I would switch to this browser in a second if they added the killer feature of all browsers...
When I Ctrl+N (open a new window), it would duplicate the page I was at before, AND copy over the Next / Previous histories. Flock currently does the standard firefox thing of opening the default home with no back/forward histor
Does anyone know a browser other than IE that does this? It cant be that hard, really. Even if it was just a preference to turn on and off.
I really hate IE, but keep on using it for this feature alone since it matches my browsing style.
Uh... they just integrated the refresh button and the stop button. They're mutually exclusive at any given point in time. No need to have a refresh button AND a stop button.
I have a.NET Windows forms app that I'm looking to port to Linux using Mono. Anyone have any experience doing this? Is it something I should even bother trying to do?
Don't forget "Where the Buffalos Roam", supposedly the first internet comic (appeared on USENET in 1991).
I only know this because right now I'm addicted to the author's current endeavor, a "programmer/software office" oriented webcomic called Bug Bash (www.bugbash.net). In my opinion, currently the best "laugh out loud" type webcomic on the internet.
Ummm.. Laptops are fundamentally different than books. You can easily reinstall a laptop OS to like new state (just put in the manufacturer restore CD).
If the retards at the school board didnt want kids to explore and learn about how systems work, why would they give them laptops?
If kids were opening up the laptop and drawing on pieces of hardware, I'd tend to agree that they should probably pay for them.
I've been a big WebObjects proponent until recently switching to ASP.NET. While it sucks to have to work on Windows, the overall architecture is fairly similar between the 2. I miss direct2web, it was cool but I never really used it that much. The dev tools (VS.NET 2003) beats the hell out of WOBuilder and Project Builder. Creating new projects, debugging, and deployment are significantly more efficient.
Another big thing is the Component model on ASP.NET really makes buying and integrating reusable components amazingly easy. I've saved hundreds of hours just buying and reusing components (such as www.freetextbox.com) instead of developing them. Just check out www.asp.net for the huge library of quality controls that you can add into your web application. Also, there are some great 3rd party data abstraction layers that are even better than EOF. And the upcoming.NET 2.0 Object Spaces looks promising.
So yeah, WebObjects is great but it has stagnated for the last 5 years. While its fun to talk about and reminisce over, anyone basing their future career off webobjects really needs to re-examine whether they are doing it using reason, or if they are doing it because of some sort of blind geek faith.
In short, ASP.NET has a visible future. WebObjects is almost universally recognized as dead, except for internal use at apple.
When I buy a PC for 1500, and include the latest graphics card and high end processor, I always do it for reasons in my head which say "Just think of how much work you'll be able to get done with this". Visual Studio will compile 4 times faster! I'll be a productivity... machine! Then I run out and buy 3 pc games that I think will use the system capabilities the most.
I could never justify buying a console for more than 150. Theres not even a remote possibility that I'll ever use it to get any work done!
Yep, the thread view of emails has made my life much better. Its sad I have to use a webbased mail for my primary company account, but I was getting 50 emails a day in about 10-15 threads. In outlook I had to dig through all the emails. In Gmail, its laid out beautifully and I can make sure to respond to everything.
Yes, I've tried the "view by thread" in Outlook 2003. It sucks
I just wish they'd port Apple Mail to windows. Until then I'll be using Gmail
Yes, fine. Irrelevant to the discussion though. I was taking about Steam forcing you to go online to authenticate before letting you play offline games (or lan games).
I'm at a lan party right now (400 people / www.lanpartynw.com). I was banging my head for the last 5 hours as to why I cant play counterstrike. I must have done a million firewall, system tweaks since I figured it HAD to be my computer since some people next to me have no problem logging in while I saw one person who has the same problem. The lan party is supposed to be steam enabled so they have a link up to the auth servers.
And now I see the slashdot article. (Browsing the net using my cell phone as a modem trying to find a solution to this steam problem).
Really, I'm pissed. Not only do they force this crap down our throat, but they cant keep it working right. I'm fine with authenticating for internet play, but making people authenticate for offline play is a plain old stupid idea.
