I'm pretty sure that should be modded funny, not insightful. And if we were talking about the Zombie apocalypse, that's a whole different ball of wax, the only ones who will survive that are people living in fortresses surrounded by moats of lava. Though, really, even the victims of a zombie apocalypse 'survive'... sort of.
Also, your mom survived off my charity last night, and she's no basket case, brown bagger maybe, but not a basket case.
Actually, it would take something much larger than an asteroid to rip the planet into pieces. After all, the moon was created when another PLANET the size of Mars crashed into Earth. Of course, I suppose there is an argument that collision did actually rip the planet to pieces as a large piece of the combined planet lights up our nighttime skies.
But regardless, say an impact half that size hit the Earth, I doubt the human race would survive the melting of the entire planet's crust into molten lava as solid rock splashes in a giant tidal wave around the entire planet. So, there is that.
With all due respect, and I appreciate your comment was tongue in cheek, but social security and welfare actually support the people who are most likely to survive off the land should it come to that. The vast majority of farms (if not 100%) get subsidies and 'corporate welfare' from the government. And I don't think you'd suggest farmers are exactly lazy slobs not taking any responsibility for their own welfare.
I don't mean to be a troll (or feed them), but you seriously need to think a bit before posting things like that.
Wait.. wait wait wait.... so Bush was better because he was blatantly and happily in the pockets of special interests? That makes Bush a better President? When Obama at least appears to want to do what's in the best interest of the country, you are suggesting you'd be happier with him if he just came out and said, "You know what? I lied, and I got all you suckers to fall for it, now get ready for US Army soldiers to come shuffle you all into camps while I take all your stuff! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
That is idiotic. Bush, or at least his cabinet, was flagrantly corrupt and they didn't care what the hell you had to say about it. Obama is currently in the middle of a HUGE medical care overhaul that will improve the lives of the poorest and neediest Americans more than it will improve the lives of the wealthiest. That is at least indicative that SOMETHING has changed since the Bush administration screwed the poor in order to give the biggest tax breaks in American history to the wealthiest 1%.
To suggest things in Washington are the same now as they've always been shows an amazing lack of either perspective or memory.
Are people really so scared of losing that they vote solely for the guy they think will win? Actually, that explains a lot. As was said elsewhere, if people stopped caring whether they voted for the winner, and just voted for the guy or gal they thought was best for the job, we'd probably have a lot more variety in the government.
Man, I wish I could be as smart and dead inside as you are. Then I would be dead inside and have no hope of ever living someplace I'm proud of, but at least I'd get a chance to post anonymously to forums and feel slightly superior to people who still have some belief that they can effect a change for the better in the world. Yeah, I want to be just like you someday.
I will never apologize for believing things can get better.
By suggesting anyone thinks Obama is a god, you discredit your own arguments. No one thinks he's a god, they just hoped he would be like George W, but use the Light Side of the Force instead.
For what it's worth, "Pass this." is a helluva lot easier to swallow coming from the President of the United States rather than the First Lady. I would imagine if Michelle Obama went to Congress and said "Pass this." there would have been a similar uproar. However, if Obama, as President and Leader of the Free World (tm) said, "Pass this." Well, I think things would have gone quite differently.
Look, I hate to be seen as some sort of rabid defender of Obama. I did vote for him, and I still believe he has potential. But I would be curious if you believe Obama has a more myopic or sycophantic cabinet and advisory board than Bush did. There are many instances where criticizing Bush was made tantamount to treason against the U.S. for a year or two after 9/11. And the Bush administration kept that ball rolling as long as they could. Say what you will about Republicans, but when it comes to rabid, unthinking loyalty to a cause, they have Democrats beaten by a longshot.
John Stewart spoke the other day about an idea I've been trying to get across since April; Bush was able to do WHATEVER the hell he wanted with the barest of majorities. Obama can barely get his biggest and generally widely supported idea (reform healthcare) to even get through the Senate with a supermajority, and now some people are saying the plan is DEAD because they have a single vote less than a supermajority. To suggest that Democrats are anything but a herd of cats all pulling their own way is to deny the evidence. Republicans are much more united, much more focused, and much more self-assured than Democrats have been in a long time. If they just weren't evil, I'd be a Republican any day. Democrats could learn a thing or two from their opponents about sycophants and cult of personality. Frankly, I wish they would.
