One more thing - do you consider George Bush a conservative? because he is opposed to conservativism in many forms:
1. he supports fighting expensive wars in other countries. traditionally conservatives are against needless foreign wars, and are more isolationist.
2. Fiscal responsibility. Bush doesn't seem to mind wasting money and piling up debt.
3. Small government. Bush wants to massively expand government, and intrude on private affairs. he's not for the traditionally conservative "small government"
4. Interference with other branches of government and state rights. This is very well illustrated in the recent Schiavo case. Rather than being for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, Bush wants to poke his nose into private legal affairs and individual court cases.
5. Separation of Church and State, which Bush is interfering with.
So, is George Bush a Fake Republican or a Fake Conservative? He is very radical, and I don't see how he could be described as conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.
Depending on your point of view, Jon Lech Johansen is either your hero or adversary.
Not from my point of view. My point of view is like that said about Zaphod Beebelbrox: "You know, Zaphod, he's just some guy."
Why does everything have to be divided into extremes? I don't think it's healthy for anyone to think of people in terms of heroes or enemies. Why not just look at things as they are? Jon writes software. There are controversial uses for his software, which some people like, and others don't - but these issues aren't even relevant to the vast majority of humans on the planet.
99% of the population's perspective (even among the tech-savvy) is "Who the fuck is Jon Lech Johansen?"
He absolutely did not say any such thing . What the hell is wrong with you lefties - are you incapable of comprehending English?
I'm a lefty???? News to me.
Doesn't mean I can't stage a "you're a fucking idiot" counter-protest for the very same reasons they staged a protest in the first place.
But he did no such thing. He held up scorecards for the attractiveness of women passing by. How is that a "you're a fucking idiot" counter-protest? Where are they rebutting what the lesbians said?
Sounds to me like he's just using the lesbians as an excuse to look at women and try to be funny.
Realize : your right to free speech does not preclude my right to free speech. If you can go ahead and spout off stuff I disagree with, I can darn well go ahead and spout off that you're an idiot.
I agree completely. When did I ever say otherwise? I never said that he should have been censored. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. But I'm perfectly free to point out that he's being obnoxious, and doesn't understand the first thing he's talking about. I don't want to silence him. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
Amazing how many people these days hallucinate "lefties" and "censorship" every time they hear something they don't agree with.
Then why does he complain about them so loudly? Why does he complain that they are "allowed" to speak on campus?
Read it again. In fact, not only did he not say this, he simply pointed out a case where a bunch of guys simply counter-protested in a sarcastic way, and they were the ones who got shut down. Not just shut down, but threatened with having their entire frat shut down.
1. Counter-protest? What does being shut down for the "holding up scorecards" prank have to do with the lesbians? how is it a counter-protest to anything? He has never even said what it was that they were saying. One thing has nothing to do with another. I doubt that if he were shut down, it was the lesbians doing the shutting down.
2. He didn't provide any evidence that this was true. I'm highly skeptical - because his entrie description of the event does not appear to be based in reality. he claims they were spewing "male hating" propaganda, but doesn't even say what it was they were saying, etc.
That's a huge huge huge infraction of their right to say whatever the hell they want.
If it's true, then sort of. But I doubt the truth of his statements. Anyway - you can say whatever the hell you want - but Universities and other places have rules and etiquette, and are free to use their property in whatever ways they want.
Again, I point out your selective recall of what was actually said. He said absolutely nothing to the effect of "those darn lesbians should STFU,
Yes he did. not in so many words, but he was outraged that there were lesbians on campus expressing their opinion. Why is he angry at the lesbians for speaking, rather than the people who (supposedly) censored him?
But you - you cry censorship where none exists.
Where did I cry censorship? I think it's fairly obvious that he doesn't really want to hear from the lesbians, and he questions their right to have their own sexuality. But I never said he was censoring anyone. Just that he is full of hate and spite.
And you do it in the face of a guy who's saying "look, here's some guys who were shutdown in X, Y, Z manner!".
He can say antyhing he wants - doesn't make it true. If this was such a big deal to him - then why doesn't he have links documenting the incident?