Check gamefix.com and theres cracks for all portions of Steam anyways, so people ARE pirating half-life 2 & all mods.
So good job Valve. You've succeeded at pissing off your customers and failed at stopping people who are stealing your games.
They definately arent getting my money again. Ever. I'll be one of the smart consumers who pirate their games from now on.
So what? Ads are showing where its not obtrusive. I'd much rather they made money this way then charge me more per month.
I think Tivo isnt being run right. They shouldnt have to charge people monthly for their service. In fact, they should give out the boxes for next to nothing. Can you imagine how valuable the data that they collect could be? Who is watching what, who is recording what, plus direct access to consumers. Tivo popup ads, and buying guides could get them tons of revenue.
Maybe the reason why they dont do this is the stereotypical slashdot user would shit a brick if they found out some company was "stealing" their tv usage data anonymously. You guys are way to freakin sensitive.
Pragmatic environmentalists have been trying to understand this phenomenon for years. Here you have a technology that has vast potential to produce high amounts of energy and little amount of air pollution, yet it gets demonized by environmentalists. However, if you read in between the lines and pay attention to some of the statements by the liberal environmentalist leadership, it becomes apparent what their views really are.
"Giving Americans lowcost access to highly abundant energy supplies would be like giving a 5 year old a stick of dynamite" is what a prominent 70s environmental leader said in a speech to his loyal followers. Their thinking is actually logical and makes sense, however I disagree with it and I think its very disingenuous to hide their real agenda. They believe that if energy prices are low and it's available in near infinite supply, a lot of inefficient manufacturing and consumption will result. This will result in a lot of other waste materials. It's easy to take production data and find that even if energy is completely 100% nonpolluting and free, higher energy consumtion will equal higher production waste.
Let's just take a pretty simple demonstration of their techniques. I live in Washington state. Environmentalists who opposed nuclear power have for years given hydro electric as the wonderful alternative. Well, they succeeded in shutting down and halting nuclear plants. Yet 15 years ago they decided they'd like to shut down all the hydro plants in Washington as well (because of the salmon issue which was really just a red herring).
So, dont believe them when they say they only want clean energy. What they want is decreased consumption of energy, which is a perfectly reasonable position. They just know that not a lot of people would agree to conservation if they knew there was a reasonable alternative.
What a drama queen. Take a deep breath. And repeat after me: Freedom of speech does not equal the entitlement to be taken seriously.
Here is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Contrary to the popular liberal belief, it does NOT say: "Congress shall make sure that any person with any opinions, no matter how stupid or extreme, must be heard and taken seriously by everyone, provided they are rude and loudmouthed. Any attempt by the public to disregard them will show what a tyrannical state our country has moved towards and should be denounced harshly by the self-righteous of the land"
I think the founding fathers had this train of thought exactly in mind when they build the United States. The original idea was states are pretty much distinct countries with a loose federal government to give the benefits of a larger union. Some policies make sense to aggregate (such as military, currency, and disallowing interstate tariffs to encourage trade). Everything else they should stay the hell out of.
The disturbing part of the last century is the rise of the federal government. We've gone from no income taxes and a single government program (the military), to thousands of pork policies and transfer payments. Each policy now has a tendency to piss off different parts of the country since everyone gets stuck with the outcome even though different regions have different cultures.
My view is to be completely libertarian on the federal government level and completely agnostic on the state and local level. If a state wants to implement socialism, they have the perfect right to. If they want to go lassez-faire, let em knock themselves out. The best policies will sort themselves out. People vote with their feet. When states compete, you win.
Jonah Goldberg has written some eloquent articles on this philosophy if you care to look them up. I think being a conservative or liberal, this idea of limiting the federal government makes sense so people will have real choices about their government, not just with their votes, but where they choose to live.
I've been a libertarian for a long time and think Badnarik is the biggest disgrace to the libertarian party in a long time.
The final straw is his latest move to have people wearing black on September 11th, not for the people who where victimized by the attack, but for the people the evil American military has killed in trying to defend itself against islamo-fascism.
