at yourself and figure out why you fell for a trick that an intelligent motivated cild could have easilly seen through.
They didn't fool you, you fooled yourself. Until you figure out what's so broken about you to have caused you to fall for such a simple trick you will keep doing so.
We already have death camps and illegal wiretapping at the whim of the douchebag who *your* idiocy helped put in place. We can't affrord any more of *your* collosal mistakes.
Pull your head out of your ass or move to fucking Saudi Arabia. America can't afford your extreme delusional ignorance anymore.
I can't believe I voted for Bush the first time. Had I know he would willing to ignore our constitution and way of life in the name of safety, I would have never considered him.
Had you put any thought whatsoever into your decision then you would have not made such an idiotic mistake.
Had you done your fucking job as a citizen, then you would have *known* that that is exactly what you were voting for.
There is no excuse whatsoever for having voted for Bush at all either time.
Maybe next time you'll do a little bit of research first instead of betraying your country *again*.
I just feel like an idiot...
Well, you should feel like an idiot. But just feeling that way isn't enough. You need to figure out how it was that fucking *easy* to fool you. Why is it that you were so completely incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills? How could you allow yourself to be fooled by blatantly obvious tricks that have been used again and again throughout history when there were people telling you exactly what was going on at the time?!?
Until you can answer those questions honestly and deal with the fact that your decision making skills are utter crap, you will continue to be duped by morons using the same old tricks.
I mean seriously, if you did not know for a fact, that your vote for Bush in 2000 was a vote to make up lies to justify an invasion of Iraq, then you are a complete failure as a citizen.
If you do not know *now* that that is exactly what you voted for and why you should have known that at the time, then you are still an utter failure and will continue to be so.
There is no excuse for not having known what you were voting for and then having the fucking audacity to show your face at your polling location and betray this country, which is what you did.
I'm not willing to turn this country into Nazi Germany out of fear of some guy who might come up with a creative way to kill me.
Too late, you already did that and you did it completely willingly. Take some personal responsibility for your actions, treasonous though they were. Until you can honestly deal with your failings as a person and as a citizen, then You will continue to aid in bringing fascism to America.
Whining lies about how you're not willing to do what you willingly did show that you haven't learned a fucking thing.
I'm still stunned that the conservative movement, which used to claim to champion smaller government and strict constitutional readings, has turned into a champion of authoritarian governmental control.
You're still *stunned* after 30+ years?!?! WTF dude, either you haven't really been paying any attention until very recently or you stay stunned a damn long time.
You know what, by the looks of this discussion (in general), it seems that I am simply not able to relate to this whole Fundamentalist Christian thing. I feel like I'm constantly missing some piece of the puzzle. You all (I mean you guys from the US) talk to each other as if you shared some kind of experience with such fundamentalists but I have no idea what it might be.
Well, basically the core of the fundamentalist movement is a group of people who have declared their hatred for the US constitution and the principles upon which it was based.
They are actively seeking the overthrow of our form of government and its replacement with a fundamentalist "Christian" theocraCY.
So essentially, they are a group of fundamentalist terrorists (8 out of the top 10 terrorist groups on the FBIs watch list were domestic Christian organizations prior to 9/11) who want to torture and murder anybody who doesn't buy into their exact delusional beliefs.
That is why it is such a big deal to the reasonablr Americans. We're under a savage attack by extremists seeking to destroy our nation and our way of life.
Most atheists come to their conclusions by reason and don't look back, so unless you had a head injury that made you lose reason...
I disagree with this characterization due to the simple fact that every person who ever lived was born an atheist. It's really just the default position.
Some people choose to arbitrarilly start believing some twaddle somebody tells them, but unless somebody stops being an atheist and then rejects whatever religion they temporarilly bought into, then reason didn't lead them to atheism.
Now for people who never bought into any specific stripe of nonsense reason probably had a lot to do with it, but reason didn't cause them to be an atheist, they just always were.
Their thesis is "there is no god", and have developed a whole line of reasonings to "prove" this thesis. The Antithesis is "There is a god", and I have rarely seen any atheist spend the amount of time on this consideration.
What a bunch of crap.
There isn't an atheist thesis. There is a religious one "There is a God".
