I'd like to see you list your sources for this, even though I'm sure that it is true. What I would not do is automatically assume that this means "smart" people aren't "duped" by religion. I think this points out the very real tendency of humans to rely on their own understanding. Those who understand more will, as a general rule, have a more self-sufficient attitude, which is nurtured by their self-confidence. This attitude then pulls away reliance on a creator, because humility has been replaced by the self-sufficient attitude.
BTW, I am in the top 1% of IQ distribution but I still believe in God, because I know that it is fallacy to rely on my human, and therefore imperfect, understanding. Unfortunately, it seems I reside in a small percentage group.
While I find it funny to ready everyone screaming "1984, 1984!!!", I wish people would do a little research. All this proposal does is change the time requirements on transmission of passenger manifests to a federal database from 15 minutes prior to departure to 60 minutes prior to departure. Here is an excerpt from the regulatory assesment:
"On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published
requirements for the transmission of passenger and crew manifests for aircraft and
vessels arriving from foreign destinations or departing to foreign destinations (70 FR
17820). Implementation of the "2005 APIS Rule" (named for the Advance Passenger
Information System, the CBP electronic system used to obtain electronic manifest
information from carriers) required that information on passengers and crew to be
transmitted: no later than 15 minutes after departure for arriving aircraft passengers;
no later than 15 minutes prior to departure for departing aircraft passengers; at least
60 minutes prior to departure for arriving and departing aircraft crew; at least 24
hours and as much as 96 hours prior to a vessel's entry at a US port for arriving
passengers and crew, depending on the length of the voyage; and 15 minutes prior to
departure for departing vessel passengers and crew.1, 2
Under this proposed rule, CBP intends to modify these requirements for arriving and
departing aircraft passengers and passengers and crew on board departing vessels so
that information is transmitted at least 60 minutes prior to departure. Under this
requirement, passenger and crew manifests are transmitted to CBP in their entirety at
least 60 minutes prior to departure. Alternatively, air carriers may develop APIS Quick
Query in conjunction with CBP. AQQ allows carriers to vet individual passengers as
they check in for their flights. Rather than transmitting an entire manifest at once,
carriers using AQQ will transmit APIS data to CBP as each individual checks in for the
flight. These changes will enhance the ability of CBP and other law enforcement
agencies to plan and coordinate a more effective response to intercept high-risk
individuals before boarding aircraft."
What are you talking about? I've been running IE7 for a long time, to make sure my sites would work when it was release to the general public. All of their development releases have been available for web designers to test on.
I remember Marathon! My buddy and I were the computer lab assistants in middle school. All of the computers were macs, and the teacher had no clue how to use them. We found a copy of Marathon and put it in hidden folders on all of the computers, so that we could play it whenever and wherever we wanted during classtime. Thanks for reminding me about that, those were good times!
What a surprise, a pot-smoking libertarian. Just because you want to smoke marijuana does not mean that it should be made legal. Sometimes I just want to kill people who tick me off (figuratively speaking), should that be made legal as well, just because I want to? Until a MAJORITY of voters are able to change the law, the MINORITY of libertarians will not be able to smoke pot legally. Take a look at California. They had to stop because people were getting their medicinal marijuana, selling it to youths, then going back in for another dose, all off the government bankroll.
By doing that, you spit in the face of democracy as a whole. When you take a morally relativistic approach to law, you have nothing more than anarchy. Democracy gives you the right to petition change while still upholding a level of order.
You're right, it is covered by fair use. But only if the article itself is being critiqued, not the issue that the article covers. That is where some people cross the line. Is copyright law broken, absolutely. Should we obey the law, absolutely. Do we have the ability to petition a change of the law, absolutely. Copyright reform is severely overdue.
Part of the reason they give people a hard time about reposting their content is that they have an entire digital content delivery system in place. You pay a fee, mostly through ad-trade usually, to retrieve ap digital content and repost it on your website. When some blogger comes along and takes that content for free, sometimes without attribution, it is like going to a movie without paying for the ticket.
