Since this entire article is about DailyKos publicly admitting that R2K duped them and are not to be trusted, and Dailykos is now publicly *suing* them....doesn't that disprove your statement right then and there?
That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written.
It's a conservative stance that that's how the Constitution is written. : ) The Constitution says that those powers not going to the Federal gov't should go to the states - but I don't know of anything in the Constitution that specifically says power should be given to the states **instead of** the government **whenever possible**, i.e. that State power tends to be better and/or more wisely wielded than Federal power.
Be that as it may, again I'm talking about consistency. If "conservative" meant standing for State's rights as opposed to Federal power whenever possible, then none of the above mentioned situations (plus the Schiavo incident) would have occurred.
We may be in agreement that conservatives aren't what they used to be - this may in fact be exactly what I mean, when I refer to current conservatism lacking a clear and consistent ideology.
The Patriot act was supported by both major parties.
Yes - but I'm talking about consistency in conservative ideology. It's the Republicans who are supposed to be against big government. So that's inconsistent.
Have you read the law in question? It's actually pretty reasonable.
I actually have read the law and don't consider it reasonable. Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."
But again, what I'm pointing at here isn't the law itself. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of what "conservative" is supposed to mean. A national medical ID card gives the government too much power - but a law that requires people to prove their citizenship to the police on command does not? That seems like a large contradiction in political philosophy, to me.
Frankly, our Bill of Rights doesn't mean much if our states and towns can write laws that abrogate it on a whim.
Okay, fine - but again, I'm talking about consistency here. A conservative stance I've heard time and time again, is that decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible. Yet this only seems to come up when it's something Federal that conservatives *don't* like.
As for real conservatives being horrified about deficits, that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see. Historically, even. Reagan tripled the debt, Bush added to it, Clinton eliminated it for the first time in decades, then GWB blows the surplus and puts the government back in the red - and gets re-elected. Yes, Obama's increased it even more - but liberals aren't the ones who are philosophically dead-set against deficits.
I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.
It's not a BS point. I'm not even talking about securing the national border. I'm talking about, is it big brother for people to have ID, or is it not?
There was all this to-do on the right about how a national ID card was big brother. But a law that police can just stop people if they *suspect* they're illegal and demand to see their ID, somehow that's NOT big brother?
Do you see the cognitive dissonance between those two positions?
Perhaps it's a difference of how one defines "liberal". But he's already taken positions on many other issues that liberals do not define as liberal.
He nixed pushing single-payer health care at the absolute beginning of negotiations, for example. His health-care bill also includes a huge giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. He supported a huge bank bailout while requiring barely anything of banks in return.
It seems to me over here on the left that he's a centrist, just as Clinton was.
Disclaimer: I post there. But that's not quite accurate. They fired R2K on their own, and then found this out.
They are taking this public with a lawsuit, when they could have just left it go. That speaks rather well to how much Daily Kos cares about the facts and factual reporting.
He got into the Oval office and realized that things aren't as simple as he previously thought. A lot of his foreign policy falls into this one. Eg, what to do with Gitmo detainees, or how to pull out of a war zone without making things worse. How to "engage" with ass-backwards countries like Iran.
...therefore he's no longer pursuing these policies, which means he is a centrist.
Right now it seems to be:
- against big government, but for the Patriot Act
- against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem
- for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws
- against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House
- against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here
- against abortion, but for the death penalty
Unfair comparison to Daily Kos. Disclaimer: I post comments there quite a bit. But Daily Kos, however partisan they are, tend to source their facts pretty well. Unlike Rush, Hannity or Coulter, who pull facts out of dark orifices and respond to any criticism with ad hominem attacks.
The argument for not writing it clearly and hiding the manuscript, is so that it could be disseminated among many while the few who could agree would decipher it's deeper meanings.
I am curious to see the actual analysis. If its based on *concepts* and not words, then I can see how that could be hidden in the text and make it's way through multiple translations and copies. If it's based solely on matching word order, that's a bit more difficult for me to swallow.
I think we must not be communicating properly or something. It might be my fault.
My friend has an old computer, with software and hardware DSP's on it which work perfectly fine for all his audio needs.
He's going to have to upgrade his software, probably for new capabilities people will request as well as to be able to receive files in new formats which are not backwards compatible.
This new software will not run on his older Mac computer, very probably because recent versions of most Mac programs require a recent mac OS, which in turn will only run on an Intel box, which in turn won't take his older DSP cards, which he has invested quite a lot of money in.
This very probably means he has a computer that's older than 4 years. It's still a useful tool in every productive way.
The above seems entirely in step with what I wrote, and (as far as I can tell) explains why he will have to upgrade his computer, which he otherwise would not have to.
However if I am in fact missing something, please let me know.