The reasonable response to which is "Prove it". At this point the theists point completely falls to shreds and they generally start babbling about needing faith or threwatening to burn you alive or something since there is not one single shred of evidence for any of their religious beliefs.
You fall into the all too common trap of assuming that there is some arbitrary default weight to the religious belief which there isn't.
"Consider the alternative"?!? Seriously, "the alternative" is shoved in your face everywhere in this country. Thinking it's silly to believe in far out delusions without a single shred of evidence is just simple basic common sense.
But I am one of those wackos, who believes the Scriptures, namely because none of the claims found in it have been falsified.
The thing about that makes you a "wacko" is the fact that there are plenty of proven falsehoods in the bible and you chose to ignore them if you ever actually did any investigation at all.
If that were really your reason, then you would equally believe in the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster as neither of those have been proven false either.
Heck, if you were telling the truth about your reasons for faith, then you would believe just as much in every single wacky insane nutjob theory that hasn't been explicitly disproven and probably some that have since the exact same argument works for anything.
I'm talking about what those words mean _to me_. I thought I was quite clear about that when I used the phrase "for me" in the above quoted text.
OK, and "benhocking" means a type of tree to me. If you are going to arbitrarilly decide to misuse a word, then you will continue to have a hard time understanding what people are saying when they use it.
That was my point.
You can use any word you want to mean anything you want, but when it conflicts with the common useage of the word, then there will be problems with communication.
I believe there are no pink unicorns. I can state that with utmost certainty. That does not mean that I have to assume there is some valid basis for believing there are pink unicorns.
Then why would you even bother establishing that belief system? Heck, I don't believe that there are pink unicorns (visible or otherwise). That's a lack of belief. To go that extra mile to set up a belief is just silly and a waste of effort.
If it was just a question of there being no valid basis to believe then you just disregard it, just like Santa, the Tooth Fairy and God. There would be no reason to go out of your way to take an active position on the subject of pink unicorns.
And that is a non-sequitor. (A) I made no argument, I talked about how *I* define two words.
It's not a nonsequitor, it's an important fact that your definitions ignore. Without incorporating that simple basic fact into your definitions, you ignore a critical piece and thereby lend an unnatural credence to the theist viewpoint that is entirely unwarranted.
Of course, you still conveniently dodged my question about what "word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god" by making the false claim that such people pretty much don't exist.
I didn't dodge anything. What word do you use to describe people who are 12 feet tall, have 3 arms and hate basketball?
Maybe you should actually try to provide evidence for the "falsehood" of my claim. I have never met or even heard of a person who "believes" there is no god.
I know lots of people who don't believe though due to the fact that there does not exist one single scrap of evidence for such a thing, and further there are so many contradictions and other absurdities in all religions.
So, again you are tacitly assuming that there is some default legitimacy to religions when there quite clearly isn't.
You just took the definitions commonly used by religious zealots to try and classify atheism as a religion when it is nothing of the sort. Your reasons for doing that are irrelevant to the fact that that is exactly what you have done here.
but for me an atheist has always been someone who believes there is no god (a religious belief), and an agnostic is someone who merely doesn't believe there is a god, but allows it as a possibility.
Well, quite simply, you're wrong.
I am an atheist as everybody in the world started out. Many people arbitrarliy choose some particular fantasy to start believing in, most often becasue their parents threatened them with eternal torture if they didn't.
There is not one single scrap of evidence for any gods or any religions, therefore, there is not one reason to buy into that silly crap.
This doesn't mean that there is no possible way that there ever could be a god, but it does mean that it's pretty stupid to believe that some ignorant desert nomads magically got it right.
if you want to use the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" what word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god?
First this isn't using "atheist to mean "agnostic". Second, there is pretty much nobody who "believes" there is no god. For that to be a reasonable position, you would already have to assume that there is some valid basis for believing there is one which is putting the cart before the horse.
Heck, you could come up with all the wild delusional fantasies you want, but the fact that I don't drop all reason in order to magically start believing in them doesn't make my skepticism about your totally unsupported fantasies into a "belief".
Your entire argument skips the most important fact which is that atheism is the default position of every person who has ever lived.
How is that that Communism, allegedly founded on a scientific basis, stressing rationality and scientific though, with principles regarded as altruistic (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), repeatedly produced such carnage and such leaders?