Voting my conscience means voting for Bush. It seems he's the only one who wants to win in Iraq and beat terrorism. Every other issue is moot at this point.
GDP and tax income are very closely correlated. We tax a percentage of the GDP. That exact percentage may go up & down a little bit, it stays relatively stable.
It makes more sense to look at GDP because GDP measures the economic power of a country. GDP goes up & down based on real productivity increases. Sure you can make tax income go up by raising taxes, but given that economics is based on incentives, people shift their behavior and you may or may not recieve more revenue.
Think about the debt in the same way you think about a mortgage.
Say you buy $1,000,000 house with a loan. Your salary is $50,000. You are in trouble.
Say you buy a $1,000,000 house with a loan. Your salary is $200,000. This is perfectly acceptable.
The point is, just looking at the debt amount is meaningless. You also have to see what the income is to see if you are in debt trouble.
Let's put this in the perspective of the national debt. The debt seems pretty large. However you need to look at the income. What is income? It's national GDP (gross domestic product). As our GDP goes up, so does our ability to sustain a larger debt.
This is the one thing the deficit demagogues never mention. Our GDP has gone up dramatically over the last 20 years. So when looking at a national debt, first you need to adjust for inflation. Then you need to take the proportion of the debt compared to the gdp. Do this with our current national debt, you will realize that our debt is very manageable and much less than it was during Reagan and FDR.
Here's a good graph of Debt vs GDP: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So yeah, the debt is too high right now. No one disputes that. But its not the end of the world. The economy isnt going to collapse, even if our debt was double what it is now.
Actually, I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, in that, I vote republican.
Basically libertarians have to choose whether they care more about social issues (then vote democrat) or economic issues (then vote republican). Or throw your vote away (vote libertarian).
I used conservative/libertarian interchangable when talking about hollywood because everything is pretty much straight up liberal/socialist coming out of that neck of the woods.
Just saw the preview. Can't wait! Seems like Matt & Trey love being the only conservatives/libertarians in hollywood. Expect to see a lot of Michael Moore/Barbara Steisand bashing. Should be great
Guess this explains why they haven't produced a damn south park episode in so long!
>Christian conservatives use their faith to guide their entire life. >>So do muslim extremists.
And a fringe muslim group flew a couple planse into a couple buildings. And the muslim world (according to polls) completely approves of it.
>Christian conservatives are the main political force behind both the anti-slavery movement and the pro-women voting movement.
>>Nope. By definition, liberals are for changes like that.
Take a look at the record. Do some research and you'll find that the Republican party was founded by the antislavery movement (mostly christian activists - liberals at that time, but conservatives by today's standard). Check into the womens suffrage and the civil rights. They had much more Republican support than democrats.
>Al-Queda argues for violent forced conversions
>>So do republicans
Yeah, I hear about these cases all the time. Heh, I cant believe you called me delusional.
>pet-like treatment of women
>>So do republicans (not ALL republicans, of course)
Democrats like having sex with goats (not ALL democrats, of course)
>and terrorism against civilians.
>>So do republicans, though they call it "liberating" and "regime change", but getting your country blown up by foreigners is as terrifying no matter who does the bombing. Of course, republicans think that blowing up Americans is wrong, and blowing up foreigners is ok...
We eliminated a mass murdering regime akin to the Nazi's in Germany. Take a look at what Amnesty International (a largely socialist group) has to say about the crimes that Saddam's regime has committed and you'll realize quickly that it is on par with the Nazi's atrocities. It was sure worse than what was happening in Serbia, which liberals seem to think was a just war, even though it was opposed by the United Nations.
>Sounds like you are the bigot with the discrimination problem. But prove me wrong. Explain why Republicans (which I assume you mean Christian conservatives) are racist religious fanatics.
>>Wow! You put words in my mouth, then say that these imaginary things you make believe I said mean that I am something bad, then demand I prove you wrong!
When you equate Al-Queda muslim extremists with the Christian movement in America, you slander a good and decent community. All I ask is you provide evidence of your charges.