He's "bitter" and it's his "failures in life" which caused him to say such things. My friend, this is absolute brilliant hypocrisy.
No, I said that's what it sounds like. I could be wrong. I was just trying to get him to think a little bit, to try and help improve his situation. Because it sounds like he has emoptional issues, which are more likely the reasons for him not getting along with others or getting jobs, than any kind of anti-male persecution.
And let me just say, I'm saving the entire contents of this thread - it is a beautiful example of liberal doublethink. Un-frickin-real.
(I'm old enough to just remember when it was called 'Towards 2000' and on the ABC.)
Heh. I was on Beyond 2000 just after it stopped being Towards 2000, when it was real daggy, and I was a contest-winning nerd. Oh, the shame. But I got to ogle Carmen Travers. So it was all worth it in the end.
If the basis for your political philosophy is diametrically opposed to the basis of the political philosophy with which you label yourself, then, yes, you're a Fake.
Well then - tell me how McCain is diamatrically opposed to conservatism, please. I don't see it. He is very conservative in all but a couple of areas.
Does this also apply to liberals? After all liberal philosophy supports freedom of speech. Yet that hasn't stopped people screaming about liberals restricting speech - even though it is diametrically opposed to liberal philosophy. So why don't you call those people "fake liberals"? Why is it that only conservatives get to pick and choose who counts as a conservative - while at the same time, lumping everyone else into the "liberal" camp?
Most of the time, when people say "liberal" in America, they mean "Democrat." The Democrats are definitely not liberals, most of them are borderline conservative. In any case, it's all such bullshit. Modern politicans don't give a crap about philosophy. They are all opportunists. Framing things in terms of philosophy is missing the point, and will distort your view of reality.
Besides, the gp wasn't the person who was advertising all over campus trying to convert others now was he.
He provided no substance to his claims. He just ranted about how he hates lesbians, and objects to them speaking on campus. He provided no details of the "male bashing." More than likely, it's a hallucination of his feverish "persecuted" mind.
But he is a frat boy so he sucks. Hypocritically bash on.:)
I don't give a shit about whether he is a frat boy or not. I was just calling him on his hypocrisy and asking him to provide more details of what the terrible "male bashing" was.
If you read through the post (go ahead, do it) you'll find that not only did he "give any specifics", but he logically demonstrated a clearcut case of absurd censorship in the name of political correctness.
No he didn't. He didn't provide any evidence of his claims. And his comments were hypocritical. He claims to be in favor of free speech - yet wants to stop the lesbians he doesn't like from speaking.
I might add, that you sir did nothing but reply with the usual fruit basket of PC indignation. Oh dear me - he insulted obnoxious, openly anti-male lesbians!
What does it have to do with Political Correctness? I just pointed out that he's bitter - and that his failures in life probably have littele to do with his being discriminated against. I also just pointed out that his rationalization of why people choose to become lesbians was bollocks. It's nothing but envy or jealousy. I don't care if he's un-PC. I just think he needs to get a grip.
At least he's not a social conservative. He's "pro choice" and in favor of gun control.
So, he's an economic conservative? And what's not conservative about wanting to regulate guns? The 2nd Amendment says "Well regulated militia" - and McCain doesn't want to take guns away. Is the NRA not conservative, because they support some forms of firearms regulation?
He's a RINO. (Republican In Name Only)
How convenient. So, you can just scream at the liberals, without acknowledging the conservatives who supported campaign finance laws? Would you accept the argument that liberals who do such things are also liberals in name only? Somewhow, I doubt it.
You are using the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Sen Feingold is a Democrat and Sen McCain is whatis known as a RINO (republican In Name Only)
Are you seriously suggesting McCain is not a conservative? In fact, he is considered by many, a truer conservative than the current bunch of neoconservative radicals like Wolfowitz.
Would you grant the opposing side the same liberties? I am sure you are happy to scream about so-called "liberal" candidates who do stupid shit, but aren't actually "true" conservatives. So, who decides who is a "real" conservative or liberal?