If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the citizens...."
That is the sentence I had a problem with. If what you put in that sentence does not imply that you understand what the framers "would have" done, as I suggested, please explain to me what that sentence does mean.
And by attacking my skills as a debater rather than the logic of my position, you sir, are the one presenting the strawman. I have not attributed anything to you except what you have said. If I was imprecise, you may sue me.
Surprisingly enough, even to myself, I go with the former. The term "human rights" is ambiguous (is Internet access a human right? Is access to any form of media or news? Some say yes, others say no) The Constitution is the closest guide we have to a literal, physical reference to define human rights, and as such is at least equal in value to the rights themselves in my estimation. Others might say the same of the bible, and I would shudder at the thought. Perhaps I am incredibly stupid, but I believe a document which lays out, in amendable form, the philosophy of a country (and by extension, that country's view towards the world) as voted upon and ratified by the citizens of that country is just as valuable as "human rights" and in some ways, moreso.
Whoa whoa whoa, interpreting what the founders "would have" put in the Constitution if they meant some certain thing is a ridiculous leap of logic. The argument can be made that people of the day and time felt more a 'citizen' of their state than the country as a whole. And the Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights) turns itself into knots in order to not restrict the powers of the states.
The Constitution was in many ways a communication to the world at large that if you attack New York State, the people of Pennsylvania and Georgia will join them in the fight, and vice versa. The suggestion that the Constitution was ratified with the intention that the rights applied to all PEOPLE living in the United States is simliarly discredited by the fact that from Day 1 after the ratification, the right delineated therein were only applied to while males. The majority of people living in the US at the time (women, children, slaves, prisoners) had no expectation of coverage by the Bill of Rights.
Effectively, you have no way of knowing what the framers "would have" said, and that argument smacks of the same assumptions as Born Again Christians (tm) who suggest there is no reference in the Constitution because the framers took their christian faith "as a given" since they were all such moral, strict Christians.
Ummmm.. isn't the point of CAFTA in fact there will be *free trade* between the two countries? And doesn't that mean (and I am not an expert so consider this an actual question) that tariffs and trade restrictions are agreed to be small to non-existent on both accounts? If we are using tariffs and trade restrictions, wouldn't we be breaking the treaty?
Since you brought it up.
I actually saw a High Fructose Corn Syrup advertisement of all things, on the Food Network the other day. Maybe I'm behind the times, but pushing HFCS seems pretty much as irresponsible as pushing nicotine at least. And it wasn't that they were advertising, "Hey buy our stuff!" no, the ad showed one mother pouring what appeared to be Kool-Aid for a bunch of kids, then another mother coming up to say "Hey! Stop that, HFCS is bad!" the other lady goes "Why?,.......... the first lady stares like an idiot. And then kool-aid lady goes into a spiel about how it's made from CORN, which is natural, and can't be that bad, and everything is fine in moderation, and they both have a big heaping glass of High fructose corn syrup.
Something seems distinctly...off... about that commercial.
I am suggesting that the CAPS LOCK words and all the exclamation points and using words like 'bullshit' 'lying assholes' and 'force the luddites into the modern era' that he in fact takes a subject very personally, that he, by his own admission, does not participate in. And to take something that personally you either have to hate someone who does it (which is an issue not dealing with ham radios) or you have to want something they have, I'm guessing their portion of the radio spectrum. Either way, I doubt his problem is with the several (few? one? hundreds?) ham radio operators in Haiti who can't broadcast now, and more with the idea of using old technology when he believes it shouldn't be allowed.
Well, if that was the case, that is even further proof of his political ability and that of his team, right? After all, people who don't follow politics much (myself among them) hadn't heard of him, and those were exactly the people he was trying to convince to vote for him.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that should be modded funny, not insightful. And if we were talking about the Zombie apocalypse, that's a whole different ball of wax, the only ones who will survive that are people living in fortresses surrounded by moats of lava. Though, really, even the victims of a zombie apocalypse 'survive'... sort of.
Also, your mom survived off my charity last night, and she's no basket case, brown bagger maybe, but not a basket case.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. Well done sir!