However, the big difference is that a blogger that reposts one article is not exactly a threat to their business, whereas foxnews.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, or any other major news website would be stealing a substantial amount of material.
What you are looking for is a God who constantly controls everything, like a micro-manager at work. Have you ever worked under a micro-manager? Did you like it? This is where free will benefits us. We, as humans have free will and thought to do with as we please. Unfortunately, with the fall of Adam (who exercised his free will to the point of disobeying God) we have become a fallen race. Death, disease, pain, suffering... all of this is a result of Adam's fall from grace. When you say, "Why does God let hurricanes kill people", you are putting your self in a divine position of questioning God, someone whom you cannot even fully comprehend. Thankfully, God gives us the answers to these questions through His Word, what we know as the Bible. We are told the story of Adam, and how sin entered the world, bringing with it pain and suffering. Then, we are told that this pain and suffering can make us stronger, if we just keep our faith in God. I suggest reading Genesis, Job, and Romans to further see this point. If you study the Bible closely, you will see that God never promises and easy life. Look at Job, John, Paul, or even Jesus. An easy, hurt-free life is a fairytale concocted by the mind of man in an effort to return to the grace man had before the fall. To say that God doesn't exist because He doesn't fit my view of what God should be is the same as saying that George Clooney isn't real because he doesn't act the way I think he should act. Or, it's the same as saying Paris doesn't exists because its streets don't follow the grid layout that I think is most efficient. Just because God doesn't do it our way does not mean he doesn't exist. Finally, to say God doesn't exist because we haven't heard from Him in 2000 years is just as fallible an argument as is the previous. I have not heard from my grandmother in almost a year, but I still know that she exists. There is still evidence that she is alive and well. This is the same for God. In fact, if you read the end of Revelations, you will see that we have not "heard" from God because the Bible as we know it contains everything we need to fulfill our purpose in life. If you would like to study this more thoroughly, I would love to speak with you about this some more. It seems to me that some research into the evidences of God's existence would be great for both of us. Just let me know.
Actually, he has enough power to give us the freedom of choice. When Adam and Eve used that freedom to bring sin into the world, death, hate, war, etc. came about. God did not introduce sin into the world, the great deceiver Satan did. These horrible things that you listed are Satan's influence. It's just like when someone dies and the person presiding over the funeral says, "God decided it was time for him/her to come to Heaven". That is a terribly false statement, because death is a direct result of Satan.
Of course, on the other hand, I disagree that this one example shows that all science is false. This is one occurance of a bad egg, not a pattern of bad eggs.
Ignoring your almost complete inability to compose a coherent thought (probably from all of the pot you are smoking, if your homepage is to be believed), I will try to give you a little insight into Russia. One of the more prevalent buzz words in the international community is "transparency", or the openness of a government to show what it is doing and why it is doing it. That was the whole basis for the Iraq War, Saddam's regime was completely opaque. He told us that he got rid of the weapons, but he refused to show us. This is the same problem with North Korea and Iran. They tell us that their nuclear programs are merely civic, but they refuse to show us. Russia, on the other hand, has developed an open and transparent relationship with the international community. If they build a nuclear enrichment facility, they tell us what it is for, and they allow us to go in and inspect it. Also, the 50 megaton nukes that you are referring to do not exist. The only weapon of that magnitude ever created was the Tsar Bomba, which Russia detonated on October 30, 1961. After the test, Russia realized that a weapon of that size was inherently ineffective, and thus began focusing on smaller yield / higher accuracy nuclear weapons. Finally, your insistence that the Iraq War is merely over oil is a typical rally call of the left. Please show me any proof that this war is for oil. If you look at our involvement in Iraq, you will see that we have left the oil to the people of Iraq. The only suggestion we have made is to divide ownership of the country's oil resources among the different provinces.
Yeah, but how many megs-per-gallon does it get? If it's a hybrid, it should get at least 60 in the city. Of course, you folks that live out in the boondocks won't get nearly the same efficiency.