I don't think the Nazis were even lawful evil, since they were quite ready to violate their own laws if it suited them. But they weren't chaotic evil - that would be more like, say, Manson. "Neutral Evil" might better describe them...
Perhaps the best description of Lawful evil might be Jim Jones, and various other leaders who perish with their cults. They are following their own laws, even to their own doom.
Of course, where D&D steps out of touch with reality (besides, you know, with every single fantasy element : ) ) is that people almost never - and I'm tempted to say never - really view themselves as evil. Even if they may claim they're "evil", they always have some sort of justification for their actions. They're evil because "society is evil", or "God is evil", or "my parents made me evil." There's never anyone in real life who's like "I freely chose evil, just because I dig it and it's fun." That only exists in fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter.
"Lawful Evil" really requires a very specific type of insanity, where the person is beholden to their own laws and can't just remake those laws arbitrarily. The only real-world analogue for this that I can think of is Mao. Hitler, Stalin and most of the other dictators from both the political left and political right had a very arbitrary and capricious outlook on the law - laws were for others and not for them. Which is not what someone who was truly of the outlook "Lawful" would operate...
There's a flip side to it, which we can be our own journalists and dig into the source. The traditional media hasn't gotten any worse than it's always been; it's just that now we can find our way around it.
The trick now is to find aggregators and analyzers who can put together what we miss, in ways that we trust. Which can be tricky, because we can have our biases pandered to; but I'll take that risk as opposed to proven spoon-feeding any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sure? (intentional mistake this time...)
For the curious, about making a triple boot mini with OS X and Linux: http://www.mydellmini.com/forum/mac-os-x-guides/20638-dell-mini-10-1011-snow-leopard-triple-boot.html
Could be - but I actually loaded OS X on mine. So now I have a $300 Mac netbook. :) :)
http://mydellmini.com/
It was sublimely easy. I've seen on the above site where someone made a triple boot Mac/XP/Linux; haven't tried that yet.
No issues yet on the IDE channel. No idea how OS X may or may not affect that.
I think it might be a bit early for "Dell is the Devil".
he's done nothing more than scrub their name...
Since this entire article is about DailyKos publicly admitting that R2K duped them and are not to be trusted, and Dailykos is now publicly *suing* them....doesn't that disprove your statement right then and there?
That's not just a conservative position. That's how the Constitution is written.
It's a conservative stance that that's how the Constitution is written. : ) The Constitution says that those powers not going to the Federal gov't should go to the states - but I don't know of anything in the Constitution that specifically says power should be given to the states **instead of** the government **whenever possible**, i.e. that State power tends to be better and/or more wisely wielded than Federal power.
Be that as it may, again I'm talking about consistency. If "conservative" meant standing for State's rights as opposed to Federal power whenever possible, then none of the above mentioned situations (plus the Schiavo incident) would have occurred.
We may be in agreement that conservatives aren't what they used to be - this may in fact be exactly what I mean, when I refer to current conservatism lacking a clear and consistent ideology.
I don't know. Let's search for it at Lycos.
Yes - but I'm talking about consistency in conservative ideology. It's the Republicans who are supposed to be against big government. So that's inconsistent.
I actually have read the law and don't consider it reasonable. Particularly troubling is that the ID demand is not limited to a police stop that occurs for other reasons. It's suggested, but the only restriction I know of is "lawful contact", which is not defined in this law or anywhere else I can find. That vagueness potentially means that a policeman could be standing next to someone on the street getting an ice cream, and say "Show me your papers."
But again, what I'm pointing at here isn't the law itself. I'm pointing out the inconsistency of what "conservative" is supposed to mean. A national medical ID card gives the government too much power - but a law that requires people to prove their citizenship to the police on command does not? That seems like a large contradiction in political philosophy, to me.
Okay, fine - but again, I'm talking about consistency here. A conservative stance I've heard time and time again, is that decisions should be left to states and not the Federal government whenever possible. Yet this only seems to come up when it's something Federal that conservatives *don't* like.
As for real conservatives being horrified about deficits, that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see. Historically, even. Reagan tripled the debt, Bush added to it, Clinton eliminated it for the first time in decades, then GWB blows the surplus and puts the government back in the red - and gets re-elected. Yes, Obama's increased it even more - but liberals aren't the ones who are philosophically dead-set against deficits.
I don't see the common thread of a consistent ideology in these stances. It really seems to me that nowadays "conservatism" is less of a worldview and more like a bunch of stuff in a bucket.
It's not a BS point. I'm not even talking about securing the national border. I'm talking about, is it big brother for people to have ID, or is it not?
There was all this to-do on the right about how a national ID card was big brother. But a law that police can just stop people if they *suspect* they're illegal and demand to see their ID, somehow that's NOT big brother?