Actually, it would take something much larger than an asteroid to rip the planet into pieces. After all, the moon was created when another PLANET the size of Mars crashed into Earth. Of course, I suppose there is an argument that collision did actually rip the planet to pieces as a large piece of the combined planet lights up our nighttime skies.
But regardless, say an impact half that size hit the Earth, I doubt the human race would survive the melting of the entire planet's crust into molten lava as solid rock splashes in a giant tidal wave around the entire planet. So, there is that.
With all due respect, and I appreciate your comment was tongue in cheek, but social security and welfare actually support the people who are most likely to survive off the land should it come to that. The vast majority of farms (if not 100%) get subsidies and 'corporate welfare' from the government. And I don't think you'd suggest farmers are exactly lazy slobs not taking any responsibility for their own welfare.
I don't mean to be a troll (or feed them), but you seriously need to think a bit before posting things like that.
Wait.. wait wait wait.... so Bush was better because he was blatantly and happily in the pockets of special interests? That makes Bush a better President? When Obama at least appears to want to do what's in the best interest of the country, you are suggesting you'd be happier with him if he just came out and said, "You know what? I lied, and I got all you suckers to fall for it, now get ready for US Army soldiers to come shuffle you all into camps while I take all your stuff! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
That is idiotic. Bush, or at least his cabinet, was flagrantly corrupt and they didn't care what the hell you had to say about it. Obama is currently in the middle of a HUGE medical care overhaul that will improve the lives of the poorest and neediest Americans more than it will improve the lives of the wealthiest. That is at least indicative that SOMETHING has changed since the Bush administration screwed the poor in order to give the biggest tax breaks in American history to the wealthiest 1%.
To suggest things in Washington are the same now as they've always been shows an amazing lack of either perspective or memory.
Are people really so scared of losing that they vote solely for the guy they think will win? Actually, that explains a lot. As was said elsewhere, if people stopped caring whether they voted for the winner, and just voted for the guy or gal they thought was best for the job, we'd probably have a lot more variety in the government.
Man, I wish I could be as smart and dead inside as you are. Then I would be dead inside and have no hope of ever living someplace I'm proud of, but at least I'd get a chance to post anonymously to forums and feel slightly superior to people who still have some belief that they can effect a change for the better in the world. Yeah, I want to be just like you someday.
I will never apologize for believing things can get better.
actually, it's "hear hear"
By suggesting anyone thinks Obama is a god, you discredit your own arguments. No one thinks he's a god, they just hoped he would be like George W, but use the Light Side of the Force instead.
For what it's worth, "Pass this." is a helluva lot easier to swallow coming from the President of the United States rather than the First Lady. I would imagine if Michelle Obama went to Congress and said "Pass this." there would have been a similar uproar. However, if Obama, as President and Leader of the Free World (tm) said, "Pass this." Well, I think things would have gone quite differently.
Look, I hate to be seen as some sort of rabid defender of Obama. I did vote for him, and I still believe he has potential. But I would be curious if you believe Obama has a more myopic or sycophantic cabinet and advisory board than Bush did. There are many instances where criticizing Bush was made tantamount to treason against the U.S. for a year or two after 9/11. And the Bush administration kept that ball rolling as long as they could. Say what you will about Republicans, but when it comes to rabid, unthinking loyalty to a cause, they have Democrats beaten by a longshot.
John Stewart spoke the other day about an idea I've been trying to get across since April; Bush was able to do WHATEVER the hell he wanted with the barest of majorities. Obama can barely get his biggest and generally widely supported idea (reform healthcare) to even get through the Senate with a supermajority, and now some people are saying the plan is DEAD because they have a single vote less than a supermajority. To suggest that Democrats are anything but a herd of cats all pulling their own way is to deny the evidence. Republicans are much more united, much more focused, and much more self-assured than Democrats have been in a long time. If they just weren't evil, I'd be a Republican any day. Democrats could learn a thing or two from their opponents about sycophants and cult of personality. Frankly, I wish they would.
I hope they make that soon, I'm having trouble fighting off the mindworms. They get stronger with each attack..
Here is the part of your post I am quoting.
If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the citizens...."