Because it wasn't really founded on that basis. It was founded on a *religious* belief in Communism. Just because you replace worship of a god with worship of the state doesn't make it any less of a religion.
In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
If your source is this poorly researched, then why would anybody lend it any legitimacy?
The Nazi regime was loudly and explicitly Christian. Trying to pretend otherwise shows the deeply dishonest character of these religious loons.
Try doing a little bit of research next time little troll.
Or perhaps SOME people DO realize that theft doesn't stop being theft if it's government doing it, and calling it "taxing the rich". And some of them do even have the moral fiber to stand against injustice, even if they benefit from it?
Except the people in question are the worst welfare leeches we have, so your "moral fiber" argument is worse than laughable.
Try it again when they give up their farm subsidies nad their utility subsidies and all their other entitlement programs and start pulling their own weight for once rather than leeching off of my productivity and then whining like little bitches about *exactly what they are doing*.
Sorry, but the completely contradictory and nonsensical nature of their various positions demonstrates their total lack of anything approaching morality. If not, why are they on the obviously wrong side of every moral issue?
Obviously. And, while "majority rules" is a crappy rule, you are in, shall we say, rare company with that opinion.
I'd imagine that you do hold the majority opinion on this, but "rare company"? Nonsense. Check out some of the forums. There are a lot of people who thought this game was a disaster. A pretty disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.
Like it or not, we have to comply with our law enforcement officials.
Bullshit. Those are the words of a subject, not a citizen.
If you have been wronged, there is a channel to handle that.
Which is an utterly ignorant statement. The channels to handle that are all completely broken. They work for the police and against the citizens. That is why your original statement is nothing but bullshit
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that you should run out and "save the world" so to speak, or even get yourself canned over what tools your company uses. I was just reacting to your statement that you wouldn't even care if Microsoft took over the world as you would prefer hanging out with your kids. That situation would be far worse for your kids and everybody else than if you had bailed home the day your wife told you she was expecting, never to return.
I don't think I've used any specific thing I learned in any of my college math classes since I graduated (well, except for smooth talking girls at parties heh;-), but I definitely consider it valuable for a lot of the reasons you gave.
Your kid's future won't mean shit if you don't spend time with them teaching them the necessary skill to live their own future lives.
Nor will your kid's future mean shit if the world you leave them is worse than the one your parents left you. Especially if it's one where a corporation has "taken over the world".
My point was more about your hypothetiucal situation and your lack of concern about that than about the current situation.
BUT I also know from friends who are former hackers turned LEO that they actually don't have to look beyond someone doing a simple format most of the time since people are typically stupid in that regard.
They were shot into space?!?
WTF dude. That's a pretty harsh penalty for hacking.
Inciting to murder you political opponents, even in jest, reveals a lot about you and the fascist mentality you express. You're no better than Pol Pot on the left or McVeigh and the whackos on the right with that sort of a saying.
That's an entirely laughable assertion that only demonstrates your total ignorance of current events. It has nothing to do with "political opponents". It has to do with actual actions taken by these people.
They have made it legal for the president to send *anybody* away to a third world shithole to be tortured and murdered on a mere whim with no possible recourse to the law.
Reccomending the murder of people so utterly lacking in any sort of decency, integrity or morality and who have gone way past that into direct action against every decent citizen in this country is simple basic common sense and self defense.
Republicans as a whole and each and every one individually have given up any right to life that they ever had.
Let me guess.... you're one of those morons who think appeasement is a reasonable strategy.
It didn't work to prevent WW2, and there's no reason to believe that it will work on Republicans.
They declared all out war on freedom, libery, and the constitution, and so murdering them is the only reasonable way to deal with them at this point as a direct consequence of *their* cowardly treasonous actions.
Stop with the hate, enough already.
Bring back the fourth amendment that keeps those lunatic whack jobs from shipping me off to a death camp and we'll talk. Blaming me for taking a reasonable approach to murderous traitors is ridiculous, Sparky.
Seriously, you are deeply delusional if you can't even tell the difference between the Republican's unwarranted and entirely treasonous assaults on our liberty and somebody recommending staqnding up against the worst batch of traitors this nation has ever seen.