When they list the requirements, they are not handling them the same as a game would. Requirements for an os take in account the fact that you will be running multiple programs and doing many things. Game requirements assume you are running nothing else, because they hog almost all of the system resources.
You are pitiful. First you accuse me of quoting you out of context. You are so controlled by your own biased that you do not see that you are still making a generalization. Just because I left out "...with differing religious beliefs..." does not mean I took you out of context. I took the very meaning of your statement. If I replaced the last section with "...that work at McDonalds," your statement would still be a generalization. The part you are generalizing is the "action" of right wing christians, not who they are acting against.
You want me to post all the quotes from radical muslims calling people of differing faiths evil, demons, etc? All religions have extremists that utilize the squeaky wheel. These extremists take terms out of context. No, I do not believe that other religions are true, but I don't look at others as evil or demonic. I see them as the result of incorrect teaching, and I have enough love for them to treat them just as I would treat my fellow christian.
This country is founded on christian principles. Your history is severely skewed if you think that is not the case. I, however, do agree that this country does not officially sanction christianity as the state religion. For America to do that would be to ignore the Constitution.
For you to say that you are a better patriot than me without knowing a single thing that I do is foolish. First and foremost, I will take your claim to a calvary background at face value. You pose several scenarios of patriotic contribution, and then assume that I have done nothing of the sort, stating, "Not only no, but %^$# no. You ain't done &%#& for anyone but yourself." That was a mistake. Yes, I have taught in a rural public school system. No, I am not a member of the America Corps, but I have been to several parts of America (and other countries) to assist in community service. I have repaired homes in Appalachian communities. I have helped to build training centers for Choctaw Indians. I just recently finished organizing a large relief effort for the tornado victims in my community. I am active in national political discussion. Should I go on? I don't have to blow my own horn, my actions speak for themselves. Do you still stand by your assumption that I am a "useless eater and a leech upon American society?" Or that I "suck capital out of the American economy and [return] nothing of value?"
You, on the other hand, assume automatically that military service equals patriotism. Tell me, why did you join the Army? Be truthful. I know plenty of people that enlisted because they didn't know what else to do when they got out of high school. Or what about those that were drafted, when the draft was still active? Or those that joined to get a free education, or a free meal (i.e. stability)? What about those that do it because that's what their family has always done? Or those, like one of my best friends, who enlisted because they wanted to be James Bond? I am not stating that any of these situations apply to you. For all I know, you could have enlisted out of fierce loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America. The point is, I am not automatically assuming something about you. A courtesy you seem unable to extend to me.
Your statement that I believe that my "complete lack of value to America should make [me] one of the 'chiefs'" is your attempt to take my figure of speech and twist it around. The figure of speech merely means that not everybody can do the same thing. For me to think of myself as a chief and everyone else as a little indian would be arrogant. Thankfully, I did not say that.
I think you should study fascism a little more before automatically assuming I align myself with the likes of Francisco Franco. A good definition of fascism is this:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based p
I love the lefties (oops, was that a generalization???!!!). Is the old straw man knee-jerk response a natural DNA trait, or have you developed it over many years of fine tuning your "I didn't say that" speech. Let me quote you: "Right wing Christians have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people..." That sounds like a generalization to me. Notice, you did not say, "some right wing christians..." No, you implied, "ALL right wing christians..."
As for your shallow suggestion that I am a hypocrite: I do my part to help my country. How about you? Where do you live? Is it some socialist or fascist country that requires people to spend two years in service? Are you a better patriot for that? Ooh, I know! Maybe everyone should be a military career man. That way every man, woman, and child in America will be over in Iraq instead of "hypocritically sitting on [our] butt[s] in front of [our] computer[s] here in the US demanding others fight a war [we] refuse to fight [ourselves]." That'll be effective.