And, if McCain is not really a true conservative, then why don't the Republicans kick him out already? You don't think it might have something to do with opportunism, and the number of votes he gets for Republicans, do you?
You also easily excuse Bush from agreeing to this as being pragmatic. Would you cut a "liberal" the same slack, or is this just a double-standard?
Conservatives were screaming from the rooftops about how "Campaign Finance Reform", specifically McCain-Feingold.
Hang on, isn't McCain both a Republican and a conservative? He was trying to get the bill passed. It's even named after him. He wasn't shouting from the rooftops against it. He was shouting for it. Is someone only a conservative if you decide they are?
Congratulations, you summed up the Libertarian platform on campagin finance quite well.
There isn't really any such thing as "The Libertarian Platform" - there are many different types of Libertarians, who often disagree with each other. Considering that Libertarianism is often considered to be about individual rights - then isn't it offensive to the idea of individual rights to have particular Libertarians speaking for the whole group?
I can't imagine having more than $1000 in blog-related costs. This rule will have zero impact on the avarage blogger.
Indeed. And this may have a positive side effect - less tax fraud, such as bloggers overestimating the cost of their blog, either to gain tax exemptions, or to appeal to "my rising blog costs" to justify a subscription fee or a PayPal link.
Note also, that it is $1,000 in a three-month period, not $1,000 per year. Still, I don't think I support the legislation, even if it does have positive side effects.
Maybe this will start an intelligent public debate, or maybe it will just be more 10 second soundbytes. who knows.
Of course, I'm sure I will be denounced by both sides for not subscribing to the current extremist political climate. Analyzing facts and ambiguities is not popular. You'll do much better if you start screaming from one "side" or the other and exaggerating for political points. What ever happened to the middle? I think both sides love their enemies on the other side, more than they do the troublesome moderates. Intelligent debate? That's not allowed. "Fair and Balanced" screaming at one another? That's great! It gets ratings.
If I am saying things about an election, it's journalism.
Not always. You can say things about the election without being a journalist. For example, candidates on the campaign trail say lots of things about the election, but they aren't journlists, they are politicians. Lobbyists say a lot about elections, but aren't journalists, too.
This is the case regardless of the medium on which I say things.
Actually, it's not. If you are a running a broadcast TV station, then there are definite restrictions on what you can say. "Public Decency" and all, don't you know?
The appearance of the "internet" does not mysteriously grant the government power to regulate speech, or the press.
The government has been regulating the press long before the appearance of the internet.
If they want me to register, or pay money, or do any damn thing they say because I am privately acting as a member of the press,
Again, you seem to want to be called a journalist, but not live under the restrictions that journalists and the press do. The established press has many restrictions placed on it.
I don't agree with most of those restrictions - but you can't argue they don't exist. Because they do. At least try to be factual in your objections.
Something similiar happened to a friend of mine at UCR a few years back. There were these *REALLY* radical lesbian types who had come to campus and been "preaching" all week -- you know the type, "I cant get a boyfriend, or I got raped, so all men are evil, lets eat pussy" kind of girls.
Did to stop to think that they might just have a different sexuality? That they just might like Eating pussy? After all, there is no woman on earth that can't get a boyfriend. That's how desperate most men are. That is unlikely to be a motivation. As for being raped - don't you think that's an understandable motivation? Would you want to have sex with a man after being raped by one? You make it sound like there's something wrong with being a lesbian, and that you are entitled to heterosexual women. And what was the "male bashing" that they were doing? Can you give any specifics?
It sounds like you have a massive chip on your soldier, and are just bitter and twisted. Maybe if you stopped trying to blame others for everything, or to stop objectifying people, you would be happier and do better in life. It sounds like you have a huge entitlement complex - that people should just give you jobs and sex for no reason. Did you ever stop to think that maybe someone else was hired because they could do a better job or (more likely) work in a team better than you? Your attitude doesn't sound healthy, and perhaps that came through in a job interview?
Anyway - you don't give any specifics or reasoning - you are just ranting and raving about things you don't like. You must be a lot of fun to be around.