Even if you can write elegant, fast code at a basic language-usage level, algorithmic design is also subject to a bajillion types of boneheadedness and stupidity. Knowing abstract algebra will help you write algorithms that are faster (both to write and to run) and cleaner.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm just not clear on what about abstract algebra in particular you think will help improve your algorithms. Obviously, learning upper division/graduate level mathematics will help improve your logical and creative abilities in general.
I have a BS in math which included a year of Abstract Algebra. The classes I took were "pure" math though, so we didn't deal with applications at all.
Do you have a recommendation for a book dealing with applications of abstract algebra?
I'm pretty sure that if I said something that stupid in front of very important clients, I'd get shitcanned in a second.
The difference being that what Bill Maher said that got him canned was not stupid. It was 100% accurate, insightful, and quite an important point to make in the interest of honest assessment of the situation.
In fact, the last possible thing it was is stupid.
Give me Reagan or Bush Sr. any day. (Really wanted Steve Forbs years ago...)
Wow.
There is almost no difference between Shrub and Reagan. Same idiotic fiscal policies, same treasonous, scandal ridden foreign policy, same exact people involved.
Same record setting defecits.
It always amazes me when I hear "conservatives" talking up Reagan.
His administration signalled the Republicans' complete and utter rejection of their old platform in favor of huge oppressive government and no fiscal sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
You and me both, but really it was hard to forsee.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
It was trivially easy to forsee.
All you had to do was your god damned duty as a citizen.
Hell, all you had to do was read some of the papers put out by PNAC which were written primarilly by the members of Bush's first administration.
Back in 2000, they said that they wanted to invade Iraq, that they knew that the American people would not go along and that they would have to use an attack on our country as an excuse to carry out their plans.
That is the single biggest peice of information about Bush and his administration that was available in order to make your decision and it is still publically available.
So, no, it was *not* hard to forsee.
It was fucking easy.
Your failure to do so is a deep personal failure on your part.
Learn to deal with that fact and quit lying about how hard it was to pay any god damned attention when it quite obviously isn't.
Until you can honestly deal with your failings and take responsibility for them you will continue to fall for the same stupid shit designed to fool idiots.
Maybe you should actually look at yourself and figure out why you fell for a trick that an intelligent motivated cild could have easilly seen through.
They didn't fool you, you fooled yourself. Until you figure out what's so broken about you to have caused you to fall for such a simple trick you will keep doing so.
We already have death camps and illegal wiretapping at the whim of the douchebag who *your* idiocy helped put in place. We can't affrord any more of *your* collosal mistakes.
Pull your head out of your ass or move to fucking Saudi Arabia. America can't afford your extreme delusional ignorance anymore.
I can't believe I voted for Bush the first time. Had I know he would willing to ignore our constitution and way of life in the name of safety, I would have never considered him.
Had you put any thought whatsoever into your decision then you would have not made such an idiotic mistake.
Had you done your fucking job as a citizen, then you would have *known* that that is exactly what you were voting for.
There is no excuse whatsoever for having voted for Bush at all either time.
Maybe next time you'll do a little bit of research first instead of betraying your country *again*.
I just feel like an idiot...
Well, you should feel like an idiot. But just feeling that way isn't enough. You need to figure out how it was that fucking *easy* to fool you. Why is it that you were so completely incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills?
How could you allow yourself to be fooled by blatantly obvious tricks that have been used again and again throughout history when there were people telling you exactly what was going on at the time?!?
Until you can answer those questions honestly and deal with the fact that your decision making skills are utter crap, you will continue to be duped by morons using the same old tricks.
I mean seriously, if you did not know for a fact, that your vote for Bush in 2000 was a vote to make up lies to justify an invasion of Iraq, then you are a complete failure as a citizen.
If you do not know *now* that that is exactly what you voted for and why you should have known that at the time, then you are still an utter failure and will continue to be so.
There is no excuse for not having known what you were voting for and then having the fucking audacity to show your face at your polling location and betray this country, which is what you did.
I'm not willing to turn this country into Nazi Germany out of fear of some guy who might come up with a creative way to kill me.
Too late, you already did that and you did it completely willingly. Take some personal responsibility for your actions, treasonous though they were.
Until you can honestly deal with your failings as a person and as a citizen, then You will continue to aid in bringing fascism to America.
Whining lies about how you're not willing to do what you willingly did show that you haven't learned a fucking thing.