You obviously don't grasp the concept of social contribution. Perhaps you have heard of the term "too many chiefs and not enough indians". The strength of a country is derived from it's diversity. Everyone can't do the same thing. Being a member of the media, I help promote awareness of the war to the general public. The woman in the factory helps by producing materials needed to construct the equipment sent to the war. The accountant in the basement of the Treasury department helps by keeping the country's finances under control during the war. I could go on forever, but the point is: it takes more than soldiers to wage an effective war. Keep in mind, I will not belittle the sacrifice made by our soldiers in Iraq. By putting their life in danger, they are contributing in ways no other person does.
I'm not even going to get into questioning the validity of a transcript concerning U.S. soldiers that is provided by CNN, a network that has openly acknowledged its anti-military sentiment. Let's assume this particular transcript is complete and unedited, which it may be. Notice that Charles Graner says, "the Christian in me knows it was wrong, but the corrections officer in me can't help but love to make a grown man urinate on himself." I want you to focus in on one part of this quote: "the Christian in me knows it was wrong, but". What this says is that the man knew he was sinning, but went on sinning anyway. Need I point out that this is not a christian attitude?
How dare you accuse right wing christians of that. Your gross generalization is both pitifully uneducated and extremely offensive. First and foremost, not all conservatives are christian. Second, prove to me that those guards are conservatives. Third, prove to me that they are christian (this one is going to be rather hard, considering the fact that their actions were completely un-christian-like, not to mention the fact that not everyone who says they are christian actually is). Then, if you can prove that they are right-wing and christian, prove to me that this is what every right-wing christian does. I am a right-wing christian and you don't see me making prisoner pyramids. Then, after all of this, prove to me that the authorities demanding a dna sample are all right-wing christians. Oops, you can't! Why don't you attempt to comment on the story instead of using your post as a completely unrelated jab at conservative christianity.
As for the story in question, if the government will provide alternative options for different faiths in some areas, then they should carry it through to the end. Of course, one can question if the government should make concessions for anyone. Being a christian, I can look at several instances where men and women of the Bible stood up for their faith in front of government opposition, and paid the price for doing so. They stood up for what is right, but they did so fully understanding the consequences. It's up to the people to decided whether or not the government should bend for individual's beliefs. On one hand, you end up being crippled by attempting to bend to everybody, on the other, you end up being overbearing and stomping on the citizens of the nation.
Oh, it's that darn "vast right-wing conspiracy" (Hillary Clinton) is it? Did it ever ONCE cross your mind that the government could actually be spying on people who need to be spied on? No, of course not, because people like you immediately think that everybody in the world is going to get along if we all smoke the peace pipe together. And you automatically assume that the government is evil, and that conservatives eat little African babies for a snack before dinner. Come on, there is no vast neo-con conspiracy going on. There are two thing tearing this country apart: politicians who think more about their constituents than their nation (i.e. Bush on illegal immigration) and the mental disorder known as liberalism. The EFF says, "big brother hates you want wants to kill you and your children and eat the leftovers," whereas conservatives realize that big brother has a job to do, and lets them do it within the confines of the Constitution. Of course, liberals hate the word 'Constitution' because they know that if the American public were to actually read and understand the Constitution, the liberal platform would literally crumble into dust. The only thing the American people need to realize is the dangerous ideals of liberalism, and the dangerous ideals of supporting your backers to the detriment of America.
Once again, ignorance outweighs intelligence 10 to 1 on Slashdot. The Old York Times is a business, do you really think they are standing up for the freedom of information? This is both publicity and a story, that's it. Let's think through their request logically:
1. Old York Times obtains list 2. Old York Times publishes list 3. Old York Times gets their headline and publicity 4. Suspected terrorist in America reads list and sees his or her name on it 5. Suspected terrorist goes underground 6. American government looses an opportunity to rid its people of a dangerous threat to their safety 7. National security is compromised
The government lost New York Times Co. v. U.S. because there was no substantial proof to support the need for prior restraint. In today's case, national security is the heavy burden of proof needed for the government to exercise their right to prior restraint.