>>I am SURE that you won't keep trolling me post after post after post, so I will gladly bite and reply to those things you prented I said as if they were my words! Really!
Don't be so sure, I quite enjoy arguing with people who disagree and have a few screws loose.
>>But do you really need someone to tell you why christian *somethings* are religious *somethings*?
Not really, no. But when secular leftists decides that Christianity is the root of all evil in a society (Russia & China tried that way back when), I feel a need to respond.
>>P.S. Jesus is against the death penalty, and against war.
I don't think he remembered to leave us with a written political platform before he left. Even if he did, it wouldn't change my mind, nor would it change yours.
>>If you want to throw the first stone, you are NOT following the word of Christ.
I didn't think there was anything in my post that says I was religious. In fact, while officially being Catholic, I havent been to church in years. I do however recognize the benefits the church community gives us and the service it provides to the poor.
>>Simple as that. Terrorist fly planes in your buildings? Turn the other cheek. If you want revenge, stop pretending to be Jesus' buddy.
Sounds like proof we aren't being run by Christian theocrats. If we were, wouldn't we have turned the cheek? I'd rather we protect ourselves and kill the terrorists.
Everyone seems to think they know what the terrorists want. They explicitly say they have one demand. For US to convert to Islam and for the "great satan", as in USA, to be destroyed.
I know you arent saying we should just wuss out. But many people are saying we need to leave them alone and they wont hurt us. What if we leave them alone, then they leave us alone for 10 years or so while they build up strength then they decide to nuke NYC.
We dont have the option of risking these things. Islamic terrorists have proved they cant be bargained with. So we need to meddle in their affairs until we are absolutely positively sure that they are destroyed.
BTW: why are you so upset that slashdot is politicized? I think politics are interesting and fun to discuss. Even if people do rant, lets go with it and may the most sarcastic post win;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I would switch to this browser in a second if they added the killer feature of all browsers...
When I Ctrl+N (open a new window), it would duplicate the page I was at before, AND copy over the Next / Previous histories. Flock currently does the standard firefox thing of opening the default home with no back/forward histor
Does anyone know a browser other than IE that does this? It cant be that hard, really. Even if it was just a preference to turn on and off.
I really hate IE, but keep on using it for this feature alone since it matches my browsing style.
Uh... they just integrated the refresh button and the stop button. They're mutually exclusive at any given point in time. No need to have a refresh button AND a stop button.
They should make Ralsky send personal email apologies to every person he's ever spammed
I have a .NET Windows forms app that I'm looking to port to Linux using Mono. Anyone have any experience doing this? Is it something I should even bother trying to do?
Don't forget "Where the Buffalos Roam", supposedly the first internet comic (appeared on USENET in 1991).
/w Comic Junkie
I only know this because right now I'm addicted to the author's current endeavor, a "programmer/software office" oriented webcomic called Bug Bash (www.bugbash.net). In my opinion, currently the best "laugh out loud" type webcomic on the internet.
-jc
---------
Track 300+ Webcomics
www.comicjunkie.com
Ummm.. Laptops are fundamentally different than books. You can easily reinstall a laptop OS to like new state (just put in the manufacturer restore CD).
If the retards at the school board didnt want kids to explore and learn about how systems work, why would they give them laptops?
If kids were opening up the laptop and drawing on pieces of hardware, I'd tend to agree that they should probably pay for them.
I've been a big WebObjects proponent until recently switching to ASP.NET. While it sucks to have to work on Windows, the overall architecture is fairly similar between the 2. I miss direct2web, it was cool but I never really used it that much. The dev tools (VS.NET 2003) beats the hell out of WOBuilder and Project Builder. Creating new projects, debugging, and deployment are significantly more efficient.
.NET 2.0 Object Spaces looks promising.
Another big thing is the Component model on ASP.NET really makes buying and integrating reusable components amazingly easy. I've saved hundreds of hours just buying and reusing components (such as www.freetextbox.com) instead of developing them. Just check out www.asp.net for the huge library of quality controls that you can add into your web application. Also, there are some great 3rd party data abstraction layers that are even better than EOF. And the upcoming
So yeah, WebObjects is great but it has stagnated for the last 5 years. While its fun to talk about and reminisce over, anyone basing their future career off webobjects really needs to re-examine whether they are doing it using reason, or if they are doing it because of some sort of blind geek faith.