That is the sentence I had a problem with. If what you put in that sentence does not imply that you understand what the framers "would have" done, as I suggested, please explain to me what that sentence does mean.
And by attacking my skills as a debater rather than the logic of my position, you sir, are the one presenting the strawman. I have not attributed anything to you except what you have said. If I was imprecise, you may sue me.
Surprisingly enough, even to myself, I go with the former. The term "human rights" is ambiguous (is Internet access a human right? Is access to any form of media or news? Some say yes, others say no) The Constitution is the closest guide we have to a literal, physical reference to define human rights, and as such is at least equal in value to the rights themselves in my estimation. Others might say the same of the bible, and I would shudder at the thought. Perhaps I am incredibly stupid, but I believe a document which lays out, in amendable form, the philosophy of a country (and by extension, that country's view towards the world) as voted upon and ratified by the citizens of that country is just as valuable as "human rights" and in some ways, moreso.
Whoa whoa whoa, interpreting what the founders "would have" put in the Constitution if they meant some certain thing is a ridiculous leap of logic. The argument can be made that people of the day and time felt more a 'citizen' of their state than the country as a whole. And the Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights) turns itself into knots in order to not restrict the powers of the states.
The Constitution was in many ways a communication to the world at large that if you attack New York State, the people of Pennsylvania and Georgia will join them in the fight, and vice versa. The suggestion that the Constitution was ratified with the intention that the rights applied to all PEOPLE living in the United States is simliarly discredited by the fact that from Day 1 after the ratification, the right delineated therein were only applied to while males. The majority of people living in the US at the time (women, children, slaves, prisoners) had no expectation of coverage by the Bill of Rights.
Effectively, you have no way of knowing what the framers "would have" said, and that argument smacks of the same assumptions as Born Again Christians (tm) who suggest there is no reference in the Constitution because the framers took their christian faith "as a given" since they were all such moral, strict Christians.
Upvote for nshucbach for successfully convincing foreigners that Americans eat stick of fried butter regularly.
They make Budweiser.
Ummmm.. isn't the point of CAFTA in fact there will be *free trade* between the two countries? And doesn't that mean (and I am not an expert so consider this an actual question) that tariffs and trade restrictions are agreed to be small to non-existent on both accounts? If we are using tariffs and trade restrictions, wouldn't we be breaking the treaty?
Since you brought it up. I actually saw a High Fructose Corn Syrup advertisement of all things, on the Food Network the other day. Maybe I'm behind the times, but pushing HFCS seems pretty much as irresponsible as pushing nicotine at least. And it wasn't that they were advertising, "Hey buy our stuff!" no, the ad showed one mother pouring what appeared to be Kool-Aid for a bunch of kids, then another mother coming up to say "Hey! Stop that, HFCS is bad!" the other lady goes "Why?, .......... the first lady stares like an idiot. And then kool-aid lady goes into a spiel about how it's made from CORN, which is natural, and can't be that bad, and everything is fine in moderation, and they both have a big heaping glass of High fructose corn syrup.
Something seems distinctly...off... about that commercial.
I am suggesting that the CAPS LOCK words and all the exclamation points and using words like 'bullshit' 'lying assholes' and 'force the luddites into the modern era' that he in fact takes a subject very personally, that he, by his own admission, does not participate in. And to take something that personally you either have to hate someone who does it (which is an issue not dealing with ham radios) or you have to want something they have, I'm guessing their portion of the radio spectrum. Either way, I doubt his problem is with the several (few? one? hundreds?) ham radio operators in Haiti who can't broadcast now, and more with the idea of using old technology when he believes it shouldn't be allowed.
Hear hear! I agree with your assertions and also welcome our giant sand overlords!
I'm pretty sure that's the way it works now.. unless you talk on your phone a lot while it's plugged in.
Well, if that was the case, that is even further proof of his political ability and that of his team, right? After all, people who don't follow politics much (myself among them) hadn't heard of him, and those were exactly the people he was trying to convince to vote for him.
You have serious issues that I suspect have little to do with ham operators or the radios they use.
You realize how much easier it would have been to type your last sentence if you had a caps lock key?
Also, how crazy are you that you hate those specific keys enough to deface your keyboard over them?