Being a member of the media myself, I can truly say that this industry is in a sad state. It will put national security at risk for a headline story. How pitiful is that?
Man, I would really hate to live in your mind. Yes, some liberties are being taken away, but slow-speed fascist takeover? I think Orwell's gotten to you. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting or advocating this breach of privacy, but seriously, your dinner-table soapbox is dangerously unstable.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm... and google's results are so much better? More timely, perhaps, but ... c'mon ;)
Not to point out the obvious, but your search is borked. Try removing the leading double-quote, then look at the number of search results.
I'd like to see you list your sources for this, even though I'm sure that it is true. What I would not do is automatically assume that this means "smart" people aren't "duped" by religion. I think this points out the very real tendency of humans to rely on their own understanding. Those who understand more will, as a general rule, have a more self-sufficient attitude, which is nurtured by their self-confidence. This attitude then pulls away reliance on a creator, because humility has been replaced by the self-sufficient attitude.
BTW, I am in the top 1% of IQ distribution but I still believe in God, because I know that it is fallacy to rely on my human, and therefore imperfect, understanding. Unfortunately, it seems I reside in a small percentage group.
While I find it funny to ready everyone screaming "1984, 1984!!!", I wish people would do a little research. All this proposal does is change the time requirements on transmission of passenger manifests to a federal database from 15 minutes prior to departure to 60 minutes prior to departure. Here is an excerpt from the regulatory assesment:
To read the full Regulatory Assesment, go here
What are you talking about? I've been running IE7 for a long time, to make sure my sites would work when it was release to the general public. All of their development releases have been available for web designers to test on.
DOOM had amazing books as well, but nobody bothered to read them before making a movie either.
Look at the post above. The link to the youtube video shows a zune in action.
I remember Marathon! My buddy and I were the computer lab assistants in middle school. All of the computers were macs, and the teacher had no clue how to use them. We found a copy of Marathon and put it in hidden folders on all of the computers, so that we could play it whenever and wherever we wanted during classtime. Thanks for reminding me about that, those were good times!
Someone seems to be having a little parenting problem... or something. I'll let you find out what sites he went to yourself.
17720123 preteen 2006-04-06 22:42:52
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 13:47:48
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 13:47:11
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 13:46:43
17720123 preteen 2006-04-06 22:46:02
17720123 preteen 2006-04-06 22:52:24
17720123 preteen 2006-04-20 23:29:19
17720123 preteen 2006-04-20 23:29:19
17720123 preteen 2006-04-20 23:33:53
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 13:48:04
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:06:38
17720123 preteen 2006-03-30 22:01:16
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:19:56
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:19:44
17720123 preteen 2006-04-06 22:46:02
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:16:00
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:14:43
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:12:03
17720123 preteen 2006-03-24 14:10:09
What a surprise, a pot-smoking libertarian. Just because you want to smoke marijuana does not mean that it should be made legal. Sometimes I just want to kill people who tick me off (figuratively speaking), should that be made legal as well, just because I want to? Until a MAJORITY of voters are able to change the law, the MINORITY of libertarians will not be able to smoke pot legally. Take a look at California. They had to stop because people were getting their medicinal marijuana, selling it to youths, then going back in for another dose, all off the government bankroll.
By doing that, you spit in the face of democracy as a whole. When you take a morally relativistic approach to law, you have nothing more than anarchy. Democracy gives you the right to petition change while still upholding a level of order.
You're right, it is covered by fair use. But only if the article itself is being critiqued, not the issue that the article covers. That is where some people cross the line. Is copyright law broken, absolutely. Should we obey the law, absolutely. Do we have the ability to petition a change of the law, absolutely. Copyright reform is severely overdue.
Part of the reason they give people a hard time about reposting their content is that they have an entire digital content delivery system in place. You pay a fee, mostly through ad-trade usually, to retrieve ap digital content and repost it on your website. When some blogger comes along and takes that content for free, sometimes without attribution, it is like going to a movie without paying for the ticket.