In short, ASP.NET has a visible future. WebObjects is almost universally recognized as dead, except for internal use at apple.
When I buy a PC for 1500, and include the latest graphics card and high end processor, I always do it for reasons in my head which say "Just think of how much work you'll be able to get done with this". Visual Studio will compile 4 times faster! I'll be a productivity... machine! Then I run out and buy 3 pc games that I think will use the system capabilities the most.
I could never justify buying a console for more than 150. Theres not even a remote possibility that I'll ever use it to get any work done!
Yep, the thread view of emails has made my life much better. Its sad I have to use a webbased mail for my primary company account, but I was getting 50 emails a day in about 10-15 threads. In outlook I had to dig through all the emails. In Gmail, its laid out beautifully and I can make sure to respond to everything.
Yes, I've tried the "view by thread" in Outlook 2003. It sucks
I just wish they'd port Apple Mail to windows. Until then I'll be using Gmail
Yes, fine. Irrelevant to the discussion though. I was taking about Steam forcing you to go online to authenticate before letting you play offline games (or lan games).
Thanks for your valuable input
Heh, I'm guessing he hadnt. Took me all night to download half-life 2 after buying it
I'm at a lan party right now (400 people / www.lanpartynw.com). I was banging my head for the last 5 hours as to why I cant play counterstrike. I must have done a million firewall, system tweaks since I figured it HAD to be my computer since some people next to me have no problem logging in while I saw one person who has the same problem. The lan party is supposed to be steam enabled so they have a link up to the auth servers.
And now I see the slashdot article. (Browsing the net using my cell phone as a modem trying to find a solution to this steam problem).
Really, I'm pissed. Not only do they force this crap down our throat, but they cant keep it working right. I'm fine with authenticating for internet play, but making people authenticate for offline play is a plain old stupid idea.
Check gamefix.com and theres cracks for all portions of Steam anyways, so people ARE pirating half-life 2 & all mods.
So good job Valve. You've succeeded at pissing off your customers and failed at stopping people who are stealing your games.
They definately arent getting my money again. Ever. I'll be one of the smart consumers who pirate their games from now on.
So what? Ads are showing where its not obtrusive. I'd much rather they made money this way then charge me more per month.
I think Tivo isnt being run right. They shouldnt have to charge people monthly for their service. In fact, they should give out the boxes for next to nothing. Can you imagine how valuable the data that they collect could be? Who is watching what, who is recording what, plus direct access to consumers. Tivo popup ads, and buying guides could get them tons of revenue.
Maybe the reason why they dont do this is the stereotypical slashdot user would shit a brick if they found out some company was "stealing" their tv usage data anonymously. You guys are way to freakin sensitive.
Pragmatic environmentalists have been trying to understand this phenomenon for years. Here you have a technology that has vast potential to produce high amounts of energy and little amount of air pollution, yet it gets demonized by environmentalists. However, if you read in between the lines and pay attention to some of the statements by the liberal environmentalist leadership, it becomes apparent what their views really are.
"Giving Americans lowcost access to highly abundant energy supplies would be like giving a 5 year old a stick of dynamite" is what a prominent 70s environmental leader said in a speech to his loyal followers. Their thinking is actually logical and makes sense, however I disagree with it and I think its very disingenuous to hide their real agenda. They believe that if energy prices are low and it's available in near infinite supply, a lot of inefficient manufacturing and consumption will result. This will result in a lot of other waste materials. It's easy to take production data and find that even if energy is completely 100% nonpolluting and free, higher energy consumtion will equal higher production waste.
Let's just take a pretty simple demonstration of their techniques. I live in Washington state. Environmentalists who opposed nuclear power have for years given hydro electric as the wonderful alternative. Well, they succeeded in shutting down and halting nuclear plants. Yet 15 years ago they decided they'd like to shut down all the hydro plants in Washington as well (because of the salmon issue which was really just a red herring).