Theres a lot of double standards out there, and im tired of being on the wrong end of em:)
I doubt you would even notice when you were on the "right" end of them. After all - you had a place at a University. Most people aren't even that lucky. Seems you have a massive victim complex.
Now you might see some Bible-thumpers claiming to be conservatives while trying to restrain your individualism through government largess, but if they claim they are also purple cows you shouldn't believe that either.
Riiiight. So, if you say you're a conservative, but express non-conservative (in your opinion) views - then you aren't a "Real Conservative."
But anyone even remotely associated with liberalism, is a liberal? "Real Liberals" believe in freedom of speech and individual rights. So, why can't we just say that those people who want to restrict freedom of speech, but fall on the "liberal side" aren't actually "Real Liberals"?
Interesting how you've framed your argument so that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not eleible to be called a real conservative - but everyone else gets lumped into liberalism - even if they have nothing to do with the founding beliefs of liberalism.
The fact is, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are obsolete and have no relevance in 2005. So why are we still calling people by these labels? Why don't we use something more descriptive of people's actual beliefs in the modern era? Conservatism has been co-opted by liberals, and liberalism has been co-opted by conservatives.
the conservtives were 100% against Campaing Finance Reform. Esp. us libertarians.
Then, why is John McCain one of the people whose name appears on the legislation?
Look at eveyr single socialist/communist state - every sing one, without fail, regulated speech and ensured that it was politically correct.
Look at every single conservative/republican state. Every one. without fail, regulates speech - especially in the areas of patriotism (can't speak ill of the troops or against war, flag burning frowned upon) and sexuality (can't be gay, or show boobies on TV, or make pornography) and religion (can't speak against the Church).
Saying things like nigger, kike, grabtastic faggot are protected by the libertarian document, the US Constitution in its 1st Amendment.
Since when was the Constitution a "libertarian" document?
Saying ANYTHING politically INCORRECT is very much a right-wing/libertarian point of view.. always has been, always will be. call me a sexist, homophobic, racist right wing Christian pig - that's YOUR right.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. You are unAmerican if you dare question the leaders, or fail to speak in a politically correct, patriotic, right-wing way. You should be locked up in Guantanamo if you protest war. You should be fined millions if you show a boobie on TV or lose your job if you express left-wing ideas.
Was I the only one expecting the article to be about the genre which Kraftwerk is hailed as a pioneer of?
Karftwerk are great, and indeed defined the style of the electronic music genre. Indeed, Kraftwerk's sound is still heard in modern electronic music, over 30 years later. Wendy (Walter) Carlos was also a key contributor to composing electronic music - but she relied on Robert Moog's technology to make her music. All decent electronic artists acknowledge the work of the engineers and scientists who built the equipment that bands like Kraftwerk used. After all, without these tools, research and instruments, how would the artists be able to make the music? Also, for a more modern example think of Robin Whittle - who modified synthesizers for tons of modern electronic artists - yet is not a musician or composer hmself.
I have owned several Moog synthesizers, and IMO, Moog is one of the people most responsible for bringing us the way we use electronic instruments in practice. The Moog is still an awesome synthesizer to use.
Also, if you aren't a fanboy, then why attempt to deride the PSP instead of acknowledging that it is better than the DS in every meaningful way?
I never derided the PSP - I was deriding you for your strange idea that's it's a powerful multimedia device. I never even mentioned the Nintendo DS - I really don't give a shit about either of them. I just found your wild exaggeration to be funny and worthy of ridicule.
That's like choosing a Honda over a Ferrari.
Riiiiight.... I'm a "fanboy" - but you are the one discussing things in terms of "my brand is better than your brand" - rather than in technically accurate terms, and saying there is only "one true brand." That's the definition of fanboy.
And don't you think there are valid reasons for choosing a Honda over a Ferrari for some people? As far as I know, Ferraris cost a lot more - and they don't offer any "family" cars with plenty of passenger and storage space. No matter how good something is, it's not always the right choice for everybody. Heck, many people wouldn't be alive very much longer if they chose to buy a powerful Ferrari they couldn't drive competently.