However, the big difference is that a blogger that reposts one article is not exactly a threat to their business, whereas foxnews.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, or any other major news website would be stealing a substantial amount of material.
What you are looking for is a God who constantly controls everything, like a micro-manager at work. Have you ever worked under a micro-manager? Did you like it? This is where free will benefits us. We, as humans have free will and thought to do with as we please. Unfortunately, with the fall of Adam (who exercised his free will to the point of disobeying God) we have become a fallen race. Death, disease, pain, suffering... all of this is a result of Adam's fall from grace. When you say, "Why does God let hurricanes kill people", you are putting your self in a divine position of questioning God, someone whom you cannot even fully comprehend. Thankfully, God gives us the answers to these questions through His Word, what we know as the Bible. We are told the story of Adam, and how sin entered the world, bringing with it pain and suffering. Then, we are told that this pain and suffering can make us stronger, if we just keep our faith in God. I suggest reading Genesis, Job, and Romans to further see this point. If you study the Bible closely, you will see that God never promises and easy life. Look at Job, John, Paul, or even Jesus. An easy, hurt-free life is a fairytale concocted by the mind of man in an effort to return to the grace man had before the fall. To say that God doesn't exist because He doesn't fit my view of what God should be is the same as saying that George Clooney isn't real because he doesn't act the way I think he should act. Or, it's the same as saying Paris doesn't exists because its streets don't follow the grid layout that I think is most efficient. Just because God doesn't do it our way does not mean he doesn't exist. Finally, to say God doesn't exist because we haven't heard from Him in 2000 years is just as fallible an argument as is the previous. I have not heard from my grandmother in almost a year, but I still know that she exists. There is still evidence that she is alive and well. This is the same for God. In fact, if you read the end of Revelations, you will see that we have not "heard" from God because the Bible as we know it contains everything we need to fulfill our purpose in life. If you would like to study this more thoroughly, I would love to speak with you about this some more. It seems to me that some research into the evidences of God's existence would be great for both of us. Just let me know.
Actually, he has enough power to give us the freedom of choice. When Adam and Eve used that freedom to bring sin into the world, death, hate, war, etc. came about. God did not introduce sin into the world, the great deceiver Satan did. These horrible things that you listed are Satan's influence. It's just like when someone dies and the person presiding over the funeral says, "God decided it was time for him/her to come to Heaven". That is a terribly false statement, because death is a direct result of Satan. Of course, on the other hand, I disagree that this one example shows that all science is false. This is one occurance of a bad egg, not a pattern of bad eggs.
Ignoring your almost complete inability to compose a coherent thought (probably from all of the pot you are smoking, if your homepage is to be believed), I will try to give you a little insight into Russia. One of the more prevalent buzz words in the international community is "transparency", or the openness of a government to show what it is doing and why it is doing it. That was the whole basis for the Iraq War, Saddam's regime was completely opaque. He told us that he got rid of the weapons, but he refused to show us. This is the same problem with North Korea and Iran. They tell us that their nuclear programs are merely civic, but they refuse to show us. Russia, on the other hand, has developed an open and transparent relationship with the international community. If they build a nuclear enrichment facility, they tell us what it is for, and they allow us to go in and inspect it. Also, the 50 megaton nukes that you are referring to do not exist. The only weapon of that magnitude ever created was the Tsar Bomba, which Russia detonated on October 30, 1961. After the test, Russia realized that a weapon of that size was inherently ineffective, and thus began focusing on smaller yield / higher accuracy nuclear weapons. Finally, your insistence that the Iraq War is merely over oil is a typical rally call of the left. Please show me any proof that this war is for oil. If you look at our involvement in Iraq, you will see that we have left the oil to the people of Iraq. The only suggestion we have made is to divide ownership of the country's oil resources among the different provinces.
Yeah, but how many megs-per-gallon does it get? If it's a hybrid, it should get at least 60 in the city. Of course, you folks that live out in the boondocks won't get nearly the same efficiency.
