That's the short of it, yes, but I think the GP can be forgiven for using the word in this particular instance.
From the wiki:
He joined the Independent Labour Party contingent, a group of some twenty-five Britons who joined the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM - Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista), a revolutionary Spanish communist political party with which the ILP was allied. The POUM, along with the radical wing of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT (the dominant force on the left in Catalonia), believed that Franco could be defeated only if the working class in the Republic overthrew capitalism -- a position fundamentally at odds with that of the Spanish Communist Party and its allies, which (backed by Soviet arms and aid) argued for a coalition with bourgeois parties to defeat the Nationalists. In the months after July 1936 there was a profound social revolution in Catalonia, Aragon and other areas where the CNT was particularly strong. Orwell sympathetically describes the egalitarian spirit of revolutionary Barcelona when he arrived in Homage to Catalonia.
According to his own account, Orwell joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance -- but his experiences, in particular his and his wife's narrow escape from the Communist purges in Barcelona in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for POUM and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist and a firm believer in what he termed Democratic Socialism, that is to say, in socialism combined with free debate and free elections.
Naw, I didn't get angry, you just have to talk to these simpletons in a way that they understand. Actually, I was chuckling while I typed, but when is the last time you've seen polite suggestion and gentle reminders of fact even slow down a raging troll like that? In my opinion, you have to handle them in the way they understand, or ignore them completely. Maybe I should have ignored him, but see my response here for my reasons why I didn't. Or maybe it's my old D&D experience that makes me want to set flame to trolls.:-D
Don't get me wrong though, just because I wasn't ANGRY doesn't indicate that I don't mean every word of what I said. Cowardly little authoritarianists (fascist, communists, totalitarians of all stripes) get no sympathy or respect from me, as they're too willing to toss away MY rights to placate their (usually unjustified) fears. That is unacceptable.
Well I most certainly don't mean a system in which a politician gets arrested for having policies someone doesn't like, as the person I originally replied to led me to assume was his/her position, due to lack of any other explanation.
You, however, read about 12 volumes within my short post. WTF do you get the idea that I think the U.S. political system is some magically mythical perfect system? I don't. In fact, I'm quite disillusioned with the state of my nation right now and am quite vocal about it, mostly offline though, as doing so on the net is mostly lost in the noise. All that aside, I DO know that it's better WITHOUT political prisoners becoming mainstream.
If you have an issue with the above message, take it up with me. If you have an issue with something I -DIDN'T- say, take it up with the person that said it.
Oops, didn't see the subject line of your post, sorry for the other reply...
But yeah, I feel the need to try and make the more egregious trolls both look and feel like the degenerate fools they are. In my opinion half the reason things are look as dark as they do in the world (specifically my little corner of it, the US) is that people like the troll I'm setting flame to get away with pronouncing such utter bullshit without opposition. Oh, I know that ignoring them is a type of opposition, but when people hear (or read) such bile without someone else stepping in and pointing out how foolish it is, well, then that thought now has a spot in your head where it floats around without being solidly opposed. I just can't let memes like that go around programming people without trying to 'debug' it somewhat.
Good point, I suppose you win this round with your superior logic. You've outsmarted me once again, Anonymous Coward.
Assuming you're the original AC (or at least an AC of like 'mind') here is the spot where you're supposed to back up your developmentally-stunted opinion with some reason or at least some halfway decent sensationalism.
That is a whole different can of worms, and a completely nonpartisan one at that. YOUR sentiment is one that I can absolutely agree with and support. The biggest problem with it is that it'll leave us a much understaffed government until replacements can be properly made, as the corruption problem runs deep and wide.
But I must point out that the difference between the GP's post and your post is like the difference between 'that guy's a fag, get him!' and 'that guy is choking my wife, get him!'. Somehow though I think the vocal 'majority' (I don't think they are the majority actually, I think they have the biggest bullhorn) would feel more comfortable supporting the GP's sentiments than yours.
Yeah, damn slashdot for being so against freedom of speech that they removed your post. I'm outraged! I REALLY wanted to reply and tell you how right you are, but now I just CAN'T because slashdot has gone and censored you....