Do you see the cognitive dissonance between those two positions?
Perhaps it's a difference of how one defines "liberal". But he's already taken positions on many other issues that liberals do not define as liberal.
He nixed pushing single-payer health care at the absolute beginning of negotiations, for example. His health-care bill also includes a huge giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. He supported a huge bank bailout while requiring barely anything of banks in return.
It seems to me over here on the left that he's a centrist, just as Clinton was.
This notion is actually disproven by DailyKos' reaction to the pollsters they hired.
I agree that when Rush makes statements like "and", "the" or "of", he technically isn't lying.
Was this in San Francisco?
Disclaimer: I post there. But that's not quite accurate. They fired R2K on their own, and then found this out.
They are taking this public with a lawsuit, when they could have just left it go. That speaks rather well to how much Daily Kos cares about the facts and factual reporting.
He got into the Oval office and realized that things aren't as simple as he previously thought. A lot of his foreign policy falls into this one. Eg, what to do with Gitmo detainees, or how to pull out of a war zone without making things worse. How to "engage" with ass-backwards countries like Iran.
...therefore he's no longer pursuing these policies, which means he is a centrist.
I'd be happy with any definition of conservatism.
Right now it seems to be:
- against big government, but for the Patriot Act
- against a Health Care ID card, because that's big brother - but the Arizona "Show us your papers" law? No problem
- for State's rights, unless it's Bush v. Gore, Bush v. California EPA laws, or SCOTUS vs. state gun laws
- against deficits, unless a Republican's in the White House
- against "Islamofascists", unless their Saudis, in which case nothing to see here
- against abortion, but for the death penalty
I mean, what ties all that together?
Unfair comparison to Daily Kos. Disclaimer: I post comments there quite a bit. But Daily Kos, however partisan they are, tend to source their facts pretty well. Unlike Rush, Hannity or Coulter, who pull facts out of dark orifices and respond to any criticism with ad hominem attacks.
Ah, that's not evil. That's just being naughty. Big difference.
The argument for not writing it clearly and hiding the manuscript, is so that it could be disseminated among many while the few who could agree would decipher it's deeper meanings.
I am curious to see the actual analysis. If its based on *concepts* and not words, then I can see how that could be hidden in the text and make it's way through multiple translations and copies. If it's based solely on matching word order, that's a bit more difficult for me to swallow.
I think we must not be communicating properly or something. It might be my fault.
My friend has an old computer, with software and hardware DSP's on it which work perfectly fine for all his audio needs.
He's going to have to upgrade his software, probably for new capabilities people will request as well as to be able to receive files in new formats which are not backwards compatible.
This new software will not run on his older Mac computer, very probably because recent versions of most Mac programs require a recent mac OS, which in turn will only run on an Intel box, which in turn won't take his older DSP cards, which he has invested quite a lot of money in.
This very probably means he has a computer that's older than 4 years. It's still a useful tool in every productive way.
The above seems entirely in step with what I wrote, and (as far as I can tell) explains why he will have to upgrade his computer, which he otherwise would not have to.
However if I am in fact missing something, please let me know.
I don't think the Nazis were even lawful evil, since they were quite ready to violate their own laws if it suited them. But they weren't chaotic evil - that would be more like, say, Manson. "Neutral Evil" might better describe them...
Perhaps the best description of Lawful evil might be Jim Jones, and various other leaders who perish with their cults. They are following their own laws, even to their own doom.
Of course, where D&D steps out of touch with reality (besides, you know, with every single fantasy element : ) ) is that people almost never - and I'm tempted to say never - really view themselves as evil. Even if they may claim they're "evil", they always have some sort of justification for their actions. They're evil because "society is evil", or "God is evil", or "my parents made me evil." There's never anyone in real life who's like "I freely chose evil, just because I dig it and it's fun." That only exists in fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter.
"Lawful Evil" really requires a very specific type of insanity, where the person is beholden to their own laws and can't just remake those laws arbitrarily. The only real-world analogue for this that I can think of is Mao. Hitler, Stalin and most of the other dictators from both the political left and political right had a very arbitrary and capricious outlook on the law - laws were for others and not for them. Which is not what someone who was truly of the outlook "Lawful" would operate...
I kinda dig chaotic good. But that's pretty much a projection of my life outlook.
Basically, in the real world equivalent: a neutral neutral is a gray boring life.
Isn't it scary. Oh my God.
There's a flip side to it, which we can be our own journalists and dig into the source. The traditional media hasn't gotten any worse than it's always been; it's just that now we can find our way around it.
The trick now is to find aggregators and analyzers who can put together what we miss, in ways that we trust. Which can be tricky, because we can have our biases pandered to; but I'll take that risk as opposed to proven spoon-feeding any day.