"Multimedia" does not mean "video editing studio".
Sorry, multimedia does include video editing. Multimedia literally means multiple forms of media. You qualified it with "powerful."
Now, the PSP qualifies as a very basic multimedia device, in that it can play back video and audio. A powerful multimedia device should include some more advanced features, don't you think?
Do you even know where the term "multimedia" originated from? And in what way do you define "powerful" as far as multimedia goes?
A large group of Irrational Numbers picketed this month's Math Awareness Parade. Waving reams of perforated computer paper, they screamed "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" and spitting on passing integers.
Slashdot Mirror
#3 Predictions that there will be only two responses to this guy.
#4 Rebuttal of the idea that there will be only two responses to this guy.
#5 In Soviet Russia [noun] [verbs] You!!
1. he supports fighting expensive wars in other countries. traditionally conservatives are against needless foreign wars, and are more isolationist.
2. Fiscal responsibility. Bush doesn't seem to mind wasting money and piling up debt.
3. Small government. Bush wants to massively expand government, and intrude on private affairs. he's not for the traditionally conservative "small government"
4. Interference with other branches of government and state rights. This is very well illustrated in the recent Schiavo case. Rather than being for the Constitution and the Rule of Law, Bush wants to poke his nose into private legal affairs and individual court cases.
5. Separation of Church and State, which Bush is interfering with.
So, is George Bush a Fake Republican or a Fake Conservative? He is very radical, and I don't see how he could be described as conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.
Not from my point of view. My point of view is like that said about Zaphod Beebelbrox: "You know, Zaphod, he's just some guy."
Why does everything have to be divided into extremes? I don't think it's healthy for anyone to think of people in terms of heroes or enemies. Why not just look at things as they are? Jon writes software. There are controversial uses for his software, which some people like, and others don't - but these issues aren't even relevant to the vast majority of humans on the planet.
99% of the population's perspective (even among the tech-savvy) is "Who the fuck is Jon Lech Johansen?"
I'm a lefty???? News to me.
Doesn't mean I can't stage a "you're a fucking idiot" counter-protest for the very same reasons they staged a protest in the first place.
But he did no such thing. He held up scorecards for the attractiveness of women passing by. How is that a "you're a fucking idiot" counter-protest? Where are they rebutting what the lesbians said?
Sounds to me like he's just using the lesbians as an excuse to look at women and try to be funny.
Realize : your right to free speech does not preclude my right to free speech. If you can go ahead and spout off stuff I disagree with, I can darn well go ahead and spout off that you're an idiot.
I agree completely. When did I ever say otherwise? I never said that he should have been censored. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. But I'm perfectly free to point out that he's being obnoxious, and doesn't understand the first thing he's talking about. I don't want to silence him. Where the hell did you get that idea from?
Amazing how many people these days hallucinate "lefties" and "censorship" every time they hear something they don't agree with.
Then why does he complain about them so loudly? Why does he complain that they are "allowed" to speak on campus?
Read it again. In fact, not only did he not say this, he simply pointed out a case where a bunch of guys simply counter-protested in a sarcastic way, and they were the ones who got shut down. Not just shut down, but threatened with having their entire frat shut down.
1. Counter-protest? What does being shut down for the "holding up scorecards" prank have to do with the lesbians? how is it a counter-protest to anything? He has never even said what it was that they were saying. One thing has nothing to do with another. I doubt that if he were shut down, it was the lesbians doing the shutting down.
2. He didn't provide any evidence that this was true. I'm highly skeptical - because his entrie description of the event does not appear to be based in reality. he claims they were spewing "male hating" propaganda, but doesn't even say what it was they were saying, etc.
That's a huge huge huge infraction of their right to say whatever the hell they want.
If it's true, then sort of. But I doubt the truth of his statements. Anyway - you can say whatever the hell you want - but Universities and other places have rules and etiquette, and are free to use their property in whatever ways they want.
Again, I point out your selective recall of what was actually said. He said absolutely nothing to the effect of "those darn lesbians should STFU,
Yes he did. not in so many words, but he was outraged that there were lesbians on campus expressing their opinion. Why is he angry at the lesbians for speaking, rather than the people who (supposedly) censored him?