Show me the censorship. That's all I ask. Back that childish whining up with some bruises from the abuse you've taken. Oh, that's right, slashdot doesn't censor.... ever. That's right, I said it, EVER, as in being an absolute (I'm the kind of guy that likes to tack qualifiers and quantifiers on everything). That's why it's one of the few places I actually post instead of lurk. (I know, it looks like I'm saying I troll alot, I don't, I troll alittle, (and almost exclusively non-anon) I'm just principled about free speech like that)
As far as your list of topics goes, you're not being censored, you're RIGHTLY being pushed to the back of the room by the CROWD (not the site) for being a... well... what IS the right-wing equivalent of a tin foil hat wearer? Oh yes, a Kool-Aid drinker. Very few of the little factoids you present have any basis in real-life at ALL, and those that do have a tenuous connection to reality at best.
To sum up: You're not being censored for being 'edgy', you're being ignored for being ridiculous. You don't get to be a martyr for that.
Move to Saudi Arabia then you too-scared-to-live-in-a-democracy little pussy. I can't stand Clinton either, but I'm not so pussyfied that I'd wanter her arrested for scaring me.
If you can't handle freedom, go somewhere where you can have big-daddy-authority-figure hold your hand and change your diaper. Scared little bitch.
Do YOU have a problem with THAT, you anonymous little shitstain?
The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.
When will it get to the point where the people who AREN'T paranoid about being constantly watched are mocked as the fools? Or is this subtle transition between 'you're crazy, that'll never happen' and 'what are you worried about, you're not a terrorist are you?' all the recognition the tinfoil hat people get for being right all along?
I'll go through the list, but first let me state that most REASONABLE laws are a balance between two parties' freedoms, not a trade off between liberty and security. There have been many unreasonable laws implemented (as the GP points out) and you offer quite a few of them in your list. Here we go, point by point:
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
Actually, look up the origins of this ole' gem. It was coined in an attempt to stifle political dissent, not a very good example of enhancing security. In the LITERAL case of yelling fire in a crowded theater, you are infringing upon other people's essential freedom of reasonable safety. By putting other people at risk of personal harm you are doing more infringing than you are expressing, and the law demonstrates proper balance.
I know, some of you are going to point out that "people's essential freedom of reasonable safety" is the same thing as security. The difference is a matter of quantification. Figuring HOW MANY people are you prevented from losing the freedom of REASONABLE (it's caps because it's important) safety, balanced against the freedoms you are limiting in the attempt is a little easier to get your hands on than 'what about the children?!?', if you catch my drift. In most cases today when you see the balance of safety/liberty being called into question, it's almost always obvious which side is more reasonable just my doing the math. You know, things like (number of people hurt by terrorism)/(number of people wiretapped) and so forth. Patterns start to emerge, and the results are starting to look obscenely lopsided.
The rights of states to secede from the Union?
That had nothing to do with security, and everything to do with economics and nationalism. No balance between freedom and security to find here, only a balance between freedom and economic and social factors.
The right to own slaves?
Again, you have no right to infringe on other people's rights. Any laws written in such a vein are tools of oppression/division. And how EXACTLY does this particular infringement of freedoms make people safer? That's an odd proclamation to make.
The right to marry multiple women?
Again, where does this have anything to do with security? And what about the right to marry multiple MEN? I don't understand at all where you're going with this question, it's just another example of a law designed to make the population more submissive to authority.
The right to fuck children?
Again, this is a serious infringement of someone else's rights. You are doing serious harm to a child by 'fucking' them, thus infringing on their liberties in a manor grossly outweighing any expressions of freedom you may claim.
The right to freely use/purchase/sell heroin?
Here's where you come close (still no cigar). In my personal opinion, this is another case of bad law. You should have absolute sovereignty over what substances enter/do not enter your system. However I CAN UNDERSTAND (though still disagree with) the argument that heroin use increases the chance of committing other crimes. In this case it is STILL bad law, because it's making illegal the increase probability of infringement of other's rights, not actual infringement.