So, dont believe them when they say they only want clean energy. What they want is decreased consumption of energy, which is a perfectly reasonable position. They just know that not a lot of people would agree to conservation if they knew there was a reasonable alternative.
What a drama queen. Take a deep breath. And repeat after me: Freedom of speech does not equal the entitlement to be taken seriously.
Here is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Contrary to the popular liberal belief, it does NOT say: "Congress shall make sure that any person with any opinions, no matter how stupid or extreme, must be heard and taken seriously by everyone, provided they are rude and loudmouthed. Any attempt by the public to disregard them will show what a tyrannical state our country has moved towards and should be denounced harshly by the self-righteous of the land"
I think the founding fathers had this train of thought exactly in mind when they build the United States. The original idea was states are pretty much distinct countries with a loose federal government to give the benefits of a larger union. Some policies make sense to aggregate (such as military, currency, and disallowing interstate tariffs to encourage trade). Everything else they should stay the hell out of.
The disturbing part of the last century is the rise of the federal government. We've gone from no income taxes and a single government program (the military), to thousands of pork policies and transfer payments. Each policy now has a tendency to piss off different parts of the country since everyone gets stuck with the outcome even though different regions have different cultures.
My view is to be completely libertarian on the federal government level and completely agnostic on the state and local level. If a state wants to implement socialism, they have the perfect right to. If they want to go lassez-faire, let em knock themselves out. The best policies will sort themselves out. People vote with their feet. When states compete, you win.
Jonah Goldberg has written some eloquent articles on this philosophy if you care to look them up. I think being a conservative or liberal, this idea of limiting the federal government makes sense so people will have real choices about their government, not just with their votes, but where they choose to live.
Check the facts genius. We've drastically increased funding for Mexican & Canadian border patrol.
I've been a libertarian for a long time and think Badnarik is the biggest disgrace to the libertarian party in a long time.
The final straw is his latest move to have people wearing black on September 11th, not for the people who where victimized by the attack, but for the people the evil American military has killed in trying to defend itself against islamo-fascism.
Voting my conscience means voting for Bush. It seems he's the only one who wants to win in Iraq and beat terrorism. Every other issue is moot at this point.
GDP and tax income are very closely correlated. We tax a percentage of the GDP. That exact percentage may go up & down a little bit, it stays relatively stable.
It makes more sense to look at GDP because GDP measures the economic power of a country. GDP goes up & down based on real productivity increases. Sure you can make tax income go up by raising taxes, but given that economics is based on incentives, people shift their behavior and you may or may not recieve more revenue.
Think about the debt in the same way you think about a mortgage.
Say you buy $1,000,000 house with a loan. Your salary is $50,000. You are in trouble.
Say you buy a $1,000,000 house with a loan. Your salary is $200,000. This is perfectly acceptable.
The point is, just looking at the debt amount is meaningless. You also have to see what the income is to see if you are in debt trouble.
Let's put this in the perspective of the national debt. The debt seems pretty large. However you need to look at the income. What is income? It's national GDP (gross domestic product). As our GDP goes up, so does our ability to sustain a larger debt.
This is the one thing the deficit demagogues never mention. Our GDP has gone up dramatically over the last 20 years. So when looking at a national debt, first you need to adjust for inflation. Then you need to take the proportion of the debt compared to the gdp. Do this with our current national debt, you will realize that our debt is very manageable and much less than it was during Reagan and FDR.
Here's a good graph of Debt vs GDP:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So yeah, the debt is too high right now. No one disputes that. But its not the end of the world. The economy isnt going to collapse, even if our debt was double what it is now.
Slashdot speech police say that referencing politics is a thought crime
Actually, I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, in that, I vote republican.
Basically libertarians have to choose whether they care more about social issues (then vote democrat) or economic issues (then vote republican). Or throw your vote away (vote libertarian).
I used conservative/libertarian interchangable when talking about hollywood because everything is pretty much straight up liberal/socialist coming out of that neck of the woods.