But you - you cry censorship where none exists.
Where did I cry censorship? I think it's fairly obvious that he doesn't really want to hear from the lesbians, and he questions their right to have their own sexuality. But I never said he was censoring anyone. Just that he is full of hate and spite.
And you do it in the face of a guy who's saying "look, here's some guys who were shutdown in X, Y, Z manner!".
He can say antyhing he wants - doesn't make it true. If this was such a big deal to him - then why doesn't he have links documenting the incident?
He's "bitter" and it's his "failures in life" which caused him to say such things. My friend, this is absolute brilliant hypocrisy.
No, I said that's what it sounds like. I could be wrong. I was just trying to get him to think a little bit, to try and help improve his situation. Because it sounds like he has emoptional issues, which are more likely the reasons for him not getting along with others or getting jobs, than any kind of anti-male persecution.
And let me just say, I'm saving the entire contents of this thread - it is a beautiful example of liberal doublethink. Un-frickin-real.
What the fuck makes you think I'm a liberal?
Heh. I was on Beyond 2000 just after it stopped being Towards 2000, when it was real daggy, and I was a contest-winning nerd. Oh, the shame. But I got to ogle Carmen Travers. So it was all worth it in the end.
Well then - tell me how McCain is diamatrically opposed to conservatism, please. I don't see it. He is very conservative in all but a couple of areas.
Does this also apply to liberals? After all liberal philosophy supports freedom of speech. Yet that hasn't stopped people screaming about liberals restricting speech - even though it is diametrically opposed to liberal philosophy. So why don't you call those people "fake liberals"? Why is it that only conservatives get to pick and choose who counts as a conservative - while at the same time, lumping everyone else into the "liberal" camp?
Most of the time, when people say "liberal" in America, they mean "Democrat." The Democrats are definitely not liberals, most of them are borderline conservative. In any case, it's all such bullshit. Modern politicans don't give a crap about philosophy. They are all opportunists. Framing things in terms of philosophy is missing the point, and will distort your view of reality.
1. Why would you exclude broadcasters from "the press"?
2. Newspapers are restricted by libel and slander laws, and countless other laws about not publishing illegal things.
3. There are (were?) media ownership laws restricting how much of the media you can own.
He provided no substance to his claims. He just ranted about how he hates lesbians, and objects to them speaking on campus. He provided no details of the "male bashing." More than likely, it's a hallucination of his feverish "persecuted" mind.
But he is a frat boy so he sucks. Hypocritically bash on. :)
I don't give a shit about whether he is a frat boy or not. I was just calling him on his hypocrisy and asking him to provide more details of what the terrible "male bashing" was.
No he didn't. He didn't provide any evidence of his claims. And his comments were hypocritical. He claims to be in favor of free speech - yet wants to stop the lesbians he doesn't like from speaking.
I might add, that you sir did nothing but reply with the usual fruit basket of PC indignation. Oh dear me - he insulted obnoxious, openly anti-male lesbians!
What does it have to do with Political Correctness? I just pointed out that he's bitter - and that his failures in life probably have littele to do with his being discriminated against. I also just pointed out that his rationalization of why people choose to become lesbians was bollocks. It's nothing but envy or jealousy. I don't care if he's un-PC. I just think he needs to get a grip.
So, he's an economic conservative? And what's not conservative about wanting to regulate guns? The 2nd Amendment says "Well regulated militia" - and McCain doesn't want to take guns away. Is the NRA not conservative, because they support some forms of firearms regulation?
He's a RINO. (Republican In Name Only)
How convenient. So, you can just scream at the liberals, without acknowledging the conservatives who supported campaign finance laws? Would you accept the argument that liberals who do such things are also liberals in name only? Somewhow, I doubt it.
You are using the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Are you seriously suggesting McCain is not a conservative? In fact, he is considered by many, a truer conservative than the current bunch of neoconservative radicals like Wolfowitz.