The right to plot the assassination of the President of the Unites States?
FFS, this is ludicrous. First, if it IS illegal to plot such a thing with NO INTENTION of acting upon it then that is bad law at it's shiniest. Second, if you're planning to DO such a thing you're (of course) attempting to infringe on another person's essential right to life. Can you figure out the balance here?
The right to kill for any arbitrary reason?
I've covered this in sufficient detail.
The right to cross the highway on foot?
You're infringing on other's rights to properly use the equipment they own (have paid for), their rig
DO YOU have a website where I can hear some samples of your music, and possibly buy a CD? If so, could you please post it for me?
Oh, and I suggest that you put your URL as your slashdot account's URL (you don't currently have one set). You'll probably pick up a few sales that way.
And what is your mysterious source of information on 'what people do' as opposed to 'what they say'? Some sort of crystal ball?
Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about the massive losses the recording industry have taken recently? Are you talking about the online music stores not selling anything (because the torrent next-door is free)? Really now, give me some minuscule shred of evidence that what you're saying is anything other than over-dramatic stereotyping. Even us slashdotters are still buying music and movies. Could we get them for free? Of course! Why aren't we? Because we're not the simplistic and unrealistic morons you tell us we are, and we realize that destroying the sector of industry that entertains us isn't the best move. SOME of us are, but that's the tiny (and not even very vocal, but examples do exist) minority. Even then, what makes you so simplistically disregard either side's point of view? Is your moral compass so strong that debate and discussion can have no merit once you've proclaimed an issue settled? (oh, you're conspicuously missing anything resembling a real opinion on the subject)
In short, don't take yourself so seriously. No one here thinks you're an authority on anything, and presenting your wisdom with nothing to back it up other than it being your wisdom isn't going to get you very far unless you're cool enough to have fanbois.
Just wait until someone with one of these gets Trojaned and the controller starts DoS-extorting Google. Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of too, well not Google, but close. Something like the combination of this story and http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/07/122200
Heh... Storm, SkyNet, what's the difference?:-D
Oh, and since I'm posting, and I haven't seen it yet, I might as well ask if anyone has thought of a beowulf cluster implementing these things?
I didn't RTFA yet (it IS open in a tab though), but the title of the article would imply that we ARE talking about the last link. I'm pretty sure FTTH means 'Fiber To The Home'.
I'm sorry, it seems like either you or my memory is trying to rewrite history.
Who told the UN inspectors (who hadn't found anything) to leave Iraq again? Saddam kicked them out? 'Cause I coulda SWORE that ole' Georgie Boy was the one to give them the 'leave or get bombed' ultimatum. Huh, gonna hafta look into that one.
Or we could elect Kucinich VS Paul in the national election...
I think the punditry's(sp?) collective heads would explode, similar to the KKK guy in that episode of Chapelle's show during the 'black white supremacist' skit. Can you imagine Tim Russert's or Lou Dobbs' headless body occupying those comfortable chairs after heading the news? Rush Limbaugh's lie factory all over his little switchboard? (heh, slurp up the juice for a quick high, be careful though, narcotics are dangerous) Hell, even Jon Stewart and Bill Maher would be left bleeding from the neck.
We'd make it a holiday afterwards, I think. The Day the World Stopped Spinning, or something. No, that would be the movie title.
I just want to say, I'm pretty damn liberal. Socialized (if that word makes you shudder, don't use my roads) medicine, greater regulations on business, reformation of the tax laws to help stop the income redistribution from bottom to top, all of that... But I'm a 2nd Amendment liberal too, and as such I'd like to thank you for your post. Quite informative.
That's one part of the liberal mindset that I really don't understand. Why in the world would a group of people that think PEOPLE should be self-ruled want to give the power to PROTECT that self-rule to a small group of mostly-unelected authoritarian minded people? Oh, and to the criminals, don't forget the criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the law. Asking me to trust either group (cops or robbers) more than I trust MYSELF should be OBVIOUSLY ludicrous in the extreme.