When they list the requirements, they are not handling them the same as a game would. Requirements for an os take in account the fact that you will be running multiple programs and doing many things. Game requirements assume you are running nothing else, because they hog almost all of the system resources.
You want me to post all the quotes from radical muslims calling people of differing faiths evil, demons, etc? All religions have extremists that utilize the squeaky wheel. These extremists take terms out of context. No, I do not believe that other religions are true, but I don't look at others as evil or demonic. I see them as the result of incorrect teaching, and I have enough love for them to treat them just as I would treat my fellow christian.
This country is founded on christian principles. Your history is severely skewed if you think that is not the case. I, however, do agree that this country does not officially sanction christianity as the state religion. For America to do that would be to ignore the Constitution.
For you to say that you are a better patriot than me without knowing a single thing that I do is foolish. First and foremost, I will take your claim to a calvary background at face value. You pose several scenarios of patriotic contribution, and then assume that I have done nothing of the sort, stating, "Not only no, but %^$# no. You ain't done &%#& for anyone but yourself." That was a mistake. Yes, I have taught in a rural public school system. No, I am not a member of the America Corps, but I have been to several parts of America (and other countries) to assist in community service. I have repaired homes in Appalachian communities. I have helped to build training centers for Choctaw Indians. I just recently finished organizing a large relief effort for the tornado victims in my community. I am active in national political discussion. Should I go on? I don't have to blow my own horn, my actions speak for themselves. Do you still stand by your assumption that I am a "useless eater and a leech upon American society?" Or that I "suck capital out of the American economy and [return] nothing of value?"
You, on the other hand, assume automatically that military service equals patriotism. Tell me, why did you join the Army? Be truthful. I know plenty of people that enlisted because they didn't know what else to do when they got out of high school. Or what about those that were drafted, when the draft was still active? Or those that joined to get a free education, or a free meal (i.e. stability)? What about those that do it because that's what their family has always done? Or those, like one of my best friends, who enlisted because they wanted to be James Bond? I am not stating that any of these situations apply to you. For all I know, you could have enlisted out of fierce loyalty and patriotism to the United States of America. The point is, I am not automatically assuming something about you. A courtesy you seem unable to extend to me.
Your statement that I believe that my "complete lack of value to America should make [me] one of the 'chiefs'" is your attempt to take my figure of speech and twist it around. The figure of speech merely means that not everybody can do the same thing. For me to think of myself as a chief and everyone else as a little indian would be arrogant. Thankfully, I did not say that.
I think you should study fascism a little more before automatically assuming I align myself with the likes of Francisco Franco. A good definition of fascism is this:
I love the lefties (oops, was that a generalization???!!!). Is the old straw man knee-jerk response a natural DNA trait, or have you developed it over many years of fine tuning your "I didn't say that" speech. Let me quote you: "Right wing Christians have a real bad habit of intentionally screwing with people..." That sounds like a generalization to me. Notice, you did not say, "some right wing christians..." No, you implied, "ALL right wing christians..."
As for your shallow suggestion that I am a hypocrite: I do my part to help my country. How about you? Where do you live? Is it some socialist or fascist country that requires people to spend two years in service? Are you a better patriot for that? Ooh, I know! Maybe everyone should be a military career man. That way every man, woman, and child in America will be over in Iraq instead of "hypocritically sitting on [our] butt[s] in front of [our] computer[s] here in the US demanding others fight a war [we] refuse to fight [ourselves]." That'll be effective.
You obviously don't grasp the concept of social contribution. Perhaps you have heard of the term "too many chiefs and not enough indians". The strength of a country is derived from it's diversity. Everyone can't do the same thing. Being a member of the media, I help promote awareness of the war to the general public. The woman in the factory helps by producing materials needed to construct the equipment sent to the war. The accountant in the basement of the Treasury department helps by keeping the country's finances under control during the war. I could go on forever, but the point is: it takes more than soldiers to wage an effective war. Keep in mind, I will not belittle the sacrifice made by our soldiers in Iraq. By putting their life in danger, they are contributing in ways no other person does.