Would you grant the opposing side the same liberties? I am sure you are happy to scream about so-called "liberal" candidates who do stupid shit, but aren't actually "true" conservatives. So, who decides who is a "real" conservative or liberal?
And, if McCain is not really a true conservative, then why don't the Republicans kick him out already? You don't think it might have something to do with opportunism, and the number of votes he gets for Republicans, do you?
You also easily excuse Bush from agreeing to this as being pragmatic. Would you cut a "liberal" the same slack, or is this just a double-standard?
Hang on, isn't McCain both a Republican and a conservative? He was trying to get the bill passed. It's even named after him. He wasn't shouting from the rooftops against it. He was shouting for it. Is someone only a conservative if you decide they are?
Please tell me where the actual proposed legislation singles out blogs.
There isn't really any such thing as "The Libertarian Platform" - there are many different types of Libertarians, who often disagree with each other. Considering that Libertarianism is often considered to be about individual rights - then isn't it offensive to the idea of individual rights to have particular Libertarians speaking for the whole group?
Indeed. And this may have a positive side effect - less tax fraud, such as bloggers overestimating the cost of their blog, either to gain tax exemptions, or to appeal to "my rising blog costs" to justify a subscription fee or a PayPal link.
Note also, that it is $1,000 in a three-month period, not $1,000 per year. Still, I don't think I support the legislation, even if it does have positive side effects.
Maybe this will start an intelligent public debate, or maybe it will just be more 10 second soundbytes. who knows.
Of course, I'm sure I will be denounced by both sides for not subscribing to the current extremist political climate. Analyzing facts and ambiguities is not popular. You'll do much better if you start screaming from one "side" or the other and exaggerating for political points. What ever happened to the middle? I think both sides love their enemies on the other side, more than they do the troublesome moderates. Intelligent debate? That's not allowed. "Fair and Balanced" screaming at one another? That's great! It gets ratings.
Not always. You can say things about the election without being a journalist. For example, candidates on the campaign trail say lots of things about the election, but they aren't journlists, they are politicians. Lobbyists say a lot about elections, but aren't journalists, too.
This is the case regardless of the medium on which I say things.
Actually, it's not. If you are a running a broadcast TV station, then there are definite restrictions on what you can say. "Public Decency" and all, don't you know?
The appearance of the "internet" does not mysteriously grant the government power to regulate speech, or the press.
The government has been regulating the press long before the appearance of the internet.
If they want me to register, or pay money, or do any damn thing they say because I am privately acting as a member of the press,
Again, you seem to want to be called a journalist, but not live under the restrictions that journalists and the press do. The established press has many restrictions placed on it.
I don't agree with most of those restrictions - but you can't argue they don't exist. Because they do. At least try to be factual in your objections.
Did to stop to think that they might just have a different sexuality? That they just might like Eating pussy? After all, there is no woman on earth that can't get a boyfriend. That's how desperate most men are. That is unlikely to be a motivation. As for being raped - don't you think that's an understandable motivation? Would you want to have sex with a man after being raped by one? You make it sound like there's something wrong with being a lesbian, and that you are entitled to heterosexual women. And what was the "male bashing" that they were doing? Can you give any specifics?
It sounds like you have a massive chip on your soldier, and are just bitter and twisted. Maybe if you stopped trying to blame others for everything, or to stop objectifying people, you would be happier and do better in life. It sounds like you have a huge entitlement complex - that people should just give you jobs and sex for no reason. Did you ever stop to think that maybe someone else was hired because they could do a better job or (more likely) work in a team better than you? Your attitude doesn't sound healthy, and perhaps that came through in a job interview?
Anyway - you don't give any specifics or reasoning - you are just ranting and raving about things you don't like. You must be a lot of fun to be around.
Theres a lot of double standards out there, and im tired of being on the wrong end of em :)
I doubt you would even notice when you were on the "right" end of them. After all - you had a place at a University. Most people aren't even that lucky. Seems you have a massive victim complex.
Riiiight. So, if you say you're a conservative, but express non-conservative (in your opinion) views - then you aren't a "Real Conservative."