*shrugs* I dunno, the liberal paradigm seems to make SENSE to me, but this little portion of it baffles me completely. Seems like it would be part of the agenda of a conservative "security mom", not a group of equality-for-all real-freedom lovers.
I don't think respect has much to do with it. If you replace 'respect' with 'reward' though, the first sentence your post becomes utterly true. (not to mention utterly obnoxious)
Do you really feel so small as to disbelieve in the -possibility- that people outside the kind you meet in your daily life frequent the same place you do?
The truth about slashdot: No sane manager of a large IT department would forego at least LURKING (by self or by proxy) on slashdot. Contrary to popular belief, if you look past the high-school smartasses you'll find highly intelligent people debating the finer points of complex problems (societal, technical, and other) and providing extremely enlightening commentary.
Also, I'd bet dollars to donuts that at least ONE (likely a few) of the common posters here at slashdot is a person that 90% of us would recognize from the teevee.
You sure know how to spin a tale. Those people seem almost real. Whoa then, you should hurry up and go watch an American Idol marathon, wouldn't want you to be all upset by something real.
Actually, if those people seem ALMOST real it's a sign that your programming is wearing off a bit, and you should report for a Limbaugh-O'Reily high-speed multi-media meme restoration treatment before you start believing in liberal conspiracies like 'facts' and 'evidence'.
Give me a break, everybody the GP mentioned exists, to say otherwise is obscenely dishonest. Purposeful blindness isn't patriotism, it's childlike naivety. Take your 'my daddy can't be wrong' attitude back to elementary school and join the real world. Bad things happen other than those caused by terrrists and ferriners.
You've won this argument multiple times over (eloquently I might add), so don't let the anonymous trolls get your goat. People who flame you anonymously because you're defending the right to privacy are beneath contempt, safely ignore them.
I remember when I first got a 1200 baud modem and was ecstatically excited to have a piece of communications technology that could actually send text faster than I could read it. It was like science fiction! And I remember being jealous of my friends' brand new 1200 baud modems because my 300 baud COULDN'T receive text faster than I could read it, especially not *shudder* bandwidth hogging ANSI color text!
Slashdot Mirror
From the wiki: He joined the Independent Labour Party contingent, a group of some twenty-five Britons who joined the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM - Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista), a revolutionary Spanish communist political party with which the ILP was allied. The POUM, along with the radical wing of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT (the dominant force on the left in Catalonia), believed that Franco could be defeated only if the working class in the Republic overthrew capitalism -- a position fundamentally at odds with that of the Spanish Communist Party and its allies, which (backed by Soviet arms and aid) argued for a coalition with bourgeois parties to defeat the Nationalists. In the months after July 1936 there was a profound social revolution in Catalonia, Aragon and other areas where the CNT was particularly strong. Orwell sympathetically describes the egalitarian spirit of revolutionary Barcelona when he arrived in Homage to Catalonia.
According to his own account, Orwell joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance -- but his experiences, in particular his and his wife's narrow escape from the Communist purges in Barcelona in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for POUM and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist and a firm believer in what he termed Democratic Socialism, that is to say, in socialism combined with free debate and free elections.
Naw, I didn't get angry, you just have to talk to these simpletons in a way that they understand. Actually, I was chuckling while I typed, but when is the last time you've seen polite suggestion and gentle reminders of fact even slow down a raging troll like that? In my opinion, you have to handle them in the way they understand, or ignore them completely. Maybe I should have ignored him, but see my response here for my reasons why I didn't. Or maybe it's my old D&D experience that makes me want to set flame to trolls. :-D
Don't get me wrong though, just because I wasn't ANGRY doesn't indicate that I don't mean every word of what I said. Cowardly little authoritarianists (fascist, communists, totalitarians of all stripes) get no sympathy or respect from me, as they're too willing to toss away MY rights to placate their (usually unjustified) fears. That is unacceptable.
Well I most certainly don't mean a system in which a politician gets arrested for having policies someone doesn't like, as the person I originally replied to led me to assume was his/her position, due to lack of any other explanation.