I'm not even going to get into questioning the validity of a transcript concerning U.S. soldiers that is provided by CNN, a network that has openly acknowledged its anti-military sentiment. Let's assume this particular transcript is complete and unedited, which it may be. Notice that Charles Graner says, "the Christian in me knows it was wrong, but the corrections officer in me can't help but love to make a grown man urinate on himself." I want you to focus in on one part of this quote: "the Christian in me knows it was wrong, but". What this says is that the man knew he was sinning, but went on sinning anyway. Need I point out that this is not a christian attitude?
How dare you accuse right wing christians of that. Your gross generalization is both pitifully uneducated and extremely offensive. First and foremost, not all conservatives are christian. Second, prove to me that those guards are conservatives. Third, prove to me that they are christian (this one is going to be rather hard, considering the fact that their actions were completely un-christian-like, not to mention the fact that not everyone who says they are christian actually is). Then, if you can prove that they are right-wing and christian, prove to me that this is what every right-wing christian does. I am a right-wing christian and you don't see me making prisoner pyramids. Then, after all of this, prove to me that the authorities demanding a dna sample are all right-wing christians. Oops, you can't! Why don't you attempt to comment on the story instead of using your post as a completely unrelated jab at conservative christianity.
As for the story in question, if the government will provide alternative options for different faiths in some areas, then they should carry it through to the end. Of course, one can question if the government should make concessions for anyone. Being a christian, I can look at several instances where men and women of the Bible stood up for their faith in front of government opposition, and paid the price for doing so. They stood up for what is right, but they did so fully understanding the consequences. It's up to the people to decided whether or not the government should bend for individual's beliefs. On one hand, you end up being crippled by attempting to bend to everybody, on the other, you end up being overbearing and stomping on the citizens of the nation.
Oh, it's that darn "vast right-wing conspiracy" (Hillary Clinton) is it? Did it ever ONCE cross your mind that the government could actually be spying on people who need to be spied on? No, of course not, because people like you immediately think that everybody in the world is going to get along if we all smoke the peace pipe together. And you automatically assume that the government is evil, and that conservatives eat little African babies for a snack before dinner. Come on, there is no vast neo-con conspiracy going on. There are two thing tearing this country apart: politicians who think more about their constituents than their nation (i.e. Bush on illegal immigration) and the mental disorder known as liberalism. The EFF says, "big brother hates you want wants to kill you and your children and eat the leftovers," whereas conservatives realize that big brother has a job to do, and lets them do it within the confines of the Constitution. Of course, liberals hate the word 'Constitution' because they know that if the American public were to actually read and understand the Constitution, the liberal platform would literally crumble into dust. The only thing the American people need to realize is the dangerous ideals of liberalism, and the dangerous ideals of supporting your backers to the detriment of America.
They stink because Uwe Boll like to direct them! Honestly, he doesn't have a clue.
Once again, ignorance outweighs intelligence 10 to 1 on Slashdot. The Old York Times is a business, do you really think they are standing up for the freedom of information? This is both publicity and a story, that's it. Let's think through their request logically:
1. Old York Times obtains list
2. Old York Times publishes list
3. Old York Times gets their headline and publicity
4. Suspected terrorist in America reads list and sees his or her name on it
5. Suspected terrorist goes underground
6. American government looses an opportunity to rid its people of a dangerous threat to their safety
7. National security is compromised
The government lost New York Times Co. v. U.S. because there was no substantial proof to support the need for prior restraint. In today's case, national security is the heavy burden of proof needed for the government to exercise their right to prior restraint.
Being a member of the media myself, I can truly say that this industry is in a sad state. It will put national security at risk for a headline story. How pitiful is that?
Man, I would really hate to live in your mind. Yes, some liberties are being taken away, but slow-speed fascist takeover? I think Orwell's gotten to you. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting or advocating this breach of privacy, but seriously, your dinner-table soapbox is dangerously unstable.