I'm still stunned that the conservative movement, which used to claim to champion smaller government and strict constitutional readings, has turned into a champion of authoritarian governmental control.
You're still *stunned* after 30+ years?!?!
WTF dude, either you haven't really been paying any attention until very recently or you stay stunned a damn long time.
You know what, by the looks of this discussion (in general), it seems that I am simply not able to relate to this whole Fundamentalist Christian thing. I feel like I'm constantly missing some piece of the puzzle. You all (I mean you guys from the US) talk to each other as if you shared some kind of experience with such fundamentalists but I have no idea what it might be.
Well, basically the core of the fundamentalist movement is a group of people who have declared their hatred for the US constitution and the principles upon which it was based.
They are actively seeking the overthrow of our form of government and its replacement with a fundamentalist "Christian" theocraCY.
So essentially, they are a group of fundamentalist terrorists (8 out of the top 10 terrorist groups on the FBIs watch list were domestic Christian organizations prior to 9/11) who want to torture and murder anybody who doesn't buy into their exact delusional beliefs.
That is why it is such a big deal to the reasonablr Americans.
We're under a savage attack by extremists seeking to destroy our nation and our way of life.
Most atheists come to their conclusions by reason and don't look back, so unless you had a head injury that made you lose reason...
I disagree with this characterization due to the simple fact that every person who ever lived was born an atheist.
It's really just the default position.
Some people choose to arbitrarilly start believing some twaddle somebody tells them, but unless somebody stops being an atheist and then rejects whatever religion they temporarilly bought into, then reason didn't lead them to atheism.
Now for people who never bought into any specific stripe of nonsense reason probably had a lot to do with it, but reason didn't cause them to be an atheist, they just always were.
Their thesis is "there is no god", and have developed a whole line of reasonings to "prove" this thesis. The Antithesis is "There is a god", and I have rarely seen any atheist spend the amount of time on this consideration.
What a bunch of crap.
There isn't an atheist thesis.
There is a religious one "There is a God".
The reasonable response to which is "Prove it".
At this point the theists point completely falls to shreds and they generally start babbling about needing faith or threwatening to burn you alive or something since there is not one single shred of evidence for any of their religious beliefs.
You fall into the all too common trap of assuming that there is some arbitrary default weight to the religious belief which there isn't.
"Consider the alternative"?!? Seriously, "the alternative" is shoved in your face everywhere in this country.
Thinking it's silly to believe in far out delusions without a single shred of evidence is just simple basic common sense.
But I am one of those wackos, who believes the Scriptures, namely because none of the claims found in it have been falsified.
The thing about that makes you a "wacko" is the fact that there are plenty of proven falsehoods in the bible and you chose to ignore them if you ever actually did any investigation at all.
If that were really your reason, then you would equally believe in the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster as neither of those have been proven false either.
Heck, if you were telling the truth about your reasons for faith, then you would believe just as much in every single wacky insane nutjob theory that hasn't been explicitly disproven and probably some that have since the exact same argument works for anything.
I'm talking about what those words mean _to me_. I thought I was quite clear about that when I used the phrase "for me" in the above quoted text.
OK, and "benhocking" means a type of tree to me.
If you are going to arbitrarilly decide to misuse a word, then you will continue to have a hard time understanding what people are saying when they use it.
That was my point.
You can use any word you want to mean anything you want, but when it conflicts with the common useage of the word, then there will be problems with communication.
I believe there are no pink unicorns. I can state that with utmost certainty. That does not mean that I have to assume there is some valid basis for believing there are pink unicorns.
Then why would you even bother establishing that belief system?
Heck, I don't believe that there are pink unicorns (visible or otherwise). That's a lack of belief. To go that extra mile to set up a belief is just silly and a waste of effort.
If it was just a question of there being no valid basis to believe then you just disregard it, just like Santa, the Tooth Fairy and God. There would be no reason to go out of your way to take an active position on the subject of pink unicorns.
And that is a non-sequitor. (A) I made no argument, I talked about how *I* define two words.
It's not a nonsequitor, it's an important fact that your definitions ignore. Without incorporating that simple basic fact into your definitions, you ignore a critical piece and thereby lend an unnatural credence to the theist viewpoint that is entirely unwarranted.