You, however, read about 12 volumes within my short post. WTF do you get the idea that I think the U.S. political system is some magically mythical perfect system? I don't. In fact, I'm quite disillusioned with the state of my nation right now and am quite vocal about it, mostly offline though, as doing so on the net is mostly lost in the noise. All that aside, I DO know that it's better WITHOUT political prisoners becoming mainstream.
If you have an issue with the above message, take it up with me. If you have an issue with something I -DIDN'T- say, take it up with the person that said it.
Oops, didn't see the subject line of your post, sorry for the other reply...
But yeah, I feel the need to try and make the more egregious trolls both look and feel like the degenerate fools they are. In my opinion half the reason things are look as dark as they do in the world (specifically my little corner of it, the US) is that people like the troll I'm setting flame to get away with pronouncing such utter bullshit without opposition. Oh, I know that ignoring them is a type of opposition, but when people hear (or read) such bile without someone else stepping in and pointing out how foolish it is, well, then that thought now has a spot in your head where it floats around without being solidly opposed. I just can't let memes like that go around programming people without trying to 'debug' it somewhat.
Good point, I suppose you win this round with your superior logic. You've outsmarted me once again, Anonymous Coward.
Assuming you're the original AC (or at least an AC of like 'mind') here is the spot where you're supposed to back up your developmentally-stunted opinion with some reason or at least some halfway decent sensationalism.
That is a whole different can of worms, and a completely nonpartisan one at that. YOUR sentiment is one that I can absolutely agree with and support. The biggest problem with it is that it'll leave us a much understaffed government until replacements can be properly made, as the corruption problem runs deep and wide.
But I must point out that the difference between the GP's post and your post is like the difference between 'that guy's a fag, get him!' and 'that guy is choking my wife, get him!'. Somehow though I think the vocal 'majority' (I don't think they are the majority actually, I think they have the biggest bullhorn) would feel more comfortable supporting the GP's sentiments than yours.
Yeah, damn slashdot for being so against freedom of speech that they removed your post. I'm outraged! I REALLY wanted to reply and tell you how right you are, but now I just CAN'T because slashdot has gone and censored you. ...
Show me the censorship. That's all I ask. Back that childish whining up with some bruises from the abuse you've taken. Oh, that's right, slashdot doesn't censor.... ever. That's right, I said it, EVER, as in being an absolute (I'm the kind of guy that likes to tack qualifiers and quantifiers on everything). That's why it's one of the few places I actually post instead of lurk. (I know, it looks like I'm saying I troll alot, I don't, I troll alittle, (and almost exclusively non-anon) I'm just principled about free speech like that)
As far as your list of topics goes, you're not being censored, you're RIGHTLY being pushed to the back of the room by the CROWD (not the site) for being a... well... what IS the right-wing equivalent of a tin foil hat wearer? Oh yes, a Kool-Aid drinker. Very few of the little factoids you present have any basis in real-life at ALL, and those that do have a tenuous connection to reality at best.
To sum up: You're not being censored for being 'edgy', you're being ignored for being ridiculous. You don't get to be a martyr for that.
Move to Saudi Arabia then you too-scared-to-live-in-a-democracy little pussy. I can't stand Clinton either, but I'm not so pussyfied that I'd wanter her arrested for scaring me.
If you can't handle freedom, go somewhere where you can have big-daddy-authority-figure hold your hand and change your diaper. Scared little bitch.
Do YOU have a problem with THAT, you anonymous little shitstain?
That's cute.
The biggest problem with your attempt at humor is the fact that people used to talk about tinfoil hats when people SUGGESTED something like this could happen, now people are delegated to the tinfoil hat crowd for COMPLAINING about this stuff happening.
When will it get to the point where the people who AREN'T paranoid about being constantly watched are mocked as the fools? Or is this subtle transition between 'you're crazy, that'll never happen' and 'what are you worried about, you're not a terrorist are you?' all the recognition the tinfoil hat people get for being right all along?