But anyone even remotely associated with liberalism, is a liberal? "Real Liberals" believe in freedom of speech and individual rights. So, why can't we just say that those people who want to restrict freedom of speech, but fall on the "liberal side" aren't actually "Real Liberals"?
Interesting how you've framed your argument so that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not eleible to be called a real conservative - but everyone else gets lumped into liberalism - even if they have nothing to do with the founding beliefs of liberalism.
The fact is, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are obsolete and have no relevance in 2005. So why are we still calling people by these labels? Why don't we use something more descriptive of people's actual beliefs in the modern era? Conservatism has been co-opted by liberals, and liberalism has been co-opted by conservatives.
Then, why is John McCain one of the people whose name appears on the legislation?
Look at eveyr single socialist/communist state - every sing one, without fail, regulated speech and ensured that it was politically correct.
Look at every single conservative/republican state. Every one. without fail, regulates speech - especially in the areas of patriotism (can't speak ill of the troops or against war, flag burning frowned upon) and sexuality (can't be gay, or show boobies on TV, or make pornography) and religion (can't speak against the Church).
Saying things like nigger, kike, grabtastic faggot are protected by the libertarian document, the US Constitution in its 1st Amendment.
Since when was the Constitution a "libertarian" document?
Saying ANYTHING politically INCORRECT is very much a right-wing/libertarian point of view.. always has been, always will be. call me a sexist, homophobic, racist right wing Christian pig - that's YOUR right.
Bzzzzt. Wrong. You are unAmerican if you dare question the leaders, or fail to speak in a politically correct, patriotic, right-wing way. You should be locked up in Guantanamo if you protest war. You should be fined millions if you show a boobie on TV or lose your job if you express left-wing ideas.
Karftwerk are great, and indeed defined the style of the electronic music genre. Indeed, Kraftwerk's sound is still heard in modern electronic music, over 30 years later. Wendy (Walter) Carlos was also a key contributor to composing electronic music - but she relied on Robert Moog's technology to make her music. All decent electronic artists acknowledge the work of the engineers and scientists who built the equipment that bands like Kraftwerk used. After all, without these tools, research and instruments, how would the artists be able to make the music? Also, for a more modern example think of Robin Whittle - who modified synthesizers for tons of modern electronic artists - yet is not a musician or composer hmself.
I have owned several Moog synthesizers, and IMO, Moog is one of the people most responsible for bringing us the way we use electronic instruments in practice. The Moog is still an awesome synthesizer to use.
Scene: Homer is filling his new RV with gas, the dials on the pump tick around from $999 to $000.
Homer: Woohooo! Free gas!
Also, if you aren't a fanboy, then why attempt to deride the PSP instead of acknowledging that it is better than the DS in every meaningful way?
I never derided the PSP - I was deriding you for your strange idea that's it's a powerful multimedia device. I never even mentioned the Nintendo DS - I really don't give a shit about either of them. I just found your wild exaggeration to be funny and worthy of ridicule.
That's like choosing a Honda over a Ferrari.
Riiiiight .... I'm a "fanboy" - but you are the one discussing things in terms of "my brand is better than your brand" - rather than in technically accurate terms, and saying there is only "one true brand." That's the definition of fanboy.
And don't you think there are valid reasons for choosing a Honda over a Ferrari for some people? As far as I know, Ferraris cost a lot more - and they don't offer any "family" cars with plenty of passenger and storage space. No matter how good something is, it's not always the right choice for everybody. Heck, many people wouldn't be alive very much longer if they chose to buy a powerful Ferrari they couldn't drive competently.
Sorry, multimedia does include video editing. Multimedia literally means multiple forms of media. You qualified it with "powerful."
Now, the PSP qualifies as a very basic multimedia device, in that it can play back video and audio. A powerful multimedia device should include some more advanced features, don't you think?
Do you even know where the term "multimedia" originated from? And in what way do you define "powerful" as far as multimedia goes?
A large group of Irrational Numbers picketed this month's Math Awareness Parade. Waving reams of perforated computer paper, they screamed "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" and spitting on passing integers.