Of course, you still conveniently dodged my question about what "word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god" by making the false claim that such people pretty much don't exist.
I didn't dodge anything.
What word do you use to describe people who are 12 feet tall, have 3 arms and hate basketball?
Maybe you should actually try to provide evidence for the "falsehood" of my claim.
I have never met or even heard of a person who "believes" there is no god.
I know lots of people who don't believe though due to the fact that there does not exist one single scrap of evidence for such a thing, and further there are so many contradictions and other absurdities in all religions.
So, again you are tacitly assuming that there is some default legitimacy to religions when there quite clearly isn't.
You just took the definitions commonly used by religious zealots to try and classify atheism as a religion when it is nothing of the sort. Your reasons for doing that are irrelevant to the fact that that is exactly what you have done here.
Nazism was responsible (directly) for 11 million deaths, indirectly perhaps twice that. No religion has ever come close to that.
You need to move this one over to the religion column as Nazism was explicitly and aggressively Christian, not atheistic.
but for me an atheist has always been someone who believes there is no god (a religious belief), and an agnostic is someone who merely doesn't believe there is a god, but allows it as a possibility.
Well, quite simply, you're wrong.
I am an atheist as everybody in the world started out.
Many people arbitrarliy choose some particular fantasy to start believing in, most often becasue their parents threatened them with eternal torture if they didn't.
There is not one single scrap of evidence for any gods or any religions, therefore, there is not one reason to buy into that silly crap.
This doesn't mean that there is no possible way that there ever could be a god, but it does mean that it's pretty stupid to believe that some ignorant desert nomads magically got it right.
if you want to use the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" what word do you use to describe people who believe there is no god?
First this isn't using "atheist to mean "agnostic". Second, there is pretty much nobody who "believes" there is no god. For that to be a reasonable position, you would already have to assume that there is some valid basis for believing there is one which is putting the cart before the horse.
Heck, you could come up with all the wild delusional fantasies you want, but the fact that I don't drop all reason in order to magically start believing in them doesn't make my skepticism about your totally unsupported fantasies into a "belief".
Your entire argument skips the most important fact which is that atheism is the default position of every person who has ever lived.
How is that that Communism, allegedly founded on a scientific basis, stressing rationality and scientific though, with principles regarded as altruistic (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), repeatedly produced such carnage and such leaders?
Because it wasn't really founded on that basis. It was founded on a *religious* belief in Communism.
Just because you replace worship of a god with worship of the state doesn't make it any less of a religion.
In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
If your source is this poorly researched, then why would anybody lend it any legitimacy?
The Nazi regime was loudly and explicitly Christian.
Trying to pretend otherwise shows the deeply dishonest character of these religious loons.
Try doing a little bit of research next time little troll.
Or perhaps SOME people DO realize that theft doesn't stop being theft if it's government doing it, and calling it "taxing the rich". And some of them do even have the moral fiber to stand against injustice, even if they benefit from it?
Except the people in question are the worst welfare leeches we have, so your "moral fiber" argument is worse than laughable.
Try it again when they give up their farm subsidies nad their utility subsidies and all their other entitlement programs and start pulling their own weight for once rather than leeching off of my productivity and then whining like little bitches about *exactly what they are doing*.
Sorry, but the completely contradictory and nonsensical nature of their various positions demonstrates their total lack of anything approaching morality. If not, why are they on the obviously wrong side of every moral issue?
Obviously. And, while "majority rules" is a crappy rule, you are in, shall we say, rare company with that opinion.
I'd imagine that you do hold the majority opinion on this, but "rare company"? Nonsense.
Check out some of the forums. There are a lot of people who thought this game was a disaster. A pretty disaster, but a disaster nonetheless.
Bold to go alone out there, ain't ya coward? :P
Well, I'm not that AC, but I second that:
Oblivion sucks.
Obviously, your opinion might differ.
Like it or not, we have to comply with our law enforcement officials.
Bullshit. Those are the words of a subject, not a citizen.
If you have been wronged, there is a channel to handle that.
Which is an utterly ignorant statement. The channels to handle that are all completely broken. They work for the police and against the citizens.
That is why your original statement is nothing but bullshit
Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that you should run out and "save the world" so to speak, or even get yourself canned over what tools your company uses.