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
Actually, look up the origins of this ole' gem. It was coined in an attempt to stifle political dissent, not a very good example of enhancing security. In the LITERAL case of yelling fire in a crowded theater, you are infringing upon other people's essential freedom of reasonable safety. By putting other people at risk of personal harm you are doing more infringing than you are expressing, and the law demonstrates proper balance.
I know, some of you are going to point out that "people's essential freedom of reasonable safety" is the same thing as security. The difference is a matter of quantification. Figuring HOW MANY people are you prevented from losing the freedom of REASONABLE (it's caps because it's important) safety, balanced against the freedoms you are limiting in the attempt is a little easier to get your hands on than 'what about the children?!?', if you catch my drift. In most cases today when you see the balance of safety/liberty being called into question, it's almost always obvious which side is more reasonable just my doing the math. You know, things like (number of people hurt by terrorism)/(number of people wiretapped) and so forth. Patterns start to emerge, and the results are starting to look obscenely lopsided.
The rights of states to secede from the Union?
That had nothing to do with security, and everything to do with economics and nationalism. No balance between freedom and security to find here, only a balance between freedom and economic and social factors.
The right to own slaves?
Again, you have no right to infringe on other people's rights. Any laws written in such a vein are tools of oppression/division. And how EXACTLY does this particular infringement of freedoms make people safer? That's an odd proclamation to make.
The right to marry multiple women?
Again, where does this have anything to do with security? And what about the right to marry multiple MEN? I don't understand at all where you're going with this question, it's just another example of a law designed to make the population more submissive to authority.
The right to fuck children?
Again, this is a serious infringement of someone else's rights. You are doing serious harm to a child by 'fucking' them, thus infringing on their liberties in a manor grossly outweighing any expressions of freedom you may claim.
The right to freely use/purchase/sell heroin?
Here's where you come close (still no cigar). In my personal opinion, this is another case of bad law. You should have absolute sovereignty over what substances enter/do not enter your system. However I CAN UNDERSTAND (though still disagree with) the argument that heroin use increases the chance of committing other crimes. In this case it is STILL bad law, because it's making illegal the increase probability of infringement of other's rights, not actual infringement.
The right to plot the assassination of the President of the Unites States?
FFS, this is ludicrous. First, if it IS illegal to plot such a thing with NO INTENTION of acting upon it then that is bad law at it's shiniest. Second, if you're planning to DO such a thing you're (of course) attempting to infringe on another person's essential right to life. Can you figure out the balance here?
The right to kill for any arbitrary reason?
I've covered this in sufficient detail.
The right to cross the highway on foot?
You're infringing on other's rights to properly use the equipment they own (have paid for), their rig
I disagree, and I'll explain like so....
Purchasing a music track from the internet.....$0.99
Seeing a concert with a friend.................$100.00
Forcing a bunch of drunken Merle Haggard and
Hank Williams Jr. rednecks to listen to three
System of a Down CDs in a row..................priceless
Gotta love those new hard drive based jukeboxes and their incredible selections.
DO YOU have a website where I can hear some samples of your music, and possibly buy a CD? If so, could you please post it for me?
Oh, and I suggest that you put your URL as your slashdot account's URL (you don't currently have one set). You'll probably pick up a few sales that way.
And what is your mysterious source of information on 'what people do' as opposed to 'what they say'? Some sort of crystal ball?
Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about the massive losses the recording industry have taken recently? Are you talking about the online music stores not selling anything (because the torrent next-door is free)? Really now, give me some minuscule shred of evidence that what you're saying is anything other than over-dramatic stereotyping. Even us slashdotters are still buying music and movies. Could we get them for free? Of course! Why aren't we? Because we're not the simplistic and unrealistic morons you tell us we are, and we realize that destroying the sector of industry that entertains us isn't the best move. SOME of us are, but that's the tiny (and not even very vocal, but examples do exist) minority. Even then, what makes you so simplistically disregard either side's point of view? Is your moral compass so strong that debate and discussion can have no merit once you've proclaimed an issue settled? (oh, you're conspicuously missing anything resembling a real opinion on the subject)
In short, don't take yourself so seriously. No one here thinks you're an authority on anything, and presenting your wisdom with nothing to back it up other than it being your wisdom isn't going to get you very far unless you're cool enough to have fanbois.