Just saw the preview. Can't wait! Seems like Matt & Trey love being the only conservatives/libertarians in hollywood. Expect to see a lot of Michael Moore/Barbara Steisand bashing. Should be great
Guess this explains why they haven't produced a damn south park episode in so long!
>Christian conservatives use their faith to guide their entire life.
>>So do muslim extremists.
And a fringe muslim group flew a couple planse into a couple buildings. And the muslim world (according to polls) completely approves of it.
>Christian conservatives are the main political force behind both the anti-slavery movement and the pro-women voting movement.
>>Nope. By definition, liberals are for changes like that.
Take a look at the record. Do some research and you'll find that the Republican party was founded by the antislavery movement (mostly christian activists - liberals at that time, but conservatives by today's standard). Check into the womens suffrage and the civil rights. They had much more Republican support than democrats.
>Al-Queda argues for violent forced conversions
>>So do republicans
Yeah, I hear about these cases all the time. Heh, I cant believe you called me delusional.
>pet-like treatment of women
>>So do republicans (not ALL republicans, of course)
Democrats like having sex with goats (not ALL democrats, of course)
>and terrorism against civilians.
>>So do republicans, though they call it "liberating" and "regime change", but getting your country blown up by foreigners is as terrifying no matter who does the bombing.
Of course, republicans think that blowing up Americans is wrong, and blowing up foreigners is ok...
We eliminated a mass murdering regime akin to the Nazi's in Germany. Take a look at what Amnesty International (a largely socialist group) has to say about the crimes that Saddam's regime has committed and you'll realize quickly that it is on par with the Nazi's atrocities. It was sure worse than what was happening in Serbia, which liberals seem to think was a just war, even though it was opposed by the United Nations.
>Sounds like you are the bigot with the discrimination problem. But prove me wrong. Explain why Republicans (which I assume you mean Christian conservatives) are racist religious fanatics.
>>Wow! You put words in my mouth, then say that these imaginary things you make believe I said mean that I am something bad, then demand I prove you wrong!
When you equate Al-Queda muslim extremists with the Christian movement in America, you slander a good and decent community. All I ask is you provide evidence of your charges.
>>I am SURE that you won't keep trolling me post after post after post, so I will gladly bite and reply to those things you prented I said as if they were my words! Really!
Don't be so sure, I quite enjoy arguing with people who disagree and have a few screws loose.
>>But do you really need someone to tell you why christian *somethings* are religious *somethings*?
Not really, no. But when secular leftists decides that Christianity is the root of all evil in a society (Russia & China tried that way back when), I feel a need to respond.
>>P.S. Jesus is against the death penalty, and against war.
I don't think he remembered to leave us with a written political platform before he left. Even if he did, it wouldn't change my mind, nor would it change yours.
>>If you want to throw the first stone, you are NOT following the word of Christ.
I didn't think there was anything in my post that says I was religious. In fact, while officially being Catholic, I havent been to church in years. I do however recognize the benefits the church community gives us and the service it provides to the poor.
>>Simple as that. Terrorist fly planes in your buildings? Turn the other cheek. If you want revenge, stop pretending to be Jesus' buddy.
Sounds like proof we aren't being run by Christian theocrats. If we were, wouldn't we have turned the cheek? I'd rather we protect ourselves and kill the terrorists.
Everyone seems to think they know what the terrorists want. They explicitly say they have one demand. For US to convert to Islam and for the "great satan", as in USA, to be destroyed.
;-)
I know you arent saying we should just wuss out. But many people are saying we need to leave them alone and they wont hurt us. What if we leave them alone, then they leave us alone for 10 years or so while they build up strength then they decide to nuke NYC.
We dont have the option of risking these things. Islamic terrorists have proved they cant be bargained with. So we need to meddle in their affairs until we are absolutely positively sure that they are destroyed.
BTW: why are you so upset that slashdot is politicized? I think politics are interesting and fun to discuss. Even if people do rant, lets go with it and may the most sarcastic post win