I for one am rather glad that the Japanese did not win the war. Perhaps you feel differently?
(Seriously--do you think for a moment that if either the Japanese or the Nazis had got nukes first, they wouldn't have used lots more than just 2 of them?)
Funny thing about first-term Presidents: they tend not to have any experience as President.
Obama had a JD from Harvard and nearly a dozen years as a state and US Senator under his belt prior to being elected President. I think calling that "inexperienced" is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not interested in flying the Mozilla fanboi flag come Hell or high water.
I'm interested in having a tool that works reliably. Which Firefox did for a long time before the UX-tards started removing features, injecting advertisements, and threatening to toss out the extension API that was offered as a core reason to use it in the first place.
I said nothing either in favour of or opposing the notion of driverless cars. I was addressing rtkluttz' assertion that it's ok to drive illegally/unsafely because his choice to do so has no effect on others, because it most certainly does.
As for my own preference: I'd like to see most private cars go away, and more mass transit instead.
Fuck off, you putinbot. And that should be "coup", not coupé.
My point was that making critical observations regarding the behaviour of the US does not automatically make one a fan of Putin (or of anyone else for that matter).
As for the role of the US in the events of 1953 in Iran, that's pretty well documented. And I agree it was motivated by greed, and proved (as greed always does) to be extremely short-sighted.
As for the assertion that the US being a semi-theocracy, I agree that's an incorrect assertion.
You, however, make it clear that you do not understand the concept of a secular state. You assert that, because the US government does not enforce Christian morality, it is opposed to religion. That claim is another example of false equivalence. Not permitting you to impose your beliefs on others against their will is not the same as forbidding you to have those beliefs or to apply them to yourself.
For example, perhaps you're a Christian in America who believes that Christianity forbids homosexuality. Guess what? Nobody requires you to be gay; you're completely free not to be. You're not free to impose that choice on others. If you're a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew, you're free not to eat pork in America; you're not allowed to prevent others there from eating it if they so desire. If you're a Buddhist who believes it's wrong to consume any sort of animal, nobody forces you to eat meat. And so on.
(That last, FWIW, happens to be what I believe. Although I am not a vegetarian... Thus I don't consider myself an especially good Buddhist. But any karma attaching to that is mine, and remains my responsibility.)
It can be argued that the implementation's not a perfect one. But the false equivalence that you espouse, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to... Iran... Saudi Arabia... Daesh... Places where you believe as you're told; let it slip that you don't, and you'll find yourself at the wrong end of a whip, or perhaps a sword.
Foster's is Australian for "that kangaroo piss we sell to Yanks who don't know any better". Discerning Aussies drink Toohey's. Less discerning Aussies drink VB.
*prepares for flames from fans of Victoria Bitter*
Slashdot Mirror
Be sure they pick the God that allows the use of condoms.
Why are you promoting the ISIS game plan?
Nice try, but some of us can actually see what you're trying to pull here.
FYI: The PM of Denmark is a right-winger (Venstre party, Danish for "right"), so of course he can't admit that Denmark is socialist.
He just lists a bunch of socialist characteristics that are true of Denmark and then concludes, "--but these don't make us socialist!"
Adjust your sarcasm filters.
Dingdingdingding---we have a winner!
When I went to school, FALSE && FALSE && FALSE evaluated to FALSE. Maybe they taught you differently.
I for one am rather glad that the Japanese did not win the war. Perhaps you feel differently?
(Seriously--do you think for a moment that if either the Japanese or the Nazis had got nukes first, they wouldn't have used lots more than just 2 of them?)
Funny thing about first-term Presidents: they tend not to have any experience as President.
Obama had a JD from Harvard and nearly a dozen years as a state and US Senator under his belt prior to being elected President. I think calling that "inexperienced" is a bit of a stretch.
The President submits the nation's budget to Congress, and has the power to approve or veto bills affecting spending and taxes.
So, no, the President doesn't have the power to raise or lower taxes *directly*, but, no, she's not just blowing smoke, either.
Hedy Lamarr was awesome in just about any way you can think of.
Harry Harrison beat Pollota to that particular punchline by a few decades.
If the best you can come up with is "lol", then you've already lost the argument.
You used "e.g." = exempli gratia = "for example".
I think you actually want "i.e." = id est = "that is".
Quotation marks = "I'm quoting someone else".
URLs = "Here's where I got this info".
Submission != "Plagiarism".
You're welcome.
You're replying to *me* with that? WTF?
I'm not interested in flying the Mozilla fanboi flag come Hell or high water.
I'm interested in having a tool that works reliably. Which Firefox did for a long time before the UX-tards started removing features, injecting advertisements, and threatening to toss out the extension API that was offered as a core reason to use it in the first place.
I'm sorry, did you mean "prawns"?
I said nothing either in favour of or opposing the notion of driverless cars. I was addressing rtkluttz' assertion that it's ok to drive illegally/unsafely because his choice to do so has no effect on others, because it most certainly does.
As for my own preference: I'd like to see most private cars go away, and more mass transit instead.
I was replying to this:
Fuck off, you putinbot. And that should be "coup", not coupé.
My point was that making critical observations regarding the behaviour of the US does not automatically make one a fan of Putin (or of anyone else for that matter).
As for the role of the US in the events of 1953 in Iran, that's pretty well documented. And I agree it was motivated by greed, and proved (as greed always does) to be extremely short-sighted.
As for the assertion that the US being a semi-theocracy, I agree that's an incorrect assertion.
You, however, make it clear that you do not understand the concept of a secular state. You assert that, because the US government does not enforce Christian morality, it is opposed to religion. That claim is another example of false equivalence. Not permitting you to impose your beliefs on others against their will is not the same as forbidding you to have those beliefs or to apply them to yourself.
For example, perhaps you're a Christian in America who believes that Christianity forbids homosexuality. Guess what? Nobody requires you to be gay; you're completely free not to be. You're not free to impose that choice on others. If you're a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew, you're free not to eat pork in America; you're not allowed to prevent others there from eating it if they so desire. If you're a Buddhist who believes it's wrong to consume any sort of animal, nobody forces you to eat meat. And so on.
(That last, FWIW, happens to be what I believe. Although I am not a vegetarian... Thus I don't consider myself an especially good Buddhist. But any karma attaching to that is mine, and remains my responsibility.)
It can be argued that the implementation's not a perfect one. But the false equivalence that you espouse, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to... Iran... Saudi Arabia... Daesh... Places where you believe as you're told; let it slip that you don't, and you'll find yourself at the wrong end of a whip, or perhaps a sword.
Who's "you"?
Do you mean "Terran"?
Foster's is Australian for "that kangaroo piss we sell to Yanks who don't know any better". Discerning Aussies drink Toohey's. Less discerning Aussies drink VB.
*prepares for flames from fans of Victoria Bitter*
You are aware that there are several species of coffee plant with differing characteristics, aren't you?
Would it be recognised in law? No? Then, legally, it's not polygamy.
I also choose my own level of risk tolerance.
False. You're presuming to make that choice for anyone sharing the road with you.