Heh... Storm, SkyNet, what's the difference?
Oh, and since I'm posting, and I haven't seen it yet, I might as well ask if anyone has thought of a beowulf cluster implementing these things?
I didn't RTFA yet (it IS open in a tab though), but the title of the article would imply that we ARE talking about the last link. I'm pretty sure FTTH means 'Fiber To The Home'.
I'm sorry, it seems like either you or my memory is trying to rewrite history.
Who told the UN inspectors (who hadn't found anything) to leave Iraq again? Saddam kicked them out? 'Cause I coulda SWORE that ole' Georgie Boy was the one to give them the 'leave or get bombed' ultimatum. Huh, gonna hafta look into that one.
Fewer car analogies.
Or we could elect Kucinich VS Paul in the national election...
:-D
I think the punditry's(sp?) collective heads would explode, similar to the KKK guy in that episode of Chapelle's show during the 'black white supremacist' skit. Can you imagine Tim Russert's or Lou Dobbs' headless body occupying those comfortable chairs after heading the news? Rush Limbaugh's lie factory all over his little switchboard? (heh, slurp up the juice for a quick high, be careful though, narcotics are dangerous) Hell, even Jon Stewart and Bill Maher would be left bleeding from the neck.
We'd make it a holiday afterwards, I think. The Day the World Stopped Spinning, or something. No, that would be the movie title.
Ahhh, good times, good times...
I just want to say, I'm pretty damn liberal. Socialized (if that word makes you shudder, don't use my roads) medicine, greater regulations on business, reformation of the tax laws to help stop the income redistribution from bottom to top, all of that... But I'm a 2nd Amendment liberal too, and as such I'd like to thank you for your post. Quite informative.
That's one part of the liberal mindset that I really don't understand. Why in the world would a group of people that think PEOPLE should be self-ruled want to give the power to PROTECT that self-rule to a small group of mostly-unelected authoritarian minded people? Oh, and to the criminals, don't forget the criminals who don't give a rat's ass about the law. Asking me to trust either group (cops or robbers) more than I trust MYSELF should be OBVIOUSLY ludicrous in the extreme.
*shrugs* I dunno, the liberal paradigm seems to make SENSE to me, but this little portion of it baffles me completely. Seems like it would be part of the agenda of a conservative "security mom", not a group of equality-for-all real-freedom lovers.
I don't think respect has much to do with it. If you replace 'respect' with 'reward' though, the first sentence your post becomes utterly true. (not to mention utterly obnoxious)
I lost a movie from a video store (VHS, about 12 years ago) and they told me the replacement cost was $135!!!
I laughed and never looked back. Wrong of me, maybe, but it felt like extortion.
IIRC it wasn't even a brand new release.
Do you really feel so small as to disbelieve in the -possibility- that people outside the kind you meet in your daily life frequent the same place you do?
The truth about slashdot: No sane manager of a large IT department would forego at least LURKING (by self or by proxy) on slashdot. Contrary to popular belief, if you look past the high-school smartasses you'll find highly intelligent people debating the finer points of complex problems (societal, technical, and other) and providing extremely enlightening commentary.
Also, I'd bet dollars to donuts that at least ONE (likely a few) of the common posters here at slashdot is a person that 90% of us would recognize from the teevee.
Actually, if those people seem ALMOST real it's a sign that your programming is wearing off a bit, and you should report for a Limbaugh-O'Reily high-speed multi-media meme restoration treatment before you start believing in liberal conspiracies like 'facts' and 'evidence'.
Give me a break, everybody the GP mentioned exists, to say otherwise is obscenely dishonest. Purposeful blindness isn't patriotism, it's childlike naivety. Take your 'my daddy can't be wrong' attitude back to elementary school and join the real world. Bad things happen other than those caused by terrrists and ferriners.
You've won this argument multiple times over (eloquently I might add), so don't let the anonymous trolls get your goat. People who flame you anonymously because you're defending the right to privacy are beneath contempt, safely ignore them.