I was just reacting to your statement that you wouldn't even care if Microsoft took over the world as you would prefer hanging out with your kids.
That situation would be far worse for your kids and everybody else than if you had bailed home the day your wife told you she was expecting, never to return.
Cool, thanks.
;-), but I definitely consider it valuable for a lot of the reasons you gave.
I don't think I've used any specific thing I learned in any of my college math classes since I graduated (well, except for smooth talking girls at parties heh
Your kid's future won't mean shit if you don't spend time with them teaching them the necessary skill to live their own future lives.
Nor will your kid's future mean shit if the world you leave them is worse than the one your parents left you. Especially if it's one where a corporation has "taken over the world".
My point was more about your hypothetiucal situation and your lack of concern about that than about the current situation.
I used to love typing that into a workstation, but not pressing enter.
One user had the habit of clearing the screensaver by hitting Enter over and over...
The Bastardry is strong in this one.
BUT I also know from friends who are former hackers turned LEO that they actually don't have to look beyond someone doing a simple format most of the time since people are typically stupid in that regard.
They were shot into space?!?
WTF dude. That's a pretty harsh penalty for hacking.
MS can take over the world for all I care, I just want to get this goddamn report done and go home.
Wow.
Way to go sticking up for your kid's future.
"I love you kids, that's why I don't give a flying fuck about what kind of world I'm making for you."
Great attitude. Way to be a parent!
Inciting to murder you political opponents, even in jest, reveals a lot about you and the fascist mentality you express. You're no better than Pol Pot on the left or McVeigh and the whackos on the right with that sort of a saying.
That's an entirely laughable assertion that only demonstrates your total ignorance of current events.
It has nothing to do with "political opponents".
It has to do with actual actions taken by these people.
They have made it legal for the president to send *anybody* away to a third world shithole to be tortured and murdered on a mere whim with no possible recourse to the law.
Reccomending the murder of people so utterly lacking in any sort of decency, integrity or morality and who have gone way past that into direct action against every decent citizen in this country is simple basic common sense and self defense.
Republicans as a whole and each and every one individually have given up any right to life that they ever had.
Let me guess.... you're one of those morons who think appeasement is a reasonable strategy.
It didn't work to prevent WW2, and there's no reason to believe that it will work on Republicans.
They declared all out war on freedom, libery, and the constitution, and so murdering them is the only reasonable way to deal with them at this point as a direct consequence of *their* cowardly treasonous actions.
Stop with the hate, enough already.
Bring back the fourth amendment that keeps those lunatic whack jobs from shipping me off to a death camp and we'll talk.
Blaming me for taking a reasonable approach to murderous traitors is ridiculous, Sparky.
Seriously, you are deeply delusional if you can't even tell the difference between the Republican's unwarranted and entirely treasonous assaults on our liberty and somebody recommending staqnding up against the worst batch of traitors this nation has ever seen.
Even if you can write elegant, fast code at a basic language-usage level, algorithmic design is also subject to a bajillion types of boneheadedness and stupidity. Knowing abstract algebra will help you write algorithms that are faster (both to write and to run) and cleaner.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm just not clear on what about abstract algebra in particular you think will help improve your algorithms. Obviously, learning upper division/graduate level mathematics will help improve your logical and creative abilities in general.
I have a BS in math which included a year of Abstract Algebra.
The classes I took were "pure" math though, so we didn't deal with applications at all.
Do you have a recommendation for a book dealing with applications of abstract algebra?
Thanks.
I'm pretty sure that if I said something that stupid in front of very important clients, I'd get shitcanned in a second.
The difference being that what Bill Maher said that got him canned was not stupid.
It was 100% accurate, insightful, and quite an important point to make in the interest of honest assessment of the situation.
In fact, the last possible thing it was is stupid.
Give me Reagan or Bush Sr. any day. (Really wanted Steve Forbs years ago...)
Wow.
There is almost no difference between Shrub and Reagan.
Same idiotic fiscal policies, same treasonous, scandal ridden foreign policy, same exact people involved.
Same record setting defecits.
It always amazes me when I hear "conservatives" talking up Reagan.
His administration signalled the Republicans' complete and utter rejection of their old platform in favor of huge oppressive government and no fiscal sense whatsoever.